The Jews conspire against Christ. He is anointed by Mary. The treason of Judas. The last supper. The prayer in the garden. The apprehension of our Lord. His treatment in the house of Caiphas.
To the Councel of the Iewes, Iudas by occasion of Marie Magdaelens •intmēt, doth sell him for litle. 17 After the Paschal lambe, 26 he giueth them that bread of life (promised Io. 6.) in a mystical Sacrifice or Separation of his Body and Bloud. 31 And that night he is after his prayer 47 taken of the Iewes men, Iudas being their captaine: and forsaken of the other eleuen for feare: 57 is falsely accused, and impiously condemned of the Iewes Councel, 67 and shamefully abused of them: 69 and thrise denied of Peter: Al, euen as the Scriptures and him self had often foretold
1And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended all these words, he said to his disciples:Ed avendo Gesù terminato tutti questi sermoni, disse a' suoi discepoli:AND it came to passe, vvhen IESVS had ended al these vvordes, he said to his Disciples,Et factum est: cum consummasset Jesus sermones hos omnes, dixit discipulis suis: 2You know that after two days shall be the pasch: and the Son of man shall be delivered up to be crucified.Voi sapete, che di qui a due giorni sarà la pasqua, e il Figliuolo dell'uomo sarà tradito per essere crocifisso.You knovv that after tvvo dayes shal be Pasche, and the Sonne of man shal be deliuered to be crucified.Scitis quia post biduum Pascha fiet, et Filius hominis tradetur ut crucifigatur. 3Then were gathered together the chief priests and ancients of the people, into the court of the high priest, who was called Caiphas:Allora si adunarono i principi de' sacerdoti, e gli anziani del popolo nel palazzo de' principi de' sacerdoti, che si chiamava Caifa:Then vvere gathered together the cheefe Priestes and auncients of the people into the court of the high priest, vvho vvas called Caiphas:Tunc congregati sunt principes sacerdotum, et seniores populi, in atrium principis sacerdotum, qui dicebatur Caiphas: 4And they consulted together that by subtilty they might apprehend Jesus and put him to death.E tenner consiglio, affine di catturare per via d'inganno Gesù, e ucciderlo.and they consulted hovv they might by some vvile apprehend IESVS, and kil him.et consilium fecerunt ut Jesum dolo tenerent, et occiderent. 5But they said: Not on the festival day, lest perhaps there should be a tumult among the people.Ma dicevano: Non in giorno di festa, perché non succeda qualche tumulto tra il popolo.But they said, Not on the festiual day, lest perhaps there might be a tumult among the people.Dicebant autem: Non in die festo, ne forte tumultus fieret in populo. 6And when Jesus was in Bethania, in the house of Simon the leper,Ed essendo Gesù a Betania in casa di Simone il lebbroso,And vvhen IESVS vvas in Bethania in the house of Simon the Leper,Cum autem Jesus esset in Bethania in domo Simonis leprosi, 7There came to him a woman having an alabaster box of precious ointment and poured it on his head as he was at table.Si appressò a lui una donna con un vaso di alabastro di prezioso unguento, e lo sparse sul capo di lui, ch'era a mensa.there came to him a vvoman hauing an alabaster-boxe of pretious ointment, and povvred it out vpon his head as he sate at the table.accessit ad eum mulier habens alabastrum unguenti pretiosi, et effudit super caput ipsius recumbentis.
8And the disciples seeing it had indignation, saying: To what purpose is this waste?Veduto ciò, i discepoli se l'ebbero a male, e dissero: A che fine tanta profusione?And the Disciples seeing it, had indignation saying, whereto is • this vvast?Videntes autem discipuli, indignati sunt, dicentes: Ut quid perditio hæc ? 9For this might have been sold for much and given to the poor.Imperocché poteva quest'unguento vendersi a caro prezzo, e darsi a' poveri.for this might haue been sold for much, and giuen to the poore.potuit enim istud venundari multo, et dari pauperibus. 10And Jesus knowing it, said to them: Why do you trouble this woman? For she hath wrought a good work upon me.Ma avendo ciò inteso Gesù disse loro: Perché inquietate voi questa donna? imperocché ella ha fatto una buona opera inverso di me.And IESVS knovving it, said to them: why do you molest this vvoman? for she hath vvrought a • good vvorke vpon me.Sciens autem Jesus, ait illis: Quid molesti estis huic mulieri ? opus enim bonum operata est in me. 11For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always.Conciossiachè avete sempre con voi de' poveri; ma quanto a me non mi avete per sempre:For the poore you haue alvvayes vvith you: but me • you haue not alvvayes.Nam semper pauperes habetis vobiscum: me autem non semper habetis. 12For she in pouring this ointment on my body hath done it for my burial.Imperocché quand'ella ha sparso quest'unguento sopra il mio corpo, l'ha fatto come per seppellirmi.For she in povvring this ointment vpon my body: hath done it to burie me.Mittens enim hæc unguentum hoc in corpus meum, ad sepeliendum me fecit. 13Amen I say to you, wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which she hath done shall be told for a memory of her.In verità vi dico, che, dovunque sarà predicato questo Vangelo pel mondo tutto, si narrerà ancora in sua ricordanza quel, ch'ella ha fatto.Amen I say to you, vvheresoeuer this Gospel shal be preached in the vvhole vvorld, that also vvhich she hath done, shal be reported for a memorie of her.Amen dico vobis, ubicumque prædicatum fuerit hoc Evangelium in toto mundo, dicetur et quod hæc fecit in memoriam ejus. 14Then went one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, to the chief priests.Allora uno dei dodici, che chiamavasi Giuda Iscariote, se n'andò a trovare i principi dei sacerdoti:Then vvent one of the Tvvelue, vvhich vvas called Iudas Iscarioth, to the cheefe Priestes,Tunc abiit unus de duodecim, qui dicebatur Judas Iscariotes, ad principes sacerdotum: 15And said to them: What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you? But they appointed him thirty pieces of silver.E disse loro: Che volete darmi, e io ve lo darò nelle mani? Ed essi gli assegnarono trenta danari d'argento.and said to them, what vvil you giue me, and I vvil deliuer him vnto you? But they appointed vnto him thirtie peeces of siluer.et ait illis: Quid vultis mihi dare, et ego vobis eum tradam ? At illi constituerunt ei triginta argenteos.
16And from thenceforth he sought opportunity to betray him.E d'allora in poi cercava l'opportunità di tradirlo.And from thenceforth he sought opportunitie to betray him.Et exinde quærebat opportunitatem ut eum traderet. 17And on the first day of the Azymes, the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pasch?Or il primo giorno degli azzimi si accostarono a Gesù i discepoli, e gli dissero: Dove vuoi, che ti prepariamo per mangiare la pasqua?And the first day of the Azymes the Disciples came to IESVS, saying, where vvilt thou that vve prepare for thee to eate the Pasche?Prima autem die azymorum accesserunt discipuli ad Jesum, dicentes: Ubi vis paremus tibi comedere Pascha ? 18But Jesus said: Go ye into the city to a certain man and say to him: The master saith, My time is near at hand. With thee I make the pasch with my disciples.Gesù rispose: Andate in città da un tale, e ditegli: Il Maestro dice: La mia ora è vicina; io fo la pasqua in casa tua co' miei discepoli.But IESVS said, Goe ye into the citie to a certaine man: and say to him, The Maister saith, My time is at hand, vvith thee do I make the Pasche vvith my Disciples.At Jesus dixit: Ite in civitatem ad quemdam, et dicite ei: Magister dicit: Tempus meum prope est, apud te facio Pascha cum discipulis meis. 19And the disciples did as Jesus appointed to them: and they prepared the pasch.E i discepoli fecero, conforme aveva loro ordinato Gesù, e prepararon la pasqua.And the Disciples did as IESVS appointed them, and they prepared the Pasche.Et fecerunt discipuli sicut constituit illis Jesus, et paraverunt Pascha. 20But when it was evening, he sat down with his twelve disciples.E fattosi sera, era a tavola coi dodici suoi discepoli.But vvhen it vvas euen, he sate downe vvith his • tvvelue Disciples.Vespere autem facto, discumbebat cum duodecim discipulis suis. 21And whilst they were eating, he said: Amen I say to you that one of you is about to betray me.E mentre mangiavano, disse: In verità vi dico, che uno di voi mi tradirà.And vvhile they vvere eating, he said: Amen I say to you, that one of you shal betray me.Et edentibus illis, dixit: Amen dico vobis, quia unus vestrum me traditurus est. 22And they being very much troubled began every one to say: Is it I, Lord?Ed essi afflitti grandemente cominciarono a dire a uno a uno: Son forse io, o Signore?And they being very sad, began euery one to say, Is it I Lord?Et contristati valde, cœperunt singuli dicere: Numquid ego sum Domine ?
23But he answering said: He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, he shall betray me.Ed egli rispose, e disse: Colui, che mette con meco la mano nel piatto, questi mi tradirà.But he ansvvering said, He that dippeth his hand vvith me in the dish, he shal betray me.At ipse respondens, ait: Qui intingit mecum manum in paropside, hic me tradet. 24The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him. But woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born.E quanto al figliuolo dell'uomo, egli se ne va, conforme di lui sta scritto: ma guai a quell'uomo, per cui il Figliuolo dell'uomo sarà tradito: era bene per lui, che non fosse mai nato quell'uomo.The Sonne of man in deede goeth as it is vvritten of him: but vvo be to that man, by vvhom the Sonne of man shal be betrayed. It vvere good for him, if that man had not been borne.Filius quidem hominis vadit, sicut scriptum est de illo: væ autem homini illi, per quem Filius hominis tradetur ! bonum erat ei, si natus non fuisset homo ille. 25And Judas that betrayed him answering, said: Is it I, Rabbi? He saith to him: Thou hast said it.Ma Giuda, il quale lo tradiva, rispose, e disse: Son forse io, o Maestro? Dissegli: Tu l'hai detto.And Iudas that betrayed him, ansvvering said, Is it I Rabbi? He saith to him, Thou hast said.Respondens autem Judas, qui tradidit eum, dixit: Numquid ego sum Rabbi ? Ait illi: Tu dixisti. 26And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body.E mentre quelli cenavano, Gesù prese il pane, e lo benedisse, e lo spezzò, e lo dette a' suoi discepoli, e disse: Prendete, e mangiate: questo è il mio corpo.And vvhiles they vvere at supper, IESVS • tooke bread, and • blessed, and brake: and he gaue to his Disciples, and said, Take ye, and eate: • THIS IS • MY BODY.Cœnantibus autem eis, accepit Jesus panem, et benedixit, ac fregit, deditque discipulis suis, et ait: Accipite, et comedite: hoc est corpus meum. 27And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.E preso il calice, rendette le grazie, e lo diede loro, dicendo: Bevete di questo tutti.And taking the chalice, • he gaue thankes: and gaue to them, saying: Drinke ye al of this.Et accipiens calicem, gratias egit: et dedit illis, dicens: Bibite ex hoc omnes. 28For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.Imperocché questo è il sangue mio del nuovo testamento, il quale sarà sparso per molti per la remissione de' peccati.For THIS IS • MY BLOVD OF THE NEVV TESTAMENT, VVHICH SHAL BE SHED FOR MANY VNTO REMISSION OF SINNES.Hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.
29And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.Or io vi dico, che non berrò da ora in poi di questo frutto della vite sino a quel giorno, che io lo berrò nuovo con voi nel regno del Padre mio.And I say to you, I vvil not drinke from henceforth of this • fruite of the vine, vntil that day vvhen I shal drinke it vvith you nevv in the kingdom of my father.Dico autem vobis: non bibam amodo de hoc genimine vitis usque in diem illum, cum illud bibam vobiscum novum in regno Patris mei. 30And a hymn being said, they went out unto mount Olivet.E cantato l'inno, andarono al monte Oliveto.And an hymne being said, they vvent forth vnto Mount-oliuet.Et hymno dicto, exierunt in montem Oliveti. 31Then Jesus saith to them: All you shall be scandalized in me this night. For it is written: I will strike the shepherd: and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed.Allora disse loro Gesù: Tutti voi patirete scandalo per me in questa notte. Imperocché sta scritto: Percuoterò il pastore, saran disperse le pecorelle del gregge.Then IESVS saith to them, Al you shal be scandalized in me, in this night. For it is vvritten, I vvil strike the Pastor, and the sheepe of the flocke shal be dispersed.Tunc dicit illis Jesus: Omnes vos scandalum patiemini in me in ista nocte. Scriptum est enim: Percutiam pastorem, et dispergentur oves gregis. 32But after I shall be risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.Ma risuscitato che io sia, vi anderò avanti nella Galilea.But after I shal be risen againe, I vvil goe before you into Galilee.Postquam autem resurrexero, præcedam vos in Galilæam. 33And Peter answering, said to him: Although all shall be scandalized in thee, I will never be scandalized.Ma Pietro gli rispose, e disse: Quand'anche tutti fosser per patire scandalo per te, non sarà mai, che io sia scandalizzato.And Peter ansvvering, said to him, Although al shal be scandalized in thee, I vvil neuer be scandalized.Respondens autem Petrus, ait illi: Et si omnes scandalizati fuerint in te, ego numquam scandalizabor. 34Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee that in this night before the cock crow, thou wilt deny me thrice.Gesù gli disse: In verità ti dico, che questa notte, prima che il gallo canti, mi rinnegherai tre volte.IESVS said to him, Amen I say to thee, that in this night before the cocke crovv, thou shalt denie me thrise.Ait illi Jesus: Amen dico tibi, quia in hac nocte, antequam gallus cantet, ter me negabis.
35Peter saith to him: Yea, though I should die with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like manner said all the disciples.Pietro gli disse: Quand'anche dovessi morir teco, non ti negherò. E nello stesso modo parlarono anche tutti i discepoli.Peter saith to him, Yea though I should die vvith thee, I vvil not denie thee. Likevvise also said al the Disciples.Ait illi Petrus: Etiamsi oportuerit me mori tecum, non te negabo. Similiter et omnes discipuli dixerunt. 36Then Jesus came with them into a country place which is called Gethsemani. And he said to his disciples: Sit you here, till I go yonder and pray.Allora Gesù andò con essi in un luogo chiamato Getsemani, e disse a' suoi discepoli: Trattenetevi qui, mentre io vado là, e fo orazione.Then IESVS commeth vvith them into a village called Gethsémani: and he said to his Disciples, Sitte you here til I goe yonder, and pray.Tunc venit Jesus cum illis in villam, quæ dicitur Gethsemani, et dixit discipulis suis: Sedete hic donec vadam illuc, et orem. 37And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to grow sorrowful and to be sad.E presi con seco Pietro, e i due figliuoli di Zebedeo, cominciò a rattristarsi, e a cadere in mestizia.And taking to him Peter and the tvvo sonnes of Zebedee, he began to vvaxe sorovvful and to be sad.Et assumpto Petro, et duobus filiis Zebedæi, cœpit contristari et mœstus esse. 38Then he saith to them: My soul is sorrowful even unto death. Stay you here and watch with me.Allora disse loro: L'anima mia è afflitta sino alla morte: restate qui, e vegliate con me.Then he saith to them: My soul is sorovvful euen vnto death: stay here, and vvatch vvith me.Tunc ait illis: Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem: sustinete hic, et vigilate mecum. 39And going a little further, he fell upon his face, praying and saying: My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless, not as I will but as thou wilt.E avanzatosi alcun poco, si prostrò per terra orando, e dicendo: padre mio, se è possibile, passi da me questo calice: per altro non come voglia io, ma come vuoi tu.And being gone forvvard a litle, he fel vpon his face, praying, and saying, My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice passe from me. neuerthelesse • not as I vvil, but as thou.Et progressus pusillum, procidit in faciem suam, orans, et dicens: Pater mi, si possibile est, transeat a me calix iste: verumtamen non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu. 40And he cometh to his disciples and findeth them asleep. And he saith to Peter: What? Could you not watch one hour with me?E andò da' suoi discepoli, e trovogli addormentati, e disse a Pietro: Così, adunque non avete potuto vegliare un'ora con me?And he commeth to his Disciples, and findeth them sleeping, and he saith to Peter, Euen so? Could you not vvatch one houre vvith me?Et venit ad discipulos suos, et invenit eos dormientes, et dicit Petro: Sic non potuistis una hora vigilare mecum ?
41Watch ye: and pray that ye enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh weak.Vegliate, e orate, affinché non entriate nella tentazione. Lo spirito veramente è pronto, ma la carne è stanca.Watch ye, and pray that ye enter not into tentation. The spirit in deede is prompt, but the flesh vveake.Vigilate, et orate ut non intretis in tentationem. Spiritus quidem promptus est, caro autem infirma. 42Again the second time, he went and prayed, saying: My Father, if this chalice may not pass away, but I must drink it, thy will be done.E se ne andò di nuovo per la seconda volta, e orò, dicendo: Padre mio, se non può questo calice passare, senzachè io lo beva, sia fatta la tua volontà.Againe the second time he vvent, and prayed, saying, My Father, if this chalice may not passe, but I must drinke it, thy vvil be done.Iterum secundo abiit, et oravit, dicens: Pater mi, si non potest hic calix transire nisi bibam illum, fiat voluntas tua. 43And he cometh again and findeth them sleeping: for their eyes were heavy.E tornato di nuovo li trovò, addormentati; imperocché gli occhi loro erano aggravati.And he commeth againe, and findeth them sleeping: for their eyes vvere become heauy.Et venit iterum, et invenit eos dormientes: erant enim oculi eorum gravati. 44And leaving them, he went again: and he prayed the third time, saying the selfsame word.E lasciatigli, andò di nuovo, e orò per la terza volta, dicendo le stesse parole.And leauing them, he vvent againe: and he prayed the third time, saying the self same vvord.Et relictis illis, iterum abiit, et oravit tertio, eumdem sermonem dicens. 45Then he cometh to his disciples and said to them: Sleep ye now and take your rest. Behold the hour is at hand: and the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners.Allora andò da' suoi discepoli, e disse loro: Su via dormite, e riposatevi: ecco è vicina l'ora, e il Figliuolo dell'uomo sarà dato nelle mani de' peccatori.Then he commeth to his Disciples, and saith to them, Sleepe ye novv and take rest: behold the houre approcheth, and the Sonne of man shal be betrayed into the hands of sinners.Tunc venit ad discipulos suos, et dicit illis: Dormite jam, et requiescite: ecce appropinquavit hora, et Filius hominis tradetur in manus peccatorum. 46Rise: let us go. Behold he is at hand that will betray me.Alzatevi, andiamo: ecco che si avvicina colui, che mi tradirà.Rise, let vs goe: behold he approcheth that shal betray me.Surgite, eamus: ecce appropinquavit qui me tradet. 47As he yet spoke, behold Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the ancients of the people.Mentre ei tutt'ora parlava, ecco arrivò Giuda uno de' dodici, e con esso gran turba con ispade, e bastoni, mandata da' principi de' sacerdoti, e dagli anziani del popolo.As he yet spake, behold Iudas one of the Tvvelue came, and vvith him a great multitude vvith svvordes and clubbes, sent from the cheefe Priestes and the auncients of the people.Adhuc eo loquente, ecce Judas unus de duodecim venit, et cum eo turba multa cum gladiis et fustibus, missi a principibus sacerdotum, et senioribus populi.
48And he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying: Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he. Hold him fast.E colui, che lo tradì, aveva dato loro il segnale, dicendo: Quegli, che io bacerò, è adesso: pigliatelo.And he that betrayed him, gaue them a signe, saying, whomsouer I shal kisse, that is he, hold him.Qui autem tradidit eum, dedit illis signum, dicens: Quemcumque osculatus fuero, ipse est, tenete eum. 49And forthwith coming to Jesus, he said: Hail, Rabbi. And he kissed him.E subitamente accostatosi a Gesù, disse: Dio ti salvi, o Maestro. E baciollo.And forthvvith cō ming to IESVS, he said, Haile Rabbi. And he kissed him.Et confestim accedens ad Jesum, dixit: Ave Rabbi. Et osculatus est eum. 50And Jesus said to him: Friend, whereto art thou come? Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and held him.E Gesù dissegli: Amico, a che fine se' venuto? Allora si fecero avanti, e miser le mani addosso a Gesù, e lo tennero stretto.And IESVS said to him, Freend, vvhereto art thou come? Then they drevve neere, and laid hands on IESVS, and held him.Dixitque illi Jesus: Amice, ad quid venisti ? Tunc accesserunt, et manus injecerunt in Jesum, et tenuerunt eum. 51And behold one of them that were with Jesus, stretching forth his hand, drew out his sword: and striking the servant of the high priest, cut off his ear.Ed ecco uno di quelli, che erano con Gesù, stesa la mano, tirò fuori la spada, e ferì un servo del principe de' sacerdoti, mozzandogli un'orecchia.And behold one of them that vvere vvith IESVS, stretching forth his hand, drevve out his svvord: and striking the seruant of the high Priest, cut of his eare.Et ecce unus ex his qui erant cum Jesu, extendens manum, exemit gladium suum, et percutiens servum principis sacerdotum amputavit auriculam ejus. 52Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.Allora Gesù gli disse: Rimetti la tua spada in suo luogo: imperocché tutti quelli, che daran di mano alla spada, di spada periranno.Then IESVS saith to him, Returne thy sword into his place: for al that take the svvord, shal perish vvith the svvord.Tunc ait illi Jesus: Converte gladium tuum in locum suum: omnes enim, qui acceperint gladium, gladio peribunt. 53Thinkest thou that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels?Pensi tu forse, che io non possa pregare il Padre mio, e mi porrà dinanzi adesso più di dodici legioni di Angeli?Thinkest thou that I cannot aske my Father: and he vvil giue me presently more then tvvelue legions of Angels?An putas, quia non possum rogare patrem meum, et exhibebit mihi modo plusquam duodecim legiones angelorum ?
54How then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that so it must be done?Come adunque si adempiranno le scritture, a tenor delle quali dee esser così?Hovv then shal the scriptures be fulfilled, that so it must be done?Quomodo ergo implebuntur Scripturæ, quia sic oportet fieri ? 55In that same hour, Jesus said to the multitudes: You are come out, as it were to a robber, with swords and clubs to apprehend me. I sat daily with you, teaching in the temple: and you laid not hands on me.In quel punto disse Gesù alle turbe: Come si fa per un assassino, siete venuti armati di spade, e bastoni per pigliarmi: ogni dì io stava tra voi sedendo nel tempio a insegnare, nè mi avete preso.In that houre IESVS said to the multitudes: You are come out as it vvere to a theefe vvith svvordes and clubbes to apprehēd me: I sate daily vvith you teaching in the temple: and you laid no hands on me.In illa hora dixit Jesus turbis: Tamquam ad latronem existis cum gladiis et fustibus comprehendere me: quotidie apud vos sedebam docens in templo, et non me tenuistis. 56Now all this was done that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then the disciples, all leaving him, fled.E tutto questo è avvenuto, affinchè si adempissero le scritture de' profeti. Allora tutti i discepoli, abbandonatolo, se ne fuggirono.And al this vvas done, that the scriptures of the Prophers might be fulfilled. Thē the disciples al leauing him, fled.Hoc autem totum factum est, ut adimplerentur Scripturæ prophetarum. Tunc discipuli omnes, relicto eo, fugerunt. 57But they holding Jesus led him to Caiphas the high priest, where the scribes and the ancients were assembled.Ma quegli afferrato Gesù, lo condussero da Caifa principe de' sacerdoti, dove si erano radunati gli Scribi, e gli anziani.But they taking hold of IESVS, led him to Caiphas the high Priest, vvhere the Scribes and auncients vvere assembled.At illi tenentes Jesum, duxerunt ad Caipham principem sacerdotum, ubi scribæ et seniores convenerant. 58And Peter followed him afar off, even to the court of the high priest, And going in, he sat with the servants, that he might see the end.E Pietro lo seguiva alla lontana; sino all'atrio del principe de' sacerdoti. Ed entrato dentro stava a sedere co' ministri per vedere la fine.And Peter folovved him a farre of, euen to the court of the high Priest. And going in he sate vvith the seruants, that he might see the end.Petrus autem sequebatur eum a longe, usque in atrium principis sacerdotum. Et ingressus intro, sedebat cum ministris, ut videret finem. 59And the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death.E i principi de' sacerdoti, e tutto il consiglio cercavano false testimonianze contro Gesù per farlo morire.And the cheefe Priestes and the vvhole Councel sought false vvitnes against IESVS, that they might put him to death:Principes autem sacerdotum, et omne concilium, quærebant falsum testimonium contra Jesum, ut eum morti traderent:
60And they found not, whereas many false witnesses had come in. And last of all there came two false witnesses:E non le trovavano, essendosi presentati molti falsi testimonj. Ma alla fine vennero due testimonj falsi,and they found not, vvhereas many false vvitnesses had come in. And last of al there came tvvo false vvitnesses:et non invenerunt, cum multi falsi testes accessissent. Novissime autem venerunt duo falsi testes, 61And they said: This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God and after three days to rebuild it.E dissero: Costui ha detto: Posso distruggere il tempio di Dio, e rifabbricarlo in tre giorni.and they said, This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three dayes to reedifie it.et dixerunt: Hic dixit: Possum destruere templum Dei, et post triduum reædificare illud. 62And the high priest rising up, said to him: Answerest thou nothing to the things which these witness against thee?E alzatosi il principe de' sacerdoti, gli disse: Non rispondi nulla a quel, che questi depongono contro di te?And the high Priest rising vp, said to him: Ansvverest thou nothing to the things vvhich these do testifie against thee?Et surgens princeps sacerdotum, ait illi: Nihil respondes ad ea, quæ isti adversum te testificantur ? 63But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said to him: I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us if thou be the Christ the Son of God.Ma Gesù si taceva. E il principe de' sacerdoti gli disse: Ti scongiuro pel Dio vivo, che ci dica, se tu sii il Cristo il Figliuolo di Dio.But IESVS held his peace. And the high Priest said to him: I adiure thee by the liuing God, that thou tel vs if thou be Christ the sonne of God.Jesus autem tacebat. Et princeps sacerdotum ait illi: Adjuro te per Deum vivum, ut dicas nobis si tu es Christus Filius Dei. 64Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it. Nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God and coming in the clouds of heaven.Gesù gli rispose: Tu l'hai detto; Anzi vi dico, che vedrete di poi il Figliuolo dell'uomo sedere alla destra della virtù di Dio, e venire su le nubi del cielo.IESVS saith to him, Thou hast said. neuertheles I say to you, hereafter you shal see the Sonne of man sitting on the right hand of the povver of God, and comming in the cloudes of heauen.Dicit illi Jesus: Tu dixisti. Verumtamen dico vobis, amodo videbitis Filium hominis sedentem a dextris virtutis Dei, et venientem in nubibus cæli.
65Then the high priest rent his garments, saying: He hath blasphemed: What further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard the blasphemy.Allora il principe de' sacerdoti stracciò le sue vesti, dicendo: Ha bestemmiato: che bisogno abbiam più di testimonj? ecco avete ora sentito la bestemmia.Then the high Priest rent his garments, saying, He hath blasphemed, vvhat neede vve vvitnesses any further? behold, novv you haue heard the blasphemie,Tunc princeps sacerdotum scidit vestimenta sua, dicens: Blasphemavit: quid adhuc egemus testibus ? ecce nunc audistis blasphemiam: 66What think you? But they answering, said: He is guilty of death.Che ve ne pare? Quelli risposero: È reo di morte.hovv thinke you? But they ansvvering said, He is guilty of death.quid vobis videtur ? At illi respondentes dixerunt: Reus est mortis. 67Then did they spit in his face and buffeted him. And others struck his face with the palms of their hands,Allora gli sputarono in faccia, e lo percossero co' pugni: e altri gli dettero degli schiaffi,Then did they spit on his face, and buffeted him, and other smote his face vvith the palmes of their hands,Tunc exspuerunt in faciem ejus, et colaphis eum ceciderunt, alii autem palmas in faciem ejus dederunt, 68Saying: Prophesy unto us, O Christ. Who is he that struck thee?Dicendo: Cristo, profetizzaci, chi è, che ti ha percosso?saying, Prophecie vnto vs O Christ: vvho is he that strooke thee?dicentes: Prophetiza nobis Christe, quis est qui te percussit ? 69But Peter sat without in the court. And there came to him a servant maid, saying: Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean.Pietro poi sedeva fuora nell'atrio: e si accostò a lui una serva, e dissegli; Anche tu eri con Gesù Galileo.But Peter sate vvithout in the court: and there came to him one • vvenche, saying: Thou also vvast vvith IESVS the Galilean.Petrus vero sedebat foris in atrio: et accessit ad eum una ancilla, dicens: Et tu cum Jesu Galilæo eras. 70But he denied before them all, saying: I know not what thou sayest.Ma egli negò dinanzi a tutti, dicendo: Non so quel, che tu dica.But he denied before them all, saying, I vvot not vvhat thou sayest.At ille negavit coram omnibus, dicens: Nescio quid dicis. 71And as he went out of the gate, another maid saw him; and she saith to them that were there: This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth.E uscito lui dalla porta, lo vide un'altra serva, e disse a' circostanti: Anche costui era con Gesù Nazareno.And as he vvent out of the gate, an other vvenche savv him, and she saith to them that vvere there, And this felovv also vvas vvith IESVS the Nazarite.Exeunte autem illo januam, vidit eum alia ancilla, et ait his qui erant ibi: Et hic erat cum Jesu Nazareno.
72And again he denied with an oath: I know not the man.Ed egli negò di bel nuovo con giuramento: Non conosco quest'uomo.And againe he denied vvith an othe, That I knovv not the man.Et iterum negavit cum juramento: Quia non novi hominem. 73And after a little while, they came that stood by and said to Peter: Surely thou also art one of them. For even thy speech doth discover thee.E di lì a poco i circostanti si appressarono, e dissero a Pietro: Veramente anche tu se' uno di quegli: imperocché anche il tuo linguaggio ti dà a conoscere.And after a litle they came that stoode by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art of them: for euen thy speache doth bevvray thee.Et post pusillum accesserunt qui stabant, et dixerunt Petro: Vere et tu ex illis es: nam et loquela tua manifestum te facit. 74Then he began to curse and to swear that he knew not the man. And immediately the cock crew.Allora cominciò egli a mandarsi delle imprecazioni, e a spergiurare, che non aveva conosciuto tal uomo. E tosto il gallo cantò.Then he began • to curse and to svveare that he knevve not the man. And incontinent the cocke crevve.Tunc cœpit detestari et jurare quia non novisset hominem. Et continuo gallus cantavit. 75And Peter remembered the word of Jesus which he had said: Before the cock crow, thou wilt deny me thrice. And going forth, he wept bitterly.E Pietro si ricordò della parola dettagli da Gesù: Prima che canti il gallo, mi negherai tre volte, E uscito fuora pianse amaramente.And Peter remembred the vvord of IESVS vvhich he had said, Before the cocke crovv, thou shalt deny me thrise. And going forth, he vvept bitterly.Et recordatus est Petrus verbi Jesu, quod dixerat: Priusquam gallus cantet, ter me negabis. Et egressus foras, flevit amare.
26:1
about the year A.D. 33.
26:2
This second council of the Jews against Jesus, was held on the Wednesday, two days before the Passover; and because on this day Judas sold Christ, and the Jews decreed his death, the ancient custom, according to St. Augustine, originated of fasting on Wednesdays; (Ep. xxxvi. t. 3. p. 80,) and the general custom of abstaining from flesh on Fridays, because on that day Jesus suffered death for our redemption.
Witham
In the notes on these two following chapters, I shall join all the chief circumstances related by the other evangelists that the reader may have a fuller and more exact view of the history of Christ's sufferings and death. (Witham)
Witham
You know that after two days shall be the Pasch;[Ver. 2. Pascha fiet. to pascha ginetai fit. St. Jerome on this place, (p. 125.) Pascha, quod Hebraicè dicitur Phase: non a Passione, ut plerique arbitrantur, sed a transitu nominatur. So also St. Augustine, tract 55. in Joan.] or the feast of the Pasch. The Protestants translate, of the Passover. The French all retain the same word in their language, Paque; as the author of the Latin Vulgate and all other Greek versions have done. It is indeed an evident mistake, (as St. Augustine observed) to take Pascha for a Greek word, as Mr. N... has done, who in his note on this place says, Pascha, in Greek, is a passion or suffering. It is certain that the word Pascha, or Pasche, is from a Hebrew derivation, signifying a passing by or passing over. Yet it must also be observed, that this same word Pascha, has different significations; sometimes it is put for the Paschal Lamb, that was sacrificed; as Luke 22:7, elsewhere for the first day of the Paschal feast and solemnity, which lasted seven days; as in this place, and Ezechiel 45:21. Again it is taken for the sabbath-day, that happened within the seven days of the solemnity. (John 19:14.) And it is also used to signify all the sacrifices, that were made during the seven days' feast; as John 18:28. (Witham)
Origen † AD 253
And the Son of man. Jesus Christ informed his disciples of the bloody transactions, which were soon to be perpetrated at Jerusalem, lest they might be disheartened, when they saw their Master condemned to die on a cross. Christ was delivered up to death by his heavenly Father out of love for man; he is betrayed by Judas for base lucre, condemned by the priests out of envy, and persecuted by the common enemy of mankind, who feared that his empire and reign might be destroyed among men by the preaching of our Redeemer; not perceiving, that man would be freed from his empire more by his death, than by his preaching. (Origen)
26:3
Bible de Vence
Into the palace or court of the high priest. Assemblies were held in the public places, at the gates, or in the courts of the nobles. (Bible de Vence)
26:5
Not on the festival day. Such a day seemed to them at first improper, at least to some of them; but this was overruled, when Judas informed them how he could and would put him into their hands on Thursday night. St. Jerome takes notice, that when they said, Not on the festival, it was not through a motive of religion that they made this objection, but only lest a tumult should happen in his favour among the people; (Witham) for they looked upon him as a great prophet.
St. Chrysostom
Behold how fearful these people are, not of offending God, nor of increasing the enormity of their most atrocious crime, by committing it on the solemnity of the Passover, but of offending men by raising a tumult. Still boiling over with rage, they no sooner found the Traitor, than yielding to the impulse of their blind fury, they gladly seized the opportunity offered, and immolating their victim in the middle of their solemnity. Though this their wickedness was the instrument of the divine dispensation, to bring about the greatest good, still they will not go without receiving condign punishment; which the perversity of their wills so richly deserved, for murdering innocence itself; and at a time when guilt was accustomed to meet with mercy and forgiveness. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxxx.)
St. Leo the great
We know that by a decree of divine Providence, what had been so long and so earnestly sought for by the Jewish princes, viz. an opportunity of murdering the innocent Lamb of God, was not granted to them, except on the very feast of the Pasch. For it was only fitting, that what had been for such a length of time figuratively promised, should be manifestly fulfilled; that the true Lamb should supersede the figurative one; and that by one grand sacrifice, the vast variety of offerings and holocausts should be done away. (St. Leo the great)
26:6
Witham
When Jesus was in Bethania, etc. St. Augustine observes, that this pouring of the ointment on Jesus is not related by St. Matthew in due order of time. It was not done on this Wednesday, but as St. John 12:1 expressly tells us, six days before the Pasch, or Paschal feast, began. This anointing was different from that done in the house of the Pharisee, and in Galilee, set down by St. Luke, Matthew 7:37. (Witham)
Bible de Vence
St. Matthew mentions the fact in this place, because it was in some measure the occasion of Judas's treason. (Bible de Vence)
Denis the Carthusian
St. Ambrose seems to assert, that the Simon here mentioned was at that time a leper, in the following words: "Hence, it appears, that Christ did not flee the company of lepers; he kept company with the unclean, that he might purify them from their uncleanness." St. Jerome is of opinion that Simon was not then a leper, but had been cured of a leprosy by our Lord; and that he afterwards retained the name of leper, as St. Matthew, after he was called by our Saviour, continued to be called the Publican. The latter sentiment seem most probable, because the Jews were not permitted to associate with lepers. (Denis the Carthusian)
26:7
Bible de Vence
A woman. This was Mary, the sister of Lazarus. (St. John 12:3.) (Bible de Vence)
St. Augustine
It is not the use, but the abuse of things, which is blameworthy. That man is not to be blamed, who does not exceed the rules followed by good, honourable, and conscientious men, with whom he associates. What, therefore, in some is often reprehensible, in another is highly commendable. A good reputation is a sweet perfume, which a man merits for his worthy deeds; and whilst he follows the footsteps of Christ, he may justly be said to anoint our Redeemer's feet with a most precious ointment. (St. Augustine)
26:8
Bible de Vence
Indignation. It was chiefly Judas, who blamed aloud this profusion. (Bible de Vence)
St. Thomas Aquinas
St. Matthew and St. Mark mention the disciples. But such of them as spoke, were persuaded to what they said either by Judas's words, or by their feeling and affection for the poor; but the only motive of Judas was avarice. (St. Thomas Aquinas)
26:10
St. Chrysostom
Why do you trouble this woman? By this, our Saviour teaches us, that we are not to expect the more perfect acts of virtue from persons still novices, or young in the service of God. He takes the part of the woman, and speaks in her behalf; that the tender bud of her faith might not be blasted, but that her virtues might be watered with tenderness, and thus assisted to produce greater fruit for the future. When, therefore, we behold any good action done, though some imperfection may creep in with it, still ought we to behold it with kindness, and assist it to bring forth more perfect acts for the time to come. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxxxi.)
26:11
Me you have not, or will not have always, in this visible manner.
Witham
She ... hath done it for my burial. St. Mark (xiv. 8.) says, She hath prevented the time to anoint me, which is done at burials, for my time of being buried will be in a few days. (Witham)
Challoner
Me you have not always; viz. in a visible manner, as when conversant here on earth: and as we have the poor, whom we may daily assist and relieve. (Challoner)
Denis the Carthusian
Or, he is not always corporally present with us, except in the persons of the poor, whom our Saviour commands us to receive or assist; promising to reward us in the same manner, as if we had conferred the same charity on himself. This saying does not contradict what he afterwards said: behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world; (Chap. 28:20.) because in the former, he only speaks of his corporal presence, but in the latter text, of his spiritual presence and constant assistance. (Denis the Carthusian)
26:13
St. Chrysostom
That also which she had done. The exploits of kings and emperors are no longer remembered. The actions of those who have built cities, raised fortresses, carried on wars, and erected trophies of their victories; who have subdued nations, dictated laws to thousands, and raised statues to their own honour, have passed into oblivion; and many of their names are long ago forgotten. But when a poor simple woman, in the house of a leper, in the presence of twelve men, pours out her ointment; her good work is rehearsed after the lapse of so many ages, in every part of the habitable globe. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxxxi.)
26:14
The chief priests were then assembled; Judas, the disciple, who chiefly regretted the expense of the perfumes that had been used on his Lord and Master, at the feast of Bethania, and wished for an opportunity to make good the loss, went to the chief priests, saying:
26:15
St. Leo the great
What will you give me? The impious wretch did not betray his divine Master out of fear, but out of avarice. Of all passions the love of sordid lucre is the most vile; and the avaricious soul does not fear to plunge herself into the bottom of hell, for a trifling gain. There is no vestige of honour or justice, or probity, remaining in the heart of that man who is possessed with the love of base lucre; whose god is his money. The perfidious Judas, inebriated with this passion, while he thirsts after gain, sells with the most foolish impiety his Lord and his Master. (St. Leo the great)
He sells him for the paltry consideration of thirty pieces of silver, about £3 15. the price of a common slave. See Exodus 21:32. It is probable that even the obdurate heart of Judas would not have betrayed his Master to the Jews, had he not expected that Jesus would escape from their hands on this occasion, as he had done at Nazareth, and in the temple.
26:17
Witham
The Pascal Supper. The first day of the azymes; unleavened bread. St. Mark (xiv. 12.) adds, when they sacrificed the Pasch: and St. Luke (xxii. 7.) says, And the day of the unleavened bread came; on which it was necessary that the Pasch (that is, the Paschal lamb) should be killed. From hence it follows, that Christ sent his apostles that very day (the 14th day of the month of Nisan) on which, in the evening, or at night, the Pasch was to be eaten; and which was to be with unleavened bread. It is true, the 15th day of that month is called (Exodus 12:1.[2.?]) the first day of unleavened bread: but we must take notice, that the Jews began their feasts, or festivals, from sunset of the evening before; and consequently on the evening of the 14th day of the moon: at which time there was to be no leavened bread in any of their houses. This shews that Christ eat the Pasch, or Paschal lamb, after sunset. And when the Paschal supper was over, he consecrated the blessed Eucharist, in unleavened bread, as the Latin Church doth. There are two or three difficulties relating to this matter in St. John, of which in their proper places. (Witham)
There were four passovers during Christ's public ministry. The 1st was after the marriage feast of Cana, in the 31st year of Jesus, and the 779th from the foundation of Rome. to derive pascha from the Greek, paschein, to suffer, is a mistake, as St. Augustine observes; tract. lv. in Joah. It is certainly taken from the Hebrew, and signifies a passing by, or passing over: 1st, because the children of Israel passed in haste on that night out of the land of Egypt; 2d, because the angel, who on that night killed all the first-born of the Egyptians, seeing the doors of the Israelites stained with the blood of the paschal lamb, passed by all theirs untouched; 3d, because that was a figure of our Saviour passing out of this life to his eternal Father. Yet it must be observed that this same word, pascha, or passover, is used sometimes for the paschal lamb, that was sacrificed; (Luke 22:7.) elsewhere, for the first day of the paschal feast and solemnity, which lasted seven days; (Matthew 26:2; Ezechiel 45:21.) for the sabbath-day, which occurred within the seven days of the solemnity; (John 19:14.) and also for all the sacrifices made during the seven days' feast. The Passover was the most solemn rite of the old law. When God ordered the Israelites to sprinkle the blood of the lamb upon their door-posts, it was solely with a view of signifying, that the blood of the true Lamb was to be the distinctive mark of as many as should be saved. Every thing was mysteriously and prophetical. A bone of the lamb was not to be broken; and they broke not the arms or legs of Jesus Christ, on the cross. The lamb was to be free from blemish; to express the perfect sanctity of Jesus Christ, the immaculate Lamb of God. The paschal lamb was to be sacrificed and eaten; because Christ was to suffer and die for us: and unless we eat his flesh, we shall have no life in us. The door-posts of the Israelites were to be sprinkled with blood, that the destroying angel might pass over them; for with the blood of Christ our souls are to be purified, that sin and death may not prevail against us. In every house was eaten a whole lamb; and Christ, at communion, is received whole and entire by every faithful soul.
The manner in which it was to be eaten, shews the proper dispositions for Christians when they receive the blessed sacrament. The roasting by fire, expresses divine charity; the unleavened bread, sincerity, truth, and a good conscience; the bitter herbs, repentance and contrition for sin; the girded loins and shod feet, the restraint upon our passions and lusts, and a readiness to follow the rules of the gospel; the staff, our mortal pilgrimage, and that having no lasting dwelling here, we should make the best of our way to our true country, the heavenly Chanaan.
Bible de Vence
On this day the passover was to be eaten, at least by a part of the people, according to St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke; that is according to some, by the Galileans; for, according to St. John, it appears that the priests, and the Jews properly so called, such as dwelt in Judea, did not immolate it till the next day. (John 13:1, 18:28, and 19:14.) (Bible de Vence)
But we have here again to remark, that the Jews began their day from sunset of the previous day.
26:18
St. Augustine
To a certain man, whom Sts. Mark and Luke call, the good man of the house, or master of the house. When St. Matthew therefore says, a certain man, he seems to do it for brevity's sake; as no one ever speaks to his servants thus, go to a certain man. The evangelist, therefore, after giving our Saviour's words, go ye into a certain city, he adds as from himself, to a certain man, to inform us that there was a particular man to whom Jesus sent his disciples. (St. Augustine)
Jansenius
In Greek, ton deina; in Hebrew, Pelona; words that express a person whose name is either not known, or is wished to be kept secret. (Jansenius)
26:19
Bible de Vence
And they prepared what was necessary, a lamb, wild lettuce, and unleavened bread. (Bible de Vence)
26:20
When it was evening.[Ver. 20. Vespere facto. See the two evenings, Matthew xiv. 15.] St. Luke says, when the hour was come, which was at the latter evening, after sunset. The time of killing and sacrificing the lamb was, according to the 12th of Exodus, to be between the two evenings; (see Mark 14:15.) so that we may reasonably suppose, that Christ sent some of his apostles on Thursday, in the afternoon, to perform what was to be done, as to the killing and sacrificing of the lamb, and then to bring it away: and he eat it with his disciples after sunset.
Witham
He sat down, etc. Literally, laid down, in a leaning or lying position. Some pretend, from this circumstance, that he eat not the paschal lamb that year, because it was to be eaten, standing, according to the law. But they might stand at the paschal lamb, and eat the rest of the supper on couches; as it was then the custom. (Witham)
St. Chrysostom
We must not hence suppose that he transgressed the law. He first eat the Pasch according to the Mosaic rite, standing, and then sat down to supper. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxxxii.)
26:22
And they being very much troubled. There were three motives for this great sorrow in the disciples: 1st, because they saw their innocent and dear Master was so soon to be taken from them, and delivered up to a most cruel and ignominious death; 2d, because each of them was afraid lest, through human frailty, he might fall into so great a crime; for they all were convinced, that what he said must necessarily come to pass: and lastly, that there could be found one among them so wretchedly perverse, as to deliver Jesus into the hands of his enemies. Hence afraid of themselves, and not daring to affix a suspicion on any individual, they began every one to say: Is it I, Lord, on whom so atrocious a crime is to fall? ... It is extremely probable that Christ made this prediction three times: 1st, at the commencement of supper; (Matthew 26:21.) 2d, after washing the feet; (John 13:18.) 3d, after the institution of the blessed Eucharist. (Luke 22:21.) Thus Pope Benedict XIV. Sandinus, etc.
26:23
He that dippeth. He that is associated to me, that eateth bread with me, shall lift up his heel against me, according to the prophecy of the psalmist, cited by St. John, 13:18.
Jesus Christ does not here manifest the traitor; he only aggravates the enormity and malice of the crime.
26:25
Origen † AD 253
Is it I, Rabbi? After the other disciples had put their questions, and after our Saviour had finished speaking, Judas at length ventures to inquire of himself. With his usual hypocrisy, he wishes to cloke his wicked designs by asking a similar question with the rest. (Origen)
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
It is remarkable that Judas did not ask, is it I, Lord? but, is it I, Rabbi? to which our Saviour replied, thou hast said it: which answer might have been spoken in so low a tone of voice, as not perfectly to be heard by all the company. (Rabanus)
Hence it was that Peter beckoned to St. John, to learn more positively the person. Here St. Chrysostom justly remarks the patience and reserve of our Lord, who by his great meekness and self-possession, under the extremes of ingratitude, injustice, and blasphemy, shews how we ought to bear with the malice of others, and forget all personal injuries.
26:26
The Institution of the Holy Sacrament. And whilst they were at supper. Jesus Christ proceeds to the institution of the blessed Eucharist, that the truth or reality may succeed to the figure in one and the same banquet; and to impress more deeply upon our minds the remembrance of so singular a favour, his last and best gift to man. He would not institute it at the beginning of his ministry; he first prepares his disciples for the belief of it, by changing water into wine, and by the miraculous multiplication of the loaves.
Whilst they were, etc. before they parted: for by St. Luke 22:20.; 1 Corinthians 11:25. the blessed sacrament was not instituted till after supper.
Witham
Jesus took bread, and blessed it. St. Luke and St. Paul say, he gave thanks. This blessing and giving thanks, was not the consecration itself, but went before it. See the Council of Trent, session XIII. Matthew 1:(Witham)
Challoner
This is my body. He does not say, this is the figure of my body---but, this is my body. (2d Council of Nice. Act. VI.) Neither does he say in this, or with this is my body, but absolutely this is my body; which plainly implies transubstantiation. (Challoner)
Catholics maintain, after the express words of Scripture, and the universal tradition of the Church, that Christ in the blessed sacrament is corporally and substantially present; but not carnally; not in that gross, natural, and sensible manner, in which our separated brethren misrepresent the Catholic doctrine, as the Capharnaites did of old; (John 6:61, 62.) who were scandalized with it. ... If Protestants, in opposition to the primitive Fathers, deny the connection of the sixth chapter of John with the institution, it is from the fear of giving advantage to the doctrine of transubstantiation, says Dr. Clever, Protestant bishop of Bangor.
This is my body. By these words, and his divine power, Christ changed that which before was bread into his own body; not in that visible and bloody manner as the Capharnaites imagined. (John vi.) Yet so, that the elements of bread and wine were truly, really, and substantially changed into the substance of Christ's body and blood. Christ, whose divine power cannot be questioned, could not make use of plainer words than these set down by St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul to the Corinthians: this is my body; this is my blood: and that the bread and wine, at the words of consecration are changed into the body and blood of Christ, has been the constant doctrine and belief of the Catholic Church, in all ages, both in the east and west, both in the Greek and Latin churches; as may be seen in our controvertists, and particularly in the author of the books of the Perpetuity of the Faith. The first and fundamental truths of the Christian faith, by which we profess to believe the mystery of the holy Trinity, that is one God and three divine Persons, and of the incarnation, that is that the true Son of God was made man, was born, suffered and died upon the cross for our salvation, are no less obscure and mysterious, no less above the reach of human capacity, than this of the real presence: nor are they more clearly expressed in the sacred text. This change the Church hath thought proper to express by the word, transubstantiation: and it is as frivolous to reject this word, and to ask where it is found in the holy Scriptures, as to demand where we read in the Scriptures, the words, trinity, incarnation, consubstantial to the Father, etc.
Luther fairly owned that he wanted not an inclination to deny Christ's real presence in the sacrament, by which he should vex and contradict the Pope; but this, said he, is a truth that cannot be denied:[Ver. 26. Luther. Verum ego me captum video. ... Textus enim Evangelii nimium apertus est.] The words of the gospel are too clear. He and his followers hold, what is called impanation, or consubstantiation; that is that there is really present, both the substance of the bread and wine, and also the substance of Christ's body and blood.
Zuinglius, the Sacramentarians, and Calvinists deny the real presence; and hold that the word is, (est) importeth no more, than it signifieth, or is a figure of Christ's body; as it hath been lately translated, this represents my body, in a late translation, or rather paraphrase, 1729. I shall only produce here the words and reasoning of Luther: which may deserve the attention of the later reformers. [Ver. 26. See Luther, tom. 7. Ed. Wittemb. p. 391.]"Who," saith Luther, (tom. vii. Edit. Wittemb. p. 391) "but the devil, hath granted such a license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposeth upon us by these fanatical men. ... Not one of the Fathers, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present. Surely it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous." Thus far Luther; who, in another place, in his usual manner of writing, hesitates not to call the Sacramentarians, men possessed, prepossessed, and transpossessed by the devil.[Ver. 26. See Hospinianus, 2. part. Hist. Sacram. p. 187. He says the Sacramentarians have a heart, according to a French translation, endiabolè, perdiabolè, transdiabolè.]
My body. In St. Luke is added, which is given for you. Granted these words, which is given, may bear this sense, which shall be given, or offered on the cross; yet as it was the true body of Christ, that was to be crucified,so it was the same true body which Christ gave to his apostles, at his last supper, though in a different manner.
Witham
The holy Eucharist is not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice, succeeding to all the sacrifices of the ancient law, which Christ commanded all the priests of the new law to offer up. Luther was forced to own, that divers Fathers, taught this doctrine; as Irenaeus, Cyprian, Augustine: and in his answer to Henry VIII. of England: The king, says he, brings the testimonies of the Fathers, to prove the sacrifice of the mass, for my part, I care not, if a thousand Augustines, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand Churches, like that of Henry, stand against me. The Centurists of Magdeburg own the same to have been the doctrine of Cyprian, Tertullian, and also of Irenaeus, in the end of the second age; and that St. Gregory of Nazianzen, in the fourth age, calls it an unbloody sacrifice; incruenti sacrificii. (Witham)
This is my body. To shew how these words have been interpreted by the primitive Church, we shall here subjoin some few extracts from the works of some of the most eminent writers of the first five centuries. First Century. St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who was a disciple and contemporary with some of the apostles, and died a martyr, at Rome, in a very advanced age, An. 107, speaking of certain heretics of those times, says: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from oblations, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins." See epis. genuin. ad Smyrnaeos.
He calls the Eucharist the medicine of immortality, the antidote against death, by which we always live in Christ.
St. Cyril
In another part he writes: "I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, and for drink, his blood." Again: "use one Eucharist; for the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ is one, and the cup is one in the unity of his blood. There is one altar, as there is one bishop with the college of the priesthood," etc. Second Century. St. Justin, the philosopher, in an apology for the Christians, which he addressed to the emperor and senate of Rome, about the year 150, says of the blessed Eucharist: "No one is allowed to partake of this food, but he that believes our doctrines are true, and who has been baptized in the laver of regeneration for remission of sins, and lives up to what Christ has taught. For we take not these as common bread, and common drink, but in the same manner as Jesus Christ, our Saviour, being incarnate by the word of God, hath both flesh and blood for our salvation; so we are taught that this food, by which our flesh and blood are nourished, over which thanks have been given by the prayers in his own words, is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus." Apology 2:in fin. he calls it, Panem eucharistisatum ton arton eucharistethenta, the bread blessed by giving thanks, as he blessed and miraculously multiplied the loaves, eulogesen autous. Third Century. St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who suffered martyrdom in 258, says: "the bread which our Lord delivered to his disciples, was changed not in appearance, but in nature, being made flesh by the Almighty power of the divine word." Fourth Century. St. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, who was born in the commencement of the 4th century, and died in 386, explaining the mystery of the blessed Eucharist to the newly baptized, says: "Do not look upon the bread and wine as bare and common elements, for they are the body and blood of Christ; as our Lord assures us. Although thy senses suggest this to thee, let faith make thee firm and sure. Judge not of the thing by the taste, but be certain from faith that thou has been honoured with the gift of Christ's body and blood. When he has pronounced and said of the bread, this is my body, who will after this dare to doubt? And when he has assured, and said, this is my blood, who can ever hesitate, saying it in not his blood? He changed water into wine at Cana; and shall we not him worthy of our belief, when he changed wine into blood? Wherefore, let us receive them with an entire belief, as Christ's body and blood; for under the figure of bread, is given to thee his body, and under the figure of wine, his blood; that when thou hast received Christ's body and blood, thou be made one body and blood with him; for so we carry him about in us, his body and blood being distributed through our bodies." (St. Cyril, catech.)
St. Ambrose, one of the greatest doctors of the Latin Church, and bishop of Milan, who died in 396, proving that the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, is really possible to God, and really takes place in the blessed Eucharist, uses these words: "Will not the words of Christ have power enough to change the species of the elements? Shall not the words of Christ, which could make out of nothing things which did not exist, be able to change that, which already exists, into what it was not? It is not a less exertion of power to give a new nature to things, than to change their natures. Let us propose examples from himself and assert the truth of this mystery from the incarnation. Was it according to the course of nature, that our Lord Jesus Christ should be born of the Virgin Mary? It is evident that it was contrary to the course of nature for a virgin to bring forth. Now this body, which we produce, was born of the virgin. Who dost thou seek for the order of nature in the body of Christ, when our Lord Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. (St. Ambrose, lib. de initiandis, ch. IX.) Fifth Century. St. Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, who died in 407, does not speak less clearly on this subject. "He," (that is, Jesus Christ,) says the holy doctor, hom. L. in Matt. "has given us himself to eat, and has set himself in the place of a victim sacrificed for us." And in hom. lxxxiii.: "How many now say they could wish to see his form, his garments, etc.; you wish to see his garments, but he gives you himself not only to be seen, but to be touched, to be eaten, to be received within you. Than what beam of the sun ought not that hand to be purer, which divides this flesh! That mouth, which is filled with this spiritual fire! That tongue, which is purpled with this adorable blood! The angels beholding it tremble, and dare not look thereon through awe and fear, on account of the rays, which dart from that, wherewith we are nourished, with which we are mingled, being made one body, one flesh with Christ. What shepherd ever fed his sheep with his own limbs? Nay, many mothers turn over their children to mercenary nurses; whereas he feeds us with his own blood!"
On another occasion, to inspire us with a dread of profaning the sacred body of Christ, he says: "When you see Him exposed before you, say to yourself: this body was pierced with nails; this body which was scourged, death did not destroy; this body was nailed to a cross, at which spectacle the sun withdrew his rays; this body the Magi venerated."
"There is as much difference between the loaves of proposition and the body of Christ, as between a shadow and a body, between a picture and the reality." Thus St. Jerome upon the epistle to Titus, Matthew 1:See more authorities in the notes on St. Mark's Gospel, (Mark 14:22.) on the real presence, and also in the following verses and alibi passim.
26:27
Challoner
Drink ye all of this. This was spoken to the twelve apostles; who were the all then present; and they all drank of it, says Mark 14:23. But it no ways follows from these words spoken to the apostles, that all the faithful are here commanded to drink of the chalice, any more than that all the faithful are commanded to consecrate, offer and administer this sacrament; because Christ upon this same occasion, and as I may say, with the same breath, bid the apostles do so, in these words, (St. Luke 22:19,) Do this for a commemoration of me. (Challoner)
It is a point of discipline, which the Church for good reasons may allow, or disallow to the laity, without any injury done to the receiver, who according to the Catholic doctrine of the real presence, is made partaker of the same benefit under one kind only; he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. (John vi.) ... When our adversaries object to us, in opposition to the very clear and precise proofs we produce from the primitive writers of the doctrine of the real presence, that is called sometimes bread, a figure, a sign; we reply, that they can only mean that the outward forms of bread and wine, which remain after consecration, are a figure, a sign, a commemoration. They nowhere teach that the consecrated species are barely figures or signs, and nothing more. On the contrary, with St. Cyril above quoted, they say: "Let your soul rejoice in the Lord, being persuaded of it, as a thing most certain, that the bread, which appears to our eyes, in not bread, though our taste do judge it to be so, but the body of Christ: and that the wine which appears to our eyes, is not wine, but the blood of Christ" (Myst. catech. 4, p. 528); and with St. Gregory of Nyssa, born in 331, "the bread, which at the beginning was common bread, after it has been consecrated by the mysterious word, is called, and is become, the body of Christ." And with St. Paulinus, in the same age, "the flesh of Christ, with which I am nourished, is the same flesh as that fastened to the cross; and the blood, with which my heart is purified, is the same blood that was spilt upon the cross."
26:28
This is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins. The Greek text in St. Luke shews that the words shall be shed, or is shed, cannot, in construction, be referred to the blood of Christ shed on the cross, but to the cup, at the institution of the holy sacrament. This cup (says Luke 22:20,) is the New Testament in my blood; which cup[Ver. 28. Touto to poterion, e kaine diatheke en to aimati mou, to uper umon ekchunomenon, and not ekchunomeno; so that it agrees with poterion, etc.] shall be shed, or is shed for you. St. Paul also saith: this cup is the New Testament in my blood. And if any one will needs insist upon the words, as related by St. Matthew and St. Mark, the sense is still the same; viz. that this cup was not wine, but the blood of Christ, by which the New Testament was confirmed, or alliance betwixt God and man.
Witham
For many. St. Luke and St. Paul, instead of many, say for you. Both are joined in the canon of the mass. Euthymius says, for many, is the same as for all mankind. This new alliance was made with all, and the former with the Jews only. (Witham)
As the Old Testament was dedicated with blood in these words: This is the blood of the Testament, (Hebrews 9:20,) so here is the institution of the New Testament, in Christ's blood, by these words: This is the blood of the New Testament, which God contracts with you, to communicate to you his grace and justice, by the merits of this blood, which shall be shed for you on the cross; and which is here mystically shed for many, for the remission of sins: for the Greek is in the present tense in all the three evangelists, and in St. Paul, 1 Corinthians xi, and the Latin Vulgate of St. Luke, 22:19. Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur: didomenon, klomenon ekchunomenon.
26:29
Witham
I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine. In St. Luke, (xxii. 15, 16,) Christ said to his disciples; I earnestly desired to eat this Pasch with you before I suffer; (or this paschal sacrifice) for I say to you, that, from this time I will not eat thereof, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. These expressions seem to import no more, than that it was the last time he would eat and drink with them in a mortal body. And if, as some expound it, Christ, by the generation of the vine, understood the consecrated cup of his blood, he might call it wine, or the fruit of the vine; because he gave them his blood under the appearance of wine; as St. Paul calls the body of Christ bread, because given under the appearance of bread. (1 Corinthians 11:26.) (Witham)
Challoner
Fruit of the vine. These words, by the account of St. Luke, (xxii. 18,) were not spoken of the sacramental cup, but of the wine that was drunk with the paschal lamb. Though the Sacramental cup might also be called the fruit of the vine, because it was consecrated from wine, and retains the likeness, and all the accidents, or qualities, of wine. (Challoner)
Bristow
As St. Paul calleth the body of Christ bread, so the blood of Christ may still be called wine, for three reasons: 1. Because it was so before; as in Genesis xi.[ii.?] 23, Eve is called Adam's bone; in Exodus vii, Aaron's rod devoured their rods, whereas they were not now rods but serpents; and in John ii, He tasted the water made wine, whereas it was now wine not water. 2. Because the blessed Eucharist retaineth the forms of bread and wine, and things in Scripture are frequently called from their appearance; as Tobias v, the archangel Raphael, is called a young man; and Genesis xviii, three men appeared to Abraham; whereas they were three angels. 3. Because Jesus Christ in the blessed Sacrament is the true bread of life, refreshing us in soul and body to everlasting life. (Bristow)
S. Chrysostom
Drink it new, after a different manner most wonderful and hitherto unheard of, not having a passible body, but one clothed with immortality; and henceforth no longer in need of nourishment. Thus he brings to their minds the idea of his resurrection, to strengthen them under the ignominies of his passion, and eats and drinks with them, to give them a more certain proof of this grand mystery. (S. Chrysostom, hom lxxxiii.)
26:30
26:31
Challoner
Scandalized in me, etc. For as much as my being apprehended shall make you all run away and forsake me. (Challoner)
26:33
St. John Chrysostom
I will never be. After our Saviour had assured them of the prediction of the prophet, that the flock should be dispersed, and had confirmed it himself, still Peter denied it; and the more Christ assured him of his weakness, the more, according to St. Luke, (Luke 22.) did Peter affirm that he would not deny him. Whence this confidence in Peter? who when our Lord had said, that one of them would betray him, feared for himself, and though conscious of nothing, still prevailed on St. John to put the question to our Saviour. Freed now from that solicitude and anxiety, which had so much oppressed him concerning the treason of Judas, he began to trust to himself. Let us learn from this fall of the chief of the apostles, ever to assent with the greatest sincerity to the words of God. Let us believe him in every possible circumstance, though it may appear to our senses and understanding contradictory; for, the word of God can never be made void; but our senses may easily be deceived. When, therefore, he says, this is my body, let us without any the least hesitation immediately believe and contemplate the mystery with the eyes of our understanding. (St. John Chrysostom, hom. lxxxiii.)
26:34
Witham
Before the cock crow.[Ver. 34. The time towards the morning, called Gallicinium.] St. Mark is more particular; before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. The sense seems to be, before the time that the cocks crow the second time, towards the morning. (Witham)
26:36
Witham
Christ's prayer and agony in the garden. He is seized, and carried before Annas and Caiphas. Gethsemani. St. John tells us it was a garden, whither Jesus was accustomed to go with his disciples, which Judas knew. St. Luke says, he went according to his custom to the mount of Olives; that is where he used to spend part of the nights in prayer. (Witham)
26:37
Witham
He began to grow sorrowful.[Ver. 37. Lupeisthai kai ademonein. In St. Mark, ekthambeisthai.] The Greek signifies to be dispirited. St. Mark, to be in a consternation with fear: to wit, when all he was to undergo was represented to him, as well as the ingratitude of sinners. (Witham)
26:38
St. Jerome
My soul is sorrowful. The cause of our Lord's grief was not the fear of suffering; since he took upon himself human nature, to suffer and to die for us; but the cause of his grief was the unhappy state of Judas, the scandal his disciples would take at his passion, the reprobation of the Jewish nation, and the destruction of the miserable Jerusalem. Our Lord also suffered himself to be thus dejected, to convince the world of the truth and reality of his human nature. (St. Jerome)
26:39
Going a little further. St. Luke says, about a stone's cast, kneeling down; or as here in Matthew, prostrating himself. He did both.
Father, if it is possible. Which is the same, says St. Augustine, as if he said, if thou wilt, let this cup of sufferings pass from me.
Witham
Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. He that was God and man, had both a divine and a human will. He was pleased to let us know what he naturally feared, as man, and in the sensitive part of his soul; yet shews his human will had nothing contrary to his divine will, by presently adding, but not my will, but thine be done. Here, as related by St. Luke, followed his bloody sweat. (Luke 22:43[44?].) (Witham)
St. Leo the great
These words are a source of instruction for all Christians. These words inflame the breasts of confessors; the same also crown the fortitude of the martyrs. For, who could overcome the hatred of the world, the assaults of temptations, and the terrors of persecutors, unless Christ in all, and for all, had said to his eternal Father: Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou willest. Let all the children of the Church then understand well these words, that when calamities violently beat upon us, we may with resignation exclaim: nevertheless, not as I will, but, etc. (St. Leo the great)
26:41
Origen † AD 253
Watch ye and pray, etc. We watch by being intent on good works, and by being solicitous that no perverse doctrine seize our hearts. Thus we must first watch, and then pray. (Origen)
St. Hilary
The spirit indeed is willing, etc. This is addressed to the disciples; that they were not to trust too much to their own courage; for although their spirit was ready to undergo any temptation, their bodies were still so weak, that they would fail, unless strengthened by prayer. (St. Hilary)
26:44
Witham
He prayed the third time, to teach us perseverance in our prayers. Of these particulars Christ might inform his disciples afterwards; or they were revealed to them. (Witham)
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Our Lord prayed three different times, to obtain of his heavenly Father pardon for our past sins, defence against our present evils, and security against our future misfortunes; and that we might learn to address ourselves in prayer to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. (Rabanus)
26:45
Witham
Sleep on now. These were words spoken, as it were, ironically. The hour is come, that I am to be betrayed. (Witham)
Jansenius
It seems more probable that he then permitted them to sleep for some time, compassionating their weakness, and leaving them undisturbed. For, it is not very probable that after the agony he had just been in, he should address his disciples ironically; so that the words in the next verse, Rise, let us go, seem to have been spoken after he had permitted them to enjoy a short repose. (Jansenius)
St. Augustine also supposes that after our Lord said, sleep ye now, he was silent for some time, and only then added, it is enough, the hour is come.
26:48
St. John Chrysostom
Judas wished to give them a sign, because Jesus had before been apprehended, and had escaped from them on account of their ignorance of his person; which on this occasion he could also have done, if such had been his pleasure. (St. John Chrysostom)
26:49
Witham
Hail, Rabbi. And he kissed him. This kind of salutation was ordinary with the Jews. St. Luke tells us, Christ called Judas friend; and added, Is it with a kiss thou betrayest the Son of man? By what we read in St. John, these men that came with Judas, seem not to have known our Saviour: for when he asked then, whom seek you? they do not answer, thyself, but Jesus of Nazareth. They were struck with a blindness, which St. Chrysostom looks upon as done miraculously. The second miracle was, that when Christ said, I am he, they fell to the ground, as thunder-struck. The third was, let these go, by which they had no power to seize any one of his disciples. The fourth was, the healing of Malchus's ear. (Witham)
26:51
Witham
Drew out his sword. Peter did not comprehend the meaning of what Christ had said, Luke 22:36. He that hath not a sword, let him buy one, which was no more than an intimation of the approaching danger. Now Peter, or some of them, asked, and said: Lord, shall we strike? But he struck without staying for an answer. (Witham)
26:52
Witham
Shall perish by the sword. This was not to condemn the use of the sword, when employed on a just cause, or by lawful authority. Euthymius looks upon it as a prophecy that the Jews should perish by the sword of the Romans. (Witham)
St. Leo
Our divine Saviour would not permit this apostle to continue in his pious zeal for the safety of his Master. He says to him: put up thy sword. For he could not be unwilling to die for the redemption of man, who chose to be born for that end alone. Now, therefore, he gives power to his implacable enemies to treat him in the most cruel manner, not willing that the triumph of the cross should be in the least deferred; the dominion of the devil and man's captivity in the least prolonged. (St. Leo)
26:53
Witham
More than twelve legions of angels. A legion was computed about 6,000. (Witham)
These would amount to 72,000; but our Lord means no more than a great number.
26:55
In that same hour, etc. The reason why the Jewish princes did not seize our Lord in the temple, was, because they feared the multitude; on which account Jesus retired, that he might give them an opportunity, both from the circumstances of place and time, to apprehend him: thus shewing us, that without his permission they could not so much as lay a finger upon him. The evangelist informs us in the following verse of the reason of this conduct; that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled. (St. Chrysostom) See Luke 22:53.
26:56
Witham
All leaving him, fled away. Yet Peter and another soon followed after at a distance. St. Mark says (xiv. 51,) that a young man followed with nothing on but a linen cloth. Perhaps it was some one that upon the noise came hastily out of the neighbourhood; and when they catched hold on him, fled away naked. It is not known who he was. (Witham)
26:57
Witham
To Caiphas. Our Saviour Christ was led in the night time, both to Annas and Caiphas: and first to Annas; (John 18:13,) perhaps because the house of Annas was in their way; or that they had a mind to gratify the old man with the sight of Jesus, now taken prisoner and bound with ropes. (Witham)
Jansenius
After the chief priests had bribed Judas to betray Christ, they bring him to Caiphas, not as to his judge, but as to his enemy, to insult over him: and then they began to examine him concerning his doctrine and disciples, that they might find some heads of accusation from his answers: thus they shewed that they acted contrary to common justice, in apprehending a person before they had any thing to lay to his charge. (Jansenius)
St. Jerome
Josephus relates that Caiphas had purchased the high priesthood for that year; although Moses, at the command of God, had ordained that a regular succession be kept up, and the son should succeed the father in the high priesthood. It is no wonder then if an iniquitous judge passed an iniquitous sentence. (St. Jerome)
26:58
Peter followed. To wit, to the court of Caiphas, where a great many of the chief priests were met.
Witham
And another disciple. Many think this disciple was St. John himself. (Witham)
26:60
St. Jerome
False witnesses. But how were these men false witnesses, who affirm what we read in the gospel? That man is a false witness, who construes what is said in a sense foreign to that of the speaker. Jesus Christ spoke of the temple of his body. Our divine Saviour had said, Destroy this temple; and they affirm that he had said, I am able to destroy. Had the Jews attended sufficiently to our Saviour's words, they would easily have perceived of what Christ was speaking, from what he there says: and in three days I will raise it up. (St. Jerome)
Bible de Vence
These words of Jesus Christ are only mentioned by St. John 2:19, who marks on what occasion and in what sense there were spoken. (Bible de Vence)
26:61
Witham
This man said: I am able to destroy the temple of God. These men that gave this evidence, are called false witnesses. They relate not the true words of Christ; which were not, I can destroy, but destroy you this temple, etc. 2. Christ spoke of the temple of his body, and they of the material temple. 3. It is not unlikely that they made other additions, as well as false constructions, omitted by the evangelists. (Witham)
26:63
I adjure thee by the living God. They hoped this might make him own himself God; for which they were for stoning him. (John 10:31.)
Witham
St. Luke tells us, (xxii. 66,) that this question was put to Jesus, when it was day. St. Augustine thinks it was put to him first in the night, and again the next morning. We must not forget that when Christ was examined by the high priest, one of the servants standing by gave our blessed Redeemer a box on the ear, or on the face. See John 18:22. (Witham)
Menochius
Our divine Saviour as God knew perfectly well, that whatever he said would be condemned; and therefore the more Jesus was silent to what was alleged against him, the more did the high priest try to extort an answer from him, that he might have some accusation against the Lord of glory. Hence he exclaimed in that violent manner: I adjure thee, or I command thee by the living God, Exorkizo se kata tou Theou zontos. The law for witnesses is to be found in Leviticus 5:1; where the witness is pronounced guilty who should suppress the truth, after he has heard the phonen orkismou. This is the true meaning of that law, so very ill understood by many. See also Menochius, who on these very words of Leviticus says: if any one shall be called upon to say what he knows of a point that another has confirmed by oath, he shall carry his iniquity, that is the punishment of his iniquity, which God will inflict. (Menochius)
26:64
Witham
Thou hast said it. Or, as it is in St. Mark, I am. According to St. Luke, Christ in the morning, before he answered directly, said to them: If I tell you, you will not believe me, etc. (Witham)
26:65
St. Jerome
The same fury that made Caiphas rise from his seat, forced him also to rend his garments, saying: he hath blasphemed. It was customary with the Jews, whenever they heard any blasphemous doctrines uttered against the majesty of the Almighty, to rend their garments in abhorrence of what was uttered. (St. Jerome)
This was forbidden the high priest; (Leviticus 21:10,) but the Pharisees allowed him to rend his clothes from the bottom, but not from the top to the breast.
26:66
Witham
He is guilty of death; that is of blasphemy, and so deserves to be stoned to death. (Witham)
26:67
Witham
Then they spat in his face, and buffetted him, etc. Here it was that this wicked council of the Sanhedrim broke up, in order to meet again the next morning. Our blessed Saviour in the mean time was abandoned; that is, had abandoned himself for our sake, to be abused, vilified, beaten and tormented by a crew of miscreants, by all the ways and means their enraged malice could devise or invent: which St. Luke passeth over in a few words, telling us, that, blaspheming, they said many other things against him. Let us, at least, compassionate our blessed Redeemer, and cry out with the angel in the Apocalypse: thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive power and divinity, honour and glory for ever. (Witham)
Behold with what accuracy the evangelist mentions every, even the most ignominious circumstance, concealing nothing, ashamed of nothing, but esteeming it his glory that the Creator of heaven and earth should suffer so much for man's redemption. Let us continually meditate upon this; let us ever glory in this, and fix it irrevocably in our minds. (St. Chrysostom) See Mark 14:65; Luke 22:64.
26:69
Witham
Peter's Denial. Peter sat without in the palace: that is in the open court below, where the servants had lighted a fire. There came to him a certain servant-maid, the portress, says St. John, 18:17. But he denied, saying: I know not what thou sayest. In St. Luke, I know him not: in St. John, I am not. The sense is the same; and Peter might use all these expressions. (Witham)
26:71
Witham
As he went out of the gate another maid. St. Mark says, he went out before the court. By the Greek, he seems to have gone out of the court into the porch. He went from the fire, but returned thither again: for by St. John, (xviii. 25,) this second denial was at the fire. St. Luke seems to say it was a man,[Ver. 71. Aluis, eteros, says St. Luke. St. John says, eipon auto.] that spoke to him: and St. John, that they were several that spoke to him: it is likely both a girl and a man. (Witham)
26:73
And after a little while. St. Luke says, about an hour after: this seems to have been about the time that the cocks crow the second time.
They that stood by came. St. Luke says, another man. St. John says, the cousin to him whose ear Peter cut off. It is probable not he alone, but others with him.
Witham
Peter began to curse and swear. It is in vain to pretend to excuse Peter, as if he meant that he knew not Jesus, as man; but knew him as God.[Ver. 73. St. Jerome, in Matt. p. 133, scio quosdam pii affectus erga Apostolum Petrum, locum hunc ita interpretatos, ut dicerent Petrum non Deum negasse, sed hominem ... Hoc quam frivolum sit, prudens Lector intelligit; qui sic defendunt Apostolum, ut Deum mendacii reum faciant.] They (says St. Jerome) who are for excusing Peter in this manner, accuse Christ of a lie, who foretold that he should deny him. (Witham)
See how one fall draws on another, and generally a deeper: to a simple untruth is added perjury; and to this, horrible imprecations against himself. Lord, Jesus, preserve me! or, I also shall deny thee!
26:75
And Peter remembered the word of Jesus. St. Augustine understands this rather of an interior illumination of grace: but it is likely our Saviour then might be where he saw Peter, and gave him a glance of his eye.
Witham
And going forth he wept bitterly: even daily all his life-time, say the ancient historians of his life. (Witham)
Denis the Carthusian
St. Clement, pope, in his itinerary, relates how St. Peter was ever after accustomed to watch in prayer, from the first crow of the cock till morning, pouring forth torrents of tears, and bitterly bewailing his heinous crime. (Denis the Carthusian)
Let us compassionate our blessed Lord under his sufferings, and in opposition to the cruel malice of his enemies, let his followers cry out with the angel in the Apocalypse: Thou are worthy, O Lord, to receive power and divinity, honour and glory, for ever and ever.
26:11
Me you have not always.... Viz., in a visible manner, as when conversant here on earth; and as we have the poor, whom we may daily assist and relieve.
26:17
Azymes.... Feast of the unleavened bread. Pasch.... The paschal lamb.
26:26
This is my body.... He does not say, This is the figure of my body—but This is my body. (2 Council of Nice, Act. 6.) Neither does he say in this, or with this is my body; but absolutely, This is my body: which plainly implies transubstantiation.
26:27
Drink ye all of this.... This was spoken to the twelve apostles; who were the all then present; and they all drank of it, says St. Mark 14. 23. But it no ways follows from these words spoken to the apostles, that all the faithful are here commanded to drink of the chalice; any more than that all the faithful are commanded to consecrate, offer and administer this sacrament; because Christ upon this same occasion, and at the same time, bid the apostles do so; in these words, St. Luke 22. 19, Do this for a commemoration of me.
26:28
Blood of the new testament.... As the old testament was dedicated with the blood of victims, by Moses, in these words: This is the blood of the testament, etc., Heb. 9. 20; so here is the dedication and institution of the new testament, in the blood of Christ, here mystically shed by these words: This is the blood of the new testament, etc.
26:29
Fruit of the vine.... These words, by the account of St. Luke 26:22. 18, were not spoken of the sacramental cup, but of the wine that was drunk with the paschal lamb. Though the sacramental cup might also be called the fruit of the vine, because it was consecrated from wine, and retains the likeness, and all the accidents or qualities of wine.
26:31
Scandalized in me, etc.... Forasmuch as my being apprehended shall make you all run away and forsake me.
26:1
1. This wast.] Cost vpō Churches, altars, &c. Cost bestowed vpon Christes body then aliue, being to the same not necessary, seemed to the disciples lost and fruitles: so the like bestowed vpon the same body if the Sacrament, vpon altars, or Churches, seemeth to the simple lost, or lesse meritorious, then if the same were bestowed vpon the poore.
The Passion according to S. Matthew in these two Chapters, is the Gospel at Masse vpon Palme Sunday.
Concordance Mr. 14, 1
Concordance Lu. 22, 1
26:3
TENEDRE Wenesday.
26:6
Concordance Mr. 14, 3.
26:7
Concordance Io. 12, 3.
26:10
10. Good worke.] Cost bestowed for religion, deuotion, and signification, is a meritorious worke, Releefe of the poore. and often more meritorious then to geue to the poore, Ambros li. 2 Off. c. 2•. though both be very good, and in some case the poore are to be preferred: yea in certaine cases of necessity, the Church wil breake the very cōsecrated vessels and iewels of siluer and gold, and bestow them in workes of mercy. But we may remember very wel, and our fathers knew it much better, that the poore were then best releeued, when most was bestowed vpon the Church.
26:11
11. Haue not.) We haue him not in visible maner as he conuersed on the earth with his disciples, needing releefe like other poore men: Christ alwaies with vs in the B. Sacrament. but we haue him after an other sort in the B. Sacrament, and yet haue him truly and really the self same body. Therfore he saith, they should not haue him, because they should not so haue him, but after an other maner, as when he said Luc. 24 as though he were not then with them, when I was with you.
26:13
Hereby 〈◊〉 learne that the good workes of Saincts are to be recorded and set forth to their honour in the Church after their death. whereof rise their holy daies and Cōmemorations.
26:14
Concordance Mr. 14, 10.
26:15
Concordance Lu. 22, 3
26:17
Concordance Mr. 14, 12.
MAVNDY thursday.
Concordance Lu. 22, 7
26:20
20. Twelue.) It must needes be a great mysterie that he was to worke in the institution of the new Sacrifice by the maruelous transmutatiō of bread and wine into his body and bloud. A wonderful mysterie in the Institution of the B. Sacrament. Whereas he admitted none (although many present in the citie) but the twelue Apostles, vvhich were already taught to beleue it without contradiction Io. 6, and were to haue the administration and consecration thereof by the Order of Priesthod, which also was there geuen thē to that purpose. Whereas at the eating of the Paschal lambe al the familie was wont to be present.
•6. He tooke bread.) Here at once is instituted, for the continuance of the external office of Christes eternal Priesthod according to the order of Melchisedec, both a Sacrifice and a Sacrament, though the Scriptures geue neither of these names to this action: The holy Eucharist is both a Sacrifice and a Sacrament. and our Aduersaries without al reason or religion accept in a sort the one, and vtterly deny the other. A Sacrifice, in that it is ordeined to continew the memory of Christes death and oblation vpon the Crosse, and the application of the general vertue thereof to our particular necessities, by cōsecrating the seueral •lemēts not into Christes whole person as it was borne of the virgin or now is in heauen, but the bread into his body apart, as betrayed, broken, and geuen for vs: the wine into his bloud apart, as shed out of his body for remission of sinnes and dedication of the new Testament, which be conditions of his person as he was in sacrifice and oblation. In which mystical and vnspeakable maner, he would haue the Church to offer and sacrifice him daily, and he in mysterie and Sacrament dyeth, though now not only in heauen, but also in the Sacramēt, he be in deede per Concomitantia• (as the Church calleth it, that is, by sequele of al his partes to ech other) whole, aliue, and immortal. Which point because ou• Aduersaries vnderstand not, Mat. 2•. 2•. not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God, they blaspheme, and abuse the people to their damnation. It is also a Sacrament, in that it is ordeined to be receiued into our bodies and to feede the same to resurrection and immortality, and to geue grace and saluation to our soules, if we worthely receiue it.
26:22
Concordance Ps. 40, 10.
26:26
26. Blessed.) The blessing of Christ referred to the creatures and working an effect in thē. Our Aduersaries for the two wordes that are in Greeke and Latin, benedixit, and, gratias egit, he blessed, he gaue thankes, vse only the later, of purpose to signifie that Christ blessed not nor consecrated the bread and the wine, and so by that blessing wrought any effect vpon them, but gaue thankes only to his father, as we doe in saying grace. But the truth is that the word 〈Greek〉, signifieth properly to blesse, and is referred to the thing that is blessed, as Luc. 9 of the fishes, 〈Greek〉, benedixit eis, he blessed them, and thereby wrought in them that wonderful multiplication. So the blessing of God is alwayes effectual: and therfore here also he blessed the bread, Consecration. and by that blessing, with the wordes folowing, made it his body. Ambros. li. de his qui initi. myst. c. 9. Aug. ep. 59 ad Paulinum. Now whereas taking the cuppe it is said, he gaue thankes. We say that it is al one with blessing, and that he blessed the cuppe, as before the bread: • Cor. 10. as it is euident by these wordes of S. Paul, Calix cui benedicimus, the cuppe which we blesse: and therfore he calleth it, Calicem benedictionis, the cuppe of blessing; vsing the same Greeke word that is spoken of the bread. But why is it then said here, he gaue thankes? because we translate the wordes faithfully as in the Greeke and the Latin, and because the sense is al one, as we are taught by S. Paul before alleaged, and by the fathers, which cal this geuing of thankes ouer the cuppe or ouer the bread, 〈Greek〉. the blessing therof. S. Iustin. in fin. 2. Apol. Panem Eucharistisatum: S. Iren•e li. 4. c. 34. Panem in quo grati• act• sunt. S. Cyprian de coen. do. Calix solenni benedictione sacratus. that is, The bread blessed by geuing thankes vpon it. The cuppe consecrated by solemne blessing.
26. This is.) Transsubstantiation. The bread and the wine be turned into the body and bloud of Christ by the same omnipotent power by which the world was made, and the word was incarnate in the wombe of the virgin. Damasc. li. 4 c. 14. Cypr. de Coen. Domini. Amb. li. de myst. init. c. 9.
26. My body.) No figuratiue but a real presence. He said not, This bread is a figure of my body: or, This wine is a figure of my bloud: but, This is my body, and, This is my bloud. Damasc. li. 4 c. 14. Theophyl. in hunc locum. Cone. 2. N•c. act. 6, to. 4 eiusdem actionis in fine. When some fathers cal it a figure or signe, they meane the outward formes of bread and wine.
Concordance 1. Cor. 11, 24.
26:27
See the margent note Mar. 14, 23.
26:28
28. Bloud of the new Testament.) As the old Testament was dedicated with bloud in these wordes, This is the bloud of the Testament &c. Heb. 9. so here is the institution of the new Testament in Christes bloud, 〈Greek〉. by these wordes, This is the bloud of the new Testament &c. Which is here mystically shed, 〈Greek〉. and not only afterward vpon the Crosse: for the Greeke is the present tense in al the Euangelistes, 〈Greek〉. and S. Paul: and likewise speaking of the body 1 Cor. 11. it is in the Greeke the present tense, and Luc. 22. and in the Latin here. And the Heretikes them selues so put it in their translations.
26:29
29. Fruite of the vine.) The elements after consecratiō called bread and wine. S. Luke putteth these wordes before he come to the consecration, whereby it seemeth that he speaketh of the wine of the Paschal lambe, and therfore nameth it, the fruite of the vine. but if he speake of the wine which was now his bloud, he nameth it notwithstā ding wine, as S. Paule nameth the other bread, for three causes: first because it was so before: as Eue is called Adams bone, Gen. 2. and, Aarons rod deuoured their roddes: Whereas they were not now roddes, but serpents. Exo. 7. And, He tasted the water turned into wine: whereas it was now wine and not water: and such like, Io. •. secondly, because it keepeth the formes of bread and wine, and things are called as they appeare: as when Raphael is called a yong man Tob. 5. and, Three men appeared to Abraham Gen. 18. whereas they were three Angels, thirdly, because Christ in this Sacrament is very true and principal bread and wine, feeding and refreshing vs in body and soule to euerlasting life.
•9. Not as I wil.) A perfect example of obedience and submitting our self and our willes to Gods will and ordinance in al aduersity: and that we should desire nothing temporal, but vnder the condition of his holy pleasure and appointment.
THVRSDAY night.
26:31
The NOCTVRNE of Mattins in the Churches Seruice, answereth to this night part of our Sauiours Passion, and so consequently the other Canonical houres to the rest.
Concordance Zach. 13, 7.
26:34
Concordance Io. 13, 38.
26:41
41. Watch and pray.) De •rat. Hereof came Vigils and Nocturnes, Vigils and Nocturnes. that is, watching and praying in the night, Do. nu. •5. commonly vsed in the Primitiue Church of al Christians, as is plaine by S. Cyprian and Adu. Vigilant. ep. •3. S. Hierom: but afterward and vntil this day, specially of Religious persons.
26:47
Concordance 10. 18, 3.
26:61
Concordance Io. 2, 19.
26:64
Concordance Dan. 7, 13.
26:69
69. Wench.) The vertue of the holy Ghost. S. Gregorie declaring the difference of the Apostles before the receiuing of the Holy Ghost and after, saith thus: Euen this very Pastor of the Church him self, at whose most sacred body we sitte, how weake he was, the wenche can tell you: but how strong he was after, his answer to the high Priest declareth, Act. 5. 29: We must obey God rather then men. Greg. ho. 20 •o Euang.
26:74
74. To curse.) Mans infirmitie A goodly example and warning to mans infirmity, and to take heede of presumption, and to hang only vpon God in tentations.
To this time the LAVDES do answer in the Churches Seruice.
26:75
75. Wept bitterly.) Peters teares and repentance. S. Ambrose in his Hymne that the Church vseth at Laudes, speaking of this, saith, Hoc ipsa Petra ecclesia canente, culpam diluit. When the Cocke crewe, the Rocke of the Church him self washed away his fault. S. August. 1 Retract. c. •1.
26:1
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
… and they took counsel together concerning Jesus, that they might seize him by subtilty, and [5] kill him. But they said, Not during the feast, lest there take place a disturbance among the people; for they feared the people.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 75
“And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, He said unto His disciples, Ye know that after two days is the passover, and the Son of Man is betrayed to be crucified.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.78
152. Matthew continues thus: “And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, He said unto His disciples, Ye know that after two days will be the feast of the passover, and the Son of man shall be betrayed to be crucified.”
26:2
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
[1, 2] And when Jesus finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples,
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.14
… On their beseeching Him to depart out of their coasts He embarked in a ship and crossed over and came to His own city. Then He wrought certain cures and went about all the cities and the villages, teaching in their synagogues; after this most of the events of the Gospels take place, before Matthew indicates the approach of the time of passover.
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 20
Let us now keep the feast, my brethren, for as our Lord then gave notice to His disciples, so He now tells us beforehand, that ‘after some days is the Passover
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 13.6
6. And wouldest thou be persuaded that He came to His passion willingly? others, who foreknow it not, die unwillingly; but He spoke before of His passion: Behold, the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 13.19
… Hear then from Jeremias, and assure thyself; I was like a harmless lamb led to be slaughtered; did I not know it ? (for in this manner read it as a question, as I have read it; for He who said, Ye know that after two days comes the passover, and the Son of Man is betrayed to be crucified
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 36.8
… From which it is inferred that it was upon the fourth day of the week that the Lord said, “You know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.78
… Then assembled together the chief priests and the elders of the people unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill Him. But they said, Not on the feast-day, lest there be an uproar among the people. Then one of the twelve, called Judas Scarioth, went unto the chief priests,”
Socrates Scholasticus † AD 440 The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus 5.22
… It is merely for the sake of historical accuracy, and for the reproach of the Jews, because they polluted themselves with blood on their very feasts, that it is recorded in the Gospels that our Saviour suffered in the days of ‘unleavened bread.’
26:3
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
[1, 2] And when Jesus finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples, Ye know that after two days will be the passover, and the Son of man is delivered up to be [3] crucified.
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 260.9
… Now every soul in the hour of the Passion was subjected, as it were, to a kind of searching. According to the word of the Lord it is said, “All ye shall be offended because of me.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 75
“Then were assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, in the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and consulted that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill Him. But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 81
“Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that He was condemned, repented, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 36.8
… “Then assembled together the chief priests and the scribes and the elders of the people unto the palace of the high priest, who is called Caiaphas, and consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty and kill Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.79
… Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, there came unto Him a woman having an alabaster box of precious ointment, and poured it on His head as He sat at meat;” and so on down to the words, “there shall also this that this woman hath done be told for a memorial of her.”
26:4
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
[1, 2] And when Jesus finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples, Ye know that after two days will be the passover, and the Son of man is delivered up to be [3] crucified. Then gathered together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders [4] of the people, unto the court of the chief priest, who was called Caiaphas;
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 75
“Then were assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, in the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and consulted that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill Him. But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.”
26:5
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
… Then gathered together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders [4] of the people, unto the court of the chief priest, who was called Caiaphas; and they took counsel together concerning Jesus, that they might seize him by subtilty, and [5] kill him.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 75
“Then were assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, in the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and consulted that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill Him. But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 58
… The chiefs, therefore, in providing against a tumult arising on a holy day
26:6
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.12
It ought not to be forgotten that in such a Gospel as this there is embraced every good deed which was done to Jesus; as, for example, the story of the woman
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.4
… after this no longer playing the harlot, but coming to the feet of Jesus, and wetting them with the tears of repentance, and anointing them with the fragrance of the ointment of holy conversation, on account of whom, reproaching Simon the leper,—the former people,—He spoke those things which are written.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 6
… for instance, this, “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world: (St. Matt. xxviii. 20 .) and, “Upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it:” (St. Matt. xvi. 18 .) and, “This Gospel shall be preached unto all nations:” (St. Matt. xxiv. 14 .) and that which the woman which was an harlot did:
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 71.2
… Zacchæus, the convert of an hour, is accounted worthy to receive the Saviour as his guest. Martha and Mary make ready a feast and then welcome the Lord to it. A harlot washes His feet with her tears and against His burial anoints His body with the ointment of good works. Simon the leper invites the Master with His disciples and is not refused.
26:7
Tertullian † AD 220 A Treatise on the Soul 17
… lest perchance it should be said that He did not really “behold Satan as lightning fall from heaven;” that He did not really hear the Father’s voice testifying of Himself; or that He was deceived in touching Peter’s wife’s mother; or that the fragrance of the ointment which He afterwards smelled was different from that which He accepted for His burial;
St Ephrem the Syrian † AD 373 Ephraim Syrus: Three Homilies 1.47
47. But Mary anointed the head of our Lord’s body,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 62
… and, moreover, what Mary had more (than the other), going on to say, “It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment.” Here some doubting say, “How did the Lord endure that a woman should do this?” In the first place then it is necessary to understand, that this is not the harlot mentioned in Matthew (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Care to Be Had for the Dead 5
… Tobias also, to have by burying of the dead obtained favor with God, is by witness of an Angel commended. The Lord Himself also, about to rise on the third day, both preaches, and commends to be preached, the good work of a religious woman, that she poured out a precious ointment over His limbs, and did it for His burial:
26:8
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 76
… for she hath wrought a good work upon me? For ye have the poor always with you, but me ye have not always. For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.”
St Jerome † AD 420 Against Vigilantius 7
… And if some persons, being ignorant and simple minded laymen, or, at all events, religious women—of whom we can truly say, “I allow that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge”—adopt the practice in honour of the martyrs, what harm is thereby done to you? Once upon a time even the Apostles
26:9
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 39
… This he said, not because of his care for the poor, but because he was a thief, and the chest [12] was with him, and what was put into it he used to bear. And that displeased the rest of the disciples also within themselves, and they said, Why went this ointment [13] to waste?
26:10
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 39
… And that displeased the rest of the disciples also within themselves, and they said, Why went this ointment [13] to waste? It was possible that it should be sold for much, and the poor be given [14] it. And they were angry with Mary.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 50
… That is, her disposition being still rather imperfect, and they doubting about her; to revive her He said these things. For in proof that for her comfort He said it, He added, “Why trouble ye the woman?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 1.13
… And Tobit, according to the angel’s testimony, is commended, and is said to have pleased God by burying the dead. Our Lord Himself, too, though He was to rise again the third day, applauds, and commends to our applause, the good work of the religious woman who poured precious ointment over His limbs, and did it against His burial.
26:11
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 50
Why then doth He Himself say, “The poor always ye have with you, but me ye have not always?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 76
… for she hath wrought a good work upon me? For ye have the poor always with you, but me ye have not always. For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.”
26:12
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 39
… And they were angry with Mary. And Jesus perceived it , and said unto them, Leave her; why molest ye her? a good work hath she accomplished on me: for the [15] day of my burial kept she it. At all times the poor are with you, and when ye [16] wish ye can do them a kindness: but I am not at all times with you.
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.59
… And Who lays down His soul to take it again? The body does not take it up again of itself: it is raised up by God. That which is raised up again must have been dead, and that which is living does not lay down its soul. God then was neither dead nor buried: and yet He said, In that she has poured this ointment upon My body she did it for My burial
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 3.17
127. Lastly, it was not without meaning that Judas Iscariot valued that ointment at three hundred pence, which seems certainly by the statement of the price itself to set forth the Lord’s cross. Whence, too, the Lord says: “For she, pouring this ointment on My body, did it for My burial.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 76
… for she hath wrought a good work upon me? For ye have the poor always with you, but me ye have not always. For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.”
26:13
St Ephrem the Syrian † AD 373 Ephraim Syrus: Three Homilies 1.47
… For she poured out on His head the precious ointment, and received from His mouth a wonderful promise. This is the ointment which was sown above and yielded fruit below. For she sowed it on His head and gathered its fruit from between His lips;— She shall have a name and this memorial in every place where My Gospel shall be preached .
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 6
… for instance, this, “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world: (St. Matt. xxviii. 20 .) and, “Upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it:” (St. Matt. xvi. 18 .) and, “This Gospel shall be preached unto all nations:” (St. Matt. xxiv. 14 .) and that which the woman which was an harlot did:
26:14
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 76
“Then went one of the twelve, he that was called Judas Iscariot, unto the chief priests, and said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver Him unto you?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.80
… “Then one of the twelve, who is called Judas [of] Scarioth, went unto the chief priests, and said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver Him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver;” and so on down to the words, “And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them, and they made ready the passover.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 64.6
… The expression he used, “They have bended the bow,” is the same as, “in secret:” as if they were deceiving by lyings in wait. For ye know by what artifices they did this, how with money they bribed a disciple that clave to Him, in order that He might be betrayed to them,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 69.8
8. Thus “there have been multiplied above the hairs of My head they that hate Me gratis” ( ver. 4 ). How multiplied? So as that they might add to themselves even one out of the twelve.
26:15
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 29
… He is stoned, but is not taken. He prays, but He hears prayer. He weeps, but He causes tears to cease. He asks where Lazarus was laid, for He was Man; but He raises Lazarus, for He was God. He is sold, and very cheap, for it is only for thirty pieces of silver;
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 76
To these then he went and said, “What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you. And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. And from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 77
But he doth not utter sayest thou , sounds without meaning. And what is more without meaning than this language. “What will ye give me, and I will deliver Him unto you?”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 14.5
Idolatry is not confined to casting incense upon an altar with finger and thumb, or to pouring libations of wine out of a cup into a bowl. Covetousness is idolatry, or else the selling of the Lord for thirty pieces of silver was a righteous act.
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 22.33
33. As I have been led to touch to the subject—it shall have a treatise to itself if Christ permit—I will relate what took place not very many years ago at Nitria. A brother, more thrifty than covetous, and ignorant that the Lord had been sold for thirty pieces of silver,
26:17
Tertullian † AD 220 An Answer to the Jews 10
… Which prediction was thus also fulfilled, that “on the first day of unleavened bread”
St Anatolius of Alexandria † AD 283 The Paschal Canon of Anatolius of Alexandria 8
… “Seven days ye shall eat unleavened bread.” Unless perchance the fourteenth day is not reckoned by them among the days of unleavened bread with the celebration of the feast; which, however, is contrary to the Word of the Gospel which says: “Moreover, on the first day of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus.”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 4
… but, in accordance with the injunction of the Apostles, let us go beyond the types, and sing the new song of praise. For perceiving this, and being assembled together with the Truth , they drew near, and said unto our Saviour, ‘Where wilt Thou that we should make ready for Thee the Passover
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 36.8
… “Then assembled together the chief priests and the scribes and the elders of the people unto the palace of the high priest, who is called Caiaphas, and consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty and kill Him.” After the intermission of one day,—the day, namely, of which the evangelist writes:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.37
… And as the Passover, which was celebrated by the Jews with the slaying of a lamb, prefigured the passion of our Lord and His departure from this world to the Father, yet the same Lord celebrated the same Passover with His disciples, when they reminded Him of it, saying, Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Passover?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.80
… He said unto him, Thou hast said.” In what we have now presented for consideration here, the other three evangelists, who also record such matters, offer nothing calculated to raise any question of serious difficulty.
26:18
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
… [36, 37] And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee? He said unto them, Go, enter the city; and at the time of your entering, there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water; follow him, and the place where he entereth, say [38] to such an one, the master of the house,
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 On Jealousy and Envy 5
… And, not to go to the length of numbering each one, let us observe the destruction of a people that perished once for all. Did not the Jews perish for this reason, that they chose rather to envy Christ
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 78
… He that then did these things at that supper, this same now also works them. We occupy the place of servants. He who sanctifieth and changeth them is the same. Let then no Judas be present, no covetous man. If any one be not a disciple, let him withdraw, the table receives not such. For “I keep the passover,” He saith, “with my disciples.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.80
… For as regards the statement given by Matthew in these terms, “Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand: I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples,”
26:20
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 77
“Now when the even was come, He sat down with the twelve disciples.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 44.10
… He did not conceal from the disciples the fact that in the midst of them was one capable of such a crime; and, nevertheless, He administered to them all alike, without excluding the traitor, the first sacrament of His body and blood.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.80
… and as they did eat, He said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say, Lord, is it I?” and so on, down to where we read, “Then Judas, which betrayed Him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.”
26:21
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 77
For when the disciples had done, as Jesus had appointed them, “when the even was come, He sat down with the twelve. And as they did eat, He said,” we are told, “Verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philippians 6
… And were not these things sufficient to restrain thee? For what reason didst thou betray Him? What hadst thou to charge Him with, O wicked one? Rather, what good didst thou not receive at His hands? He knew thy mind, and ceased not to do His part. He often said, “One of you shall betray Me.” (
26:22
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 77
Intolerable sorrow thereupon seized that holy company. And John indeed saith, they “were in doubt, and looked one upon another,” and each of them asked in fear concerning himself, although conscious to themselves of no such thing. But this evangelist saith, that “being exceeding sorrowful, they began every one of them to say unto Him, Is it I, Lord?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 47
… And here it is worth while to enquire, why the disciples at this time said nothing, but afterwards were afraid and doubted, looking one upon another, and asking, “Lord, is it I?” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.1
… “The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of Him; but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.”
26:23
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 2.20
… For He who was amongst us, and knew what was in man, seeing his evil disposition, and foreseeing what he would attempt from his spirit of covetousness, and from his want of stable ideas of duty towards his Master, along with many other declarations, gave utterance to this also: “He that dippeth his hand with Me in the dish, the same shall betray Me.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 77
For when being sorrowful they began to say, “Is it I, Lord? He answered and said, He that dippeth with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. The Son of Man goeth, as it is written of Him, but woe to the man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It had been good for that man if he had not been born.”
26:24
Pope St Clement I † AD 99 The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 46
… It were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about [his neck], and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 2.20.5
… But Judas having been once for all cast away, never returns into the number of the disciples; otherwise a different person would not have been chosen to fill his place. Besides, the Lord also declared regarding him, “Woe to the man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed;”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.28.1
… while they keep silence with regard to His judgment; and all those things which shall come upon such as have heard His words, but done them not, and that it were better for them if they had not been born,
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 On Infants' Early Deaths 1
… Certainly, in comparison with one who has lived all his life in sin, not only the innocent babe but even one who has never come into the world at all will be blessed. We learn as much too in the case of Judas, from the sentence pronounced upon him in the Gospels
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 3
… so that the affair was one of iniquity. Now not only to those who were present did the event become known, but to all thereafter, so that without meaning or knowing what they were about, they gave it a name; just as Caiaphas had prophesied unconsciously. God compelled them to call the field in Hebrew “Aceldama.” (
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 6.3
… John and of Judas proves. For in the case of the one his life was so profitable to himself that we are told that his birth brought joy to others also, as we read “And many shall rejoice at his birth;” but of the life of the other it is said: “It were good for that man if he had never been born.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 17.12
… And yet it was not only of no advantage, but was actually to the disadvantage of the traitor by whose means it is shown to have been brought about, so that it is absolutely said of him: “It were good for that man if he had never been born.”
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 2.29
… but the latter is when man, after God has done all that was possible to save him, remains of his own set purpose blind and uncured, or rather incurable, and then he is handed over to utter destruction, as was Judas
26:25
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
… [5] And after the bread, Satan entered him. And Jesus said unto him, What thou [6] desirest to do, hasten the doing of it. And no man of them that sat knew why he [7] said this unto him. And some of them thought, because Judas had the box, that he was bidding him buy what would be needed for the feast; or, that he might pay [8] something to the poor.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 77
But let us see what saith this wretched man, when convicted by his Master. What then saith he? “Is it I, Rabbi?”
26:26
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
[12] And while they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and divided;
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.17.5
5. Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things—not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful—He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, “This is My body.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On Prayer 6
… For Christ is our Bread; because Christ is Life, and bread is life. “I am,” saith He, “the Bread of Life;” and, a little above, “The Bread is the Word of the living God, who came down from the heavens.” Then we find , too, that His body is reckoned in bread: “This is my body.”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 4.26
36. And so let Paul of Samosata also stand corrected on hearing the divine voice of Him who said ‘My body,’ not ‘Christ besides Me who am the Word,’ but ‘Him
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 4
… when indeed the disciples were spreading the feast in all places, they asked the Saviour, ‘Where wilt Thou that we shall make ready?’ The Saviour also, since He was changing the typical for the spiritual, promised them that they should no longer eat the flesh of a lamb, but His own, saying, ‘Take, eat and drink; this is My body, and My blood
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 22.1
… For you have just heard him say distinctly, That our Lord Jesus Christ in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks He brake it, and gave to His disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is My Body: and having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, Take, drink, this is My Blood
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Mysteries 9
54. The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: “This is My Body.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Concerning Widows 13
… approving those who take the lead so as not to make little of those who follow. For he, himself, had learnt that the Lord Jesus gave to some barley bread lest they should faint by the way, and administered His Body to others,
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 48.14
… whilst he applauds those who lead the van, he does not despise those who bring up the rear. For he had himself learned that the Lord Jesus gave to some barley bread, lest they should faint by the way, but offered to others His own body, that they should strive to attain His kingdom;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 7.50
… For when the Lord calls bread, which is compacted together by the union of many grains, His body, He is signifying one people, whom He bore, compacted into one body; and when He calls wine, which is pressed out from a multitude of branches and clusters and brought together into one, His blood,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.1
2. Let us commence here, accordingly, with the notice presented by Matthew, [which runs thus]: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 34.1
… “And was carried in His Own Hands:” how “carried in His Own Hands”? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, “This is My Body.”
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.13
… In the upper chamber, then, of holy and illustrious Sion, after He had eaten the ancient Passover with His disciples and had fulfilled the ancient covenant, He washed His disciples’ feet in token of the holy baptism. Then having broken bread He gave it to them saying, Take, eat, this is My body broken for you for the remission of sins
26:27
St Justin Martyr † AD 165 The First Apology 66
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
[12] And while they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and divided; and he [13] gave to his disciples, and said unto them, Take and eat; this is my body. And he [Arabic, p. 171] took a cup, and gave thanks, and blessed, and gave them,
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 5.33.1
… “Drink ye all of it: this is My blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of this vine, until that day when I will drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Tertullian † AD 220 A Treatise on the Soul 17
… or that He was deceived in touching Peter’s wife’s mother; or that the fragrance of the ointment which He afterwards smelled was different from that which He accepted for His burial; and that the taste of the wine was different from that which He consecrated in memory of His blood.
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.13
… for this is My blood, the blood of the New Testament which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye in remembrance of Me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the death of the Son of man and confess His resurrection until He come
26:28
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
[12] And while they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and divided; and he [13] gave to his disciples, and said unto them, Take and eat; this is my body. And he [Arabic, p. 171] took a cup, and gave thanks, and blessed, and gave them, and said, Take [14, 15] and drink of it, all of you. And they drank of it, all of them. And he said unto them,
Tertullian † AD 220 On Modesty 11
… This is lawful to the Lord alone: may the power of His indulgence be operative at the present day! At those times, however, in which He lived on earth we lay this down definitively, that it is no prejudgment against us if pardon used to be conferred on sinners—even Jewish ones. For Christian discipline dates from the renewing of the Testament,
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 The Epistles of Cyprian 62.9
… for this is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many, for the remission of sins. I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day in which I shall drink new wine with you in the kingdom of my Father.”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 4
… Not in shadows do we shew it forth, but we come to it in truth. For they being filled with the flesh of a dumb lamb, accomplished the feast, and having anointed their door-posts with the blood, implored aid against the destroyer . But now we, eating of the Word of the Father, and having the lintels of our hearts sealed with the blood of the New Testament
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 22.7
… that thou mayest be made the engraving of the signet, Holiness unto God . And thy cup intoxicateth me, as very strong . Thou seest that cup here spoken of, which Jesus took in His hands, and gave thanks, and said, This is My blood, which is shed for many for the remission of sins
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 To My Lady 4
… How many think you were offended, how many bewildered, how many perplexed when they smote Him on the cheek and said “prophesy unto us thou Christ who is He that smote thee?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 16
… why did he qualify it? Because those [ordinances] were not a perfect purification, nor a perfect remission, but half-complete and in a very small degree. But in this case He says, “This is the blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, for the remission of sins.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 19.15
… or whether the actual shedding of the blood of the Lamb of God, which was, as He Himself says, for many for the remission of sins,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.34
… We therefore ought not to doubt that even for infants yet to be baptized was that precious blood shed, which previous to its actual effusion was so given, and applied in the sacrament, that it was said, “This is my blood, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 2.49
… And accordingly He says, “This is my blood, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.56
… He asks: “How are infants guilty, for whom Christ died?” We answer: Nay, how are infants not guilty, since Christ died for them? This dispute wants a judge to determine it. Let Christ be the Judge, and let Him tell us what is the object which has profited by His death? “This is my blood,” He says, “which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 84.5
… The Blood of the Redeemer was shed, and the debtor’s bond was cancelled. This is the “Blood, That was shed for many for the remission of sins.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 1
Orth. —You have spoken as a lover of truth should speak, for when the Lord had taken the symbol, He did not say “this is my godhead,” but “this is my body;” and again “this is my blood”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
… Through this body too He was made and was called High Priest and Apostle through the mystery whereof He gave to us, saying ‘This is my Body for you’ and ‘my Blood of the New Testament’ (not of the Old), shed for you.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 3
Eran. —I will answer in mystic language for the sake of the uninitiated. After taking and breaking it and giving it to His disciples He said, “This is my body which was given for you” or according to the apostle “broken” and again, “This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 146
… again “Now is my soul troubled” “my soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death” and of His body He says “The bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world,” and when He delivered the divine mysteries and broke the symbol and distributed it, He added “This is my body which is being broken for you for the remission of sins,”
26:29
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
… this is my body. And he [Arabic, p. 171] took a cup, and gave thanks, and blessed, and gave them, and said, Take [14, 15] and drink of it, all of you. And they drank of it, all of them. And he said unto them, This is my blood, the new covenant, that is shed for many for the [16] forgiveness of sins.
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 2.11.2
… that the righteous shall be joyful, but that sorrow shall possess the wicked. And from the New Testament also they quote the saying of the Saviour, in which He makes a promise to His disciples concerning the joy of wine, saying, “Henceforth I shall not drink of this cup, until I drink it with you new in My Father’s kingdom.”
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 3.4
… And even though wine be named by Scripture the “product
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 78
Then, when He had delivered it, He saith, “I will not drink of the fruit of this wine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 120
(2) What is the meaning of Matt. xxvi. 29 ?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 8.2
… where if it do not through negligence grow sour, it will acquire soundness by age. For it grew sour among the Jews, and this sour vinegar they gave the Lord to drink. For that wine, which from the produce of the vine of the New Testament the Lord is to drink with His saints in the kingdom of His Father,
26:30
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.2
… Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, until thou deniest me thrice.” John, from whose Gospel I have taken the passage introduced above, is not the only evangelist who details this incident of the prophetic announcement of his own denial to Peter. The other three also record the same thing.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.3
… Peter answered and said unto Him, Though all men shall be offended because of Thee, yet will I never be offended. Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. Peter saith unto Him, Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not deny Thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.”
26:31
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
… 172] Jesus said unto him, Wilt thou give up thy life for me? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Thou shalt to-day, during this night, before the cock crow [28] twice, three times deny me, that thou knowest me not. But Cephas said the more, Even if it lead to death with thee, I shall not deny thee, my Lord. And in like manner said all the disciples also.
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.37
37. That we may understand what was the cause of His sadness, let us see what precedes and follows this confession of sadness: for in the Passover supper our Lord completely signified the whole mystery of His Passion and our faith. After He had said that they should all be offended in Him
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 78
Then “He saith unto them, All ye shall be offended in me.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 57.7
… yet the divergence of language is atoned by oneness of spirit. In Matthew again we read of the Lord preaching flight to the apostles and confirming His counsel with a passage from Zechariah. “It is written,” he says, “I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Concerning the Nature of Good, Against the Manichæans 32
… "I gave them a king in my wrath." For it is not unrighteous, that the wicked receiving the power of being hurtful, both the patience of the good should be proved and the iniquity of the evil punished. For through power given to the Devil both Job was proved so that he might appear righteous, and Peter was tempted lest he should be presumptuous,
26:32
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
[23] Then said Jesus unto them, Ye all shall desert me this night: it is written, I [24] will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered.
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.37
37. That we may understand what was the cause of His sadness, let us see what precedes and follows this confession of sadness: for in the Passover supper our Lord completely signified the whole mystery of His Passion and our faith. After He had said that they should all be offended in Him , but promised that He would go before them into Galilee
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 78
He suffers them not however, on the other hand, to wait until the sorrows, but what saith He? “But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.”
26:33
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
[23] Then said Jesus unto them, Ye all shall desert me this night: it is written, I [24] will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered. But after my [25] rising, I shall go before you into Galilee.
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.37
… for in the Passover supper our Lord completely signified the whole mystery of His Passion and our faith. After He had said that they should all be offended in Him , but promised that He would go before them into Galilee , Peter protested that though all the rest should be offended, he would remain faithful and not be offended
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 78
“But Peter answered and said, Though all men should be offended because of Thee, yet will I never be offended.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 42.2
… When the apostle Peter, taken aback by a maid’s question, denied the Lord, did he sin against the Son of Man or against the Holy Ghost? If Novatian absurdly twists Peter’s words, “I know not the man,” to mean a denial not of Christ’s Messiahship but of His humanity, he will make the Saviour a liar, for He foretold
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.2
… “Peter answered and said unto Him, Though all men shall be offended because of Thee, yet will I never be offended. Jesus saith unto him, Verily, I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. Peter saith unto him, Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not deny Thee. Likewise also said all His disciples.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 4.4
… for He knew what was in man.” But what wonder is it that He should discern the present thoughts of men, if He announced beforehand to Peter the thought which he was to entertain in the future, but which he certainly had not then, at the very time when he was boldly declaring himself ready to die for Him, or with Him?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 11.2
… The Creator of man knew what was in man, which the created man himself knew not. Do we not prove this of Peter, that he knew not what was in himself, when he said, “With Thee, even to death”? Hear that the Lord knew what was in man: “Thou with me even to death? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.”
26:34
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 78
For in proof that this passion was grievous in him, he was not content with his former words, gainsaying both prophet and Christ, but also after these things when Christ had said unto him, “Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice,” he replieth, “Though I should die with Thee, I will not deny Thee in any wise.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 81
2. How then is what is said true, when Matthew affirms that Christ said, “Verily I say unto thee, that before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 97.1
… He had promised that he would die for the Lord, when the Lord was first to die for him. When he said then, “I will be with Thee even unto death,” and “I will lay down my life for Thee;” the Lord answered him, “Wilt thou lay down thy life for Me? Verily I say unto thee, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 66
… And so he touched the man, and yet recognized his God. If, then, what the latter touched, Peter denied; what the latter invoked, Peter offended. “The cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice.” Although thou say, “I know not the man;” although thou say, “Man, I know not what thou sayest;” although thou say, “I am not one of His disciples;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 113.2
… For the Lord said not to Peter, Thou shalt deny that thou art my disciple; but, “Thou shalt deny me.”
26:35
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 5.35
… and there shall be no remembrance of the former, neither shall the heart think about them, but they shall find in it joy and exultation.” Now this is what has been said by the apostle: “For the fashion of this world passeth away.” To the same purpose did the Lord also declare, “Heaven and earth shall pass away.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 54
… For in proof that not so much out of fear for himself he said these things, hear what he saith, when Christ was declaring beforehand His future death, and the assault upon Him: “I will lay down my life for Thy sake. Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not deny Thee.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 88
And yet this he did will, and desired; on which account also He hath revealed it to him. For since Peter had continually said, “I will lay down my life for Thee” ( c. xiii. 37 ), and, “Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not deny Thee” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 40.8
… The devils also said the same. “We know Thee who Thou art, the Son of God.” Peter confessed Him to be “the Son of God;” the devils confessed Him to be “the Son of God.” “Distinguish, my lord, distinguish between the two.” I do make a plain distinction. Peter spake in love, the devils from fear. And again Peter says, “I am with Thee, even unto death.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 59.1.8
… according to that figure wherein this also hath been said to Abraham, “Now I know that thou fearest God.” God saith, “Now I know:” whence, but because I have made thee to know? For unknown to himself every one is before the questioning of temptation: just as of himself Peter
26:36
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
[1] This said Jesus, and went forth with his disciples to a place which was called Gethsemane,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 79
… but to make him feel by this also, for the cause which I mentioned before. Then because the others also said the same thing (for when Peter had said (these are the words), “Though I must die with Thee, I will not deny Thee; likewise also,” it is added, “said all the disciples”);
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.4
10. Matthew then proceeds with his narrative in the same connection as follows: “Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 35.16
… where Susanna prayed, and her voice, though it was not heard by men, yet by God was heard. …We read also that in the mount Jesus prayed alone, we read that He passed the night in prayer, even at the time of His Passion.
26:37
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 26.8
… You give, as a reason for Christ’s appearing to die, that He underwent in appearance all the experiences of humanity. But that He feigned all the experiences of humanity is only your opinion in opposition to the Gospel. In reality, when the evangelist says that Jesus slept, that He was hungry, that He was thirsty, that He was sorrowful,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 88.3
… Another Prophet says of Him, that He grieved for us: and the Evangelist says, “And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy:” and our Lord Himself saith unto them of Himself, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.”
26:38
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
… for Jesus oft-times met with his disciples there. And when Jesus came to the place, he said to his disciples, Sit ye here, so that I may go and pray; [4, 5] [Arabic, p. 181] and pray ye, that ye enter not into temptations. And he took with him Cephas and the sons of Zebedee together, James and John; and he began to [6] look sorrowful, and to be anxious.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 1.8.2
… Thus, when He said, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” He simply showed that Sophia was deserted by the light, and was restrained by Horos from making any advance forward. Her anguish, again, was indicated when He said, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death;”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.22.2
… nor have declared, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful;”
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Flesh of Christ 13
… The fact, however, is that even by Christ Himself each substance has been separately mentioned by itself, conformably of course, to the distinction which exists between the properties of both, the soul by itself, and the flesh by itself. “ My soul ,” says He, “is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death;”
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Resurrection of the Flesh 18
… although He was at the same time bearing about with Him “a soul that was trembling even unto death,”
Tertullian † AD 220 De Fuga in Persecutione 8
… that is, He wanted to fulfil His ministry of teaching; and when it was finished, I do not say He stood firm, but He had no desire even to get from His Father the aid of hosts of angels: finding fault, too, with Peter’s sword. He likewise acknowledged, it is true, that His “soul was troubled, even unto death,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 2.6.2
… nay, that the Wisdom of God can have entered the womb of a woman, and have been born an infant, and have uttered wailings like the cries of little children! And that afterwards it should be related that He was greatly troubled in death, saying, as He Himself declared, “My soul is sorrowful even unto death;”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 2.8.4
… For when it wishes to indicate any suffering or perturbation affecting Him, it indicates it under the name of soul; as when it says, “Now is My soul troubled;” and, “My soul is sorrowful, even unto death;”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis iv.section24
… I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again.” And again, “My soul is sorrowful even unto death.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 2.9
… And why do I say His body? Nay, not even His soul, of which it is related, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.21
… We may add that “He took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses,” both infirmities of the soul and sicknesses of the hidden man of our heart. On account of these infirmities and sicknesses which He bore away from us, He declares His soul to be sorrowful and sore troubled,
St Gregory Thaumaturgus † AD 270 Twelve Topics on the Faith 12
Wherefore, when it is said that He was “troubled in spirit,” that “He was sorrowful in soul,”
St Anatolius of Alexandria † AD 283 The Paschal Canon of Anatolius of Alexandria 10
… For it is one thing to act in accordance with the precept given by the apostle, yea, by the Lord Himself, and be sad with the sad, and suffer with him that suffers by the cross, His own word being: “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death;”
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 1.31
… In their parody of the faith they deceive themselves with words such as, My soul is sorrowful even unto death
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 1.32
32. Their folly being as great as their blasphemy, they fail to mark that Christ’s words, spoken under similar circumstances, are always consistent; they cleave to the letter and ignore the purpose of His words. There is the widest difference between My soul is sorrowful even unto death
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.9
… but, being of a nature lower than God the Father, He trembled with fear at human suffering, and groaned before the violence of bodily pain. These impious assertions are based on the words, My soul is sorrowful even unto death
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.29
29. But, perhaps, in their misguided and impious perversity, they infer His weakness from the fact that His soul was sorrowful unto death
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.36
36. But even now that we have proved what was the faith of the Apostle, the heretics think to meet it by the text, My soul is sorrowful even unto death
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 6
… there came too the solemn day, in which we ought to call to the feast with a trumpet , and separate ourselves to the Lord with thanksgiving, considering it as our own festival . For we are bound to celebrate it, not to ourselves but to the Lord; and to rejoice, not in ourselves but in the Lord, who bore our griefs and said, ‘My soul is sorrowful unto death
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Against Marcionists and Manichæans 4
… finally also when He came to the cross He suffered it to undergo the pains of the flesh. For this reason also streams of sweat flowed down from it and an angel was discovered strengthening it, and He was sad and down-cast: for before He uttered these words He said “my soul is troubled, and exceeding sorrowful ever unto death.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 79
“Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy: and He saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death; tarry ye here, and watch with me.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 80
And wherefore did He not say, “Think ye that I cannot destroy them all?” Because He was more likely to be believed in saying what He did say; for not yet had they the right belief concerning Him. And a little while before He had said, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death,” and, “Father, let the cup pass from me;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 8
Tell me now, did He pray the Father that He might be saved from death? And was it for this cause that He was “exceeding sorrowful, and said, If it be possible, let this cup pass from Me”? (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.17
… And thus, by degrees, I passed from bodies to the soul, which makes use of the senses of the body to perceive; and thence to its inward faculty, to which the bodily senses represent outward things, and up to which reach the capabilities of beasts; and thence, again, I passed on to the reasoning faculty,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 14.9
… When, therefore, we read in the Gospel that the hard-heartedness of the Jews moved Him to sorrowful indignation, that He said, “I am glad for your sakes, to the intent ye may believe,” that when about to raise Lazarus He even shed tears, that He earnestly desired to eat the passover with His disciples, that as His passion drew near His soul was sorrowful,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 1.11
… According to the form of God, “As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself;” according to the form of a servant, His “soul is sorrowful even unto death;” and, “O my Father,” He says, “if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 52.3
… But when He here said, “Now is my soul troubled;” and also when He says, “My soul is sorrowful, even unto death;” and “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me;” He assumed the infirmity of man, to teach him, when thereby saddened and troubled, to say what follows: “Nevertheless, Father, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 60.4
… and then, seeing it is written, “When He had thus said, He was troubled in spirit,” we will not say that it was joy that disturbed Him; lest His own words should convince us of the contrary when He says, “My soul is sorrowful, even unto death.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 64.16
… What then? Thou wouldest make crooked the heart of God which alway is right, according to the depravity of thy own heart? How much better to correct thy heart by the rectitude of God? Hath not thy Lord taught thee this, of Whose Passion but now were we speaking? Was He not bearing thy weakness, when He said, “Sad is My soul even unto death”?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 109.21
21. “O deliver me, for I am needy and poor” ( ver. 21 ). Need and poverty is that weakness, through which He was crucified. “And my heart is disturbed within me.” This alludeth to those words which He spoke when His Passion was drawing near, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 143.5
5. “And My Spirit within me,” saith He, “suffered weariness” ( ver. 4 ). Remember, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
Eran. —Have you not heard the Lord saying “I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.…I lay it down of myself that I might take it again.” And again, “Now is my soul troubled.” And again, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death,”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 146
… the holy Gospels at one time says “I have power to lay down my life and I have power to take it again, no man taketh it from me but I lay it down of myself;” “That I may take it again.” And again “Therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my life for the sheep,” and again “Now is my soul troubled” “my soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 152
… That He assumed a reasonable soul is stated by our Lord Himself in the words “Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father save me from this hour; but for this cause came I unto this hour.” And again “My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 171
… There is introduced a confusion of the natures, and to God the Word are applied the words “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me;” and “Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me,” the hunger, the thirst, and the strengthening by an angel; His saying “Now is my soul troubled,” and “my soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death,”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 54
… then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be plain ;” Jesus knowing that the time was now come for the fulfilment of His glorious Passion, said, “My soul is sorrowful even unto death
26:39
St Polycarp † AD 155 The Martyrdom of Polycarp 14
… Father of thy beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, by whom we have received the knowledge of Thee, the God of angels and powers, and of every creature, and of the whole race of the righteous who live before thee, I give Thee thanks that Thou hast counted me worthy of this day and this hour, that I should have a part in the number of Thy martyrs, in the cup
St Justin Martyr † AD 165 Dialogue with Trypho 99
… For on the day on which He was to be crucified, having taken three of His disciples to the hill called Olivet, situated opposite to the temple in Jerusalem, He prayed in these words: ‘Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.’
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 1.8.2
… Her anguish, again, was indicated when He said, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death;” her fear by the words, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me;”
Tertullian † AD 220 De Fuga in Persecutione 8
… He also asked of His Father, that if it might be, the cup of suffering should pass from Him.
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 2.24
After this, wishing to prove that the occurrences which befell Him were painful and distressing, and that it was impossible for Him, had He wished, to render them otherwise, he proceeds: “Why does he mourn, and lament, and pray to escape the fear of death, expressing himself in terms like these: ‘O Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me?’”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 7.55
… Since, then, He received the scourgings with silent firmness, and bore with meekness all the insults of those who outraged Him, it cannot be said, as is said by some, that it was in cowardly weakness that He uttered the words: “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 On the Lord's Prayer 14
… And further, the Lord, setting forth the infirmity of the humanity which He bore, says, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me;” and affording an example to His disciples that they should do not their own will, but God’s, He went on to say, “Nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt.”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 3.20
In the Gospel according to John: “I came not down from heaven to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me.” Of this same matter, according to Matthew: “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what Thou wilt.”
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 1.31
… He, they think, must be far removed from the blissful and passionless life of God, over Whose soul brooded this crushing fear of an impending woe, Who under the pressure of suffering even humbled Himself to pray, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from Me
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 1.32
… they cleave to the letter and ignore the purpose of His words. There is the widest difference between My soul is sorrowful even unto death , and Henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power ; so also between Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away, from Me
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.9
… but, being of a nature lower than God the Father, He trembled with fear at human suffering, and groaned before the violence of bodily pain. These impious assertions are based on the words, My soul is sorrowful even unto death , and “ Father if it be possible let this cup pass away from Me ”
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.37
… After that, He took Peter, James and John, chosen, the first two to be His martyrs, John to be strengthened for the proclamation of the Gospel, and declared that He was sorrowful unto death. Then He went before, and prayed, saying, My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet, not as I will, but as Thou wilt
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 11.30
… But what does He Himself say? I am not come to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me : and again, Therefore hath the Father loved Me because I do all things that are pleasing unto Him : and, Father, Thy will be done
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.26
… Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again .’ And He said the same another time; ‘Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me;’ and ‘When Jesus had thus said, He was troubled in spirit and testified and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray Me
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.29
… how then, if He so spoke, is He God, and Word of the Father?” Yea, it is written that He wept, O God’s enemies, and that He said, ‘I am troubled,’ and on the Cross He said, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,’ that is, ‘My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ and He besought that the cup might pass away
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 30
… but conceived of simply as in our nature, inasmuch as the human will does not completely follow the Divine, but for the most part struggles against and resists it. For we understand in the same way the words, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; Nevertheless let not what I will but Thy Will prevail.
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 2.5
41. “It is written,” say they: “‘My Father, if it be possible, take away this cup from Me.’
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Against Marcionists and Manichæans 3
… For what reason then was this the case if He who was to be crucified did not wish it to come to pass? And the sentence which follows this is yet more perplexing. For having said “Let this cup pass from me He added “nevertheless not as I will but as Thou wilt.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Against Marcionists and Manichæans 4
… Why so, pray? both to teach us lowliness of mind, and also to deliver us from the charge of vainglory. On this account it is said also in this passage that when He had spoken these words “He went away and prayed:” and after He had prayed He speaks thus to His disciples “Could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 31
Bear in mind, that even the Son of God died: and He indeed for thee, but thou for thyself. And when He said, “If it be possible, let the cup pass from me,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 79
… nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt. And He cometh unto them, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
St Jerome † AD 420 Against the Pelagians 2
Matt. xxvi. 39 . “Not as I will, but as Thou wilt.” Yet Critobulus says, by his own will he can do right.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 130.26
… For of this the Mediator has given us an example, inasmuch as, after He had said, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,” transforming the human will which was in Him through His incarnation, He immediately added, “Nevertheless, O Father, not as I will but as Thou wilt.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 16.2
… do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.” For it is Christ Himself who planted the vine of which the prophet says, “The vine of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel;” and He drinks of its wine, whether we thus understand that cup of which He says, “Can ye drink of the cup that I shall drink of?” and, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 111.1
… nor can that be otherwise which the omnipotent Son declared to be His will to the omnipotent Father. For there also is the Holy Spirit, equally eternal, equally God, the one Spirit of the two, the substance of the will of both. For the words that we read of Him as uttering on the eve of His passion, “Yet not, Father, as I will, but as Thou wilt,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 123.5
… that even old age itself was unable to set the blessed Peter free from its influence, even as it was said unto him, “When thou shalt be old,” thou shall be led “whither thou wouldest not.” For our consolation the Saviour Himself transfigured also the same feeling in His own person when He said, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 64.16
… How much better to correct thy heart by the rectitude of God? Hath not thy Lord taught thee this, of Whose Passion but now were we speaking? Was He not bearing thy weakness, when He said, “Sad is My soul even unto death”? Was He not figuring thyself in Himself, when He was saying, “Father, if it be possible, let there pass from Me this cup”?
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 9.17
… “which Jesus began both to do and to teach.” For He made use of the class of supplication when He said: “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me;” or this which is chanted in His Person in the Psalm: “My God, My God, look upon Me, why hast Thou forsaken me,”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 9.34
… saying thus: “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will but as Thou wilt,”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 16.6
… “Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 24.23
… What effort, or what hard command of an Elder can disturb the peace of his bosom, who has no will of his own, and not only patiently but even gratefully accepts what is commanded him, and after the example of our Saviour, seeks to do not his own will, but the Father’s, as He says Himself to His Father: “Nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt”?
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Counter-statements of Theodoret 1
… opposite opinion to theirs, and confessing the Son to be of one substance and co-eternal with God the Father, Creator of the Universe, Maker, Beautifier, Ruler, and Governor, All-wise, Almighty, or rather Himself, Power, Life and Wisdom, to refer the words “My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me;” or “Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me;”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
… But now in truth’s name tell me. Were one of the faction of Arius or Eunomius to endeavour, while disputing with you, to belittle the Son, and to describe Him as less than and inferior to the Father, by the help of all their familiar arguments and citations from the divine Scripture of the text “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 3
Of the same from his discourse on “If it be possible let this cup pass from me”:
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 171
What blasphemy follows on these statements it is not difficult to perceive. There is introduced a confusion of the natures, and to God the Word are applied the words “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me;” and “Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me,”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 58
… John’s gospel: raising His eyes to heaven and beseeching the Father for the whole Church that all whom the Father had and would give the Son might become one and remain undivided to the Redeemer’s glory, and adding lastly that prayer in which He says, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 67
… For when the Passion was beginning, to cure and correct our weak fear He had said, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me: nevertheless not as I will but as Thou;” and again, “Father, if this cup cannot pass except I drink it, Thy will be done
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3.18
… For it was not as God only, but also as man, that He voluntarily surrendered Himself to the death. And thus He bestowed on us also courage in the face of death. So, indeed, He said before His saving passion, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3.24
Again, when he said, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me: yet, not as I will but as Thou wilt
26:40
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
… And he withdrew from them a little, [8] the space of a stone’s throw; and he kneeled, and fell on his face, and prayed, so [9] that, if it were possible, this hour might pass him. And he said, Father, thou art able for all things; if thou wilt, let this cup pass me: but let not my will be done , [10] but let thy will be done .
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.37
… for this prayer is immediately followed by the words, And He came to His disciples and findeth them sleeping, and saith to Peter, Could ye not watch one hour with Me? Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation: for the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 79
… nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt. And He cometh unto them, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 22.39
… For “whom the Lord loveth, He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth.” Which is best—for a short time to do battle, to carry stakes for the palisades, to bear arms, to faint under heavy bucklers, that ever afterwards we may rejoice as victors? or to become slaves forever, just because we cannot endure for a single hour?
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 109.3
You tell me farther that Vigilantius execrates vigils. In this surely he goes contrary to his name. The Wakeful one wishes to sleep and will not hearken to the Saviour’s words, “What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak.”
26:41
St Polycarp † AD 155 Epistle to the Philippians 7
… Wherefore, forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning; “watching unto prayer,” and persevering in fasting; beseeching in our supplications the all-seeing God “not to lead us into temptation,”
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
… And he said, Father, thou art able for all things; if thou wilt, let this cup pass me: but let not my will be done , [10] but let thy will be done . And he came to his disciples, and found them sleeping; [11] and he said unto Cephas, Simon, didst thou sleep? Could ye thus not for one hour [12] watch with me?
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 5.9.2
… For as the Lord has testified that “the flesh is weak,” so [does He also say] that “the spirit is willing.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Flesh of Christ 9
… Why talk of a heavenly flesh, when you have no grounds to offer us for your celestial theory? Why deny it to be earthy, when you have the best of reasons for knowing it to be earthy? He hungered under the devil’s temptation ; He thirsted with the woman of Samaria; He wept over Lazarus; He trembles at death (for “the flesh,” as He says, “is weak”
Tertullian † AD 220 On Baptism 20
… for we do at the same time both make satisfaction for our former sins, by mortification of our flesh and spirit, and lay beforehand the foundation of defences against the temptations which will closely follow. “Watch and pray,” saith (the Lord), “lest ye fall into temptation.”
Tertullian † AD 220 Ad Martyras 4
From the saying of our Lord we know that the flesh is weak, the spirit willing.
Tertullian † AD 220 On Patience 13
… When, however, it is led forth unto the final proof of happiness, unto the occasion of the second baptism, unto the act of ascending the divine seat, no patience is more needed there than bodily patience. If the “spirit is willing, but the flesh,” without patience, “weak,”
Tertullian † AD 220 To His Wife i.4
… Training yourself to an emulation of (their) constancy by the examples of such women, you will by spiritual affection bury that fleshly concupiscence, in abolishing the temporal and fleeting desires of beauty and youth by the compensating gain of immortal blessings.
Tertullian † AD 220 On Monogamy 14
… How long shall we allege “the flesh,” because the Lord said, “the flesh is weak?”
Tertullian † AD 220 De Fuga in Persecutione 8
… lest, as certain persons have now brought it in, you might be led to think either the flesh or the soul of Christ different from ours; and then, that, by an exhibition of their states, you might be convinced that they have no power at all of themselves without the spirit. And for this reason He puts first “the willing spirit,”
St Hippolytus † AD 235 Against Beron and Helix 2
… For the flesh did not become divinity in nature by a transmutation of nature, as though it became essentially flesh of divinity. But what it was before, that also it continued to be in nature and activity when united with divinity, even as the Saviour said, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
St Hippolytus † AD 235 Fragments of Discourses or Homilies 3
… And for a brief space He cries that the cup might pass from Him, with a view to show truly that He was also man. But remembering, too, the purpose for which He was sent, He fulfils the dispensation (economy) for which He was sent, and exclaims, “Father, not my will,” and, “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 10.2
… But while men are asleep who do not act according to the command of Jesus, “Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation,”
St Peter of Alexandria † AD 311 The Canonical Epistle, with the Commentaries of Theodore Balsamon and John Zonaras 9
… upon themselves the temptations as it were of a sea-fight, and the inundations of many waves, or rather are for the brethren kindling the coals of the sinners, with them also we must communicate, inasmuch as they come to this in the name of Christ, even though they take no heed unto His words, when He teaches us “to pray that we enter not into temptation;”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.26
… and, ‘The spirit indeed is willing,’ He said, ‘but the flesh is weak.’ And, ‘Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, nor the Angels, neither the Son
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 23.17
17. And lead us not into temptation, O Lord . Is this then what the Lord teaches us to pray, that we may not be tempted at all? How then is it said elsewhere, “a man untempted, is a man unproved
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Concerning Virgins 3.4
18. Frequent prayer also commends us to God. For if the prophet says, “Seven times a day have I praised Thee,” though he was busy with the affairs of a kingdom, what ought we to do, who read: “Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation”?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Against Marcionists and Manichæans 4
… Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation.” Seest thou He not only prays but also admonishes? “For the Spirit indeed is willing,” He said, “but the flesh is weak.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 13
How then saith He, “Pray that ye enter not into temptation.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 30
A great struggle then lies before him. And this too is why he calls for their prayers. And he does not say that I may be engaged in it, but “I may be delivered,” as Christ commanded, to “pray that we enter not into temptation.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 18
[6.] But mark also the children’s freedom from vain-glory. For they did not leap into the furnace, but they kept beforehand the commandment of Christ where he says, (St.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 5
These things I say, because I wish you to observe the laws of Christ who commands us to “pray that we enter not into temptation” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 133.9
… But it is not against me that you must make this imputation but against the apostle who knows well that God is one thing and man another, that the flesh is weak and the spirit strong.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Good of Widowhood 21
… For they so essay to defend the free will of man, as that by it alone, even without help of the grace of God, we are able to fulfill what is commanded us of God. And thus it follows, that the Lord in vain said, “Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 4.25
… that none should proudly and arrogantly assume anything to himself; that none should take to himself the glory either of confession or of suffering as his own, when the Lord Himself teaching humility said, ‘Watch and pray, that ye come not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak;’
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 9
Wherefore, our Heavenly Master also says: “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 49.4
… especially as this flesh of mine exhausted by its heat, now longs to be recruited, and demanding its due, and clogging the eagerness of the soul gives proof of that which is said, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 69.4
… Much more, perhaps, might and ought to have been said on these words of the Gospel; but your souls ought not to be burdened with spiritual food, however pleasant, especially as the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 79.15
… From these fetters the Apostle was longing to be unbound, and to be with Christ; but to abide in the flesh was necessary for their sakes unto whom he was ministering the Gospel. Until then this corruptible put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality, like as it were with fetters, the weak flesh doth let the willing spirit.
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 11.15
… But we must also, in accordance with the kindly forethought of our Saviour, make some provision for the food of the body, that we faint not by the way, for “the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 1
… For if power were powerless what is powerful? When then the Word declares that He can do nothing it is plain that He does not attribute his powerlessness to the Godhead of the Only-begotten, but connects his not being able with the powerlessness of our nature. The flesh is weak, as it is written, ‘The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.’”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 3
… Jews by means of the scourge and the thorns and the nails, and the creature was urging Him to bring wholesale destruction on His wicked foes, the Lord Himself forbade, because He knew that His Passion was bringing salvation to the world, and it was for this reason that just before His Passion He said to His Apostles “Pray that ye enter not into temptation,”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 90
… Joy and sorrow are inseparable from a man: no part of him is free from the kindlings of wrath, the over-powerings of delight, the castings down of affliction. And what turning away from sin can there be, where ruler and ruled alike are liable to the same passions? Rightly does the Lord exclaim that “the spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak
26:42
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
… but let not my will be done , [10] but let thy will be done . And he came to his disciples, and found them sleeping; [11] and he said unto Cephas, Simon, didst thou sleep? Could ye thus not for one hour [12] watch with me? Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptations: the spirit is [13] willing and ready, but the body is weak.
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.39
… Knowing that all this would be at an end after His Passion, He was sad unto death. He knew, too, that the cup could not pass away unless He drank it, for He said, My Father, this cup cannot pass from Me unless I drink it: Thy will be done
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 79
And again He prayed in the same way, saying, “Father, if this cannot pass from me except I drink it, Thy will be done,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 228.8
… None are defrauded of the communion of the Lord’s body; all are consoled, edified, and exhorted to ask of God, who is able to do so, to avert all things which are feared,—prepared for both alternatives, so that “if the cup may not pass” from them, His will may be done
26:43
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 79
… like as Joseph also said to Pharaoh, “Did the dream appear to thee the second time? For truth was this done, and that thou mightest be assured that this shall surely be.” Therefore He too once, and twice, and three times spake the same thing, for the sake of proving the incarnation.
26:44
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
… And he went again a second time, and prayed, and said, My Father, if it is not possible with regard to this cup that it pass, [14] except I drink it, thy will be done . And he returned again, and found his disciples sleeping, for their eyes were heavy from their grief and anxiety; and they knew not [15] what to say to him.
26:45
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.40
40. Although by His words, Thy will be done , He surrendered the Apostles to the decision of His Father’s will, in regard to the offence of the cup, that is, of His Passion, still He repeated His prayer a second and a third time. After that He said, Sleep on now, and take your rest
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Defence of His Flight. (Apologia de Fuga.) 13
… for behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 79
… behold the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.”
Socrates Scholasticus † AD 440 The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus 3.8
… for behold the hour is at hand, and the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners.’
26:46
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 79
“Rise, let us be going; behold, he is at hand that doth betray me.”
26:47
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
… And Judas the betrayer gave them a sign, and said, He whom I shall kiss, he is he: take him with care, and lead him away .
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 79
… For, as we see, He foreknew that Judas would come, and so far from flying, He even went to meet him. At any rate, “While He yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.5
… “And while He yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude, with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people. Now he that betrayed Him, gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is He; hold Him fast. And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Master; and kissed Him.”
26:48
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
[22] And while he was still speaking, came Judas the betrayer, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude carrying lanterns and torches and swords and staves, from the chief priests and scribes and elders of the people, and with him the footsoldiers [23] of the Romans.
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 2.64
… And the following statement shows that He had not always the same appearance, viz., that Judas, when about to betray Him, said to the multitudes who were setting out with him, as not being acquainted with Him, “Whomsoever I shall kiss, the same is He.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 79
… “with swords and staves” do they come against Him! And Judas, it is said, with them, one of the twelve. Again he calleth him “of the twelve,” and is not ashamed. Now he that betrayed Him gave them a sign, saying, “Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is He, hold Him fast.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 82.3
3. Hear me, I beg you with patience and do not take truthfulness for flattery. Is any man reluctant to communicate with you? Does any turn his face away when you hold out your hand? Does any at the holy banquet offer you the kiss of Judas?
26:49
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
[24] And Jesus, because he knew everything that should come upon him, went forth [25] unto them.
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 6.20
… Heed not their fair speech, nor their supposed humility: for they are serpents, a generation of vipers . Judas too said Hail! Master
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 13.9
… Now therefore I begin from whence the Passion began. Judas was the traitor, and he came against Him, and stood, speaking words of peace, but plotting war. Concerning him, therefore, the Psalmist says, My friends and My neighbours drew near against Me, and stood . And again, Their words were softer than oil, yet be they spears . Hail, Master
Rufinus of Aquileia † AD 411 A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed 20
… “He who hath eaten My bread hath lifted up his heel against Me:” and in another place; “My friends and My neighbours drew near and set themselves against Me:” and again; “His words were made softer than oil and yet be they very darts.” What then is meant by his words were made soft? “Judas came to Jesus and said unto Him, Hail, Master, and kissed Him.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 125.1
… For instance, the robber believes upon the cross and immediately hears the assuring words: “verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise:” while Judas falls from the pinnacle of the apostolate into the abyss of perdition. Neither the close intercourse of the banquet nor the dipping of the sop nor the Lord’s gracious kiss
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Patience 8
… Of this patience Himself afforded and showed an example, when, before the passion of His Body, He so bore with His disciple Judas, that ere He pointed him out as the traitor, He endured him as a thief; and before experience of bonds and cross and death, did, to those lips so full of guile, not deny the kiss of peace.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 41.10
… By the words of His prophecy: by the sop He marked Him out, that it might appear said of him, “Which did eat of My bread.” Again, when he came to betray Him, He granted him a kiss,
26:50
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
[24] And Jesus, because he knew everything that should come upon him, went forth [25] unto them. And immediately Judas the betrayer came to Jesus, and said, Peace, [26] my Master; and kissed him. And Jesus said unto him, Judas, with a kiss betrayest [27] thou the Son of man?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 79
… It was at least with a view to teach them this, that He then blinded their eyes, and Himself asked, “Whom seek ye?” And they knew Him not, though being with lanterns and torches, and having Judas with them. Afterwards, as they had said, “Jesus;” He saith, “I am He” whom ye seek: and here again, “Friend, wherefore art thou come?”
26:51
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.70
… It was the same in Peter, when he took his sword out of its sheath to defend the Lord, and cut off the right ear of an assailant, when the Lord rebuked him with something like a threat, saying, "Put up thy sword into its sheath; for he that taketh the sword shall perish by the sword."
26:52
Tertullian † AD 220 On Idolatry 19
… And yet Moses carried a rod, and Aaron wore a buckle, and John (Baptist) is girt with leather and Joshua the son of Nun leads a line of march; and the People warred: if it pleases you to sport with the subject. But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away?
