^V  OF  PR/Sjr^ 
 
 Ni.  Z 
 
Henry  VIII.  and  the  English  Monasteries. 
 
 An  attempt  to  illustrate  the  History  of  their  Suppression, 
 with  an  Appendix  and  Maps  showing  the  situation  of 
 the  religious  houses  at  the  time  of  their  dissolution.  By 
 Francis  Aidan  Gasquet,  O.S.B.  2  Vols.  Third 
 Edition.     Price  12s.  each. 
 
 CONTENTS    OF   VOL.    I. 
 
 INTRODUCTION— Monastic  England. 
 
 CHAPTER  I. — Dawn  of  Difficulties. 
 
 CHAPTER  II. — Precedents  in  England  for  Suppression. 
 
 CHAPTER  III. — Cardinal  Wolsey  and  the  Monasteries. 
 
 CHAPTER  IV.— The  Holy  Maid  of  Kent. 
 
 CHAPTER  V. — The  Franciscan  Observants. 
 
 CHAPTER  VI.— The  Carthusians. 
 
 CHAPTER  Vir. — The  Visitation  of  Monasteries,  1535-6. 
 
 CHAPTER  VIII. — The  Suppression  of  the  Lesser  INIonasteries 
 
 BY  Act  of  Parliament. 
 CHAPTER  IX. — The  Comperta  Monastica,  and  Charges  against 
 
 THE  Monks. 
 CHAPTflR  X. — The  Chief  Accuser,  Thomas  Crumwell. 
 CHAPTER   XI. — The  Accusers'  Chief  Agents  :  Layton,  Lfgh, 
 
 Ap  Rice,  and  London. 
 
 CONTENTS    OF   VOL.    IL 
 
 CHAPTER  I. — Dissolution  of  the  Lesser  Monasteries. 
 
 CHAPTER  IL— The  Lincolnshire  Rising. 
 
 CHAPTER  III.— The  Pilgrimage  of  Grace. 
 
 CHAPTER  IV.— The  Second  Northern  Rising. 
 
 CHAPTER  V. — Dissolutions,  by  Act  of  Attainder. 
 
 CHAPTER  VI. — The  Suppression  of  Convents. 
 
 CHAPTER  VII.— The  Fall  of  the  Friars. 
 
 CHAPTER  VIII. — Progress  of  the  General  Dissolution. 
 
 CHAPTER  IX. — The  Three  Benedictine  Abbots. 
 
 CHAPTER  X.— The  Monastic  Spoils. 
 
 CHAPTER  XL— The  Spending  of  the  Spoils.     The  Disbanded 
 
 Monks  and  their  Pensions. 
 CHAPTER  XII. — Results  of  the  Suppression. 
 
 Appendix,  &c.     Maps.      Index  to  both  Volumes. 
 
Henry  VIII.  and  the  English  Monasteries. 
 
 SOME  OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS  UPON  VOL.  I. 
 
 "  The  old  scandals,  universally  discredited  at  the  time,  and  believed  in  by  a  later 
 generation  only  through  prejudice  and  ignorance,  are  now  dispelled  for  ever." — 
 Academy.     Signed,  James  Gairdner. 
 
 "  His  book  promises  to  be  a  most  valuable  contribution  to  ecclesiastical  history." 
 — Saturday   Review. 
 
 "  A  learned,  careful  and  successful  vindication  of  the  personal  character  of  the 
 Monks.  ...  In  Mr.  Gasquet's  skilful  hands  the  dissolution  of  the  Monasteries  assumes 
 the  proportions  of  a  Greek  tragedy." — Guardian. 
 
 "  The  w^ork  is  solid,  authentic  and  trustworthy  in  its  matter.  .  .  .  The  history 
 speaks  for  itself  in  clear,  simple  and  good  English." — Dxhlin  Review.  Signed,  Henry 
 Edward,  Caniinal  Archbishop. 
 
 "A  book  of  great  value.  .  .  .  We  are  impatient  for  the  second  volume.'" — 
 Reliquary.     Signed.  .].  C.  Cox,  LL.D. 
 
 "  Mr.  Gasquet  is  always  calm  and  moderate.  ...  He  has  produced  a  work  of  much 
 research,  which  has  the  merit  of  being  most  conscientiously  fair." — Notes  and  Queries. 
 
 "  Every  source  of  information  seems  to  have  been  drawn  on.  The  result  is  a 
 picture  of  monastic  life  more  truthful  than  any  hitherto  painted." — The  Standard. 
 
 "  We  look  anxiously  for  the  second  volume  of  this  work,  which  will  always  hold 
 its  own  on  the  shelves  of  our  libraries,  for  it  is  the  result  of  the  labours  of  a  learned 
 scholar  and  divine.'" — Tablet. 
 
 "  Gasijuet  is  a  trenchant  writer  and  formidable  historical  scholar,  and  his  book  will 
 be  welcomed  as  an  admirable  contribution  to  the  study  of  the  epoch." — Star. 
 
 "  An  excellent  and  most  interesting  volume." — Freeman^s  Journal. 
 
 "This  is  a  noteworthy  book.  .  .  .  The  author  writes  in  a  calm  and  critical  spirit 
 and  the  style  is  lucid  and  refined." — Kensington  Neirs. 
 
 "The  book  is  so  interesting,  so  temperately  written,  and  in  such  excellent 
 English  .  .  .  that  we  are  glad  to  commend  it  most  cordially  to  our  readers." — Literary 
 Churchiiuin. 
 
 "  It  is  a  book  which  students  of  history  ought  to  possess.'' — Sussex  Advertiser. 
 
 "  A  most  important  work." — American  Catholic  Jforld. 
 
 "  It  is  as  instructive  as  it  is  gravely  important." — Nation. 
 
 "  A  historian  of  the  right  kind,  and  one  who  deserves  the  success,  remarkable  for  a 
 hook  of  the  kind,  which  he  has  already  had." — Manchester  Guardian. 
 
 "  A  very  interesting  and  valuable  volume.  .  .  .  Every  page  teems  with  informa- 
 tion."— Archa-ological  Review. 
 
 "  The  present  work  shows  that  the  Benedictine  Order  can  still  produce  writers  not 
 unworthy  to  hand  on  the  reputation  earned  in  the  field  of  history  by  the  brethren  of  the 
 learned  congregation  of  St.  ISIaur." — Cluorh  Times. 
 
 "  The  author's  statements  are  beyond  dispute,  while  his  main  conclusions  are 
 fornu-d  with  much  fairness." — St.  yaines^s  Gazette. 
 
 "  Gasquet's  '  Henry  VIll.'  will  be  a  verv  valuable  work  for  historical  reference." — 
 Puiuti. 
 
 "  The  book  will  be  thankfully  received  by  all  historical  scholars  who  work  with 
 unbiassed  minds."' — Publishers'   Circular. 
 
 "  His  second  volume  will  be  looked  forward  to  with  expect.'ition  and  interest.'' — 
 Daily   Telegraph. 
 
 "  The  real  merit  of  the  work  is  that  it  is  one  of  great  and  useful  historical 
 rcsearcli." — English  Churchman. 
 
 "  We  think  he  has  executed  his  task  with  praiseworthy  candour,  and  all  who 
 desire  that  truth  should  prevail  will  thank  him  for  giving  the  results  of  his  laborious 
 researches  to  a  generation  which  is  willing  to  rectify  the  judgments  of  a  less  critical 
 age." — Church  Review. 
 
 "  This  volume  is  a  splendid  addition  to  our  history." — Universe. 
 
 "  Great  diligence,  great  care,  great  accuracy,  and  the  gift  of  skilful  grouping  and 
 ordering  of  facts,  are  all  evident  on  the  face  of  this  excellent  volume." — The  Month. 
 
 "  Fr.  Gasquet's  statement  of  facts  leave  nothing  to  be  desired  in  point  of  accuracy." 
 — IVestminstcr  Review. 
 
 JOHN  HODGl^S,  25,  Henrietta  Street,  Covent  G.\rden,  W.C. 
 
SOME  OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS  UPON  VOL.  II. 
 
 "  We  do  not  feel  the  least  hesitation  in  saying  that  '  Henry  VIII.  and  the  English 
 Monasteries'  is  by  far  the  best  book  in  existence  on  the  religious  changes  which  took 
 place  in  England  during  the  period  between  Henry's  desire  to  put  away  his  wife  and  the 
 accession  of  Elizabeth  to  the  throne." — Tabic/. 
 
 "  The  volume  forms  in  every  respect  a  worthy  companion  and  successor  to  its 
 precursor." — Sussex  Advertiser. 
 
 "  Most  cordially  do  we  tender  our  thanks  to  Fr.  Gasquet  for  all  that  he  has 
 accomplished.-' — The  Reliquary. 
 
 "  Remarkable  ability,  skill,  patient  research,  judicious  arrangement,  and  con. 
 spicuous  literary  gifts  are  displayed  throughout  it." — Freeman's  Journal. 
 
 "The  book  is  a  valuable  contribution  to  church  history,  and  one  which  throws  a 
 flood  of  light  on  the  real  cause  and  actual  methods  and  results  of  Henry  VIII.'s  high- 
 handed treatment  of  the  English  Monasteries."— S<a;«/«r(;. 
 
 "  It  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  it  would   have  been    a  national    misfortune   if 
 anything  had  happened  to  hinder  the  completion  of  this  book." — Month. 
 "An  admirable  work." — American  Catholic  Ncvieiv, 
 
 "  His  volumes  are  well  written  and  well  arranged,  and,  while  full  of  scholarly 
 matter,  are  lively  and  readable." — Saturday  Review. 
 
 "  It  is  a  work  of  great  industry  and  research  with  which  future  historians  dealing 
 with  this  period  will  have  to  reckon." — Literary  II  orld. 
 
 "  A  really  meritorious  work."  "  It  will  tend  to  remove  many  of  our  early  pre- 
 judices."— English  Churchman. 
 
 "  Father  Gasquet  has  rendered  a  service  to  the  church  in  England  which  will 
 endure." — Catholic  Times. 
 
 "  One  of  the  best  historical  books  that  has  appeared  during  the  present  half 
 century." — Edward  Peacock. 
 
 "  We  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  Father  Gasquet 's  work  is  far  and  away 
 the  best  that  has  yet  appeared  on  the  subject.  .  .  .  We  say  to  the  reader,  and  we  say 
 it  confidently,  get  the  book,  and  read  it  again  and  again." — 'Irish  Ecclesiastical  Record. 
 
 "  The  second  and  final  volume  of  Mr.  Gasquet's  great  work  is  before  us.  We  call 
 it  great  without  hesitation,  for  the  first  volume  was  admitted  on  all  hands  to  be  the 
 fairest  book  that  had  yet  been  produced  concerning  the  great  Tudor  revolution." — Notes 
 and  Queries. 
 
 "  We  cannot  close  this  brief  review  of  Father  Gasquet's  second  volume  without 
 thanking  him  for  the  years  of  patient  industry  by  which  from  books  and  manuscripts, 
 from  archives  and  authorities  hitherto  unexplored,  he  has  brought  within  our  reach  so 
 large  a  body  of  knowledge." — Dullin  Kevieic.  Signed,  Hknhy  Edward,  Cardinal- 
 Archbishop. 
 
 "  The  whole  work  is  an  evidence  of  painstaking  and  successful  labour  on  the 
 part  of  all  concerned  in  its  production." — East  Anglian. 
 
 "  We  may  say  in  brief,  if  what  we  have  already  said  is  not  sufficient  to  show  it, 
 that  a  very  impoitant  chapter  of  English  history  is  here  treated  with  a  fulness,  minute- 
 ness, and  lucidity  which  will  not  be  found  in  previous  accounts,  and  we  sincerely  con- 
 gratulate  Mr.  Gasquet  on  having  made  such  an  important  contribution  to  English 
 historical  literature." — Athcnamm. 
 
 "He  (Mr.  Gasquet)  has  carefully  consulted  the  authorities  and  quoted  them  pro- 
 fusely, and  the  sources  from  which  the  greater  part  of  his  facts  are  culled  are  the  best 
 available." — Morning  Post. 
 
 "  The  Reverend  Father  Gasquet  has  finished  the  second  volume  of  his  great  work 
 on  '  Henry  VIII.  and  the  English  Monasteries." — Municipal  JJ'orld. 
 
 "  A  singularly  fair  and  accurate  picture  of  the  manner  in  which  the  dissolution 
 was  carried  out." — Church  Bells. 
 
 "  We  heartily  thank  Fr.  Gasquet  for  this  valuable  contribution  to  English  history, 
 and  trust  he  will  make  further  researches  in  the  same  field." — Archmological  Journal, 
 
 JOHN  HODGES,  25,  Hknriett.v   Stkekt,  Covent  Garden,  W.C. 
 
From  the  "  Guardian:'  July  4///,  1888. 
 
 Henry  VIII.  and  the  Eng-lish  Monasteries :  an  Attempt  to 
 Illustrate  the  History  of  their  Suppression.  By  Francis 
 AiDAN  Gasquet,  Monk  of  the  Order  of  St.  Benedict,  some- 
 time Prior  of  St.  Gregory's  Monastery,  Downside,  Bath. 
 The  ruined  abbeys  of  England  recall  one  of  the  greatest  events  of  our 
 national  history.  Upon  their  grey  and  crumbling  walls  still  play  the  sunset 
 rays  of  departed  feudalism.  They  are  venerable  records  of  a  romantic 
 past,  picturesque  embodiments  of  mediaeval  piety,  vestiges  of  a  once 
 active  agency  to  which  England  owes  a  large  portion  of  her  religion,  her 
 learning,  and  even  her  material  civilization— memorials  of  an  institution 
 which  has  enshrined  its  spirit  in  a  noble  literature,  which  has  breathed  its 
 soul  into  a  glorious  architecture,  and  which  is  consecrated  by  thousands 
 of  saintly  lives  spent  in  its  service.  The  ruins,  moreover,  stand  as  silent, 
 yet  eloquent,  protests  against  the  uncontrolled  despotism  of  rulers,  wit- 
 nesses against  an  act  of  spoliation  which  is  of  ominous  precedent.  With 
 that  inconsistent  homage  which  Henry's  tyranny  paid  to  legality,  and  with 
 those  formal  scruples  which  marked  his  most  unconstitutional  proceed- 
 ings, the  King  justified  the  dissolution  of  the  monasteries  l)y  a  defamation 
 of  the  character  of  his  victims.  A  step  which,  in  part  at  least,  was 
 actuated  by  greed,  was  dius  transformed  into  a  necessary  and  salutary 
 measure  of  drastic  reform.  The  plan  has  proved  but  too  successful.  As 
 Mr.  Gasquet  says  in  the  volume  now  before  us,  "  A  wholesome  horror  of 
 monk  or  monastery  has  been  imparted  with  early  knowledge  at  a  mother's 
 knee — the  teaching  first  imbibed  and  latest  lost."  But  though  the  true 
 ground  for  the  dissolution  may  have  been  in  part  rapacity,  and  though 
 its  alleged  ground  was  the  personal  character  of  the  inmates  of  the 
 monasteries,  it  would  be  unfair  to  ignore  the  political  aspect  of  the 
 question,  the  danger  of  dividing  the  kingdom  against  itself,  the  pos- 
 sible conflict  between  the  profession  and  the  patriotism  of  men  who 
 owed  allegiance  not  only  to  the  King  of  bhigland,  but  also  to 
 another  political  and  temporal  potentate,  the  Pope  of  Rome.  The 
 history  of  the  dissolution  of  the  monasteries  has  been  often  told  by 
 partial  Protestants.  If  there  were  no  other  reason  for  congratulating  I\Ir. 
 Gasquet  on  the  completion  of  his  first  volume,  we  should  welcome  its 
 appearance  from  love  of  fair  play  and  bare  justice.  Our  sympathies  are 
 entirely  with  the  author  in  his  learned,  careful,  and  successful  vindication 
 of  the  personal  character  of  the  monks.  But,  even  assuming  that  Henry 
 was  largely  influenced  by  the  desire  to  fill  his  treasury,  and  without 
 defending  either  his  rapacity  or  his  subterfuge,  it  is  impossible  not  to 
 recognize  the  difficulty  of  the  King's  position.  He  felt  the  need  of  giving 
 to  his  actions  the  respectable  sanction  of  constitutional  precedent,  but  he 
 feared  to  rely  upon  its  true  justification,  lest  he  might  provoke  a  popular 
 outburst.  He  therefore  pleaded,  what  we  think  Mr.  Gasquet  has  proved 
 to  be,  a  cruelly  false  excuse.  He  look  his  stand  not  on  political  necessity, 
 but  on  outraged  public  morality.  There  must  have  been  thousands  of 
 influential  persons  who  connived  at  the  act  of  spoliation,  because  they 
 saw  that  it  cut  an  inextricable  knot.  Naturally  enough,  Mr.  Gasquet 
 does  not  lake  this  view  of  the  dissolution  of  the  monasteries  ;  but  we  put 
 it  forward,  because,  unless  this  aspect  of  the  question  is  considered,  we 
 rise  from  the  perusal  of  the  volume  before  us  in  indignant  wonder  that 
 such  injustice  could  have  been  perpetrated  in  England  upon  so  transparent 
 a  pretext,  even  at  the  height  of  the  Tudor  despotism.  Mr.  Gasquet 
 appositely  quotes  the  following  passage  from  Burke's  **  Reflections  on  the 
 