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 2.10
… “Put up thy sword into its sheath: for all they who draw the sword shall perish by the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot even now pray to My Father, and He will presently give Me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?”
Constantine the Great † AD 337 The Oration of Constantine 15
… Then it was that he bade him desist, and returned his sword to its sheath, reproving him for his distrust of refuge and safety in himself, and declaring solemnly that all who should essay to retaliate an injury by like aggression, or use the sword, should perish by a violent death.
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 217
LV. Assailants of robbers, if they are outside, are prohibited from the communion of the good thing. If they are clerics they are degraded from their orders. For, it is said, “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Duties of the Clergy 3.4
… just as when he meets with an armed robber he cannot return his blows, lest in defending his life he should stain his love toward his neighbour. The verdict on this is plain and clear in the books of the Gospel. “Put up thy sword, for every one that taketh the sword shall perish with the sword.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 15
… If we have it unsheathed, we shall be apt to use it even when the time is not proper, being drawn on by it: but if it be hidden, though a necessity should arise, yet, while we seek it in order to draw it, the anger will be quenched. Christ would not have us be angry on his account: (hear what He saith to Peter: “Put up again thy sword into the sheath:”) (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
… But Jesus here also worketh a miracle, both showing that we ought to do good to those who do evil to us, and revealing His own power. He therefore restored the servant’s ear, and said to Peter, that “All they that take the sword shall perish by the sword” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 123.13
… “gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty;” now it is said to Peter: “put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 93.7
7. Look also to the New Testament times, in which the essential gentleness of love was to be not only kept in the heart, but also manifested openly: in these the sword of Peter is called back into its sheath by Christ, and we are taught that it ought not to be taken from its sheath even in Christ’s defence.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.76
… Peter’s sword He orders back into its sheath, restoring as it was before the ear of His enemy that had been cut off. He says that He could obtain legions of angels to destroy His enemies, but that He must drink the cup which His Father’s will had given Him.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 2.18
… So also a rash judgment frequently does no harm to him who is the object of the rash judgment; but to him who judges rashly, the rashness itself must necessarily do harm. According to such a rule, I judge of that saying also: “Every one that strikes with the sword shall perish with the sword.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.5
… for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?”
Socrates Scholasticus † AD 440 The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus 3.13
He moreover interdicted such as would not abjure Christianity, and offer sacrifice to idols, from holding any office at court: nor would he allow Christians to be governors of provinces; ‘for,’ said he, ‘their law forbids them to use the sword against offenders worthy of capital punishment.’
26:53
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
… And Simon Cephas had a sword, and he drew it, and struck the servant of the chief priest, and cut off his right ear. And the name of that servant [36] was Malchus. Jesus said unto Cephas, The cup which my Father hath given [37] me, shall I not drink it? Put the sword into its sheath: for all that take with the [38] sword shall die by the sword.
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 26
… He is also ignorant of the last day and hour, which is known to the Father only. He awards the kingdom to His disciples, as He says it had been appointed to Himself by the Father. He has power to ask, if He will, legions of angels from the Father for His help.
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.42
… those whom Thou gavest Me I have kept . That prayer was not for Himself but for His Apostles; nor was He sorrowful for Himself, since He bids them pray that they be not tempted; nor is the angel sent to Him, for He could summon down from Heaven, if He would, twelve thousand angels
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Concerning Virgins 2.4
… How the virgin trembled before him to whom the trembling people gave way. But she did not forget what she had read. “Daniel,” said she, “had gone to see the punishment of Susanna, and alone pronounced her guiltless, whom the people had condemned. A sheep may be hidden in the shape of this wolf. Christ has His soldiers also, Who is Master of legions.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 80
And he adds a reason, saying, “Think ye that I cannot pray to my Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 53
… To this He replieth, “I do always those things that are pleasing unto Him”; showing that it was pleasing unto Him even that the Sabbath should be broken. So, for instance, just before the Crucifixion He said, “Think ye that I cannot call upon My Father?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 75
… And I should not have told you, had I not been confident.” Seest thou that the speech is one of condescension? for when He saith, “Think ye that I cannot pray to the Father, and He shall presently give Me more than twelve legions of Angels” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 158.6
… For the angels themselves, if they were not numbered by bodies of some kind which they have, could not be called many, as they are by the Truth Himself when He said in the gospel, “I could pray the Father, and He will presently give me twelve legions of angels.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 1
… It appeared to you absurd to say that anything was possible of which no example ever occurred,—although I suppose you would not hesitate to admit that no camel ever passed through a needle’s eye, and yet He said that even this was possible with God; you may read, too, that twelve thousand legions
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 62
… and thus did it devolve on me to show that a thing was possible although no example of it could be found. We accordingly adduced certain cases out of the gospel and of the law, at the beginning of this work,—such as the passing of a camel through the eye of a needle; and the twelve thousand legions of angels, who could fight for Christ, if He pleased;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.5
18. After this, Matthew continues the narrative, and mentions that in that hour He addressed the multitude as follows: “Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Cœnobia, and the Remedies for the Eight Principal Faults 12.8
… I watched and became as a sparrow alone upon the roof.” The one says, “I have dried up with the sole of my foot all the rivers shut up in banks;” the other, “Cannot I ask my Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 54
… For He had come into this world a rich and merciful Merchant from the skies, and by a wondrous exchange had entered into a bargain of salvation with us, receiving ours and giving His, honour for insults, salvation for pain, life for death: and He Whom more than 12,000 of the angel-hosts might have served
26:54
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
… And the name of that servant [36] was Malchus. Jesus said unto Cephas, The cup which my Father hath given [37] me, shall I not drink it? Put the sword into its sheath: for all that take with the [38] sword shall die by the sword. Thinkest thou that I am not able to ask of my [39] Father, and he shall now raise up for me more than twelve tribes of angels?
26:55
St Polycarp † AD 155 The Martyrdom of Polycarp 7
His pursuers then, along with horsemen, and taking the youth with them, went forth at supper-time on the day of the preparation with their usual weapons, as if going out against a robber.
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
… Put the sword into its sheath: for all that take with the [38] sword shall die by the sword. Thinkest thou that I am not able to ask of my [39] Father, and he shall now raise up for me more than twelve tribes of angels? Then [40] how should the scriptures which were spoken be fulfilled, that thus it must be? Your [41] leave in this.
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 2.64
… “I was daily with you, teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on Me.”
St Peter of Alexandria † AD 311 The Canonical Epistle, with the Commentaries of Theodore Balsamon and John Zonaras 9
… and even when the time of His passion drew on, He delivered not up Himself, but waited until they came to Him with “swords and staves.” He said to them therefore, “Are ye come out, as against a thief with swords and staves, for to take Me?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 80
2. And to His disciples He saith these things; but to the others, “Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 21
… But to those who came with staves and swords to Him, was it not so too? What can be more gentle than the words spoken to them? For when He had power to demolish them all in an instant, He did nothing of the kind, but as expostulating ( ἐντρεπτικὥς ), addressed them in the words, “Why, are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves?” (
26:56
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
… And he touched the ear of him that was struck, and healed it. And in that hour Jesus said to the multitudes, As they come out against a thief are ye come out against me with swords and staves to take me? Daily was I with you in [42] the temple sitting teaching, and ye took me not: but this is your hour, and the power [43] of darkness.
Tertullian † AD 220 An Answer to the Jews 10
… into my drink gall, and in my thirst they slaked me with vinegar;” “Upon my vesture they did cast (the) lot;” just as the other (outrages) which you were to commit on Him were foretold,—all which He, actually and thoroughly suffering, suffered not for any evil action of His own, but “that the Scriptures from the mouth of the prophets might be fulfilled.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 80
After this, He solves also the difficulty why He willed it then. For, “this was done,” He saith, “that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 22.15
15. “I was poured out like water, and all My bones were scattered” ( ver. 14 ). “I was poured out like water,” when My persecutors fell: and through fear, the stays of My body, that is, the Church, My disciples were scattered from Me.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 88.7
… but it is better referred to those of whom He was speaking above as His persecutors. “I was delivered up, and did not get forth.” Is this because His disciples were without, while He was being tried within?
Socrates Scholasticus † AD 440 The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus 3.8
… At which time the sons of the prophets also, being sought for in order to be slain, withdrew, and were concealed in caves by Obadiah; or are they unacquainted with these instances because of their antiquity? Have they forgotten also what is recorded in the Gospel, that the disciples retreated and hid themselves for fear of the Jews?
26:57
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 80
And when these were fled, “they lead Him away to Caiaphas; but Peter followed, and entered in to see what the end should be.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.6
19. In the line of Matthew’s narrative we come next upon this statement: “And they that laid hold on Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 113.1
… “For he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was the high priest that same year. Now Caiaphas was he,” he says, “who gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.” And properly enough Matthew, when wishing to say the same in fewer words, tells us that He was led to Caiaphas;
26:58
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.6
… Moreover [we find that] He was led away bound. For, as John informs us, there were at hand there, in the multitude, a tribune and a cohort, and the servants of the Jews. Then in Matthew we have these words: “But Peter followed Him afar off unto the high priest’s palace, and went in and sat with the servants to see the end.”
26:59
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
[19] [Arabic, p. 186] And when the morning approached, the servants of all the chief priests and the scribes and the elders of the people and all the multitude assembled, [20, 21] and made a plot; and they took counsel against Jesus to put him to death.
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus i.pref.1
… At last two false witnesses came and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to build it up. And the high priest arose, and said to Him, Answerest thou nothing to what these witness against thee? But Jesus held His peace.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.6
20. Then Matthew’s report goes on thus: “Now the chief priests and elders and all the council sought false witness against Jesus, to put Him to death, but found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.7
… on the conclusion of which they have come back upon the events of the early morning, and have introduced the other circumstances which remained for recital with a view to the completion of their account of what befell the Lord. But up to this point they have given no account of the occurrences belonging specifically to the morning.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 94.21
21. For what followeth? “They will be captious against the soul of the righteous” ( ver. 21 ). Why will they be captious? Because they can find no true ground of accusation. For how were they captious against our Lord? They made up false accusations,
26:60
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
… and they took counsel against Jesus to put him to death. And they sought false witnesses who should witness against him, that they might put him to [22, 23] death, and they found not;
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 80
“But false witnesses came, and said, This fellow said, I will destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 38.18
18. He goes on: “Those who sought after My faults had spoken vanity.” What is, “sought after My faults”? They sought after many things, and found them not. Perhaps He may have meant this: “They sought for criminal charges against me.” For they sought for somewhat to say against Him, and “they found not.”
26:61
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 2.10
… Was not the great charge against Jesus, which His accusers brought forward, this, that He said, “I am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to raise it up again?”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.21
… It follows from this that the first day is to be called the “earthly” day, and the second the psychical, the resurrection of the Church not having taken place on them. Now the statements of the false witnesses, recorded in the Gospel according to Matthew and Mark
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.6
… yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none.” Mark comes in here with the explanation, that “their witness agreed not together.” But, as Matthew continues, “At the last came two false witnesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 66.6
… For false witnesses, when they were asked what they had heard Him say, alleged against Him: “We heard Him saying, I will destroy this Temple, and after three days I will raise it up.”
26:62
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
… But at last there came two lying witnesses, and said, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple of God that is made with hands, and will build another not [26, 27] made with hands after three days. And not even so did their witness agree. But Jesus was silent. And the chief priest rose in the midst, and asked Jesus, and said, [28]
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 80
What then doth the high priest? Willing to press Him to a defense, that by that he might take Him, he saith, “Hearest Thou not what these witness against Thee? But He held His peace.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.6
… “And the high priest arose and said unto Him, Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held His peace. And the high priest answered and said unto Him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said.”
26:63
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
… what do these witness against [29, 30] thee? But Jesus was silent, and answered him nothing. And they took him up [31] into their assembly, and said unto him, If thou art the Messiah, tell us. He said [32] unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe me: and if I ask you, ye will not answer [33] me a word, nor let me go.
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 15.1
… that when with Angels we meet our Master, we may worship Him and say, Blessed is He that cometh in the Name of the Lord . The Saviour comes, not to be judged again, but to judge them who judged Him; He who before held His peace when judged
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Duties of the Clergy 1.3
… Her conscience spoke where no word was heard, and she sought no judgment for herself at the hands of men, for she had the witness of the Lord. She therefore desired to be acquitted by Him, Who she knew could not be deceived in any way. Yea, the Lord Himself in the Gospel worked out in silence the salvation of men.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 80
… But He said, Thou hast said. Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Colossians 6
… For, what was most of all attended to, was this very thing, that it should not be in obscurity. And the witnesses to it are from enemies, from the Jews. Hear them saying to Pilate, “That deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I rise again. Command therefore that the sep ulchre” (
Rufinus of Aquileia † AD 411 A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed 22
… He hath uttered his voice against Me, wherefore I have hated it. And therefore (saith He) I have forsaken and left My house.” And again in another place, “Against whom have ye opened your mouth, and against whom have ye let loose your tongues?” When He stood before His judge, it is written that “He held His peace.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 20.24
… manifestly, and shall not keep silence, that is, shall make Himself known by His voice of judgment, who before, when he came hiddenly, was silent before His judge when He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and, as a lamb before the shearer, opened not His mouth as we read that it was prophesied of Him by Isaiah, and as we see it fulfilled in the Gospel.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 1.17
… but it “cometh of evil” on his part by whose infirmity you are compelled to swear. But no one learns, unless he has had experience, how difficult it is both to get rid of a habit of swearing, and never to do rashly what necessity sometimes compels him to do.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 116.4
… But Jesus gave him no answer.” It is found, in comparing the narratives of all the evangelists, that this silence on the part of our Lord Jesus Christ took place more than once, both before the chief priests and before Herod, to whom, as Luke intimates, Pilate had sent Him for a hearing, and before Pilate himself;
26:64
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
… He said [32] unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe me: and if I ask you, ye will not answer [33] me a word, nor let me go. And the chief priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Messiah, the [34, 35] Son of the living God.
St Gregory Thaumaturgus † AD 270 Twelve Topics on the Faith 6
How could it be said that He who suffered is one, and He who suffered not another, when the Lord Himself says, “The Son of man must suffer many things, and be killed, and be raised again the third day from the dead;” and again, “When ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the Father;”
Aphrahat † AD 346 Aphrahat: Select Demonstrations 6.9
9. Let us take pattern, my beloved, from our Saviour, Who though He was rich, made Himself poor; and though He was lofty, humbled His Majesty; and though His dwelling place was in heaven, He had no place to lay His head; and though He is to come upon the clouds,
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 1.32
… they cleave to the letter and ignore the purpose of His words. There is the widest difference between My soul is sorrowful even unto death , and Henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 6.25
25. I can conceive of no man so destitute of ordinary reason as to recognise in each of the Gospels confessions by the Son of the humiliation to which He has submitted in taking a body upon Him,—as for instance His words, often repeated, Father, glorify Me , and Ye shall see the Son of Man
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.31
… But if you regard the contempt, the weakness, the cross of Christ as a disgrace, you should remember His words, Verily I say unto you, From henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of Heaven
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 On the Incarnation of the Word 41
… and no longer to be judged, but to judge all, by what each has done in the body, whether good or evil; where there is laid up for the good the kingdom of heaven, but for them that have done evil everlasting fire and outer darkness. 4. For thus the Lord Himself also says: “Henceforth
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 61
… For when Pilate had washed his hands, and acquiesced in the false accusation of the Jews of that day, the Lord answered him no more, but rather warned his wife in a dream, so that He that was being judged might be believed to be God not in word, but in power. While after vouchsafing Caiaphas no reply to his folly, He Himself by his promise
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 14
29. But I must remind you also of a few other testimonies in like manner concerning the Son’s sitting at the right hand of the Father. For in the Gospel according to Matthew it is written, Nevertheless, I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 2.1
… For as the Father is Power, so, too, the Son is Power, and the Holy Spirit is Power. Of the Son you have read that Christ is “the Power of God and the Wisdom of God.” We read, too, that the Father is Power, as it is written: “Ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power of God.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 2.12
103. “But,” you object, “the Father said. ” Good, hear now a passage where the Father doth not speak, and the Son prophesies: “Hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.14
… He was before the judge, yet claimed for Himself a throne at the right hand of God, as Judge forever. For thus it is written: “Hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 80
… But He said, Thou hast said. Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 18
… Therefore, just what they did in Christ’s case, the same they do here also. For as He said, “Ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of God” (
Rufinus of Aquileia † AD 411 A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed 32
… Whence also the Lord Himself says in another place, “Verily I say unto you, henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power of God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 48.7
… all nations shall serve Him:” see fulfilled what was said, “Be Thou exalted, O God, above the heavens, and Thy glory above all the earth.” See Him whose feet and hands were pierced with nails, whose bones hanging on the tree were counted, upon whose vesture lots were cast: see reigning whom they saw hanging; see sitting in Heaven
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 89.9
… On that spot Thou didst thunder out of Thy own cloud: but to scatter rain upon the Gentiles round about, Thou hast sent other clouds. Truly in Thy power hast Thou fulfilled what Thou hast said, “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of Heaven.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
… Now they saw His nature not unlimited. For I have heard the words of the Lord, “Ye shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven,”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 4.2.12
12. If all mankind shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven, according to the Lord’s own words,
26:65
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 6
… So the Apostle exhorts all men to this, saying, ‘Glorify God with your body;’ and the prophet commands, saying, ‘Give glory to God.’ Although testimony was borne by Caiaphas
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 To My Lady 4
… Moreover they brought a calumnious accusation of blasphemy against Him. For the High Priest rent his clothes saying “He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.6
… “Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? And they answered and said, He is guilty of death.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 35.13
… and, He knoweth not to do good, because he doth not good; and, He knoweth not to do ill, because he doth not ill.…What knew not Christ so much, as to blaspheme? Thereof was He called in question by His persecutors, and because He spake truth, He was judged to have spoken blasphemy.
26:66
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 80
Having rent therefore his clothes, he saith, “What think ye?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.13
… Consequently, it only remains for us to understand that this parasceue of the passover—that is to say, the preparation for the death of the Lord—commenced at the period when all the chief priests, in whose presence He was first heard, answered and said, “He is guilty of death,” an utterance which we find reported both by Matthew and by Mark;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 117.2
… It was therefore the preparation of the passover. But “our passover, Christ,” as the apostle says, “has been sacrificed;” and if we reckon the preparation of this passover from the ninth hour of the night (for then the chief priests seem to have given their verdict for the sacrifice of the Lord, when they said, “He is guilty of death,”
26:67
St Hippolytus † AD 235 The Discourse on the Holy Theophany 7
… “This is my beloved Son”—He who is hungry, and yet maintains myriads; who is weary, and yet gives rest to the weary; who has not where to lay His head, and yet bears up all things in His hand; who suffers, and yet heals sufferings; who is smitten, and yet confers liberty on the world; who is pierced in the side,
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 38
… thou shalt escape even through the midst of them, like God. If thou be brought before Herod, answer not for the most part. He will respect thy silence more than most people’s long speeches. If thou be scourged, ask for what they leave out. Taste gall for the taste’s sake; drink vinegar; seek for spittings; accept blows, be crowned with thorns,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.6
… Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? And they answered and said, He is guilty of death.” Mark’s version of this is entirely to the same effect. So Matthew continues, “Then did they spit in His face, and buffeted Him, and others smote Him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?”
26:68
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 28
Wouldst thou see also the ironical jeerings they made? Coming, it says, to the very cross they worshiped Him; and they struck Him and buffeted Him, and said, “Tell us who it is that smote Thee” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 88.6
… For it is in the person of the Jews that Isaiah said this, “We saw Him, and He had no beauty nor comeliness.” When it was said, “If He be the Son of God, let Him come down from the Cross. He saved others, Himself He cannot save.” And smiting Him on the head with a reed, they said, “Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who smote Thee?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 35.22
… Didst not Thou know them, and deceived they Thee, winking with their eyes? Truly He knew them; therefore said He, “Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites?” Afterward, “they opened their mouth wide against Me,” crying, “Crucify Him, Crucify Him! and said, Aha, Aha, our eyes have seen it.” This, when they insulted Him, “Aha, Aha, Prophesy unto us, Thou Christ.”
26:69
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 81
… Then began he to curse and to swear, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the words of Jesus, which said, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 5
… “A damsel,” it is written, “came out unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.” And, says he, “I know not the Man.” And being again questioned, “he began to curse and to swear.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
… Hear, for instance, how Peter burns with love towards Him, setting Him before soul, and life, and all things. And when he had denied Him, it was not the punishment he was grieved for, but that he had denied Him Whom he longed for, which was more bitter to him than any punishment. And all this did he show before the grace of the Spirit was given.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 2.1
… true faith in the unity of charity take precedence of each other in different points, the Lord Himself will know, by the hidden and wondrous dispensation of whose grace the thief hanging on the cross once for all confesses Him, and is sent on the selfsame day to paradise, while Peter, the follower of our Lord, denies Him thrice, and has his crown postponed:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin 1.49
… The third time also he denied Him, Jesus turned and looked, and then he wept most bitterly.” Let these persons read the Gospel; let them consider how that the Lord Jesus was at that moment within, having a hearing before the chief of the priests; whilst the Apostle Peter was outside,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 33
… and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” This love the Apostle Peter did not yet possess, when he for fear thrice denied the Lord.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.6
… And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee. Then began he to curse and to swear, saying that he knew not the man. And immediately the cock crew.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 85.8
… he stood at the fire, he was frozen with a chilling fear. Being questioned by the maid-servant, he denied Christ once; being questioned a second time, he denied Him; being questioned a third time, he denied Him.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 92
… And that certainly was still wanting to Peter, when, terrified by the question of a lady’s maid, he could give no true testimony; but, contrary to his own promise, was driven by the greatness of his fear thrice to deny Him.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 106.6
… For how was it, before they received the Spirit, that they kept that word of His which He spake regarding them, as if they had done so, when the chief of them thrice denied Him,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 91.16
… lest those who on earth toiled in His body, while they were travelling over the whole world might become guilty of the Law, He took from them fear, and filled them with love. Through fear Peter thrice denied Him,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 93.6
… themselves were rivers, when they had received that Holy Spirit. Whence did those rivers lift their voices? wherefore did they lift them up? Because at first they feared. Peter was not yet a river, when at the question of the maid-servant he thrice denied Christ: “I do not know the man.”
26:70
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.pref.2
… “Feed My little lambs; feed My lambs; feed My sheep.” And so, by feeding well the flock of Christ with the food of faith, he effaced the sin of his former fall. For this reason is he thrice admonished to feed the flock; thrice is he asked whether he loves the Lord, in order that he may thrice confess Him, Whom he had thrice denied before His Crucifixion.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 65
… vi. 64 .) He showed them that He knew him to be a traitor, yet He did not openly rebuke him, but bare with him, desiring to recall him. How then saith another Evangelist, that all the disciples used these words? (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 2.17
… And Peter himself then stood firm, so that he preached Him with confidence, whom, before he stood firm, he had thrice from fear denied;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 104.28
… “Simon,” said He, “this night Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.” When Peter thrice denied,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 119.6
… The word of truth, therefore, was not “even exceedingly,” or, as some copies have it, even every way, that is not altogether taken from the mouth of Peter, in whom was the type of the Church; because although he denied for the hour, being disturbed with fear, yet by weeping he was restored,
Anonymous A Treatise on Re-Baptism by an Anonymous Writer 9
… thou art an offence unto me, because he savoured not the things which are of God, but those things which are of men.” Which rebuke against Peter became more and more apparent when the Lord was apprehended, and, frightened by the damsel, he said, “I know not what thou sayest, neither know I thee;”
26:71
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
[7] And when Jesus went out, Simon Cephas was standing in the outer court warming [8] himself. And that maid saw him again, and began to say to those that stood [9] by , This man also was there with Jesus the Nazarene.
26:72
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
[7] And when Jesus went out, Simon Cephas was standing in the outer court warming [8] himself. And that maid saw him again, and began to say to those that stood [9] by , This man also was there with Jesus the Nazarene. And those that stood by [10] came forward and said to Cephas, Truly thou art one of his disciples.
26:73
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
… And he [11] denied again with an oath, I know not the man. And after a little one of the servants of the chief priest, the kinsman of him whose ear Simon cut off, saw him; and [12] he disputed and said, Truly this man was with him: and he also is a Galilæan; [13] and his speech resembles.
26:74
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 81
… Then began he to curse and to swear, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the words of Jesus, which said, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 42.2
… If he thinks that we are here intended by the term Holy Ghost to understand the Father, no mention at all of the Father is made by the denier in his denial. When the apostle Peter, taken aback by a maid’s question, denied the Lord, did he sin against the Son of Man or against the Holy Ghost? If Novatian absurdly twists Peter’s words, “I know not the man,”
26:75
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 81
… Then began he to curse and to swear, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the words of Jesus, which said, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 31
… as many as think to sin without being punished, let them take account of these things. Why did Esau not obtain pardon? Because he repented not as he ought. Wouldest thou see perfect repentance? Hear of the repentance of Peter after his denial. For the Evangelist in relating to us the things concerning him, says, “And he went out and wept bitterly.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 82.5
5. But you will say it is better to believe that the Apostle Paul wrote what was not true, than to believe that the Apostle Peter did what was not right. On this principle, we must say (which far be it from us to say), that it is better to believe that the gospel history is false, than to believe that Christ was denied by Peter;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 14.9
… considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” They desire to be tempted, because they hear one of the heroes of the city of God saying, “Examine me, O Lord, and tempt me: try my reins and my heart.” They grieve in temptations, because they see Peter weeping;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.86
86. Next, we have Tamar changing her dress; for Tamar also means changing. Still, the name of bitterness must be retained—not that bitterness in which gall was given to the Lord, but that in which Peter wept bitterly.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.6
26. Matthew then proceeds with his narrative in these terms: “And Peter remembered the word of Jesus which He had said unto him, Before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out and wept bitterly.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 21.34
… but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven; blasphemeth,” that is, with that blasphemy of an impenitent heart, by which resistance is made to remission of sins which is granted in the Church by the Holy Ghost. And this blasphemy Peter had not, who presently repented, when “he wept bitterly,”
26:1
St Hilary † AD 367
After the discourse in which the Lord had declared that He should return in splendour, He announces to them His approaching Passion, that they might learn the close connection between the sacrament of the Cross, and the glory of eternity.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
All these sayings, i. e. about the consummation of the world, and the day of judgment. Or, finished, because He had fulfilled in doing and preaching all things from the beginning of the Gospel to His Passion.
Origen † AD 253
Yet it is not all barely, but all these; for there were other sayings which He must speak before He should be delivered up.
St Augustine † AD 430 de Cons. Ev. ii. 78.
We gather from John’s account, that six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, and thence entered Jerusalem sitting upon the ass, after which were done the things related to have been done at Jerusalem. We understand therefore that four days elapsed from His coming to Bethany, to make this two days before the Passover. (v. 17.) The difference between the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread is this; the name Passover is given to that one day on which the lamb was slain in the evening, that is, the fourteenth moon of the first month; and on the fifteenth moon, the day that the people came out of Egypt, followed the festival of unleavened bread. (vid. Acts 12:3.) But the Evangelists seem to use the terms indifferently.
St Jerome † AD 420
The Passover, called in Hebrew Phase, does not come as most think from πασχεῖν ‘to suffer,’ but from the Hebrew word signifying ‘to pass over;’ because the destroyer passed over when he saw the blood on the doors of the Israelites, and smote them not; or the Lord Himself walked on high, succouring His people.
Remigius † AD 908
Or, because by the help of the Lord the Israelitish people, freed from Egyptian bondage, passed forth into liberty.
Origen † AD 253
He said not, After two days will be, or will come, the feast of the Passover, but not meaning the ordinary annual Passover, but that Passover such as had never before been, the Passover will be offered1.
Remigius † AD 908
Mystically, that is called the Passover, because on that day Christ passed out of the world to His Father, from corruption to incorruption, from life to death, or because He redeemed the world by causing it savingly to pass from the slavery of the Devil.
St Jerome † AD 420
After the two days of the shining light of the Old and of the New Testament, the true Passover is slain for the world. Also our Passover is celebrated when we leave the things of earth, and hasten to the things of heaven.
Origen † AD 253
He foretels His crucifixion to His disciples, adding, And the Son of Man shall be delivered to be crucified; thus fortifying them against that shock of surprise, which the sight of their Master, led forth to crucifixion, would otherwise have occasioned them. And He expresses it impersonally shall be delivered, because God delivered Him up in mercy to the human race, Judas from covetousness, the Priest for envy, the Devil through fear that through His teaching the human race would be plucked out of His hand, little aware how much more that would be effected by His death, than either by His teaching or miracles.
The Latin text
Hilarius in Matth
Post sermonem quo venturum se dominus in reditu claritatis ostenderat, nunc passurum esse se admonet, ut sacramentum crucis admixtum esse gloriae aeternitatis cognoscerent: unde dicitur factum est, cum consummasset Iesus sermones hos omnes
Rabanus Maurus
De consummatione saeculi et de die iudicii: vel quia ab initio Evangelii usque ad passionem omnia faciendo et praedicando compleverat
Origenes in Matth
Non simpliciter autem dixit omnes, sed hos omnes: adhuc enim oportebat eum etiam alios loqui sermones priusquam traderetur. Dixit discipulis suis: scitis quia post biduum Pascha fiet
Rabanus Maurus
Sicut ex Ioannis narratione colligitur, ante sex dies Paschae venit Iesus in Bethaniam, inde venit Ierusalem sedens super asellum, postea geruntur ea quae narrantur Hierosolymis gesta. Ex illo ergo die quo venit in Bethaniam, intelligimus consummatum quatriduum, ut occurreret dies ante biduum Paschae. Hoc autem inter Pascha et azyma distat, quod Pascha ipse solus dies appellatur in quo agnus occidebatur ad vesperam, hoc est decimaquarta luna primi mensis; decimaquinta autem luna, quando egressus est populus de Aegypto, succedebat festivitas azymorum. Verum Evangelistae unum pro altero ponere solent
Hieronymus
Pascha autem, quod Hebraice dicitur phase, non a passione, ut plerique arbitrantur, sed a transitu nominatur; eo quod exterminator videns sanguinem in foribus Israelitarum pertransierit, nec percusserit eos; vel ipse dominus praebens auxilium populo suo desuper ambulaverit
Remigius
Sive quia auxiliante domino populus Israeliticus liberatus ab Aegyptiaca servitute transivit ad libertatem
Origenes in Matth
Non autem dixit: post biduum Pascha erit, aut veniet, ne ostenderet illud Pascha futurum quod fieri solebat secundum legem, sed Pascha fiet, hoc est quale nunquam factum fuerat
Remigius
Mystice enim Pascha dicitur, sive quia ea die Christus transivit de mundo ad patrem, de corruptione ad incorruptionem, de morte ad vitam: sive quia salubri transitu a daemoniaca servitute mundum redemit
Hieronymus
Post duos etiam dies clarissimi luminis veteris et novi testamenti verum pro mundo celebratur Pascha. Transitus etiam noster, idest phase, ita celebratur, si terrena dimittentes ad caelestia festinemus
Origenes in Matth
Praedicit autem discipulis se tradendum, cum subdit et filius hominis tradetur ut crucifigatur, praemuniens eos ne priusquam audiant quae fuerant futura, subito videntes tradi magistrum ad crucem, obstupescant. Ideo autem impersonaliter posuit tradetur, quia Deus tradidit eum propter misericordiam circa genus humanum, Iudas propter avaritiam, sacerdotes propter invidiam, Diabolus propter timorem ne avelleretur de manu eius genus humanum per doctrinam ipsius: non advertens, quoniam maius fuerat eripiendum genus humanum per mortem ipsius, quam ereptum fuerat per doctrinam et miracula
26:3
The Gloss non occ.
Then the Evangelist lays before us the hidden springs and machinery by which the Lord’s Passion was brought to pass.
Remigius † AD 908
This, then, is to be referred to the preceding words, and means before the Feast of the Passover.
Origen † AD 253
Not true Priests and elders, but Priests and elders of what seemed the people of God, but was indeed the people of Gomorrah; these, not knowing God’s High Priest, laid a plot against Him, not recognising the firstborn of the whole creation, (Col. 1:15.) yea, even against Him that was elder than them all, did they take counsel.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
With such ill designs they came to the chief Priest, seeking a sanction whence a prohibition should have issued. There were at that time several Chief Priests, while the Law allowed but of one, whence it was manifest that the dissolution of the Jewish state was having its beginning. For Moses had commanded that there should be one Chief Priest, whose office should be filled up at death; but in process of time it grew to be annual. All those then who had been Chief Priests1, are here called Chief Priests.
Remigius † AD 908
They are condemned both because they were gathered together, and because they were the Chief Priests; for the more the numbers, and the higher the rank and station of those who band together for any villany, the greater the enormity of what they do, and the heavier the punishment stored up for them. To shew the Lord’s innocence and openness, the Evangelist adds, that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
For what then did they conspire, to seize Him secretly, or put Him to death? For both; but they feared the people, and therefore waited till the feast was over, for they said, not on the feast-day. For the Devil would not that Christ should suffer at the Passover, that His Passion might not be notorious. The Chief Priests had no fear in respect of God, namely, that their guilt might be aggravated by the season, but took into account human things only, Lest there be an uproar among the people.
Origen † AD 253
By reason of the parties among the populace, those who favoured and those who hated Christ, those who believed and those who believed not.
St Leo the Great † AD 461 Serm. 58, 2.
This precaution of the Chief Priests arose not from reverence for the festival, but from care for the success of their plot; they feared an insurrection at that season, not because of the guilt the populace might thereby incur, but because they might rescue Christ.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
But their fury set aside their caution, and finding a betrayer, they put Christ to death in the middle of the feast.
St Leo the Great † AD 461 Serm. 58, 1.
We recognise here a providential arrangement whereby the chief men of the Jews, who had often sought occasion of effecting their cruel purposes against Christ, could never yet succeed till the days of the paschal celebration. For it behoved that the things which had long been promised in symbol and mystery should be accomplished in manifest reality, that the typical lamb should be displaced by the true, and one sacrifice embrace the whole catalogue of the varied victims. That shadows should give way to substance, and copies to the presence of the original; victim is commuted for victim, blood is abolished by blood, and the festival of the Law is at once fulfilled and changed.
The Latin text
Glossa
Ostendit Evangelista apparatum et machinationem dominicae passionis, quam Christus praenuntiaverat; unde dicit tunc congregati sunt principes sacerdotum
Remigius
Quod autem dicit tunc, superioribus verbis coniungitur, idest antequam Pascha celebraretur
Origenes in Matth
Non autem veri sacerdotes et seniores, sed illius qui videbatur populus Dei, vere autem erat populus Gomorrhae, non intelligentes summum sacerdotem Dei, insidiati sunt ei: et non cognoscentes primogenitum universae creaturae, etiam seniorem omnibus consiliati sunt contra eum
Chrysostomus in Matth
Iniqua vero negotia tentantes ad principem sacerdotum veniunt, inde volentes potestatem accipere unde prohibere oportebat. Multi autem erant tunc principes sacerdotum; lex vero unum esse volebat; unde manifestum est quod Iudaica dissolutio accipiebat principium. Moyses enim unum principem sacerdotum esse iussit, et eo mortuo alterum fieri; postea vero annui facti sunt. Eos igitur ait hic principes sacerdotum qui de principibus sacerdotum erant
Remigius
Condemnantur autem isti, et quia congregati sunt, et quia principes sacerdotum fuerant: quo enim plures ad peragendum aliquod malum conveniunt, et quo sublimiores et nobiliores fuerint, eo deterius habetur malum quod committitur, et eo maior poena illis praeparatur. Ad ostendendam autem domini simplicitatem et innocentiam, addit Evangelista ut Iesum dolo tenerent, et occiderent: in quo enim nullam mortis causam invenire poterant, consilium fecerunt ut dolo tenerent, et occiderent
Chrysostomus in Matth
Consiliati sunt ergo ut tenerent eum occulte et interimerent; formidabant autem populum, ideoque expectabant festivitatem praeterire; propter quod sequitur dicebant autem: non in die festo. Diabolus enim nolebat in Pascha Christum pati, ut non manifestam eius constitueret passionem. Principes autem sacerdotum non ea quae Dei sunt timuerunt, ne scilicet peccato in hoc tempore peracto maior eius inquinatio fieret, sed ubique quae humana sunt cogitabant: unde sequitur ne forte tumultus fieret in populo
Origenes in Matth
Propter diversa studia populi, diligentis Christum et odientis, credentis et non credentis
Leo Papa in Serm. 7 de passione
Providentibus ergo principibus ne in sancto die tumultus oriretur, non festivitati sed facinori studebant; seditiones enim turbarum fieri in praecipua solemnitate metuebant, non ut populus non peccaret, sed ne Christus evaderet
Chrysostomus in Matth
Sed tamen furore ferventes immutati sunt a suo consilio: quia enim traditorem invenerunt, in ipsa festivitate Christum occiderunt
Leo Papa
Divino autem intelligimus dispositum fuisse consilio ut Iudaeorum principes, qui saeviendi in Christum occasiones saepe quaesierant, non nisi in solemnitate paschali exercendi furoris sui acciperent potestatem. Oportebat enim ut manifesto implerentur affectu quae diu figurata fuerant promissa mysteria, ut ovem significativam vera removeret ovis, et uno expleretur sacrificio variarum differentia victimarum. Ut ergo umbrae cederent corpori, et cessarent imagines sub praesentia veritatis, hostia in hostiam transit, sanguine sanguis aufertur, et legalis festivitas dum mutatur impletur
26:6
The Gloss non occ.
Having set before us the counsels of the chief of the Jews concerning the death of Christ, the Evangelist would proceed to follow out their execution, and to relate the bargain of Judas with the Jews to deliver Him up, but he first shews the cause of this betrayal. He was grieved that the ointment which the woman poured upon Christ’s head had not been sold that he might have carried off something out of the price it brought, and to make up this loss he was willing to betray his Master. And therefore he proceeds, Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper.
St Jerome † AD 420
Not that he was a leper yet, but having been so, and having been healed by the Saviour, he retained the appellation to shew forth the power of Him who healed him.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Alabaster is a kind of marble, white but marked with veins of different colours, which was in use for vessels to hold ointment, because it was said to preserve it from corruption.
St Jerome † AD 420
Another Evangelist (John 12:3.) instead of ‘alabastrum’ has ‘nardum pisticam,’ that is, genuine, unadulterated.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
From the Greek πίστις, faith, whence ‘pisticus,’ faithful. For this ointment was pure, unadulterated.
Origen † AD 253
Some one may perhaps think that there are four different women of whom the Evangelists have written, but I rather agree with those who think that they are only three; one of whom Matthew and Mark wrote, one of whom Luke, another of whom John.
St Jerome † AD 420
For let no one think that she who anointed His head and she who anointed His feet were one and the same; for the latter washed His feet with her tears, and wiped them with her hair, and is plainly said to have been a harlot. But of this woman nothing of this kind is recorded, and indeed a harlot could not have at once been made deserving of the Lord’s head.
St Ambrose † AD 397 in Luc. 7, 37.
It is possible therefore that they were different persons, and so all appearance of contradiction between the Evangelists is removed. Or it is possible that it was the same woman at two different times and two different stages of desert; first while yet a sinner, afterwards more advanced.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxx.
And in this way it may be the same in the three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And not without good reason does the Evangelist mention Simon’s leprosy, to shew what gave this woman confidence to come to Christ. The leprosy was an unclean disease; when then she saw that Jesus had healed the man with whom He now lodged, she trusted that He could also cleanse the uncleanness of her soul; and so whereas other women came to Christ to be healed in their bodies, she came only for the honour and the healing of her soul, having nothing diseased in her body; and for this she is worthy our highest admiration. But she in John is a different woman, the wonderful sister of Lazarus.
Origen † AD 253
Matthew and Mark relate that this was done in the house of Simon the leper; but John says that Jesus came to a house where Lazarus was; and that not Simon, but Mary and Martha served. Further, according to John, six days before the Passover, He came to Bethany where Mary and Martha made Him a supper. But here it is in the house of Simon the leper, and two days before the Passover. And in Matthew and Mark, it is the disciples that have indignation with a good intent; in John, Judas alone with intent to steal; in Luke, no one finds fault.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 Hom. in Ev. xxxiii. 1.
Or, we may think that this is the same woman whom Luke calls a sinner, and John names Mary.
St Augustine † AD 430 de Cons. Ev. ii, 79.
Though the action described in Luke is the same as that described here, and the name of him with whom the Lord supped is the same, for Luke also names Simon; yet because it is not contrary to either nature or custom for two men to bear the same name, it is more probable that this was another Simon, not the leper, in whose house in Bethany these things were done. I would only suppose that the woman who on that occasion came near to Jesus’ feet, and this woman, were not two different persons, but that the same Mary did this twice. The first time is that narrated by Luke; for John mentions it in praise of Mary before Christ’s coming to Bethany, It was that Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. (John 11:2.) Mary therefore had done this before. That she did afterwards in Bethany is distinct from Luke’s account, but is the same event that is recorded by all three, John, Matthew, and Mark. That Matthew and Mark say it was the Lord’s head that she anointed, and John His feet, is reconciled by supposing that she anointed both. Against this one might raise a cavil from what Mark says, that she anointed His head by breaking the box over it, so that there could be none of the ointment left with which to anoint His feet also. Let such caviller understand, that His feet were first anointed before the box was broken, and there remained in it, yet whole, enough wherewith to anoint the head by breaking the box and shedding the contents.
St Augustine † AD 430 de Doctr. Christ. iii, 12.
But let not any suppose that the Lord’s feet were by this woman bathed in ointment after the manner which the luxurious and debauched use. In all things of this nature, it is not the thing itself, but the mind of him who uses it, that is in fault. Whoso uses things after such sort as to pass the bounds observed by good men with whom he lives, either has some meaning1 in what he does, or is vicious. What then is vice in others, in a divine or prophetic person is a sign of some great thing. The good odour is the good report which one has gained by the works of a good life, and in following Christ’s footsteps sheds a most precious odour on His feet.
St Augustine † AD 430 de Cons. Ev. ii. 78.
Still there may seem to be some discrepancy between the narrative of Matthew and Mark, who say, that after two days is the feast of the Passover, and then bring Jesus to Bethany; and that of John, who, relating this history of the ointment, says Six days before the Passover. They who urge this do not understand that the events in Bethany are in Matthew and Mark inserted out of their place, a little later than the time of their occurrence. Neither of them, it is to be observed, introduce their account with ‘afterwards.’
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
The disciples had heard their Master say, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, (Matt. 9:13.) wherefore they thought among themselves, If He accepts not burnt-offerings, much less will He the application of such ointment as this.
St Jerome † AD 420
I know that some raise a cavil here, because John says that Judas alone was grieved because he had the bag, and was a thief from the beginning; but Matthew, that all the disciples were sorrowful. These know not the figure syllepsis, by which one name is put for many, and many for one; as Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews says, They were sawn asunder, when it is thought that one only, Esaias namely, was so. (Heb. 11:37.)
St Augustine † AD 430 de Cons. Ev. ii. 79.
We may however understand that the other disciples thought or said the same, or that they assented to what Judas said, and thus Matthew and Mark have described their common consent. But Judas said it because he was a thief, the others out of their care for the poor; and John desired to mention it only in the case of him whose thievish propensity he thought ought to be recorded.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
The disciples then thought thus, but Jesus, who saw the thoughts of the woman, suffered it. For her piety was great, and her ardour unspeakable, wherefore He condescended to suffer her to pour the ointment on His head. As the Father admitted the smoke and odour of the slain victim, so also Christ admitted this votive anointing of His head, though the disciples, who saw not her heart, murmured.
Remigius † AD 908
He clearly shews that the Apostles had uttered something harsh against her, when He says, Why trouble ye the woman? And beautifully He adds, She hath wrought a good work in me; as much as to say, It is not a waste of ointment, as ye say, but a good work, that is, a service of piety and devotion.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
And He says not merely, She hath wrought a good work, but says first, Why trouble ye the woman? to teach us that every good act that is wrought by any, even though it lack somewhat of exact propriety, yet we ought to receive, cherish, and cultivate it, and not to require strict correctness in a beginner. If He had been asked before this was done by the woman, He would not have directed its doing; but when it was done, the rebuke of the disciples had no longer any place, and He Himself to guard the woman from importunate attacks speaks these things for her comfort.
Remigius † AD 908
For the poor ye have ever with you. The Lord shews in these words as of set purpose, that they were not to be blamed who ministered of their substance to Him while He dwelt in a mortal body; forasmuch as the poor were ever in the Church, to whom the believers might do good whensoever they would, but He would abide in the body with them but a very short time; whence it follows, But me ye shall not have always.
St Jerome † AD 420
Here a question arises how the Lord should have said elsewhere to His disciples, Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world; but here, Me ye shall not have always. (Matt. 28:20.) I suppose that in this place He speaks of His bodily presence, which shall not be with them after the resurrection in daily intercourse and friendship, as it is now.
Remigius † AD 908
Or, it is to be explained by supposing this spoken to Judas only; and He said not, Ye have not, but Ye shall not have, because this was spoken in the person of Judas to all his followers. And He says, Not always, though they have it at no time, because the wicked seem to have Christ in this present world, while they mix among His members and approach His table, but they shall not always so have Him when He shall say to His elect, Come, ye blessed of my Father. (Matt. 25:34.) It was the custom among this people to embalm the bodies of (Matt. 25:34.) the dead with divers spices, to the end that they might be kept from corruption as long as possible. And as this woman was desirous of embalming the Lord’s dead Body, and would not be able because she would be anticipated by His resurrection, it was therefore arranged by Divine Providence that she should anoint the Lord’s living Body. This then is what He says, In that she hath poured, that is, By anointing My living Body she shews forth My death and burial.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
That this mention of His death and burial might not cause her to despond, He comforts her by what follows, Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever &c.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
That is, To whatsoever place throughout the whole world the Church shall be propagated, there this also that she hath done shall be told. That also that is added signifies, that as Judas by his reproof of her has earned evil character of treachery, so has she also earned the glory of pious devotedness.
St Jerome † AD 420
Note His knowledge of things to come, how though about to suffer death within two days, He knows that His Gospel will be preached throughout the whole world.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Behold the accomplishment of this saying; to whatsoever part of the world you go, you will find this woman famous, and this has been wrought by the power of Him who spake this word. How many victories of kings and captains have passed into oblivion; how many who built cities and enslaved many nations are now known neither by report nor by name; but the deed of this woman pouring forth ointment in the house of a leper in the presence of twelve men, this resoimds throughout the world, and though so much time has elapsed, the memory of that which was done is not effaced. But why promised He no spiritual gift to this woman, but everlasting remembrance only? Because this He did promise made her confident of receiving the other also; whereas she wrought a good work, it is clear that she shall receive an adequate reward.
St Jerome † AD 420
Mystically; The Lord, about to suffer for the whole world, sojourns in Bethany, in the house of obedience, which once was that of Simon the leper. Simon also is interpreted ‘obedient,’ or, according to another interpretation, ‘the world,’ in whose house the Church is healed.
Origen † AD 253
Oil is throughout Scripture put for the work of mercy, with which the lamp of the word is fed; or for doctrine, the hearing of which sustains the word of faith when once kindled. All with which men anoint is comprehensively called oil; and one kind of oil is unguent, and one kind of unguent is precious. So all righteous acts are called good works; and of good works there is one kind which we do for, or to, men; another which we do for, or to, God. And this likewise that we do for God, in part only advances the good of men, in part, the glory of God. For example, one does a kindness to a man out of feelings of natural righteousness, not for God’s sake, as the Gentiles sometime did; such a work is common oil of no fine savour, yet is it acceptable to God, forasmuch, as Peter says in Clement, the good works that the unbelievers do, profit them in this world, but avail not to gain them eternal life in another. They who do the same for God’s sake, profit thereby not in this world only but in the next also, and that they do is ointment of good savour. Another sort is that done for the good of men, as alms, and the like. He who does this to Christians, anoints the Lord’s feet, for they are the Lord’s feet; and this penitents are most found to do for remission of their sins. He who devotes himself to chastity, and continues in fastings and prayers, and other things which conduce to God’s glory only, this is the ointment which anoints the Lord’s head, and with whose odour the whole Church is filled; this is the work meet not for penitents, but for the perfect, or the doctrine which is necessary for men; but the acknowledgment of the faith which belongs to God alone, is the ointment with which the head of Christ is anointed, with which we are buried together with Christ by baptism into death. (Rom. 6:4.)
St Hilary † AD 367
In this woman is prefigured the people of the Gentiles, who gave glory to God in Christ’s passion; for she anointed His head, but the head of Christ is God, and ointment is the fruit of good works. But the disciples, anxious for the salvation of Israel, say that this ought to have been sold for the use of the poor; designating by a prophetic instinct the Jews, who lacked faith, by the name of the poor. The Lord answers that there is abundant time in which they may shew their care for the poor, but that salvation cannot be extended to the Gentiles but by obedience to His command, if, that is, by the pouring out of this woman’s ointment they are buried together with Him, because regeneration can only be given to those who are dead in the profession of baptism. And this her work shall be told wherever this Gospel is preached, because when Israel draws back, the glory of the Gospel is preached by the belief of the Gentiles.
The Latin text
Glossa
Ostenso consilio principum de Christi occisione, vult exequi Evangelista completionem eius, ostendens qualiter Iudas habuit conventionem cum Iudaeis, ut Christum traderet; sed prius causam proditionis praemittit. Doluit enim quia non erat venumdatum unguentum quod mulier super caput Christi effudit, ut de pretio aliquid tolleret: unde voluit hoc damnum proditione magistri recompensare. Dicit ergo cum autem esset Iesus in Bethania in domo Simonis leprosi
Hieronymus
Non quod leprosus illo tempore permaneret; sed quia antea leprosus, postea a salvatore mundatus est, nomine pristino permanente ut virtus curantis appareat. Sequitur accessit ad eum mulier habens alabastrum unguenti pretiosi
Rabanus Maurus
Est autem alabastrum genus marmoris candidi variis coloribus intincti, quod ad vasa unguentaria cavare solent, eo quod optime servare ea incorrupta dicatur
Hieronymus
Alius autem Evangelista pro alabastro unguenti pretiosi nardum pisticum posuit, hoc est verum et absque dolo
Rabanus Maurus
Pistis enim Graece, Latine dicitur fides; unde pisticum, idest fidele. Erat enim illud unguentum fidele, idest purum, et non adulteratum. Sequitur et effudit super caput ipsius recumbentis
Origenes in Matth
Forsitan quis diceret quatuor fuisse mulieres de quibus scripserunt Evangelistae; ego autem magis consentio tres fuisse: et unam quidem de qua scripserunt Matthaeus et Marcus, alteram autem de qua scripsit Lucas, aliam de qua scripsit Ioannes
Hieronymus
Nemo enim putet eamdem esse quae super caput unguentum, et quae super pedes effudit: illa enim lacrymis lavit et crine tersit, et manifeste meretrix appellatur; de hac autem nihil tale scriptum est: nec enim poterat statim capite domini meretrix digna fieri
Ambrosius super Lucam
Potest ergo non eadem esse, ne sibi contraria dixisse Evangelistae videantur. Potest etiam quaestio meriti et temporis diversitate dissolvi, ut adhuc illa peccatrix sit, iam ista perfectior
Chrysostomus in Matth
Et secundum hoc apud tres Evangelistas, scilicet Matthaeum, Marcum et Lucam, una et eadem esse videtur. Non autem absque ratione leprae Simonis meminit Evangelista; sed ut ostendat unde fiduciam sumens haec mulier accessit ad Christum: quia enim lepra immunda passio esse videbatur, videns quod Iesus illum hominem curaverat apud quem manebat, confidit quod et animae eius immunditiam facile expurgaret; et aliis mulieribus pro curatione corporis ad Christum accedentibus, sola ipsa honoris gratia ad Christum accessit, et propter animae curationem, cum nihil in corpore infirmum haberet. Quapropter maxime aliquis eamdem admirari debet. Apud Ioannem autem non est eadem mulier, sed altera quaedam mirabilis Lazari soror
Origenes in Matth
Quoniam Matthaeus quidem et Marcus in domo Simonis leprosi hoc factum fuisse exponunt; Ioannes autem, quod venit Iesus ubi erat Lazarus; et non Simon, sed Maria et Martha ministrabant. Adhuc, secundum Ioannem, ante sex dies Paschae venit in Bethaniam, quando fecerunt ei coenam Maria et Martha; hic autem quando recumbit in domo Simonis, post biduum Pascha erat futurum. Et apud Matthaeum et Marcum, discipuli indignantur ex bono proposito; apud Ioannem autem solus Iudas furandi affectu; apud Lucam autem murmurat nemo
Gregorius in Evang
Vel dicendum, quod hanc eamdem quam Lucas peccatricem mulierem, Ioannes Mariam nominat
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Lucas autem quamvis simile factum commemoret ei quod hic dicitur, nomenque conveniat eius apud quem convivabatur dominus, nam et ipsum Simonem dicit; tamen, quia non est contra naturam vel morem hominum unum nomen habere duos homines, potius credibile est fuisse illum alium Simonem, non leprosum, in cuius domo haec in Bethania gerebantur. Nihil igitur aliud arbitror nisi quod non quidem aliam fuisse mulierem quae peccatrix tunc accessit ad pedes Iesu, sed eamdem Mariam bis hoc fecisse: semel scilicet quod Lucas narravit: nam et Ioannes Mariam commendans commemoravit antequam veniret in Bethaniam: erat, inquit, languens Lazarus in Bethania de castello Mariae, et Marthae sororis eius. Maria autem erat quae unxit dominum unguento, et extersit pedes eius capillis suis, cuius frater Lazarus infirmabatur. Iam itaque hoc Maria fecerat. Quod autem in Bethania rursus fecit, aliud est quod ad Lucae narrationem non pertinet, sed pariter narratur a tribus, Ioanne scilicet, Matthaeo et Marco. Quod autem Matthaeus et Marcus caput domini unguento illo perfusum dicunt, Ioannes autem pedes, ostenditur non esse contrarium, si accipiamus non solum caput, sed et pedes domini perfudisse mulierem: nisi forte quoniam Marcus fracto alabastro perfusum caput commemorat, tam quisque calumniosus est ut aliquid in vase fracto neget remanere potuisse, unde etiam pedes domini perfunderet. Ille autem qui sic calumniatur, prius accipiat perfusos pedes antequam illud fractum esset, ut in integro remaneret unde etiam caput perfunderetur, ubi fractura illa totum effuderat
Augustinus de Doctr. Christ
Neque ullo modo quisquam fieri crediderit domini pedes ita unguento pretioso a muliere perfusos ut luxuriosorum et nequam hominum solent. In omnibus enim talibus non usus rerum, sed libido utentis in culpa est. Quisquis enim rebus sic utitur ut metas consuetudinis bonorum inter quos versatur excedat; aut aliquid significat, aut flagitiosus est. Itaque quod in aliis personis plerumque flagitium est, in divina vel prophetica persona magnae cuiusdam rei signum est. Odor enim bonus fama bona est, quam quisquis bonae vitae operibus habuerit, dum vestigia Christi sequitur, quasi pedes eius pretiosissimo odore perfundit
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Sed hoc videri potest esse contrarium quod Matthaeus et Marcus posteaquam dixerunt Pascha post biduum futurum, deinde commemoraverunt quod erat Iesus in Bethania, ubi de unguento eadem narraturus Ioannes dicit: ante sex dies Paschae. Sed qui ita moventur, non intelligunt Matthaeum et Marcum illud quod in Bethania de unguento factum erat, recapitulando posuisse. Non enim quisquam eorum cum dixisset post biduum Pascha futurum, sic adiunxit ut diceret: post haec cum esset Bethaniae
Chrysostomus in Matth
Sed quia discipuli audierant magistrum dicentem: misericordiam volo et non sacrificium, apud se cogitabant: si holocausta non acceptat, multo minus olei huiusmodi usum; unde sequitur videntes autem discipuli indignati sunt, dicentes: ut quid perditio haec? Potuit enim istud venumdari multo, et dari pauperibus
Hieronymus
Scio quosdam hunc locum calumniari, quare Ioannes Iudam solum dixerit contristatum, eo quod loculos tenuerit et fur ab initio fuerit, et Matthaeus scribat omnes discipulos indignatos, nescientes tropum qui vocatur, syllipsis, quo et pro multis unus, et pro uno multi soleant appellari: nam et Paulus in epistola ad Hebraeos dicit: secti sunt, cum unum tantummodo, scilicet Isaiam, sectum autumet
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Potest etiam intelligi, quod et alii discipuli aut senserunt hoc, aut dixerunt, aut eis Iuda dicente persuasum sit, atque omnium voluntatem Matthaeus et Marcus etiam expresserint; sed Iudas propterea dixerat quia fur erat, ceteri vero propter pauperum curam: Ioannes autem de solo illo id commemorare voluit, cuius ex hac occasione furandi consuetudinem credidit intimandam
Chrysostomus in Matth
Discipuli ergo ita existimabant; sed dominus mentem mulieris videns permittit, multa enim erat eius religio, et ineffabile studium: idcirco condescendens concessit super caput suum unguentum effundi. Sicut enim pater eius odorem victimae et fumum patiebatur, ita et Christus mulierem devote ungentem, cuius discipuli mentem nesciebant, querelam facientes; unde sequitur sciens autem Iesus ait illis: quid molesti estis huic mulieri?
Remigius
Per quod aperte ostendit quod apostoli aliquid moleste locuti fuerant adversus eam. Pulchre autem subdit opus bonum operata est in me; ac si dicat: non est perditio unguenti, sicut vos dicitis; sed opus bonum, idest pietatis et devotionis obsequium
Chrysostomus in Matth
Ideo autem non simpliciter dixit bonum opus operata est in me; sed prius posuit quid molesti estis huic mulieri? Erudiens nos quodcumque geritur bonum a quocumque, etsi non valde diligenter factum fuerit, suscipere et augere et fovere, et non ex principio omnem diligentiam expetere. Quisquis enim eum interrogasset antequam fecisset hoc mulier, non mandasset hoc fieri; sed post effusum unguentum non habebat locum discipulorum increpatio; et ideo ipse, ut non obtunderet desiderium mulieris, omnia haec in consolationem mulieris dixit. Sequitur nam pauperes semper habebitis vobiscum
Remigius
Ostendit enim dominus his verbis quasi ex quadam ratione, quoniam non erat illi culpandi qui sibi adhuc in mortali corpore conversanti aliquid de suis facultatibus ministrarent: cum pauperes semper habendi essent in Ecclesia, quibus fideles cum vellent, benefacere possent; ipse vero brevi tempore corporaliter mansurus erat cum eis; unde sequitur me autem non semper habebitis
Hieronymus
Oritur autem hic quaestio, quare dominus post resurrectionem dixerit ad discipulos: ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem mundi. Et nunc loquitur me autem non semper habebitis. Sed mihi videtur in hoc loco de praesentia dicere corporali, quod nequaquam cum eis ita futurus sit post resurrectionem quomodo nunc, in omni convictu et familiaritate
Remigius
Vel solvitur ita ut intelligatur quod soli Iudae dictum sit; sed ideo non dixit: habetis, sed habebitis, quia in persona Iudae omnibus imitatoribus illius dictum est. Ideo autem dicit non semper, cum nec ad tempus habeant: quia mali videntur habere Christum in praesenti saeculo; quando miscent se membris Christi, et accedunt ad mensam eius; sed non semper sic habebunt, quando solis electis dicturus est: venite, benedicti patris mei. Sequitur mittens enim haec unguentum hoc in corpus meum, ad sepeliendum me fecit. Consuetudo erat illius populi ut corpora mortuorum diversis aromatibus condirentur, quatenus diutius illaesa conservarentur. Et quia futurum erat ut haec mulier corpus domini mortuum vellet perungere, et tamen non posset, quia resurrectione anticiparetur, idcirco divina providentia actum est ut vivum domini corpus perungeret. Hoc est ergo quod dicit mittens haec; idest, cum haec mulier corpus meum vivum perungit, me moriturum et sepeliendum ostendit
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quia ergo sepulcrum et mortem commemoraverat, ut non videatur in tristitiam mittere mulierem, rursus eam consolatur per ea quae consequuntur amen dico vobis: ubicumque praedicatum fuerit hoc Evangelium in toto mundo, dicetur et quod haec fecit in memoriam eius
Rabanus Maurus
Idest, in quocumque loco dilatabitur Ecclesia per totum mundum, dicetur et quod hoc fecit. Illud et appositum notat, quod sicut Iudas contradicens adeptus est perfidiae infamiam, sic et ista piae devotionis gloriam
Hieronymus
Attende notitiam futurorum, quod passurus post biduum, et moriturus, sciat Evangelium suum in toto orbe celebrandum
Chrysostomus in Matth
Ecce autem quod dixit, factum est; et ubicumque terrarum abieris, videbis hanc mulierem famosam effectam; quod virtus praedicentis effecit. Et regum quidem multorum et ducum victoriae silentur; et multi qui civitates construxerunt, et gentes multas servituti subegerunt, neque ex auditu, neque ex nomine sunt cogniti: quoniam autem haec mulier oleum effudit in domo leprosi cuiusdam, duodecim viris praesentibus, hoc omnes concinunt per orbem terrarum; et tempus tantum pertransiit, et memoria eius quod factum est non est tabefacta. Sed quare nihil speciale promisit mulieri, sed sempiternam memoriam? Quia ex his quae dixit intelligi potuit: si enim opus bonum fecit, manifestum est quod et mercedem dignam suscipiet
Hieronymus
Mystice autem passurus pro omni mundo moratur in Bethania in domo obedientiae, quae quondam fuit Simonis leprosi. Simon quoque ipse obediens dicitur, qui iuxta aliam intelligentiam mundus interpretari potest, in cuius domo curata est Ecclesia
Origenes in Matth
Oleum autem ubique in Scripturis aut opus misericordiae intelligitur, quo lucerna verbi enutrita clarescit; aut doctrina, cuius auditu verbum fidei quod est accensum nutritur. Generaliter ergo omne quo quis ungitur, oleum appellatur, olei autem aliud est unguentum; item unguenti aliud est pretiosum: sic omnis actus iustus opus bonum dicitur; operis autem boni aliud est quod facimus propter homines vel secundum homines; aliud quod propter Deum et secundum Deum. Item hoc ipsum quod facimus propter Deum, aliud proficit ad usum hominum, aliud tantum ad gloriam Dei: ut puta aliquis benefacit homini naturali iustitia motus, non propter Deum, quomodo faciebant interdum et gentes: opus illud oleum est vulgare, non magni odoris; et ipsum tamen acceptabile apud Deum, quoniam, ut dicit Petrus apud Clementem, opera bona quae fiunt ab infidelibus in hoc saeculo eis prosunt, non in alio ad consequendum vitam aeternam. Qui autem propter Deum faciunt, magis illis in illo saeculo proficit: hoc est unguentum boni odoris. Sed aliud fit ad utilitatem hominum, ut puta eleemosyna, et cetera huiusmodi. Hoc qui facit in Christianos, pedes domini ungit: quia ipsi sunt domini pedes: quod praecipue solent facere poenitentes pro remissione peccatorum suorum. Qui autem castitati studet, et in ieiuniis et in orationibus permanet, et ceteris quae tantum ad gloriam Dei proficiunt, hoc est unguentum quod ungit domini caput, et hoc est unguentum pretiosum, ex cuius odore tota repletur Ecclesia; et hoc est opus proprium non poenitentium, sed perfectorum. Aut doctrina, quae necessaria est hominibus, hoc est unguentum quo pedes domini unguntur: agnitio autem fidei, quae ad solum pertinet Deum, est unguentum quo ungitur caput Christi, quo consepelimur Christo per Baptismum in mortem
Hilarius in Matth
Mulier autem haec in praefiguratione plebis gentium est, quae in passione Christi gloriam Deo reddidit: caput enim perunxit: caput autem Christi Deus est, nam unguentum, boni operis est fructus. Sed discipuli favore salvandi Israelis vendi hoc in usum pauperum dicunt debuisse; pauperes autem Iudaeos fide indigentes, instinctu prophetico nuncupant, quibus dominus ait plurimum esse temporis quo habere curam pauperum possent. Ceterum nonnisi ex praecepto suo salutem gentibus posse praestari, quae secum, infuso mulieris huius unguento, sunt consepultae, quia regeneratio nonnisi cum mortuis in Baptismi professione reddetur: et idcirco ubi praedicabitur hoc Evangelium, narrabitur opus eius: quia cessante Israel, Evangelii gloria fide gentium praedicatur
26:14
The Gloss non occ.
Having described the occasion of his treachery, the Evangelist proceeds to recount the manner of it.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Then, when, that is, he heard that this Gospel should be preached every where; for that made him afraid, as it was indeed a mark of unspeakable power.
St Augustine † AD 430 de Cons. Ev. ii. 78.
The order of the narrative is this. The Lord says, Ye know that after two days will be the feast of the Passover; … then assembled together the Chief Priests and Scribes; … then went one of the twelve. Thus the narrative of what took place at Bethany is inserted by way of digression, respecting an earlier time between that, Lest there be an uproar, and, Then one of the twelve.
Origen † AD 253
Went, against that one high priest, who was made a Priest for ever, to many high priests, to sell for a price Him who sought to redeem the whole world.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Went, he says, because he was neither compelled, nor invited, but of his own free will formed the wicked design.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
One of the twelve, as much as to say, of that first band who are elected for preeminent merit1.
The Gloss non occ.
He adds his distinctive appellation, Scarioth, for there was another Judas.
Remigius † AD 908
So called from the village Scariotha, from which he came.
St Leo the Great † AD 461 Serm. 60.4.
He did not out of any fear forsake Christ, but through lust of money cast Him off; for in comparison of the love of money all our affections are feeble; the soul athirst for gain fears not to die for a very little; there is no trace of righteousness in that heart in which covetousness has once taken up its abode. The traitor Judas, intoxicated with this bane, in his thirst for lucre was so foolishly hardened, as to sell his Lord and Master.
St Jerome † AD 420
The wretched Judas would fain replace, by the sale of his Master, that loss which he supposed he had incurred by the ointment. And he does not demand any fixed sum, lest his treachery should see in a gainful thing, but as though delivering up a worthless slave, he left it to those who bought, to determine how much they would give.
Origen † AD 253
The same do all who take any material or worldly things to cast out of their thoughts the Saviour and the word of truth which was in them. And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver, as many pieces as the Saviour had dwelt years in the worlda.
St Jerome † AD 420
Joseph was not sold as many, following the LXX (Gen. 37:28.), think for twenty pieces of gold, but as the Hebrew text has for twenty pieces of silver, for it could not be that the servant should be more valuable than his Master.
St Augustine † AD 430 Quæst. Ev. i. 41
That the Lord was sold for thirty pieces of silver by Judas, denotes the unrighteous Jews, who pursuing things carnal and temporal, which belong to the five bodily senses, refuse to have Christ; and forasmuch as they did this in the sixth age of the world, their receiving five times six as the price of the Lord is thus signified; and because the Lord’s words are silver, but they understood even the Law carnally, they had, as it were, stamped on silver the image of that worldly dominion which they held to when they renounced the Lord.
Origen † AD 253
The opportunity which Judas sought is further explained by Luke, how he might betray him in the absence of the multitude; (Luke 22:6.) when the populace was not with Him, but He was withdrawn with His disciples. And this he did, delivering Him up after supper, when He was withdrawn to the garden of Gethsemane. And from that time forward, such has been the season sought for by those that would betray the word of God in time of persecution when the multitude of believers is not around the word of truth.
The Latin text
Glossa
Posita occasione proditionis, consequenter de proditione Iudae agit Evangelista; unde dicit tunc abiit unus de duodecim
Chrysostomus in Matth
Tunc scilicet quando hoc audivit quoniam praedicabitur hoc Evangelium ubique: timuit enim: nam virtutis ineffabilis erat quod dictum est
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Ita enim sermo dirigitur dicente domino scitis quia post biduum Pascha fiet (...) tunc congregati sunt principes sacerdotum (...) tunc abiit unus de duodecim. Inter illud enim quod dictum est: ne tumultus fieret in populo, et hoc quod dicitur tunc abiit unus de duodecim, interpositum est illud de Bethania, quod recapitulando dictum est
Origenes in Matth
Abiit autem adversus unum principem sacerdotum, qui factus fuerat sacerdos in aeternum, ad multos principes sacerdotum, ut venderet pretio volentem redimere totum mundum
Rabanus Maurus
Abiit autem dicit, quia non coactus, non invitatus, sed sponte sceleratum iniit consilium
Chrysostomus in Matth
Addit autem unus de duodecim, ac si diceret: de primo choro eorum qui sublimiter electi sunt; et ad designationem eius adiungit qui dicitur Iudas Iscariotes: erat enim et alius Iudas
Remigius
Iscariota namque fuit villa, unde ortus est iste Iudas
Leo Papa in Serm. 9 de passione
Qui non timoris perturbatione Christum deseruit, sed pecuniae cupiditate distraxit: amore enim pecuniae vilis est omnis affectio, et anima lucri cupida, etiam pro exiguo perire non metuit; nullumque est iustitiae in illo corde vestigium in quo sibi avaritia facit habitaculum. Hoc perfidus Iudas inebriatus veneno, dum sitit lucrum, ita stulte impius fuit ut dominum venderet et magistrum: unde dixit principibus sacerdotum quid vultis mihi dare, et ego vobis tradam?
Hieronymus
Infelix Iudas damnum quod ex effusione unguenti se fecisse credebat, vult magistri pretio compensare; nec certam tamen postulat summam, ut saltem lucrosa videretur proditio; sed quasi vile tradens mancipium, in potestate ementium posuit quantum vellent dare
Origenes in Matth
Hoc autem faciunt omnes qui accipiunt aliquid corporalium aut mundialium rerum ut tradant, et eiciant ab anima sua salvatorem et verbum veritatis quod erat in eis. Sequitur at illi constituerunt ei triginta argenteos: tantam mercedem constituentes, quantos annos salvator conversatus fuerat in hoc mundo
Hieronymus
Ioseph autem, non, ut putant multi iuxta Septuaginta interpretes, triginta aureis venditus est, sed iuxta Hebraicam veritatem, triginta argenteis: neque enim poterat servus pretiosior esse quam dominus
Augustinus de quaest. Evang
Quod autem dominus triginta argenteis venditus est, significavit per Iudam Iudaeos, iniquosque, qui persequentes carnalia et temporalia quae ad quinque pertinent sensus corporis, Christum habere noluerunt; et quia sexta mundi aetate fecerunt, sexies quinque eos quasi pretium venditi domini accepisse signatum est, et quia eloquium domini argentum est, illi autem ipsam legem etiam carnaliter intellexerunt, tamquam in argento impresserant saecularis principatus imaginem, quam amisso domino tenuerunt. Sequitur et exinde quaerebat opportunitatem ut eum traderet
Origenes in Matth
Qualem autem opportunitatem quaerebat Iudas, Lucas manifestius explanat dicens: et quaerebat opportunitatem ut traderet eum sine turba; idest, quando populus non erat circa eum, sed secretus erat cum discipulis; quod et fecit, tradens eum post coenam, cum secretus esset in praedio Gethsemani: et inde usque nunc opportunitas ista videtur his qui volunt prodere Dei verbum in tempore persecutionis, quando multitudo credentium non est circa verbum veritatis
26:17
The Gloss non occ.
The Evangelist having gone through the events preliminary to the Passion, namely, the announcement of it, the counsel of the Chief Priests, and the covenant for His betrayal, prosecutes the history in the order of events, saying, On the first day of unleavened bread.
St Jerome † AD 420
The first day of unleavened bread is the fourteenth day of the first month, when the lamb is killed, the moon is at full, and leaven is put away.
Remigius † AD 908
And observe that with the Jews, the Passover is celebrated on the first day, and the following seven are called the days of unleavened bread; but here the first day of unleavened bread means the day of the Passover.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxi.
Or, by the first day, he means the day before the days of unleavened bread. For the Jews always reckoned their day from the evening; and this day of which he speaks was that on the evening of which they were to kill the Passover, namely, the fifth day of the weekb.
Remigius † AD 908
But perhaps some one will say, If that typical lamb bore a type of this the true lamb, how did not Christ suffer on the night on which this was always killed? It is to be noted, that on this night, He committed to His disciples the mysteries of His flesh and blood to be celebrated, and then also being seized and bound by the Jews, He hallowed the commencement of His sacrifice, i. e. His Passion. The disciples came unto him; among these no doubt was the traitor Judas.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Hence it is evident that He had neither house nor lodging. Nor, I conclude, had the disciples any, for they would surely have invited Him thither.
St Augustine † AD 430 de Cons. Ev. ii. 80.
Go into the city to such a man, Him whom Mark and Luke call the good-man of the house, or the master of the house. And when Matthew says, to such a man, he is to be understood to say this as from himself for brevity’s sake; for every one knows that no man speaks thus, Go ye to such a man. And Matthew adds these words, to such a man, not that the Lord used the very expression, but to convey to us that the disciples were not sent to any one in the city, but to some certain person.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Or, we may say that this, to such a man, shews that He sent them to some person unknown to them, teaching them thereby that He was able to avoid His Passion. For He who prevailed with this man to entertain Him, how could He not have prevailed with those who crucified Him, had He chosen not to suffer? Indeed, I marvel not only that he entertained Him, being a stranger, but that he did it in contempt of the hatred of the multitude.
St Hilary † AD 367
Or, Matthew does not name the man in whose house Christ would celebrate the Passover, because the Christian name was not yet held in honour by the believers.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Or, he omits the name, that all who would fain celebrate the true Passover, and receive Christ within the dwelling place of their own minds, should understand that the opportunity is afforded them.
St Jerome † AD 420
In this also the New Scripture observes the practice of the Old, in which we frequently read, ‘He said unto him,’ and ‘In this or that place,’ without any name of person or place.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
My time is at hand, this He said, both by so manifold announcements of His Passion, fortifying His disciples against the event, and at the same time shewing that He undertook it voluntarily. I will keep the Passover at thy house, wherein we see, that to the very last day He was not disobedient to the Law. With my disciples, He adds, that there might be sufficient preparation made, and that he to whom He sent might not think that He desired to be concealed.
Origen † AD 253
Some one may argue, (e. g. The Ebionites) that because Jesus kept the Passover with Jewish observances, we ought to do the same as followers of Christ, not remembering that Jesus was made under the Law, though not that He should leave under the Law (Gal. 4:4.) those who were under it, but should lead them out of it; how much less fitting then is it, that those who before were without the Law, should afterwards enter in? We celebrate spiritually the things which were carnally celebrated in the Law, keeping the Passover in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, (1 Cor. 5:8. John 6:53.) according to the will of the Lamb, who said, Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye shall not have life in you.
The Latin text
Glossa
Prosecutus fuerat Evangelista de his quae erant praeambula ad Christi passionem, scilicet de praenuntiatione passionis, de consilio principum et de tractatu proditionis: nunc autem tempus et seriem passionis incipit prosequi, dicens prima autem die azymorum
Hieronymus
Prima dies azymorum quartadecima dies mensis primi est, quando agnus immolatur, et luna plenissima est, et fermentum abicitur
Remigius
Et notandum, quod apud Iudaeos primo die Pascha celebratur, reliqui vero septem sequentes dies azymorum vocabantur; sed nunc dies azymorum dicitur pro die Paschae
Chrysostomus in Matth
Vel hanc primam diem azymorum dicit, quia septem dies azymorum erant: assueverunt enim Iudaei a vespera semper numerare diem; unde huius diei facit mentionem, secundum quam in vespera Pascha erat immolandum, quod quinta feria fuit
Remigius
Sed forte dicet aliquis: si ille typicus agnus figuram huius veri agni gestabat, quare non ea nocte passus est Christus quando solebat agnus immolari? Sed sciendum, quia eadem nocte mysteria sanguinis et corporis sui discipulis celebranda tradidit; et sic tentus et ligatus a Iudaeis, suae immolationis, idest passionis, sacravit exordium. Sequitur accesserunt ad Iesum discipuli dicentes: ubi vis paremus tibi comedere Pascha? Inter eos autem discipulos qui accesserunt ad Iesum, interrogantes et Iudam fuisse aestimo proditorem
Chrysostomus in Matth
Ex hoc autem manifestum est quoniam non erat ei domus neque tugurium: ego autem aestimo neque discipulos habuisse: profecto enim eum illuc rogassent venire. Sequitur at Iesus dixit: ite in civitatem ad quemdam
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Eum scilicet quem Marcus et Lucas dicunt patremfamilias vel dominum domus. Quod ergo interposuit Matthaeus ad quemdam, tamquam ex persona sua studio brevitatis illud compendio voluit insinuare: nam neminem sic loqui ut dicat ite ad quemdam, quis nesciat? Ac per hoc cum Matthaeus verba domini posuisset dicentis ite in civitatem, interposuit ipse ad quemdam: non quia ipse dominus hoc dixerit; sed ut ipse nobis insinuaret tacito nomine, fuisse quemdam in civitate ad quem domini discipuli mittebantur, ut praepararent Pascha: manifestum est enim discipulos a domino non ad quemlibet, sed ad quemdam hominem, idest ad certum aliquem missos esse
Chrysostomus in Matth
Vel dicendum, quod per hoc quod dicit ad quemdam, ostendit quod ad ignotum hominem mittit, monstrans hinc quoniam poterat non pati. Qui enim menti huius persuasit ut eos susciperet, quid non utique operatus esset in his qui eum crucifigebant, si tamen voluisset non pati? Ego autem non hoc admiror solum quoniam eum suscepit, ignotus existens: sed quoniam suscipiendo Christum, multorum odium contempsit
Hilarius in Matth
Vel ideo hominem cum quo Pascha celebraturus esset non nominat, nondum enim Christiani nominis honor credentibus erat praestitus
Rabanus Maurus
Vel nomen praetermittit, ut omnibus verum Pascha celebrare volentibus, Christumque hospitio suae mentis suscipere, danda facultas designetur
Hieronymus
In hoc etiam morem veteris testamenti nova Scriptura conservat: frequenter enim legimus: dixit ille illi, et in loco illo et illo; et tamen nomen personarum locorumque non ponitur. Sequitur et dicite ei: magister dicit: tempus meum prope est
Chrysostomus in Matth
Hoc autem dixit discipulis, passionem commemorans, ut ex multiplici passionis enuntiatione exercitati meditarentur quod futurum erat; simul autem demonstrans quod volens ad passionem venit. Sequitur apud te facio Pascha: in quo demonstrat quoniam usque ad ultimum diem non erat contrarius legi. Addidit autem cum discipulis meis, ut sufficiens fieret praeparatio, et ut ille ad quem mittebat non existimaret eum occultari velle. Sequitur et fecerunt discipuli sicut constituit illis Iesus, et paraverunt Pascha
Origenes in Matth
Forsitan autem aliquis requiret, ex eo quod Iesus celebravit more Iudaico Pascha, quia convenit et nos imitatores Christi similiter facere: non considerans quod Iesus factus est sub lege, non ut eos, qui sub lege erant, sub lege relinqueret, sed ut ex lege educeret; quanto ergo magis non convenit illos introire in legem, qui prius fuerant extra legem? Sed spiritualiter celebrantes quae in lege corporaliter celebranda mandantur, ut in azymis sinceritatis et veritatis celebremus Pascha, secundum voluntatem agni dicentis: nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, et biberitis sanguinem meum, non habebitis vitam in vobis
26:20
St Jerome † AD 420
The Lord had above foretold His Passion, He now foretels who is to be the traitor; thus giving him place of repentance, when he should see that his thoughts and the secret designs of his heart were known.
Remigius † AD 908
With the twelve, it is said, for Judas was personally among them, though he had ceased to be so in merit.
St Jerome † AD 420
Judas acts in every thing to remove all suspicion of his treachery.
Remigius † AD 908
And it is beautifully said, When even was come, because it was in the evening that the Lamb was wont to be slain.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
For this reason also, because in Christ’s Passion, wherein the true sun hasted to his setting, eternal refreshment was made ready for all believers.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
The Evangelist relates how as they sat at meat, Jesus declares Judas’ treachery, that the wickedness of the betrayer may be more apparent from the season and the circumstances.
St Leo the Great † AD 461 Serm. 58.3.
He shews that the conscience of His betrayer was known to Him, not meeting his wickedness with a harsh and open rebuke, that penitence might find a readier way to one who had not been disgraced by public dismissal.
Origen † AD 253
Or, He spoke generally, to prove the nature of each of their hearts, and to evince the wickedness of Judas, who would not believe in One who knew his heart. I suppose that at first he supposed that the thing was hid from Him, deeming Him man, which was of unbelief; but when he saw that his heart was known, he embraced the concealment offered by this general way of speaking, which was shamelesness. This also shews the goodness of the disciples, that they believed Christ’s words more than their own consciences, for they began each to say, Lord, is it I? For they knew by what Jesus had taught them that human nature is readily turned to evil, and is in continual struggle with the niters of the darkness of this world; (Eph. 6:12.) whence they ask as in fear, for by reason of our weakness the future is an object of dread to us. When the Lord saw the disciples thus alarmed for themselves, He pointed out the traitor by the mark of the prophetic declaration, He that hath eaten bread with me hath wantonly overthrown me. (Ps. 41:9.)
St Jerome † AD 420
O wonderful endurance of the Lord, He had said before, One of you shall betray me. The traitor perseveres in his wickedness; He designates him more particularly, yet not by name. For Judas, while the rest were sorrowful, and withdrew their hands, and bid away the food from their mouths, with the same hardihood and recklessness which led him to betray Him, reached forth his hand into the dish with his Master, passing off his audacity as a good conscience.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
I rather think that Christ did this out of regard for him, and to bring him to a better mind.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
What Matthew calls ‘paropsis,’ Mark calls ‘catinus.’ The ‘paropsis’ is a square dish for meat, ‘catinus,’ an earthen vessel for containing fluids; this then might be a square earthen vessel.
Origen † AD 253
Such is the wont of men of exceeding wickedness, to plot against those of whose bread and salt they have partaken, and especially those who have no enmity against them. But if we take it of the spiritual table, and the spiritual food, we shall see the more abundant and overflowing measure of this man’s wickedness, who called to mind neither his Master’s love in providing carnal goods, nor His teaching in things spiritual. Such are all in the Church who lay snares for their brethren whom they continually meet at the same table of Christ’s Body.
St Jerome † AD 420
Judas, not withheld by either the first or second warning, perseveres in his treachery; the Lord’s long-suffering nourishes his audacity. Now then his punishment is foretold, that denunciations of wrath may correct where good feeling has no power.
Remigius † AD 908
It belongs to human nature to come and go, Divine nature remains ever the same. So because His human nature could suffer and die, therefore of the Son of Man it is well said that he goeth. He says plainly, As it is written of him, for all that He suffered had been foretold by the Prophets.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
This He said to comfort His disciples, that they might not think that it was through weakness that He suffered; and at the same time for the correction of His betrayer. And notwithstanding His Passion had been foretold, Judas is still guilty; and not his betrayal wrought our salvation, but God’s providence, which used the sins of others to our profit.
Origen † AD 253
He said not, By whom the Son of Man is betrayed, but through whom, (John 13:2.) pointing out another, to with the Devil, as the author of His betrayal, Judas as the minister. But woe also to all betrayers of Christ! and such is every one who betrays a disciple of Christ.
Remigius † AD 908
Woe also to all who draw near to Christ’s table with an evil and defiled conscience! who though they do not deliver Christ to the Jews to be crucified, deliver Him to their own sinful members to be taken. He adds, to give more emphasis, Good were it for that man if he had never been born.
St Jerome † AD 420
We are not to infer from this that man has a being before birth; for it cannot be well with any man till he has a being; it simply implies that it is better not to be, than to be in evil.
St Augustine † AD 430 Quæst. Ev. i. 40.
And if it be contended that there is a life before this life, that will prove that not only not for Judas, but for none other is it good to have been born. Can it mean, that it were better for him not to have been born to the Devil, namely, for sin? Or does it mean that it had been good for him not to have been born to Christ at his calling, that he should now become apostate?
Origen † AD 253
After all the Apostles had asked, and after Christ had spoken of him, Judas at length enquired of himself, with the crafty design of concealing his treacherous purpose by asking the same question as the rest; for real sorrow brooks not suspense.
St Jerome † AD 420
His question feigns either great respect, or a hypocritical incredulousness. The rest who were not to betray Him, said only Lord; the actual traitor addresses Him as Master, as though it were some excuse that he denied Him as Lord, and betrayed a Master only.
Origen † AD 253
Or, out of sycophancy he calls Him Master, while he holds Him unworthy of the title.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Though the Lord could have said, Hast thou covenanted to receive silver, and darest to ask Me this? But Jesus, most merciful, said nothing of all this, therein laying down for us rules and landmarks of endurance of evil. He saith unto him, Thou hast said.
Remigius † AD 908
Which may be understood thus; Thou sayest it, and thou sayest what is true; or, Thou hast said this, not I; leaving him room for repentance so long as his villainy was not publicly exposed.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
This might have been so said by Judas, and answered by the Lord as not to be overheard by the rest.
The Latin text
Hieronymus
Quia supra dominus de passione sua praedixerat, nunc etiam de proditore praedicit, dans ei poenitentiae locum, ut cum intelligeret sciri cogitationes suas et occulta cordis consilia, poeniteret eum facti sui; unde dicitur vespere autem facto, discumbebat cum duodecim discipulis suis
Remigius
Cum duodecim dicit, quia Iudas adhuc erat in numero qui iam recesserat merito
Hieronymus
Omnia enim sic agit Iudas ut tollatur suspicio proditoris
Remigius
Et notandum quia pulchre vespere facto discubuisse dicitur, quoniam ad vesperam agnus immolari solebat
Rabanus Maurus
Ideo etiam vespere discubuit cum discipulis, quia in passione Christi, quando verus sol ad occasum properavit, refectio aeterna omnibus fidelibus praeparata fuit
Chrysostomus in Matth
Designat autem Evangelista quod comedentibus illis disputat Iesus de traditione Iudae, ut et a tempore et a mensa ostendat malitiam proditoris; et ideo sequitur et edentibus illis, dixit: amen dico vobis, quia unus vestrum me traditurus est
Leo Papa in Serm. 7 de passione
In quo notam sibi esse proditoris sui conscientiam demonstravit, non aspera ac aperta impium increpatione confundens, sed levi et tacita admonitione conveniens, ut facilius corrigeret poenitudo quem nulla deformasset abiectio
Origenes in Matth
Vel dixit generaliter, ut testimonio percussi cordis singulorum qualitas probaretur, et ut Iudae ostenderet malitiam, qui nec cognitori consiliorum suorum credebat; esto quia in primis putavit latere quasi hominem, qui postquam vidit conscientiam suam positam in verbis ipsius, quorum primum infidelitatis erat, secundum impudentiae: et ut etiam discipulorum ostenderet bonitatem, quia plus credebant verbis Christi quam conscientiae suae; unde sequitur et contristati valde coeperunt singuli dicere: numquid ego sum, domine? Unusquisque enim discipulorum sciebat ex his quae docuerat Iesus, quoniam ad malum vertibilis est humana natura, et in colluctatione adversus rectores huius mundi tenebrarum; et propter hanc causam unusquisque eorum timens interrogavit: unde et de omnibus futuris timendum est nobis infirmis. Videns autem dominus de seipsis timentes discipulos, demonstravit proditorem inditio propheticae vocis dicentis: qui manducavit panem mecum, ampliavit adversum me supplantationem; unde sequitur at ipse respondens ait: qui intingit mecum manum in paropside, hic me tradet
Hieronymus
O mira domini patientia. Prius dixerat: unus vestrum me tradet; perseverat proditor in malo; manifestius arguit, et tamen nomen proprium non designat. Iudas enim, ceteris contristatis et retrahentibus manum, et interdicentibus cibos ori suo, temeritate et impudentia qua proditurus erat, etiam manum cum magistro mittit in paropsidem, ut audacia bonam conscientiam mentiretur
Chrysostomus in Matth
Mihi autem videtur et hoc Christum fecisse, quod scilicet Iudas cum eo in paropside intingeret, magis eum confundens, et in amorem suum attrahens
Rabanus Maurus
Quod autem dicit hic Matthaeus in paropside, Marcus dicit: in catino. Paropsis enim est vas escarum quadrangulatum a paribus assibus, idest aequis lateribus, dictum; catinum vero vas fictile aptum ad immittendum liquorem; et potuit fieri ut in mensa vas fictile quadrangulatum contineretur
Origenes in Matth
Haec est autem propria consuetudo hominum nimis malorum, ut post salem et panem insidientur hominibus, maxime nihil inimicitiae ab eis habentibus. Si autem et post spiritualem mensam, abundantius videbis multitudinem malitiae eius, non recordatus nec in corporalibus bonis magistri dilectionem, nec in spiritualibus doctrinam. Tales sunt omnes in Ecclesia qui insidiantur fratribus suis, cum quibus ad eamdem mensam corporis Christi frequenter simul fuerunt
Hieronymus
Iudas autem nec primo nec secundo correctus, a proditione retrahit pedem; sed patientia domini nutrit impudentiam suam; et ideo poena praedicitur, ut quem pudor non viderat, corrigant denuntiata supplicia; unde sequitur filius quidem hominis vadit, sicut scriptum est de illo
Remigius
Humanitatis namque est ire et redire; divinitatis semper manere et esse; et quia humanitas pati potuit et mori, idcirco pulchre dicitur filius hominis abire. Aperte etiam dicit sicut scriptum est de eo: quoniam quaecumque passus est, prius a prophetis praedicta sunt
Chrysostomus in Matth
Hoc autem dixit ad consolandum discipulos, ut non existimarent infirmitatis id esse quod passurus erat; et ut etiam corrigeret proditorem. Quamvis autem scriptum fuerit passurum esse Christum, nihilominus tamen incusatur Iudas; non enim traditio Iudae salutem nostram operata est, sed sapientia Christi, qui aliorum nequitiis ad id quod nobis expediebat utebatur; unde sequitur vae autem homini illi per quem filius hominis tradetur
Origenes in Matth
Non autem dixit vae homini illi a quo traditur, sed per quem tradetur: ostendens alterum a quo tradebatur, idest a Diabolo; ipsum autem Iudam ministrum esse traditionis. Vae autem omnibus traditoribus Christi; quicumque enim discipulos Christi tradit, ipsum Christum tradit
Remigius
Vae etiam erit omnibus qui maligna conscientia et polluta ad mensam Christi accedunt: quamvis enim Christum non tradant Iudaeis crucifigendum, tradunt tamen suis iniquis membris sumendum; et ad maiorem exaggerationem subdit bonum erat illi si natus non fuisset homo ille
Hieronymus
Non autem ideo putandus est ante fuisse quam nasceretur, quia nulli possit esse bene, nisi ei qui fuerit; sed simpliciter dictum est multo melius esse non subsistere, quam male subsistere
Augustinus de quaest. Evang
Et si quispiam contendit aliquam vitam esse ante istam, non Iudae tantum ut non nasceretur, sed nulli expedire convincitur. An Diabolo dicit non expedire nasci, scilicet ad peccatum? An etiam bonum erat illi ut Christo non nasceretur per vocationem, ne esset apostata?
Origenes in Matth
Iudas autem post omnium apostolorum interrogationes, et post Christi narrationem de ipso, vix aliquando et ipse interrogavit versuto consilio, ut similia ceteris interrogando celaret proditionis consilium: nam vera tristitia non sustinet moram; unde sequitur respondens autem Iudas, qui tradidit eum, dixit: numquid ego sum, Rabbi?
Hieronymus
In quo blandientis fingit affectum, sive incredulitatis signum. Ceteri enim, qui non erant prodituri, dicunt: numquid ego sum, domine? Iste qui proditurus erat, non dominum, sed magistrum vocat; quasi excusationem habeat, si domino denegato, saltem magistrum prodiderit
Origenes in Matth
Vel hoc ipsum quasi subsannans dicit, quia vocabatur magister, cum non esset hoc vocabulo dignus
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quamvis autem dominus poterat dixisse: argentum es pactus accipere, et adhuc audes interrogare? Sed nihil horum dixit mitissimus Iesus, nobis terminos et regulas praefigens; sequitur enim et ait illi: tu dixisti
Remigius
Quod sic potest intelligi: tu dicis, et verum dicis; sive tu dixisti, et non ego: ut adhuc ei locus poenitentiae concederetur, dum non apertius eius perversitas manifestatur
Rabanus Maurus
Potuit hoc etiam sic dici a Iuda, et a domino responderi, ut non omnes adverterent quod dictum erat
26:26
St Jerome † AD 420
When the typical Passover was concluded, and He had partaken of the Lamb with His Apostles, He comes to the true paschal sacrament; that, as Melchisedech, Priest of the most high God, had done in foreshadowing Christ, offering bread and wine (Gen. 14:18.), He also should offer the present verity of His Body and Bloodc.
St Augustine † AD 430 Ep. 54. 7.
And as they were eating, whereby it is clearly seen that at their first partaking of the Lord’s Body and Blood, the disciples did not partake fasting. But are we therefore to except against the practice of the whole Church, of receiving fasting? It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost, that for the better honour of so great a Sacrament, the Lord’s Body should enter the Christian’s mouth before other food. For to commend more mightily the depth of this mystery, the Saviour chose this as the last thing He would imprint on the hearts and memory of His disciples, from whom He was to depart to His Passion. But He did not direct in what order it should thenceforth be taken, that He might reserve that for the Apostles by whom He would regulate His Church.
The Gloss non occ.
Christ delivered to us His Flesh and Blood under another kind, and ordained them to be thenceforth so received, that faith might have its merit, which is of things that are not seen.
St Ambrose † AD 397 de Sacr. vi. 1.
d; And that we might not be shocked by the sight of blood, while it at the same time wrought the price of our redemption.
St Augustine † AD 430 in Joan Tr. 26. 17. cf. Serm. 227. 1.
The Lord committed His Body and Blood to substances which are formed a homogeneous compound out of many. Bread is made of many grains, wine is produced out of many berries. Herein the Lord Jesus Christ signified us, and hallowed in His own table the mystery of our peace and unity.
Remigius † AD 908
Fittingly also did He offer fruit of the earth, to shew there by that He came to take away the curse wherewith the earth was cursed for the sin of the first man. Also He bade be offered the produce of the earth, and the things for which men chiefly toil, that there might be no difficulty in procuring them, and that men might offer sacrifice to God of the work of their hands.
St Ambrose † AD 397 de Sacr. iv. 3.
Hence learn that the Christian mysteries were before the Jewish. Melchisedech offered bread and wine, being in all things like the Son of God, (Ps. 110:4.) to Whom it is said, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech; and of Whom it is here said, Jesus took bread. (John 12:24.)
The Gloss non occ.
Thise we must understand to be wheat bread, for the Lord compared Himself to a grain of wheat, saying, Except a corn fall into the ground &c. Such bread also is suitable for the Sacrament, because it is in common use; bread of other kinds being only made when this fails. But for as much as Christ up to the very last day, to use the words of Chrysostom as above, (p. 886.) shewed that He did nothing contrary to the Law, and the Law commanded that unleavened bread should be eaten in the evening when the Passover was slain, and that all leavened should be put away, it is manifest that the bread which the Lord took and gave to His disciples was unleavened.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 non occ.
It has given trouble to divers persons, that in the Church some offer unleavened and others leavened bread. The Roman Church offers unleavened, because the Lord took flesh without any pollution1; other2 Churches offer leavened bread, because the Word of the Father took flesh upon Him, and is Very God, and Very Man; and so the leaven is mingled with the flour. But whether we receive leavened or unleavened, we are made one body of the Lord our Saviour.
St Ambrose † AD 397 de Sacr. iv. 4.
This bread before the sacramentary words, is the bread in common use; after consecration it is made of bread Christ’s flesh. And what are the words, or whose are the phrases of consecration, save those of the Lord Jesus? For if His word had power to make those things begin to be which were not, how much rather will it not be efficacious to cause them to remain what they are, while they are at the same time changed into somewhat else? For if the heavenly word has been effectual in other matters, is it ineffectual in heavenly sacraments? Therefore of the bread is made the Body of Christ, and the wine is made blood by the consecration of the heavenly word.f Dost thou enquire after the manner? Learn. The course of nature is, that a man is not born but of man and woman, but by God’s will Christ was born of the Holy Spirit and a Virgin.
Paschasius
As then real flesh was created by the Holy Spirit without sexual union, so by the same Holy Spirit the substance of bread and wine are consecrated into the Body and Blood of Christ. And because this consecration is made by the Lord’s word, it is added, He blessed.g
Remigius † AD 908
Hereby He shewed also that He together with the Father and the Holy Spirit has filled human nature with the grace of His divine power, and enriched it with the boon of immortality. And to shew that His Body was not subject to passion but of His own will, it is added, And brake.
Lanfranc
When the host is broken, when the blood is poured from the cup into the mouth of the faithful, what else is denoted but the offering of the Lord’s Body on the cross, and the shedding of His Blood out of His sideh? PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS. (Eccl. Hier. 3. in fin.) In this is also shewn, that the one and uncompounded Word of God came to us compounded and visible by taking human nature upon Him, and drawing to Himself our society, made us partakers of the spiritual goods which He distributed, as it follows, And gave to his disciples.
St Leo the Great † AD 461 Serm. 58, 3.
Not excluding the traitor even from this mystery, that it might be made manifest that Judas was provoked by no wrong, but that he had been foreknown in voluntary impiety.
St Augustine † AD 430 in Joan. Tr. 59.
Peter and Judas received of the same bread, but Peter to life, Judas to death.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxii.
And this John shews when he says, After the sop, Satan entered into him John 13:27. For his sin was aggravated in that he came near to these mysteries with such a heart, and that having come to them, he was made better neither by fear, kindness, nor honour. Christ hindered him not, though He knew all things, that you may learn that He omits nothing which serves for correction.
Remigius † AD 908
In so doing He left an example to the Church, that it should sever no one from its fellowship, or from the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, but for some notorious and public crime,
St Hilary † AD 367
Or, The Passover was concluded by the taking the cup and breaking the bread without Judas, for he was unworthy the communion of eternal sacraments. And that he had left them we learn from thence, that he returns with a multitude.
St Augustine † AD 430
i And said, Take, eat; The Lord invites His servants to set before them Himself for food. But who would dare to eat his Lord? This food when eaten refreshes, but fails not; He lives after being eaten, Who rose again after being put to death. Neither when we eat Him do we divide His substance; but thus it is in this Sacrament. The faithful know how they feed on Christ’s flesh, each man receives a part for himself. He is divided into parts in the Sacrament, yet He remains whole; He is all in heaven, He is all in thy heart. They are called Sacraments, because in them what is seen is one thing, what is understood is another; what is seen has a material form, what is understood has spiritual fruit.
St Augustine † AD 430 in Joan. Tr. 27. 11.
Let us not eat Christ’s flesh only in the Sacrament, for that do many wicked men, but let us eat to spiritual participation, that we may abide as members in the Lord’s body, that we may be quickened by His Spirit.
St Ambrose † AD 397 de Sacr. iv. 5.
Before consecration, it is bread; after Christ’s words, This is my body, have been pronounced, it is Christ’s Body.
The Latin text
Hieronymus
Postquam typicum Pascha fuerat impletum, et agni carnes cum apostolis comederat, ad verum Paschae transgreditur sacramentum; ut quando omni praefiguratione eius Melchisedech summi Dei sacerdos, panem et vinum offerens fecerat, ipse quoque in veritate sui corporis et sanguinis repraesentaret; unde dicitur coenantibus autem illis
Augustinus ad Ianuarium
In quo liquido apparet, quando primo acceperunt discipuli corpus et sanguinem domini, non eos accepisse ieiunos. Numquid tamen propterea calumniandus est ritus universae Ecclesiae, quod a ieiunis semper accipitur? Placuit enim spiritui sancto ut in honorem tanti sacramenti in os Christiani prius dominicum corpus intraret quam ceteri cibi. Salvator namque quo vehementius commendaret mysterii huius altitudinem, ultimum hoc voluit infigere cordibus et memoriae discipulorum, a quibus ad passionem digressurus erat; et ideo non praecepit quo deinceps ordine sumeretur, ut apostolis, per quos Ecclesiam dispositurus erat, servaret hunc locum
Glossa
Sub alia tamen specie carnem et sanguinem suum tradidit Christus, et deinceps sumendum instituit, ut fides haberet meritum, quae de his est quae non videntur
Ambrosius de sacramentis
Et ut nullus horror cruoris sit, et pretium tamen operetur redemptionis
Augustinus super Ioannem
Commendavit autem dominus corpus et sanguinem suum in eis rebus quae ad unum aliquid rediguntur ex multis. Panis namque in unum ex multis granis conficitur, vinum vero in unum ex multis acinis confluit: ita dominus Iesus Christus nos signavit, et mysterium pacis ac unitatis nostrae in sua mensa consecravit
Remigius
Apte etiam fructum terrae obtulit, ut per hoc demonstraret quia ad hoc venerat ut illam maledictionem auferret, qua maledicta est terra propter peccatum primi hominis. Congruenter etiam iussit offerri quae de terra nascuntur et pro quibus homines maxime laborant, ut non esset difficultas in acquirendo, et homines de labore manuum suarum sacrificium Deo offerrent
Ambrosius de sacramentis
Ex hoc autem accipe anteriora esse mysteria Christianorum quam Iudaeorum. Obtulit enim Melchisedech panem et vinum, similis per omnia filio Dei, cui dicitur: tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech; de quo et hic dicitur accepit Iesus panem
Glossa
Quod de pane frumenti intelligi debet: grano enim frumenti se comparavit dominus dicens: nisi granum frumenti cadens in terram, et cetera. Talis etiam panis competit sacramento, quia eius usus est communior: nam alii panes propter eius defectum fiunt. Quia vero Christus usque ad ultimum diem demonstravit se non esse contrarium legi, ut supra ex verbis Chrysostomi habitum est, in vespera vero quando Pascha immolabatur secundum legis praeceptum azyma comedendum erat, et omne fermentatum abiciendum, manifestum est quod panis iste quem dominus accepit ut discipulis traderet, azymus fuit
Gregorius in registro
Solet autem nonnullos movere quod in Ecclesia alii offerunt panes azymos, alii fermentatos. Ecclesia namque Romana offert azymos panes, propterea quod dominus sine ulla commixtione suscepit carnem; aliae vero Ecclesiae offerunt fermentatum pro eo quod verbum patris indutum est carne, et est verus Deus et verus homo: nam et fermentum commiscetur farinae; sed tamen tam azymum quam fermentatum dum sumimus, unum corpus domini nostri salvatoris efficimur
Ambrosius de sacramentis
Iste autem panis ante verba sacramentorum, panis est usitatus; ubi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. Consecratio autem quibus verbis est, et quibus sermonibus, nisi domini Iesu? Si enim tanta vis est in eius sermone ut inciperent esse quae non erant, quanto magis operatorius est ut sint quae erant, et in aliud commutentur? Si enim operatus est sermo caelestis in aliis rebus, non operatur in caelestibus sacramentis? Ergo ex pane corpus fit Christi, et vinum fit sanguis consecratione verbi caelestis. Modum requiris? Accipe. Consuetudo est ut non generetur homo nisi ex viro et muliere: sed, quia voluit dominus, de spiritu sancto et virgine natus est Christus
Augustinus de Verb. Dom
Sicut ergo per spiritum sanctum vera caro sine coitu creatur, ita et per eumdem substantia panis et vini, idest corpus Christi et sanguis consecratur; et ideo quia verbo domini fit praedicta consecratio, subditur benedixit
Remigius
Per hoc etiam monstravit quia humanam naturam, una cum patre et spiritu sancto, gratia divinae virtutis implevit, et aeternae immortalitatis munere ditavit. Sed ut monstraret quia corpus eius non absque sua voluntate subiectum erat passioni, subditur ac fregit
Augustinus in Lib. Sentent. prosperi
Cum enim frangitur hostia, dum sanguis de calice in ora fidelium funditur, quid aliud quam dominici corporis immolatio in cruce, eiusque sanguinis effusio de latere designatur?
Dionysius in Eccl. Hierar
In hoc etiam ostenditur quod unum et simplex Dei verbum per humanationem compositum et visibile ad nos pervenit, et ad se nostram societatem benigne peragens, spiritualium bonorum distributorum nos participes fecit: unde sequitur deditque discipulis suis
Leo Papa in Serm. 7 de passione
Nec ab hoc quidem mysterio traditore submoto, ut ostenderetur Iudas nulla iniuria exasperatus, qui impietate voluntaria erat praescitus
Augustinus super Ioannem
De uno enim pane et Petrus accepit et Iudas; sed Petrus accepit ad vitam, Iudas ad mortem
Chrysostomus in Matth
Et hoc Ioannes ostendit dicens, quoniam post haec intravit in eum Satanas. Etenim maius ei peccatum est factum, et quoniam cum tali mente ad mysteria accessit, et quoniam cum accessisset, non factus est melior neque timore, neque beneficio, neque honore. Christus autem non prohibuit eum, quamvis omnia noverit, ut discas quoniam nihil dereliquit eorum quae in correptionem conveniunt
Remigius
In hoc etiam facto reliquit exemplum Ecclesiae, ut neminem a societate sui, neque a communione corporis et sanguinis domini segreget, nisi pro aliquo manifesto et publico crimine
Hilarius in Matth
Vel sine Iuda, Pascha, accepto calice et fracto pane, conficitur: dignus enim aeternorum sacramentorum communione non fuerat. Discessisse autem eum hinc intelligitur quod cum turbis reversus ostenditur. Sequitur et ait: accipite et comedite
Augustinus de Verb. Dom
Invitat dominus servos, ut praeparet eis cibum seipsum. Sed quis audeat manducare dominum suum? Et quidem quando manducatur reficit, sed non deficit: vivit manducatus, quia surrexit occisus; nec quando manducatur, partes de illo facimus; et quidem in sacramento sic fit. Norunt fideles quemadmodum manducent carnem Christi: unusquisque partem suam accipit. Per partes manducatur in sacramento, et integer manet: totus in caelo, totus in corde tuo. Ideo autem ista dicuntur sacramenta, quia in eis aliud videtur, et aliud intelligitur: quod videtur, habet speciem corporalem; quod intelligitur, fructum habet spiritualem
Augustinus super Ioannem
Carnem autem Christi non edamus tantum in sacramento, quod et multi mali faciunt; sed usque ad spiritus participationem manducemus, ut in domini corpore tamquam membra maneamus, ut eius spiritu vegetemur
Ambrosius de sacramentis
Ante enim quam consecretur, panis est; ubi autem verba Christi accesserint dicentis hoc est corpus meum, corpus Christi est
26:27
Remigius † AD 908
The Lord having given His disciples His Body under the element of bread1, well gives the cup of His Blood to them likewise; shewing what joy He has in our salvation, seeing He even shed His Blood for us.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
He gave thanks to instruct us after what manner we ought to celebrate this mystery, and shewed also thereby that He came not to His Passion against His will. Also He taught us to bear whatsoever we suffer with thanksgiving, and infused into us good hopes. For if the type of this sacrifice, to wit, the offering of the paschal lamb, became the deliverance of the people from Egyptian bondage, much more shall the reality thereof be the deliverance of the world. And gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. That they should not be distressed at hearing this, He first drank His own blood to lead them without fear to the communion of these mysteries.
St Jerome † AD 420 Ep. 120. ad Hedib.
Thus then the Lord Jesus was at once guest and feast, the eater and the things eaten.k
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
This is my blood of the new testament; that is, the new promise, covenant, law; for this blood was promised from of old, and this guarantees the new covenant; for as the Old Testament had the blood of sheep and goats, so the New has the Lord’s Blood.
Remigius † AD 908
For thus it is read, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you. (Exod. 24:8.)
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
And in calling it blood, He foreshows His Passion, My blood … which shall be shed for many. Also the purpose for which He died, adding, For the remission of sins; as much as to say, The blood of the lamb was shed in Egypt for the salvation of the first born of the Israelites, this My Blood is shed for the remission of sins.
Remigius † AD 908
And it is to be noted, that He says not, For a few, nor, For all, but, For many; because He came not to redeem a single nation, but many out of all nations.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Thus saying, He shews that His Passion is a mystery of the salvation of men, by which also He comforts His disciples. And as Moses said, This shall be an ordinance to thee for ever, (Ex. 12:24.) so Christ speaks as Luke relates, This do in remembrance of me. (Luke 22:19.)
Remigius † AD 908
And He taught us to offer not bread only, but wine also, to shew that they who hungered and thirsted after righteousness were to be refreshed by these mysteries.
The Gloss non occ.
As the refreshment of the body is wrought by means of meat and drink, so under the form of meat and drink the Lord has provided for us spiritual refreshment. And it was suitable that for the shewing forth the Lord’s Passion this Sacrament should be instituted under both kinds. For in His Passion He shed His Blood, and so His Blood was separated from His Body. It behoved therefore, that for representation of His Passion, bread and wine should be separately set forth, which are the Sacrament of the Body and Blood. But it should be known, that under both kinds the whole of Christ is contained; under the bread is contained the Blood, together with the Body; under the wine, the Body together with the Blood.
Ambrosiaster in 1 Cor. 11:26.
And for this reason also do we celebrate under both kinds, because that which we receive avails for the preservation of both body and soul.
St Cyprian † AD 258 Ep. 63, ad Cæcil.
The cup of the Lord is not water only, or wine only, but the two are mixed; so the Lord’s Body cannot be either flour only, or water only, but the two are combined.l
St Ambrose † AD 397 de Sacr. v. 1.
If Melchisedech offered bread and wine, what means this mixing of water? Hear the reason. Moses struck the rock, and the rock gave forth abundance of water, but that rock was Christ. Also one of the soldiers with his spear pierced Christ’s side, and out of His side flowed water and blood, the water to cleanse, the blood to redeem.m
Remigius † AD 908
For it should be known, that as John speaks, The many waters are nations and people. (Rev. 17:15.) And because we ought always to abide in Christ and Christ in us, wine mixed with water is offered, to shew that the head and the members, that is, Christ and the Church, are one body; or to shew that neither did Christ suffer without a love for our redemption, nor we can be saved without His Passion.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
And having spoken of His Passion and Cross, He proceeds to speak of His resurrection, I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth, &c. By the kingdom He means His resurrection. And He speaks this of His resurrection, because He would then drink with the Apostles, that none might suppose His resurrection a phantasy. Thus when they would convince any of His resurrection, they said, We did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. (Acts 10:41.) This tells them that they shall see Him after He is risen, and that He will be again with them. That He says, New, is plainly to be understood, after a new manner, He no longer having a passible body, or needing food. For after His resurrection He did not eat as needing food, but to evidence the reality of the resurrection. And forasmuch as there are some heretics who use water instead of wine in the sacred mysteriesn, He shews in these words, that when He now gave them these holy mysteries, He gave them wine, and drank the like after He was risen; for He says, Of this fruit of the vine, but the vine produces wine, and not water.
St Jerome † AD 420
Or otherwise; From carnal things the Lord passes to spiritual. Holy Scripture speaks of the people of Israel as of a vine brought up out of Egypt; (Ps. 80:8.) of this vine it is then that the Lord says He will drink no more except in His Father’s kingdom. His Father’s kingdom I suppose to mean the faith of the believers. When then the Jews shall receive His Father’s kingdom, then the Lord will drink of their vine. Observe that He says, Of my Father Jer. 2:21, not, Of God, for to name the Father is to name the Son. As much as to say, When they shall have believed on God the Father, and He has brought them to the Son.
Remigius † AD 908
Or otherwise; I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, i. e. I will no longer take pleasure in the carnal oblations of the Synagogue, among which the immolation of the Paschal lamb held an eminent place. But the time of My resurrection is at hand, and the day in which exalted in the Father’s kingdom, that is, raised in immortal glory, I shall drink it new with you, i. e. I shall rejoice as with a new joy in the salvation of that people then renewed by the water of baptism.
St Augustine † AD 430 Quæst. Ev. i. 43.
Or otherwise; When He says, I shall drink it new with you, He gives us to understand that this is old. Seeing then that He took body of the race of Adam, who is called the old man, and was to give up to death that Body in His Passion, (whence also He gave us His Blood in the sacrament of wine,) what else can we understand by the new wine than the immortality of renewed bodies. In saying, I will drink it with you, He promises to them like wise a resurrection of their bodies for the putting on of immortality. With you is not to be understood of time, but of a like renewal, as the Apostle speaks, that we are risen with Christ, the hope of the future bringing a present joy. That that which He shall drink new shall also be of this fruit of the vine, signifies that the very same bodies shall rise after the heavenly renewal, which shall now die after the earthly decay.
St Hilary † AD 367
It seems from this that Judas had not drunk with Him, because He was not to drink hereafter in the kingdom; but He promises to all who partook at this time of this fruit of the vine that they should drink with Him hereafter.
The Gloss non occ.
But in support of the opinion of other saints, that Judas did receive the sacraments from Christ, it is to be said, that the words with you may refer to the greater part of them, and not necessarily to the whole.
The Latin text
Remigius
Quia corpus suum sub specie panis dominus discipulis dederat, pulchre etiam calicem sui sanguinis tradit eisdem; unde dicitur et accipiens calicem, gratias egit; in quo demonstrat quantum de nostra salute gratuletur, pro quibus etiam sanguinem suum funderet
Chrysostomus in Matth
Ideo etiam gratias egit ut nos doceret qualiter oporteret nos hoc mysterium perficere; et etiam monstravit quoniam ad passionem non venit nolens. Erudivit enim nos quodcumque patimur cum gratiarum actione ferre, et etiam ex hoc bonam spem nobis dedit. Si enim figura huius sacrificii, scilicet immolatio agni paschalis, facta est liberatio populi ab Aegyptiaca servitute, multo magis veritas liberabit orbem terrarum. Sequitur et dedit illis, dicens: bibite ex hoc omnes. Ne autem haec audientes turbarentur, primum ipse sanguinem suum bibit, inducens eos sine turbatione ad communionem mysteriorum
Hieronymus contra Helvidium
Sic igitur dominus Iesus fuit conviva et convivium, ipse comedens et qui comeditur. Sequitur hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti
Chrysostomus in Matth
Hoc est, Annuntiationis legis novae: hoc enim promittebat vetus testamentum quod continet novum: sicut enim vetus testamentum habuit sanguinem vitulorum et ovium, ita novum habet sanguinem dominicum
Remigius
Sic enim legitur, quia accepit Moyses sanguinem agni, et misit in craterem, et intincto fasciculo hyssopi aspersit populum, dicens: hic est sanguis testamenti quod mandavit ad vos Deus
Chrysostomus in Matth
Sanguinem autem nominans, et passionem suam praenuntiat, dicens qui pro multi effundetur. Et rursus dicit mortis causam, cum subdit in remissionem peccatorum, quasi dicat: sanguis agni in Aegypto effusus est pro salute primogenitorum populi Israelis, hic autem in remissionem peccatorum
Remigius
Et notandum, quia non ait: pro paucis, aut: pro omnibus; sed pro multis; quia non venerat unam tantum gentem redimere, sed multos de omnibus gentibus
Chrysostomus in Matth
Hoc autem dicens ostendit quod passio eius mysterium est salutis humanae, per quod etiam discipulos consolatur. Et sicut Moyses ait: hoc erit vobis memoriale sempiternum, ita et ipse dixit, ut Lucas refert: hoc facite in meam commemorationem
Remigius
Non solum autem panem, sed etiam vinum offerendum docuit, ut esurientes et sitientes iustitiam his mysteriis doceret esse recreandos
Glossa
Sicut enim corporalis refectio fit per cibum et potum, ita sub specie cibi et potus nobis spiritualem refectionem dominus praeparavit. Conveniens etiam fuit ad signandam dominicam passionem, ut sub duplici specie hoc sacramentum institueretur. In passione enim sanguinem suum effudit, et sic sanguis eius fuit a corpore separatus. Oportuit ergo ad dominicam passionem repraesentandam, seorsum proponi panem et vinum, quae sunt corporis et sanguinis sacramentum. Sciendum tamen est, quod sub utraque specie totus Christus continetur: sub specie quidem panis simul sanguis cum corpore, et sub specie vini simul corpus cum sanguine
Ambrosius in Epist. ad Corinth
Ideo etiam in duabus speciebus celebratur: valet enim ad tuitionem corporis et animae quod percipimus
Cyprianus ad Caecilium
Calix vero domini non est aqua sola et vinum solum, nisi utrumque misceatur; quomodo nec corpus domini potest esse farina sola, aut aqua sola, nisi utrumque fuerit adunatum
Ambrosius de sacramentis
Si autem Melchisedech panem et vinum obtulit, quid sibi vult aquae mixtio? Accipe rationem. Tetigit Moyses petram, et petra undam maximam fudit; petra autem erat Christus, et unus de militibus lancea tetigit latus Christi, et de latere eius aqua fluxit et sanguis; aqua ut mundaret, sanguis ut redimeret
Remigius
Sciendum etiam, quod, ut Ioannes dicit, aquae multae populi sunt. Et quia nos oportet semper manere in Christo, et Christum in nobis vinum aquae mixtum offertur, ut ostendatur quia caput et membra, idest Christus et Ecclesia, unum sunt corpus; vel ut demonstretur quia nec Christus passus est absque amore nostrae redemptionis, nec nos salvari possumus absque illius passione
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quia vero de passione et cruce eis locutus erat, consequenter eum qui de resurrectione est sermonem inducit, dicens dico autem vobis; non bibam amodo de hoc genimine vitis usque in diem illum, cum illud bibam vobiscum novum in regno patris mei. Regnum autem resurrectionem suam nominat. Ideo autem hoc de resurrectione dixit, quod scilicet cum apostolis esset bibiturus, ne aliqui existimarent phantasiam esse resurrectionem; et ideo persuadentes hominibus de Christi resurrectione dixerunt: simul comedimus et bibimus cum eo, postquam resurrexit a mortuis. Per hoc ergo ostendit quod videbunt eum suscitatum, et cum ipsis rursus erit. Quod autem dicit novum, clare intelligendum est nove, idest novo modo, non quasi corpus passibile habens, et indigens cibo: non enim post resurrectionem comedit et bibit quia cibo indigeret, sed propter resurrectionis certitudinem. Quia vero sunt quidam haeretici in sacris mysteriis aqua utentes, non vino, demonstrat per haec verba quoniam et cum sacra mysteria tradidit, vinum dedit, quod et resuscitatus bibit: propter hoc dicit ex hoc genimine vitis; vitis enim vinum, non aquam generat
Hieronymus
Vel aliter. De carnalibus dominus transit ad spiritualia. Quod vinea de Aegypto transplantata populus sit Israel, sacra Scriptura testatur. Dicit ergo dominus se de hac vinea nequaquam esse bibiturum, nisi in regno patris. Regnum patris fidem puto esse credentium. Ergo cum Iudaei regnum receperint patris, tunc de vino eorum dominus bibet. Attende autem quod dicat patris, et non Dei; omnis enim pater nomen est filii; ac si diceret: cum crediderint in Deum patrem, et adduxerit eos pater ad filium
Remigius
Vel aliter. Non bibam de genimine vitis huius; idest, non ultra synagogae carnalibus oblationibus delectabor, in quibus illa paschalis agni immolatio praecipuum locum tenere solebat. Aderit autem tempus meae resurrectionis, et dies in quo in regno patris constitutus, idest gloria aeternae immortalitatis sublimatus, vobiscum illud bibam novum, hoc est de salvatione illius populi iam renovati per aquam Baptismatis, quasi novo gaudio laetabor
Augustinus de quaest. Evang
Vel aliter. Cum dicit bibam illud novum, vult intelligi hoc vetus esse. Quia ergo de propagine Adam, qui vetus homo appellatur, corpus suscepit, quod in passione morti traditurus erat (unde etiam per vini sacramentum commendavit sanguinem suum), quid aliud novum vinum quam immortalitatem renovandorum corporum intelligere debemus? Quod autem dicit vobiscum bibam, etiam ipsis resurrectionem corporum ad induendam immortalitatem promittit: vobiscum enim non ad idem tempus, sed ad eamdem innovationem esse dictum accipiendum est: nam et nos dicit apostolus resurrexisse cum Christo, ut spes rei futurae iam laetitiam praesentem afferat. Quod autem de hoc genimine vitis etiam illud novum esse dicit, significat utique eadem corpora resurrectura secundum innovationem caelestem, quae nunc secundum terrenam vetustatem sunt moritura
Hilarius in Matth
Videtur autem ex hoc quod Iudas cum eo non biberit, quia non erat bibiturus in regno: cum universos tunc bibentes ex vitis istius fructu, bibituros secum postea polliceretur
Glossa
Sed sustinendo aliorum sanctorum sententiam, quod scilicet Iudas sacramenta receperit a Christo, dicendum est, quod hic dicit vobiscum, ad plures eorum, non ad omnes referendum esse
26:30
Origen † AD 253
When the disciples had eaten the bread of blessing, and drunk of the cup of thanksgiving, the Lord instructs them in return for these things to sing a hymn to the Father. And they go to the Mount of Olives, that they may pass from height to height, because the believer can do nought in the valley. o[
St Bede † AD 735 in Luc. 22:39.
Beautifully after the disciples have been filled with the Sacraments of His Body and Blood, and, commended to the Father in a hymn of pious intercession, does He lead them into the mount of Olives; thus by type teaching us how we ought, by the working of His Sacraments, and the aid of His intercession, mount up to the higher gifts of the virtues and the graces of the Holy Spirit, with which we are anointed in our hearts.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
This hymn may be that thanksgiving which in John, (c. 17.) Our Lord offers up to the Father, when He lifted up His eyes and prayed for His disciples, and those who should believe through their word. This is that of which the Psalm speaks, The poor shall eat and be filled, they shall praise the Lord.] (Ps. 22:26.)
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Let them hear this, who like swine with no thought but of eating rise from the table drunk, when they should have given thanks, and closed with a hymn. Let them hear who will not tarry for the final prayer in the sacred mysteries; for the last prayer of the mysteries represents that hymn. He gave thanks before He delivered the holy mysteries to the disciples, that we also might give thanks; He sung a hymn after He had delivered them, that we also should do the like.
St Jerome † AD 420
After this example of the Saviour, whosoever is filled and is drunken upon the bread and cup of Christ, may praise God and ascend the Mount of Olives, where is refreshment after toil, solace of grief, and knowledge of the true light.
St Hilary † AD 367
Hereby He shews that men confirmed by the powers of the Divine mysteries, are exalted to heavenly glory in a common joy and gladness.
Origen † AD 253
Suitably also was the mount of mercy chosen whence to declare the offence of His disciples’ weakness, by One even then prepared not to reject the disciples who forsook Him, but to receive them when they returned to Him.
St Jerome † AD 420
He foretels what they should suffer, that they might not after it had befallen them despair of salvation; but doing penitence might be set free.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
In this we see what the disciples were both before and after the cross. They who could not stand with Christ whilst He was crucified, became after the death of Christ harder than adamant. This flight and fear of the disciples is a demonstration of Christ’s death against those who are infected with the heresy of Marcion. If the had been neither bound nor crucified, whence arose the terror of Peter and the rest?
St Jerome † AD 420
And He adds emphatically this night, (1 These. 5:7.) because as they that are drunken are drunken by night, so they that are scandalized are scandalized by night, and in the dark.
St Hilary † AD 367
The credit of this prediction is supported by the authority of old prophecy; It is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall he scattered abroad.
St Jerome † AD 420
This is found in Zacharias in words different; it is said to God in the person of the Prophet, Smite the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered abroad. (Zech. 13:7.) The good Shepherd is smitten, that He may lay down His life for His sheep, and that of many flocks of divers errors should be made one flock, and one Shepherd.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
He produces this prophecy to teach them to attend to the things that are written, and to shew that His crucifixion was according to the counsel of God, and (as He does throughout) that He was not a stranger to the Old Testament, but that it prophesied of Him. But He did not suffer them to continue in sorrow, but announces glad tidings, saying, When I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee. After His resurrection He does not appear to them immediately from heaven, nor depart into any far country, but in the very same nation in which He was crucified, almost in the very place, giving them thereby assurance, that He who was crucified was the same as He who rose again, thereby to cheer their cast-down countenances. He fixes upon Galilee, that, being delivered from fear of the Jews, they might believe what He spoke to them.
Origen † AD 253
Also He foretels this to them, that they who now were somewhat dispersed in consequence of the offence, should be after gathered together by Christ rising again, and going before them into Galilee of the Gentiles.
St Hilary † AD 367
But Peter was carried so far by his zeal and affection for Christ, that he regarded neither the weakness of his flesh nor the truth of the Lord’s words; as if what He spake must not come to pass, Peter answered and said unto him, Though all should be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
What sayest thou, Peter? The Prophet says, The sheep shall be scattered abroad, and Christ has confirmed it, yet thou sayest, Never. When He said, One of you shall betray me, thou fearedst for thyself, although thou wert not conscious of such a thought; now when He openly affirms, All ye shall be offended, you deny it. But because when he was relieved of the anxiety he had concerning the betrayal, he grew confident concerning the rest, he therefore says thus, I will never be offended.
St Jerome † AD 420
It is not wilfulness, not falsehood, but the Apostle’s faith, and ardent attachment towards the Lord his Saviour.
Remigius † AD 908
What the One affirms by His power of foreknowledge, the other denies through love; whence we may take a practical lesson, that in proportion as we are confident of the warmth of our faith, we should be in fear of the weakness of our flesh. Peter seems culpable, first, because he contradicted the Lord’s words; secondly, because he set himself before the rest; and thirdly, because he attributed every thing to himself as though he had power to persevere strenuously. His fall then was permitted to heal this in him; not that he was driven to deny, but left to himself, and so convinced of the frailty of his human nature.p
Origen † AD 253
Whence the other disciples were offended in Jesus, but Peter was not only offended, but what is much more, was suffered to deny Him thrice.
St Augustine † AD 430 de Cons. Ev. iii. 4.
Perplexity may be occasioned to some by the great difference, not in words only, but in substance, of the speeches in which Peter is forewarned by Our Lord, and which occasion his presumptuous declaration of dying with or for the Lord. Some would oblige us to understand that he thrice expressed his confidence, and the Lord thrice answered him that he would deny Him thrice before cock-crowing; as after His resurrection He thrice asked him if he loved Him, and as often gave him command to feed His sheep. For what in language or matter has Matthew like the expressions of Peter in either Luke or John? Mark indeed relates it in nearly the same words as Matthew, only marking more precisely in the Lord’s words the manner in which it should fall in, Verily I say unto thee, that this day, in the night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. (Mark 14:30.) Whence some inattentive persons think that there is a discrepancy between Mark and the rest. For the sum of Peter’s denials is three; if the first then had been after the first cock crowing, the other three Evangelists must be wrong when they make the Lord say that Peter should deny Him before the cock crow. But, on the other hand, if he had made all three denials before the cock began to crow, it would be superfluous in Mark to say, Before the cock crow twice. Forasmuch as this threefold denial was begun before the first cockcrow, the three Evangelists have marked, not when it was to be concluded, but how often it was to happen, and when to begin, that is, before cock-crow. Though indeed if we understand it of Peter’s heart we may well say, that the whole denial was complete before the first cock-crow, seeing that “before that his mind was seized with that great fear which wrought upon him to the third denial. Much less therefore ought it to disquiet us, how the three-fold denial in three distinct speeches was begun, but not finished before cockcrow. Just as though one should say, Before cock-crow you will write me a letter, in which you will revile me three times; if the letter were begun before any cock-crow, but not finished till after the first, we should not therefore say that the prediction was false.
Origen † AD 253
But you will ask, whether it were possible that Peter should not have been offended, when once the Saviour had said, All ye shall be offended in me. To which one will answer, what is foretold by Jesus must of necessity come to pass; and another will say, that He who at the prayer of Ninevites turned away the wrath He had denounced by Jonas, might also have averted Peter’s offence at his entreaty. But his presumptuous confidence, prompted by zeal indeed but not a cautious zeal, became the cause not only of offence but of a thrice repeated denial. And since He confirmed it with the sanction of an oath, some one will say that it was not possible that he should not have denied Him. For Christ would have spoken falsely when he said, Verily I say unto thee, if Peter’s assertion, I will not deny thee, had been true. It seems to me that the other disciples having in view not that which was first said, All ye shall be offended, but that which was said to Peter, Verily I say unto thee, &c. made a like promise with Peter because they were not comprehended in the prophecy of denial. Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples. Here again Peter knows not what he says; he could not die with Him who was to die for all mankind, who were all in sin, and had need of some one to die for them, not that they should die for others.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Peter understood the Lord to have foretold that he should deny Him under terror of death, and therefore he declares that though death were imminent, nothing could shake him from his faith; and the other Apostles in like manner in the warmth of their zeal, valued not the infliction of death, but human presumption is vain without Divine aid.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
[I suppose also that Peter fell into these words through ambition and boastfulness. And they had disputed at supper which of them should be greatest, whence we see that the love of empty glory disturbed them much. And so to deliver him from such passions, Christ withdrew His aid from him. Moreover observe how after the resurrection, taught by his fall he speaks to Christ more humbly, and does not any more resist His words. All this his fall wrought for him; for before he had attributed all to himself, when he ought rather to have said, I will not deny Thee if Thou succour me with Thy aid. But afterwards he shews that every thing is to be ascribed to God; Why look ye so earnestly upon us, as though by our own power and holiness we had made this man to walk?]q (Act 3:12.) Hence then we learn the great doctrine, that man’s wish is not enough, unless he enjoys Divine support.
The Latin text
Origenes in Matth
Discipulos qui acceperant benedictionis panem, et biberant calicem gratiarum actionis, docebat dominus pro his omnibus hymnum dicere patri; unde dicitur et hymno dicto exierunt in montem oliveti: ut de alto transirent ad altum, quia fidelis non potest aliquid agere in convalle
Chrysostomus in Matth
Audiant quicumque, veluti porci, simpliciter manducantes cum ebrietate surgunt, cum deceret gratias agere, et in hymnum mensam desinere. Audiant quicumque ultimam orationem in sacris mysteriis non expectant: ultima enim oratio Missae illius hymni est signum. Gratias ergo egit antequam sacra mysteria discipulis daret, ut et nos gratias agamus; hymnum dixit postquam dedit, ut et nos hoc ipsum faciamus
Hieronymus
Iuxta hoc exemplum salvatoris, qui pane Christi et calice saturatus et inebriatus fuerit, potest laudare Deum, et conscendere montem oliveti, ubi laborum refectio dolorisque solatium et veri luminis notitia est
Hilarius in Matth
Per hoc etiam ostendit quod homines consummati in universis divinorum mysteriorum virtutibus, gaudio exultationeque communi in caelestem gloriam efferuntur
Origenes in Matth
Apte etiam mons misericordiae est electus, ubi pronuntiaturus fuit scandalum infirmitatis discipulorum, iam tunc paratus ut non repelleret discipulos discedentes, sed ut reciperet revertentes; unde sequitur tunc dixit illis Iesus: omnes vos scandalum patiemini in me in ista nocte
Hieronymus
Praedicit quidem quod passuri sunt, ut cum passi fuerint non desperent salutem, sed agentes poenitentiam, liberentur
Chrysostomus in Matth
In quo etiam docet nos, quales ante crucem fuerunt discipuli, et quales post crucem. Etenim qui neque cum Christo, dum crucifigebatur, stare poterant, post mortem Christi adamante fuerunt fortiores. Fuga enim discipulorum et timor demonstratio est mortis Christi, ut confundantur qui haeresi Marcionis aegrotant. Si enim neque ligatus est, neque crucifixus, unde Petro et reliquis apostolis incussus est tantus timor?
Hieronymus
Et signanter addit in ista nocte: quia quomodo qui inebriantur, nocte inebriantur, sic et qui scandalum patiuntur, in nocte et tenebris sustinent
Hilarius in Matth
Huius etiam praedictionis fides auctoritate prophetiae veteris continebatur; unde sequitur scriptum est enim: percutiam pastorem, et dispergentur oves gregis
Hieronymus
Hoc aliis verbis in Zacharia propheta scriptum est, et ex persona prophetae ad Deum dicitur: percute pastorem, et dispergentur oves. Percutitur autem pastor bonus, ut ponat animam suam pro ovibus suis, et de multis gregibus errantium fiat unus grex, et unus pastor
Chrysostomus in Matth
Hanc autem prophetiam inducit, simul quidem suadens eis attendere semper quae scripta sunt, simul etiam ostendens quoniam secundum Dei consilium crucifigebatur, et undique monstrans non alienum se esse a veteri testamento qui in eo praenuntiabatur. Non autem permisit eos in tristibus permanere; sed et laeta praenuntiat, dicens postquam autem resurrexero, praecedam vos in Galilaeam: non enim confestim post resurrectionem in caelo eis apparuit, neque in longam quamdam regionem, ut eis appareat, vadit; sed in ipsa gente et in ipsis fere regionibus: ut et hinc crederent quoniam qui crucifixus est ipse est qui resurrexit. Propter hoc etiam se in Galilaeam abire dicit, ut a timore Iudaeorum liberati crederent ei quod dicebatur
Origenes in Matth
Praedicit etiam hoc eis, ut qui ad modicum disperguntur, scandalum passi, post congregentur a resurgente Christo et praecedente eos in Galilaeam gentium
Hilarius in Matth
Sed Petrus intantum et affectu et caritate Christi efferebatur ut et imbecillitatem carnis suae et fidem verborum domini non contueretur, quasi dicta eius efficienda non essent; unde sequitur respondens Petrus ait illi: et si omnes scandalizati fuerint in te, ego nunquam scandalizabor
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quid ais, o Petre? Propheta dicit: dispergentur oves, et Christus confirmavit quod dictum est, et tu dicis: nequaquam. Quando dixit: unus ex vobis me tradet, timebas ne tu esses traditor, quamvis nihil tibi tale conscius eras; nunc autem, manifeste eo dicente quoniam omnes scandalizabimini, contradicis. Sed quia erutus erat ab anxietate quam de proditione habuerat, confidens de reliquo, dicebat ego nunquam scandalizabor
Hieronymus
Non tamen est temeritas nec mendacium, sed fides est apostoli Petri, et ardens affectus erga dominum salvatorem
Remigius
Quod ergo ille dicit praevidendo, iste denegat amando; ubi moraliter instruimur ut quantum confidimus de arbore fidei, tantum timeamus de carnis fragilitate. Videtur tamen accusabilis Petrus, et quoniam contradixit, et quoniam aliis seipsum praeposuit, et tertio quoniam totum sibi attribuit, quasi fortiter esse perseveraturus. Ut hoc igitur in eo sanaret, permisit fieri eius casum, non impellens eum ad negandum, sed eum sibi deserens, et naturam humanam de fragilitate convincens
Origenes in Matth
Unde alii discipuli scandalizati sunt in Iesu, Petrus autem non solum scandalizatur, sed abundantius relinquitur ut ter denegaret; unde sequitur ait illi Iesus: amen dico tibi, quia in hac nocte, antequam gallus cantet, ter me negabis
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Potest autem movere quod tam diversa non tantum verba, sed etiam sententias Evangelistae praemittunt, quibus praemonitus Petrus, illam praesumptionem proferret, vel cum domino vel pro domino moriendi; ita ut cogant intelligibiliter eum expressisse praesumptionem suam diversis locis sermonis Christi, et ter illi a domino responsum, quod eum esset ante galli cantum ter negaturus: sicut etiam post resurrectionem ter illum interrogat utrum illum amet, et mandatum de pascendis ovibus ter praecepit. Quid enim habent haec verba Matthaei vel sententiae simile illis vel quibus secundum Ioannem, vel quibus secundum Lucam Petrus protulit praesumptionem suam? Marcus autem pene ipsis verbis hoc commemorat quibus et Matthaeus, nisi quod distinctius quemadmodum futurum esset, expressit dictum esse a domino: amen dico tibi, quia tu hodie in nocte hac priusquam bis gallus vocem dederit, ter me es negaturus. Unde nonnullis, qui parum attendunt, Marcus videtur non congruere ceteris: tota enim negatio Petri trina est; quae si post primum galli cantum inciperet, falsum dixisse viderentur tres Evangelistae, qui dicunt dixisse dominum, quod antequam gallus cantaret, eum Petrus esset negaturus. Rursus si totam trinam negationem ante peregisset quam cantare gallus inciperet, superfluo dixisse Marcus deprehenderetur ex persona domini: priusquam gallus bis vocem dederit, ter me es negaturus. Sed quia ante primum galli cantum coepta est illa trina negatio, attenderunt tres Evangelistae non quando eam completurus esset Petrus, sed quanta futura esset, et quando incepta, idest ante galli cantum: quamquam in anima eius et ante primum galli cantum tota possit intelligi, quoniam ante galli cantum tantus timor obsederat mentem, qui eam posset usque ad tertiam negationem perducere. Multo minus igitur movere debet quia trina negatio, etiam trinis negantis vocibus, ante galli cantum coepta, etsi non ante primum galli cantum peracta est; tamquam si alicui diceretur: antequam gallus cantet, ad me scribes epistolam, in qua mihi ter conviciaberis: non utique si eam ante omnem galli cantum scribere inciperet, et post primum galli cantum finiret; ideo dicendum erat falsum fuisse praedictum
Origenes in Matth
Quaeres autem si possibile erat ut non scandalizaretur Petrus, semel salvatore dicente: omnes vos scandalum patiemini in me. Ad quod aliquis respondebit, quoniam necesse erat fieri quod praedictum erat a Iesu; alius autem dicet, quoniam qui exoratus a Ninivitis, quae praedixerat per Ionam non fecit, possibile fuit ut repelleret etiam scandalum a Petro deprecante. Nunc autem promissio eius audax in affectu quidem prompto, non tamen prudenti, facta est ei causa ut non solum scandalizaretur, verum etiam ter denegaret. Postquam autem cum affirmatione iuramenti pronuntiavit, dicet aliquis quod non erat possibile ut non denegaret. Si enim iuramentum erat Christi amen, mentitus fuisset dicendo amen dico tibi, si verum dixisset Petrus, quia non te negabo. Videntur autem mihi ceteri discipuli cogitantes quod primum fuerat dictum: omnes vos scandalum patiemini. Ad hoc autem quod dictum est Petro amen dico tibi, promiserunt similiter Petro, quia non erat comprehensi in illa prophetia; unde sequitur ait illi Petrus: etiam si oportuerit me mori tecum, non te negabo. Similiter et omnes discipuli dixerunt. Hic etiam Petrus, nescit quid loquatur: cum Iesu enim mori pro omnibus moriente hominum non erat: quoniam omnes fuerant in peccatis, et omnes opus habebant ut pro eis alius moreretur, non ipsi pro aliis
Rabanus Maurus
Sed quia intellexerat Petrus dominum, prae timore mortis eum se praedixisse negaturum, ob hoc dicebat, quod licet periculum immineret mortis, nullo modo ab eius fide posset avelli; et similiter alii apostoli per ardorem mentis non timuerunt damnum mortis; sed vana fuit praesumptio humana sine protectione divina
Chrysostomus in Matth
Hinc ergo magnum discimus dogma: quia non sufficit desiderium hominis, nisi divino aliquis potiatur auxilio
26:36
Remigius † AD 908
The Evangelist had said a little above, that when they had sung an hymn they went out to the mount of Olives; to point out the part of the mount to which they took their way, he now adds, Then came Jesus with them to a garden called Gethsemane.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Luke says, To the mount of Olives, (Luke 22:39.) and John, Went forth over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, (John 18:1.) which is the same as this Gethsemane, and is a place where He prayed at the foot of mount Olivet, where is a garden, and a Church now builtr
St Jerome † AD 420
Gethsemane is interpreted, ‘The rich valley;’ and there He bade His disciples sit a little while, and wait His return whilst He prayed alone for all.
Origen † AD 253
For it was not fitting that He should be seized in the place where He had sate and eaten the Passover with His disciples. Also He must first pray, and choose a place pure for prayer.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. Ixxxiii.
He says, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder, because the disciples adhered inseparably to Christ; but it was His practice to pray apart from them, therein teaching us to study quiet and retirement for our prayers.
St John Damascene † AD 749 de. Fid. Orth. iii. 24.
But seeing that prayer is the sending up the understanding to God, or the asking of God things fitting, how did the Lord pray? For His understanding needed not to be lifted up to God, having been once united hypostatically to God the Word. Neither could He need to ask of God things fitting, for the One Christ is both God and Man. But giving in Himself a pattern to us, He taught us to ask of God, and to lift up our minds to Him. As He took on Him our passions, that by triumphing over them Himself, He might give us also the victory over them, so now He prays to open to us the way to that lifting up to God, to fulfil for us all righteousness, to reconcile His Father to us, to pay honour to Him as the First Cause, and to shew that He is not against God.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
When the Lord prayed in the mountain, He taught us to make supplication for heavenly things; when He prays in the garden, He teaches us to study humility in our prayer. And beautifully, as He draws near His Passion, does He pray in the ‘valley of fatness,’ shewing that through the valley of humility, and the richness of charity, He took upon Him death for our sakes. The practical instruction which we may also learn from this is, that we should not suffer our heart to dry up from the richness of charity.
Remigius † AD 908
He had accepted the disciples’ faith and the devotedness of their will, but He foresaw that they would be troubled and scattered abroad, and therefore bade them sit still in their places; for to sit belongs to one at ease, but they would be grievously troubled that they should have denied Him. In what fashion He went forward it describes, And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and very heavy; the same to whom He had shewn His glory in the mount.
St Hilary † AD 367
These words, He began to be sorrowful and very heavy, are interpreted by heretics that fear of death assailed the Son of God, being (as they allege) neither begotten from eternity, nor existing in the Father’s infinite substance, but produced out of nothing by Him who created all things; and that hence He was liable to anguish of grief, and fear of death. And He who can fear death can also die; and He who can die, though He shall exist after death, yet is not eternal through Him who begot Him in past time. Had these faith to receive the Gospels, they would know that the Word was in the beginning God, and from the beginning with God, and that the eternity of Him who begets and Him who is begotten is one and the same. But if the assumption of flesh infected with its natural infirmity the virtue of that incorruptible substance, so that it became subject to pain, and shrinking from death, it would also become thereby liable to corruption, and thus its immortality being changed into fear, that which is in it is capable of at some time ceasing to be. But God ever is without measure of time, and such as He is, He continues to be eternally. Nothing then in God can die, nor can God have any fear springing out of Himself.
St Jerome † AD 420 non. occ.
But we say that passible man was so taken by God the Son, that His Deity remained impassible. Indeed the Son of God suffered, not by imputation but actually, all that Scripture testifies, in respect of that part of Him which could suffer, viz. in respect of the substance that He had taken on Him.
St Hilary † AD 367 de Trin. x. 10.
I suppose that there are some who offer here no other cause of His fear than His passion and death. I ask those who think thus, whether it stands with reason that He should have feared to die, who banished from the Apostles all fear of death, and exhorted them to the glory of martyrdom? How can we suppose Him to have felt pain and grief in the sacrament of death, who rewards with life those who die for Him? And what pangs of death could He fear, who came to death of the free choice of His own power? And if His Passion was to do Him honour, how could the fear of His Passion make Him sorrowful?
St Hilary † AD 367 in loc.
Since then we read that the Lord was sorrowful, let us discover the causes of His agony. He had forewarned them all that they would be offended, and Peter that he would thrice deny his Lord; and taking him and James and John, He began to be sorrowful. Therefore He was not sorrowful till He took them, but all His fear began after He had taken them; so that His agony was not for Himself, but for them whom He had taken.
St Jerome † AD 420
The Lord therefore sorrowed not from fear of suffering, for for this cause He had come that He should suffer, and had rebuked Peter for his fearfulness; (Matt. 14:31.) but for the wretched Judas, for the offence of the rest of the Apostles, for the rejection and reprobation of the Jewish nation, and the overthrow of unhappy Jerusalem.
St John Damascene † AD 749 Fid. Orth. iii. 23.
Or otherwise; All things which have not yet been brought into existence by their Maker have a natural desire of existence, and naturally shun non-existence. God the Word then, having been made Man, had this desire, through which He desired food, drink, and sleep, by which life is supported, and naturally used them, and contrariwise shunned the things that are destructive of life. Hence in the season of His Passion which He endured voluntarily, He had the natural fear and sorrow for death. For there is a natural fear wherewith the soul shrinks from separation from the body, by reason of that close sympathy implanted from the first by the Maker of all things.
St Jerome † AD 420
Our Lord therefore sorrowed to prove the reality of the Man which He had taken upon Him; but that passion might bear no sway in His mind, He began to be sorrowful by pro-passion;s for it is one thing to be sorrowful, and another to be very sorrowful.