French  Revolution  :  " — "  I  rather  suspect  that  vices  are  feigned  or  exag- 
 gerated when  profit  is  looked  for  in  the  punishment.  An  enemy  is  a  bad 
 witness,  a  robber  is  a  worse."  The  description  of  the  condition  of  the 
 monasteries  given  in  the  letters  and  reports  of  Henry's  visitors  is  bad. 
 But  is  it  true  ?  What  is  the  worth  of  the  visitors'  word  ?  This  is  the 
 question  which  Mr.  Gasquet  proposes  to  answer.  He  investigates  the 
 history  of  the  dissolution,  utilizes  a  mass  of  scattered  material,  still 
 unpublished  and  unconsulted,  and  treats  "  the  suppression  not  as  an 
 episode  of  a  greater  subject,  but  as  an  object  of  special  inquiry."  His 
 sympathies  are  naturally  engaged,  but  he  has  striven,  and,  we  may  add, 
 with  success,  "  to  avoid  anything  like  presenting  or  pleading  a  case, 
 which,  indeed,  I  felt  would  defeat  my  own  purpose."  The  result  is  that 
 he  has  produced  the  first  instalment  of  a  work  which  promises  to  be  a 
 really  valuable  monograph  on  a  great  event  in  our  national  annals,  and 
 removes  from  impartial  minds  a  mass  of  misconception  which  has 
 accumulated  almost  undisturbed  for  three  centuries  and  a  half.  Mr. 
 Gasquet  commences  with  an  admirable  portrait  of  the  monks  of  the 
 sixteenth  century,  a  portrait  which  in  purity  of  tone  and  warmth  of 
 colouring  admittedly  falls  below  the  glowing  and  exalted  ideal  conceived 
 and  realized  in  the  days  of  primitive  fervour,  but  which,  equally  incon- 
 testably,  rises  far  above  the  level  of  ordinary  men.  The  monastic  system 
 w^as  interwoven  into  the  social,  political,  and  ecclesiastical  organization  of 
 the  country.     The  abbots  were  great  noblemen  and  local  magnates  : — 
 
 As  such  they  went  pari  passu  with  baron  or  earl  of  the  noblest  lineage.  On  the 
 blazoned  Roll  of  the  Lords  the  Lord  Richard  Whiting  and  the  Lord  Hugh  Farringdon 
 went  hand  in  hand  with  a  Howard  an  i  a  Talbot.  This  individual  ennoblement  indi- 
 cated by  the  form  of  a  title  is  striking.  Whiting  and  Farringdon  do  not  walk  merely  as 
 the  Abbot  of  Glaston  and  the  Abbot  of  Reading,  but  in  the  roll  of  English  peers  they 
 still  hold  the  name  by  which  they  were  known  when  playing  as  children  in  the  country 
 manor-house  or  poor  man's  cottage.  In  the  letter  books  of  Durham  priory  the  chiefs 
 of  the  Cliffords  and  the  Nevilles  address  the  prior  as  their  equal  in  no  mere  words  of 
 empty  form.  If  on  occasion  the  layman  strikes  a  higher  tone,  to  which  the  monk 
 responds  in  gentleness,  it  does  not  affect  the  ring  of  trusty  and  sincere  friendship  which 
 is  caught  throughout  the  whole  correspondence.  Nor  is  there  anything  surprising  in 
 this  when  the  character  of  the  monastic  life  is  realized.  The  monk  of  Durham  from 
 his  earliest  years  combined  simplicity  of  life  with  surroundings  of  palatial  grandeur 
 and  a  state  and  ceremony  equal  to  that  of  courts,  and  yet  more  measured.  As  time 
 passed  (jn,  he  grew  from  obedience  to  command,  and  naturally,  without  perceiving  it, 
 the  peasant's  son  became  the  equal  of  the  peer.  And  all  this  was  done  without  appeal 
 to  principles  of  democratic  levelling.  The  heralds'  "  visitations  '  commence  at  the 
 moment  when  the  doom  of  the  monasteries  was  already  fixed.  Up  to  that  time  the 
 art  of  sifting  out  the  "  gentleman "  from  the  ''  no-gentleman,"  which  under  the 
 Tudors  and  first  Stuarts  grew  to  a  pitch  of  perfection,  was  not  yet  evolved  ;  and  it  may 
 be  safe  to  say  that  the  monasteries,  in  ages  which,  if  any,  might  seem  fatal  to  it,  kept 
 up  the  idea  of  personal  nobility. 
 
 The  monasteries  formed  an  element  in  English  social  life  both  popular 
 and  beneficient.     Monks — 
 
 Had  the  practice  of  business,  and  they  were  in  touch  with  men  of  all  ranks — the 
 country  gentleman,  the  yeoman,  tlie  artisan,  the  peasant,  and  the  j)0()r.  It  is  no  mere 
 figure  of  speech  when  monasteries  are  called  the  common  hostelries  for  the  ])eople  of  all 
 sorts  and  conditions,  the  general  refuge  of  the  poor.  The  daily  life  of  the  heads  and 
 officers  of  every  monastic  house  must  have  brought  them  in  constant  and  natural  con- 
 tact with  all  classes  of  society.  The  monks  were  not  merely  anchorites  enclosed  in 
 narrow  walls,  but  were  affected  by  all  the  movements  of  public  life.  Tney  were  not 
 men  of  war,  but,  like  the  knight  and  the  baron,  they  had  to  provide  men  for  the 
 musters.  As  great  landowners  they,  more  than  the  yeoman,  were  concerned  in  the 
 crops  and  the  weather.  They  resided  on  the  land  in  the  midst  of  their  people,  and  the 
 barns,  farmhouses,  and  cottages  were  no  less  objects  of  their  care  than  the  roof  which 
 
covered  tlieir  own  heads.  Beyond  this,  they  were  more  than  landowners  to  those  round 
 about  them.  The  advisers  and  teachers  of  all,  they  had  the  work  now  undertaken  by 
 the  guardian,  the  relieving  officer,  the  parish  doctor,  and  the  schoolmaster.  Their 
 charity  did  not  flow  from  public  sources,  yet  all  men  expected  them,  as  an  incident  of 
 their  profession,  to  provide  for  those  in  want,  and  they  were  well  acquainted  with  the 
 circumstances  of  those  they  helped.  These  conditions  combined  to  ease  many  of  the 
 difficulties  which  attend  the  relief  of  the  poor.  "  The  myth  of  the  '  fine  old  English 
 gentleman,'  who  had  a  large  estate,  and  provided  every  day  for  the  poor  at  his  gate, 
 was  realized  in  the  case  of  the  monks,  and  in  their  case  only."* 
 
 Nor  did  the  monasteries  fall  amid  any  stich  shout  of  general  execration 
 as  would  have  been  raised  if  the  catalogue  of  iniquity  contained  in  the 
 "  Comperta"  or  "  Black  Book  "  of  the  visitors  were  true.  On  the  con- 
 trary — 
 
 On  the  part  of  the  secular  clergy,  who  might  be  supposed  to  be  their  natural  rivals, 
 the  voice  of  Bishop  Fisher,  pre-eminent  amongst  them  all  for  a  love  of  sound  learning 
 and  for  piety,  was  raised  as  spokesman  in  their  defence.  Of  the  nobility,  who  after, 
 wards  shared  in  the  plunder,  many  a  one  before  the  event  put  in  a  plea  for  the  preserva- 
 tion of  the  house  in  which  he  himself  was  interested.  The  popular  voice  was  expressed 
 in  the  risings  in  the  east  and  north,  and  at  a  later  date  in  the  west.  It  is  only  now, 
 when  the  documentary  history  of  the  time  is  being  revealed,  that  we  begin  to  untlcr- 
 stand  how  narrowly  these  movements  escaped  a  success,  which  would  have  changed 
 the  course  of  English  history.  The  voices  raised  against  the  monks  were  those  of 
 Crumwell's  agents,  of  the  cliques  of  the  nevv  men  and  of  his  hireling  scribes,  who 
 formed  a  crew  of  as  truculent  and  filthy  libellers  as  ever  disgraced  a  revolutionary 
 cause.  The  later  centuries  have  taken  their  tale  in  t^ood  faith,  but  time  is  showing 
 that  the  monasteries,  up  to  the  day  of  their  fall,  had  not  forfeited  the  goodwill,  the 
 veneration,  the  affection  of  the  English  people. 
 
 In  Mr.  Gasquet's  skilful  hands  the  dissolution  of  the  monasteries  assumes 
 the  proportions  of  a  Greek  tragedy.  From  the  first  there  hangs  over  the 
 doomed  orders  a  remorseless  power  like  the  P^ate  of  the  Sophoclean 
 drama,  in  the  hands  of  which  the  monks  struggle  unavailingly,  Mr. 
 Gasquet  traces  its  approach  from  its  attack  upon  the  alien  priories  and 
 their  final  suppression  till  it  first  laid  its  hands  upon  the  smaller  monas- 
 teries of  native  growth  under  the  plea  of  founding  colleges  and  cathedral 
 churches.  The  Friars  Observant  and  the  Carthusians  were  the  next 
 victims,  and  their  sufferings  are  graphically  described.  Then  follow  the 
 Visitation  of  the  Mojiasteries  in  1535-6,  and  the  first  Act  of  Suppression. 
 From  the  preamble  to  the  Act  of  Suppression  — 
 
 (Which,  it  must  be  remembered,  is  practically  all  that  is  known  about  the  measure) 
 it  would  seem  that  Parliament  had  no  written  documents  placed  before  it  upon  which 
 to  form  any  independent  judgment  as  to  the  justice  of  the  Act  they  were  asked  to  pass. 
 The  King,  we  are  told,  ma  e  a  "  full  declaration  "  of  what  he  knew  to  he  true  from 
 the  reports  of  the  visitors  and  other  sources.  Upiii  this,  after  a  "  great  deliberation,"  the 
 members  acted.  Whether  the  report  of  the  visitors  in  any  shape  was  also  submitted  to 
 their  examination  will  probably  never  be  ascertained  with  certainty.  Sanders,  it  is 
 true,  speaks  of  the  "  publication  of  the  enormities,"!  but  this  might  only  refer  to  the 
 King's  "  declaration."  Bishop  Latimer,  who  was  possibly  present  in  the  House  of  Lords, 
 also  says  : — "  When  their  enormities  were  first  read  in  the  Parliament  House,  they  were 
 so  great  and  abominable  that  there  was  nothing  but  down  with  them,  but  within  a 
 while  after  the  same  Abbots  were  made  Bishops  for  the  saving  of  their  pensions.''^ 
 
 The  King's  knowledge,  upon  which  Parliament  acted,  was  mainly  based 
 upon  the  accounts  of  the  visitations.  What  his  "  otiier  informations  may 
 have  been  is  uncertain;"  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  so-called 
 "  Black  Book  ''  was  ever  presented  to   Parliament,  and  none  that  it  ever 
 
 *  j.  S.  Brewer.     Giraldin  Caml:,  iv.,  Pref.  xxxvi. 
 
 t  Scliisvi.      Lewis's  translation,  p.  1  29. 
 
 X  Two  seimoMs  before  Ed.  VI.      Parker  St)ciety  ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  13.?. 
 
existed.  The  *'  Black  Book  "  is  not  mentioned  before  the  reign  of  Queen 
 Ehzabeth,  and  the  document  has  completely  disappeared.  Its  details 
 have  been  supplied  by  the  conjecture  of  hostile  historians.  If  any  such 
 statement  was  ever  drawn  up  it  was  probably  in  the  nature  of  an  abstract 
 compiled  from  the  reports  of  the  visitors.  We  are  thus  driven  back  to 
 these  "  Comperta  "  as  the  final  source  of  the  charges  against  the  monks. 
 It  is  in  dealing  with  the  existing  documentary  evidence  that  Mr.  Gasquet 
 is  at  his  best ;  but  his  reasoning  rests  upon  detailed  criticism,  which  is 
 convincing  in  its  entirety,  though  it  hardly  admits  of  isolated  illustration. 
 He  shows  that  comparatively  few  of  the  religious  are  charged  with  any 
 crime  ;  that  the  accusations  are  vague,  based  upon  idle  rumour,  and  not 
 upon  confessions  of  the  accused  ;  that  they  are  often  misleading  and 
 deceptive  ;  that  they  are  contradicted  by  Episcopal  visitations  as  well  as 
 by  reports  of  other  royal  visitors  and  by  subsequent  evidence  ;  and  that 
 in  several  specific  instances  they  totally  fail.  These  accusations,  which  in 
 themselves  are  thus  of  little  value  as  evidence,  are  tainted  at  the  source  by 
 the  character  and  the  obvious  motives  of  the  witnesses.  Of  Crumwell, 
 who  was  the  moving  spirit  of  the  movement,  Mr.  Gasquet  says  — 
 
 No  single  minister  in  England  ever  exercised  such  extensive  authority,  noneeverrose 
 so  rapidly,  and  no  one  has  ever  left  behind  hin^  a  name  covered  with  greater  infamy 
 and  disgrace.  ..."  Thomas  Crumwell,  the  cloth  carder  "'  (to  give  him  the  style 
 ordered  by  Henry  VIII.),  was  regretted  by  very  few  in  England.  He  had  plundered 
 and  murdered  defenceless  men  and  women  ;  he  had  endeavoured  to  rob  the  religious  of 
 their  reputations  as  he  had  of  their  property  ;  he  had  defrauded  the  people  of  their 
 rights,  and  had  seized  upon  the  patrimony  of  the  poor;  he  had  deprived  the  sick  and 
 aged  of  their  hospitals  and  places  of  refuge  ;  he  had  driven  monks  and  nuns  from  their 
 cloisters,  to  wander  homeless  in  poverty  and  disgrace.  But  his  day  of  reckoning  came 
 at  last,  and  in  merited  ignominy  his  career  closed. 
 
 Crumwell  had  chosen  fit  instruments  for  his  work — Legh,  Layton,  Ap 
 Rice,  and  London  : — 
 
 They  were  not  troubled  with  scruples  of  conscience  or  unnerved  by  tenderness  in 
 effecting  the  end  their  master  had  in  view.  "The  inquisitors,"  remarks  Fuller,  the 
 historian,  "were  men  who  well  understood  the  message  they  were  sent  on,  and  would 
 not  come  back  without  a  satisfactory  answer  to  him  who  sent  them,  knowing  them- 
 selves to  be  no  losers  thereby."*  They  were,  and  professed  themselves  to  be,  com- 
 pletely dependent  on  Crumwell.  That  they  would  not  hesitate  to  serve  him  and  their 
 own  interests,  even  at  the  expense  of  their  honesty,  is  made  clear  from  their  own 
 letters. 
 
 They  were  obscene,  profligate,  and  perjured  witnesses,  men  of  prurient 
 mind  and  depraved  nature,  servile  tools  in  the  hands  of  their  master 
 Crumwell.  Their  avowed  object  was  plunder,  and  the  charges  made 
 against  the  religious  were  means  to  attain  that  end.  Mr.  Gasquet  thus 
 concludes  : — - 
 
 The  character  of  the  men  upon  whose  word  the  monasteries  have  been  defamed 
 would  in  these  days  be  defended  by  no  honest  historian.  No  other  evidence  is  forth- 
 coming,  and  it  may  be  fairly  asked,  in  the  name  of  common  sense  no  less  than  of 
 sacred  justice,  that  the  religious  houses  may  not  be  condemned  on  the  unsupported 
 word  of  such  miserable  men  as  Layton,  Legh,  Ap  Rice,  and  London. 
 
 The  first  volume  of  the  present  work  clears  the  ground  for  the  history 
 of  the  suppression  of  the  monasteries,  which  will  be  narrated  in  the 
 second.  The  story  of  the  dissolution  is  full  of  pathetic  incidents,  which 
 render  it  a  fascinating  subject  to  inspire  a  historian  who  is  so  well  quali- 
 fied for  his  task  as  IMr.  Gasquet. —  The  Guardian. 
 
 *  His/.^  ii.,  p.  214.     Dean  Hook  adopts  Fuller's  estimate  of  these  tools  of  Crumwell. 
 
THE    CATHOLIC    STANDARD    LIBRARY. 
 
 Demy  8vo.,  cloth,  price   1 2S.  each  vol. 
 
 Henry  VIII.  and  the  Eng-lish  Monasteries.  An  attempt  to  illus- 
 trate the  History  of  their  Suppression,  with  an  Appendix  and  Maps  showing  the 
 situation  of  the  religious  houses  at  the  time  of  their  dissolution.  By  Francis  Aidan 
 Gasquf.t,  O.S.B.    2  Vols.      Fourth  Edition,  lunu  readtj. 
 
 The  Great  Commentary  upon  the  Gospels  of  Cornelius  .\  Lapide. 
 
 Translated  and  Edited  by  T.  W.  Mobsman,  D.D.      Complete  in  6  voh. 
 S.S.  Matthew  and  Mark's  Gospel.      ^  Vols.     Third  Edition. 
 S.  Luke's  Gospel,      i  Vol.     Second  Edition. 
 S.  John's  Gospel  and  Epistles.     2  Vols.     Second  Edition. 
 
 A  Commentary  on  the  Holy  Gospels.    In  4  vols.    By  John  Mal- 
 
 uoNATus,  S.J.  Translated  and  Edited  from  the  original  Latin  by  Georhk  J, 
 Davie,  M.A.,  Exeter  College,  Oxford,  one  of  the  Translators  of  the  Library  of  the 
 Fathers.     I'ols.  /.  and  II.  CSt.  Matllieiv's  Gospel)  mnv  ready.    Fol.  III.  in  lite  Presx. 
 
 Piconio  (Bernardine   a).     Exposition  on  St.  Pauls  Epistles.     Tran.s- 
 
 lated  and  Edited  by  A.  11.  Piucmard,  B.A.,  Merton  College,  Oxford.  3  Vols. 
 I'ol.  I.  now  ready.      I'ol.  II.  nearly  ready.    Fol.  III.  in  the  Press. 
 
 The  History  and  Fate  of  Sacrilege.    By  Sir  Henry  Spelman,  Kt. 
 
 Edited,  in  part  from  two  MSS.,  revised  and  corrected.  With  a  Continuation,  large 
 Additions,  and  an  Introductory  Essay.  By  Two  Priests  of  the  Church  of  England. 
 New  Edition,  with  corrections,  and  some  Additional  Notes  by  Rev.  S.  J.  Eai.es, 
 D.C.L,      Now  ready. 
 
 The  Dark  Ages  :  A  Series  of  Essays  illustrating  the  State  of  Religion 
 
 and  Literature  in  the  Ninth,  Tenth,  Eleventh,  and  'I'welfth  Centuries.  By  the 
 late  Ur.  Maiti.and,  Keeper  of  the  MSS.  at  Lambeth.  A  new  and  revised  Edition, 
 with  an  Introduction  by  Fkeuerick  Stokes,  I\LA.     Now  ready. 
 
 The  Hierurgia;  or,  the  Holy  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass.     With 
 
 Notes  and  Dissertations  elucidating  its  doctrines  and  ceremonies.  By  Dr.  Daniel 
 Rock.  2  Vols.  A  new  and  thoroughly  revised  edition,  with  many  new  Illustra- 
 tions.    Edited,  with  a  Preface,  by  W.  H.  James  Weai.e.     In  the  Press. 
 
 The  Complete  Works  of  St.   Bernard,  Abbot  of  Clairvaux. 
 
 Translated  into  l*".iiglish  from  tlie  Edition  of  Dom.  Joannes  Maiui.i.on,  of  the 
 Btntdictine  Congregation  of  St.  Maur  (Paris  :  1690),  and  Edited  by  Sa.muei.  J. 
 Eai.es,  D.C.L.,  sometime  Principal  of  St.  Boniface  College,  Warminster.  Vols.  I. 
 and  II.,  containing  the  Letters  of  St.  Bernard.     Now  ready. 
 
 The  Church  of  our  Fathers,  as  seen  in   St.  Osmund's   rile  for  the 
 
 Cathedral  of  Salisbury.  By  the  late  Rev.  Dr.  Hock.  A  New  and  Revised  Edition. 
 By  the  Benedictines  of  Downside.     4  Vols. 
 
 A  Treatise  on  the  Holy  Scriptures,  Old  and  New  Testament. 
 
 By  Dr.  Franz  Kaui.er.  Translated  from  the  German  by  J.  M.  Gathii.i.,  M..^., 
 Vicar  of  Stanway. 
 
 The  Lives  of  the  Popes.     By  Professor  Dr.  L.  Pastor.     Translated 
 
 from  the  (icrmaii.      Edited  by  Frederick  Antrobus,  of  the  London  Oratory. 
 
 A  Christian  Apology.     By  Paul  Schanz,  D.D.,  D.Ph.,  Professor  of 
 
 Theology  in  tlie  University  of  Tubingen.  Translated  from  the  German  by 
 Miciiaei.  F.  Ci.ancey,  of  St.  Mary's  College,  Oscott.     2  Vols. 
 
 Several    others    preparing:. 
 JOHN  HODGES,  25,  Henrietta  Street,  Covent  Garden,  W.v.. 
 
CATHOLIC  STANDARD  LIBRARY 
 JOHN    MALDONATUS 
 
 ON  THE  HOl.Y  GOSPELS 
 
A    COMMENTARY    .<cCv^i»t '»ii 
 
 nig 
 
 C     NOV  ^  ,- 
 
 HOLY    GOSPELS 
 
 JOHN     MALDONATUS 
 
 TRANSLATED    AND    EDITED    FROM    THE    ORIGINAL    LATIN    B 
 
 GEORGE  J.  DAVIE,  M.A. 
 
 EXETER  COLLEGE,  OXFORD 
 
 ONE   OF    THE   TRANSLATORS   OF    THE   LIBRARY  OF   THE    FATHERS,    ETC. 
 
 S.  MATTHEW'S  GOSPEL,  CHAPTERS  XV.  TO  THE  END 
 
 JOHN   HODGES 
 
 HENRIETTA  STREET,  COVENT.  GARDEN,  LONDON 
 1888 
 
THE   ABERDEEN    UNIVERSITY   PRESS: 
 
 JOHN  THOMSON  AND  J.  F.  THOMSON,  M.A. 
 
THE  GOSPEL  OF  S.  MATTHEW. 
 
 CHAPTER  XV. 
 
 CHRIST  REPROVES  THE  SCRIBES — HE  CURES  THE 
 DAUGHTER  OF  THE  WOMAN  OF  CHANAAN  AND  MANY 
 OTHERS,  AND  FEEDS  FOUR  THOUSAND  WITH  SEVEN 
 LOAVES. 
 
 Verse  i.   Then. 
 
 When  He  had  done  so  many  miracles  (S.  Chrysostom, 
 Hoin.  Hi.).  S.  John  (vii.  i)  seems  to  say  that  Christ  had 
 returned  to  Galilee  at  this  time. 
 
 From  Jenisalem. 
 
 The  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  say  S.  Chrysostom,  Euthy- 
 
 mius,  and  Leontius,  were  dispersed  through  all  the  tribes. 
 
 But  those  of  Jerusalem  were  the   most  arrogant  of  any, 
 
 because  they  lived  in  the  capital  city,  and  were  considered 
 
 the  wisest  of  all.     They  should  rather  have  said,  through 
 
 all  the  cities,  or  all  places,  as  says  Theophylact ;  because 
 
 after  the  return  from  Babylon,  there  were  only  two  tribes. 
 
 On  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  see  chap.  ii.  4.    The  opinion  of 
 
 some,  that  these  were  sent  from  a  council  of  the  Scribes  and 
 
 Pharisees  of  Jerusalem  to  tempt  Christ,  appears  credible, 
 
 and  in  accordance  with  their  dispositions  and  habits.     For 
 
 in  chap.  xxii.   16,  they  sent  their  disciples  with  the  Hero- 
 
 dians  to  Christ  with  the  same  intent. 
 2 — I 
 
2  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xv.  2,  3,  4. 
 
 Verse  2.    JV/i}'  do  TJiy  disciples. 
 
 S.  Mark  (vii.  2),  says  that  they  made  this  act  of  the 
 disciples  the  cause  of  an  accusation. 
 
 Tratisgress  the  tradition  of  the  elders. 
 
 They  do  not  say,  writes  S.  Chrysostom  {Horn.  Hi.),  that 
 they  transgressed  the  Law,  because  the  Law  says  nothing 
 on  the  subject ;  but  the  tradition  of  the  elders,  which  S. 
 Mark  (vii.  3,  4)  states  at  greater  length.  They  do  not  call  it 
 their  own  tradition,  although  it  was  such,  but  the  tradition 
 of  the  elders,  that  by  the  authority  of  these  and  the  anti- 
 quity of  the  traditions  they  might  load  Christ  and  the 
 disciples  with  ill-will.  Nor  do  they  say,  "  Why  dost  not 
 thou  wash?"  when  Christ  probably  did  not  wash  more 
 than  the  disciples,  but,  "  Why  do  not  Thy  disciples  ?  "  either 
 because  they  did  not  venture  to  accuse  Him,  or  because  by 
 accusing  the  disciples  they  might  appear  to  attack  Him 
 more  bitterly:  as  in  chap.  ix.  14,  they  do  not  say  "Thou," 
 but,  "  Thy  disciples  ". 
 
 Verse  3.    WJiy  do  yoii  also. 
 
 He  said  nothing  of  the  tradition  of  washing  the  hands, 
 lest,  if  He  pressed  it,  He  might  seem  to  approve  it  ;  or  if 
 He  blamed  it.  He  might  unnecessarily  have  incurred  ill- 
 will — as  S.  Chrysostom  and  Euthymius  observe. 
 
 Verse  4.  Honour  thy  father  and  mother. 
 
 The  observation  of  S.  Jerome  on  this  passage,  which 
 Bede  has  borrowed  from  him,  is  true,  that  honour  in  Holy 
 Scripture  is  not  shown  so  much  by  salutations  and  per- 
 formance of  duties  as  in  alms  and  the  giving  of  gifts,  as 
 in  I  Timothy  v.  3  ;  that  is,  in  ecclesiastical  alms.  The 
 same  thing  is  taught  in  this  place  ;  for  Christ  opposed  to 
 the  honour  of  parents  their  saying  to  them  :   "  The  gift, 
 
Ch.xv.  5-]      CHRIST  REPROVES  SCRIBES  AND  PHARISEES.        3 
 
 whatsoever  proccedeth  from  Me,  shall  profit  thee  ;  that  is, 
 refusing  them  help.  It  appears  much  more  clearly  from 
 S.  Mark  vii.  12.  To  do  something,  therefore,  for  father 
 and  mother — that  is,  to  aid  them — is  to  honour  them. 
 
 He  that  shall  curse. 
 
 Christ  did  not  cite  the  whole  law,  nor  one  precept  only, 
 but  two.  For  "Honour"  is  in  Exodus  xx.  12,  the  latter 
 part  of  which  is  omitted  as  not  to  the  purpose.  "  He  that 
 shall  curse,"  is  in  chap.  xxi.  16.  Why  Christ  added  this,  when 
 the  question  was  not  one  of  words,  but  of  deeds,  is  doubt- 
 ful. S.  Chrysostom  thinks  that  it  was  to  teach  us  the 
 value  before  God  of  honouring  our  parents,  when  one  who 
 injures  them  only  in  words  is  punished  by  death.  But 
 Bedc  thinks  that,  as  in  the  former  clause,  the  word 
 "honour"  means  that  honour  which  consists  not  of  words 
 but  deeds,  so  the  word  "  curses  "  means  not  the  wrong  done 
 in  words,  but  in  deeds,  by  refusing  them  their  rightful  aid. 
 But  it  is  clear  from  the  custom  of  the  law  that  the  word 
 should  be  taken  in  its  proper  sense.  The  opinion  of  S. 
 Chrysostom  is  therefore  the  more  probable. 
 
 Verse  5.   The  gift  whatsoever  proceedeth  from  me  shall 
 profit  thee. 
 
 This  is  a  difficult  and  much  controverted  passage.  The 
 best  way  will,  perhaps,  be  to  give  the  views  of  the  chief 
 authorities  upon  it. 
 
 1.  Some  think  the  passage  complete  and  perfect, 
 
 2.  Other  take  it  as  an  elliptic  or  defective  speech. 
 
 The  former  understand  it  thus  :  "  Whoever  says,  that  is, 
 is  able  to  say,  *  The  gift  whatsoever  proceedeth  from  me 
 shall  profit  thee,'  means,  '  Whatever  I  give  to  God  profits 
 you  also,  as  if  it  had  been  given  by  you '."  So  says  Hugo, 
 among  other  explanations  that  he  offers. 
 
 Others,  more  modern,  say  that  the  Greek  does  not  allow 
 
4  THE   GOSPEL  OF   S.   MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xv.  5. 
 
 this,  because  it  is  not  eKaaTo<i,  "  each  one,"  but  09  ai>,  which 
 requires  a  correlative. 
 
 3.  Those  who  read  it  as  a  deficient  sentence  say :  (n) 
 Some,  that  it  is  so  only  in  one  respect  (/;/  7/no  loco),  that 
 the  "  whosoever  "  has  nothing  to  answer  to  it,  as  its  nature 
 requires. 
 
 {b)  Others,  that  it  is  so  in  two  respects.  In  the  one  just 
 stated,  and  also  because  with  the  word  "  gift "  the  verb 
 substantive  is  wanting  to  make  the  meaning.  "  It  is  a  gift, 
 that  is,  a  thing  consecrated  to  God,  whatsoever  part  of  my 
 property  might  have  benefited  you."  Thus,  some  of  old 
 explain  it  as  S.  Chrysostom  does  :  "  I  owe  you  nothing, 
 but  if  anything  of  mine  can  benefit  you,  it  is  a  gift ;  that  is, 
 I  give  it  you,  not  as  a  debt,  but  as  a  gift ". 
 
 {c)  Others  again  take  it  interrogatively,  "  Is  it  a  gift  ? '' 
 or,  with  a  note  of  admiration,  as  if  they  should  say,  "  By  no 
 means  "  {minime),  as  S.  Thomas  in  the  Catena. 
 
 4.  Others  again.  Whoever  says  it  (is)  a  gift,  that  is, 
 whatever  of  mine  might  have  benefited  you,  has  been 
 dedicated  to  God.  In  this  way  S.  Chrysostom,  Euthymius, 
 and  Theophylact  explain  it  ;  only  that  Theophylact  says 
 that  it  was  the  custom  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  to  per- 
 suade children  to  offer  all  their  goods  to  the  Temple,  that 
 if  their  parents  asked  them  for  anything  afterwards  they 
 might  answer,  that  they  could  not  give  it,  because  all  their 
 property  had  been  consecrated  to  God.  But  this  is  not 
 credible,  even  of  the  Jews,  the  most  avaricious  of  men. 
 Besides,  in  this  way,  they  would  not  have  been  able  to 
 make  use  even  of  what  was  their  own.  S.  Chrysostom  and 
 Euthymius  think  that  the  children  used  to  utter  untruths 
 when  they  said  that  they  had  given  to  God  what  their 
 parents  asked  them  for,  that  they  might  avoid  giving  it 
 them  ;  and  thus,  by  a  double  wickedness,  they  cheated  both 
 God  and  their  parents.  We  might  believe  that  others  did 
 this  but  we  can  hardly  believe  that  such  a  thing  was  done 
 
Ch.  XV.  5.]     CHRIST   REPROVES   SCRIBES  AND  PHARISEES.     5 
 
 by  the  advice  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  because,  as  we 
 have  said,  they  had  no  reason  for  such  a  thing ;  and  there 
 was  a  double  wickedness  in  it.  Christ  blames  what  the 
 Scribes  and  Pharisees  taught  the  people  to  do,  and  it  is 
 very  likely,  per  se,  that  they  who  wished  to  appear  the 
 most  religious  of  all  men  taught  nothing  except  under  the 
 show  of  religion. 
 
 S.  Jerome  gives  two  explanations,  (i)  He  says :  "You 
 say  whoever  wishes  to  give  to  God  what  he  was  about  to 
 give  to  his  parents,  is  free  ".  This  does  not  agree  closely 
 enough  with  the  words  of  Christ.  (2)  "  What  I  was  going 
 to  offer  to  God,  I  expend,  my  father,  on  your  mainte- 
 nance." But  it  can  hardly  be  received  as  the  teaching  of  the 
 Scribes  and  Pharisees.  For  this  was  not  to  dishonour 
 their  parents,  but  to  complain  that  by  defrauding  God  they 
 honoured  them  ;  while  Christ  accused  the  Scribes  and 
 Pharisees  that,  under  the  pretence  of  honouring  God,  they 
 dishonoured  their  parents,  as  immediately  follows:  "And 
 he  shall  not  honour  his  father  or  his  mother  ". 
 
 The  explanation  of  Strabus,  Hugo,  and  De  Lyra  is : 
 "  The  gift  whatsoever  proceedeth  from  me  (that  is,  whatso- 
 ever I  offer  to  God),  shall  profit  thee  just  as  if  I  had  given 
 it  to  thee.  It  is  better,  therefore,  to  offer  it  to  God  than 
 to  give  it  to  thee."  The  whole  sentence,  and  all  the 
 expressions  in  it,  seem  to  agree  with  this  and  5.  Mark  vii. 
 II,  12  :  "But  you  say.  If  a  man  shall  say  to  his  father  or 
 mother,  Corban  (which  is  a  gift),  whatsoever  is  from  me 
 shall  profit  thee.  And,  farther,  "  You  suffer  him  not  to  do 
 anything  for  his  father  or  mother,"  strongly  confirms  it. 
 When  He  says  :  "  You  suffer  him  not  to  do  anything  for 
 his  father  or  his  mother,"  he  openly  indicates  by  the  words, 
 "  It  is  a  gift,"  &c.,  that  he  has  done,  or  has  promised  to  do, 
 something  ;  and  he  is  far  from  swearing  that  he  will  not 
 benefit  his  father  or  his  mother!  The  son,  then,  by  the 
 tradition  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  commands  his  father 
 
6  THE    GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.    [Ch.  xv.  6,  7. 
 
 to  be  content  with  his  offering  sacrifice  for  himself  and  his 
 father,  and  to  require  nothing  more.  But  they  for  whom 
 the  sacrifice  was  offered  consumed  it,  unless  it  were  a 
 holocaust.  In  this  way  the  father  was  benefited  ;  less, 
 indeed,  than  he  ought  to  have  been  ;  but  still  he  was 
 benefited  in  some  degree.  It  remains  to  be  seen  how 
 Christ's  words  were  fulfilled.  There  seems  to  be  two 
 ellipses.  (i)  "  Whosoever,"  which  almost  all  the  com- 
 mentators rightly  fill  up  by  the  words,  "  shall  be  free 
 from  blame,"  "  shall  be  innocent,"  "  shall  fulfil  the  in- 
 junctions about  parents  ".  (2)  There  is  "  the  gift,  the  Boopov, 
 whatsoever  proceedeth  from  me,"  which  our  version  fills  up 
 sufficiently  by  the  word  "  proceedeth  ".  It  would  be  more 
 clear  if  we  said  :  "  Whatever  shall  come,  or  has  come  from 
 me  ". 
 
 Verse  6.  And  he  shall  not  honour  his  father  or  his  mother. 
 