Remigius † AD 908
By this place are overthrown the Manichæans, who said that He took an unreal body; and those also who said that He had not a real soul, but His Divinity in place of a soul1
St Augustine † AD 430 Lib. 83. Quæst. q. 80.
We have the narratives of the Evangelists, by which we know that Christ was both born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, was seized by the Jews, scourged, crucified, put to death, and buried in a tomb, all which cannot be supposed to have taken place without a body, and not even the maddest will say that these things are to be understood figuratively, when they are told by men who wrote what they remembered to have happened. These then are witnesses that He had a body, as those affections which cannot be without mind prove Him to have had a mind, and which we read in the accounts of the same Evangelists, that Jesus wondered, was angry, was sorrowful.
St Augustine † AD 430 de. Civ. Dei, xiv. 9.
Since then these things are related in the Evangelists, they are not surely false, but as when He willed He became Man, so likewise when He willed He took into His human soul these passions for the sake of adding assurance to the dispensation. We indeed have these passions by reason of the weakness of our human nature; not so the Lord Jesus, whose weakness was of power.
St John Damascene † AD 749 Fid. Orth. iii. 20.
Wherefore the passions of our nature were in Christ both by nature and beyond nature. By nature, because He left His flesh to suffer the things incidental to it; beyond nature, because these natural emotions did not in Him precede the will. For in Christ nothing befel of compulsion, but all was voluntary; with His will He hungered, with His will He feared, or was sorrowful. Here His sorrow is declared, Then saith he unto them, My soul is sorrowful even unto death.
St Ambrose † AD 397 ill. Luc. 22:43.
He is sorrowful, yet not Himself, but His soul; not His Wisdom, not His divine Substance, but His soul, for He took upon Him my soul, and my body.
St Jerome † AD 420
He is sorrowful not because of death, but unto death, until He has set the Apostles free by His Passion. Let those who imagine Jesus to have taken an irrational soul, say how it is that He is thus sorrowful, and knows the season of His sorrow, for though the brute animals have sorrow, yet they know neither the causes of it, nor the time for which it must endure.
Origen † AD 253
Or otherwise; My soul is sorrowful even unto death; as much as to say, Sorrow is begun in me, but not to endure for ever, but only till the hour of death; that when I shall die for sin, I shall die also to all sorrow, whose beginnings only are in me. Tarry ye here, and watch with me; as much as to say, The rest I bade sit yonder as weak, removing them from this struggle; but you I have brought hither as being stronger, that ye may toil with me in watching and prayer. But abide you here, that every man may stay in his own rank and station; since all grace, however great, has its superior.
St Jerome † AD 420
Or the sleep which He would have them forego is not bodily rest, for which at this critical time there was no room, but mental torpor, the sleep of unbelief.
The Latin text
Remigius
Paulo superius Evangelista dixerat, quia hymno iam dicto, exiit cum discipulis in montem oliveti; et ut ostenderet ad quem locum ipsius montis diverterit, consequenter adiunxit tunc venit Iesus cum illis in villam quae dicitur Gethsemani
Rabanus Maurus
Lucas dicit: in montem oliveti; Ioannes: trans torrentem Cedron, quod idem est quod Gethsemani: et est locus, in quo oravit ad radicem montis oliveti, ubi hortus est, ubi etiam Ecclesia est aedificata
Hieronymus
Gethsemani interpretatur vallis pinguissima, in qua iussit discipulos sedere paulisper, et expectare redeuntem, donec pro cunctis dominus solus oraret
Origenes in Matth
Non enim conveniebat ut ibi caperetur ubi cum discipulis manducaverat Pascha; conveniebat autem et priusquam proderetur orare, et eligere locum mundum ad orationem; unde sequitur et dixit discipulis suis: sedete hic donec vadam illuc, et orem
Chrysostomus
Hoc autem dicit, quia discipuli indivisibiliter sequebantur Christum; consuetudo enim ei erat sine discipulis orare; hoc autem faciebat erudiens nos in orationibus quietem nobis constituere, et solitudinem quaerere
Damascenus de fide Orth
Sed cum oratio sit ascensus intellectus ad Deum, vel petitio decentium a Deo, qualiter dominus orabat? Neque enim ascensione quae ad Deum est, indigebat intellectus eius, semel secundum personam Deo verbo unitus; neque etiam ea quae a Deo est petitione: unus enim Deus et homo Christus est. Sed formans in seipso quod nostrum est, docuit nos a Deo patre petere, et ad ipsum extendi: sicut enim passiones sustinuit, ut triumphans adversus eas victoriam nobis tribueret, ita orat, nobis viam faciens ad eam quae ad Deum est ascensionem, et pro nobis omnem iustitiam implens, et reconcilians nobis patrem suum; et ut principium ipsum honorans, et monstrans quod non est Deo contrarius
Remigius
Cum autem dominus in monte oravit, docuit nos in oratione pro caelestibus dominum supplicare: cum vero in villa oravit, nos instruxit ut in oratione semper humilitatem servare studeamus
Rabanus Maurus
Pulchre autem appropinquans passioni, in valle pinguedinis orasse dicitur, ut demonstraret quod per vallem humilitatis et pinguedinem caritatis mortem pro nobis susceperit. Moraliter etiam nos instruxit ut non gestemus cor aridum a pinguedine caritatis
Remigius
Appropinquans morti dominus, in valle pinguedinis oravit: quia per vallem humilitatis et pinguedinem caritatis pro nobis mortem subiit. Quia vero fidem discipulorum et constantiam devotae sibi voluntatis acceperat; sed turbandos illos et dispergendos praesciebat: ideo iussit eos in loco sedere: nam sedere requiescentis est: laboraturi enim erant eum negaturi. Qualiter autem progressus sit, manifestat cum subiungitur et assumpto Petro, et duobus filiis Zebedaei, coepit contristari et moestus esse. Illos videlicet assumpsit quibus in monte claritatem suae maiestatis ostenderat
Hilarius in Matth
Sed quia dicit coepit contristari et moestus esse, haereticorum omnis hic sensus est ut opinentur metum mortis in Dei filium incidisse, quia asserunt non de aeternitate prolatum, neque de infinitate paternae substantiae extitisse, sed ex nihilo per eum qui omnia creavit, effectum; et ideo in eo doloris anxietas, ideo metus mortis: ut qui mortem timere potuit, et mori possit; qui vero mori potuit, licet in futurum erit, non tamen per eum qui se genuit ex praeterito, sit aeternus. Quod si per fidem capaces Evangeliorum essent, scirent verbum in principio Deum, et hoc in principio apud Deum, et eamdem esse aeternitatem gignentis et geniti. Sed si virtutem illam incorruptae substantiae, imbecillitatis suae sorte assumptio carnis infecerit, ut sit ad dolorem infirma, ad mortem trepida, iam et corruptioni subdita erit; ac sic aeternitate demutata in metum, hoc quod in ea est poterit aliquando non esse. Deus autem sine mensura temporum semper est, et qualis est, talis semper aeternus est. Mori igitur nihil in Deo potuit, nec ex se metus Deo ullus est
Hieronymus
Nos autem ita dicimus hominem passibilem a Deo filio susceptum ut deitas impassibilis permaneret. Passus est enim Dei filius non putative, sed vere, omnia quae Scriptura testatur, secundum illud quod pati poterat; secundum scilicet substantiam assumptam
Hilarius de Trin
Puto autem non alia hic ad timendum quam passionis et mortis causa a quibusdam praetenditur. Interrogo autem eos qui hoc ita existimant, an ratione subsistat ut mori timuerit qui omnem ab apostolis timorem mortis expellens ad gloriam eos sit martyrii adhortatus: quid enim ipse in mortis sacramento doluisse existimandus est qui pro se morientibus vitam rependit? Deinde quem dolorem mortis timeret, potestatis suae liberate moriturus? Si etiam passio honorificatura eum erat, quomodo tristem eum metus passionis effecerat?
Hilarius in Matth
Quia ergo moestum dominum fuisse legimus, causas moestitiae reperiamus. Admonuerat superius omnes scandalizandos; Petrum etiam dominus ter negaturum esse respondit: assumptisque eo et Iacobo et Ioanne, coepit tristis esse. Ergo non ante tristis est quam assumit sed omnis metus illis esse coepit assumptis: atque ita non de se orta est, sed de eis quos assumpserat, moestitudo
Hieronymus
Contristabatur ergo dominus non timore patiendi, qui ad hoc venerat ut pateretur, et Petrum temeritatis arguerat, sed propter infelicissimum Iudam, et scandalum omnium apostolorum, et reiectionem vel reprobationem populi Iudaeorum, et eversionem miserae Ierusalem
Damascenus de fide Orth
Vel aliter. Omnia quae non ante ad esse deducta sunt a conditore, existendi naturaliter desiderium habent, et non existere naturaliter fugiunt. Deus igitur verbum homo factus habuit hoc desiderium, quo desideravit escam et potum et somnum, quibus scilicet conservatur vita, et naturaliter experientia horum usus est, et e contrario, corruptiva reformidavit; unde et tempore passionis, quam voluntarie sustinuit, habuit mortis timorem naturalem et tristitiam: est enim timor naturalis quo anima non vult dividi a corpore, propter naturalem familiaritatem quam ei a principio conditor rerum imposuit
Hieronymus
Dominus ergo noster, ut veritatem assumpti probaret hominis, vere quidem contristatus est; sed ne passio in animo illius dominaretur, per passionem coepit contristari: aliud est enim contristari, et aliud incipere contristari
Remigius
Destruuntur autem in hoc loco Manichaei, qui dixerunt illum phantasticum corpus assumpsisse; nihilo minus et illi qui dixerunt eum veram animam non habuisse, sed loco animae divinitatem
Augustinus in Lib. 83 quaest
Habemus enim Evangelistarum narrationes, per quas Christum et natum de beata virgine Maria cognovimus, et comprehensum a Iudaeis, et flagellatum et crucifixum atque interfectum, et sepultum in monumento: quae omnia intelligere sine corpore nemo potest facta esse; nec figurate accipienda quisquam vel dementissimus dixerit, cum dicta sint ab eis qui res gestas ut meminerant narraverunt. Sic ergo isti corpus eum habuisse testantur, sicut et eum habuisse indicant animam affectiones illae quae non possunt esse nisi in anima; quas nihilominus eisdem Evangelistis narrantibus legimus: et miratus est Iesus, et iratus, et contristatus
Augustinus de Civ. Dei
Cum ergo in Evangelio ista referuntur, non falso utique referuntur; verum ille hos motus certissimae dispensationis gratia ita cum voluit suscepit animo humano, ut cum voluit factus est homo. Habemus quidem et nos huiusmodi affectus ex humanae conditionis infirmitate; non autem ita dominus Iesus, cuius infirmitas fuit ex potestate
Damascenus de fide Orth
Quapropter naturales nostrae passiones secundum naturam et supra naturam fuerunt in Christo: secundum naturam enim, quia permittebat carni pati quae propria; super naturam autem, quia non praecedebant in eo voluntatem naturalia; nihil enim coactum in Christo consideratur, sed omnia voluntaria: volens enim esurivit, volens timuit et contristatus est. Et ideo de manifestatione tristitiae subditur tunc ait illis: tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem
Ambrosius super Lucam
Tristis autem est non ipse, sed anima: non enim tristis sapientia, non divina substantia, sed anima: suscepit enim animam meam, suscepit corpus meum
Hieronymus
Non autem propter mortem, sed usque ad mortem dicitur contristatus, donec apostolos sua liberet passione. Dicant qui irrationabilem Iesum sumpsisse animam suspicantur, quomodo contristetur, et noverit tempus tristitiae: quamvis enim et bruta moereant animalia, tamen non noverunt nec causas, neque tempus usque ad quod debeant contristari
Origenes in Matth
Vel aliter. Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem; quasi dicat: tristitia coepta est in me, non semper, sed usque ad tempus mortis; ut cum mortuus fuero peccato, moriar et universae tristitiae, cuius principium tantum fuit in me. Sequitur sustinete hic, et vigilate mecum; ac si dicat: ceteros quidem iussi sedere ibi, quasi infirmiores, ab agone isto servans eos securos; vos autem quasi firmiores adduxi, ut collaboretis mecum in vigiliis et orationibus: tamen et vos manete hic, ut unusquisque in gradu suae vocationis consistat: quoniam omnis gratia, quamvis fuerit magna, habet superiorem
Hieronymus
Vel ideo a somno prohibet, cuius tempus non erat imminente discrimine; sed a somno infidelitatis et torpore mentis
26:39
Origen † AD 253
He took with Him the self-confident Peter, and the others, that they might see Him falling on His face and praying, and might learn not to think great things, but little things of themselves, and not to be hasty in promising, but careful in prayer. And therefore, He went forward a little, not to go far from them, but that He might be near them in His prayer. Also, He who had said above, Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, now commendably humbling Himself, falls on His face. But He shews His devotion in His prayer, and as beloved and well-pleasing to His Father, He adds, Not as I will, but as thou wilt, teaching us that we should pray, not that our own will, but that God’s will, should be done. And as He began to have fear and sorrow, He prays accordingly that the cup of His Passion may pass from Him, yet not as He wills, but as His Father wills; wills, that is, not according to His Divine and impassible Substance, but according to His human and weak nature. For in taking upon Him the nature of human flesh, He fulfilled all the properties thereof, that it might be seen that He had flesh not in appearance only, but in-reality. The believer indeed must in the first instance be loth to incur pain, seeing it leads to death, and he is a man of flesh; but if it be God’s will, he acquiesces because he is a believer. For as we ought not to be too confident that we may not seem to make a boast of our own strength; so neither ought we to be distrustful, lest we should seem to charge God our helper with weakness. It is to be observed that Mark and Luke write the same, but John does not introduce this prayer of Jesus’, that this cup may pass from Him, because the first three are rather occupied about Him, according to His human nature, John according to His divine. Otherwise; Jesus makes this petition, because He sees what the Jews will suffer for requiring His death.
St Jerome † AD 420
Whence He says emphatically, This cup, that is, of this people of the Jews, who, if they shall put Me to death, can have no excuse for their ignorance, seeing they have the Law and the Prophets, who speak of Me.
Origen † AD 253
Then again considering the benefit that would accrue to the whole world from His Passion, He says, But not as I will, but as thou wilt; i. e. If it be possible for all these benefits which shall result from My Passion to be procured without it, let it pass from Me, and both the world be saved, and the Jews not be condemned in putting Me to death. But if the salvation of many cannot be procured without the destruction of a few, saving Thy justice, let it not pass away. Scripture, in many places, speaks of passion as a cup that is drained; and it is drained by him, who in testimony suffers whatever is inflicted upon him. He sheds it, on the contrary, who denies in order to avoid suffering.
St Augustine † AD 430 de Cons. Ev. iii. 4.
And that none might think that He limited His Father’s power, He said not, If thou canst do it, but If it may be, or, If it be possible; as much as to say, If thou wilt. For whatever God wills can be done, as Luke expresses more plainly; for he says not, If it be possible, but If thou wilt.
St Hilary † AD 367
Otherwise; He says not, Let this cup pass away from Me, for that would be the speech of one who feared it; but He prays that it may pass not so as that He should be passed over, but that when it has passed from Him, it may go to another. His whole fear then is for those who were to suffer, and therefore He prays for those who were to suffer after Him, saying, Let this cup pass from me, i. e. as it is drunk by Me, so let it be drunk by these, without mistrust, without sense of pain, without fear of death. He says, If it be possible, because flesh and blood shrink from these things, and it is hard for human bodies not to sink beneath their infliction. That He says, Not as I will, but as thou wilt, He would fain indeed that they should not suffer, lest their faith should fail in their sufferings, if indeed we might attain to the glory of our joint inheritance with Him without the hardship of sharing in His Passion. He says, Not as I will, but as thou wilt, because it is the Father’s will that strength to drink of the cup should pass from Him to them, that the Devil might be vanquished not so much by Christ as by His disciples also.
St Augustine † AD 430 in Ps. 32. enar. 2.
Christ thus as man shews a certain private human will, in which He who is our head figures both His own will and ours when He says, Let it pass from me. For this was His human will choosing something as apart for Himself. But because as man He would be righteous and guide Himself by God’s will, He adds, Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt; as much as to say to us, Man, behold thyself in Me, that thou canst will somewhat apart of thyself, and though God’s will is other, this is permitted to human frailty.
St Leo the Great † AD 461 Serm. 58, 5.
This speech of the Head is the health of the whole body, this saying is instruction to the faithful, animates the confessor, crowns the martyr. For who could vanquish the hatred of the world, or the whirlwind of temptations, or the terrors of the persecutors, if Christ did not in all and for all say to the Father, Thy will be done. Let all the sons of the Church then utter this prayer, that when the pressure of some mighty temptation lies upon them, they may embrace endurance of the suffering, disregarding its terrors.
Origen † AD 253
And though Jesus went but a little forward, they could not watch one hour in His absence; let us therefore pray that Jesus may never depart even a little from us.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
He finds them sleeping, both because it was a late hour of the night, and their eyes were heavy with sorrow.
St Hilary † AD 367
When then He returned to His disciples and found them sleeping, He rebukes Peter, Could ye not watch one hour with me? He addresses Peter rather than the rest, because he had most loudly boasted that he would not be offended.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
But as they had all said the same, He charges them all with weakness; they had chosen to die with Christ, and yet could not even watch with Him.
Origen † AD 253
Finding them thus sleeping, He rouses them with a word to hearken, and commands them to watch; Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation; that first we should watch, and so watching pray. He watches who does good works, and is careful that He does not run into any dark doctrine, for so the prayer of the watchful is heard.
St Jerome † AD 420
It is impossible that the human mind should not be tempted, therefore He says not Watch and pray that ye be not tempted, but that ye enter not into temptation, that is, that temptation vanquish you not.
St Hilary † AD 367
And why He thus encouraged them to pray that they might not enter into temptation, He adds, For the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak; this He says not of Himself, but addresses them.
St Jerome † AD 420
This is against those rash persons who think that whatever they believe they can perform. The more confident we are of our zeal, the more mistrustful should we be of the frailty of the flesh.
Origen † AD 253
Here it should be enquired, whether as all men’s flesh is weak, so all men’s spirit is willing, or whether only that of the saints; and whether in unbelievers the spirit is not also dull, as the flesh is weak. In another sense the flesh of those only is weak whose spirit is willing, and who with their willing spirit do mortify the deeds of the flesh. These then He would have watch and pray that they should not enter into temptation, for the more spiritual any one may be, the more careful should he be that his goodness should not suffer a great fall.
Remigius † AD 908
Otherwise; In these words He shews that He took real flesh of the Virgin, and had a real soul, saying that His spirit is willing to suffer, but His flesh weak in fearing the pain of Passion.
Origen † AD 253
There were, I conclude, two ways in which this cup of Passion might pass from the Lord. If He should drink it, it would pass away from Him, and afterwards from the whole race of mankind also; if He should not drink it, it would perhaps pass from Him, but from men it would not pass. He would fain therefore that it should so pass from Him as that He should not at all taste its bitterness, yet only if it were possible, saving the righteousness of God. If it were not possible, He was rather willing to drink it, that so it might pass from Him, and from the whole race of mankind rather than against His Father’s will shun the drinking thereof.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
That He prays for this a second and a third time, comes of the feelings belonging to human frailty, through which also He feared death, thus giving assurance that He was truly made man. For in Scripture when any thing is repeated a second and third time, that is the greatest proof of its truth and reality; as, for example, when Joseph says to Pharaoh, And for that thou sawedst it twice, it is proof of the thing being established by God. (Gen. 41:32.)
St Jerome † AD 420
Or otherwise; He prays a second time that if Nineveh, or the Gentile world, cannot be saved unless the gourd, i. e. the Jews, be withered, His Father’s will may be done, which is not contrary to the Son’s will, who Himself speaks by the Prophet, I am content to do thy will, O God. (Ps. 40:8.)
St Hilary † AD 367
Otherwise, He bare in His own body all the infirmities of us His disciples who should suffer, and nailed to His cross all wherein we are distressed; and therefore that cup cannot pass from Him, unless He drink it, because we cannot suffer, except by His passion.
St Jerome † AD 420
Christ singly prays for all, as He singly suffers for all. Their eyes were heavy, i. e. an oppression and stupefaction came on as their denial drew near.
Origen † AD 253
And I suppose that the eyes of their body were not so much affected as the eyes of their mind, because the Spirit was not yet given them. Wherefore He does not rebuke them, but goes again and prays, teaching us that we should not faint but should persevere in prayer, until we obtain what we have begun to ask.
St Jerome † AD 420
He prayed the third time, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word might be established.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Or, The Lord prayed thrice, to teach us to pray for pardon of sins past, defence against present evil, and provision against future perils, and that we should address every prayer to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that our spirit, soul, and body should be kept in safety.
St Augustine † AD 430 Quæst. Ev. i. 47.
Nor is that an absurd interpretation which makes Our Lord pray thrice because of the threefold temptation of His Passion. To the temptation of curiosity is opposed the fear of death; for as the one is a yearning for the knowledge of things, so the other is the fear of losing such knowledge. To the desire of honour or applause is opposed the dread of disgrace and insult. To the desire of pleasure is opposed the fear of pain.
Remigius † AD 908
Or, He prays thrice for the Apostles, and for Peter in particular, who was to deny Him thrice.
The Latin text
Origenes in Matth
Petrum magis de se confidentem et alios adduxit, ut videant cadentem in faciem et orantem, et discant non magna sed humilia de se sapere, nec veloces esse ad promittendum, sed solliciti ad orandum; et ideo dicitur et progressus pusillum: nolebat enim longe fieri ab eis, sed iuxta eos constitutus orare: et qui dixerat: discite a me quia mitis sum et humilis corde, laudabiliter se humilians cadit in faciem; unde sequitur procidit in faciem suam orans, et dicens: mi pater, si possibile est, transeat a me calix iste. Manifestans autem in oratione sua devotionem, quasi dilectus et complacens dispositioni patris, addidit verumtamen non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu: docens, ut non oremus fieri nostram voluntatem, sed Dei. Secundum autem quod coepit pavere et tristari, secundum hoc orat calicem passionis transire; et non sicut ipse vult, sed sicut pater; hoc est, non secundum substantiam eius divinam et impassibilem, sed secundum naturam humanam et infirmam: suscipiens enim naturam carnis humanae, omnes proprietates implevit, ut non in phantasia habuisse carnem aestimaretur sed in veritate. Proprium est autem hominis fidelis primum quidem nolle pati aliquid doloris, maxime quod ducit usque ad mortem, quia homo carnalis est; si autem sic voluerit Deus, acquiescere, quia fidelis est: nam sicut multum confidere non debemus, ne nostram virtutem videamur profiteri, sic diffidere non debemus, ne Dei adiutoris nostri impotentiam videamur pronuntiare. Notandum et autem, quoniam Marcus quidem et Lucas hoc ipsum scripserunt; Ioannes autem orantem Iesum, ut transiret ab eo calix, non introducit: quoniam hi quidem magis secundum humanam naturam eius exponunt de eo quam secundum divinam; Ioannes autem magis secundum divinam. Aliter autem Iesus videns qualia erant Iudaei passuri petentes eum ad mortem, dicebat pater, si possibile est, transeat a me calix iste
Hieronymus
Unde signanter dicit calix iste, hoc est populi Iudaeorum, qui excusationem ignorantiae habere non possunt si me occiderint, habentes legem et prophetas, qui me vaticinantur
Origenes in Matth
Rursus videns quanta utilitas totius mundi esset futura per passionem ipsius, dicebat sed non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu; idest, si possibile est ut sine passione mea omnia ista bona proveniant, quae per passionem meam sunt proventura, transeat passio haec a me, ut et mundus salvetur, et Iudaei in passione mea non pereant. Si autem sine perditione quorundam, multorum salus non potest introduci, quantum ad iustitiam tuam, non transeat. Calicem autem hunc qui bibitur, passionis in multis locis nominat Scriptura. Bibit autem calicem totum qui patitur pro testimonio quicquid fuerit ei illatum. Effundit autem accipiens qui denegat, ne aliquid patiatur
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Et ne quis eum putaret patris minuisse potestatem, non dixit: si facere potes; sed si fieri potest, vel si possibile est; ac si diceretur: si vis. Fieri enim potest quod ille voluerit; unde et Lucas hoc ipsum planius intimavit; non enim ait si fieri potest, sed: si vis
Hilarius in Matth
Vel aliter. Non ait transeat a me calix iste: haec enim esset pro se timentis oratio. Quod autem ut a se transeat rogat, non ut ipse praetereatur orat, sed ut in alterum illud quod a se transit, accedat. Totus igitur supra eos qui passuri erant metus est; atque ideo pro his orat qui passuri post se erant, dicens transeat calix a me; idest, quomodo a me bibitur, ita ab his bibatur, sine spei differentia, sine sensu doloris, sine metu mortis. Ideo autem ait si possibile est, quia carni et sanguini horum terror est; et difficile est eorum acerbitate corpora non vinci humana. Quod autem ait non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu, vellet quidem eos non pati, ne forte in passione diffidant, si cohereditatis suae gloriam sine passionis suae difficultate mereantur. Non ergo ut non patiantur rogat, dicens non ut ego volo; sed ut tu, ait, eo quod pater vult ut bibendi calicis in eos ex ipso transeat fortitudo: quia ex voluntate patris non tam per Christum vinci Diabolum, quam etiam per eius discipulos oportebat
Augustinus in Enchir
Sic igitur Christus hominem gerens ostendit privatam quamdam hominis voluntatem: in qua et suam et nostram figuravit, qui caput nostrum est, cum dicit transeat a me. Haec enim erat humana voluntas proprium aliquid tamquam privatum volens. Sed quia rectum vult esse hominem et ad Deum dirigi, subdit verumtamen non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu: ac si diceret: vide te in me, quia potes aliquid proprium velle; et si Deus aliud velit, conceditur hoc humanae fragilitati
Leo Papa in Serm. 7 de passione
Haec vox capitis, salus est totius corporis; haec vox omnes fideles instruit, omnes confessores accendit, omnes martyres coronavit: nam quis mundi odia, quis tentationum turbines, quis posset persecutorum superare terrores, nisi Christus in omnibus et pro omnibus patri diceret: fiat voluntas tua? Discant igitur hanc vocem omnes Ecclesiae filii; ut cum adversitas violentae alicuius tentationis incumbit, superato timore formidinis, accipiant tolerantiam passionis
Origenes in Matth
Pusillum autem progrediente Iesu ab eis, nec una hora potuerunt vigilare eo absente: propter quod oremus, ut nec modicum aliquando Iesus progrediatur. Sequitur et venit ad discipulos suos, et invenit eos dormientes
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quia tempus intempestae noctis erat, et oculi eorum a tristitia erant gravati
Hilarius in Matth
Postquam ergo ad discipulos redit, et dormientes deprehendit, Petrum arguit; unde sequitur et dicit Petro: sic non potuisti una hora vigilare mecum? Petrum ideo prae omnibus ex tribus arguit, quia prae ceteris non se scandalizandum fuerat gloriatus
Chrysostomus in Matth
Sed quia et alii idem dixerunt, omnium etiam infirmitatem arguit: qui enim mori simul cum Christo elegerant, neque simul cum eo potuerunt vigilare
Origenes in Matth
Inveniens autem eos dormientes, suscitat verbo ad audiendum, et praecipit vigilare, dicens vigilate et orate, ne intretis in tentationem: ut primum vigilemus, et sic vigilantes oremus. Vigilat qui facit opera bona, et qui sollicite agit ne in aliquid tenebrosum dogma incurrat: sic enim vigilantis exauditur oratio
Hieronymus
Impossibile est humanam animam non tentari. Ergo non ait vigilate et orate ne tentemini, sed ne intretis in tentationem; hoc est ne vos tentatio superet
Hilarius in Matth
Cur autem ne in tentationem venirent admonere eos voluisset orare, ostendit dicens spiritus quidem promptus est, caro autem infirma. Non enim de se hoc dicit: ad eos enim hic sermo conversus est
Hieronymus
Hoc autem est adversus temerarios, qui quod crediderint putant se posse consequi. Itaque quantum de ardore mentis confidimus, tantum de fragilitate carnis timeamus
Origenes in Matth
Hic considerandum est utrum sicut omnium caro infirma est, sic omnium spiritus promptus est; an omnium quidem caro infirma est, non autem et omnium hominum spiritus promptus est, sed tantum sanctorum; infidelium autem spiritus segnis est, et caro infirma. Est autem et alio modo caro infirma eorum solum quorum spiritus promptus est, qui cum spiritu prompto opera carnis mortificant. Hos ergo vult vigilare et orare, ut non intrent in tentationem; quoniam qui spiritualior est, sollicitior debet esse, ne magnum bonum ipsius gravem habeat lapsum
Remigius
Vel aliter. His verbis ostendit se veram carnem ex virgine sumpsisse, et veram animam habuisse; unde et nunc dicit spiritum suum promptum esse ad patiendum, carnem vero infirmam timere dolorem passionis. Sequitur iterum secundo abiit, et oravit dicens: pater mi, si non potest calix iste transire, nisi bibam illum, fiat voluntas tua
Origenes in Matth
Aestimo quod calix ille passionis omnino a Iesu fuerat transiturus, sed cum differentia: ut si quidem biberet eum, et ab ipso transiret, postmodum et ab universo genere hominum; si autem non biberet eum, ab ipso quidem forsitan transiret, ab hominibus autem non transiret. Hunc ergo calicem passionis volebat quidem a se transire, sic ut omnino neque gustaret amaritudinem eius: si tamen possibile esset, quantum ad iustitiam Dei. Si autem non poterat fieri, magis volebat ut sumeret eum, et sic transiret ab eo et ab universo hominum genere, quam ut contra voluntatem paternam, bibitionem eius effugeret
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quod quidem secundo vel tertio orat, ex affectu scilicet humanae infirmitatis, quo mortem timebat, certificat quod vere factus est homo. Secundo enim vel tertio aliquid fieri, veritatis est maxime demonstrativum in Scripturis: unde Ioseph dixit Pharaoni: quod vidisti secundo ad eam rem pertinens, somnii firmitatis indicium est
Hieronymus
Vel aliter. Secundo orat, ut si Ninive, idest gentilitas, aliter salvari non potest nisi aruerit cucurbita, idest Iudaea, fiat voluntas patris, quae non est contraria filii voluntati, dicente ipso per prophetam: ut facerem voluntatem tuam, Deus meus, volui
Hilarius in Matth
Vel aliter. Passuris discipulis omnem in se corporis nostri infirmitatem assumpsit; crucique secum universa quibus infirmamur affixit: et ideo transire ab eo calix non potest, nisi illum bibat, quia pati, nisi ex eius passione, non possumus
Hieronymus
Christus autem solus orat pro omnibus, sicut et solus patitur pro universis; sequitur enim et venit iterum, et invenit eos dormientes; erant enim oculi eorum gravati. Languescebant enim et opprimebantur apostolorum oculi negatione vicina
Origenes in Matth
Puto enim quod non tantum corporum oculi quantum animarum gravati erant: nondum enim erat eis spiritus datus; unde non eos reprehendit, sed vadens iterum oravit, docens ut non deficiamus, sed permaneamus in oratione, donec impetremus ea quae postulare iam coepimus; unde sequitur et relictis illis, iterum abiit, et oravit tertio, eumdem sermonem dicens
Hieronymus
Tertio autem oravit, ut in ore duorum vel trium testium staret omne verbum
Rabanus Maurus
Vel ideo tribus vicibus dominus oravit, ut nos a peccatis praeteritis veniam, et praesentibus malis tutelam, et futuris periculis cautelam oremus, et ut omnem orationem ad patrem et ad filium et ad spiritum sanctum dirigamus: et ut integer spiritus noster et anima et corpus servetur
Augustinus de quaest. Evang
Non absurde etiam intelligitur propter trinam tentationem passionis ter dominum orasse. Sicut enim tentatio cupiditatis trina est, ita tentatio timoris trina est. Cupiditati quae in curiositate est, opponitur timor mortis: sicut enim in illa cognoscendarum rerum est aviditas, ita et in ista metus amittendae talis notitiae. Cupiditati vero honoris vel laudis opponitur timor ignominiae, et contumeliarum. Cupiditati autem voluptatis opponitur timor doloris
Remigius
Vel ter orat pro apostolis, et maxime pro Petro, qui ter erat eum negaturus
26:45
St Hilary † AD 367
After His persevering prayer, after His departures and several returns, He takes away their fear, restores their confidence, and exhorts them to sleep on, and take their rest.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Indeed it behoved them then to watch, but He said this to shew that the prospect of coming evils was more than they would bear, that He had no need of their aid, and that it must needs be that He should be delivered up.
St Hilary † AD 367
Or, He bids them sleep on, and take their rest, because He now confidently awaited His Father’s will concerning the disciples, concerning which He had said, Thy will be done, and in obedience to which He drunk the cup that was to pass from Him to us, diverting upon Himself the weakness of our body, the terrors of dismay, and even the pains of death itself.
Origen † AD 253
Or, the sleep He now bids His disciples take is of a different sort from that which is related above to have befallen them. Then He found them sleeping, not taking repose, but because their eyes were heavy, but now they are not merely to sleep, but to take their rest, that this order may be rightly observed, namely, that we first watch with prayer that we enter not into temptation, and afterwards sleep and take our rest, when having found a place for the Lord, a tabernacle for the God of Jacob, (Ps. 132:3.) we may go up into our bed, and give sleep to our eyes. It may be also that the soul, unable to sustain a continual energy by reason of its union with the flesh, may blamelessly admit some relaxations, which may be the moral interpretation of slumbers, and then again after due time be quickened to new energy.
St Hilary † AD 367
And whereas, when He returned and found them sleeping, He rebukes them the first time, the second time says nothing, the third time bids them take their rest; the interpretation of this is, that at the first after His resurrection, when He finds them dispersed, distrustful, and timorous, He rebukes them; the second time, when their eyes were heavy to look upon the liberty of the Gospel, He visited them, sending them the Spirit, the Paraclete; for, held back by attachment to the Law, they slumbered in respect of faith; but the third time, when He shall come in His glory, He shall restore them to quietness and confidence.
Origen † AD 253
When He had roused them from sleep, seeing in the Spirit Judas drawing near to betray Him, though the disciples could not yet see him, He says, Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
The words, the hour is at hand, point out that all that has been done was by Divine interference; and that, into the hands of sinners, shew that this was the work of their wickedness, not that He was guilty of any crime.
Origen † AD 253
And even now Jesus is betrayed into the hands of sinners, when those who seem to believe in Jesus, continue to sin while they have Him in their hands. Also whenever a righteous man, who has Jesus in Him, is put into the power of sinners, Jesus is delivered into the hands of sinners.
St Jerome † AD 420
Having concluded His third prayer, and having obtained that the Apostles’ terror should be corrected by subsequent penitence, He goes forth undaunted by the prospect of His own Passion to meet His pursuers, and offers Himself voluntarily to be sacrificed. Arise, let us be going; as much as to say, Let them not find you trembling, let us go forth willingly to death, that they may see us confident and rejoicing in suffering; Lo, he that shall betray me draweth near.
Origen † AD 253
He says not, Draws near to thee, for indeed the traitor was not near Him, but had removed himself far off through his sins.
St Augustine † AD 430 de Cons. Ev. iii. 4.
This speech as Matthew has it seems self-contradictory. For how could He say, Sleep on, and take your rest, and immediately continue, Rise, let us be going. This contradiction some have endeavoured to reconcile by supposing the words, Sleep on, and take your rest, to be an ironical rebuke, and not a permission; it might be rightly so taken if need were. But as Mark records it, when He had said, Sleep on, and take your rest, He added, it is enough, and then continued, The hour is come, behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners; (Mark 14:41.) we clearly understand the Lord to have been silent some time after He had said, Sleep on, to allow of their doing so, and then after some interval to have roused them with, Behold, the hour is at hand. And as Mark fills up the sense with, it is enough, that is, ye have had rest enough.
The Latin text
Hilarius in Matth
Post orationem frequentem, post discursus recursusque multiplices, metum demit, securitatem reddit, in requiem adhortatur; unde dicitur tunc venit ad discipulos suos, et ait illis: dormite iam et requiescite
Chrysostomus in Matth
Et quidem tunc vigilare oportebat; sed hoc dixit, ut ostenderet quoniam neque visum possent ferre futurorum malorum, et quoniam eorum non indiget auxilio: et quoniam omnino tradi eum oportebat
Hilarius in Matth
Vel hoc dicit, quia voluntatem patris de discipulis iam securus expectabat, de qua dixerat: fiat voluntas tua; qua scilicet transiturum in nos calicem bibens, infirmitatem corporis nostri, et timoris sollicitudinem, et ipsum dolorem mortis absorbuit
Origenes in Matth
Vel non est ille ipse somnus quem iubet nunc discipulos suos dormire, et ille qui eis superius scribitur contigisse. Illic enim dormientes invenit, non requiescentes, sed gravatos oculos habentes: nunc autem praecepit eis non simpliciter dormire, sed cum requie; ut ordo servetur, ut primum quidem vigilemus orantes, ut non intremus in tentationem; ut postea dormiamus et requiescamus; ut cum aliquis invenerit locum domino, tabernaculum Deo Iacob, ascendat supra lectum stratus sui, et det somnum oculis suis. Forsitan autem et anima non potens semper sufferre labores, quasi incarnata, remissiones aliquas sine reprehensione consequetur: quae moraliter dormitiones dicuntur, ut usque ad aliquantum temporis habens remissionem renovata resuscitetur
Hilarius in Matth
Quod autem ad eos revertens, dormientesque reperiens, primum reversus obiurgat, secundo silet, tertio quiescere iubet: ratio ista est, quod primum post resurrectionem dispersos eos et diffidentes ac trepidos reprehendit; secundo, misso spiritu Paraclito, gravatis ad contuendam Evangelii libertatem oculis, visitavit: nam aliquamdiu legis amore detenti, quodam fidei somno occupati sunt; tertio vero, idest claritatis suae reditu, securitati eos quietique restituet
Origenes in Matth
Postquam autem resuscitavit eos a somno, videns in spiritu appropinquantem Iudam traditioni, qui nondum videbatur a discipulis eius, dicit ecce appropinquavit hora, et filius hominis tradetur in manus peccatorum
Chrysostomus in Matth
Per hoc autem quod dicit appropinquavit hora, ostendit quoniam divinae dispositionis erat quod gerebatur: per hoc autem quod dicit in manus peccatorum, demonstrat quoniam illorum nequitiae hoc opus erat, non quod ipse delicto esset obnoxius
Origenes in Matth
Sed et nunc in manus peccatorum traditur Iesus; quando hi qui videntur Iesum credere, habent eum in manibus suis, cum sint peccatores. Sed et quotiescumque iustus habens in se Iesum, in potestate factus fuerit peccatorum, Iesus est traditus in manus peccatorum
Hieronymus
Postquam ergo tertio oraverat, et apostolorum timorem sequente poenitentia impetraverat corrigendum, securus de passione sua pergit ad persecutores, et ultro se ad interficiendum praebet; unde sequitur surgite, eamus, quasi dicat: non vos inveniant quasi timentes: ultro pergamus ad mortem, ut confidentiam et gaudium passuri videant; sequitur enim ecce appropinquavit qui me tradet
Origenes in Matth
Non dicit: appropinquavit mihi: nec enim ipsi appropinquabat traditor eius, qui se elongaverat peccatis suis ab eo
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Videtur autem hic sermo secundum Matthaeum sibi ipsi esse contrarius. Quomodo enim dixit dormite iam et requiescite, cum connectat surgite, eamus? Qua velut repugnantia quidam commoti conantur ita pronuntiare quod dictum est dormite iam, et requiescite, tamquam ab exprobrante, non a permittente sit dictum; quod recte fieret, si esset necesse. Cum vero Marcus ita commemoravit, ut cum dixisset: dormite iam et requiescite, adiungeret: sufficit, et deinde inferret: venit hora; ecce tradetur filius hominis, utique intelligitur post illud quod eis dictum est dormite et requiescite, siluisse dominum aliquantum, ut hoc fieret quod promiserat: et nunc intulisse ecce appropinquavit hora. Propter quod secundum Marcum positum est: sufficit, idest quod iam requiescitis
26:47
The Gloss non occ.
Having said above that the Lord offered Himself of His own accord to His pursuers, the Evangelist proceeds to relate how He was seized by them.
Remigius † AD 908
One of the twelve, by association of name, not of desert. This shews the monstrous wickedness of the man who from the dignity of the Apostleship became the traitor. To shew that it was out of envy that they seized Him, it is added, A great multitude sent by the Chief Priests and elders of the people.
Origen † AD 253
Some may say that a great multitude came, because of the great multitude of those who already believed, who, they feared, might rescue Him out of their hands; but I think there is another reason for this, and that is, that they who thought that He cast out dæmons through Beelzebub, supposed that by some magic He might escape the hands of those who sought to hold Him. Even now do many fight against Jesus with spiritual weapons, to wit, with divers and shifting dogmas concerning God. It deserves enquiry why, when He was known by face to all who dwelt in Judæa, he should have given them a sign, as though they were unacquainted with His person. But a tradition to this effect has come down to us, that not only had He two different forms, one under which He appeared to men, the other into which He was transfigured before His disciples in the mount, but also that He appeared to each man in such degree as the beholder was worthy; in like manner as we read of the manna, that it had a flavour adapted to every variety of use, and as the word of God shews not alike to all. They required therefore a sign by reason of this His transfiguration.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Or, because whenever they had hitherto attempted to seize Him, He had escaped them they knew not how; as also He might then have done had He been so minded.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
The Lord suffered the traitor’s kiss, not to teach us to dissemble, but that He might not seem to shrink from His betrayal.
Origen † AD 253
If it be asked why Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss, according to some it was because He desired to keep up the reverence due to his Master, and did not dare to make an open assault upon Him; according to others, it was out of fear that if he came as an avowed enemy, he might be the cause of His escape, which he believed Jesus had it in His power to effect. But I think that all betrayers of truth love to assume the guise of truth, and to use the sign of a kiss. Like Judas also, all heretics call Jesus Rabbi, and receive from Him mild answer. And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? He says, Friend, upbraiding his hypocrisy; for in Scripture we never find this term of address used to any of the good, but as above, Friend, how camest thou in hither? (Matt. 22:12.) and, Friend, I do thee no wrong. (Matt. 20:13.)
St Augustine † AD 430 non occ.
He says, Wherefore art thou come? as much as to say, Thy kiss is a snare for Me; I know wherefore thou art come; thou feignest thyself My friend, being indeed My betrayer.
Remigius † AD 908
Or, after Friend, for what thou art come, that do, is understood. Then came they, and laid their hands on Jesus, and held him. Then, that is, when He suffered them, for ofttimes they would have done it, but were not able.
Pseudo-Augustine Serm. de Symb. ad Catech. 6.
Exult, Christian, you have gained by this bargain of your enemies; what Judas sold, and what the Jews bought, belongs to you.
The Latin text
Glossa
Quia superius dictum est quod dominus ultro se persecutoribus exhibebat, consequenter Evangelista ostendit quomodo sit a persecutoribus detentus; unde dicit adhuc eo loquente, ecce Iudas unus de duodecim venit
Remigius
Unus, videlicet numero, non merito. Hoc autem dixit ad ostendendum immane facinus illius qui de apostolica dignitate factus fuerat proditor. Sequitur et cum eo turba multa cum gladiis et fustibus. Ut autem ostenderet Evangelista invidentiae causa illum deprehensum, subiungit missi a principibus sacerdotum et senioribus populi
Origenes
Potest dicere aliquis, quoniam propter multitudinem eorum qui iam crediderant, multi venerunt adversus eum, timentes ne multitudo credentium de manibus eorum tollerent eum; ego autem aestimo etiam alteram causam, quoniam qui putabant in Beelzebub eicere solere Daemonia, arbitrabantur eum ex quibusdam maleficiis posse effugere de medio volentium eum tenere. Multi etiam nunc spiritualibus gladiis militant contra Iesum, variis scilicet et diversis de Deo dogmatibus. Sequitur qui autem tradidit eum, dedit eis signum, dicens: quemcumque osculatus fuero, ipse est, tenete eum. Dignum est autem quaerere, cum secundum faciem notus esset omnibus habitantibus in Iudaea, quare quasi non cognoscentibus effigiem eius dedit eis signum. Venit autem traditio talis de eo ad nos: quoniam non solum duae formae in eo fuerunt: una secundum quam eum omnes videbant, altera secundum quam transfiguratus est coram discipulis in monte; sed etiam unicuique apparebat secundum quod fuerat dignus: sicut et de manna scriptum est, quod habebat saporem ad omnem usum convenientem, et verbum Dei non similiter cunctis apparet. Propter huiusmodi ergo transfigurationem eius, signo indigebant
Chrysostomus in Matth
Vel ideo signum eis dedit, quia multoties detentus ab ipsis, pertransiit nescientibus eis, quod et tunc factum esset, si ipse voluisset. Sequitur et confestim accedens ad Iesum, dixit: ave, Rabbi; et osculatus est eum
Rabanus Maurus
Suscipit dominus osculum traditoris, non quod simulare nos doceat, sed ne proditionem fugere videatur
Origenes in Matth
Si autem aliquis quaerat cur osculo Iudas tradidit Iesum, secundum quosdam quidem voluit reverentiam ad magistrum servare, non audens manifeste in eum irruere; secundum alios hoc fecit, timens ne si forte se manifestum adversarium praebuisset, ipse ei fieret causa evasionis, cum posset secundum opinionem eius effugere, et facere se impervium. Ego autem puto quod omnes proditores veritatis amare veritatem fingentes, osculi signo utuntur. Omnes etiam haeretici, sicut et Iudas, Iesu dicunt Rabbi. Iesus autem placabilia respondet; unde sequitur dixitque illi Iesus: amice, ad quid venisti? Dicit autem amice, improperans simulationem: hoc enim nomine neminem bonorum in Scripturis cognoscimus appellatum: ad malum enim dicitur: amice, quomodo huc intrasti? Et: amice, non facio tibi iniuriam
Augustinus in Serm. de passione
Dicit autem ad quid venisti? Tamquam si diceret: oscularis et insidiaris: novi quare veneris; amicum fingis, cum proditor sis
Remigius
Sive: amice, ad quid venisti? Hoc fac, subintelligitur. Sequitur tunc accesserunt, et manus iniecerunt in Iesum, et tenuerunt eum. Tunc, scilicet quando ipse permisit: frequenter enim voluerunt, sed non potuerunt
Rabanus Maurus
Exulta, Christiane, in commercio inimicorum tuorum vicisti: quod Iudas vendidit et quod Iudaeus emit, tu acquisivisti
26:51
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. Ixxxiv.
So Luke relates, the Lord had said to His disciples at supper, He that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one; (Luke 22:36.) and the disciples answered, Lo, here are two swords. It was natural that there should be swords there for the paschal lamb which they had been eating. Hearing then that the pursuers were coming to apprehend Christ, when they went out from supper they took these swords, as though to fight in defence of their Master against His pursuers.
St Jerome † AD 420
In another Gospel, (John 18:10.) Peter is represented as having done this, and with his usual hastiness; and that the servant’s name was Malchus, and that the ear was the right ear. In passing we may say, that Malchus, i. e. one who should have been king of the Jews, was made the slave of the ungodliness and the greediness of the Priests, and lost his right ear so that he might hear only the worthlessness of the letter in his left.
Origen † AD 253
For though they seem even now to hear the Law, yet is it only with the left ear that they hear the shadow of a tradition concerning the Law, and not the truth. The people of the Gentiles is signified by Peter; for by believing in Christ, they become the cause of cutting off the Jews’ right ear.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Or, Peter does not take away the sense of understanding from them that hear, but opens to the careless that which by a divine sentence was taken away from them; but this same right ear is restored to its original function in those who out of this nation believed.
St Hilary † AD 367
Otherwise; The ear of the High Priest’s servant is cut off by the Apostle, that is, Christ’s disciple cuts off the disobedient hearing of a people which were the slaves of the Priesthood, the ear which had refused to hear is cut off so that it is no longer capable of hearing.
St Leo the Great † AD 461 Serm. 22.
The Lord of the zealous Apostle will not suffer his pious feeling to proceed further, Then saith Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place. For it was contrary to the sacrament of our redemption that He, who had come to die for all, should refuse to be apprehended. He gives therefore licence to their fury against Him, lest by putting off the triumph of His glorious Cross, the dominion of the Devil should be made longer, and the captivity of men more enduring.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
It behoved also that the Author of grace should teach the faithful patience by His own example, and should rather train them to endure adversity with fortitude, than incite them to self-defence.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
To move the disciple to this, He adds a threat, saying, All they that take the sword, shall perish by the sword.
St Augustine † AD 430 cont. Faust. xxvii. 70.
That is, every one who uses the sword. And he uses the sword, who, without the command or sanction of any superior, or legitimate authority, arms himself against man’s life. For truly the Lord had given commandment to His disciples to take the sword, but not to smite with the sword. Was it then at all unbeseeming that Peter after this sin should become ruler of the Church, as Moses after smiting the Egyptian was made ruler and chief of the Synagogue? For both transgressed the rule not through hardened ferocity, but through a warmth of spirit capable of good; both through hatred of the injustice of others; both sinned through love, the one for his brother, the other for his Lord, though a carnal love.
St Hilary † AD 367
But all who use the sword do not perish by the sword; of those who have used the sword either judicially, or in self-defence against robbers, fever or accident carries off the greater part. Though if according to this every one who uses the sword shall perish by the sword, justly was the sword now drawn against those who were using the same for the promotion of crime.
St Jerome † AD 420
With what sword then shall he perish, that takes the sword? By that fiery sword which waves before the gate of paradise, and that sword of the Spirit which is described in the armour of God.
St Hilary † AD 367
The Lord then bids him return his sword into its sheath, because He would destroy them by no weapon of man, but by the sword of His mouth.
Remigius † AD 908
Otherwise; Every one who uses the sword to put man to death perishes first by the sword of his own wickedness.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
He not only soothed His disciples, by this declaration of punishment against His enemies, but convinced them that it was voluntarily that He suffered, Thinkest thou that I cannot pray to my Father, &c. Because He had shewn many qualities of human infirmity, He would have seemed to say what was incredible, if He had said that He had power to destroy them, therefore He says, Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father?
St Jerome † AD 420
That is to say, I need not the aid of the Apostles, though all the twelve should fight for me, seeing I could have twelve legions of the Angelic army. The complement of a legion among the ancients was six thousand men; twelve legions then are seventy-two thousand Angels, being as many as the divisions of the human race and languaget.
Origen † AD 253
This shews that the armies of heaven have divisions into legions like earthly armies, in the warfare of the Angels against the legions of the dæmons. This He said not as though He needed the aid of the Angels, but speaking in accordance with the supposition of Peter, who sought to give Him assistance. Truly the Angels have more need of the help of the Only-begotten Son of God, than He of theirs.
Remigius † AD 908
We might also understand by the Angels the Roman armies, for with Titus and Vespasian all languages had risen against Judæa, and that was fulfilled, The whole world shall fight for him against those foolish men. (Wisd. 5:21.)
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
And He quiets their fears not thus only, but by reference to Scripture, How then shall the Scriptures he fulfilled that thus it must be?
St Jerome † AD 420
This speech shews a mind willing to suffer; vainly would the Prophets have prophesied truly, unless the Lord asserts their truth by His suffering.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Matth
Sicut Lucas refert, dominus in coena discipulis dixerat: qui habet sacculum, tollat similiter et peram; et qui non habet, vendat tunicam suam, et emat gladium; et discipuli responderunt: ecce gladii duo hic. Conveniens autem erat illic gladios esse, propter agnum scilicet paschalem, quem comederent. Audientes quoque quoniam venirent persecutores ad Christum capiendum, a coena exeuntes gladios sumpserunt in auxilium adversus persecutores, quasi pro magistro praeliaturi; unde hic dicitur et ecce unus ex his qui erant cum Iesu extendens manum exemit gladium suum
Hieronymus
In alio Evangelio scriptum est, quod Petrus hoc fecerit eodem ardore quo et cetera fecit; unde sequitur et percutiens servum principis sacerdotum, amputavit auriculam eius. Servus principis sacerdotum Malchus appellatur; auricula quoque quae amputatur, dextera est. Transitorie dicendum est, quod Malchus, idest rex quondam populi Iudaeorum, servus factus est impietatis, et devorationis sacerdotum; dexteramque perdidit auriculam, ut litterae veritatem audiat in sinistra
Origenes in Matth
Nam si videntur legem audire modo, cum sinistro auditu audiunt umbram traditionis de lege, non veritatem. Populus autem ex gentibus significatus per Petrum, per hoc ipsum quod crediderunt in Christum, facti sunt causa ut praecideretur Iudaeorum auditio dextera
Rabanus Maurus
Vel Petrus non tollit audientibus intelligendi sensum, sed de divino ablatum iudicio negligentibus pandit: verum eadem dextera auris in his qui ex eodem populo crediderunt, divina pietate pristino restituta est officio
Hilarius in Matth
Vel aliter. Servo principis sacerdotum auricula ab apostolo resecatur; populo scilicet sacerdotio servienti, per Christi discipulum inobediens auditus exciditur; et ad capacitatem veritatis hoc quod erat non audiens, amputatur
Leo Papa in Serm. 1 de passione
Dominus autem zelantis apostoli pium motum progredi ultra non patitur; unde sequitur tunc ait illi Iesus: converte gladium tuum in locum suum. Contra sacramentum enim erat redemptionis nostrae, ut qui mori pro omnibus venerat, capi nollet. Dat ergo in se furentibus licentiam saeviendi, ne dilato gloriosae crucis triumpho, et dominatio diabolica fieret longior, et captivitas humana diuturnior
Rabanus Maurus
Oportuit etiam ut auctor gratiae fideles patientiam suo exemplo doceret, et potius ad sustinendum fortiter adversa instrueret quam ad vindicandum provocaret
Chrysostomus in Matth
Ad hoc autem ut discipulo persuaderetur, comminationem addit, dicens omnes enim qui acceperint gladium, gladio peribunt
Augustinus contra Faustum
Idest, omnis qui usus fuerit gladio. Ille autem utitur gladio, qui nulla superioritate aut legitima potestate vel iubente vel concedente, in sanguinem alicuius armatur. Nam utique dominus iusserat ut ferrum discipuli eius ferrent; sed non iusserat ut ferirent. Quid ergo indignum si Petrus post hoc peccatum factus est pastor Ecclesiae, sicut Moyses post percussum Aegyptium factus est rector et princeps synagogae? Uterque enim non detestabili immanitate, sed emendabili animositate regulam excessit; uterque odio improbitatis alienae; sed ille fraterno, iste dominico, licet adhuc carnali, tamen amore peccavit
Hilarius
Sed non omnibus gladio utentibus mors solet esse per gladium; nam plures aut febris aut alius accidens casus absumit, qui gladio, aut iudicii officio, aut resistendi latronibus necessitate sunt usi. Et si secundum sententiam eius, omnis gladio utens, gladio perimeretur, recte ad necem eorum gladius eximebatur, qui eodem utebantur ad facinus
Hieronymus
Quo ergo gladio peribit quicumque gladium sumpserit? Illo nempe qui igneus vertitur ante Paradisum, et gladio spiritus, qui in Dei describitur armatura
Hilarius in Matth
Recondi ergo gladium praecipit dominus: quia eos non humano, sed oris sui gladio esset perempturus
Remigius
Vel aliter. Qui gladio utitur ad occidendum hominem, ipse suae prius malitiae moritur gladio
Chrysostomus in Matth
Non solum autem mitigavit discipulos per comminationem poenae, sed etiam ostendendo quod voluntarie hoc sustinebat; unde sequitur an putas quia non possum rogare patrem meum; et exhibebit mihi modo plus quam duodecim legiones Angelorum? Quia multa humanae infirmitatis ostenderat, non videretur credibilia dicere, si dixisset quod eos perdere posset; et ideo dicit an putas quia non possum?
et cetera. Hieronymus
Quasi diceret: non indigeo duodecim apostolorum auxilio, etiam si omnes me defenderent, qui possum habere duodecim legiones angelici exercitus. Una legio apud veteres sex millibus hominum complebatur: de duodecim ergo legionibus, septuaginta duo millia Angelorum fiunt, in quot gentes hominum lingua divisa est
Origenes in Matth
Ex hoc autem demonstratur quoniam secundum similitudinem legionum militiae mundialis sunt et Angelorum legiones militiae caelestis militantium contra legiones Daemonum: militia enim omnis propter adversarios intelligitur constituta. Non autem quasi indigens auxilio Angelorum hoc dicebat, sed secundum aestimationem Petri volentis ei auxilium ferre. Magis enim Angeli opus habent auxilio unigeniti filii Dei quam ipse illorum
Remigius
Possumus etiam intelligere per Angelos Romanorum exercitum: cum Tito enim et Vespasiano omnes linguae adversus Iudaeam surrexerunt, et impletum est: quia pugnabit pro eo orbis terrarum contra insensatos
Chrysostomus in Matth
Non solum autem per hoc timorem discipulorum evacuat, sed etiam per hoc quod Scripturas in medium introducit, dicens quomodo ergo implebuntur Scripturae quia sic oportet fieri?
Hieronymus
Haec sententia promptum ad patiendum demonstrat animum: quod frustra prophetae cecinerint, nisi dominus eos vera dixisse sua passione asseveret
26:55
Origen † AD 253
Having commanded Peter to put up his sword, which was an instance of patience, and having (as another Evangelist writes [Luke 22:51.]) healed the ear that was cut off, which was an instance of the greatest mercy, and of Divine power, it now follows, In that hour said Jesus to the multitudes, to the end that if they could not remember His past goodness, they might at least confess His present,) Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me?
Remigius † AD 908
As much as to say, Robbers assault and study concealment; I have injured no one, but have healed many, and have ever taught in your synagogues.
St Jerome † AD 420
It is folly then to seek with swords and staves Him who offers Himself to your hands, and with a traitor to hunt out, as though lurking under cover of night, one who is daily teaching in the temple.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
They did not lay hands on Him in the temple because they feared the multitude, therefore also the Lord went forth that He might give them place and opportunity to take Him. This then teaches them, that if He had not suffered them of His own free choice, they would never have had strength to take Him. Then the Evangelist assigns the reason why the Lord was willing to be taken, adding, All this was done that the Scriptures of the Prophets might be fulfilled.
St Jerome † AD 420
They pierced my hands and my feet; (Ps. 22:16.) and in another place, He is led as a sheep to the slaughter; (Is. 53:7, 8.) and, By the iniquities of my people was He led to death.
Remigius † AD 908
For because all the Prophets had foretold Christ’s Passion, he does not cite any particular place, but says generally that the prophecies of all the Prophets were being fulfilled.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
The disciples who had remained when the Lord was apprehended, fled when He spoke these things to the multitudes, Then all the disciples forsook him and fled; for they then understood that He could not escape but rather gave Himself up voluntarily.
Remigius † AD 908
In this act is shewn the Apostles’ frailty; in the first ardour of their faith they had promised to die with Him, but in their fear they forgot their promise and fled. The same we may see in those who undertake to do great things for the love of God, but fail to fulfil what they undertake; they ought not to despair, but to rise again with the Apostles, and recover themselves by penitence.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Mystically, As Peter, who by tears washed away the sin of his denial, figures the recovery of those who lapse in time of martyrdom; so the flight of the other disciples suggests the precaution of flight to such as feel themselves unfit to endure torments.
St Augustine † AD 430 Cons. Ev. iii. 6.
They that had laid hold on Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the High Priest. But He was first taken to Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas, as John relates. And He was taken bound, there being with that multitude a tribune and cohort, as John also records. (John 18:12.)
St Jerome † AD 420
But Josephus writesu, that this Caiaphas had purchased the priesthood of a single year, notwithstanding that Moses, at God’s command, had directed that High Priests should succeed hereditarily, and that in the Priests likewise succession by birth should be followed up. No wonder then that an unrighteous High Priest should judge unrighteously.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
And the action suits his name; Caiaphas, i. e. ‘contriving,’ or, ‘politic,’ to execute his villainy; or ‘vomiting from his mouth,’ because of his audacity in uttering a lie, and bringing about the murder. They took Jesus thither, that they might do all advisedly; as it follows, Where the Scribes and the Elders were assembled.
Origen † AD 253
Where Caiaphas the High Priest is, there are assembled the Scribes, that is, the men of the letter1, who preside over the letter that killeth; and Elders, not in truth, but in the obsolete ancientness of the letter. It follows, Peter followed Him afar off, He would neither keep close to Him, nor altogether leave Him, but followed afar off.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Great was the zeal of Peter, who fled not when He saw the others fly, but remained, and entered in. For though John also went in, yet he was known to the Chief Priest. He followed afar off, because he was about to deny his Lord.
Remigius † AD 908
For had he kept close to his Lord’s side, he could never have denied Him. This also shews that Peter should follow his Lord’s Passion, that is, imitate it.
St Augustine † AD 430 Quæst. Ev. i. 46.
And also that the Church should follow, i. e. imitate, the Lord’s Passion, but with great difference. For the Church suffers for itself, but Christ for the Church.
St Jerome † AD 420
He went in, either out of the attachment of a disciple, or natural curiosity, seeking to know what sentence the High Priest would pass, whether death, or scourging.
The Latin text
Origenes in Matth
Postquam dixit Petro: reconde gladium tuum, quod est patientiae; postquam etiam auriculam restituit amputatam, sicut alter dicit Evangelista, quod summae benignitatis indicium fuerat, et divinae virtutis, subditur in illa hora dixit Iesus turbis: ut si praeterita beneficia non recordantur, vel praesentia recognoscant: tamquam ad latronem existis cum gladiis et fustibus comprehendere me
Remigius
Ac si diceret: latronis officium est nocere et latitare; ego vero nemini nocui, sed plures sanavi, et in synagogis semper docui; et hoc est quod subditur quotidie apud vos sedebam in templo docens, et non me tenuistis
Hieronymus
Quasi diceret: stultum est eum cum gladiis et fustibus quaerere qui ultro se vestris tradit manibus; et in nocte quasi latitantem per proditorem investigare qui quotidie in templo doceat
Chrysostomus in Matth
Ideo autem eum in templo non tenuerunt, quia non ausi erant propter turbam: propter quod et dominus foras exivit, ut ex loco et tempore daret eis aptitudinem se capiendi. Ex hoc ergo docet quoniam nisi voluntarius permisisset, nequaquam eum capere valuissent. Deinde Evangelista quaestionem solvit propter quid dominus capi voluit, cum subdit hoc autem totum factum est ut adimplerentur Scripturae prophetarum
Hieronymus
Foderunt manus meas et pedes meos, et: sicut ovis ad victimam ductus est, et in alio loco: ab iniquitatibus populi mei ductus est ad mortem
Remigius
Quia enim omnes prophetae praedixerunt Christi passionem, ideo non posuit fixum testimonium, sed generaliter dicit impleri vaticinia omnium prophetarum
Chrysostomus in Matth
Discipuli autem, qui quando detentus est dominus permanserunt, quando locutus est haec ad turbas, fugerunt; unde sequitur tunc discipuli omnes, relicto eo, fugerunt; sciebant enim quoniam iam non erat possibile effugere, eo se voluntarie illis tradente
Remigius
In hoc tamen facto demonstratur fragilitas apostolorum: qui enim de ardore fidei promiserant se mori cum eo, nunc timore fugiunt immemores suae promissionis. Quod etiam videmus impleri in his qui pro amore Dei magna se promittunt facturos, et postmodum non implent: non tamen desperare debent, sed cum apostolis resurgere et per poenitentiam resipiscere
Rabanus Maurus
Mystice autem sicut Petrus, qui culpam negationis poenitentiae lacrymis abluit, recuperationem eorum ostendit qui in martyrio labuntur; ita ceteri discipuli fugientes cautelam fugiendi docent eos qui se minus idoneos ad toleranda supplicia sentiunt. Sequitur at illi tenentes Iesum duxerunt ad Caipham principem sacerdotum
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Sed tamen primo ad Annam ductus est socerum Caiphae, sicut Ioannes dicit: ductus est autem ligatus, cum adessent in illa turba tribunus et cohors, ut Ioannes commemorat
Hieronymus
Refert autem Iosephus istum Caipham unius tantum anni pontificatum pretio redemisse; cum tamen Moyses Deo iubente praeceperit ut pontifices patribus succederent, et generationis in sacerdotibus series texeretur. Non ergo mirum est si iniquus pontifex iniqua iudicet
Rabanus Maurus
Convenit etiam nomen actioni: Caipha, idest investigator, vel sagax ad implendam suam nequitiam, vel vomens ore, quia impudens fuit ad proferendum mendacium, et ad perpetrandum homicidium. Ideo autem illuc eum adduxerunt ut cum consilio omnia facerent; unde sequitur ubi Scribae et seniores convenerant
Origenes in Matth
Ubi Caiphas est princeps sacerdotum, illic congregantur Scribae, idest litterati, qui praesunt litterae occidenti; et seniores non in veritate, sed in vetustate litterae. Sequitur Petrus autem sequebatur eum a longe: non enim poterat de proximo eum sequi, sed de longinquo; nec tamen omnino recedens ab eo
Chrysostomus in Matth
Multus enim erat fervor Petri, qui cum alios fugientes vidisset, non fugit, sed stetit, et intravit. Si autem et Ioannes intravit, tamen notus erat principi sacerdotum. Longe autem sequebatur, quia erat dominum negaturus
Remigius
Neque enim negare potuisset, si domino proximus adhaesisset. Per hoc etiam significatur quod Petrus dominum ad passionem euntem erat secuturus, idest imitaturus
Augustinus de quaest. Evang
Significatur etiam Ecclesiam secuturam quidem, hoc est imitaturam, passionem domini, sed longe differenter: Ecclesia enim pro se patitur, at ille pro Ecclesia. Sequitur et ingressus intro sedebat cum ministris, ut videret finem
Hieronymus
Vel amore discipuli, vel humana curiositate scire cupiebat quid iudicaret de domino pontifex: utrum eum neci addiceret, an flagellis caesum dimitteret
26:59
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
When the Chief Priests were thus assembled, this conventicle of ruffians sought to give their conspiracy the character of a legal trial. But it was entirely a scene of confusion and uproar, as what follows shews, Though many false witnesses came, yet found they none.
Origen † AD 253
False witnesses have place when there is any good colour for their testimony. But no pretext was found which could further their falsehoods against Jesus; notwithstanding there were many desirous to do a favour to the Chief Priests. This then is a great testimony in favour of Jesus, that He had lived and taught so irreproachably, that though they were many, and crafty, and wicked, they could find no semblance of fault in Him.
St Jerome † AD 420
At last came two false witnesses. How are they false witnesses, when they repeat only what we read that the Lord spoke? A false witness is one who takes what is said in a different sense from that in which it was said. Now this the Lord had spoken of the temple of His Body, and they cavil at His expressions, and by a slight change and addition produce a plausible charge. The Lord’s words were, Destroy this temple; (John 2:19.) this they make into, I can destroy the Temple of God. He said, Destroy, not ‘I will destroy,’ because it is unlawful to lay hands on ourselves. Also they phrased it, And build it again, making it apply to the temple of the Jews; but the Lord had said, And I will raise it up again, thus clearly pointing out a living and breathing temple. For to build again, and to raise again, are two different things.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Why did they not bring forward now His breaking the Sabbath? Because He had so often confuted them on this point.
St Jerome † AD 420
Headlong and uncontrolled rage, unable to find even a false accusation, moves the High Priest from his throne, the motion of his body shewing the emotion of his mind. And the High Priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing to the things which these witness against Thee?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
He said this with a design to draw from Him some indefensible answer which might be made a snare for Him. But Jesus held his peace, for defence had availed nothing when none would listen to it. For here was only a mockery of justice, it was in truth nothing more than the anarchy of a den of robbers.
Origen † AD 253
This place teaches us to contemn the clamours of slanderers and false witnesses, and not to consider those who speak unbeseeming things of us worthy of an answer; but then, above all, when it is greater to be manfully and resolutely silent, than to plead our cause in vain.
St Jerome † AD 420
For as God, He knew that whatever He said would be twisted into an accusation against Him. But at this His silence before false witnesses and ungodly Priests, the High Priest was exasperated, and summons Him to answer, that from anything He says he may raise a charge against Him.
Origen † AD 253
Under the Law, we do indeed find many instances of this adjuration (Numb. 5:19, 1 Kings 22:16.); but I judge that a man who would live according to the Gospel should not adjure another; for if we are not permitted to swear, surely not to adjure. But he that regards Jesus commanding the dæmons, and giving His disciples power over them, will say, that to address the dæmons by the power given by the Saviour, is not to adjure them. But the High Priest did sin in laying a snare for Jesus; imitating his father, who twice asked the Saviour, If thou be Christ the Son of God. (Matt. 4.) Hence one might rightly say, that to doubt concerning the Son of God, whether Christ be He, is the work of the Devil. It was not fit that the Lord should answer the High Priest’s adjuration as though under compulsion, wherefore He neither denied nor confessed Himself to be the Son of God. For he was not worthy to be the object of Christ’s teaching, therefore He does not instruct him, but taking up his own words retorts them upon him. This sitting of the Son of Man seems to me to denote a certain regal security; by the power of God, Who is the only power, is He securely seated to Whom is given by His Father all power in heaven as in earth. And there will come a time when the enemies shall see this establishment. Indeed this has begun to be fulfilled from the earliest time of the dispensation; for the disciples saw Him rising from the dead, and thereby saw Him seated on the right hand of power. Or, In respect of that eternity of duration which is with God, from the beginning of the world to the end of it is but one day; it is therefore no wonder that the Saviour here says, Shortly, signifying that there is but short time before the end come. He prophesies moreover, that they should not only see Him sitting at the right hand of power, but also coming in the clouds of heaven. These clouds are the Prophets and Apostles, whom He commands to rain when it is required, they are the clouds that pass not away, but bearing the image of the heavenly, (1 Cor. 15:49.) are worthy to be the throne of God, as heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. (Rom. 8:17.)
St Jerome † AD 420
The same fury which drew the High Priest from his seat, impels him now to rend his clothes; for so it was customary with the Jews to do whenever they heard any blasphemy, or any thing against God.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
This He did to give weight to the accusation, and to confirm by deeds what He taught in words.
St Jerome † AD 420
And by this rending his garments, he shews that the Jews have lost the priestly glory, and that their High Priest’s throne was vacant. For by rending his garment he rent the veil of the Law which covered him.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Then, after rending his garment, he did not give sentence of himself, but asked of others, saying, What think ye? As was always done in undeniable cases of sin, and manifest blasphemy, and as by force driving them to a certain opinion, he anticipates the answer, What need we any further witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What was this blasphemy? For before He had interpreted to them as they were gathered together that text, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, (Matt. 22:44.) and they had held their peace, and had not contradicted Him. How then do they call what He now says blasphemy? They answered and said, He is guilty of death, the same persons at once accusers, examiners, and sentencers.
Origen † AD 253
How great their error! to pronounce the principle of all men’s life to be guilty of death, and not to acknowledge by the testimony of the resurrection of so many, the Fount of life, from Whom life flows to all that rise again.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxv.
As hunters who have started their game, so they exhibit a wild and drunken exultation.
St Jerome † AD 420
They spit in his face, and buffeted him, to fulfil the prophecy of Esaias, I gave my cheek to the smiters, and turned not away my face from shame and spitting. (Isa. 50:6.)
The Gloss ord
Prophesy unto us is said in ridicule of His claim to be held as a Prophet by the people.
St Jerome † AD 420
But it would have been foolish to have answered them that smote Him, and to have declared the smiter, seeing that in their madness they seem to have struck Him openly.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Observe how circumstantially the Evangelist recounts all those particulars even which seem most disgraceful, hiding or extenuating nothing, but thinking it the highest glory that the Lord of the earth should endure such things for us. This let us read continually, let us imprint in our minds, and in these things let us boast.
St Augustine † AD 430 Quæst. Ev. i. 44.
That, they did spit in his face, signifies those who reject His proffered grace. They likewise buffet Him who prefer their own honour to Him; and they smite Him on the face, who, blinded with unbelief, affirm that He is not yet come, disowning and rejecting His person.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Matth
Congregatis principibus sacerdotum, tota pestilentiae conventicula volebant suis insidiis iudicii formam imponere; unde dicitur principes autem sacerdotum et omne Concilium quaerebant falsum testimonium contra Iesum, ut eum morti traderent. Sed quod fictum erat iudicium, et omnia tumultus et turbationis plena, manifestatur per hoc quod subditur et non invenerunt, cum multi falsi testes accessissent
Origenes in Matth
Falsa enim testimonia tunc locum habent quando cum colore aliquo proferuntur. Sed nec color inveniebatur qui posset contra Iesum adiuvare mendacia; quamvis essent multi gratiam tribuere volentes principibus sacerdotum: quod maximam laudem exhibet Iesu, qui sic omnia irreprehensibiliter dixit et fecit ut nullam verisimilitudinem invenirent in eo reprehensionis et mali et multi astuti. Sequitur novissime autem venerunt duo falsi testes, et dixerunt: hic dixit: possum destruere templum Dei, et post triduum reaedificare illud
Hieronymus
Quomodo autem falsi testes sunt, si ea dicunt quae dominum dixisse legimus? Sed falsus testis est qui non eodem sensu dicta intelligit quo dicuntur: dominus enim dixerat de templo corporis sui; sed in ipsis verbis calumniantur, ut paucis additis vel mutatis quasi iustam calumniam faciant. Salvator dixerat: solvite templum hoc; isti commutant, et aiunt possum destruere templum Dei. Vos, inquit, solvite, non ego: quia illicitum est ut nobisipsis inferamus manus. Deinde illi vertunt et post triduum reaedificare illud, ut proprie de templo Iudaico dixisse videretur; dominus autem, ut ostenderet animale et spirans templum, dixerat: et ego in triduo resuscitabo illud. Aliud est aedificare, aliud suscitare
Chrysostomus in Matth
Sed quare non attulerunt in medium accusationem de solutione sabbati? Quia multoties eos super hoc confutaverat
Hieronymus
Ira autem praeceps et impatiens non inveniens calumniae locum, excutit de solio pontificem, ut vesaniam mentis motu corporis demonstraret; unde sequitur et surgens princeps sacerdotum ait illi: nihil respondes ad ea quae isti adversum te testificantur?
Chrysostomus in Matth
Hoc autem dixit, volens ab eo inexcusabilem responsionem elicere, ut ex ipsa eum caperet. Inutilis autem erat excusationis responsio, nullo eam exaudiente; et ideo sequitur Iesus autem tacebat: etenim solum figura iudicii ibi erat: in veritate autem latronum erat incursus, sicut in spelunca; et ideo silet
Origenes in Matth
Ex hoc autem loco discimus contemnere calumniantium et falsorum testium voces, ut nec responsione dignos eos habeamus qui non convenientia dicunt adversus nos, maxime ubi maius est libere et fortiter silere quam defendere sine ullo profectu
Hieronymus
Sciebat enim quasi Deus, quicquid dixisset, torquendum ad calumniam. Quanto ergo Iesus magis tacebat ad indignos responsione sua falsos testes, et sacerdotes impios, tanto magis pontifex furore superatus, eum ad respondendum provocat, ut ex qualibet occasione sermonis, locum inveniat accusandi; unde sequitur et princeps sacerdotum ait illi: adiuro te per Deum vivum, ut dicas nobis si tu es Christus filius Dei
Origenes in Matth
In lege quidem adiurandi usum aliquoties invenimus; aestimo autem quoniam non oportet ut vir qui vult secundum Evangelium vivere, adiuret alterum: si enim iurare non licet, nec adiurare. Sed et qui respicit Iesum imperantem Daemonibus, et potestatem dantem discipulis super Daemonia, dicet quod secundum potestatem datam a salvatore, non est adiurare Daemonia. Princeps autem sacerdotum peccatum faciebat insidians Iesu; et ideo imitabatur proprium patrem, qui bis dubie interrogavit salvatorem: si tu es Christus filius Dei? Unde quis recte dicere potest, quoniam dubitare de filio Dei utrum ipse sit Christus, opus Diaboli est. Non decebat autem dominum ad adiurationem principis respondere sacerdotum, quasi vim passum: propter quod nec denegavit se filium Dei esse, nec manifeste confessus est; unde sequitur dicit illi Iesus: tu dixisti. Non enim erat dignus Christi doctrina: propterea non eum docet, sed verbum oris eius accipiens, in redargutionem ipsius convertit. Sequitur verumtamen dico vobis: amodo videbitis filium hominis sedentem a dextris virtutis Dei. Videtur mihi quoniam firmitatem quamdam regalem significat sessio filii hominis: iuxta virtutem ergo Dei, qui solus est virtus, fundatus est qui accepit omnem potestatem a patre, sicut in caelo et in terra. Erit autem quando hanc fundationem videbunt etiam adversarii, quod a tempore dispensationis incepit impleri. Viderunt enim eius discipuli eum resurgentem a mortuis, et per hoc viderunt eum fundatum ad dexteram virtutis. Vel quia secundum longitudinem sempiternam, quae est apud Deum, a constitutione mundi usque ad finem est unus dies: nihil ergo mirum quod hic dicit salvator amodo, spatium esse brevissimum usque ad finem ostendens; et non solum sedentem eum ad dexteram virtutis visuros prophetabat, sed etiam venientem in nubibus caeli; unde sequitur et venientem in nubibus caeli. Hae nubes sunt prophetae et apostoli Christi, quibus mandat pluere cum oportet; et sunt nubes caeli non transeuntes, quasi portantes imaginem caelestis; et dignae sunt ut sint sedes Dei, quasi heredes Dei et coheredes Christi
Hieronymus
Pontificem autem quem de solio sacerdotali furor excusserat, eadem rabies ad scindendum vestes provocat; unde sequitur tunc princeps sacerdotum scidit vestimenta sua, dicens: blasphemavit. Consuetudinis enim Iudaicae est quod cum aliquid blasphemum et quasi contra Deum audierint, scindant vestimenta sua
Chrysostomus in Matth
Hoc igitur fecit, ut accusationem redderet graviorem: et quod verbis dicebat, factis extolleret
Hieronymus
Per hoc autem quod scidit vestimenta sua, ostendit Iudaeos sacerdotalem gloriam perdidisse, et vacuam sedem habere pontificis. Dum enim vestem sibi discidit, ipsum quo tegebatur vestimentum legis abrupit
Chrysostomus in Matth
Cum ergo scidisset vestimenta sua, non fert sententiam a seipso, sed ab aliis eam exquirit, dicens: quid vobis videtur? Sicut in confessis peccatis et blasphemia manifesta fieri solet, et quasi cogens et violentiam inferens ad sententiam proferendam, praevenit auditorem, dicens: quid adhuc egemus testibus? Ecce nunc audistis blasphemiam. Quae autem fuit illa blasphemia? Etenim ante eis congregatis dixerat: dixit dominus domino meo: sede a dextris meis: et interpretatus est eis, et siluerunt, nec de cetero contradixerunt; qualiter ergo nunc quod dictum est, blasphemiam vocant? Sequitur at illi respondentes dixerunt: reus est mortis; ipsi accusantes, ipsi discutientes, ipsi sententiam proferentes
Origenes in Matth
Quantum putas fuit erroris, ipsam principalem omnium vitam ream mortis pronuntiare, et per tantorum resurgentium testimonia non respicere fontem vitae, de quo in omnes resurgentes vita fluebat?
Chrysostomus in Matth
Ut autem venatores fera inventa, ita suam demonstrabant ebrietatem, et insania ferebantur. Sequitur tunc expuerunt in faciem eius et colaphis eum caeciderunt
Hieronymus
Ut compleretur quod dictum est: dedi maxillam meam alapis, et faciem meam non averti a confusione sputorum. Sequitur alii autem palmas in faciem eius dederunt, dicentes: prophetiza nobis, Christe, quis est qui te percussit?
Glossa
In contumeliam ei hoc dicitur, qui se prophetam haberi voluit a populis
Hieronymus
Stultum autem erat verberantibus respondere, et prophetare caedentem, cum palam percutientis insania videretur
Chrysostomus in Matth
Attende autem, quod Evangelista cum summa diligentia ea quae videntur esse exprobratissima exponit, nihil occultans aut verecundans; sed gloriam existimans maximam, dominatorem orbis terrarum pro nobis talia sustinere. Hoc autem legamus continue, hoc nostrae menti inscribamus, et in his gloriemur
Augustinus de quaest. Evang
Quod autem dictum est expuerunt in faciem eius, significavit eos qui praesentiam gratiae eius respuunt. Item tamquam colaphis eum caedunt, qui ei honores suos praeferunt; palmas in faciem eius dant qui perfidia caecati eum non venisse affirmant, tamquam praesentiam eius exterminantes et repellentes
26:69
St Augustine † AD 430 de Cons. Ev. iii. 6.
Among the other insults offered to our Lord was the threefold denial of Peter, which the several Evangelists relate in different order. Luke puts Peter’s trial first, and the ill usage of the Lord after that; Matthew and Mark reverse the order.
St Jerome † AD 420
Peter sat without, that he might see the event, and not excite suspicion by any approach to Jesus.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
And he, who, when he saw his Master laid hands on, drew his sword and cut off the ear, now when he sees Him enduring such insults becomes a denier, and cannot withstand the taunts of a mean servant girl. A damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
What means this, that a handmaid is the first to tax him, when men would be more likely to recognise him, except that this sex might seem to sin somewhat in the Lord’s death, that they might be redeemed by His passion? He denied before them all, because he was afraid to reveal himself; that he said, I know not, shews that he was not yet willing to die for the Saviour.
St Leo the Great † AD 461 Serm. 60, 4.
For this reason it should seem he was permitted to waver, that the remedy of penitence might be exhibited in the head of the Church, and that none should dare to trust in his own strength, when even the blessed Peter could not escape the danger of frailty.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
But not once, but twice and thrice did he deny within a short time.
St Augustine † AD 430 ubi sup.
We understand that having gone out after his first denial, the cock crowed the first time as Mark relates.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
To shew that the sound did not keep him from denial, nor bring his promise to mind.
St Augustine † AD 430 ubi sup.
The second denial was not outside the door, but after he had returned to the fire; for the second maid did not see him after he had gone out, but as he was going out; his getting up to go out drew her attention, and she said to them that were there, that is, to those that were standing round the fire in the hall, Tins fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth. He who had gone out, haying heard this returned, that he might by denial vindicate himself. Or, as is more likely, he did not hear what was said of him as he went out, but it was after he came back that the maid, and the other man whom Luke mentions, said to him, And thou also art one of them.
St Jerome † AD 420
And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. I know that some out of a feeling of piety towards the Apostle Peter have interpreted this place to signify that Peter denied the Man and not the God, as though he meant, ‘I do not know the Man, because I know the God.’x But the intelligent reader will see that this is trifling, for if he denied not, the Lord spoke falsely when He said, Thou shalt deny me thrice.
St Ambrose † AD 397 in Luc. 22, 57.
I had rather that Peter deny, than that the Lord be made out false.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
In this denial of Peter we affirm that Christ is denied not only by him who denies that He is Christ, but who denies himself to be a Christian.
St Augustine † AD 430 ubi sup.
Let us now come to the third denial; And after a while came they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them, (Luke’s words are, About the space of one hour after,) for thy speech bewrayeth thee. (Luke 22:59.)
St Jerome † AD 420
Not that Peter was of a different speech or nation, but a Hebrew as his accusers were; but every province and every district has its peculiarities, and he could not disguise his native pronunciation.
Remigius † AD 908
Observe how baneful are communications with evil men; they even drove Peter to deny the Lord whom he had before confessed to be the Son of God.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Observe, that he said the first time, I know not what thou sayest; the second time, He denied with an oath; the third time, He began to curse and to swear that he knew not the man. For to persevere in sinning increases sinfulness, and he who disregards light sins, falls into greater.
Remigius † AD 908
Spiritually; By Peter’s denial before the cock-crow, are denoted those who before Christ’s resurrection did not believe Him to be God, being perplexed by His death. In his denial after the first cock-crow, are denoted those who are in error concerning both Christ’s natures, His human and divine. By the first handmaid is signified desire; by the second, carnal delight; by them that stood by, the dæmons; for by them men are led to a denial of Christ.
Origen † AD 253
Or, By the first handmaid is understood the Synagogue of the Jews, which oft compelled the faithful to deny; by the second, the congregations of the Gentiles, who even persecuted the Christians; they that stood in the hall signify the ministers of divers heresies, who also compel men to deny the truth of Christ.
St Augustine † AD 430 Quæst. Ev. i. 45.
Also Peter thrice denied, because heretical error concerning Christ is limited to three kinds; they are in error respecting His divinity, His humanity, or both.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
After the third denial comes the cock-crow; by which we may understand a Doctor of the Church who with chiding rouses the slumbering, saying, Awake, ye righteous, and sin not. (1 Cor. 15:14.) Thus Holy Scripture uses to denote the merit of divers cases1 by fixed periods, as Peter sinned at midnight and repented at cock-crow.
St Jerome † AD 420
In another Gospel we read, that after Peter’s denial and the cock-crow, the Saviour looked upon Peter, (Luke 22:61.) and by His look called forth those bitter tears; for it might not be that he on whom the Light of the world had looked should continue in the darkness of denial, wherefore, he went out, and wept bitterly. For he could not do penitence sitting in Caiaphas’ hall, but went forth from the assembly of the wicked, that he might wash away in bitter tears the pollution of his timid denial.
St Leo the Great † AD 461 Serm. 60. 4.
Blessed tears, O holy Apostle, which had the virtue of holy Baptism in washing off the sin of thy denial. The right hand of the Lord Jesus Christ was with thee to hold thee up before thou wast quite thrown down, and in the midst of thy perilous fall, thou receivedst strength to stand. The Rock quickly returned to its stability, recovering so great fortitude, that he who in Christ’s passion had quailed, should endure his own subsequent suffering with fearlessness and constancy.
The Latin text
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Inter praedictas domini contumelias trina negatio Petri facta est, quam non omnes Evangelistae eodem ordine narrant. Lucas enim explicat prius tentationem Petri, tunc demum contumelias domini; sed Matthaeus et Marcus eas primo commemorant, et deinde Petri tentationem. Sic enim hic sequitur Petrus vero sedebat foris in atrio
Hieronymus
Foris sedebat, ut videret exitum rei; et non appropinquabat Iesu, ne ministris aliqua suspicio nasceretur
Chrysostomus in Matth
Et qui quando detentum magistrum vidit solum, ita efferbuit ut gladium evaginaverit, et auriculam absciderit; quando contumelias Christi audivit, negator efficitur, et vilis puellae minas non sustinet; sequitur enim et accessit ad eum una ancilla, dicens: et tu cum Iesu Galilaeo eras
Rabanus Maurus
Quid sibi vult quia prima eum prodit ancilla, cum viri magis eum potuerint recognoscere; nisi quod iste sexus peccare in nece domini videretur, ut eius passione redimeretur? Sequitur at ille negavit coram omnibus dicens: nescio quid dicis. Palam coram omnibus negavit, quia se manifestare expavit: quod dicebatur se nescire respondit, quia pro salvatore adhuc mori noluit
Leo Papa in Serm. 9 de passione
Ob hoc autem, sicut apparet, haesitare permissus est, ut in Ecclesiae principe remedium poenitentiae conderetur, et nemo auderet de sua virtute confidere, quando mutabilitatis periculum nec beatus Petrus potuisset evadere
Chrysostomus in Matth
Non solum autem semel, sed et secundo et tertio negat in brevi tempore; unde sequitur exeunte autem eo ianuam, vidit eum alia ancilla, et ait his qui erant ibi: et hic erat cum Iesu Nazareno
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Intelligitur autem quod postquam exiit foras, cum iam semel negasset, gallus cantavit primum, quod Marcus dicit
Chrysostomus in Matth
Ut ostendat quod neque vox galli eum a negatione detinuit, neque in memoriam suae promissionis reduxit
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Non autem foris ante ianuam iterum negavit, sed cum redisset ad focum: neque enim exierat, et foris eum vidit altera ancilla; sed cum exiret, eum vidit; idest, cum surgeret et exiret, animadvertit et dixit his qui erant ibi, idest qui simul aderant ad ignem in atrio: et hic erat cum Iesu Nazareno. Ille autem qui foras exierat, hoc audito regressus est, ut se quasi purgaret negando. Vel, quod est credibilius, non audivit quod de eo dictum fuerat cum foras exiret, et posteaquam rediit, dictum est ei quod Lucas commemorat. Sequitur et iterum negavit cum iuramento: quia non novi hominem
Hieronymus
Scio quosdam pio affectu erga apostolum Petrum locum hunc ita interpretatos ut dicerent, Petrum hominem negasse, non Deum; et esse sensum: nescio hominem, quia scio Deum. Hoc quam frivolum sit, prudens lector intelligit: si enim iste non negavit, ergo mentitus est dominus, qui dixerat: ter me negabis
Rabanus Maurus
In hac autem negatione Petri dicimus, non solum abnegare Christum qui dicit eum non esse Christum, sed qui cum sit, negat se esse Christianum
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Nunc iam de tertia negatione inspiciamus; sequitur enim et post pusillum accesserunt qui stabant, et dixerunt Petro: vere et tu ex illis es. Lucas autem dixit: intervallo facto quasi horae unius; et ut eum convincant, consequenter adiungunt nam et loquela tua manifestum te facit
Hieronymus
Non quod alterius sermonis esset Petrus, aut gentis externae: omnes quippe Hebraei erant, et qui arguebant et qui arguebantur: sed quia unaquaeque provincia et regio habeat proprietates suas, et vernaculum loquendi sonum vitare non possit
Remigius
Vide autem quam sint noxia pravorum hominum colloquia: ipsa quippe coegerunt Petrum negare dominum, quem prius confessus fuerat esse Dei filium; sequitur enim tunc coepit detestari et iurare, quia non novisset hominem
Rabanus Maurus
Nota, quia primum ait: nescio quid dicis; secundo, cum iuramento negat; tertio, quia coepit detestari et iurare, quia non novit hominem. Perseverare quippe in peccato dat incrementum scelerum; et qui minima spernit, cadit in maiora
Remigius
Spiritualiter autem per hoc quod Petrus ante primum galli cantum negavit, illi designantur qui ante Christi resurrectionem non credebant eum esse Deum, eius morte turbati. Per hoc autem quod post galli cantum negavit, illi designantur qui in utramque domini naturam, et secundum Deum et secundum hominem errant. Per primam autem ancillam designatur cupiditas; per secundam carnalis delectatio; per illos qui astabant, Daemones intelliguntur: his enim trahuntur homines ad Christi negationem
Origenes in Matth
Vel per primam ancillam intelligitur synagoga Iudaeorum, qui frequenter compulerunt denegare fideles; per secundam congregatio gentium, qui etiam persecuti sunt Christianos; per tertios stantes in atrio, ministri haeresum diversarum
Augustinus de quaest. Evang
Ter etiam Petrus negavit: nam et error haereticorum de Christo, tribus generibus terminatur: aut enim de divinitate, aut de humanitate, aut de utroque falluntur
Rabanus Maurus
Post tertiam autem negationem sequitur galli cantus; et hoc est quod subdit et continuo gallus cantavit, per quem doctor Ecclesiae intelligitur, qui somnolentos increpans ait: evigilate, iusti, et nolite peccare. Solet autem sacra Scriptura saepe meritum causarum per statum designare temporum: unde Petrus, qui media nocte peccavit, ad galli cantum poenituit: unde sequitur et recordatus est Petrus verbi Iesu quod dixerat: priusquam gallus cantet, ter me negabis
Hieronymus
In Evangelio legimus, quod post negationem Petri et galli cantum respexit salvator Petrum, et intuitu suo eum ad amaras lacrymas provocavit: non enim fieri poterat ut in negationis tenebris permaneret quem lux respexerat mundi; unde et hic sequitur et egressus foras, flevit amare. In atrio enim Caiphae sedens non poterat agere poenitentiam: unde foras egreditur de impiorum Concilio, ut pavidae negationis sordes amaris fletibus lavet
Leo Papa in Serm. 9 de passione
Felices, o apostole sancte, lacrymae tuae, quae ad diluendam culpam negationis, virtutem sacri habuere Baptismatis. Affuit enim dextera domini Iesu Christi, quae labentem te priusquam deicereris exciperet; et firmitatem standi in ipso cadendi periculo recepisti. Cito itaque ad soliditatem rediit Petrus, tamquam recipiens fortitudinem; ut qui tunc in Christi expaverat passione, in suo post supplicio non timeret, sed constans permaneret
26:1
And it came to pass, when He had finished, or completed, all that He had spoken in the last chapter concerning, the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world, then He girded Himself to meet His Passion, which was nigh at hand, and foretold it. He would not seem to be ignorant of the things which were shortly to come to pass, whilst He prophesied of those in the far distant future. He would not have His disciples suppose that Christ was ignorant of the things which were to befall Him, or that they happened to Him against His will; but that they might know that all was foreseen by Him. The meaning is, as S. Thomas expresses it, "When Christ had fulfilled His office as a Teacher, He began to prepare Himself for the office of a Redeemer and a Saviour."
26:2
Ye know, &c., after two days. He said, therefore, these things on the Tuesday evening, when, after the Hebrew custom, the fourth day of the week, or Wednesday, was about to begin. This was the reckoning employed with respect to festivals. For, as Pererius says (on Gen 1:5, on the words, "The evening and the morning were one day"), "It is certain that the ancient Jews reckoned their days by a threefold method." First, the legal day from evening to evening. Secondly, the natural day from sunrise to sunrise. Thirdly, the common day from midnight to midnight. Wherefore Christ saith truly, After two days shall be the feast of the Passover, because after two days, that is to say, Wednesday and Thursday, on the evening of Thursday, when Friday is about to begin, is the Passover. The Passover. This means in Hebrew, passing over, because the angel passed over the houses of the Hebrews. For pasach means to pass over. But the Syrians write pascha not with samech, as the Hebrews, but with tsade, and then pascha signifies joy and gladness, for the feast of the Passover was a time of utmost joyfulness.
26:3
Then were gathered together, &c. Then means on the morning of the fourth day of the week, or Wednesday. It was or the morning of this day that Judas came to them, and sold Christ to them for the stipulated price of thirty denarii, according to the general opinion of the Church, and as the same may be gathered from S. Matthew's narrative. Wherefore from this council of the Jews, and selling of Jesus, the ancient Christians were accustomed to fast on Wednesday, as S. Augustine testifies (Epist. 86). Moreover, the Greeks, and many inhabitants of Poland and Holland, still abstain from eating flesh on Wednesday, because on that day the flesh of Christ was sold. Observe, we gather from S. Matthew's narrative that on these two days Wednesday and Thursday Christ did not come into Jerusalem, as He had done on the Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, but remained at Bethany, and only returned to Jerusalem towards the evening of Thursday, that He might celebrate the Passover.
26:4
Take Jesus by subtilty by subtilty, because they were afraid lest Christ should take Himself out of their hands, as He had done before. Again, they seek a stratagem, that they might seize Him without a tumult of the people. For they were afraid lest the people, hanging upon the words of Christ, as a very great prophet, might fight for Him, and not suffer Him to be taken. Wherefore it follows, For they said, &c. It was not, therefore, out of regard for the festival, but from fear of the people, that they were unwilling to take Jesus on the feast of the Passover. For at this feast a countless multitude of Jews flocked together to Jerusalem, among whom were many who had received salvation both of body and soul from Jesus, who, they feared, would defend Him. Wherefore, "They had no zeal for devotion, but for wickedness," says S. Jerome. In like manner, Herod Agrippa did not wish to put Peter to death until after the Passover (Act 12). For the Passover was to the Jews a festival of liberty and joy, because in it they celebrated their deliverance from the slavery of Egypt. Whence they were accustomed to release condemned persons at that time, as they released Barabbas. The rulers, therefore, had decreed to take Christ and put Him to death after the Passover; but in consequence of the treachery of Judas, they changed their purpose. For the counsel and purpose of God was, that Christ should die at the Passover, in order that He might show that the antitype answered to its type. For the sacrifice of a lamb, which took place at the Passover, was a type that Christ would be sacrificed at that feast. By this circumstance God signified that Christ was the very Paschal Lamb, who suffered upon the cross for the redemption of the world.
26:6
In the house of Simon the leper. Matthew repeats more circumstantially things which had already happened, in order to relate the manner in which Christ was taken. For Judas was moved to betray Christ to the Jews by the occasion of this ointment, that he might by his treachery recover the price of the ointment, and, like a thief, as he was, hide it in his coffers. This feast, when Christ was in the house of Simon, took place on the day before Palm Sunday, as is plain from S. Joh 12:1, where it is said, six days before the Passover, which was Friday, He came to Bethany. And it is added, they made Him a feast, that is, Simon and his friends. This was on the Saturday, or the Sabbath; and the next day was Palm Sunday.
Simon the leper. Some of the Fathers are of opinion that Simon had really been a leper, and had been healed by Christ. Others think that Leper was a patronymic of the family of Simon, either because he was descended from a leper, or because of some connection with lepers. Thus there were at Rome the families of the Claudii (the Lame), and the Balbi (the Sutterers), although there were many members of those families who were neither lame nor stutterers.
26:7
There came to Him a woman, &c. This was the same feast as that which S. John gives an account of (Joh 12:1), as will be seen by comparing these two Evangelists. S. Matthew relates it in order to explain the occasion of Judas' being moved to betray Christ, as I have said. You may object that John says, They made Him a feast, and Martha served, which might seem to intimate that the feast was in Martha's house, not in Simon's. I reply by denying the inference. John does not say that Martha and Mary made Him a feast, but simply, they, that is, some persons, made one. The persons meant were the inhabitants of Bethany, friends of Jesus, prominent among whom was this Simon the leper. But Martha ministered at this supper, either because she was a neighbour, or because she was a friend and relative of Simon.
A woman. Mary Magdalene, as S. John says expressly (Joh 12:3), who, as she had two years before this repented, and washed the feet of Jesus with her tears, and anointed them with ointment, so upon this occasion likewise, six days before His death, she did the same thing, partly from devotion, and partly by an inspiration from God, as a kind of prophecy of Christ's rapidly approaching death and burial.
Alabaster. Vessels made of alabaster, or onyx stone, which Pliny says was an excellent material for preserving ointment incorrupt (lib. 36, cap. 8), were made use of for this purpose. Wherefore it is not surprising that this hollow vessel, which was as thin and brittle as glass, might easily be broken by Mary Magdalene, by striking it with a small hammer, so that she might pour the whole of the ointment upon the head of Christ. Unless you prefer to think, with Suidas, that this so-called alabaster box was a clear vessel without a handle, such as chemists have in their shops to keep unguents and drugs in. S. Epiphanius (lib. de Mensuris) says, "This box was a small glass vessel of ointment, containing a pound of oil. It was called alabaster because of its brittleness."
Ointment. I have shown on Eccles. ix. 8 that the Jews followed the custom of the Arabians, Persians, Syrians, and other Eastern nations in making use of unguents at their feasts for purposes of refreshment, and as a hindrance to drunkenness. Moreover, those ointments were not unfrequently not thick, such as those which doctors make use of for blows and wounds, but in a liquid state. They were confections of odoriferous herbs, which refreshed and delighted the brain and the other parts of the body. This particular ointment was fluid spikenard, as we learn from S. John. Spikenard has a very sweet smell, and abounds in Syria. Whence Tibullus, "His temples lately moist with Tyrian (or better, Syrian) nard." It is certain that spikenard compounded with oil formed a very precious ointment, which the ancients made use of for anointing the head. (See Plin. lib. xiii. caps. 1 and 2.)
Precious; Gr. βαζυτίμου, of great price; lit. heavy, because money was formerly estimated according to weight, as by the ounce, the pound. The Syriac adds, it was very sweet; S. Mark says, spicati (Vulg.); S. John, pistici. I will explain the meaning of these words in S. Joh 12:3.
Upon His head. You will say that John has, she anointed the feet of Jesus, &c. I answer that Mary Magdalene first anointed the feet of Christ and then poured all the contents of the vessel upon His head. To do this she broke off the narrow neck of the bottle, as we gather from S. Mark. So S. Augustine (lib. de Consens. Evangel. 79). John adds, she wiped His feet, that is, before she anointed them, to cleanse them from dust. For Jesus went about with the upper part of His feet uncovered, as I have shown, x. 10. So Toletus. But if any one shall maintain that she wiped Christ's feet after the anointing, in order to dry them, I offer no objection. John, in order to show the surpassing excellence of the ointment, adds, And the house was filled with the odour. In the Magdalene, therefore, was fulfilled the words of Canticles i. 12, "When the king was on his couch my spikenard gave its odour" (Vulg.). Also, "Thy name is as oil poured forth." Tropologically: Origen says that oil or ointment is the work of virtue, especially of mercy. If this be shown out of natural compassion, as it is by infidels, not for God's sake, God accepts it indeed, but not unto life eternal. But if it be done from love to God, it is an excellent ointment of a sweet-smelliing savour. Again, if a good work be done to relieve the wants of the poor, it is an anointing of the feet of the Lord. For the poor in the Church are the mystical feet of the Lord. But if the work be done for the glory of God, as in the way of zeal for chastity, fasting, or prayer, it is an anointing of the Lord's head, a precious ointment, with whose odour the whole Church is filled; and this is the proper work of the perfect. 2d The Gloss says, "This woman who anointed the head and feet of Christ signifies the faith of the Church, which, when it preaches and invokes the Godhead of Christ, anoints His head: when it preaches His humanity, His feet." Lastly, he anoints the feet, who in an active life serves his neighbour; but he the head, who cleaves to God by contemplation, and becomes one spirit with Him.
26:8
When the disciples saw it, &c. You may say that S. John speaks only of Judas as murmuring. S. Augustine (lib. 2, de Consens. Evang. c. 69) says that Judas was the leader and inciter of this murmuring, who stirred up the other Apostles, in the pretence of pity for the poor, to indignation, which in their case flowed from a real affection of pity, but with him was a mere pretence, springing from avarice. Sold for much... three hundred denarii, as Mark has. Judas meant to say that this ointment ought not to have been used for luxury and pleasure upon the head of Christ, but ought to have been poured into the lap of many poor, to relieve their wants. This was the opinion of Calvin, who, lest any one should make use of the "example of Mary Magdalene to approve of funereal honours, in the way of lights, incense, and other like observances, says that this action of hers must neither be approved nor imitated, but only defended, as done by a special inspiration of the Holy Ghost. But who cannot see that the spirit of Judas and Calvin are identical, and that the same Satan speaks by Calvin who erst spake by Judas, whom Christ proceeds to confute?
26:10
But Jesus knowing, &c., by the Divine Spirit their secret murmuring, said, Why trouble ye, &c. Arab. Why do you blame? A good work; καλόν, i.e., fair, honourable, worthy of highest praise. For what can be more worthy and honourable than to anoint the feet of God? Who would not account himself happy if he might but touch and kiss the feet of Christ?
26:11
The poor ye have always, &c. The world is full of poor, to whom ye may always do good; but I, after six days, am about to die, and go away to Heaven, so that ye will not be able either to see Me or to touch Me. Suffer then this woman's act of service towards Me. In six days ye would vainly desire to do the like.
26:12
For My burial. Christ might have excused Mary because of the excellence of His Divine Person, which was anointed by her, which made it more meritorious to expend the price of the ointment upon Him than upon feeding the poor, as Theophylact teaches. And the same argument holds good in the present day with respect to the adornment of temples, altars, chalices, &c. For this is done in honour of the person of Christ, to stir up the devotion and reverence of others towards Him, when there is no special necessity calling for the relief of the poor. Or Christ might have excused her, because she performed this anointing out of gratitude, piety, reverence. But out of modesty He was unwilling to make use of these pleas. His only ground of defence is, she did it for My burial, that He might show that His death was at hand, and that He was willing and ready to die, yea, that He had ordained the anointing with a view to His death, and so permitted the consequent betrayal of Judas. For Christ very greatly longed for His death, for the glory of God and the redemption of men. At the same time He, as it were, pricks Judas; as S. Chrysostom says, "I am troublesome and burdensome to you, but wait a little while, and I will depart hence. But take thou care lest, by betraying Me, thou promotest My death, lest thou bring death and hell upon thyself." The Syriac adds, She did it as if for My burial, because Mary did not intend to anoint Him for burial; but the Holy Ghost, knowing what was about to take place, inwardly moved her to do what she did. Christ therefore excuses her because of her inward affection of charity, because of the peculiar circumstances and the unique occasion, and especially because the Holy Ghost guided her, although she knew not what she did. For she anointed Him as though He had been on the very point of being buried. She could not anoint Him for burial after He was dead, because she was anticipated by Joseph of Arimathea. So Mark says distinctly, She hath done what she could; she is come aforehand to anoint My body for the burial. S. John has, Let her alone, that she may keep (ut servet) it for the day of My burial (Vulg.). The Greek is in the past tense, she hath kept it. As though He had said, "Suffer her, O Judas, to obey the insti ct of her devotion, that she may anoint Me yet alive, though so soon about to die, for she will not be able to do it after I am dead." So Vatablus. Otherwise Maldonatus, That she may keep it, "She has so bestowed this ointment in anointing Me that she cannot lose it." As if one should say that he had kept his money who had bought a field with it; for if he had hidden it in a coffer, he might have lost it. That she may keep it that she may be proved to have kept it (Franc. Lucas). Somewhat differently Nonnus Panopolitanus, who read with the Vulg. ίνα τηζήόη, that she may keep, "Account this woman's gift free from all blame, so that she may keep and preserve the treasure of My body until the hour of My death and preparation for burial be come."
26:13
Verily I say unto you... for a memorial of her, i.e., of Mary Magdalene, not of Christ, as is shown by the fem. pronoun αυ̉τη̃ς. This anointing and pious devotion shall be celebrated throughout the whole world for the everlasting praise and honour of Mary, and for the infamy of Judas, who found fault with her. Victor of Antioch paraphrases as follows, "So far am I from condemning her as though she had done amiss, or blaming her as though she had not acted aright, that I will never suffer this deed of hers to he forgotten in all time to come. Yea, the whole world shall know what she did in a house and in obscurity. For she did it with a pious mind, and with fervent faith and a contrite heart. What was done was pleasing, not so much because of the money that was spent, as because of the faith which she offered together with the ointment. For this was to Me as the most fragrant of all odours."
26:14
Then went away (abiit) one of the twelve, &c. The word then refers partly to what has immediately preceded, and partly to the council of the rulers about taking Christ in the 16th verse. It means that on the Saturday before Palm Sunday, when Judas, the instigator of the murmuring, found himself rebuked by Christ, he did not repent as the other Apostles, whom he had misled, did, but then he made his forehead brazen, and clothed himself with the cloak of impudence, and, mad with covetousness and wickedness, he determined to sell and betray Christ to the Jews. Therefore, on the following Wednesday, when the rulers were taking counsel as to the way in which they might lay hold on Christ, he came to them, and suggested a method, and stipulated to deliver Him into their hands for thirty pieces of silver.
One of the twelve. An Apostle, not one even of Christ's seventy disciples, or He might the better have borne it, but one of the twelve Apostles, and of His own most intimate friends, whom He had elevated to that lofty rank. So this was the dark ingratitude and wickedness of Judas, which pierced the heart of Christ, so that He said, "If mine enemy had spoken evil of Me, I would have borne it," &c. "But thou, the man united to me, my guide and my familiar friend! We took sweet counsel together, and walked in the house of God by consent" (Ps. Lev 13, &c.. Wherefore S. Augustine (Tract. 61 in Joan.) says, " One by vocation, not by predestination; in number, not in merit; in body, not in spirit; in appearance, not in reality." He went away. Satan having entered into him, as Mark has, not that Satan insinuated himself into the soul of Judas, and so inclined his will and intellect to betray Christ. For God alone is able to glide into the soul, as Didymus rightly teaches (Tract. 3, de Spiritu Sancto). Neither was it that Satan took bodily possession of Judas, in the same way that he possesses energumens, but that he presented reasons suited to his imagination, which induced him to betray Christ, as S. John shows, xiii. 2. The same Evangelist says in the 27th verse, that after supper, when Judas had received the morsel from Christ, Satan entered into him, in order that he might accomplish in act the treachery which he had already purposed in his mind. This expression shows also the horrible atrocity of Judas' wickedness, as though a man were not sufficient for its perpetration, but there were need of the help and instigation of the devil.
26:15
And he said unto them, What will ye give me, &c. "Unhappy Judas," says S. Jerome, "wishes to recompense himself for the loss which he deemed he had sustained by the pouring forth of the oil, by selling his Master. Nor does he even demand a certain sum, so that his treachery might at least seem profitable, but as though he were disposing of a worthless slave, he left the price to the option of the buyers." So S. Jerome, who thinks that Judas did not stipulate for any fixed sum, but left it to be determined by the rulers, as though he had said, "Give me what you will." But others, with greater probability, say that Judas bargained with the rulers thus, "I will sell Christ to you, but for so great a person, and for one whom you hate so much, I demand a suitable price. How much will ye give me?"
Thirty pieces of silver. See the vileness of Judas in valuing Christ, the Saviour of the world, his Master and his Lord, for such a miserable sum. This vileness afflicted Christ with great sorrow. Wherefore S. Ambrose says (lib. de Spirit. Sanct. c. 18) "O Judas, the traitor, thou valuest the ointment of His Passion at 300 denarii, and His Passion itself at thirty, rich in valuing, cheap in crime!" You will ask what was the weight and value of these thirty pieces of silver. Baronius (ex Helia in Tisbi, R. David, and other more modern Rabbins) thinks that the silver piece of Zechariah and the prophets, and consequently of this passage of S. Matthew, as is plain from xxvii 9, is a pound of silver. This would amount to about 1000 Flemish florins. But who can believe that the covetous Jews would pay such a sum to Judas, of his own accord making the offer, not to sell, but only to betray and guide them to a man who was daily to be met with, especially since the Fathers and Zechariah marvel at the price as being so small and poor? With greater probability, Maldonatus and others understand thirty shekels to be here intended, which would be equal in value to thirty Flemish florins. This was the price at which a slave, who had been killed, was estimated, according to the law in Exod. xxi. 32. Thus the life of Christ was valued by Judas and the Jews at the same price as that of a slave. But since Jeremiah (Jer 32:9) distinguishes the stater, or the shekel, which is the Hebrew word, from the silver piece, for he says, "Weigh for it the silver, seven staters and ten silver pieces" (Vulg. following the Heb. See also the margin of the English Version), it would seem more probable that these silver pieces of Judas were half shekels or double denarii. I have been the more confirmed in this opinion from seeing in the Church of the Holy Cross of Jerusalem at Rome, together with a portion of the true Cross brought thither by S. Helena, one of those silver pieces for which Christ was sold. This is about the size of a Spanish real, but a little thicker. Hence, also, Zacharias calls the price, ironically, due or fitting; Ang. Vers. goodly. The shekel was equal to a Flemish florin, so that the thirty pieces of silver would be equal to fifteen Flemish florins. You will ask how could "the potter's field" be bought for such a sum as this? I answer, that the Heb. שדה, sade, and the Syr. חקל, chakel, i.e., a field, is put for any piece of land, however sandy, stony, or barren, such as sand-pits, which this "field" probably was. It seems to have been useless for agricultural purposes, and of very small value, like the Jewish cemeteries outside the cities of Germany. It is also possible that the rulers may have supplemented the thirty pieces of silver by a grant from the corbana, or treasury. Observe: Joseph being sold by his brethren was a type of this selling of Christ. But Joseph was sold for twenty pieces of silver, for it was not fitting, says S. Jerome, that the servant should be sold for as much as his Master. Observe secondly: Judas, according to S. Ambrose, received the tenth part of the price of the ointment with which Christ was anointed, which was valued at 300 denarii. But it is more probable that he received the fifth part, for the silver piece of Judas seems to have been, as has been said, a double denarius. Thirdly, because Christ was sold at so vile a price, therefore He deserved to become the price of the whole world, and of all sinners. Fourthly, because of these thirty pieces of silver, with which Judas and the Jews trafficked for Christ, God smites them with thirty curses in the 109th Psalm. The first is, "Set Thou an ungodly man to be ruler over him." The second, "Let the devil stand at his right hand." The third, "When he is judged, let him be condemned." The fourth, "Let his prayer be turned into sin." The fifth, "Let his days be few." The sixth, "His bishopric let another take," and so on. Lastly, as Hegesippus says, thirty Jews, who were taken captive by Titus, were sold for one denarius.
26:16
Sought opportunity and found it the following day, being Thursday, which was the first day of unleavened bread. Hear Origen: "Such an opportunity as he sought, Luke explains by saying, he sought... in the absence of the multitude, that is to say, when the people were not about Him; but He was in private with His disciples. This also he did, betraying Him at night after supper, in the garden of Gethsemane, whither He had retired." Ver. 17. On the first day of unleavened bread, &c. The Passover was to be eaten with unleavened, that is, pure unfermented bread, according to the Law. This abstinence from leaven lasted seven days, and the first day of unleavened bread was the first day of the Passover. The Pasch or Passover was celebrated on the 14th day of the first month, at even; that is to say, on the full moon of the month called Nisan, which was that in which fell the full moon of the vernal equinox. Wherefore, Nisan answers partly to our March and partly to April. The following is the chronology of the last eight days of the life of Christ. On the Friday, which was the 8th day of Nisan, He came from Ephrem to Bethany. The next day, being the Sabbath, He sups in the house of Simon the leper. The day following was the 10th of Nisan, and Palm Sunday. On the 11th of Nisan, He taught in the Temple, and cursed the barren fig-tree. On the 12th, He foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, and spake the parables recorded in S. Matthew xxiv. and xxv. On the 13th of Nisan, or Wednesday, the rulers held their council, when Judas sold Him to them. On the 14th of Nisan, He instituted the Eucharist. On the 15th, He was crucified. The 16th of Nisan was Saturday, when He lay in the tomb. The 17th of Nisan was Easter Sunday.
26:17
On the first day of unleavened bread, that is, the 14th day of Nisan, or the full moon, Christ about mid-day sent two of His disciples from Bethany to Jerusalem to prepare and roast the paschal lamb, that He might eat it with them in the evening. Here observe, that the first day of unleavened bread is sometimes called the 14th of Nisan and sometimes the 15th. For that evening in which the Jews celebrated the Pasch, with which the days and the eating of unleavened bread commenced, according to the natural computation of time, pertained to the fourteenth day, but according to the computation observed with respect to festivals, it pertained to the following day, or the 15th of Nisan. You will ask, What was the precise day on which Christ ate the Passover and instituted the Eucharist? Was it the same day on which the Jews kept the Pasch, or was it another? I take it for granted that, according to the belief of the whole Church, Christ was crucified on Friday, and therefore that He ate the paschal lamb at supper the day before, or on Thursday evening. 1st Euthymius and the Greeks say that Christ celebrated the Pasch on the 13th of Nisan; that He anticipated the time fixed by the Law for the Passover, on account of His Passion, which was about to be on the next day, on which the Jews celebrated the Passover. And because the use of azyms, or unleavened bread, began with the Passover on the following day, they think that Christ instituted the Eucharist before the azyms, and in leavened bread. Therefore they celebrate in leavened bread; and they say that this is a command. Whence they condemn the Latins for celebrating in unleavened bread, and call them Azymites and heretics. And they wash their altars before they will celebrate upon them, as deeming them polluted with unleavened bread. They cite in favour of their view S. Joh 13:1-2, who says, before the feast of the Passover (that is, before the fourteenth day of the moon, when they began to eat unleavened bread) Christ made His supper. 2d Rupertus, Jansen, Maldonatus, and Salmeron, who enters at length into the subject (tract 9, tom. 4), say that Christ celebrated the Pasch according to the Law on the 14th of Nisan, but that the Jews deferred it until the 15th, an opinion thought to be supported by S. John. For there was a tradition, says Burgensis (ex Seder Olam), that if the Passover fell on the Friday, or the preparation for the Sabbath, it was transferred to the following day, which was the Sabbath, or Saturday, lest two solemn festivals, the Passover and the Sabbath, should concur. But this tradition is later than the time of Christ, as may be proved from the Talmud and Aben Ezra. With these I say that both Christ and the Jews celebrated the Passover on the same day prescribed by the Law, namely, on the 14th day of Nisan, in the evening. That this was so, appears from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who say that Christ celebrated the Passover on the first day of unleavened bread, on which the Passover must (by the Law) be killed. And on which day they (ie., the Jews) killed the Passover. Had it been otherwise, the Jews would have proved and condemned Christ to be a transgressor of the Law. You may object, 1st If Christ celebrated the Passover on the 14th of Nisan, why do Matthew, Mark, and Luke say that He celebrated it on the first day of unleavened bread, which fell upon the fifteenth day? The answer is, as I have already said, that the first day of the azyms was partly the 14th and partly the 15th of Nisan. For that evening on which the Jews celebrated the Passover, with which began the days and the use of unleavened bread, pertained, according to the natural reckoning of time, to the day which preceded the evening, that is, to the 14th of Nisan. But the same evening pertained, according to the festal reckoning, to the day following, which was the 15th of Nisan. And in this sense John says that Christ supped upon the paschal lamb before the feast of the Passover, which was the 15th of Nisan, according to the festal reckoning. You will object, 2d That it is said, Joh 18:28, that the Jews did not enter the prætorium lest they should be defiled, but that they being pure, might eat a pure Pasch. I answer, Passover, in that place, does not signify the paschal lamb, for that had been already sacrificed and eaten the evening before, but the other paschal victims, which they were wont to immolate on the seven following days, but especially on the first day of the azyms, that is, on the morning of the 15th day of Nisan, according to the Law. You will object, 3d Joh 19:21 calls the 15th of Nisan, on which Christ celebrated the paschal supper, the preparation of the Passover. I answer y s, of the Passover, that is, of the Paschal Sabbath, or the Sabbath which fell within the octave of the Paschal Feast, which was for that reason more thought of than other Sabbaths. As S. John adds by way of explanation, For that Sabbath-day was a high day. This appears also from Mar 15:32, who calls this preparation day the day before the Sabbath. For on the preparation day, that is, the Friday, they prepared food and other necessaries for the following day, which was the Sabbath. For on this Sabbath, as being most holy, they abstained from every kind of work, even from preparing food, which was allowable on other festivals. You will object, 4th That the rulers say in Mat 26:5, Let us put Christ to death, but not on the feast day. I reply that, after the treachery of Judas, they changed their counsel; and they did put Him to death on the feast day.
The disciples came, two, says S. Mark; Peter and John, S. Luke. Where ? this is not to ask the city or town, but the house. They were certain from the Law (Deu 16:5-7) that the Passover could not be offered anywhere save at Jerusalem. The paschal lamb, however, was not immolated in the temple by the priests, but at home, by each master of a household, who for this purpose retained the ancient right of the priesthood, which was originally given to each first-born son of a family. Philo shows this at length (lib. de Decalogo, sub finem): "Every one ordinarily sacrifices the Passover without waiting for the priest; for they in this case, by the permission of the Law, discharge the office of the priest." For the sacrifice of the paschal lamb consisted rather in the eating thereof, than in the immolation. Whence the disciples say, eat the Passover. Hence, also, it might be slain, immolated, flayed, and roasted, not indeed by common butchers, but either by a priest, or by that member of a family whom its head should appoint. Thus Peter and John, who were here sent by Christ, killed and made ready the lamb, and prepared the unleavened bread, and the wild herbs with which the lamb was to be eaten. The lamb was wont to be slain at the ninth hour, or three o'clock in the afternoon, as Josephus says (lib. 7, de.Bell. c. 17).
26:18
Go into the city: Jerusalem. From this it is plain that Christ said these things in Bethany. To such a one, and say. Such a one; this is the Hebrew idiom, when any one is intended whose name is not mentioned. However, He indicates him by certain marks, as S. Mark signifies: "And He sendeth forth two of His disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the good man of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guest-chamber, where I shall eat the Passover with My disciples? And he will show you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. And His disciples went forth, And came into the city, and found as He had said unto them; and they made ready the Passover." Where observe, that it is plain from S. Mark's words that this water-carrier, who guided them to the house, was not the master of the house. This latter appears to have been a wealthy man, who possessed a spacious mansion, and who was probably a friend and disciple of Christ. The tradition is, that this house belonged to John, whose surname was Mark, the companion of Paul and Barnabas. This was the house in which the Apostles lay concealed after the death of Christ. In it Christ appeared to them in the evening of the day of His resurrection. And in the same house they received the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. Wherefore also Peter, when he was delivered by the angel out of the prison into which he had been cast by Herod, betook himself to the believers who were gathered together in this same house (see Act 12:12). Wherefore, this house was converted into a church. For in it was Sion builded up, which is the greatest and the holiest of all churches. Alexander shows all these things in his Life of the Apostle S. Barnabas. He is followed by Baronius and many others. For where My refreshment is, as the Vulgate of S. Matt. (ver. 14) translates, the Greek has κατάλυμα, inn or lodging. The Greek for chamber is α̉νώγεων, an upper floor, or chamber, or flat, such as are inhabited at Rome by wealthy people. Wherefore it is a type of the Church, which is tending from earth to Heaven.
My time, i.e., the time of My death, and of finishing the work which My Father sent Me to do.Ver. 19. 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 hind- feet 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.
26:20
When the evening was come, &c. For in the evening, according to the Law, 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 promise But Jesus is said to have lain down (discubuisse) 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 (Mar 14:17) has, when it was evening he came with the twelve. Speaking precisely, there were ten, since two had been previously 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 Theophylact (in loc.) 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. quæst. 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 accomplish his betrayal of Christ, as SS. Chrysostom, Cyril, and Austin teach. This opinion is proved 1st 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 21st verse it follows, And when they were eating, He said unto them, Verily I say unto you that one of you shall betray Me. 2d Because Mark (Mar 14:23) 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 We had dipped the piece of bread (Vulg), He gave it to Judas Iscatiot, 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 (famæ) 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 Judas 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 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 [108th 8] 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, i.e., 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.
26:21
And whilst they were eating, &c. Matthew says that Christ spake this before the institution of the Eucharist, but Luk 12:22 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 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." And they were exceeding sorry, &c. Syr. They were vehemently troubled. Lord, is it I? Syr. Mori, i.e., My Lord, is it I? 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 sword, 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 I? 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."
26:23
He that dippeth his hand, &c. Dippeth; Gr. ό ε̉μβαψάς, 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 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 I? Christ answered, that "he was the traitor, who dipped his hand with Him i the dish." For the ancients were wont to recline at table on couches by threes and fours, as I have shown on Est 1:6. 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. Joh 13:21. 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 I? 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 of Caiaphas, to ask for servants and officers to take Christ. Ver. 24. The Son of Man indeed goeth, &c. Good were it for 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 Ecc 4:2-3. Wisely does S. Jerome say (Epist. 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 commended, but his end was to be condemned as a traitor."
26:24
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. Ver. 25. Judas answered... Is it I? 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?"
26:26
Ver. 26. 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. xii. 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 who was 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 xiii. 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 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 ecclesia), 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 inter twelve parts, and gave one of 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. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechesi Mystagog. 5), and from S. Austin (Serm. 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 (Hom. 83, in Matth.). 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, i.e., 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, &c (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 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 1Co 11:24. There Paul, in the same words, repeats and relates the institution of the Eucharist. We must add, that some have been torn 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 (everti). 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 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 more can the omnipotence of God do the same thing supernaturally 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 à Lapide wrote.) You may add here a third proof drawn from condensation and rarefaction, which I have brought forward on 1Co 11:25. Water in a vessel, made dense by means of cold, occupies only 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), 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 supernaturally, as respects the body of Christ? Luke adds (Luk 22:19), This is My Body which is given for you, i.e., which is about to be given. S. Paul (1Co 11:24-25) has, which shall be delivered (Vulg.); Gr. κλώμενον, 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, 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."
26:27
For a commemoration of Me. "That, namely, by the consecration and receiving of the Eucharist, ye may commemorate, and, as S. Paul says (1Co 11:26), 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 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. Ver. 27. 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., 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 Mar 14:23 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. 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 Me, 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 Cæna Dom.), observes that formerly it was forbidden to the Hebrews to drink the blood of animals, as, is plain from Heb 9:22, Lev 4:6, &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.
26:28
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 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, i.e., for all men, who are very many.
Shall be shed (Vulg.). But the Greek of Matthew, Mark, and Luke has ε̉κχυνόμενον, is shed, in the present, i.e., 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, was 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 Psa 110:4 and Heb 5:6-7). The Eucharist is, therefore 1st A burnt-offering; 2nd A sin-offering; 3rd A peace-offering; 4th A mincha, or meat-offering (Lev. i., &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 ε̉κχυνόμενον, 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 Psa 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, του̃το τὸ ποτήριον ή καινὴ διαθήκη ε̉ν τω̃ αίματί μου τὸ ύπὲζ υ̉μω̃ν ε̉κχυνόμενον, i.e., 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 αίματι is in the dative case, τό in the nom. Therefore the chalice of the Blood of Christ 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, Sess. 22. q. 2. See also S. Thomas and the Scholastics on the Eucharistic Sacrifice.) Lastly, 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 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, Irenæus, 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 versâ. 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 (representat) 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, 1Co 11:26, says, As oft as ye shall eat, &c., ye shall announce the Lord's 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' feet. Joh 13:1: 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 hie 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, troubles, and temptations, ask and obtain His assistance. For as He Himself says in Pro 8:31), "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: 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, 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 His 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 (Hom. 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 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 (Sess. 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." "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 (Hom. 83, in Matth.), "How, then, 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 4th 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?" (Zec 9:17) Vulgate. Ver. 29. I say unto you... fruit of the vine; Arab., juice of the vine, &c. S. Austin (lib. de Consens. Evang. iii. 1), and from him Jansen and others, are of opinion that Matthew intimates that Christ spake these words after the Eucharistic Supper. Let us here consider the following objection. " The fruit of the vine is wine produced from it, pressed from its grapes; therefore in the Eucharistic Chalice there is not the Blood of Christ, but only wine sprung from a vine." I answer, the pronoun this in this fruit, &c., does not signify exactly that wine which was in the consecrated Chalice, but in general the wine upon the table, from which the cup was filled, which was used both at the Passover and at the consecration of the Eucharist. Secondly, the Blood of Christ may be called wine, as the Body of Christ is called bread by S. Paul, on account, indeed, of the substance of bread and wine, as it was before consecration, and because of the species of bread and wine which remain after consecration. In truth, the species themselves, or the accidents of the wine, are rightly called the fruit of the vine, because they are produced by the vine. Thirdly, as all kinds of food, both by Scriptural and common usage, are often called bread, because it is the staple of all food, so in like manner is any kind of drink called wine, especially by the Italians, Syrians, and others. But it is far more probable that Christ spake these words before the institution of the Eucharist, concerning the supper and the chalice of the paschal lamb. For at that supper a cup of wine was carried round, which the father of the family tasted first, and then sent round about to all who partook of the lamb, as the Jewish tradition is. This second view is proved, because Luke expressly asserts as much. He distinctly gives an account of the two suppers of Christ, that upon the lamb, and the Eucharistic Supper, which Matthew, for the sake of brevity, condensed into one. And he says that these words concerning the chalice were spoken before the Eucharist at the paschal supper. We may see that the same conclusion must be drawn from what Christ said previously concerning the eating of the lamb (Luk 22:15-16). "And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God." Then immediately afterwards He subjoins what is said concerning the cup of the paschal lamb, "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fr it of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come." Then, immediately afterwards, he relates the institution of the Eucharist, and of the Eucharistic cup, which Christ consecrated, saying, "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." Where there is no mention made of the fruit of the vine, nor of drinking new wine in the kingdom of God. Christ intended, therefore, by these words only to signify that He, from henceforth, would not sup with His disciples after the accustomed manner; but that this was His last supper, after which He was about to be taken and put to death. Wherefore here, as proceeding to die, He bids the Apostles His last farewell. Wherefore these words do not refer to the Eucharistic Chalice, which does not contain the fruit of the vine, in the sense of wine, but the Blood of Christ, into which it has been changed by consecration. This is the opinion of Jerome, Bede, and many others.
26:29
When I will drink it new with you, &c. New, i.e., of a new and different kind. For in Heaven the Blessed drink no earthly wine, but heavenly, even the wine and nectar of everlasting glory and joy; according to the words of Psalm xxxvi. 9, "They shall be inebriated with the fatness of Thy house: Thou shalt give them to drink of the torrent of Thy pleasure." So Origen on this passage, and Nazianzen (Orat. de Pascha.). For Scripture is wont to express the spiritual joys of the Blessed by means of corporeal pleasures, such as food and drink. You will say that Christ after His Resurrection, in order to prove it to His Apostles, ate with them, and, as it would appear, also drank wine with them. How, then, does He here say that He will no more drink wine with them? I answer, that Christ did indeed both eat and drink with His Apostles after the Resurrection, but only by the way as it were, and to prove to them that He had risen, but not to satisfy the requirements of nature, as He had done before His death. Wherefore, speaking after the manner of men, that reception of food after the Resurrection cannot be counted eating. And when they had sung an hymn, &c. Vulg. said an hymn, but meaning sung. Greek ύμνήσαντες, i.e., said or sung a hymn, by way of giving thanks and praise to God. The Arabic has they gave praise. Some think from the books of the Hebrew ritual that this was the hymn customarily sung by the Jews at the Passover, to give thanks after eating the lamb. But indeed, as Paul Burgensis observes, and from him Franc. Lucas, Baronius, and others, this hymn consisted of seven psalms of Hallelujah, beginning with the 113th, " When Israel came out of Egypt," and ending with the 119th, " Blessed are the undefiled in the way." From hence S. Chrysostom concludes that no one ought to depart from Mass before the thanksgivings, which are contained in the collects after communion. You may gather the same principle from an ordinary dinner or supper, from which people ought not to depart before returning thanks to God. Hence, also, the Fourth Council of Toledo asserts that this hymn of Christ's affords us an example of singing hymns. Hence, also, the practice of singing at Mass is of the highest antiquity, as is plain from the ancient Liturgies. This, then, was the custom of the ancient Hebrews, to sing hymns at the Paschal Supper, which the Christians afterwards followed, in that after the Eucharist and the Agape, a common feast of charity for all the faithful, they sung hymns and psalms by way of giving thanks to God. This is gathered from S. Paul (Eph. v. 19), and Tertullian eloquently shows the same (Apol. c. 39), and S. Cyprian (Epist. ad Donat.). The ancient heathen had a similar practice at their feasts, in honour of their gods. Lastly, S. Augustine (Epist. 253) says that this hymn of Christ was in circulation in his time, but he himself regarded it as spurious, and intimates that it was forged by the Priscillianists.
26:30
They went out to the Mount of Olives. Christ was wont, especially in these last days of His life, to go daily to Jerusalem, and teach in the Temple; and then about evening to return to Bethany, and there sup, and soon after supper return to the Mount, of Olives, and there spend the night in prayer, as Luke intimates (xxi. 37). But upon this occasion He did not go to Bethany, as He had supped in Jerusalem. He went, therefore, direct to the Mount of Olives, as it were to a wrestling-ground, that there He might offer Himself to be seized by Judas and the Jews. Thus Victor of Antioch asks, "Why did He go out to the mountain? why does He despise a lurking-place, and manifest Himself to those who came to apprehend Him? He made haste to occupy the spot where aforetime He was wont to pray, the spot which His betrayer knew so well" (John xviii. 2). Ver. 31. Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of Me this night; for it is written, I 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, 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 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 Joh 16:31-32, "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. ciii.) "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 Cleophas when he said he trusted that 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 1:30, 3:61). 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 (lib. xi. 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 (Serm. xlvii.) 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 Ecc 3:17) distinctly maintain this; Suarez (de Fide 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 all 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 show the power of persecution and fear which bereft them of their 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 6:10 with S. Paul, Act 28:26.
26:31
The shepherd. Christ the Shepherd and the Bishop of our souls (1Pe 2:25).
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." Ver. 32. But after I 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 of the Jews, and induce them the more readily to listen to Him." It was to keep them from despair. Ver. 33. Peter answered and said unto Him, Though all should be 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 Grat. 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 I 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. Ver. 34. Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice. In Greek α̉παρνήση, 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 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." Ver. 35. Peter saith unto Him, Though I should die with Thee, yea 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. 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 to 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 Joh 21:15, Joh 21:21, Joh 21:22. Ver. 36. Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, &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 cœnaculum (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 Son 1:3.
26:36
Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. That is, in the garden, about a stone's throw distant. See Joh 8:1; Luk 22:41. 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" (Son 8:5). 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" (Son 4:12-13).
26:37
Ver. 37. 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 " fœdet," for sorrow makes a man weary of life. S. Mark adds, to be stupefied (ε̉κθαμβείσθαι), 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 supernaturally 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, p. iii. q. 46, art. 8, and Suarez, p. 111, q. 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 he saved from death. As in Luke, "Not my will, but Thine be done." 3. The primary cause of His sorrow was not 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. 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. 1. 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 Mat 25:35, Mat 25:40. 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 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 (liii. 3) calls Him a man of sorrows. But the final and moral grounds of this were manifold. S. 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 born that 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 willingy, 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'" (1Co 15:55). 5th The fifth was to cure by His sorrow our sloth, weakness, fear, &c. As Isaiah (Isa 53:4) 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 (Serm. iv. de 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 12:1. Christ then taught us to fight against our passions with reason and judgment, especially our sloth, sadness, and anxiety. Calvin and Beza here impiously and unlearnedly 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 S. Augustine says, "Christ was troubled when exercising His power, and not in His weakness" [ Joh 11:33 ] Ver. 38. Then saith He unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, 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 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. ii. 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).
26:39
Ver. 39. And He went a little farther, and fell on His face. For a few steps, that He might pray in secret, and yet be seen and heard by them. By this prostration He manifested His extreme suffering, gave a striking example of humility, and the highest reverence to God the Father. Again, to set forth the heavy burden of our sins, which He had taken upon Him, and present Himself to the Father in our stead as though guilty and penitent, and submit Himself entirely to chastisement, I surrender Myself, He says, to Thee, O Father, as guilty, in the place of men. I give up Myself entirely to Thee, and present to Thee the punishment due to them. I offer My back to the scourger, My head to the crown of thorns, My hands and feet to the nails, and My entire body to the cross. Wound and crucify Me, that man may be spared and received back into Thy favour.
26:42
And prayed, saying. For as man He in a true and proper sense prayed to the Father, yea, even to Himself as God. On the spot where He prayed a church was erected, and the marks of His footsteps were said by Baronius to be still there.
0 My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me. Absolutely this was possible, but it was impossible according to God’s decree that man was to be redeemed by Christ’s death. Christ knew this, and therefore did not wish for it absolutely, and asks for nothing contrary to His own and the Father’s will. But He merely expresses His natural shrinking from death, His ineffectual and conditionated will, and yet freely submitted Himself to the contrary will of God, that He should die. Let this cup pass from Me. Calvin here accuses our Lord of hastiness, forgetfulness, ignorance, darkness of mind, inconstancy, and opposition to the Divine will—in fact, ascribing to Him sin. But, as I before observed, Christ took all this upon Him voluntarily, yet in accordance with the will of God. His first act was subordinated to the latter act, and was therefore regulated and ordered by right reason; for nothing in Christ could be disordered and out of place. Reason, then, and the higher nature were justly unwilling that His inferior nature should feel sorrow and horror of death, as stated above. 2. S. Jerome understands by the “cup,” the sin of the Jews. I pray, O Father, that I may not suffer at the hand of the Jews, my kinsmen. For in killing Me they commit a most awful crime, and will be punished most severely in hell. But this is too restricted a meaning. 3. The full and adequate meaning is, that this cup of suffering should pass away, even though Thou hast decreed that I should drink it to the dregs; and thus (as Origen says) it should pass away from Himself, and the whole race of mankind. 4. S. Catharine of Sienna offered two other explanations, which she said were revealed to her by Christ. The first, that Christ most eagerly thirsted for this cup, to manifest His love to the Father, and to effect our redemption. He wished to die and suffer immediately. His love admitted not any delay. I wish the cup to pass away, and that I may return at once to Thee. This was the prayer of His spirit, though in His flesh He dreaded death. The two meanings are compatible. But why did He not effect His wish? It was (1) in order to give the martyrs an example of longing for the Cross; (2) Because so many would be unthankful for His Passion, and would die in their sins; and as this was His greatest sorrow, He prays that this “cup” might be taken away, and that all might be saved. But yet He chose to conform Himself to His Father’s will, “Not My will,” &c. So S. Catharine, not taking it literally, but expressing the holy and ardent affection of Christ. Symbolically: S. Hilary says, “Christ took all our infirmities and nailed them to the Cross, and therefore that cup could not pass away from Him without His drinking it, for we cannot suffer except through His Passion.” May that cup, O Father, pass over to My own followers, that when enduring My suffering they may experience also through My gift My strength and power to endure. S. Bernard (Serm. x. in Cant.) piously and wisely remarks, “The cup Thou didst drink, the mark of our redemption, makes Thee above all things lovely. It is this which readily claims our entire love. It both more tenderly attracts our devotion, more justly demands it, binds us to Thee the more firmly, and affects us the more vehemently. For great was the Saviour’s labour, greater than in the work of creation. For He spake and it was done. But here He had those who contradicted His words, watched His actions, jested at Him in His torments, and reproached Him in His death. Behold how He loved! Learn thou, O Christian, from Christ Himself, how to love Him. Learn to love Him sweetly, wisely, and firmly: sweetly, that we may not be allured away; wisely, that we be not deceived; and firmly, that we may not by force be drawn away from the love of the Lord,” &c. Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt. Here it is plain, as against the Monothelites, that there are two wills in Christ: not only the Divine, to supply the place of the human will, as they said, but the will He had as man, by which He obtained our redemption. The Sixth Synod (Acts 4 and 10) proves that there were in Him two wills, and that the human was by obedience subject to the Divine; and this on the authority of SS. Athanasius, Augustine, Ambrose, and Leo. Nay, rather, though the human will was in itself one, yet in its power and action it was twofold, the one natural, with which it shrank from death; the other rational and free, with which He subjected Himself to the will of God. “Nevertheless, not what I will” naturally, “but what Thou wilt.” By My reasonable will I subject My natural will to Thee, O Father, and only will what Thou willest. And, accordingly, the natural will of Christ was conditional and of no avail, because it wished to escape death only under the condition that it pleased God. But His rational will was absolute and effectual, because He embraced death for the same reason that God willed it, that is, for man’s redemption. But the natural will of Christ seemed materially contrary to the Divine will. But by the rule of subordination it was conformable to it, as suffering itself to be guided by the rational will, and thus by the Divine will; and, on the other hand, the will of God, as well as the rational will of Christ, wishes on deliberate and just ground that His natural will should express this natural fear of death. In both aspects, therefore, was the will of Christ in all respects conformable to the Divine. Christ here teaches us, as a moral duty, that our sole remedy in affliction is submission to the Divine will, and that in every temptation we must betake ourselves to the aid of God, who alone can free us from them or strengthen us under them if we submit ourselves humbly, reverently, and lovingly to His will. “This voice of the Head,” says S. Leo, “is the salvation of the whole body; It taught the faithful, it inspired confessors, it crowned the martyrs. For who could overcome the hatred of the world, the whirlwinds of temptations, the terrors of persecution, had not Christ in all and for all said in submission to His Father, Thy will be done?” Ver. 40. And He cometh to His disciples and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with Me one hour? 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. Irenæus, “that His Passion is the awakening of sleepers.” Ver. 41. Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. Of denying and forsaking Me for fear of the Jews. If my dangers move 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.”
Ver. 42. He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O My Father, if this cup may not pass away unless 1 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 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.
26:43
Ver. 43. 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.”
26:44
Ver. 44. 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 (Quæst. 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 or praise there is opposed the fear of disgrace and contumely, and to the desire of pleasure there is opposed the fear of pain.”
26:45
Ver. 45. Then cometh He to His disciples, and saith unto thein. 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. iii. 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 born 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.
26:46
Ver. 46. 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 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, as S. 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. Ver. 47. 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.
26:47
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! "He went before them," says S. Luke.
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? Ver. 48. 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.
26:48
Gave them a sign. That the Roman soldiers might know him. For it was night. And perhaps, as some moderns 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.
26:49
Ver. 49. 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 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 1Co 16:20). 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 pseudo-Jerome, "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.
26:50
Ver. 50. And Jesus said unto Him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? If thou comest to betray Me, why givest thou Me this friendly kiss? But if thou comest as a friend, why bringest thou so many enemies against Me? "Thou kissest Me," says S. Augustine, "and layest snares for Me. Thou pretendest to be a friend, though thou art a traitor." Hence Luke adds that Christ said, "Judas, why betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?" And such words, full of majesty and love, ought to have wounded his stony heart, unless he had hardened it like iron. It was a wondrous instance of Christ's gentleness and patience, that He tolerated Judas for three years, and deprived him not of his Apostolate, or disclosed to any one his sin. Teaching us to overcome our wrongs by love. The Saints in this matter imitated Christ, S. Martin especially in his treatment of Brice, one of his clerks, who was constantly calumniating him. And when blamed for it, he said, "Christ bore with Judas the traitor, and should not I bear with Brice my calumniator?" By this gentleness he so won upon him, that he amended his ways, became a Saint, and succeeded S. Martin as Bishop, as S. Martin had foretold (Sulp. in Vit. S. Martin). The passage, John xviii. 4, should here come in, in the regular course of the narrative. To harmonise S. John with the other Evangelists the order of the history is as follows: Judas preceded the crowd by a few steps, so as not to seem to be one of them; and then, when he had kissed Christ, he drew back into the crowd again, and when Jesus boldly confronted the crowd, Judas was standing with them. Jesus thus boldly asked them, "Whom seek ye?" and on Jesus saying that He was Jesus of Nazareth whom they were seeking, they were thunderstruck, and fell to the ground; not on their faces, but backward, so as to make it clear that they were struck down by His power. He allowed them, however, to rise up again, and on their saying again that they were seeking Christ, He replied, "I told you that I am He; if, therefore, ye seek Me, let these go their way," showing that He cared more for them than for Himself. Observe (with S. Chrysostom and S. Cyril) that the eyes of the soldiers were miraculously blinded, so that they could not discern, and much less lay hold on Christ. (S. Augustine thinks otherwise.) They gather this from the reply, "We seek Jesus of Nazareth," as though they knew not it was He. S. Chrysostom and others suppose that even Judas did not recognise Him. But he seems to have withdrawn rather from horror at his crime. For Christ cut him off from the Apostolic band, "Begone, O traitor; thou art not worthy of the companionship of Me and Mine," and then struck him and the whole band to the earth. This was the first miracle which Christ wrought when He was seized, to manifest His Divine majesty and omnipotence, and that the Jews might learn that they would have come in vain against Him with the armed band, had not He given Himself gracefully and willingly into their hands. The Sodomites were struck with a like blindness (Gen 19:11). "Seest thou His surprising power, that though standing in their midst He struck them blind?" says S. Chrysostom and S. Cyril. "The divine power of Christ shone forth in that, though He presented Himself to those who sought Him, He was not recognised." Symbolically S. Augustine in John xviii. The eternal day was so hid by human form, as to be sought for with lanterns and torches, in order to be slain by the darkness. 2. His second miracle was His striking them to the ground by the single word, "I am He." "That word, 'I am He,' struck them down like a thunderbolt," says S. Leo. "Where was their cruel conspiracy? where their glowing anger? where their array of weapons? The Lord saith, I am He, and at His voice the multitude of the ungodly falls prostrate. What will His Majesty do hereafter in judgment, when His humility, though about to be judged, had such power?" Though "I am He" means only "He whom ye seek," yet Rupertus explains it, "I am that I am" (Exo 3:14). And S. Jerome (Ep. cxl. ad Principium) thinks that Christ struck down these guards with the heavenly splendour of His countenance, for otherwise the Apostles would not have followed Him, nor would those who came to lay hold on Him have fallen to the earth. Allegorically: This fall of Judas and his followers signified the comparable fall of the Jews, who would be obstinate in their unbelief, and well-nigh incapable of salvation. "Their fall is an image of all those who oppose Christ." S. Cyr. Alex. in Joh 18. and S. Augustine in loc. "Where is now the band of soldiers, the terror and defence of weapons? A single word, without a weapon, struck down, smote, laid prostrate that crowd, fierce in hatred and terrible in arms. For God was veiled in flesh. What will He do when He comes in judgment, who wrought this when He came to be judged? Tropologically: Here is represented the fall of the reprobate, for they fall on their back so that they cannot arise; but when the elect sin, they fall on their face, because they are soon touched by God, and rise up in penitence. "We fall on our face," says S. Gregory (Hom. viii. in Ez.), "because we blush for our sins, which we remember to have committed." And also (Mor. xiii. 10), "To fall on the face is for every one to acknowledge his own faults in this life, and to bewail them with penitence. But to fall on the back, where we cannot see, is to depart suddenly out of life, and to know not to what punishment we are brought." Again, "The righteous fall on their face, as looking on those things that are before; but sinners fall on their back, as seeking for those things which are behind and pass away, and are soon gone." "For everything which passes away," says S. Gregory (Mor. xxxiii. 23), "is behind, while everything which is coming and is permanent is before." 3. The third miracle, as S. Chrysostom and S. Augustine remark, was that which He wrought by His all-powerful providence and the efficacy of His word. "Let these go their way," that the Jews laid hands on none of the disciples. He offered Himself alone to death, as a good shepherd laying down His life for the sheep. 4. The fourth, the instantaneous healing of Malchus' ear. But how great was their blindness and malice, who, after they had seen so many miracles, dared to lay hands on Him!