 Some  think  these  not  the  words  of  the  Scribes  and 
 Pharisees,  but  of  Christ,  as  S.  Mark  (vii.  12).  As  if  the 
 meaning  were  :  "  So  you  forbid  a  man  to  honour  his  father 
 or  mother  ".  But  they  are  undoubtedly  the  words  of  the 
 former,  and  the  meaning  is,  therefore  :  "  Whosoever  shall 
 say  to  his  father  or  mother,  '  The  gift  whatever  proceedeth 
 of  me  shall  profit  thee,'  shall  be  free  from  blame,  and  need 
 not  honour  his  father  or  mother  in  one  thing,  even  though 
 he  has  not  honoured  them  in  another  ". 
 
 Verse  7.  Hypocrites. 
 
 The  Scribes  and  Pharisees  no  doubt  were  hypocrites, 
 but  it  is  not  plain  why  Christ  called  them  such  here,  when 
 he  was  treating,  not  of  hypocrisy,  but  of  perverse  doctrine. 
 Euthymius  says  that  it  was  because,  when  they  wished  to 
 appear  the  most  careful  observers  of  the  Law,  they  were 
 transgressors  of  it  through  their  traditions. 
 
Ch.  XV.  8,  9.]  CHRIST  REPROVES  SCRIBES  AND  PHARISEES.    / 
 
 We//  hatJi  Isaias  propJiesied  of  y 021. 
 Isaiah  did  not  speak  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  only, 
 but  of  the  whole  people  of  the  Jews;  and  not  of  that  which 
 was  to  be,  but  of  that  which  then  was.  The  words,  there- 
 fore, are  not  so  much  those  of  prophecy  as  of  accusation. 
 But  Christ  applies  them  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees, 
 meaning  that  the  accusation  of  Isaiah  of  the  Jews  which 
 then  were,  apply  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  ;  so  that  He 
 may  appear  not  so  much  to  have  accused  the  people  of 
 that  time,  as  to  have  prophesied  of  the  Scribes  and  Phari- 
 sees that  were  to  be — as  in  chap.  xiii.  35. 
 
 Verse  8.   TJiis  pcop/e. 
 
 The  Greek  reading  is  the  same  in  all  essential  points  as 
 that  of  the  Septuagint  {ha.  xxix.  13).  To  approach 
 God  is  to  worship  Him,  as  in  Ps.  cxlviii.  14.  So,  on  the 
 other  hand,  to  be  far  from  God  is  not  to  worship  Him. 
 The  meaning,  therefore,  is  :  "  This  people  worships  Me  with 
 their  lips,  with  their  hearts  they  worship  Me  not ".  Our 
 version  does  not  read  the  first  part  of  the  verse,  nor  do  any 
 of  the  Greek  or  Latin  authors,  except  Euthymius  and 
 Theophylact,  as  far  as  I  know  ;  and  it  is  very  likely  that 
 Christ  only  cited  the  part  of  IsaiaJi  which  applied  to  the 
 subject  of  which  He  was  speaking  ;  that  is,  of  honouring 
 God. 
 
 Verse  9.  And  in  vain. 
 
 The  Hebrew  of  Isaiah  is  not  "  in  vain,"  but  ^nni  Dilb^l'' 
 Jlb"^  "  their  face  is  toward  Me  "  ;  that  is,  they  fear  Me  ; 
 for  in  Hebrew  to  fear  God  is  to  worship  Him  ;  but  he  who 
 worships  God  not  as  God  teaches,  but  according  to  his  own 
 will,  does  so  in  vain  and  with  no  effect.  The  LXX., 
 therefore,  for  explanation,  added  "  in  vain,"  unless  we  think 
 that   they  perhaps    read   *inm   for  "^Hm  or  ^?2«    Q^^l*' 
 
8  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xv.  9. 
 
 "  Their  fear  is  towards  Me  ".     They  rendered  it :  "  They 
 worshipped  Me,"  which  S,  Matthew  has  followed. 
 
 Teaching  doctrines  and  connnandnients  of  ine?i. 
 
 Doctrines  which  are  not  the  commandments  of  God,  but 
 of  men.  Christ  calls  those  traditions  the  traditions  of  men 
 which  are  opposed  to  the  commandments  of  God,  m^T'^ 
 D'^X^ii^  ri1!Jt2  "  the  learned  precepts  of  men  "  ;  that  is,  such 
 as  were  invented  and  handed  down  by  men.  The  Septua- 
 gint  and  Latin  both  apparently  read  "  doctrine "  with 
 other  points  niDT'Q  and  translated  it  "  doctrines,"  adding 
 the  word  "  and  "  in  explanation,  "  teaching  doctrines  and 
 commandments  of  men  ".  The  Evangelist  transposed  the 
 words,  if  (as  is  often  the  case  with  citations  from  the  Old 
 and  New  Testaments)  it  were  not  the  carelessness  of  the 
 transcriber.  The  followers  of  Calvin  cry  upon  this  that 
 Christ's  words  apply  to  us,  who  ascribe  more  to  the 
 traditions  of  men  than  to  the  Word  of  God  ;  understanding 
 neither  what  is  the  Word  of  God  nor  what  the  traditions  of 
 men. 
 
 As  regards  the  meaning  of  this  passage,  traditions  are  of 
 three  kinds  : 
 
 1.  Those  which  God  Himself  has  given,  which  have 
 never  been  written,  but  which  the  Church  has  always 
 observed,  and  handed  down  to  us  viva  voce ;  such  as  the 
 baptism  of  infants.  The  followers  of  Calvin  practise  this, 
 although  they  can  prove  it  by  no  testimony  of  the  Word  ; 
 although  to  us,  properly  speaking,  because  we  can  prove  it, 
 it  is  not  tradition.  These  are  not  only  not  termed  human 
 traditions,  but  not  even  ecclesiastical  traditions,  because, 
 although  handed  down  by  the  Church,  they  were  not  con- 
 stituted by  the  Church,  but  by  God  Almighty.  So  no  one 
 calls  the  Holy  Scripture  an  ecclesiastical  tradition,  though 
 preserved  and  handed  down  by  the  Church. 
 
 2.  Of   those    things   which    the    Church    has    not    only 
 
CH.  XV.  9.]      CHRIST  REPROVES  SCRIBES  AND  PHARISEES.       9 
 
 handed  down,  but  even  instituted,  such  as  the  observance 
 of  the  Lord's  Day,  the  Lent  fast,  abstinence  on  certain 
 days  from  flesh  :  whoever  calls  these  human  traditions  errs 
 grievously,  and  knows  not  what  the  Church  is.  For  they 
 were  not  instituted  by  man,  but  had  for  their  authority 
 the  Holy  Ghost,  who  rules  and  governs  the  Church.  So 
 he  would  greatly  err  who  called  the  apostolic  decree  of 
 Acts  XV.  20,  which  commanded  to  abstain  from  blood  and 
 things  strangled,  a  human  tradition.  Yet  that  was  not  a 
 divine  but  an  ecclesiastical  precept,  because  all  the 
 assembled  Church  decreed  it.  Therefore  whatever  the 
 Church,  afterwards  assembled  in  the  same  way,  defined  is 
 to  be  placed  in  the  same  class.  For  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
 both  promised  and  exhibited  not  less  to  the  Church  than 
 to  the  Apostles  ;  nay,  even  more :  for  He  was  given  to  the 
 Apostles  not  for  themselves  alone,  but  for  the  Church  :  to 
 the  Church,  not  for  the  sake  of  the  Apostles,  but  of  herself, 
 to  teach  her  all  truth,  and  to  remain  with  her  even  to  the 
 end  of  the  world.  And  that  Spirit  governs  the  Church 
 no  less  now  than  He  governed  her  Apostles  in  those 
 days. 
 
 3.  The  third  kind  is  of  the  things  which  are  ordered 
 neither  by  God  nor  by  the  Church,  but  either  by  the  State 
 or  private  persons.  Of  these  there  are  two  kinds  :  (a)  Such 
 as  are  not  contrary  to  the  precepts  or  counsel  of  God  ;  (d) 
 such  as  are  contrary  to  them. 
 
 Of  the  former  Christ  does  not  treat  here  ;  but  nearly  all 
 Scripture  teaches  us  to  obey  them,  if  ordered  by  those  who 
 have  authority  ;  for  we  owe  them  obedience.  "  Be  subject 
 of  necessity,  not  only  for  wrath,  but  also  for  conscience 
 sake  "  (Ro;/i.  xiii.  5).  Christ  only  speaks  of  those  which 
 cannot  be  kept  without  violating  the  commandments  of 
 God  ;  such  as  those  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  of  which 
 He  says :  "  You  have  made  void  the  commandment  of 
 God  through  your  tradition  ". 
 
lO  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xv.  ii. 
 
 Verse  1 1.  Not  that  zvJiicJi  goeth  into  the  vwuth  dejiletJi  a  man. 
 Christ,  says  S.  Chrysostom,  does  not  say  that  food  does 
 not  defile,  though  He  means  that,  but  what  enters  into  the 
 mouth  ;  which  may  be  understood  of  the  defilement  by 
 unwashed  hands,  of  which  He  was  speaking  ;  lest  if  He 
 directly  mentioned  food,  they  should  be  greatly  offended. 
 For  with  such  religious  scruples  was  the  choice  of  food 
 regarded,  that  even  after  the  Resurrection  Peter  refused  to 
 eat  {Acts  x.  14). 
 
 Bnt  zuJiat  conietJi  out. 
 
 Not  that  everything  which  proceeds  out  of  the  mouth 
 of  a  man  defiles  him  ;  nor  does  everything  which  defiles 
 -^roceed  out  of  his  mouth.  For  the  praises  of  God  proceed 
 out  of  his  mouth  and  do  not  defile,  but  rather  justify  him. 
 And  wicked  and  evil  thoughts  which  the  mind  alone 
 employs  itself  upon,  in  themselves  defile  a  man,  but  do  not 
 proceed  out  of  his  mouth.  But  the  meaning  is :  The 
 things  which  defile  a  man,  and  either  enter  into  or  pass  out 
 through  the  mouth,  do  not  defile  because  they  enter,  but 
 because  they  pass  out.  And  not  because  they  merely  pass 
 out,  for  food  is  sometimes  returned  per  vojuitiuu,  but 
 because  they  proceed  out  of  a  heart  defiled.  This  heart, 
 therefore,  the  food  or  drink  which  is  either  taken  immoder- 
 ately or  against  the  law  of  the  Church  defiles,  not  by 
 entering,  but  by  passing  out.  It  proceeds  out  when  the 
 intemperate  or  disobedient'  mind  comes  forth  into  action, 
 and  not  only  wishes  to  take  but  actually  takes  and  places 
 in  the  mouth  food  or  drink  in  immoderate  quantities,  or 
 contrarily  to  the  law  of  the  Church.  For  the  food  in  enter- 
 ing goes  out,  and  not  because  it  enters,  but  because  it  goes 
 out,  it  defiles.  Why  did  Christ  add  this  so  obscurely  ? 
 I  suppose  that  He  wished  to  use  the  antithesis  of  entering 
 and  passing  out  to  mark  the  calumnicjus  cjucstion  of  the 
 Scribes  and   Pharisees,  that  He  might  indirectly  show  that 
 
Ch.  XV.  12,  13.]   PARABLE  OF  THE  BLIND  LEADERS.      II 
 
 it  was  not  His  disciples  by  their  unwashed  hands,  but  the 
 Scribes  and  Pharisees  themselves  by  their  malignant  and 
 calumnious  words,  that  were  defiled. 
 
 Verse  1 2.    Were  scandalised. 
 
 Because  He  appeared,  as  S.  Chrysostom  says,  to  speak 
 of  the  choice  of  meats  as  ordered  by  the  Law,  and  thereby 
 to  be  destroying  the  Law  itself. 
 
 Verse  13.  Every  plant. 
 
 Many  authors  of  note  understand  doctrine  by  plant 
 (Theophylact  Alexandria,  Ep.  Pasch.,  i.  ;  S.  Hilary,  Theo- 
 phylact,  Euthymius).  Others  take  it  of  those  who  have 
 good  or  bad  wills  (S.  Athanasius,  Ep.  on  Syn.  of  A  rim.  and 
 Seleuc.  ;  S.  Jerome,  in  loc.  ;  Prosper,  De  vocat.  Gent.,  i.  2  ; 
 S.  Augustin,  Ev.  Quest.,  i.  17  ;  Bede).  Others,  again,  think 
 that  it  means  both  men  and  doctrines,  as  S.  Chrysostom. 
 Christ  no  doubt  calls  the  men  themselves,  the  Scribes  and 
 Pharisees,  the  plant,  as  in  the  verse  following  He  calls  them 
 blind  and  leaders  of  the  blind.  We  are  ourselves  some- 
 times good  plants,  sometimes  bad.  God  makes  us  good  : 
 we  make  ourselves  evil  {Jer.  ii.  21).  The  meaning  is, 
 therefore,  that  they  whom  God  planted  as  a  good  vine — a 
 vine  elect — turn  into  an  evil  one  ;  or  that  they  who  planted 
 themselves  an  evil  vine  in  the  beginning  cannot  flourish 
 and  bear  fruit  long,  and  are,  therefore,  to  be  cut  down  and 
 cast  into  everlasting  fire,  as  He  said  above  of  the  evil  tree 
 (iii.  10;  vii.  19).  In  this  sense,  Origen  {On  Jerem.^Hom.  i.) 
 and  S.  Jerome  explain  it.  Christ  desired  only  to  say  that 
 these,  as  wicked  and  profligate,  would  be  sent  away  by 
 Him,  because  they  had  not  the  Spirit  of  God,  but  followed 
 their  own  devices  and  tradition,  and,  therefore,  could  not 
 receive  the  words  of  Christ,  which  are  full  of  the  Spirit : 
 as  He  says  immediately  after  (verse  14,  and  S.  John  vi.  44). 
 
1 2  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xv.  14,  15. 
 
 Some  modern  interpreters  explain  the  passage  of  pre- 
 destination and  reprobation,  which  S.  Augustin  certainly 
 did  not  do  ;  for  Christ  would  excuse,  rather  than  condemn 
 them,  if  He  said  that  they  were  to  be  rejected  because 
 they  were  reprobate,  and  could  not  do  otherwise  than  they 
 did  ;  and  perhaps  not  all  of  them  were  reprobate  :  perhaps 
 some  of  them  afterwards  believed.  And  as  Christ  did  not 
 say  that  they  were  reprobate,  it  would  be  rash  in  us  to  say 
 so.  He  says  that  they  would  be  rejected,  not  as  being 
 reprobate,  but  as  being  blind.  But  they  who  are  blind 
 may  be  enlightened.  For  many  were  blind  and  were  after- 
 wards enlightened  ;  and  Christ  does  not  use  the  words 
 "  rooted  out "  absolutely,  but  only  if  they  be  not  con- 
 verted— if  they  will  not  become  good  plants,  as  He  said 
 before  (xii.  33)  ;  and  as  the  householder  long  expected  the 
 tree  which  he  had  planted  in  his  vineyard  to  bring  forth 
 good  fruit,  that  is,  to  be  made  good  {S.  Luke  xiii.  7). 
 
 Verse  1 4.  If  the  blind  lead  the  blind,  both  shall  fall  into 
 the  ditch. 
 
 All  heretic  teachers  are  blind,  and  leaders  of  the  blind. 
 Hence  not  only  the  masters,  but  those  also  who  follow 
 them,  fall  into  the  ditch,  and  they  cannot  be  excused  from 
 ignorance. 
 
 Verse  15.  And  Peter  ajtszvering. 
 
 "  Answering  "  is  a  Hebraism  for  beginning  to  speak,  as  in 
 chap.  xi.  25.  "  Peter,"  says  S.  Chrysostom,  "as  the  most 
 ardent  of  all,  usually  anticipates  all."  S.  Mark  (vii.  17)  does 
 not  say  that  it  was  Peter,  but  that  it  was  the  disciples  who 
 asked  that  question,  when  Christ  had  entered  into  the 
 house.  Euth)'mius  says  that  S.  Peter  began,  and  the  rest 
 followed  ;  but  it  would  rather  seem  to  be  a  syllepsis,  in 
 which  what  he  alone  asked  all  are  said  to  have  asked,  or 
 that  he  asked  in  tiic  name  of  all,  which  is  very  probable, 
 as   he   did    n(;t  say   expound    "to  me,"   but  "to    us,"  this 
 
Ch.  XV.  17.]       PARABLE   OF   THE   BLIND    LEADERS.  1 3 
 
 parable  ;  or  because,  if  he  asked  for  himself  alone,  Scrip- 
 ture is  accustomed  to  put  by  figure  many  for  one,  when 
 all,  like  these,  are  of  the  same  class:  as  S.  Matthew  (xxvi.  8) 
 writes  that  when  the  ointment  was  poured  out  the  disciples 
 were  angered,  when  it  is  clear,  from  vS.  John  xii.  4,  that 
 Judas  only  was  so  ;  and  (xxvii  44)  the  thieves  who 
 were  crucified  with  Christ  are  said  to  have  blasphemed^ 
 when  S.  Luke  (xxiii.  39,  40)  shows  clearly  that  one  only 
 blasphemed,  and  that  he  was  rebuked  by  the  other,  who 
 not  only  did  not  do  the  same,  but  confessed  Christ.  It  is 
 no  objection  that  Christ,  speaking  not  of  one,  but  of  the 
 whole,  said  immediately,  "Are  you  also  yet  without 
 understanding?"  For,  when  Judas  alone  murmured  against 
 the  woman  who  had  poured  out  the  ointment,  Christ, 
 speaking  of  the  whole,  said,  "  Let  ye  her  alone  "  {S.  Matt. 
 xxvi.  10  ;  ^.  Mark  xiv.  6). 
 
 Verse  17.  Do  you  not  nnderstand. 
 
 S.  Jerome  says  that  some  profane  persons  on  this 
 accused  Christ  of  ignorance  of  philosophy,  because  He 
 said,  "  Whatever  is  taken  into  the  mouth  passes  out," 
 whereas  some  remains  for  the  nourishment  of  the  body. 
 Christ,  then,  was  ignorant  of  that  which  no  one  is  ignorant 
 of  He  spoke  not  philosophically,  nor  with  subtlety,  but 
 popularly ;  for  as  but  a  small  portion  remains.  He  spoke  as 
 if  none  did.  But  we  may  ask.  What  is  the  argument  which 
 Christ  used  ?  for  it  does  not  appear  how  the  conclusion 
 follows  from  the  premisses.  The  answer  is  that  Christ  laid 
 down  this  premiss  as  a  thing  known  /^r  se,  that  nothing 
 can  defile  but  the  heart,  which  is  the  fountain  of  the  whole 
 man  ;  or  that  which  is  either  in  the  heart  or  proceeds  from 
 it,  as  in  verses  18,  19.  Because  food,  then,  does  not  pro- 
 ceed out  of  the  heart,  nor  is  in  it,  but  proceeds  into  the 
 belly,  and  passes  out,  He  rightl}^  concludes  that  it  cannot 
 defile  the  man. 
 
14  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xv.  i8,  21. 
 
 Verse  18.  But  the  things  which  proceed  out  of  the  vioiitJi. 
 
 Christ  says  that  out  of  the  mouth  proceed  not  only 
 thoughts,  though  these  do  so  most  properly,  but  also  deeds 
 and  whatever  results  in  deeds.  For  all  deeds  are  first 
 conceived  in  the  heart,  where  they  are  not  seen  unless  they 
 come  forth  through  the  mouth,  the  only  orifice  of  the 
 heart  ;  and  it  is  most  natural  that  what  we  are  going  to  do 
 should  be  first  conceived  in  our  hearts,  then  spoken  from 
 our  mouth,  and  lastly  carried  out  into  action.  Thus  works 
 proceed  through  words  from  the  heart.  It  sometimes 
 happens  that  we  act  without  speaking  ;  but  Christ  regards 
 only  what  takes  place  most  generally,  and  therefore  He 
 says  what  follows. 
 
 Verse  2 1 .  Into  the  coasts  of  Tyre  and  Sidon. 
 
 These  were  two  Gentile  maritime  cities  (as  xi.  21).  It  is 
 not  certain  whether  Christ  came  into  the  actual  country  of 
 the  Gentiles,  though  almost  all  authors  think  so ;  or 
 whether  He  only  came  to  the  confines  of  Galilee  and 
 Phcenicia,  in  which  Tyre  and  Sidon  were  situated.  On  the 
 one  hand,  it  does  not  seem  likely  that  Christ  Himself  did 
 what  He  forbade  the  Apostles  to  do  :  "  Go  ye  not  into  the 
 way  of  the  Gentiles"  (x.  5),  especially  as  He  came  to  teach 
 the  Jews  only,  the  Gentiles  being  left  for  after  time  to  the 
 Apostles.  On  the  other  hand,  S.  Mark,  "  And  rising  from 
 thence.  He  went  into  the  coasts  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  "  (vii. 
 24),  seems  to  signify  that  He  did  pass  on  into  the  country  of 
 the  Gentiles  itself  But  it  cannot  be  conclusively  decided 
 from  that  passage.  For  in  the  same  chapter  of  S.  Mark 
 (verse  31)  the  words,  "He  came  by  Sidon  to  the  sea  of 
 Galilee,"  arc  a  corruption,  as  many  have  observed  ;  so  that 
 it  would  rather  appear  that  He  did  not  come  into  the 
 country  of  the  Gentiles.  We  may  ask  wh)'  He  came 
 hither?  S.  Mark  (vii.  24)  seems  to  imply  that  it  was  for 
 concealment.     From  this  it  is  clear  that  He  wished  to  be 
 
Ch.  XV.  22.]  CHRIST   IN   CHANAAN.  1 5 
 
 concealed  when  He  had  come  thither  ;  but  whether  He 
 came  there  for  that  purpose  is  not  certain.  S.  Chrysostom 
 {Horn.  Hii.)  thinks  that  He  came  thither  because  He  had 
 just  previously  appeared  to  abrogate  the  ceremonies  of  the 
 Law  and  the  observances  of  meats,  and  desired  to  show,  by 
 coming  to  the  Gentiles,  that  there  was  no  longer  Jew  and 
 Greek  ;  as  Peter,  when  he  saw  the  sheet  filled  with  all 
 kinds  of  animals,  and  had  learnt  that  there  was  no  longer 
 to  be  any  difference  of  meats,  was  commanded  to  go  to 
 Cornelius,  a  Gentile  (^Acts  x.  19,  20).  Others  think  that 
 He  went  thither  because  the  Jews  would  not  receive  His 
 doctrines,  as  S.  Paul  and  Barnabas  said  {Acts  xiii.  46).  So 
 say  S.  Jerome,  Bede,  Theophylact,  except  that  Theophy- 
 lact  does  not  think  that  He  came  to  teach  but  to  be  con- 
 cealed.    S.  Epiphanius  thinks  that  it  was  to  rest. 
 
 Verse  22.  And  behold  a  ivomaii  of  CJianaan. 
 
 S.  Mark  (vii.  26)  calls  her  a  woman  of  Syro-Phoenicia, 
 which  in  no  way  opposes  S.  Matthew.  For  the  men  of 
 Tyre  and  Sidon  were  Syro-Phoenicians,  as  Pliny  and  Strabo 
 say.  They  were  called  by  a  compound  name,  because  the 
 Syrians  had  seized  Phoenicia,  as  some  think,  like  the  Gallo- 
 graeci  or  Celtiberi  ;  or,  as  seems  more  probable,  because 
 there  were  some  Phoenicians  who  were  not  inhabitants  of 
 Syria  but  of  Africa,  and  who  were  called  Libyo-Phoenicians, 
 that  is,  Phoenicians  inhabitants  of  Lybia,  as  these  were 
 called  Syro-Phoenicians  ;  and  the  woman  is  said  to  have 
 come  out  of  the  coasts.  Yet  there  is  no  probability  in 
 favour  of  the  common  opinion  that  she  was  called  a  woman 
 of  Chanaan,  either  because  the  Phoenicians  were  driven  out 
 of  the  land  of  Chanaan  by  the  Jews,  or,  as  some  would  have 
 it,  because  they  were  the  descendants  of  Cham,  the  son  of 
 Noe,  whose  firstborn  son  was  called  Sidon  {Gen.  x.  15),  and 
 whom  they  represented  to  be  the  founder  of  Sidon, 
 although    profane   writers    mention   another    as   such.      S. 
 
l6  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xv.  23. 
 
 Chrysostom  has  observed  that  the  Evangelist  recorded  her 
 to  be  a  Chanaanite,  to  show  that  her  faith  was  more  wonder- 
 ful ;  for  the  Chanaanites  were  held  by  the  Jews  the  most 
 wicked  of  all  the  Gentiles.  S.  Mark  has  said  that  she  was 
 a  Greek,  that  is,  a  Gentile,  as  our  version  renders  it.  For 
 all  Gentiles  in  the  Sacred  Writings,  and  more  especially  in 
 the  New  Testament,  are  called  Greeks  and  opposed  to 
 Jews,  though  neither  in  language  nor  by  descent  actually 
 Greeks  (Acts  ix.  29;  xviii.  4;  Rom.  i.  16;  ii.  9;  iii.  9; 
 I  Cor.  i.  22,  24 ;  Ga/.  iii.  28). 
 
 Have  mercy  on  me. 
 
 She  says  "on  me"  that  she  might  move  Christ  more 
 than  if  she  should  say  "  my  daughter  "  ;  or,  as  S.  Chrysos- 
 tom, Theophylact,  and  Euthymius  say,  because  her 
 daughter  was  lying  without  sense,  and  she  felt  the  suffer- 
 ings of  both,  her  own  and  her  daughter's. 
 
 TJioii  Son  of  David. 
 
 I.  Why  Christ  was  so  addressed  most  chiefly  by  those  who 
 wanted  some  favour  from  Him  has  been  explained  chap.  i. 
 2.  We  must  believe  that  this  woman,  though  not  a  Jewess, 
 had  heard  something,  either  from  her  vicinity  to  the  Jews, 
 or  from  the  prophets  who  spoke  of  Christ  as  the  future  Son 
 of  David.  She  at  least  knew  that  He  was  so  styled  com- 
 monly by  the  Jews  who  believed  on  Him. 
 
 Verse  23.    Who  ansivcrcd  her  not  a  word. 
 
 Lest,  say  S.  Jerome  and  Bede,  He  should  seem  to  con- 
 tradict Himself,  because  (x.  5)  He  had  said  to  His  disciples, 
 Go  ye  not  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles.  So  He  answered 
 in  the  following  verse  :  "  I  was  not  sent  but  to  the  sheep 
 that  arc  lost  of  the  house  of  Israel  ". 
 
 Christ  seems  to  have  been  silent  for  two  reasons.  To 
 prcn'c  the  woman's  faith  and  constanc}-  ;  or,  r-^^^i-.M"  as  S. 
 
Ch.  XV.  23.]  THE   WOMAN    OF   CHANAAN.  \y 
 
 Chrysostom  says,  to  show  it  to  the  others  ;  for  it  was  great 
 and  rare  faith  to  persevere  when  apparently  held  in  con- 
 tempt, and  not  thought  worthy  of  reply  ;  and  that  Christ 
 might  show  that  it  was  not  of  His  own  will  to  grant  to  the 
 Gentiles  the  grace  of  miracles,  when  He  was  not  sent  but 
 to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel  ;  but  that  He  did  so 
 as  it  were  reluctantly,  and  as  if  compelled  by  the  woman's 
 prayers. 
 
 Send  her  azvay. 
 
 By  granting  what  ehe  asked  for.  Euthymius  says  that 
 they  asked  for  her  ;  and  it  is  very  likely  that  the  woman 
 entreated  them  to  plead  for  her  as  for  themselves. 
 
 For  she  crietJi  after  us. 
 
 This  seems  to  mean  :  "  Grant  her  what  she  asks,  if  only 
 because  of  her  importunity,  as  Thou  taughtest  us  in  the 
 parable  of  the  man  who  sought  the  loaves  at  an  incon- 
 venient hour  of  the  night "  (^S.  Luke  xi.  8).  The  saying  of 
 S.  Jerome,  that  the  Apostles  entreated  for  her  to  be  rid  of 
 her  clamour,  seems  somewhat  harsh.  S.  Mark  (vii.  25)  says 
 that  she  entered  the  house  where  Christ  was  and  fell  at  His 
 feet ;  which  seems  opposed  to  this  account,  wherein  it  is 
 signified  that  she  followed  Him  as  He  went  along  the  way, 
 and  cried  behind  Him.  S.  Augustin  {De  Cons.,  ii.  49) 
 answers  that  she  first  went  into  the  house  where  Christ 
 was,  and  fell  at  His  feet,  and  said,  "  Have  mercy  upon 
 me,"  as  S.  Mark  says  ;  but  that  Christ  made  her  no  answer, 
 but  went  out  of  the  house,  and  she  followed  and  cried  after 
 Him,  as  S.  Matthew  relates. 
 
 This  is  easily  gathered  from  S.  Mark,  who  says  that 
 Christ,  as  soon  as  He  came  into  the  country,  entered  into  a 
 hou.se,  and  wished  to  be  concealed,  but  could  not  be,  for 
 the  Syro-Phcenician  immediately  came  and  fell  at  His  feet. 
 
 Therefore  the  idea  of  some,  that  she  first  followed  Christ  in 
 2 — 2 
 
1 8  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW,  [Ch.  xv.  24. 
 
 the  way,  and  after  cried  out  behind  Him,  and  the  disciples 
 said,  "Send  her  away";  and  that  He  went  into  a  house  that 
 He  might  grant  her  request  in  a  private  place,  and  that  she 
 fell  at  His  feet,  seems  in  no  degree  probable. 
 
 Verse  24.  /  am  not  sent  bnt  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
 Israel. 
 
 It  is  the  most  ungrateful  and  wicked  error  of  the  fol- 
 lowers of  Calvin,  that  Christ  came  or  died,  not  for  the  sake 
 of  all  men,  but  only  for  the  predestinated.  They  cannot 
 make  the  heresy  good  from  this  passage  ;  for  He  says  that 
 He  came  not  for  these,  but  that  He  was  sent  to  the  Jews 
 alone.  Christ  says  then  that  He  was  sent  to  the  Jews 
 alone.  All  of  these  were  not  predestinated,  but  the  greater 
 part  were  reprobate.  He  was  not  sent,  therefore,  for  the 
 predestinate  alone.  He  says  that  He  was  not  sent  but  to 
 the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel,  either  because  He  came 
 to  them  first,  as  S.  Paul  says  {Acts  xiii.  46  ;  S.  Ambrose, 
 On  Ps.  xliii.,  and  Gaudentius,  Tract,  vii.  on  Exodus ;  S. 
 Cyril  Alexandria,  On  Isaiah,  bk.  v. ;  and  S.  Jerome  and 
 Bede,  in  Comments.),  or  that  He  was  come  to  show  His 
 presence,  preaching,  and  miracles  to  the  Jews  alone  ;  for 
 He  would  not  preach  the  Gospel  or  perform  miracles  to 
 the  GcntWes,  ipse  per  se,hwi  by  His  Apostles;  and  there- 
 fore He  is  termed  by  S.  Paul  the  Minister  of  the  Circum- 
 cision {Rom.  XV.  8).  As  S.  Hilary  and  S.  Augustin 
 {Tract,  xxxi.,  xlvii,,  in  John)  suppose.  He  calls  the  Jews 
 "  sheep  "  (x.  6)  ;  the  Gentiles  "  dogs  "  (26). 
 
 It  is  easy  to  understand  why  He  would  not  show  His 
 presence  to  other  nations  than  the  Jews,  because,  as  S. 
 Augustin  says  in  his  Tract,  xxxi.  on  S.  John,  the  promise 
 of  the  coming  Messiah  was  made  to  the  Jews  alone,  on 
 account  of  the  faith  of  Abraham,  as  said  on  chap.  i.  i. 
 He  did  not  come,  therefore,  to  Tyre  and  Sidon  to  preach 
 or  work  miracles,  but  rather  that  He  might  be  concealed. 
 
Ch.  XV.  26.]  THE   WOMAN    OF   CHANAAN.  I9 
 
 if  He  came  thither,  as  discussed  on  verse  21  ;  nor  did  He 
 perform  this  miracle  by  design  and  in  a  predetermined 
 place,  but  as  if  compelled,  as  it  were,  by  the  prayers  and 
 importunities  of  the  woman,  as  explained  on  verse  22. 
 And  He  did  not  give  it  as  bread,  to  the  dogs,  but  cast  it 
 to  them  ;  or  (not  this  even,  but)  He  broke  it  off  for  her 
 like  a  crumb  from  the  table.     (See  on  verse  27.) 
 
 Verse  26.  It  is  not  good. 
 
 Good,  KoXov,  honourable,  becoming,  appropriate. 
 
 The  bread  of  the  children. 
 
 The  bread  is  the  grace  of  miracles  and  of  the  Gospel 
 generally,  which  was  in  a  sense  confined  to  the  Jews  alone, 
 as  by  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  of  whom  He  calls  the 
 Jews  the  children,  as  {Exodus  iv.  22)  Israel  my  first-born. 
 
 And  to  cast  it. 
 
 ^aWiiv,  projicere.  The  word  shows  that  it  was  not  the 
 fine  bread  of  the  children  to  be  disposed  of  so  rudely  ;  as 
 if  it  were  not  distributed  with  care  and  design,  but  thrown 
 about  at  random.  The  dogs  have  a  coarser  bread  than  the 
 children.  Natural  objects — the  sun,  moon,  rain,  and  other 
 things  of  the  same  kind — are  the  bread  of  the  dogs,  that  is, 
 of  the  Gentiles,  which  are  dispensed  by  the  providence  of 
 God,  indeed,  but  by  a  providence  general,  less  exact,  and 
 given  forth  to  all  in  common,  as  acorns  are  cast  to  swine. 
 The  grace  of  the  Gospel,  which  is  above  nature,  is  the 
 bread  of  the  children,  not  to  be  cast  forth  at  random,  but 
 distributed  with  greater  care  and  design. 
 
 To  the  dogs. 
 
 Christ  opposes  the  dogs  to  the  children  because,  although 
 the  householder  has  the  care  of  both,  he  has  a  prior  and 
 much  greater  care  of  the  children.     The  Jews  were  pro- 
 
20  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xv.  26. 
 
 bably  used  to  call  all  other  nations  dogs,  as  the  Greeks 
 called  them  barbarians.  It  is  certain  that  it  was  their 
 custom  to  call  the  vilest  and  most  worthless  of  men  by  this 
 name  by  way  of  contempt,  as  we  read  in  2  Kings  iii.  8  ; 
 xvi,  9  ;  4  Kings  viii.  13.  S.  Mark  (vii.  27)  says  that  Christ 
 said  :  "  Suffer  first  the  children  to  be  filled  "  ;  by  which 
 words  He  seemed  to  give  her  some  hope  that  the  time 
 would  come  when  her  request  should  be  granted  ;  for  He 
 knew  that  the  children  never  would  be  filled,  but  would 
 reject  with  contempt  the  bread  offered  them  from  heaven. 
 But  it  is  a  mystery  ;  and  He  explained,  not  what  happened 
 from  the  fault  of  the  Jews,  but  what,  both  from  the  divine 
 counsels  and  from  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  ought  to 
 have  been  done. 
 