Then came they and laid hands on Jesus, and took Him. The order is here inverted, for before they could take Him Peter smote off Malchus' ear, and it was only when Jesus had healed it that He gave Himself up to be taken and bound.
26:51
Ver. 51. And behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched forth his hand, and struck the servant of the high priest. Peter, that is, who was more fervent and resolute than the others. S. Luke adds that he first asked permission from Christ, "Shall we smite with the sword?" but waited not for His answer, and in his zeal for Christ in His imminent danger drew his sword. A question is raised, what was this sword ? merely a knife (culter), or a military sword (ensis), or an ordinary sword (gladius)? The Fathers are in favour of ensis. S. Hilary says that the sword was ordered to be sheathed, because He was about to destroy them with no human sword, but with the word of His mouth (Rev 1:16, Rev 19:15). S. Ambrose explains the two swords (Luk 22:38) mystically, as the Old and New Testaments, with which we are armed against the wiles of the devil. But writers on all sides explain these two swords allegorically as the twofold power of the Church, temporal and spiritual (see Extrav. "Unam sanctam" De Majoritate et obedientia). And again by the sword is denoted excommunication, which cuts off a man from the Church. Many think that Peter intended to kill Malchus, but that God guided the blow so that he merely cut off his ear. Tropologically: S. Ambrose by this sword understands martyrdom. "There is," saith he, "the sword of suffering, by which thou canst cast off the body, and purchase for thyself the crown of a martyr by putting off the slough of the body." Cornelius urges many reasons why it should be a sword, and not merely a knife which S. Peter used, adding that the sword of Peter is still preserved, and exposed to the veneration of the faithful.
A servant of the high Priest, named Malchus (Joh 18:10). S. Peter seems to have attacked him, as being the most bold and forward in assailing Christ.
Cut off his ear. His right ear, say S. John and S. Luke, signifying, as Origen says, that the Jews in reading and hearing Scriptures had lost their right ear, the true understanding of heavenly things S. Augustine (Contr. Faust. xxii. 70) remarks that Moses, after he had smitten the Egyptian, was made the head of the Synagogue. S. Peter, after mutilating Malchus, was made the head of the Church. Both of them went beyond bounds, not from hateful cruelty, but from blameless impetuosity. For Peter sinned through rashness, for it was without the knowledge, rather against the will of Christ that he drew his sword, his sole means of defending Christ against so many armed men, and in cutting off Malchus' ear he provoked them the rather against Christ. But he show d his ardour and zeal for Christ, blameable as it was; and when this fault had been corrected at Pentecost, he obtained through Him to be the Pastor and Prince of the Church. Christ by blaming and restraining S. Peter, and by healing Malchus' ear, manifested most strikingly His power and clemency. Especially since it is a theological dogma (as Paulus de Palatio adds) that when the Lord heals, He heals perfectly. If Christ healed Malchus both in body and mind, what greater proof could there be of charity, what stronger evidence of an undisturbed mind? It is clear from Act 2:37 that many of these persecutors of Christ were converted. And what marvel if Malchus were, who had experienced so striking an evidence of Christ's goodness and power? Christ thus acted that He might furnish no ground for the charge that He had opposed the public ministers of justice, and also to exhibit a pattern of forbearance and gentleness, as He did when He converted Saul into Paul. Mystically, the Gloss says that the wounding and healing of Malchus' car is the restoration of hearing, when the old man is taken away, for slavery is the old estate, healing is liberty.
26:52
Ver. 52. Then Jesus saith to him, Put up again thy sword into his place. Christ here reproves Peter's rashness in drawing his sword against His wish. Peter's sin, then, was twofold: first in striking against Christ's wish, and next, because this was an act not so much of defence as of revenge, which did not help to deliver Christ from the soldiers, but rather excited them the more against Him. But Peter, says S. Chrysostom, was hurried on by his eagerness to protect Christ, and did not think of this, but remembered rather His words, that Christ had ordered them to take two swords, inferring that it was for His defence. And accordingly he thought that in striking the servant he was acting according to the mind of Christ, "Let revenge cease, let patience be exhibited," says the Interlinear Gloss.
For all they that take the sword (without proper authority). To strike, i.e., and wound others. To take the sword by public authority to punish the guilty, or in a just war, is lawful and honest.
Shall perish with the sword. Deserve thus to perish (Gen 9:6) (see Aug. Quæst. V. and N. T., cap. civ.). Homicides, moreover, and gladiators very often die violent deaths in war or by casualties (see Act 28:4). And Christ here insinuates that the Jews would perish by the swords of the Romans. S. Luke adds that Christ said, "Suffer ye thus far." "Cease to draw your swords, ye have contended sufficiently," just as we part two combatants. But Cajetan explains otherwise, "Suffer the Jews to rage against Me, while their hour lasts, and the power of darkness." Hence Maldonatus and others infer that the other Apostles, when they saw S. Peter's zeal, wished to fight for Him also, but were forbidden by Christ. For, says S. Ambrose (in Luke xxii.), He who wished to save all by His own wounds, wished not to be saved by the wounding of His persecutors. Whence the motto, "Health by wounds," which is specially applicable to Christ, by whose stripes we are healed (1Pe 2:24).
26:53
Ver. 53. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and He will give Me more than twelve legions of angels? A second reason for our Lord forbidding Peter to defend Him. I need not thy aid, since I have at My command all the armies of angels, one of whom slew the host of the Assyrians (2Ki 19:35). "If one angel," says S. Chrysostom, "slew so many thousands of armed men, what would twelve legions of them do against one thousand?" He accommodated His discourse to their wish, for they were already half dead with fear. "For Christ Himself as God needed not their aid," as Origen remarked; "they much rather needed His," to whom thousands of thousands ministered (see Dan 7:10). Christ is within bounds in speaking as He does. For angels are countless, exceeding the number of all men, past, present and future (see S. Dion. de Cel. Hier. S. Thom. part 1, quæst. 2, art. 3). Christ here teaches us in every danger to invoke our guardian angels, as most wise, powerful, and full of love for us, as knowing that God orders this to be so. Conf Psa 91:11, Psa 34:7; Gen 32:1, &c.
26:54
Ver. 54. But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus, it must be? And if Scripture foretells My sufferings, "Why do ye oppose it?" says S. Chrysostom. This, then, is the third reason why Christ prohibits His defence by arms. "Though He might have these legions, He was unwilling to have them, in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, that it was fitting He should thus suffer." For we owe that reverence to the word of God, as not to oppose, but to assent to it and make it good. But thou wilt say, "The Jews then did no sin in killing Christ, because they merely fulfilled the Scriptures." S. Athanasius (de Cruce) denies the inference. "For they did sin thus boldly against Christ, as fulfilling the words of prophecy, but merely of their own accord, so that the Prophet was not the cause of their acts, but their own free will. Or rather, they themselves caused the Prophets to predict such things of them." The Jews then perpetrated this sacrilegious murder from their own wickedness and hatred of Christ, and the Prophets only foresaw and foretold it. They did not approve, or order the Jews to do it. But God ordered Christ to bear it all, and thus atone for the sins of men. " Pleasing the suffering, though the deed displeased." Hence S. Leo (Serm. 1. de Pass.) says, "We have nothing to thank you for, O ye Jews; we owe nought to thee, O Judas. For your wickedness promoted our salvation without your will, and that was wrought by you which the hand and counsel of God decreed to be done. That death thus sets us free, but is a charge against you. Ye only justly lose that which ye wished all to lose." See on Act 2:23Act 2:4. The fourth reason is given by S. Joh 18:11. "The cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it? God ordained this cup of the Passion from all eternity, and now gives it Me to drink. Shall I not eagerly take it from His hand, and gladly drain it out?" Observe, He had before deprecated it as a very bitter cup of gall, but now, on knowing the Father's will, He embraces it, as full of honeyed sweetness. For what is sweeter than for Him to obey God, to offer Himself as a holocaust to God, to make Himself a sacrifice to God for the salvation of men? "How sweetly," says S. Bernard (Serm. ii. in Pent.), "didst Thou hold converse with men! How abundantly didst Thou bestow on them many and great blessings! How boldly didst Thou suffer such indignities and cruelties for men, so as to draw honey from the rock, and oil from the hardest stone!" (Deu 32:13). Which was hard set against Thy words, harder still at Thy wounds, most hard at the horrors of the Cross; for in all these sufferings He was as a lamb before His shearers, and opened not His mouth (Isa 53:7). Ver. 55. In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief, with swords and staves for to take Me? I sat daily with you teaching in the Temple, and ye laid no hold on Me. He had before reproved Peter and the Apostles when they drew their swords; He now reproves still more severely Judas and the Jews who wished to take Him; exhibiting in this way wonderful loftiness, freedom, and calmness of mind. For He said this when He was still free. It was just after He had healed Malchus' ear. Shame on you, He would say, to come and seize Me by night, as a thief! I am no thief, but publicly taught the Jews in the Temple. Why did ye not seize Me then? I know why you seek to take Me, but I know also that ye were afraid to take Me in the Temple on account of the people. Deal with Me now as you please; I surrender Myself willingly; bind Me, scourge Me at your will, &c. This is your hour, and the power of darkness. And ye therefore fittingly come to seize Me by night, because I am the light of the world, and have openly taught the light of truth in the light of day. But ye as children of darkness shun the light and love darkness, and therefore do ye seize Me in the darkness. So say Bede and Theophylact, and S. Leo (Serm. viii. de Pass.), "The sons of darkness rushed against the true Light, and though using torches and lanterns, yet escaped not the darkness of unbelief, because they knew not the Author of light," &c. It is clear from S. Luke that it was after these words that the Jews laid hands on Jesus. The order of events (see ver. 50) is here transposed by S. Matthew, who wished to bring together at one time all that related to the seizure of Christ without regard to the order of time. Lastly, how cruel and insulting was this seizure of Christ! First, as being seized as a malefactor, though most innocent, and in Himself, as God, boundless and uncreated sanctity. Secondly, in being seized by the vilest of men, and His greatest enemies. Thirdly, in being forsaken by the Apostles. Fourthly, because by these His bonds He wished to loose the most grievous and hard bonds of our sins (see Lam 4:20). Fifthly, because He wished in this way to animate Christians and martyrs especially to bear boldly their imprisonment and bonds, as S. Paul did, Eph 3:1, and S. Chrysostom in loc. The bonds of many martyrs were cruel, but those of Christ were more cruel still. This crowd consisted of a thousand soldiers, and also of many attendants and servants of the high priest. See Joh 18:12.
26:56
Ver. 56. But all this was done that the Scriptures of the Prophets might be fulfilled. These are the words of the Evangelist, not of Christ. All these indignities were foreordained in the eternal counsel of God, who willed that Christ should take them all on Himself, and suffer for the salvation of man. And He willed also that the Prophets should foretell them.
Then all the disciples forsook Him, and fled. As He foretold (ver. 31), they fled because they saw no hope of assisting Him, and were afraid lest they themselves should be seized and evil entreated by the Jews. "They were more ready," says Bede (in Mar 14:49), "to take safety in flight, than to suffer boldly with Christ." For, as Origen says, "the Spirit was not yet given" (Joh 7:39). Was this flight of the Apostles allowable? Some say there was little blame in it, because they inwardly and in their minds clave to Christ, though in outward act they fled, as being no longer able to help Him. They were therefore wise in flying, to avoid the risk of either denying Christ or of suffering hardship. But when they had received at Pentecost the gift of the Holy Spirit, they boldly exposed themselves to every trial. This flight of theirs was defective, as arising from fear and failing in resolution, but not unlawful and wicked. But others regard it as unlawful, as springing from distrust in Christ, and despairing of His aid, by which act they tacitly denied Christ. The first opinion I said (ver. 31) was the most probable. They sinned therefore venially, as struck down by sudden and excessive fear, and without His command or assent. For having experienced so often Christ's aid in danger, they ought to have still trusted in it, especially after His recent displays of power. They ought to have sought for His aid, and to have prayed, Lord, help us! what wouldst Thou have us to do? And Christ no doubt would have told them. S. Mark here speaks of the young man who left his linen cloak and fled away naked. Who he was, and why he did so, we shall read in S. Mark. Ver. 57. 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 that Christ should 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. Joh 18:13). 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. Joh 18:19 also insinuates the same when he 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. vi.), Jansen, &c.
26:57
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. Ver. 58. 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 xxii., "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.
Unto the High Priest's house. That is, Caiaphas.' This is more fully stated Joh 18:15. 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. i. 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.
26:58
And went in, 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. Ver. 59. But the Chief Priests and all the Council sought false witness against Jesus, 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 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 repentance (Act 2:37). 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 3:30). 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.
26:59
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" (Vict. 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. Ver. 60. 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.
26:61
At last came two false witnesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days. Christ, indeed, had said this (Joh 2:19), 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., " 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. Ver. 62. And the High-Priest arose and said, Answerest Thou nothing to those things which they witness against Thee? 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.
26:63
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 excuses (Com. on Mar 14 apud S. Jer.). Christ was silent, in order by His silence to make satisfaction for Adam's foolish talking.
Ver. 63. And the High Priest said to Him, I 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 (Joh 5:19). 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.
26:64
Ver. 64. 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!
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 now seem to be only the Son of Man, to be truly the very Son of God, when I am seated at the right hand of God, and to be His equal in dignity, majesty, and glory. He alludes to Psa 110:1. 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 3:1. 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 f 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 7:13. 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, Joe 3:2), 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 Ver. 65. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? 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 grief or when they heard blasphemy against God. (See 2Ki 19:1.) But Caiaphas, being High Priest, tore his garments unlawfully; for "he shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes," Lev. xxi 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.
26:65
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? Caiaphas here displays his wickedness, in not acting as a judge, but as a prosecutor and accuser of Christ. (See S. Chrysostom.)
26:66
What think ye ? 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 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 24:16), 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 2:17). 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 53), 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. Tropologically: a Christian who sins condemns our Redeemer a second time to death, kills Him (as it were), and crucifies Him (see Heb 6:6). Whence S. Bridget (Rev 1:37) 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 (Luk 22:66). 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 Sanhedrin) was held in the morning. Ver. 67. 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 Isa 2:6, "I gave My back to the smiters, and My cheeks to them that pluck off the hair." Whence Forerius says that the plucking of the beard was a great pain and insult, like spitting in the face. Whence S. Clement Alex (Pæd. 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 face, &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. Dom.) 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."
26:67
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 ζαπίς 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 40). 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.
26:68
Ver. 68. Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote Thee? They jest at Him for saying He was a Prophet. If Thou art a Prophet, prophesy to us. They seem to have said this insultingly, after they had covered His face. If Thou art the Christ, Thou canst not be ignorant of what is hid from Thee. Tell us who smote Thee? They jested at Him as a pretended soothsayer. "The King of Prophets," says Theophylact gravely, "is jested at as a false Prophet." "They insultingly covered His face, so as to make mock of Him, and next that they might not be deterred from beating Him by His Divine countenance," says Jansen. "For His majesty beamed forth in His countenance," says S. Jerome. Mystically: Christ when veiled signified that He hid His face from the Jews, who were deprived of faith and the knowledge of God. Just as Moses, a type of Christ, when he veiled his eyes on coming down from the Mount, signified the same thing (2Co 3:13). In his own words, "I will hide my face from them" (Deu 32:20). Tropologically: it signifies that He atoned for Adam and Eve's sin, for they sinned both with their eyes and their mouths, in looking at and then eating the forbidden fruit. Christ therefore, to expiate this sin, suffered His mouth and eyes to be covered. For, as S. Augustine says, "Christ suffered in all the members in which man has sinned, that He might expiate all." Christ, moreover, endured all these sufferings with steadfast patience. "As He," says S. Chrysostom, "omitted no act of gentleness, so did they omit no act of insult or impiety, but sought to glut their rage both in word and deed." The Delphic Sibyl thus foretold "Then impious Israel Will buffet Him, and from their sinful lips Will pour their poisonous spittle, And will give, for food the gall, and vinegar to drink," &c. And the Erythræan Sibyl (Lact 4: 18) "The innocent will give His back to blows," &c. The reason for these insults was First, That Christ should thus expiate the infinite sins with which men (so far as they can) inflict the greatest injuries on God. For the sinner, so far as he can, spits upon God, buffets and beats Him, because he despises Him, and esteems Him less than the creature which he loves. So Origen, "He suffered all these indignities to save us who deserved them all." "His reproaches took away our reproach," Pseudo-Jerome on S. Mark. "It was not Christ that suffered, but we suffered in Him," says S. Athanasius. Christ wished to endure all these dire sufferings in order to honour God the more, and to make the greater satisfaction for the wrong done Him. His Passion therefore honoured God more than Adam's sin dishonoured Him. Add to this, that wicked men insult God, and invent fresh ways of insulting Him. Christ therefore willed to be insulted, and to expiate their newly-devised sins by His newly-devised insults. Secondly, to set forth the highest pattern of patience and virtue. If any one, therefore, desires a specimen of the greatest humility, gentleness, obedience, patience, constancy, charity, let him look on Christ suffering and crucified, and imitate Him as far as he can. "According to the pattern I showed to thee in the Mount" of Calvary (Exo 25:40). "Wondrous is Thy Passion, O Lord Jesus," says S. Bernard (Wednesday in Holy Week), "which hath driven away all our sufferings, makes propitiation for all our iniquities, and is never found ineffectual in all our diseases. For what is so deadly as not to be healed by Thy death? In this Passion, then, three things we must specially look at: the act, the mode, the cause; for in the act, patience; in the mode, humility; in the cause, charity, is specially commended to us." Thirdly, to animate the martyr to endure every kind of torment, and the faithful to bear any injuries, by whomsoever imposed. "He endured them all with great courage, teaching us to bear injuries," says Euthymius, deriving from Christ adamantine hardness; as Isaiah (Isa 50:7) says, "I have set my face as a flint, and I know that I shall not be confounded. He is near that justifieth me; who will contend with me?" For as iron is hardened the more it is struck with the hammers, and is so far from being broken by them that it breaks them itself; so let us, the more we are afflicted, exhibit the greater courage, and thus by our patience overcome the hatred of our adversaries (see Eze 3:9). Again, as iron breaks iron, so do the patient overcome the obstinate wickedness of the ungodly, of whom Zecharias says (Zec 7:12), "They made their hearts as adamant, lest they should hear the law." "For nothing is so hard as not to be surpassed by something harder," says S. Bernard. Moreover, S. Athanasius says (de Cruce), "Just as when a man strikes a stone with his hand, he does not break the stone, but hurts his hand; so they who strove against the Lord, as contending against incorruption, were corrupted, and as plotting against the Immortal, themselves perished." And so the Jews, for these insults offered to Christ, were rejected by God, and exposed to universal reprobation. "They received," says Origen, "a lasting blow, and lost all their Prophets; whereas God exalted Jesus, who humbled Himself even unto death, and gave Him a name which is above every name." After Caiaphas had with the whole Council proclaimed Christ to be guilty of death, the servants of the High Priest and some of the Council insulted Him for three whole hours, while the others lay down to rest, to be ready to proceed with the case in the morning. Indeed, He was subjected all the night through to cruel injuries, and bore them all with sweetness and fortitude. S. Bernard (Serm. xliii. in Son 1:12), on the words, 'My beloved is as a bundle of myrrh,' wisely and piously observes, "He made up this bundle from the reproaches and insults of these attendants," and adds, "This healthful posy is preserved for me; no one shall take it from me. It shall lie between my breasts. These I said meditated wisdom; in these I established the perfections of my righteousness, in these the fulness of wisdom, in these the riches of salvation, in these abundance of merits. From these there came to me one while the heathful draught of bitterness, at another the sweet ointment of consolation. They sustain me in adversity, those check me in prosperity; and amidst the joys and sorrows of this present life they afford me safe guidance on either side as I walk along the royal road, and ward off imminent dangers on both sides." Ver. 69. Now Peter sat without in the hall: and a damsel came unto Him, saying, And thou also was with Jesus of Galilee. S. Matthew here goes back to the history of S. Peter, whom he speaks of (ver. 58) as 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 prætorium 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" (Act 5:29). 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). 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. 0f 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 v. 37).
26:70
Ver. 70. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. Fearing 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 xviii. 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 house of Caiaphas, as the other Evangelists expressly state (see S. Aug. de Cons. Evang. iii. 6). Cajetan (on John xviii.) 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 forth 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 Peter 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 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 (Hom. xxi.), and others. The first denial took place just after midnight. He went away for fear the damsel should question him again.
26:74
And the cock crew. This first cock-crowing did not rouse Peter from his fall, nor keep him from falling again. Ver. 71. But as he was going out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said to them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. “It is clear,” says S. Augustine (de Cons. Evang. iii. 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.” Ver. 72. 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, i.e., 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, as having experienced its noxiousness and his weakness in their company. Ver. 73. And after a while came unto him they that stood by and said unto him, Surely thou art one of them, for thy speech betrayeth thee.
Ver. 74. Then began he to curse and swear, saying, I know not the man. The servants who were watching the trial at the door after a while returned to the fire, and turning to Peter, tempted him again, and forced him to his third denial. They gave their reason, “Thy speech betrayeth thee;” from his Galilean dialect. S. John adds (xviii. 26) a further charge, for a kinsman of Malchus said, “Did I not see thee in the garden with Him?” Peter, therefore, finding himself driven to extremities, “began to curse and swear” that he knew not the man, saying, after the Hebrew manner, May God do these things to me if I know Him. May the earth open, may the lightning blast me, if I know Him. The Greek word is καταναθεματίζειν, to anathematise vehemently, to call curses down on oneself. “The more they urge and insist upon it, the more vehemently does he swear, the more obstinately does he act,” says Victor of Antioch on Mark xiv. “Consider here,” says S. Cyril (Lib. xii. on John), “what the Apostles were before the coming of the Holy Spirit, and what they were made afterwards, when endued with power from on high.”
And immediately the cock crew. To remind Peter of Christ’s prediction, and to move him to repentance. S. Luke adds, “And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter,” &c. This look, then, as S. Ambrose teaches, caused Peter, who had not noticed the first cock-crowing, to notice this, to call to mind his warning, and to begin to repent and weep. “Christ looked on Peter,” says S. Leo, “and then raised him up.” He looked on him also with the eyes of His mind, putting before him the baseness of his denial, and urging him on to repentance (S. Augustine, Bede, Ambrose, and others). And with His bodily eyes also, because Christ, after being pronounced guilty of death, seems to have been brought down to the outer hall, which was below, and where Peter was; and there turning to him, and smiting him with His gracious look, He reminded him of his fall, and recalled him to himself. Christ seems to have been brought down to this hall that, while the Priests were taking a little rest, He might be handed over to the custody and insolence of their attendants. Or Christ certainly from the inner hall saw Peter standing in the outer one, Christ’s overruling providence so ordering everything, that a fit opportunity was afforded for looking on Peter. Here admire alike the loftiness and the charity of Christ. For though already condemned to death, and in the midst of His insults and blows, He seemed as it were to forget Himself, and to care for Peter, to bring him back as a lost sheep into the path of safety, and teach us to do the like. It was so with S. Chrysostom, who, when driven into exile, and even to death, seemed to forget himself, and wrote most affectionate letters to his friends; and exhorts Constantius, his presbyter, not to be downcast at his persecution, but to rouse himself, and send apostolic men to convert Phœnicia, and write him an account of their proceedings. For the energy and courage of the helmsman is exhibited in the storm, as that of a soldier in fight, a general in the field, a physician in the paroxysm of a disease. S. Leo (Serm. iii de Pass.) observes, “The Lord looked on Peter, and though exposed to the revilings of the Priests, the falsehoods of the witnesses, and the insults of those who smote and spat upon Him, He met His troubled disciple with those eyes wherewith He foresaw he would be troubled. And the glance of truth was turned on him in whom amendment of heart was to be wrought, as though the voice of the Lord sounded within him, and said, What doest thou, Peter? Why dost thou withdraw into thine own conscience? Turn to Me, trust in Me, follow Me; this is the time of My passion, the hour of thy punishment has not yet arrived. Why fearest thou that which thou also wilt overcome? Let not the weakness I have taken upon Me perplex thee; I was trembling for thy fate, be not thou anxious for Mine.” And therefore “it was impossible,” says S. Jerome, “that he should remain in the darkness of denial, since the Light of the World had looked upon him.”
26:75
Ver. 75. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus which He said, 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 us 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 xxxviii. 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 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 do.” 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 are evidence of this, being bloodshot from constant weeping (Niceph. ii. 37). And lastly, Peter compensated for his fall by living to his death an austere life, feeding on lupins (S. Gregory Naz. de Amore 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.”
26:1
Postquam posuit Evangelista praeparatoria passionis, hic accedit ad passionem Christi; et dividitur in duas partes: quia primo narratur passio quantum ad ea quae facta sunt a Iudaeis; secundo quantum ad ea quae a gentilibus XXVII, 1 mane autem facto et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponitur praenuntiatio dominicae passionis; secundo narratur passio et ordo, ibi tunc abiit et cetera. Praenuntiatur passio tripliciter: verbo Christi, consilio inimicorum, tertio facto et obsequio. Secunda tunc congregati sunt etc.; tertia cum autem esset Iesus et cetera. Circa primum primo ponit ordinem praenuntiationis, et ipsam praenuntiationem. Ordinem et factum est cum consummasset. Et dicit sic, quia ipse solus est qui consummare potest. Nos incipere possumus, sed non consummare, iuxta illud Eccle. IV: multa dicimus, et deficimus. Item dicit sermones hos, scilicet quos a principio suae praedicationis dixerat, ex quo dixerat: poenitentiam agite, appropinquavit enim regnum caelorum. Vel sermones quos dixerat de praenuntiatione gloriae, quia passio fuit exaltatio gloriae; Phil. II, v. 9: propter quod exaltavit illum Deus, et dedit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen, ut in nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur caelestium, terrestrium et Infernorum, et omnis lingua confiteatur, quia dominus Iesus Christus in gloria est Dei patris. Item non dicit solum omnes, sed hos omnes, quia omnia ad utilitatem credentium et fidei est locutus.
26:2
Scitis quia post biduum Pascha fiet: in ista praenuntiatione non simpliciter praenuntiat, sed dicit, post biduum Pascha fiet: et hoc factum est ad designandum quod non quaecumque passio est passio Christi, sed quae signatur per paschale sacrificium. Et dicit post biduum. Et secundum hoc debetis considerare, quod verba haec dicta fuerunt luna decima tertia, idest feria tertia, quia luna decima quinta celebrabatur Pascha. Sed habetur Io. XII, 1 quod dominus venit in Bethaniam, et hoc in die sabbati; et alio die venit in Ierusalem, et ibi eiecit vendentes et ementes, et in die lunae rediit, et vidit ficum arentem cui maledixit. Et secundum Marcum in die Martis rediit, et tunc in illo die constituit omnes parabolas illas. Et illo die cum consummasset sermones hos, dixit: scitis quia post biduum Pascha fiet. Hoc nomen Pascha, secundum quod dicit Hieronymus, a pascendo dicitur, sed proprie dicitur phase, quod est transitus. Quadruplex autem est transitus, secundum quod Pascha quadrupliciter accipitur. Secundum historiam celebrata est Pascha, quando exterminator percussit primogenita Aegypti; tunc praecepit dominus quod manducarent phase, Ex. XII, 3. Item secundum allegoriam est transitus Christi per mortem; et de isto Io. XIII, 1: sciens Iesus quod iam hora esset ut transiret de hoc mundo ad patrem et cetera. Item est moralis, sive typicus, secundum quod de carnali conversatione transitur ad spiritualem; Eccli. XXIV, 26: transite ad me omnes qui concupiscitis me. Item transitus generalis est, secundum quod dicitur quod caelum et terra transibunt et cetera. Unde post duos dies, scilicet post doctrinam veteris et novae legis. Secundum Graecum dicitur a pasqui, quod est pasci. Unde congrue sciens Christus quod transiret a mundo ad patrem, dixit et filius hominis tradetur, ut crucifigatur. Non dicit a quo tradetur, quia traditus est a patre; Rom. VIII, 32: qui proprio filio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum. Item a seipso; ad Eph. V, 2: dilexit nos, et tradidit semetipsum pro nobis et cetera. Item a Iuda. Hic: quid vultis mihi dare, et ego eum vobis tradam? Item a Iudaeis Pilato; Io. XVIII, v. 35: gens tua et pontifices tui tradiderunt te mihi. Item a Pilato gentibus; unde dicitur Io. XIX, 16: tradidit eum ad crucifigendum. Tunc congregati sunt principes sacerdotum et cetera. In parte ista ponitur perversum consilium Pharisaeorum. Et primo ponitur consilium de Christi passione; secundo de dilatione, ibi dicebant autem: non in die festo. Circa primum notare possumus quod peccatum Iudaeorum aggravatur ex tempore, quia tunc, imminente paschali festivitate; Is. LVIII, 13: si averteris a sabbato pedem tuum, facere voluntatem tuam in die sancto meo. Sed, ut credo, non ad diem immediatum refertur, sed circa illud tempus, quia Io. XI, 13 habetur quod collegerunt consilium et ex illa die cogitaverunt ut interficerent eum. Et tunc dicitur quod recessit Iesus in regionem iuxta desertum. Unde non fuit hoc immediate factum. Vel potest dici quod bis fuit factum.
26:3
Item aggravatur ex multitudine; unde dicitur: congregati sunt principes sacerdotum et seniores populi; Is. I, 14: solemnitates vestras odivit anima mea: ecce enim manus vestrae sanguine plenae sunt. Item ex conditione peccantium, quia erant de maioribus; unde dicitur, principes sacerdotum; Ier. V, 5: ibo ad optimates, et loquar eis; et post: et ecce magis hi simul confregerunt iugum, ruperunt vincula. Et Ps. II, 2: astiterunt reges terrae, et principes convenerunt in unum adversus dominum, et adversus Christum eius. Item ex loco, quia in atrio principis sacerdotum. Unde isti debebant alios cohibere a malitia, ipsi autem faciebant; Dan. XIII, 5: a senioribus egressa est iniquitas. Sed numquid erant multi principes? Praeceperat enim dominus, quod esset unus solus summus sacerdos, sed non sufficiebat eis. Unde propter cupiditatem sacerdotium diviserant. Item iam amiserant, et a Romanis sacerdotium emebant. Vel vocat principes illos qui ante eum fuerant principes, et illum qui illius anni fuerat princeps.
26:4
Item tangitur illud de quo consiliabantur ut Iesum dolo tenerent. Et hoc erat fatuum eum credere dolo tenere, qui omnia sciebat; Ier. IX, 8: sagitta vulnerans lingua eorum, dolum locuta est. Dicebant autem: non in die festo. Hic agitur de dilatione: et ponitur consilium, et ratio. Dicebant autem: non in die festo.
26:5
Posset aliquis dicere quod hoc dicerent ex devotione, ideo hoc tollit dicens ne forte tumultus fieret in populo; sciebant enim quod multi habebant eum ut prophetam, quidam vero ut Christum: ideo dissensio erat in populo, sicut habetur Io. VII, 30 ss. et IX, 8 ss. Ideo timebant ne tollerent eum a manibus suis. Hoc isti cogitabant, sed aliud cogitabat Christus: unde illi duo cogitabant, scilicet quod eum volebant occidere, et quod non in die festo crucifigeretur, ad significandum quod ista immolatio succedebat immolationi agni paschalis. Cum autem esset Iesus in Bethania. Hic ponitur praenuntiatio per factum mulieris. Et primo ponitur factum; secundo reprehensio; tertio excusatio. Secunda ibi videntes autem discipuli indignati sunt; tertia ibi sciens autem Iesus. Circa primum quatuor facit. Primo locus describitur; secundo persona; tertio facultas; quarto opus. Primo duplex locus ponitur, scilicet generalis et specialis.
26:6
Generalis, cum dicit cum esset Iesus in Bethania; specialis cum dicit in domo Simonis leprosi. Notate quod tunc non erat leprosus, sed curatus fuerat a Christo, si enim esset, non remansisset Christus cum eo, cum esset illud prohibitum in lege: et tamen utrumque ad mysterium attinet. Bethania domus obedientiae dicitur: unde per hoc significatur eius obedientia; Phil. II, 8: factus est obediens usque ad mortem. Ideo competit ei esse in domo leprosi; Is. LIII, 4: et nos reputavimus eum ut leprosum. Et ob hoc potius ibi venit. Alia ratio potest esse litteralis, scilicet ut illa haberet fiduciam veniendi ad Christum, quia iste erat cognatus Mariae, et curatus erat ab eo lepra corporali, et ipsa veniebat ut curaretur a lepra spirituali. Et notandum quod nullus alius dicitur venire ad Christum pro salute spirituali, excepta ista; ideo laude digna fuit. Accessit ad eum mulier. Ecce persona. Matthaeus et Marcus dicunt hoc accidisse in eodem loco, Ioannes et Lucas non. Lucas enim loquitur de ista c. VII, v. 37, ss., et Ioannes XII, 3 ss. Est ergo quorumdam opinio, ut fuit Origenis, quod fuerunt mulieres plures. Loquamur de primis duabus. Expresse dicit Hieronymus quod illa, de qua loquitur Lucas, non fuit soror Lazari, quia de illa dicitur quod pedes unxit, de ista dicitur quod pedes et caput. Ambrosius super Lucam dicit quod utrumque potest dici, quod sit eadem, vel diversa. Si dicimus quod eadem, possumus dicere: etsi eadem, non tamen eiusdem meriti: sed peccatrix non est ausa caput tangere, sed post habita fiducia caput unxit. Et Augustinus probat quod sit eadem, quia Io. XI, 5 antequam accedat ad istud factum, dicit: erat autem Maria soror Lazari, quae unxit dominum unguento, et extersit pedes eius capillis suis. Ideo videtur quod illa, de qua Lucas loquitur, sit eadem cum illa, quae est soror Lazari. Origenes dicit quod non est eadem illa de qua Lucas loquitur, et illa de qua Ioannes loquitur. Et potest probari ratione temporis, quia illud legitur factum antequam iret in Ierusalem; hoc factum est cum dicit: scitis, quia post biduum Pascha fiet. Item ex loco, quia illa in domo Marthae, de qua in Ioanne; haec autem in domo Simonis. Item per hoc quod ibi pedes, hic caput ungit. Quartum est quod ibi Iudas dixit: ut quid perditio haec? Hic autem quod omnes discipuli. Augustinus dicit quod eadem mulier est, et respondet ad rationes Origenis. Ad primam dicit, quod Matthaeus non servat ordinem historiae, sed recitat, quia ex hoc casu assumpsit Iudas occasionem peccandi, cum vidit unguentum effundi. Quod obiicit de loco Augustinus non solvit. Potest tamen sic solvi: quia iste homo erat magnae auctoritatis, et potestatem habens, et domus una eorum, quia cognatus eius erat. Aliter quomodo verum esset quod dicitur quod fecerunt ibi caenam (...) et Lazarus erat unus de discumbentibus? Accessit ergo mulier habens alabastrum unguenti. Alabastrum est genus marmoris, quod est translucens, et fiunt inde fenestrae. Et de ista petra fiebant quaedam vasa, ubi conservabantur unguenta, sicut modo fiunt de terra contrita, quia ex sui frigiditate erant conservativa; unde alabastrum, idest vas de alabastro plenum unguento. Et dicitur hic pretiosi, alibi quod nardi pistici. Pistis Graece, fidelis Latine. Unde pistici, idest non sophisticati.
26:7
Consequenter effectus ponitur: et effudit super caput eius discumbentis. Sed hic quaestio duplex. Quomodo Christus sustinuit, quia videtur ad lasciviam pertinere? Ad hoc respondit Augustinus de doctrina Christiana. Aliter existimatur in persona communi, aliter in persona prophetica: quia in persona communi secundum factum, sed in prophetica secundum suam significationem. In persona communi significaret lasciviam; in persona prophetica significationem. Expositio allegorica: quia significat sepulturam Christi, quia antiquitus corpora solebant inungi. Marci XIV habetur quod praevenit corpus inungere in sepulturam. Item mystice unguentum significat quodcumque opus bonum. Istud autem opus dupliciter potest fieri, quia quoddam est quod non fit propter Deum, sed propter iustitiam naturalem, ut opus gentilis, et hoc est unguentum, sed non pretiosum. Si propter Deum, sic est pretiosum. Unde pedes ungit, quando bonum opus facit propter utilitatem proximi; sed quando ad gloriam Dei, tunc ungit caput. Sed quid est quod dicit Ioannes quod pedes, et Matthaeus quod caput? Augustinus dicit quod utrumque. Sed quid est quod dicit Marcus quod fregit alabastrum? Dicit Augustinus, quod sicut accidit aliquando, quod aliquis effundit sic, ut nihil remaneat, et post frangit: sic fecit ista, et effudit, et fregit. Vel si vult aliquis calumniari, potest dici quod primo pedes, deinde caput unxit.
26:8
Tunc sequitur increpatio mulieris videntes autem discipuli indignati sunt. Sed hic opponitur, quia Io. XII dicitur quod solus Iudas dixit, iste quod omnes. Duplex est responsio secundum Hieronymum: quia illud quod dicitur hic quod discipuli dixerunt, dicitur per synecdochem: discipuli, idest discipulus, et hic modus consuetus est in Scriptura; Hebr. XI, 37: secti sunt, quia unus sectus, scilicet nonnisi Isaias. Vel potest dici quod omnes, quia, secundum quod dicit Augustinus, Iudas omnes excitavit. Item, quod alii excitati propter inopiam pauperum, iste vero motus fuit propter avaritiam. Unde dicunt ut quid perditio haec? Sed quare hoc dicebant? Audierant dominum multum commendasse misericordiam; supra XIX, 21: si vis perfectus esse, vade, et vende omnia quae habes, et da pauperibus. Sciens autem Iesus ait illis. Hic ponitur excusatio mulieris: et duo facit. Primo excusat et commendat; secundo praemium eius tangit amen dico vobis et cetera. Et primo excusat; secundo obiectioni discipulorum respondet; tertio exponit quod dixerat.
26:10
Dicit ergo quid molesti estis huic mulieri? Dominus semper est advocatus huius mulieris, quia Lc. VII, 39 Pharisaeus accusabat eam de peccato, unde dicebat: hic si esset propheta, sciret utique quae et qualis est mulier, quae tangit eum etc., et dominus excusavit eam per dilectionem. Item Lc. X, v. 40 etiam Martha accusabat eam de otio, et dominus excusabat eam per contemplationem. Hic discipuli de unguenti effusione, et dominus excusat eam ex devotione, dicens: quid molesti estis huic mulieri? Iob VI, 27: super pupillum irruitis, et subvertere nitimini amicum vestrum. Opus bonum operata est in me; Prov. III, v. 27: noli prohibere aliquem benefacere; si potes, tu ipse benefac. Chrysostomus: aliquando contingit quod aliquis facit bonum opus ex genere, et forte melius facere potuisset; unde aliter est agendum ante factum et post factum. Unde post factum de facto commendandus est; sed si veniret ante factum, consulendum esset ei quod faceret quod melius est. Unde credendum quod si a domino petiisset ante consilium, dixisset ei quod daret pauperibus. Nam pauperes semper habebitis vobiscum et cetera. Hic ponitur responsio ad obiectionem eorum, quia illi dicebant quod poterat dari pauperibus. Me autem non semper habebitis. Verum est secundum praesentiam corporalem, sed semper erit secundum praesentiam spiritualem. Unde dicit infra ult., 20: ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi. Et quid fecit?
26:12
Mittens autem hoc unguentum in corpus meum, ad sepeliendum me fecit. Sed quid est? Numquid intendit sepelire Christum? Non. Sed, sicut dicit Augustinus, spiritus sanctus sicut movet ad loquendum, ita aliquando ad operandum; unde scriptum est Rom. VIII, 14: qui spiritu Dei aguntur, non sunt sub lege. Unde accidit quod a spiritu sancto instruatur aliquis ad aliquem sensum, quem non intendebat. Sic ista bonum opus intendebat, sed spiritus sanctus illud ordinabat ad sepulturam. Dicit bonum opus operata est in me. Posset aliquis dicere quod dare proximo esset bonum opus.
26:13
Verum est, sed non tantum quod praedicetur per universum mundum; ideo subdit amen dico vobis: ubicumque praedicatum fuerit hoc Evangelium in toto mundo, dicetur in memoriam eius, idest in commendationem eius. Hieronymus dicit quod iste crucifigendus praenuntiat Evangelium narrandum in universo mundo, et tamen non erat adhuc divulgatum, cum Matthaeus scripsit. Item notate, quod multi voluerunt divulgari nativitatem suam per universum mundum, et deleta est memoria eorum, factum tamen huius non est deletum; Prov. X, 7: memoria iustorum cum laudibus; et Ps. CXI, 7: in memoria aeterna erunt iusti. Tunc abiit unus de duodecim. Supra posuit triplicem praenuntiationem dominicae passionis, hic intendit ad narrationem: et duo facit. Primo praemittit praeparatoria; secundo agit de ipsa passione, ibi adhuc eo loquente et cetera. Sunt autem tria praeparatoria. Primo ponitur tractatus proditionis; secundo institutio communionis dominicae; tertio de oratione Christi. Secunda ibi die autem azymorum etc., tertia ibi tunc venit Iesus cum illis in villam quae dicitur Gethsemani. Circa primum tria. Primo describitur persona proditoris; secundo tractatus proditionis; tertio sollicitudo; dicit ergo tunc. Intelligatis quod non refertur ad immediate praecedens, quia de ista muliere per transpositionem dictum est; sed retorquetur ad illud quod dictum est, quod congregati sunt principes sacerdotum et seniores populi (...) ut Iesum dolo tenerent et occiderent.
26:14
Tunc abiit unus de duodecim, qui dicebatur Iudas Scarioth. Et describitur persona eius ex tribus. Ex officio, quia unus erat de duodecim, non solum de discipulis, sed de duodecim specialiter vocatis; Io. VI, 71: nonne vos duodecim elegi, et unus ex vobis Diabolus est? Sed quare futurum malum et proditorem voluit eligere? Prima ratio potest esse ad significandum quod nullum condemnat propter suam praedestinationem, vel salvat, sed propter praesentem iustitiam. Unde si damnaret propter suam praedestinationem, non imputaretur alicui. Item propter consolationem hominum: sciebat enim esse futurum, quod multi deciperentur in electionibus, sicut de Philippo accidit, qui elegit Simonem magum; ideo dominus permisit inter discipulos proditorem esse. Alia potest esse ratio ut nullus vituperaretur, si aliquis esset malus, cum in primo collegio unus fuerit malus. Item describitur ex nomine persona proditoris: qui dicebatur Iudas. Inter discipulos vocati fuerunt hoc nomine duo; tamen unus fuit malus, per quod significatur, quod quidam confitentes Deum sunt boni, quidam mali. De bonis Ps. CXIII, 2: facta est Iudaea sanctificatio eius. De malis dicitur ad Titum I, 16: confitentur se nosse Deum, factis autem negant. Item describitur a patria. Scarioth, est villa quaedam, et interpretatur memoria mortis, quia peccatum Iudae in memoria habetur. Et potest ad illud referri quod dicitur Ier. XVII, 1: peccatum Iuda scriptum est stilo ferreo in ungue adamantino. Ad principes sacerdotum, qui Christum habebant interficere, obliviscens illius quod dictum est Ps. I, 1: beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum et cetera. Et in Gen. XLIX, 6 dicit Iacob: in consilium eorum non descendat anima mea. Et ait illis. Hic ponitur tractatus proditionis. Et primo ponitur tractatus; secundo consummatio. Et primo consideranda est cupiditas eius; secundo praesumptio.
26:15
Cupiditas, cum dicit quid vultis mihi dare et ego eum vobis tradam? Propter pecuniam omnem amicitiam contempsit; Eccli. X, 10: nihil est iniquius, quam amare pecuniam; hic enim animam suam venalem habet. Iste enim quia non refraenavit cupiditatem, incidit in proditionem. Quia enim vidit quod fraudatus erat pretio unguenti, ideo voluit recuperare in prodendo Christum. Item tangitur praesumptio, cum dicit et ego eum vobis tradam. Magna praesumptio fuit eum tradere, qui omnia sciebat. Item loquitur iste ut valde male sentiens de Deo, quia quando aliquis vult vendere rem quam diligit, imponit ei pretium; sed quando habet rem de qua vult se expedire, dicit: date mihi quod placet. Sic dicit iste: quid vultis mihi dare? Idest date quod vultis. Pro nihilo habuerunt terram desiderabilem, Ps. CV, 24. Et isti constituerunt ei triginta argenteos. Dicit Origenes quod simili modo faciunt qui pro temporali commodo Deum dimittunt. Habitat enim in nobis per fidem; sed tunc dimittimus quando nimis temporalibus adhaeremus; unde dixit: at illi constituerunt ei triginta argenteos. Sed quare ita expressit? Quia ita significatum erat per illud Zac. XI, 12: et appenderunt mercedem meam triginta argenteis. Et non est dicendum quod Ioseph venditus fuit triginta denariis, sed Scriptura vult quod solum viginti argenteis, idest denariis. Sed quid vult dicere quod triginta? Intelligendum est: iste numerus componitur ex quinque et sex, unde quinquies sex sunt triginta. Per quinque significantur quinque libri Moysi, vel temporalia quae subiecta sunt quinque sensibus; unde signatur quod post legem Moysi in sexta aetate fieret salus.
26:16
Et exinde quaerebat opportunitatem ut eum traderet. Hic ponitur sollicitudo. Et quare hoc faciebat? Ut facilius et occultius facinus perpetraret, sicut est de peccantibus, quia qui male agit, odit lucem, Io. c. III, 20; et Iob XXIV, 15: oculus adulteri observat caliginem.
26:17
Prima autem die tunc agit de constitutione sacramenti, et quia nova succedunt veteribus, ut dicitur Lev. c. XXVI, 10: novis supervenientibus vetera proiicietis; primo agit de veteri; secundo de novo. Circa primum duo. Primo ponitur praeparatio Paschae; secundo ponitur praenuntiatio proditoris, ibi edentibus illis dixit et cetera. Et circa primum primo tempus designatur; secundo praeparatio convivii; tertio institutio sacramenti. Dicit ergo prima die azymorum. Et hic potest esse obiectio, quia hic dies erat prima dies Paschae. Et videtur contra hoc quod dicitur in Io. XIII, 1: ante diem festum Paschae et cetera. Dicunt Graeci, Matthaeum, Lucam et Marcum errasse, et quod Ioannes correxit eos, quia fuit facta ante diem Paschae. Unde dicunt quod dominus passus est decima quarta luna, et coenam fecit decima tertia. Unde dicunt quod dominus confecit non in azymo, sed in fermentato. Et hoc nituntur confirmare plurimis argumentis. Primo quia dicitur Io. XVIII, 28 quod non introierunt, ut non contaminarentur, sed manducarent Pascha: et ita die passionis debebant comedere Pascha. Item alia ratio eorum, quia mulieres praeparaverunt aromata, ideo et cetera. Sed hoc non potest stare, quia dominus non fregit caeremonias: non enim invenitur quod praeveniretur Pascha, invenitur tamen quod prolongaretur. Et dato quod praeveniretur, hoc non est pro Graecis, quia scriptum est quod Pascha debebat comedi cum azymis et lactucis agrestibus. Si ergo aliter fecisset, contra legem fecisset. Ideo secundum quod tres Evangelistae dicunt, hoc fuit factum decima quarta luna, et tunc erat necesse comedere Pascha. Quid ergo respondendum ad id quod dicit Ioannes: ante diem festum Paschae? Dicendum quod consuetudo fuit quod incipiunt diem a vesperis, et sic dies paschalis a vesperis, incipiebat. Et hoc habetur in Ex. XII, v. 18: decima quarta luna ad vesperum celebrabitis Pascha: et ex tunc non inveniebatur fermentatum in domibus Iudaeorum usque ad vigesimum primum diem. Unde si computamus a vespere quartae decimae lunae, praeparatio fuit facta ante diem Paschae, tamen erat decima quarta luna. Vocat ergo Ioannes diem illum azymorum, et diem Paschae decimam quintam lunam. Quod tu dicis secundo, quod non introierunt praetorium etc., Chrysostomus sic solvit, et dicit quod dominus non praetermisit aliquid de legalibus observantiis: unde Pascha comedit decima quarta luna. Sed isti principes inhiarunt ad interfectionem Christi propter quod distulerunt, et tunc non celebraverunt, et hoc contra legem suam. Vel per Pascha intelliguntur panes azymi. Quod dicunt de mulieribus, dicit Augustinus quod habebant multas solemnitates; sed sabbatum solemnior erat solemnitas. Unde non licebat sabbato praeparare cibaria, quod tamen licebat in aliis festis, sed in die sabbati non. Ideo tunc ita accidit quod festivitas Paschae accidit in die Veneris, et sequebatur sabbatum; ideo tunc praeparaverunt, et in die sabbati quieverunt. Ideo possumus dicere quod decima quarta luna celebravit Pascha. Sequitur sollicitudo discipulorum accesserunt discipuli ad Iesum dicentes: ubi vis paremus tibi comedere Pascha? Et primo ponitur inquisitio; secundo mandatum; tertio impletio. Dicit accesserunt discipuli eius. Sed qui discipuli? Dicit Remigius quod ex obsequio Iudas, ut celaret proditionem suam. Tamen Leo Papa dicit quod etiam alii. Ubi vis paremus tibi comedere Pascha? Per hoc designatur quod Christus non habebat ibi domum, nec aliquis de societate; ideo signatur paupertas eius; unde supra VIII, 20: filius autem hominis non habet ubi reclinet caput suum. At ille dixit. Hic ponitur mandatum. Et primo denuntiat hospitem; secundo passionem; tertio exposcit locum ad convivandum.
26:18
Dicit ergo ite in civitatem ad quemdam. Et notare debetis quod non erat hospitatus in civitate, sed in Bethania. Sed quid est quod dicit quemdam? Dicit Augustinus quod dominus aliquem certum nominavit; sed quia non erat necessarium nominare, Matthaeus praetermisit nominare. Chrysostomus dicit quod dicit ite ad quemdam, idest ad quemcumque, quia voluit ostendere suam virtutem, ut non turbarentur de passione. Ita enim erat divulgata fama eius quod iam sententiatum erat quod qui reciperet eum, fieret extra synagogam. Unde voluit dare intelligi quod non reciperet eum aliquis nisi immutaret cor eius; Prov. XXI, 1: cor regis in manu domini, et quocumque voluerit inclinabit illud. Et dicite ei et cetera. Praenuntiat passionem ut non turbentur; unde dicit tempus, non quodcumque dicitur, sed determinatum a patre. Secundum istum modum dicitur Io. VII, 6: tempus meum nondum advenit, tempus autem vestrum semper est paratum. Apud te facio Pascha, idest celebrabo paschale convivium apud te. Et addit cum discipulis meis, ad denotandum quod non occulte, sed publice. Secundum Chrysostomum istud dixit, quia volebat quod praepararentur cibaria sufficientia et sibi, et discipulis. Sed quid est quod ipse celebravit, et nos non debemus celebrare? Quia Io. XIII, 15 dicitur: exemplum dedi vobis, ut quemadmodum ego feci, ita et vos faciatis. Ad hoc respondet Augustinus, quod sicut Christus passus est, ut a morte nos redimeret, sic legem voluit observare, ut nos a lege absolveret.
26:19
Tunc sequitur executio et fecerunt discipuli sicut praeceperat eis Iesus et cetera. Similiter habetur Ex. XXIV, 3: omnia verba quae praecepit dominus faciemus.
26:20
Consequenter agitur de convivio vespere autem facto discumbebat cum duodecim discipulis eius. Et dicitur vespere, quia, sicut praecipitur Ex. XII, 18, decima quarta luna ad vesperam celebrabitis Pascha. Vel vespere, quia tendit ad occasum; Zach. c. XIV, 7: et in tempore vesperi erit lux. Vel signatur verus transitus Christi, scilicet finis: ad vesperum enim est finis diei. Et edentibus illis dixit et cetera. Hic ponitur de praenuntiatione proditoris. Et primo designat ex societate; secundo ex auctoritate; tertio ex propria voce. Secunda ibi at ille respondens etc., tertia ibi tu dixisti. Et circa primum primo ponitur praenuntiatio; secundo effectus et contristati sunt.
26:21
Unde dicit et edentibus illis dixit: amen dico vobis quod unus vestrum me traditurus est. Amen dico, affirmat, quia magnum dicebat, quod unus vestrum, quos elegi esse columnas Ecclesiae; Eccli. VI, 10: est amicus socius mensae, et non permanet in die necessitatis. Et in Ier. IX, 4: in omni fratre tuo non habeas fiduciam. Tunc sequitur effectus, et est duplex effectus, tristitia et dubitatio. Quantum ad tristitiam dicit et contristati. Et quare? Contristabantur de morte Christi, quia amarum erat eis carere tali duce, tali patrono. Item tristabantur de tali scelere quod erat futurum; Ier. IX, 1: quis dabit oculis meis fontem lacrimarum?
26:22
Tunc ponitur dubitatio coeperunt singuli dicere. Sed quare dubitabant? Nonne unusquisque erat certus de se? Responsio: instructi erant discipuli, quia homines sunt cito proni ad peccatum; unde apostolus, I Cor. X, 12: qui stat, videat ne cadat. Item dubitabant, quia magis ei credebant, quam propriae conscientiae. Simile est illud quod dicitur I Cor. IV, 4: nihil mihi conscius sum, sed non tamen in hoc iustificatus sum.
26:23
At ille respondens ait: qui intingit manum in paropside hic me tradet. Hic ponitur praenuntiatio ex verbo prophetico. Et primo ponit praenuntiationem propheticam; secundo necessitatem passionis; tertio poenam proditoris. Dicit ergo at ipse respondens ait. De hoc potest intelligi illud Ps. XL, 10: qui edebat panes meos magnificavit super me supplantationem. Qui intingit manum in paropside. Marcus dicit in catino. Paropsis dicitur vas quadrangulare, et dicitur quasi latera paria habens. Catinus dicitur vas fictile ad recipiendum liquores: unde in catino reponebantur liquores, in paropside sicca; unde poterat ibi esse utrumque. Vel dicebatur paropsis, sed ex officio catinus. Et quid est quod dicit. Qui intingit manum in paropside? Dicendum quod consuetudo apud antiquos erat quod multi comedebant ex una scutella, et forte vas accipiebant. Unde omnes admirantes retraxerunt manum, praeter Iudam, ut magis excusaret se: et ideo erat verbum dubium, quia simul intingebat cum omnibus: ideo noluit eum detegere ne fieret magis peccator. Vel potest dici quod duo et duo sedebant, et istum secum posuerat, ut ipsum retraheret. Sed multi per amicitiam non retrahuntur. Filius quidem hominis vadit sicut scriptum est de illo. Quid est quod dicis, quod tu traderis? Dicit filius hominis vadit, scilicet propria voluntate. Oblatus est, quia ipse voluit, sicut scriptum est Is. LIII, 7. Unde praedicta fuit passio a prophetis, ut habetur Lc. ult., 27: et incipiens a Moyse, et omnibus prophetis interpretabatur illis in omnibus Scripturis, quae de ipso erant. Et ita filio hominis nihil nocet, quia fit quod ipse disposuit. Sed dicet aliquis: si vadit ex propria voluntate, ergo non est imputandum Iudae. Dicendum quod immo, quia hoc mala voluntate faciebat, quod filius spontaneus agebat.
26:24
Ideo sequitur poena vae autem homini illi, per quem filius hominis tradetur. Sicut supra XVII, 7: necesse est ut veniant scandala; vae autem homini illi per quem scandalum venit. Et tangitur magnitudo poenae bonum erat illi si natus non fuisset. Ex hoc sequitur occasio erroris. Dicunt enim quidam quod non existenti non infertur poena, ideo dicunt quod melius est simpliciter non fuisse, quod est contra apostolum ad Rom. IX. Unde, secundum Hieronymus, dicendum quod loquitur secundum communem modum loquendi, idest minus nocumentum, idest maius tormentum sentit, quam si natus non fuisset. Et ad hoc videtur facere quod dicitur Eccle. IV, 2: laudavi magis mortuos quam viventes. Et hoc est contra Augustinum in libro de libero arbitrio. Quod nihil est, non potest eligi. Item quod eligimus, est propinquius felicitati. Sed quod non est, non est propinquum felicitati. Quid est ergo dicendum? Potest ne aliquis magis eligere non esse quam poenale esse? Ideo dicendum quod non esse dupliciter potest accipi: vel secundum se, vel per comparationem ad aliud. Secundum se dico quod non est eligibile, ut dicit Augustinus, sed per comparationem ad aliud est eligibile, ut dicit Hieronymus. Quia hoc non est aliquid in natura, sed secundum apprehensionem animae accipitur ut aliquid, ut non sedere. Sed electio accipitur ab eo quod est apprehensum: ideo carere malo accipitur ut bonum. Quando ergo eligit non propter se, sed inquantum exclusivum mali, sic eligit, ut dicit philosophus. Per hoc patet responsio ad secundum. Dicit ergo quod illud quod magis removet a malo, accipitur ut magis propinquum felicitati; unde homini febrienti carere febre videtur esse felicitatem, quia sub miseriis videtur non esse; unde melius est non esse quam sub miseriis esse.
26:25
Respondens autem Iudas qui tradidit eum, dixit: numquid ego sum, Rabbi? Notandum quod simulatorie hoc dixit, unde quia tardavit quaerere, significavit quod erat tristis, sed simulavit. Item alii vocant ipsum dominum, sed iste magistrum. Utrumque tamen erat; Io. XIII, 13: vos vocatis me magister et domine, et bene dicitis, sum etenim. Ait illi: tu dixisti. Notate mansuetudinem domini. Supra XI, 29: discite a me, quia mitis sum et humilis corde; et hoc ut nobis exemplum mansuetudinis daret; unde dicit tu dixisti, idest confessus es. Vel tu dicis ista, non assero ego, sed tu dicis. Unde non est verbum asserentis. Nolebat enim eum revelare; quasi dicat: non assero, sed tu dicis.
26:26
Supra posuit Evangelista celebrationem veteris Paschae; hic ponitur institutio sacramenti altaris. Et primo instituitur sacramentum; secundo praenuntiatur futurum scandalum discipulorum, ibi tunc dixit illis Iesus: omnes vos scandalum patiemini. Primo duo facit. Primo instituitur paschale sacramentum; secundo hymnus gratiarum actionis, ibi et hymno dicto exierunt in montem oliveti. Et circa primum duo facit. Primo ponitur institutio sacramenti sub specie panis; secundo sub specie vini, ibi et accipiens calicem gratias egit et cetera. Circa primum primo tangit facta Christi; secundo verba, ibi accipite et comedite; hoc est corpus meum. In factis quinque sunt notanda. Primo ponitur tempus; secundo designatur materia; tertio benedictio; quarto fractio; quinto communicatio, sive distributio. Tempus tangitur cum dicit coenantibus autem eis etc., idest dum essent in coenando, idest dum coenarent. Et quare hoc constituit in ipsa coena, et non ante? Duplex est ratio. Quia voluit dominus quod istud succederet veteri sacramento, sicut veritas figurae; ideo post constitutionem veteris sacramenti novum constituit; Lev. XXVI, 10: novis supervenientibus vetera proiicietis. Item propter aliud, quia voluit ut infigeretur memoriae: quae enim ultimo audiuntur, altius infiguntur memoriae. Thren. c. III, 19: recordare paupertatis et transgressionis meae, absinthii et fellis. Quare ergo constituit Ecclesia quod homines ieiuni istud sacramentum reciperent? Dicendum quod hoc est ad reverentiam sacramenti: conveniens enim est quod ante cibum sumatur. Et hoc intelligendum est eodem die. Cum enim dies a media nocte incipiat, non debet recipere quicquam a media nocte usque ad perceptionem huius sacramenti. Sed quaesierunt aliqui, si quodcumque intrat in os, solvat sumptionem sacramenti, ut si bibit aliquis aquam. Intelligendum est quod duplex est ieiunium, scilicet ieiunium Ecclesiae, et ieiunium naturae. Ieiunium Ecclesiae non solvit potus aquae, sed ieiunium naturae solvit; quia etsi aqua per se non nutriat, cum aliis nutrit. Et debetis intelligere quod aquam recipit et potum, si aliquis lavet os, et transglutiat unam guttam casualiter. Non tamen propter hoc debet dimittere, immo computatur cum saliva. Similiter de cibo dico, quod si qui anisum comedit in sero, et remanserit aliquid in dentibus, si casu transglutiat, non propter hoc debet dimittere. Item aliqui conscientiam faciunt, quod si non dormiunt, non recipiant. Hoc non habet locum, quia non fuit de constitutione Ecclesiae. Unde non facit ad rem utrum dormiat, vel non dormiat. Accepit Iesus panem et cetera. Hic tangitur materia. Notandum quod istud sacramentum quantum ad aliquid veteri sacramento attinet, sicut veritas figurae. Sacramentum illud sumebatur ut cibus, quia mandatum erat quod comederent agnum: et istud, quod loco eius sumitur, debet sumi ut cibus. Et sicut ille erat vere cibus, ita et iste agnus; Io. VI, v. 56: caro mea vere est cibus. Unde falsa est illa opinio quae ponebat quod solum erat ibi Christus sub signo, quia si ita esset, quid plus haberet istud signum quam illud? Sed illud erat signum tantum; hoc autem est figura et veritas. Sed numquid est irreverentia, quia aliquis comedat corpus domini? Dicendum quod differt iste cibus ab aliis cibis, quia alii cibi convertuntur in corpus nostrum: unde si Christus ita converteretur, irreverentia esset. Sed non est sic, immo e converso, ut dicit Augustinus: non tu me mutabis in te, sed tu mutaberis in me. Unde illud sacramentum finis et perfectio omnium est sacramentorum. Et ratio est, quia esse quod est per essentiam, est finis et perfectio eorum quae per participationem: alia enim sacramenta Christum continent per participationem, in isto autem est Christus secundum substantiam. Ideo dicit Dionysius quod nullum est sacramentum quod non perficiatur in Eucharistia. Unde si adultus baptizetur, debet ei dari Eucharistia. Debet ergo sumi in cibo, ut veritas respondeat figurae. Et quare non sub specie propria? Una ratio est ratione meriti fidei, quia fides non habet meritum, ubi humana ratio praebet experimentum. Item ut parcatur sumentibus, quia non est consuetum quod caro humana comedatur. Item ut defendatur a derisionibus infidelium. Et quare sub tali specie? Quia voluit celebrari ab omnibus ubique terrarum: ideo voluit eis dare materiam, quae communis est omnibus. Communis autem cibus est panis, et communis potus hominum est vinum: unde panis et vinum sunt cibus principalis, alia potius quasi edulia. Item in aliis sacramentis in unctione non quodcumque oleum accipitur, sed commune, quod dicitur oleum ex multis olivis; sic unitas Ecclesiae ex multitudine fidelium. Et sic patet quod nostra sacramenta magis sunt antiqua quam sacramenta veteris legis; quia sacramenta veteris legis habuerunt initium a Moyse et Aaron, sed sacramenta novae legis a Melchisedech, qui obtulit Abraham panem et vinum. Ideo dicitur Christus factus sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedech, Ps. CIX, 4. Consequenter agitur de benedictione; et haec benedictio refertur ad tria. Ad materiam, quia benedixit fructum terrae, in quo significatur quod maledictio Adae revocata est per Christum, quando dixit ei, Gen. c. III, 17: maledicta terra in labore tuo, (...) spinas et tribulos germinabit tibi. Item refertur quantum ad illud quod continebatur in illo, scilicet Christum; supra XXI, 9: benedictus qui venit in nomine domini. Item ad fructum sacramenti, quia per istum benedicuntur fideles, et transit a capite ad membra; Prov. X, 6: benedictio domini super caput iusti. Deinde tangitur fractio et fregit: et tria significat. Primo significat mysterium futurae passionis, quia in passione perforata sunt membra, secundum illud Ps. XXI, 17: foderunt manus meas et pedes meos, dinumeraverunt omnia ossa mea. Et hoc factum est, quia ipse voluit; Is. LIII, 7: oblatus est quia ipse voluit. Item significatur quod frangatur ab unitate in multitudinem, unde significat incarnationem: quia, cum ipsum Dei verbum simplex esset, venit in istam multitudinem, non relinquendo simplicitatem. Item signatur effectus quem in diversos intulit; quia, secundum apostolum, I Cor. XII, 4, divisiones gratiarum sunt, idem autem spiritus. Item ponitur distributio dedit discipulis suis; Eccli. XXIX, 33: ex his quae in manu habes, ciba singulos. Et dicit, discipulis, quia nulli non baptizato debet dari huiusmodi sacramentum. Sicut non conficeret sacerdos nisi consecratus, sic non debet alicui illud administrari nisi baptizato. Item non est dandum nisi fidelibus; immo infideles non debent admitti ad videndum istud sacramentum: unde in primitiva Ecclesia, quando multi erant catechumeni, recipiebantur in Ecclesia usque ad Evangelium, et tunc expellebantur. Item cum dicat quod discipulis suis, quaeritur utrum Iudas ibi fuerit. Omnes dicunt quod simul dedit omnibus, et etiam Iudae, et hoc ut eum sua benignitate a peccato revocaret. Item ut daret Ecclesiae documentum ut dum esset occultus peccator, quod non prohiberetur a receptione huius sacramenti: homines enim non habent iudicare de occultis. Hilarius hic dicit quod non fuit Iudas, quia iam exierat. Et vult probare per illud quod dicitur in Io. XIII, 25, cum petierunt discipuli: quis est qui tradet te? Quibus dixit: cui tradidero buccellam intinctam. Ideo ostendit quod iam exierat. Sed magis tenendum est quod alii dicunt. Et ait: accipite, et comedite; hoc est corpus meum. Hic ponuntur verba: et in istis verbis tria facit. Primo hortatur ad recipiendum; secundo ad comedendum; tertio denuntiat veritatem. Dicit accipite et comedite. Et quod dicit accipite, ad spiritualem receptionem debet referri, quia non debet accipi nisi in fide et caritate; Io. VI, 55: qui manducat carnem meam, et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet, et ego in eo. Item inducit ad comestionem, comedite, non solum spiritualiter, sed etiam sacramentaliter; Cant. V, 1: comedite, amici, et bibite. Item designat veritatem hoc est corpus meum. Forma sacramenti continetur in his verbis, quae sunt verba domini, quia in verbis domini sacramentum conficitur. Unde si verbum Eliae tantam virtutem habuit quod faceret ignem de caelo descendere, multo magis verbum Dei poterit transmutare unum corpus in aliud. Tunc quaeritur utrum virtus sit in verbis. Et non est dubium quod sic. Unde dicitur Ps. LXVII, 34: dedit voci suae vocem virtutis; Eccle. VIII, 4: quia sermo eius potestate plenus est. Unde sacerdos peragit in persona Christi, et non utitur verbis in persona propria, sed in persona Christi. Sed quae est haec virtus? Quomodo tanta est virtus? Ideo dicunt aliqui quod nulla est ibi virtus, sed potestas Christi solum, quae ibi assistit. Et hoc non videtur, quia sacramenta novae legis efficiunt quod figurant. Sed quam virtutem habuit? Dicendum quod est causa agens principalis, et haec virtutem habet in se manentem; item causa instrumentalis, et haec non operatur per virtutem in se manentem, sed ab alio transeuntem: unde sacramenta sunt causae, non sicut causae principales, sed instrumentales ab alio transeuntes. Sed tunc quaeritur quid est de facto: utrum istud accipite et comedite etc. sit de forma sacramenti. Et dicendum quod solum illud hoc est corpus meum, est de forma sacramenti. Unde intelligendum quod aliter est de sacramento hoc et de aliis sacramentis, quia consecratio materiae aliquando est de necessitate sacramenti, aliquando non; ut in Baptismo consecratio materiae non est de necessitate Baptismi, sed in unctionibus nulla fit unctio, nisi oleum benedicatur. In aliis etiam sacramentis non percipitur sacramentum in benedictione, sed in infusione; quia oleum et aqua, cum sint inanimata, non continent gratiam: unde cum gratia sit finis sacramenti, non potest inferri nisi per susceptionem sacramenti. Sed in isto sacramento continetur ille qui est plenitudo gratiae; ideo non perficitur in nobis, sed in consecratione materiae. Unde dato quod nullus acciperet, non minus esset sacramentum: unde usus est consequens et non est de necessitate. Unde in aliis illud est de forma quod pertinet ad usum: istud non pertinet ad usum, sed ad materiae sanctitatem. Unde istud quod dicitur accipite et comedite quod pertinet ad usum, non est de forma. Item solet esse quaestio, utrum dominus confecerit sub his verbis. Et videtur quod non: quia dicitur ibi accepit panem, et benedixit. Ergo videtur quod in benedictione consecraverit. Ideo dixerunt aliqui quod non consecravit primo verbis, sed spirituali virtute. Et hoc potuit facere propter virtutem excellentiae, quia poterat veritatem sacramenti sine sacramento tradere, quia virtutem suam non alligaverat sacramentis: unde hoc potuit facere per virtutem excellentiae. Alii dicunt quod primo in occulto dixit, et post in publico. Melius dicitur quod semel dixit, et non bis, et in his verbis consecravit. Unde debet ita legi quod illud quod dicitur ait: accipite et comedite, referatur ad praecedentia, unde, sic dicendo, dixit hoc est corpus meum. Hic quaeritur quid demonstret hoc pronomen hoc. Dixerunt quidam quod demonstrat non ad sensum, sed ad intellectum, quia non est nisi ad substantiam panis, et non est nisi ad significandum. Unde sensus est hoc est corpus meum, idest signatum per hoc, est corpus meum. Et hoc non potest stare, quia sacramenta novae legis efficiunt quod signant, ideo nihil aliud facit nisi quod signat: et signat corpus Christi, et sic solum est corpus Christi sub signo. Alii dicunt quod ly hoc demonstrat ipsam substantiam corporis. Sed quomodo est hoc? Est ne statim corpus Christi cum dicit, hoc? Constat quod non, quia si moreretur sacerdos, non esset consecratum nisi expleret. Ideo dicunt alii quod ly hoc retardat suam significationem, et demonstrat illud quod erit post prolationem istius verbi meum. Istud etiam non competit, quia sic idem videretur dicere, ac si diceret: corpus meum est corpus meum; et Deo non competit. Alii dicunt quod verba proferuntur materialiter, non significative. Et hoc non potest stare, quia dicit Augustinus: accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum. Quid ergo? Dicendum quod recitative dicuntur, et simul recitative et significative. Quare? Quia ipse loquitur in persona Christi, et peragit ac si Christus esset praesens: aliter verba non accederent ad propriam materiam. Quid ergo? Dicendum quod aliter est in verbis sacramentalibus, et verbis aliis humanis: quia verbum humanum est solum significativum, sed divinum significativum et factivum. Unde verba sacramentalia habent virtutem a virtute divina. Unde simul dicit, et ex virtute divina facit. Ideo non solum est illud verbum significativum, sed etiam factivum. Et primo facit, secundo significat. In factione enim materiali ita est quod praeexistit aliquod commune in qualibet transmutatione, et illud commune est sub uno termino transmutationis, et in fine sub alio. Verbi gratia, ponatur quod de nigro fiat album; in ista transmutatione erat corpus, sed in principio erat sub nigredine, et post sub albedine. Unde quoad aliquid est simile, quoad hoc scilicet quod est aliquid commune; sed dissimile, quia non eodem modo; quia in aliis transmutationibus materialibus commune est subiectum, et differens forma; hic autem est contrarium, quia commune est accidens, differens est substantia. Unde substantia transmutatur, commune accidens manet. Quid ergo demonstrat ly hoc? Dicendum quod sensus est: hoc est corpus meum, idest contentum sub accidente est corpus meum. Vel hoc fit quod contentum sub accidentibus sit corpus meum. Unde in fine posuit nomen, sed in principio pronomen, quod substantiam indeterminatam significat; sed per nomen forma determinata. Unde in principio non est forma, sed in fine. Sed quomodo est ibi corpus Christi? Una fuit opinio, quod simul cum corpore Christi substantia panis manebat. Unde quod dicit hoc est corpus meum, refertur ad corpus solum. Alii dicunt quod transit substantia panis in praeiacentem materiam, et advenit ibi corpus Christi, praeter hoc quod substantia panis transeat in corpus Christi. Improbatur autem hoc sic. Quia sic videtur quod aliquid incipiat esse ubi non primo fuit, quod non potest esse nisi vel mutetur secundum locum, vel quod aliquid convertatur in ipsum. Sicut si dicatur: hic non est ignis, quod ergo post sit ibi, hoc non potest esse, nisi quod ibi aliunde apportetur, vel quod aliquid, quod ibi sit, in ignem mutetur. Sed secundum istam opinionem tollitur modus conversionis; ergo non est nisi mutatio localis. Sed impossibile est idem corpus esse in diversis locis; ideo et cetera. Ideo aliter dicendum quod corpus incipit ibi esse, non per motum localem, sed per conversionem alterius in ipsum; et in hoc manet forma, et transit subiectum. Unde mutatur subiectum in subiectum, quod est principium individuationis, non propter hoc quod simul cum substantia panis sit corpus Christi, vel annihiletur substantia panis, sed per hoc quod transmutetur per conversionem in ipsum. Sed qualiter poterit esse in tam parvo loco? Dicendum quod aliquid est ibi de vi sacramenti, et istud ibi principaliter est; aliquid vero per concomitantiam. Illud est ibi de vi sacramenti, in quod terminatur conversio. Et quia panis convertitur in corpus Christi, illud quod significatur, est corpus Christi, et non est sine anima, nec sine divinitate: nec tamen panis convertitur in animam, vel divinitatem, sed sunt ibi per concomitantiam. Unde si aliquis in triduo celebrasset, cum anima esset separata a corpore, non esset ibi anima. In pane enim duo sunt, substantia et accidentia: accidentia manent, substantia transit. Illud ergo ibi est principaliter, in quod terminatur transmutatio; sed terminatur in substantiam; ergo substantia est principaliter, sed accidentia per concomitantiam: dimensiones autem sunt accidentia. Nec corpus Christi in sacramento comparatur ad locum per dimensiones proprias, sed per dimensiones panis praeexistentes. Item fregit. Sed numquid in qualibet parte est totum corpus? Dico quod sic. Et debetis intelligere quod dicitur aliter esse in loco, quam locatum in loco; quia locatum comparatur ad locum sub suis dimensionibus, sed non sic hic. Ideo notandum quod ubicumque est aliqua differentia quantitatis, non facit differentiam in substantia; sed si sit aliquod sequens quantitatem, dividitur secundum quantitatem. Sed anima non habet a quantitate suam totalitatem accipere, sed habet suam totalitatem in qualibet parte: unde corpus Christi non comparatur ad corpus illud secundum quantitatem, sed solum secundum substantiam. Ideo sicut anima est in qualibet parte corporis, sic Christus in qualibet parte hostiae. Quid ergo erit de istis accidentibus? Dicendum quod manent absque subiecto ex virtute divina. Et quo modo potest hoc esse, cum accidentia dependeant a substantia? Dicendum quod Deus est principium essendi; unde potest producere effectum separatum a subiecto et sine principiis; ideo cum principium substantiae sit conservare accidentia in esse, potest Deus absque suis principiis conservare. Si quaeris utrum sit verum de omnibus accidentibus, dicendum quod omnia accidentia referuntur ad substantiam mediantibus dimensionibus, unde quodammodo individuantur; ideo dimensiones sunt sine subiecto, sed qualitas in dimensionibus est ut in subiecto. Unde sensus est hoc, idest contentum sub his accidentibus, quae accidentia manent in dimensionibus, quia substantia, quae primo suberat sub his accidentibus, mutatur in corpus Christi.
26:27
Supra actum est de institutione novi sacramenti quantum ad sacramentum corporis domini, hic agitur de institutione eiusdem quantum ad sacramentum sanguinis: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponuntur facta Christi; secundo dicta, ibi bibite ex hoc omnes. Circa primum tria facta ponuntur. Primo quod accepit calicem; secundo quod gratias egit; tertio quod discipulis dedit. Unde dicit et accipiens calicem etc.; per quod signatum est, quod non fuit institutum quod agatur sub una specie, sed sub duabus. Et quae est ratio huius? Una ratio est, quia tria sunt in hoc sacramento: unum quod est sacramentum tantum, aliud quod est res tantum, aliud quod est sacramentum et res. Sacramentum tantum sunt species panis et vini, res tantum est effectus spiritualis, res et sacramentum est corpus contentum. Si ergo consideremus sacramentum tantum, sic bene competit ut corpus signetur sub specie panis, sanguis sub specie vini, quia signatur ut indicans refectionem spiritualem; sed refectio est proprie in cibo et potu, ideo et cetera. Item si sumatur ut res et sacramentum, ad hoc competit quod illud sacramentum est rememorativum dominicae passionis. Et non potuit melius significare quam sic, ut significetur sanguis ut effusus et separatus a corpore. Item quantum ad id quod sumitur ut res tantum, quia sanguis pertinet ad animam, non quia sanguis sit anima, sed in sanguine vita conservatur: unde signatur quod cum illud sacramentum sit ad salutem fidelium, quod panis offertur pro salute corporis, sed sanguis pro salute animae. Prov. IX, 5: venite, comedite panem meum, et bibite vinum quod miscui vobis, quia refectio ista est in pane et vino. Item alia ratio, quia totus Christus continetur in corpore. Quae est ergo necessitas quod sanguis per se? Ideo est accipiendum quod dictum est supra, quod aliud est ibi ex vi sacramenti directe, aliud ex naturali concomitantia. Sub panis specie continetur corpus Christi de vi sacramenti, sed sanguis per concomitantiam. In sanguine vero e converso, quia sanguis est de vi sacramenti, sed corpus per concomitantiam. Unde sanguine Christi effuso in terram, si fuisset celebratum, non fuisset sanguis nisi seorsum. Ideo quia haec non intellexerunt quidam, dixerunt quod formae istae continuantur. Unde dicunt quod cum consecratur corpus, non est ibi sanguis donec vinum fuerit consecratum. Sed hoc non est ita, quia si moreretur sacerdos antequam consecraret vinum, esset in hostia et corpus et sanguis. Item dicit accipiens calicem, et non dicit accipiens vinum, ideo quidam dixerunt quod debebat fieri in aqua. Et hoc excluditur, quia sequitur non bibam de genimine vitis et cetera. Secundo patet quod fuit vinum et aqua mixtum. Et huius ratio est ex parte sacramenti, quia celebrandum est ut dominus instituit. Sed in terra calida consuetudo est quod non bibatur vinum sine aqua; ideo non est credendum quod in puro vino confecerit. Competit et contento, quia illud sacramentum est rememorativum dominicae passionis; sed a latere Christi exivit sanguis et aqua, ut habetur Io. XIX, 34. Item ad significandum effectus, et hoc dupliciter: quia istud significat memoriam passionis Christi; ergo inducit in nos effectus passionis Christi. Effectus autem est duplex, abluere et redimere. Redemit nos per sanguinem suum; Apoc. V, v. 9: redemisti nos Deo in sanguine tuo. Item abluit sordes; Apoc. I, 5: dilexit nos, et lavit nos a peccatis nostris in sanguine suo. Et haec erant necessaria ut ablueret et redimeret. Et ablutio signatur per aquam, redemptio per vinum. Item per aquam populus; Apoc. XVII, 1: aquae multae, populus multus. Et per istud sacramentum populus unitur Christo; ideo per istam admixtionem signatur populus uniri Christo. Sed quid fit de illa aqua? Dicunt aliqui quod manet. Alii dicunt quod convertitur in vinum, quia cum ponatur parum, species mutatur, et ita totum est conversum; et ita pertinet ad mysterium, quia in hoc unitas ecclesiastica continetur. Item in hoc quod dicit accipiens, signatur quod voluntarie sustinuit passionem; unde in Psal. CXV, 13: calicem salutaris accipiam, et nomen domini invocabo. Item gratias egit. Et de quo? De duobus, de signo et signato. De signo, quia de effectu; de signato, quia de passione. In quo signatur quod non solum de bonis gratias reddere debemus, sed etiam de malis et adversis; I ad Thess. V, 18: in omnibus gratias agentes; ad Rom. VIII, 28: diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum. Item gratias egit de institutione huius sacramenti, quia virtute divina hoc faciebat; unde in Io. c. V, 30: a meipso facio nihil. Ideo gratias agit Deo patri; Io. XI, 41: gratias ago tibi, quoniam audisti me. In quo datur nobis exemplum quod si Christus gratias egit, qui erat patri aequalis, quod nos gratias agere debemus. Item gratias agit de effectu, quia effectus est salus totius mundi. Et hoc non poterat facere nisi ex divinitate; Io. VI, 64: spiritus est qui vivificat, caro autem non prodest quicquam. Sequitur et dedit, ut sumerent in sacramento. Et per hoc significavit quod fructus suae passionis debebat per alios aliis ministrari. Unde apostoli possunt comparari pullis aquilae, de quibus dicitur Deut. XXXII, v. 11: sicut aquila provocans pullos suos ad volandum, et super eos volitans. Tunc iniungit usum. Et primo ponit usum; secundo verba consecrationis sanguinis; tertio resurrectionem praenuntiat. Dicit ergo bibite ex hoc omnes; Cant. V, 1: bibite et inebriamini, carissimi. Unde signatur quod Christiani possunt communicare loco et tempore. Hic est enim sanguis meus et cetera. Haec sunt verba consecrationis. Et notate quod in his verbis est differentia cum his quibus utitur Ecclesia. Ecclesia addit: hic est calix.
26:28
Item ubi dicit, novi testamenti, Ecclesia addit novi et aeterni testamenti. Item ubi dicit qui pro multis, Ecclesia addit qui pro vobis et cetera. Unde ergo Ecclesia habet istam formam? Dicendum quod, sicut dicit Dionysius, non fuit intentio Evangelistarum tradere formas sacramentorum, sed eas tamquam secretas servare; unde non intendebant nisi historiam narrare. Unde ergo habet Ecclesia? A constitutione apostolorum. Unde dixit Paulus I Cor. XI, 34: caetera cum venero, disponam. Sed est quaestio: cur dicit hoc est corpus meum, vel est sanguis? Quare non dicit: hoc convertitur in corpus, aut in sanguinem? et cetera. Sed duplex est ratio. Prima est, quia formae sacramentorum debent signare quod efficiunt. Illud quod efficiunt, est quod convertatur in corpus Christi; sed ultimus effectus est quod fit corpus, ideo ultimus effectus signari debet; ideo debet signari quod hoc sit corpus, non autem quod convertatur in corpus. In hac autem forma est aliquid simile cum veteri, aliquid dissimile. Simile in hoc, sicut habetur Ex. XXIV, 8, quod cum legisset Moyses legem, immolavit vitulos, et obtulit sanguinem, et dixit: hic est sanguis foederis domini. Sic iste sanguis oblatus est pro salute populi. Ad Hebr. IX, 7 dicitur, quod semel in anno pontifex solus introibat non sine sanguine, quem offert pro sua et populi ignorantia. Ostenditur autem differentia quantum ad quatuor. Primo in hoc quod sanguis ille est vitulorum, iste Christi; ideo iste est efficax ad remittendum; ad Hebraeos IX, 13: si enim sanguis hircorum et taurorum, et cinis vitulae conspersus inquinatos sanctificat ad emundationem carnis, quanto magis sanguis Christi emundabit conscientiam nostram ab operibus mortuis ad serviendum Deo viventi? Item ille dicebatur sanguis testamenti, sed iste dicitur testamentum. Item accipitur testamentum communiter et proprie. Communiter pro quocumque facto, quia ita solebat esse quod in omni facto adducebantur testes. Proprie dicitur testamentum quando aliquid legatur in morte, secundum quod dicit apostolus, quod testamentum in morte testatoris firmatur. Utroque modo competit hic, quia pactio fuit ibi; et fiebat sanguine, quia in confoederatione pacis antiquitus ostendebant sanguinem, ideo dicebatur sanguis foederis. Item secundum quod ad mortuos dicitur, sic erat quoddam pactum inter Deum et homines in veteri et in nova lege, sed differenter; quia primo de temporalibus, scilicet veteris legis, sicut patet quod promisit eis terram Amorrhaeorum, ideo fuit vetus, quia non innovabantur homines, sed magis inveterabantur; istud autem testamentum est de caelestibus et de supernis. Ideo supra IV, 17: agite poenitentiam, appropinquabit enim regnum caelorum. Ideo dicit novi testamenti; ibi vero dicebatur: hic est sanguis foederis quod pepigit dominus vobiscum super cunctis sermonibus his et cetera. Ier. XXXI, 31: feriam domui Israel et domui Iuda foedus novum. Unde hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti, idest dedicatus ad novum testamentum, in quo debemus habere fiduciam; ad Hebr. X, 19: habemus fiduciam per sanguinem Christi. Item pro morte competit; quia per mortem Christi confirmata est repromissio. Item alia differentia, quia ista addit novi et aeterni testamenti, quod potest referri vel ad haereditatem aeternam, vel ad Christum, qui aeternus est. Alia differentia est, quia in illa habetur: quod pepigit vobiscum; unde ad illos solum restrictum est illud testamentum; sed istud etiam ad gentes, Is. c. LII, 15: ipse asperget, scilicet sanguine suo, gentes multas. Pro multis, et pro omnibus, quia si consideretur sufficientia, ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris; non pro nostris autem tantum, sed et pro totius mundi. Sed si consideremus effectum, non habet effectum nisi in his qui salvantur, et hoc ex culpa hominum. Sed Ecclesia addit, pro vobis, idest apostolis, quia ipsi ministri sunt huius sanguinis, et per istos derivatur ad gentes. Item ponitur in remissionem peccatorum, quia ille non poterat remittere peccata. Dico autem. Hic ponitur consolatio, secundum Chrysostomum. Quia fecerat mentionem de effusione sanguinis, per quem signatur passio, ideo consolatur eos, et praenuntiat gloriam suam. Et potest quatuor modis exponi. Exponit sic Chrysostomus, quod dominus praenuntiaverat passionem, ideo vult eos laetificare.
26:29
Non bibam amodo de genimine vitis, idest de vino, usque in diem illum et cetera. Hoc regnum appellat regnum resurrectionis. Tunc accepit regnum novum, idest novo modo. Quod post biberit cum eis patet Act. X. Sed quare dicitur novo modo? Quia ante aliter comedit, et post; quia ante comedit ex necessitate, sed post resurrectionem non propter necessitatem, sed ut demonstraret resurrectionis veritatem. Hieronymus dicit sic, quod per vineam signatur populus Iudaeorum; Is. V, 7: vinea domini exercituum domus Israel est; Ier. II, v. 21: ego plantavi te vineam electam, omne semen verum. Dico autem vobis quod amodo non bibam, idest non gaudebit anima mea de populo isto, usque in illum diem, cum illud bibam vobiscum novum in regno patris mei. Regnum signat praesentem Ecclesiam; novum, idest innovatum per fidem, quia tunc convertentur, et tunc gaudebo cum eis. Multi enim sunt conversi, et multi convertentur. Remigius exponit sic, et dicit quod hoc referendum est ad caeremonias paschales, idest: non celebrabo de caetero huiusmodi caeremonias usque ad statum Ecclesiae, cum gaudebo de innovatione Ecclesiae. Augustinus sic: in hoc quod dicit novum, opponitur veteri. Vetustas autem duplex est: poenae et culpae, et haec derivata est ab Adam, ut habetur ad Rom. V, 12 ss. Christus autem vetustatem habuit poenae, non culpae. Unde suum simplum solvit nostrum duplum. Dicit ergo non bibam, de vetustate poenae, usque, etc., quia depositurus erat corpus istud, et assumpsit in resurrectione corpus glorificatum, et promittit apostolis quod ipsi etiam assument. Et signat quod non sunt diversae naturae, quia corpus quod assumet, erit eiusdem naturae, sed alterius gloriae.
26:30
Posita institutione novi sacramenti, hic praenuntiatur futurum scandalum discipulorum. Et primo praemittitur locus; secundo praenuntiatio, ibi et dixit illis. Et hoc competit praemissis, et ei quod sequitur. Unde cum utroque potest ordinari. Dicit ergo et hymno dicto. Per hoc exemplum duorum nobis dat; quia primo fuit coena et prandium materiale, post quod gratias debemus reddere, et Deum laudare; Ps. XXI, 27: edent pauperes, et saturabuntur, et laudabunt dominum qui requirunt eum. Item post istud fuit coena sacramentalis, post quam etiam debemus gratias agere. Unde post illud, hymnum dixit. Unde illud quod post communionem dicitur in Missa, repraesentat istum hymnum; ideo fideles debent expectare usque ad finem Missae ut hymnum istum audiant. Et hoc est quod Io. XVII, 1 dicitur: pater, clarifica filium tuum, ut filius tuus clarificet te. Et hoc dicto exierunt in montem oliveti. Mons enim oliveti pinguedinem significat, quia olivae pingues sunt; unde spiritualem pinguedinem significat. In Gen. XLIX, 20: pinguis panis eius. Unde signat pinguedinem gratiae et gloriae caelestis in quam provehitur; Ps. LXVII, 16: mons domini mons pinguis. Oleum membra fessa quietat, dolorem mitigat, igni pabulum et claritatem praestat. Sic erit in illa gloria, quia amovebitur omnis labor, omnis dolor; omnis aderit claritas. Item, quod dicit, in montem oliveti, convenit praenuntiationi futurae. Per oleum misericordia signatur: sicut enim supernatat aliis liquoribus, sic misericordia; Ps. CXLIV, 9: miserationes eius super omnia opera eius. Item in monte scandalum ostendit, ut misericordia signetur praevia. Cum ceciderit iustus, non collidetur, quia dominus supponit manum suam, Ps. XXXVI, 24. Tunc dicit (...) omnes vos scandalum patiemini in me. Hic ponitur scandalum. Et primo in generali; secundo in speciali, ibi respondens autem Petrus. Circa primum duo facit. Primo praenuntiat; secundo ne videatur fortuitum, auctoritatem inducit, ibi scriptum est enim: percutiam pastorem et dispergentur oves. Et in isto verbo aggravatur peccatum discipulorum ex multis. Primo ex universitate, omnes vos; Is. I, 6: a planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis non est in eo sanitas et cetera. Item materia tangitur scandalum patiemini in me; I ad Cor. I, 23: nos praedicamus Christum crucifixum, Iudaeis quidem scandalum. Iudaei, quia non quaerebant nisi infirmitatem carnis, scandalum passi sunt. Item aggravatur peccatum appropinquatione temporis, quia post tantas monitiones, post sacramenti susceptionem. Unde iam obliti erant quae fecerat eis; unde bene comparati sunt viro consideranti vultum nativitatis suae in speculo: consideravit enim se, et abiit, et statim oblitus est qualis fuerit, Iac. I, 24. Item quia in nocte, quia qui ebrii sunt, et qui dormiunt, in nocte dormiunt, I ad Thess. c. V, 7: sic etiam qui scandalizantur.
26:31
Tunc subiungit auctoritatem: scriptum est enim: percutiam pastorem et dispergentur oves. Et scribitur Zac. XIII, 7, et dicitur ibi: percute pastorem, scilicet Christum, et dispergentur oves; hic autem dicitur percutiam, et satis convenienter, quia propheta desiderabat quod istud fieret, ideo dixit, percute pastorem; sed Christus in propria persona loquitur; et in isto die praenuntiat primo passionem Christi; secundo scandalum, cum dicit percutiam pastorem. Iste pastor est Christus; Io. X, 11: ego sum pastor bonus. Et I Petr. II, 25: conversi estis ad pastorem et episcopum animarum vestrarum. Et iste percussus est, quia Deus tradidit eum, quia proprio filio non pepercit, Rom. VIII, 32: et hoc propter peccata nostra; Is. LIII, 8: propter scelus populi mei percussi eum. Item praenuntiat scandalum et dispergentur oves. Oves sunt fideles; Io. X, 27: oves meae vocem meam audiunt. Et sic Deus passus est ut dispergerentur, ut post congregaret; Ps. CXLVI, 2: dispersiones Israel congregabit. Io. X, 16: alias oves habeo quae non sunt ex hoc ovili, et illas oportet me adducere. Tunc praenuntiat gaudia resurrectionis postquam autem resurrexero, praecedam vos in Galilaeam; quia licet pater resuscitaverit eum, sicut alibi dicitur, Act. II, v. 24: quem Deus suscitavit, solutis doloribus Inferni, tamen propria virtute surrexit, quia virtus patris est virtus filii; II ad Cor. ult., 4: sed si crucifixus est propter infirmitatem nostram, vivit tamen ex virtute Dei.
26:32
Item contra illud quod dixerat quod dispergentur oves, dicit praecedam vos in Galilaeam. Oves enim sequuntur pastorem: unde pastor congregat vocando eas nominatim; ideo dicit praecedam. Vel potest referri ad illud quod dicit postquam resurrexero. Quia possent aliqui credere quod multum esset tempus usque ad resurrectionem suam, ideo dixit quod non multum, quia praecedam vos in Galilaeam. Consuetudo eius erat quod parum moraretur in Iudaea, sed cito transibat in Galilaeam. Vult ergo dicere: ante resurgam quam possitis venire in Galilaeam, ut ostenderet se esse illum, qui apparebit eis. Ideo satis potuerunt certificari. Item quod dicit quod praecedet, securitatem dat. Quia in Iudaea persecutionem patiebantur, ideo dicit quod praecedet in Galilaeam, ut removeat eos a timore. Et dicit Chrysostomus quod non est intelligendum quod primo apparuerit in Galilaea: sed hic apparuit, sed non primo, immo in Ierusalem. Quare ergo magis dicit in Galilaeam? Galilaea interpretatur transmigratio: unde significatur quod per resurrectionem transibimus a vita mortali ad immortalem: et in ista nos praecessit, quia Christus est primitiae dormientium. Item signatur transmigratio discipulorum ad gentes: et in hoc Christus praecessit, corda movendo.
26:33
Respondens autem Petrus. Hic ponitur praenuntiatio de scandalo Petri. Et primo ponitur occasio; secundo praenuntiatio; tertio excusatio. Secunda ibi ait ei Iesus etc.; tertia ibi ait ei Petrus et cetera. Hic est quaestio litteralis; quia videtur quod Petrus hoc dixerit postquam recessissent de coenaculo; sed Lucas XXII, 34-39 videtur dicere quod antequam recessissent, et huic consonat Ioannes XIII, 36-38. Augustinus solvit quod Petrus hoc ter dixit, et sic concordant omnes etc., quia si consideremus narrationem, ex pluribus causis hoc dicit. Hic motus fuit ex hoc quod scandalum praenuntiavit. Lc. XXII, 32 dixerat dominus: ego pro te rogavi, Petre, ut non deficiat fides tua, et tunc dixit Petrus: domine, tecum paratus sum et in carcerem, et in mortem ire. Sed in Io. dictum est alia de causa; quia Io. XIII, 33 dixit dominus: quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire modo. Tunc dixit Petrus: animam meam ponam pro te. Ideo ter dixit; ideo potest esse quod bis dixerit in coenaculo, sed semel dixit extra, sicut hic dicitur. Et potest esse quod ex fervore dicebat, et non considerabat virtutes suas. Tamen in tribus deliquit. Primo quia non plus domino credidit quam sibi, cum tamen scriptum sit ad Rom. III, 4: solus Deus verax, omnis homo mendax. Item quia praetulit se aliis; unde dixit et si omnes scandalizati fuerint in te, ego numquam scandalizabor. Unde reputabat se aliis firmiorem; et incidit in illud quod dicitur Lc. XVIII, 11: non sum sicut caeteri hominum et cetera. Item quia attribuebat sibi quod non debebat, cum scriptum sit Io. XV, 5: sine me nihil potestis facere. Quia ergo arroganter locutus est, ideo magis permisit eum cadere. Et hoc facit Deus, quia multum odit Deus superbiam; Iob XL, 6: et respiciens omnem arrogantem humiliat.
26:34
Ait illi Iesus: amen dico tibi, quia in hac nocte antequam gallus cantet, ter me negabis. Quia putare poteras quod dicerem comminatorie, ideo dico tibi, amen, idest corde tibi dico, quia antequam gallus in hac nocte cantet, ter me negabis. Et aggravatur eius culpa ex propinquitate temporis, quia in hac nocte. Item ex multitudine, quia ter: sicut ter praesumpserat, ita ter negavit post praesumptionem; Iob XXXI, 27: si laetatum est in abscondito cor meum. Sed quaestio est de hoc antequam gallus cantet, ter me negabis; quia in Mc. XIV, 30 habetur quod antequam gallus bis vocem dederit. Secundum Augustinum potest solvi quod secundum historiam verum est quod Marcus dicit. Et quod Matthaeus dicit, potest sic solvi, quod homo dicitur facere quando facit in proposito, sicut supra V, 28: qui viderit mulierem ad concupiscendum eam, moechatus est eam in corde suo. Sic Petrus in suo proposito negavit ter, vel etiam pluries; ex quo timorem concepit quod sufficiens erat ad negandum ter vel pluries; ideo dicit quod ter negavit quia iam conceperat se ter vel pluries negaturum. Unde Matthaeus dixit quod interius intendebat; sed Marcus quod exterius gessit. Vel potest aliter dici quod quando dico: ego faciam istud infra tale tempus tunc non oportet quod in illo factum sit, sed sufficit quod inceptum fuerit. Unde quod dixit quod ter esset negaturus, non oportebat quod ante galli cantum completum esset, sed inchoatum. Sequitur excusatio Petri ait ei Petrus et cetera. Excusat se Petrus quia si oportuerit me mori tecum, non te negabo. Et tamen timuit, quia ad vocem ancillae negavit. Hieronymus dicit quod nescivit quid diceret, quia solus Christus moriturus erat, ut solus esset redemptor; Is. LXIII, 3: torcular calcavi solus.
26:35
Deinde ponit affirmationem, scilicet aliorum similiter et omnes discipuli dixerunt. Unde dixerunt sicut et Petrus; tamen alii meliorem causam habebant quam Petrus se excusandi, quia alii sine assertione. Tunc venit Iesus in villam quae dicitur Gethsemani. In ista parte ponitur praeparatio, quae est per orationem; et tria facit. Primo proponitur propositum orandi; secundo necessitas orandi; tertio differentia. Secunda ibi et assumpto Petro etc.; tertia ibi et progressus pusillum procidit in faciem suam. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponitur locus; secundo praenuntiat propositum et dixit discipulis suis.
26:36
Dicit ergo tunc venit Iesus in villam quae dicitur Gethsemani. Contrarium videtur quod dicitur in Io. XVIII, 1, quod egressus Iesus venit trans torrentem Cedron. Unde notandum quod villa illa erat in pede montis oliveti, unde idem erat locus; et veniebat ibi post coenam quasi ad spatiandum. Tunc praenuntiat propositum orandi et dixit discipulis suis: sedete hic donec vadam illuc, et orem. Simile habetur Gen. XXII, 5: dixit Abraham ad pueros suos: expectate hic cum asino, et ego et puer illuc usque properantes, postquam adoraverimus, revertemur ad vos. Sed hic movet Damascenus quaestionem. Oratio est ascensus in Deum, intellectus autem Christi coniunctus erat Deo, quomodo ergo indigebat Deus qui faciebat? Unde dicatur quod ipse orabat non propter se, sed propter nostram utilitatem. Et haec duplex est, quia oravit ut daret nobis exemplum, ut in tribulatione recurramus ad dominum; Ps. CXIX, 1: ad dominum cum tribularer clamavi. Item ut ostenderet se esse ab alio, et quod ab alio habebat; unde dicit: non potest filius a seipso facere quidquam. Et ibid. VIII, 28: ego a meipso facio nihil. Item ad excludendum errorem, quia dicebant aliqui quod non esset eadem virtus patris et filii; Io. VIII, 49: ego honorifico patrem meum. Dat ergo exemplum orandi, et quomodo sit orandum. Prima enim conditio orationis est quia debet esse humilis oratio: quod signatur quia ivit in vallem; Iudith IX, v. 16: humilium et mansuetorum semper tibi placuit deprecatio. Item debet esse devota; unde in Gethsemani, scilicet in villa pinguedinis; Ps. LXII, 6: sicut adipe et pinguedine repleatur anima mea. Item quod sit solitaria, sicut supra VI, 6: intra in cubiculum tuum, et clauso ostio ora patrem tuum. Et assumpto Petro, et duobus filiis Zebedaei et cetera. Hic praenuntiat necessitatem orationis: et haec erat tristitia. Et primo ponit testes tristitiae; secundo ostendit tristitiam; tertio repellit. Secunda ibi coepit contristari et maestus esse; tertia ibi sustinete hic et vigilate mecum.
26:37
Dicit ergo et assumpto Petro, et duobus filiis Zebedaei et cetera. Tres secum assumpsit. Et quare istos prae aliis? Una ratio, quia isti firmiores erant, et quia omnes scandalizabat infirmitas, ideo magis istis infirmitatem suam voluit monstrare quam aliis. Item ostenderat eis gloriam; ideo volebat quod sicut viderant gloriam, ita viderent infirmitatem, ut cognoscerent quod nec infirmitas gloriam, nec gloria absorberet infirmitatem. Sequitur ostensio infirmitatis. Et primo facto; secundo verbo. Et secundum hoc tria facit: quia primo dicit secundum quae Christus tristatus est; secundo quare tristatus est; tertio quomodo tristatus sit. Quoad primum coepit contristari et moestus esse. Hic cavendi sunt duo errores; quia quidam dixerunt quod tristatus est secundum divinitatem: et hoc non potest esse, quia tristatus est quia passibilis erat, sed divinitas non erat passibilis. Item opinio Arianorum, alias Eunomii, erat quod in Christo non erat anima, sed verbum loco animae. Et quare hoc dicebat? Ut omnia quae ad defectum pertinent, ad verbum referrentur, ut ostenderetur minor patre. Et hoc falsum est. Ideo passus est secundum quod pati potuit, idest secundum animam. Tunc ait illis: tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem et cetera. Non dicit: ego sum tristis, quia ego est ostensivum personae, sed non tristabatur inquantum verbum, sed secundum animam, ideo excluditur error et Arii, et Apollinaris; item Manichaei, qui ponit eum non vere passum. Unde patet secundum quod tristatus est. Sed quare tristatus est? Diversa sunt verba sanctorum. Quia Hilarius et multi alii dixerunt quod non tristatus est propter se, nec propter mortem suam, sed propter scandalum discipulorum: et hoc vult probare per hoc quod assumpsit eos. Damascenus dicit quod tristabatur pro seipso. Et quare? Quia tristitia inest ex hoc quod caremus eo quod naturaliter amamus. Anima naturaliter vult uniri corpori, et istud fuit in anima Christi, quia comedit, et bibit, et esuriit. Ergo separatio erat contra naturale desiderium: ergo separari erat ei triste. Tamen possumus intelligere quod aliquid inest animae secundum se, et aliquid inest animae per comparationem ad aliud: sicut amara potio, secundum se considerata, dolorosa est, sed relata ad finem nostrae salutis, est causa gaudii. Sicut aliquid est rationis ut natura est, et aliquid rationis inquantum ratio: sic ista mors Christi erat materia tristitiae secundum quod considerabatur secundum se; sed secundum quod referebatur ad rationem, referendo ad finem, sic gaudebat. Ideo verba Hilarii et Hieronymi intelliguntur referendo ad finem. Item quaeritur quomodo tristitia cadit in Christo. Ideo notandum quod quandoque tristitia accidit secundum passionem, aliquando secundum propassionem. Secundum passionem, quando aliquid patitur et immutatur: sed quando patitur, et non immutatur, tunc habet propassionem. Sed quandoque huiusmodi sunt in nobis, ita quod ratio immutatur, et tunc passiones sunt completae: quando autem ratio non immutatur, tunc est propassio. Sed in Christo numquam fuit ratio immutata; ideo fuit propassio, et non passio. Unde signanter dicit Evangelista coepit tristari. Item dicit Augustinus quod nos habemus tristitiam ut contractam, Christus autem ut assumptam: illud enim contrahitur quod nascendo per originem habetur, sed Christus assumpsit naturam nostram ut voluit; ideo non fuit necessitas quod passibilitatem acciperet, ut tristitiam, sed a voluntate. Item notandum quod dicit Damascenus, quia in nobis motus passionum praevenit rationem, quia aliquando est in nobis passio, et aliquando propassio; in Christo autem non fuit nisi propassio, et numquam fuit in Christo, quod motus insurgeret in inferioribus viribus animae, immo suberant totaliter inferiores vires rationi, et quando volebat, permittebat agere inferiores vires secundum quod eis erat naturale. Ideo alius Evangelista dixit quod turbavit seipsum, quia isti motus non potuissent accidisse nisi secundum quod voluit. Tunc ait illis: tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem. Notate quod dicit, usque ad mortem, per quam satisfaciam pro isto scandalo et pro aliis. Vel secundum aliam expositionem: non credatis quod in perpetuum debeat durare, quia quamdiu corpus erit passibile, et hoc est usque ad mortem, tristis est anima mea, et tunc glorificabitur.
26:38
Deinde excludit alios sustinete hic, et vigilate mecum. Et progressus pusillum procidit in faciem suam orans et dicens. Supra tetigit causam tristitiae, hic autem agit de ordine orationis Christi. Et quia ter oravit, ideo dividitur haec pars in tres partes secundum tres orationes. Et circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit orationem orantis; secundo increpat discipulorum defectum, ibi et venit ad discipulos et cetera. Et in prima primo ponit conditionem orantis; secundo tenorem orationis. Triplex autem conditio commendatur quia primo notat sollicitudinem, secundo humilitatem, tertio devotionem. Sollicitudinem, quia progressus pusillum, quia etiam ab illis quos elegerat se separavit; supra VI, 6: cum oraveris, intra in cubiculum tuum, et clauso ostio ora patrem tuum in abscondito. Sed notate quod non multum, sed pusillum, ut notaret quod non longe est ab invocantibus eum; Ps. CXLIV, 18: prope est dominus omnibus invocantibus. Item, ut viderent eum orantem, et formam acciperent. Ideo sequitur humilitas et procidit in faciem suam, unde exemplum humilitatis ostendit. Et primo propter humilitatem communem, quia humilitas necessaria est ad orationem; Eccli. XXXV, 21: oratio humiliantis se nubes penetrabit. Item propter humilitatem specialem, scilicet Petri, quia dixerat: si oportuerit me mori tecum, non te negabo. Ideo dominus procidit, ut signaret quod non debebat de sua virtute confidere; supra XI, 29: discite a me, quia mitis sum et humilis corde. Item signatur conditio pietatis, sive devotionis, cum dicit pater mi; necessarium enim est oranti ut ex devotione oret, unde dicitur pater mi, quia ipse singulariter filius, nos autem per adoptionem; Io. ult., 17: ascendo ad patrem meum et patrem vestrum; quasi aliter meum et aliter vestrum.
26:39
Consequenter tenorem orationis subiungit: si possibile est, transeat a me calix iste. Ista oratio tripliciter potest exponi et quocumque modo exponatur, duo sunt consideranda. Primo considerare debetis in communi quantum ad omnes, quia, secundum Damascenum, oratio est ascensus mentis in Deum: unde oratio est secundum mentem, vel secundum superiorem rationem; sed tamen infra Deum constitutam, supra tamen humanam naturam, vel sub divina voluntate. Quid ergo debet intelligi? Secundum quod est cum superior ratio descendit ad ista, inquantum decet, tamen quod semper subdatur rationi divinae; et hoc notatur cum dicitur verumtamen non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu; quia superior ratio sequitur voluntatem naturae, non tamen simpliciter, idest, si relata superiori, non repugnat. Unde vult dicere: volo quod impleatur quod volo si non repugnat tuae iustitiae, sed volo tuam iustitiam impleri. Et in hoc docet exemplum qualiter affectiones debemus ordinare, quia ita debemus ordinare, quod non a regula divina dissonent. Unde non est grave quod aliquis, quod grave est naturae, refugit, dum tamen ordinet ad voluntatem divinam. Item potest exponi, secundum Chrysostomum et Origenem, ita quod per calicem significetur passio Christi, de quo in Ps. CXV, 13: calicem salutaris accipiam, et cetera. Constat quod Christus habuit naturalem hominis voluntatem; hoc autem est quod mortem refugiat: ideo, ut hominem se ostendat, petit transire calicem a se; et haec est ita naturalis, quod petitionem non amovit ab eo. Item dixit si possibile est, transeat calix, idest passio: sed non absolute dico, sed si possibile. Et quia posset aliquis credere quod dubitaret an esset Deo possibile, ideo ostendit quod est possibile, quia omnia tibi possibilia sunt, Mc. XIV, 36. Verumtamen non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu, idest si congruit iustitiae tuae, volo; ideo dicit non sicut ego volo. Unde duas tangit voluntates: unam quam habebat a patre inquantum Deus; unam qua habebat cum patre. Et in hoc confunditur error multorum. Item aliam voluntatem inquantum homo: et istam voluntatem in omnibus submittebat patri; in hoc dans nobis exemplum, quod voluntatem nostram voluntati Dei submittamus; Io. VI, 38: descendi de caelo non ut faciam voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem eius qui misit me patris. Secundum Hieronymum, non petebat simpliciter sed ut iste calix transiret. Videbat se passurum a Iudaeis; volebat igitur quod transiret, idest quod ita redimeret mundum, quod non esset delictum Iudaeorum; Rom. XI, 11: delictum Iudaeorum salus est gentibus. Hilarius vero dicit sic: non rogat dominus ut non moriatur, sed rogat ut calix in alios transeat; quasi dicat: accipiam calicem cum fiducia. Rogo ut discipuli mei sine diffidentia accipiant. Sed quare dicit si possibile est? Quia hoc videtur contra naturam, quod mortem sine dolore accipiant. Unde vult dicere: ego vellem alios non pati, si possibile esset; sed fiat sicut vis, idest secundum tuam ordinationem. Et venit ad discipulos suos. Hic increpat discipulorum defectum. Et primo ponitur defectus; secundo increpatio; tertio admonitio; quarto causa admonitionis. Cum orasset, venit ad discipulos et invenit eos dormientes. Et istud habet rationem secundum litteram, quia iam pars noctis transierat, ideo somno erant gravati. Item causa erat, quia tristes erant, et tales facile subrepit somnus; Prov. XVII, 22: spiritus tristis desiccat ossa. Item signatur quod Christo ascendente pro nobis ad passionem, multi dormiere, sicut dormitaverunt omnes et dormierunt, supra XXV, 5.
26:40
Et dicit Petro: sic non potuistis una hora vigilare mecum? Sed quare magis dixit Petro? Ratio est quia Petrus magis se iactaverat quod assisteret ei in necessitatibus: ideo iam erat futurum praesagium casus sui. Non potuistis una hora vigilare mecum? Et quare est ratio quod omnibus postea dixit? Quia omnes promiserant cum Petro; unde dictum est supra: similiter autem et omnes dixerunt.
26:41
Vigilate et orate, ut non intretis in tentationem. In ista parte subiungitur admonitio. Vos de vobis confiditis; sed vos debetis refugere ad suffragia orationis, unde orate ne intretis in tentationem. Unde supra c. VI, 13 in oratione communi docet hoc petere: et ne nos inducas in tentationem. Et praemittit vigilantiam ad praeparationem; Eccli. XVIII, 23: ante orationem praepara animam tuam, idest necessaria est prudentia; supra X, 16: estote prudentes sicut serpentes. Spiritus quidem promptus est, caro autem infirma; quasi dicat: quod promittis, ex promptitudine est spiritus; sed tamen non est necessaria oratio propter spiritum, sed propter carnem, quae infirma est; ideo necessaria est vigilantia. Simile est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. VIII, 10: corpus quidem mortuum est propter peccatum, sed spiritus vivit propter iustificationem. Sed notandum quod omnium caro est infirma, sed non omnium spiritus est promptus. In malis siquidem sicut caro est infirma, ita et spiritus: e contrario in bonis, quia spiritum habent promptum, et ideo in resurrectione spiritus redit corpus promptum. Vel potest esse duplex infirmitas. Una mala quae inclinat ad peccatum, secundum quod dicit apostolus ad Rom. VII, 18: non habitat in carne mea bonum. Alia infirmitas bona, secundum quod carnalis deficit secundum promptitudinem, secundum quod dicitur in Cant. V, 8: nunciate dilecto, quia amore langueo. Et ex ista causa debet homo vigilare, sicut dicit Origenes, sicut qui habet magnum thesaurum, diligenter vigilat ut illud custodiat. Iterum secundo abiit, et oravit. Hic secundo orat. Secundum Chrysostomum, ad hoc secundo orat ut firmius veritatem humanae naturae ostendat: unde in Gen. XLI, v. 32: quod secundo vidisti, firmitatis indicium est.
26:42
Quod autem dicit si non potest hic calix transire, nisi bibam illum, fiat voluntas tua, potest tripliciter exponi. Primo sic. Supra sub conditione petierat, hic autem quia fuit certificatus quod non poterat esse quin illum biberet, ideo petit ut fiat voluntas eius; quasi dicat: si non potest esse quin transiturus sim ad gloriam immortalitatis, quia mortalitas non erat contracta, sed assumpta: ideo sive pateretur, sive non, erat transiturus ad gloriam immortalitatis. Sed non poterat transire a se et a membris; unde si non biberet, non transiret a membris. Vult ergo dicere: si non potest transire a me, et a membris, fiat voluntas tua; Ps. XXXIX, 9: ut facerem voluntatem tuam, Deus meus, volui. Secundo exponit sic Hieronymus: si non potest fieri quod veritas transeat ad gentes, nisi Iudaei excedant, fiat voluntas tua: eorum enim delicto salus gentibus facta est. Hilarius sic exponit: si non potest fieri quod alii sancti bibant calicem passionis nisi exemplo meo, fiat voluntas tua; quia alii sancti ex passione Christi exemplum ceperunt. Vult ergo dicere: si non potest transire a me in discipulos, nisi ego bibam, ut fortiores efficiantur ad bibendum, fiat voluntas tua.
26:43
Consequenter ponitur secunda dormitio discipulorum: et venit iterum, et invenit eos dormientes: erat enim oculi eorum gravati, somno, idest propter somnum, et propter tristitiam; Ps. XXX, 10: turbatus est in ira oculus meus. Et relictis illis, iterum abiit, et oravit tertio. Hic de tertia agit oratione: et duo facit. Primo ponit ordinem; secundo concessionem somni, ibi tunc venit ad discipulos et cetera.
26:44
Dicit et relictis illis, iterum abiit et oravit tertio, eumdem sermonem dicens. Sed quid signat quod ter oravit? Ter oravit ut nos a malis praesentibus, praeteritis et futuris liberaret. Item ut orationem nostram doceret ad patrem, et filium, et spiritum sanctum dirigendam; unde in orationibus Ecclesiae semper dicitur: gloria patri, et filio, et spiritui sancto. Item ut trina oratione trinam Petri negationem liberaret; Lc. XXII, 32: ego pro te rogavi, Petre, ut non deficiat fides tua. Item ter oravit contra tres timores. Est enim timor contra concupiscentiam; est enim triplex concupiscentia, curiositatis, superbiae et carnis, et ista triplex tangitur I Io. c. II, 16: omne quod est in mundo, aut est concupiscentia carnis, aut concupiscentia oculorum, aut superbia vitae. Isti triplici concupiscentiae triplex timor respondet, scilicet: concupiscentiae carnis, timor doloris; concupiscentiae oculorum, timor paupertatis; concupiscentiae superbiae, timor opprobrii et ignominiae. Et haec passus est Christus, non quia indigeret, sed pro nobis. Tunc venit ad discipulos suos, et dixit illis. Et primo indulget somno; secundo excitat, ibi surgite, eamus. Primo dat licentiam; secundo causam assignat, ibi ecce appropinquabit hora et filius hominis tradetur. Christus prima vice invenit eos dormientes et increpavit eos; secundo invenit eos dormientes, et tacuit; tertio invenit eos dormientes, et somnum concessit. Quae est ratio? Ratio litteralis est quia praelatis datur forma correctionis; quia quando venit ad aliquem, et invenit dormientem, nescit si ex negligentia ei accidit, vel ex infirmitate. Et potest indulgere. Item quia post resurrectionem invenit dormientes, et eis exprobravit; Lc. XXIV, v. 25: o stulti et tardi corde ad credendum. Item visitavit post acceptum spiritum sanctum, et tunc nihil dixit, quia adhuc erant infirmi; quia adhuc legalia observabant, ut dicitur de Petro ad Gal. II, 11. Sed ultimo in suo adventu visitabit, et dimittet eos in quiete sancta et pacifica; Ps. IV, 9: in pace in idipsum dormiam et requiescam. Secundum Augustinum, concedit eis, et supra negavit: sed alius est hic somnus, et supra. Quia est somnus aggravationis, et de hoc loquitur supra, unde dicitur v. 43: erant oculi eorum gravati, somno, et hoc est increpandum. Hic autem somnus est somnus quietis; et iste permittitur. Item est somnus propter turbationem; et hic prohibetur. De isto dicitur ad Ephes. V, 14: surge qui dormis, et exurge a mortuis. Aliquando enim est somnus propter quietem corporis, sed tamen anima vigilat: ego dormio, et cor meum vigilat, Cant. V, 2. Item, quia laboraturi erant, ideo oportebat quod quiescerent. Tunc causa assignat ecce appropinquavit hora. Non hoc habuit ex aliqua necessitate facere, sed ex ordinatione divina; Io. VII, 30: quaerebant eum, et non poterant manus iniicere in eum, quia nondum venerat hora eius. Sed haec hora venerat; Io. XIII, 1: sciens Iesus quia venit hora eius, ut transeat ex hoc mundo ad patrem. Sed possent dicere: si hora est ex ordinatione divina, ergo non peccant occidentes eum.
26:45
Ideo cum hoc ponit peccatum et filius hominis tradetur in manus peccatorum, idest non faciunt hoc sic ex ordinatione divina, sed ex impletione voluntatis suae. Ier. XII, v. 7: dedi dilectam animam meam in manibus inimicorum eius. Tunc ponit excitationem. Et primo ponit eam; secundo necessitatem, ibi, ecce. In hoc autem quod dicit surgite, promptitudinem suam ostendit; unde Io. XVIII, 3 dicitur quod occurrit eis. Et quare?
26:46
Ecce appropinquavit qui me tradet. Prope erat, non quod oculo corporali videret, sed ipso spiritu, oculo scilicet divinitatis. Sed quomodo dixit eis surgite, cum licentiasset eos dormire? Solvit Augustinus, quia improperando dixerat; quasi dicat: dormiatis quantum volueritis, ecce appropinquavit hora et cetera. Et dicit Augustinus quod istud sufficeret, nisi melius occurreret; ideo dicit aliter quod isti dormierunt aliquantulum, et cum dormissent dixit surgite, eamus.
26:47
Supra posita sunt praeparatoria ad passionem, scilicet institutio sacramenti et oratio Christi; hic autem ponit passionem quantum ad ea quae a Iudaeis sunt illata. Et primo ostendit quomodo capitur; secundo quomodo examinatur; tertio quomodo condemnatur. Secunda ibi principes etc.; tertia ibi tunc principes sacerdotum et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo agit de proditione; secundo de captione; tertio quomodo ductus est post captionem. Secunda ibi tunc accesserunt; tertia ibi at illi tenentes eum, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo describit personam proditoris; secundo signum proditionis; tertio complementum. Secunda ibi qui autem tradidit etc., tertia ibi et confestim et cetera. Describit proditorem ex tribus. Primo ex nomine; secundo ex dignitate; tertio ex societate. Ex nomine adhuc eo loquente, ecce Iudas et cetera. Loquente scilicet verba haec, quibus eis fiduciam adhibebat, ecce Iudas, qui dicitur confitens. Duo fuerunt Iudae, quorum unus est malus, alter bonus, ad signandum quod quidam confitentes in Ecclesia futuri erant boni, Rom. X, 10: ore autem confessio fit ad salutem, quidam futuri mali; ad Tit. I, 16: confitentur se nosse Deum, factis autem negant. Consequenter describitur ex dignitate unus ex duodecim, quia licet in tanta esset dignitate constitutus, in tantum tamen scelus cecidit. In quo datur exemplum quod nullus de statu suo debet confidere. Apostolus I Cor. X, 12: qui stat, videat ne cadat; Io. VI, 71: nonne vos duodecim elegi, et unus ex vobis Diabolus est? Et quare eligit eum, cum sciret ipsum futurum malum? Ratio una est, ut daret exemplum praelatis, ut non desolarentur. Item describitur ex societate et cum eo venit turba multa et cetera. Sicut habuit crudelem animum, ita crudelem societatem, quia omne animal sibi simile appetit. Et hoc describitur, quia multa. In hoc notatur quod erant stulti, stulti enim sunt in multitudine; Eccle. I, 15: stultorum infinitus est numerus. Et ipsi bene stulti erant, quia sapientiae contradicebant. Item erant armati, quia cum gladiis et fustibus. Et quae est ratio? Origenes dicit quod multi credebant in eum, et ideo timebant ne eum turba ab eis raperet. Item, quia dicebant, supra XII, quod in Beelzebub Daemonia eiiciebat; ideo ut nulla potestas tueretur eum, venerunt armati. Item describitur ab auctoritate, quia missi erant a principibus sacerdotum et senioribus populi; unde instructi erant eorum auctoritate, ita ut nullus eis contradiceret, ut impletum sit quod dicitur in Ps. II, 2: astiterunt reges terrae, et principes convenerunt in unum adversus dominum, et adversus Christum eius. Consequenter agitur de signo proditionis qui autem tradidit eum, dedit eis signum, dicens et cetera. Sed hic est quaestio. Cum esset notus in Iudaea, quare petebant signum? Ratio duplex potest esse. Una, quia audierat Iudas quod Christus transfiguratus erat in monte, et credebat hoc esse factum arte magica; ideo praevenire voluit per osculi signum, antequam posset se transfigurare. Hanc expositionem ponit Hieronymus. Origenes autem dicit sic, quia sicut manna in deserto unicuique sapiebat id de quo opinabatur, sic Christus apparebat unicuique secundum quod habebat opinionem de ipso; ideo fuit necessarium quod signum daret.
26:48
Dedit mirabile signum, quia quemcumque osculatus fuero, ipse est, tenete eum. Signum amicitiae fecit signum proditionis; Prov. XXVII, 6: meliora sunt vulnera diligentis, quam fraudulenta oscula inimici.
26:49
Et confestim accedens ad Iesum dixit: ave, Rabbi, et osculatus est eum. Hic ponitur complementum proditionis. Et primo signa demonstravit; secundo coepit agere. Et ostendit primo dicto, cum dicit ave, Rabbi; secundo facto, et osculatus est eum. Simile habetur II Reg. X, 1, quod Ioab tenuit mentum Amasae, et interfecit eum. Sed quare non venit statim ad eum, sed primo salutavit? Una ratio est propter reverentiam magistri. Item primo salutavit eum, quia timebat ne priusquam eum manifestaret, se primo posset transfigurare.
26:50
Dixitque illi Iesus: amice, ad quid venisti? Et potest illico legi interrogative, vel remissive. Si interrogative, tunc potest legi quod per opprobrium dictum est, ac si dicat: tu ostendis amicitiam per osculum, et venisti perdere me? Secundum illud Ps. XXVII, 3: loquuntur pacem in ore suo, mala autem in cordibus eorum. Et dixit amice. Quoties amicum aliquem vocat, improperando loquitur. Unde dictum est supra XXII, 12: amice, quomodo huc intrasti, non habens vestem nuptialem? Et alibi c. XX, v. 13: amice, non facio tibi iniuriam et cetera. I Io. IV, 19: non enim prius dileximus eum, sed ipse prior dilexit nos. Vel potest legi remissive, et non est verbum increpatorium, sed permissivum amice, ad quid venisti, secundum illud Io. XIII, v. 27: quod facis, fac citius. Et vocat eum amicum quantum est de se, quia cum his qui oderunt pacem, eram pacificus, Ps. CXIX, v. 7. Et licet sciret eum osculaturum esse, tamen occurrit ei. At illi tenentes manus iniecerunt in Iesum. Nunc agitur de captione. Et primo ponitur severitas captionis; secundo testimonium tertio reprehensio discipuli. Circa primum tria facit. Quia primo dicit quomodo ministri eum capiunt; secundo quomodo quidam discipulus impedire volebat; tertio quod Christus reprehendit eum. Dicit ergo at illi tenentes iniecerunt manus in Iesum. Is. I, 15: manus vestrae sanguine plenae sunt. Ipse enim tradidit se; Ier. XII, 7: dedi dilectam animam meam in manibus inimicorum eius. Tunc ponitur quomodo unus discipulus invasit invadentes et ecce unus ex his qui erant cum Iesu, extendens manum exemit gladium suum. Quis fuit iste? Dicendum quod Petrus. Unde sicut supra XVI, v. 22, voluit passionem Christi impedire, sic et hic. Unde habuit occasionem? Ex eo quod habetur Lc. XXII, 36, ubi dominus praecepit quod emant gladios, et hoc intelligentes crediderunt quod gladii essent necessarii; unde habebant cultellum ad incidendum agnum. Ideo Petrus habuit unum.
26:51
Percutiens servum principis sacerdotum, amputavit ei auriculam. Non credatis quod habuit tempus deliberationis quod auriculam amputaret; sed proiecit ictum, et cum vellet percutere eum ad mortem, accidit quod auriculam amputavit. Nomen istius erat Malchus, qui interpretabatur rex. Et signat abscissionem regni a populo Iudaico, et tamen factus est servus principum sacerdotum, idest Romanorum: huic Petrus abscidit auriculam. Per auriculam auditus signatur; et hic est duplex, scilicet dexter, per quem signatur vita aeterna; sinister, per quem temporalis. Amputavit auriculam eius, quia a populo Iudaeorum doctrinam spiritualium amputavit; et hoc factum fuit occasionaliter, quod gentes receperint dexteram, quia Petrus primo praedicavit gentilibus; et ita amputavit dexteram, trahendo gentiles ad fidem. Tunc ait illi Iesus: converte gladium tuum in locum suum. Hic ponitur reprehensio. Et primo reprehendit Petrum; secundo ministros in illa hora dixit Iesus turbis et cetera. Et primo ponit admonitionem, secundo rationem admonitionis assignat omnes enim qui acceperint gladium, gladio peribunt. Dicitur tunc ait illi Iesus. Converte gladium tuum in locum suum. Venerat ut voluntarie pateretur, ideo nolebat defendi. Et in hoc dabat exemplum ut martyres patientes pro Christo non defenderent se. Deinde rationem assignat: et primo ex poena; secundo ex voluntate Christi; tertio ex auctoritate. Secunda ibi an putas quia non possum rogare patrem meum etc.; tertia ibi quomodo ergo implebuntur Scripturae?
26:52
Primo mitigat ex terrore poenae dicens omnes qui acceperint gladium, gladio peribunt. Sed movet quaestionem Augustinus, quia non omnes qui gladio feriunt, gladio pereunt, sed aliquando febre; ideo potest exponi tripliciter, secundum quod triplex est gladius: materialis, de quo in Ps. XXXVI, 14: gladium evaginaverunt peccatores. Item divinae sententiae, de quo Ier. XIX, 7: subvertam eos gladio. Item divini verbi; Eph. VI, 17: et gladium spiritus accipite, quod est verbum Dei. Potest ergo intelligi de omnibus istis. De gladio materiali, quia qui gladio perimit, gladio peribit, idest suo, non alieno. Unde Ps. XXXVI, 15: gladius eorum intret in corda ipsorum. Item potest exponi de gladio condemnationis, de quo habetur Gen. III, v. 24, quod dominus gladium versatilem posuit ante Paradisum. Unde qui alios condemnant, divina sententia condemnabuntur. Vel aliqui propria auctoritate accipiunt quod non habent ab alio, et tales gladio pereunt. An putas quod non possum rogare patrem meum et cetera. Hic assignat rationem ad mitigandum animum Petri, dans intelligere quod voluntarie patiebatur, et quod poterat effugere.
26:53
Et quia videbat eum praesumentem, ideo dicit non possum rogare patrem meum? Et non dicit, non possum vocare, vel adducere, sed rogare: dicit enim verba hominis, quia orare hominis est. Et exhibebit mihi modo plusquam duodecim legiones Angelorum? Et istud dictum est secundum infirmitatem animi Petri. Ita Petrus se habebat, quod deberet eum defendere, et indigeret auxilio hominum; ideo vult dicere quod si auxilio hominum posset defendi, multo magis Angelorum. Sed non erat necesse, quia magis Angeli sustentantur per ipsum. Sed quid est quod dicit duodecim legiones Angelorum? Dicendum quod societas apud Graecos dicitur phalanga, apud Romanos legio, et habebat sex millia hominum; unde duodecim legiones sunt septuagintaduo millia, et tot sunt linguae hominum, sicut habetur ex Gen. XI. Unde vult dicere: si omnes homines insurgerent contra me, posset dominus mittere contra quamlibet linguam mille Angelos: et si unus Angelus destruxit tot millia, ut patet Is. XXXVII, multo magis mille poterunt occidere unam linguam; Iob XXV, 3: numquid est numerus militum eius? Et Dan. VII, 10: millia millium ministrabant ei, et decies millies centena millia assistebant ei. Remigius dicit sic: quicumque faciunt voluntatem Dei, possunt dici Angeli, idest nuntii; Is. XVIII, 2: ite, Angeli veloces ad gentem convulsam et dilaceratam. Quicumque enim obsequuntur Deo, Angeli dicuntur; Ps. CIII, 4: qui fecit Angelos suos spiritus, et ministros suos ignem urentem. Potest ergo per legionem intelligi legio Romanorum. Unde dominus posset adducere et provocare legiones Romanorum ad destruendos Iudaeos, sicut post sub Tito et Vespasiano factum fuit. Et isto loco destruxerunt quidam opinionem illorum, qui dicebant quod non poterat dominus facere nisi quod facit; quia si poterat legiones convocare, quas non convocavit, constat quod potest facere multa quae non facit.
26:54
Quomodo ergo implebuntur Scripturae? Hic ponitur tertia ratio, quare non debeat impedire: quia ita Scripturae dixerunt; et ideo sic oportet fieri. Et non dicit quae Scripturae, quia omnes prophetae dixerunt vel occulte, vel manifeste. Unde Lc. c. ult., 26: nonne oportuit Christum pati, et ita intrare in gloriam suam? In illa hora dixit Iesus turbis. In parte ista redarguit ministros: et duo facit.
26:55
Primo commemorat factum; secundo irrationabilitatem facti, cum dicit quasi ad latronem existis cum gladiis et fustibus comprehendere me. Iob XVI, 10: infremuit contra me dentibus, quia exierunt ac si esset latro; sed ipsi magis veniebant ut latrones. Latro latet ut non capiatur; sed Christus offert se in manifesto. Et latrones si nocere volunt, non nocent in publico; sed Christus se offerebat. Unde dicit quotidie apud vos eram docens in templo, et non me tenuistis; ideo venistis ut latrones. Ut enim daret opportunitatem, exivit civitatem. Quotidie apud vos eram docens in templo. Simile habetur Io. XVIII, 20: in occulto locutus sum nihil. Et dicit docens in templo. Haec erat consuetudo sua semper ut doceret in templo. Et non me tenuistis. Unde patet quod sicut latrones venistis.
26:56
Consequenter ponitur testimonium hoc autem totum factum est, ut implerentur Scripturae prophetarum. Et non dicit quorum, quia quasi in omnibus habetur; Ps. XXI, 17: foderunt manus meas et pedes meos, et dinumeraverunt omnia ossa mea. Et Is. LIII, 3: reputavimus eum novissimum virorum, virum dolorum. Et dicit ut implerentur. Ly ut potest teneri causative, et sic non tenetur hic: vel consecutive, et sic accipitur hic. Quia enim prophetae dixerunt, non accidit; sed ideo praedixerunt, quia accidere debebat. Unde sensus est ut adimpleretur, idest hoc facto adimpletum est quod per prophetas praedictum erat. Tunc discipuli omnes, relicto eo, fugerunt; ita quod compleretur quod dicitur in Ps. XXXVII, 12: dereliquerunt me amici mei et proximi mei. Sed quare non a principio dereliquerunt? Respondet Hieronymus: quia scriptum est Io. VII, 30, quod quaerebant eum, et nemo misit in eum manum, quia nondum venerat hora eius. Unde a principio credebant quod se liberare posset, et se defenderet; sed cum viderunt quod captus esset, et quod non vellet se defendere, fugerunt et dereliquerunt eum.
26:58
Supra actum est de captione Christi, nunc agitur quo sit ductus; et describitur locus et societas convenientium ad locum. Dicit ergo at illi, scilicet qui tenuerunt eum, duxerunt eum ad Caipham. Iste Caiphas erat pontifex anni illius secundum Hieronymum, secundum quod habetur Io. XI, v. 49: cum autem esset pontifex anni illius. Iam enim sacerdotium non secundum legis praeceptum agebatur. Mandaverat dominus quod Aaron et filii eius essent sacerdotes iure haereditario, ita quod mortuo uno remaneret alter sacerdos. Sed post, ambitione crescente, non potuerunt pati, sed subiecta Iudaea Romanis, iste Caiphas emerat sacerdotium a Iudaeis, emerat a Pilato; ideo iniquus erat princeps. Et non mirum si iniquus iudex, sive princeps, iniquum facit iudicium. Et hoc convenit mysterio; quia sicut passio Christi erat oblatio veri sacrificii, sic et locus congruere debebat, ut Christus, qui est sacerdos in aeternum, in domo pontificis offerretur. Caiphas investigator interpretatur, et potest referri ad malitiam, qua Christum condemnavit. Sed hic est quaestio, quia Io. c. XVIII, 13 dicitur quod primo ductus est ad Annam. Et hoc intelligendum est esse verum: convenerant enim ad domum Annae, et ibi congregati erant; et in hoc apparet malitia eorum, quia cum intenti esse deberent solemnitati, erant intenti malitiae, ita quod bene conveniebat eis quod dicitur Is. I, 14: solemnitates vestras odivit anima mea. Unde completum est quod dictum est Ps. II, 2: convenerunt adversus Deum, et adversus Christum eius. Petrus autem sequebatur eum a longe. Actum est de loco, hic agitur de Petro perveniente. Primo ducitur, deinde Petrus pervenit. Et tria facit: quia primo tangit modum; secundo quomodo sequens pervenerit. Quod pervenerit, hoc erat fervoris; quod a longe, hoc erat timoris; unde significabatur quod in fide Petri fundata Ecclesia secutura erat Christum, tamen a longe; quia Christus passus est pro Ecclesia, non pro se; Petrus autem et Ecclesia passa est pro se. Item tangitur locus, quia usque in atrium principis sacerdotum: non enim ausus est intrare domum, ne videretur esse de discipulis Iesu. Quomodo autem intravit, tacet Matthaeus, sed narrat Ioannes XVIII, 15, quia discipulus quidam notus erat pontifici, et introduxit Petrum. Sequitur societas et ingressus intro sedebat cum ministris, ut videret finem; et hoc faciebat vel ex curiositate, vel ex pietate. Et haec tria iam erant quaedam dispositiva ad casum Petri: quod a longe sequebatur, hoc disponebat, quia significabat quod non erat firmus; qui enim firmus est, debet appropinquare. Unde dicitur Iac. IV, 8: appropinquate Deo, et appropinquabit vobis. In domo enim est sedes Dei et agni, ut habetur Apoc. ult., 3. In domo enim erat perfecta caritas. Unde Petrus non appropinquavit ad caritatem Christi. Item non pervenerat ad malitiam Iudaeorum, ideo tepidus erat; ideo accidit ei id quod dicitur in Apoc. III, 16: quia tepidus es, eiiciam te de ore meo. Item quia famuli mali. Eccli. X, 2: secundum iudicem populi, sic et minister eius. Et ideo non fuit mirum si cecidit, quia in mala societate mansit. Quare Ps. XVII, 16: cum sancto sanctus eris. Tunc sequitur examinatio Christi. Et primo per testes; secundo per propriam confessionem, ibi et surgens princeps sacerdotum ait illi et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo designatur perversum studium principum; secundo defectum; tertio falsum testimonium.
26:59
Dicit ergo principes autem sacerdotum quaerebant falsum testimonium contra Iesum, ut eum morti traderent. Sed est quaestio, quare non sine testimonio eum morti tradebant. Una causa est, quia hypocritae quaerunt quod videtur esse bonum, sed veritatem non quaerunt: sic isti quaerebant ut viderentur non a se facere, unde contra legem faciebant; Ex. XX, 16: non loquaris contra proximum tuum falsum testimonium. Si non licet loqui, nec quaerere. Alia ratio erat, quia non habebant auctoritatem occidendi, et ideo quaerebant ut ipsum tradere possent principi. Et non invenerunt, cum tamen multi falsi testes accessissent. Ecce defectus, in quo designatur innocentia Christi, ut posset dicere: ego in innocentia mea ingressus sum. Semper enim insidiati sunt Christo, sed non invenerunt aliquid mali. Unde implevit illud quod habetur I Petr. II, v. 15: benefacientes obmutescere faciatis imprudentium hominum ignorantiam.
26:60
Tunc sequitur falsum testimonium novissime autem venerunt duo falsi testes, et dixerunt. Sed hic est quaestio, quare dicantur falsi testes: quia manifestum est Christum dixisse, Io. II, 19. Secundum Hieronymum, non solum falsus dicitur qui dicit quod nescit, sed qui dictum ad falsum refert intellectum.
26:61
Hic dixit: possum destruere templum Dei, et post triduum reaedificare illud. Sed non intelligebat de templo materiali, sed de templo corporis sui. Item non solum est falsum testimonium quoad sensum, sed quoad vocem, quia dixerat: solvite templum hoc; et non dixit: possum solvere templum Dei; quasi dicat: vos Iudaei solvite templum, idest Christum, et post triduum resuscitabo illud. Non dixit: et post triduum reaedificabo; quia reaedificare magis ad materiale templum pertinet, sed excitare magis ad corpus. Unde falsi testes erant tam ratione vocis, quam ratione significationis. Item est quaestio. Quare non accusant eum de violatione sabbati? Respondet Chrysostomus quod quia saepe accusaverunt eum de hoc, et semper excusaverat se, et excusationem confirmaverat miraculis; ideo cogitabant quod non valeret eis. Item iudex non erat Iudaeus, ideo sciebant quod non reciperet hanc accusationem. Tunc sequitur examinatio per propriam confessionem. Et primo ponitur interrogatio quantum ad testificationem; secundo quoad principale. Secunda ibi et princeps sacerdotum ait illi et cetera.
26:62
Dicit ergo surgens princeps sacerdotum ait illi: nihil respondes ad ea quae isti adversum te testificantur? Quod surrexit, fuit ex impatientia et furore, audiens quod Christus non convincebatur: et quod dicit, nihil respondes etc., non dicit ut excusaret eum, sed ut caperet eum in sermone; Is. XXXII, v. 6: stultus fatua loquetur, et cor eius faciet iniquitatem. Iesus autem tacebat. Sed quare tacebat? Propter tria. Ut doceret nos cautelam: sciebat enim quod quicquid ille diceret, totum ad calumniam referrent; et in tali casu coram insidiatoribus est tacendum; Ps. XXXVIII, 2: posui ori custodiam, cum consisteret peccator adversum me. Alia ratio erat, quia tunc non erat tempus docendi, sed patientiam habendi: et ita completum est quod dicitur Is. c. LIII, 7: quasi agnus coram tondente se obmutescet, et non aperit os suum. Tertia ratio est ut doceret nos constantiam, quando aliquis de aliquo accusatur iniuste; Is. LI, 7: opprobrium hominum ne metuatis. Tunc sequitur quaestio de principali princeps autem sacerdotum ait illi: adiuro te per Deum vivum, ut dicas mihi, si tu es Christus filius Dei. Et primo ponitur inquisitio; secundo domini responsio. Videns princeps quod non posset capere, adiuravit eum: et hoc ut in sermone caperet. Et hoc habetur Io. X, 24: usquequo animam nostram tollis?
26:63
Si tu es Christus, dic nobis palam. Apud enim Iudaeos pro magno habebatur adiurare: adiurare enim est ad iuramentum cogere. Sicut enim Christiani non debent iurare nisi ex necessitate, sic nec debent uti adiuratione, sed loco adiurationis debent uti oratione.
26:64
Tunc sequitur responsio dixit illi Iesus: tu dixisti. Notate quod cum aliquid fuit contra eum, tacuit; sed statim cum adiurata fuit potestas patris, respondet. Unde gloriam patris semper quaesivit; Io. VIII, 50: ego gloriam meam non quaero. Et circa hoc primo ponit responsionem; secundo manifestationem. Dicit ergo dixit illi Iesus: tu dixisti, potest exponi ut Christus non asserat, sed relinquat in dubio; supra VII, 6: nolite sanctum dare canibus. Vel potest assertive legi: tu dixisti, idest verum est; et patet, quia dicitur in Mc. XIV, 62: ego sum. Tunc evidentiam ostendit verumtamen dico vobis: amodo videbitis filium hominis sedentem a dextris virtutis Dei. Et vult evidenter ostendere quod ipse sit filius Dei, secundum duas auctoritates. Una est in Ps. CIX, 1: dixit dominus domino meo: sede a dextris meis. Et per hanc ostenderat supra XXII, 42-46 quod Christus erat filius Dei. Alia est Daniel VII, 7: aspiciebam in visione noctis; et ecce cum nubibus caeli quasi filius hominis veniebat et cetera. Ita, dico, dicit, scilicet tu dixisti; sed non nosti veritatem. Attende, quia veritas manifestabitur, quia videbitis filium hominis sedentem a dextris virtutis Dei. Quia dixit sedentem a dextris, exponit Chrysostomus quod sessio a dextris signat dignitatem regiam; Is. IX, 7: super solium David, et super regnum eius sedebit. Vel sedere a dextris est esse in plena beatitudine virtutis, vel in bonis potioribus: dextera enim nobilior pars est; ideo maiorem dignitatem significat, non quia maiorem habeat potestatem, sed aequalem; infra ult., v. 18: data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo et in terra. Item de eius potestate dicit: venientem in nubibus caeli. Sed quid est quod dicit amodo videbitis? et cetera. Notandum quod id quod dicit in nubibus, potest referri ad adventum ultimum, vel quotidianum. Adventus ultimus erit in nube; Act. I, 11: quemadmodum vidistis eum euntem in caelum; et supra XXIV dicitur quod veniet in nubibus. Alio modo potest exponi de adventu quotidiano, de quo Iob c. IX, 11: si venerit ad me, non videbo eum. Et iste adventus est in nubibus, idest in apostolis et sacris doctoribus. De istis dicitur Is. c. LX, 8: qui sunt isti, qui ut nubes volant? Isti dicuntur nubes, quia in altum ascendunt. Item nubes foecundae sunt. Primum pertinet ad altitudinem vitae, secundum ad foecunditatem doctrinae. Et sunt nubes caeli, idest caelestes, quia portaverunt imaginem caelestem. Sed quid est amodo videbitis? Idest statim post passionem aliquos convertit ad fidem, alios per operum evidentiam. Unde aliqui conversi sunt propter eorum fidem, quidam propter bonam operationem. Item si referatur ad ultimum adventum, dicit Origenes: totum tempus mundi comparatum ad aeternitatem nihil est, sicut unum momentum. Ps. LXXXIX, 4: mille anni ante oculos tuos sicut dies hesterna, quae praeteriit. Ideo dicit amodo, quia nihil est tempus usque ad iudicium respectu aeternitatis. Verumtamen postquam a me recideritis, non restat nisi quod manifeste me cognoscetis, quia veniam in nubibus caeli. Et tunc cognoscetis me esse filium hominis. Similis modus loquendi habetur supra c. XXIII, 39: non me videbitis amodo, donec dicatis: benedictus qui venit in nomine domini.