 Yea,  Lord. 
 
 All  authors  nearly  have  observed  that  the  word  "  Yea  "  is 
 not  that  of  one  contradicting,  but  of  assenting.  It  is  not 
 clear  how  the  woman  argued,  or  what  force  the  causal  term 
 carries.  In  the  expression,  "  For  the  whelps  also  ".  For  if 
 she  granted  the  truth  of  Christ's  words,  she  could  not  con- 
 clude that  the  whelps  eat  of  the  crumbs,  though  they 
 actually  do  so  ;  and,  if  she  wished  to  say  this,  she  should 
 rather  have  said  "  but "  than  "  for  " — "  but  the  whelps  "  ; 
 that  is,  although  it  is  not  good  to  take  children's  bread 
 and  give  it  to  them,  yet  the  masters  suffer  them  to  cat  of 
 the  crumbs  which  fall  from  the  tables. 
 
 It  may  be  explained  as  follows.  Christ  had  termed  the 
 woman  a  dog,  and  she  took  up  the  word  and,  as  S.  Chrysos- 
 tom  has  observed,  made  an  argument  from  it,  and  cleverly 
 proved  her  case.  "  Yea,  Lord ; "  that  is,  "  I  am  indeed  a 
 dog,  for  the  dogs  eat  of  the  crumbs  ;  and  thus,  if  I  am  a 
 dog,  I  ought  at  least  to  cat  of  the  crumbs ".  Therefore, 
 this  vol,  ctiani,  "  Yea,"  means  the  same  as  what  we  com- 
 monly say  in  an  argument  when  our  opponent  says  a  thing 
 which  he  thinks  greatly  against  us,  but  which  wc  take  as 
 
Ch.  XV.  28.]  THE   WOMAN    OF   CHANAAN.  21 
 
 Strongly  on  our  side.     "  This  is  what  I  would  have  of  you, 
 that  I  am  a  dog- ;  for  even  the  dogs  eat  of  the  crumbs." 
 
 Of  the  crumbs. 
 Christ  calls  the  lesser  and  the  less  frequent  miracles 
 crumbs  \  and  Theophylact  has  observed  that  it  is  as  if  the 
 woman  had  said  :  I  do  not  ask  of  Thee  to  work  miracles 
 everywhere  here,  as  among  the  Jews  ;  to  cure  the  blind, 
 or  raise  the  dead  ;  but  one  thing  only,  and  that  less  difficult 
 in  its  nature,  to  cast  out  the  devil  from  my  daughter. 
 
 Which  fall. 
 This  word  answers  to  that  used  by  Christ,  "  cast,"  and  is 
 opposed  to  it.  As  if  she  had  said :  I  do  not  ask  Thee  to 
 work  a  miracle  openly  {ex  professo),  as  among  the  Jews, 
 but  by  the  way,  as  it  were  ;  not  as  if  Thou  gavest  it,  or 
 threwest  it  down,  but  as  if  it  fell  from  Thee,  as  crumbs  do 
 from  the  tables  of  the  rich. 
 
 From  the  table. 
 Christ  calls  that  abundance,  so  to  speak,  of  all  graces 
 which  was  in  Him  the  table,  as  the  table  of  the  rich  is 
 loaded  with  every  kind  of  food  {Col.  ii.  9  ;  vS.  John  i.  16). 
 
 Of  their  master's. 
 She,  says  S.  Chrysostom,  calls  the  Jews  their  masters, 
 whom  Christ  had  called  sons.  He  ascribes  this  to  her 
 great  humility.  It  may  rather  be  that  she  called  Christ 
 Himself  Master,  but  that  she  used  the  plural,  because  of 
 the  number  of  dogs,  each  of  which  had  its  own  master. 
 
 Verse  28.  O  zvoman,  great  is  thy  faith. 
 The  words  of  admiration.  It  is  to  be  observed  that 
 Christ  never  praised  the  faith  of  any  but  Gentiles,  as  this 
 woman  and  the  centurion  (viii.  10).  For  the  faith  of  the 
 Gentiles  was  greater  than  that  of  the  Jews.  How  Christ 
 could  feel  admiration  has  been  explained  on  that  verse. 
 
22  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xv.32. 
 
 Verse  32.  Called  together  His  disciples. 
 
 To  communicate  His  designs  to  them,  as  S.  Jerome  says. 
 It  may  appear  that  Christ  wished  to  try  their  faith,  and  to 
 take  the  occasion  of  the  future  miracle,  that  it  might  appear 
 by  their  confession  that  it  was  not  bread  with  which  so 
 great  a  multitude  could  be  fed.  For  we  find  that  Christ, 
 without  a  great  and  evident  need,  never  performed  miracles. 
 Wherefore  He  waited  three  days  before  He  performed  the 
 following  miracle,  that  if  they  had  brought  any  food  with 
 them  from  another  source  it  might  be  consumed,  as  S. 
 Chrysostom  and  Euthymius  have  observed.  S.  Chrysostom 
 and  Theophylact  afterwards  add  that  the  disciples  did  not 
 then  suggest  to  Christ  to  send  the  multitudes  away  into  the 
 villages  to  buy  bread,  as  they  had  done  (xiv.  1 5)  ;  because 
 they  had  now  made  some  advance  in  faith,  and  because 
 they  saw  that  all  the  people  were  eager,  and,  in  their 
 desire  to  hear,  forgot  their  hunger. 
 
 Because  they  contimie  with  Me  now  three  days. 
 
 Some  think  that  for  the  whole  three  days  all  or  the 
 greater  number  of  the  people  fasted.  This  that  gredljejeiinii 
 magister,  Calvin,  ascribed  not  to  their  virtue,  but  to  the 
 more  subtle  atmosphere,  for  that  we  in  our  denser  climate 
 could  not  endure  so  long  an  abstinence,  as  if  the  more 
 subtle  atmosphere  did  not  make  men  more  sharp  of 
 appetite.  He  would  not,  wc  think,  have  the  French  fast 
 for  this  reason.  We  read,  not  only  among  the  Easterns, 
 but  also  among  the  Europeans,  of  much  longer  fasts.  But 
 it  cannot  be  concluded  from  this  passage  that  either  all  or 
 some  fasted  for  three  days.  We  can  only  know  that  they 
 were  fasting  when  Christ  spoke  ;  because  He  said  :  "  I  will 
 not  send  them  away  fasting ".  For  they  had  consumed, 
 as  Euthymius  says,  what  they  brought  with  them. 
 
 What  happened  in  the  30th  verse  has  been  explained 
 above  (xiv.  15-21). 
 
Ch.  XV.  39.]  CHRIST   AT  MAGEDAN.  23 
 
 Verse  39.    The  coasts. 
 
 Some  Greek  copies  read  ra  opi],  "  the  mountains,"  for 
 ra  opta,  "  the  coasts,"  which  does  not  seem  an  improve- 
 ment. 
 
 S.  Mark  (viii.  10)  says  that  He  came  into  the  parts  of 
 Dalmanutha.  This  is  probably  a  corrupt  reading  for 
 "  Mageda,"  as  here  ;  as  S.  Jerome  (/;/  /id.  de  he.  Heb.),  S. 
 Augustin  {De  Consens.,  ii.  51),  and  Bede  {On  S.  Mark  viii.) 
 testify,  and  as  many  copies  in  their  time  had  it.  It  is  some 
 proof  that  Dalmanutha  is  not  mentioned  anywhere  else  in 
 Scripture,  or,  as  far  as  I  know,  in  any  profane  author. 
 Magedan,  however,  or,  as  it  is  in  the  Greek,  Magdala,  is 
 found  in  i  Kings  xvii.  20,  though  it  is  uncertain  whether  it 
 is  the  same  place.  But  even  if  we  said  Dalmanutha,  there 
 is  no  contradiction.  For  either,  as  S.  Augustin  and  Bede 
 say,  the  same  place  is  meant  under  another  name,  or,  as 
 others  conjecture,  one  is  the  name  of  the  country,  and  the 
 other  of  the  city,  or  each  was  the  name  of  the  city.  But 
 each  city  was  near,  so  that  whoever  came  into  the  neigh- 
 bourhood of  one  came  into  that  of  the  other ;  as  above 
 (verse  21)  Christ  is  said  to  have  come  into  the  coasts  of 
 Tyre  and  Sidon. 
 
CHAPTER   XVI. 
 
 CHRIST  REFUSES  TO  SHOW  THE  PHARISEES  A  SIGN  FROM 
 HEAVEN — PETER'S  CONFESSION  IS  REWARDED — HE 
 IS  REBUKED  FOR  OPPOSING  CHRIST'S  PASSION — ALL 
 HIS   FOLLOWERS   MUST   DENY   THEMSELVES. 
 
 The  first  three  verses,  or  even  four,  as  S.  Jerome  says, 
 are  not  found  in  very  many  copies.  But  all  the  Greek 
 and  Latin  authors  have  them,  and  they  are  found  in  .S.  Mark 
 (viii.  ii) ;  nor  is  it  probable  that  they  were  added,  in  either 
 case.  It  may  appear  strange  that  the  Evangelist  has 
 related  the  same  thing  (xii.  38).  But  there  is  no  reason  why 
 the  Scribes  and  Pharisees — not  the  same  persons,  but 
 others  in  other  places — may  not  have  put  the  same  ques- 
 tions. Besides,  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  are  mentioned 
 as  the  questioners  in  the  former  place,  and  the  Sadducees 
 here.  In  the  former  place  they  did  not  come  to  Christ  for 
 the  purpose  of  questioning  Him,  but  in  the  course  of  a  con- 
 versation they  answered  :  "  We  would  see  a  sign  of  Thee  ". 
 Here  they  are  said  to  have  come  as  if  for  the  purpose  of 
 questioning  Him,  and  seeking  a  sign  from  Him. 
 
 Verse  i.   The  Pharisees  and  Sadducees. 
 
 ( Vide  chap.  iii.  7  on  Pharisees  and  Sadducees.)  We  may 
 observe  how  the  two  most  opposite  sects  of  Jewish  heretics 
 agree  among  themselves  to  oppose  Christ.  For  the  Phari- 
 sees and  Sadducees  carried  on  an  internecine  war  among 
 themselves,  as  we  learn  not  only  from  Josephus,  but  also 
 from  S.  Luke  {Acts  xxiii.  6).  So  Pilate  and  Herod,  when 
 they   had    previously   been    enemies,   became   friends  and 
 
Ch.  XVI.  2.]       CHRIST  REFUSES  THE  PHARISEES  A  SIGN.       25 
 
 united  to  persecute  Christ  (5.  Luke  xxiii.  12).  So  now  the 
 followers  of  Luther  and  Calvin  very  widely  differ  among 
 themselves,  but  conspire  against  the  Catholic  Church  ;  that 
 is,  the  Body  of  Christ.  Christ,  as  Tertullian  says,  is  always 
 crucified  between  two  thieves. 
 
 A  sign. 
 (See  chap.  xii.  38.) 
 
 Verse  2.    WJien  it  is  evening. 
 
 Because  they  sought  a  sign  from  Him,  Christ  showed 
 them  from  the  heavenly  appearances  that  they  ought  not 
 to  seek  it  thence.  Long  experience  universally  shows  that 
 the  red  of  evening  is  a  sign  of  calm  and  fine  weather,  and 
 that  that  of  the  morning  foreshows  tempests. 
 
 The  face  of  the  sky. 
 
 The  Greek  has  "  you  hypocrites,"  and  so  5.  Luke  xii.  56. 
 He  calls  them  hypocrites,  says  Euthymius,  because  they 
 wished  to  seem  wise,  when  in  truth  they  were  most  sense- 
 less. 
 
 The  whole  difficulty  in  the  passage  is  as  to  the  manner 
 in  which  Christ  concludes  His  conversation.  Some  read  it 
 affirmatively — as  S.  Chrysostom  and  Theophylact — and 
 explain  it  thus  :  "  You  can  discern  the  face  of  the  heavens 
 indeed  ;  but  the  signs  of  the  times,  My  arrival,  you  cannot 
 understand.  For  My  first  advent  ought  to  be  discerned, 
 not  from  the  signs  of  the  heavens,  the  sun  and  moon,  but 
 from  the  prophecies  and  the  miracles  that  I  do  "  (5.  Luke 
 xvii.  20,  21). 
 
 Others  take  it  as  an  interrogation  ;  as  S.  Hilary,  S. 
 Jerome,  Bede,  and  Euthymius.  "  If  you  know  the  signs  of 
 the  heavens,  of  fair  weather  and  storms,  which  are  more 
 difficult  and  uncertain,  how  can  you  err  as  to  the  signs  of 
 the  times  of  My  coming,  which  are  countersigned  by  so 
 
26  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xvi.  5,  6. 
 
 many  prophecies  and  proved  by  so  many  miracles  on  My 
 part?"  S.  Luke  (xii.  56):  "Ye  hypocrites,  you  know 
 how  to  discern  the  face  of  the  heaven  and  of  the  earth  ;  but 
 how  is  it  that  you  do  not  discern  this  time?  "  confirms  this 
 opinion.  For,  although  He  spoke  there  to  the  multitude, 
 and  here  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  it  is  probable  that 
 He  used  the  same  style  of  argument  with  both  :  a  majore 
 ad  minus,  as  some  term  it  ;  or,  a  viinorc  ad  majus,  as  others ; 
 but  either  is  probable. 
 
 Verse  5 .  Ajid  when  His  disciples  were  come. 
 
 When  they  loosed  sail  to  come  ;  for  it  was  when  they  were 
 setting  forth  that  they  forgot  the  bread.  S.  Jerome  asks 
 how  it  was  possible  for  them  to  have  forgotten  this,  when 
 a  little  before  (xv.  37)  they  collected  the  seven  baskets  full 
 of  fragments.  He  answers,  that  they  brought  the  loaves 
 with  them,  but  when  they  were  setting  forth  they  forgot  to 
 take  them.  It  seems,  perhaps,  more  likely  that,  either  of 
 their  own  accord,  or  at  the  command  of  Christ,  the  disciples 
 distributed  these  fragments  to  the  poor.  And  thus  they 
 forgot  to  take,  that  is,  to  buy,  bread.  It  cannot  be  granted 
 to  S.  Jerome  that  what  followed  happened  on  the  voyage, 
 because  S.  Luke  plainly  says,  that  when  there  were  so 
 great  multitudes  standing  about  Him,  that  they  trod  one 
 upon  another,  Christ  began  to  say  to  the  disciples,  "  Beware 
 yc  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  ". 
 
 Over  the  luater. 
 
 Into  Bcthsaida — as  S.  Mark  viii.  22. 
 
 Verse  6.    ]  Vho  said  to  them. 
 
 In  the  Greek,  "  Jesus  said  to  them  ".  Our  version  says 
 "Who,"  expressing  the  antecedent  by  the  relative,  as  is 
 very  often  done  in  Scripture,  espcciall)'  in  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment. 
 
Ch.  XVI.  6.]   CHRIST'S  WARNING  AGAINST  THE  PHARISEES.  2/ 
 Take  heed  ("  inUieniini"). 
 
 To  see  (videre)  is  one  thing.  To  take  heed  (intueri)  is 
 another ;  as  in  the  Greek  ^Xinw  differs  from  opaw.  For 
 one  often  sees  "  who  takes  no  heed  "  :  in  this  sense  the 
 Latins  use  video,  and  not  iiitueor,  which  is  "  observe 
 mentally  ".  Our  version  uses  a  catachresis  (pleonasm)  : 
 "  Take  heed  and  beware  " — httuemini  et  cavete ;  as  also 
 does  the  Greek:  opaTe  Kal  Trpoaexere ;  and  S.  Mark  (viii.  15) 
 Spare  /SXeTrere. 
 
 0/  the  leaven. 
 
 S.  Hilary  and  S.  Jerome  think  that  the  observation  of 
 the  Law  is  called  leaven.  This  does  not  agree  with  what 
 Christ  said  afterwards  (xxiii.  2).  For  He  commands  the 
 Law  of  Moses  to  be  observed.  Rather,  that  teaching  of 
 the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  in  which  they  were  heretics, 
 and  corrupted  the  Law,  is  alluded  to,  and  which  Christ 
 reprehends  (xv.  3,  5,  6).  For  it  is  clear  from  verse  12  that 
 we  must  understand  Him  of  doctrine  ;  though  the  words 
 of  S.  Luke  (xii.  i),  "  Beware  ye  of  the  leaven  of  the 
 Pharisees,  which  is  hypocrisy,"  may  appear  contrary.  It 
 may  be  answered,  as  Bede  seems  to  say,  that  He  called  the 
 doctrine  itself  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  hypocrisy  ; 
 because  they  taught  one  thing  and  practised  another,  or 
 because  all  their  teaching  tended  to  hypocrisy.  It  is  a 
 more  grave  question  how  Christ  here  commands  the 
 Apostles  to  beware  of  their  doctrine,  when  (xxiii.  2)  He 
 teaches  them  to  do  whatever  they  say.  The  answer,  again, 
 may  be,  that  He  is  there  speaking  of  the  Scribes  and 
 Pharisees  as  sitting  in  Moses'  seat,  that  is,  explaining  the 
 Law  of  Moses  ;  as  long  as  they  do  which,  they  are  to  be 
 followed  ;  but  He  does  not  speak  here  of  the  Law  of  Moses, 
 but  of  their  own  leaven,  that  is,  of  their  heretical  teaching, 
 of  which  He  bids  them  beware. 
 