26:65
Tunc princeps sacerdotum scidit vestimenta tua. Hic ponitur condemnatio. Et primo ponitur quomodo condemnatur; secundo quomodo a discipulo negatur. Et primo agit de condemnatione; secundo de delusione. Circa primum duo facit. Quia primo princeps eum condemnat; secundo exquirit sententiam. Condemnans autem ostendit culpam et facto, et verbo: facto, quia scidit vestimenta sua. Eodem furore scidit vestimenta sua, quo paulo ante surrexit de sede sua: consuetum enim erat quod qui audiebant blasphemiam scindebant vestimenta sua in signum quod non poterant audire. Verum quod haec duo fecit, aliquid significabatur: quod surrexit de solio, ostendebat quod amitteret sacerdotium; et quod scidit vestimenta sua, significabat quod transferri debebat; ad Hebr. VII, 12: translato sacerdotio, necesse est quod translatio legis fiat. Vestis Christi non fuit scissa; Io. XIX, 24: non dividamus eam, sed sortiamur de illa, cuius sit. Unde significabat abolitionem. Et hoc signatur I Reg. XV, 28: scidit dominus regnum Israel a te hodie. Sic scissum est a Iudaeis, et datum est membris Christi. Tunc imponit culpam blasphemavit, quia hoc dixerat, reputabat eum blasphemum; unde Io. X, 33: de bono opere non lapidamus te, sed de blasphemia, quia homo cum sis, filium Dei te facis; et tali debebatur mors. Tunc manifestat culpam quid adhuc indigemus testibus? Tunc exquirit sententiam quid vobis videtur?
26:66
At illi respondentes dixerunt: reus est mortis, secundum iudicium legis. Et hoc esset verum, si esset blasphemus; sed non erat, ideo male iudicant, quia auctorem vitae morti condemnant; I Cor. XV, 22: sicut enim mors per Adam in omnes homines, sic et vita per Iesum. Tunc expuerunt in faciem eius et cetera. Post condemnationem Christi agitur de illusione. Et satis convenienter, quia Christus peccata nostra tulit, ut Is. LXII. Homo autem per peccatum in mortem est traditus, quando dictum est ei, Gen. II, 17: quacumque hora comederitis, morte moriemini. Item proprium honorem amisit, quia homo cum in honore esset, non intellexit, comparatus est iumentis insipientibus, Ps. XLVIII, 13. Et ideo Christus redemptor mortem et opprobria primo facto sustinuit; secundo verbo, ibi prophetiza nobis, Christe. In prima conspuitur, et colaphis caeditur; in secunda in facie percutitur.
26:67
Quantum ad primum dicitur tunc expuerunt in faciem eius, et colaphis eum ceciderunt; secundum quod habetur ex verbis, istud fiebat in signum mandati Dei contempti, unde habetur Deut. XXV, 5 ss. si aliquis nolebat accipere uxorem fratris, quod conspuebant in faciem suam. Item propter contemptum mandati paterni: sic de Maria sorore Moysi. Unde expuebant in faciem eius, quia blasphemum reputabant; Is. c. l, 6: faciem meam non averti ab increpantibus et conspuentibus in me. Item colaphis caedebant, ad modum ebrii vel stulti; Is. c. LIII, 3: vidimus eum novissimum virorum, idest ita despectus videbatur ac si esset novissimus omnium virorum. Alii autem palmas in faciem dederunt, in irreverentiam; Thren. III, v. 30: dabit percutienti se maxillam. Mystice, secundum Augustinum, adhuc hoc aliqui faciunt: quia spuere in faciem nihil aliud est quam contemnere praesentiam gratiae Christi; ad Hebr. X, 29: quanto magis putatis maiora mereri supplicia, qui filium Dei conculcaverit, et sanguinem testamenti pollutum duxerit, in quo sanctificatus est, et spiritui gratiae contumeliam fecerit? Sed proprie colaphizat, qui caput manui supponit: et tales sunt qui magis dignitatem suam inquirunt, quam Christi honorem. De talibus dicitur quod dilexerunt homines magis tenebras quam lucem. Illi autem qui faciem percutiunt, sunt illi qui quodammodo praesentiam eius demoliri contendunt, ut sunt Iudaei. De his Is. XXX, 11: cesset a facie nostra sanctus Israel.
26:68
Tunc improperia ingerunt verbo prophetiza nobis, Christe: quis est qui te percussit? Et hoc dicebant illudendo, quia nullus eorum pro propheta eum habebat; et non erat necessarium: infamia enim eorum manifesta erat. Unde hoc noluit dicere; Iob XVI, v. 11: et exprobrantes percusserunt maxillam meam. Petrus autem sedebat foris. Hic agitur de negatione Petri. Lucas XXII, 55 autem alio ordine refert, quia primo ponit negationem Petri, quam illusionem Christi; Matthaeus autem e contrario. Et non est contrarietas, quia dum illuderetur, simul factum est; ideo non refert si ante vel post ponatur. Et notandum quod cum ducebatur, non negat; sed quando illuditur, negat, ad significandum quod quidam magis timent opprobria quam verbera, contra illud Is. LI, 7: nolite timere opprobria hominum et blasphemias eorum nolite metuere. Et circa hoc primo ponitur negatio; secundo poenitentia Petri et continuo gallus cantavit; et recordatus est Petrus verbi Iesu. Prima dividitur in tres, secundum tres negationes. Secunda ibi exeunte autem illo ianuam etc.; tertia ibi et post pusillum accesserunt qui stabant et cetera. Et primo ponitur locus, secundo occasio, tertio negatio.
26:69
Dicit ergo Petrus autem sedebat foris, scilicet extra locum ubi Christus patiebatur: illi enim qui a Christo se elongant, cito confunduntur; Ier. XVII, 13: domine, omnes qui te derelinquunt, confundentur. E contrario in Ps. XXXIII, 6: accedite ad eum, et illuminamini et facies vestrae non confundentur. Qui enim est extra passionem Christi, de facili labitur. Tunc ponitur excitativum ad denegandum et accessit ad eum una ancilla dicens: et tu cum Iesu Galilaeo eras. Et convenit casus Petri casui primi hominis; Eccli. XXV, 33: a muliere initium peccati. Sic Petrus ad vocem mulieris Christum negavit; in quo dominus praesumptionem eius humiliare voluit, quia non ad vocem viri, sed mulieris. Et tu cum Iesu Nazareno eras. Hoc solebat ei esse gloriosum, sed modo est ei terribile, et ideo negavit at ille negavit coram omnibus dicens: nescio quid dicis. Si volumus aggravare culpam Petri, possumus aggravare ex tribus. Aggravatur, quia statim ad modicum terrorem negavit; Lev. XXVI, v. 36: terrebit eos sonitus folii volantis. Item quia non erubuit coram omnibus.
26:70
Item ex mendacio, quia dixit nescio quid dicis, et non novi hominem; contra illud Eccli. IV, 24: ne confundaris dicere verum.
26:71
Exeunte autem illo ianuam, vidit eum alia ancilla et ait his qui erant ibi: et hic erat cum Iesu Nazareno. Et iterum negavit. Hic ponitur secunda negatio. Et primo tangitur locus; secundo incitativum; tertio negatio. Quantum ad historiam, secundum Marcum c. XIV, 66 post primam negationem gallus cantavit, et tunc exivit ianuam, et vidit eum ancilla, et negavit. Sed videtur contrarius aliis, quia videntur alii dicere quod sedentes dixerunt; et Lucas XXII, 55 dicit quod unus de sedentibus. Quid ergo hic dicitur quod ancilla? Notandum, secundum Augustinum, quod quando negaverat, exivit: et dum esset in exeundo, dixit ei ancilla etc.; et tunc negavit; quod audiens Petrus reversus est intus. Tunc illi qui audierant ab ancilla, petierunt idem. Et potest esse quod unus, qui cognoscebat eum, magis urgebat eum.
26:72
Et iterum cum iuramento negavit, quia non novi hominem; contra illud Eccli. XXIII, 9: iurationi ne assuescat os tuum. Tunc sequitur tertia negatio. Et primo describitur tempus; secundo incitativum; tertio negatio. Dicit ergo et post pusillum. Lucas dicit quod facto intervallo quasi unius horae. Et hoc procurabat Diabolus, ut respirationem non haberet. Unde dicunt ei et tu ex illis es; et hoc probant nam et loquela tua manifestum te facit.
26:73
Sed constat quod omnes Iudaei erant; quomodo ergo dicit nam et loquela tua manifestum te facit? Solvit Hieronymus quod in eadem lingua saepe diversa locutio fit, sicut patet in Francia, et Picardia, et Burgundia, et tamen una loquela est. Sic Galilaei aliquam differentiam habebant a Ierosolymitanis. Sic et cuilibet potest dici: nam et loquela tua manifestum te facit; quia, ut dicitur Lc. VI, 45, ex abundantia cordis os loquitur; quia cum homo est carnalis, cito prorumpit in verba carnalia; cum spiritualis, in verba spiritualia. Tunc coepit detestari et iurare et cetera. Aliqui sunt qui volunt excusare Petrum, quod non peccavit; unde cum dixit non novi hominem, verum est hominem, sed hominem et Deum. Et hoc non est bonum, quia imponit mendacium Christo: quia dixerat Christus tu me negabis. Ideo melius est dicere quod Petrus potius mentitus est, quam Christus. Item notandum quod non solum negavit Christum sed negavit se esse Christianum. Unde in una negatione dixit non novi eum, scilicet non sum Christianus. Item notandum quod qui cito non se retrahit in peius vadit; Eccli. XIX, 1: qui spernit modica, paulatim defluit. Unde negationi periurium addidit, periurio blasphemiam. Unde Gregorius: peccatum quod per poenitentiam non diluitur, mox suo pondere ad aliud trahit. Item notandum quod signatur triplex tentatio qua tentatur homo. Tentatur a concupiscentia carnis; Iac. I, 14: unusquisque tentatur a concupiscentia sua. Item tentatur a cupiditate terrenorum; Sap. XIV, 2: illud enim cupiditas acquirendi excogitavit. Item a Daemonibus, et hoc signatur per illam negationem, in qua dicitur post pusillum accesserunt qui stabant. Ad Eph. VI, 12: non est nobis colluctatio adversus carnem et sanguinem, sed adversus principes et potestates, adversus mundi rectores tenebrarum harum, contra spiritualia nequitiae in caelestibus. De istis tribus habetur I Io. II, 6: omne quod est in mundo, aut est concupiscentia carnis, aut concupiscentia oculorum, aut superbia vitae. Vel aliter, secundum Augustinum, dicendum est, quod per istas tres negationes omnium haereticorum error signatur. Quidam enim Christi divinitatem negabant, ut Photinus; quidam autem humanitatem, ut Eunomius; quidam utrumque, ut Arius qui inaequalem patri dicebat filium. Item, secundum Origenem, signatur persecutio, quam habitura erat Ecclesia. Prima fuit a Iudaeis, in qua multi mortui sunt; secunda a gentibus, in qua multi martyres facti sunt; tertia ab haereticis, quae multos seduxit, et aliqui etiam mortui sunt. Item notandum quod inveniuntur quaedam scripta, quae videntur excusare Petrum, quod non peccavit mortaliter, quia dicit Bernardus: sopita fuit in eo caritas, non extincta. Dicendum quod mortaliter peccavit, non tamen fuit ex malitia, sed timore mortis. Et hoc voluit dicere Bernardus, quod sopita fuit et cetera.
26:74
Et continuo gallus cantavit. Hic agitur de poenitentia Petri. Et primo ponitur motivum, sive excitativum; secundo poenitentia eius, ibi et egressus foras flevit amare. Tanguntur duo, quibus fit excitatio. Primo cantus galli; unde et continuo gallus cantavit. Per gallum praedicator signatur, qui homines peccatores excitat ad poenitentiam; unde apostolus, I Cor. XV, 34: evigilate, iusti et nolite peccare; et ad Eph. V, 14: surge, qui dormis, et exurge a mortuis, et illuminabit te Christus.
26:75
Secundum est memoria Petri et recordatus est Petrus verbi Iesu, quod dixerat et cetera. Ps. XXI, 28: reminiscentur, et convertentur ad dominum omnes fines terrae. Et haec duo frequenter accidunt ad vocem praedicatoris, quia qui oblitus est Deum per peccata, ad vocem praedicatoris revertitur. De illo gallo dicitur in Iob XXXVIII, 36: quis dedit gallo intelligentiam? Item Lucas ponit tertium, quia dominus respexit Petrum. Apostolus ad Rom. c. III, 24: iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius. Thren. V, 21: converte nos, domine, ad te, et convertemur. Post agitur de poenitentia Petri: et egressus foras flevit amare. Et est poenitentia commendabilis ex tribus. Et primo, quia cito, quia statim egressus; Eccli. V, 8: ne tardes converti ad dominum. Item prudens, quia declinavit a consortio eorum, qui induxerant eum ad negandum; sic et poenitentes debent occasionem vitare peccandi; II ad Cor. VI, 17: exite de medio eorum, et separamini, dicit dominus, et immundum ne tetigeritis, et ego recipiam vos. Item quia efficax et vera; Ier. VI, 26: luctum unigeniti fac tibi, planctum amarum; Is. XXXVIII, 15: recogitabo tibi omnes annos meos in amaritudine animae meae.
26:1
And it came to pass. S. CliRYSOSTOM and Theophylact think this a continuation of the preceding ; the Evangelist uniting the Passion of Christ to the kingdom described in the last chapter. But it would rather appear to be a transition, by which the office of a teacher having been explained, that of the Redeemer is set forth.
All these words. S. Hilary and others understand the discourses of the last chapter on the future judgment ; others refer them not only to the last chapter, but to the 24th chapter as well, where Christ speaks of the end of the world ; others, again, think that the words refer to everything which S. Matthew has written from the beginning of the Gospel to this time, that the discourses may contain not words only, but deeds as well ; as if Christ said to His disciples, when He had said and done all that has been described : " You know that after two days," &c. This is the opinion of Bede, and Strabus after him. These opinions are probable ; but the explanation of S. Thomas in his Commentaries on the Passover seems better : that the Evangelist wished to comprehend the whole doctrine of Christ, which he had set forth in the whole Gospel ; as if he would say : " When Christ had fulfilled the office of a teacher, He began to prepare Himself for that of a Redeemer, and to admonish His disciples of it ". For although with the Hebrews words mean things as well, it seems in this passage too stringent to understand by "words" both words and deeds. Origen has observed that the Evangelist wrote the words " all these," not to exclude those discourses which Christ held both before His Passion and after His Resurrection.
26:2
You know that after two days. This is a difficult passage, and it is complicated by many questions : I. (On which all the rest depend) — On what day Christ said the above words. For from this we may see on what day the Passover fell. II. On what day Christ celebrated the Passover. III. On what day the Jews kept the Passover, as S. John signifies that they did not keep it on the same day as Christ. IV. If they did not keep it on the same day, which of the two — Christ and His disciples, or the Jews — kept it on the lawful and appointed day. I. On the FIRST QUESTION almost all ancient writers agree that Christ said this on the I2th day of the 1st month of the Hebrews (Nisan), which is our March, because the Passover was celebrated at the end of the I4th and beginof the 1 5th day (Exod. xii. 6-iS), and Christ speaks of the Passover as ordered by the Law, ex legis prescripto. Thus, even if the opinion of the Greeks, which is entirely erroneous (as shall be shown in the second question), that Christ anticipated the Passover by one day, were true, it would make no difference ; for He spoke of that Passover which the disciples knew would be, by the Law, after two days. But if Christ anticipated His own Passover two days, the disciples, when He was about to celebrate it, did not know it. But he said, You know that after two days is the feast of the Passover. It is clear, from two circumstances, on what day of the week Christ said this. First, from the day of His Passion — for it is certain that Christ suffered on the sixth day ; because S. Luke (xxiii. 56) and S. John (xix. 31) testify that the day after was the Sabbath ; and all the use of the Catholic Church teaches the same. If so, it is certain that Christ spoke those words on the third day. For, on the same day as that on which He ate the lamb — that is, celebrated the Passover — He died. But He ate the lamb at the first hour of the night — that is, on the begin ning of the 1 5th day. He died on the sixth hour of the following day (the dies usualis, as it is termed, but of the same natural day) ; and between the third and sixth days was an interval of two days ; that is, after two days was the feast of the Passover. Then, from the extraordinary entrance into Jerusalem, the same result follows. For that took place on the first day of the week, which we now call the Lord's day ; as the Church teaches, and as we learn from S. John (xii. i). He says that Christ came to Bethany, where Lazarus had died, six days before the Passover ; and he says afterwards (inverse 12) that Christ made the great entry into Jerusalem. It is probable that He did not enter the city on the preceding day, but remained at Bethany, because it was the Sabbath, on which it was not lawful for the people to cut down branches from the trees. If, then, the Sabbath was the sixth day before the Passover, as S. John says, the Passover was on the sixth day of the week following. For the Sabbath was the sixth day from the following sixth day. When Christ said, then, "After two days," it follows that He said it on the third day, which the Latins called dies Martis (Tuesday). The order, then, of the Acts of Christ from the Sabbath day on which He was at Bethany to the day of the Passover, on which He died, as collected from the Evangelists, is as follows : He supped at Bethany on the Sabbath (S. John xii. 2). He entered Jerusalem on the first day of the week (5. John xii. 12). He returned to Bethany, where He had His dwelling, the same day (5. Matt. xxi. 17). He returned again to Jerusalem the second day (S. Matt. xxi. 1 8 ; 5. Mark xi. 13), and then on the way cursed the fig-tree. He returned to Bethany the same day (S. Mark xi. 19), and the disciples could not see the fig-tree, because it was perhaps drawing towards night. He returned to Jerusalem on the third day, and then Peter saw the fig-tree withered away, because it was clear day (S. Mark xi. 20-27), and He returned to Bethany the same day ; as it was His custom (S. Luke xxi. 37) to pass the nights away from Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives, at the foot of which Bethany was situated. The Evangelists do not say that He returned to Jerusalem until the fifth day at evening, when He celebrated the Passover. Christ said these words, then, either on the third day in the evening, or on the fourth at the beginning of the night, which, with the Hebrews, is the beginning of the day. If the former, He spoke exclusively ; if the latter, inclusively. II. On this SECOND QUESTION some say that Christ did not keep the Passover at all that year, as we learn from Euthymius and Theophylact (v. 20). But the other Greeks wholly differ from the Latins. The opinion of the ancient Greeks seems to have been that Christ celebrated the Passover on the thirteenth day of the first month Nisan, which is our March ; that is, one day before the time ordered by the Law of Moses (Exod. xii. 6), that His death might fall upon the actual day of the Passover, that is, on the fourteenth day of the first month; that the truth might answer to the figure, and the true Lamb be slaughtered on the same day as the typical one. For Christ died on the day after that on which He ate the lamb with the disciples. This is the opinion of Origen (Tract, xxxv. on Matt^), S. Chrysostom, Theophylact (In S. Jokn xviii. 28), Euthymius (in loc.}. Hence arose the error of the more modern Greeks, that in that Last Supper Christ used not unleavened but leavened bread, because it was not yet the day of the former, that is, the fifteenth day of the first month, the day after that on which the lamb was slain (Exod. xii. 18). Their arguments are as follows : (1) S. John says that Christ made that supper before the day of the Pasch (xiii. i). (2) That it is clear from S. John (xiii. 29) that, when Christ was condemned, the Jews had not celebrated the Passover. (3) S. John (xix. 14, 31) says that Christ suffered in the parasceue of the Pasch ; that is, the day before the Pasch. For the day of the Pasch was the first day of the Azymes (Exod. xii. 1 8 ; Levit. xxiii. 6), and as Christ made that supper the day before the first day of Azymes He could not use Azymes at it. This will be refuted in the reply to the fourth question. It need only be said at present that to accuse Christ, who obeyed most perfectly every law as long as He was among men, and taught others to do the same, of having anticipated the day of Pasch is most senseless. It was unheard of that anyone celebrated the feast before the day appointed by the Law, as S. Thomas, in his Commentary on S. John xviii., has observed. The Latins agree that Christ ate the Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month at even, as the Law commanded ; but this seems to have escaped the Greeks and some of the Latins, because they have missed the sense of the Law. The Jews began their day from sunset, as the Greeks and Latins began it from midnight, and others from sunrise. The Law commanded (Exod. xii. 6; Levit. xxiii. 5) that the lamb should be eaten on the fifteenth day of the first month at even ; as the Hebrew expresses it D^^ifi"! ]*Q " between the two evenings," that is, on the confine of each day, the fourteenth and the fifteenth ; for the setting of the sun formed the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth. The same evening was said to be the evening of each day : of the fourteenth, because it was the end of that day ; of the fifteenth, because it was the beginning of that night. And this is the meaning of the expression " between the two evenings," not, as some say, that these are the beginning — the one of the preceding and the other of the following night — which was clearly contrary to the Law, which carefully provided that the lamb should be eaten at that precise point of time, and that nothing of it should be left till morning (Exod. xii. 10 ; Levit. xxii. 30) ; nor, as a follower of Calvin said, that one evening is to be understood of the end of the fourteenth day and the other as the whole night of the following day. Hence Christ is. sometimes said to have celebrated the Pasch on the fourteenth day and sometimes on the fifteenth, as in verse 17,. and vS. Mark xiv. 12, and 6". Luke xxii. 7, in all which places it is said that on the fifteenth day of the first month the Pasch, that is, the Paschal lamb, was to be slain ; while Exod. xii. 6 and Levit. xxiii. 5 commanded it to be slain on the fourteenth day. Because it was slain on the confines of each day, it is said at one time to be slain on the fourteenth day, and at another on the fifteenth, when even to the eighth day it was not lawful to use leavened bread (Exod. xii. 15 ; Levit. xxiii. 6). Thus the error of the Greeks is most clearly refuted ; for S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke write in plain words that the day on which Christ ate the CH.xxvi.2.] THE DAY OF THE LAST SUPPER. 335. lamb was the first day of Azymes, so that He could not, contrarily to the Law, use leavened bread. How S. John calls that day the day of the Passover, and why the Jews did not, on the same night, eat the lamb, shall be explained, as has been said, in the fourth question. But from what has been said it appears why S. John (xiii. i) says that Christ took the supper before the day of the Passover ; we also see that he speaks not of the Pass over of the Jews but of Christ, of which we will speak here after. It is the same as if he said at the fourteenth day at evening He did that, when it was only lawful to use unleavened bread. What, therefore, the other three Evangelists relate as having been done on the fifteenth day — that is, the first day of Azymes — S. John describes as having taken place before the day of the Pasch — that is, on the fourteenth day — with no contradiction, but in harmony with the usual custom of Scripture in which the lamb is said to have been slain, now on the fourteenth, now on the fifteenth, day, because it was slain, as it were, at the junction of the two days. It is clear, then, that Christ ate the lamb at the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth day, both from this comparison of S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke with S. John, and from the explanation of the former question. For if, as has been proved, Christ said these words, " after two days," on the fourteenth day of the first month,, and He spoke without doubt of His own Pasch, it follows that He celebrated the Pasch on the fifteenth day, at the end of the fourteenth. III. The THIRD QUESTION is much more difficult. There are three different opinions of great authority on it, which are defended with much persistency. 1. That of those who maintain that Christ and the Jews ate the lamb, and kept the Passover on the same day. S. Thomas says that Alcuin is the author of this opinion, and many have adopted it. The following arguments may be added in its favour : — (1) S. Matthew (verse 17), S. Mark (xiv. 12), and S. Luke (xxii. 7) say that it was the first day of Azymes, when the disciples asked Christ, " Where wilt Thou that we prepare ? " and the Law ordered that the lamb should be killed and eaten, and the feast kept on the first day of the Azymes ; the Jews and Christ, therefore, did both on that day. (2) The disciples, following the custom of all the Jews who kept the feast on that day, asked Christ, " Where wilt Thou that we prepare ? " (3) S. Mark (xiv. 12) says that it was the first day of the Azymes, and S. Luke (xxii. 7). All the Jews, therefore, offered the sacrifice on the same day. (4) Christ (verse 18) and S. Mark (xiv. 14) directed the disciples to say to a certain man, " Where is my refectory, that I may eat the Pasch with my disciples ? " He said this, as the man would know for a certainty that the Jews would all eat the Paschal lamb that night, and, therefore, that he would not refuse to prepare that place for Him in his house. (5) Because the chief priests and elders of the people said (verse 5 ; S. Mark xiv. 2) : " Not on the feast day, lest there should be a tumult among the people". So that when they said this, it either was the feast day, or a day so near it that they could not put Christ to death before it. They took this counsel, as will be said on verse 3, on the beginning of the fourth day. Either that fourth day, then, or at least the fifth on which Christ ate the lamb, was the feast day of the Jews. On the same day, therefore, both Christ and the Jews ate the lamb, and celebrated the Passover. (6) S. John (xiii. i) plainly says that Christ ate the lamb before the festival day of the Pasch, that is, the day before the Pasch. The following day, therefore, was the Pasch to the Jews ; therefore, they ate the Pasch and kept the feast on the same day as Christ. (7) S. John (xiii. 29) says : " For some thought, because Judas had the purse, that Jesus had said to him, Buy those things which we have need of for the festival day ". The feast of the Jews, therefore, was either the same or the following day. (8) S. Matthew (xxvii. 15), S. Mark (xv. 6), S. Luke (xxiii. 17), and S. John (xviii. 39) say that on the same day as that on which Christ was crucified, Barabbas was loosed, as it was usual on the day of the Passover to release any prisoner they would. That day, therefore, was the day of the Jewish Passover. (9) It is not credible that Christ would have celebrated Pasch at any other time than the Jews. Had He done so He would have been accused before the governor as a criminal against religion, as the priests were seeking causes of accusation against Him from every quarter. (10) If he had celebrated Pasch contrarily to the custom of the Jews and before the usual day, He would have greatly offended both the man, His host, with whom He supped, and all who knew what He had done ; as now, if anyone whatever, bishop or private person, should keep Pasch before or after the rest of Christendom, he would give offence to all. (n) If the Jews did not keep the Passover on the same day as Christ, either Christ would have anticipated the day or the Jews deferred it : the Law allowed neither (S. Thomas, Comm. on S. John xix.). (12) If Christ had celebrated the Pasch on another day than the Jews, and been put to death, the truth would not have answered to the figure ; for the true Lamb would not have been slain on the same day as the typical one. 2. THE SECOND opinion is that Christ did not celebrate the Passover on the same day as the Jews, but one day earlier. Of this opinion were Origen (Tract, xxxv. on S. Matt^), S. Chrysostom and Theophylact (On S. John xviii.), Euthymius (hoc loc.\ Nicephorus (i. 28). These think that Christ anticipated the true day. Of this on the fourth question. The following arguments may be brought in favour of this opinion : — (a) S. John (xviii. 28) says that the Jews, when they accused Christ to the governor, did not go into the Pretorium, lest by entering a profane place they should be defiled, and unable to eat the Passover ; for they had not eaten it yet : but Christ had eaten it the night before. The Jews, therefore, did not eat the lamb and celebrate the Passover on the same day as Christ, but the day after. This argument is forcible and plain, and has justly drawn many great authorities into its support. Some moderns reply, as we find from S. Thomas that Alcuin did, that the Pasch in that place does not mean the lamb, but the Azymes. This would be credible if it were supported by any example or authority. But now they do not prove, nor is it, on the other hand, collected from the Law, that it was necessary that they must be clean to eat the Azymes. There is no command to this effect either in the Law or in their traditions ; and it would have been intolerable to them if they were defiled by things of such slight consequence, and so constantly recurring, that they would hardly have been able to keep themselves undefiled for one day ; and the days of the Azymes were seven, during which whoever ate leavened bread was guilty of death (Exod. xii. 15). If this were so, if the defiled could not eat the Azymes, and they were defiled so frequently, and by such slight causes, how many would there have been to be condemned daily even at the festivals ? Others say that the lamb in that place signifies the Pasch ; but that the meaning is that they might eat the Pasch on the same night before light, because the night on which the lamb ought to be killed and eaten had not passed. For the Evangelist says, " It was morning, and they went not into the hall, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Pasch" (S. John xviii. 28). The above authors are all refuted by the word by which they seek to make their opinion good. I mean " In the morning". For the Law forbade not only that the whole lamb, but that any part of it, should remain till the morning (Exod. xii. 10). How, then, if it were morning, could they have both killed and eaten the whole lamb? It was, besides, not so much morning as that it was not yet bright day ; and it is not probable that the Jews, in their rage, brought Christ to the governor before it was light, and before he had risen, lest they should offend him by their untimely intrusion, when it was necessary for them to gain his favour for the condemnation of Christ. But why then, it may be asked, did S. John so carefully, and of design, add the word mane to show that the following day had begun to dawn, and thus there did not remain an entire day to that on which the Jews were to celebrate the Pasch, and, therefore, if they had been defiled then, they would not have had time to purify themselves, to do which they required at least one day ? The argument, therefore, is firmly established that the Jews celebrated the Pasch the day after Christ. (£) These are the words of S. John (xix. 14) : " And it was the parasceue of the Pasch about the sixth hour ". S. John speaks of the time when Christ was condemned and crucified, and he calls the day the parasceue of the Pasch, that is, the day before the Pasch. The Jews, therefore, had not yet celebrated the Pasch. It has been answered that the meaning is not that it was the parasceue of the Pasch, that is, the day before the Pasch, but that it was the parasceue of the Sabbath which had fallen on the day of the Pasch, as if the Evangelist had said, " The parasceue was on the day of Pasch ". This is proved : a. By our nowhere reading that the Pasch had a para sceue; nor was there need of one, as the parasceue was only the day before a feast on which it was not lawful to prepare what was necessary for subsistence. Hence it was called by the Greeks Trapaatcevrf, and by the Hebrews 1TQ3D " preparation," because on that day whatever was necessary for the day following was prepared ; but on the day of the Pasch the Law did not forbid, it rather allowed what was required to be prepared (Exod. xii. 16). /9. Again, we never read of a parasceue, but of the Sabbath, as S. Matt, xxvii. 62 ; ,S. Luke xxiii. 54 ; and more clearly 5. Mark xv. 42. As if explaining what parasceue meant, he calls it TrpotrdpjSaTov, " the day before the Sabbath ". All this is true, and may be granted ; but it cannot be granted that S. John by the parasceue of the Pasch meant the same as if he had said the parasceue of the Sabbath, which was the day of the Pasch. This expression is not less hard and senseless than if one should say that when the feast of S. John the Baptist is kept on the day before the feast of Corpus Christi, anyone speaking of that day should call it the Vigil of S. John the Baptist : not because it was the Vigil of S. John the Baptist, but because it was the Vigil of Corpus Christi, which had fallen upon the feast of S. John the Baptist ; which would be matter of ridicule. S. John, therefore, called it the parasceue of Pasch ; although Pasch had no parasceue suo institute ; because, as will be explained on the fourth question, the Pasch that year had fallen upon the Sabbath ; and because the Sabbath has a parasceue, and it (the Sabbath) fell that year upon the Pasch. S. John rightly called the day preceding, on which Christ was crucified, the Preparation of Pasch : that by one word the reader might understand that the day following was both the Sabbath, because it had a parasceue ; and the Pasch, because he called that day the parasceue of the Pasch, which no one could have understood had he called it the parasceue. (c) The third argument is what S.John says (xix. 31), that that was a great Sabbath ; as if it were not any ordinary one, but more holy and noble that year than any other year. But it could not be so unless the Pasch were celebrated that same day. In this sense it was a great day, because it was both the Sabbath and the Pasch. The answer of some who hold the former opinion is, that "S. John did not call that Sabbath great because the Jews celebrated Pasch on it, but because it was one of the days of Azymes". But this has nothing to do with S. John's subject. He gave the reason of the Jews' asking Pilate to break the legs of Christ and the thieves, both that they could not be taken down from the cross on the Sabbath, and that it was unbecoming that they should remain on it, especially as that was a great day. To this the Azymes were no impediment, as it was lawful to work on any day but the first and the last (Exod. xti. 1 6). So that no greatness or sanctity attached to that Sabbath. The meaning is, that it was the great day of the Sabbath, because it was both Sabbath and Pasch, on neither of which it was lawful to take down the bodies and bury them, or to leave them on the cross, that the holiness of the day might not be defiled by the presence of the dead bodies. (d) The fourth reason is taken from 5. Matt, (verse 5) and S. Mark (xiv. 2) : " Not on the feast day, lest there should be a tumult among the people ". In these words the Council did not mean that the death of Christ should be put off till after the feast, as they think who say that Christ kept the Pasch on the same day as the Jews ; but they the rather wished to hasten His death before the day of Pasch arrived, which would be two days hence. This was more in accordance with their hatred and cruelty. a. Some take the meaning to be, that they should en deavour to put Christ to death that same night, before dawn, and before the day of the Pasch broke, which was to be celebrated both by Christ and themselves the day after ; but the Jews had not discovered any means of seizing Christ 0. Others think that they wished to defer the day ; but the opportunity of the traitor Judas having offered, who could betray Christ with a kiss and deliver Him up to them without any disturbance, they changed their design ; and on the same day as that on which they celebrated the Pasch, they seized and condemned Him. But these, again, forget the words of the Jews : " Lest, perhaps, there should be a tumult ". This might have been caused, not so much by Christ's seizure, as by His death. For the treachery of Judas could not prevent this, and their discovery of his willingness to betray Christ could not have caused them to change their intention. Nor do they so much seize the opportunity of Judas, as he seized theirs ; for, when he understood that they were consulting about the seizure of Christ, he, covetous and perfidious as he was, and desiring of finding purchasers, would not lose the opportunity of selling his Master. (e) The fifth is S. John xiii. I : " Before the festival day of the Pasch, Jesus knowing His hour was come that He should pass out of this world to His Father ". It is not doubtful that S. John, by the words, " before the feast of Pasch," did not mean any day preceding Pasch, but the nearest : the one immediately before it. But it is in question whether S. John is to be understood of the Pasch which Christ celebrated, or that of the Jews ; but it is much more likely, as said above, that S. John spoke of the Pasch of the Jews when he mentioned the Supper of Christ, and His washing their feet, which was done at the beginning of the day on which He celebrated the Pasch. S. John, therefore, would not have said, " before the festival day of the Pasch," but on the festival day, if he had been speaking of the Pasch of Christ ; as S. Matthew (verse 17) and S. Mark (xiv. 12) said, "on the first day of Azymes," when they spoke not of the Supper itself, that is, the celebration of the Pasch, but of its preparation, which ought to take place the day before the Pasch. As, then, because S. John wished to make known by what acts Christ showed that singular love of His disciples, of which he said, " He loved them unto the end " (in fineni], He showed it not by eating the Paschal lamb which He had done every year, but by washing their feet, and by the showing forth of His Body and Blood, which He had not done before. These two acts were done, as S. John shows, when the typical supper of the lamb was over ; and that could not have been until much of the night, that is, the day of the Pasch, had passed, so that he could not truly say that they were done " before the festival day of the Pasch ". For, what some say, that the feast day ought to be understood for the conventional day, from the rising to the setting of the sun, which had not yet arrived, because it was not used, cannot easily be admitted. It remains, therefore, that S. John spoke of the Pasch of the Jews, which was common and known to all, and of which alone the reader could understand what was said. (/) The sixth is from the same chapter (xiii. 29), when Christ said to Judas, " That which thou dost, do quickly". The disciples thought He meant that he should " buy those things which we have need of for the festival day " ; which agrees better if that Pasch of which Christ spoke had not yet come, but was close at hand. For that which Christ Himself kept had come; for when He spoke He had eaten the lamb. (g) If on the day on which Christ died and had celebrated the Pasch, there had been the Pasch of the Jews as well, it would not have been lawful for Joseph, a just man, and those who assisted him, to take down the body of Christ from the cross and bury it, since the holy women themselves would not go into the tomb when they wished to anoint Christ, because of the Sabbath (S. Luke xxiii. (/i) The eighth reason. It is scarcely to be believed that the chief priests and elders of the people, who professed to be the guardians of religion, and chiefly accused Christ, because He appeared to be a violator of it, would seek to violate it themselves by His accusation : as they would have done if on the very day of the Pasch, of all days the most holy and the most noted, they had brought a capital accusation against Christ, when it was not lawful for them to bring forward any cause, even the lightest, on any feast day. They did, indeed, some things on that Sabbath which they had no right to do, but which seemed of much less consequence ; namely, they went to Pilate, and asked to have charge of the tomb, lest the disciples of Christ should steal Him away. They came to the tomb, and placed guards and sealed it. But all this, as before said, was of less consequence than carrying a man off to judgment even from the midst of the people, accusing him, condemning him, and nailing him to the cross, on the very feast day of the Pasch. Lastly, it may be believed that if they did not fear God, they may have feared the people : lest they should be aroused by seeing a man dragged away to death on the very day of the Pasch, and he one whom the greater number of them believed to be a most holy prophet ; and should rise and put themselves to death. It was from this fear that they said, " Not on the festival day, lest there should be a tumult amon^ the people ". This opinion appears more probable, because if it have fewer, it most certainly has stronger, arguments in its favour, and which can be answered with much less ease than those which are brought in support of the other opinion. For, in the first place, S. Matthew (verse 17), S. Mark (xiv. 12), and S. Luke (xxii. 7) call the day on which Christ ate the lamb the first day of the Azymes ; and that the Pasch was the first day of Azymes is easily solved. The Evangelists spoke not from the tradition of the Jews (on which, see question four), but from the Law. But, according to the Law, the day on which Christ ate the lamb was the true Pasch. They wished, perhaps, when they marked the time so accurately, and said that it was the first day of Azymes, silently to signify this : that it was not the Jews, but Christ, who celebrated Pasch at the proper time. And when the disciples asked Christ where He wished them to prepare the Pasch, it was not the first day of Azymes even by the Law ; for it cannot be doubted that they asked this on the fourteenth day of the first month, before the setting of the sun. For after this, they would have asked it too late, for at that period of time they had not to prepare, but to eat, the Pasch. For the fourteenth day was not the first day of the Azymes ; but they said the first day of Azymes, because that day was at hand : as if they said, " the first day of Azymes being at hand ". As then, when the first day of Azymes was not yet come, that is, the Pasch, they said, " the first day of the Azymes," that is, the Pasch of the Jews ; so, when it was not yet the first day of the Azymes, because it was very near, they could say that it was the first day of Azymes ; for the Evangelists do not always keep to the exact point of time, but sometimes in the ordinary manner say what is certain truth ; as when one says that Christ was crucified at the third hour, and another at the sixth, because He was crucified between the two. This is not said because it is supposed to be true, for the Evangelists appear in this place to have spoken of the day of Azymes and the Pasch of Christ, but to show that, if the argument can be refuted in no other way, it can be in this. (2) The second can be answered thus. The disciples were told by Christ that He would celebrate the Pasch before the other Jews, on the day ordered by the Law. For He had already said to them, "You know that after two days shall be the Pasch ". S. Luke (xxii. 7, 8, 9) shows the same thing more clearly. From this it is plain that Christ had indicated to the Apostles that He wished to keep the Pasch on the day following, before they asked where He wished them to prepare it ; but the other Evangelists have passed this over. S. Luke has stated it. (3) The third may be answered as follows. The Evangelists spoke, not of the Passover of the Jews, but of that of Christ, that is, the lawful Pasch ; and in the words, " On which it was necessary that the Pasch should be killed," S. Luke wished, perhaps, to show, that although Christ kept it before the other Jews, yet that He kept it at the proper time at which, by the Law, the lamb ought to be killed. As for S. Mark's words, " the first day of the unleavened bread," we must understand them not of the Jews then living, but either of the Ancients who followed the Law, and not their traditions, or of Christ and His disciples ; the meaning being that it was the first day of the Azymes on which the Jews of old celebrated Pasch, or that on which Christ and His disciples would celebrate it. (4) To the fourth the answer is, that although the Jews that year put off the feast one day, as shall be afterwards shown, everyone knows that it ought to be kept, according to the Law, on the day on which Christ was about to keep it, and, therefore, that host could not have been surprised if Christ celebrated it on that day, as all knew that He kept the Law of God, and not the traditions of the Pharisees. (5) The fifth is answered more easily. The words, " Not on the festival day, lest there should be a tumult among the people," do not prove that it was now the day of the feast ; for, as will be shown on verse 3, these words were spoken by them on the twelfth or thirteenth day of the month, and some think even six days before the Pasch, so that it cannot be concluded from them that the Jews kept Pasch on the same day as Christ. For although the Pasch both of Christ and the Jews was at hand, that of neither had actually arrived. As, then, the Jews could have said this if they had celebrated Pasch on the same day as Christ, so they could say it if they kept it one day later. They only meant that they ought to be diligent and alert in performing the deed before the feast day came, which, if distant two days, or three, or even six, as some think, was still at hand. (6) The sixth may be answered thus. When S. John said, " Before the day of Pasch," he spoke of the Pasch of the Jews, the day before which, when He had eaten the lamb and kept His own Pasch, Christ showed those proofs of the singular love of which S. John speaks, as has been mentioned above. (7) The seventh is of slight consequence, and a great argument has been urged by us before from the same proof to show the contrary opinion. (8) The eighth may be answered thus : (i.) The governor used to release the prisoner whom the Jews demanded, either not on the feast day, but on the day before — a thing not without example, and very likely to have been done then ; or (u.) he may have released Barabbas not on the day on which Christ was crucified, but on the following one, which the Jews kept that year as Pasch, but the Evangelists said that it was done on the day before because the promise was given on that day to the Jews, to be carried into effect on the day following. (9) The ninth may be answered thus. The priests who accused Christ either did not know that He had eaten the lamb that night, or they did not venture to bring it up against Him as an offence, as they knew that He kept His own Pasch by the Law. (10) The tenth has already been answered. No one could have been offended, because all knew that, by the Law, the Pasch should be kept on the day on which Christ kept it. (11) To this question it may be answered that neither did Christ anticipate, nor the Jews defer, the time. Christ kept the feast according to the Law ; and the Jews according to their traditions. (12) And thus the last argument is disposed of; for as Christ kept the Pasch on the day ordered by the Law, and on the same day was put to death, the truth rightly answered to the figure. It has been said that there are three opinions on this question. There is therefore one left, of which only one authority seems to speak. Rupertus thinks that the Jews kept the Pasch, partly on the same day as that on which Christ suffered, and partly on the following day. On the same day, because they sacrificed and ate the lamb on the same night as Christ : the day after, because they kept not that day ; but the day following was kept by them as a feast, that they might not be compelled to rest and be idle on two consecutive days — the following being the Sabbath. This appears to be credible : especially as we learn from S. John that the Jews had not yet eaten the Passover on the day of Christ's death. It might be more correct, there fore, to say, as some others have done, that the Jews kept the feast on the same day as Christ, but that they ate the Paschal lamb on the day following. 4. The fourth question now remains to be answered. This, although the most difficult, has been fully answered in the third. It has been asked which of the two, Christ or the Jews, kept Pasch at the right time, if they did not keep it at the same time? Origen (Tract, xxxv. on S, Matt.}, S. Chrysostom, Theophylact (On S. John xviii.), and Euthymius (in loc.\ think that Christ anticipated by one day the time of celebrating Pasch as ordered by the Law. S. Chrysostom and Theophylact give as the reason of this, that He might delay His death to the following day, which was that of the Pasch. But the reasons they give appear to refute them. For if Christ pleased to die on the day of Pasch, that the true Lamb might fulfil the typical one, since He kept the Passover on the night preceding, that is, on the same natural day according to the Jews, it follows that He did not anticipate the time, but celebrated the Pasch on the appointed day. Nor is it any way credible, as before said, that Christ kept Pasch before the lawful day, as in all things to the end of His life, as S. Chrysostom says, He kept the Law ad perfectum, and never anticipated the time appointed by the Law. This opinion, with the arguments in support of it, has been sufficiently answered under the first question. Some think that Christ kept the Pasch indeed on the appointed day, but that the Jews deferred it to the following one, only that they might not be prevented by the feast from putting Christ to death. SS. Augustin and Jerome think this ; but they are fully refuted by S. Thomas (Comm. on S, John xviii.), because both the Law and custom directed that one who might be unclean, or otherwise prevented from keeping Pasch on the day appointed, should keep it on the fourteenth of the following month (Numb. ix. 10, n). It seems to be concluded that neither did Christ anticipate Pasch, nor did the Jews defer it ; and yet that they did not keep it on the same day. Christ followed the prescript of the Law ; and the Jews, the tradition of the fathers. Rupertus (in /#<:.), and Paul Bergensis after him, show most fully and carefully that, after the return from Babylon, the Jews made a law that when the Pasch fell on the sixth day of the week, it should be deferred to the day following, that there might not be two feast days running, which would have been a burden to the people ; as they could not bury their dead, nor perform any other works of piety not especially laborious on festivals. They have proved this tradition by many testimonies from the Rabbis. But Paul Bergensis, a man of great diligence and probity, says that he found, with a learned Jew, from the Hebrew Calendar, that on the year in which Christ was crucified the Pasch fell on the sixth day of the week. Christ, therefore, both kept the Passover, as ordered by the Law, and was crucified on that day. But the Jews celebrated the feast on the following day, as directed by their ancestors. Rabbi Abraham, in his Commentary on Levit. xxiii., says that it was found in the Mishna and Thalmud that the Pasch fell sometimes on the second day and sometimes on the fourth and sixth ; but I know not whether he denies, on that account, that when it fell on the sixth it was transferred to the Sabbath, or whether he is of sufficient authority to induce us, for his sake, to abandon the opinion of others.
Shall be the Pasch. The feast of Pasch shall be celebrated, or the lamb slain. The word Pasch means both.
And the Son of man. Christ speaks of Himself as usual in the third person. Why he is called the Son of man has been explained on chap. viii. 20.
Shall be delivered up. IlapaSiSoTai, " is," for " shall be," as before. By whom delivered up, the Evangelist does not say. Origen, and S. Thomas in his Commentary, have observed : (a) That He was delivered up by the Father (Rom. viii. (£) That Pie was delivered up by Himself (Gal. u. 20 ; Eph. v. 2, 25). (c] By the devil (S. John xiii. 2). (a?) By Judas (S. Matt. x. 4 ; xxvi. 15, 16). (e) By the Jews (xxvii. 2 ; 5. Mark xv. I ; 5. /0//T2 xviii. (/) By Pilate to the soldiers (S. Matt, xxvii. 26). He was delivered with a different animus by different agents. (a and $) By Himself and by His Father to redeem men. (c) By the devil to prevent the Redemption and to incite sinners to that wickedness. (d) By Judas from avarice. (e) By the Jews from hatred. (/) By Pilate from fear, lest he should not appear sufficiently the friend of Caesar. This is correct ; but it is not so to say, as the same authorities do, that Christ spoke generally and without limit, not saying by whom He should be delivered up ; that He might include all who would betray Him. For He did not speak of all, but either of the priests, scribes, and elders alone, or of Judas with them ; as in chaps, xvi. 21 ; xx. 1 8, 19. In the words " delivered up," He appears to point to some fault or blame. These in Judas and the priests were the greatest possible. It may be a matter of doubt why Christ said this to His disciples. His object appears to have been to show His Divinity ; for He knows the future, when they who were to deliver Him did not even know at what time they would put Him to death, and disputed among themselves about it : " Not on the festival day ".
To be crucified. A manner of punishment then in common use. It had been introduced by the Romans, as shall be explained on chap, xxvii. 35. Christ says that He shall be delivered up to be crucified, because He was given up to Pilate by the Jews to that end, when they cried, " Crucify Him, crucify Him " (S. Luke xxiii. 21). Christ, as has been said, spoke most especially of them.
26:3
Then. It is doubtful what exact time is meant. Some think that it was six days before the Passover, when S. John says that the chiefs of the priests assembled to deliberate about putting Christ to death. If so, the word does not mean the time of which the Evangelist spoke, but one that was not far off ; as if he had said, " about that time ". It is more probable, as is the general belief of the Church, that this assembly was held two days before the Pasch ; that is, at that time when Christ said to the disciples, " after two days ". For the Evangelist in using the word " then " seems to signify the same time as that when the priests said that Christ should not be put to death on the feast day ; Christ Himself had said that He should be slain then, to show that the divine decree and the prediction of Christ were of more avail than the counsels of the Jews.
Were gathered together the chief priests. S. Matthew implies, in the same place, that there was both one chief priest, and that there were many ; as explained on chap. u. 4. The Greek reads " Scribes," which the Latin does not. It is very likely that Christ joined these to the chief priests and elders, as related in 5. Mark xiv. I ; 5. Luke xxii. 2 ; and above, chap. u. 4. These constituted the Jewish council — viz., the chief priests, that is, the heads of the priestly families ; with the chief priest, who was merely called princeps sacerdotum ; the Scribes, who were doctors of the Law, the elders of the people ; like the three estates of a republic (vid. chap. u. 4).
Into the court. Els TTJV av\tfv, In aulam. In one word, in the hall. Some take this to mean the palace of the high priest. It does not appear probable that a clandestine assembly, about putting to death a man of the greatest holiness, would have been held in the court, that is, the actual entrance of the house, and in the place of open judgment. Athenseus (lib. v.) says that av\ij among the Greeks meant the palace of the king ; as aula in Latin is synonymous with regia (the palace) ; as they who frequented it were called auliei, our version always renders it atrium (court), as here and infra t verses 58, 69 ; vS. Mark xiv. 54, 66 ; 5. Luke xi. 21 ; xxii. 55 ; 5. John xviii. 15 ; Apoc. xi. 2 ; and perhaps more correctly than if it read " palace ". For, from verse 58, it is clear that the place of which the Evangelist speaks, and which he calls av\rj, was not so much the house, or some large hall of the house, but an open space before the house, which the Latins call cors or chors, the French cour, Italians and Spaniards corte. For S. Matthew says that S. Peter followed Him "afar off" (verse 58, and more clearly verse 69). The atrium, therefore, was without, and so says S. Mark (xiv. 68 ; xv. 16); that is, where they led Him from the interior of the house where the governor was, into the outer court where the soldiers and people were assembled together to mock Christ, when they had put on Him the purple robe.
Who was called Caiaphas. A very avaricious and abandoned man, for an account of whom vide Josephus (Antiq., xviii. 3, 6). And they consulted together. Kal o-vve/3ov\evcravTo, " They took counsel unanimously ".
26:4
That by subtlety they might apprehend Jesus. Secretly and by fraud, not by open violence ; for they feared the people, as S. Luke says (xxii. 2).
And put Him to death. All their designs tended to this result, for they had often endeavoured to kill Him before. How they conducted their deliberations is related by S. John at full length (xi. 47, 50). This council, however, was apparently a different one to that of which S. Matthew speaks. For the former was held six days before Pasch, as appears from the beginning of chap, xii., and the latter only two days before it, as has been said before.
26:5
But they said, Not on the feast day. It is not certain whether it was the intention of the Jews to execute the crime before the day of the feast, or to post pone it till afterwards. They who think that the Jews kept the feast on the same day as Christ suppose that they meant to postpone it until the next day, but that they afterwards found Judas ready to betray Christ, and so they altered their intention. This has been answered on verse 2. They who think that the Jews celebrated the feast a day after Christ suppose that they would have had Him put to death before the feast day. Some, again, take the festival day to mean all the seven days of Azyme, because all those days were called festival days, each in its own manner. Others, again, apparently with more reason, would take the meaning to include only the festival day of Pasch and the Sabbath, on which days it was not lawful to accuse, condemn, or crucify anyone ; and they would there fore justly fear that the people would be excited to a tumult if they pursued a design so audacious and nefarious on those days. This reason, however, would not apply to the other days of the Azymes. Lest perhaps there should be a tumult. Tevrjrai. First, it may be asked why they feared the people ? We may safely say, salva pietate, that they did not fear lest any of the people should perish in a sedition, or religion be overthrown, but lest, when an infinite concourse of people came together to the festival, Christ might be rescued out of their hands, as S. Jerome, Bede, and Euthymius say. Besides, in so great a multitude there might be some who believed in Christ, and who would endeavour to deliver Him from the power of the priests. We may suppose, too, that they feared for themselves, lest the excited populace might make an attack upon them, and put them to death : because, as S. Chrysostom and Theophylact say, they would not have endured that on the day of Pasch, when those who were condemned to death were set free, Christ, a man most innocent, should be dragged off to His destruction. The same fear had often on previous occasions tied their hands (S. Mark xi. 18 ; xii. 12 ; S. Luke xx. 19 ; xxii. 2).
26:6
And when Jesus was in Bethania. There is here a narration much discussed and of much interest First, whether there was one woman, or, secondly, whether there were more, who anointed Christ, as related in this place, and in 5. Mark xiv. 3 ; 5. Luke vu. 38 ; and 5. John xii. 3. The question will be more easy if divided into parts. On the first question there are three parts : I. Is the Simon at whose house Christ dined — or supped, as S. Luke says — the same as the Simon whom S. Matthew and S. Mark call Simon the leper, but whom S. John does not mention ? 2. Is the same woman mentioned by the four Evangelists as the one who anointed Christ ? 3. If the same, did she anoint Christ once or more than once ? I. As regards Simon with whom Christ supped, S. Augustin (De Cons., u. 69), Bede (Comm. on S. Luke vu.), and Euthymius (in loc.) think that there were two Simons, one the Pharisee of S. Luke, the other the leper of S. Matthew, whom S. Mark and S. John do not mention. The reasons are — 1st, that what S. Luke relates, happened in Galilee, but this of S. Matthew in Bethania, i.e., near Jerusalem ; and, 2nd, that the former was a Pharisee, the latter a leper. Another reason might be added. It is not probable that this Simon of S. Matthew was a Pharisee, as the above event took place when the Passion of Christ was at hand, when the whole sect of Pharisees was utterly opposed to Him, and no Pharisee would have been likely to receive Him as his guest. S. Chrysostom, however (Horn. Ixxxi. on S. Matt.}, and S. Ambrose (Wi. on S. Luke vu.) think that they were the same Simon. This view seems the more probable of the two, for the following reasons : (1) Both were called Simon ; and although this was a common name, the identity of the names may have some weight. (2) Because it was the same woman, as shall be proved by and by, who is said by S. Luke and S. Matthew to have anointed Christ, and who, as she came so freely and so often to Simon's house to anoint Christ, was probably an intimate acquaintance of his; and as he lived in Bethania, it follows that he was the same Simon. For S. Luke does not say where the event took place, and, like S. Matthew, he calls Simon the host of Christ. S. Matthew tells us that it happened in Bethania. We must believe that it also happened in the same place. It is probable, too, that the Simon of whom S. Luke writes, when he first received Christ into his house as his guest, had been taught by Him, so as afterwards to be His intimate, and to receive Him often as his guest, when He came to Bethania. 2. On the second question there is much difference of opinion. Origen (7^ract. xxxvi. on S. Matt.) thinks it probable that there were four different women mentioned by the four Evangelists, who all anointed Christ. But this does not appear to be a matter open to discussion. Because it seems very plain that S. Matthew, at least, and S. Mark, as his abbreviator, relate the same event as having happened in the same place, and at the same time, and that they speak of the same woman ; so that if there had been more than one, there must have been no more than three women : one, of whom S. Luke speaks ; another, of whom S. Matthew and S. Mark speak ; and a third, of whom S. John speaks. This opinion is received, in fact, by Origen, Theophylact (Comment, in loc.\ and Euthymius. They suggest, also, and with some probability, that the woman of whom S. Luke speaks was called a sinner ; but she of whom S. Matthew and S. Mark make mention was not a sinner, but, rather, was gifted with something of prophecy (verses 10, 12). Besides, the woman in vS. Luke anointed Christ a long time before His passover, as we see from his account ; the woman of S. Matthew and S. Mark only two days before His death, as in verse 2 ; the woman of whom S. John writes did so six days before (xii. i). Others think that there were two, but they differ as to who they were. S. Jerome (in loc) and S. Bernard (Serin, de Mar. Magd.} think that there was one, of whom S. Luke writes, and another, a second, of whom we read in S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. John ; the one of S. Luke being different to this one of S. Matthew, because the former anointed Christ long before Pasch and the death of Christ, the latter on the eve of it. The former anointed His feet only, the latter His feet and head, as will be explained hereafter. The latter, of whom SS. Matthew, Mark, and John write, they hold to be one and the same, because she anointed Christ at the same time and in the same place. S. Chrysostom (On S. Matt,, Ixxxi. ; and On S.Jo/in, Ixi.) Leontius, and Theophylact (On S. John, xi. i) take the woman of whom SS. Luke, Matthew, and Mark write to have been the same ; but the one spoken of by S. John to have been a different one, because SS. Luke, Matthew, and Mark say that she anointed Christ in the house of Simon ; but S. John says not in the house of Simon, but rather in that of Lazarus or his sisters ; for he says that Martha served at the tables. Some think that there was only one, as S. Augustin (De Cons., u. 69), S. Gregory (Horn. xxxv. in Evang.\ Bede (in loc. ; and 5. Luke, vu.). This seems much the more probable, because : (1) The unspoken voice of the Church points to this conclusion. (2) S. John, wishing to mention Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha, said (xi. 2) : " And Mary was she that anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick ". He would scarcely have said this if there had been more women than one who anointed Christ's feet ; for the reader could not have understood which one he meant of the many. All the arguments — and they are many — which go to show that there were more than one have less weight than this one. (3) S. Luke's statement that the anointing was a long time before is of no weight to prove that the woman was different, but only that the act itself was so ; which is freely allowed, and will shortly be proved. (4) That the fact that the former anointed the feet and the latter the head proves nothing ; or, the same thing, that there was not one single anointing, but a second one. And although S. Luke does not expressly say so, it is probable that the woman mentioned by him anointed the head of Christ ; for, as we shall show, it was the custom of the country to anoint not only the feet, but also the head, at feasts, and it is not to be supposed that a holy woman would pass over the head, from which the anointing began, and anoint only the feet. There is a similar explanation in vS. John. For whilst we find, from S. Matthew and S. Mark, that the same woman, a second time, on the eve of the passover of Christ, anointed His head, S. John mentions only His feet, because he probably thought that no one would suppose the feet to have been anointed and not the head. S. Luke, therefore, and S. John mentioned that part of the person which was not generally anointed, to show thereby that the part which it was the custom to anoint was so anointed now, and to set forth the woman's extraordinary love and zeal to Christ ; for she wiped His feet with the hairs of her head — a thing singular and not usual. This Christ spoke of to Simon (S. Luke vu. 44-6) : " I entered into thy house, thou gavest Me no water for My feet ; but she with tears hath washed My feet, and with her hair hath wiped them. . . . My head with oil thou didst not anoint ; but she with ointment hath anointed My feet." As if to say : " Thou didst not anoint My head as is customary ; she has anointed not only My head, but also My feet, which it is not". That S. Luke calls the former a sinner, while the latter, of whom the other Evangelists speak, was not a sinner, but a holy woman, is no argument that it was a different person, but that she who anointed Christ was at different times of a different disposition, as S. Augustin and Bede rightly observe. The other arguments, if there are any, shall be answered under the third question. 3. It was asked before whether there was one act of anointing, or more than one ? They who maintain that there were more women than one must necessarily say that there were more acts than one. They who say that there was only one woman are not compelled to say that there was only one act, though many do say so. Some say that there was one woman, who anointed Christ three times, as related : 1. By S. Luke, long before the Passion. 2. By S. John, six days before Pasch. 3. By SS. Matthew and Mark, two days before the Passion. Others say there was one woman who anointed twice : 1. Long before the Passion — S. Luke. 2. When the Passion was imminent — SS. Matthew, Luke, and John ; S. Ambrose (vu. 5. Luke) ; S. Augustin (De Consens., u. 69) ; and Bede (in loc.). This opinion seems the most probable of any. It was shown in the former question that there was one woman. It has now to be shown that she anointed twice. This may be proved by almost the same arguments as have been used to prove that there were different women, viz., that there was at first a sinner, then a holy woman ; that one anointed long before the Passion, the other when it was close at hand. Some have added that then she anointed the feet only, now the head, as if, being a sinner, she were unworthy to touch the head of Christ, as S. Augustin and Bede say. This has been answered before. It has now to be proved that she anointed Christ not oftener than twice, as some say. It is proved thus. If she anointed thrice, the act related by SS. Matthew and Mark is one ; that related by S. John is another, for it is plain that that related by SS. Matthew and Mark is the same and not different. It is shown by many circumstances that S. John relates the same act and not a different one. It was done in the same place — Bethania ; by the same kind of ointment — spikenard, very precious ; there was the same murmuring of the Jews, the same defence by Christ ; forhow can it be thought that, if Christ only four days before had rebuked the same murmurer, he would complain again of an act every way so similar, if not the same, and so soon after ? There are two things only which seem to be in some measure at variance with this view. 1. S. John said that the act was done six days before Pasch ; SS. Matthew and Mark only two. But S. Augustin and Bede rightly reply that SS. Matthew and Mark spoke by an dvatcecfraXaLcoo-is : for, not keeping the exact order, when they had said, " after two days," &c., they resumed the account of what had been done six days before the Pasch, which they had not related before, as not being required ; but which they related now because it was now necessary to declare the treachery of Judas in lying in wait to sell Christ ; he being a very avaricious man, and taking it amiss, not that the ointment was poured out of the vessel, but that the price of it escaped his hands, as S. John explains fully (xii. 6) : " Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor ; but because he was a thief, and, having the purse, carried the things which were put therein ". 2. The second question has been already explained ; that in 6\ Matthew and vS. Mark the woman appears to have anointed only the head, and in 5. John only the feet of Christ ; but, as S. Augustin says, it is often found that S. Matthew describes one part of an act and S. John another. A probable reason may be given for this. S. John set forth not merely the Passion of Christ, but His entire history, keeping the order of time, and desired to explain the singular love of the woman for Christ. He, therefore, ornits the anointing of the head, which was usual ; and mentions that of the feet, which was uncommon. But the object of SS. Matthew and Mark was not to commend the singular feeling of the woman, but to show the avariciousness of Judas, which impelled him to sell Christ ; they, therefore, describe the whole treacherous transaction, and the order of the Passion ; in which it was nothing to the purpose to say whether the woman washed the head or the feet. Thus they have only related what was ordinarily done ; that she anointed the head. What most especially bore upon their design they have most carefully described — that the ointment was of great price. This inflamed the avarice and cupidity of Judas, which they designed to publish. The sum of the whole is therefore — 1. That it was the same Simon who received Christ as his guest, and whom many believe to have been healed with others by Christ of his leprosy ; though Theophylact says that some think him to have been the same as he with whom Christ, with His disciples, took the Last Supper ; but this will be refuted at verse 18. 2. That there was one woman, and that she was the sister of Lazarus and Martha, who was called Magdalena as appears from S. John (xi. 2), and out of whom Christ cast seven devils (S. Mark xvi. 9).
In the house of Simon the leper. S. Jerome and Bede rightly say that Simon was not then a leper, for Christ would not have gone to his house had he been one ; and assuredly he could not have lived in the city, for lepers were set apart from other men. But he might have been a leper at some past time, and have been cured, but have kept the name. We have just said that it is the opinion of some that he had been healed by Christ. This is the more likely, as he showed extra ordinary love for Him, as if grateful for some benefit. The idea does not appear a necessary one. He must have been called a leper, though not such, from some disease resembling leprosy, or because one of his fore fathers, who was a leper, bore that name ; as we see men called red, or bearded, or shaven, though not literally such. It may be asked why SS. Matthew and Mark do not call him a Pharisee, nor S. Luke a leper. The enquiry is hardly worth raising, but we may conjecture that when S. Luke was relating the commencement of Christ's preaching, he wished to show the quality of the person by whom He was entertained, that it might be known that some even of the Pharisees received Him. As SS. Matthew and Markhad not this object in view, they would not term him a Pharisee, because it was not his cognomen, but the ordinary name of a sect ; while they did style him a leper, because it was such.
26:7
Having an alabaster box of ointment. Many say that alabaster boxes were made from a stone (alabaster), in which ointments were kept, because the material preserved the odour for a long time. They cite Pliny (xiii. 2 ; xxiv. 8). The account of S. Mark (xiv. 3) is opposed to this. For how could the box have been so easily broken if made of this material ? Some say that she poured out the ointment first, and then broke the vessel when there was no more ointment left in it. This hardly seems probable, for S. Mark signifies, not obscurely, that she first broke the vessel and then poured out the ointment, breaking it to do this more effectually — KOL GVVT piracy a TO a\d(3a<jrrpov tcare^eev avrov Kara Again, reason itself teaches us that she broke the vessel to pour out the ointment more freely, so that none of it should remain in the vessel. In this manner the holy woman showed abundant love, that in anointing Christ she set so little store by the ointment that she even broke the vessel lest it should retain the least portion of it. For if she had poured out all the ointment, why should she have broken the vessel ? She would rather have preserved it, to put fresh ointment into it. It appears more probable that the vessel was made of some other fragile material called alabaster, either because vessels that held ointment were made of alabaster, or, if of some other material, they bore that name ; or they may have been made without handles, such as the dealers in ointments and drugs use ; for this is the meaning of the word alabaster, as Suidas tells us.
Of precious. BapvrifjLov, " of heavy value," gravis pretii, as the Latins sometimes say, or 7ro\vTijj,ov, as some copies read, and as we find it in ^S. John xii. 3. The word probably applies not only to the quality of the ointment, but also to the quantity, meaning that not only was the ointment so good that a little of it was worth a great deal, but also that it was poured out so copiously that the value of it was great, as Judas said (verse 9): "This might have been sold for much and given to the poor " ; and as S. John explained when he said that the woman had a pound of it. S. Mark and S. John seem to warrant this idea. They say that the ointment was both precious and pisticum — that is, if we may so explain it, genuine. We will speak of this by and by. That this epithet is applied to the nard and not the oint ment is of little consequence. S. Mark and S. John both describe it as unguenti nardi pistici, or, as the Greek is, vdpbov TricrTiKrjs. As these passages are joined with the one now under discussion of S. Matthew, we may explain it hereby the way. What nard is we learn from the philosophers and physicians. Pliny and Dioscorides inform us about it. We also learn from Holy Scripture that it is a shrub of wondrous fragrance (Cant. i. 1 1 ; w. 13, 14). From the word ma'TiKi] some, as S. Augustin (Tract, w. on S. John), have thought that the pistaccio was the nardus ; but there is no authority for this among cosmographers. The ordinary and more generally received explanation, as we have hinted before, is that nardus is called pisticus from the Greek word Trto-Ttxro?, meaning genuine, approved, not tampered with or adulterated. This is the opinion of Euthymius and Theophylact on 5. Mark xiv. This may be so ; but there are the following objections : 1. The nard is not called TTJOTA/W? but TTLCTTTJ, as meaning true, tested. 2. The word Trumj so used is rare and novel. It is notused of inanimate objects. Besides, it is not the nard but the ointment that should be called pisticum. For it was not the nard but the ointment that could be adulterated by the artifices and greed of the vendors ; and the Evangelist calls the ointment pretiosus and the nard pisticus. Lastly, if the ointment were pisticum because tested, and of the best quality, it would be pretiosum. But the Evangelists distinguish, and call one pisticum and the other pretiosum. An author tells us from Athenaeus (lib. xvi.) and Pliny (xv. i) that there were formerly two kinds of ointment in use : one thick and solid, which could not easily be poured, and such as is applied to wounds ; the other liquid, and, as it were, potable, and which is easily poured out. This seems nearer the truth, and it was such as that the Evangelists describe. If so, it is called Trio-Ti/ctf, from Trielv, " to drink ". It may be brought against this view that in this sense it is not the nard but the ointment that should becalled pisticum, for it is the latter that is liquid. The answer is obvious. The word nard is used of an ointment made of nard ; as if it had been written an ointment of n ard {pistici pretiosi) . It was the custom with the Jews and other ancient nations to have their guests at their entertainments anointed. Hence the allusion of Christ when He said : " But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head " ; that is to say, Pretend to thyself that thou art to be splendidly entertained. Hence the woman, when she anointed Christ twice, did so only at a feast. So in Ps. xxii. 5 ; cxl. 5 : " Thou hast anointed my head with oil" ; " Let not the oil of the sinner fatten my head " ; that is, I would suffer injury at the hands of the just rather than be treated well by the wicked.
26:8
And the disciples seeing it. So S. Mark (xiv. 4) : " Now there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste ? " These two Evangelists seem, therefore, to signify that either all or the greater number of the Apostles made this murmuring, and S. Augustin (De Consens., u. 69) thinks it possible that, whilst Judas was the author and leader, the other Apostles may have either given their assent, or even themselves murmured, though in a different spirit, to Judas ; they from love of the poor, he from avariciousness. It is clear from S. John (xii. 4), however, that Judas alone murmured, as S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, Theophylact, S. Jerome, S. Augustin, and Bede have observed. The other Evangelists speak by syllepsis, as is their frequent custom, as when (S. Matt. xiv. 15) the disciples asked Christ whence they could buy bread to feed the five thousand, whilst S. John explains that only Philip did so. But the most notable example of this is the case of the thieves on the cross ; for S. Matthew (xxvii. 44) says that they both reviled Christ, whilst it is beyond doubt, from S. Luke (xxiii. 39), that only one did so.
26:9
And given to the poor. S. John informs us of the spirit in which Judas said this (xii. 6).
26:10
And Jesus knowing it. Understanding the words and thoughts of Judas, though he spoke apart and silently. The Evangelist wished to show the divinity of Christ, as chaps, ix. 4, xii. 25. In this manner, S. Mark says (xiv. 4, 5), the disciples took it amiss, and murmured among themselves, as if speaking, not in words, but in their hearts. The Greek is TT/DO? eaurou?, apud se ; that is, among themselves, one with another, in their own minds, Judas being the only exception, which could not escape the knowledge of Christ. This is the meaning of the words, " But Jesus knowing it ".
26:12
She hath done it for My burial. The Jews used to anoint the bodies of the dead, before burial, with ointments and spices, as we find in Gen. 1. 2-26 ; vS. Mark xvi. I ; 5. Luke xxiii. 56; xxiv. I ; S. John xix. 40. Christ, therefore, signifies that His death was so near that the woman, as if divining it, anointed Him for it. Not that she thought, perhaps, on the subject, but that she anointed Him thus opportunely that she may appear to have done it to this end. Trie meaning, perhaps, is that she anointed Him now because after His death she would not be able to do so ; as S. Mark signified : " What she could she hath done ; she is come aforehand to anoint My body for the burial " (xiv. 8). S. John should be received in this or some similar sense : " Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of My burial " (xii. 7), as meaning : At My burial they would have no ointment ; for they brought spices afterwards ; suffer her now to keep this ointment for that time ; for she keeps it by anointing Me now, as she was about to do. The Greek expresses it more clearly : TerijpTjKev avro, " she has kept it " ; that is, she has so placed it out by anointing Me that she cannot lose it ; as we say of one who has bought an estate that he cannot lose his money, as he might do if he carried it on his person, or shut it up in a box ; by spending it he preserves it. Christ desired to excuse the act of the woman, which otherwise might have appeared unnecessary, by the use and custom of anointing the dead, and by her piety to Himself; and at the same time to set her above Judas the murmurer, when he thought of himself in selling, and she thought of Him in anointing, and, in some way burying, Him. Not, perhaps, that she understood what she did, but that she was moved by some silent impulse of the Holy Spirit ; so that her act was not to be blamed, for it was pious in itself, and necessary for the dead, and it proceeded from the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Some have asked how it was that Christ allowed such luxuries, when His whole life and doctrine were so entirely opposed to such. S. Chrysostom (Horn. Ixxxi. in /<?£.) says that if Christ had been consulted beforehand He would not have permitted and approved it, but when done He excused it. But it would appear as if Christ so defended it as, even if He had been consulted beforehand, He would have approved the act ; and it was also impossible that Christ could have been ignorant of the act before it was done, and still He did not prevent it. For He had suffered Himself to be anointed by the same woman at another time and place (S. Luke vu. 38), and He not only did not rebuke her, but even gave her praise, and sent her away with her sins forgiven. Christ, therefore, accepted luxuries, not as such, but as the offerings of love. Nor is it a singular fact ; for within the space of three years the act was repeated twice by the same woman ; and an act which was one of love and pity, and which always met with much praise from Christ, should not be without its imitators. We should learn two lessons from this : i. That although what is done to the poor Christ considers as done to Himself, as He said (xxv. 40), yet that there is a great difference between the person of Christ and of the poor, and that it is a greater merit and piety to clothe or support Christ Himself than the poor, as has been observed by Theophylact (in loc.*). 2. That many things which heretics and profane persons think absurd and useless are regarded by Christ as pious and full of charity; such as are ornaments of churches instituted in honour of Christ, but regarded by heretics, like the ancient Gentiles, with derision, as Theophylact says.
26:13
Amen, I say unto you wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached. This and 5. Mark xiv. 9 are the only places, as we have observed in the Preface, where the word Rvangelium is used for Ev angelica Historia.
In the whole world, that also which she hath done shall be told for a memory of her. The memory and praise of this woman shall be celebrated wheresoever the Gospel is preached ; for all men shall unite in praising her remarkable act. Christ appears to oppose His own judgment and praise of the anointing to the murmurs of Judas and the blame of the whole world ; as if He had said : What you wickedly and malignantly blame, men of all ages shall celebrate with endless praise. This, in truth, was foretold (Ps. cxi. 7 and Prov. x. 7).
26:14
Then went out. S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, and others refer the word " then " to the six days before Pasch, when the woman anointed Christ, as in 5. John xii. 3. Others refer them to the two days referred to in verse 3, when the chief priests and elders met in council to debate on the destruction of Christ. This is the opinion of Bede, and seems to be the more common opinion in the Church. The argument of some, to prove that the Church used to fast on the fourth day, because on that day Judas sold Christ, seems of no weight, because, as S. Augustin and Theophylact say, the Church fasted not for this reason, but because of the council which the chief priests assembled on that day to put Christ to death. The words of S. Matthew (verse 16) seem to be of more weight. For it appears from these that some days before the Pasch Judas had had meetings with the Jews on the subject of the betrayal of Christ. This reason alone may cause doubt as to whether the betrayal happened on the night of the supper or shortly before it : because Christ was not in Jerusalem previously, but at Bethania, and it does not seem probable that Judas would have left the Apostles and come from Bethania to Jerusalem to treat of the betrayal, lest while he was plotting to deliver up Christ he should betray his intention. Yet, as SS. Matthew and Mark say plainly that, from the day on which Judas agreed with the Jews for the price, he sought opportunity to betray Christ, we must believe that this had been agreed upon some days before Pasch, on all which he was seeking his opportunity. That this was done two days before, and not six, as is the more commonly received opinion, so it is in itself more probable ; because, as aforesaid, there were two assemblies of the Jews — that of which S. John speaks (xi. 47, 48 ; xii. 19), and this of S. Matthew (v. 3) and S. Mark (xiv. i). In the assembly of S. John, they determined that it was expedient to put Christ to death, Caiaphas the high priest being the chief author of it. In that of SS. Matthew and Mark they consulted, not whether He should be put to death, but how it should be done ; and it is therefore certain that Judas had not yet said : " What will you give me, and I will deliver Him to you" (S. Matt., verse 15). For, if so, they would not have discussed the manner of Christ's capture, but have gladly accepted the conditions of Judas, as described by S. Mark (xiv. n) and S. Luke (xxii. 5). It is probable, therefore, that on the same day as that on which the chief priests assembled the second council to deliberate the manner of Christ's capture, Judas came to them and promised his assistance.
One of the twelve. The Evangelist seems to use this expression to show the magnitude of the offence ; that one of Christ's own twelve Apostles and His familiar friend should have sold Him, while a woman, a stranger, and not long since a sinner, did for Him a singular office of love and piety.
Who w as called Judas Iscariot. The two names of Judas are mentioned, that no injustice might be done to the other Apostles. For the reader might otherwise have been left in doubt about the others, who were without blame, and he might have suspected some of them ; but the word Iscariot distinguishes him from the other Jude, who is called by S. Luke (vi. 16) the brother of James. This is the opinion of S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact. Why he was called Iscariot has been stated (x. 4). S. Luke (xxii. 3) says that Satan entered into Judas. This is not to be understood as meaning that he got possession of his body, as with Energumens, but that he inspired him with the most wicked thought of selling Christ; as Euthymius (in loc.} and Didymus (De Spiritu Sancto, iii.) have explained, and as appears from 6". John xiii. 2. That Satan, therefore, entered into Judas means simply, as is said by S. Luke, that he put it into his mind to betray Christ, as S. John says. But did not this mean, perhaps, that the devil put it into his heart to steal the contents of the purse and commit other like crimes ? Undoubtedly so ; but why is Satan not said to have entered into him then ? It seems that S. Luke wished to convey the idea of the foulness and profanity of the deed, as if he had said more plainly, It was so wicked an act that only by Satan's entering into him could he possibly have done it ; and thus Satan is not said to have entered into him when he was guilty of only lighter offences, although he committed them at the instigation of the same prompter. Thus we often say, wrhen we see a man committing some more common and less heinous offence, " The devil has deluded him " ; but when he perpetrates some unheard of and enormous wickedness, we say that he is a devil incarnate, because but for the suggestions of the devil he could not have committed it. Thus is answered the question, Why, when S. Luke says that " Satan now entered into Judas," S. John (xiii. 27) says that he did not enter into him until the Last Supper, when Judas had received the sop from Christ ? For, in fact, Satan did not enter him either now or then ; but by inspiring him and inciting him to the final iniquity he entered into him when he persuaded him to sell Christ, and when he incited him to deliver Him up when sold ; for S. Luke says that Satan entered at the selling, and S. John when he betrayed Christ ; because it was a greater sin to betray Him than to sell Him. This is certain, as Bede and Euthymius have shown that one Evangelist could not contradict the other. Thus God was in no sense the author of the treachery of Judas, as some modern heretics have said. We, indeed, allow that God permitted Judas to sell, but not that He was the author, suggester, or inciter of the act. For there remain the words of S. James (i. 13), which cannot be false.
To the chief priests. S. Luke (xxii. 4) adds <rrpaTijyoi$, " captains," whom he distinguishes from the chief priests and elders (v. 52), and calls o-TpaTrjyoK " magistrates of the Temple " ; that is, officers who were over, or in charge of, the Temple, who were possibly soldiers whom some of the priests had under them for the safe custody of the Temple, and who were, therefore, called duces. For the Jews were not allowed by the arbitrary power of the Romans to have any other military force.
26:15
But they appointed him thirty pieces of silver. Vide chap, xviii. 8, for a discussion of Jewish silver money, and the various kinds of silver coins used by them ; and especially the denarius and siclus (side). The siclus, like all other money valued by weight, was twofold — the profane, which was less ; the sacred, which was greater, as Scripture everywhere signifies. There was also among the Romans, under whom the Jews then were, a silver coinage ; but it is probable that S. Matthew, a Hebrew, and the author of a Hebrew Gospel, would speak of Hebrew money, and that he said F]D3 Dr£?l7l^ but the Hebrews call silver, unstamped or coined, and all money, of whatever metal composed, silver. The French do the same, both of silver and other money, because the greatest part is composed of silver. But when a numeral is added, some kind of silver money alone is meant. This is of two kinds — the denarius, which the Hebrews, borrowing from the Latin, call "HI and the side, which, perhaps, as being of greater weight, was called 7pt^ that is, pondus (weight). But when the word F|DD argentei (of silver), is put for silver money, unless the kind of coin is specified, it rarely means anything but side ; and the Chaldee paraphrast, when the Hebrew is £]DD with a numeral, renders it side, as in Gen. xxxvii. 28 ; xlv. 22 ; Judges xvi. 5; xvii. 2, 4, 10 ; 2 Kings xviii. u, 12; 4 Kings vi. 25; ha. vu. 23. In other passages, like the Evangelist, he renders it ap<yvpeov$, argenteas, as in Judges xvii. 4-10 ; Zach. xi. 12. So Josephus (Antiq., iii. 9 ; ix. 2) renders the word argenteis (pieces of silver) of 4 Kings vi. 25, which the authors of the books Misnaioth have cited, by sides. It appears, then, from the custom of the Hebrews, that the argenteos, the pieces of silver of which S. Matthew speaks, as no other kind of money is specified, were sides ; but a silver side, as shown above, was equal to one French franc ; that is, twenty silver solidi. An obolus was equal to a French sou, and it is clear, from Scripture (Rxod. xxx. 13; Levit. xxvii. 25; Numb, iii. 47; xviii. 16 ; Ezek. xlv. 12), that a siclus had twenty oboli. A siclus was four drachmas, and one didrachma was equal to five French sous, or one Spanish real. Four drachmas, there fore, held twenty sous, a French franc, or Tours pound. If this be so, Christ was sold for thirty French francs. If it be objected that the potter's field could not have been bought at the price named (S. Matt, xxvii. 7), the answer may be that it could not, perhaps, be done now, when things fetch much higher prices ; but this was possible then, for Jeremiah (xxxii. 9) bought a field for seven staters and ten pieces of silver, which was a much less price.
26:17
And the first day of the Azymes. On the Azymes, vide verse 2 and following.
26:18
Go ye into the city. Two things may here be inferred : 1. That Christ when He said this was not at Jerusalem, but either at Bethania, where He had passed the two preceding days, or on the way thither ; for it is beyond doubt that the city of Jerusalem is intended, at which, when Christ sent the disciples, He Himself had not arrived. 2. The words of the preceding verse (17), "On the first day of the Azymes," are not to be understood as if the day had arrived, but that it was at hand. For if the Azymes had begun it would have been too late to send the disciples to make preparations for the Pasch ; and the Evangelist implies (verse 20) that the evening had not come when Christ sent the disciples. S. Luke, also (xx. 14), says : " When the hour was come He sat down and the twelve Apostles with Him," as if it had not arrived when He sent them into the city. We are informed by S. Luke (xxii. 8) who the disciples were that were sent.
To a certain man. Upo? TOV Selva, to a particular person, but one who is not named. As S. Jerome has observed, the Hebrews express it thus : ^1D^D7. It has been doubted whether these are the words of Christ or the Evangelist. They appear to be those of the latter, for Christ would scarcely have used an expression which is not found in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. But whether Christ mentioned the man by name, or, as we shall shortly prove, He did not do this, but pointed him out by certain signs, the Evangelist would not name him ; though he wished it to be known that Christ sent His disciples, not to a stranger, but to a particular person whom He described to them. If, as is more likely, Christ did not name the man, the Evangelist intended to show this when he wrote that Christ said; " Go ye to a certain man ". We may conclude that Christ did not name him from the description He gave of him (S. Mark xiv. 13 ; 5. Luke xxii. 10). For if Christ had named the man, what need would there have been of any description ? He would have said in one word, Go to Peter or Paul. S. Jerome and Bede offer as the reason why Christ did not name the man that we may understand by His silence that all men are invited to celebrate with Him the New Pasch. S. Ambrose (On S. Luke xxii.) says that "he was described without a name that, as a poor and unknown man, he might be held in esteem " ; as Christ chooses, not the rich and noble, but the poor, and men of no regard, with whom to share His mysteries. But this is opposed to 5. Mark xiv. 15 and 5. Luke xxii. 12, where Christ says : " He will show you a large upper room," such as a poor man could not possibly possess. Christ said "furnished " — not paved with stones of tiles, but adorned with tapestry and with tables prepared for a supper, as S. Mark describes it. Some Greek copies of this Gospel have earpco/jLevov eToipov, "ready furnished," as if the second word were added to explain the first. Euthymius says that Christ did not mention him that Judas might not know with whom He was going to keep Pasch, and lay snares for Him. S. Chrysostom's opinion seems a better one (Horn. IxxxiL), that Christ did not name him because he was unknown, as I Kings x. 3. But this is not sufficient, because it appears from the words that follow that the man was not only known, but was also a disciple, and in some degree an intimate of Christ. "The Master saith, My time is near at hand, with thee I make My pasch with My disciples" (verse 18). This shows that the other was in some sense His disciple, and by the words, " My time is near at hand," that he was in a degree an intimate. It seems more likely, therefore, either that Christ did not mention the man by name, that He might describe him in a better manner, and thus more clearly show His Divinity : or that the man was really unknown. For if He had said, " Go to Peter," or " to Paul," there would have been nothing to distinguish him from other men ; but when He said, " Behold, as you go into the city, there shall meet you a man carrying a pitcher of water" (S. Luke xxii. 19), He showed that He foreknew the future, and that all things were prepared by divine counsel for His death. So that God would appear to haveled the man to the fountain to draw water that he might meet the disciples, and bring them to the house in which all things were prepared for celebrating the Pasch ; so that nothing might retard the celebration of the Pasch, nor hinder the divine decree. Maldonatus then enters at much length into what he admits to be a fruitless inquiry as to who the man may possibly have been. — and he gives the opinions of several early authors on the subject ; but he confesses at the same time that nothing is or can be known as to who he actually was. He considers that most probably he was some wealthy Jew, who was a friend of Christ, and a believer in Him, but secretly, like Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus ; and he concludes by repeating that the large and well-furnished room shows him to have been no poor man nor plebeian, and that Christ calling Himself " Master " to him would signify that he was a disciple, and His saying, " My time is near at hand," that he was an intimate.
The Master saith. Christ appears in this word to assert that authority which no one can resist, as if He had said, " God says " ; but He calls Himself the Master rather than God or Lord, as a man speaks to another man. He used the same authority when He sent His disciples to loose the foal (xxi. 3), and in this case the result showed the weight that the word " Lord " carried ; for as soon as the disciples used it the owners of the colt let it go (S. Mark xi. 6 ; 5. Luke xix. 35).
My time is near at hand. Some think that Christ in these words alludes to His intention, as said before, of keeping the Pasch before the Jews, because of the near approach of His death. This is probable, and it confirms our idea of Christ having celebrated Pasch before the other Jews. But it is more likely that He wished to show His friendship for the man, because when about to depart from the world He desired to keep his last supper with him, and that not by invitation, but of His own mind, like one who is a most intimate friend. That He did not say, " My death," but " My time," seems to show that He was to die at that time, not without reason or by chance, nor by the force or contrivance of the Jews, but because the time of His death appointed by His Father was come : that is, " My time," " the time appointed by Me," or " that on which I have decreed to die ".
With thee I make the Pasch. That is, "I have decreed to make it". It is a Hebrew expression like that in 5. John (xxi. 3), " I go a fishing," that is, "I have resolved to go". The others answer in the same way, " We also come with thee ". The Latins sometimes used the same (Seneca to Serenus, De Tranquilit. Vu., u.).
With My disciples. Christ seems to have added this to warn His host to prepare for the reception of thirteen persons. From this we may suppose that the man had some acquaintance with Christ, and knew that He had His disciples with Him.
26:20
When it was evening. S. Mark says the same. They mention the evening to show that Christ celebrated the Pasch at the time appointed by the Law, which commanded that the lamb should be slaughtered between the two evenings : that is, between the sunset of the I4th and the night of the i5th, as explained on verse 2. S. Luke said to the same effect (xxii. 14), " When the hour was come," that is, when the sun had set. They who say that Christ ate the lamb before the setting of the sun appear to commit a double error : both as they speak contrarily to the Law, which commanded the lamb to be eaten with unleavened bread between the two even ings. It was not eaten before the setting of the sun when the fifteenth day was begun, that is, the first day of Azymes. Secondly, when they make in this manner Christ to have been put to death at the same time as that at which the lamb was eaten, that is, between midday and sunset, they cause Him to have died not only not at the same hour, but not even on the same day ; for if they say that the lamb was eaten on the fourteenth day between noon and sunset, as Christ died on the fifteenth day, He did not die on the same day.
He sat down. 'Ave/ceLTo, discumbebat, properly recumbebat. Some have thought, from the strict meaning of the word, that it refers, not to the eating of the lamb, but of the supper, of which Christ partook afterwards ; because, although the Law did not order the Jews, in plain words, to eat it standing, as Euthymius says, yet they concluded this from the Law (Exod. xii. n) : "And thus shall ye eat it: you shall gird your loins, and you shall have shoes on your feet, holding staves in your hands, and you shall eat in haste, for it is the Passover of the Lord ". This description allows no doubt that it could not have been eaten otherwise than standing ; or why were they to gird their loins ? why to have their shoes on their feet ? why to hold their staves in their hands ? how were they to show the haste of their departure if they were not standing ? This posture alone speaks much more clearly than all the other things together. For nothing shows more haste in a man than his not sitting even to take his necessary food. The connection of words, too, does not permit us to allow this of any other supper than that at which the lamb was eaten (verses 19, 20 ; S. John xiii. 12). S. Matthew, too, as if speaking of another supper than that in which the lamb was eaten, says (verse 26) : " And whilst they were at supper " ; and S. Luke (xxii. 14) : " And when the hour was come, He sat down, and the twelve Apostles with Him " ; where it is certain that he spoke of the eating of the lamb, stating the time, because the lamb was eaten at a certain fixed time. He says, therefore, of the supper of the lamb, aveTreae, as S. Matthew here has ave/celro. The idea of some others, of which we are informed by Theophylact and Euthymius, is still more senseless : that Christ did not eat the lamb that year, when all the Evangelists bear such open witness to the contrary. It deserves no answer. When, therefore, the Evangelists say that Christ recubuisse to eat the Passover, it must not be understood that He actually either sat or reclined ; for we must believe, as S. Chrysostom says, that He kept all the ceremonies of the Law most perfectly, and, above all, that of eating the Pasch standing, as the Jews of old ate it ; because it was the Passover of the Lord, as He was about to pass from this world. At all dinners and suppers the ancient Jews used to recline : in the time of Christ they were most probably accustomed to sit, and though the attitude was changed, the term was still preserved. For to this day we say, in Latin, accumbere, at table, although we sit. The Evangelists, therefore, though they used the ordinary word, recumbo, would not signify that Christ really reclined, but came to the table and supped.
Wit I i His twelve disciples. It may be thought that, in mentioning the number of the disciples with whom Christ ate the Paschal lamb, the Evangelist meant to show that Christ on this point also observed the Law. For the Law commanded the master of the house to eat the lamb with his whole family (Exod. xii. 3, 4). But the disciples were the family of Christ. S. Chrysostom thinks the Evangelists said this to show that Judas also sat down with the twelve Apostles, and proclaimed his insolence and ingratitude. The ancient authorities differ on this. Some think that Judas was not present, either at the partaking of the New Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, or even at the eating of the Paschal lamb ; as S. Hilary (On S, Matt., Can. xxx.), who thinks that Judas went out while Christ was eating the lamb, to treat with the chief priests about His seizure and delivery. Others think that he was present at the supper of the lamb, but not at the reception of the Sacrament. This is constantly affirmed by S. Clement Alexandria (Constit. Apost., v. 16). Of this opinion also, as it seems, was S. Innocent (lib. w. 13, De Myster.). The arguments are as follows : 1. S. John (xiii. 30) says that Judas, as soon as he had received the sop from Christ, went out. We must suppose that the sop was given to him by Christ before the distribution of the Sacrament ; for, as S. Luke says (xxii. 20), Christ gave His Body and Blood after He had supped, and, as S. John says (xiii. 2), "when supper was done ". Judas, therefore, did not receive it. 2. Christ, speaking apparently of the Sacrament of His Blood, used the words : " I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of My Father " (verse 29). As Judas, therefore, will not drink it hereafter in the kingdom of the Father, he had not drunk it previously. 3. It is not to be supposed that Christ did what He has forbidden us to do ; namely, to give His Body and Blood to a most wicked man who had shown no sign of repentance. As to what some say, that Judas was indeed a sinner, but not a public one, and to men of this class the Sacrament ought not to be refused, it is a question of doubt. For Christ now discovered him, both by giving the sop, and by the words, "Thou hast said". When the Body and Blood was given, then, all the Apostles knew that Judas was the betrayer. These arguments would be of convincing weight, had not the opposite ones defenders still more in number, and were they not more capable of proof. Some said that Judas was present both at the Paschal supper and the ordinary one, and at the reception of the Body and Blood of Christ ; and that He drank the Blood, but kept the Body to show to the chief priests in derision what Christ called His Body and had given to His disciples as a great mystery. Theophylact relates this, but as it is wholly devoid of proof it needs no answer. The ancient authors generally say that Judas was present at the whole ceremony, and took of the Body and Blood of the Lord (S. Cyprian, Lib. de Cccn. Doin. ; S. Chrysostom, Horn, in S. Matt. Ixxxii., and Horn, de prod. Judce ; S. Jerome, in loc. ; S. Augustin, Ep. Ixiii. and Tractat. in Joann. ; Theodosius, On I Cor. xi. ; Leo, De Pass. Dom., Serin, vu.). This opinion can be proved, because it is not credible that before all was finished Judas rose from the table to go to the chief priests ; for he would thus have betrayed his treachery, which he greatly wished to conceal. Again, after the Eucharist had been given by Christ, S. Luke speaks of Christ as addressing Judas, who was still present (xxii. 20, 21). The words of S. John, therefore, that Judas when he had received the sop went out, must be under stood to mean either that Christ immediately after the Eucharist gave the sop to point out the traitor, or the word "immediately" as used by S. John means not that very moment of time, but as short a space afterwards as possible. The former seems the more likely, because S. John appears to speak as if to show that the receipt of the sop was the reason of Judas going out : as if he were enraged at being pointed out as the betrayer. It is less likely that when he had received the sop he should have waited, however short a time, and received the Holy Sacrament. The words of Christ — " I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine until the day when I shall drink it new with you in the kingdom of My Father" — do not necessarily imply that Judas was not then present, because, although Christ does not drink with him hereafter, He does so with others ; and this is sufficient for Him to say, " until I drink it new with you," the words " with you " referring to the Apostles as a whole. Maldonatus then discusses the opinion of Euthymius and some others, that there were more than the Apostles present. Maldonatus decides the question in the negative — first, because the Evangelists have given the names in full, and with exactness, and secondly, because the Law commanded that the Pasch should be eaten by the members of each household, except there were not enough in number to consume the lamb, when strangers might be added. This was not the case here.
26:21
One of you. Christ discovers the traitor sine injuria, by showing that He knew him, but not naming him. Many have inquired why Christ said this. According to S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, Bede, Theophylact, and Euthymius, He did it to give Judas an opportunity of repenting, and to urge him to a change of purpose, when he saw that his designs could not be concealed. Christ also may be thought to have said it to show that He died, not against His will, nor as circumvented by craft, nor without His expectation : but knowingly, willingly, resolutely, and when, from His know ledge of the design of the traitor, He might have defeated it, and yet would not do so. But why did Christ not name him ? We may reply that it was in accordance with the loving-kindness of Christ to spare the name and reputation even of His own betrayer, and to be content with showing that He was not ignorant of His betrayer ; but would not name him, because it was not necessary to His object, which was to show that He died of His own knowledge and free-will. S. Jerome answers a little otherwise, that Christ did not name Judas that He might not anger him. Origen adds that Christ spoke generally, and not particularly, that the others, struck by His words, might show themselves by their countenances to be innocent, while Judas discovered himself as the traitor.
26:22
And they, being very much trembled. It seems strange why the Apostles who were innocent should have been troubled, as if each thought the above words spoken of himself. Nor were they only so much grieved at the great wickedness that Christ should be betrayed by His own follower, whoever he were — though no doubt this did afflict them greatly — but, as S. Matthew shows, they were sorry because each thought the saying possibly spoken of himself, and was anxious, and said, " Is it I ? " Origen, S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact give as the cause, that even if they knew themselves innocent, yet they put more faith in the words of Christ than in their own consciences.
26:23
He that dippeth. S. John (xiii. 24) says that it was S. Peter who suggested to him to ask Christ who the betrayer was. We must, therefore, believe that both events took place, and that the Apostles first asked, one after another, "Is it I?" and when Christ would not name the traitor, that S. Peter, who resented the insults on Christ with more vehemence than the rest, asked S. John to enquire of Christ who it was that should betray Him. From this it follows that Christ, in these words, " He that dippeth his hand with Me in the dish, he shall betray Me," did not fully describe the traitor, but first spoke generally : "One of you " ; and then when each had asked, " Lord, is it I ? " He answered somewhat more explicitly, " He that dippeth," that is, one of those who dip bread in the same dish " with Me ". For it is possible that, on a large table where thirteen sat at meat, there were different plates and dishes into which either three or four dipped their bread ; so that Christ showed that one of these three or four, or as many as were accustomed to dip their bread in the same dish with Him, would betray Him. Lastly, when the Apostles, even by this indication, could not discover who it was, John, at the request of Peter, again asked who it was, and Christ replied (S. JoJm xiii. 16): " He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped " ; but because it was spoken by Christ in the ear of John, so that the others could not understand it, Judas himself at last, lest his silence should appear to convict him, asked, like the others had done : " Rabbi, is it I ? " and Christ answered : "Thou hast said" (verse 25). When this was said, neither Judas himself nor the rest could have been ignorant as to the traitor, and probably Judas, when he saw that he was discovered, went out ; for before he was discovered by his name he could dissemble, but afterwards he could not; and because it is likely that this took place as soon as he received the sop, S. John may have said that he went out " immediately ". The accounts of the Evangelists seem to be thus reconciled. Origen, indeed, S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, Euthymius, and Theophylact think that by the words, " He that dippeth with Me," Judas was personally described, and only not pointed out with the finger ; for they say that he had arrived at such a pitch of shamelessness, that when the other Apostles modestly and reverently abstained from the Master's dish, Judas alone put his hand into it. S. Chrysostom alone thinks that Judas did it not from shamelessness, but at Christ's request, that the others might know who was the traitor. This idea, however, seems untenable, because it renders it impossible to harmonise S. John with S. Matthew. For if Judas had been certainly pointed out by these words, what need was there for Peter, through John, to ask who would be the betrayer ? What need that Christ should point him out by other means, when He said, " It is he to whom I shall reach bread dipped " ? (S. John xiii. 26). For all the Apostles had heard Him say, " He that dippeth his hand with Me in the dish, he shall betray Me" (S. Matt. xxvi. 23) ; and this, as all authorities agree, was done before that was said by Christ and Judas had dipped into the dish. Thus they all knew that Judas would be the traitor if he alone dipped with Christ into the dish. Others, on the other hand, say that these words no more than before pointed out the traitor ; for they only meant, " He that dippeth with Me into the dish " ; that is, one of those who sit with Me at a common table and share a common dish. All the Apostles sat together, and all dipped into the same dish, and, therefore, nothing more is meant than the saying of S. Mark : " One of you that eateth with Me shall betray Me" (xiv. 18) ; and S. Luke: "Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me on the table" (xxii. 21). Christ did not wish, therefore, to point out the betrayer, but to exaggerate the wickedness by which, when he had taken food at the same table and from the same dish, he would betray Him ; as David says (Ps. xl. 10) : "Even he in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly supplanted me ". But this does not seem to harmonise well with the words of the Evangelist, for Christ, in this case, would rather have said, " One of these who dip their hand with Me in the dish," as He had said, " One of you is about to betray Me" ; and it is not probable that, when asked by each of the disciples who it should be that would betray, He would have given no other indication of the traitor than He had already given. Some have asked how it happened that the liquid or condiment came to be in the dish when the Law had commanded that the lamb should be eaten roasted and not boiled (Exod. xii. 8). This is one of their arguments who say that Christ did not eat the lamb that year : as Theophylact and Euthymius say. But it is of very little weight. For this is to be understood, not of the supper in which Christ ate the lamb, but of that which was spread after the lamb had been eaten, as will be explained on verse 26. In this roasted, boiled, and all kinds of meat and condiments might be used : leavened bread alone being forbidden, because it was the first day of the Azymes.
26:24
The Son of man indeed go eth. Christ compares His own position to that of Judas, and prefers it. At this time Judas appeared to be in a better position than Christ. Christ was the sold : he was the seller. Christ was going to death : Judas to reward. Christ was about to be deserted even by all His disciples : Judas was to be united to the chief priests, the Scribes and elders, in favour and friendship ; and might therefore appear much more happy than Christ in the judgment of men. Christ Himself refutes this opinion, and declares that in a short time He should be in a better state than Judas. That He was to suffer and die seemed to Him neither an affliction nor a calamity, nor a thing unexpected or compulsory; but on the contrary, one that was pleasant, laudable, duteous, voluntary : a thing undertaken with the intention of obeying the will of His Father, and fulfilling His decree and the prophecies of Himself; as He said, "The Son of man goeth indeed as it is written of Him " (Dan. ix. 26). The word " goeth " has the force of Christ's showing that He was not driven out of the world by force, but left of His own free will ; for it was not so much death as a migration, as is rightly said by Theophylact. The words : " As it is written," show that the need of His death proceeded not from man, but from the divine decree and forewarning. He compares His own end, therefore, with that of Judas, because although He appeared to be dragged to death, He was not so in reality, but He went to it. He went, indeed, less to death than to glory ; for it was from this " cause God also hath exalted Him " (Phil. u. 9). Judas, on the other hand, who appeared to go to profit and the favour of men, would go to the noose ; and to eternal punishment so severe that it would have been better for him if he had not been born. Maldonatus then enters into some abstract questions of Predestination and others depending on it. The Svo omits the whole. It may, however, be thus stated in summary. Objection : That Judas in betraying Christ fulfilled the divine decree equally with Christ Himself, and therefore that Judas was not more guilty than Christ. S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, Theophylact, and all Catholic teachers say in reply that it was not decreed or predestinated by God that Judas should sell Christ, but that it was foreknown and foreseen by Him that Judas would do so, and that Christ should be put to death in consequence. God did not predestinate it, but He foresaw it. He did not do it, but he permitted it. Calvin makes the necessity of things to be the divine will, and says that God not only foresaw that Judas would betray Christ, but predestinated him by this necessity to do it. If so, says Maldonatus, Judas could not commit sin. The answer is, that God and Judas did the same act, but God did not sin, and Judas did ; because God did it with the good intention of man's recovery, and Judas from a mind full of avarice and wickedness. But according to Calvin, God alone was the author of the act. Or it may be said that God generated an evil mind in Judas. The mind of God that Christ should die was necessarily good ; He had no need of Judas' evil one, for He might have caused Judas to sell Christ^with a good intention, as, to obey God ; or Christ might have been sold and have died with an intention neither good nor bad. The mind of Judas was of God ; the evil of it was of himself. Another question has been asked. If it would have been better for Judas never to have been born, why did God create him ? S. Chrysostom and Eustathius reply that Judas was not created by God such as he became afterwards. God made him good, but he afterwards made himself a traitor. So says Solomon (Eccl. vu. 30). It has been asked again why, being such as he was, Christ chose him as disciple. On this see chap. x. 4. In one word, when Judas was chosen by Christ, he was not what he became afterwards ; but God in His choice of men often has regard not to their future, but to their present merits. We see this in the case of Saul. God chose him when he was yet good. He was made evil per se. The same may be said of Solomon.
26:25
Is it /, Rabbi? Judas did not put this question to Christ as one ignorant, that he might learn what in his own conscience he could not but know ; but as a crafty speculator, to try whether Christ knew him to be the future traitor, and like a shame less dissembler, that whilst the others were asking each of himself whether he were the one, he also should enquire about himself, that he might pretend that he was not. He did not do so, as it appears, of his own choice, but as compelled by the example of the rest Hence he asked last of all, and perhaps after Christ had in some way pointed him out by the words, " He that dippeth with Me in the dish, he shall betray Me " ; for the Evangelist relates the former before the latter. Such, at least, is the opinion of Origen, S. Chrysostom, and Bede. These observe that Judas did not say like the rest, " Is it I, Lord ? " but " Is it I, Rabbi ? " as if, even when he most especially wished to dissemble his treachery, he was compelled by his pride to betray himself by addressing Christ with a less honourable title than the rest.
TJwu hast said it. This mode of answering was honourable, and with the least possible offence to him addressed ; nor had it anything of the petulance \vhich we are apt to show when questioned. But S. Augustin's idea that Christ's words conveyed neither assent nor denial cannot be reconciled with the ordinary forms of speech. It is supposed that Christ said this to Judas after He had given him the sop as mentioned by S. John.
26:26
And whilst they were at supper. eaOiovrcov Se avrwi*, vescentibus autem illis. Our version renders the meaning, not the words. They were at supper, because it was evening, and the food taken then is called supper. S. Mark uses the word eaQwvrwv, " eating," and our version has "eating" and not " supping " as here. The different rendering of the same word was made, doubt less, for some good reason. S. Luke (xxii. 20) and S. Paul (i Cor. xi. 25) say that this was done after supper. Hence the words of S. Matthew and S. Mark, eaOiovrcov Se avrwv, ccenantibus, aut manducantibus illis, are riot be under stood as if Christ had done it during the supper, but immediately on its being ended, before they rose from the table, and the fragments were removed. Three acts were therefore performed at this time, which three are generally called suppers : 1. The eating of the lamb, which some call the cere monial supper. 2. The common and customary one ; for whilst the eating of the lamb was a matter of religion, when the people had eaten it they were not satisfied, and therefore another supper was spread that each might take sufficient. 3. That in which Christ gave them Bread and Wine, consecrated to be His Body and Blood. It is not certain whether the first is ever called a supper. The second is called so by S. Luke, S. John, and S. Paul. The third is nowhere called a supper in Scripture ; for S. Paul speaks of the Lord's Supper, not the Eucharist, but either a supper or dinner which wealthy Christians, either before, as some think, or after taking the Eucharist, used to give to the poor, in imitation of Christ, who, before He gave His disciples His Body and Blood, took His last supper with them, as men do when they are on the eve of going away from their friends, and showed His singular love to them, as we read in 5. Luke xxii. 15 : "With desire have I desired to eat this Pasch with you before I suffer". S. Paul blames them because the wealthy took the supper which they called the Lord's Supper, and which Christians took in imitation of Christ to practise charity among themselves, with fastidious ness and without waiting for the poor, who, when they came found nothing for them, and some were hungry and others were drunken. Hence it is plain that S. Paul speaks of this supper at which some were hungry and others drunken ; for who can believe that any man was ever made drunk by the taking of the Sacrament ? When he says, therefore, " Have you not houses to eat and to drink in ? " he clearly shows that he does not call the supper " Eucharist," which none are allowed to take at their houses in private. Lastly, when he says, " Putting to shame those who have not " (verse 22), he shows clearly that he speaks of that supper which the poor were not able to prepare for themselves. But no one was unable to prepare the Eucharist, for which only a morsel of bread and a draught of wine were necessary. The meaning of S. Paul, there fore, is that if the wealthy are so hungry that they cannot wait for the hour of dinner or supper, they should eat at their own houses ; lest, if they eat in the church, not waiting for the poor, they either anticipate the supper, or appear to despise the poor, and to break the chain of love which is seen in that feast This is not to eat the Supper of the Lord — at least, not after the manner of Christ, who, though He was Lord, yet sat not alone, but with His twelve disciples. In the same sense, the Ancients do not call the Eucharist the Lord's Supper, but that supper which Christ took with the disciples before He gave them His Body and Blood ; as S. Cyprian and S. Bernard, who call their own condones held on that day, from the Supper of the Lord, but who would hold it impious to call their supper the Eucharist, like the heretics. We, therefore, in agreement with the Scripture and ancient authors, properly call it the Eucharist, because Christ consummated it, and, as the Evangelists say, eir^apLcrTrjo-ai, gave thanks, or blessed it. Thus we follow not only the authority of Scripture and the example of our fathers, but also common sense, in calling this Sacrament the Eucharist, for the term ev^apiarla and ev\oyla, which are the same thing, peculiarly belong to this Sacrament, as being performed with thanksgiving, or at least not without it, as we are taught by the example of Christ : the whole receiving its name from the part. The act of Christ before the supper He performed, not as an example to us, but of necessity, because He must first fulfil the ancient Sacrament before instituting the new ; that is, He must eat the Paschal lamb before He gave His Body and Blood ; and the lamb could be eaten at no time but at supper. Then when the lamb was eaten, the ordinary supper was set, both for the sake of keeping up the custom, and also that when about to depart this life, He might take a supper with His Apostles, and thus love them to the end. The Church, therefore, is not to be blamed, but rather praised, for not following the example of Christ in that which was not done by Him for our imitation. The Church only gives the Body and Blood of the Lord to those who are abstaining from food, because in this there is much more reverence ; as Ep. cxviii. of S. Augustin describes, and as he thought it an apostolic tradition.
And blessed. (On these words we have followed the Folio and inserted much that the Svo omits.) Kal evXoyrjo-as, " when He had blessed". There are at least three heretical opinions on these words : 1. That of those who read "give thanks" instead of " blessed ". 2. That Christ gave thanks, not to the bread as blessing it, but to the wine as giving it thanks (quasi illi gratias egerit}. 3. That the blessing, or, as they say, the thanksgiving, was not a singular one peculiar to this Sacrament, but one in common use among the Jews, and as such adopted by Christ. This tends to show that the practice of blessing in this Sacrament is wrong. They are to be answered in order. i. EvXoyelv, used here by S. Matthew and by S. Mark (xiv. 22) of the bread, has the same meaning as ev^apio-^elv — that is, "to give thanks"; for S. Matthew (here) and S. Mark (xiv. 22) say evXoytjcras here of the bread, and in the verse following use the word eu^aptcrr^cra? of the cup ; and S. Matthew and S. Mark say ev\oy>jo-as of the bread, S. Luke (xxii. 19), S. Paul (i Cor. xi. 24) say €v^apLo-T7J(7a^. S. Matthew (xv. 36) uses ev-^apLa-T^aa^ of the seven loaves and two fishes. S. Mark (viii. 6) says ei>)(apt<mjcras of the loaves and evXoyij&as of the fishes. S. Matthew (xiv. 19), S. Mark (xvi. 42), and S. Luke (vi. 11) say evxapia-Trjcras of the five loaves; S. John (vi. 11) ev~%api(TTi]cras. S. Paul uses the two words as meaning the same thing (i Cor. xiv. 16). This may have been caused by following the Hebrew, in which the same word TO is used both for giving of thanks and blessing, as in Paralip. xxix. 20, and thus each word may be used for the other. 2. The second error is clearly refuted by S. Paul (i Cor. x. 1 6) : "The cup of blessing which we bless" — that is, consecrate by blessing. By these words it is clear that the blessing was bestowed on the subject-matter ; that is, the Bread and Wine, as shown in i Cor. x. 16 ; 5. Luke ix. 16 ; and that Christ bestowed a blessing on these loaves. And as He blessed the bread and the cup in the same manner in the Eucharist, the blessing is to be referred, not to God, but to the bread and wine. Again, in i Tim. w. 4, 5, he says : " For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving ; for it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer". The Word of God, therefore, the prayer, and the giving of thanks refer to the food. Again, the context of the Evangelists does not suffer us to understand it otherwise than that the bread and wine were blessed by Christ. " He took the bread, and having given thanks," &c. He took the bread, then broke it, and blessed it. S. Justin Martyr, in his Second Apologia, calls the Eucharist " food blessed by thanksgiving "— that is, consecrated; and S. Irenseus (w. 34, 35) says the same; and S. Cyprian (De Cam. Dom.} says : " The substantial bread and the cup consecrated by solemn benediction avail to the life and salvation of the whole man ". So S. Ambrose and the poet Juvencus say •" sanctumque precatus " — that is, sanctifying by prayer. 3. The followers of Calvin err in thinking that the blessing which Christ used here was not proper and peculiar to this Sacrament, but one in common use among the Jews. They are answered thus : Whenever Christ took food He blessed it and gave thanks. What is this but that by His blessing He caused some singular and wonderful results ? Christ is only mentioned three times as having blessed food: (i) S. Matt, (xiv. 19), S.Mark (vi. 41), S. Luke (ix. 1 6), when He multiplied the five loaves ; (2) S. Matt. (xv. 36), S. Mark (viii. 6), when He multiplied the seven loaves ; (3) in this place, when He changed the Bread into His Body, and the Wine into His Blood. For His blessing the bread at Emmaus, as related by S. Luke (xxiv. 30), and breaking it and giving it to the two disciples, was an act of the same kind, because, as will be shown here after, He even then gave His Body. Again, as these three are commonly thought to have been suppers, why did not the Evangelist say that at the supper of the lamb, and at the ordinary one which followed it, Christ either blessed or gave thanks, and at a time when the Jews most especially did so ? But when they speak of the Eucharist, they do say that Christ blessed it. 4. \Vhy do they all relate the whole act so elaborately, as if it were a thing of the very greatest importance ? Lastly. Why do they say that He blessed both the bread and the cup separately, as S. Matthew and S. Mark do? or why do they describe the whole so exactly that we may see that Christ blessed both the bread and the cup, as S. Luke says (xxii. 20) : " In like manner the chalice also," showing that Christ took the cup and blessed it in the same manner as that in which He had blessed the bread ? And broke. It was an ancient custom among the Jews for the father of the family, at the beginning of the supper in which the lamb was eaten, to take a loaf of the Azymes, and divide it into two parts ; one of which he concealed in a napkin, and the other He blessed thus : " Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who bringest bread out of the earth," or thus : " Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, in the eating of unleavened bread," as some have informed us from the book of the Hebrews entitled 1- TQ» But we cannot believe that when Christ broke or blessed the bread He meant to do nothing more than merely observe the Jewish rite, for this was to be done in the eating of the lamb according to the rites of the Jews. Christ is said to have done* His work, not in the eating of the lamb, but in the institution of the new Sacrament ; or, if He did it in the eating of the lamb, as is indeed probable, the Evangelist passed it over as being nothing to the purpose. But they have all carefully related that He did it (fecerit) in the New Testament. It cannot be denied, indeed, that because Christ designed to change the eating of the lamb into the eating of His own Body, that is, the figure into the verity, He might have designed to use a similar, but not the same form of blessing. This would be more probable if the rite of breaking the unleavened bread had been introduced, not by the tradition of the Jews, but by a precept of the Law. It certainly seems that Christ did not break this bread in the same manner as they did, because all the Evangelists say that He broke it as if He had not been accustomed to break it at other times or in the same manner ; and as S. Luke says (xxiv. 35), that the two disciples recognised Him in the breaking of bread, which they could not have done if He had broken it in the same manner and with the same form as the other Jewish fathers of households did. For it is plain * Fccisse-facio = Troieco ; to sacrifice, facio or sacri-facio. that S. Luke states the breaking of the bread to have been the cause of the recognition. It may be said that these two disciples recognised Christ by the virtue of the reception of His Body, as if the Eucharist had opened their eyes. It may be so, but in this case it is an admitted miracle which, moreover, confirms the opinion that Christ when He gave His Body broke the bread in some peculiar manner, as it is so carefully described by the Evangelists. Some think that the bread was such as could have been easily broken by the hand. But this idea can hardly hold, because the bread was unleavened, which is much more tenacious, and the most difficult of all kinds of bread to be broken. It need not, therefore, have been broken by the hand, but may have been divided by a knife. It was a custom of the Jews to say that the bread was broken, not only when it was broken by the hand, but when it was cut by the knife ; this, even when it was not divided, but only given, for it was seldom given unless it was either broken or divided first. " Deal thy bread to the hungry " (Isa. Iviii. 7), that is, " Divide what thou hast with the poor " ; and Lam. (w. 4) : " The little ones have asked for bread, and there was none to break it unto them ". Hence the entire performance and distribution of this Sacrament is called " the breaking of bread " (Acts u. 42). Christ, therefore, made twelve portions of the bread, and gave a portion to each ; not, as some say, to the one nearest to Him, and he to the next (vide verse 27). It is uncertain whether Christ gave it into their hands or put it into their mouths — most probably the former. 1. Because Christ said, "Take ye," which would apply rather to the hand than to the mouth. 2. Because, as we shall show, He gave the cup into their hands (verse 27), and He probably gave His Body in the same manner. 3. If, in dividing the bread, He had regard to the ancient Jewish custom, it is not likely that He would put the divided bread into their mouths. Lastly, because it was long the custom in the Church to give the Holy Body into the hands of the faithful, as we find from Tertullian (Lib. de Spectac. C/t. de Munere), S. Cyril Jerusalem (Cat. v., Myst.), S. Augustin (Serm. ccxxiv.), S. Chrysostom (De Sacerdos, iii.), Counc. i. Toledo. The Church, with a better intention, afterwards began to give it, not into the hands, but to put it into the mouth, because there was less danger and more reverence in so doing ; as, although Christ gave His Body and Blood to those who had supped, S. Augustin praises the intention of the Church because she has abandoned that custom, and gives it only to the fasting (Ep. cxviii.). The heretics assail us heavily, as they think, on account of the word " breaking," and say that we do not administer the Sacra ment rightly unless there are many present among whom to have it distributed, because it is called in Holy Scripture " breaking of bread " from this reason. This is an objection of pure ignorance. For, as has been before said, it was called the breaking of bread, not because it was actually broken, but because it was given ; for, in Hebrew, whoever gave bread to a poor man was said to have broken it, although only given to and received by one. If Christ had had only one disciple, He would assuredly have given His Body to him, and have been said to have broken, that is, to have given it, though He had not actually done so.
This is My Body. Nothing in the Holy Scripture was ever more plainly stated than this, until heresy sought to obscure it. There are many mysteries in Holy Scripture more difficult and further removed from our understanding, which yet all men, heretics or Catholics, receive, such as those of the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, the resurrection of the flesh : none of these is taught in words so plain, so perspicuous, so eloquent. For where does Scripture say openly that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Persons and one Essence, as Christ here says, " This is My Body " ? Where does it so distinctly and clearly say that in Christ are two natures and one only Person, as He here teaches us that He gives us His Body and Blood ? Where does He so explicitly declare that we shall rise again with the same body, and not another, not a spiritual, not a similar one, as He here says that He gives us not a figure, not a spirit, not bread, not wine, not anything else than His own Body and Blood ? This is more easy to be believed than the other doctrines. They are proved by fewer and less notable testimonies of Scripture than this. Why are those believed, and these rejected ? Why do these heretics find figures of speech where the Arians, Marcionists, Manichseans, found none? Why do they find them here, where those found them not ? When we argue upon the Trinity, the whole debate turns upon the interpretation of three words : " I and the Father are one " (S. John x. 30), and : "These three are one " (i John v. 7). When on the Incarnation, we rest on the explanation of three other words : " The Word was made flesh " (S. John i. 14). When on the Resurrection, on these : " The dead shall rise again incorruptible" (i Cor. xv. 52). Now, when the question is of the Eucharist, we rest on those words : " This is My Body ". These four mysteries should, as it seems, always be united together in our arguments with the followers of Calvin. The objection of these modern heretics to us on the Eucharist \ve retort upon them on the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection of the dead, that so they may either cease their attacks upon the mystery of the Eucharist, or that their arguments may cease to be urged. The Arians, Marcionists, Manichseans, Origenists, have invented many explanations against the words cited above to escape the true one of the Church. The followers of Luther and Calvin, as they were less able to resist that truth, have issued many perverted opinions against those three words : " This is My Body ". The followers of Calvin and Zwinglius all agree that they are not a literal, but figurative expression. Some find the figure in the word " bread," some in the word " is," others in the word "Body". Thus each word separately is to be expunged. This. — All the followers of Luther and Calvin say that this word <- this " is put for the word " bread " ; for Christ took the bread into His hands and immediately said, " This " (that is, this bread) " is My Body ". Hence the former say both that the bread remains in the Sacrament, because Christ said, " This " (that is, the bread) " is My Body," and that His Body is there, because He said, "This is My Body ". The followers of Calvin, on the other hand, say that the bread remains, but that the Body of Christ is not in it, because He did not say, " This is My Body," but "This" (that is, the bread) " is My Body". Hence, as the bread cannot possibly be verily the Body of Christ and remain in its true nature, it follows that it cannot possibly be the Body of Christ except figuratively ; that is, it signifies the Body of Christ. Each is refuted by that one word, " this ". The disciples of Luther, because if hoc, " this," is taken of the bread ; as Christ does not say Hie est, but hoc, it follows of necessity either that the bread does not remain if it be the Body of Christ, but is transmuted into it, or the Body of Christ is not in the Sacrament if the bread remains. Such was the opinion of Berengarius, or some of his followers. The followers of Calvin will be answered if it be shown that the word hoc cannot be taken of the bread. This can be shown by most plain arguments. I. If Christ intended to say hoc, that is, " The bread is My Body," why did He not more clearly, in one word, say plainly, " This bread is My Body " ? for the continuity of the sentence would have required this. 2. Why, when the three Evangelists, S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. Paul (i Cor. xi. 24), have all given us an account of the institution of this Sacrament, and on other points frequently differ from each other in words, and when one describes the same thing more obscurely and another more clearly, why do they all on this point use the same word, Hoc est ? Why has none of them ever, by chance or design, to explain the opinion of Calvin more clearly, said, Hie est, or Hie panis est corpus meum ? It will, perhaps, be objected that S. John has explained this in his sixth chapter, verse 52 : "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever ; and the bread that I will give is My flesh for the life of the world " ; and that S. Paul (i Cor. x. 16, and xi. 26, 28) and S. Luke (Acts u. 42) call this Sacra ment the breaking of bread. It may be answered, as has often been done, that it is called bread, not because it is, but either because it was such, like the serpent into which Moses' rod was changed is called a rod (Exod. vu. 12). On because it bears the form of bread as before, as they were called tongues that sat upon the Apostles (Acts u. 3) ; not that they were actually tongues, but that they had the appearance of such. This reply might be sufficient, though we do not seem compelled to offer any explanation at all. It must be denied again and again that, in the places cited, the word " bread " is to be taken either for bread or for the figure (figurd) of bread, for it is called, not bread, but the Body of Christ, as is clear from S. John vi. 52 : "The bread that I shall give is My flesh". From these words the others are to be explained. The words " which I shall give " show most plainly that Christ did not speak of bread, but of His flesh, which is called, in some more excellent sense, bread. Christ opposes Himself to Moses, and His flesh to the manna. He also opposes His flesh which He was about to give us to eat to the five loaves with which He satisfied five thousand men, twelve baskets of fragments remaining over and above (S. John vi. 12, 13). When the Jews followed Christ that He might give them this bread, as He bears witness Himself (verse 26), He opposed this bread, that is, His flesh, to those loaves, but He does not call the true bread "bread," but "His Body," which the Bread was, in some better and more excellent sense. As He said to the Samaritan woman (S. John w. 13, 14): "Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again, but he that shall drink of the water that I will give him shall not thirst forever ; but the water that I will give him shall become in him a fountain of living water springing up unto life ever lasting". In the words " which I will give him," and in His opposing that water to the true water, He shows most plainly that He is speaking, not of actual water, but of His Grace, which the water is called in some better sense. So far, then, from the followers of Luther and Calvin being able to derive any argument against us from these words of S. John, we may rather take them as confirming our doctrine of Transubstantiation, for Christ not only signifies that He would give better bread — that is, His Body — but that He would not give it as He had given it to those whom He had lately fed, for He opposes this bread to that. He did not give that bread ; He does give this. That is not in the Eucharist. This — that is, His Flesh — is in it. Those passages of S. Paul and S. Luke are to be under stood in the same manner, as is plain both from the above words of S. John, and from the authors themselves ; for when S. Paul says, " The bread which we break," he shows that he is not speaking of bread, but of the Body of Christ, which, like Christ Himself, he calls bread. For the words "which we break" are added (i Cor. x. 16) to distinguish it from true, natural bread, as the words in S. John, " which I will give," quein ego dabo ; and when S. Paul says (i Cor. xi. 26, 28) the words " this " and " that," they show that he is speaking, not of the actual bread, but of the Body of Christ, which he calls bread, as did Christ when He said, " He that shall drink of the water that I shall give Him," the word " which " distinguishes the grace of Christ from actual water ; and S. Luke, when he says that the bread was broken, means the same thing as S. Paul did. It may be objected that the Body of Christ was not broken, but the bread was. The Body of Christ is said to be broken when it is given, because it was called by the name of bread, and it was so foreshown by the Prophets. It is the property of bread to be broken, although the body itself is not broken literally : as the grace of Christ is not drunk, and yet Christ calls it water, and water is drunk. 3. The third argument to prove that hoc is not taken for, or applied to, flams, is drawn from the difference of genders, both in the Latin and Greek. The words hoc and rovro are in the neuter gender, and bread in both is masculine, and therefore they cannot refer to bread. The followers of Calvin say what some Catholics agree with, that the pronouns rovro and hoc are not adjectives but substantives, and that there is no need, therefore, that they should agree in gender with pauis, and that the meaning of the words is, What I give to you is My Body. But what He gave was bread. In answer : i. The pronoun hoc is distinctly not to be taken of bread : but granting it to be so, still, if it were a substantive, why should we not follow the interpretation of Christ? " This which I give to you is My Body," rather than the dreams of the followers of Calvin, " This which I give you is bread ". Again, granting that it is a substantive, why should we not follow the ordinary interpretation of Catholics, which is much more in agreement with a pronoun, that the pronoun hoc may be taken neither for the bread nor the Body, but may only signify that which Christ was about to give, and that it may be what they call individuum vagum. Though I contend, omnibus viribus, that it is an adjective, and can in no way be a substantive, or be taken for anything but the Body of Christ, it is beyond a doubt that the pronoun is to be taken in the same way when Christ says of the bread, " This is, My Body," and when He says of the Blood, "This is, My Blood ". But when He says of the Blood, " This is, My Blood," the pronoun is referred not to the wine, but to the Blood, as is clear from S. Luke and S. Paul, who join the pronoun to the following, not to the preceding word, and say roOro TO 7rortjpLoi>. Ergo, when Christ says " Hoc est corpus meum" the hoc does not go with the preceding panis, but with the corpus following; and it is not a substantive but an adjective ; for as the former goes with the cup that follows, so does the latter with the corpus that follows ; and the adjective is united with the substantive, and therefore cannot express bread, but the Body of Christ. S. Jerome, or whoever was the author of our version, very rightly observes this ; for, when speaking of the Blood, he does not say, Hoc, " This is My Blood," as he would have done if he had thought the word " this " was put substantively, but hie, rendering it as an adjective. This S. Thomas, a holy, learned, and subtle doctor and wise commentator, does not observe. He is the author of the common opinion that the pronoun hoc is here used as a substantive and individuum vagum. This, it may be said, is tautology. For if hoc is taken for Body, it is the same as if Christ had said, " This Body is My Body ". This argument, though false, has been held> to one's wonder, by some learned men. It is not a new saying, but a well-known and even necessary one, as dialecticians teach, that in every true proposition the subject and predicate are taken for the same thing ; yet not every proposition is tautology proper, for tautology consists not in the "Acceptio " of a proposition, which they call " The Suppositio " : but in the signification when the subject and predicate are taken, not only for the same thing, but also signify the same thing ; and not signify it only, but signify it in the same manner. For example, to say that man is a rational animal is not tautology, but a true, correct, and well-enunciated proposition ; although subject and predicate are both taken for the same thing and have the same meaning : for they signify the same thing indeed, but not in the same manner : for man expresses the whole nature ; and rational animal the same nature, but with a distinction and per partes. Should it be said that man is man, and a rational animal is a rational animal, this is senseless tautology. In the same manner, if Christ had said, " This Body is My Body," He would have uttered tautology ; but when He said, " This is My Body," although the word " this " be taken for that Body of Christ and means the same thing, it is not tautology, but a most correct and well-known expression ; because it means the same thing, but not in the same manner. " My Body " signifies the Body distinctly and byname. " This," not by name, nor distinctly, but, so to say, mutely. As the French say, when a person so speaks of another as not to give him an appellation, but to describe him ; he has not named him, but pointed him out by his finger, which is the same thing as if he had named him. So \ve commonly say, "This is my brother"; when the word "this" is taken of nothing but my brother, nor has in that place any other meaning, although not in the same manner ; for, when I call him my brother, I name him. When I say, "This is my brother," I do not name him, but (what comes to the same thing) I point him out as such. But if anyone should say, Hoc est f rater metis, he would offend against the laws of the Latin language, and deserve a boy's flagellation. Christ would have spoken with as little reason if He had said, Hoc est corpus meam ; hoc being used as a substantive. The solecism does not indeed appear with corpus, because both words are neuter ; but it would in sanguis, for no one would say, Hoc est meus sanguis. S. Cyprian, indeed, has so rendered it, but the passage is thought corrupt. So Scripture commonly speaks — Hie est Filius meus. Hie sanguis novi Testamenti — i". Matt. (iii. 17) ; Heb. (ix. 20), and in many other like passages. It may be affirmed that when the Father said, Hie est Filius meus, the hie is to be taken for homo ; as if He had said, " This man is My Son ". It may be. But what would one in his senses say of this proposition, Hie est homo, when I point out a man ? For what could the word hie be put, but for homo ? It could not be put for animal, as if I said, " This animal is a man " (Hoc animal est homo}, for the genders do not agree. How certain and clear, then, it is in this proposition, Hie est homo, or Hie est panis, that the pronoun hie cannot possibly be taken for anything but for homo and panis, which is put for the predicate ; and any tyro in the Greek language would know that rovro can be referred to nothing but the Body of Christ, for it is written thus, Aaftutv 6 'I^crou? rov aprov xal ev\o<yr)cras e/cA,acre teal eBtBov ro£? /j,a6rjTal$ Kal elvre, Xa/Sere, (f)dj67€' TOVTO ecrri TO aco/Aa jjiov (Accipiens Jesus panem, et cum benedixisset fregit et dabat discipulis, et dixit Accipite manducate hoc est corpus meum}. All other explanations, then, of the application of the pronoun " this," whether of heretics or Catholics, are to be wholly rejected. This one alone is to be held most firmly, confirmed as it is by most certain arguments from S. Luke and S. Paul ; it is also the only one which agrees with the Greek context of S. Matthew and S. Mark ; is adopted by our version ; and most unanswerably corroborates the Catholic doctrine of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It has been objected in the Schools that when Christ said those words, His Body was not yet in the Sacrament, and therefore could not have been referred to by the above pronoun. But the same schools give the answer. In propositions practical and efficacious, demonstrative pronouns often describe what is not yet, but what is caused to be by the word itself, and it is finite. When God made man of the dust, He could rightly and truly say of it, taking the dust into His hand, "This is man ". So Christ said, Hoc est corpus meum ; and when from a rib God made woman, He took the rib and could say, " This is woman," though when He spoke the word " this," woman was not yet in existence. Nor would He have meant if He had so spoken that the dust was man and the rib was woman, but that the dust was changed into man and the rib into woman. So when Christ took bread and said, " This is My Body," although His Body was not yet there, yet because it was to be so in a moment, He shows it by the pronoun. Nor did He signify that the bread was His Body, but that it was changed into it. So again, at the marriage at Cana of Galilee, where He changed the water into wine, He said, Hoc est mnum. The hoc showed not the water, but the wine. The meaning was net that the water was wine or signified wine, but that it was changed by that word into wine. This example is the more to our purpose because the Ancients have used it to prove and explain the faith of this Sacrament — e.g.* S. Cyril of Jerusalem (CatecJi. Mystag., w.). Is. — It is easy from what has been now said about the word " is " to show the error of those who think that it is taken for " signifies ". The verb substantive does not mean " signifies," either in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, either in sacred or profane literature, nor is it, nor can it be, taken so to mean. If there is any figure at all when the word is used, it lies either in the subject or predicate, not in the word " is ". When we say that the lamb is the Pasch, the figure is in the word " Pasch," not in the " is," for the Pasch is not taken properly for the Passover, but for the lamb which signifies the Pasch. When, on seeing a figure of Hercules, we say, " This is Hercules," the figure is not in the word " is," but in the word " Hercules," which, as it signifies the true and living Hercules, is here put for the figure of Hercules. The word " is " always involves substance, or, as Aristotle says, the union alone of extremes, and they who give a figurative meaning to it may rightly come under the rod of the Grammarians. The Gram marians say, indeed, that there are many classes of words, simple and compound ; but none of them has ever said that a figure can be found in the verb substantive, but either in the subject or predicate, or in verbs not substantive, as, the field smiles, the land luxuriates. We must look, therefore, whether the figure be in the word corpus, for in the other two it certainly is not. My Body, — Everyone who is not blind must see that there is no figure in this word ; for if there be, it is not taken for the very Body of Christ. That it is so taken is clear from the context (5. Luke xxii. 19) — Hoc est corpus meum. i. Christ did not say, " which is given to you," as He must have done if He had given them a figurative Body ; but, "which is given for you". He gave them something which could be offered in expiation of sin, which assuredly a figurative body could not ; for only the true Body of Christ is given for us. A follower of Calvin might answer that the meaning is hoc est : that is, it is the figure of " My Body which is given for you ". Against this is the fact that no Evangelist, when speaking either of the Body or the Blood, uses the future tense ; but all the three, and especially S. Paul, use the present, " which is given " ; " which is poured out ". If the present had been put for the future, some of them at least would have used the future ; nor can it be thought that they all used the same figure by chance. They may say again, as some of them have said, that either the present should be taken for the futi re, or if it is to remain as the present, the meaning of quod pro vobis datur and/r0 vobis funditur, is, that it begins to be given, and begins to be poured out, because it was now the beginning of the Passion. The words of S. Paul answer this, "My Body which is broken for you"; which could not be said of the Body of Christ on the Cross, because it s evidently a sacramental expression. The Body of Christ is said to be broken as it is in the form of bread. Out of the Sacrament it is not said to be broken. Not even on the Cross, where S. John has recorded it as a mystery that the legs of the thieves were broken but those of Christ were not (xix. 36), and it was foretold in Exod. xii. 46. Again, when S. Luke (xxii. 20) and S. Paul (i Cor. xi. 25) speak of the chalice, they say, rovro TO Trorrjpi,ov TI Kaivr) SiaQijier) ev TCO aifiari fiov virep V/JLMV etc^vvofjievov. Hoc est poculum novum testamentum in meo sanguine^ quod pro vobis effunditur. I have preferred to render it thus, to prevent the ambiguity which exists in our version, in which it is not clear whether the words, qui pro vobis effun ditur, are to be referred to the cup or the Blood. In the Greek there is no possible doubt that it is to the cup, because " the Blood " is in the dative case, eV rc3 at/tart, or if expressed by a passive participle, fusus, in the nominative, as if our version read, "This is the cup—fusus, poured out — for you". The pouring out is evidently to be referred not to the word " Blood," but to the word " cup ". The cup is not said to be poured out, but the contents of it. This matters nothing however. It is enough for us that it is proved most clearly that the pouring out is to be referred not to that of the Blood on the Cross, but to that in the Sacrament, for the cup is said to be poured out for us, which was not done on the Cross but in the Sacrament. The sense in which the cup, or the Blood of Christ, is said to be poured out, shall be explained hereafter. They who refer this to the Cross miss the force and meaning of the words of Christ. Christ had taken the bread and blessed it, broken it, given it to the Apostles, saying, " This is My Body ". He added, "Which is given for you ". Who does not see that He commended in these words the force, value, and price of that which He gave ? For He gave His own Body ; not openly, but concealed in the Sacrament. The Apostles might think that they only received bread which would profit the body, and thus hold it in less value than was right. Christ declares that He was giving, not bread but His Body: and His Body because it was given by Him for a remission of their sins. He does not praise the fruit of the Cross, as that was not His subject, but the fruit of the Sacrament, which was. It would perhaps be objected that SS. Matthew and Mark, when they speak of the cup, do not say, " Which shall be poured out for you," but " for many," as if Christ addressed His words not to the Apostles alone, but either to all or to many others, so that He could not be speaking of the fruit of the Eucharist alone, but rather made allusion to the Cross. The objection will be answered when it is shown that the words, " for many," have the same meaning as " for you," as S. Luke and S. Paul have said. For the Apostles themselves who were present were many, but because Judas was present, and the Body and Blood would profit him nothing, Christ Himself, or more probably the Evangelists SS. Matthew and Mark, to show this, did not say " for you," lest they should include all, but " for many," that an exception might be understood. Again, as all the Evangelists say of the Body, " This is My Body," so S. Luke and S. Paul say of the chalice, "This is the chalice". These two cannot be thought to speak figuratively in the use of the word chalice, and, there fore, in the Evangelists and S. Paul the word " Body " cannot be so received. And that the word " chalice " cannot be understood figuratively is most clear from what has been said before. For it is said to be poured out, so that it is a true chalice, but as Christ says, Hie est calix in meo sanguine, which is the same as if He had said, Hie est calix sanguinis mei, " This the chalice of My Blood," it is the same as S. Luke and S. Paul say, Hie est calix in sanguine meo, and as SS. Matthew and Mark, Hie est sangnis meus. The followers of Calvin insist that as the word calix here used is figurative, so the words hoc est corpus meum are figurative also. But the contrary is the truth. The word calix is not figurative, and therefore the words hoc est corpus meum are not figurative. Let them show where the figure is. Is it in the word est ? The figure, as has been proved, cannot be in that word, and therefore it must be in the word calix. Calix, therefore, is not put for a true chalice, but for the figure of a chalice ; as, they say, corpus is not taken for a true body, but for the figure of a body. This is senseless — Christ gave a true chalice. They reply that calix is to be taken figuratively because it was put for sanguis — this is still more senseless. 1. Because it would be the same as if Christ had said, " This chalice," that is, "My blood" as they explain it, "is My Testament in My Blood " — what could be more senseless ? 2. Again, if there is any figure in the word calix, it would be the same as that which, they say, is in the word corpus. But in corpus they say that the figure is that the word corpus is put for the figure of corpus ; ergo, if there is any figure in calix ^ it is that the word calix is put for the figure of the calix. Finally, if there is a figure in the calix, there is certainly none in the sanguis ; for what could be more senseless than to say, " This is the chalice of My Blood " ? that is, " the figure of the chalice which is the figure of My Blood ". To this result, however, in their opinion, the words of our Lord must necessarily be reduced. Again, if there were a figure, it would be that which they assert to be in the words on which they lay so much stress : Petra erat Christus. Here there is no figure at all, or it is not in the Christus^ but in the word petra ; for the meaning is not that the rock is a figure of Christ, but that it is Christ ; for the words are transposed — " the rock is Christ " being put for " Christ is the rock " (petra erat Christus, for CJiristus erat petra] — and thus/^ra is not the subject but the predicate, as is clear from the context (i Cor. x. 4) ; for it was not the actual rock that followed them, but Christ ; the rock remained immovable. Christ went before them and gave them food and drink : that is, " They drank of the rock," i.e., Christ was the rock of which they drank and which followed them. The reason of the transposition of words is that the Hebrews repeat the last word at the beginning of the next; as, " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth," &c. (Gen. i. i) ; and, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word," &c. So, because he had said, "They drank of the rock," S. Paul repeated the word "rock," " And the rock was Christ ". If there is any figure, therefore, it is not in the word " Christ," which is put for the true Christ, and not for His figure ; but in the word " rock," because Christ is not literally a rock, as He is not literally a vine, or a lion ; but by comparison, because he is the foundation of the Church. The followers of Calvin say that the words Hoc est mean that it is a figure of the Body. If so, Christ would be the figure of the rock — which is senseless. It cannot be doubted that the word " Body " is to be taken here in the same sense as the word " Flesh " in 5. John (vi. 51). Pauls . . . caro mea, for that which He promised there, He gives here ; as the word panis shows ; for it is not taken for the Body of Christ, unless as far as it is given under the form of bread. Their denial that that chapter of 5. John refers to the Sacrament, refuted as it has been by so many men of learning, needs no answer here ; and they object themselves to us that Christ said, " The flesh profiteth nothing " (verse 64), as if He were speaking of the Sacrament. The word " flesh" cannot be taken there except for the true flesh ; for the figure is not in the word caro, but panis ^ for Christ does not call His flesh bread, but bread His flesh ; as if He had said, :( That bread is My flesh which I shall give you ". For He opposes that bread to the true natural bread ; and when He said, Hoc est corpus meum, there was no figure in the word Body, but it showed the true Body of Christ. And even if Christ had said, "My Body is this bread," as these think, in meaning at least, if not in words, we could not explain it as they do. "This bread is the figure of My Body," but " This bread is My true Body " ; not, however, that it is true bread, for it is true flesh, but not true bread. If these words were spoken by Christ in figure, it is very wonderful that none of the Evangelists, nor S. Paul, who all describe the same institution of this Sacrament, explain it to be a figure ; most especially as they knew that, just before, the people of Capernaum had been offended by a like expression (S. Jo/in vi. 60), and the Evangelists take pains to explain even in matters of much less importance than this, whatever is said in figure, or obscurely, by themselves or others. Thus Christ had said, " Destroy this Temple," &c. He called His Body the Temple, by figure, but yet S. John explained : " He spoke of the Temple of His Body" (u. 21). He had said, "If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all things to Myself" (xii. 32;. There is no figure here, but only obscurity. He explains it (verse 33) : "Now this He said signifying what death He should die ". He said (S. Matt. xvi. 6) : " Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees," which was spoken obscurely and in figure, Christ Himself explained it (verses 1 1, 12). He had said (S. John xv. i) : "I am the true vine" ; He explained His words immediately after (verse 4). S. Paul had called the Church " the Body of Christ" (Coloss. i. 24). The figure is in the word " Body," for it was not taken for the actual and natural Body of Christ, for He immediately added, "which is the Church". Who can believe that, if there had been a like figure in the word " Body," none of the Evangelists, or S. Paul alone, either by chance or design, would have explained it ? Especially when Christ said that He would give the Apostles His Body, and they used to doubt in matters much more plain, whether He spoke obscurely or in figure —why, then, did none of them doubt about this saying ? and if in figure, why did none of them ask Him what was His meaning? They doubted about the parable of the Sower and the Seed, and Christ explained it to them (S. Matt. xiii. 3) even when they did not ask Him (verse 18). They doubted about the parable of the Tares. They asked and received an explanation. Surely, if Christ had spoken obscurely and had not explained His words, He would have left the Apostles doubtful and exposed to many errors, especially as these were His last words, which, as such, should have been as clear as possible ; for what wise testator declares his last will in doubtful or figurative terms? S. Paul also is most clear in his account (i Cor. xi. 27) : " Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord ". Why would they have been guilty if they had not received the true Body and the true Blood ? The followers of Calvin reply that they would have been guilty because, though they did not receive it inreality, they did receive it in figure, and they dishonoured this ; or, in the figure of the Body and Blood of Christ they dishonour the Body and Blood, and treat it without reverence and respect. We may, perhaps, say what they cannot, as they think that no reverence is to be paid to Sacraments, and deride us for saying that the same honour is to be paid to images and to the things signified by them. Their example, too, is not to the point. If anyone, they say, throw the royal signet upon the ground or break it, he is guilty of lesemajesty. They take for granted what they ought to prove — that the Sacraments are signs. This has been answered again and again. Let them take an example in the image of the king. If a man misconduct himself to it is he guilty of lese-majesty? Surely not, or they must grant what they deny so obstinately, that honour is due even to the images of the things signified. S. Paul gives the reason why they who eat and drink unworthily are guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord (i Cor. xi. 29). They receive it with no other respect than ordinary bread : he spoke, therefore, of the true Body and Blood of Christ. Moreover, we find in Scripture that the Body of Christ is spoken of in three ways only : 1. Properly, for the natural and true Body. 2. Metaphorically, for the Church (Coloss. i. 24). 3. For the Gospel, or the truth answering to the ancient figures (Coloss. \\. 16, 17). More senses in which to receive it we do not find. And as in this passage it is taken neither for the Church nor for the Gospel, the use of Scripture shows us that it is to be taken here for the true and natural Body of Christ. In short, if Christ had intended to say that He gave His true Body and Blood, could He have spoken more clearly, more explicitly, more distinctly than He did? "This is My Body," " This is My Blood " — why, then, should we seek to obscure by figures what is said most plainly, that so we may not be compelled to believe ? Calvin argues against other heretics like himself who said that Christ gave only a figure : " If a person could neither deceive nor lie, it would follow that whatever he signifies he will in fact fulfil and make good. It is the necessary result, therefore, that in the Supper of the Lord we truly receive the Body and Blood of Christ" (Institutes, w. 17). And in his Commentary-. " The Lord would command us to eat bread, declaring it to be His Body, to no purpose, unless the result truly followed the figure. For although we there discern nothing but bread, He does not deceive or delude us in giving our souls the nourishment of His flesh ; not, therefore, in sign alone is shown the partaking of the flesh of Christ, but in actual fact." Calvin, I say, argues against the followers of Zwinglius that, because Christ cannot lie or deceive or delude, He gives us not merely a figure, but His very Body and Blood. From this argument of his we reply against him : " Christ cannot lie nor deceive nor delude. There fore, when He said, ' Take ye and eat, this is My Body ' (verse 26), He gave not only a Sacrament, but also His very, true Body; and as He did not say, 'This will be My Body when you eat it,' but ' This is,' it follows that under the Sacrament which He gave, He gave His own Body." We have said that this mystery is not be separated from those others of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection. It shall now be shown that we believe these bv the same right, or, if possible, a still better one, than the followers of Calvin believe the above; and we explain them without any figure. In this present point, as has been said, they can find no figures. In those other mysteries the ancient heretics found them, and sought to prove them from Scripture. "I and the Father are one" (S. Jo/in •&. 30) CH.XXVI. 26.] PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. 417 the followers of Arius explained to mean one, not in nature and essence, but in concord and consent of will, and they set about to prove it by Scripture — e.g., Acts w. 32.; 5. John xvii. 2 1 . What could the followers of Calvin produce with so much semblance of truth from Scripture in support of their doctrine of a figurative presence? The followers of Marcion and Manes explained the words, "The Word was made flesh" (S.John i. 14), by a figure — that is, Christ took the similitude of flesh — and they even seemed to prove it byRom.vm. 3 ; PJdlipp. u. 6,7. What triumphs would not the Calvinists have boasted against us, what clamour would they not have raised, if they had found any passage in Holy Scripture in which Christ is said to have given the form and similitude of His Body for us ! The followers of Origen, again, understood that the dead would rise in figure : not in the same flesh, but they would put on other flesh, not true flesh, not corporeal flesh, but heavenly and spiritual. I Cor. xv. 44 forms their ground of proof. The words of Job (xiv. 12) seem expressly to deny any future resurrection, and Psalms Ixxvii. 39 and xlviii. 13 were alleged by them to the same end. What would the followers of Calvin do if they could produce any testimony from Scripture in which the Body of Christ was said not to be given to us, as it appears to be said in the above passages that the dead do not rise ? To the assertions of those ancient heretics the Catholics of their day rightly replied. Rightly indeed, but we confute more rightly and easily all the testimonies which the followers of Calvin may bring to prove their doctrine of a figure. Lastly, it is unaccountable that this idea never occurred to any one after the Apostles, except to Berengarius and, perhaps, Bertram, and that it was received by none, but at once condemned by the whole Church. We follow the testimony of the ancient Fathers, from whom we will produce a few of their innumerable passages in our support Maldonatus gives some pages of citations from the primitive Fathers. He names S. Justin Martyr (Apol. u.) as teaching that the bread and wine are changed into our body and blood when we eat and drink them. S. Cyprian (De Coena Dom., lib. u.) teaches that the bread was changed not in effigie but in nature, and made by Omnipotent power " the flesh of the Word ". S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. Mystag., w.). Eusebius of Emissa (Horn. v. de Pascli}. S. Hilary (De Trinit., viii.). S. Chrysostom (Horn. Ixxxiii. in loc.\ " His words," he says, " are so clear that they can be obscured by no explanation," yet some of the heretics have produced the following words of his on this passage of S. Matthew as if he could be claimed as of their opinion. "Christ," he says, " gave us nothing as an object of sense, but by means which were such ; all the things which He gave us are in fact insensate." Hence they infer that, in the opinion of S. Chrysostom, the Body of Christ is taken by us only spiritually. But they should have observed what follows. " As, then, Christ says, ' This is My Body/ we need be under no doubt, but may believe and see with the eyes of our mind ; for nothing that is the object of sense has been given to us by Christ ; that is, nothing that is to be judged of by sense, but all is to be comprehended by the eyes of the mind and by faith." S. Chrysostom, therefore, holds that the Body of Christ is not to be judged of by sense. S. Ambrose (De Myst. Init., 9, and De Sact., w. 5). S. Gregory Naz. (Orat. u. in Pasch). S. Gregory Nyss. (Orat. Catech., chap, xxxvii.). S. Leo (Serin, vi. de Jejun. Sept. Mens^]. S. Cyril Alexand. (Comment, on S. John x. 13). There is no need of lengthy extracts, but the reader may see that we neither believe nor explain Scripture otherwise than all the most ancient authors. The followers of Calvin object the words of S. John (vi. 64), " It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing" (vid. loc.). 2. They argue from the passages in which the Sacra ment, even after consecration, is called bread ; but they have been answered by us above. 3. They derive another argument from the word "chalice". This has also been answered, and shall be more fully here after. Christ plainly and explicitly said, " This is My Blood ". One passage yet remains (i Cor. x. 3, 4) : " And did all eat the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink". From this they infer that we eat the flesh of Christ and drink His Blood only in a spiritual sense. But it is evident that in these words S. Paul means that the ancient Hebrews did not eat the same spiritual food as we, but the same ipsos inter se. He does not compare them with us. This is plain from the end of the preceding chapter (ix. 26, 29), and the beginning of the one following (x. 1-5). " I so fight not as one beating the air." This is the proposition which he confirms in chap. x. I : "I would not have you ignorant that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. And all in Moses were baptised in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and all drank the same spiritual drink ; and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them : and the rock was Christ. But with the most of them God was not well pleased : for they were overthrown in the desert." His meaning was: "As our fathers, although they had the same Sacraments and were partakers of the same blessings from God, were not all saved, but many perished in the desert : so I, although I have the same Sacraments as you, ought not to be secure, but fearful, as the Wise Man said (Prov. xxviii. 14) : lest, perhaps, when I have preached to others I myself should become a castaway ". This is clear from the beginning of the chapter (i Cor. x. i). When S. Paul wrote this, he did not compare them to us, who were never under the cloud, but under the sun of justice, but he compares them to one another. When he said, therefore, "They did all eat the same spiritual meat, and all drank the same spiritual drink," and especially when he added, " but with the most of them God was not well pleased," he shows plainly that he had previously compared them, not to us, but to one another. His argument would otherwise have been without point, for he could not have said, " They ate the same spiritual meat as we, and yet with most of them God was not well pleas-ed ". It is, therefore, possible that we too may not please God. Nor does S. Paul argue against Christ. Christ compared the bread, that is, His flesh, with the manna which the ancient Jews ate ; and He said, " Your fathers did eat manna in the desert and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that if any man eat of it he may not die." S. Paul adds, " Now these things were done in a figure of us, that we should not covet evil things as they also coveted " (i Cor. x. 6). He applies to us what he had said before of the Jews. He was speaking, there fore, of the Jews alone. In return, I reply — Scripture calls the food which the Hebrews ate spiritual food, and the drink which they drank spiritual drink, to distinguish them from ours. He nowhere calls our food and our drink spiritual. Theirs, there fore, was taken only spiritually, ours truly and in fact. These are all the Scripture passages which the heretics abuse, or which have any appearance of probability. Every ordinary reader can judge of their value. They offer many other reasons which should rather be answered, if at all, in the schools than in a commentary, which should savour of nothing but Scripture. It should be enough for us to answer, in one word, that we are Christians, not philosophers. The Word of God is our stay ; and while we have this clear and plain, we lay little stress on the dictates of mere natural reason. One argument more of theirs, which they think most especially theological, shall alone be noticed. They say that the words, "This is My Body," are clearly sacramental, and are, therefore, to be understood sacramentally. It may be answered — (i) If the words sacramentalis locutio mean that the Body and Blood of Christ were given to us, not really, not truly, not substantially, as Calvin says, but only in mystery, according to Zwinglius : then, to speak briefly, they are ignorant of the meaning of these terms. They take them to mean that by which an outward sign is asserted, and the thing signified is excluded. This is their first principle. If it is a Sacrament of the Body of Christ, the Body itself is not present ; for they think that the presence of the thing signified is opposed to the sign. But Scripture shows otherwise. The Ark of the Old Testament was a sign, and, as it were, a Sacrament, by which the Divine Majesty was signified; but even in their opinion the Divine Majesty was present. The dove in which the Holy Ghost descended on Christ was undoubtedly a sign of the same Holy Ghost, and, as it were, a Sacrament : none deny that the Holy Ghost was present. The tongues of fire which descended on the Apostles (Acts u. 3) were a sign of the Holy Ghost, and they signified that the Holy Ghost, through the Apostles, would speak in various languages ; and the Holy Ghost was not absent from them. Let them learn, then, that the words, " This is My Body," although concerned with the Sacra ment, are not a sacramental expression. They err greatly in thinking that whatever is said of a Sacrament is said sacramentaliter. For when we say of the Water of Baptism, " This is water," we do not speak sacramentally, but truly and properly. In the same way, when Christ said, "This is My Body," it would be a sacramental expression, if the water were termed Regeneration, and the Body of Christ were termed " bread," and were said to be broken and torn by the teeth, as S. Chrysostom says. For these cannot be understood but sacramentally (sacramento tenus\ because the Body of Christ is not properly broken, but the Sacra ment.
26:27
And taking the chaiice, He gave thanks. On the giving of thanks — ev^apLana — vide the preceding verse. It need only be observed here that Christ blessed the chalice and the bread separately ; for all the Evangelists especially say so, or at least indicate it, as when S. Luke (xxii. 20) or S. Paul (i Cor. xi. 25) say : " In like manner also the chalice after He had supped, saying, This chalice is the New Testament in My Blood : this do ye as often as ye shall drink for the commemoration of Me ". When S. Paul says, " In like manner," it is the same as if he had said, " In like manner He took" and " In like manner He blessed ".
Drink ye all of this. Our enemies charge us with breaking the express commandment of God in defrauding the people of one kind of the Sacrament, for Christ intentionally, as if foreseeing our error, said of the Blood what He had not said of his Body, " Drink ye all of this ". Why, then, do they not give the Blood of Christ to infants, especially when they baptise them, and as they think this Sacrament more necessary than baptism, saying that the only proof of the necessity of baptism is in S. John iii. 5, and this they deny to apply to baptism ? Why do they not give the Blood of Christ to the excommunicated, if Christ willed all to receive it ? In fact, Christ did not say, " Drink ye all," when He gave the chalice, as He had not done it when He gave His Body, as if He wished to commend His Blood to them rather than His Body ; but because He gave His Body to each singly, one after another, but the chalice not to each, but to the one nearest to Him, who again gave it to the next to him, and so on. Because, therefore, He gave the cup to one only, that He might not appear to desire that that one alone should drink it, He said, " Drink ye all," or, as S. Luke explains it (xxii. 17) more clearly, "Divide it among you"; though this has not been previously observed, especially in our time, when this saying has brought incredible troubles to many. S. Luke mentions the chalice twice. First, he says Christ took the chalice and gave thanks and said, "Take and divide " ; but he does not say that Christ said, " This is the chalice in My Blood". Again, in verse 20: "In like manner the chalice too after He had supped, saying, This is the chalice, the New Testament in My Blood ". Thus S. Jerome, whom most Moderns follow, thinks that there were two chalices. I rather agree with S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. i) and Euthymius (in loc.\ that there was only one, which S. Luke, not keeping to the order of events, has mentioned twice — (ist) by anticipation, and (2ndly) in its proper place.
26:28
This is My Blood. For information on this subject, see verse 27. Of the New Testament. To T?}? KCLivr)^ BiaOijicr)?, Sanguis Novi Testamenti. AiaO^KT] properly means a disposal of property. It applies therefore to every fcedus (treaty), one kind of which is the attestation of the last will ; but it is most commonly used of the testament in which the will itself is stated, as the word dispono is found in our version (Isa. xxxviii. i) : Dispone domui tiuz, "Take order with thy house". The Hebrew is TTni which carries the same meaning. S. Paul (Heb. ix. 16, 17) uses SiaOtjrcri for a will as applied to both Old and New Testaments. The followers of Luther and Calvin therefore err in calling the Old and New Testament fcedus and not Testamentum. S. Mark uses the same word as S. Matthew : Hie is sanguis meus Novi Testamenti; S. Luke, however, says, roOro TO TTorrjpiov r) Kaivrj SiaOiJKrj ev TO) alfuiTi JAOV, Htc est calix Novum Testamentum in meo sanguine (xxii. 20) ; S. Paul, Hie calix Novum Testamentum est in meo sanguine (i Cor. xi. 25). From this difference the heretics have inferred that as Christ said both Hie est calix and Hie calix est Novum Testamentum, each must be taken figuratively. Enough has been said on verse 26 about the figurativeness of the chalice. We will now speak of the meaning of the other figure and of the whole passage. This need not take many words. Nego, I deny that Christ said these words. For, as S. Matthew who was present, and S. Mark who learned from him, say that Christ gave His Blood with the words, " This is My Blood of the New Testament": and as He could not say both " This is My Blood of the New Testament," as S. Matthew and S. Mark say, and "This is the chalice the New Testament in My Blood," as S. Luke and S. Paul say, it may be thought that He used the words of S. Matthew and S. Mark, rather than those of S. Luke and S. Paul. Again, the words of S. Matthew and S. Mark better express what Christ did — the giving of His Body and Blood. The words Novum Teslamentum would appear to have been added in passing and by way of explanation, as appears from S. Matthew and S. Mark. S. Luke and S. Paul would appear to speak as if the first object of S. Paul had been to declare that He gave the New Testament rather than His Blood. It may be thought, therefore, that He used the words of S. Matthew and S. Mark rather than those of S. Luke and S. Paul. Still, the meaning would not be what these make it, nor would it lend any support to their view. For if Christ said, " This is the chalice the New Testament in My Blood," as the words of S. Luke are to be rendered, He simply used a Hebraism — for " in my blood " has the same meaning in Hebrew as "of my blood" — as S. Matthew and S. Mark have expressed without a Hebraism. As, then, calix in meo sanguine and sanguinis mei bear the same meaning, let us suppose that Christ said the latter. The meaning is simply : This is the chalice of my blood ; and there is no more of a figure than if we should say, "This is a cask of wine" or "a vessel of water". Let us see if there is any figure in the word Testamentum. They who reduce everything to figure say that there is, because the New Testament is called a chalice. I, who seek not figure but truth, find none here. We see that in all languages the \vordfcedus has many significations — both the subject-matter and the symbol by which it is ratified, as the slaughter of a pig among the ancient Romans was a fcedus, and it was so called by them without any figure. Thus the Old Testament was so called without figure, because God performed it on the one part and the Hebrews on the other ; and the divine promise itself was frequently spoken of as & pactum or cove nant, as 4 Kings xiii. 23 ; and the blood by which, as an external symbol of ratification, it was entered upon and without any figure, for the word signifies all these things. In 5. Luke the sentence is without a verb, and it is doubtful where it should be supplied. " The chalice," Christ says, " the New Testament in My Blood." The verb " is " could be inserted in two places : either after the word " This "— " This is the chalice " — so that the chalice by apposition might be termed the New Testament, or it may be read after " chalice " — " This chalice is the New Testament in My Blood ". It ought to be placed immediately after " This," for as S. Matthew and S. Mark, as has been said, give not only the meaning, but the actual words of Christ, from them the text of S. Luke and S. Paul is not only to be understood, but even constructed. Besides, as has been said, it was not the intention of Christ to give the New Testament, but His Blood. We cannot think, therefore, that He meant "This chalice is the New Testament," but "This is the chalice of My Blood," which chalice is the New Testament. Hence the words of S. Paul, although transposed, are to be reduced to this model : " This chalice the New Testament " — that is, " This chalice is the New Testament ". In brief, it may be doubted why S. Luke and S. Paul did not say, " This chalice is the New Testament of My Blood," or, more clearly, " This is the chalice of My Blood, the New Testament ". The reply may be, that it is a Hebraism : In meo sanguine meaning per meum sanguinem. They used this expression because they called the New Testament a chalice, and it is better called the New Testament, per sanguinem, or, what is the same thing, in sanguine, than sanguinis. The meaning is the same as that expressed in the plainest terms by S. Matthew and S. Mark, " This is My Blood of the New Testament ". It is worth enquiring why Christ called it His Blood of the New Testament. It was the custom of almost all nations to ratify treaties by the blood of victims. Some times, when about to enter upon an unusually sacred and inviolable engagement, they mutually drank blood drawn from their own veins (Sallust, Bell. Catil.). The same thing has been done in our own times. Christ did this when He gave the Apostles His own Blood to drink — that is, He ratified a treaty ; for the twelve Apostles who were present represented the whole Church with which He made it. He, therefore, desired to express this in words. Christ alludes also to the institution of the Old Testa ment, which was dedicated by the blood of a heifer (Exod. xxiv. 8). He seems to allude to the words of Moses when he took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people and said, " This is the blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you ". Christ opposes Himself to Moses : His own Blood to the blood of the heifer : the Apostles to CH.XXVI. 28.] PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. 427 the people of the Jews: sprinking to sprinkling: and testa ment to testament. Moses sprinkled the people outwardly by the blood of the heifer: Christ sprinkled the Apostles inwardly by His own Blood. Hence, perhaps, the force of the word eKxyvo/juevov, which is poured out, that is, "sprinkled". Christ calls the new pactnm the New Testament, which He confirmed not with the Jewish people alone, as before, but with all the nations which received the Gospel, "that who soever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting ". Christ alludes, therefore, to that new treaty which God had often promised through His prophets ; and herein, perhaps, lies the force of the Greek article in S. Matthew and 6". Mark, TO al^a ; that is, the Blood of that New Testament which has been often promised, and of which you have often heard. Hence we see why, when Christ spoke of His body, He made no mention of the New Testament, but when He spoke of His Blood He did make it. Because treaties are ratified by blood : not, as Origen thinks, that we are redeemed by His Blood, but by His Flesh. From this it is seen that Christ made the Testamentum there and not on the Cross, as modern heretics contend ; for the meaning is not, " This is the Blood by which the New Testament will be ratified " : but " by which it is ratified now ". When a treaty is entered upon, the parties must be present to exchange words and give symbols. Nothing of this kind was done on the Cross. Christ had been deserted and, as it were, put to death when He spoke with His Mother and S. John and no other; and He spoke of personal subjects alone and not of any public treaty. He did all that was necessary for the performance of a treaty when He met the Apostles, that is, the whole Church, at a feast, at which treaties are celebrated, and gave them His own Blood, by which, as by a symbol, treaties are ratified, and He declared that He entered upon a treaty with the Church. " This is My Blood of the New Testament." Here, then, was instituted the New Testament. Here, too, Christ offered that sacrifice without which there can be no treaties. When, therefore, He gave His Blood to the Apostles and said, " This is My Blood of the New Testa ment," He put them in possession of a New Covenant. The conclusion is, that Christ gave His very Blood. For He opposes His own Blood to the blood of the heifer, as the truth is opposed to the figure.
Which for many. S. Mark uses the same words ; but S. Luke and S. Paul say, " for you ". It is not probable that Christ used both expressions, as His words were directed to those who were present, but which of the two He did use does not appear. If guided by conjecture, we might rather think that He said, " for you," than " for many ". 1. Because He was speaking to the Apostles alone. 2. Because, as said above, He was commending a duty to them, and He desired to explain to them the good which His Blood-shedding would do them. Hence the words of S. Luke and S. Paul are to be explained by those of S. Matthew and S. Mark, that the meaning of both may be the same ; not as Euthymius and Theophylact think, that " for many " is the same as " for all ". Calvin follows these, if, indeed, he knew them, but perverse animo ; for he says that Christ did not die for all men, but only for the predestinate. The meaning of "for many" is not " for the predestinate," as many, even Catholics, assert ; nay, Christ signifies that His Blood was not shed even for all who were present, for the words pro multis are of less extent than pro vobis ; for it is the same as if He had said, " This is shed for you " : that is, for the most of you, and He, therefore, opposes " many " to " all " who were present. When Christ said those words, therefore, it is certain that He did not include Judas, for whom His Blood, as to its effects and fruit, was not shed. S. Matthew and S. Mark, to explain this, relate, with great wisdom, not the words but the meaning, Qui pro multis effundetur. The objection may be raised that the Church thinks that Christ said both pro vobis and pro multis. In reply, the Church defines nothing ; but when some Evangelists have said, " for many," and others, pro vobis, to avoid error on a matter of doubt she unites the two.
Shall be shed. Which is shed. We have spoken of the force of the present tense on verse 26, showing that it cannot apply to the Cross. We must see here in what sense Christ says that His Blood would then be poured out. We may take the meaning to be that it was poured out to be drunk ; for we say at table to the attendant, when we wish for wine, funde vinum, "pour out the wine". Christ may have alluded to the words of Moses (Exod. xxiv. 8), " He took the Blood and sprinkled it upon the people, and he said, This is the blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words ". The word " chalice " would support this view, a chalice being a vessel most especially used for drinking from. We cannot think of any other reason why S. Luke and S. Paul use the word " chalice," which, as said before, Christ did not use, unless to signify to what end His Blood was poured out, namely, that the Apostles might drink it : for we drink from a chalice. Their opinion is better who explain it to mean, " It is shed," that is, " sacrificed ". I. Because Christ does not say, " It is shed to you " (vobis}, as He would have done had it been poured out for them to drink ; but He said, " which is poured out for you " (pro vobis}. This agrees with a sacrifice, for sacrifices are not offered to men, but for them. 2. Christ when offering His Body said, " This is," &c., and no other reason can be imagined why S. Matthew and S. Mark said that of the Blood alone, except they thought that it would be sufficient to show the nature of a sacrifice, if they spoke only of the Blood, in which the virtue of a sacrifice chiefly consists. 3. Christ spoke in the same sense of His Body, " which is given for you," and of the Blood, " which is shed for you ". But when He spoke of His Body, the meaning could not have been, " which is given to you to eat," but " which is sacrificed for you ". " The same of the Blood, " which is shed for you ". It will be said that the word " chalice," which S. Luke and S. Paul use, is adverse to this idea, for they say that the chalice and not the Blood is poured out, and a chalice is not poured out for sacrifice' but for drinking from. Other nations sacrificed the blood of their victims when they had collected it into cups. Virgil describes this (/Eneid, vi., line 248) ; and Moses himself, whose figure Christ here fulfils, received the blood of the heifers doubtless in a cup and sprinkled the people with it.
26:29
/ will not drink from henceforth. Ov fjir) Trio) an* aprt e'/c rovrov TOV <yevvij/jLaTos r?}? a/ji7re\ov, de Jiac generatione aut de Jioc fructu vitis. The ancient translator, to express the sense of the Greek, used a word not commonly employed by the Latins. Without doubt, the expression genimen vitis is a periphrasis for the vine itself, though rarely found in Scripture. Its use by Christ in Scripture shall be explained hereafter. Scripture uses another periphrasis in the same sense, calling wine "the blood of the vine" (Gen. xlix. n ; Deut. xxxii. 14). The intention of Christ in using the expression generatio vitis is not obvious. The followers of Calvin do not doubt that Christ termed what He gave the Apostles " the fruit of the vine " — that is, wine — thus to maintain that it is simply bread and wine, and to exclude the Body and Blood of Christ. The early Fathers (Origen, Tract, on S. Matt. xxx. ; S. Cyprian, Ep. Ixviii. to Ccecilian ; S. Chrysostom, Horn, in loc., Ixxxiii. ; S. Epiphanius, Hcer. xlvii. ; S. Jerome, Comment. ; S. Augustin, Qu<zst. Evangel., i. 42 ; Bede, Euthymius, Theophylact, inloc.} refer it to the Blood of Christ, but in another sense than that of the followers of Calvin. These persons say that Christ called what He gave to the Apostles wine, because it was wine ; but the Fathers above mentioned say that He called the wine His Blood (as in vS. John He had called the bread His Body) ; and He called it generatio vitis, by a periphrasis, because He Himself was the true vine. They say that this opinion is apparently confirmed by the narration and context of S. Matthew and S. Mark, who, when they had said that Christ took the chalice and gave it to the disciples, and said, " This is My Blood," added the words, " I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit (genimine] of the vine ".
But these words can hardly be received as applicable to the Blood of Christ : 1. Because what S. Matthew and S. Mark relate here that Christ said of the chalice, S. Luke says that He also said of the Pasch — that is, the lamb : " With desire I have desired to eat this Pasch with you before I suffer. For I say to you that from this time I will not eat it till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God" (xxii. 15, 16). These words, therefore, which both S. Matthew and S. Mark relate as spoken by Christ of the chalice, were not spoken of that in which He gave His Blood, but of that which, as has been said, the master of the house was accustomed at the Paschal feast to give to those who sat at meat. 2. Christ did not give that desire as the reason of His giving His Blood, but when He had given it He gave another, " which shall be shed for you ". But He gave as the reason of His wish to eat this supper with them that it was the last, as explained by S. Luke. Besides, it cannot be doubted that Christ spoke in the usual manner of men, who, when about to leave their friends, say, " We shall not drink together again ". But Christ would not have said this of His Blood, which, although it was true blood, was given under a ceremony and Sacrament ; but He said it of the true and right supper, to which also His words apply better. 3. The words which follow, " when I shall drink it," canonly be understood, as will be shortly shown, of heaven ; for in heaven He will not drink His Blood : neither literally nor in metaphor. But He will drink wine in metaphor, for He said : " I dispose to you, as My Father hath disposed to Me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom ". He did not speak, therefore, of His Blood, but of wine, when He said, "I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine ". This would tend to support our previous opinion, which is also that of S. Augustin and Euthymius, that there were not two cups, but one only. I only differ from them in that they suppose Christ to have said of this cup : (i) " I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine," but not to have said, " This is My Blood " ; (2) and afterwards to have added, " This is My Blood," but not to have said, " I will not drink from henceforth," &c. I think, on the contrary, not only that S. Luke mentioned the chalice by anticipation, but also that he related in that anticipation in that place what Christ had said before of another chalice : " I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine ". Unless we say, perhaps, that there was one and the same chalice from which Christ drank at the Paschal and ordinary supper, and in which He afterwards gave His Blood ; and that when He had first drunk at the Paschal supper, He added, " I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine," and did not empty the chalice, but left some wine in it which He afterwards consecrated to be His Blood and gave to the Apostles ; and that the Evangelists SQ mixed up these words with that chalice that, unless read with attention, they might appear to have been spoken of the one in which He gave His Blood. It appears certain that the words were not spoken of the Blood of Christ. S. Matthew and S. Mark, therefore, without keeping the order of time, related the words which Christ spoke before the consecration of the chalice after it.
Until that day when I shall drink it new. Some explain the word " new," that is, in a new manner, to refer not to the wine but to Christ ; as if He had said, " Until I drink it when I am renewed, that is, glorified ". This is the opinion of S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact, whom many Moderns follow. But the word " new," if so explained, seems too forced as meaning " in a new manner," if referred, as these do, to different circumstances ; and because the word " it " (illud) does not appear to allow the idea, for it must necessarily refer to the wine (vinum). The wine itself, therefore, is called " new," not because it was to be drunk in some new manner, but to show that it would be of another quality and more excellent and pleasant, such as that by which all the blessed in heaven will be inebriated, as described in Ps. xxxv. 9. The Hebrews, whose language Christ adopted, call whatever is unusually excellent and sweet " new," as in Ps. xcv. I ; xcvii. I ; cxlix. I.
In the kingdom of My Father. Some think that these words refer to the beginning of the New Testament, which dates from the Supper at which Christ gave His Body and Blood of the New Testament. They do this that that fruit of the vine which Christ had drunk before might be understood ; but the new fruit, that is, the new wine, is Christ's Blood. The design is good, but in no sense necessary. For the words of S. Matthew and S. Mark, " Until that day when I shall drink it new with you in the kingdom of My Father," make it clear that the kingdom of the Father cannot be understood of the institution of the New Testament, for the same night could not be " that day," much less the same hour, in which Christ was to institute the New Testament. Again, they do not appear to observe the design of Christ in saying this. He wished to support the spirits of the disciples, and reassure their minds, which had been cast down by His previous words : " I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine," and to fortify them by His words that follow : " Until that day when I shall drink it new with you in the kingdom of My Father". With this design, S. Luke relates the words of Christ after He had given them His Body and Blood : " I dispose to you as My Father hath disposed to Me a kingdom " (S. Luke xxii. 29). He consoled the Apostles as a dying father might console a son, by saying that he had left him an ample heritage, and there was no reason why he should weep. This could not have been said of the institution of the New Testament, but it might of the life eternal. Others, as S. Jerome and Bede, think that the Church is called the kingdom of the Father. Others, again, take the words of the forty days, during which Christ often ate and drank with the Apostles after His Resurrection. This is the opinion of S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius. These explanations, however, are to be answered by the same arguments as the first. For " that day " canonly refer to the most distant and last day, as the Day of Judgment is commonly called the Last Day, Dies ilia. Besides, it may be observed that although the kingdom of God is sometimes put for the Church, and sometimes for the Gospel, yet " the kingdom of the Father " is never spoken of but as heaven ; because, probably, the Father alone has never been seen to come down from heaven. Again, it may be observed that when Scripture speaks of eating or drinking in the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom is taken neither for the Church nor for the Gospel, but only for the life of the beatified (Ps. xvi. 1 5 ; 5. Matt. viii. 1 1 ; 5. Luke xiv. 1 5 ; xxii. 29, 30 ; Apoc. xix. 9). All which passages are without doubt to be understood of the celestial life of beatitude, as here the words of Christ, " In the kingdom of My Father," when He speaks of drinking. Lastly, if the kingdom of heaven is taken for anything but the state of beatitude, the question is, how the term " new wine " is to be understood ? For if taken of the Blood of Christ, it is not certain that Christ drank after the Resurrection ; or if He did, it does not apply to so brief a portion of time. If taken for true wine after the Resurrection, He did not drkik the new but the old. But the new wine agrees well with the life of beatitude, because, as said before, the Hebrews called everything sweet and pleasant " new," as the ancients fabled of nectar and ambrosia. In this sense, Origen (Tract, xxxv. in /#<:.), S. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. u. in Sanct. Pasc/i.}, and Bede receive the words. One who prefers the first explanation of the words may object that this one does not satisfy, because it is not credible that Christ in such a short time would have changed the meaning of His words, so as to call the fruit of the vine at one moment true wine, and at another, metaphorically, the sweetness of eternal life — a slight objection. If Christ called His Blood the new wine, He changed the meaning of His words. For the Blood of Christ is not literal, but metaphorical, wine, and we must remember what has been said before, that Christ often in the same sentence uses the same word in a double sense, and that, not only without any fault, but very elegantly, forcibly, and pointedly. " Let the dead bury their dead." In the first clause, He uses the word metaphorically ; in the second, literally. So in 5. John w. 13, 14, which very closely resembles the passage of which we are speaking- : " Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again, but he that shall drink of the water that I will give him, shall not thirst for ever. But the water that I will give him shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting." In the first clause, Christ speaks of water properly ; in the second, metaphorically. It may be objected, with more appearance of truth, that Christ said, " I will not drink of this fruit of the vine " (ex hoc] "until I drink it" (illud). For when He said ex hoc, with a periphrasis, He described the true wine, and when He said 'illud, He meant the same actual wine, because " that " (illud) refers to " this " (hoc). These words, in this place, show neither the individual nor the species, but the whole genus, and whatever is contained, whether literally or metaphorically, under the name of wine ; but in the text " this " (hoc) is taken for literal, " it " (illud) for metaphorical, wine ; as if it had been said, " I will not drink wine hereafter until I drink that (illud) new with you in the kingdom of My Father ". Others object that Christ, after the Resurrection and before He ascended into heaven, often ate and drank with the Apostles, as S. Peter testifies (Acts x. 41). We might, in the first place, deny that Christ drank wine, because Scripture does not say that He did ; but granting as probable that He did so, if not always, yet occasionally, His words are to be understood in a human and ordinary sense ; and when He said, " I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine," He only meant that He would not eat and drink with them as before. He did eat and drink with them, indeed, after the Resurrection, but not in His usual manner, and as if to satisfy the requirements of nature, but occasionally, by the way, as by stealth, and only to show that He had risen from the dead. He was accustomed to speak of the actions which He did in another manner after His Resurrection to that before, as if He had not done them. " These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you " (5. Luke xxiv. 44), as if He were not with them then ; for He was so with them as to appear to them only occasionally. He was invisible, and not as before so as to be always with them, always be seen by them, always eating and drinking with them. In the same manner, though He sometimes ate and drank with the Apostles after the Resurrection, yet, as He only did so as through a glass, He does not make account of it. Hence the reason of Christ's having used a periphrasis. Some say that He alluded to the usual form of thanks giving among the Jews, which was in these words : " Blessed art Thou, Lord, King of the World, who givest us the fruit of the vine ". It may be so, but it appears more probable that Christ spoke as He did for the sake of emphasis ; for it is more, and of greater force, to say, with exaggeration, " I will not drink of the fruit of the vine," than to say, " I will not drink wine," as he speaks with more exaggeration who says that he will not eat anything that the earth produces, than one who says that he will not take any food, although there is none which the earth does not produce ; for the periphrasis and manner of speech adds force to the words.
26:30
And a hymn being said, Kal vfj,vtjcravT6s. These words show that not only Christ, but also the Apostles, sang the hymn, as Origen and S. Hilary say : though Bede, not regarding the Greek, thinks that Christ sang it alone. It is not clear whether they actually sang it, but from the words it is probable that they did. It may be an example of ecclesiastical hymnology. S. Chrysostom accommodates it to the sacrifice of the Mass, concluding that no one should depart from church before the final thanksgiving. Some think that Christ sang some usual form of Jewish hymn ; for the Evangelists say, as of some ordinary hymn, "The hymn being sung" (hymno dictd). Paul Bergensis says that the Jews, as a thanksgiving, used to sing seven psalms, from the cxii., the beginning of which is, " Praise the Lord, ye children" (Laudate pueri), to cxviii. Others think that Christ composed some new hymn. Neither is certain. The former opinion is the more probable, for the Jews used some fixed thanksgiving, and it must be believed, therefore, not only as their authorities teach, but also as we see it prescribed by God (Deiit. viii. 10).
They went out. They went out, either from the house where they had supped, or from the city. This will be treated of on 5. John xiv. 31 ; xviii. i. S. John relates many and most weighty words of Christ between the giving of the Sacra ment, from chap. xiii. 30 to chap, xviii., to their going out. S. Luke also records some which are omitted by S. John — the contention between the Apostles as to which should be the greatest, and the other things explained in chap. xx. 25, and the words in S. Luke xxii. 28: "You are they who have continued with Me in My temptations, and I dispose to you as My Father hath disposed to Me a kingdom, that you may eat and drink with Me at My table in My kingdom, and may sit upon thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel ". Hence it may be concluded that Judas had gone out before Christ, because of the words, "You are they that have continued with Me5': as if He opposed to the eleven Apostles Judas, who had not continued with Him, but rather, as Ps. xl. 10, "The man in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly supplanted me".
Unto Mount Olivet. This mount was distant from Jerusalem a Sabbath day's journey — that is, one mile, or, as some say, two miles (Acts i. 12). It was certainly very near, as Christ used to go to it after He had supped. The Garden of Gethsemane was probably not on the mountain itself, but at the foot of it, as the Hebrew word, meaning a rich valley, indicates.
26:31
All you shall be scandalised. This does not mean, as some have erroneously supposed, that the Apostles would lose their faith, nor, as others say, that they would waver or deny Christ, but that they would forsake Him. This is seen from the answer of S. Peter : " And Peter answering said, Although all shall be scandal ised in Thee, I will never be scandalised " — that is, "Though all forsake Thee, I will not ". None of them lost their faith, not even Peter himself, who denied Him. Some ancient authors, indeed, speak as if he had lost his faith, not distinguishing between the confession of faith from faith, and the denial of Christ from the loss of faith, which are very different things. S. Luke says that Christ said to Peter alone : " Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not" (xxii. 31). Then S. Matthew and S. Mark describe the events as if Christ had said the words after He had gone out of the house. S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 2) thinks that Christ first spoke what is related by S. John (xiii. 33), and that on this occasion S. Peter asked what is recorded by S. John (verse 36) : " Lord, whither goest Thou ? " and that Christ answered : " Whither I go thou canst not follow Me now, but thou shalt follow hereafter" ; and that Peter replied : "Why cannot I follow Thee now ? I will lay down my life for Thee." Then that Christ, seeing the confidence of Peter and his boastful promise, used the words related by S. Luke: "Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat" (xxii. 31). As to the words of S. Matthew (xxv. 31) and S. Mark (xiv. 27), "All you shall be scanda lised in Me this night," either Christ, when He had spoken what S. Luke reports to Peter by himself, turned to the others and addressed them all, or, as what was said to Peter was said to all, S. Matthew and S. Mark have given not the words of Christ but His meaning. A Hebraism for " because of Me," when you see Me suffering unworthy treatment, you will take the occasion to forsake Me ; that is, you will be scandalised in Me.
For it is written. Christ applies the words of Zacharias (xiii. 7) to Himself; for although they were written of the priests of old, they were properly spoken of Him, as is plain from the verses preceding and following. Christ applied them not to teach the Apostles that they must necessarily forsake Him, and the necessity of the result acquit them of blame, but to show that their acting thus would be nothing strange to Him, for He knew it already, and it had been assuredly foretold by the Prophet : " I will strike the shepherd ". In Zacharias the Hebrew is ^H* The LXX. read Trardijov. We might easily conclude, even from this passage, that for Trard^co we should substitute Trdra^ov, percute, " strike," that the words of the Evangelist may not appear to differ from those of the Prophet, did we not see that this is sometimes the case. It is better, therefore, to say that the Evangelist follows the meaning, and not the words. In this sense, " strike " and " I will strike " have the same force. For it is God who commanded that the shepherd should be struck, and he who does a thing per alium does it per se. It shows, therefore, that it was God who struck His own Son, ,as in Rom. viii. 32.
26:32
But after 1 shall be risen again I will go before yon into Galilee. Christ, by these few words, restored the spirits of the Apostles, saying that He would rise again from the dead, and that He would appear to them in Galilee.
26:34
Amen, I say to thee that in this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice. S. Mark says (xiv. 30) : " Before the cock crow twice thou shalt deny Me thrice ". Hence it has been asked how we are to understand this latter passage by the side of S. Matthew here. S. Luke (xxii. 34) and S. John (xiii. 38) say that the words were, " The cock shall not crow till thou deny Me thrice ". A further question has been raised as to whether the word " thrice " applies to the crowing of the cock or to the denial of S. Peter. S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 2) thinks that the meaning is, " Before the cock crow, thou shalt begin to deny Me thrice " ; as if Peter should have begun three denials before the cock crew, but not have finished them. It is plain from the above, and 5. Luke xxii. 34, and S. John xiii. 38, that Christ meant to say that before the cock crew Peter should thrice deny Him. S. Augustin loses all the grace of the promise of Christ. The meaning is that in the briefest possible point of time he should not only once, or twice, but three times, deny Him. The result proves this, for S. Matthew (verses 74, 75), S. Luke (xxii. 60, 61), and S. John (xviii. 27), when they had related the three repeated denials of S. Peter, added, " And immediately the cock crew". It has been rightly observed that S. Matthew, S. Luke, and S. John mean by this crowing of the cock, not the sound which the bird utters in the middle of the night, but that before the dawn ; for the former is properly called the gallicinium, or "cock-crowing," galli cantus, because the first crowing is called by another name, " the midnight " (media nox). The time, therefore, which precedes the dawn, when the cock crows, if it were not called the " cock-crow " (galli cantus), could not becalled by any other name. Scripture speaks thus : " And it came to pass about the cock-crowing, Raguel ordered his two servants to be called for," &c. (Tobias viii. 11), and so 5. Mark xiii. 35. Before the dawn, therefore, which is properly called the time of cock - crowing, Peter thrice denied Christ, as S. Matthew, S. Luke, and S. John describe. This is the same thing as, " before the cock crow twice " — that is, once in the middle of the night and again before the dawn — Peter denied Christ thrice, as related by S. Mark. It will be asked why S. Mark gave another description of this event than that of the other Evangelists. It appears probable that S. Mark learned from S. Peter, whose disciple he was, not only with what meaning, but even in what words, Christ foretold that Peter should deny Him three times that night, and that He used these same words. It seems most likely that Christ used the words of S. Mark, because they have greater force. For Christ opposes number to number, as if He had said, " Thou wilt be more active in denying Me than the cock in crowing ; for before he crows twice thou shalt deny Me thrice ". We see that the whole speech of Christ is emphatic : " Amen, I say to thee," and " in this night " ; as if He had said : " In this very night in which thou boastest that even if thou shouldest die for Me thou wilt not deny Me, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny Me thrice ".
26:36
Into a country place. JEt? xwpiov. The same word is used by S. Mark. It was a garden, as we learn from S. John xviii. I, 26, which was frequently visited by Christ for prayer (S. John xviii. 2). Judas knew that Christ often went thither, and S. Luke (xxii. 39) says: " He went out, according to His custom, to the Mount of Olives ". Christ, therefore, did not go thitherto conceal Himself, but rather that He might be more easily found by Judas and the band of soldiers, as those words of S. John denote.
Which is called Gethsemani. It should rather have been called Gechemani, or Gesemani — that is, "the eighth" valley or garden ; or "the fruitful," because it was fertile; and "the eighth" because, as some are of opinion, that, as there were many pleasant countryhouses and gardens around Jerusalem, they took their names from their relative distances from the city. Thus one was called the first garden, and another the second ; as among the Romans there was the first, second, third from the central milestone. S. Cyril (Comment, on 5. John xviii.) thinks that there was a mystery in Christ's seeking to be taken in a garden, and that the garden itself was a symbol of paradise ; for when in paradise we were taken captive by the devil, and were delivered in a like paradise : the taking of Christ being the beginning of our freedom.
26:37
Peter and tlie two sons of Zebedee. James and John. The reason of Christ's having taken some of the Apostles is obvious. He wished to have witnesses of His Prayer, His Pain, and His Death-sweat. As to His having chosen these three, the opinion of S. Chrysostom and Theophylact is, that they had seen His glory and majesty in the Transfiguration, and it was to be feared lest the others, who had not done so, should be offended by His suffering. It may be more simply supposed that He took these three rather than the others because He trusted them more, and was therefore more accustomed to admit them to all His more secret actions, as in the Transfiguration.
He began to grow sorrowful and to be sad. "Hpj-aro \v7T6LcrOa(, teal a^r^jiovelv, Tristari et anxio esse animo. aSrjfioveiv describes one who is struck by a fear so intense as to render him as it were half dead and thunder struck. But the Evangelists S. Matthew and S. Mark use the word to describe only the greatness of the sorrow of Christ. Some formerly denied that there was any true sorrowfulness in Christ, as we learn from S. Chrysostom (in loc.\ S. Ambrose (Comm. on S. Luke xxii.), and S. John Damascus (De Hceres, Ixxxiv.). S. Hilary says, perhaps incongruously, that Christ felt no pain. Evagrius (On Ps. Ixviii.) asserts the same error as that of the Emperor Justinian, who thought Christ impassible. We can have no better witness than Christ Himself. He said that His soul was troubled even unto death. 2. Others, on the contrary, have said, as we are told by S. Thomas in his Commentary, that even in His Godhead Christ felt suffering and sorrow, thinking too meanly of the Godhead. 3. Others, again, say that the sorrowfulness of Christ was not suffering — passio, irdQos — but propassio> TrpoTradeia : the former disturbing the soul in some degree, and extorting some consent of the will, however imperfect; the latter causing some feeling of either pain or pleasure, but not disturbing the soul from its calmness. Origen, S. Jerome, and Bede think that Christ was affected by sorrow, and they explain the word r^p^aro to mean that the sorrow was begun indeed, but not ended ; for propassio had not extended on to passio. The words may rather be thought to have the force of Christ's, not being compelled when danger was at hand to be sorrowful, but being so of His own choice ; when He would, as far as He would, and where and in what manner He would, as is seen from other circumstances. A short time before, when He was with the eleven disciples, He was not sorrowful, because He did not please that His sorrow should be known to them ; but when He had gone from them, and was with those three alone, He immediately began to be sorrowful, as the Evangelists have described it ; showing that when He pleased, and in the manner in which He pleased, He was sorrowful. S. Augustin (On Ps, Ixxxvii.) says, to the same effect: "The Lord Jesus underwent these results of human infirmity as He underwent the flesh of human infirmity, and the death of His human flesh ; not from the necessity of His condition, but from His will of sympathy ; that He might transfigure into Himself His Body, which is the Church, He having designed to be the Head — that is, His members among His saints and the faithful : that if it should happen to any of them among their human temptations to be sorrowful and to grieve, he should not therefore think himself an alien to His grace, and that his sufferings were sins, but merely proofs of human infirmities, as it were a kind of keynote ; and that His Body itself might learn from Him, its Head". S. John Damascus rightly says (De Fid. Orthodox., iii. 20): "Between our sufferings and Christ's there is this difference : ours precede, and Christ's follow, the act of the will ; that is, we, even against our will, have suffering : Christ has it only with His will. Ours, again, arise from natural necessity and original sin : Christ's spring neither from sin nor necessity, but from His pity for us. He hungered for us, He thirsted for us, He grieved for us." Hence the assertion of some learned men and Catholic doctors that Christ, by the condition of human nature, feared death, may be rather explained than refuted. It may be taken to mean that Christ grieved, not from the condition and necessity of nature, but that by His own will He so relinquished His nature in its own natural condition, that He grieved as much as He would have done if His nature had been merely human. It has been disputed with much subtlety in the schools how it was that Christ, when He was in happiness, had sorrow. Some have answered that He had happiness only in the higher part of His soul, but His body had it not yet, that He might suffer. Beatitude had not yet effused itself into it, but sorrow was in His lower part, which is in the body. But Christ affirmed that His soul was sorrowful even unto death, by which He showed that sorrow possessed His entire soul ; and soon after He said : " Not as I will, but as Thou wilt " ; and more plainly in 5. Luke :• " Not My will, but Thine be done ". By this He shows that even in His will, which is the higher point of His soul, He was sorrowful, and shrank from death; and, in fact, from that passage, the Sixth CEcumenical Council and other ancient authorities proved that there were two wills in Christ, a divine and a human. They, therefore, who explain " will " to mean here the appetite of the sentient part are not to be approved. It is better defined that, even when in happiness, it was ordered by some dispensation that Christ should admit sorrow even into the higher part of His soul ; for as He could restrain His beatitude from flowing down into His body, that He might be able to suffer; so He could press it down, and, in a manner, conceal it, that He might yield for a time to sorrow, which was one future part of His Passion. Again, it has been asked why Christ was sorrowful. S. Hilary, S. Jerome, and Bede say that it was not from fear of death, but from pity for the disciples, because they would suffer offence, and that this is the meaning of His subsequent words, "My soul is sorrowful "; as if He had said: "When the hour of death shall Actually come it will not be sorrowful, because the scandal will then have passed''. S. Hilary thinks that the grief was especially for Judas, because Christ knew that he would be lost. These writers have been careful not to appear to make Christ appear more fearful than some of His own martyrs. But if the above be admitted as truth, this will not be necessary. Christ feared, indeed, but freely and of His own will. Hence it happened that, although He may appear to have feared death more than some of His own martyrs, He cannot be called more fearful than they. For he is not fearful, but most valiant, who does not suffer fear but when He wills to do so ; and they all teach that Christ so feared death, that if it be denied the authority of Scripture cannot stand. But if He feared death of His own will, why did He will to fear it ? The answer may be given in one word. If He died of His own will, why did He will to die? Assuredly He willed it for us ; and for us He felt sorrow ; for His pain, His sorrow, His bloody sweat, were all preludes of His death ; and it was a great and an additional benefit that He pleased to undergo no sudden death, like those who are doomed to be executed unexpectedly and when not expecting to die, but one with all its attendant circumstances — the sorrow, the scourging, the insults, the ignominy, and other things that do not usually attend death, as the bloody sweat — so that we may truly say, with Ps. cxiv. 3, " The sorrows of death compassed me, and the perils of hell have found me". Another reason is given by S. Jerome, Bede, Euthymius, and Theophylact in his Commentary, and S. Augustin (On Ps. Ixxxvii.) : That Christ feared and was sorrowful that He might show Himself to be true man, that his Members, that is, the faithful, if they were sorrowful might not think it sin to be so. But why did He appear to have been oppressed with a greater dread of death than other men, so that, as S. Luke relates (xxii. 44), great drops, or, as in the Greek, Opo/i/Boi, " gouts," flowed down from His body to the earth ? S. Hilary, indeed (De Trin., x.), and S. Jerome, against the Pelagians of his time (u.), say that the account of this sweat and the angel that strengthened Him are omitted in many copies of both Greek and Latin ; but it is more probable that there was an omission of these particulars than that anyone would have added them. Others do not deny the words, but destroy their force ; as if Christ did not actually sweat blood, but was only said to do so by a proverbial expression, meaning that He was seized by a violent terror : as we say of those who are under some great anxiety and mental pressure, " They sweat drops of blood". This is held by Theophylact and Euthymius ; but when the Evangelist says that His sweat flowed down to the ground, he cannot be understood otherwise than as meaning that Christ sweated actual blood. As regards this act, although some think it to have been against nature, it may rather appear, on the other hand, to have been a natural sweat, that by some mystery His whole Body, which is the Church, might be seen to be suffused with His blood ; but because it was unusual it seemed to be a miracle, as all rare events are apt to be considered. Aristotle says that this phenomenon may be natural, and that it has happened at times (Hist. Anim., vu. 16 ; De Part. Anim., iii. 5). Natural reason teaches us that it might happen, especially in men of rare texture and delicate constitution. For as the sweat is nothing but the watery part of the blood which is in the veins, as that part passes off in all of us in sweat, why may not, in very rare cases, and in individuals of a delicate frame and unusually subtle blood, that finer blood itself flow off in the form of sweat? And as we see men sweat when seized by sudden fear, so Christ, who was of a most delicate nature, when under apprehension of a most ignominious death, may have naturally sweated blood. It is rather to be wondered at that He should have been so apprehensive of death as to sweat blood. It is said by S. Thomas that it was not merely death, but the cause of it that most deeply agitated His mind ; namely, the sins of mankind. S. Ambrose has spoken well and devoutly of this in his Commentary on S. Luke xxii. : " It had benefited me less if Christ had not taken my passions. He grieved, therefore, for me, who had no cause of grief for Himself, and laying aside the delights of His Eternal Divinity, He is affected by the weariness of my infirmity. He took my sorrow, that He might share His joy with me, and, in our footsteps, He descended even to the anguish of death, to recall us to life. I speak of grief, therefore, with confidence, because I preach the Cross ; for Christ took not the appearance, but the truth of Incarnation. He ought, therefore, to take grief also, that He might conquer, not exclude, sorrow. For they who endure the stupor rather than have the pain of wounds, have no praise for fortitude."
26:38
My soul is sorrowful even unto death. ITepiXuTTo?, " My soul is besieged on every side with sorrow". In the same sense in all respects as that in which David said, in the person of Christ, " The sorrows of death have compassed me, and the pains of hell have found me" (Ps. cxiv. 3). On the words, " even unto death," Origen, S. Hilary, and S. Jerome say that the meaning is as if Christ had said, " My soul is sorrowful ; but the sorrow will endure only until death ". The explanation, however, seems foreign to the text ; for Christ did not desire to diminish the amount of His sorrow, but rather to increase it. He would have diminished it if He had said that it would endure only until His death. Thers is another more modern opinion : " My soul is so sorrowful that the sorrow itself seems to bring Me death ". As we say, " I am dying of grief," " I am dying of hunger ". The true meaning is that of Euthymius : " My soul is as sorrowful as if I were already dying ". David said in the above psalm : " The pains of hell have found me" ; that is, they are as heavy as those that are felt in death.
Stay you here. Meivare, sustinete. S. Mark uses the same word (xiv. 34). Christ had lately told the other disciples not to remain, but to sit (verse 36). He commanded these to remain and watch because they were nearer to His danger, and He wished them to witness it : as He directed them, a little after, not only to remain and watch, but also to pray (verse 41).
26:39
And going. S. Luke (xxii. 41) says : " He was withdrawn away from them ". Some think that He went away from those three most beloved disciples unwillingly.
A little farther. S. Luke has described the distance (xxii. 41) : "He was withdrawn away from them a stone's cast ". It may be asked why Christ went from the disciples to pray ? He followed His own precept, as S. Thomas (Comment, in loc) says : " When thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber and shut the door". He probably followed an ordinary and reverent custom. For although we pray without shame before others, there are many things in our prayers, many outward marks of our zeal and warmth, which we are ashamed to show before others, but not when alone.
He fell upon His face. S. Mark (xiv. 35) says: " He fell flat on the ground" ; and S. Luke : " Kneeling down, He prayed ". Hence it is not to be understood that He fell wholly prostrate on the earth, but that He knelt down. S. Mark says that He fell, because one who bends his knee on the earth falls upon it.
My Father, if it be possible. Christ knew that absolutely this was possible to God, as He said (S. Mark xiv. 36) : " Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee " ; but as there had been a divine decree that He should die for us, He knew that it was impossible that that chalice should pass from Him. Why, then, did He ask that if possible it should do so ? He left His human nature to perform its own part, as He would have done if it had never been united to His Divinity, and He had known nothing of the divine decree. From a comparison of S. Matthew and S. Mark, we see that S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 4) is correct in saying that the words "If it be possible" and " If Thou wilt" have the same meaning ; for, with regard to what is called " absolute power," Christ did not deny it, nor call it into question, but, as if for caution, He added the words of S. Mark : " All things are possible to Thee " ; but when He added, " But not what I will," He showed that by the words, " If it be possible," He meant only, " If Thou wilt" (si vis), or, "things remaining unaffected," or " If, Thy glory safe, Thou wilt" (velle potes). The words, " Father," &c., are the beginning of a prayer well fitted for gaining favour, as S. Jerome says. S. Mark united the Chaldaic and Greek words, "Abba, Jlare/o," explaining the former by the latter. S. Paul does the same in two places — Rom. viii. 15 ; Galat. w. 6. S. Augustin thinks this a mystery, to show that God is the Father of both Jews and Gentiles. Pass. a-w e/u,oi), prcetereat a me\ or, as the Latins say, pratereat me.
This chalice. Christ's Passion — that terrible death. Why it is called a " chalice " has been explained on chap. xx. 22.
Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt. It is seen from these words that there were two wills in Christ — a divine and a human, as the Sixth General Council proved from this passage. This was not ruled in opposition to S. Paul, who says that " Christ was heard for His reverence" (Heb. v. 7). Although the chalice did not pass from Him, His prayer was not unheard ; for He prayed under a condition : " If it be possible," that is, " If Thou wilt" ; but the Father would not. It may be asked, why Christ, of His human nature, shrank from death, when God willed that He should die? For He seems to have had a will contrary to that of God, which He could not have had without sin. For sin, as S. Augustin (Cont. Faust., xxii. 27) defines it, is "every word, act, or desire that is contrary to the Law of God and the divine will ". Christ, as has been said before, spoke in this prayer as if He were merely a man to whom the divine will was unknown, and who had not strength to overcome death. He left His human nature as if it were His only one, His divine being kept back that He might discharge His office more fully among men. Not everyone who wishes anything contrarily to the divine will at once commits sin, but he who wishes, speaks, or does anything against it when known to him and seen by him. We do not sin when we ask of God long life and good health for our parents ; we should rather sin if we did not, though it may be God's will that they should shortly die : because that will was not known to us, and the other was : that we should honour our parents, and wish them all good. We may, again, sometimes wish for a thing that is contrary to the divine will, though known to us to be so, and not sin : so that the will be not made known to us by precept. My father is dead. I cannot doubt that he died by the divine will ; yet I might wish that he had not died, and commit no sin. Add that this will of Christ by which He refused (recusavit) death, was not full and absolute, but what is termed by divines conditional. For He did not say to Himself, " I will not die," but, " I would not die, if it might be so ". The wish was not sin, as there was a guiltless condition annexed.
26:40
And He cometh to His disciples. He came to His disciples because He had finished His prayer ; and He wished, after some interval, to pray three times; or He came, as the result proved, to arouse and warn them.
And He findetJi them asleep. Grief causes tears and vapours in the brain, from which arises sleep. We see that infants, after they have wept much, sleep deeply ; and that men, when in trouble, are oppressed with sleep.
What, could you not watch one hour ivitJi Me ? These words, as Euthymius observes, are to be read as a double question. The first interrogation is to be put after the word " what," and the second after the words that follow. For the word " what " is not to be referred to " could you," but to what Peter in the first place, and then all the others in like manner, had said before : " Though I should die with Thee," &c. Christ then said, in a manner, " Are you so ready to die with Me, and yet you could not watch one hour with Me?" Christ said this to Peter alone, because he had made the promise first, and most eagerly of all. So S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, Bede, Theophylact, and Euthymius. S. Mark says that Christ addressed Peter alone — "Could you not," &c., and it probably was so ; but because what Christ said to Peter as the chief, He said to all. S. Matthew gives the sense and not the words, saying that Christ spoke to all. The words "with Me" were calculated to prick the hearts of the disciples deeply. "While I was praying, toiling, and struggling with death, you, who ought to fight while I am sleeping, could not watch for even the briefest period of time possible."
26:41
That ye enter not into temptation. Not to enter into temptation, in the language of Bede, Euthymius, Theophylact, and others later, does not mean, not to fall into, but to overcome it. The words may more probably mean, not to run into it ; for we are commanded to ask of God, as conscious of our own weakness, not to overcome temptation only, but not even to come into the danger of it. It is safer not to fight than to conquer. In this sense, we pray God not to lead us into temptation, as explained on chap. vi. 13.
The spirit indeed is ^v tiling, but the flesh is weak. This is the reason why they ought to pray ; although their minds and will do not fail, their strength does, unless they gain grace from God through prayer. The spirit here meant is not the Holy Ghost, not the Spirit of Christ Himself, but the will of the disciples. So S. Paul (i Cor. vu. 34) : " That she " (the virgin) " may be holy both in body and spirit," pure not only in person, but also in will. Christ appears to allude to the former boast of the Apostles. They showed great zeal and great courage when they said one after another, " Though I should die with Thee, I will not deny Thee," repeating the words of S. Peter. Christ did not wish to show disapprobation of their zeal, He rather praised it in fact ; He admonished them, however, of the infirmity of their flesh, and taught them that, although strong and prompt in His service, they must still pray, because their flesh was weak. In the words of S. Paul, " we have this treasure in earthen vessels " (2 Cor. w. 7).
26:42
Again the second time. Unless we understand the Hebrew, this will seem tautological. The Hebrews had said ITOltfrPm and He returned a second time and prayed, as if, Tu conversus vivificabis me, that is, " Thou shalt make live again ". We have explained the idiom more than once before. The meaning is the same, therefore, as if it had been said in other words, " He returned and prayed a second time ".
26:43
For their eyes were heavy. Either from sleep, as the night was now advanced, or, as S. Luke says, from sorrow (xxii. 45).
26:44
And He prayed the third time. The question at once occurs, why Christ prayed three times, and neither more often nor less. It is the opinion of S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact that this number shows truth, perfection, and constancy. This may be understood from many passages of Scripture. The vessel full of all kinds of animals which S. Peter saw was thrice let down from heaven (Acts x. 16). S. Paul says that he thrice asked God to remove the angel of Satan (2 Cor. xii. 8). S. Peter thrice denied Christ. Christ thrice asked S. Peter, " Lovest thou Me more than these?" (S. John xxi. 15). In the same manner, Christ prayed thrice ; so that that which is done three times seems to be done wholly and for ever, and Christ Himself taught us to pray always.
Saying the self-same word. It is not necessary, Euthymius says, that Christ should have used the same words precisely, but rather that He prayed to the same effect But it would appear that S. Matthew said what he did with care, to show that Christ always held the same feeling and uttered the same prayer as before : " Not as I will, but as Thou wilt," to show that although He prayed thrice he never forgot His moderation, in which the praise of His whole prayer consists. This is the meaning of the words, "saying the self-same word ". S. Luke has mentioned only one prayer, with the object, probably, of showing that, although Christ prayed thrice, yet, as S. Matthew says, His words and His prayer were the same ; and he immediately adds that the angel appeared to Him. It is not certain, there fore, at which of the prayers the angel appeared. It is not probable, as some have thought, that he appeared at each. We must believe that he was sent to answer Christ'sprayer and to convey the feeling of the Father to Him ; and if so, he would not come before the end of the third prayer, for if he had come sooner it is hardly probable that Christ would have repeated the same prayer. When S. Luke says, therefore, that Christ came to the disciples and found them sleeping, after he had described the appearance of the angel, we must under stand him to speak by hysteron proteron. For he had begun to speak of the prayer before. Hence he wished to relate all the attending events, such as the descent of the angel, in one account. And, therefore, when he says that the multitude and Judas came while Christ was yet speaking to the disciples, this is not to be referred to the words immediately preceding, " Why sleep ye ? Arise, pray lest you enter into temptation ; " for when Christ uttered these words Judas had not come. For, as is clear from S. Matthew and S. Mark, after Christ had said those words, He retired to pray twice, and when He returned to the disciples the third time He did not say " Watch," &c., but " Sleep ye now and take your rest" (verse 45), and then Judas appeared. We must understand S. Luke's words, therefore, " While He was yet speaking," not of what He had said, but of what He had not said (non ea quce dixerat sed ea quce tacueraf] ; that is, the words, " When He was yet speaking to the disciples," do not apply then, but afterwards. But, as from the three prayers S. Luke makes one, so he makes one discourse with the Apostles out of the three, uniting the events of the third to the first.
26:45
Sleep ye now and take your rest. S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 4) and Bede think that Christ said this not ironically, but with a serious meaning, because S. Mark says (xiv. 41), "It is enough," as if He had said : " It is enough that you have watched hitherto ; now take your rest". S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact, however, take the words as ironical, as if Christ had directed them to sleep and take their rest when they ought least to do so, the enemy being at hand — upbraiding them, as it were, because, when He had previously ordered them to watch, they slept.
Into the i hands of sinners. The Gentiles. The Hebrews called all Gentiles, absolutely, sinners, as we find in 6". Luke xxiv. 7 and Gal. u. 15. The greater number of those who came to seize Christ were Roman soldiers ; because, as S. John says (xviii. 3): "Judas having received a band of soldiers and servants from the chief priests and the Pharisees, cometh hither with lanterns and torches and weapons ". Judas received a band of soldiers.
26:47
As He yet spoke. The three Evangelists — S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke — have said that Judas came while Christ was speaking, with the design, probably, of showing that the words uttered by Him just before (verse 46) were true : u Rise, let us go ; behold he is at hand that will betray Me". The same thing is said by S. John in other words (xviii. 4).
And behold Judas. S. Matthew names Judas as first, as does S. Mark also. S. Luke, however, mentions the multitude first, and then Judas, because perhaps the multitude came first.
A great multitude. S. Mark and S. Luke say the same. S. John (xviii. 3) says, " Judas having received a band of soldiers and servants ". Hence it follows that men of all ranks came to take Christ. One of the twelve who betrayed Him, and who brought the servants of the priests, scribes, and elders of the people, — for all the Evangelists say that he whose ear Peter cut off was a servant of the high priest, — and the soldiers who were Gentiles, and who came with arms, as if against some great criminal, or, perhaps, as fearing His disciples ; and with torches, for it was dark.
26:48
Gave them a sign. Judas had given one before. Christ was so well known to all that we may wonder why there was any need of a sign. Origen (in loc.} says that it was a tradition of his time that Christ had two faces : one a natural and ordinary one in which all men knew Him, the other assumed by Him at times, as in the Transfiguration. Theophylact, with more reason, says that the greater number of those who came to seize Christ were soldiers ; that is, Gentiles who were notused to hear Him, as being men who had no part in the religion of the Jews. Leontius, in his Commentary on S, John xviii. 5, thinks that by His own power Christ caused not only the soldiers but even Judas himself, who had been so long with Him, not to know Him. The same is the opinion of S. Chrysostom, Theodore Heracleota (in the Catena Grceca], S. Cyril and Theophylact (On S. John xviii. 5). Nor, was the darkness the reason ; for the Evangelist had said before that the soldiers came with lanterns and torches ; and, again, the same Evangelist (S. Jo/in xviii. 5) added, "And Judas also who betrayed Him stood with them " ; as meaning, that although Judas, who had come to point out Christ, was with them they did not know Him. Theodore of Mopsuestia thinks that the Evangelist said that Judas was with them, to show his want of shame and probity ; for even when he had seen so great a miracle he did not cease from his wicked design. But why did he give them this particular sign rather than any other ? Probably because he desired to give them a sign by which he might at once betray Christ to the soldiers and conceal his treachery from Him. He would not have succeeded if he had given them some unusual sign. It was the custom of the Jews to greet each other with a kiss, especially the inferior the superior ; and of all, indeed, who desired to show extraordinary love to those whom they so saluted. So Gen. xxix. 11, 13; xxxiii. 4; xlv. 15; Exod. w. 27; xviii. 7. The same custom was in use among Christians (Acts xx. 37 ; Rom. xvi. 1 6 ; I Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12 ; I Thess. v. 26; i Peter v. 14) ; and long after these times, as Tertullian says in his De Oratione, " This is what Christ complained of to the Pharisee ". 5. Luke vu. 45 : " Thou gavest Me no kiss, but she since she came in hath not ceased to kiss My feet". The unhappy Judas thought to conceal his wickedness from Christ, for he had never really believed in Him ; but, as S. Jerome and Bede say, he thought that His miracles were done by magical arts, as Christ Himself signifies (S. John vi. 65) : " There are some of you that believe not ". He said this in conversation with the Apostles. The Evangelist tells us that Christ said this because of Judas : " For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe, and who he was that would betray Him " (5. John ut sup^}. Origen refers to two opinions as to why Judas betrayed Christ by this sign rather than any other : 1. He felt some respect for Christ, and he had not yet lost all shame ; so that although he kissed Christ, on the one hand, he wished that kiss at the same time to be a sign to the soldiers. Leontius mentions this opinion with approbation. 2. If he had used any uncommon sign, Christ would have understood his design, and, as He had done on other occasions, would have conveyed Himself away.
Hold Him fast. S. Mark (xiv. 44) says that Judas added, " Lead Him away carefully ". He feared lest Christ should escape, and he himself lose both his promised reward and his Master ; for he knew that when the Jews wished to hold Christ He had often escaped them (S. Lrike w. 30 ; 5. John viii. 59). This is the opinion of S. Chrysostom and S. Jerome. S. John says that '• Jesus, knowing all things, went forth and said, Whom seek ye? " These are not the words of a man in fear, who would deny that he was he whom they had come to seek, but, as Leontius says, of one undismayed, and who challenged them.
26:49
Hail, Rabbi. Judas endeavoured, by his words and kiss, to conceal his wickedness. On the other hand, Christ shows that He was not ignorant with what intention Judas came, as He asked him (verse 50), " Friend, whereto art thou come ? " and, " Dost thou betray the Son of man with a kiss ? " (S. Luke xxii. 48). On the other hand, they to whom he gave the sign did not know Christ even after it was given, for it is probable that Judas gave the kiss before Christ asked the soldiers, " Whom seek ye ?" as S. John says (xviii. 4). It appears from this that they did not yet know Christ. This idea is confirmed by their answer, for they did not say, " We seek Thee," but " Jesus of Nazareth," and it was necessary for Christ to ask them twice before they knew Him. If Christ had asked them this before Judas gave them the sign there would have been no need of the sign ; for Christ had already said twice to them, "I am He". Of this opinion is S. Augustin (De Consens., v. 3).
26:50
Friend, whereto art thou come ? Christ appears, by these words, to declare, not only that He knew why Judas came, but even to excite His shame faced and lingering betrayer to give Him up boldly, as He had said after supper, " That thou doest, do quickly " (S. John xiii. 27), and as the victim is apt to say to the executioner, " Do thine office ". We must think, too, that Christ first said what is found in 5. Luke xxii. 48 : " Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss ? " then what S. Matthew and S. Mark record : "Friend, whereto art thou come?" and, last of all, what S. John says : " Whom seek ye ? " This is the opinion of S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 5). But Leontius thinks otherwise.
Then. This is not to be referred to the words immediately preceding, " Friend, whereto art thou come ? " as if, as soon as Christ had said these words, the soldiers laid their hands upon Him, but to those of S. John (xviii. 6, 8), when Christ said twice, " I am He ". By these words He gave them power to seize Him, and without them their hands would have been tied.
26:51
And behold one of them that were with Jesus. Either one of the three whom Christ took with Him when He went apart to pray ; for S. Peter was one of the three, or one of the eleven who were with Christ The former is the more probable, because when Judas came with the soldiers Christ was speaking with those three alone, as S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke plainly signify. S. John says that that one was Simon Peter (xviii. 10). S. Luke implies that all the disciples who were present were prepared to resist and to fight ; for they all asked Christ if they should strike with the sword (S. Luke xxii. 49). They had not, perhaps, understood what Christ had said a little before (verse 38) : " It is enough". He had answered the Apostles when they said, " Lord, behold here are two swords," with the above words. When He said (verse 36), " He that hath not, let him sell his coat and buy a sword," He signified that He had no need of arms for Himself or His disciples, but only that a great danger, such as men ward off by arms, was impending. He did not mean, when He said, " It is enough," that the enemy was to be resisted by those swords, nor that they needed more ; but He spoke those words because He had need neither of these nor of any other swords. When they all asked Christ if they should strike with the sword, Peter, before Christ answered, struck the servant of the high priest. It is likely that the man, as being the servant, was more forward than the rest, as trusting in his master's authority, and following his malignity and hatred of Christ, in his endeavour to be the first to lay hands upon Him. Peter did not wait for Christ's answer ; but he en deavoured to repel an audacious man, who was attacking his Master, with an audacity greater than his own.
Cut off his ear. S. Luke and S. John say that it was the right ear. In this many think that there lies a mystery. It may be so or not. We are seeking, not for allegories, but for the literal and true meaning of Scripture. It is not clear whether S. Peter so cut off the ear that it fell to the ground. More probably it was cut quite off, as the expression of the Evangelist evidently implies. S. Luke speaks as if it had not been wholly severed, as he does not say that Christ replaced it, but "When He had touched his ear He healed him" (xxii. 51).
26:52
All that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Origen explains these words as follows : " All who are the authors of wars or sedition shall be destroyed in the war which they have raised". S. Jerome and Bede say that such shall perish, not by the material sword, but by the spiritual ; that is, by divine vengeance, which shall overtake them either in this world or the next. Euthymius thinks that Christ spoke of the Jews alone, who, He signifies, in punishment of His death, shall perish by the swords of the Romans. But what has this to do with S. Peter, who took the sword ? Christ, therefore, does not say that all who take the sword shall of necessity perish by the sword, for the contrary is the fact. He only cites the law which orders the homicide to be put to death (Gen. ix. 6). He does not say what punishment they shall of necessity undergo, but what they merit. So say S. Augustin (Qucest. 104 in Vet. et Nov. Test.} and Theophylact (in loc). They who conclude from these words, as many do, that even the judge must not use the sword, are void of reason, and may be easily answered from S. Paul (Rom. xiii. 4). He there affirms that the judge has his power from God, and bears not the sword in vain, having received the weapon itself, as it were, from God. He shall not perish, therefore, by the sword if he do use it ; for he does not abuse it ; that is, he does not assume and usurp it by private authority, but he has it as given by God. It has been asked why Christ blamed S. Peter for repel ling force by force, and that in defence of his Master, an act which every natural law, divine or human, permitted. S. Augustin thinks that S. Peter was not blamed for cutting off the ear of the servant of the high priest, for it was done by permission of Christ, and that this is the meaning of ,S. Luke xxii. 51 ' " Suffer ye thus far". S. John xviii. 1 1, put by the side of the words of S. Matthew, here show, in his opinion, that S. Peter was only admonished not to fight again (Qucest. 104 in Vet. et Nov. Test.}. But it is clear that S. Peter was blamed by Christ ; and why? 1. Because his act was not one of defence. For what could one man have done against a band, except to irritate and provoke them to treat Christ with greater cruelty ? 2. Because he did not wait for Christ's permission, but struck at once. 3. Because he ought not to have hindered Christ's death even if he had had the power ; for Christ Himself could have asked for twelve legions of angels from the Father to defend Him ; but He would rather obey the will of that Father and fulfil the words of the Prophets, as He said Himself (verses 53, 54; .S. John xviii. u). Christ had rebuked Peter before for a similar offence (S. Matt. xvi. 23), because he tried to persuade Him to avoid death. But why, then, did Christ cite a general law ? Because, wherever the exception does not exist the law holds, and in S. Peter's case the exception had no place. He, indeed, drew his sword with a good intent, but at a time and in a place where he ought not.
26:53
Thinkest thou that I cannot ask My Father. It may be asked how Christ could say that His Father would give Him twelve legions of angels if He asked Him, when He had just before prayed that the cup should pass from Him, and had been refused? Christ spoke from the nature of the case, and not in consideration of the circumstances, as if He had said : " Do you not think that, if I had not known that it was determined by My Father that I should die, I could have asked for twelve legions of angels, and that He would have given them to Twelve legions of angels. Both the word and the thing is of Rome. The Evangelists, though speaking Greek, use it as they use many other Latin words. No nation but the Romans had legions. S. Matthew used the language of the Roman people who had now conquered Judaea. Among the Romans, as Vegetius (De re Milit., u. 2) and S. Jerome say, a legion consisted of 6000 men, or, as Polybius informs us (lib. vi.), ordinary legions contained 4200 foot and 300 horse. In wars of importance, the former numbered 5000 and the latter 300. However this may be, it is certain that Christ intended to describe a vast number of angels. Christ here places angels in opposition to men : the many to the few, the strong to the weak ; of whom one in a single night slew 185,000 men of the army of Sennacherib. Christ seems to oppose angels, not to the soldiers, but to the disciples, who, with Judas, were twelve in number, and to have named twelve legions of angels, not more and not less, to show that for twelve individual men He could have had twelve legions of angels, each of which contained 6000 angels, if the statement of Vegetius be correct. Unless we say that the number twelve is here put for a full and perfect number as in chap. xix. 28, and as S. Augustin and Bede think. It is explained on that passage. Origen concluded from this that the good angels were carrying on perpetual war against the evil ones, and that this is the meaning of the frequent expression in Scripture of " war in heaven ". It is clear that angels are frequently sent by God to defend men, not only from evil angels, but from other men, as in 4 Kings xvii., where so vast a number was sent to the assistance of Eliseus, that they filled the whole mountain. This is the meaning of Ps. xxxiii. 8 : " The angel of the Lord shall encamp round about them that fear Him, and shall deliver them". The Hebrew is POn castrametabitur j that is, He will pitch the camp of the angels round about them that none may harm them. So Ps. xc. 1 1. We know from Daniel (x. 13, 20, 21 ; xii. i), that they are sometimes sent to fight for us in war. Christ alluded to this custom.
26:54
How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that (" quia ") so it must be ? This expression is incomplete, and it contains a Hebraism. The meaning is: How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that so it must be ? The word quia is used in the Hebrew sense for the infinitive mood — "So it ought to be done," fieri oportuit ; as 6". Luke xxiv. 25. The Scriptures and the Prophets to whom Christ alluded are Isaiah (lui. 10) and Daniel (ix. 26). Christ said this to show that He was not dragged to His death by violence, but that He went of His own free-will, to satisfy the decree of the Father, as declared by the Prophets. S. John (xviii. n) says that Christ answered Peter otherwise: "The chalice which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it ? " The opinion of S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 5) is probable — that Christ said both. First, "The chalice" (S.fo&nxvin. n), and second, " How then" (S. Matt. xxvi. 54). It would appear that Christ here used the word "chalice" in a double sense. He had said a little before, " If it be possible," &c., referring to a thing bitter and full of suffering. In the words (S. Jo/in xviii. n), "The chalice which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?" He seems to speak of it as pleasant and sweet ; for His words have this force, as if He had said, " Given by My Father most beloved, it cannot be otherwise than pleasant " ; for the word itself is used in both senses, because a sweet and bitter draught is given in the same cup : " My chalice which inebriateth me, how goodly is it!" (Ps. xxii. 5). For Christ speaks of His death in both senses, and He calls it a chalice in both. In His prayer, before He had heard His Father's voice, He calls it a chalice — that is, a thing hard and bitter ; but now, when His Father's will was known, He calls the same death a chalice — that is, a thing most pleasant ; for no obedience but is sweet, none but is most pleasant. S. Luke alone (xxii. 51) writes, " Suffer ye thus far," for pains far more heavy have to be endured by Me. From this it is plain that all the disciples were willing to fight for Christ, and He answered them all ; but He rebuked Peter by name, because, without waiting for His answer, he wounded the servant of the high priest. S. Luke alone mentions that He touched the servant's ear and healed it. For Christ desired to correct the error of Peter, and at the same time to show those who seized Him that He had power to defend Himelf from them, who by His mere touch could heal that wounded member ; for it was He who " killeth and maketh alive ; He bringet'h down to hell and bringeth back again" (i Kings u. 6). S. John alone tells us that the man's name was Malchus (xviii. 10).
26:55
Daily. S. Mark (xiv. 49) says : " I was daily with you in the Temple teaching, and you did not lay hands on Me. But that the Scriptures may be fulfilled." By these words Christ showed His captors that it was not by their will or strength that He was taken, but that it was by the will of His Father and the decree of Scripture. For if it had been by their strength and design, they would often have seized Him before, when He sat daily in the Temple teaching. But when they endeavoured to do this they were notable (S. Luke w. 30 ; 5. John viii. 59). This is the explanation of 5. Luke xxii. 53: "This is your hour"; that is, " Now you are able to do to Me whatever you will : not that you are stronger than I, but because the hour has come when it was determined by the Father that I should die".
26:56
Then the disciples •, all leaving Him, fled. Peter, however, followed Him, though afar off (verse 58). So did S. John, as he himself testifies (xviii. 15). Thus the words of S. Matthew, ".all," must either be understood of the greater number, as Theophylact says, or we must suppose that all fled at first, and that Peter and John returned soon afterwards and followed Him.
26:57
To CaiapJias. See, on Caiaphas, verse 3. S. John (xviii. 13) says that Christ was first led to Annas, and he writes as if he intended it to be understood that much of what he relates afterwards took place in the house of Annas ; e.g., the first denial of Peter, the first examination of Christ about His disciples and doctrine, and the buffets of one of the bystanders. Hence many of the learned, even S. Augustin himself, say that all that has been described happened at the house of Annas. But this opinion is clearly confuted by the accounts of the other Evangelists, who with one consent relate that the three denials of S. Peter took place in the house of Caiaphas the high priest. This is clear from S. John himself. For the first denial is said by him to have been uttered in the house of the high priest, when he himself, who was known to the high priest, introduced Peter (xviii. 16). Annas was not high priest, but the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was the high priest that year, as S. John says. For the words of S. Luke (iii. 2), that John the Baptist began to preach repentance under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, are not to be under stood as if both Annas and Caiaphas were high priests in the same year, for there was but one high priest : but that Annas had been high priest the year before, as Josephus informs us ; and as John preached both years, he is said to have preached during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas. This has escaped S. Augustin and others, from their not having observed the silent and obscure change of scene signified by S. John. For he signifies that Christ was brought from Annas to Caiaphas in such a manner as would be noticed only by an attentive reader. " And they led Him," he says (verses 13, 15), "away to Annas first, for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was the high priest of that year. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple, and that disciple was known to the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the court of the high priest." S. John does not say plainly that Christ was led from Annas to Caiaphas, but he gives a sufficient, and more than sufficient, hint of it when he says that Christ was led to Annas first — for he shows that Christ was led thence to Caiaphas, when saying that the disciple who was known to the high priest entered with Christ into the court of the high priest ; for he had said just before that Caiaphas was the high priest. When, therefore, he adds that he himself brought Peter into the court of the high priest, and that Peter was asked by the portress if he were not one of Christ's disciples, and he denied that he was, S. John leaves it beyond doubt that the denials of S. Peter, and the other events described afterwards, took place in the house of Caiaphas. What chiefly led these Fathers into this error are the words of S. John (verse 24), " And Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest " — as if, after the first denial of S. Peter and the other events related by him as having now happened, Annas sent Christ bound to Caiaphas. Some think that these words are put out of their proper place, and that they ought to stand after verse 13 :" And they led Him away to Annas first, for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas who was the high priest of that year," that it may follow immediately: "And Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest ". The whole sentence thus read coheres well, and S.Cyril reads it thus. If this correction does not seem good, it must be said that S. John, when he had related the first denial of Peter, and before he had plainly said that Christ was sent by Annas to Caiaphas, resumed by epanalepsis what he had at first omitted, cnreaTetkev ovv avrov 6 "Awas BeSefjuevov TT/DO? Kcud<f)av, that it might be rendered, "Annas had sent Him bound to Caiaphas". But the former seems preferable. But why did they bring Christ to Annas first if he were not the high priest ? S John gives a tacit reason — he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who probably acted much by his advice, and possibly the house of Annas was on the way to that of Caiaphas.
26:59
And the chief priests. The Greek adds, " and the elders ".
26:60
And they found not. Kal oi/x evpov, teal 7ro\\cov tyevBo^apTvpcov TrpocrekOovTwv OL>X evpov, Et non invenerunt, et quidem vndtis accedentibns falsis testibus non invenerunt. Our translator had not seen the repetition of words, or did not think it worth expressing. Yet it has its force. What need was there of witnesses when they had determined, justly or unjustly, to put Christ to death ? They wished, however, by their iniquitous conduct, to make some show of justice.
26:61
/ am able to destroy the Temple of God. Why were these called false witnesses when they only seem to have said the truth? for Christ had said, "Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up " (S. John u. 19). Origen, S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, Bede, Theophylact, and Euthymius rightly reply that they are called false witnesses because they repeated with a wicked intention and in a perverted sense, and in other words, what Christ had said. He did not speak of that second Temple of Solomon, but of His own body, as S. John has explained. Nor did He say, " I am able to destroy " — though He was so — but " Destroy this Temple ". These witnesses change His words still more in 6". Mark xiv. 58. We find, from S. Matthew, that these false witnesses were two in number. The other Evangelists do not give the number. They were undoubtedly two in number, because they had been prepared and suborned by the chief priests and elders. They chose two because the Law ordered it thus (Dent. xvii. 6 ; xix. 15). So in like manner they sent two other false witnesses against S. Stephen (Acts vi. 13). S. Markadds : " And their evidences were not agreeing " — KOI ouSe ovrws To-?; fy TI /jLaprupla avrcov, Ac nee sic quidem eorum testimonium cequum erat aut equale. Some have thought that the witnesses themselves did not agree among themselves. Our version appears to adopt this view, but the Greek bears another meaning : " And not even thus was their testimony equal " ; that is, sufficient for the condemnation of Christ. For this is the force of the words, "Their evidences were not agreeing"; that is, although they declared that they heard Christ say, " I will destroy this Temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another not made with hands," the chief priests did not think this evidence sufficient for the condemnation of Jesus to death. Witnesses agree among themselves when they use the same words in the same sense. Why, then, it will be asked, was S. Stephen stoned for an offence not dissimilar ? For two false witnesses said, "We heard him say that Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place ". There was much in the words which the two false witnesses pretended to have heard Stephen say. He confessed that Jesus was God, which among the Jews was blasphemy, and, as such, punished by death (Levit. xxiv. 16). The witnesses added, besides, " and shall change the traditions which Moses delivered unto us ".
26:62
And the high priest, rising up. The judge ought not to rise up, but to sit. The high priest did not speak as a judge sitting on the judgmentseat, but as a priest in the synagogue, where everyone who spoke or read was accustomed to rise, as in S. Luke w. 16.
A nswerest Thou nothing ? What need was there for Christ to answer, when the accusations brought against Him were not sufficient even in the judgment of the priests, as S. Mark (xiv. 55) signifies? The wicked judge spoke from passion, and perverted the silence of Christ, which he ought to have taken as a proof of the worthlessness of the accusation, to mean guilt ; as if He kept silence because He was conscious of being guilty. Evidence which appeared, even to him, frivolous, he, by unjust questioning, exaggerated : as if to say, " Answerest Thou nothing, when charges so heavy are brought against Thee ? "
26:63
I adjure Thee by the living God. *Ef;opKi%G) ere Kara TOV Seov, TOV £oWo?. This properly signifies, " In the name of God," and is intended, as by a command, to bind one to speak or to act. It was in common use among the Jews, as we learn from the Holy Scriptures.
If Thou be the Clirist, the Son of God. "As Thou commonly teachest that Thou art, and as Thou callest Thyself." For this reason the Jews on other occasions had endeavoured to stone Jesus Christ. This was not the present subject, but the high priest asked Christ the question, because he was then seeking every means of condemning Him, and Christ used to confess that He was such. He thought that when asked the question under trial Christ would not deny it, and that he could not find a better reason for condemning Him to death than His being convicted of blasphemy. For it was blasphemy among them for any man to call himself the Son of God ; for he could not be such by nature, unless he were God Himself. Thus the heresy of Arius was confuted even in the opinion of the Jews. It is said by S. Luke (xxii. 66) that these events took place " as soon as it was day ". Hence some have considered this a different account, and that Christ was twice questioned. First, by the high priest, before midnight, when He was first brought before him. Secondly, by the whole council, when it was day. For He does not appear to have answered at first with sufficient plainness, but only to have said, " Thou hast said ". The opinion of S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 7) seems better. He thinks it the same history. For it can hardly be supposed that Christ would have been asked a second time about the same thing when He had answered so emphatically before, " Tu dixisti " (verse 64), or, as S. Mark states more clearly (xiv. 62), " I am " ; and the high priest understood His meaning so well that he rent his clothes, and said (verse 65), "What further need have we of witnesses?" We may believe, therefore, that as S. Matthew has not mentioned the time, S. Luke has done so in the words, " As soon as it was day " (xxii. 66), and that he has anticipated events. And not without reason, for he had begun to relate the examination of Christ in the assembly of the Jews (and that questioning was one examination) that he might continue, in the same narration, the denials of S. Peter. As to the objection that S. Matthew says that the chief priest asked what S. Luke says all asked (xxii. 66), " If Thou be the Christ, tell us," and that S. Matthew recorded the adjuration, which S. Luke did not, it is of little moment, for either the chief priest asked Christ first, and then all in the assembly repeated the question, or the chief priest asked Him in the name of the rest. S. Luke says that Christ was interrogated by the whole assembly, but he makes no mention of the adjuration ; for the Evangelists pass over many things.
26:64
Thou hast said it. On this expression see verse 25 and chap, xxvii. II. Christ used the same words to Pontius Pilate. S. Mark relates (xiv. 62) that Christ answered, Ego sum, u I am," the meaning being the same. Hence we see that the words tn dixisti do not mean what S. Augustin thinks — " I do not deny," as if He did not assert that He was the Christ. S. Luke (xxii. 67), that Christ said : "If I shall tell you, you will not believe Me ". It is probable that Christ was asked the same question twice. The first time simply, and without the adjuration, and that He then answered, in the words of S. Luke, " If I shall tell you," and that the high priest then adjured Him, and He answered what S. Matthew and S. Mark relate : " Thou hast said," or " I am " — a Hebraism. It is probable that He said both. Christ answered, not merely as much as He was asked, but even more than He was asked ; for the question was one of life or death to Him whether He were the Christ the Son of God, a question which, in that place, it no way became Him either to deny or to dissemble, but rather to confess openly : as He had come into the world for this reason, that, as the Son of God, He might die for the sons of Adam. He added, therefore : " Nevertheless, I say to you that hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven". The word "Nevertheless" has no term correlative to it, being what is known as particula adversativa. It appears to be opposed to words which the Evangelist has not expressed, but left to be understood, and which are found in 5. Luke : " If I shall tell you, you will not believe Me " (xxii. 67) ; " nevertheless, I say to you " (S. Matt. xxvi. 64), the full meaning of which words is given by S. Luke (xxii. 67, 68, 69). As if Christ had said : " What need is there for Me to answer you, since you will not believe. It is better to cause you to believe by facts than words. The time will come hereafter when you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God and coming on the clouds of heaven, and, whether you will or not, you will be compelled to believe " (S. John xiv. 10, 11). For it was the custom of Christ to refer the unbelieving Jews to His own Resurrection and the Day of Judgment, as chap. xii. 39 ; xvi. 4 ; Apoc. i. 7. The word amodo, "hereafter," in Greek, air apri, does not mean that they would see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of God immediately after the time when He was speaking. He was speaking of the Day of Judgment, when He would come in the clouds of heaven (xix. 28 ; xxiv. 3). He here signifies that the Jews shall not see Him from that time : that is, from the time of His death, until they see Him sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming on the clouds of heaven : as if He said, per negationem, " You shall not see Me as now in the guise of a criminal, but in that of the Son sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven ". He therefore tacitly opposes His second coming to His first. But how would they see Him sitting on the right hand of the power of God, as they were notable to see God Himself? They were to see Christ come with so great majesty, that they might easily understand Him to be placed in what may be termed the better part of the Divinity ; that is, sitting on the right hand of God and showing most especially His Divinity. " The right hand of the power of God " is a Hebraism for " the powerful right hand of God ". How He would come on the clouds has been explained on chaps, xix. 28 ; xxiv. 30.
26:65
Rent his garments. It was the custom of many nations to rend their garments as a sign of grief or indignation, as we find from Homer (//., xxii. 405), and Virgil (ALn., v. 685 ; xii. 609). The Jews did so for two reasons above others : (i) in token of grief; as Gen. xxxvii. 29, 34; xliv. 13; Numb. xiv. 6 ; Judges xi. 35 ; i Kings w. 12 ; 2 Kings i. 1 1 ; xiii. 19) ; and (2) as a witness against blasphemy, as Ezechias, when he heard the blasphemies of the messenger of Sennacherib. The Thalmudists say, as some have observed, that it was a tradition of the Jews to do this on such occasions. They thought it great blasphemy that Christ should call Himself the Son of God, and the high priest therefore cried out that He had blasphemed }TO for this is the proper meaning of the Hebrew word ^D and of the Greek fB\aa^r]^elv. The high priest, against all the requirements of justice when he was the judge, acted the part of an advocate, and made the accusers the judges.
26:66
He is guilty of 'death. The Law commanded the blasphemer to be stoned (Levit. xxiv. 16). They say here that Christ was guilty of death for calling Himself the Son of God, and in 5. John x. 31 they endeavoured to stone Him.
26:67
Then they did spit in His face. The word " then " does not mean the precise time when Christ confessed Himself to be the Son of God, and the Jews cried out that He was guilty of death, but rather that before, or, without distinction, the whole night. For it is clear from 5. Luke xxii. 66 that the question of the high priest and Christ's reply happened when the day was beginning to dawn, and the events now related by S. Matthew took place at night, while Christ was kept bound in the house of the chief priest, and Peter denied Him.
And oilier s struck His face zuith the palms of their hands. O'l Be eppaTTLaav, struck Him with cudgels or staves, or perhaps with their slippers, which were much used by the Jews for this purpose ; for the word pair us, whence the verb paTTL&tv, means a twig, or club, or slipper. It is probable that, for insult, they smote the face of Christ with the last-named. S. Mark and S. Luke say that they had first blindfolded Him. S. John (xviii. 22) says that one of the bystanders first gave Him a blow, because He had answered the high priest, as in verses 20, 21, as if with too little respect. Christ, however, replied as in verse 23.
26:68
Prophesy unto us. Christ was generally considered to be a great Prophet (xxi. 11, 46), and He had confessed that He was the Son of God (verse 64). Then they blinded Him, and asked Him in mockery, "Who is he that struck Thee?" (verse 68). So when He was hanging on the cross, they said : " IT He be the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him " (xxvii. 42).
26:69
But Peter sat ivitliout in the court. S. John (xviii. 16) explains how Peter entered into the court : " But Peter stood at the door without. The other disciple, therefore, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the portress and brought in Peter." S. Matthew only says that " he followed afar off, even to the court" (verse 58). How he now says that Peter "sat without in the court " is not difficult to be understood. When Peter was in the court he was both within and without : within, because he was in the ambit of the house, and beyond the first door ; without, because he was not in the interior of the house, but in the court and open air, where the soldiers were with the servants of the high priest, the priests, and elders.
And there came to him a servant maid. S. John (xviii. 17) says that she was the portress who opened the door to him. But S. Luke (xxii. 55) and S. Mark (xiv. 67) say that he was warming himself by the fire. Thus, by comparison of the Evangelists, we may conclude that Peter was brought by John into the court of the high priest, and was recognised by the maid servant who had opened the door as he stood with others by the fire. She was silent at first, perhaps, because she was not certain about him, whether he were Peter ; but when she looked at him more attentively and knew him better, she came to him as he sat by the fire and said, " Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean " (verse 69). She called Him Jesus the Galilean as an insult to Him, as His enemies did ; and because as He lived much in Galilee He was perhaps thought to be a Galilean ; and because almost all His disciples were of Galilee (S. John vu. 41). So Julian the Apostate called Christ and all Christians Galileans (So crates, Hist., iii. 12). It is not said by S. John (xviii. 17) that the maid said to Peter, " Thou also," but that she asked him," Art not thou also one ? " But S. Luke (xxii. 56) says, " When a certain servant maid had seen him sitting at the light, and had earnestly beheld him, she said, This man also \vas with Him ". We must believe, therefore, that she said all these words. First, as doubtful, " Art not thou also one of this man's disciples ? " as S. John says. Then she spoke positively, " Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean " (S. Matt. v. 69) ; and lastly, she turned to the bystanders and said, " This man also was with Him" (S. Luke xxii. 56).
26:70
But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. S. Matthew says that the denial was made before all the people present, either as a fact that increased the gravity of the offence, or to show the truth of his account, that he might not be suspected of having accused the chief of the Apostles falsely, adducing all who were present as witnesses. The words of S. Peter, " I know not what thou sayest," have a force of certain denial, as if he had said, " I am not only not what thou sayest, but so far from it that I do not know of what thou art speaking" ; as is our own custom in such cases. S. John says that Peter answered, "I am not"; S. Luke, "I know Him not"; S. Mark, " I neither know nor understand what thou sayest". It may be believed that this was said by Peter, exaggerandi causa. i. Simply " I am not," as related by S. John when the maid servant asked him doubtingly, " Art not thou also one of this man's disciples ? " 2. When she persisted and stated with an affirmation what S. Matthew relates, and Peter answered, " I neither know nor understand what thou sayest," as S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke say.
26:71
And as he went out of the gate. ^E^e\6ovra 8e avrov et? TOV 7rv\wva, egressum autem eum in vestibulum. S. Mark says, *' He went forth before the court, and the cock crew " (xiv. 68), which has the same meaning. S. Peter then went into the vestibule which was before the court, as is usually the case in houses of note, and S. Mark says that immediately the cock crew. For he alone says, " Before the cock crow twice " (xiv. 30). From this it would seem to have been about the middle of the night, for it is then that cocks crow for the first time. But S. John says, that this second denial of Peter was made when he was warming himself at the fire. So that, probably, as soon as he had denied the first time — perhaps because he was vexed by the bystanders at being taken for the disciple of Christ, or for some other reason — he went from the court to the vestibule ; and then, to dissemble, and that his departure might not bring confirmation of the truth of the charge, he returned to the fire, and, as related by S. Luke, " After a little while he denied again " (xxii. 58). These words of S. Luke must, necessarily, contain at least three hours, because he says that between the second and third denial there was the space of one hour (xxii. 59), and all the Evangelists say that immediately after the third denial the cock crew. Hence this third denial probably took place about the fourth hour of the morning, that is, a little before dawn when the cocks crow. For it was the equinox, so that from the middle of the night, the time of the first denial, to sunrise, would be six hours. It is probable, therefore, that the second crowing happened at the fourth hour of the morning, and as there was one hour between the second and third denial it follows that the second happened about the third hour, and that about three hours intervened between the first and second denial. From S. John we learn how the words of S. Matthew, " As he went out," egeXOovra, are to be taken ; that is, " After he had gone out " (that the words of S. John may be understood) and returned to the fire ; for when he had gone into the vestibule the other maid-servant saw and recognised him, as when he came into the court the portress had done. The servant, therefore, who had seen Peter when he went out, came when he had returned to the fire and said to those who were present, " This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth " (S. Matt. xxvi. 71). S. Luke does not say that it was a maid-servant His words rather seem to imply that it was a man (xxii. 58). S. Mark speaks as if it were the same maid-servant as had questioned S. Peter before — /cal rj ira&ia-KTi IBovaa avrbv Trd\w TJp^aro \eyeiv rot? irapeGTrjicocnv, rursum autem, cum vidisset eum ancilla ccepit dicer e circumstantibus. S. John says that many questioned S. Peter at this second denial (xviii. 25). Some, unable to harmonise these sayings with oneanother, have been led, audaciously as may be said, to assert erroneously that S. Peter denied Christ more than three times. Some even say that he did so seven. Christ forewarned him that he should deny Him, not four times, nor five, nor seven, but three only. Christ would have said that he would do so more often if it had been the truth, since, as has been shown, Christ desired to dwell with emphasis on Peter's fears and inconsistency. Hence, according to S. Mark, He said, " Amen, I say to thee to day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny Me thrice " (xiv. 30). All the Evangelists have mentioned three denials, none any more. This would* indeed, have been wonderful if he had uttered more denials than three. Again, all have observed that after the third the cock crew, as if to make an end of them. Peter, warned by the sound, remembered the words of the Lord, and redeemed his fault by his bitter weeping. We are not to exaggerate S. Peter's fault, though, from their hatred of the Apostle, it is the custom of the heretics to do so. The wonder rather is that these persons, on such slight grounds, and in a question of grave significance, have both set themselves in opposition to the testimony at once of the Evangelists and of Christ, and gone away from the tradition of the whole Church of all ages. Their opinion is : 1. That S. John says that the first denial took place in the house of Annas. The other Evangelists say that the three denials were made in that of Caiaphas. We have said that that first denial described by S. John and the others, which he relates in the same place, were uttered, not in the house of Annas, but of Caiaphas. 2. S. Mark seems to say that S. Peter, when questioned by the same maid-servant, denied again, as said before. If so, as S. Matthew says clearly that it was another servant, the denials are different ones. But S. Mark neither states nor implies that it was the same, for, when he says, 77 irai- Sia-Krj, the article is not to be taken relatively as referring to the portress whom he had mentioned before ; and when he says, TTCL\IV, " again," he does not imply that S. Peter was asked a second time by the same maid-servant, but by some one; that is, by some other, as he had been previously by the portress. This is stated in plain terms by S. Matthew. 3. The third conjecture carries no more weight. That S. Luke seems to say that S. Peter denied when asked, not by the maid-servant, but by some man. For when he said (verse 58), "Another, seeing him, said, Thou also art one of them, Peter answered : O man, I am not ". As S. Luke, therefore, did not know, or would not say whether it were a man or woman who asked Peter the second time, he said generally " some one " ; that is, avOpwjros, homo, which may express an individual of either sex. Which of the two it was must be ascertained from S. Matthew and S. Mark. They distinctly say that it was a woman. 4. The fourth conjecture is that S. John, as said before, describing the two denials, says that Peter was asked by many whether he were not also one of the disciples. When, therefore, besides the three denials mentioned by S. Matthew, they seem to find four other denials — (i) mentioned by S. John, in the house of Annas ; (2) also mentioned by S. John, when Peter was questioned by many ; (3) by S. Mark, when Peter was questioned by the maid-servant ; (4) by S. Luke, when he was questioned by some man — they conclude that there were seven denials. We have answered the other three : there remains one to be answered. They conclude this from the second passage of S. John, but it can be answered with much less pains, (i) S. John does not say that many questioned S. Peter, he only says, eiTrov ovv avrai, " they said to him " ; that is, it was said to him. This is a Hebraism. It expresses the verb impersonal by the third person plural without a subject, as " they love," amant ; that is, amatur. This is true although done only by one, as they say in Latin, perJiibent^ ferunt, dicunt, for perhibetiir, fertnr, dicitur. Although, therefore, only one maid-servant said to S. Peter, " Art not thou also one of His disciples?" S. John could truly say, "They said, then, to him ". Hence it is credible that (i) the maid-servant said, "Art not thou also one of this man's disciples ? " and, (2) that they who were present took up the question. But it must not be supposed that these were, therefore, different denials. Tlii s man also was with Jesus of Nazareth. S. Mark says that the maid-servant said to the bystanders, "This is one of them"; S. Luke, "Thou also art one of them"; S. John, " Art not thou also one of His disciples?" We must believe that the maid-servant said all these words. First, " Art not thou also one of His disciples ? " as S. John says, and when Peter denied it, she said with an affirmation, " Thou also art one of them," as S. Luke says ; then that she turned to the bystanders and said, " This is one of them," as S. Mark says; and "This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth," as S. Matthew says.
26:72
And again he denied, with an oath. Peter increased his offence. The first time he did not swear, but only denied ; now he both denies and swears. S. Luke writes that he said, " O man, I am not " ; S. John, " I am not ". It is credible that at first he merely said, " I am not," as S. John says. Then, when either the maid servant or they who were present pressed him, he added, as in S. Luke, "O man, I am not"; and lastly, when they urged him again, he exclaimed : " I know not the Man," as S. Matthew says.
26:73
And after a little while. S. Luke (xxii. 59) says that it was " after the space, as it were, of one hour ".
While they came that stood by. S. Mark says the same ; but S. Luke, "Another seeing him said, Thou also art one of them ". S. John says that this was a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, and who affirmed that he had seen Peter in the garden with Christ. The servant of the high priest probably commenced the enquiry and the others followed.
For even thy speech doth discover thee. S. Mark and S. Luke say, " For he is also a Galilean ". How a Galilean, when using the Hebrew language, could be recognised to be such has been explained by S. Jerome: " Each province and country has its own peculiarities, and among them a vernacular style of speech, which it cannot escape. As we see that the men of Ephraim were unable to pronounce the word " Schibboleth " like the rest of the Jews, but said " Sibboleth " instead, which caused the destruction of many (Judges xii. 6).
26:74
Then began he to curse. KaTavaQe/jLarl^eiv, Execrari. This may refer either to Christ or to Peter, and may mean that he either cursed Christ or himself. As there is no certainty it will be right to take the words in the better sense, and to believe that Peter cursed himself — that is, devoted himself to the Furies, dirts, as the Latins say, which was an execrable oath.
And to swear that he knew not the Man. The fault still increased with the temptation. Peter said, in his first denial, "I am not"; in his second, "I know not the Man " ; and in his third " I know not what thou sayest". In the second he uttered an oath, in the third an execration, which he probably uttered more than once, as the expression, " he began to curse and to swear," would seem to imply. S. Matthew says that Peter began to curse and to swear (verse 74). S. Luke and S. John merely say that he denied, omitting this circumstance.
And immediately the cock crew. S. Luke says, " immediately, as he was yet speaking ". This minute account, so carefully expressed, shows that Christ's words (verse 34) were true. All the Evangelists have related the same circumstance with the same design, but S. Luke the most fully.
26:75
And Peter remembered the words of Jesus. It is strange that Peter did not remember them sooner, for previously, at midnight, before his first denial, the cock had crowed. Perhaps Peter had not heard it ; or, because it only crowed once, he may have hoped that he might not deny a second time ; or, most probably of all, he was moved by Christ's look, as S. Luke (xxii. 61) signifies. So say S. Chrysostom (in loc.}, S. Ambrose (lib. x., Comment, in S. Luke), S. Leo (Serin, iii. de Pass. Dom.). In these denials of S. Peter there are three things to be observed. 1. The events described by S. Matthew did not all happen after, nor all before, the time at which he places them; for one part which he put before happened when the day had dawned : as the question put to Christ by the high priest, whether He were the Christ or not (S. Luke xxii. 66); for it is very clear that the three denials were uttered at different times of the night. S. Matthew and S. Mark, therefore, because they had begun to relate what had been done to Christ that night, desired to conclude all that history before they began to relate the denials of Peter. They therefore place these together at the end of their account. S. Luke, on the other hand, had begun with describing the denials. He therefore related these before describing what was done to Christ. S. John alone unites into one the denials of Peter and the history of Christ. 2. We must beware of the error of those who think that S. Peter lost his faith. He did not lose it, but he did deny, as Prudentius says in his Cathemerin (hymn i.) : " Flevit negator denique, Ex ore prolapsum nefas, Cum mens maneret innocens, Animusque servaret fidem ". Though the denier's conscience slept Awhile, yet now at length he wept The wickedness from him which 'scap'd, And mourn'd the sin his lips had shap'd ; For innocent his mind remain'd, And still his soul its faith retain'd. 3. The opposite error must also be avoided. That, when he denied Christ, Peter either did not sin, or at least did not utter a falsehood, but, keeping the truth, spoke ambiguously. S. Hilary and S. Ambrose say this. They say that Peter did not lie when he said that He knew not Christ as man, whom he did know as God. S. Jerome, perhaps, alludes to them when he says : " I know that some, from their love for the Apostle Peter, explain this passage to mean that Peter did not deny God, but man, and that his meaning was, ' I know not Him as man whom I know as God'". Everyone of any sense can see at once how frivolous this is. To defend the Apostle thus is to make God the author of lies. For, if Peter did not deny Christ, the Lord spoke falsely when He said, " Amen, I say to thee that in this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice". Observe what Christ said: "Thou shalt deny Me"; not, "Thou shalt deny a man ". We may, however, acquit S. Hilary and S. Ambrose of error by a charitable explanation, that they do not deny that Peter denied and sinned ; they only say that he spoke so that a true meaning can be elicited from his words, " I know not the man," which we may explain to mean, " I do not know Christ only as man, but also as God ".
And going forth) lie wept bitterly. Peter, as S. Jerome and Bede say, was not able to do penance in the court of the house of the high priest, but he must go out. He would, indeed, have acted with more constancy and courage if he had performed it in the same place as that in which he committed the offence ; and if he had confessed Christ before those to whom he had denied Him, and had thus repaired the mischief of that denial. But we are so constituted by nature, that we are ashamed to do penance, where we are not ashamed to commit the offence. Though Peter went out of the house not so much perhaps from infirmity, as from reverence for Christ, being unable to bear the look of Him whom he had denied. However this may be, he showed a great example of penitence. S. Ambrose well says in his Commentary on S. Luke, " Even the fall of the saint is useful. Peter's denial does me no harm ; his self-correction profits me. I have learnt to mistrust the promises of the faithless. Peter denied among the Jews. Solomon erred among Gentile associates. Peter wept bitterly that he might washout his fault by his tears " ; and as we read in S. Clement of Rome, " The pain of his fault was so deeply rooted in his mind, that all his life, whenever he heard a cock crow, he fell on his knees, and sought pardon for his offence with tears ".
26:1
v. 1 et faclum est, cumconsiimmassetlesus sermoneshos omnes, sell, quos a principle . suae praedicationis dixerat, ita S. Thorn, similiter Bed. Maid. Bisp..; alii sermones intelligent a die sollemnis in urbem ingressus (21,12 etc. Lamy, Keil}\ alii a cap. 23-25 (Fil.), alii sermotfes de eversione urbis et ultimo iudicio (S. Pasch. Am. Weiss}. Simili locutionis modo bus locis deprehendimus eum a longiore sermone Ghristi relate ad continuandam transire narrationem. Qaare etiam hoc loco non erit existimandum eum respicere omnes omnino sermones Christi ab annuntiata poenitentia 4,17 deinceps; sed solum sermones ultimis hisce duobus diebus habitos; soil, feria secunda et hac feria tertia, qua etiam dixit discipulis suis :
Christus qui suam passionem iam iterate praedixerat , nunc quoque -eius tempus apostolis indicat turn , quando summus ludaeorum magistratus statuit ut dolo capfcus occidatur festo transacto. ludas autem iscariotes, animo iam dudura a Christo alienus et propter ea quoque quae in coena Simonis in Bethania gesta erant exasperatus , Iesum pecunia accepta principibus tradere constituit *. Cum tempus iam appropinquaret quo" Christus secundum Patris voluntatem morte sua tamquam verus agnus Dei peccata mundi erat expiaturus, apostolos nionet iamiam instare id de quo eos saepius edocuerat; vult enim eos, utOrig. dicit, pmemunire ,- ne priusquam audiant quae fuerant eventura, subito videntes tradi ad crucem magistrum obstupescant pavore. Tempus quoque nunc designat, id quod antea non fecerat, ne videretur improvise et nescienter comprehensus et passus (Dion.), sed ut doceret se liberrime mortem obire eo modo quopraevidisset, praeordinasset atque elegisset (Lap.)]
Sedulo evangelista describit Christum omnino praescisse passionem et libere sese tradidisse in manus ac potestatem adversariorum. Ostendit vaticinia esse impleta. Iterum iterunique ex eiusnarrandi modo elucet quanta iniquitate principes sacerdotum et seniores populi mortem Christi machinati sint, quanto odio, quot iniustitiis et mendaciis eum sint persecuti, ut eum procuratore romano diu reluctante in crucem agerent. Proinde illos scientes ac volentes summam iniustitiam perpetrasse et perpetrasse contra eum qui se Messiam verbo et innumeris nriraculis probaverat (quae miracula ipsi agnoscebant; cf. 27,42) manifestum evadit. Neque signis illis in morte Christi, qui- . bus centurio, milites, turba commoventur, ulla ratione tanguntur, verum mortuum adhuc calumniis prosequuntur (27,63). Simul cum principibus etiam plebs ipsa misere ab illis seducta partem habet in Christicidio commisso , immo sibi maledictionem ipsa imprecatur, ut procuratorem renitentem ad crimen adigat. Insuper apud Matthaeum solum refertur quali modo proditor desperatione actus manus sibi intulerit, exstare in agro sanguinis monumentum eius perfidiae et perversitatis sacerdotum, Pilatum ab ipsa uxore somniis perterrita. monitum esse ne ad'iniuriam sinat se abripi, eum manuum lotione omnem a se (julpam voluisse amove re. Accuratius quoque effert terrae motu sepulcrisque apertis gloriam Christi morientis esse manifestatam. Quae omnia quam recta convergant ad id quod Matthaeus sibi attingendum proposuit, explicatione ulteriore non indiget ; vide I Prole gomena.
26:2
v. 2 sciiis quiet, post biduum pascha fiet et Films hominis tradeturut crucifigatur;idi soil, feria tertia hebdomadis esse dictum, iure censent Euth. Thorn. lans. Maid. Lap. Am. Schegg, Schanz, Fil. P.; sed dictum uti patet versus vesperam; post biduum, feria quinta ad vesperam, celebrabit Ghristus cum discipulis coenam paschalem et post earn mox tradetur ad crucifigendum. Pascha, nps, proprie significat transitionem ; explicationem vocis legimus Ex. 12,27 : victima transitus Domini est, quando transwit (nosi) super domos filiorum Israel in Aegypto, percutiens Aegyptios et domus nostras liberans. Uncle immolare pascha idem est atque immolare agnum pascha i. e. agnum paschalem 2 Par. 30,18 ; facere pascha i.e. parare agnum paschalem vel celebrare pascha Ex. 12,48; Num. 9,4 (die quartadecima mensis primi ad vesperam.)', Deut. 16,1. los. 5,10 feceetc. Ergo cum Christus dicit : fit pascha ytveTcu, eademutitur dictione, quae de die 14 mensis primi nisan adhibetur. Inde pariter fluit quod supra iam notatum (ad 21.1) ipsum diem 14 dici pascha (cf. Lev. 23,5. Itaque vi nominis et ex memoria eventus illius in Aegypto voci pascha inest proprie notio immunitatis, liberationis a calamitate; ALquilavocem expressit secundum etymon uTrepSaon;; similiter losephus (Antiq. 2,14. 6) uivepSacrta , Symmachus uirspjxz^'/iciti; i. e. propugnatio, clefensio, et Origenes quoque (adv. Gels. 8,22) (Wsar/i'pia , qua voce Graeci utuntur de sacrificio pro felici transitu seu expeditionis. saccessu (cf. Gesenius, Thes. linguae hebr. p. 1115). Vocem quoque rite explicat S. Hier. : pascha non a passione ut plerique arbitrantur (cf. Trac^eiv), sed a transitu nominatur, eo quod exterminator videns sanguinem in foribus Israelitarum pertransierit nee percusserit eos (sim. Bed. Br. Thorn.}. Haudimmerito infert lans. Iesum paschae mentionem fecisse turn ut significant se verum esse paschalem agnum , turn ut indicaret suae passion! eum diem delectum esse quo sui interfectores ipsum occidere nolebant. Proinde suae passionis tempus tale designat quale turn adversarii eius evitare volebant; cf. v. 5; unde suam praescienfciam manifestat et consilium divinum. . \ lam saepius adversarii inortem eius meditati sunt; cf. 12,14. Marc. 3,6. Verum post resuscitationem Lazari et pontifices et pharisaei collegerunt concilium i. e. synedrium convocabant, utsummus ille ludaeorum magistratus deliberaret : quid facimus , quia Me homo multa signa facit? in qua consultatione Caiphas sententiam dixit : expedit vobis ut unus moriatur homo ; ab illo ergo die cogitaverunt ut interficerent eum ; cf. loan. 11,47-53'. De morte itaque Christi apud summum magistratum iam erat statutum. Turn quidem Christus se eorum insidiis subtraxit abiens in regionem iuxta desertum, in civitatem quae dicitur Ephrem (loan. 11,54). At quae ultimis diebus evenerant, triumphalis Christi in urbem ingressus, eiectio vendentium e templo, turbarum in eum studium , laudes , acclamationes , reprehension es in pharisaeos et scribas pronuntiatae , non poterant non augere principum in Christum odia eosque incitare ut ni omnia perdere vellent ac plane deiici ab auctoritate, Galilaeum ilium cui turbae tantopere applaudebant quam primum iriterficerent. Frustra quoque saepius tentaverant eum capere in sermone , ut haberent causam qua ei coram turbis detraherent et fcuto eum apprehenderent. Verum misere devicti cum ignominia recedere debebant. Quare iterum convocatur synedrium;
26:3
v. 3 tune congregati sunt principes sacerdotum et seniores populij-Majrc.. 14,1 et Luc. 22,2 adduntur quoque scribae i. e. legis periti, ita ut omnes illi designentur qui synedrium constituebant; de principibus sacerdotum vide ad 2,4 ; de senioribus ad 16,21 ; in atrium principis sacerdotum qui dicebatur Caiphas j ocuV/i a multis accipitur notione domus, palatii (cf. Friedlieb , Schanz,Fil. P. Keil, Weiss), uti apud Graecos quoque idem quandoque dicit quod {SaciXeiov j alii sensum magis proprium retinent aulae, atrii, subdialis; utrum praetuleris , parum refert. Ceterum in locum convenerunt non ordinarium ; nam pouXtf se'u fiou^eutTipiov teste losepho (bell. iud. 5,4. 2) prope Xystum erat; ita enim scribit de muro urbis septemtrionali : incipiens a parte boreali a turre quae Hippica dicitur et protensus ad Xystum, deinde curiae (T-^ ^ouVfl) coniunctus in occidentalem templi porticum desinebat . Secundum talmudistas synedrium convenire solebat in conclave Gazith (cf. Surenhusius torn. V p. 378); cum vocabulum nna apud LXX 1 Par. 22,2 et Amos 5,11 explicetur voce ^UCTOC, censet Schurer istud conclave Gazith non esse explicandum de aula ex caesis lapidibus exstructa, verum Gazith esse idem nomen ac Xystus (vide Studien und Kritiken 1878 p. 616 ; Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter J. Ch. II p. 211). Num itaque iste consessus in domo Caiphae solum privata quadam et familiari consultatione absolvebatur? aliqui in hanc opinionem inclinant. Sed cum tres illi ordiiies quibus synedrium constabat recenseantur, deliberatio ilia modo publico ac sollemni instituta esse videtur, prout rei gravitate quqque postulabatur. Huius consessus praeses erat Gaiphas pontifex. Synedrio enim 1 praeesse plerumque pontificis fuisse videtur; saltern in iis consessibus quorum mentio fit apud losephum et in libris novi testamenti pontificem praefuisse scribitur (cf. losephus, Antiq. 14,9. 3-5 ; 20,9. l.Matth. 26,57. Act. 5,17; 7,1; 9,1. 2; 23, 2; 24,1; vide Schurer, Geschichte 1. c. II p. 203) vel partes egisse potiores iis in locis apparet. Ad summum sacerdotium evectus est Gaiphas a Valerio Grato i eamque dignitatem per annos septemdecim gessit(an. 18-36 p. Ch.), donee in ems locum a Vitellio suffectus est lonathan , Anani pontificis filius (cf. losephus, Antiq. 18,2. 2; 4,2; Schurer 1. c. p. 218). Nomen eius proprium erat losephus, 'IwcviTro; 6 jct Kai'^a? dieit losephus; quod nomen Jegi videtnr in mischna tract, de vacca rufa III, 5 (Surenhusius torn. VI p. 276) quo loco reperitur nomen alicuius pontificis Elioenai ben ha-Kajaph (*]"?)> u ti habet Schfirer 1. c. p. 216. Secundnm quam scribendi forma'm non videtur nomen cum aliis derivandum a NSis Quo in concilio statuta sunt duo; prius
26:4
v. 4 et consilium fecerunt consnltarunt , ut Iesum dolo tenerent soil, clam; Deut. 27,24 "tf]B2 clam apud LXX exprimitur cftcp , et occiderent; quod iam antea decretum erat loan. 11,49 (Dion. Cai. lans.] denuo confirrnant; verum id clam esse in opus declucendum addunt. Alterum quod statuunt
26:5
v. 5 dicebant autem , non in die festo , ne forte tumultus fieret in populo , [///I sv T-^ eoprvi intellige de toto temporefestivo, ergo per septem dies per quos festum azymorum celeb rabatur (cf. lans. Schegg, Fil. P.). Nolebant vim apertam ei inferre nequetempore festi eum occidere, quiatimebant turbas quae ex omni parte ad festum in urbem adventabant et inter quas multi erant a partibus Iesu, uti ex die palmarum coniiciebant. Multi quoque ex Galilaea ad festum lerusalem ascendere s'olebant, quos cumprimis Iesu favere opinabantur. Qua re non esse consultum duxerunt eum occidere tempore festi. Non itaque Deum sed turbas timebant indices illi iniustissimi (S.Chrys. Theoph. Dion.}. Illud concilium habitum esse plemmque censentferiaquarta. Antiquis Ecclesiae temporibus ieiunium celebrabatur feria quarta in memori'am consilii ad occidendum Dominura facti , et feria sexta in memoriam mortis *. , In quam rem ita scribit S. Aug. : cur autem quarta et sexta maxime i ieiunet Ecclesia, ilia ratio reddi videtur, quod considerate evangelic ipsa quarta sabbati (hebdomadis) quam vulgo quartam feriam vocant, consilium reperiuntur ad occidendum Dominum fecisse ludaei (epist. 30,30 al. 86, M. 33,150); idem notat Theoph. ad Marc. 14,1 : feria quarta concilium convenit et propterea ieiunamus etiam nos quartis feriis ; de aliis testimoniis cf. Pitra, Spicilegium solesm. IV p. 469. 482 ; Lang en p. 38. Concilium feria quarta habitum esse etiam Dion. lans. Maid. Lap. existimant. lam S. Chrys. adnotat cum proditorem invenissent eos mutasse consilium. Probabile est enim , cum inexspectato ex ipsis Christi apostolis unus se illis offerret ad Iesum tradendum eos conclusisse etiam ex plebe multos non adeo Iesu favere et solum opus esse ex sua parte fortitudine et audacia , ut turbas a Iesu averterent et suam ipsorum auetoritatem quam maxime stabilirent. Atque ea coniectura illos non esse deceptos eventus ostendit. Poterant enim feria sexta Iesum contumeliis oneratum per plateas ducere iterum iterumque, poterant plebi persuadere ut mortem eius magnis clamoribus postularent etc. ; haec est enim hora vestra et potestas tenebrarum (Luc. 22,53). Ita Christus eo tempore immolatus est quo eum esse pascha nostrum appareret. Sequitur nunc apud Matthaeum et eodem modo apud Marcum narratiode unctione Christi in Bethania. Esse hancunctionem eandem de qua loannes quoque refert 12,2 seq. iam veterum plerique et recentiores fere ad unum omnes agnoscunt (cf. S. Hier. Aug. de cons, evang. 2,79. 154; M. 34,1154 ; Bed. Pasch. Dion, Cat. lans. Maid. Lap. Lamy , Calm. Arn. Bisp. Schanz, Fil. P. etc.) et plerique etiam statuunt tempus eius convivii et unctionis determinari apud loannem , fuisse soil. sabbato ante pascha. Solum Fab. Schegg tempus esse definiendum volunt ex synopticis, Matthaeo et Marco. Id autem nequit admitti. Apud loannem enim narratio ita seriei temporis innectitur, ut nullo modo avelli possit. Nam accurate designat quando venerit Bethaniam ; dein subiungit narrationem de coena ei ibi facta et de unctione, et pergit v. 12 in crastinum autem turba multa... acceperunt ramos palmarum. Verum apud synopticos narratio iriducitur nullo nexu temporis cum antecedentibus dato, sed modo quodam general! et indeterminate
26:6
v. 6 cum autem Iesus esset in Bethania et similiter Marc. 14,3. Cur autem earn narrationem hoc loco inseruerint, ratio reddi potest duplex, quia ea iterum ostenditur Christum scientem et volentem morti obviam ivisse. Ergo.propte? rei similitudinem cohaeret narratio cum praedictione in v. 2 expressa et quia Christus ostenditur sciens et liber mortem exspe'ctare , apte opponitur consilio caedis a synedrio capto. Altera ratio est quia ex illo eventu ludas proditdr, homo avaritia plane captivatus, occasionem et stimulos sumpsit Iesum pretio tradendi. Quare antequam de venditione ilia narrant, baud incongrue eius quoque rei mentio fit. Cur autem Schegg coenam in Bethania factam esse velit biduo ante pascha, hanc affert rationem quia nequeat cogitari ludam consilium illud pessimum diutius animo volvisse; verum illud facinus tale esse ut rnente semel conceptum quam citissime in opus debuerit deduci. Quae ratio profecto rem non evincit. Nam aeque bene cogitari potest eiusmodi indoles animi, ut repetito.tentationis incursu et post longiorem de scelere ruminationem tandem opus et exsecutio sequatur. Nam etiam monstra criminum non solent subito oriri , sed ex minoribus initiis suis incrementis-aucta tandem perpetrari. Cum dicatur loan. 12,2 Lazarus vero unus erat ex discumbentibus, iam satis indicatur coenam illam non fuisse paratarn in domo Lazari; nam domi suae Lazarus non fuisset unus e convivis , sed potius instructor convivii ; vel si in domo Lazari fuisset, nulla esset ratio cur explicite efferretur eum quoque mensae accubuisse. Quare narratio synopticorum plane convenit cum ilia apud loannem , ita ut inter se illustrentur ac declarentur; v. 6 cum autem Iesus esset in Bethania in domo Simonis leprosi, qui cum antea lepra laborasset cognomen hoc sanatione habita (per Christum?) retinuit; nomen enim Simonis valde frequens erat; inter ipsos apostolos duo ita vocabantur; unde cognomine distingui placuit. Fuisse nomen leprosi nomen familiae est improbabile , quia nomina gentilicia apud ludaeos communi usu non erant recepta;
26:7
v. 7 accessit ad eum mutter, Maria scil. soror Lazari (loan. 12,3) habens alabastrum unguenti pretiosi i. e. vasculum unguentarium ex alabastrite lapide confectum 1 ; nam, ut Plinius dicit. (riat. hist. 13,3): unguenta optime servanturin alabastris, et alibi (1. c. 36,12) refert : onychem aliqui lapidem alabastriten vocant, quern cavant ad'vasa unguentaria, quoniam optime servare incorrupta dicitur; nascitur circa Thebas aegyptias et Damascum Syriae; hie ceteris^candidior ; probatissimus vero in Garmania, mox in India, iam quidem et in Syria Asiaque. Sic ille. Vasorum inde confectorum forma erat teres; eiusmodi pyxis erat obsignata; collo tenuifracto (cf. Marc. 14,3 fracto alabastro) effudit super caput ipsius recumben- ,tis;iB\.i enim unctione convivae honorari solebant ; cf. Luc. 7,46; usus unguentorum frequens erat et potissirnum adhibebatur ad laetitiam 6,6 etc. Atque non solum caput unxit , sed et pedes Iesu quos capillis suis extergebat (loan. 12,3); maximam itaque exhibitionem amoris et honoris Maria impendit Christo coram convivis; nam pedes quoque ungere, praesertim autem eos extergere capillis, signa erant non ordinaria neque communia reverentiae. Insuper unguentum erat et copiosum et pretiosum valde. Erat enim libra unguenti optimi nardi spicati et sinceri, cuius pretium denariorum trecentorum a luda ae- Earn rem aegre tulisse ludam refert S. loannes; quosdam indigne tulisse legimus Marc. 14,4 ; modo quodam general!
26:8
v. 8 videntes autem discipuliindignati sunt dicentes : ut quid perditio haec? ad quid haec iactura;
26:9
v. 9 potuit enim istud venumdari multo et dari pauperibus ; cur ludas murmuraverit, ratio redditur : non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum, sed quia fur erat (loan. 12,6). Sed quid de aliis discipulis? scio quosdam hunc locum calumniari, quare alius evangelista ludam solum dixerit contristatum eo quod loculos tenuerit et fur ab initio fuerit, et Matthaeus scribat omnes apostolos indignatos, nescientes tropum qui dicitur CU/)<JH<; vel synecdoche , quo et pro uno omnes et pro multis unus appellari soleat ,.(5. Hier.) et S. Aug. : manifestum puto esse discipulorum nomine eundem ludam signiiicatum , locutione ilia quam de Philippe in quinque panibus insinuavimus , plurali numero pro singulari usurpato . Uterque tamen et aliam interpretationem eamque verbis magis congruam proponit; reliquos quoque apostolos vere esse indignatos; at alia de causa; luda'm quia fur erat propter lucra sua; alios vere pauperum habita ratione; luda dicenta aliis quoque esse persuasum nimium ea in re cerni prodigalitatis. Cur ita iis videri potuerit, satis declaratS. Chrys: : audierant dicentem magistrum : misericordiam volo et non sacrificium, ludaeosque increpantem , quia maiora negligebant, indicium, misericordiam et fidem et multain monte de eleemosyna lo'gueritem . Praeterea sciebant Dominum non capi eiusmodi deliciis , sed ubique frugalitatem verbo et exemplo docere et omnem detestari luxum; quare effusionem illam iudicabantinutilem eta Christi mente alienam quippe qui verbo et exemplo docuisset cu.ram esse habendam pauperum (lans.). Facile quoque fit ut uno praeeunte alii quoque, etsi variis de causis, eonquerantur ac murmurent vel dictum factumve reprehendant. ^ At Christus talem exhibitionem amoris laudat et cur nunc hanc quoque impensam magnam admiserit declarat
26:10
v. 10 sciens autem Iesus ait illis : quid molesti estis hide mulieri i. e. cur molestias facessitis ei publice coram omnibus rem gestam reprehendentes? opus enim bonum operetta est in me; pium in me praestitit officium ac laude et commendatione digmim. Fecit enim ut coram omnibus profiteretur Christum dignum esse summo honore. Et cur versus finem vitae suae id admiserit, exponit v. 10 sciens autem Iesus ait illis : quid molesti estis hide mulieri i. e. cur molestias facessitis ei publice coram omnibus rem gestam reprehendentes? opus enim bonum operetta est in me; pium in me praestitit officium ac laude et commendatione dignum. Fecit enim ut coram omnibus profiteretur Christum dignum esse summo honore. Et cur versus finetn vitae suae id admiserit, exponit
26:11
v. 11 nam semper pauper es habetis vobiscum, me autem non semper habetis; non est cur propter pauperes ei succenseatis; illis praestandi beneficia nunquam deerit .opportunitas ; me autem in hac vita degentem beneficiis afficere post breve tempus iam non poteritis. Et cur eiusmodi honorem admiserit explicat v. 11 nam semper pauper es hahetis vobiscum, me autem non semper habetis; non est cur propter pauperes ei succenseatis; illis praestandi beneficia nunquam deerit .opportunitas ; me autem in hac vita degentem beneficiis afficere post breve tempus iam non poteritis. Et cur eiusmodi honorem admiserit explicat
26:12
v. 12 mittens enim haec unguentum hoc in corpus meum ad sepeliendum me fecit, corpus meum ad funus composiiit; id autem fieri, solebat adhibitis aromatis et unguentis. Eo niodo funera hono-^ rabantur nobilium (cf. 2 Par. 16,14); de Christo autem praedictum erat, sepulcrum eius fore cum divite (Is. 53,9 hebr. ; vide quae ad eum locum notavi in Comment, in Is.); unde simul patet statim a morte Christi gloriam manifestari et agnoseendam esse consilio divino. Cum itaque sepultura eius iam debuerit esse nobilis et gloriosa, hanc in se admisit magnificentiam qua eum pia mulier pro suo amore ac reverentia lionoravit. Id ergo factum est unguento effuso, quod post mortem Christi eius funeri iam non praestari potuit propter temporis brevitatem feria sexta neque feria prima mane (quando volebant), quia iam gloriose resurrexerat. Quaerunt sintne verba Christi ita intelligenda, ut Maria, utpote quae saepius audierat Dominum mortem suam praedicentem , unxerit Dominum ea mente ut id nunc faciat quod fortasse mortuo iam non posset impendere. Atque earn unctionem eo modo quo Christus dicit intellcxisse existimant Cai. Am. Bisp. P., nag-ant alii; attamen verisimile magis Mariam in hac unctione nihil cogitasse de instante vel mqrte vel sepultura Domini , sed ipsam simpliciter prae amoris magnitudine voluisse Dominum unguento optimo perungere pro -more ludaeorum qui in sollemnioribus conviviis hospites unguento perfundere.soliti erant, non quod Maria crederet Dominum huiusmocli capi deliciis, sed quod per amoris impotentiam suo iridulgeret animo (lans. et similiter Maid. Lap. Schegg, Schanz, Keil, Weiss], Cum in verbis illis ut quid pefditio haec etc. accusatio ac reprehensio contineretur mulieris et tacita quoque Christi, Dominus prius v. 10 mulieris opus bonum ac laude dignum dicit, dein in v. 12 cur id admiserit exponit; mulierem autem altiorem illam significationem intellexisse , ex verbis Christi non poterit affirmari, affirmatur autem sectmdum divinam dispositionem symbolicam illam notionem unctioni inesse. Quare mulierem pluribus a murmuratione discipulorum tuetur atque in commendationem tanti in se amoris exhibitionis nullo unquam tempore huius operis memoriam iri exstinctum annuntiat verum ubique simul cum praedicatione evangelii laudem ems celebrari v. 12 mittens enim haec unguentum hoc in corpus meum ad sepeliendum me fecit, corpus meum ad fnnus composiiit; id autem fieri, solebat adhibitis aromatis et unguentis. Eo niodo funera hono-x rabantur nobilium (cf. 2 Par. 16,14); de Christo autem praedictum erat, sepulcrum eius fore cum divite (Is. 53,9 hebr. ; vide quae ad eum locum notavi in Comment, in Is.); unde simul patet statim a morte Christi gloriam manifesfcarietagnoseendam esse consilio divino. Cum itaque sepultura eius iam debuerit esse nobilis et gloriosa, hanc in se admisit magnificentiam qua eum pia mulier pro suo amore ac reverentia Jionoravit. Id ergo factum est unguento effuso, quod post mortem Christi eius funeri iam non praestari potuit propter temporis brevitatem feria sexta neque feria prima mane (quando volebant), quia iam gloriose resurrexerat. Quaerunt sintne verba Christi ita intelligenda, ut Maria, utpote quae saepius audierat Dominum mortem suam praedicentem , unxerit Dominum ea mente ut id nunc faciat quod fortasse mortuo iam non posset impendere. Atque earn unctionem eo modo quo Christus dicit intellexisse existimant Cai. Am. Bisp. P., negant alii; attamen verisimile magis Mariam in hac unctione nihil cogitasse de instante vel morte vel sepultura Domini , sed ipsam simpliciter prae amoris magnitudine voluisse Dominum unguento optimo perungere pro -more ludaeorum qui in sollemnioribus conviviis hospites unguento perfundere.soliti erant, non quod Maria crederet Dominum huiusmodi capi deliciis, sed quod per amoris impotentiam suo iridulgeret animo (lans. et similiter Maid. Lap. Schegg, Schanz, Keil, Weiss}. Cum in verbis illis ut quid pefditio haec etc. accusatio ac reprehensio contineretur mulieris et tacita quoque Christi, Dominus prius v. 10 mulieris opus bonum ac laude dignum dicit, dein in v. 12 cur id admiserit exponit; mulierem autem altiorem illaiii significationem intellexisse , ex verbis Christi non poterifc affirmari, affirmatur autem sectmdum divinam dispositionem symbolicam illam notionem unctioni inesse. Quare mulierem pluribus a murmuratione discipulorum tuetur atque in commendationem tanti in se amoris exhibitions nullo unquam tempore huius operis memoriam iri exstinctum annuntiat verum ubique simul cum praedicatione evangelii laudem eius celebrari
26:13
v. 13 amen dico vobis, ubicumque praedicatum fuerit hoc evangelium, nuntius hie de regno messiano bonus ac salutifer, dicetur et quod haec fecit in. memoriam ems; en per cursum saeculorum actio Mariae non ut perditio supervacaneaque impensa, verum tamquam virtus immortali niemoria per orbem christianum ab omnibus praedicabitur et pro minima ilia confusione quam ex cliscipulorum vituperio fortasse experta est coram paucis convivis ei a Christo liberalissime promittuntur encomia perpetua ab omnibus ad quos ipsa cognitio Christi pervenerit. Quanta merces! nexu enim indissolubili memoria mulieris huius cum nomine Salvatoris coniungitur. Et merito notat S. Chrys. : ecce id quod dixit factum est et quocumque terrarum ibis, hanc mulierem praedicari audies, quam quam ilia non insignis persona essetnec multi testes adessent nee in theatro quodam res gesta esset sed in domo et in domo leprosi. Quis hoc ita vulgavit et praedicavil? Loquentis virtus. Certe regum multorum et clucum quorum etiam monumenta manent, res gestae tacentur; ac licet urbes excitaverint, muros circumstruxerint, in bellis victores fuerint, tropaea erexerint, gentes multas in servitutem redegerint, nee fama nee nomine suo notisunt... quod autern mulier oleum efFuderit in domo leprosi, id per orbem cantant omnes ac post tantum temporis rei gestae niemoria non minuitur, sed Persae, Indi, Scythi, Thraces, Sauromatae , Mauri , rrui B^itannicas insulas incolunt praedicant quod luda'm quia fur erat propter lucra sua; alios vere pauperum liabita ratione ; luda dicentet aliis quoque esse persuasum nimium ea in re cerni prodigalitatis. Cur ita iis videri potuerit, satis declaratS. Chrys: : audierant dicentem magistrum :. misericordiam. volo et non sacrificium, ludaeosque increpantem, quia maiora negligebant, indicium, misericordiam et fidem et multain monte de eleemosyna loquentem . Praeterea sciebant Dominum non capi eiusmodi deliciis , sed ubique frugalitatem verbo et exemplo docere et omnem detestari luxum; quare effusionemillam iudicabantjnutilem. eta Christi mente alienam quippe qui verbo et exemplo docuisset cu.ram esse habendam pauperum (Tans.}. Facile quoque fit ut uno praeeunte alii quoque, etsi variis de causis, conquerantur ac niurmurent vel dictum factumve reprehendant. At Cbristus talem exhibitionem amoris laudat et cur nunc hanc quoque impensam magnam admiserit declarat v. 13 amen dico vobis, ubicumque praedicatum fuerit hoc evangelium, nuntius hie de regno messiano bonus ac salutifer, dicetur et quod haec fecit in.memoriam eius; en per cursum saeculorum actio Mariae non ut perditio supervacaneaque impensa, verum tamquam virtus immortali memoria per orbem christianum ab omnibus praedicabitur et pro minima ilia confusione quam ex discipulorum vituperio fortasse experta est coram paucis convivis ei a Christo liberalissime promittuntur encomia perpetua ab omnibus ad quos ipsa cognitio Christi pervenerit. Quanta merces! nexu enim indissolubili memoria mulieris huius cum nomine Salvatoris coniungifcur. Et merito notat S. Chrys. : ecce id quod dixit factum est et quocumque terrarum ibis, hanc mulierem praedicari audies, quamquam ilia non insignis persona essetnec multi testes adessent nee in theatre quodam res gesta esset sed in domo et'in domo leprosi. Quis hoc ita vulgavit et praedicavit? Loquentis virtus. Certe regum multorum et ducum quorum etiam monumenta manent, res gestae tacentur; ac licet urbes excitaverint, muros circumstruxerint, in bellis victores fuerint, tropaea erexerint, gentes multas in servitutem reclegerint, nee fama nee nomine suo noti sunt... quod autem mulier oleum effuderit in domo leprosi, id per orbem cantant omnes ac post tantum temporis rei gestae memoria non minuitur, sed Persae, Indi, Scythi, Thraces, Sauromatae, Mauri, rrui B^itannicas insulas incolunt praedicant quod in ludaea in domo quadam , nee palam , a muliere peccatrice gestural est . Subditur de luda proditore-, non quidem quod statim post convivium illud et imctionem adieritadversaries Christi (uti putant S.. t Chrys. Fab.} id enim propter v. 5 admitti non potest, vide supra ad v. 5 sed quod a coena ilia et reprehensions occasionem aliquam arripuerit suam explendi avaritiam (cf. 'S. Hier. Alb. lans. Maid. Lap. Bisp. Schegg, Am. Grimm, Schanz,' Fil. ; immerito id negantLangfenp. 48; Weiss}]
26:14
v. 14 tune abiit unus de duodecim, tune vel sensu quodam generali, aliquo tempore post coenam in Bethania, vel quod plerisque placet, refertur ad v. 3 ut dicatur consilio sacerdotum facto eum abiisse feria quarta (S. Aug. de cons, evang. 2,78. 153; M. 34,1153; Bed. Rab. Thorn. Dion. Cai. lans. Lamy, P. Keil}] ad v. 1 et seq. refert Schanz. Ut sceleris magnitude incredibilis declaretur, additur unus de duodecim, ac si diceret : ex primo choro eorum quos quasi optimos elegit, qui cum Petro et loanne erant ; unam quippe curabant veritatem nee res gestas obscurabant (S. Chrys.}, qui dicitur ludas iscariotes, vide ad 10,4; ad principes sacerdotum
26:15
v. 15 et ait illis : quid vultis mihi dare et ego vobis eum tradam? infelix ludas, damnum quod ex effusipne unguenti sefecisse credebat vult rnagistri pretio compensare ; nee certam tamen postulat summam, ut saltern lucrosa videretur proditio , sed quasi vile tradens mancipium in potestate ementium posuit quantum vellent dare (S. Hier.)] atilli constituerunt ei triginta argenteos, eVr/iaav, vi vocis potest intelligi vel uti vulg. habet eodemque modo Theoph. Guv<pwvv)- cav, acpwptcrav &ouvai et Bisp. Arn. Fil. ve\appenderunt,uti concipiunt Euth. 2<TTa9(r/)crav aurto, Schanz, P. Keil, Weiss. Olim enimargentum appendi et ponderari solebat, antequam in usu erat pecunia signata quae annumeratur ; sed ilia dictio tamquam ex usu antique quandoque retinebatur, praesertim in genere dicendi sollemniore. Quomodo hoc loco explicari debeat, conficitur ex Zach. 11,12 ad quern locum evangelista certe respicit : xa! ecTYjaav TQV [ucQo'v [y.ou Tpicfcxavra apyupou? et appenderunt hebr. ^p^ 1 !; argenteos., 'apyupia, nummos argenteos, uti eodemmodohebr. ^DS .adhibetur (Gen. 23,13; 42,25. 43,15. Zach. 11,12 etc.). Intelliguntur hoc loco sicli Hebraeorum et cum pecunia ex thesauro templi esset deprompia (cf. 27,6), erant sicli sacri ponderis maioris; losephus (bell. iud. 7,6.6) aequat quattuor drachmis eiusmodi siclum (quern aestimant M. 2,62 monetae germanicae; c .'. Schurer 1. c. p. 254 not. 31). Pretium itaque ludae datum esse dicunt circiter 100 fr. (Fil'.), 75 M. (Schanz) vel 78 M. vel circa 70 M. (Gri?nmV p. 704). Tale pretium ob Zach. 11,12 fictum declarant Weiss, Hollzm. Ex Marc. 14, 11 <et Luc. 22,5 ei turn cum adiret sacerdotes pecunia nondum est solula , sed solum promissa. Matthaeus itaque rem summatim narrat; pecuniam accepisse censeri poterit, cum nuntiaret se invenisse opportunitatem Iesum tradendi vel cum Iesus captus adduceretur, re itaque de qua pepjgerat praestita. Pretium alii non referunt; refert Matthaeus, ut vaticinium ostendat impletum (Zach. 11,12). Perperam aliqui inde concluserunt pretium hoc esse solum ab evangelista secundum vaticinium excogitatum et confictum. Neque ex eo argui potest quod videatur esse exiguum nimis. Nam decreto synedrii iam antea mandatum erat , ut si quis nosset ubi esset indicaret ut apprehenderent eum (loan. 11,56). Quare ex sacerdotum opinione ludas, sicut quivis alius, tenebatur ut Iesum traderet si posset. Unde pretium ei statuunt non pro auctoritate eius quern capere volebant, sed solum pro labore et incommodo quod ipse in eo negotio subire deberet. Triginta sicli erant pro servo vel ancilla pendendi domino ab eo, cuius bos eos percnsserit (Ex. 21,32). Hocpretio servi quoque emebanttir; vide Lightfoot, Schoettgen, Wetstein ad h. 1. Itaque eo quoque modo Ghristus voluit apparere in forma servi (cf. Phil. 2,7), sicut iam apud prophetam dictum erat laborem eius mercede servi retribui (Zach. 11,12). Ad hoc ludae facinus diiudicandum, praeprimis attendere oportet quomodo ipse suum propositum efc consilium enuntiet : quid vultis mi/u dare et ego vobis eum tradam i. e. si ego tradam, vel ut eum tradam vobis. Insuper oportet consiclerare quid de eo dicat apostolus S. Joannes 12,6 : fur erat. Non defuerunt aliqui recentiores qui existimarent ludam minime amore pecuniae Christum tradidisse , verum ut eum cogeret tandem aliquando regnum suum fundare et regni capessere gubernacula. Firmiter enim ludam credidisse regnum fore temporale et Iesum pro sua potentia in isto cum sacerdotibus conflictu fore victorem. Unde ludam ad facinus suum impulsum esse impatienti *exspectatione atque desiderio, ut tandem magistrum videret gloria et honore exaltatum et regnum messianumfirmiterstabilitum. Quare non dubitant asserere eum non odio sed amore in Christum evasisse proditorem et tristem eius exitum quasi herois tragici esse lamentandum quippe qui errore tamquam fato suo deceptus, cum magna moliri vellet, interiisset. Verum haec gratis et insuper impie finguntur quippe quae plane aliena sint ab iis quae ex evangeliis cc^iguntur. tarn enim ante annum ludas a Christo vocatus est diabolus (loan. 6,71). Eo tempore veram in Christum fidem abiecit; cum enim Petrus nomine aliorum respondisset Christo : verba vitae aeternae habes et nos creclidimus et cognovimus quia tu es Christus Filius Dei , reponit Christus : unum ex duodecim quos elegerit esse diabolumi. e. Indam; ergo eum esse adversarium et insidiatorern diaboli impulsu agitatum , cui laus ilia de fide mini me conveniat. Fide autem in Christum amissa solum alliciebatur commodo et utilitate temporali. Huic inserviebat eo quod ex pecunia communi furabatur. Ita cfevit in animo eius mala concupiscentia et quo raagis ea augebatur, eo magis quoque augebatur fastidium de Iesu doctrina et societate , qua nihil lucri et commodi temporaJis , sed documenta solum virtutum, abnegationis, humilitatis proponebantur. Neque eum latuit quali odio principes Christum persequerentur ; ipsum Iesum audierat saepius de morte imminente loquentem. Cum itaque amore pecuniae iam esset excaecatus (S. Chrys.}, et de Christo nihil ultra sperari posse ei esset persuasum , vilam suam intuto collocare quomodo posset incepit meditari. Consultum erat aritequam a Iesu recederet corrogare pecuniam et in gratiam redire cum principibus populi. Cum Incrum illud trecentorum denariorum fur arripere non posset., inspiravit ei satan (Luc. 22,3) iam offerri quaerentibus principibus quomodo Iesum caperent opportunitatem eximiam et pecuniam acquirendi et favorem princjpum permagnum sibi conciliandi. Unde fide in Christum amissa excaecatus avaritia et a diabolo incitatus ad tale .crimen perductus est. Et uti omnibus peccatoribus accidit, ut ante scelus minime recpgitent concupiscentia obcaecati quid ex scelere sequi posset , post scelus autem facile in desperationem propellantur, ita quoque ludae proditori evenisse manifestum est. Concupjscentia inflammatus et a diabolo instigatus surdus est ad omn.es Christi admonitiones nee curae est ei quid sequatur prodilione facta, de quo forte prae vehementibus animi commo.tionibus ne cogitavit quidem. Verum postea cum cerneret quid tandem effecisset, desperavit et desperatione obrutus laqueo se suspenclit. Itaque ex evangeliis colligitur eum incredulitate et avaritia ad tale scelus perductum esse et ad pessimam eius animi dispositionem accessisse impulsum et inspirationem satanae. Impletur in eo quoque quod dixit sapiens : avaro nihil est scelestius (Eccli. 10,9). luvat aliqua de hac quaestione extraditione afferre. Ex iis quae Corluy recenset (1. c. p. 274) Mariam bethanicam eandem tenent esse ac peccatricem ConcordiaAmmonii dicta(inventaaVictore capuano,ubi unicaafferturunctio a quattuor evangelistis riarrata), multi interpretes Origene teste (in Matth. t. 3 p. 892), Tertullianus(diQ Pudicitia c. 11), Canones Eusebii (unicam unctionem admittentes), Ps.Basilius (de vera virginit. n.52), Apollinarius et Theodorus mopsuestenus (in catena Viet, antioch.), Ephrem (Opera syr-lat. t. 3 p. 399, 409 seq.), Paulinus (ep. 23 n. 34; M. 61, 279), Ambrosius (t. 1 in Luc. p. 1387.1539.de Poenit. 2,7,62), Hieronymus (praef. in Osee; M. 25,817), Augustinus (de cons, evang. 2,154; in loan, tract. 49,3), Gregorius Magnus, ut omnes falentur. quaestio meriti et lemporis diversitate dissolvi (M. 15,1672); de Magdalena id solum effort : prohibetur langere, quia rralabat de resurrectionis fide (M. 16,270). Et Augustinus quod dicit eons, evang. id in tract. 49 in loan, in dubium vocat (M. 35,1748) ; ubi de meretrice, de peccatrice famosa menlionem facit, nihil suggerit de Magdalena (M. 36,810; 35,1447; 37,1660); ubi vero de Magdalena, nihil dicit de peccatrice N ; Magdalenam significare Ecclesiam ait (M. 38,1148. 1154). Et Hieronymus in Osee praef. et in Matth. (M. 25,807; 26,191) pugnanlia loquitur. Quid ergo ex illis efficitur?