28  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xvi.7,8. 
 
 Of  the  Pharisees  and  Saddticees. 
 
 S.  Mark  (viii.  15)  adds,  "and  of  Herod,"  or,  as  it  is  in 
 other  copies,  "  of  the  Herodians  "'.  Hence,  it  is  clear  that 
 there  was  some  sect  of  Herodians  or  of  Herod.  For  Christ 
 was  speaking  of  sects  when  He  mentioned  the  Sadducees, 
 who  were  certainly  heretics,  or  even  more  than  heretics  ; 
 and  from  verse  12  it  would  appear  that  the  subject  was  of 
 false  and  corrupt  doctrine.  But  which  Herod  was  the 
 author  of  this  sect  is  uncertain  :  whether  Herod  Antipater 
 the  Great  who  reigned  last,  or  Herod  Antipas,  his  son,  the 
 tetrarch  of  Galilee  ;  and  what  doctrine  he  introduced,  there 
 is  nothing,  seemingly,  to  show  either  in  sacred  or  profane 
 history;  unless  we  may  conjecture  from  what  Josephus  wrote 
 of  Herod  the  king,  who  gave  his  mind  entirely  to  Roman 
 fashions,  that  he  was  the  author  of  that  sect  ;  and  from  the 
 place  given  to  him  by  the  Evangelist,  who  places  Herod  in 
 the  last  rank  of  all  (5.  Mark  viii.  15),  that  it  consisted 
 merely  of  pretence,  by  which,  for  the  sake  of  power,  it 
 adapted  itself  to  every  sect,  like  those  whom  we  now  call 
 politicians  :  men  either  of  no  religion  at  all,  or  who  pre- 
 tend to  be  of  everyone.  The  subject  will  be  treated  at 
 more  length  (xxii.  16). 
 
 Verse  7.  But  they  thought  ivWiin  tJieinselves. 
 
 They  thought  not  only  how  the  words  of  Christ  were  to 
 be  understood,  but  also  what  they  were  to  do,  as  they  had 
 taken  no  bread.  This  was  the  cause  of  their  solicitude. 
 Christ  blamed  them  because  they  did  not  remember  the 
 two  great  miracles  by  which,  just  before,  He  had  fed  so 
 many  thousands  with  so  little  bread. 
 
 Verse  8.  But  Jesus  knowing  it. 
 
 Their  thoughts,  which,  as  S.  Chrysostom  sa}'s,  showed 
 their  forcfctfulness  of  the  miracle. 
 
Ch.  XVI.  lo,  13.]     CHRIST   AT   C/ESAREA   PHILIPPI.  29 
 
 Verse  10.  Nor  the  seven  loaves  among  foiw  tJwiisand  men. 
 
 The  Greek  has,  "  Of  the  four  thousand  ".  Our  version 
 keeps  the  meaning,  but  not  the  words. 
 
 Verse  13.  Into  the  quarters  of  C(ssarea  Philippi. 
 
 All  know  that  there  were  two  Caesareas.  One,  the 
 ancient,  which  was  formerly  called  the  Tower  of  Strato. 
 It  was  enlarged  by  King  Herod,  and  adorned  by  him  with 
 many  noble  works,  and  called  Caesarea  in  honour  of 
 Augustus  Caesar,  as  we  learn  from  Josephus  {Antiq.,  xv.  13, 
 and  De  Bell.  Jnd.,  xvi.)  and  from  S.  Jerome  on  this  passage. 
 It  was  situated  on  the  coast  of  the  Mediterranean,  between 
 Dora  and  Joppa.  There  was  another,  more  modern,  in 
 Phoenicia,  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Libanus,  where  the  Jordan 
 takes  its  rise,  which  had  been  previously  called  Paneas,  and 
 which  Philip,  the  son  of  Herod  the  Great,  and  tetrarch  of 
 the  region  of  Trachonitis  {S.  Luke  iii.  i,  2),  adorned  and 
 enlarged,  and  called  Caesarea  in  honour  of  Tiberius.  After- 
 wards, King  Agrippa,  to  flatter  Nero,  called  it  Neronias, 
 as  Josephus  says  {Antiq.,  xx.  8).  The  assertion  of  S. 
 Jerome  that  it  was  then  called  Paneas  does  not  seem  to 
 have  been  said  by  a  lapse  of  memory ;  but  it  was  very 
 likely  that  in  his  time  the  adulatory  name  of  Caesarea  had 
 been  lost,  and  the  city  had  resumed  its  ancient  name  of 
 Paneas.  It  was  called  Caesarea  Philippi ;  Philip  the  tetrarch 
 having  so  named  it  to  distinguish  it  from  the  other  Caesarea 
 of  Herod. 
 
 And  He  asked  His  disciples. 
 
 S.  Mark  (viii.  27)  says  that  this  happened  on  the  way, 
 and  S.  Luke  (ix.  18)  when  He  was  alone  praying. 
 Euthymius  answers  that  He  took  His  journey  and  prayed 
 at  the  same  time.  This  hardly  seems  probable.  The 
 opinion  of  S.  Augustin  {De  Consens.,  ii.  53)  seems  more 
 probable,  that  it  happened  by  the  way,  before  He  reached 
 
30  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.  [Ch.xvi.  13. 
 
 the  place  to  which  He  was  going.  He  turned  aside  out  of 
 the  way  to  some  solitary  spot  to  pray,  and,  when  He  had 
 finished  His  prayer,  He  went  on,  and  then  asked  the 
 disciples  whom  men  said  that  He  was.  "  As  He  was 
 praying"  (S.  Liike  ix.  18)  is  a  Hebraism  for  "When  He 
 had  finished,"  as  Ps.  cxxv.  i  :  "  When  the  Lord  brought 
 back  "  ;  that  is,  "  When,"  or  "  after  He  had  ". 
 
 Whom  do  men  say. 
 
 Many  Latin  copies,  and  most  Greek  ones,  have  "Whom 
 do  men  say  that  I,  the  Son  of  man,  am?  "  There  is  a  three- 
 fold version,  i.  "  Whom  do  men  say  that  the  Son  of  man 
 is?"  2.  "Whom  do  men  say  that  I,  the  Son  of  man,  am?" 
 3.  "Whom  do  men  say  that  I  am?"  In  the  first,  almost  all 
 the  Latin  copies  and  all  authors  agree.  In  the  second,  only 
 S.  Epiphanius  {I)i  Anchoratus)^  Theophylact,  and,  as  it 
 seems,  S.  Hilary.  In  the  third,  only  S.  Chrysostom 
 {Horn.  Iv.). 
 
 .  The  first,  which  is  the  most  usual  one,  and  that  in  com- 
 mon use,  seems  much  the  best,  and  the  conjecture  that  it 
 was  written  at  first  ("  Whom  do  men  say  that  the  Son  of 
 man  is  ? ")  seems  very  excellent.  Then  perhaps  some 
 Greek,  to  show  that  Christ  spoke  of  Himself,  inserted  yuk, 
 *'  that  I  am,"  into  the  margin  ;  another  may  have  trans- 
 ferred it  to  the  text ;  and  thus  it  may  have  begun  to  be  read, 
 "  Whom  do  men  say  that  I,  the  Son  of  man,  am  ?  "  And, 
 lastly,  that  some  transcriber,  thinking  that  there  was  a 
 redundancy,  removed  the  words,  "  the  Son  of  man,"  which 
 were  obscure,  and  left  the  "  Me,"  "  that  I,"  which  was 
 clearer.  I  know  that  many  read  it  either  way,  and  either 
 without  an  interrogation,  and  by  apposition  :  "  I,  the  Son 
 of  man"  ;  or,  with  an  interrogation  :  "  Whom  do  men  say 
 that  I  am  ?  the  Son  of  man  ? "  Both  readings  seem 
 absurd;  the  second  the  more  so  of  the  two.  For  Christ 
 does  not  call  Himself  the  Son  of  man  honourably,  but  in 
 
Ch.  XVI.  14,  I5-]  PETER'S   CONFESSION.  3 1 
 
 humility;  nor  does  He  speak  in  the  third  person  of  any  but 
 Himself. 
 
 Observe  the  antithesis.  Christ  asks  :  "  Whom  do  men 
 say  that  the  Son  of  man  is?"  Peter  answers:  "  Thou  art  the 
 Son  of  the  living  God  ".  Hence  it  seems  that  in  the  first 
 passage  we  ought  to  read  the  words,  "  the  Son  of  man,"  for 
 the  antithesis.  For  Christ  seems  designedly,  and  in  the 
 most  contemptuous  terms,  to  have  called  Himself  the  Son 
 of  man,  to  try  their  faith,  and  to  give  them  an  opportunity 
 of  saying  freely  what  their  thoughts  of  Him  were,  even  if 
 they  held  Him  no  more  than  a  mere  man. 
 
 Men. 
 
 A  Hebraism,  as  in  chap.  v.  13,  which  S.  Luke  explains. 
 To  S.  Matthew's,  "Whom  do  men  say?"  S.  Luke  (ix.  18), 
 adds,  "  Whom  do  the  people  say  that  I  am  ?  "  as  in  explana- 
 tion. S.  Matthew,  as  we  have  shown,  keeps  the  words ;  S. 
 Luke  the  meaning  and  explanation. 
 
 Verse  14.  Some,  JoJin  the  Baptist. 
 
 Why  some  said  John  the  Baptist,  some  Elias,  some 
 Jeremias,  vide  chap.  xi.  4  ;  xiv.  2. 
 
 Verse  15.  But  luJioni  do  you  say  that  I  ant  ? 
 
 Here  is  a  plain  antithesis.  S.  Jerome  thinks  that  Christ 
 opposed  the  Apostles  to  men,  as  being  something  more 
 than  men,  "  Observe,"  he  says,  "  that  from  what  follows 
 and  from  the  text  of  the  discourse,  the  Apostles  are  not 
 called  men,  but  gods.  For  when  Christ  had  said  :  Whom 
 do  men  say  that  the  Son  of  man  is  ?  He  added  :  But 
 whom  do  you  say  that  I  am  ?  "  It  may  be  believed  that 
 Christ  did  not  oppose  them  to  men  as  gods,  but  He  seems 
 to  have  opposed  them  to  the  vulgar,  as  not  ordinary  men, 
 which  S.  Chrysostom  also  thinks.  "  You  who  have  been 
 with  Me  always,  who  have  seen  Me  do  many  wonderful 
 
32  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xvi.  i6. 
 
 things,  who  in  My  name  have  yourselves  done  many  acts 
 of  power, — whom  do  you  say  that  I  am  ?  " 
 
 Verse  1 6.  Simon  Peter  anszuered. 
 
 The  Ancients  give  many  reasons  for  Peter's  having 
 answered  before  the  rest.  i.  That  Peter  was  the  princeps  o^ 
 all,  as  S.  Chrysostom  {Horn.  Iv.)  says.  2.  Because  he  was  of 
 a  more  ardent  temperament,  as  S.  Hilary  and  S.  Jerome  on 
 chap.  xiv.  28  say.  3.  Because  He  was  as  the  mouth  of  the 
 Apostles,  and  was  accustomed  to  speak  for  all,  as  S. 
 Chrysostom  {in  loco)  and  S.  Augustin  say;  for  in  S.  JoJm  vi. 
 68,  when  Christ  asked  all  the  disciples  if  they  also  would  go 
 away,  Peter  answered :  "  Lord,  to  whom  shall  we  go  ? 
 Thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal  life."  Whether  he  answered 
 here  for  himself  only,  or  for  all,  we  will  endeavour  to  show 
 on  verse  18. 
 
 TJioii  art  the  Son  of  the  living  God. 
 
 Peter  calls  Christ  the  Son,  by  nature,  not  by  adoption. 
 For  all  confessed  Him  to  be  the  Son  of  God  by  adoption,  as 
 being  a  just  man  and  a  prophet.  The  most  certain  proof 
 that  Peter  thought  Christ  the  Son  of  the  living  God  was  his 
 opposing  Him  to  John,  Elias,  Jeremiah,  and  the  Prophets, 
 who,  it  is  certain,  were  the  sons  of  God  by  adoption.  He 
 calls  Christ,  therefore,  the  Son  of  God,  not  by  adoption, 
 but  by  nature.  The  Ancients  rightly  proved  the  Divinity 
 of  Christ  from  this  passage  ;  as  S.  Hilary  (in  his  Comment., 
 and  De  Trin.,  vi.),  S.  Athanasius  (Serm.  cant.  Arian., 
 Serm.  iii.),  and  Dionysius  Alexandria  {Cont.  Arian?}. 
 
 The  living. 
 
 Peter  calls  Him  the  living  God  to  distinguish  Him  from 
 idols,  which  are  lifeless  things,  as  S.  Jerome,  l^cdc,  and 
 I'^uthymius  have  observed.  S.  Basil  {De  Ptvnit.)  terms 
 Him  the  Son  of  the  Holy  God.     Rightly,  then,  Theophy- 
 
Ch.  XVI.  17,  i8.]  PETERS   CONFESSION.  33 
 
 lact  notes  the  addition  of  the  Greek  article  to  the  word 
 Son,  to  show,  not  that  He  was  an  ordinary  man,  but  that 
 He  was  the  one  only  Son  of  God  by  nature.  (Vide  chap. 
 X.  2.) 
 
 Verse  17.  Simon  BaTJona. 
 
 So  called  by  contraction  for  Bar-johanna,  which  in  the 
 Chaldee  means  the  son  of  John,  as  he  is  called  (S.  JoJin 
 xxi,  15).     S.  Luke  uses  a  like  contraction  (iii.  30). 
 
 Because  fiesh  and  blood. 
 
 Man,  that  is,  consisting  of  flesh  and  blood.  The  Evan- 
 gelist opposes  men  to  God.  "  My  Father,"  He  says,  "  who 
 is  in  heaven,"  and  as  Gal.  i.  16;  ^.  John  i.  13.  Thus  Scrip- 
 ture opposes  men  who  savour  of  carnal  things  to  God,  or  to 
 those  who  savour  of  divine  things  (i  Cor.  xv.  50).  So  it  is 
 called  the  wisdom  of  the  flesh  {Rom.  viii.  6,  7). 
 
 Verse  18.  And  I. 
 
 A  forcible  antithesis;  but  the  Greek  is  still  more  forcible  : 
 /cayo)  Be,  "  and  I  assuredly  ".  As  if  Christ  had  said  :  You, 
 who  are  a  man,  have  called  me  the  Son  of  the  living  God  ; 
 but  I,  who  am  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  say  that  thou 
 art  Peter,  that  is,  My  vicar,  whom  thou  hast  confessed 
 to  be  the  Son  of  God.  For  My  Church  which  is  built 
 upon  Me  I  will  build,  as  upon  a  second  foundation,  upon 
 thee  also. 
 
 77iou  art  Peter. 
 
 Some  think  that  he  was  not  called  Peter  before,  but  that 
 the  name  was  only  promised  him.  S.  John  i.  42  :  "  Jesus, 
 looking  upon  him,  said  :  Thou  art  Simon  the  son  of  Jonas. 
 Thou  shalt  be  called  Cephas,  which  is  interpreted  Peter." 
 
 It  is  more  probable,  as  S.  Augustin  says  {De  Cons.,  ii.), 
 that  he  was  so  called  from  the  beginning  of  his  vocation,  as 
 S.  Mark  (iii.  16)  and  S.  Luke  (vi.  14)  show.  And,  therefore, 
 2—3 
 
34  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xvi.  i8. 
 
 when  Christ  said  to  him  (S.  John  i.  42),  "  Thou  art  Simon 
 the  son  of  Jona  ;  thou  shalt  be  called  Cephas,  which  is 
 interpreted  Peter,"  He  gave  him  a  name  ;  as  if  He  had 
 said :  Henceforth  thou  shalt  not  be  called  Simon,  but 
 Cephas,  i.e.,  Peter;  as  God  gave  Abram  the  name  of  Abra- 
 ham, speaking  of  the  future  {Gen.  xvii.  5). 
 
 And  upon  this  rock  I  ivill  build  My  CJnirch. 
 
 Some  ancient  authors  take  this  rock  to  mean  this  faith, 
 or  this  confession  of  faith,  by  which  Peter  had  called  Him 
 the  son  of  the  living  God.  Such  are  S.  Hilary  {De  Trin., 
 vi.)  ;  S.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  {Cont.  Jud.)  ;  S.  Chrysostom 
 {Honi.  Iv.  in  loc.,  and  Orat.W.  adv.  J7id.);  S.  Cyril  Alexandria 
 {Dial.  iv.  de  Trin.);  and  the  author  of  the  Commentaries  on 
 the  Epistles  of  S.  Paul,  which  are  ascribed  to  S.  Ambrose 
 {On  Gal.  iv.). 
 
 But  the  interpretation  of  S.  Augustin  {On  S.  John  xxvii. 
 and  cxxiv.  4,  and  Serin,  xiii.  de  verb.  Doin.  sec.  S.  Matt)  : 
 "  Upon  this  rock,  that  is,  upon  Myself,"  because  Christ  was 
 the  Rock  (i  Cor.  x.  4,  and  iii.  11),  is  still  further  from 
 the  meaning.  Origen  takes  it  of  all  who  have  the  same 
 faith  {Tract,  in  S.  Matt). 
 