26:17
v. 17 prima autem die azymorum accesserunt discipuli ad Iesum dicentes : ubi vis par emus tibi vomedere pascha? ex ipsis verbis et v. 2 pariter elucet de vera coeha paschali esse sermonem
Interpretes quaerere solent, qua ratione narratio synopticorum de die mortis Ghristi cum relatione loannis conciliari possit. Quare non erit abs re summa rei capita hie quoque perstringere. Primum notandnm est ex concordi omnium quattuor evangelistarum relatione Christum feria quinta vespere coenani celebrasge, feria sexta esse passum et prima die hebdomadis a mortuis resurrexisse. Vespere antequam pateretur. celebravit coenam Matth. 26,20. Marc. 14,17. Luc. 22,14. loan. 13,1 seq. ; passus autem est et mortuus feria sexta, nam Matth. 27,62 dies post crucifixionem et mortem dicitur dies quae - est post parasceven et Marc. 15,42 dies mortis appellatur parasceve quod est ante sabbatum , 7capa<jjteuvj , o ecTiv irpOffaSSairov ; pariter dicit LucaS de eodem die, de tempore sepulturae 23,54 : et dies erat parasceve et sabbatum illucescebat ; pariter loan. 19,42 : ibi ergo propter parasceven ludaeorum quia iuxta erat monumentum posuerunt Iesum ; ceterum cf. 19,14. 31. Mane die prima hebdomadis invenitursepulcrum vacuum , angeli nuntiant Iesum resurrexisse , ipse Iesus se varie iam manifestat; Matth. 28,1. Marc. 16,2 et valde mane una sabbatorum (i. e. prima die hebdomadis), Luc. 24,1 una autem sabbati etc., loan. 20,1 una autem sabbati Maria Magdalene venit mane cum adhuc tenebrae essent ad monumentum et vidit lapidem sublatum a monumento etc. , , Qua itaque die hebdomadis singula gesta sint , concordi omnium quattuor narratione constat. Difficultas autem oritur, si quaeritur ad quern diem mensis nisan singula rcferri oporteat vel si quaeritur, celebraritne Christus coenam eodem die quo reliqui ludaei ita ut ipsb die sollemnitatis maximae passus sit, an crucifixus sit eo die in cuius .vespera ludaei agnum paschalem comedebant. Ut de his quaestionibus quae ex verbis evangelistarum oriunturrecte iudicemus, ipsa de paschate lex est ob oculos habenda. Praescribitur Ex. 12,,6 ut agnus paschalis servetur usque ad quartam decimam diem mensis nisan, immolabitque eum universa multitudo filiorum Israel ad vesperam... et edent carnesnocte ilia assas igni et v. 18 : primo mense quartadecima die mensis ad vesperam comedetis azyma usque ad diem vigesimam primam eiusdem mensis ad vesperam. Item Lev. 23,5 : mense primo, 14 die ad vesperam phase Domini est et 15 die mensis huius sollemnitas azymorum est ; s'eptem diebns azyma comedetis; dies primus erit vobis celeberrimus , sanctusque; omne opus servile non facietis ineo; et eodem modo Num. 28,16-18. Die itaque decima quarta removebatur omne fermentatum e domibus ; post meridiem ab hora circiter tertia (ita teste losepho, bell. iud. 6,9,3) agni paschales mactabanturin templo, vespere celebrabatur coena paschalis; dies sequens, dies decima quinta erat dies sollemnis. Et cum dies initium haberet post occasumsolis, ipsa coena paschalis iam magnam partem in diem sollemnem protendebatur. Dies itaque decimus quintus mensis nisau proprie erat primus dies azymorum. Sed quia in coena paschali iam adhibendi erant panes azymi et quia die decima quarta post meridiem omne fermentatum removendum erat, invaluit usus, ut hie dies iam appellaretur dies primus azymorum. Qui usus etiam deprehenditur apud losephum eo scil. quod modo de septem , modo de octo diebus loquitur per quos festum azymorum ageretur (cf. Antiq. 2,15. 1 et 3,10. 5). Iam ex synopticorum narratioiie prima die azymorum , quando pascha immolabant (Marc. 14,12) rogant discipuli : ubi vis paremus.tibi comedere pascha? vespere autem facto venit Christus cum discipulis in coenaculum , ubi paraverant pascha et Christus dicit ad suos : desiderio desideravi hoc pascha manducare vobiscum, antequam patiar (Luc. 22,15). Secundum ea quae modo ex lege vidimus et quae de usibus ludaeorum nota sunt, Ghristus die' decima quarta iubet parari pascha, vespere illud celebrat et proindedie 15 passus est, ipso itaque diesollemni. Itasisolum synoptici sine alia consideratione respiciuntur. Sed quid secundum narrationem S. loannis? Ipso die passionis mane sacerdotes et scribae qui Iesum adduxerunt ad Pilatum non introierunt in praetorium , ut non contaminarentur sed ut manducarent pascha 18,28; ipse dies vocaiur parasceve, dies autem post passion em magnus dies illius sabbati 19,31. Cum itaque eo die vellent ludaei pascha manducare, dies passionis describi videtur dies 14, dum apud synopticos designatur dies 15, ipse dies sollemnis. Itaque secundum synopticos Christus coenam paschalem egisse die 14 vespere et passus esse videtur die 15; secundum evangelium quartum coenam habuit die 13 et mortem obiit die 14, uti videtur. Qui evangelia esse genuina negant pariter negant haec u'llo modo inter se posse conciliari. At perperam. Nam consensu omnium evangelia synoptica nota erant ante evangelium quartum iisque attribuebatur summa auctoritas ; unde iam a priore improbabile est , auctorem quarti evangelii voluisse vel potuisse statuere aliquid iis contrarium. Si vero evangelia habentur authentica , uti sunt , plane fieri nequit , ut evangelistae de die mortis Domini inter se dissonent. Omissa etiam inspiratione quomodo fieri potuit ut in re tanti momenti aut S. Matthaeus et S. Petrus, Marci magister aut S. loannes erraverint? quis crediderit eos ignorasse , utrum in festo illo die quern celeberrimum omnes ludaei habebant an in altero quoclam die eorum Dominus et magister pro quo ipsi omnia supplicia subire non detrectaverunt , a populo suo sit reiectus, Romania traditus, turpissimae morti addictus (Comely, Introd. Ill p. 269)? Ergo a priore certum est adesse consensum , etsi nos non omniapossimus removere quae obiici possunt. Id enim contingere potest vel quianon omnes rerum gestarum conditiones ac notitias perspectas habemus vel quia in interpretation e alicuius dictioniserramus. Ad hunc itaque, consensum qui abesse non potest demonstrandum alia ab aliis via est inita. Vel enim synopticos ad loannem vel loannem ad synopticos trahere vel modos exeogitare conati sunt quibus sua utrisque narratio constet (cf. Belser, Einl. p. 312; van Bebber, Zur Chronologic des Lebens Iesu p. 7 seq.). landum erat; quinta enim die hebdomadis accesserunt ad Iesum et hanc vocat T$]V TrpbrSiv ufAwv tempus denotans quando accesserunt; alius autem dicit : venit dies azymorum in qua oportebat immolari pascha; illud Y|X6e significat prope erat, in ianuis erat, vesperam videlicet commemorans ; a vespera enim incipiebant; ideo singuli addunt : cum immolaretur pascha . Sciebat enim s. doctor secundum legem demum vespere in ipsa coena paschali panes azymos esse adhibendos, uti Ex. .12, 18 explicite statuitur; ideoque tempus illius diei ante vesperam vocat tempus ante azymos. Ergo s. doctor ipsam coenam paschalem faclam esse die 13 ailirmat nullatenus. Neque alia est sententia T/ieoph. , dummodo ille textus ob oculos habetur qui genuinus censendus est ex codicibus optimae notae : feriam quintam vocat evangelista primum azymorum , Trpwiviv TWV <*U[AMV, T/JV irpb TWV a^u^.wv dies erat ante illam vesperam qua panes azymi comedebantur vocatur dies ante azymos. .Neque admitti posse videtur Christum coenam aliquam, verum non paschalem celebrasse. Ea enim sententia ab omni verborum proprietate recedit. Ut vidimus apud Marcum et Lucam explicita mentio est de immolatione paschatis, qua dictione non potest intelligi nisi pascha more ludaeorum immolandum. Si discipuli quaerunt : ubi vis paremus pascha? illi nullam aliam notionem vocis in mente habere poterant et ita paraverunt pascha. Inutile est congerere rationes ex eucharistia instituta, quae in locum agni paschalis succedere debeat, ut ostendatur coenam illam Domini posse vocari pascha, etsi non fuerit coena paschalis secundum morem veterem. Dico esse inutile; nam de eucharistia discipuli nihil sciebant quando dicebant : ubi vis' paremus tibi com'edere pascha; neque evangelistae ullo indicio significant a se pascha hoc alio sensu usurpari ; e contra ilium Sensum excludunt SCribenteS OueaGat TO waoya, ore s^evero r ( wpa. Ex hisce quoque sequitur perperam asseri ab Aberle (Quartalschrift, Tubingen 1863 p. 537 seq.) synopticos ex certo consilio obscure esse locutos, ut Christum anticipasse pascha ea dicendi obscuritate et 'ambiguitate contegerent H . Alii vero probe perspicientes synopticos aliter non posse explicari nisi de die 14 nisan et proinde Christum esse mortuum die 15, ipso soil, sollemni die, conabantur narrationem quarti evangelii trahere ad synopticos; ita sat multi v. g. Toletus, Langen, Schegg, FiL P. Keil; de qua sententia scripsit quoque approbans Pqtritius, de evangeliis dissert. 50, et Corlmj, Comment, in evang. loan. p. 311 seq. et imprimis van Bebber. Contra quam sententiarn equidem non puto efficaciter afferri posse semel certo tempore obeundum ex lege, ergo ilium solum significat et nihil aliud praeter ilium. Sed nihilominus contentione multa ostendere student ritum ilium non habuisse dictionem propriam, sed manducare pascha etiam significare manducare sacriftcium festi, epulis accumbere sacrificalibus ex victimis die festo et per totam sollemnitatem azymorum oblatis, et proinde loan. 18,28 ita esse accipiendum , nt dicatur ludaeos ipso die sollemni noluisse intrare in praetorium Pilati ne impedirentur quominus comederent ex carne hostiarum quae eo die in templo offerri debebant; aliis verbis eo loco manducare pascha esse idem quod manducare ruun chagigam. lam quomodo id probare conantur? dicunt yocem np3 Tras^a adhiberi sensu latiore de tota sollemnitate azymorum, uti saepius apud losephwn ; t\ TWV dfrjjjuriv Sopi^) ^v icaa^a (cpaaxa) Xe^o^-tv, vel Ttac^a xaXeiTai (Antiq. 14,2. \ ; 17,9. 3; 18,4. 3; Bell. iud. 2,1'. 3 etc.); inde concludunt etiam manducare pascha habere sensum latiorem : vel manducare panes azymos vel fesla agere paschalia vel (quod plerumque affirmant) comedere de hostia die sollemnitatis in templo oblata. Verum haec conclusio iam fallax est; nam etsi pascha sensu latiore usurpatur, nondum sequitur etiam dictionem compositam manducare pascha eodem modo latius patere. Crux v. g. vario sensu dicitur, at inde non sequitur in crucem tollere simili sensus latitudine posse accipi. Deberet itaque saltern unus in medium afferri locus in quo manducare pascha sensu latiore diceretur vel in s. litteris vel apud losephum vel apud talmudistas; sed eiusmodi locum frustra quaesieris apud patronos eius sententiae. , At id saltern contendunt voce nps>, DinD3 in s. litteris non solum designari agnos paschales verum etiam boves et proinde manducare pascha non esse necessario intelligendum de esu agni paschalis. Sed duo qui afferuntur loci ut probetur etiam boves vocari pesachim , id minime continent. Provocant ad Deut. 16,2 : immolabis phase Domino Deo tuo iprn js'2? oves et boves in loco quern elegerit Dominus Deus tuus. Sed hoc loco summatim ea recoluntur quae pro toto tempore festivo observanda sunt. Quare nullo modo constat oves et boves vel potius pecus et armenta apponi ad phase ac si phase accuratius determinaretur ; sed merito potest accipi ita ut dicatur immolandum esse phase et alia quoque sacrificia quae pro ilia sollemnitate septem dierum alibi iam praescripta sunt esse offerenda. Atque ita debere explicari, patet.l) ex v. 1 : observa mensem novarum frugum, et v. 3 : non comedes in eo panem fermentatum ; septem diebus comedes absque fermento; ex quibus liquet minime de una ilia vespera hie recoli praecepta, verum breviter omnia in memoriam revocari quae illis diebus observanda sunt; ergo a pari pecus et armenta intelligi oportet de aliis sacrificiis eo tempore praescriptis ; cf. Num. 28,19-22; 2) ex v. 5. 6. 7, quibus speciali modo de immolatione phase praecepta repetuntur aliqua quae antea iam data erant; proinde ad ilia amandamur: 3) ceterum in lege interpretanda semper haec valet regula, ut ii loci ob vel bis actos esse dies festos vel propter populi multitudinem agnos non potuisse mactari omnes suo tempore. Qua in re potius commemorandurn est quod narrat losephus sub Cestio ab hora nona usque ad undecimam mactata esse hostiarum paschalium 256 500 verum fabulosa exaggeration e proutnegari nequit (bell, iud.6,9.3) et pesachim 5,7 mactationem semper 1am celeriter a plurimis esse factam refertur, ut levitae nunquam psalmos qui nomine hallel comprehenduntur potuissent canere tertia vice (Surenh. II p. 153). Quare haec quoque hypothesis admitti nequit. Perscrutanti utramque narrationem etsynopticorum.et quart! evangelii duo innotescunt : Christum coenam paschalem celebrasse die 14, cum is revera asseri possit dies ille in quo necesse erat occidere pascha, et diem mortis Christi non fuisse ipsum diem sollemnem. Hoc alterum cumprimis elucet ex loannis narratione,' praeserfim ex 18,28 et 19,31. Neque tamen ex hisce locis solum. Nam cuncta quae eo die acta referuntur et apud synopticos et apud loannem produnt non agi diem sollemnem. Dies enim sollemnis celebrandus erat, ita ut coetus populi ad sacra obeunda convocaretur (tihp Nlpa cf. Ex. 12,16. Lev! 23,7. Num. 28,18); praeter sacrificium quotidianum matutinum offerenda erant plura alia : offeretis holocaustum, vitulos de armento duos , arietem unum , agnos anniculos septem , ad quae ferta quoque addenda erant (Num. 28,19-22) , et hircum pro peccato unum. Praeterea eo die multi ex populo etiam sacrificia varia pro se offerenda curabant sive pro variis peccatis, pro emundatione, pro gratiarum actione, sive quia praeceptum erat : non apparebis in conspectu meo vacuus. Die vero passionis Christi plane alia species nobis obiicitur. Per totum tempus matutinum sacerdotes et turbae versantur in plateis, coram tribunali Pilati et Herodis ; meridie spectatores sunt et illusores prope crucem. Simon cyrenaeus cum Christus ducitur ad supplicium , ergo circa meridiem, venit arco aypou (Marc. 15,21. Luc. 23,16); tendit in urbem; sed ad quid, si dies erat sollemnis? eo enim tempore coetus sacer, sacrificia in templo iam erant finita. Sed tendit tempore opportune , si dies erat ante festum. Porro erat consuetude, ut unus dimitteretur ev TCD -rcacr^a loan. 18,39. Iam quid erit probabilius , ut ille dimitteretur festo die iam media parte transacto vel ita ut coenam paschalem agere posset, quae ludaeis gravissime erat praecepta et quae propter memoriam fiberationis maximo gaudio celebrabatur?Liberabatur vinctus in memoriam divinae protectionis qua Israelitis in Aegypto pepercit angelus exterminator, et ab hoc transitu pascha appellabatur. Iam iste transitus eiusque memoria affigitur diei in quo agnus paschalis immolabatur, ergo diei ante sollemnitatem. Porro sv TW rc<7^a aptius quoque refertur ad diem ante sollemnitatem t qui dies saepe TCa<jy.a appellatur, uti supra iam dictum est et exemplis comprobatum. Porro die illo solleinni omne opus interdictum erat (Num. 28,18) et in tractatu mischnico de diebus festis etiam statuitur non licere die festo iudicare. Verum die passionis Christi mane congregantur ad iudicium ferendum; loseph ab Arimathaea et mtilieres eodem die varia opera exsequuntur, quae fe'stum agi diem haud testantur; vide v. g. Luc. 23,56 : et revertentes paraverunt aromata et unguenfa et sabbato quidem siluerunt secundiim mandatum. Sed cum aromata et unguenta non pertineant ad cibos, prohibitum erat lege ea die festo parare (Ex.. 12,16). Et si dies ille dicitur wapaffjceu^ TOU irac^a loan. 19,14-, haec appellatio quocumque modo explicaveris non designat diem sollemnem. Vel enim vocem accipies etymologice vel tamquam appellationem et nomen proprium feriae sextae. Si prius, habes diem designatam ut praeparationem paschatis. Quae appellatio pro die sollemni inepta est, sed diem praevium bene nominat, sive pascha explicaveris sensu proprio de agno paschali 1 vel coena paschali (quod praefero) sive sensu latiore de ipsa sollemnitate azymorum. Si alterum, interpretari debebis, feriam sextam agni pascbalis, feriam sextam in qua pascha erat eelebrandum, TO Trcfca/a notum illud apud ludaeos pascha, secundum illud : quarta decima die mensis ad vesperam phase Domini est, observa, ut facias phase (pascha; Lev. 23,5. Deut. 16,1); atque vocem Trapauxeuvfv iam considerari quasi nomen proprium, compluribus praeplacet (cf. Wieseler, Synopse p. 336; Keil}. Itaque synoptici et S. loannes satis clare indicant diem mortis Christi incidisse in diem ante sollemnitatem; synoptici praeterea hunc diem designant tamquam sequentem diem decimum quartum , i. e. diem 15 mensis nisan, id quod S. loannes neque affirmat neque negat. Pftxinde nulla est contradictio inter eorum narrationes. Quid inde consequitur? Sane potest inferri id quod sequi iam viderat Eusebius Caesareae episcopus : Dominum prima die azymorum comedisse pascha testatur Scriptura; ipsi vero ludaei non qua die oportebat, ut ait Lucas, consuetum pascha comederunt, sed die sequenti quae erat azymorum secunda , lunae vero quinta decima; non ergo prima die in qua fuerat immolandum comederunt prout lex volebat pascha , sic enim cum Servatore et ipsi pascha comedissent , sed iam turn struendis Servatori insidiis occupati", a sua malitia excaecati omni veritate exciderunt (de sollemnitate paschali n. 12; M. 24,706). Atque in eandem sententiam haec habet S. Chrys. : quid ergo dicendum est? ipsos.altera die comedisse etobnecishuius cupiditatem leg-em violasse. Neque enim Christus tempus paschae transgressus est , sed illi nihil non ausi multasque leges violantes etc. (horn. 84 in Matth. M. 58,754). Tertius eius sententiae testis ex antiquitate est S. Epiphanius, cuius testimonium multis expendens Petavius haec colligit : ex castigatiore Epiphanii iudicio definiendun? est Christum feria 5 luna 14 cum nonnullis ludaeis, ceteros vero cum pharisaeis feria 6 pascha comedisse; prom ludaeorum principes ex Epiphanii opinione non eodem cum Ghristo die legitimo agni epulo perfunctos (vide M. 42,982). Eodem modo.rem concipiunt Rupertus tuitiensis- (M. 168,1533), Paulus burgensis (addit. ad Ly rani post, in Matth. 26), Salmeron (torn. 9 tract. 4; qui plures eius sententiae patronos enumerat), lans, in concord, evang. cap. 128, Maid, in Matth. 26,2, Estius in loan. 13,1 et 18,28, Marianain loan. 18,28, Petavius (qui complures eius sententiae auctores refert; vide ad opera S. Epiphanii M. 42,98,8) , Danko (hist, revel, n. test. p. 241) , Grimm (Einheit der Evang. p. 755) , Comely (Introd. HI p. 270 seq.). Quam sententiam ut commendent, complures, uti iam Rupertus tuitiensis, provocant ad traditionem quandam ludaeorum quacautum sit ne dies sollemnis azymorum i.e. dies 15 nisan incideret in feriam sextam, sed eo in casu transferretur in sabbatum subsequens; esse soil, proverbium et statutum rabbinicum ne unquam ipse festus incideret in feriam 2.4. 6 (quam regulam voce ITS designant, numeros 2,4,6 litteris hebraeis exprimentes; cf. Comely 1. c. p. 273 not. 11). Sed non satis consultum existimo ad earn regulam confugere. Narn in mischna exhibentur exempla indubia diem festum omnino esse celebratum etiam feria sexta; ita in pesachim 10,7 decernitur : ossa, nervi et reliquiae (agni paschalis) comburuntur decimo sexto die; si decimus sextus inciderit in sabbatum , comburuntur decimo septimo (Surenhusius II p. 161). Unde omnino supponitur diem festum posse agi feria sexta; nam si dies 16 incidit in sabbatum, dies 15 incidit in feriam sextam; in ea autem agi diem sollemnem elucet quia antea mentiD fit esus agni paschalis. Similiter in tract, chagiga 2,4 legitur : festum septimanarum . (i. e. pentecostes) si inciderit in sabbatum , dies mactationis erit post sabbatum et pontifex non vestietur ornamentis suis (Surenh. 1. c. p. 418); sed si pentecoste incidit in sabbatum, dies \ 5 nisan debuit incidere in feriam sextam secundum computationem quae ex Lev. 23,15. 16 erat facienda. Praeterea in tract, menachoth cap. 10 sermo fit de manipulo die sabbato, die 16 nisan, offerenclo (Surenh. Vp. 97); ergo etiam hie supponitur diem 15 incidere posse in, feriam sextam. At haec valere videntur de tempore posteriore. Cur itaque ludaei anno mortis Ghristi diem festum transtulerunt in diem 16 nisan? Cur id fecerint nos latet, nisi rationem ab Eusehio et Chrys. allatam existimaveris sufficientem. Satis esse nobis debet quod ex evangeliis coliigitur ita potuisse fieri. Neque merito obiici potest id alio quodam testimonio non posse corroborari. Nam quod testimohium censebisesse requirendum? scrip toris coaevi?sed cuius? losephi? verum is ritus ludaeorum solum strictim tangit et plane mirum esset si ei esset opportunitas oblata memoriam eius translationisservandi. Ceterum meminisse oportet sat multa ex rebus gestis nobis innotescere unius scriptoris testimonio. Immo in ipsa passionis nafratione eius rei exstat exemplum egregium. Dicit Pilatus : est autem consuetudo voJb'is ut unum dimittam vobis in pascha (loan. 18,39) et Matth. 27,15 per diem sollemnem (xara #e eopTvjv, quovis paschate) consueverat praeses populo dimittere unum vinctum (Marc. 15,6). Id igitur frequenter occurrebat et singulis annis in more erat positum et tamen nullum exstat huius consuetudinis vestigium aliud nisi solum et unicuni evangeliorum testimonium. Si evangelia non haberemus, nemo quidquam de eo usu suspicari, posset. Sicuti itaque pro hoc usu unum. sufficit evangeliorum testimonium, ita sufficiat quoque pro ilia festi translatione. Neque enim eiusmodi translatio potest ullo modo videri incredibilis. Nam pharisaei plurimum tribuebant traditionibus et statutis hominum , quae inducebantur et observabantur etiam lege Dei seposita; translatio fieri potuit ex lege certis de causis pro aliquibus ad mensem secundum (Num. 9,10 seq.); tempore regis Ezechiae phase translatum quoque est ad mensem secundum, quia sacerdotes qui possent sufficere non erant sanctificati et populus npndum congregatus ftierat in Jerusalem (2 Par. 30,2.3). Quae cum ita essent, quis non facile sibi persuadebit sacerdotes si commodum iudicabant etiam sibi attribuisse potestatem festum transferendi? certe a saeculo quarto post Ch. rabbini decreverunt regulam illam badu; vix probabile est talem normam derepente esse inductam ; potius evenire solet ut id quod saepius iam factum f uerit variis ex causis tandem in consuetudinem et legem abe x at ordinariam. Saltern id coticedendum erit si rabbini saeculi 4 ausi sunt id statuere, etiam sacerdotibus et legis doctoribus tempore Ghristi (qui profecto non nimia tenerentur reverentia legis divinae) aliquid simile semel posse attribui. Ceterum alias quoque frequenter eiusmodi translations factas esse, infra exemplis comprobabitur. Sed si auctoritate synedrii dies festus et quae immediate praecedere debebat coena paschalis transferebatur, quomodo apostoliagnum paschalem rite in templo mactatum et oblatum poterant accipere? Opinantur aliqui Christum pro sua potestate usum ilium mactationis agni et oblationis in templo non observasse (cf. The Month 1891 p. 376). Alii monent incertum esse num. omnes agni paschales in templo mactari ; debuerint; Et revera potest quaeri num in atrio templi omnes agni brevi temporis spatiopotuerint immolari ; unde aliqui coniectant eo die unumquemque Israelitam potuisse fungi munere sacerdotali, quae iam Philonis erat sententia (de vita Mos. 3. p. 686 <TU[//rcav TO eOvog tspaiai; de 1 decal. p. 766 fepoxruviqv TOU VOJ/.QU -)(api<7ajjufvou TO) e'Ovsi icavTt; cf. Baehr, Symbolik II p. 633), vel saltern non omnes agnos debuisse mactari in atrio templi. Aliiritum offerendi agni paschalis esse eundem quo offerebaiitur victimae pacificae monentes censent apostolos eo nomine potuisse agnum exhibere sacerdoti sacrificio quotidiano peracto, quo tempore licuit privata sacrificia offerre (cf. Comely, Introd. HI p. 272). Agnus enim paschalis mactabatur ab eo qui ilium adducebat, sacerdos excipit aliquid sanguinis in phiala quem spargit ad pedem altaris; excoriatur agnus, exsecatur venter, educuntar adipes et cremantur in igne altaris ; turn referebatur cadaver ad hospitium, ubi caro erat assanda (cf.pesachim 5,10; Surenh. II p. 154; -Lightfoot ad Matth. 26,19). Ritus oblationis pacificorum erat idem (cf. Lev. 3,3-5. 9-11. 14-16) ; verum de hostia pacifica sacerdotibus dandam erat pectusculum et armus (hebr. plttr; Lev. 7,34); id quod in oblatione agni paschalis non fiebat. Ceterum eiusmodi Iranslationes dierum festorum nequaquam fuisse rem insolitam ostendit Chwolson (Das letzte Passamahl Ghristi, Petersburg 1892, p. 45 seq.). Affert inter alia v. g 1 . mensem [fuisse interpositum adeoque omnes dies festos per unum mensem esse translatos, si viae publicae essent corruptae, pontes destructi, furni ad agnos assandos pluviarum impetu inepti redditi, si peregrini 1 et advenae ex regionibus dissitis, ex diaspora adhuc essent in itinere ita ut ad diem festum non possent suo tempore advenire. Item fuisse diem intercalarem interpositum, ne primus dies mensis 7 incideret in diem primum, quartum, sextum, ne soil, dies expiationis incideret in feriam 6 aut 1 ; item ne Septimus dies tabernaculorum incideret in sabbatum, quia in sabbato palmas portare non licebat. Quare aliqui recentiores immerito traducunt illam hypothesin translationis tamquam plane improbabilem; ita v. g. van Bebber 1. c. p. 7; los. Zahn 1. c. p. Verum commemorandus est alius modus solvendi quaestionem, quem proposuit Chwolson in opere modo laudato et qui sat facilis est et, ut mihi videtur, ceteris hypothesibus multum probabilior. Quae hypothesis ut bene iatelligatur et rite aestimetur, duo sunt praemittenda et probanda, sell, eo tempore valuisse normam : pasclia non pellit sabbatum, et, inter duas vesperas significare breve tempus crepusculi (I l f 3 horam). Et prius quidem pascha non pellit sabbatum antique tempore valuisse, i. e. adhuc tempore Ghristi probat Chwolson ex disceptationibus ia talmude bierosolymitano servatis (p. 21 seq.), ex aliis testimoniis quibus asseritur, sadducaeos, veteres doctores, veteres Karaeos, Samaritanos illicitum putasse sabbato mactare pascha (p. 30 seq.). Huic sententiae Derenboitrg quoque omnino consentit. Alterum est de tempore diei quo agnus paschalis debuerit mactari et offerri. Exlegeid fieri debebat inter duas vesperas (Ex. 12,6; Lev. 23,5. Num. 9,3.5,11, ubique secundum hebr.); et Deut. 16,6: immolabis phase vespere ad solis occasum tempore egressus tui ex Aegypto (hebr.) et Deut. 16,1 : in isto mensete eduxit Dominus de Aegypto nocte (cf. Ex. 12,42) . Saepius duae dictiones : vespere et inter duas vesperas promiscue adhibentur; ita Ex. 16,8 dabit vobis Dominus vespere carnes edere, et v. 12 inter duas vesperas comedetis carnes; vel Ex. 27,21 : a vespera usque mane ardebunt lucernae, et Ex. 30,8 accendet Aaron lucernas inter duas vesperas. Atque in targum Onqelos dictio haec (inter duas vesperas) ubique explicatur crepusculum,* eodemquemodo in targum palaestinensi, quod Jonathan adscribitur. Idem crepusculi tempus Karaei, Samaritani intelligunt. Atque hanc acceptionem fuisse antiquiorem ex eo quoque patet, quiahaec sententia a rabbinis saeculi secundi oppugnatur (CJiwolson 1. c. p. 37-43). Earn fuisse sententiam sadducaeorum generatim assumitur (cf. Riehm-Baethgen, Handwo'rterbuch des bibl. Altertums, 2. p. 1158; Hamburger, Real-Encyklopadie ftir Bibel und Talmud 1 p. 822, ubi pro ea sententia allegatur mischna pesachim 5,3 et Aben Esra; et Hamburger assignat tempus horae 6-7 vespertinum). Secundum opinionem pharisaeorum, quam losephus quoque refert, tempus erat pomeridianum ab hora teutia ; sed auctoritas pharisaeorum prae sadducaeis non incepit valere nisi tempore posteriore i. e. ultimis annis ante templi destructionem. Hisce praemissis facile intelligitur sententia a Chwolson proposita. Si enim dies 14 nisan incidit in feriam sextain, agnus paschalis immolari, offerri, assari iam non potuit ita, ut non saltern assatio fieri deberet sabbato iam incepto. Iam sabbato ignem accendere cibosque parare non licebat. Ergo ex norma turn vigente : pascha non pellit sabbatum, immolatio, mactatio, assatio agni paschalis debuit transferri in diem antecedentem,in feriam quintam vespere (cf. Chwolson p. 37,43). Iam quando potuit agnus paschalis ea in conditione manducari? Duplex ea in re modus facili negotio ex lege colligitur et multis exeniplis quaestionum etsolutionum rabbinorum confirmaripotest (p. 33). Potuitscil. manducari eodem die quo immolatus et oblatus et assatus erat, i. e. feria quinta; nam : et edent carnes nocte ilia assas igni, nee remanebit quidquam ex eo usque mane (Ex. 12,8. 10); potuit manducari feria sexta, die 14 nisan, quippe qui esset dies legitimus, quo itaque quod fieri licuit (sell, manducare) etiam fieri potuifc et a sadducaeis revera factum est. Nam summi sacerdotes, sadducaei (cf. Act. 5,17) mane feria sexta non introierunt in praetorium, ut non contaminarentur, sed ut manducarent pa,scha..Ha.c itaque sententia bene explicatur, cur dicatur ut manducarent et eo ipso evertitur argumentum quod vanBebberuYget : si revera de agno paschali sermo esset, debuit dici : ut immolarent pascha (1. c. p. 57). Secundum bane itaque sententiam Christus passus est feria sexta, die 14 nisan. Propter rationem illam pascha non pellit sabbatum i. e. quae sabbato prohibentur, ne propter agnumpaschalem quidein sabbato facere licet, agnus paschalis feria sexta vespere ob sabbatum imminens iam non potuit assari; ergo immolatio eius et oblatio et assatio transferebatur ab omnibus in diem antecedentem, feriam quintam, quo dielesus et certe multi ludaeorum etiam pascha manducabant, dum alii manducationem in diem ceteroquin legitinaum differebant. Cum in manducatione secundum legem panes azymi essent adhibendi, etiam explicari potest, cur Matthaeus et Marcus illam feriam quintam, qua ab omnibus pascha immolabatur et a multis manducabatur, dixerint primum diem azymorum. Ceterum ostendit Chwolson translationem diei festi simul cum sacrifices praescriptis frequenter factam ese, etiam. ex rationibus sat levibus (p. 45). Praeterea alia quaedam Chwolson in opere laudato commemorat mentione digna. Quae erat contamihatio ex ingressu in domurn gentilis? respondet : domus gentilis contaminat sicut sepulcrum, idque p. 57 seq. suflicienter probat. Aifirmat van Bebber (1. c. p. 13.73) ipsum diem sollemnem, festum diem paschalem, 15 nisan, fuisse diem anni pro crucifixione consuetum (der iibliche Kreuzigungstag des Jahres) ; Chwolson vero ostendit nequaquam in* ipso festo die, sed solum inter illam hebdomadam Hcuisse sententiam mortis pronuntiare et exsequi (p. 8, quo loco varios errores perstringit, in quos incidit Schenhel, Bibellexicon I, 14). Magni momenti pro historia passionis est etiam quaestio quid die festo facere lieuerit. Chivolson affirmat iam ex iis quae -in die cruciflxionis Christi facta sint clare ostendi ilium diem non fuisse diem sollemnem; eo enim die non licuit quidquam emere, nee mortuum sepelire neque aromata parare.et unguenta (p. 9 seq.) et generatim ostendit ex mischna et talrhud valuisse hanc normam : quaecumque in sabbato prohibentur, etiam die festo prohibentur, sola ciborum praeparatione excepta (p. 6); i. e. die festo cibosr parare licuit. Sed van Bebber contendit die festo licuisse emere, unguenta parare, sepelire; argumentum eius est, quia haec facta sunt in die mortis Ghristi, qui erat dies festus (p. 40) ! Uter habebit verum? Patres saeculi 2 et 3 decent Christum passum esse die 14 nisan et in se typum agni paschalis implevisse; ita S. lustinus c. Tryph. c. 40. Ill; S. Irenaeus : passus est Dominus adimplens pascha (adv. haer. 4,10) et quale pascba intelligat elucet eo quod a Moyse dicat locum quoque passionis Domini esse descriptum verbis illis : non poteris immolare pascha in ulla alia civitatum tuarum, nisi in eo loco quern delegerit Dominus Deus tuus. Et Tertullianus scribit (adv. lud. cap. 8) : passio perfecta est die primo azymorum quo agnum ut occiderent ad vesperam a Moyse fuerat praeceptum; et Lactantius : suspenderunt eum patibulo atque affixerunt, cum postridie pascha i. e. festum diem suum celebraluri essent (epit. div. instit. cap. 4S 1 ). Eius sententiae testimonium luculentissimum nobis praebent ecclesiae Asiae, quae omnes vetusta quadam traditione nixae quartadecima luna salutaris paschae festum diem celebrandum esse censebant, quo die praescriptum erat ludaeisut agnum immolarent; eaque dmnino luna in quemcumque demum diem septimanae incidisset finem ieiuniis imponendum esse statuebant (Eusebius hist. eccl. o,23). Eo quippe die memoriam mortis Christi celebrabant et hora mortis elapsa etiam ieiuhium'solvebant. Nam : nihil quippe aliud nobis propositum est quam ut eius passionis memoriam agamus atque adeo Hoc ipso tempore, quomodo qui suis ipsi oculis speclavere tradiderunt, priusquam Aegyptii crederent (M. 18,515 et in Chronic, pasch. M. 92,74; edidit Dindorf I p. 7). Idem de iis refert S. Epiphanius (haer. 50,1. 2; M. 41,885. 888); atque eodem modo testatur Theodoretus eos die 14 nisan (in quemcumque diem hebdomadis incidat) celebrare memoriam passionis "(rr,v {AV^V roC Tr8ou?; haeret. fabul. 3,4). Et isti quidem quartodecimani vocari solent orthodox^ pasch. M. 92,80. 81; ed. Dindorf I p. 12. 14); idem S. Petrus alexandrinus ipse passus est ut verus agnus in paschali festivitate ... isto die in quo ludaei manducaturi erant pascha crucifixus est Dominus noster (M. 18,. 517; Chronic, pasch. M. 92,77). Idem tradit lulius africanus : irpb 8 tua<; TOU ndaya. T& Trepl TOV Sumjpa <ru[i- Sat'vsi (M. 10,8~9); eodem modo auctor sermonum de paschate serm. 7 : Christum passum esse luna decima quarta (inter opera spuria S. Chrys. M. 59,747); idem in Chronico paschali saepius asseritur : luna quartade- . cima tempus fuit salutaris crucifixionis (M. 92,537. 541); hie dies lunae 14 vocatur in Ghronico paschali eopi^i TOU 7caax> dum ipse dies sollemnis loprJ) TWV au[/.wv (552); unde apparet quo sensu ibidem dicatur Christum esse passum ipso paschatis die et resurrexisse tertio post crucifixionem die, luna scil. decima sexta (536.537). Pariter ibidem 1057 graecus quidam anonymus Christum obiisse dicit luna 14; item asseritur ibidem in alio fragmento (de paschate ludaeorum, 1133); auctor quaestionum veteris et novi testamenti interrogat in quaestione 55 : quid causae fuit ut illo tempore crucifigi se permitteret Dominus , quo pascha acturi erant ludaei (inter opera spuria S. Aug. ; M. 35',2252). Demum etiam in talmude saepius asseritur Iesum suspensum esse nD3 my vespera paschatis (cf. Sepp, Leben Jesu III p.- 325; V p. 370; VI p. 27). lam haec dictio plane coincidit cum ea quam apud loannem deprehendimus Tuapasxeuv] TOU mxa/a. Gonstat itaque traditions primorum saeculorum mortem Christi diei 14 nisan esse affixam et nequaquam ipsi diei sollemni. Id van Bebber quoque tamquam rem miram concedit, idque mox post mortem apostolorum a viris praeclarissimis fuisse assertum; ita censuisse Melitonem, Apollinarem, Polycratem, Clementem alexandrinum , Origenem, Hippolytum, lulium africanum, Tertullianum, quibus pene omnes graeci pdsteriores et nonnulli latini calculum adiecerint (1. c. p. 74). Addi potest ex epistola Irenaei ad Victorem pontificem data, ipsum quoque Polycarpum, discipulum S. loannis, in eadem sententia fuisse, Christum scil. die 14 nisan mortuum esse (epistolam refert Eusebius, hist. eccl. 5,24; M. 20,508) et Polycrates de suis antecessoribus et episcopis Asiae fidenter asserit : hi omnes diem, paschae decima quarta luna iuxta evangelium observarunt (Euseb. 1. c. M t 20,496); immo ad ipsum loannem apostolum provocare videtur. Talis traditio certe maximum habere debet pondus. Itaque
26:18
v. 18 at Iesus dixit : ite in civitatem, ergo Ghristus non erat in urbe, sed aut Bethaniae aut in via (Maid.}, ad quendam; quomodo hie quidam ii& a Domino sit designatus , narrant alii duo; Matthaeus autem studio brevitatis ilium compendio voluit insinuare ; quare ex sua persona interposuit ad quendam iussisse Dominum utirent (S. Aug. Pasch.}. Voluit itaque evang-elista indicare virum ilium a Ghristo non esse nominaturn; descripsit vero eum, ut alii duo referunt, ipsa re quae illis introeuntibus in civitatem eveniret, eaque ratione et clarius suam rerum ostendit praescientiam et omnia esse divino consilio ad mortem suam quasi praeparata (Maid.}. Cur virum nomine non designaverit, inde ali- - qui explicant, ne ludas cognita domo adinsidiatores excurreret et illos introduceret , priusquam coena mystica discipulis esset tradita (Euth. FiL Ed. II p. 482); etdicite ei : magister dicit ; ergo vir ille discipulus fuisse videtur; tempus meum props esti.-e. tempus mortis ; apud te facio pascha cum discipulis meis; hoc ideo Christus adiicere videtur, ut patremfamilias admoneat, tredecim hominum mensam paret (Maid.}. Circa unamquamque enim victimam paschalem sodalitas habebatur teste losepho (bell. iud. 6,9. 3) ex hominibus nunquam paucioribus decem; indicatur itaque Christum cum suis propriam constituere sodalitatem neque Christum id intendere ut se adiungat sodalitati patrisfamilias ; quare cum discipulis additur. Discipuli, Petrus sell, et loannes (cf. Luc. 22,8), iussa fecernnt
26:19
v. 19 et fecerunt discipuli sicut constitute illis Iesus et par averunt pascha; attende quam sollicite moneat iterum evangelista pascha parari , non coenam quamlibet; ergo quod ex die designate v. 17 iam liquet, ipso no'mine proprio iterum repetito extra omnein controversiam ponere velle videtur; quare mirum est quosdam tamen opinatos esse (;vangelistam yoluisse obscuritate involvere quaenam fuerit coena ilia;
26:20
v. 20 vespere autem facto discumbebat cum duodecim discipulis suis; iterum evangelista sollicitus est tempus quoque legitimum designare quo Ghristus mensae accubuit; proinde earn agi coenam quae certo tempore fieri debebat : immolabis phase vespere ad solis occasum (cf . Deut. 16,1. 6; Ex. 12,6. 42). Dicitur autem avlxeito ; primum quidem pascha iiissi erant Israelitae comedere stantes, baculosin manibus tenentes (Ex. 12,11); sedtemporibussubsequentibusaccumbebantinsignum libertatis iam acceptae. Ita v.,g. dicitur pesachim 10,1 : etiam pauper in Israel non comedet nisi inclinatus (2DW iy nisi inclinaverit se , ad mensam, uti solent ingenui, prout rabbi Ob. de Bartenora explicat, vel ut Maimonides dicit : quomodo regeset magnates comedere solent, quod libertatemindicat; cf. Surenhusius II p. 172. 173) et in gemara hierosolymitana des paschate dicitur : solent servi comedere stantes; at hoc loco comedunt accumbentes ad demonstrandum quod exierint . de servitute ad libertatem (vide Ugolini, Thes. antiq. XVII p. 932; alia vide p. 1136 seq.). Hoc loco interprctes plerumque multa afferre solent de ritibiis in coena paschali observatis. Iam Tost, multis quaestionibus agit de caerimoniis viginti tribus lege praescriptis vel indicatis (in cap. 26. qu. tur (cf. Schegg, Friedlieb, Schanz, Fil. P.], quos ritus accurate quoque descriptos habes in dissertatione Ugolini : de ritibus in cpena Domini ex antiquitatibus paschalibus illustratis (1. c. XVII p. 1127- 1188). Verum existimo dicendum esse cum Ed. II p. 492 esse difficile decernere quid ex variis illis ritibus tempore Christi sit observatum ; nemo enim negabit rabbinos uti alibi ita hie quoque ritus antiques suis praeceptis et statutis ad libitum auxisse. Quare non video, cur multum illis descriptionibus sit immorandum ; praesertim cum evangelista de plerisque illis caerimoniis nihil attingat et ipsi rabbini in rituum descriptione parum inter se consentiant 1 . - Inter coenarn Ghristus subito sermonem infert de proditore v. 21 et lurus est; denuo manifestat se scientem et volentem obviam ire passioni et morti. Indicat se nosse proditorem eiusque consilia nee tamen eum nominat; vide quomodo proditori parcat; dat illi latenti resipiscentiae ac poenitentiae facultatem (5, Chrys. Hier. Theoph. Maid.}; unus ex vobis duodecim, inquit, qui ubique mecum sunt, quorum pedes lavi, quibus tot tantaque promisi (S. Chrys.}. Et sane dolori erat non minimo Ghristi animo quod unus ille ex electis apostolis ita se diabolo tradidisset. Hoc autem verbo Christi luctus ingens sacrum ilium chorum invasit (S. Chrys.}
26:22
v. 22 et contristati valde coeperunt singuli dicer e : numquid ego sum Domine? cum de se quisque sollicite et anxie interroget, non ideo tantum contristati sunt quod nefandum dolerent facinus Christum a discipulo et familiari qui secum esset traditum iri , sed potissimum quod de se quisque dubitaret (Maid.}* Mirum id videri posset, notat Orig., quia sibi conscii erant se nihil tale animo concepisse ; existimo autem quoniam unusquisque discipulorum sciebat ex his quae docuerat Iesus , quoniam mutabilis et ad malum vertibilis est natura humana et quoniam in colluctatione aclversus daemonem potest fieri ut decidat homo aut circuinventus aut vim passus ab adversariis virtutibus ad malum perficiengliim (Orig.}. Quam maxime exoptat unusquisque , ne ipse praecognitus sit proditor; id elucet ex magna qua afficiuntur tristitia; id exipsa interrogatione quae aequivalet : ego tamen is non sum? et qua responded negatione exspectant; sed, ut S. Hier. dicit, plus creduntmagistro quam sibi; pertimescentes fragilitatem suam tristes interrogani ; de peccato cuius conscientiam non habebant. ) Chrisfcus ita respondet , ut timorem ilium salutarem propriae fragilitatisillis non adimat; verum ostendit rei indignitatem quod a familiari,sit tradendus v. 23 at ille respondens ait: qui intingit mecum manum in paropside, hie me tradet; qui intinxit, qui mecum eidem mensae accumbit, vel accumbere consuevit; proin unus ex maxime familiaribus et intimis amicis. Alludit Christus satis clare ad Ps. 40, 10 : qui edebat panes meos, magnificavit super me supplantationem (cf. loan. 13,18 : non de omnibus vobis dico, ego scio quos elegi; sed ut adimpleatur Scriptura : qui manducat mecum panem , levabit contra me calcaneum suum) et ad Ps. 54,14 : tu vero homo unanimis, notus meus qui simul mecum dulces capiebas cibos (cf. S. Cyr. lans. Am. Schegg , Fit. P*). Gensent aliqui hoc signo iam ludam proditorem aliis esse indicatum ; ludas ceteris contristatis et retrahentibus manum et interdicentibus cibos ori suo temeritate et impudentia qua proditurus erat etiam manum cum magistro mittit in paropsidem, ut audaciabonam conscientiam mentiretur (S. Hier. Bed. Pasch. similiter Theoph. Etith.} vel haec dixisse opinatur Calm. Iesum, cum ludas simul manum ad lancem porrexisset; at tarn aperte coram reliquis proditorem esse patefactum nequit assumi nee id concordat . cum narratione loan. 13,25 ubi soli loanni proditor quis sit indicatur neque 6 lyy.tyy.<; earn exigit aut permittit explanationem. Id sblum forte dici potest cum Cai. Maid, ea voce designari proditorem esse unum ex iis qui prope Iesum accumbant et ideo quam maxime proprie dici possint in eandem lancem cum Christo intinxjsse , siquidem probable est in magna mensa ubi tredecim accumbebant diversas f uisse patinas in quas terni aut quaterni panem intingerent. Atque ludam prope Iesum accubuisse etiam ex v. 25 redditur omnino probabile (cf. Ed. II p. 494). Uti Calm. Ed. censent, mensa erat ex quadrate oblonga, lecti erant ex triplici latere ; pars inferior lectis carebat, ut inferri lances et auferri possent'; lectis incumbebant convivae cubito innixi. loannes prope Iesum accumbebat; ex ad verso fortasse Petrus mensa interposita, ita ut facile loanni innuere posset (loan. 13,24); Iesum inter loannem et ludam accubuisse Ed. existimat. A nojmullis duo qiiaeruntur quae tamen sciri nequeunt : in cuius domo coena sit acta et in quarn lancem ludas simul cum Iesu intinxerit. Guriosum est id quaerere , bene dicit Maid. , tamen curiosum non est propositam ab aliis quaestionem ideo disputare, ut multorum curiositati ponatur modus. Et Nicephorus quidem (hist. eccl. 1,28) domum fuisse opinatus est loannis apostoli, quod oppido falsum est, cum loannes cum Petro mittatur, ut a patrefamilias coenaculum pro paschate poscat; alii de Nicodemo, vel losepho ab Arimathaea coniectant; alii de Simone leproso, qui tamen Bethaniae habitabat; alii de patre Marci, id quod Ed. II p. 485 valde censet probabile propter Marc. 14,51. 52 (quern adolescentem Marcum fuisse existimat).- In coena paschali variae patinae apponebantur : acetabulum, patina cum herbis amaris, lactucis agrestibus (Ex. 12,8)$ patina in qua continebatur pulmentum, quod vocatur charoseth; erat praeceptum ex verbis scribarum et erat memoriale caementi quo servierant in Aegypto; conficiebatur ex dactylis aut ficis arefactis vel uvis passulis et similibus, quae conculcabantur, aceto perfundebantur, condimentis condiebantur et permiscebantur instar caementi (Buxtorf, Lexicon chald. p. 831). Etiam plura refert Ugolini (1. c. XVII p. 1178) : charoseth seu embamma confectum e pomis, piris, nucibus, ficis, amygdalis, malis citreis et his similibus, cui vinum vel acetum immiscent cum multis aromatibus, quibus spissabatur, ut lateris speciem prae se ferret, cui super iniiciunt cinamomum, zingiber, et huiusmodi crasse contusa, ut paleam et lutum referret et ita reminiscerentur maiores suos in Aegypto lateres confecisse. Praeterea aderat paropsis cum panibus azymis. In quam igitur paropsidem ludas intingebat? in acetabulum, respondet P.; alii ad charoseth referunt. At nonne sufficit sensus verborum obvius : unus qui mecum eidem mensae accumbere consuevit? neque puto 6 l(/.&x^a<; ad uriam coenam paschalem referri; neque quod hoc loco dicitur idem esfrcum buccella, de qua loan. 13,26. Etiam clarius Christus ostendit se scientem. ac volentem obviam ire passion! , iterumque graviter monet proditorem de scelere et maxima infelicitate quam sibi ex facinoresit paraturus V;
26:24
24 Films quidem hominis vadit sicut scriptum est de illo; vadit, indicat se non vi expelli e mundo, sed sua sponte exire, nee tarn mortem esse quam mig-rationem (Theoph. Maid.} ; atque se eo modo mortem obire, uti ex oraculis divinis et Dei decreto sit statutum. Ad quae implenda etiam durum illud pertinebat, ut a familiajri apostolo proderetur; unde, sicut loan. 13,18, ad Ps. 40,10 alludere videtur; ludae enim facinus parabat ei viam qua dueebatur ad mortem et dum sineret se tradi per eum vadit ad mortem implens oraculum et eo modo quo in typo erat praefig-uratum. Sed quid de proditore, qui monitus a scelere non desistit? vae autem homini illi per quern Filius hominis trade fur; bonum erat ei si nalus non fuisset homo ille; poena praedicitur ut eum corrig'ant demmtiata supplicia (S. Hier.} et gravitas supplicii et infortunii quod eum manet, si in malo proposito perse veraverit (agit enira libere), indicator vae et sententia adiuncta : melius ei esset omnino non natum fuisse quam sustinere earn quae ipsum maneat ultionem. Loquitur Christus ita de luda quemadmodum credibile erat ipsum de se in suppliciis positum esse locuturum ; eratautem credibile eum dicturum : utinam nunquam natas essem; melius mihi fuit non nasci quam ista pati ; ita Maid, et S. Hier. : simpliciter dictum est multo melius esse non subsistere quam male subsistere ; unde concludunt maximum infortunium (Am. Schanz] et supplicium aeternum hisce exprimi(S. Br. Pasch.Alb. Thorn. Dion. Cai.lans. Maid. Lap. Calm. Fit. P.). Et profecto , si semel perveniret ad coelestem beatitudinem , maxime bonum ei esset quod natus et in lucem editus esset. Aliam acceptionem Schegg proponit , speciali soil, modo indicari quali exitu ludas vitam suam sit finiturus ; nam qui sibi ipsi manus inferat reipsa comprobare esse melius non esse quam esse et se praeferre vitae sepulcrum cum omnibus suis terroribus. Sed Christi verba adeo gravia eo non sistunt neque ullo modo indicatur iis solum exprimi , fore ut maxima desperatio et taedium vitae ludae animum invadat. Locutio dicitur quandoque simplex et vulgata (S. Br.}, ut soil, argutiae quaedam excludantur, quas v. g. perstringit S. Hier. scribens : non ideo putandus est antea fuisse quam nasceretur, quia nulli possit bene esse nisi ei qui fuerit ; quibus argutiis etiam annumerandum est quod habent Euth. Cai. melius fuisse si in vulva matris mortuus esset , quia turn solum poenam damni subiisset , solum beatitate caruisset neque tamen suppliciis esset subiectus. Cum reliqui certatim ex Domino quaererent et suam de tanto scelere indignationem manifestarent , ludas consultum duxit eandem induere speciem , ne statim suo silentio in se converteret reliquorum suspicionem
26:25
v. 25 respondens autem ludas qui tradidit eum dixit : numquid ego sum rabbi? reliqui Dominum appellant ; ludas solum utitur nomine plurimis communi. Rogat, ut Maid, dicit, tamquam callidus mercator, ut tentet num Christus sciat se eum esse qui esset traditurus et ut' quaestione posita simulet se non esse. Mira hie eius insinuatur impu-' dentia (S. Chrys. Br. lans.) et animus crimine obduratus quem monita Christi et minae ne minimum quidem moverent , sed solum ad hypocrisin et abominandam simulationem incitarent. Quid igitur lenissimus mitissimusque Iesus? ait illi : tu dixisti; quamquam dicere potuisset : sceleste et exsecrancle atque impurissime, tanto tempore hoc malum parturiens post pactionem diabolicam a me convictus audes adhuc interrogare? nihil tamen horum dixit (S. Chrys.}. Sollemnis est apud ludaeos affirmantium formula : tu dixisti (uti exemplis probant Lightfoot,^ Ghorographia Matthaeo praemissa cap. 82, Schoettgen ad h. 1.) ; est eadem responsio quae Pilato est data (S. Hier. Alb. fans.} et.Gaiphae 26,64; 27,11. Quare perperam censent aliqui (cf. S. Aug. Pasch. Cai. Wunsche) responsum esse anceps vel Christum in neutram yoluisse partem pronuntiare. Neque putandum est cum 'Maid, omnes hoc responsum audisse et proditorem omnibus esse manifestatum; id enim repugnat narration! loan. 13,23-28. Sed ludas prope Iesum accubuisse censendus erit, ita utei aliquid dici potuerit quod ceteri non adverterint. Quod itaque Christus .aperte dicebat ludae et simul ei parce.bat, dum eum aliis non proderet, novum ei et efficax dabatur monitum et simul ei offerebatur auxilium a Ghristo benignissimo , ut posset resilire a crimine si vellet. Sed frustra. Bene n.ota.1 Euth. : dicunt quid'am culpa carere eum qui quod praedefmitum erat peragit ; quibus nos dicimus , quod non quia praedefmitum erat tradidit , sed quia tradidit, id eo praedefmitum erat Deo praevidente quidquid eventurum erat; talis enim evasurus erat non a natura, sed ex voluntate , Libere enim agimus non quia Deus praevidit, sed quia nos ita acturi sumus, ideo Deus omniscius scit et ab aeterno scit nosque videt libertate nostra utentes et saepe gratiae resistentes.
26:26
v. 26 coenantibus autem eis accepit Iesus panem saOtovrwv auTwv, idem Marc. 14,22, dum Luc. 22,20 (AEToc TO ^aiwjcroa idemque 1 Cor. 11,25. Quare intelligi oportet: dum adhuc accumberent mensae (cf. Maid. Lap. Sylv. P.) vel antequam coenae illi finis irnponeretur sollemnis (Schegg}. Coena autem paschali peracta et agno typico immolate et epulis sacrificalibus manducato suum corpus et sanguinem oBtulit et ad manducandum dare voluit, ut ubi typus erat ibi veritatem constitueret (S. Chrys. EW/L);itasimulsesacerdotem secundum ordinem Melchisedech exhibuit (S. Hier. Pasch. Anselmus laud.) ; debuit autem post coenam paschalem institui, turn quia suo typo veritas coniungenda erat, turn quia hoc sacramentum in mortis Christi symbolum et memoriale dilectionis eius instituendum erat ; unde tune institui debebat , quando proxime mors imminebat et a suis auferendus erat. Memoriale erat turn relinquendum , cum iamiam abiturus esset , pro more amicorum discedentium , quo et absentis dilectionem agnosceremus et in eius desiderium excitaremur (lans.}. Cum dies dicatur primus azymorum et in coena paschali panes azymi lege essent praescripti (Ex. 12,18), Christus pane usus est non fermentato; quare recte Ecclesia quoque ad s. Eucharistiam panes adhibet azymos. Gomplures Graeci asserebant Christum non celebrasse coenam paschalem antequam pateretur (vide supra p. 425); unde apud Graecos etiam mos invaluit conficere Eucharistiam in i'ermentato. Christus acceptum panem benedixit, Dei beneficentiam et potestatem super panem invocavit (lans. Lap.}, qua benedictione panem sacravit et ad consecrationem quasi praeparavit. Cum species panis et apparentia remanerent, plane consentaneum erat, ut hac benedictione iis sanctitas quaedam etdignitas tribueretur. Christi enim benedictio operatur id quod significat. Putarunt aliqui verbo benedixit iam designari ipsam panis in corpus Christi consecrationem et transmutationem , ita ut Christus earn occulta sua virtute perfecerit et verba quae postea dixerit hoc est corpus meum solum declaraverint discipulis quod effecerit , vel euXoyvica? haec ipsa verba designare neque aliam benedictionem praeviam (ita Salmeron, torn. 9 tract. 12). At prius certe falsum est et maximo theologorum consensu reiicitur; neque alterum commode admittitur. Pertinet 'enim su^oyvfcrag proxime ad fregit; dein sequitur explicite e'wev; porro in altera de calice sententia ponitur su/^apicrTvforai; simili mpdo ante verba consecrationem exprimentia et efficientia; iam dici nequit verba haec et nihil aliud designari voce eu^aptcT'/fca? ; ergo aequali ratione de euXoy/fcra; erit sentiendum. Secundum ritus coenae paschalis qui a rabbinis describuntur etiam paterfamilias accepit panem in manus et dixit : benedictus tu Domine Deus noster, rex mundi , qui producis panem de terra (cf . Ugolini XVII p. 1183). Sed nemo asseruerit Christum hac vulgari formula usum esse; verum alia singular! qua symbola sacramentalia ab usu communi separaret et ad mysticum sanctificaret. Etiam paterfamilias fregit panes azymos et distribuit. Unde Christus ritum quem in initio coenae observavit, denuo repetit et repetitione discipulos attentos reclclit innuens typicam ritus significationem ac fregit; sed haec fractio imago erat mortis (cf. Ans. laud. Thorn. Schanz, Fil.}. In ea fractione quamvis fieri debuerit ut omnes ex pane acciperent ( erant panes, utpote placentae tenues , apti ad frangendum ) rationem deprehensam esse symbolicam, inde iam concludere oportebit quod fractio panis evasit designatio sollemnis pro celebratione Eucharistiae (Act. 2,42); deditque discipulis suis et ait : accipite et comedite : hoc est corpus meum; interpres syrus ultima verba reddit nasun; quare similiter in ea dialecto qua usus est Christus. Ex indole linguae semiticae copula est non requiritur; requiritur autem secundum rationem linguarum graecae , latinae aliarumque quas indo-germanicas appellant. Vi itaque verborum dicitur : hoc quod vobis porrigo est corpus meum. Pronomen demonstrativum hoc hanc enim habet vim et signiiicationem ut demonstret et explicet substantiam, i. e. ut declaret quid sit id quod pronomine hoc monstretur ; cum enim quaerenti vel dubitanti de re aliqua dico : hoc est lapis, hoc est argentum, pronomen hoc tantum ingenerat confusum conceptum alicuius individualis substantiae et est sensus : haec res vel haec substantia est lapis vel est argentum ; sic et praesentis orationis sensus est : hoc i. e. haec substantia quae soil, his velatur accidentibus est corpus meum n (lans.}. Dicit itaque Christus : id quod vobis do, id quod hie videtis est corpus meum, non est panis, sed est corpus meum. Porro ut haec Christ! sententia vera sit, oportet ut enuntiatione facta id quod monstrat et voce hoc exhibet iam non sit panis, sed corpus Christi. Is enim est sensus verborum obvius, clarus, secundum omnes loquendi regulas necessarius. Obiiciunt ex protestantibus aliqui : discipuli nullo modo concipere poterant sibi dari corpus et sanguinem Christi, ergo is non potest esse sensus. Verum quod hi assumunt falsum est ; nam , uti veteres iam bene monent (cf. S. Chrys. Pasch. Br. lans. Lap. Calm, etc.) Christus non subito nulla facta praeparatione tale mysterium eis proponit. Iam enim ante annum, ut refertur loan. 6,45 etc., in Capharnaum docuerat iterum iterumque se daturum carnem in cibum , sanguinem suum in potum neque posse quemquam vitam habere in se nisi manducaverit carnem Filii hominis et biberit eius sanguinem. Et cum sermo iste durus videretur et inter se disceptarent , compluries idem repetiit et cum multi discipulorum tali doctrina offensi eum re- . linquerent, duodecim interrogavit : numquid et vos vultis abire? ergo aut debebant credere verbis illis aut abire, aut credere Christum daturum esse carnem suam cibum (etsi non intelligerent , quomodo id fieri posset) aut ab eius consortio recedere. Apostoli duce Petro elegerunt prius. Credebant : verba vitae aeternae habes. Num eius sermpnis plane immemores erant? Quis credere poterit eos nunquam de verbis illis adeo miris quae videbantur cogitasse, nunquam de illo sermone quo multi discipuli se ab iis separarint? Verum talia non solent animis hominum excidere. Itaque dicendum erit cum lans. : cum post huiusmodi sermon em apostoli adhuc illorum verborum memores audirent Dominum dicentem : accipite, comedite : hoc est corpus meum, quid aliud poterant intelligere quam hoc ipsum quod olim promissum fuit Dominum adimplere ac iam modum quendam exhibere quo caro ipsius et sang\uis etiam corporaliter in cibum et potum sumi posset? Comparando enim hanc evangelistarum narrationem cam ilia loan. 6, quod his dixisse Dominus refertur perinde est ac si dixisset : olim si meministis , dixi vobis me daturum carnem meam in cibum et sang'uinem meum in.pottim ac sine hoc cibo et potu neminem habere vitam in se , per hunc vero cibum et potuin parari vitam aeternam. Id cum dicerem, plerisque videbatur durum etimpossibile; ecce nunc promJssionem meam adimpleo, mine exhibeo modum quo facile sine omni horrore et sine omni mei laesione corpus meum in cibum et sanguinem meum in potum etiam corporaliter sumere possitis . Ita iam excluditur symbolica explicatio. ' Verum intelligi Christi corpus, nullo autem modo panem concipi posse figuram corporis, elucet quoque ex verbis institutionis Luc. 22, 19 : hoc est corpus meum -quod pro vobis datur TO wep u^cov i\^o'jxevov, quasi dicat : illud inquam corpus quod pro salute vestra immolatur. Si porrexisset panem, quomodo dicere potuisset hunc panem dari pro expiatione? Insuper panis non est symbolum neque tropus vel metaphora qua unquam Christus vel alius quisquam usus sit pro corpore. Ergo neque hie ita intelligi potest. Praeterea post sollemnes illas ac repetitas enuntiationes et sententias' gravissimas quibus loan. 6 fidem postulavit de carne sua et sanguine tarn quam cibo et potu, res esset valde ridicula, si tota ilia sollemnitas et gra vitas mine ad id recideret, ut quis panis frustulum consideraret tamquam repraesentans corpus Christi. Modus ille loquendi Christi omnino evaderet inanis; offensio eorum qui eum reliquerunt iam non potest explicari; quid enim habet duri panem masticare 'et masticando de Christo cogitare? et cur Christus earn offensionem non removit dicens : nolite dicere : quomodo hie potest nobis carnem suam dare ad manducandum? dabo enim solum panem quern in carnis meae figuram vos accipere iubebo? Haec consideratio omittenda non est. Sed obiiciunt : neque in textu neque in re ipsa narrata miraculi alicuius mentioingeritur, ergo non licet interpreti miraculum inferre. Videntur velle dicere : panem accipere , benedicere, frangere, verba ilia pronuntiare, haec omnia non esse miraculum et cum praeterea nihil referatur, nullum inclicari miraculum. Utique non adesset miraculum nee liceret inferre, si Christus nihil aliud dixisset nisi : hoc est symbolum corporis mei (quod symbolum corporis mei pro vobis . immolatur! ). Ergo in ea argumentatione id iam supponunt verum quod eadem argumentatione probare volunt. Verba Christi debent esse vera; ut vera sint debent efficere id quod significant; si id effici nequit sine miraculo, eo ipso secundum omnes normas hermeneuticas miraculum ponitur i. e. ipse eventus et effectus miraculosus ex veritate sententiae Christi habetur. Et ita verba intellexit antiquitas Christiana. Minime in animo est omnia ilia referre effugia et sophismata quibus a tempore saeculi 16 novatores ea Ghristi verba et fidem tot saeculorum praecedentium obscurare lentaverint. Id et theologi et inter.pretes veteres iam abunde praestiterunt (cf. lans. Maid. Bellarminus etc.); vide quoque Comely in 1 Cor. 11,24 p. 339. Neque recentiores protestantes aliquid novi attulerunt quod non abundanter saepius fuerit refutatum ; ita qui nuperrime inGallia scripsit : La doctrine delaS. C6ne, actionem Ghristi esse symbolicam docet. At profecto, voce symboli etsi sexcenties repetatur, verbis Ghristi loan. 6 et hie sua non detrahitur vis ac significatio. Ilia non usus est Christus; ilia solum utitur is qui verba Christi non explicat sed pervertit. Et quid tandem in actione est symbolicum? panem accipere, benedicere, gratias agere, frangere, porrigere ad manducandum? haec, cum sint actiones quotidianae non vi sua sunt symbola 1 . Ergo necesse est, ut aliis conditionibus accedentibus declarentur symbola. Id fit post coenam peractam; ergo clarum est non fieri ad farhem et sitim sedandam. Ad quid ergo? id solum verbis deciaratur; ergo tota explicatio iterum r.ecidit in verba. Sed ubi in verbis est symbolum? Copula est vi et significatione sua nihil aliud nisi subiectum et praedicatum inter s.e uniens unum de altero enuntiari indicat. Ubicumqiie tropus vel symbolum reperitur non in copula est constituitur, sed aut in subiecto grammatical! aut in praedicato. Si Christus dicit :-ego sum vitis, non dicit : ego significo , repraesento vitem; sed ego sum spirituals vitis; tropus est in vite. Yel si dicitur : semen est verbum Dei, sensus non est: semen agri significat verbum Dei, sed semen illud de quo Ghristus loquitur semen est spirituale , et hoc est revera verbum Dei. Hisce aliisque exemplis Keil eos refutat qui. est notione significandi etc., explicate volunt. Vel sic quoque statui potest : est semper suam nativam habet significationem et vim, sed in eo ordine TOU esse de quo sermo fit. Unde si apostolus dicit de historia Agar et Sara : ativoc e<my aXX-/)Yopou(y.eva ; eo ipso de ordine TOU esse typici loquHncipit; sinuhcpergit : a&Tat YP eiffiv Wo SiaOyjxai, hae (mulieres) sunt duo testamenta, id necessario significat : sunt in ordine typico duo testamenta, quia de ordine typico loquitur; in illo vero ordine TOO esse non significant duo testamenta, sed sunt, quia typos non significant sed sunt typi. Proinde in nostro textu esset ostendendum tropum vel symbolum esse vel in hoc vel in voce corpus meum vel Christum antecedenter vel in ipsa actione declarasse panem istum fract-um et discipulis datum esse symbolice corpus suum. Verum nihil horum ostendi potest. Si panem ostendens dicit : fyoc est corpus meum, cum panis nullibi symbolum sit corporis, quam pro nomine et pro pane qui loco attribuli positus est accipi non posse , tarn certum atque perspicuum est homini mediocriter docto evangelistarum contextum graece legenti pronomen TOVTO hoc pro alia re quam pro Christ! corpore non poni; omnes ergo alias in hoc pronomine interpretationes constantissime reiicio , hanc unam firmissime teneo . At exsistit taraen aliquod discrimen. Christus enim hisce verbis efficit conversionem panis in corpus suum. Si dico : hie est homo , is quern voce ; hie demonstro iam est homo antequam ego sententiam enuntio. Sed quando Ghristus dixit hoc, corpus suumnondum aderatsub specie panis, sed praesens sistebatur sententia demum absoluta. Quare videtur TOUTO in omni casu exponi posse priore modo substantive , immo rectius ita concipi. Id Suarez 1. c. n. 8 indicat dicens earn interpretationem esse aptam ad significandam conversionem quae per haec verba fiat; primum quia per haec verba hoc efficitur, scil. ut contentum sub speciebus sit corpus Christi; deinde quia, cum in bmni conversione requiratur aliquid utrique termino . commune, hoc apte significatum est per subiectum huius propositionis . Quare idem dicit hanc sententiam simpliciter esse probandam , quia pronomen hoc non significet corpus Christi secundum propriam rationem ems, licet in prolationis verborum termino supponat pro illo tantum et de illo verificetur praedicatum ; constat insuper in principio prolationis pronomen hoc neque demonstrare definite ac determinate corpus Ghristi neque omnino carere significatione seu demonstratione aliqua , quia statim demonstrat aliquo modo accidentia seu aliquid habens connexionem seu habitudinem ad ilia , quod optime explicatur sub. ratione contenti sub illis ; ergo distincte nunquam designat corpus Christi , materialiter autem demonstrat illud in eo instanti, in quo absolvitur significatio verborum (1, c. n. 9),. Est quippe sermo Ghristi, ut Cai. dicit, factivus veritatis significatae; facit quod enuntiat et facit dum enuntiat; verba sunt operativa; huic aute.ni efficientiae non convenit, ut dum pronuntiatur hoc iam eo ipso formaliter demonstretur corpus Ghristi quod non adest nisi verbis integre prolatis. Monent aliqui ipsam formarn consecrationis qua usus sit Christus prolatam esse ad similitudinem ritus paschalis, quo scil. paterfamilias frangens panem azymum ac distribuens dixerit : WJJTT NDnS xn etc. hie est panis angustiae quern patres nostri in terra Aegypti comederunt, qui esurit veniat et comedat etc. ; pariter in distributione carnis agni paschalis : HDS Sw 19U nt hoc est corpus agni paschalis (de priore formula vide Ugolini XVII p. 1184; de utraque Schoettgen I p. 226.228; Langen p. 175). Ex qua formula Richter (Studien und Kritiken 1863 p. 235) acceptionem verborum symbolicam comprobare vult, Langen autem earn adhibet, ut ex similitudine ostendat duo : Christum institutionem Eucharistiae exhibuisse iainquam impletionem typi agni paschalis et verba esse sine ulla mejtaphora sensu litterali accipienda; praeterea ista similitudine cliscipulos facilius potuisse verba Domini intelligere. Si constaret formulas illas iam tempore Ghristi in more positas fuisse, promptum, Explicite dicitur Luc. 22,20 et 1 Cor. ll,2d ^sta TO postquam coenavit; jet si eodem loco apostolus Gorinthios reprehendit scribens. v. 20 : convenientibus vobis in unum iam non est dominicam coenam manducare , non Eucharistiam vocat dominicam coenam ; nam v. 21 pergit : unusquisque enim suam coenam praesumit etc., uti Maid, pluribus prosequitur; vide quoque Comely, Comment, in 1 Cor, p. 332 seq. Quia Christus mortis suae ac nostrae redemptionis memoriale instituere voluit (cf. 1 Cor. 11,26), ideopraeter corpus sanguinem quoque nobis exhibet et praeterea distincta carnis et sanguinis exhibitione id quod in sermone loan. 6 toties asseruit opere complevit; itaque
. Enarratur institutio ss. Eucharistiae 1 . Deus ac Dominus nosier, etsi semel seipsum in ara crucis morte intercedente Deo Patri oblaturus erat, ut aeternam illic redemptionem operaretur, quia tamen per mortem sacerdotium eius exstinguendum non erat, in coena novissima qua nocte tradebatur, ut dilectae sponsae suae Ecclesiae visibile sicut hominum natura exigit relinqueret sacrificium, quo cruentum illud semel in cruce peragendum repraesentaretur eiusque memoria in finem usque saeculi permaneret atque illius salutaris virtus in remissionem eorum quae a nobis quotidie committuntur peccatorum applicaretur, sacerdptem seeundum ordinem Melchisedech se in aeternum constitutum declarans corpus et sanguinem suum sub speciebus panis et vini Deo Patri obtulit, ac sub earundem rerum symbolis apostolis, quos tune novi testament! sacerdotes constituit, ut sumerent tradidit... Celebrate veteri pascha quod in memoriam exitus de Aegypto multitude filiorum Israel immolabat , novum instituit pascha seipsum ab Ecclesia per sacerdotes sub signis visibilibus inr molandum in memoriam transitus sui ex hoc mundo ad Patrem, quando per sui sanguinis effusionem nos redemit eripuitque de potestate tenebrarum et in regnum suum transtulit (Concilium trident. sess. 22 cap. 1). Christus ss. Eucharistiam instituit , cum coena paschali rite peracta adhuc mensae accumberet cum apostolis; unde
26:27
v. 27 et accipiens calicem gratias egit, uti solebat ante patrationem miraculorum (cf. 15,36. Marc. 8,6. loan. 6,11; 11,4-1), qua soil, et ipsius Dei gloria innotescit et ipse Christus tit verus Dei legatus gloriam accipit et multiplex utilitas hominibus obvenit ; si itaque in aliis miraculis Patri gratias agit propter triplicem hanc ration em, multo magis erat cur in confectione et institutione Eucharistiae sollemnes Patri gratias persolveret ; hoc enim sacrificio et sacramento illae tres rationes mirum in modum ad perfectionem adducuntur ; et dedit illis dicens : bibite ex hoc omnes; solent hoc loco quaerere, quotus calix in coena paschaliaChristo sit consecratus. Tresproponuntur sententiae; tertius calix qui in coena paschali bibebatur vocabatur calix benedictionis ; iam cum apostolus calicem Eucharistiae eodem nomine appellet (calix benedictionis cui benedicimus nonne communicatio sanguinis Christi est? 1 Cor. 10,16), aliqui opinati sunt tertium calicem in coena paschali esse consecratum (cf. Lightfoot, Schegg , Schanz , P.); ita institutio s. Eucharistiae immediate sequebatur esum agni paschalis et quidem antequamipsa coena integre secundum omnes ritus esset peracta. Nam secundumpraecepta rabbinicaquattuorpoculaerantpraescripta ; quintus calix poterat addi. Alii itaque qui existimant Christum ritus illos omnes antea integre perfecisse (num. iam turn revera omnes vigebant?), ad quartum calicem qui erat ultimus ex praescriptis institutionem s. Eucharistiae referunt (Bickell] vel saepius ad quintum (cf. Langen, FiL). Si quintus intelligitur, cui etiam concordat quod hymno dicto exierunt (v. 30 ; Marc. 14,26), facile explicari putant cur dicatur bibite ex eo omnes; nam in coena paschali ad quintum calicem nemo tenebatur. At haec ratio parum placet. Cum enim Christus suam carnem et sanguinem discipulis praeberet, certe non erat cur existimaretur quosdam ex discipulis nolle bibere vel fore ut omitterent. Verum quoniam quidem alias non unum poculum omnibus destinabatur, sed vel suum quisque habebat vel unum illud ex quo omnes bibebant pro opportunitate saepius solebat repleri, necesse erat dicere ut omnes ex eo biberent , si quidem Christus mmm calicem semel consecrare voluit (cf. Maid.}. Clamant hie adversarii nostri nos contra expressum Dei verbum altera sacramentorum specie populum defrau dare , cum Christus summo consilio quasi praevidens errorem nostrum quod de corpore suo non dixerat, de sanguine dixerit : bibite omnes; cur ergo illi infantibus sanguinem Christi non porrigunt etc. .{Maid.}! Solebant ludaei etiam in coena paschali adhibere vinum aqua mistum * ; unde vinum aqua mistum Christum consecrasse certum videtur; quare in sacra liturgia paululum aquae vino immiscetur;
26:28
v. 28 hie est enim sanguis meus nom testamenti quipro multis effundetur in remissiohem peccatorum; graece sjcpvvo'jxevov qui effunditur; tempus itaque praesens exprimitur, neque enim participium praesens graecum pro future adhiberi solet 2 . Significatur igitur effusio sanguinis quae fit ; ad sanguinem proinde in calice contentum haec effusio refertur ; id quod etiam clarius elucet ex verbis Luc. 22,20 TOUTO TO TCOT^PIOV... TO i>TCep u[/.eov x.^uvvd[xevov , ubi ipse calix i. e. sanguis in eo contentus dicitur effundi. Quare quod aliqui codices it. et vulg. legunt effunditur (vide lect. var. item Fab.}, sensum accurate exprimit. Sanguinem autem effundi in remissionem peccatorum dictio est sollemnis qua fieri sacrificium clare exprimitur; nam, ut lans. bene notat,- in Scripturis sanguinis effusio in remissionem semper dicitur ratione oblationis sanguinis Deo iactae. Erat enim in sacrificiis antiquis oblatio sanguinis eiusque ad aram effusio pars praecipua sacrificii actioque sacrificalis quae a solo peragi debebat sacerdote; vide 'Lev. 1,5. 11. 15; 3,2. 8. 13; 4,5 seq. 16 seq. 5,9; 6,30; 7,2. 14; 8,15 et generatim dicitur 17,11 : ego dedi sanguinem vobis ut super altare in eo expietis pro animabus vestris; Num. 18,17. Deut. 12, 27 etc. Praeterea intelligi hoc loco sanguinem sacrificalem non solum apparet ex eo quod additur in remissionem peccatorum vel pro multis , pro v obis (Luc. 22,20), verum etiam quia Ghristus ipsis verbis sanguinem suum appellat sanguinem testamenti et ita suum sanguinem dicit esse sanguinem sacrificalem sehsu utique multo sublimiore quam quo olim in institutione veteris foederis Moyses dixerat hie est sanguis foederis quod pepigit Dominus vobiscum (Ex. 24,8). Sanguine igitur vetus, sanguine quoque dedicatur novum testamentum ; atque ad ilia Moysis verba Christum alludere et illi sanguini suum opponere sanguinem quo demum vera expiatio efficitur, merito adnotant (of. Euth. Rab. Br. lans. Am. Schanz, FiL P.). Ex qua re confirmatur quoque vere sanguinem Christi fuisse in calice. Quodsi enim teste apostolo vetus lex est umbra novae legis (Col. 2,17), quomodo vero sanguini in foedere vetere posset opponi vinum r'ubrum tamquam figura quaedam sanguinis? nonne ita vetus testamentum dedicatum esset melioribus hostiis , cum sanguis sacrificalis omnium aestimatione in re religionis longe superet poculum vini? Si autem verus sanguis Ghristi in calice continetur, vere dici potuit : sanguis novi testamenti , quo sanguine vera fit expiatio et quo simul excellentia novi foederis prae vetere optime declaratur; cf. Hebr. 9,14-23; 10,4-12. Hoc testamentum dicitur novum (vide lect. var.); cf. Lite. 22,20; quae vox novum etsi non adderetur, tamen solo verbo ^taOvfy.-/) et multo magis verbo atf-a T/fc ta6yjV/); iam enuntiaretur nunc dedicari et sollemniter inaugurari novum illud foedus quod pro vetere Deus se initurum esse cumpopulo olim promiserat (cf. ler. 31,31 seq. Ez. 16,60. Os. 2,19 etc.). Dicitur sanguis effundiin remissionem peccatorum pro multis sail, effective (Alb. Cai.}, quamvis sufficienter pro omnibus. At' pleno sensu ibi in remissionem eft'unditur, ubi haec remissio revera obtinetur. Ad quam' obtinendam cum in adultis opus sit libera cooperatio, hanc autem non omnes praestent, merito dicitur earn remissionem non iri obtentum ab omnibus et prom effusionem sanguinis solum apud multos peccata esse ablaturam. Merito quoque hoc novum foedus peculiari ratione dicitur testamentum i. e. promissio vel depositio hereditatis per intermediam testatoris mortem obventurae his qui nuncupati sunt heredes. Morte enim Ghristi demum omnes scribuntur heredes neque quisquam ante eius tamquam testatoris mortem in illam potuit ingredi hereditatem. Quare haec ratio testamenti merito etiam veteri foederi attribui potest, in quo eo quoque adumbrata fuit, quia, ut apostolus dicit, nee primum quidem sine sanguine dedicatum est (Hebr. 9,18)- Iterum discipulos monet de transita suo imminenti, sed ita ut simul promittat se novum cum illis convivium celebraturum in coelis ; sic enim quod triste erat spe et promissione laeta temperat v. 29 dico vitis, vinum hisce in terris iam non bibam, usque in diem ilium quo illud bibam vpbiscum novum in regno Patris mei; recte consent haec nonreferriadcalicemeucharisticum(cf. Cai. Maid. Lap.Arn.Schegg, Schanz]. Indicat suis inter coenandum vel cum quartiim poculum coenae porrigeretur [Schegg] iam tempus suum prope esse , ut terrain relinquat, eodem modo, utidicit : ex hoc non manducabo hoc pascha, donee impleatur in regno Dei (Luc. 22,16 et vide v. 18). Loquitur itaque Christus consueto hominum more, qui ab amicis longe discessuri ita solent dicere : non bibemus amplius simul (Maid.}] saepe enim vult mentionem inferre mortis, quo certius omnibus sit se scientem et volentem earn oppetere. At quo eos consolatur addit. Saepius iam de coelo locutiis erat tamqiiam de convivio festive, de nuptiis (cf. 22,2; Luc. 12,37 transiens ministrabit illis) et ea ipsa occasione eos alloquitur : ego dispono vobis , ut edatis et bibatis super mensam meam in regno meo (Luc. 22,30); ita hoc quoque loco se convivium coeleste cum illis dicit celebraturum sumpta opportunitate ex coena , qua comparatione cum se illis fore convivam promittat illos suos mansuros amicos et se cum eis familiariter esse acturum pollicetur. Dulcis igitur ac familiaris consuetude qua utuntur cum Domino , non cessabit; illam fore in regno Patris affirmat; unde habent quo se consolentur, ne de eius discessu nimia afficiantur tristitia. Verum illud convivium fore alteri us generis et sublimius, indicat vocans vinum illud novum; erunt enim novi coeli et nova terra et non eruiit in sicut praeterit figura hums mundi et creatura glorificabitur liberata a servitute corruptionis (Rom. 8,21), ita vinum illud novum erit beatitas et gloria coelestis quam Christus suis communicabit, primogenitus in multis fratribus, qui eius imagini conformes facti sunt (Rom. Ex ultimo sententiae membro recte concludit Maid. Christum eo in versu non loqui de calice consecrate ; in coelo enim non erat bibitnrus sanguinem suum, non vere, non metaphorice; vinum autem metaphorice bibiturus erat, uti indicatur Luc. 22,30; erit vinum illud, quo inebriabuntur ab ubertate domus Dei (Ps. 35,9). Coelum autem esse intelligendum eo quoque indicatur quia in verbis quo bibam vobiscum exprimitur tempus illud quo discipuli iterum maxime familiari societate simul cum Domino erunt congregati sine ull'o separationis tiinore vel luctu discessus quo nunc conti-istantur. Dein regnum Patris quoque, in quo se cum iis fore dicit, non de regno terreno , sed de coelo mtelligitur. Quare de tempore post resurrectionem et de brevibus illis apparitionibus (cf. S. Chrys. Euth. Theoph. Cai. Calm.} haec Christ! promissio nullo modo satis explicatur; neque de Ecclesia, in qua vinum novum bibat nobiscum, quatenus nobiscum manens in nobis esuriat et sitiat et in nobis eibetur atque potetur (S. Br. simiiiter Quaeritur quoque hoc loco sumpseritne Ghristus ipse sacram Eucharistiam. Narratione evangeliorum haec sententia quam aliqui affirmant non videtur commendari. Refertur enim Christum sumpsisse panem, fregisse, dedisse discipulis iisque dixisse : accipite , comedite ; iam tali narrandi modo non innuitur, e contra excluditur, ipsum Christum corpus suum quod dedit discipulis manducasse. Pari modo dedit calicem dicens : bibile ex eo omnes. Iam qui alter! calicem dare eique ut bibat praecipere dicitur, is certe non eo ipso bibisse censetur. Neque rationes quae pro illa;sententia proferuntur videntur satis probabiles. Provocant ad S. Bier, qui ep. 120 qu. 2 ad Hedibiam scribit : ipse (Ddminus Iesus) conviva et convivium, ipse comedens et qui comeditur (M. 22,986); verum iam Suarez notat (1. c. ad qu. 81 art. 1) : sed si verba attente considerentur, non dicit in eis expresse Hieronymus Christum comedisse se ipsum , sed solum comedisse et manducatum fuisse, quae possent esse vera, etiamsi se non comedisset; nam comedit agnum vel alios oibos et se praebuit aliis comedendum . Provocant quoque ad S. Augustinum, qui scribit (de doctr. christ. 2,3; M. 34,37) : sacramento corporis et sanguinis sui praegustato significavit quod voluit ; sed eo in loco lectio non est certa, cum codices quinque optimae notae praebeant per gustatum, tres per gustum, perpauci autem praegustato ; et per gustatum legitur in Eugippii excerptis ex opp., S. Aug. cap. 253 (ex recensione Knoell, Vindobonae 1885 p. 822). Christum suum bibisse sanguinerri S. Chrys. affirmat ea ductus ratione ne discipuli audientes : hie est sanguis etc. turbarentur dicentes : sanguinemne bibimus; suo igitur exemplo voluisse eos inducere uttranquillo animo my.sterii participes essent. Verum nemo facile dixerit hanc rationem adeo gravem esse, ut contra narrationem vel saltern praeter narrationem evangeliorum illud evinci censeamus. Cum enim species panis et vini et tota apparentia remanerent, non concipiturquomodo discipuli adeo potuerint turbari, ut quasi recusantes dicerent : sanguinemne bibimus et carnem manducamus? praesertim post doctrinam illam quam ante annum audierant. Arguit S. Thomas (3 p. qu. 81 art. 1) ex eo quia Christus ea quae ab aliis observanda instituit ipse primitus observavit; unde et ipse prius baptizari voluit, quam aliis baptismum imponeret . At haec ratio non valet in universum ; apostolis v. g. iniunxit, ut irent in mundum universum et baptizarent, neutrum tamen ipse praestitit (cf. loan. 4,2) neque ipse suscepit baptismum sacramentalem , sed factus sub lege ritus et caerimonias veteris foederis observavit. Multo minus valet quod S. Thomas arguilia Luc. 22,21 non obstare videtur quominus id asseramus quod ex loan. 43,30 sequi merito. censetur. Porro cum satanas animum ludae iam occu passet, multo melius convenire videtur, ut a participatione corporis et sanguinis Ghristi excludatur, ut-ne sacerdos consecretur; neque ad eum dirigi poterant verba : hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Iam de eo dixerat Ghristus : vae homini illi etc. ; cur eum nunc crearet sacerdotem, ita ut propter earn quoque dignitatem damnatio eius augeretur?In aliis sermonibus quandoque adiecit exceptionem : vos estis mundi, sed non omnes (loan. 13,11; cf. 13,18; 6,71); hie vero omnes itibet bibere sanguinem, omnes iubet facere idem quod fecit; ergo licet inferre haec solum dicta esse ad eos qiii ea dignitate non erant indigni ; nam nolite sanctum dare canibus (Salmeron torn. 9 tract. 8). Vide quae dixi in Com. loan. p. 416. Et si asserimus ludam non interfuisse , huic sententiae praeterea neque antiquitatis neque auctoritatis suffragram deest. Iam Tatianus ita textum sacrum disposuit, ut ludam antea abiisse indicetur; quare S. Ephraem quoque disertis verbis in sua concordantis evangelii expositione asserit eum corpus Domini non recepisse et in harmonia evangelica edita a Yictore capuano res eodem modo exhibetur (M. 68,340). Idem traditur in Constitutionibus apostolorum (5,14; M. 1,873) et a S. Aphraate (cuius opera sub nomine S. lacobi nisibeni prodierunt; serm. de pasch. 14; Romae 1756 p. 14); de iis vide Corluy , Comment, in evang. S. loan., edit, altera p. 322 ; Comely, Introd. Ill p. 298. Idem clare docet S. Hilariiis in Matth. et inde rationem petit, quia Christus dixerat : bibam illud vqbiscum novum in regno Patris mei : neque sane cum Domino bibere poterat qui non erat bibiturus in regno, cum universes tune bibentes ex vitis istius fructu bibituros secum postea polliceretur . Aliam quoque prius designat rationem : dignus enim aeternorum sacramentorum communione non erat (M. 9,1065). Eodemmodo scribit S. Cyrillus alexandrinus : postquam egressus est ludas, tradit Salvator undecim discipulis salutare mysterium (JM. 72,451). Alios eiusdem sententiae patronos enumerant Corluy, Comely 1. c. ; ita Rupertum abbatem tuitiensem (M. 169,688), Pelrum Comestorem^ cuius historia scholastica permultum propagata diu in scholis adhibebatur (M. 198,1618), Innocentium III (de s. altaris mysterio 4,13 ; M. 217,865) qui ait : quid ergo est teneiidum? illud forte sine praeiudicio aliorum, quod loannes insinuat, quia cum ludas accepisset buccellam panis, exiit continue. Christus autem post alios cibos tradidit Eucharistiam ; et Turrianum, Salmeron, Barradium, Lamy et recentiores longe plerosque. Veteribus addi potest Zacharias chrysopolitanus. tentiae illi vix addit quidquam ponderis. Huic alias opponi posse, vide apud Salmeron , cautum esse a Spiritu sancto per apostolum : nemini cito manus imposueris ; rion esse medici sapientis medicinam praebere aegroto quam sciret ei esse mortiferam; cum Christus potuisset impedire ne manducans indigne riovam contraheret condemnationem , decuisse ut id faceret; immo quaerit quo iure posset Ecclesia criminosos repellere ab Eucharistia, si exemplum esset in contrarium de luda. Atque ad rationem S. Thomae directe responded potest cum Suarez Christum vere non separasse a communione sed prudenter exspectasse, tit ipse discederet, antequam sacramentum distribueretur (1. c. sect. 3 n. .5).
26:30
v. 30 et hymno dicto, iam veteres aliqui, uti Paulus burgensis, Franciscus Lucas, Baronius, Maid. Lap. et recentiores Am. Schegg, Schanz, Weiss, Ed. de altera parte Hallel explicarunt, vel alii de magno Hallel (Fil.) vel de solo Ps. 136 (Keil, Ed. II p. 533); eo quippe psalmo (vulg. 135) ex rabbinorum placitis etiam celebratio coenae paschalis concludi poterat. Cum autem dicatur i)[AV^<yavT65 : cum cecinissent vel dixissent laudes , iste hymnus nequit intelligi oratio Christi loan. 17, de qua coniectarunt Rab. aliqui apud S. Pasch. et S. Thorn. Grotius, quippe quam orationem solus pronuntiavit Christus. Hymnus aliquis peculiaris quern ea occasione Dominus dixisset ferebatur quoque apud Priscillianistas , de quo aliqua refert S. Aug. epist. 237 (al. 253) n. 4; M. 33,1035. Ex eo quod Christus cum discipulis laudes dicit Deo post coenam, ansam capitS. Chrys. adhortationis : audiant quotquot porcorum instar contra mensam sensibilem comedentes calcitrant et temulentisurgunt, cum oporteret gratias agere et in hymnos desinere; audite quotquot postremam orationem mysteriorum non exspectatis, quae illius symbolum est. Gratias egit antequam discipulis daret , ut etiam nos gratias agamus ; gratias egit et hymnum dixit postquam dedisset , ut et nos hoc ipsum faciamus (similiter Theoph. Euth. Thorn.}. Legitur Ex. 12,22 de tempore coenae paschalis : nullus vestrum egrediatur ostium domus suae usque mane; uncle cum hie dicatur hymno dicto exierunt in montem Oliveti, aliqui concluserunt coenam Domini non fuisse coenam paschalem. At perperam. Nam illud mandatum iis iungitur ex quibus statim apparet solum datum esse pro ilia nocte in Aegypto ; iubentur enim superliminare et utrumque postem sanguine aspergere et intra ckmium manere , cum Dominus percutiens Aegyptios transiturus sit. Atque ita reni esse intellectam, testis quoque est losephus scribens : in azymorum festo quod pascha vocamus sacerdotibus moris erat post mediam noctem aperire templi ianuas (Antiq. 18,2. 2); inter discrimina quae recensentur exstitisse inter pascha aegyptiacum et pascha generationum (i. e. in Palaestina) etiam refertur abolitio illius mandati (cf. Lightfoot, de ministerio templi cap. 12; II p. 727 et quae supra p. 428 ex Ugolini Thes. tentiae illi vix addit quidquam ponderis. Huic alias opponi posse, vide apud Salmeron , cautum esse a Spiritu sancto per apostolum : nemini cito manus imposueris ; rion esse medici sapientis medicinam praebere aegroto quam sciret ei esse mortiferam; cum Ghristus potuisset impedire ne manducans indigne riovam contraheret condemnationem , decuisse ut id faceret; immo quaerit quo iure posset Ecclesia criminosos repellere ab Eucharistia, si exemplum esset in contrarium de luda. Atque ad rationem S. Thoriiae directe responded potest cum Suarez Christum vere non separasse a communione sed prudenter exspectasse, tit ipse discederet, antequam sacramentum distribueretur (1. c. sect. 3 n. 5). v. 30 et hymno dicto, iam veteres aliqui, uti Paulus burgensis, Franciscus Lucas, Baronius, Maid. Lap. et recentiores Arn. Schegg , Schanz, Weiss, Ed. de altera parte Hallel explicarunt, vel alii de magno Hallel (Fil.} vel de solo Ps. 136 (Keil, Ed. II p. 533); eo quippe psalmo (vulg. 135) ex rabbinorum placitis etiam celebratio coenae paschalis concludi poterat. Gum autem dicatur upvteavres : cum cecinissent vel dixissent laudes , iste hymnus nequit intelligi oratio Christi loan. 17, de qua coniectarunt Rab. aliqui apud S. Pasch. et S. Thorn. Grotius, quippe quam orationem solus pronuntiavit Christus. Hymnus aliquis peculiaris quern ea occasione Dominus dixisset ferebatur quoque apud Priscillianistas , de quo aliqua refert S. Aug. epist. 237 (al. 253) n. 4; M. 33,1035. Ex eo quod Christus cum discipnlis laudes dicit Deo post coenam , ansam capit S. Chrys. adhortationis : audianfc quotquot porcorum instar contra mensam sensibilem comedentes palcitrant et temulentisurgunt, cum oporteret gratias agere et in hymnos desinere; audite quotquot postremam orationem mysteriorum non exspectatis, quae illius symbolum est. Gratias egit antequam discipulis daret , ut etiam nos gratias agamus ; gratias egit et hymnum dixit postquam dedisset , ut et nos hoc ipsum faciamus (similiter Theoph. Euth. Thorn.}. Legitur Ex. 12,22 de tern pore coenae paschalis : nullus vestrum egrediatur ostium domus suae usque mane; unde cum hie dicatur hymno dicto exierunt in montem Olweti, aliqui concluserunt coenam Domini non fuisse coenam paschalem. At perperam. Nam illud mandatum iis iungitur ex quibus statim apparet solum datum esse pro ilia nocte in Aegypto ; iubentnr enim superliminare et utrumque postern sanguine aspergere et intra ckmium manere , cum Dominus percutiens Aegyptios transiturus sit. Atque ita reni esse intellectam, testis quoque est losephus scribens : in azymorum festo quod pascha vocamus sacerdotibus moris erat post mediam noctem aperire templi ianuas (Antiq. 18,2. 2); inter discrimina quae recensentur exstitisse inter pascha aegyptiacum et pascha generationum (i. e. in Palaestina) etiam refertur abolitio illius mandati (cf. Lightfoot, de ministerio templi cap. 12; II p. 727 et quae supra p. 428 ex Ugolini Thes. notava); praeterea in tosaphta ad pesachina adnotatur ad Ex. 12,22 : quod ita non fuit in pasehate generationum (Ugolini XVII p. 672). Mons olitteti situs est ad orientem urbis , valle Kedron ab urbe separatus, itinere sabbati ab urbe distans (Act. 1,12; cf. 24,3) ; quare etiam die festo incepto illuc ire lieuisset. Ex narratione Luc. 22,31-34 et loan. 13,36-38 cerium videtur Christum iam in coenaculo praenuntiasse Petro futuram negationem; sed Matth. 26,31 et Marc. 14., 27 ei earn anuuntiat in via ad montem; atque Petrum bis esse monitum, certe non est improbabile; Ghristus enim suam quoque passionem iterate praedixit et iterate quoque in horto monet discipulos; alii tamen semel negationem esse praedictam in coenaeulo volunt (cf. Cai. Schanz, Fil. P.); hi
Praenuntiat Christus fore ut discipulorum fides ea nocte maxime tentata vacillet et ut a Petro ter negetur. At illi promittunt se fore constantes. Denuo itaque Christus ostendit se praescire res futuras, se scientem et volentem 'obviam ire contumeliis et morti. Praedicit suis titubationem , inconstantiam , defectum fidei et fortitudinis ; quae praedictio iis post lapsum utilis esse potest ne desperatione abiiciant animos; in quern finem etiam mentionem ingerit resurrectionis et suae cum illis in Galilaea consuetudinis. Ex rabbinorum statutis psalmi 113-118 (vulg. 112-117) qui nomine communi vocantur Halle-1 recitandi erant in coena paschali et psalmi quidem 113 et 114, antequam accumberent et cibum sumerent, reliqui autem post sumptum cibum^ quando quartum et ultimum poculum biberunt addita alia benedictione quam benedictionem cantici voeabant, de qua quoque mentio fit in tractatu pesachim 10,7 (Surenh. Up. 175). Si autem quintum addebatur poculum, dicebatur quoque Hallel magnum, quod tamen (ut supra iam notatum est p. 428 not. l)non omnes eodem modo describunt; immo semel MaimonidesPs. 118-120 contineridicit (vide Buxtorf, Lexicon cbald. p. 613- 616; Ugolini XVII p. 1188; Lightfoot ad Marc. 14,26; Schoettgenl p. 230). Unde cum dicatur Praenuntiat Christus fore ut discipulorum fides ea nocte maxime tentata vacillet et ut a Petro ter negetur. At illi promittunt se fore constantes. Denuo itaque Ghristus ostendit se praescire res futuras, se scientem et volentem 'obviam ire contumeliis et morti. Praedicit suis titubationem , inconstantiam , defectum iidei et fortitudinis ; quae praedictio iis post lapsum utilis esse potest ne desperatione abiiciant animos; in quern finem etiam mentioriem ingerit resurrectionis et suae cum illis in Galilaea consuetudinis. Ex rabbinorum statutis psalmi 113-118 (vulg:. 112-117) qui nomine communi vocantur Hallel recitandi erant in coena pascnali et psalmi quidem 113 et 114, antequam accumberent et cibum sumerent, reliqui autem post sumptum cibum^ quando quartum et ultimum poculum biberunt addita alia benedictione quam benedictionem cantici vocabant, de qua quoque mentio fit in tractatu pesachim 10,7 (Surenh. lip. 175). Si autem quintum addebatur poculum, dicebatur quoque Hallel magnum, quod tamen (ut supra iam notatum est p. 428 not. l)non omneseodem modo describunt; immo semel Maimonides Ps. 118-120 contineri dicit (vide Buxtorf, Lexicon chald. p. 613- 616; Ugolini XVII p. 1188; Light foot ad Marc. 14,26; Schoettgenl p. 230). Unde cum dicatur
26:31
v. 31 tune dicit illis Iesus, illud tune referunt non ad v. 30, sed ad antecedentem narrationem rerum in coenaculo gestarum. Sed interposito v. 30 et mentione facta eos exiisse'in montem, iddurius videtur. Neque necessarium est. Nam Petrum quoque bis de imminent! periculo esse edoctum non est cur negetur; vel si id cuiquam improbabile videtur, facilius est assumere in coenaculo solum dicta esse quae leguntur Luc. 22,31. 32 et loan. 13,36. 37; verum ob rei cognationem reliqua statim ab evangelistis esse adiuncta. Nam cum Marcus quoque, Petri discipulus, in via ea dicta esse explicite tradat, hie modus narrationes conciliandi videtur magis obvius. Sed fortasse nulla conciliatione optis est; immo S. Aug. (de cons. ev. 3,2. 5 seq.) et Pasch. ter Petrum praemonitum esse et ter similiter respondisse probabile censent; omnes vos scandalum patiemmi in me in ista node i. e. ipsa ilia infirmitas qua Christus capi, vinciri, ad tribunal trahi et illud j se permittet, eos a fidei constantia in titubationem deiiciet et in timorem et ignaviam; (7odei>(3Yicre<j6e T-^V etg i^l TrtcrTtv, viyouv ^su^scOe (Euth.}, nutabit scil. eorum fides, vacillabit, in dubitationem venient (cf. S. Br. lans. Cai.}\ intelligitur, ut Alb. loquitur, impactio in infirmitatem Christi , vel ut Calm. : passionis meae conspectus vos de constantia deiiciet ac dubios reddet. Praedicit autem quod passuri sunt, ait 5. Eier., ut cum passi fuerint non desperent salutem, sed agentes poenitentiam liberentur. Talis autem eorum tentatio permissa est, inter cetera ut qui magistri futuri erant ecclesiarum Dei ex se cliscerent de se iam ultra nunquam praesumere, ut scirent quo modo alios deberent tolerare in culpa, qui suos recognoscerent casus, et si aliquis corruisset, sicut quam saepe mortalis infirmitas se habet, disceret nunquam desperare de venia, dum videt magistros ecclesiarum subito cecidisse (S. Pasch.}. Iterum Dominos indicat suam passionem non sine arcano divinae voluntatis consilio fieri ; ex ea autem facile evenire , ut maglstro percusso turbentur discipuli ; scriptum est enim : percutiam pastorem et dispergenlur oves gregis; Zach. 13,7 percute pastorem; seel cum Deus ibi loquens inducatur et mandans : percute , perbene brevitatis et claritatis gratia hie dicitur percutiam, ut statim appareat Deum esse loquentem et ad Dei ordinationem cuiicta referri. Pastorem, de quo Zacharias, esse Messiam, certum est ex Zach. cap. 11 et 12,10; Christus ex oraculo in universum prolato unam facit applicationem. Apostoli enim ad gregem ilium quern pastor bonus pavit pertinent; quare ex pastoris sorte ipsi quoque affligentur, fuga dilabentur et tamquam oves timidae perturbabuntur. Ceterum vide quae de eo loco dixi in .Comment, in min. proph. II p. 384 seq. Bene rem explicat S. Cyr. : turbati sunt, e-rap^Ovjcrav , discipuli , non tamquam molles quidam , sed eo quod perculsionis (aTtopia?) plenum esset negotium captuque admodum difficilis huius mysterii cognitio, quomodo qui mortuos suscitarat et innumera supra hominem quae essent signa patrarat, tarn ignominiosae morti esset addicendus . Sed ubi tristia praedixit, praedicit etiam consolatoria v. ttpostquam autem resitrrexero , praecedam vos in Galilaeam; de verbo irpoayetv vide ad 2,9. Consolatur itaque infirmitatem eorum sponsione reditus sui(S. /ft'/.),temperamentum est tristitiae(.A/.). In Galilaea autem se cum illis denuo familiari consuetudine esse usurum dicit, quia haec regio eorum patria est (S. Br.) et patriae'mentio et promissio reditus apta est ad afflictos erigendos et grata; ita quoque metum ludaeorum iis eximit (S. Cyr. Thorn. lans.} et in Galilaea demum mandata dabit de Ecclesia instituenda (Alb.}. Planum est hac promissione reditus in Galilaeam Christum' sibi nolle adimere potestatem etiam antea in ludaea se illis manifestandi, si discipuli non statim post mortem Christi inGalilaeamsecedunt. Hisce vero verbis eis permittit, ut sine ulla-mora ludaeam relinquant, si ludaeorum vexationes timent et ita sibi prospicere consultum duxerint. Sed discipuli pro suo in Dominum amore et studio non statim recesserunt ab urbe ; quare Christus mox se ibi eis ostendit. Solum rationalistae qui fere ubique lynceis oculisin contradictiones inquirunt etiam inter haec verba et Lucae et ioannis de apparitionibus narrationes ingens detegunt discrimen. Verum Petrus pro fidei suae calore respondit; in tantum enim et afFectu et caritate Christi efferebatur, ut et imbecillitatem carnis suae et fidem verborum Domini non cntweretur (S. Hil.}
26:33
v. 33 respondens autem Petrus ait illi : et si omnes (si etiam omnes , vide lect. var. graec.) scandalizati fuerint in te, ego nunquam scandalizabor ; utique ex animi affectu et proposito praesenti loquitur; sibi igitur de ardore fidei promittebat, ut ait S. Hier. atque eo sensu verum est : non erat temeritas nee mendacium, sed fides est apostoli Petri et ardens affectus erga Dominum , quod idem dicit. Neque enim putabat ut alicuius persecutionis timore suae fidei et dilectionis flamma exstingui potuisset (S. Br.]. Accipit enim fiduciam, ut Alb. censet, ab eo quod ante (multis retro abeuntibus , cum Christus paucis qui remanserant diceret : numquid et vos vultis abire?) dixerat : Domine ad quern ibimus? tu habes verba vitae aeternae. At pariter verum est quod alii monent : cum maxime deprecari opus fuisset ac opem Domini implorare : auxiliare nobis ; n'epermittas nos labi infirmitate etc., Petrus erravit in tribus : quod ita aperte Ghristo contradicit, quod se aliis praeposuit, quod in seipso solo et non in divino auxilio fiduciam habuit (cf. S. Chrys. Euth. cat. Cr. Pasch. Thorn. lans. Calm.}; nee cogitavit lubricani naturam humanam nee suam ante annum titubationem et fidem vacillantem fluctibus insurgentibus (14,30), sed magnum protulit verbum (Orig.}. Verum plane aliter rem fore Christus magna sollemnitate praenuntiat
26:34
v. 34 ait illi Iesus : amen dico tibi, quia in hac nocte antequam gallus cantet ter me negabisi. e. abnegabis nosse me (Luc. 22,34); neque enim praedicitur fore ut fidem amittat , sed ut professionem fidei omittat et coram aliis timore perculsus neget se esse Christi discipulum eumque sibi esse notum. Accuratius dicitur Marc. 14,30 : priusquam gallus vocem bis dederit ; unde recte explicant qui dicunt non ilium, galli cantum designari quern media nocte edere solet, sed tempus illud quod veteres gallicinium appellaresolent (cf. Euth. lans. Maid. Calm. Schegg, P.}\ proin sensus est : priusquam praeterierit hora gallicinii. De eius autem tempore haec referuntur ex Macrobio (Saturn. 1,3) : primum tempus diei dicitur mediae noctis inclinatio , deinde gallicinium, in'de conticium, cum galli conticescunt , dein diluculum, id est, cum incipit dignosci dies , et ex Censorino cap. 19 : tempus quod mediae nocti proximum est vocatur de media nocte ; sequitur gallicinium , cum galli incipiunt canere , deinde conticinium , cum conticuere , tune ante lucem et sjic diluculum vocatur (apud Wetstein ad h. 1.). Alii tempus quidem quod auroram praecedit generatim ita vocari putant (cf. Maid. Schanz), Plinius quarta castrensi vigilia gallos dicit ad curas laboremque revocare (hist. nat. 10,24). At prout esse solet indolis ferventioris, multo magis praesumens de viribus suis et affectus sinceritatem maiori volens vi contestari asseveranter respondet
26:35
v. 35 etiamsi oportuerit me mori tecum*, non te negabo; quanto firmius affirmat Christus, tanto Petrus e diverse maiorein ostendit f or tit u din em ; vehemens enim in eo erat affectus propriae confidentiae (Ettth.}; multo quidem cum amore in Christum haec dixit, attamen non sine praesumptione (cat. Cr.}. Loquitur, ut Alb. notat, quemadmodum olim Ethai : vivit Dominus et vivit dominus meus rex, quoniam in quocumque loco fueris domine mi rex, sive in morte, sive in vita, ibi erit servus tuns (2 Reg 1 . 15,21). Verum debuit Kumanae fragilitatis memor a Domino efflagitare opem et gratiam, ut quod Christus minatus erat non eveniret. Nam sicut Orig. prosequitur, hoc Christi effatum potest cbnsiderari uti oraculum contra Ninivitas, quod cum illi poenitentiam agerent non est impletum. Solent enim saepe eiusmodi praedictiones ita proferri, ut tamen conditio quaedam tacita supponatur (cf. ler. 18,7-10. Ez. 33,13-16). Verum -Petrus nimia sui confidentia abreptus neque recogitans se melius cognosci a Ghristo Christumque rerum quoque futuraruni haud esse nescium, ilia proferri putabat sicut homines soleant qui de re difficili loquuntur coniectando : id a te non impetrabis, tantae f ortitudinis et constantiae, amice, non eris! Magnum hie, infert S. Chrys., dogma accipimus, non sufficere hominis fervorem , nisi superna adsit gratia. Petrum autem prae aliis Dei providentia cadere gravius erat permissura, iusto quidem iudicio, nimirum quia de se nimis praesumendo aliis se praetulerat, sed tamen propter bonum aliquod, nempe ut disceret Petrus et nos in illo, quantae sit temeritatis hominem confidere in seipso, quamque necessarium sit Dei implorare gratiam, sine qua nostra dilectio et propositum non possit vel ad breve tempus perseverare. Et rursus ut qui aliis erat praeferendus , haberet unde magis humiliaretur et ex seipso disceret alienae compati et condescendere infirmitati (lans.}. Atque Petrum hoc suo damno edoctum esse probat eius modus loquendi plane diversus post Christi resurrectionem (loan. 21,15-17). Uti Petrus, ita reliqui quoque ex praesenti animi affectu dimetiuntur quales futuri sint in summo rerum discrimine : similiter et omnes discipuli dixerunt; bonaac vera pro tune animi dispositio communis Petro et aliis discipulis significatur ( Cai. ) . Christus autem magna lenitateususnon iamurgetcontradicent^s sibi ; mox enimnimium experienturquamveredixerit. Sedanimocerte eoscomplectitur cum amore simul et miseratione , quippe qui omni sinceritate magnum suum in ipsum amorem contestentur et tamen mox adeo infirmi sint futuri. Bene notat Lap. eos Christi verba non tarn praedictionem putasse, quam propositi et amoris sui erga Christum tentationem et probationem ; ideoque, cum arbitrarentur Christum solum explorare animos, tarn resolute et animose affectum suum erga Christum demonstrasse. Ceterum Christus praedixit qnia futurum erat ; non erat futurum quia praedixerat. Unde illis nulla inferebatur necessitas. Libero enim arbitrio esse consultum turn ex t aliis manifestum est turn ex eo quoque quod eiusmodi praedictiones communiter conditione tacite supposita intelligentur oportet.
26:36
v. 36 tune venit fesus cum illis in villam, x w P t/ov > praedium (ita vox redditur Marc. 14,32), ubi hortus quoque erat (loan. 18,l)'etquo Christus saepe se co.nferre solitus erat; unde merito concluditur possessorem illius praedilvel fundi fuisse discipulum Ghristi; quae, dicitur Gethsemani, erat ad radices mentis; nomen generatim explicant torcular olei (cf. Am. Schanz, Fil. P. Keil, Weiss] ; aliter Schegg; esse scil. ru contractum pro rna et significare locum editum pinguedinis ; verum ems explicationislaudatoremnon videturinvenisse. In illofundo quifere quadratus muro hodie cingitur ostenduntur oc v to olivae antiquissimae quas aliqui easdem esse consent quae iam Christ! tempore ibi fuerint (c Fil. P. etpraesertim Ollivier, La Passion p. 64, qui et hortum et singula accurate describit monumenta quibus memoria orationis et agoniae, Christi adnexa reputatur); et dixit discipulis suis : sedete hie, donee vadam illuc et orem; non omnes discipulos testes facit suae quam subire vult et experiri agoniae , sed eos solum , quos spectatores voluit habere gloriae suae in transfiguratione et quos alias quoque testes habuit insignium miraculorum, ita resuscitationis filiae lairi (Marc. 5,37; Oriff. Pasch. Dion.}. Hi maiore prae reliquis fide et cognitione Christi imbuti et Ghristo magis familiares admittuntur, ut sint testes quoque mysterii eius tristitiae et agoniae;
.Christus, antequam ab adversariis torqueretur, gravissimos animi clolores experiri yoluit; in iis instanter orat ad Patrem neque discipulorum curam gerere omittit. Itaque perpessiones quae ipsi fient a tortoribus praevenire voluit sua afflictione voluntaria. In horto Adam primus parens delicias quaerens peccare coepit ad mortem, Christus autem iam exordiis illis satisfaciens coepit moestusesse et contristari usque ad mortem ; Adam superbivit volens se Deo similem fieri , Christus se humiliavit ; Adam se a Deo avertit , Christus omnibus malis Adami in horto contractis mederi incepit (Fab.}. A coenaculo Christus cum suis prof ectus est versus montem oliveti v. 30; iam accuratius describitur quo se contulerit
26:37
v. 37 et assumplo Petro et duobus filii$ Zebedaei, loanne et lacobo , coepit contristari et moestus esse, (x^fAoveiv explicat Euth, fJapuOu^eiv animo esse aggravate; Suidas Xiav >.uiTei'ff0at , Hesychius aycoviav (cf. P. Weiss}, ita ut gradatio exprimatur : angi gravissime, cum dolore et angoribus animi luctari, velutMald. vim vocis expendit , ita vehementi obiecti discriminis metu angi, ut" quodammodo exanimis et attonitus sis. Dicitur coepit, ut subita in eo notaretur mutatio; sed etiam hanc virn vox habere potest, ut significet eum non coactum, sed sponte, quando voluit , quantum voluit et quomodo voluit tristatum esse (Mold.). Et quod externo habitu et vultu indicavit, id verbis quoque familiaribus discipulis declarare voluit
26:38
v. 38 tune ait illis : tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem; sustinete hie, manete hie et vigilate mecum; non dedignatur Dominus more hominum moerorem suum ac tristitiam cum familiaribus communicare, id quod naturae humanae aliquid affert levaminis , et eodem more eos desiderat secum vigilare , ne quasi solus angoribus relinquatur sed habeat qui secum illud quasi pond us ferant. Qui enim animo anxius est, ad aliqs quasi consolatores oculos animumque dirigit. Sed eos nullatenus solum sua causa vigilare iubet> sed potissimum in suam ipsorum utilitatem ac necessitatem ; cf. v. 41. Adnotat S. Thorn. Christum sicut permiserit carni agere et pati quae sint ei propria, ita similiter permisisse omnibus viribus animae agere et pati quae sint iis propria; manifestum est autem quod voluntas sensualitatis refugit naturaliter dolores sensibiles et corporis laesionem ; similiter etiam voluntas ut natura repudiat ea quae sunt naturae contraria et quae sunt secundum se mala , puta mortem et alia huiusmodi (3 p. qu. 18 art. 5; cf. Suarez , de Incarn. disp. 38 sect. 3). Haec autem animae tristitia et angor ex variis causis oriebatur. Yoluntarie enim et vivide Ghristus sibi proponebat dira suppliciaquae iamiamimminebantet cruciatus et mortem; cernebat quoque pondus illud immensum peccatorum et ingentem eorum foeditatem ; praesciebat quamvis tarn immania pateretur nihilominus multos nihil inde fructus percepturos, fore.ingratos, incredulos, iri damnatum. Quibus omnibus vivide et clare apprehensis anima Christi ea affligebatur tristitia quae dicitur usque ad mortem i. e. quae talis sit ut mortem afferre possit, quae sufficeret ad vitam exslinguendam (cf. Dion. Fab. lans. Sylv. Lap.} ; quare quoque dicitur rapOanros i. e. valde tristis, undique quasi tristitia valde pressa est anima. Declaratur itaque magnitudo, non eius duratio ad mortem usque (quod volunt S. Hil. Hier. Pasch. Br. Alb. Thorn. Cai.} neque solum ea designatur tristitia quae solet esse comes mortis (Euth. Maid.}, sed talis quae ingenti suo dolore et moerore sufficiat ad vitam auferendam. Neque eius tristitiae causa cum aliquibus in sola sorte discipulorum vel ludaeorum reponenda est (uti reponunt S. Hil. Hier. Pasch. Br.). Ex hac afflictione varia colliguntur documenta, quibus explicatur quas ob causas Christus earn in se admittere voluerit. Et primum quidem hac quoque tristitia et moestitia se veram habere naturam humanam, in omnibus excepto peccato nobis similem, comprobavit. Timet enim natura mortem, horret supplicia et cruciatus. Deinde expiaturus peccata hominum et pro iis Patri satisfactions voluit experiri animi cruciatus, quia animi delectatione et voluptate homines saepenumero peccant. Porro cum ea suscipiat quae adeo horret natura eximie et suam erg'a Patrem obedientiam et suam erga nos caritatem manifestat. Insuper hac ratione declarat (quod ipsum quoque ad obedientiae et caritatis eius facit commendationem) acerbitatem poenarum et supplicii imminentis , cum sola ebruna memoria . et repraesentatio tantopere animum excruciet. Praeterea suis affert militibus solamen , ne animis cadant , cum naturae horrorem ac repugnantiam in se persentiscunt , simulque suo docet exemplo, quomodo timorem, moestitiam , fastidium superare debeamus. Denique nostras in se suscepit infirmitates , ut minus essent in nobis , ut liberaret eos qui timore mortis per totam vitam obnoxii erant servituti (Hebr. 2,15; cf. Dion. lans. Lap. Sylv.}. De huius tristitiae Chrjsti veritate et fructu ita S. Ambrosius : haerent plerique hoc loco qui tristitiam Salutaris ad argumentum inolitae potius a principle quam susceptae ad tempus infirmitatis inclinant et naturalis sensum cupiunt detorquere sententiae. Ego autem non solum excusandum non puto, sed etiam nusquam magis pietatem eius maiestatemque demiror; minus enim contulerat mihi, nisi meum suscepisset affectum- Ergo pro me doluit, qui pro se nihil habuit quod doleret et sequestrata delectatione divinitatis aeternae taedio meae infirmitatis afficitur. Suscepit enim tristitiam meam , ut mihi suam laetitiam largiretur, et vestigiis nostris descendit usque ad mortis aerumnam, ut nos suis vestigiis revocaret ad vitam. Gonfidenter ergo tristitiam nomino, quia crucem praedico; neque enim speciem Incarnationis suscepit, sed veritatem. Debnit ergo et dolorem suscipere, ut vinceret tristitiam, non excluderet; neque enim habent fortitudinis laudem qui stuporem magis vulnerum tulerint quam dolorem; homo enim in plaga et sciens, inquit, ferre infirmitates (Is. 3,3). Nos vult erudire, ut mortem vincere disceremus (in Luc. lib. 10 n. 56; M. 15,1818). Atque S. Aug. : hos humanae infirmitatis affectus sicut ipsam carnem infirmitatis humanae ac mortem carnis humanae Dominus non conditionis necessitate, sed miserationis vomntate suscepit; ut transfiguraret in se corpus suum quod est Ecclesia, cui caput esse dignatus est, hoc est membra sua in sanctis et fidelibus suis , ut si cui eorum inter humanas tentationes contristari et dolere contingeret, non ideo se ab eius gratia putaret alienum, et non esse ista peccata, sed humanae infirmitatis indicia, tamquam voci praemissae concuiens chorus, ita corpus eius ex ipso suo capite addisceret (in Ps. 87 n. 3). Cernit S. lustinus in nervo femoris lacob qui emarcuit (Gen. 32,25) typum tristitiae qua Ghristus timore supplicii quasi emarcuit et in poena et infirmitate erat constitutus (c. Tryph. n. 125).. Et quam ingens sit animae Chris ti afflictio , consternatio , horror, ipso habit u et voce deprecantis satis declarator
26:39
v. 39 et progressus pusillum procidit in faciem suam, id quod alias eum fecisse non legitur, sed ut vehementissime et impensissime precaretur, pronus super terrain in faciem procidit, orans et dicens : Pater mi, vox est blandientis (S. Hier.), teneri affectus ', apta ad magis sollicitandum. affectum paternum et ad conciliandam gratiam exordium consentaneum (Maid. Sylv.} ; ea quippe voce et amor paternus et filii dignitas declaratur quo utroque titulb quis maior, efficacior, dignior excogitari possit cui exauditio concedatur? si possibile est transeat a me calix iste ; ventmtamen non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu; calix iste perpessiones sunt et supplicia quae Ghristi aninio pbversantur et quae ei tolerandaproxime imminent; de calicismetaphora vide 20,22. Tantam itaque ex visis illis suppliciis percipit consternationem et tantum in se experitur naturae humanae horrorem ac repugnantiam , tantas animae angustias summamque acerbitatem, ut in ilia colluctatione efflagitet a Patre , ut si fieri possit non debeat tot ac tantos subire cruciatus , quos insuper ad cumulum aerumnarum pro multis fore inutiles ho.minum culpa et ingratittidine praevidet. Ex hac precatione discimus in quantum dolorum pelagus anima Christi fuerit immersa, quot et quantis tribulationum fluctibus obruatur, ufc vere dici debeat : intraverunt aquae usque ad animam meam ; infixus sum in limo profundi ; veni in altitudinem maris et tempestas.demersit me (Ps. 68,2. 3). Scit utique Ghristus decretum Patris, optime novit debere se pati neque aliter impleri posse oracula prophetarum neque ullo paoto potuit oblivisci vel esse immemor se iam in primo vitae suae bumanae momento sese Patri obtulisse animo promptissimo ad omnia haec perferenda et se pertotam vitam magna alacritate et ferventi desiderio exoptasse redemptionem generis humani eo perficere modo quo Patri placuerit constituere ; at plane istud ipsum quod haec omnia scit et nihilominus ilia ei quasi extorquetur vox, nobis certissimo est testimonio, quantis angustiis acerbitatibtisque eius concussa sit et ex- . cruciata anima. DeprimaVerbiincarnati oblatione videHebr. 10,5seq. Sed noscens vim et efficaciam orationis suae qua possit a Patre impetrare id quod absolute fieri posset, statim subdit acquiescens benep^acito Patris : verumtamen non sicut ego volo , sed sicut tu, factus scil. obediens usque ad mortem; prius quidem mortem exhorruit ac defugere est visus; at statim velut resumptis animis audacter earn suscipit et priorem orationem rescindit (uti Joquitur Petavius, de Incarnatione 9,9. 5). Nam secundum quod coepit pavere ac tristari, secundum illud et orat calicem passionis transire, a se,; sed non sicut "vult, sed sicut vult Pater; suscipiens enim naturam carnis humanae ornnes proprietates implevit, ut non in phantasia carnem habuisse. existimaretur, sed in veritate , secundum quod in hoc loco orat calicem passionis transire a se, sed non sicut vult ipse, sed sicut vult Pater. Quoniam propriumestomnishominisMelisprimum quidem nolle pati aliquid doloris, maxime quod ducit usque ad mortem ; si autem sic voluerit Deus, acquiescereetiam contra voluntatem suam (Oriff.). Locus classicus hie est quo contra haeresin Monotheletarum probabatur in Christo esse veram quoque voluntatem humanam (cf . Pelavms, de Incarnat. 9,6). Quare non est dicendum cum aliquibus Christum solum in appetitu sensitivo tristitiam percepisse et desiderium carnis explicare partisqueinferioris mortem fugiendi, cumdicat : transeata mecalixiste. Nam hoc desiderium nunc vocat id quod ipse vult : sicut ego volo. Unde bene notat Maid, : Ghristus animam suam usque ad mortem tristem esse affirmat, quo verbo ostendit omnes animae suae partes occupasse et dicens : non sicut ego volo (vel ut alius evangelista habet : non mea voluntas, sed tua fiat) hand obscure significat se etiam voluntate quae superior animae pars est fuisse tristatum mortemque refugisse . De qua re vide Sunrez de Incarnatione disp. 38 sect. 3; et Thomas 3 p. qu. 18,5. 6; qu. 21,3. debemus , Deum in oratione Patrem vocando , ei nos humiliter prosternendo, rationabilia postulando, nostramque voluntatem divinae in omnibus subiiciendo (DioncL Lap. Sylv. Meschler). Petrus et loannes eo die occupati fuerant in praeparanda coena paschali ; iam erat multa nox ; insuper habitu , vultu , voce Christ! ipsis quoque tristitia et moeror gignebatur ; his vero causis gravis produci solet somnus; eo quoque discipuli immemores admbnitionis Ghristi se occupari sinebant et abripi
26:40
v. 40 et venit ad discipulos suos et invenit eos dormientes et dicit Petro : sic non potuistis una hora vigilare me cum? cum Petrum alloquatur et eos de neglecta admonitione suaviter reprehendat, patet solum tres illos intelligi discipulos, de quibusv. 37.38. Ad Petrum autem dirigit obiurgationem , subobscure coargnens eum de iis quae dixerat : vigilare non potuisti mecum et pro meanimam tuam pones (S. Chrys. Eitth.^Petms enim, ut ait S. Thorn., magis se iactaverat quod assisteret ei in necessitatibus (similiter Bed. Dion. Fad. lans. Maid.}, et cum eo aliorum quoque redarguit infirmitatem , qui cum mori se. velle cum illo professi sint v. 35, dolenti condolere non poterant vigilantes sed somno victi sunt. Quare illud mecum non caret emphasi. Voluit enim Iesus eos etiam habere socios et quasi consolatores'sui angoris efc mperoris v. 38 ; lain ne istud quidem levamen ei praebuerunt,; viderant eum maxime tristem et afflictum, ergo erat amicorum eius desiderio et admonitioni eo promptius et alacrius obsequi. Quamdiu Christus oraverit , ex una hora definiri nequit, cum una hora adhibeatur etiam indeterminate pro notione brevis temporis (cf. Apoc. 17,12; 18,10. 17.19) ; immo Maid, putat voluisse Christum ut discipulorum exaggeraret negligentiam brevissimum tempus desig'nare : non potuistis momentum temporis mecum vigilare? nee propterea tamen indicari se per unum tantum momentum orasse , sed dici ita per exaggerationem. Existimat Euth. OUTW?; sic? per modum interrogationis esse legendum et ad Petrum speciali modo dictum , ut pudore eum afficiat eumque obiurget tamquam magis temerarium : sic te promisisti facturum? Idem vult Maid., ut habeatur interrogatio duplex : sic? non potuistis? i. e. itane parati estis ut pro me moriamini? et non potuistis una hora vigilare mecum? et-eo modo etiam edidit Hentenius : sic? At reliqui omnes particulam ad sequentia trahunt, eo solum discrimine quod plerique explicent siccine, alii, uti Weiss, adeo non potuistis, tanta erat vestra infirmitas? pr out Marc. 7,18 : adeo imprudentes. estis? et cf. 1 Cor. 6,5. Quantopore sua ipsorum causa necesse sit vigilare et vigilantes orare graviter eos monet
26:41
v. 41 vigilate et orate, ut non intretis in tentationem; vigilare oportet, ait Alb. , contra malum insidians, orare ut detur bonum promovens. Quamvis hoc loco vox intelligatur sensu proprio , ut vigiles maneant , somnolentiam excutiant , curent sollicite uta somno se defendant, tamen merito ex una actionum specie quae iis necessaria erat turn temporis et quam curam Christus recommendabat, infertur documentum generale omnibus proposi turn, ut mgilent i. e. cauti sint ac solliciti et circumspect! atque assidui ad praecavenda pericula, ad removenda peccatorum incitamenta , ad praevidendas et discutiendag artes et fraudes eorum qui ad peccandum allicere student. Praeter hanc vigilantiam adhibere oportet studium et subsidium orationis ad opem Dei implorandam eiusque promerendam gratiam. Est iiiaque vigilandum et orandum, ut non veniamus in tentationem; etae^OeTv dq TretpaG^ov multi quidem explicant succumbere tentationi ac vinci (cf. Orig. Hier. Bed. Pasch. Br. Alb. Cai. Dion. lans. Lap. Lamy , Fil.}, sed bene S. Thorn, ad explanandam dictionem nos remittit ad id quod supra 6,13 in oratione communi edocti simus petere : et ne nos inducas in tentationem. Et certe inducere in tentationem et intrare pari ratione non de ipsa clade et casu, sed de tentatione qua pulsamur et sollicitamur intelligere oportebit. Ita multos intelligere ac si dicatur : ut non tentemini , refert Orig. et eo mode concipumt Maid. Schegg, Bisp. Schanz; nam, ut Maid, advertit , verba ipsa significant in tentationem non incurrere ; hoc enim iubemur a Deo petere conscii infirmitatis nostrae, non solum ut pericula superemus, sed etiam ne in pericula veniamus ; tutius est non pugnare quam vincere; hoc enim sensu oramus Deum, ne nos inducat in tentationem . Sed cum dicatur tva pi etc. non primo et per se id exprimitur quod sit efflagitandum , sed quo fine et qua intentione Deus sit orandus. Atque hanc admonitionem Christus fulcit adclita ratione : spiritus quidem promptus est, caro autem infirma; quam promptus sit spiritus, Petrus et reliqui discipuli manifestabant cum profiterentur se nunquam recessuros a Domino et cum paratos se exhiberent cum eo in carcerem et mortem ire v. 35. Animus itaque et voluntas fortiter.. agendi et optima quaeque ac nobilissima amplectendi non deest; at caro i. e. appetitus sensitivus, carnis afFectus naturalis timet et fugit summopere persecutionem , passionem , mortem ; quare ad haec superaiida infirm us et imbecillis est. Ut igitur vires adsint ad hanc carnis infirmitatem superandam et ut ea infirmitate non ipse spiritus infirmeturet a bono proposito misere excidat opus est oratione, qua vires illae necessariae coelitus impetrentur. Monet itaque Ghristus ne quis sibi propterea corifidat quia animum suum promptum et alacrem sentire sibi videatur ad omnem virtutem, verum memor sit fragilitatis carnis quaetempore tentationis vel metii vel volupfcate fervorem spiritus exstinguat; itaque dicamus cum S. Hier., quantum de ardore mentis confidimus, tantum de carnis fragilitate timeamus. Proinde hac sententia docet Christus et probat quam opportune , immo quam necessario adhortetur ad vigilantiam et orationem , quern nexum plerique adstrutmt (cf. 5. Chrys. Hil. Hier. Paseh. Br. Alb. Thorn. Dion. Cai. lans. Maid. Lap. Sylv. Am.- Schanz, Fil.}. Alitertamen connectit Theoph. quern sequitur Schegg , ea soil, sententia discipulos somno abreptos excusari a Domino atque reprehensionem imminui : venia vos dig'nos habeo quia non propter contemptum obdormiveritis, sed propter, infirmitatem (Theoph.}. Utrumque nectendi modum iungit lans. : hac autem sententia ut catisam reddit exactae vigilantiae et orationis, ita simul mitigat reprehensionem somnolentiae ipsorum . Non posse autem spiritum intelligi neque de spiritu Ghristi neque de tentatore diabolo satis obvium est ; ad discipulos enim, ut S. Hil. ait, hie sermo conversus est. Atque ipse Dominus exemplo orationis in rerum angustiis et animi ang-oribus fundendae instantius et constantius nobispraeit, sicut modo ostendit ac docuit suo exemplo etiam in summis aerumnis non esse omittendam curam et sollicitudinem eorum qui nobis commissi simt;
26:42
v. 42 iterum secundo abiit et oravit die ens : Pater mi, si non potest hie calix transire nisi bibam ilium, integrum, usque ad faecem et talem qualis mihi mine obversatur cum omnibus horroribus, suppliciis, cum ilia quoque populi mei et multorum ruin a, pr quibus passio sine fructu, immo in maiorem quoque damnationem futura est, fiat vohmtas tua; nemo enim negabit Christum qua hominem desiderasse, ut passio sua apud omnes salutis effectum nanciscatur, ut vi mortis et sanguinis sui omnes suppliciis inferni in posterum eripiantur; at si id ex ordinariaDei providentia fieri nequeat, quia Deus secundum cursum ordinarium voluntates rebelles homi- ' num non ad se gratia abundantissima compellere solet , etiam se huic voluntati Dei acquiescere plena submissione profitetur. Eandem submissionem .denuo testatur de mensura , gravitate , duratione perpessionum, quae utique absolute alia eaque minor fieri posset. Proinde, uti sua oratione significat quam acerbus sit calix passionis, ita simul maxima humilitate et obedientia se solum Patris beneplacito obsequi velle protestatur. Se etenim talem exhibet servum Domini qualem Isaias descripsit : Dominus Deus aperuit mihi aurem , ego autem non contradico, retro rsum non abii (50,5). Oratione per aliquod tempus facta
26:43
v. 43 venit iterum et-invenit eos dormientes; erant enim oculi eorum gravati; prae luctu enim et tristitia opprimebantur somno , utLuc. 22,45 innuitur. Apposite dicitur oculos eorum fuisse oneratos, |3e6apvi[/.evoi ; quis enim non expertus est somnolentiam quasi pondere quodam palpebras premere et reddere graves, ita ut homine etiam invifco claudantur? Commiseratione de eorum fatigatione tactus eos non reprehendit , sed
26:44
v. 44 relictis illis, iterum abiit; nam : circumspexietnon erat auxiliator ; quaesiviet noQ fuitqui adiuvaret (Is. 63,5), et sustinui qui simul contristaretur et non fuit et qui consolaretur et non inveni (Ps. 68,21). Quod enim modo hue modo illuc ibat, animi quoque est anxii et amaritudine et dolore oppleti ; venit ad discipulos quasi quaerens more humano levamen et consolationem ; illi vero somnolentiam excutere non valent neque id solaminis ei praebent, ut oratione se arment contra pericula ipsis imminentia. Quae eorum incuria, qua quasi inermes summo obviam eunt discrimini , Ghristo quoque dolori fuit. Redit Dominus tertio ad brationem : et oravit tertio eundem sermonem dicens; perse verantiam orationis nosdocet, qua demum efficax auxilium impetretur. Tertio in eandem sententiam orat, idem petit quod antea; eadem animi submissione se omnia secundum Patris beneplacitum suscepturum spondet. Quaerunt curter oraverit, nee plus nee minus. Explicant id ex quadam numeri ternarii perfectione et ex eius usu in s. litteris frequenti (cf. Maid. Lap. Sylv. qui libro 8 cap. 2 qu. 15 sex affert rationes) . Christus autem oratione finita et confortatione accepta quae est semper merces orationis cum debita submissione constantis
26:45
v. 45 tune venit ad discipulos suos et dicit illis : dormite iam et requiescite; cum antea discipulos iusserit vigilare , nunc mirum videtur quod ita ad eos loquitur. Quare verba haec aliter ab aliis explicantur. Explicatio quae et a plerisque proponitur et quam maxime probabile est , petitur iam a S. Augustino ex eo quod Marc. 14,41 post ea verba inseritur sufficit; unde colligit s. doctor Christum permisisse discipulis, ut dormirent quiete et vires colligerent; dein facto aliquo temporis spatio, cum videret appropinquantem turbam cum proditore , dixisse : sufficit, ecce appropinquat hora etc.; vide S. Aug. de cons, ev. 3,4 11 (M. 34,1165). Vult itaque Christus ut discipuli qui expergefacti sunt cum ad eos accederet nunc aliquid somni et quietis capiant, ut ita dormiant ut revera quiescant et vires reficiant neque enim omnis somnus est revera quies antequam magna ilia perturbatione ac terrore percellantur. Simili modo concipiunt Bed. Pasch. Alb. Thorn. Fab. Cai. lans. Lap. Schegg , Bisp. Fit. P.; permittit itaque eos dormire; atcjui tune vigilare opus erat; sed ostendit ipsos ne conspectum quidem malbrum facile laturos, sed fugandos esse prae terrore , neque se illorum auxilio egere et tradi se omnino oportere (S. Chrys.}', cum enim videret eos iam non posse suam exsequi monitionem et mox esse fugam captures , ab ulteriore adhortatione abstinere voluit (Schanz}. Cum autem appropinquaret proditor, eos a somno et quiete excitat : ecce appropinquamt hora et Films hominis tradetur in manus peccatorum ,
26:46
v. 46 surgite, eamns; ecce appropinquamt qui me tradetl ipsis verbis declaratur animi fortitude et alacritas , qua Christus oratione ad Patrem facta et coelesti consolation e confortatus et recreatus obviam it suae passioni et calicem a Patre propinatum accipit. Iam enim victoris ac triumphantis instar exclamat adesse momentum illud quo potestati tenebrarum permittatur in se furere. Peccatores quorum arbitrio iam traditur principes sunt sacerdotum et pharisaei qui iam dudum mortem eius machinabantur; insigni quodam modo vocantur peccatores, cum ut duces populi electi Messiam perdere et exterminare studeant. Nam quae maior apostasia cogitari potest quam ut illi ipsi quibus primo et per se Messias est missus eum occidant, cuius adventus tot institutis divinis praeparabatur et tot miraculis et impletione oraculorum sacrorum proclamabatur? lure quoque praecipuo appellantur peccatores propter blasphemiam in Spiritum sanctum (12,31.32), qua commissa quis est et manet peccator in sempiternum quasi nota inusta quae iam nequeat deleri. Dein omni excusso timore , omni abiecta trepidatione in modum imperatoris certi de victoria. insigni, surgite, inquit, eamus, obviam soil, iis qui me capturi sunt : ecce iam adest proditor! etiam ' hie ostendit se pati voluntarie ; praesciens enim eos qui cum proditore venirent hon fugit, sed potius in occursum eorum exire festinat (Euth.}. plane abhorrere videtur et ab eius animo adeo benigno et praesertim ab eo animi habitu sollemni quo nunc oratione peracta o.bviam it passioni. Unde etiam reiiciendam puto aliarn explicationem qua verba graeca accipiuntur per modum interrogalionis cum exprobratione : iamne dormitis etrequiescitis (Weiss] 1 Neque placet quod aliis placuit(Arw. Mansel] Xotrcov interpretari in posterum : postea, alio tempore dormite ; nunc vero non est tempus somni; vel : poslhac dormire pro lubitu poteritis; iam non erit occasio vigilandi mecum; adest proditor. Eiusmodi.enim sententia potius inanis est verborum sonus et fere de trivio petita. Nam quis sibi persuaserit gravissimo illo temporis momento Christum nihil habuisse sollemnius quod diceret quam eos posse in posterum dormire? quo quid magis esse posset inutile et absurdum?
26:47
v. 47 adhuc eo loquente ecce ludas unus de duodecim venit (unus-de duodecim , dicit evangelista admirans quod licet ex primis et electis esset, diabolo se tradidit Theoph.; non erubescit dicere verum , Chrys. Euth. notant) et cum eo turba multa cum gladiis et fustibus missi a principibus sacerdotum et senioribus populi i. e. a synedrio; illud missi est interpretamentum , quo bene explicatur turbam venisse a synedrio i. e. eius mandate et instigatione. Etiam complures synedristas venisse et Luc. 22,52 et ipsa rei gravitate constat et verbis Christi v. 55 omnino suadetur. Veniunt quoque cum laternis et.facibus (loan. 18,3) bene providiscil. si forte luna plena nubibus obtegeretur. Magnum adhibent apparatum turbamque armatam; adhuc itaque tinaent a multitudine eorum qui Christum ante paucos dies tanta gaudii studiique significatione exceperant sollemniter in urbem ingredientem. Proditor quoque provide agit in partem utramque; signum dat quo Dominum tradat hostibus , at tale signum quo coram discipulis proditionem obtegat, cum quasi a negotio peracto (loan. 13,2*7 quod facis fac citius) redit ad magistrum eumque uti moris erat salutat
In v. 47 omittunt missi (cum graecis) dg 1 fuld med. In v. 49 pier cocld vulg have. ludas proditor Iesuni osculo tra,dit. Dominus praeposterum Petri fervorem compescit. Cum sineret se ligare discipuli omnes fugam capessunt. In urbe, in Antonia arce cohors pomana collocari solebat teste losepho (bell. iud. 5,5. 8 : X^O^CTTQ ETC' auTvis Tayp.a 'Pco(/.auov , quocum concordat Act. 21,31); diebus autem festis copiae quoque militares variis in locis ad portions templi stantes cum armis populum 'observabant ut si quid tumultus vel rebellionis excitaretur statim comprimerent (cf. losephusl. c. et 2,12. 1 evorcloi ael rac eopira? 7rapa<piiA^T- TOUGIV, Antiq. 20,5. 3; 8. 11) et ipse quoque procurator a Caesarea in Jerusalem tempore pascliali se conferre solebat, quo facilius in motus populares invig-ilaret. Cum loan. 18,3. 12 r\ airefpa, cohors, 6 j^tAtap^os qui erat cohorti praefectus et ministri pontificum et sacerdotum commemorentur, plerique censent synedristas etiam a magistratu romano postulasse milites , qui interessent expedition! ad Iesum capiendum, ut sell, si Tieret tumultus et Galilaei aliique asseclae Iesu eum defendere conarentur, omnis eiusmodi conatus per milites ro- ' manos reprimeretur. Insuper sperari poterat sola militum romanorum praesentia efficaciter cobiberi omnem defensionem Iesu. Immo in provinciis Romanorum lege statutum erat ne quis inscio maglstratu romano in custodiam daretur (cf. Langen p. 21.7). Quare sententia ilia omnino esse certa videtur. Earn utique aliqui reiiciunt, inter quos Ollivier^. 89 seq. quoque, qui cohortem et tribnnnm de ordinariis templi custodibus eorumque praefecto intelligunt. At cum et nomina ipsa cohorti romanae eiusque duci conveniant , cum insuper loan. 18,3. 12 cohors et tribunus distihguantur a ministris qui soli a pontificibus et pharisaeis accepti esse dicuntur, et praeterea ad seditionem coercendam tutius esset romanos habere milites, non video cur ilia sententia merito possit impugnari. Neque est improbabile etiam synopticos qui turbam cunj gladiis et fustibus venisse scribunt mentione gladiorum designare milites. Quam vere dixerit Christus discipulis i^ou -/iyytxev etc. statim apparet
26:48
v. 48 qui autem tradidit eum, dedit illis signum, e^toxev non opus est per moclum plusquamperfecti explanare , uti bene versione latina ostenditur ; concipi autein potest ut id quod antea dederat simplici narrationis forma referatur, dicens : quemcumque osculatus fuero, ipse est, tenele eum; milites ex cohorte romana lesnm facie non cognoscebant ; etsi ex ministris pontificum complures vel omnes eum forte cognoscebant, tamen tutius erat propter obscuritatem eum signo certo et claro demonstrare , quia facile epat pro luda qui tamdiu cum Iesu proxime et familiariter egerat eum statim agnoscere etiam in obscuritate et umbra, valde autem difficile pro aliis qui raro vel solum e longinquo eum viderant. Veterator ille et hypocrita voluit, ut Orig. Hier. notant, reverentiam quandam ad magistrum servare vel potius simulare, non audens manifeste in eum irruere et impudenter profiteri se proditorem magistri. Qua enim erat vafritie consultum duxit scelus suum saltern coram discipulis dissimulare ; nota studium malitiae et dolum ; studium, in hoc quod signum dedit; dolum, in hoc quod non aperte videretur eum persequi sed ex confidentia familiaritatis accedere ad osculum amoris (Alb.)
26:49
v. 49 et confestim accedens ad Iesum dixit : ave rabbi; et osculatus est eum xaTeptV/)<jev i. e. deqsculatus , diu multumque vel impense osculatus est eum; amoris pignore, ut*S. Ambrosius ait , vulnus infligit et caritatis officio sanguinem fundit et instrumento pacis mortem irrogat; servus dominum, discipulus prodit magistrum, electus auctorem (in Luc. lib. 10 n. 63). Non erat inusitatum , ut in signum amoris et reverentiae discipulus oscularetur magistrum ; x a ^P e > ave ; salutatio apud ludaeos consueta erat "|S DlS "a pax tibi vel salus tibi (cf. lud. 6,23 ; 19,20 etc. ; vide Buxtorf, Lexicon chald. p. 2424). Egit ludas simili modo quo olim loab , qui dixit ad Amasam : salve mi frater, et tenuit manti dextera mentum Amasae quasi osculans eum et percussit eum gladio in latere et effudit intestina eius in terrain (2 Reg 1 . 20,9. 10; lans.};
26:50
v. 50 dixitque illi Iesus: amice, ad quid venisti? eraipe; vide 20, 13; 22,12; compeHatione miti excipit proditorem ei tamen scelus in memoriarn revocans; ludas autem cum tantum accepisset documentum virtutis eius et benignitatis et mansuetudinis omni tamen permansit fera crudelior (Euth.} . Notat Euth. ecp' <b non esse per interrogationem legendum, sed enuntiative : id propter quod advenisti iuxta intentum tuum operare relicto velamento, sermone soil, et osculo ; eodem modo explica quod in aliquibus codicibus vulg. legitur : ad quod venisti fac. lam quomodo e<p' o concipiendum sit, discrepant. Censent aliqui in graecitate posteriore etiam relativum quandoque poni pro pronomine interrogationis in directa interrogatione (cf. Winer 1. c. 24 n. 4; Arn. Fil. P.}: unde ad quid venisti? a qua explicatione baud multum distat quod habet Theoph. e<p' w (ita enim legit cum S. Chrys. etc.) avrt TOU, em Tttucp GX.OTCW Trips t svrauOa; qua intentione, ad quern finem hie ades? Alii vero hunc usum relativi negant; uncle reddunt: ad quod venisti (uti habent codices vulg. plerique; vide lect. var.) et sententiam incompletam supplent : ad quod venisti, nuni nescio? nonne praedixi (cf. Schegg , Schanz^l vel fac, ita ut osculailla mendacia Christus declaret et repudiet ( Weiss] ; alii per exclamationem vertunt : ad qua- . lemremperpetrandamades(cf.Buttmann139,59).Putat J 6/55(p.l72) excidisse post kwlpe. alpe vel solum legendum esse : sume ad quod ades. Aliquibus omissis quae Luc. 22,48 etloan. 18,4-9 referuntur, evangelista breviter prehensionem Ghristi enarrat : tune accesserunt et manits iniecerunt in Iesum et tenuerunt eum; quod videntes discipuli quaerunt : Domine si percutimus in gladio? Petrus vero solito fervore neqiie response exspectato gladio percutit servum quendam pontificis, nomine Malchum (loan. 18,10). Remnarrat evangel istatacito nomine; cur tacuerit, inquirunt. Ne Petrus innotesceret adversariis tamquam qui auctoritati Romanorum et syeedrii restitisset, aliqui existimant; eo autem tempore quo loannes scripserit eiusmodi periculum iam non exstitisse. Verum satius erit dioere nos nescire cur tacuerit. Si enim periculum timendum erat, id non cavebatur cum referretur unum ex discipulisvi obstitisse auctoritati;
26:51
v. 51 et ecce units ex his qui erantcum lesit extendensmanum exemit gladium suum et percutiens servum principissacerdotumamputavitauriculam ez'wsadduntLuc. etloann. dexteram; est ferventis iilius animi opus TYJ<; yap aurou 6ep(j.oV/iTo? $v TO Trpaypx (5. Chrys.}', Petrus more suo ex fervore iidei .et caritatis quam semper habebat in Dominum , ex aviditate defensionis pii magistri et maiore pro Domino commotione et qui necdum ad plenum sciebat sacramentaDei etimpulsus ad vindictam percussit (5. Pasch.}, studio quidem et zelo imprudent!. Quid enim pauci contra turbam efficerent armatam? et tot miraculorum omnis generis testis obliviscitur potentiae Christi ad se liberandum si vellet neque secum recogitat quoties Ghristus significaverit se sponte obviam ire passioni. Gum percuteret gladio, certe caput servi qui proxime apud eum manus iniecit in Iesum petere voluit ; verum sive ille capitis motione ictum paululum declinavit, sive Petro prae festinatione ictus deerravit, non caput diffmdit, sed aurem laedit. Yidetur ex- Luc. 22,51 auris etiam post ictum in capite haesisse. Frequenter apud LXX ponitur ojtiov pro bebr. ]ik auris (Deut. 15,17. 1 Reg. 9,15; 20,2. 13. 2 Reg. 22,45. Amos 3,12. Is. 50,4 etc.); praeterea notum est plerisque corporis partibus formam tribui diminutivam dialecto vulgari. Quare auriculam de ima auris parte interpretari non oportet. Voce (AK^aipa designari solet gladius minor, ensis , culter maior aliquantulum incurvatus (etiam hebr. nSsND ilia voce vertitur Gen. 22.6. 10. Ind. 19,29; alias ain). lam S. Chrys. miratur quod glaclios gestaverint discipuli ; sed nndenam ibi gladii erant? ex coena et mensa egressi f uerant ; verisimile atitem est ibi gladios f uisse propter agnum (qui mactari et secari clebuit). Hinc cum audissent ipsum a quibusdam invadendum esse gladium sumebant, lit pro magistro pugnar'ent, quod ex illorum tantum proposito factum est . Verba Christi Luc. 22,36-38 in eum sensum intellexerunt, ut gladios secum sumerent. Ghristus autem Petri conatum reprimit et reprehenclit
26:52
v. 52 tune ait illi Iesus : converte gladium tuum in locum suum; omnes enim qui acceperint gladium gladio peribunt i. e. qui sibi ins gladii arrogant, qui sese ulciscuntur (Bed. Br. Rab. Alb.}, qui noniure gladium portant, uti magistratus (Rom. 13,4), sed sibi eum sumunt propria auctoritate, hi simili supplicio digni sunt qui intereant. Modus loquendi est proverbialis , quo simul Petro significatur, quam inutilem rem ac nocivam aggressus sit; quid enim unus contra tantam valebit turbam? Sunt qui non tarn enuntiari velint.proverbium : per quae peccat quis, per haec et torquetur (Sap. 11,17), quam regulam et axioma iuris promulgatum Gen. 9,6 (of. Maid, similiter Cai. Calm. Arn, P. Weiss cf. Apoc. 13,10). Alii in verbo simul prophetiam contineri censent qua ludaeoruni principibus qui iniuste gladium arripuerint contra Dojninum interitus ex aequo animntietur gladio Romanorum (cf. Euth. Theoph. P. Keil). Cum sententia sit omnino generalis et unicuique qui propria auctoritate vim infert condigna poena indicetur, applicatio ad ludaeos facile colligitur. Declarat itaque Christus suam rem non esse agendam vi et gladio , neque tamen Petrum ea de causa reprehendit quia, uti Keil arbitrator, agnoverit ins magistratus iudaici se capiendi et occidendi. Hoc enim qua ratiorie fingi posset, cum lege divina tenerentur omnes prophetam a Deo approbatum audire eique obsequi- (Deut. 18,15. 19)? lam vero quot et quantis signis Iesus se probavit a Deo missum? unde plane absurd um est dicere synedrio ex sua parte et sententia ius fuisse animadvertendi in Iesum et Iesum tale ius agnovisse. . Praeterea dicit Petro se eius auxilio minime indig-ere
26:53
v. 53 an putas quia non possum rogare Patrem meum et exhibebit mihi modo plus quam duodecim legiones angelorum? i. e. si vellem me ab hac turba defendere , non indigerem duodecim apostolorum auxilio qui possum habere duodecim legiones angelici exercitus ; una legio apud veteres sex millibus complebatur hominuoi 1 ; ita S. Hier.; duodenarium numerum electum esse a Ghristo propter duodecim apostolos fere omues adnotant. Docent haec verba, si Ghristus absolute Patrem rogasset futurum fuisse ut oratio exaudiretur; quare addidit supra : sednonsiciit ego, sed sicut tu. Tantum autem commemorat numerum, quia, ut S. Chrys. dicit, secundum metum et infirmitatem eorum sermonem temperat; unus angelus centum octoginta quinque millia hominum armatorum olim occiderat (4 Reg. 19,35). Quam efficaciter itaque Christus iterum affirmat et demonstrat se libere passioni obviam ire? Demum tertio Petrum monet suam passionem fieri secundum voluntatem et orclinationem divinam
26:54
v. 54 quomodo ergo implebuntur Script urae quia sic oportet fieri? OTI quia indicat in Scripturis edicietpraenuntiari passionem; neque opus est supplere cum Euth. ypx<pou<jai vel "Xeyouacu (cf. Maid. Lap,}. Sensus haud multum mutatur, si on explicaveris : nam sic oportet fieri. In Scripturis mors violehta . Messiae praeclicitur ; spectari vaticininm Isaiae cap. 53 censent lans. P., id spectari et Dan. 9,26 Maid. Arn. Fil.; Ps. 21 et Is. 53 S. Hier. Pasch. Thorn., Ps. 108 Orig., Zach. 13, 7 Schegg. Male autem quandoque affertur Lament. 4,20, qui locus non de Christo agit , sed miseram Sedeciae regis sortem lamentatur (cf. Comment, in Dan. et Lament, p. 424 seq.) ; neque in rege Sedecia typus Christi erit quaerendus ; ille enim sua obstinatione et inobedientia sibi ipse' interitum ascivit. ; Haec quidem Ghristus discipulis loquitur triplici ratione dernonstrans cur nolit ab ipsis contra turbam defend! et iterum eos edocens et de sua potestate et libertate et de voluntate Patris et de oraculis prophetaruni. Igitur hisce ne repugnent, hisce acquiescant cum ipso. Deinde se ad turbam convertit et praeprimis synedristas perstringit
26:55
v. 55 in ilia hora dixit Iesus turbis : tamquam ad latronem existis cum gladiis et fustibus comprehendere me; quotidie apud vos sedebam docens in templo, id dirigi ad pontifices et pharisaeos et eo loquendi modo eos notari auctores istius expeditionis praesentes manifestum est ; nam neque milites romani neque tribunus neque ministri sacerdotum assidue apud eum versabantur docentem in templo. Quare aliqui recentiores rationalistae (Meyer] perperam dicunt Luc. 22,52 ex traditione posteriore eaque falsa esse ortum; et non me tenuistis; cum docerem, non tenuistis me; in templo eram et nemo invasit me; nunc autem intempesta hora et media nocte irruitis cum gladiis et fustibus? quid illis opus erat armis ad versus eum qui vobiscum semper erat? his docet, nisi se sponte tradidisset, nunquam potuisse capi (S. Chrys.}, Stultum est, inquit, eum cum gladiis et fustibus quaerere qui ultro se tradat vestris manibus , et in nocte quasi latitantem et a vestris oculis declinantem per proditorem investigare , qui quotidie in templo doceat ita 5. Hier. similiter Theoph.; praeterea intueri nos iubet Iesum Cai. qui scil. inter ludae osculum, lictores et discipulos singulis attendat , prospiciat singulis , ut intelligamus nihil in ipso fuisse turbulentum , sed serenissimum semper servasse animum , sermonem, gestum, motum ac universum ,suum opus. Repetito mentio fit hisce oracula prophetarum impleri
26:56
v. 56 hoc autem factum est , ut adimplerentur Scripturae prophetarum; Marc. 14,49 sermo Christi ad turbas ita refertur : quotidie eram apud vos in templo docens et non me tenuistis, sed ut impleantur Scripturae. Dicit itaque Ghristus se nunc capi ut ea in se fierent quae praedicta erant. Mors Messiae erat praenuntiata (Ps. 21. Is. 53. Zach. 12,10 ; 13,7); via ad earn. erat eius ab adversariis prehensio. Gum itaque apud Marcum sermo Domini ita concludatur, potest.videri etiam hie v. 56 ad Domini verba pertinere. Atque ita explicaat multi (cf. S. Chrys. Euth. Lap. Arn. Bisp. Schanz, Fil. P. Keil, Hansel] et eo modo demunl apte claudi sermonem Ghristi censent. Alii tamen ea verba ab evangelista additaesse censent (cf. lans. Sylv. Lamy, Scheyg et ut videtur S. Aug. quoque, de cons, evang. 3,5. 18). Id vero suadetur, quia ea legitur forma quae evangelistae familiaris est ad impletionem vaticiniorurp demonstrandam , uti 1,22 et 21,4. Neque obstat quod Marcus dicit; nam etiam apud Marcum Ghristus semel tantum, non bis, impletionis mentionem facit. Aliquid discriminis itaque in eo cernitur, quod Christus in sermone ad Petrum impletionem commemorat apud Matthaeum, apud Marcum autem ad turbam. Quod tamen discrimen nullum est, quia quae Christus Petro dixit etiam ab aliis qui aderant audita sunt. Et evangelista ex sua parte confirmat verba Christi. Gum autem Iesus'se traderet ligandiim, tune discipuli omnes relicto eo fugerunt; impletur sermo Domini qui dixerat quod omnes discipuli scandalizarentur in illo in ipsa nocte ; nam etsi turba permittente ad petitionem Domini fugerunt , ut loannes scribit, pavorem tamen et timiditatem suae mentis ostendebant, quod ad fugae praesidium promptiores quam fiducia patiendi cum Domino exstiterant (Rab.}. Inquirunt hoc loco nonnulli (curiosius fortasse) peccaverintne discipuli eo quod fugerint ; affirmant Salmeroni. 10 tract. 18, Sylv. Lap. peccasse venialiter; rem quoque discutit Suarez (in 3 p. qu. 46 disp. 34 sect. 3 n. 5) in hunc modum : respondeo breviter, si actum ilium externum secundum se et secundum occurrentes circumstantias per se consideremus , non vide ri actum de se malum, quia neque ipsi poterant defendere Christum nee debebant; sese autem obiicere morti aut comprehension! non erat eis specialiter praeceptum , quia non erant ipsi pro hominibus morituri, nee Ghristo erat eorum mors tune necessaria , neque etiam ad confitendam vel non negandam fidem erat necessarium non fugere. Quia fuga de se non est contra fidei confessionem , ordinatur enim ad vitam custodiendam , non ad explicandam mentem ; ergo non habebat ille actus , unde esset de se malus , maxime cum discipuli audiissent Christum dicentem : sinite hos abire. Dico autem per se, quia per accidens, aut ratione scandali aut ob conscientiam erroneam, aut si fortasse fuga ilia ex aliqua dubitatione in fide sen fiducia in Christum orta est, potuit in illo actu intervenire peccatum . Nonne etiam perturbationis mentis qua deliberatio impediebatur ratio erit habenda? unde fuga haec videri possit fuisse potius actus hominis quam actus humanus (ut scholae loquuntur) plena deliberatione et libertate factus.
26:57
v. 57 at illi tenentes Iesum duxerunt ad Caipham principem sacerdotum, erat idem qui consilium dederat expedire ut unus homo moriatui 1 pro populo (loan. 11,50; 18,14), unde Iesus ad eum iudicem adducitur apud quern iam res ante omnem iudicii formam constituta est, qui est idem et accusator et iudex, ufyi scribae et seniores convenerant, qui etiam antea iam statuerant Iesum occidere; cf. 26,4. Cum esset narratum Christum praedixisse negationem Petri, necesse quoque erat eius rei eventum referre. Quare evangelista iam hoc loco inserit Petrum mox fuga capta animum recepisse et sese ad palatium Caiphae contulisse v. SSPetrus autem sequebatur eum a longe usque in atrium principis sacerdotum, auV/i'v explica de palatio (cf. Schanz , P. Keil, Weiss}] nameum ingressum esse in atrium, ubi ministri sedebant, altero demum membro enuntiatur : et ingressus intro, sedebat cum ministris, ut videret ftnem ; Pefcrus igitur primo quidem terrore perculsus f ugerat ; at mox promissae suae fortitudinis memor et amore Iesu incitatus de fuga capta erubescens gressus retraxit ; et in hoc, ait S. Hier., diversitas decem discipulorum et Petri; illi fugiunt, iste quamquam procul sequitur tamen Salvatorem. Si autem idem s, doctor scribit : vel amore discipuli vel humana curiositate scire cupiebat quid iudicaret de Domino pontifex , certe curiositatem earn amore ac studio Domini enatam esse censebimus ; immo S. Chrys. magnum fervorem discipuli in eo agendi modo laudat : T:O>.V/I YI Qepprvi? TOU (AaGyiToG, neque minus eum celebrat S, Ambr. : sed fortasse et in hoc nobis maxima sit admiratione reverendus , quod Dominum mon reliquit, etiam cum timeret; metus naturae l est, non pietatis. Alienum, quod timet; suum, quod non fugit. Quod sequitur, devotionis; quod negat, obreptionis. Commune, quod labitur; fidei, quod poenitet (similiter Bed. Pasch. Alb. lans. Lap.}. Cum solum exitum rei cognoscere vellet, utique satis iam animo exciderat fortissimum illud verbum : Domine, tecum paratus sum et in carcerem et in mortem ire (Luc. 22,33), animam meam pro te ponam (loan. 13,37). Praedictionis Domini iam non meminit animo rebus repentinis et inopinatis praeoccupato ; vel si meminit , adhuc suae fidit .virtuti vel se latere posse sperat. Quaestio instituebatur plane tumultuose ; neque id mirum quiaapud eos qui indices sedebant mors Iesu iam erat statuta. Sed ne speciem quidem veri iudicii servabant. Id quam maxime elucet, si normae illae iudicii instituendi consiclerantur quae a rabbinis statuuntur observandae. Secundum eas si agebatur de iudicio capitali primum oportuit inquiri in ea quae reurn a crimine immunem esse suaderent, neutiquam licuit incipere a condemnantibus ; proinde prius testes erant conquirendi et audiendi qui testimonium dicerent pro reo (cf. tract, de synedriis cap. 4; Surenh. IV. p. 225; Ugolinil. c. XXV p. 102). Dein antequam testes contra reum admitterentur, severe monendi erant de rei . gravitate ; inquirendum de eorum probitate, its terror incutiendus, ne quid ex coniectura aut rumore dicerent, etiamsi id ex ore testis aut hominis fide digni audisse se affirmarent. Dein admittebantur singuli ad testimonium quod a iudicibus stricte examinari oportuit; sed ita ut secundus testis nullo modo audiret quid prior testaretur. Testimonium legitimum tune solum erat, si duo testes in omnibus accurate Inter se congruerent. Scribae duo singula excipiebant. Testibus auditis et examinatis suffragia iudicum colligebantur. Sententia condemnatoria non eodem die, sed postridie prommtiabatur (cf. de synedriis cap. 4,1. 3. 5; cap. 5; Surenh. 1. c. p. 225-229). De tempore vero consessus traditur synedristas sedisse a sacrificio iugi matutino ad iuge vespertinum, sic ut eorum sessio et tempus cultus-divini nunquam coinciderent (cf. Ugolini 1. c. p. 1223). De loco autem consessus aliter alio tempore statutum esse refertur. Et primo quidem in conclavi gazith (vide supra p. 395 ) ; dein migrarunt in tabernas (nTOn, in conclavia quaedam in monte templi; cf. Euxtorfl. c. p. 793), dein in montem sanctuarii, id est, paulo longius a templo ; ex monte demum in urbem concessum fuit, in aliam urbis partem, in alium collem (cf. Ugolinil. c. p. 1148). Vide quoque de forma iudicii Friedlieb p. 87 seq., Wunsche p. 340; Ed. II p. 554. Incertum quidem est quaenam ex hisce tempore Christi iam sint observata , at plura ex iis ipso iure natural! et aequitate postulantur. Ea autem omnino esse neglecta in hac de Ghristo quaestione sine ulia controversia evidens est; unde patet de eo contra omnem iuris et recti normam esse actum ;
Iesum morti addicere synedristis duce Caipha iam din erat constitutum. Ut antem aliqua iudicii forma specie terms servetur conquirunt et subornant testes falsos. Qui tamen cum niliil sufficiens afferrent Caiphas adiuratione efficit ut Iesus se esse Christum Dei Filium palam profiteatur. Quare reus mortis declaratur et omni contumeliarum g-enere obruitur. Solus S. loannes narrat Iesum primum ad Ann am , socerum Caiphae, esse adductum et dein ad Caipham;
26:59
v. 59 principes autem sacerdotum et omne concilium i. e. quotquot ex synedristis convenerant; neque enim ad unum omnes adfuisse iam ex eo sequitur quod Joseph ab Arimathaea baud interfuit (cf. Luc. 23,51). Aliquorum nomina in medium affert Ollivier p. 131 (praeter Annam et Caipham quinque qui pontificatu functi erant, filios Annae etc.); quaerebant falsum testimonium contra Iesum ut eum morti traderent; cum mortem Iesu iam statuissent et solum umbram quandam et speciem iuris et iudicii praetenderent, omnino probabile est quod plerique censent <J^u#o{/.apTuptav dici ex mente et intentione synedristarum (cf. S. Br. Alb. Cai. lans. Lap. Schegg , Schanz, Fil.}. Nam optime sciebant crimina vera non posse imputari Iesu et cum tamen eum morti destinassent, testes falsos subornant noscentes et volentes falsas ab eis proferri criminationes. Unde falsum testimonium non videtur dici solum ex mente evangelistae (uti volunt Am. Ke.il, Weiss] , sed, uti Euth. quoque secundo loco explicat : cum scirent quod adversus innocentem veruni testimonium non invenirent, iam falsum exquirebant testimonium. Testes autetn pro reo non erant praesto '. Inexspectato enim Iesus erat captus; amici eius nihil de prehensione eius sciebant. nihil de iudioio; discipuli fuga eranfc dilapsi , et quis crediderit futurum fuisse ut a talibus iudicibus admitterentur et audirentur testes pro eo? Merito notat Orig. : mundissimam autem fuisse vitam Iesu et omnino irreprehensibilem et auferentem occasionem eormii qui quaerunt occasiones, ex hoc demonstratur, quia non inveniebant adversarii eius quod dicere possent adversus eum vel colorare (similiter S. Pasch.}
26:60
v. 60 et non invenerunt cum multi falsi testes accessissent ; en, quanta malitia multos subornarint et quanta perfidia! sed tanta fuit Iesu innocentia, ut difficile fuerit sic.de illo mentiri, ut inendacia veri haberent speciem; insurrexerunt in me testes iniqui et mentita est iniquitas sibi (Ps. 26,12; lans.}. Nihil igitur est inventum in omnibus illis testimoniis quo cum aliqua veri specie sententia mortis potuerit pronuntiari. Uti S. Pasch. refert, nonnulli codices praebuerunt : non invenerunt exitum; alii : non invenerunt in eo quidquam. Unum nobis specimen testium exhibetur : novissime autem venerimt duo falsi testes,
26:61
v. 61 et dixerunt: hie dixit: possum destruere templum Dei et post triduum reaedificare illud; erant falsi testes, ut S. Thorn, dicit, ratione vocis et ratione sig'nificationis. Neque enim dixit possum destruere; impietatem ergo solutionis templi non ipse promisit facere, sed illis qui fuerant apti ad huiusmodi opus commisit dicens : 'sol vite templum hoc; sibi autem quod reservavit id est : et in triduo suscitabo ipsum (Orig.}. Ceterum verba Christi non spectabant templum, id quod ludaeos non intellexisse nemo iis crimini vertet; cf. loan. 2,19. At ne hoc quidem testimonium , uti Marc. 14,59 dicitur, erat conveniens, ou^e OUTW; icvi -/iv /) [/.apropia auTwv; eratineptum et insufficiens , uti etiam in nostra narratione eo indicatur quod Caiphas statim aliam ingreditur viam ad crimen mortis reperiendum. Cur testimonium non fuerit conveniens, non refertur ; suspicantur aliqui testem unum usum esse verbis apud Matth. consignatis, alterum verbis apud Marcum, quae utique aliqua ratione inter se discrepant : possum destruere et ego destruam , templum Dei et templum hoc manut'actum, aedificabo et aliud non manufactum aedificabo. Sed existimo istis minutiis non potuisse induci indices illos testimonii legitimi cupidissimos, ut testimoniapronuntiarentnonconvenire. Sed fortasse i<r/i intelligi potest, uti volunt Maid. Lamy, testimonimn non erat aequale, sufficiens, idoneum, ut soil, aequaret votum pontificum quaerentium tale quod ad mortem valeret. Cum enim simul promitteretur aedificatio templi , res non poterat verti in contemptum cultus; dein neque quod dixit : possum destruere; nam Herodes quoque ut templum exornaret partes veteres destruxjt et destruere quod Herodes aedificavit fortasse apud multos non esset habitnm sacrilegium. Porro solum sibi arrogavit potentiam; ergo de iactanfcia potuit argui vel quod sibi artes tribueret magicas viresque altiores. Verum hisce sententia mortis nequibat superstrui, neque talis poterat fieri accusatio quae procuratorem roman'um induceret ad supplicium inferendum. Neque opus est ut pluribus inquiramus, cur hoc testimonium fuerit vel non conveniens vel etsi conveniens tamen ineptum. Nam nihil eo potuisse effici, ipse Caiphas, praeses iudicii, satis ostendit
26:62
v. 62 et surgens princeps sacerdotum , ira praeceps et impatiens non inveniens calumniae locum excutit de solio pontificem , uti vesaniam mentis motu corporis demon straret (S. Hier. Bed. Alb. Lamy, Schanz, P.] , ait illi : nihil respondes ad ea quae isti adversum te testiftcantur? T( outot etc.; potest itaque dictio graeca, uti iam Cat. habetet #/$.? p. 172 iubet, duas exhibere quaestiones : nihilne respondes? quid (quam gravia) isti adversum te testantur? qui loquendi modus certe ad animum commotum et iratum aptus est. Seel eadem dictio forsitan accipi potest, uti habetur in versione vulg. ; dicitur enim graece aTroxpivecyQai TI ad allquid respondere et TI poni potest pro o, TI (cf. Weiss j aliter Buttmann 1. c. p. 216 : nihil respondes (audiens) quid isti testentur); cum enim nihil afferretur ad crimen lesti imputandum quod inservire posset, iam nescit Caiphas quo se vertat. Testes omnes qui aderant dixerunt; nihil est effectum; quid nunc? res haeret; unde Caiphas, ut niolestum illud silentium interrumpat, yult aliquid ex ore Iesu elicere, quo inquisitio ulterior possit fieri vel quo magis onereturquaminani ilia criminatione. Parumper alio modo lans. : iudicavit quidem Caiphas apud se convenientia non esse illorum testimonia ; fortiter tamen illud dissimulavit et velut urgentia valde atque metuenda, ita de his interrogat ^
26:63
v. 63 Iesus aulem tacebat; inutilis enim responsio futura erat; figura quippe dumtaxat iudicii erat, sed revera latronum impetus (S. Chrys. Euth.} et quid opus erat illis respondere qui sibi ipsi contraria dicentes resistunt (On'^.)?Hoc silentium decebat maiestatem Iesu ; indices illi indigiii erant responsione et ad respondendum pro-' vocare volunt, ut ex qualibet occasione sermonis locum inveniant accusandi (S. Hier.}\ tacet quia totum sead mortem a Patre sibi decretam componebat (Lap.]. Quo silentii exemplo edocti sancti quoque calumnias patienter ferebant; cum consisteret peccator adversum me obmutui et humiliatus sum (Ps. 38,2. 3; Orig.}. Gaiphas ad incites redactus est hoc Christ! silentio. Eo autem silentio efficitur, ut tandem vera ilia ratio patefiat quare Iesum occidere stude.ant. Voluit enimdivina providentia, ut extra omnem controversial!! et excusationem poneretur Iesum se sollemniter declarasse Christum Filium Dei et idcirco a suo populo esse morti addictum. Cum itaque testimoniis illis undique cpnquisitis nihil esset perfectum et Iesus ad respondendum non cog 1 ! posset, iam nihil aliud restabat, quam ut . Caiphas earn poneret quaestionem cui responsum negari non posset et qua simul manifestum fieret cur eum vellent occidere ; et princeps sacerdotum ait illi : adiuro te per Deum vivum; proprie : facio te iurare per Deum vivum i. e. teadigo, ut sacramento iurisiurandi dicas iwbis, situ es Christus Filius Dei; de notione eopxieiv, V^ hiphil, vide Gen. 24,3, ubi Abraham servum seniorem iuramento adstringit, ut non accipiat uxorem filio suo de filiabus Chananaeorum ; Num 5,19. 3 Reg. 22,16. Proinde, ut S. Hil. dicit, Caiphas etiam sacramento an ipse Christus esset fidem quaerit. Est itaque modus vehemens aliquem obtestandi ; ad' rem notat Calm. : solebant per nomen Dei obtestari et iusiurandum exigere ab iis quorum scelus testibus aliave ratione cognosci non poterat; hac autem sollemni formula utebantur indices reum interrogates : da gioriam Deo; quod verum est eloquere, fatere crimen; is autem quern ita obtestati fuissent respondere et venum fateri debebat ; unaque illius confessio in dubiis rebus satis esse censebatur ut vel absolverent vel damnarent. Quamobrem tune Christus qui hactenus tacuerat pontifici respondet . Post talem adiurationem responsum dari sub iuramenti sacramento intelligebatur. Dicitur autem per Deum vivum, utpote qui sit testis et vindex omniscius et omnipotens, ut qui respondefc sciat per quern iuret et qui timendus sit. Quaerunt quo sensu hie dicatur a Caipha Filius Dei. Sunt qui censeant Caipham nullomodo de vero et natural! Filio Deipotuisse cogitare ( Wiinsche, Weiss] et Schegg quoque existimat Filium Dei ex mente synedristarum esse titulam Messiae qu-em tamen Messias communem habeat cum omnibus fidelibus (cf. Sap. 2, 13. 18; 5,1). Alii nomen hoc saltern eximio quodam moclo Messiae con venire ex Ps. 2,7 affirmant. Verum ne id quidem sufficere videtur. Nam Caiphas ignorare non poterat quod omnes sciebant Iesum ratione plane singular! Deum continue vocasse patrem suum et eo niodo de sua cum Deo unione , de sua operatione eadem cum Patre locutum esse , ut ludaei aperte intelligerent ac dicerent Iesum se facere aequalem Deo, se facere Deum (loan. 5,18; 10,33). Porro si pontifices dicunt Pilato : secundum leg'em debet mori quia Filium Dei se fecit, sole clarius est contra Schegg, illos non intellexisse appellationem eo modo quo omnibus conveniat (cf. loan. 19,6. 7). Gum igitur eum festo encaeniorum , ergo ante paucos menses , lapidare vellent , quia seipsum faceretDeum, quae posset esse ratio , utdiceremus, nunc , quando studiosissime quaerunt causam eum mortis damnandi illos noluisse quaerere ex eo num se appellaret verum Filium Dei, Filiura scil. naturalem qui esset ipse verusDeus.et ideo proprio sensu Films' Dei? Quare cum aliis tenendum est quaestionem poni de vero Filio Dei (cf. Euth. Alb. Maid. Fil. P. Keil, Ed.}. Id quoque confirmari videtur responsione Christi
26:64
v. 64 dicit illi Iesus : -f,u dixisti, quo affirmat clare et distincte et propter adiurationem factam affirmat iuramenti sacramento se esse Christum Filium Dei ; dicens autem tu dixisti, eodem sensu affirmare videtwr quo quaestio erat posita. Quaestio enim a Gaipha posita aequivalet huic : esne tu is qui dici debet Christus Filius Dei? et Christus respondet : is sum quern tu dicis. Ergo Christus affirmat se esse eum quern Caiphas dixerat. De dictione tu dixisti vide ad v. 25. Atque ne habeant excusationem sollemne testimonium suum repudiandi propter conditionem humilem in qua coram ipsis adstat, idem quern plurima miracula patrasse ignorare non possunt statim subdit de sua gloria et exaltatione tali qualem a David et Daniele propheta descriptam esse eos non latet : verum t amen , irV/iv (inservit haec particula orationis initio , ut quae dicta sunt explicentur et amplificentur, vel etiam restringantur ; hoc loco sane obtinet prius) dico vobis : amodo mdebitis Filium hominis sedentem a dextris mrtutis (Dei] et venientem in nubibus coe/z'/ itaque ea de se affirmat quae Ps. 109,1 et Dan. 7,13 dicuntur. Sedere a dextris virtutis ^uv^ew; i. e. rp^a quae vox etiam apud rabbinos adhibetur ad Deum praepotentem significanclum (cf. Buxtorf^. 385); ad dexteram Dei potentissimi sedere est regnare cum Deo et divinam manifestare potentiam. Videbunt itaque amodo i. e. mox, post brevissimum tempus videbunt et experientur documenta certissima Iesum regnare cum Deo et edere talia quibus eius divina potentia luculentissime pateat. Talia autem iis cognita fiebant resurrectione Ghristi, praedicatione et miraculis apostolorurn, fundatione et propagatione Ecclesiae quam frustra impedire conabantur, eversione urbis et templi quam praedixerat. In nubibus coeli iudex venire describitur ; venit iudex ad populum infidelem in omnes regiones expellendum ; venturus est iudex revera in nubibus coeli in consummatione saeculorum. Unde hisce duobus omnem gloriam et operationem explicat quam ingressus in regimm suum habiturus est. Ex loco Danielis etiam intelligitur, cur se vocet Filium hominis (vide supra I ad 8,20 et. Comment, in Daniel, p. 196), quamvis modo in tu dixisti (velegro sum, Marc. .14,62). se Filium Dei prof essus sit. Haec ultima sententiae pars de extreme, iudicio apte intelligitur (cf. 24,30) neque'tamen prior (uti volunt lans. Maid. Lap.}', nam obstat amodo. Dominus, quo declararet se pontificis etsi scelesti auctoritatem non contemnere et ut ludaeis omnem suae infidelitaiis praetextum amputaret, qui alioquin dicere poterant se credituros, si ille rogatus et adiuratus dicere voluisset quis esset, etsi sciretquam male ob veritatem esset tractandus , respondit aperte quod alias raro fecit se esse Christum; non simpliciter autem se esse Christum asseruit sed adiecit etiam efficacissimuni argumentum (lans.}. Quae eiusassertio eo evadit gravior quia tot antea miraculis se esse legatum Dei probavit et nunc talia quoque ad probationem in medium affert quae post brevissimum tempus vere ab eo esse dicta experimento cognoscere possunt. Unde omni ex parte redduntur inexcusabiles. Caiphas vero maximum quendam simulat dolorem et horrorem et luctum quod Dei gloriae et maiestati ingens iniuria sit illata v. 64 dicit illi Iesus : -t,u dixisti, quo affirmat clare et distincte et propter adiurationem factam affirmat iuramenti Sacramento se esse Christum Filium Dei ; dicens autem tu dixisti, eodem sensu affirmare videtiar quo quaestio erat posita. Quaestio enim a Gaipha posita aequivalet huic : esne tu is qui dici debet Christus Filius Dei? et Christus respondet : is sum quern tu dicis. Ergo Christus affirmat se esse eum quern Caiphas dixerat. De dictione tu dixisti vide ad v. 25. Atque ne habeant excusationem sollemne testimonium suum reptidiandi propter conditionem humilem in qua coram ipsis adstat, idem quern plurima miracula patrasse ignorare non possunt statim subdit de sua gloria et exaltatione tali qualem a David et Daniele propheta descriptam esse eos non latet : verumtamen, TT^VIV (inservit haec particula orationis initio , ut quae dicta sunt explicentur et amplificentur, vel etiam restringantur; hoc loco sane obtinet prius) dico vobis : venientem in nubibus coe/z'/itaque ea de se affirmat quae Ps. 109,1 et Dan. 7,13 dicuntur. Sedere a dextris mrtutis ^uvap-w; i. e. rniia quae vox etiam apud rabbinos adhibetur ad Deum praepotentem significanclum (cf. Buxtorf\>. 385); ad dexteram Dei potentissimi sedere est regnare cum Deo et divinam manifestare potentiam. Videbunt itaque amodo i. e. mox, post brevissimum tempus videbunt et experientur documenta certissima Iesum regnare cum Deo et edere talia quibus eius divina potentia luculentissime pateat. Talia autem iis cognita fiebant resurrectione Christi, praedicatione et miraculis apostoloruru, fundatione et propagatione Ecclesiae quam frustra impedire conabantur, eversione urbis et templi quam praedixerat. In nubibus coeli iudex venire describitur ; venit iudex ad populum infidelem in omnes regiones expellendum ; venturus est iudex revera in nubibus coeli in consummatione saeculorum. Unde hisce duobus omnem g-loriam et operationem explicat quam ingressus in regnum suum habiturus est. Ex loco Danielis etiam intelligitur, cur se vocet Filium hominis (vide supra I ad 8.20 et. Comment, in Daniel, p. 196), quamvis modo in tu dixisti (vel ego sum, Marc. 14,62). se Filium Dei professus sit. Haec ultima sententiae pars de extreme, iudicio apte intelligitur (cf. 24,30) neque'tamen prior (uti volunt lans. Maid. Lap.}' nam obstat amodo. Dominus, quo declararet se pontificis etsi scelesti auctoritatem non contemnere et ut ludaeis omnem suae infidelitaiis praetextum amputaret, qui alioquin dicere poterant se credituros, si ille rogatus et adiuratus dicere voluisset quis esset , etsi sciret quam male ob veritatem esset tractandus , respondit aperte quod alias raro fecit se esse Christum; non simpliciter autem se esse Christum asseruit sed adiecit etiam efficacissimum argumen turn (fans.). Quae eiusassertio eo evadit gravior quia tot antea miraculis se esse legatum Dei probavit et nunc talia quoque ad probationem in medium affert quae post brevissimum tempus vere ab eo esse dicta experimento cognoscere possunt. Unde omni ex parte redduntur inexcusabiles. Caiphas vero maximum quendam simulat dolorem et horrorem et luctum quod Dei gloriae et maiestati ingens iniuria sit illata
26:65
v. 65 tune princeps sacerdotum scidit vestimenta sua dicens : blasphemavit ; quid adhuc egemus testibus? ecce nunc audistis blasphemiam; ex eo quodstatim addit : quid adhuc egemus testibus? immediate et aperte prodit suam simulationem ; libenter, ut bene A.lb: monet, audivit verba Iesu ; ad incitas enim et angustias redactus quia tam egregie corruerant omnia testimonia, subito se cernit omni ereptum difficultati, immo speciosissima instructum causa, qua Iesum mortis "condemnet. Quoties antea conati su'nt Iesum capere in sermone? quoties vero ipsi capti sunt et cum confusione abire coacti? Erat itaque res aleae plena Iesum interrogare animo non sincere. Tanto magis autem nunc exsultat; nam quid adhuc etc. vox est gaudentis, quod post longam exspectationem compos voti sit effectus, uti apposite notant Salmeron (torn. 10 tract. 19) lam.; miro modo existimat Weiss dolorem Caiphae sincerumiuisse, ortum ex vera indignatione. Est consuetudinis iudaicae, ait 5. Hie)'., cum aliquid blasphemiae et quasi contra Deum audierint, scindere vestimenta sua, in signum luctus et doloris. Eo enim modo inter alia dolorem magnum significare solebant; ita lacob patriarcha luctu de loseph filio scidit vestimenta (Gen. 37,34), ita Thamar propter dolorem de iniuria illata (2 Reg. 13,19), ita legati Ezechiae regis propter verba Rabsacis (4 Reg. 18, 37) et ipse Ezechias rex (4 Reg. 19,1. Is. 37,1), ita lonathas summus intelligerent ac dicerent Iesum se facere aequalem Deo, se facere Deum (loan. 5,18; 10,33). Porro si pontifices dicunt Pilato : secundum legem debet mori quia Filium Dei se fecit, sole clarius est contra Schegg, illos non intellexisse appellationem eo modo quo omnibus conveniat (cf. loan. 19,6. 7). Gum igitur eum. festo encaeniorum , ergo ante paucos menses , lapidare vellent , quia seipsum faceretDeum, quae posset esse ratio, ut diceremus, nunc, quando studiosissime quaerunt causam eum mortis damnandi illos noluisse quaerere ex eo num se appellaret verum Filium Dei, Filium soil, naturalem qui esset ipse verus Deus ,et ideo proprio sensu Films' Dei ? Quare cum aliis tenendum est quaestionem poni de vero Filio Dei (cf. Euth. Alb. Maid. Fil. P. Keil, Ed.}. Id quoque confirmari videtur responsione Christi v. 65 tune princeps sacerdotum scidit vestimenta sua dicens : blasphemavit ; quid adhuc egemus testibus? ecce nunc audistis blasphemiam ; ex eo quodstatim addit : quid adhuc egemus testibus? immediate et aperte prodit suam simulationem; libenter, ut bene Alb: monet, audivit verba Iesu ; ad incitas enim et angustias redactus quia tarn egregie corruerant omnia testimonia, subito se cernit omni ereptum difficultati, immo speciosissima instructum causa, qua Iesum mortis, condemnet. Quoties antea conati siint Iesum capere in sermone? quoties vero ipsi capti surit et cum confusione abire coacti? Erat itaque res aleae plena Iesum interrogare animo non sincere. Tanto magis autem nunc exsultat; nam quid adhuc etc. vox est gaudentis, quod post longam exspectationem compos voti sit effectus, uti apposite notant Salmeron (torn. 10 tract. 19) lans.; miro modo existimat Weiss dolorem Caiphae sincerumluisse, ortum ex vera indignatione. Est consuetudinis iudaicae, ait S. Hie)'., cum_ aliquid blasphemiae et quasi contra Deum audierint, scindere vestimenta sua, in signum luctus et doloris. Eo enim modo inter alia dolorem magnum significare solebant; ita lacob patriarcha luctu de loseph filio scidit vestimenta (Gen. 37,34), ita Thamar propter dolorem de iniuria illata (2 Reg. 13,19), ita legati Ezechiae regis propter verba Rabsacis (4 Reg. 18, 37) et ipse Ezechias rex (4 Reg. 19,1. Is. 37,1), ita lonathas summus sacerdos (1 Macli. lljTl) 1 et qua ratione luctum manifestaverint pontifices, narrat losephus : videre erat ipsos pontifices cum cineribus quidem capiti inspersis , pectore vero nudos vestibus dilaceratis (de bell. iud. 2,15. -4). Morem hunc ita describit Buxtorf (Lex. chald. p. 214.6).: laceratio fit stando; a collo anterius, non posterius, non ad latus neque ad fimbrias inferiores vestis ; longitude rupturae palmus est. Laceratio non fit in interula sive indusio linteo neque in pallio exteriore; in reliquis vestibus corpore accommodatis omnibus fit, etiamsi decem fuerint. Putarunt aliqui non licuisse Caipbae utpote sacerdoti vestes scindere (ita S. Leo, serm. de pass. 6,2; M. 54,329; Baronius ad an. 34 n. 73, Lap.]. Atperperam; namLev. 10,6 solum vetantur Aaron et Eleazar et Itbamar signa luctus edere de Nadab et Abiu qui igne a Domino immisso absumpti erant, ne soil, viderentur luctu significato iudicium Deiiustum improbare; Lev. 21,10 autem praecipitur, ne sacerdos summus vestes scindat propter luctum mortui. Aliis in occasionibus nihil obstabat quominus vestium laceratione dolorem significaret ;. cf. 1 Mach. 11,71. Hanc scissionem a Gaipha factam earn quoque Caipha utique inscio significationem habuisse baud raro opinantur, ut ostendatur ludaeos sacerdotii gloriam perdidisse (S. Hier. Bed. Pasch. Theoph. Br. Salmeron, Lap.]] eadem est sententia S. Leonis 1. c. qui insuper opinatur Caipham ornatum suum sacerdotalem scidisse , quae pariter esfc Baronii 1. c. n. 74 opinio. At vestis sacerdotalis nequit intelligi. Eam^enim non gerebant nisi in templo cum sacris fungereritur. Multo minus-cogitari potest de ornatu pontiiicali; iste enim ornatus iam dudum asservabatuu in Antonia arce a Romanis et non tradebatur pontifici nisi tribus festis maioribus et die expiationis (cf. losephus, Ant. 18,4. 3 ; ornatus ille ita in arce asservabatur ab an. 6-36 p. Ch.). Iam vero blasphemia morte erat punienda : qui blasphemaverit nomen Domini morte moriatur (Lev. 24,15); pariter qui se falso iactabat prophetam a Deo missum, interficiendus erat (Deut. 18,20). Caiphas itaque exclamans blasphemavit et vestimenta scindens satis superque synedristis significat , quid iuclicare eos oporteat :
26:66
v. 66 quid vobis videtur? verum cum mors Christi ab iisdem iam antea esset constituta, tota scena simulatio est et ad hoc solum facta, ut pessimum consilium aliqua specie vestirent. Omnes itaque laeti quod s tandem eiusmodi speciem nacti sunt respondentes dixerunt : reus est mortis; ipsi accusabant, ipsi damnabant et sententiam ferebant, omnia officia occupabant (S. Chrys.). Si normae illae spectantur secundum quas iudicia debuisse institui talmudistae tradunt, neque communi quadam acclamatione vel suflragiorum latione neque eodem die quo quaestio erat habita licuit sententiam "mortis ferre, Porro Iesum omni genere opprobriorum onerant
26:67
v. 67 tune exspuerunt in faciem eius quo maximus exprimitur contemptus; cf. Num. 12,14. Deut. 25,9 ; quare rabbini statuerunt ne quis exspueret quamdiu in monte templi versaretur, et colaphis eum ceciderunt, pugnis eum percutiebant in faciem et caput et verticem; alii autem palmas in faciem eius dederunt, palmis os eius caedebant; alapas infligebant; est quippe pa7rieiv idem ac iraTaaceiv Triv yvocOov xttKy TYI ^etpt (Suidas; cf. 5,39). Addunt ad dolorem pessimam irrisionem et iliusionem :
26:68
v. 68 dicentes : prophetiza nobis Christe, quis est qui te percussit; ait S. Lucas : et velaverunt eum (22,64), quo facto utique haec ludificatio fiebat, quamvis etiam cogitari possit alios vela tergo eum percussisse vel propter obscuritatem ita interrogasse, ita ut alii aliter illuderent. Nam S. Marcus quoque dicit quosdam velasse faciem eius (14,65), dum S. Matthaeusid non meminit. Uti hie referfcur, vix dubium esse potest qnin ipsi synedristae eiusmodi contumeliis Iesum aifecerint. Eodem enim modo sicut dictum est : dixeuimt (scil. indices, synedristae v. 57. 59), pergitur : tune exspuerunt etc.; aliud autem subiectum grammaticale esse assumendum nulla re indicatur. Et profecto quo erant in Iesum odio , qui saepe eos confuderat et in vitia eorum (pharisaeorum , scribarum) invectus erat, potius mirum esset si a contumeliis sibi temperassent , praesertim quia nunc specie quadam religionis horrorem et abominationem in blasphemum testari idem videri poterat ac Deihonorem vindicare. In quern sensum dicit Alb. : exspuerunt in faciem eius tamquam os .illud conspuentes quod immunditie blasphemiae se polluit, et S. Thorn. : hoc fiebat in signum mandati Deicontempti. Cum Luc. .22,63 dicatur : et viri qui tenebant ilium illudebant ei caedentes etc., aliqui censent ipsos syned'ristas , utpote viros nobiles et ingenues, ab eiusmodi contumeliis omnino abstinuisse et solum servos ignobilia-illa perpetrasse (Calm. Fil.}. At merito plerique narrationes synopticorum ita concipiunt, nt utrique, et synedristae et servi , Iesum contumeliis et verberibus onerarint. Servos exemplum dominorum etiam avidius et atrocius esse secutos nemo negabit. Porro si legitur 1. c. ot av^pe? 01 <7uve^ovT? TQV TncyoSv ne cerfcum quidem est a S. Luca exclusos esse synedristas; apud Marcum vero clare quoque synedristae designantur, cum dicat r et coeperunt quidam eum conspuere etc. et ministri alapis eum caedebant. lam itaque impletur quod de servo Domini, de Messia, Isaias vaticinatus erat : corpus meum dedi percutientibus et genas meas vellentibus, faciem meam non averti ab increpantibus et conspuentibus in me (Is. 50,6; cf. S. Chrys. Hier. Pasch. Alb. Thorn. Salmeron, Jans., etc.). Chris tusigitur et poenaset ignominiam sustinuit; utroque modo satisfecit pro nobis. Tolerantia poenarum satisfecit pro delectatione quae est in peccatis , et tolerantia ignpminiarum satisfecit pro inhonoratione et ignominia quam hominum peccata, quantum ex se est, Deo inferunt (lans.}. Quid vero ex Christo talia sustinente nobis discendum sit, inter alia monet S. Chrys. : haec legamus frequenter, haec audiamus ut par est , haec in animis nostris scribamus ; haec saepissime Paulus versat, crucem dico, cruciatus, convicia, contumelias, dicteria; etmodo quidem ait : exeamus adipsum opprobrium eius ferentes , modo autem : qui proposito sibi gaudio crucem sustinuit confusione contempta (Hebr. 12,2; 13,13; similia Salmeron, tract. 22)!
26:69
v. 69 Petrus vero sedebat forts in atrio; foris ratione soil, habita eius loci in quern .Christus erat deductus et de'quo eous. quenarravit; proinde nulla est contradictio cum v. 58, ubi scil. refertur Petrum ingressum esse intro, quippe qui venerit a monte Oliveti ad palatium pontificis; et accessit ad eum una ancilla, k tua dicitur, forte quia a^V/i v. 71 sequitur (Weiss'), vel potius ponitur uti hebr. "HK pro pronomine indefinite (cf. 1 Reg. 20,13. Dan. 8,3; alia Gesenius, Thes. p. 61 ; eodemque modo in graecitate seriore adhibetur eT<; ; Winer 18,9 ; Buttmann p. 74 ; Blass p. 140) ; secundum loan. 18, 17 Petro primae insidiae structae sunt ab ancilla ostiaria. Haec enim viderat eum introeuntem cum loanne quern noverat ; unde iam ex eo quia ab loanne introducebatur concludere poterat eum quoque esse ' discipulum. Praeterea totus habitus Petri is certe erat quo 'statim constaret eum non esse ex turba ministrorum. Iam cuius interesse poterat videre et scire ea quae de Iesu agerentur, nisi discipuli? dicens : et tu cum Iesu Galilaeo eras; erat Petrus in medio atrio ad ignem simul cum aliis servis et sese calefaciebat (Marc. 14,67; Luc. 22,56); coram illis itaque de ea re interpellatus id valde molestum habuit nolens eorum in se attentionem converti et timens ne si cognosceretur ab iis male vexaretur; unde
Gum testimonia contra Iesum conquirerentur et Iesus ipse interro- garetur et illuderetur, Petrus in atrio erat inter ministros et tribus vicibus negabat se nosse Dominum. Omnes quattuor evangelistae ex istis tribus vicibus singula quaedam referunt , ita ut verbum Domini de trina negatione impletum esse accurate ostendant. Duo priores narratione continua tres negationes persequuntur postquam prius absolvertmt quid coram synedristis actum esset. S. Lucas qui de ilia sessidne nocturna tacet negationem narrat ante illusionem et contumelias quae Christo eanocte a ministris infligebantur; S. loannes autem ita rem conscribit, ut uham quaestionis de Iesu habitae partem inter primam et secundam negationem inserat ; proinde innuit quaestionem de Iesu et negationem eodem evenisse tempore (loan. 18, 17-27).' . Narravit Matthaeus v. 59 seq. quae in interiore aliquo palatii Caiphae cubic ulogestasunt. lam ad Petrum redit, de quo v. 58 incepit referre; unde
26:70
v. 70 at ille negavit coram omnibus, nota coram omnibus , qua voce indicatur id quod alii duo synoptici referunt eum cum ministris ad ignem fuisse , dicens : nescio quid dicis; qui loquendi modus securae negationis emphasin habet, quasi dicat : non solum non sum quern me esse dicis , sed tantum absum, ut sim, utne intelligam quidem quid dicas; sic enim solemus respondere, cum ab eo crimine quod nobis obiicitur longissime nos abesse significamus : nonintelligo quid dicas (Maid. ), uti fere sin addit. Cum alii qtioq'ue adessent , qui et ancillae verba et Petri responsum audirent, coram omnibus, omnino fieri non potuit, ut res tota una hac voce fmiretur. Id enim pro hominum moribus et indole necessario concluseris et idem varia aliorum narratione suadetur, qui scil. alius alia quaedam ex tota re ibi gesta retulerint. Fortasse prius dixit ancilla adstantibus digito Petrum demonstrans : et hie cum illo erat (Luc. 22,56); vel prius eum interrogat (loan. 18,17) .et cum ille negasset: non sum, ilia insistit , iterum affirmat et eum aliqua contentione asserit coram adstantibus : et hie cum illo erat. Petrus autem in ista quasi concertatione exclamat : mulier, non novi ilium (Luc. 22, 57), neque scio neque novi quid dicas (Marc. 14,68); repetitis vicibus et varie sustinens primum suum responsum. Simili enim modo pro hominum consuetudine^alia agi solent. Quare nihil habetur alienum quod sit a verisimilitudine , si dixeris Petrum omnia ilia dixisse quae a singulis narrantur. Nam quad Ghristus dixit ter menegabis non significat , Petrum solum tres sententias negantes esse enuntiaturum , sed ut bene lans. monet, eum tribus vicibus vel tribusin occasionibus esse negaturuin multis diversisque verbis. Petrus itaque qui tarn gloriose prius Domino promiserat se non negaturum etiamsi moriendum esset, ancillulae vilis commotus voce mox negat se esse unum ex discipulis , immo ne nosse quidem se aut scire eum quinominabatur asserebat. Qui ante pugnam sibi vindicavit victoriam, hie trepidat ante tubam. Non in tormentis neque in equuleo exsistens, sed mulierculae tantum voce pulsatus Christum negat, quern prius confessus fuerat Filium esse Dei vivi. Stricto ensi iugulum dedisset, sed ecce linguam mulierculae pavit. Ita fragilis est humaria natura sibi relicta, ita fragilitatem eius declarari conveniebat qui de se iactanter nimis praesumpserat. Nee praetereundum quod a muliercularum aggressu et suggestione Petri coeperimt negationes (lans.}. Atque S. Aug. ad hanc primam negationem scribit : ecce columna firmissima ad unius aurae impulsum tota contremuit ; ubi est ilia promittentis audacia et de se plurimum praefidentis? ubi sunt verba ilia, quando ait : quare non possum te sequi modo? animam meam pro te.ponam (loan. 13,37)? hoccine est sequi magistrum se negare discipulum? siccine pro Domino anima ponitur ut hoc ne fiat vox ancillae formidetur ? etc. (tract, in loan. 113,2 ; M. 35,1933). Si volumus aggravare culpam Petri, aitS. Thorn. , possumus aggravare ex tribus : quia statim ad modicum terrorem negavit; quia non erubuit coram omnibus, item ex mendacio, quia dixit : nescio quid dicis. Petrus ilia prima interpellatione ad incitas redactus sese recipit > abscedit ab illaturba, uti fieri soletad molestum colloquium declinandum ; exiitigitur in vestibulum atrii ;
26:71
v. 71 exuente autem illo ianuam, e^eXGo'vTa ei? TOV -rciAcova, ad portam ; si TwXcov (quod aliis videtur) non est idem quod wpoauXiov vestibulum (Marc. 14,68) , tune significat portam per quam ex atrio interiore-via patebat in vestibulum in quod se Petrus recepit, uti Marc. 14,69 narrat l ; n'eque tamen ibi tuto licuit ei consistere; nam vidit eum alia ancilla et ait his qui erant ibi : et hie erat cum Iesu Nazareno;. Marc. 14,69 *<*& 'h Tcai&crjcv) , estne eadem quae primo Petrum compellavit? potest id articulo indicari. Neque id contradiceret narrationi de. alia ancilla. Nam priorem illam ostiariam pro garrulitate femineaetiam aliis ancillis de discipulo illo narrasse qui vereretur se fateri discipulum nemo negabit. Neque improbabile est Petrum ab alia quoque ancilla agnitum f uisse ; cum enim Christus saepius cum discipulis versaretur in urbe , etiam pontificis ancillae nosse poterant discipulos. At cum articultis etiam adhibeatur haud raro g'enerice (cf. Winer 18,1), nequit certo asseri apud Marcum eandem ancillam ostiariam designari ; etiam Marcus narrat : coepit dicere circumstantibus : hie exillis est. Petrum itaque aliis digito demonstrat; quare uti fieri solet, alii quoque eum interpellant. Unde Luc. 22,58 Tepo<g alius quidam eum alloquitur : et tu de illis es; cui Petrus brevi respondet : o homo non sum; alii qui mulieris vocem audierajnt, eum interrogant, numquid verum sit quod ancilla dixerit (et Petrum ad ignem secum advocant, loan. 18,25). Ita variis ex partibus impetitus negationem suam : non sum (loan. 18,25) iuramento confirmat; unde
26:72
v. 72 etiterum negavit cum iuramento :.quia non nom hominem', tantum abest, ut sim discipulus , ut ne noverim quidem hominem. A pluribus itaque interpellates magis sibi timuit ; unde iuramento assertioni addito conatur perstiadere , a se Iesum nunquam esse visum. Hominem vocans cum aliquo contemptu de Iesu captivo loquitu'r. At Petrus ne suspicionem atigeret locum relinquere noluit; insuper quid de Domino fieret scire cupiebat. Uti erat anxius et perturbatus , ne in mentem quidem ei venisse videtur quidfecisset. Cum itaque modo hue modo illuc se conferret, post aliquod tempus (intervallo facto qua^i ho.rae unius, Luc, 22,59) alius quidam affirmabat : vere et hie cum illo erat; nam et Galilaeus est. Petrus enim ut timorem dissimularet et suspicionem averteret libere cum ministris fabulari coeperat (lans.). Cum itaque unus affirm asset eum, utpofce Galilaeum, certo esse discipulum, etiarn reliqui adstantes Petrum interpellant ; unde
26:73
v. 73 et post pusillum (tempus accuratius designator fere horae unius , Luc. 22,59) accesserunt qui stabant et dixerunt Petro : vere et tu ex illis es; nam et loquela tua manifestum te facit; baud male concludunt hominem galilaeum eo loco ubi de Iesu quaestio fit apud indices versantem esse ex discipulis eius galilaeis. Dialectus enim Galilaeorum erat rudis; secundum ea quae talmudistae referunt, gutttirales non satis distinguebantur ; habet enim, ut S. Hier. adnotat, unaquaeque provincia et regio suas proprietates , ut vernaculum loquendi sonum vitare non possit. Hoc iam argumento Petrus satis perstringebatur ; etiam. magis illo quod in medium protulit unus ex servis cognatus Malchi : nonne ego te vidi in horto cum illo? loan. 18,26. Quare omni contentione earn suspicionem a se tollere studet v. 7fc tune coepit deiestari, sese diris devovere , sibi pessima quaeque imprecari , nisi scil. verum. diceret , se devotare (uti habet Orig. interpretatio) ; est soil, ut Alb. dicit, exsecratio qua sibi malum imprecabatur, si nosset Christum , et iurare quia non novisset hominem; et verisimile est, ut Maid, ait, exsecrationem et iuramentum saepius ingeminasse ; hanc enim vim habere videtur verbum coepit detestari, quod saepe et multis modis exsecratus fuerit. Atque ad eiusmodi asserendi et confirmandi modos maxime incitatus fuisse censendus erit argumentation e ilia : nonne, ego te vidi in horto? infirmitate lapsus est, gratia Christi erigitur; et continue gallus cantavit
26:75
v. 75 et recordatus est Petrus verbi Iesu quoddixerat : priusquam gallus cantet, ter me negabis; hanc antem recordationem et.resipiscentiam ad Iesu miserentis gratiam esse referendam explicite doce.mur Luc. 22,60. 61 : et continue adhuc illo loquente cantavit gallus et conversus Dominus respexit Petrum et recordatus est Petrus, etc. Eo itaque momento Dominus e conclavi synedristarum per ministros educitur in atrium, ut ibi quoque contumeliis servorum afficeretur (Luc. 22,64. 65) vel ut per reliquam noctis partem in custodia teneretur. Iesus autem transiens aspectu misericordiae Petrum respicit et gratia sua mentem eius illustrat. Et confestim ceciderunt veluti squamae ab oculis mentis -eius; summo dolore agnoscit culpam; verum in -aspectu etvultu Domini misericordiam, gratiam, amorem Iesu percipit, et egressus foras flevit amare; miremur Domini benignitatem qui eo momento ut educeretur in atrium provide disposuit ad opem ferendam suo apostolo misere lapso ! Petrus autem egreditur foras de impiorum concilio , ut pavidae negationis sordes amaris fletibus lavet (S. Hier. Bed.}. Dominus Iesus paventis animum mox ut respexit erexitetinfletuspoenitudinisincitavit;felices, sancte apostole,lacrimae tuae, quae ad diluendam culpam negationis virtutem sacri habuere baptismatis. Adfuit enim dextera Domini Iesu Christi quae labentem te priusquam deiicereris exciperet et firmitatem standi in ipso cadendi periculo recepisti (S. Leo, serm. 9 de passione, cap. 4; M. 54,345). Etiam digna sunt quae apponantur verbaS. Br. : tenebatur Dominus a turbis , et tamen discipuli memor solo respectu consolatur et sanat et . sui vultus illuminatione ad spem veniae invitat; cognoscit igitur Petrus reatum suum , cognoscit et voluntatem Domini sui, dolet et poenitet, egreditur foras; relinquit concilium malignantium, locum petit secretum la.crimis et poenitentiae amic'um, flet amare, certissime intelligens quia sacrificium est Deo spiritus contribulatus. Hie est poenitentiae modus : peccasti? quiesce, dole, lacrimare et disce cum apostolo flere amare . Dominus vero inter tot supplicia sui quasi oblitus curam egit Petri , ut eum quasi ovem perditam in viam saluiis revocaret insigni amoris testimonio (cf. Lap.).
26:3
τότε est assez vague dans Mt., mais après une date précise et un délai si court, τότε doit indiquer le jour même où Jésus ἃ parlé. Si Mt. avait suivi Mc., pourquoi aurait-il remplacé les scribes (aussi Le.) par les anciens du peuple? Volontiers quand les sanhédrites sont en scène il omet les scribes (x, 23; xevi, 11. 51; xxvir, 1. 3. 42. 20). 11 met donc en avant les deux influences politiques du sacerdoce et de l'aristocratie; les scribes, très consultés sur les questions légales, étaient peut-être moins influents dans les. mesures administratives. Cette nuance est à noter quand on parle de la haine de ML. contre les Pharisiens elle ne se trouve que dans Le. xxn, 52, tandis que Mc. est sur ce point toujours schématique. De plus Mt. suppose une réunion formelle, dans une circonstance précise (deux aoristes), et. il indique le lieu. — αὐλή cette fois ne peut signifier que le palais du grand-prêtre, désigné par son nom de Καϊάφας, que Me. ne cite jamais. Il faut beaucoup d’aplomb pour prétendre que Mi. à suivi Mc. dans cette péricope. Sur Caïphe, cf. sur Le. mu, 2. ἢ Mc. et Le. ont πῶς, « comment » ; Mt. ἵνα marquant le but ne serait pas une correction heureuse, non plus que les deux verbes au subjonctif au lieu de χρατήσαντες ἀποκχτείνωσιν. Α
26:5
Comme Me., avec δέ au lieu de γάρ, et ἵνα μή au lieu de μή ποτε, dans le 10. npyacaro (TH) plutôt que εἰργασατο (SV). sens de eo consilio ut non. L'impf. ἔλεγον est très naturel au cours de la délibération. —— Sur les vv. 3 et 5 les lectures du syrsin. qui figurent encore dans Soden (d'après Burkitt) ont été fortement corrigées par Mrs Lewis. Retrancher du v. 3 les scribes et y ajouter Kaïapha.
26:7
ἐχουσα ἀλαόαστρον μυρου (THV) et non a. μ. €. (5).
26:8
Ce sont les disciples qui s’indignent, et non des τίνες (Me.).
26:9
La valeur précise du parfum n’est pas indiquée, non plus que les témoignages de mécontentement contre la femme. Pourquoi le même Mt. aurait-il abrégé Mc. ici après l'avoir allongé dans la péricope précédente?
26:10
γνούς en plus dans Mt. ne fait pas allusion à une connaissance surnalurelle, puisque les disciples ont FARIE clair. C'est du style de Mt.;.cf. xu, 15; avi, 8; xx, 18,
26:11
Ressemblance avec Mc., moins une incise, et en cela plus étroite avec Jo. x, 8 — qui ne dépend sùrement pas de Mc. Ce mot ἃ dû demeurer très vivant dans les souvenirs.
26:12
La rédaction est inférieure à celle de Mc., et même obscure, car rien n'indique comme dans Mc. une action antérieure, symbole d’une autre; ἐποίησεν avec l'inf. aor. ἐνταφιάσαι indiquerait que déjà la femme a procédé à l’ensevelissement; il faut sous-entendre : symboliquement. ἐνταφιάζω ne doit pas être pris dans le sens égyptien d'embaumer; c’est simplement procéder aux rites de la sépulture (PLuT. Mor. 995 c) dont l'onction du corps faisait partie, après qu'on l'avait lavé (cf. Comm. Me.). A s’en tenir au texte de Mi., on pourrait croire que la femme, croyant rendre un hommage usité dans les banquets, avait, sans s’en douter, pratiqué un rite de sépulture. Mais le texte n'exclut pas qu'elle ait eu conscience de la portée réelle de son acte, et c'est bien ce que dit Me. : elle a fait ce qu’elle pouvait faire, les rites de la sépulture devant ensuite être précipités. Et l'on comprend mieux ainsi l'éloge extraordinaire de cette femme, lequel doit durer autant que l'évangile (contre Schanz, MeNeile etc.).
26:13
Comme dans Mc., avec des nuances très légères, cf. pour le sens de λαλέω rapporter avec éloges (Mc.) : ὧν καὶ ἣ σωφροσύνη χατὰ τὸν χόσμον λελάληται (MM). D'après Jérôme, personne ne doit penser, remo putet, que cette femme est la même que la pécheresse de Le. vir.
26:14
τότε, indication vague qui se rapporte peut-être à ce qui précède comme cause déterminante et au v. 3 comme indication du temps. — ᾿Ισχαριώτης, comme x, 4, tandis que Me. πι, 19 et χιν, 10 Ἰσκαριώθ. — εἷς avec le gén. parlitif est normal (ef. v, 29.30 etc.) et n'est pas nécessairement une simplification de ὁ εἷς (Με.).
26:15
Judas découvre impudemment ce qui est sous-entendu dans Mc. et dans Le. ; s’il offre de livrer son maître, c'est, comme le plus souvent, pour de l'argent. 1 veut être fixé. χἀγώ signifie moins ici: « moi, son disciple », ce qui le rendrait odieux, que : « moi, qui seul puis vous tirer d'embarras ». — Ce καί est une tournure sémitique, waw apodosis (Kautzsch, ὃ 143, 2) : « Que me donnez-vous pour que je le livre ».— ἵστημι trans. pourrait signifier placer dans ‘une balance, peser, c’est-à-dire ici l'argent, héb. ὅρῳ; cf. Zach. χι, 13 χαὶ ἔστησαν τὸν μισθόν μου τριάκοντα ἀργυροῦς, c'est-à-dire σίκλους et aussi 1 Esd. νιπ., 55 etc.; II Esd. var, 25 etc. — Mais les latins ont compris « fixèrent » constituerunt et de même les Syriens, comme Théophylacte l’a bien expliqué : ἔστησαν... ἀντὶ τοῦ συνεφώνησαν, ἀφώρισαν δοῦναι, οὐχ ὡς οἱ πολλοὶ νοοῦσιν, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐζυγοστάτησαν (peser). En effet c'est bien la réponse à la question posée par Judas. Field (p. 20) objectait que cet usage de στῆναι ne peut être prouvé, mais MA. citent BGU iv, 4481 1. 44 (13 av. J.-C.) ἐφ᾽ ἢ ἑστάμεθα τιμῇ, etc. On ne voit pas pourquoi l'aoriste changerait « fixer » en « peser » ou « payer » (contre M.). — ἀργύρια au plur. neutre pour des sicles est propre à Mt. dans la Bible. Ces sicles équivalaient à des stalères, mot que D a introduit dans le texte. Trente sicles ou didrachmes étaient le prix fixé pour compenser la perte d’un esclave (Ex. xx, 32 ἀργυρίον τριάχοντα δίδραχμα δώσει). C'était donc en quelque façon le prix d'un homme; il est assez naturel que les prêtres Paient proposé, et qu’ils aient persuadé à Judas qu’il ne pouvait, d'après la Loi, exiger davantage. On ne peut donc rien objecter contre le caractère historique du fait, quoique Mt. y ait vu la réalisation d’une prophétie (cf. xxvir, 9). L'expression vulgaire de trente deniers n'est pas exacte, car les trente sicles valaient cent vingt deniers.
26:16
La tournure de Mt. ζητεῖν εὐχαιρίαν est la facon sémitique la plus naturelle, si bien que les syrr. l'ont transportée dans le passage correspondant de Mc. On ne peut donc pas avancer que Mt. dépend de Me., quoiqu'il ressemble à Le. sur ce point.
26:17
Les Juifs distinguaient la pâque et les azymes, mais dans le langage hellénistique on pouvait dire τὰ ἄζυμα, comme τὰ Διονύσια etc. pour signifier toute la fête. Comme ce cas ne se présente qu'ici et dans Mc. parallèle, on peut admettre une dépendance de Mt. traducteur. D'ailleurs c'est l'équivalent de ñ ἑορτὴ τῶν ἀζύμων de Josèphe, qui était synonyme dela Pâque (Ant. XIV, τι, 1 etc.), La distinetion des Juifs qui ne donnaient pas le nom de fête des azymes au 14 nisan au soir était trop spéciale pour être appréciée du public grec, d'autant qu'au repas pascal on ne mangeait que des azymes. Mt., comme Mc. fait allusion au matin du jour naturel qui se terminait le soir par le commencement de la fête juive. C'était pour un profane le premier jour de [ἃ fête, et pour un juif la veille de la fête, puisque le jour de la fête ne commencait pour eux que le soir. Mt. n'a pas la circonstance de l’immolation reproduite par Le. Comme dans Mc. ce sont les disciples qui prennent l'initiative (προσῆλθον, style de Mt.), mais leur question est plus coulante dans Mt.
26:18
Au lieu de deux disciples (Mc. Le.), Mt. semble mettre en mouvement tous les disciples. C'est sa manière vague de raconter, qu'il faut interpréter d'après les vraisemblances. Mais eût-il écrit ainsi d’après un récit plus précis? Il n'aurait pas omis non plus la preuve que donne Jésus dans Me. (suivi par Le.) de sa prescience par Le signe du porteur d’eau. Il enveie aussitôt les disciples chez un tel; Jér : Morem velcris Testamenti nova Scriptura conservat… quod hebraice dicitur Pheloni Elmoni, et tamen personarum locorumque non ponitur nomen; cf. Ruth 1v, 1;1 Regn. xxi, 2; IV Regn. νι, 8. Le nom propre a ἀὰ étre prononcé par Jésus, mais il a paru à l’auteur inutile ou inopportun de le reproduire, ce qui s'explique si le cénacle est devenu la maison de rendez-vous des disciples. — 6. χαιρός avec μου, donc non pas le temps de la Pâque, que tout le monde connaissait, mais le temps mystérieux où sa destinée devait s'accomplir. Le ton est confidentiel et affectueux : πρός σέ. Comment Mt. aurait-il imaginé cela d’après Mc.? C'est bien plutôt un souvenir précieux, quoique obscur, des relations de Jésus avec un personnage de Jérusalem, qui devait être heureux et flatté de cette distinction.
26:19
Le verset est rédigé d’après ce qui précède, sans allusion à un signe réalisé. 42. om. αὐτῶν p. ἐχαστος (THV) et non add. (8). 26. om. τὸν εἰ. αρτον (TH) et non add. (SV). Il s'agit bien de manger la pâque. Du v. 18 on serait tenté de croire que Jésus, pressé par le temps, a anticipé le repas pascal; mais ce sont les disciples qui ont pris l'initiative, et au jour marqué.
26:20
Mt. n'a pas ἔρχεται, 1] est sous-entendu que Jésus à rejoint les disciples envoyés d'avance. Ce qui était important, c'était de montrer le Maître à table avec les douze disciples choisis, que Le. nomme simplement les apôtres. I est plus élégant de mettre une pause entre le moment où l'on s'installe et le cours du repas que de lier étroitement comme Mc. le fait d'être à table ét celui de manger. Mi. n’a qu'un καί au lieu de trois (Mc.) pour ce v. et le suivant. C'est encore une. élégance.
26:21
Mt. ne nomme pas Jésus dont le nom était exprimé au v. 49. Il n'a pas ὃ ἐσθίων per’ ἐμοῦ, circonstance pathétique et non pas du tout redondance.
26:22
Comme Mc., mais plus élégant. « S'attrister et parler » (Mc.) unissait un état et une action; Mt. met l'état au participe, et le qualifie par σφόδρα ; il met / ἤρξαντο devant le verbe qui marque une action ; il remplace la tournure vulgaire εἷς κατὰ εἷς par εἷς ἕκαστος; il a en plus εἶμι et χύρις, formule de politesse.
26:23
Mt. n'a pas εἷς τῶν δώδεκα qui de nouveau est pathétique; puis il exprime un peu plus nettement la désignation du coupable : οὗτός με παραδώσει. — ὃ ἐμθάψας, « celui qui vient de tremper la main » est aussi plus précis que ἐμθαπτόμενος situation qui était celle de tous; τὴν χεῖρα ἐν τῷ τρυδλίῳ accentue aussi davantage que εἰς τὸ τρύδλιον. ΚΠ. reconnaît le sens normal de l’aoriste (qui intinæit) transformé par Schanz en un équivalent du futur exactum, pour harmoniser avec Mc. Disons plutôt que même ainsi la désignation était incomplète, car plusieurs peut-être avaient déjà trempé quelque chose dans le plat, et en même temps que Jésus. Origène : signum dat discipulis de Juda proditore, ex eo quod cum Jesu manum suam in paropsidem intulisset, in quam, sicut existimo, intingebant carnes pascha edentes.
26:24
La ressemblance complète (Mt. n’a pas ὅτι et ajoute ἦν) de Mt. et de Mc. est d'autant plus frappante que Lc. est plus concis.
26:25
Propre à Mt. D'après Schanz, si ces mots avaient élé prononcés à haute voix, il faudrait y voir une addition de la tradition, car il est impossible d’entendre : « tu l’as dit », autrement que comme une réponse affirmative. Or si Jésus avait désigné le traitre à tous d'une facon aussi claire, les disciples eussent dù s'emparer de lui, du moins l’invectiver. Mais rien n'empêche d'admettre que Jésus ait répondu à Judas d’une voix basse. Il est d’ailleurs probable que ce verset est placé ici en rejet, car Judas a dù poser la question en mème temps que les autres apôtres. Jésus lui aura répondu pour lui seul, dans le tumulte des interrogations, qui avaient la chaleur et l’éclat de protestations indignées. Puis, élevant la voix, il aura donné à tous une indication moins claire. — Sachant qu'il était découvert, le traitre a dù sortir le plus tôt possible.
26:26
Reprise de ἐσθιόντων avec Mc. comme au v. 21, sans qu'on puisse en conclure que c'était exactement le même repas, ou qu’il était entré dans une phase nouvelle. Le texte comme Mc., dans une période plus équilibrée, avec l'addition des disciples et de φάγετε.
26:27
Au lieu que dans Mc. les disciples boivent, après quoi Jésus leur explique ce qu'ils ont bu, l’ordre de Mt. est logique et conforme à celui de la consécra- 28. om. τὸ a. τῆς (THV) plutôt que add. (8). — καινης (S) plutôt que om. (THV). tion du pain; Jésus ordonne de boire. On suppose naturellement que les disciples ont obéi dans les deux cas.
26:28
Mt. a en plus γάρ et εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, — περί au lieu de ὑπέρ, mais avec le même sens d’après l'usage hellénistique. — La mention de la rémission des péchés accentue le caractère de sacrifice dans l'institution, comme le reconnaît
26:29
μεθ᾽ uuwy καινὸν (THV) et non x. μ. u. (8).
Comme Mc., sans ἀμήν, avec ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι (sx, 39; xxvr, 64, mais ni Me. ni Le. au lieu de οὐκέτι et dans le même sens, avec la nuance de « désormais ». En plus τούτου, μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, et πατρός μου au lieu de θεοῦ. — μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν donne à toute la scène son caractère d’une communion actuelle en vue de la communion future (et futurae gloriae nobis pignus datur), avec quelque chose de plus familial dans le mot de « père ». Mt. ἃ sûrement retenu ainsi un écho plus complet des paroles du Christ. On n’a rien écrit, que nous sachions, de bien nouveau pour nier l'institution de l’Eucharistie, sacrement du corps et du sang du Christ. Volontiers on insiste sur ce caractère sacramentel, où l’on voit l'influence des mystères paiens sur la pensée de Paul. Maïs à supposer que les termes de Paul aient eu quelque influence sur les expressions de Le., la tradition de Mc. et de Mt. n'en ἃ pas été affectée, et elle suffit, d'autant que Paul n’en ἃ pas changé le caractère. Il ἃ seulement accentué le caractère d'un mémorial, et cela dans une église existante, tandis que Me. et Mt. ont conservé le caractère eschatologique dans une perspective indéfinie. 30-35. ‘PRÉDICTION DE L’ABANDON DES APÔTRES ET DU RENIEMENT DE Pierre (Mc. xiv, 26-31: cf. Le. xx1r, 34-34; Jo. xur, 36-38). Mc. et Mt. se suivent très étroitement, situant les faits sur le chemin, et passant de l'abandon des disciples au reniement de Pierre. Le. et do. sont toujours dans le Cénacle et ne parlent que de Pierre quoique Jo. parle plus loin (xvr, 32) de la dispersion des disciples. Entre Mc. et Mt. il n'y ἃ de différence réelle que pour le chant du coq.
26:30
Exactement comme Mc.
26:31
τότε (style de Mt.) au lieu de καί, — add. ὑμεῖς et ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐν τῇ νυχτί ταύτῃ, ainsi que τῆς ποίμνης (ajouté aux LXX dans le ms. A) pour mieux montrer l'appartenance des brebis au pasteur. . Quand on constate que ce τῆς ποίμνης ἃ été ajouté par À, on en conclut que tout son texte ἃ été rédigé d’après Mt, et l’hébreu. C’est donc le ms. B. qui représente le mieux les anciens LXX : πατάξατε τοὺς ποιμένας καὶ ἐχσπάσατε (arrachez) τὰ πρόδατα. C'est-à-dire que Me. et Mt. sont plus près de l’hébreu : « frappe le pasteur, et les brebis seront dispersées », en changeant « frappe » en « je frapperai », qui convenait mieux au contexte. Comme c’est Mt. qui a recours à l’hébreu le plus souvent, ce cas indiquerait assez nettement la dépendance de Mc. par rapport à sa catéchèse, s’il ne fallait plutôt regarder ces paroles du Seigneur comme fidèlement transmises par la tradition. Mc. conserve mieux l'ordre hébreu des mots; Mt. ἃ mis τὰ πρόδατα après le verbe à cause de l’addition. Le fragm. du Fayoum, qui d'ailleurs a deux chants du coq, ἃ le texte de Mc. : πατάξω τὸν [ποιμένα καὶ τὰ] πρόδατα διασκορπισϑήσεται... d'après Wessely (Patr, Or. 1v, p. 477). Le texte de Barnabé, χι, 12 n’est pas absolument certain. S'il est : Ὅταν πατάξωσιν τὸν ποιμένα ἑαυτῶν, τότε ἀπολεῖται τὰ πρόθατα τῆς ποίμνης, la dépendance de Mi. est suggérée par cette addition de τῆς ποίμνης.
26:32
Comme Mc., δέ au lieu de ἀλλά,
26:33
Comme Mc., avec une certaine redondance qui estompe quelque peu l’audacieuse assurance de Pierre, commençant par εἰ καὶ πάντες et terminée par ἐγώ (Mc.). — L'addition de ἐν σοί répond à celle de ἐν ἐμοί v. 31; ce sont deux indices sémitiques.
26:34
Répartie moins vive, par l’omission de σύ et de σήμερον, qui pouvaient paraître inutiles pour la simple expression de la pensée. Mais omission de δὶς, ἀπαρνήσῃ me. Ῥλέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Πέτρος Κὰν δέῃ με σὺν σοι ἀποθανεῖν, 09 μή σε ἀπαρνήσομαι. ὁμοίως χαὶ πάντες οἱ ναθηταὶ εἶπαν. 36 Τότε ἔρχεται per αὐτῶν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς χωρίον λεγόμενον Γεθσημανί, Καθίσατε αὐτοῦ ἕως οὗ ἀπελθὼν ἐχεῖ προσεύξωμαι. χαὶ λέγει τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἤρξατο λυπεῖσθαι 37 χαὶ παραλαβὼν τὸν Πέτρον at τοὺς δύο υἱοὺς Ζεβεδαίου 38 χότε λέγει αὐτοῖς Περίλυπός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή μου ἕως χαὶ ἀδημονεῖν. 39 χαὶ προελθὼν μιλχρὸν θανάτου" μείνατε ὧδε καὶ γρηγορεῖτε μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ. ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ προσευχόμενος. χαὶ λέγων Πάτερ pou, εἰ δυνατὸν ἐστιν, παρελθάτω ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο πλὴν οὖχ ὡς ἐγὼ θέλω ἀλλ᾽ ὡς σύ. ἰϑχαὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς χαὶ εὑρίσχει αὐτοὺς χαθεύδοντας, χαὶ λέγει τῷ Πέτρῳ Οὕτως οὐχ ἰσχύσατε υἱαν ὥραν Ὑρηγορῆσαι μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ; M ψρηγορεῖτε καὶ προσεύχεσθε; ἵνα μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰ πειρασμόν τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον ἡ δὲ σὰρξ ἀσθενής. “πάλιν ἐχ δευτέρου ἀπελθὼν προσ-- Πάτερ pou, εἰ οὐ 'δύναται τοῦτο παρελθεῖν ἐὰν μὴ αὐτὸ πίω, 43 χαὶ ἐλθὼν πάλιν εὗρεν αὐτοὺς χαθεύδοντας; ψενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου 44 χαὶ ἀφεὶς αὐτοὺς πάλιν ἀπελθὼν ἦσαν γὰρ αὐτῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ βεβαρηνένοι. ἀ τότε ἔρχεται πρὸς προσηύξατο ἐχ τρίτου τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον εἰπὼν πάλιν. ce qui suppose que les trois reniements seraient accomplis avant le premier chant du coq. Le. et Jo. s'en sont tenus là sans entrer dans la subtile nuance de Me., qu’on doit tenir pour originale, mais sans importance pour le signe donné.
26:35
Comme Me. avec des nuances légères et οἱ μαθηταί en plus, comme au v. 26.
26:36
Mt. met plus en relief la personne de Jésus, nommé et sujet de ἔρχεται. — λεγόμενον = οὗ τὸ ὄνομα. — οὗ ἀπελθὼν ἐχεῖ pour la clarté,
26:37
Les fils de Zébédée, comme xx, 20 el xxvIr, 56, au lieu de Jacques et Jean, χυπεῖσθαι au lieu de ἐχθαμθεῖσθαι, d'une énergie un peu étrange. Construction liée au lieu de deux xai.
26:38
En plus μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, parole très tendre, qui sera reprise au v. 40; cf. ἐν ἐμοί (31), ἐν σοί (33). Dans ces heures douloureuses, Mt. accentue le lien qui unit Jésus à ses disciples; mais ce trait est bien en situation.
26:39
προελθων (HV) ou προσελθὼν (TS)-
πρόσωπον au lieu de τῆς γῆς : au lieu de s'effondrer, pour ainsi dire, à terre, Jésus prend l'attitude de l’adoration. Au lieu d'indiquer successivement le but de la prière, puis ses termes, Mt. indique 16 but dans la prière elle-même, au risque de lui enlever quelque chose de son intimité spontanée. — πάτερ μου, plus simple que ἀββᾶ ὁ πατήρ. — εἰ δυνατόν ἐστι, est plus abstrait et moins direct que πάντα δυνατά σοι. — παρελθάτω, .prière indirecte, le sujet étant τὸ ποτήριον, au lieu de la demande instante παρένεγκε, — ὡς (bis) est plus arrondi que τί (bés).
26:40
Encore les disciples en plus (cf. 35). L'apostrophe à Pierre moins vive, par l'omission de « Simon, tu dors ? », et parce que le reproche s'adresse aux trois. — οὕτως et μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ insistent sur l’étrangeté de leur négligence.
26:41
Textuellement comme Mc. .
26:42
Add. ἐκ δευτέρου, et les termes dont s'est servi Jésus : τοῦτο est le calice, présent à sa pensée; γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου rappelle l'oraison qu'il ἃ enseignée (νι, 40).
26:43
Comme Mec., en omettant les derniers mots. .
26:44
Par exception, la concision de Mc. étant extrème, Mt. développe.
26:45
τὸ @. λοιπὸν (TSV) plutôt que om. (H).
τότε (style de Mi.) ajouté, avec « les disciples » comme au v. 45, terme assez vague pour désigner les trois. — omission de ἀπέχει, terme difficile. — χαί après ὥρα pour la circonstance du temps, comme au v. 2. Peut-être pourrait-on voir là un waw d'apodose (Kautzsch, ὃ 143); cf. IL Sam. xv, 34 ΤᾺΝ NY ΠΩΝῚ « et maintenant est le moment où je suis plus que jamais ton serviteur »; cf. Inérod. p. ΧΟ 8.. 45e est plus coulant dans Mc., d'autant que ἤγγικεν sera répété au ν. 46. Mais si Mt. avait suivi Νο., c'était une raison de ne pas l’introduire ici au lieu de
26:46
Comme Mc.
26:47
Omission de εὐθύς de Mc., ἦλθεν au lieu du présent historique παραγίνεται. La foule est « nombreuse », mais les scribes ne sont pas nommés. Selon sa manière (3), Mt. ajoute « du peuple » après « les anciens ». — ἀπό 1. παρά.
26:48
ἔδωχεν ne vaut pas Le plus-que-parfait δεδώχει (Mc.) et σημεῖον est plus vague que σύσσημον. Omission de καὶ ἀπάγετε ἀσφαλῶς, qui peint si bien la noirceur de la trahison.
26:49
προσελθών comme dans Me. est du style de Mt. — Add. χαῖρε, formule de salut qui ne pouvait guère faire défaut.
26:50
Rien dans Mc., mais Le. a, lui aussi, une parole de Jésus, — ἐφ᾽ ὃ πάρει ἃ l’aspect d'une effusion spontanée, mais est difficile à analyser. Ce ne peut être une interrogation, comme ad quod ou ad quid venisti? car le relatif n’est jamais employé comme interrogatif. — Ce n’est pas une exclamation, comme : « Voilà donc pourquoi tu es venu »! parce que ὅ n’est pas synonyme de οἷον. On a sousentendu quelque mot : « fais » ce pourquoi tu es ici, ou : « pourquoi tu es ici, ne le sais-je pas » (Schanz)? Le mieux est peut-être de sous-entendre seulement le baiser qui est en acte (Wellh.) : « un baiser, ami, pour ce que tu es venu faire. » Ce serait exactement ce que Le. a dit pes clairement. Les corrections proposées n'ont aucune probabilité : ἐταῖρε αἶρε, ou ἔπαιρε etc. 50b) add. τότε προσελθόντες (style de Mt.). Jésus est nommé déjà dans 49. ὅθι et il le sera encore 54. 52. On dirait que ce nom sacré s'impose davantage dans des circonstances si douloureuses. #1) Il est dit plus clairement que dans Mc. que le coup est venu d'un des disciples. Jean nommera Simon-Pierre (Jo. xvrt, 10). — ἐχτείνας τὴν χεῖρα, el plus de Me., a bien l'allure sémitique, cf. Jud. xv, 15; 1 Regn. xvn, 49, etc. Noter aussi le parallélisme : un participe, un indicatif (bis), et tandis que Mc. ἃ correctement employé le moyen σπασάμενος (Ps. cui, 7), Mt. ἃ ἀπέσπασεν... αὐτοῦ, pro-" nom inutile, par sémitisme. 52-54, Propre à Mt., sauf Jo. xvanr, 11.
26:52
Jésus intervient, et d'abord donne à son disciple l’ordre de rengainer, comme dans Jo. xvur, 112, mais dans des termes nettement sémitiques; cf. Jér. ΧΧΥ͂ΤΙ, 3 ἀποστρέψω εἰς τὸν τόπον τοῦτον... ici τόπος est tout à fait vague pour désigner le fourreau (Jo. 6##n). Puis le Maître donne une première raison, très générale, conçue à la facon d’un proverbe. Tant que les disputes s'en tiennent aux cris, il n'y a pas de mal. Mais celui qui fait appel au glaive amène nécessairement sur lui la vengeance du sang. C’est le recours suprême qui ne doit pas être employé à la légère et par emportement. Dans le cas présent, l'imprudence était notoire, puisque la résistance n'avait aucune chance de succès. Jésus ne résout pas le point de savoir si ceux qui se présentent ont, ou non, l'autorité. Les paroles sont parfaitement en situation, et il faudrait du parti pris pour soutenir (B. Weiss) que c’est un écho de l’Apoc. τι, 10, où le contexte est beaucoup moins satisfaisant, et qui ἃ davantage l'aspect juridique d'une loi de talion. La parole de Jésus est devenue la règle des chrétiens en présence des violences et des persécutions ordonnées par l'État, comme Bossuet le rappelait fortement aux huguenots, si souvent révoltés contre le pouvoir royal. — ἐν μαχαίρῃ, Sémitisme. — Cf. ΕΖ. v, 12 ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ πεσοῦνται el Apoc. χπι, 40; x1x, 21. Au contraire dans le grec des Actes, x, à ἀνεῖλεν... μαχαίρῃ-
26:53
πλειω (TH) ou πλειοὺυς ἡ (SV).
Puis Jésus donne une seconde raison, propre à la circonstance. On se demande comment il dépendrait de lui d'obtenir un secours par un seul appel (aoriste), alors qu'il n’a pas obtenu du Père qu'il écartât le calice; et partant on ἃ douté de l'authenticité de ces paroles (même MeNWeile). Mais il faut distinguer le droit de Jésus comme Fils et ses dispositions. Il dépendait toujours de lui d'être délivré. Seulement de cette façon il se déroberait à la passion, annoncée par les Écritures, et il vient d'accepter le calice, pour faire la volonté du Père. Cette volonté, il la connaissait, mais elle se manifeste clairement en ce moment par l'arrivée de la force armée. — Le chiffre de douze légions est peut-être choisi à cause des douze apôtres. Jérôme a pensé que la légion étant de 6.000 hommes, les 72.000 anges représentent les 72 peuples, maïs il reconnaît que cela devient de l'exégèse allégorique. Sur le pouvoir et la présence invisible des armées célestes, cf. Gen. xxxn, 1; IV Regn. vi, 17. — καί devant παραστήσει est encore un waw d'apodose (cf. v. 15) dans l'interrogation, comme xvur, 21 (sémitisme).
26:54
Klost. et ΜῸΝ. estiment que ce v. est emprunté à Mc. 49. Comme si Mt. n'était pas beaucoup plus préoccupé que Me. de l’accomplissement des Écritures! D'ailleurs la parole est de Jésus. Sachant que ses disciples allaient succomber au scandale de la Passion, il la leur montrait annoncée par les Écritures. Cette lecon devait produire son fruit du moins après la résurrection (Le. xxiv, 46).
26:55
Introduction plus solennelle que dans Mc. ; les paroles de Jésus les mêmes, sauf aussi la solennité de ἐχαθεζόμην (au lieu de ἤμην πρὸς bu&c) ; cf. xx, 2.
26:56
C’est l'évangéliste qui parle, selon sa formule : τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ (1, 22; cf. xxx, 4), et non pas Jésus (avec En. contre Schanz etc.). L'accord substantiel de Me. et de Mt. consiste en ceci que Jésus a parlé en effet de l'accomplissement des prophéties (Mt. 54 et Mc. 49), une fois, et non pas deux fois. C'est Mt. qui trouve là une excellente occasion, en s'appuyant sur la parole du Maître, de constater l’accomplissement des écritures prophétiques (cf. 11, 23; et tous les cas où il est question d’un prophète). — 56b comme Me., avec τότε oi μαθηταί (style de Mt.).
26:57
Mt. n’a pas l'épisode du jeune homme de Me. xiv, 51-52, qui semble personnel. On s’expliquerait l’omission, s’il était prouvé que Mt. dépend de Mc., mais ce v. suggère plutôt qu'il a écrit d'après ses renseignements, puisqu'il nomme Caïphe (cf. sur Mc. σιν, 53). Tandis que Mc. montre les Sanhédrites arrivant, ce qui est plus naturel, Mt. dit équivalemment qu'ils s'assembièrent (cf. v. 3); car συνήχθησαν ne signifie pas « étaient réunis », comme pour une assemblée réunie avant qu'on introduise le prévenu; les princes des prêtres sont compris dans la mention de Caïphe; chez lui ils étaient chez eux. — κρατήσαντες, en plus dans Mt., ἃ son équivalent dans Le., συλλαθόντες. C’est une circonstance que Mc. a supposée.
26:58
ἀπο «. μαχροθεν (HV) plutôt que om. (TS).
L'imparfait ἠκολούθει (aussi Le.) est plus exact que ἠκολούθησεν (Mc.), d’autant que l’action dura longtemps. Dans Mc. αὐλή signifie la cour, parce que ce mot désigne le point de l'intérieur où Pierre est arrivé, mais dans Mt. étant arrivé jusqu’au palais (αὐλή), il entre. Cette différence de sens permet l'accord sur le lieu, car si αὐλή signifiait la cour dans Mt., Pierre l'aurait dépassée el serait allé s'asseoir dans la maison; tandis que, entré dans le palais, il a pu demeurer {dans la cour. Au lieu de dire qu'il se chauffait, Mt., plus préoccupé des idées que des réalités de détail, dit qu’il voulait voir l'issue. ἢ] aimait plus que les autres, puisqu'il avait suivi, quoique de Join, mais il ne venait pas revendiquer sa place à côté de son Maitre. 61. om. αὐτὸν (H) avant otxoôounoat (TSV) ou après.
26:59
Comme Me., si ce n’est que le témoignage qu'on essayait de produire est qualifié d'avance de faux témoignage, puisque Jésus était innocent. Les grandsprêtres le savaient et cherchaient à susciter des faux témoins.
26:60
προσελθοντων ψευδομαρτυρων (TH) plutôt ψ. x. (SV).
Aussi s’en présenta-t-il, ayant dans Mi. l'apparence de faux témoins presque professionnels. Il en résulte pour Mi. une phrase mal rédigée. Les prêtres trouvèrent bien des faux témoignages, mais ce qu'ils cherchaiïent en réalité, c'était un témoignage qui pût faire impression et qui fût assez grave pour entraîner la condamnation à mort. Si Mt. avait suivi Mc., il eût été bien maladroit, car le texte de Mc. est plus naturel : les prêtres cherchent un témoignage, des témoins portent de faux témoignages, mais auxquels on ne peut s'arrêter parce qu'ils ne sont pas d'accord. 60b s.) Mt. ἃ supposé qu'on n'avait pas encore trouvé deux témoins d'accord, puisque la scène change lorsque deux disent la même chose. Vraie ou fausse on tenait donc une affirmation dans la forme légale (Num. xxxv, 30; Dt. xvu, 6; xx, 15). Dans Mc. c’est parce que les témoignages, même sur ce point précis, ne concordent pas, que le grand-prêtre cherche un autre grief. Dans Mt. il n’est pas question de ce désaccord, mais en revanche le pouvoir surnaturel que s’arroge Jésus n'est pas un crime, puisqu'il ne dit pas qu'il s'en servira. Le grief, même prouvé, ne mériterait donc pas la mort; toutefois il sert de prétexte pour en soulever un autre, car un prodige aussi éclatant suppose, ce qu’on soupçonnait déjà par ailleurs, que Jésus se donnait pour le Messie. On voit que Mc. et Mt., d'accord pour le fond, suivent chacun des modalités particulières, qui excluent une dépendance étroite. — Quel qu'ait été le texte exact des paroles prononcées par Jésus, il y eut sûrement des Juifs qui [65 comprirent dans un sens littéral de la destruction du Temple : ils sont représentés par les deux témoins, faux témoins, puisqu'ils représentent comme un crime une parole qu'ils n’ont même pas comprise.
26:62
T. S. V. Hetz. ne mettent pas de point d'interrogation après ἀποκρίνῃ; ne faisant qu'une phrase du tout. Mais alors il faudrait un πρός avant τί (Deb., 8 298, 4); cf. xxvir, 14. Nous mettons donc (avec H) deux interrogations comme dans Mc. {avec syrr. contre vg.), de même qu'aujourd'hui on ponctue Sopx. El. 4176 avec deux interrogations : τί δ’ ἔσχες ἄλγος; πρὸς τί τοῦτ᾽ εἰπὼν κυρεῖς (K.-G. a, 3, 518); néanmoins le τί a presque la valeur d'un relatif, car le grand-prêtre ne demande pas à savoir ce qu'on a dit, mais ce que Jésus peut en dire, τί — τί ἔστιν ὃ οὗτοι... (Deb. 299), comme s'il affectait de s'étonner que Jésus ait pu donner lieu à une accusation aussi grave.
26:63
Mt. n'a pas certains mots qui peuvent paraître redondants dans Mec., καὶ οὐκ ἀπεχρίνατο οὐδέν... πάλιν... ἐπηρώτα αὐτόν... mais il a en plus l’adjuration par le Dieu vivant, qui n’est évidemment pas une glose de Mc., mais l'expression d’un fait conforme aux usages : οἷ, III Regn. xxur, 16 ἐγὼ ἐξορκίζω σε ὅπως λαλήσῃς πρὸς μὲ ἀλήθειαν ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου. Cette pratique était courante dans les procès, même au civil, et les modalités en sont réglées par la Michna (Chebouoth). Dans Israël celui qui jurait disait volontiers 511 ὙΠ, « aussi vrai que Dieu est vivant » et que par conséquent il entend ce qu’on affirme en son nom et punit le parjure; en résumé : « par le Dieu vivant ». On voit donc dans Μί., mieux que dans Mc., le parti que prend le grand-prêtre. Les témoignages ne suffisent pas à faire condamner Jésus, et son silence ne permet pas de lui extorquer des paroles compromettantes; il faut donc recourir à sa conscience, le sommer au nom de Dieu de dire s'il est le Christ. S'il répond Amen, comme c'était l'usage au cas où la réponse était affirmative, ce serait l'équivalent d'un aveu. La question est la même que dans Mc., avec τοῦ θεοῦ au lieu de τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ. Wellh. a noté qu'on attendrait l'inverse, car Mt. a d'ordinaire mieux conservé les termes dont se servaient les Juifs. Cependant Le. qui a mieux distingué les deux questions sur le Messie et sur le Fils de Dieu, ἃ, lui aussi, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. Dans Mt., après avoir dit : « par le Dieu vivant », le grand-prêtre tie pouvait affecter d'éviter de prononcer le nom de Dieu.
26:64
σὺ εἶπας est moins nettement affirmatif que ἐγώ εἰμι (Mc.), mais dans Le. aussi Jésus s'en réfère à la question qui lui est posée. D’après Merx, les termes de Mt. peuvent être équivalents à οὐχ οὕτως, dans ΠῚ Regn. xx, 17, c’est-à-dire 65. om. ἀντου p. βλασφημίαν (TH) plutôt que add. (SV). je n'accepte pas ce procédé, je ne me soumets pas à l'interrogation sous serment. Mais il est clair que ce n’est pas le sens (cf. xxvi, 25). La réponse ἃ même quelque chose de plus qu'un simple aveu. L'aveu d'un crime cause de la confusion. Ici le grand-prêtre affecte de demander sérieusement à Jésus s’il possède un titre ineffable et divin. C'est donc lui-même qui prépare la réponse, en posant la question comme il fallait la poser; non pas « prétendrais-tu être le Christ »? mais simplement « es-tu le Christ »? D'où ἃ pu lui venir une telle pensée, si rien dans la vie de Jésus ne justifiait une telle prétention? C'est bien l'interprétation d'Origène : quasi ipsum testem accipiens adiurantem, quoniam ipse est qui in interrogatione sacerdotis pronuntiatus est Christus filius Dei. sed verbum oris eius accipiens in redargutionem ipsius convertit, dicens : Tu dixisti, ut eo modo videretur argut non doceri. La réponse de Jésus est donc affirmative, et dans les termes du grand-prètre; lui-même ajoute quelque chose, après πλὴν λέγω ὑμῖν formant une opposition qui n'avait pas de raison d'être dans Mc. Les mots sont les mêmes que dans Mc.; en plus ἄπ᾽ ἄρτι correspondant à ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν dans Lc., c’est-à-dire : « désormais »; les sanhédrites ne verront plus Jésus comme un accusé, mais comme associé à la gloire de Dieu; donc « à partir de maintenant », comme dans xx, 39; sxvi, 29, et non pas dans le sens atténué de bientôt (contre MeNeile)..Sur le sens de ὄψεσθε cf. Comm. Me. et Le. Ce qui importait et par conséquent ce qui ressort de ces mots, c'est la réalité de La gloire promise à celui qui est Christ et Fils de Dieu. Il est dit Fils de l’homme, parce que l’image de cette gloire est empruntée à Dan. vi, 13, encore plus qu'au ps. cix (ex), 4. — Autre nuance Me. ἃ μετὰ (τῶν νεφελῶν) avec Théodotion, Mt. ἃ ἐπί avec les LXX, ce qui ρᾶγαϊΐ plus solennel.
26:65
Comme Mc.; en plus : ἐδλασφήμησεν... ἴδε νῦν exclamations fort naturelles; τότε au lieu de δέ; τὰ ἱμάτια plus vague que τοὺς χιτῶνας. — « 1] déchira disant » revient au même que « déchirant, il dit
26:66
δοκεῖ (style de Mt.) au lieu de φαίνεται. La réponse est dans le style direct, sans πάντες peut-être à cause de Joseph d'Arimathie (xxvu, 57), mis à part expressément par Le. (χχπι, 54). Mt. est donc moins affirmatif que Mc. sur le fait d'une condamnation à mort. L'intention des sanhédrites est claire : ils veulent la mort de Jésus, et ils le déclarent coupable. Il est condamné dans la mesure où il peut l'être. Le texte de Mt. est donc plus en harmonie avec Jo. xvin, 31, qui exprime clairement la situation juridique, dont Mc. ne s’est pas préoccupé. . 67 5.) Me. attribue les mauvais traitements à des τίνες qui doivent être des membres du sanhédrin, et nomme ensuite la valetaille. Dans Mt. ἐνέπτυσαν doit s'entendre de ceux qui ont déclaré Jésus coupable, c'est-à-dire les sanhédrites, soit quelques-uns d'entre eux ; οἱ δέ désigne donc une autre catégorie. Le premier acte, cracher à la face, rappelle Isaïe 1, 6 τὸ δὲ πρόσωπόν μου οὐκ ἀπέστρεψα ἀπὸ αἰσχύνης ἐμπτυσμάτων. Dans Mc., après avoir conspué le Sauveur, on le couvre d'un voile, et l’on comprend moins bien qu'on puisse après lui donner des soufflets (Me. et Mt.). Dans Mc. c'est le premier groupe qui dit προφήτευσον, sans qu’on sache quel sera l'objet de la prophétie; dans Mi., c'est le second groupe, après qu'ils ont frappé le Christ à la tête, et le but de la prophétie est de dire qui a frappé. D'après Klost. ce jeu cruel suppose que le Christ était voilé, et c'est précisément ce que Mt. n’a pas dit; si vraiment il ἃ omis une circonstance nécessaire, l'omission serait impardonnable en ayant Mc. sous les yeux. Le. ne s'en est pas rendu responsable. Mais il est plus probable que Mt. suivait son propre chemin. Ceux qui outragent ainsi le Christ sont des subalternes, il ne devait pas savoir leurs noms, et ils peuvent se faire un jeu de le demander à Jésus : comment se nomme celui que tu vois et qui vient de te frapper? Ou bien ῥαπίζω (à la différence de κολαφίζω) signifiait ici un coup sur les yeux qui paralysait la vue; le sens était : ἐπὶ χόρρης πατάξαι (PLur. ΜΟΥ". 713, c), frapper sur les tempes, de façon à étourdir. L'explication du προφήτευσον est la même dans Le., et répond sûrement à la réalité. Mt. ajoute χρίστε, ce qui prouve que les misérables sont membres du sanhédrin ou qu’on veut leur être agréable. On dirait que le texte de Mt. est le plus ancien; Mc. ἃ fait une place aux serviteurs, qui paraissent seuls dans Le. Ge dernier avait sa source, mais, par le voile, il tient compte de Mc. plus que ne fait Mt. Le. xx, 56-62; Jo. xvur,
26:69
Dans les deux premiers cas de ce chapitre (3. 58), αὐλή signifie palais; le sens pourrait être dehors (au lieu de «en bas »), c'est-à-dire à ciel ouvert, mais 71. om. αὐτὸν p. δε (HV) ou add. (TS). — vois (TH) plutôt que autotc (SV). au dedans du palais. Pourtant il est plus naturel de penser que Mt. adopte ici le sens de cour comme Me. Mt. est le seul des quatre à ne pas dire que Pierre se chauffail. — προσῆλθεν est de son style, μιά — τίς. Sans s'arrêter aux circonstances du feu et du regard, selon son habitude Mt. va droit au fait. La servante dit Jésus de Galilée (Mc. de Nazareth); ce n’est pas que Pierre se soit déjà fait connaitre par son dialecte; la servante ἃ pu le rencontrer.
26:70
Négation, « Devant tous » (Mc. om.), circonstance qui augmente la faute, et qui l'explique peut-être par la crainte qu'une assistance assez nombreuse pouvait inspirer. Les termes sont plus concis que dans Mc., ce qui supprime un bredouillage intéressant.
26:71
Comme dans Me., Pierre se dirige vers le dehors (ἐξηλθόντα, sans ἔξω) sans franchir la porte, sans doute pour être moins en vue, ce qui s'explique mieux dans Mc. à cause du feu qui brillait dans la cour. Le πυλών était aussi bien un vestibule qu'une grande porte (Polybe, 1v, 18, 2 etc.), donc la même chose que le προαύλιον de Mc. Au lieu que dans Mec. c'est encore la même servante, Mt. écrit ἄλλη, une autre personne, qui est probablement une autre servante, Comme dans Me. elle s'adresse aux assistants, en des termes moins naturels, où Jésus cette fois est nommé « de Nazareth », mais Ναζωραῖος, selon l'usage de Mi., non Ναζαρηνός.
26:72
Simple reniement de Me.; Mt. a en plus le serment, avec l'indication. assez méprisante de « l'homme
26:73
« Après peu » comme dans Mc. (dans 1,6. environ une heure), les assistants entrent en scène (προσελθόντες, style de Mt.) dans les mêmes termes que dans Me. (Mt. en plus καὶ σύ) et au lieu de « car tu es galiléen », ils disent avoir reconnu Pierre à sa façon de parler. Il semble que si Mi. avait suivi Me., il aurait conservé : « tu es galiléen », avec l'indication de ce qui l'avait fait reconnaître. — Au lieu de δηλον σε mou, on lit ouotaïet dans D éf., syrsin. (eur. vacat), mais celte leçon n’a de sens qu'après les mots : « tu es galiléen ». Aussi a-t-elle une certaine vraisemblance dans Mec. σιν, 70. Mais ici, avec qui serait la ressemblance? avec Jésus? Il eût fallu le dire. Sur les particularités du dialecte galiléen, cf. Darmaw, aramäische Grammatik. — λαλιά pourrait être la prononciation aussi bien que le dialecte; les gens du peuple: la remarquent même plus facilement.
26:74
Comme Me., avec καταθεματίζειν (1. αναθ.), mot très rare (Irén. 1, xmi, 4; xvi, 3), qui doit avoir le sens de χαταναθεματίζω, avec ὀμνύειν, sûrement dans le sens d'attirer sur soi une malédiction si l’on ne dit pas La vérité. — τότε au lieu de 6 δέ et om. τοῦτον ὃν λέγετε. Si Mt. avait suivi Mc., il faudrait supposer qu’au v. 72 il a pris d'avance à Mc. la formule écourtée du troisième reniement pour se répéter ici. — Le chant du coq comme Mc., avec εὐθύς, mais sans ἐχ δευτέρου car c’est dans Me. seul que le coq chante deux fois. Le chant du coq aussitôt après le troisième reniement est dans les quatre.
26:75
Première partie presque comme Mc. sauf le double chant du coq. Ensuite au lieu de l'expression difficile de Mc., exactement les termes de Le., y compris πιχρῶς, ce qui ne peut guère être une rencontre. CHAPITRE XXVIH ἃ. om. αὐτὸν p. παρεδωκαν (THV) et non add. (5). — 0m. ποντιῶ ὦ. mate (THV) et non add. (S).
26:2
In the New Testament, wāqīx means for the most part the Jewish paschal feast: Mt. 26:2 and parallels Mc. 14:1; Lc. 22:1; cf. Lc. 2:41; Io. 2:13-23; 6:4; 11:55; 12:1; 18:39; 19:14; Act. 12:4; Hebr. 11:28). It sometimes has, however, the sense of paschal supper, …
… (ibid. 13:1). It appears that on Wednesday J. did not go to Jerusalem, but spent the whole day at Bethany with the Apostles (F. Prat, II, p. 261); it was the day on which the second council of the Sanhedrin was held (after that of Jn. 11:46-53), of which Mt. 26:2-3; Mk. 14:1; Lk. 22:1-2. With this we enter the account of the Passion, which is treated below.
26:3
… ἐκῶνος an emphatic sense ("in this fateful year") or the broad sense of "at that time." Shortly before the feast of Passover at which Jesus died, the members of the Sanhedrin gathered in the house of C. to deliberate on how Jesus might be put to death (Mt. 26:3; Mk. 14:1, 2; Lk. 22:2), and they decided not to kill him during the Passover. …
… and his preaching, reaches its climax in the decision of the Sanhedrin to put J. to death, taken after the resurrection of Lazarus (Jn. 11, 46-53). A second meeting of the Sanhedrin two days before the Passover deliberates on the manner of seizing J. (Mt. 26, 3-5). On the same day or at the same time Judas offers to hand J. over; it is Satan who has entered into him (Lk. 22, 3; Jn. 13, 2). The price is thirty shekels equivalent to about 116 …
26:6
besides a certain quantity of flour and oil. The expiatory sacrifice implies the concept of leprosy regarded as a punishment from God. In the Old Testament (cf. Ex. 4:6; Num. 5:2; 12:10; II Kings 5:1; 7:3; II Chron. 26:20 ff.) and in the New (cf. Mt. 8:2; 10:5; 11:5; 26:6) lepers are often spoken of, and the miraculous healing of some of them is narrated. …
Mt. 26:6-13 and Mk. 14:3-9 speak of a woman who, in the house of the Pharisee Simon the leper, anointed the head of Jesus, arousing comments for the waste. …
3. Sister of Lazarus, always at Bethany, in an attitude of quiet contemplation at the feet of Jesus (Luke 10:39-42), or of grateful love at the supper after her brother's resurrection (John 11:1-33), when she anointed the head and feet of the Lord (John 12:1-8; Matt. 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9). She merited from Jesus the praise of having chosen "the better part," the one thing truly necessary (Luke 10:42), and of having anticipated in the anointing the burial …
… courteous (vv. 44-46). To the scandal that S. felt at the woman's gesture, Jesus responded with the parable of the creditor and the two debtors and had S. himself draw the conclusion from it (vv. 39-43). Because of the analogy with the episode at Bethany (Mt. 26:6 ff.; Mk. 14:3 ff.; cf. Jn. 12:2 ff.), S. the Pharisee has sometimes been confused (even in the antiphon of First Vespers of St. Mary Magdalene, Brev. …
26:7
… presented as the one who betrayed (ὁ παραδούς) before his betrayal is narrated (Mt. 10:4; cf. Mk. 3:19; Lk. 6:16). From the comparison of the Synoptics with John it results that Mary of Bethany had anointed the Lord (Jn. 11:2), beginning from the head (Mt. 26:7; Mk. 14:3) and ending at the feet (Jn. 12:3).
26:12
distinction between the preparation of the corpse and its entombment, on account of the true meaning of the verb ἐνταφιάζειν used by the Evangelists (Jn. 19:40; Mt. 26:12); b) the number and nature of the perfumes employed therein; c) the number and distinction of the linen cloths in which the body of Jesus was wrapped; d) how many and which of them …
26:13
… infallibility: within its scope stand "every truth" revealed to the Apostles by the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:26; 16:13), "the whole preaching" of Jesus (Mt 28:20), "the words of Jesus which came from the Father" (Jn 17:6-8), "the Gospel of the Kingdom" (Mt 24:14; 26:13). Logically included in it is infallibility in the condemnation of heresy (v.), which stands in contradictory opposition to revealed Truth. …
26:14
Apostles (Gr. Ἀπόστολος "Sent One", from ἀποστέλλω)
… completion of his redemptive mission (Mt. 28:18-20; Jn. 15:16). Thus Jesus called "the twelve" (Mk. 3:14; Mt. 10:1), whom he chose from an unspecified number of disciples (Lk. 6:13). "The twelve" was a fixed designation: Mk. 6:7 (Lk. 9:1); Mt. 10:5; 20:17; 26:14, etc.; Acts 6:2; this is proved above all by 1 Cor. 15:5, where Paul speaks of the appearances of the Risen One to "the twelve".
… perhaps the present-day Hirbet el-Qarjatejn, a small town in southern Judea, he was called to the apostolate (Luke 6:16) and appointed administrator of the group of the "twelve" (John 12:6; 13:29). He betrayed the Master for thirty pieces of silver (Matt. 26:14 ff. and parallel texts). …
26:15
Matthew, Apostle, Evangelist, Saint
As confirmation of the genuineness of the Gospel of M., it is worth underlining the special interest that the author, unlike the other Evangelists, places in money: he is the only one who speaks of the thirty pieces of silver (Mt. 26:15; 27:3-10): "M. writes of money and coins in twelve passages of his Gospel, while John only in two. The publican and... the eagle. …
26:17
… Iud., VI, 9, 3). Pilgrims formed a family, as in the case of Jesus and the Apostles (Mt. 26:17-19), and a setting was offered them by people they knew. …
His characteristic essays—diligent, learned, rich in erudition, but sometimes unbalanced and even false—can be read, for example, on Mt. 26:17 and Jn. 18:28, Lk. 2:1-5, etc. Raimondo Köbert
Unleavened (Greek: ἀζημός, from privative α and ζῆν, «without leaven»; Hebrew: maṣṣāḥ, pl. maṣṣōth)
… during the seven days of the solemnity was joined to the commemorative feast of the miraculous exodus (v. PASQUA) (Ex. 12, 15). Passover was called the "feast of unleavened bread" (Ex. 23, 15; 34, 18; Lk. 22, 1) or the "days of unleavened bread" (Mt. 26, 17; Lk. 22, 7; Acts 12, 3; 20, 6). Already at the first Passover celebrated in the land of Palestine (Jos. 5, 11) the use of unleavened bread is observed.
26:18
In the New Testament, wāqīx means for the most part the Jewish paschal feast: Mt. 26:2 and parallels Mc. 14:1; Lc. 22:1; cf. Lc. 2:41; Io. 2:13-23; 6:4; 11:55; 12:1; 18:39; 19:14; Act. 12:4; Hebr. 11:28). It sometimes has, however, the sense of paschal supper, as in Mt. 26:18 f.; Mc. 14:16; Lc. 22:8-9, 13. With the sense of paschal supper, or rather of paschal lamb, it is found in the expression: "To eat the P." (Mt. 26:17; Mc. 14:12-14; Lc. 22:11-15; …
26:20
… It is separated from the city by the valley of the Kidron (2 Sam. 15:23; Isa. 18:1; cf. Mt. 26:20; Flavius Josephus, Antiq. …
26:24
… together with the Lord (praesentes esse ad Dominum: ἐνδημῶς πρὸς τὸν Κύριον [II Cor. 5:8]), as when he affirms that Christ died for us, so that whether in life or in death simul cum illo vivamus (I Thess. 5:9-10). The same idea underlies other texts: Mt. 26:24, II Cor. 5:10, Philip. 1:23, Hebr. 9:27, Apoc. 14:13.
… Jews ask for the crucifixion (Io. 19, 6); the sixth, after the final struggle with the Jews: Pilate, yielding to the fear of being accused before Caesar (Tiberius) for having acquitted a guilty man of lese-majesty, washes his hands before the people (Mt. 26, 24).
… at least to excuse him. But against every attempt at rehabilitation stands the word of Jesus: "The Son of Man goes as it is written of him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed: it would be better for him if he had never been born" (Matt. 26:24).
Matthew, Apostle, Evangelist, Saint
… Corinthians, written by St. Clement of Rome around 95, with M. in these points: "Be merciful and you will obtain mercy" (First Corinthians 13:2 with Mt. 6:14-15; 7:1-2, 12); "Woe to that man, better for him if he had not been born" (First Corinthians 46:8 with Mt. 26:24; 18:6). Other interesting parallels are noted in the Didache (8:2 with Mt. 6:9 ff.; Did. 9:5 with Mt. 7:6; furthermore many other passages listed by F. X. Funk, Patres Apostolici, …
26:26
… Thus in the two multiplications of the loaves (Mt. 14:19; 15:36), in the Eucharistic Supper (Mt. 26:26 ff.), in the supper at Emmaus (Lk. 24:30) and elsewhere (Acts 27:35; Rom. 14:6).
Breaking of Bread (Ἐλᾶσις τοῦ δρῦσου)
This custom was adopted by Jesus, who as head of a new spiritual family broke bread before the crowd he fed in the miracle of the multiplication (Mt. 14, 19; 15, 36; Mk. 6, 41; 8, 6; Lk. 9, 16; Jn. 6, 11). On the eve of his death he repeated the rite in the institution of the Eucharist (Mt. 26, 26; Mk. 14, 22; Lk. 22, 19; I Cor. 11, 24), which St. Paul calls « panis quem frangimus » (ibid., 10, 16).
The classical name εὐχαριστία derives from the account of the institution, where it is related that Jesus gave thanks (Mt. 26:26; Mk. 14:22; εὐλογήσας; Lk. 22:19; I Cor. 11:23: εὐχαριστήσας), and it is already found used by the Didaché (9, 1-5; 10, 1-6), by St. Ignatius of Antioch (Smirn., 7, 1; Phil., 4), by …
Oecolampadius (Oekolampad, Heuszgen), Johannes
… Instead of "This is my body" (Mt. 26:26; Mk. 14:22; Lk. 22:19) the words were to be understood as: "this is the image (or figure) of my body" (De genuina verborum Domini «hoc est Corpus meum... expositione, 1525). E. urged …
teach all nations, baptizing them (res) in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (verba)" (Mt. 28, 19); for the Eucharist: "Jesus took bread (res) and said: this is my Body (verba): and taking the chalice in his hands (res) he said: this is my Blood (verba)" (Mt. 26, 26-28), etc. Scripture, however, a) does not assign greater importance to the words in comparison with the things, b) does not unite the sensible rite with its meaning: for example, while …
… The Gospel text (Mt. 26:26) "this is my body," is according to Z. to be understood as "this signifies my body." Hence his radicalism with regard to images, and to the Lutheran Mass itself, furnishing examples …
26:27
… as the Incarnation brings us near to God. If the Incarnation is God becoming man, the E. is God becoming every man: "Per hoc sacramentum omnes nos sibi univit Deus, cum in Incarnatione non univerit sibi nisi unius solius naturam" (Albert the Great, In Mt. 26, 27; ed. Borgnet, XXI, col. 165). Thus God enters not only into the limits of our nature, but also into those of our person. …
… the bread of life;... this is the bread that came down from heaven, so that whoever eats of it may not die" (Jn. 6, 48-50). b) At the Last Supper Jesus, after the consecrated bread, handed the chalice to the Apostles, saying: "Drink of it, all of you" (Mt. 26, 27); and, when the Communion was finished, he added: "Do this in memory of me" (Lk. 22, 29). But the command to drink the chalice was not addressed to all Christians but to those present …
Holiness of Christ and of Mary
… Jésus-Christ, II, 18th ed., Paris 1931, pp. 79-121); it finds no detractors, except among the scribes and Pharisees (who accused him of gluttony [Mt. 11:19], of lawlessness, particularly of violating the sabbath [Jn. 5:18; 9:16] and of blasphemy [Mk. 2:7; Mt. 26:27; Jn. 5:18]; indeed they even went so far as to call him possessed by a demon [Jn. 7:20; 8:48-49; 10:20; cf. Mt. 12:24]) and among certain liberal neo-Protestants (DThC, VIII, coll. 1381-82).
26:28
… Thus, as Old Testament (cf. Hebr. 8, 13) was designated the ancient period of Revelation in which God had made a "pact" or "covenant" with the nation of Israel alone; as New Testament (cf. Mt. 26, 28; II Cor. 3, 6), on the other hand, was designated the second and last period, in which the old "pact" was replaced by the new and all nations were called without distinction to participate …
… At the Last Supper Jesus performed a true sacrifice when he said that his Body was "given" ("Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur": Lk. 22:19) and his Blood was "shed" ("Hic est Sanguis meus Novi Testamenti, qui pro multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum": Mt. 26:28), since in biblical style these two expressions, even taken separately (for the traditio corporis cf. Is. 53:12; Mt. 20:28; Rom. 8:32; Gal. 1:4; 2:20; Eph. 5:25; I Tim. 2:6; Tit. …
The Synoptics, narrating the institution of the Most Holy Eucharist, underscore the words of Jesus Christ: "For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for the remission of sins" (Mt. 26:28; cf. Mk. 14:24; Lk. 22:20). But in Matthew (20:28; cf. Mk. 10:45) are reported the categorical words of the Master, who thus defined his redemptive mission: "The Son of man did not …
26:29
… Jesus too said that he would drink wine with his Apostles in the kingdom of his Father (Mt. 26, 29), and there is talk of twelve thrones on which the Apostles would judge the 12 tribes of Israel
… the consecrated cup was the third: I Cor. 10:16). To the consecration of the chalice Jesus added the words: "I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father" (Mt. 26:29). From this it appears that at that supper the fourth cup was not poured, as was ordinarily done. …
26:30
… This too was done by Jesus and his disciples ("and when they had sung a hymn": Mt. 26:30). When the Hallél was finished, the fourth cup was drunk. …
… remembrance of the prodigies performed by Moses at God's command, psalms of praise (131-18) or hallēl (v.); the supper with the consumption of unleavened bread and bitter herbs, the blessing over the food, the second part of the psalms of praise (cf. Mt. 26:30; Mk. 14:26). The various narrative texts are already contained in Talmudic literature. …
It seems that it was already sung in the time of King Josiah (II Par. 35:15) and also of King Hezekiah (II Par. 30:21). Sap. 18:9 then alludes to this use, where aḫvouç (laudes) is a translation of h. Jesus and his Apostles also sang the h. at the Last Supper (Mt. 26:30; Mc. 14:26; iṣuṣiṣavruç, [hymno dicto] that is, the second part of the h.).
26:31
Primacy of Saint Peter and of the Roman Pontiff
… in the most intimate revelations (Mt. 17:1 ff.; 26:37 and parall.), assured him of a particular prayer "that once converted he might strengthen his brethren in the faith" (Lk. 22:21 f.), while he did not spare him rebukes (Mt. 16:23; 14:31; Mk. 14:37; Mt. 26:31, 34; cf. Lk. 22:61). On the day of his Resurrection he appeared to him singly (Lk. 24:34; I Cor. 15:5) and before ascending to heaven he foretold to him alone the manner of his death (Jn. …
… as ἀπεκρίμενο instead of the more common ἀπεκρίθη (Mt. 27:12 = Mk. 14:61 = Lk. 23:9), in citations of the Old Testament uniform in the Synoptics but different both from the Hebrew and from the Greek of the Septuagint (cf. Mt. 3:3 = Mk. 1:3 = Lk. 3:4; Mt. 26:31 = Mk. 14:27).
26:32
… Nor in the New Testament has God withdrawn this delegation given to the public powers, as is evident from certain texts that presuppose the death penalty (Mt. 26, 32; Rom. 13, 4). It is not, however, an unlimited power: St. Thomas holds it to be lawful to kill a malefactor if and insofar as such killing is ordered to the salvation of the whole …
26:33
Primacy of Saint Peter and of the Roman Pontiff
Peter himself was conscious of his position, since it is generally he who speaks on behalf of all (Mt. 14:28; 15:15; 16:16-22; 17:4; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33; Mk. 8:29; 10:28; 11:21; 14:29; Lk. 8:45; 9:20; 9:33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:31; Jn. 6:68; 13:6-10, 36). Peter's particular position cannot be attributed to his seniority (there is no reason …
26:36
… The facts are narrated by the three synoptic evangelists (Mt. 26:36-46; Mk. 14:32-42 and Lk. 22:40-46). Luke recounts more briefly, but in compensation he has as his own the appearance of the comforting angel and the sweat of blood. …
Gethsemani (Hebrew Gath-Šēmānîm, "Oil Press")
GETHSEMANI (Hebrew Gath-Šēmānîm, "Oil Press"). - A place (Lk. 22:40), a garden (Jn. 18:1), a plot of land (Mk. 14:32; Mt. 26:36; Vulg. villa, praedium) in Jerusalem, beyond the brook Kidron, at the foot of the Mount of Olives (Lk. 22:39; Jn. 18:1-2) where Jesus prayed, agonized and was arrested.
26:37
With Peter and John he is among the privileged ones: he is present at the raising of Jairus's daughter (Mk. 5:36), at the agony of Jesus in Gethsemane (Mt. 26:37), and asks for information about the end of the world (Mk. 13:3 ff.). …
… The feelings to which J. gives vent in his heart are sorrow (λυπεῖσθαι: Mt. 26:37) at a present evil, weariness (ἀθημονεῖν), horror and amazement (ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι). …
John, Apostle, Evangelist, Saint
… narrating the events they omitted) and to put one on guard lest they be misunderstood (3,24: "for John had not yet been sent to prison": as someone might have concluded from Mk. 1,14; 18,13: "they led him first to Annas," not immediately to Caiaphas, Mt. 26,37; 19,1: "then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him," therefore not when he had already condemned him).
Primacy of Saint Peter and of the Roman Pontiff
… He is one of the three chosen to witness the healing of Jairus's daughter (Mk. 5:37), the Transfiguration (Mt. 17:1-8; Mk. 9:1-8; Lk. 9:28-36) and the agony of Jesus (Mt. 26:37; Mk. 4:33); he is one of the two sent to prepare the Passover (Lk. 22:8), indeed he is always named first among them. …
26:38
2. Like népheš, the soul (ψυχή), although it is opposed to the material body (Mt. 10, 28; 26, 38), is sometimes the subject of activities of a purely sensitive order (Lk. 12, 19-23; cf. Mt. 6, 25; Apoc. 18, 14), and always maintains a close relationship with the body or the flesh. …
26:39
The theological foundations of this virtue are in the teaching and examples of Jesus Christ, who recommended it for temporal and spiritual things (Mt. 6, 25-34; Lk. 11, 9; 12, 31; 22, 42; Mt. 26, 39, etc.) and practiced it throughout His mortal existence, which He chose to close with the incomparable words: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (Lk. 23, 46). St. Peter …
… the individual words or phrases, or the meditation and pondering of the sense of some scriptural passage, and also the repetition many times of the same ejaculatory prayer, or of different ones in a certain order, as the Savior Himself gave example (Mt. 26, 39; cf. Lancitius, De causis et remediis ariditatis in oratione, ch. 2 and 14) and the Church in the invitatory of Matins, and innumerable saints.
The Roman rite of today is formed by a Missa catechumenorum, that is, by an antiphon of the Introit (Mt. 21:9; without psalm), by the prayer « Deus, quem diligere », by the reading of Ex. 15:27 and 16:1-7, by the responsory Collegium (Jo. 11:47; 49, 50, 53) or In monte Oliveti (Mt. 26:39 and 41), by the Gospel Cum appropinquasset (ibid. 21:1-9; in ancient times also Mc. 11:1 ff. or Jo. 12:12 ff.). …
… In Sacred Scripture there are many examples of affective vocal prayer; both of souls tried by spiritual desolation, as in the prayer of Tobit (Tob. 3, 1-6), of Sarah (ibid. 3, 13-23), of Christ in Gethsemane (Mt. 26, 39-42; Lk. 22, 42 etc.); and of others in moments of joy and exultation, as in the canticle of Moses (Ex. 15, 1-8), in the prayer of Solomon (I Kings 8, 23-26), of Azariah (Dan. 3, 26-45), …
… Holy Scripture speaks of it (Gen. 42:6; 43:26, 28; Jos. 5:15). Thus the Magi venerated the Infant Jesus (Mt. 2:11); thus Jesus himself prayed in the garden (Mt. 26:39); thus the Apocalypse presents the elders in adoration (Apoc. 5:14; 19:4). Prostration, very much in vogue in the ancient Persian court, was not unknown in Rome (Suetonius, Aul. …
26:41
… "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Mt. 26:41). This dualism, although connatural to man's original constitution, is
Matthew, Apostle, Evangelist, Saint
written" the expression "many are called, few are chosen" which is read in Mt. 20:16 and 22:14. St. Ignatius has many expressions that agree with M. (cf. especially Ad Polyc., 2:2 with Mt. 10:16). St. Polycarp (Ad Philipp., 7:2) draws from Mt. 26:41. For these and other allusions to Mt. on the part of the Apostolic Fathers cf. F. X. Funk, op. cit., pp. 640-52. St. Justin has about fifty citations of M., adduced without the author's …
… [v. bibl.], cap. 1), establishes that prayer is necessary for salvation by necessity of means, and adds "the Scriptures are only too clear which show us the necessity we have of praying if we wish to be saved"; he supports his assertion on Lc. 18, 1; Mt. 26, 41; Mt. 7, 7, on the fact that without Grace we cannot do any good (Io. 15, 5) and that God grants the help of Grace, by ordinary providence, only to one who prays, on the authority …
… connected to sin by origin and by tendency (Rom. 6:12-18, 13). The opposite of the flesh, or animated matter (σάρξ) enclosing the ψυχή, was the invisible dynamism of man called "spirit" (πνεῦμα; I Cor. 5:5); the "fragile flesh" resists the "willing spirit" (Mt. 26:41; Mc. 14:38) in which God or the Spirit of God (Sap. 1:6-7; Iob 10:12; Proc. 8:31) works with mysterious efficacy (Io. 3:6-8; 6:64). The spirit-flesh dualism (πνεῦμα-σάρξ) is one of …
Before temptation arises, man must watch in order to avoid its occasions and pray with trust and humility (Mt. 26:41; Pt. 5:8). It is not lawful rashly, without just cause, to provoke or expose oneself to temptation, which is a danger of sin. If a man, although able to avoid it, performs an action …
26:47
ICONOGRAPHY. - 1. Archaeology. - In some Christian sarcophagi two successive scenes of J. with the Redeemer are observed; the first represents the meeting, when the traitor approached greeting him: "Hail Rabbi"; the second moment is the kiss (Mt. 26:47-48). Thus in the sarcophagus of Servanne (Wilpert, Sarcofagi, pl. 15, 2). Of the scene of J.'s kiss several examples are known in sarcophagi, among them one known since the time of A. …
26:49
those who went to seize the Redeemer (John 18:3; Acts 1:16); he betrayed the Master with a kiss (Matt. 26:49 and parallel texts); he too was struck down by Jesus with the words: "I am he" (John 18:5), and after his condemnation he hanged himself (Matt. 27:3-5; Acts 1:18).
… Forschungen, 3rd series, 2 (Gütersloh 1932), p. 55 ff.); it is known in the Old and New Testaments (Ps. 71:9-11; Is. 49:23; Lk. 7:38-45, 15:20; Mt. 26:49) and does not always have a clearly religious meaning. …
26:51
Malchus (Mellyoc, Malchus, from Semitic Malk = "King")
… Having gone to the garden of Olives to arrest Jesus, he received a slash from Peter, which wounded his right ear. Only Jn. 18:10 gives the name of the striker, Peter, and of the wounded man, M. The Synoptics (Mt. 26:51; Mk. 14:47; Lk. 22:50), perhaps because Peter was still alive when they wrote, omit the name of the striker and of the wounded man. Lk. 22:51 adds that "Jesus, having touched …
26:52
… could write, repeating moreover what St. Bernard had already written (De consid., IV, 3): "Whoever should dare to deny that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter would pay little heed to the word of the Lord: Put thy sword back into its sheath (Mt. 26, 52). The two swords, the spiritual and the temporal, are therefore in the power of the C.: the first is wielded by the C., the second for the C., the first by the priests, the second …
… is uncertain whether what is at issue there is a provision of positive law or of natural law. On the other hand, however, the unlawfulness of self-defense cannot be demonstrated in any way from Sacred Scripture, because the passages of Mt. 5:38-39; 26:52; Rom. 12:18-19, which would seem to present some difficulty, are commonly interpreted in the sense that only the lust for vengeance is forbidden there.
26:53
… This presence of the a. is especially notable in the nativity of Jesus (annunciation to Mary, apparitions to Joseph, apparition to the shepherds, flight into Egypt and return to Galilee), at the beginning of the public ministry (Mt. 4, 11), in the passion (Mt. 26, 53; Lk. 22, 43), in his triumph of the resurrection and ascension (Mk. 16, 5; Lk. 24, 23; Jn. 20, 12; Acts 1, 10), in the future judgment (Mt. 13, 39, 41, 49; 16, 27; 24, 31; 25, 31; …
26:56
They indeed report or presuppose the various elements from which it results that the sacred writer is a "prophet" (Mt. 26, 56; Lk. 18, 31; 24, 25; Rom. 16, 26; Heb. 1, 1-2, etc.), that he writes under the influence of God who fills him with the Holy Spirit (Hos. 9, 7; Mic. 3, 8; Ezek. 2, 2; 3, 12; 8, 13; …
26:57
… C. adjured Jesus to say whether he was the Messiah and the son of God. Having Jesus answered yes, C., to show that he considered the statement a blasphemy, tore his garments and cried out: "He has blasphemed! what further need have we of witnesses?" (Mt. 26:57-65; Mk. 14:53-64). Thus Jesus was condemned to death by the Sanhedrin, and then handed over to Pilate, to whom he was led from the house of C. (Jn. 18:28). When, after the healing of …
9) The religious trial. - The order of events seems to be the following: J. is questioned in private form by the elder Annas, who could more easily have found the motive for a condemnation (Jn. 18:13-24); he is then led to Caiaphas, the high priest, and to the Sanhedrin, gathered in his house (Mt. 26:57-66),
26:61
… This solution fits well for the passage of Mt. 26:61, before Caiaphas; it does not, however, seem admissible for all the other cases: all the more so since, if Jesus had clearly attributed to himself the title of glorious Messiah, he …
… Oaths were sworn by it, and it was a crime not to speak of it with respect (hence the accusation against Jesus: Mt. 26, 61; 27, 40 and parallels). …
Triduum, Octave (Octiduum), Novena
… (Iou. 2, 1; Act. 12, 38-40). Another famous passage of the Gospel is that in which Jesus, speaking of the destruction of the Temple which he will rebuild within three days, alludes to his resurrection three days after the burial (Io. 2, 19-20; Mt. 26, 61; 27, 40; Mc. 14, 40; Mt. 27, 63; 17, 22; Mc. 8, 31; 9, 30). Also Saul, the future Paul, after the blinding scene, remained in Damascus for three days fasting and wholly shaken.
26:63
… which the devil himself uses: I adjure thee, do not torment me (Mk. 5:7; cf. Lk. 8:28). Imperative is, for example, that addressed by Caiaphas to Jesus: I adjure thee, by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God (Mt. 26:63). Imperative adjuration, in order to be lawful, requires that the one who adjures have the authority and the right to command and not overstep the limits of his power (cf. I Thess. 5:27).
… Io. 2:22; 5:1; II Io. 7, 9). The polemic on this point burns against the Jews, who awaited the Ch. (Io. 1:20, 25, 41; 3:28; Lc. 3:15), suspected that it was Jesus (Io. 4:29; 7:26 ff. 31, 41; 10:24; 12:34) and questioned him in the Sanhedrin (Mt. 26:63; Mc. 14:61; Lc. 22:67), then demanded his condemnation, accusing him of having proclaimed himself Ch. King (Lc. 23:2, 35, 39; Io. 18:33, 37; 19:14 ff. 19-21). In the Gospels, …
… Cor. 5:17; the passage from death to life of John 5:24-28; E. B. Allo, op. cit., p. 325). Finally the various elements (angels, cloud, fire, etc.) that accompany the manifestations of God as judge (Isa. 34:10; 66:15; Dan. 7:13 ff., etc.; Matt. 16:27; 26:63 f.; Mark 14:61 f., etc.) are merely descriptive, characteristic of the prophetic style.
… Caesarea, is a superhuman truth, manifested to the Apostle directly by the heavenly Father (Mt. 16:16-17), and Jesus himself confirms it forcefully before the High Priest in the Sanhedrin; indeed, for this declaration of his he is condemned to death (Mt. 26:63-65; Mk. 14:61-64; Lk. 22:70).
… Transfiguration (Mt. 3:17 and 17:5; Mk. 1:11 and 9:7; Lk. 3:22 and 9:35), by Peter through divine inspiration (Mt. 16:16), and even by the demons (ibid. 8:29; Mk. 5:7). Jesus himself declares himself the Son of God and for this is condemned to death (Mt. 26:63-64; v. FIGLIO DI DIO). …
Indeed I tell you that you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven" (Mt. 26, 63-64). On this affirmation the members of the Sanhedrin based the condemnation.
… testimonies in which Christ affirms himself equal to the Father in power, in will, in nature (Io. 5:17-27; 16:15; 10:30). Thus his hearers interpreted the thought of Christ, friends such as Peter (Mt. 16:16), or enemies such as the members of the Sanhedrin (Mt. 26:63 ff.).
26:64
by the Sanhedrin (Mt. 26:64-66), had been propagated by the apocalyptic writers, together with other formulas and notions. …
… Jesus often spoke of it in his preaching (Mt. 11, 22-23; 12, 41; 16, 27; 26, 64; Lk. 10, 12-14; 11, 31-32; Jn. 5, 29; 12, 48) and described its particulars with magnificence in the eschatological discourse: "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the …
… calamity described thus far and the final act. This is announced with the grandiose images of prophetic style (Mt. 24:20; Mk. 13:24; Lk. 21:25f.). Mt. 24:30a is only a reference to the fulfillment of the prophecy of Zach. 12:2: not a physical vision (cf. Mt. 26:64; Mk. 9:1), but recognition of the vindication of the Cross; in the same way as in 16:19, 37 for Zach. 12:10. It will be a general mourning of the Jewish people, who will have to acknowledge …
… second is whether he is the natural son of God, in the sense understood by the Psalms (2:7) and by J. himself (Jn. 5:18). J., with the expression "you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven" (Mt. 26:64), answers affirmatively to the two questions: the allusion to Dan. 7:13-14 proves his messiahship; "to sit at the
John, Apostle, Evangelist, Saint
… Jesus knows the secret thoughts of hearts (Mt. 9:4 and par.), "he will send his angels" (Mt. 13:41); a "Johannine" passage of the Synoptics (Mt. 11:27; Lk. 10:22); Jesus "is the son of the living God" (Mt. 16:16; 26:64). In the Fourth Gospel, on the other hand, Jesus makes use of a scourge of cords (2:15); tired, he sits down (4:6); he calls himself "man" (8:40); he spits (9:6); he weeps (11:33); …
Jesus before Caiaphas cites and authentically interprets Daniel's prophecy, applying it to the individual Messiah, indeed to himself: "You will see the S. of M. seated at the right hand of the Power, coming on the clouds of heaven" (Mt. 26:64). In the Jewish tradition the expression was applied to the Messiah by the Ethiopian apocryphon of Enoch 46:2. Also IV Esd. 13:8 ff. (1st cent. …
26:67
… God. The unjust condemnation, preceded by the blow with a rod on his face (ἀσπύμα Io. 18, 22), by Peter's threefold denial (on the agreement of the accounts cf. F. Prat, II, pp. 355-56), and followed by the insults of the sanhedrists and the servants (Mt. 26, 67-68) and by the second condemnation in the morning (Lc. 22, 66-70) was the power of darkness in action; and at the same time the progressive annihilation of C. down to the extreme of sorrow …
Servant of Yahweh (Heb. 'Ēbhedh Yahweh)
… 12:38 with Is. 52:1; Mt. 8:17 with Is. 53:4; Acts 8:32-35 with Is. 53:7-8; Lk. 22:37 with Is. 53:12. In these one observes fulfilled in Christ what is said of the S. of Y. (cf. also Lk. 2:32 - Is. 42:6; Mt. 11:5 - Is. 42:7; Rev. 19:13-15 - Is. 49:2; Mt. 26:67 - Is. 50:6). Jesus applies to himself Is. 53:12 (Mk. 15:28; Lk. 22:37). No one can doubt that the figure and the mission of the S. of Y. fit in full only Christ, indeed that they fit …
26:68
… But even alone, ὁ Χριστός expresses the whole faith in the nature and mission of Jesus (Mc. 8:29b). The appellation ὁ Χριστός designates Jesus in the mouth of believers in his transcendent messiahship (Mt. 1:17; 11:2; Act. 8:5; St. Paul) or of unbelievers who mock him (Mt. 26:68; 27:17 and 22 with ὁ λεγόμενος). …
26:69
Epistles I-II to the Thessalonians
… his justice to punish the wicked and to protect his own; a spectacular manifestation of the power of the Messiah, a prophecy of hope for the nascent Church, persecuted by the Synagogue, is precisely the destruction of Jerusalem (Mt. 10:23; 16:27 ff.; 26:69 ff.; and parallel passages; besides Mt. 24 and Lk. 17; v. ESCATOLOGIA). …
Douay-Rheims (Challoner) · Vulgata Clementina · original Douay-Rheims (Rheims 1582), transcription by EEBO-TCP (CC0) · La Sacra Bibbia, tradotta dalla Volgata da Antonio Martini (1769-1781) (LaParola (laparola.net), Martini OSIS text, Public domain (LaParola's electronic edition marks it 'Dominio pubblico')). Public domain.