 Nothing  could  be  more  alien  to  the  meaning  of  Christ 
 than  to  suppose  Him  to  say  that  He  built  the  Church  upon 
 Himself,  or  upon  any  other  foundation  than  S.  Peter.  For 
 (i)  the  demonstrative  pronoun  "  this  "  is  here  evidently  put 
 for  the  relative  "  which  ".  As  if  Christ  had  said  :  "  Thou 
 art  a  rock  upon  which  I  will  build  My  Church,"  for  Petrus 
 and  Petra  are  the  same  word,  only  of  different  genders. 
 It  may  be  doubted  why,  if  not  S.  Matthew  himself,  yet  the 
 Greek  translator  of  S.  Matthew,  made  that  distinction  of 
 word  and  gender.  The  answer  is,  that  in  the  Greek  TrtVpo? 
 and  ireTpa  are  masculine  and  feminine.  Peter,  because  he 
 was  a  man,  could  not  be  spoken  of  by  the  word  Petra,  but 
 must  be  described   by    his   own    proper   masculine  name 
 
Ch.  XVI.  i8.]  PETER   THE   ROCK.  35 
 
 Petrus.  (2)  When  Christ  spoke  of  the  foundation  of  the 
 building,  He  called  him  not  Petrus  but  Petra,  though  both 
 words  meant  the  same  thing.  And  in  buildings  of  this 
 kind,  the  feminine  form  of  the  word  is  more  used  than  the 
 masculine — the  masculine  being  Attic  and  rare.  Besides, 
 who  doubts  that  by  these  words  Christ  meant  to  bestow 
 some  great  and  singular  gift  upon  Peter  as  a  reward  of  his 
 confession  of  faith,  or  wished  to  promise  such  ?  But 
 what  would  Christ  have  given  to  him  if  He  had  only  given 
 him  the  name  of  Peter?  Nay,  He  would  not  have  given 
 him  the  name,  for,  as  has  been  shown,  he  was  already 
 called  Peter  ;  but  by  the  words,  "  upon  this  rock,"  He 
 signified  that  He  would  bestow  upon  him  the  great  and 
 singular  dignity  of  founding  upon  him  His  Church  ;  that 
 is,  of  making  him  the  head  of  the  Church,  and  His  own 
 vicar  in  it.  From  the  words  that  follow  :  "  And  I  will  give 
 to  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  it  is  clear  that 
 the  words  in  question  apply  to  Peter,  for  it  is  absurd  that 
 a  change  either  of  things  or  persons  could  be  made  by  so 
 few  words.  As,  then,  Christ  said,  "  I  will  give  unto  thee 
 the  keys,"  so  He  said,  "Upon  this  rock,"  that  is,  upon 
 thee,  "  I  will  build  My  Church  ". 
 
 He  gave  him  the  same  thing  in  different  words,  and  by 
 different  metaphors,  that  he  should  be  His  vicar  in  the 
 Church.  This  dignity  (prior  to  that  of  the  foundation), 
 when  He  said,  "  Upon  this  rock  I  will  build  My  Church," 
 He  afterwards  confirmed  by  the  metaphor  of  chief  or  head 
 of  the  Church,  when  He  gave  him  the  keys  like  those  of  a 
 city  :  Christ  Himself  being  both  head  and  foundation  of 
 the  Church  ;  by  which  two  names  and  metaphors,  not  two, 
 but  one  and  the  same  thing  is  signified. 
 
 It  may  be  asked  why  Christ  did  not  directly,  and  in  one 
 word,  say  :  "  Upon  thee  will  I  build  My  Church  "  ?  The 
 obvious  reply  is,  that  the  grace  and  force  of  His  words 
 would  in   that  case  have  been   lost.     These  consisted  in 
 
36  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xvi.  i8. 
 
 Christ's  using  terms  applicable  to  a  building  when  speaking 
 of  the  Church  as  a  building  ;  but  it  would  not  have  been 
 consistent    to   say,    "  Upon    thee,"    for   buildings    are  not 
 founded   upon   men,  but  upon   rocks,  as  S.  Jerome  says. 
 Besides,  if  the  meaning  were  "upon  this  rock,"  that  is,  upon 
 this  faith,   or   upon   Myself,  it  would   be  very  greatly  in 
 favour  of  the  opponent  who  thinks  that  Peter  spoke  not  for 
 himself  alone,  but  for  all  the  Apostles  ;  which,  it  must  be 
 confessed,  some  of  the  ancient  Fathers  thought  as  well  (S. 
 Chrysostom,  S.  Jerome,  in  loc. ;  S.  Augustin,  Serin,  xiii.  de 
 verb.    Doni.    ap.    S.   Matty),   who    shall    shortly   be    com- 
 mented on  with  due  respect.     We  have  now  to  refute  the 
 errors  of  the  followers  of  Calvin.     If  Peter  spoke  for  all, 
 why  did  not  Christ  say  to  all,  "  Blessed  are  ye  "  ?     Why 
 were  not  the  names  of  all  changed  ?     Why  was  it  not  said 
 to  all,  "To  you  I  give  the  keys"?     Again,  when  Christ 
 asked  all,  why  did  not  all  reply  ?     Especially  when  a  little 
 before,  when  He  asked  whom  men  said  that  He  was,  not 
 only  Peter,  but  all,  or  as  many  as  would,  answered  :  "  Some 
 say  John  the  Baptist,  others  Elias,  others  Jeremias,  or  one 
 of  the  Prophets  ".     All  other  authors,  then,  have  seen  more 
 correctly  that  Peter  answered  for  himself  alone.     Not  that 
 the  others  did  not  believe  the  same  thing,  and  would  have 
 said  it,  had   not  Peter  anticipated  them  ;    but  that  Peter, 
 with  a  great  faith,  was  the  first  to  break  out  with  a  con- 
 fession.    These  authors  meant  this  alone,  when  they  said 
 that  he  answered  for  all,  and  called  him  the  mouth  of  the 
 Apostles.     It  is  consonant  with  this,  that  as  Christ  chose 
 the  twelve  Apostles,  after  the  form  of  the  twelve  Patriarchs, 
 so  He  should  choose  one  like  Abraham,  who,  because  of 
 his  great  faith,  was  the  head  of  all  ;  and  that  as  Abraham 
 was  the  foundation  of  the  Old  Testament — so  Peter  should 
 be  of  the  Church  of  the  Gospel.     For  all  things  arc  equal 
 in  both.     Abraham  excelled  in  faith,  so  did  Peter.     Abram's 
 name  was  changed  to  Abraham,  as  he  was  to  be  the  father 
 
Ch.  XVI.  i8.]  PETER   THE    ROCK.  37 
 
 of  many  nations  {Gen.  xvii.  5)  ;  and  so  Peter's,  who  was  to 
 be  the  father  and  head  of  all  Christians.  For  the  one  sole 
 reason  given  by  the  heretics  for  denying  that  the  Church 
 was  founded  upon  Peter,  that  it  could  have  no  other 
 foundation  but  that  which  is  laid,  which  is  Christ  Jesus  (i 
 Cor.  iii.  11),  is  altogether  false.  For  S.  Paul  {Eph.  ii.  20) 
 calls  the  Apostles  and  Prophets  the  foundation  of  the 
 Church.  The  heretics'  interpretation  of  this,  as  meaning 
 the  faith  and  doctrine,  is  wholly  perverse.  For  the  Apostle 
 adds  :  "  Jesus  Christ  Himself  being  the  chief  corner-stone  ". 
 In  these  words,  he  signifies  that  in  the  Church,  as  in  the 
 foundations  of  other  buildings,  there  are  many  stones,  the 
 first  and  chief  corner-stone  being  Christ,  into  whom  all 
 others  are  united  ;  the  second  ones  being  the  Apostles  and 
 Prophets,  who  are  themselves  built  upon  the  first,  but  who 
 were  the  foundation  of  other  Christians  ;  as  S.  John  says  in 
 the  Apocalypse  (xxi.  14),  in  plain  words,  which  have  not  yet 
 met  with  any  heretical  explanation. 
 
 Why,  then,  did  S.  Paul  not  say  that  we  are  built  upon 
 Christ  rather  than  upon  the  Apostles  and  Prophets  ?  The 
 answer  is  easy.  We  are  placed  further  from  Christ  in  the 
 building  of  the  Church  than  from  the  Apostles  and 
 Prophets.  For  Christ  is  in  the  first  place.  He  is  the 
 first  and  corner-stone.  Upon  Christ  are  the  Apostles  and 
 Prophets.  Upon  the  Apostles  and  Prophets  are  built 
 ourselves. 
 
 Lastly,  except  these  heretics,  all  ancient  authors  teach 
 that  the  Church  was  built  upon  Peter.  So,  then,  S. 
 Clement  Rome  {Ep.  to  James),  Hippolytus  {De  Consum. 
 Mimdi),  Dionysius  {Ep.  to  Tim.),  Tertullian  {De  PrcEscript. 
 and  De  Pndicitia),  S.  Cyprian  {Eps.  to  Jiibaian.  and  Cornel^, 
 Origen  {Horn.  v.  on  Exod.),  S.  Epiphanius  {Anchorat.),  S. 
 Gregory  Nazianzen  {Orat.  de  Moderat.),  S.  Basil  {Horn,  de 
 Pcenit.,  and  ii..  Against  Eu7tom.),  S.  Ambrose  {Serm.  xlvii. 
 de  Fide  Petri,  and  Ixviii.  de  Nat.  Pet.  et  Paul?),  and  the 
 
38  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xvi.  i8. 
 
 Hymn  of  the  Church,  which  is  said  by  S.  Augustin  to  be 
 the  composition  of  S.  Ambrose  : 
 
 "  Hoc,  ipsa  petra  Ecclesiae 
 Canente,  culpam  diluit  " — 
 
 "And  singing  this  the  Church's  rock  itself, 
 His  fault  condoned  ". 
 
 So,  S.  Jerome  {Ep.  to  Marcclla  against  Montamis,  and  bk.  i., 
 Adv.Jovin'),  the  author  of  the  Commentaries  on  the  Epistles 
 of  S.  Paul — which  are  commonly  ascribed  to  S.  Ambrose — 
 {On  Gal.  ii.),  Leo  {Serin,  ii.  de  Pet.  et  Paiilo,  Ep.  to  Bp.  Vienna 
 and  Ep.  to  Geviinian),\.\\e  whole  Council  of  Chalcedon,  Juven- 
 cus  {Pselliis  ap.  Theod..,  and  iii..  In  Cant.),  and  lastly,  those 
 authors  who  are  thought  to  have  held  the  contrary.  For 
 S.  Hilary  {De  Trin.,  vi.),  when  he  said  that  Christ  founded 
 the  Church  upon  the  faith  of  Peter,  uses  these  words  :  "  After 
 his  confession  of  this  mystery,  the  blessed  Simon,  laying  it 
 as  the  foundation  in  the  edification  of  the  Church,  and  re- 
 ceiving the  keys  ". — And  {On  Ps.  cxxxi.) :  "  So  great  was 
 Christ's  zeal  of  suffering  for  the  salvation  of  the  human 
 race,  that  He  named  Peter,  with  the  railing  of  Satan  " 
 {Satancs  convicio),  "  the  first  confessor  of  God,  the  founda- 
 tion of  the  Church,  the  door-keeper  of  the  kingdom  of 
 heaven,  and  in  earthly  judgment  the  judge  of  heaven". — 
 "  O  thou,  happy  in  the  naming  of  thy  new  name,  blessed 
 foundation  of  the  Church,  and  rock  worthy  of  that 
 edification  which  shall  destroy  the  laws  of  hell,  the 
 gates  of  Tartarus,  and  all  the  bars  of  death  "  {Can.  xvi. 
 on  S.  Matt.).  And  S.  Chrysostom  {Houi.  ii.  on  Ps.  1.)  : 
 "  Hear  what  Christ  said  to  Peter,  the  column  and  founda- 
 tion of  the  faith,  who,  for  the  strength  of  his  confession,  was 
 called  Peter :  '  Thou  art  Peter ;  and  upon  this  rock  I  will 
 build  My  Church  '  ".  S.  Cyril  (ii.,  On  S.  John  xii.)  :  "  '  Thou 
 art  Simon,  the  son  of  Jona  ;  thou  shalt  be  called  Cephas,' 
 rightly  showing,  by  the  name  itself,  that  on  him,  as  on  a 
 
Ch.  XVI.  i8.]  PETER   THE   ROCK.  39 
 
 rock  and  most  firm  stone,  He  would  build  His  Church  ". 
 And  S.  Augustin  {Senn.  xlix.  in  verb.  Dom.  sec.  Joann^  : 
 "  He  said  to  Peter,  on  whom  He  establishes  His  Church, 
 '  Peter,  lovest  thou  Me?  '"  And  (lib.  i.  21  of  Retract)  the 
 opinion  of  those  who  should  say  that  the  Church  was 
 built  upon  Peter  he  does  not  disapprove. 
 
 From  this  it  appears  that  those  authors  who  explain  the 
 words  "  upon  this  rock  "  by  "  this  faith  "  received  it  in  a 
 different  sense  to  these  heretics.  It  would  seem  the  best 
 explanation  to  say  that  they  meant  that  the  Church  was 
 built  upon  the  faith  and  confession  of  Peter  ;  that  is,  upon 
 Peter  because  of  his  faith  and  confession,  as  all  other 
 authors  say. 
 
 We  use  such  expressions  daily,  as  when  we  say  that  the 
 kingdom  was  built  upon  the  faith  of  one  man  ;  that  is,  on 
 one  man  because  of  his  faith,  as  S.  Ambrose  {De  Resurrect. 
 Fide)  said  :  "  It  was  not  the  body  of  Peter  that  walked  upon 
 the  waters,  but  his  faith  ;  for  it  was  not  his  body,  but  his  faith 
 that  made  him  do  it  ".  It  is  clear  from  these  words  that 
 they  do  not  deny,  as  the  heretics  do,  that  S.  Peter  is  the 
 foundation  of  the  Church. 
 
 It  may  be  said  :  If  all  others,  not  only  Apostles,  but  also 
 Prophets,  as  S.  Paul  says,  are  the  foundation  of  the  Church, 
 what  in  particular  is  given  to  S.  Peter  in  those  words?  The 
 answer  is,  that  among  all  the  Prophets  and  Apostles,  he, 
 after  Christ,  was  the  first  foundation  of  the  Church,  and  fills 
 Christ's  place  in  His  absence.  But  when  others  are  a 
 foundation  also,  nothing  less  could  be  given  to  him  than 
 that  he  should  be  the  second  foundation-stone  after  Christ, 
 and  in  the  same  way  in  which  Christ  is  such  ;  that  is,  that 
 not  only  one  part,  but  the  whole  Church,  should  rest  on 
 him  {niteretiir).  There  is  this  difference,  that  Christ  is  the 
 foundation  by  His  own  power,  Peter  by  Christ's  ;  and 
 Christ  rests  on  no  other  foundation,  but  Peter  rests  on 
 another,  that  is,  Christ. 
 
40  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xvi.  i8. 
 
 My  Church. 
 
 Christ  calls  the  Church  His,  to  show  that  He  was  God, 
 and  the  Lord  of  the  Church,  as  Theophylact  has  rightly 
 shown . 
 
 And  the  gates  of  hell. 
 
 That  by  the  gates  of  hell  all  the  powers  of  the  devil  is 
 meant  is  beyond  question  ;  but  it  is  doubtful  why,  by  the 
 word  "  gates,"  powers  is  signified,  and  why  Christ  did  not 
 call  it  by  its  proper  name  of  power,  but  by  a  metaphorical 
 one  of  the  gates.  The  reason  may  be  easily  conjectured. 
 Christ  speaks  of  the  Church  as  if  it  were  some  city.  The 
 gates  were  the  strongly  fortified  parts  of  the  city  (as  in 
 Ps.  cxlvii.  13)  ;  and  because  cities  were  most  commonly 
 taken  through  the  gates,  as  Gen.  xxii.  17,  xxiv.  60  :  "  Thy 
 seed  shall  possess  the  gates  of  thine  enemies  "  ;  that  is 
 shall  possess  the  cities  of  their  enemies  ;  and  Judges  v.  8  ; 
 3  Kings  viii.  37. 
 
 For  this  reason,  therefore,  the  power  of  the  devil  is  not 
 called  the  power,  but  the  gates  of  hell.  But  why  is  it  called 
 hell,  and  not  the  devil,  who  is  the  enemy  of  the  Church,  as 
 Moses  said?  {Gen.  xxii.  17).  This  also  is  easy.  Because, 
 as  Christ  speaks  of  the  Church,  He  speaks  of  hell,  where 
 the  devil  rules,  as  if  of  some  city,  as  Ps.  cvi.  16  :  "  Because 
 he  hath  broken  gates  of  brass,  and  burst  iron  bars  ".  For 
 these  are  two  cities  :  one  of  God,  the  other  of  the  devil,  of 
 which  S.  Augustin  wrote  his  books. 
 
 Shall  not  prevail. 
 
 Shall  not  overcome,  or  have  the  mastery.  The  meaning 
 of  these  words  does  not  appear  to  be  that  which  most 
 authors,  except  S.  Hilary,  seem  to  suppose.  For  they  think 
 that  the  meaning  is,  that  the  power  of  the  devil  may  try 
 the  Church,  but  will  never  be  able  to  overcome  it,  never  to 
 
Ch.  XVI.  i8.]  THE   CHURCH.  41 
 
 oppress  it.  This  meaning,  though  true,  is  poor,  and  does 
 not  fill  up  the  place  and  words  of  Christ.  Christ  seems  to 
 have  intended  something  better.  For  gates  do  not  over- 
 come, but  resist  ;  so  that  it  is  not  the  power  of  offending, 
 but  of  defending,  that  must  be  meant  by  the  gates.  The 
 meaning,  then,  seems  to  be  that  there  will  be  a  time  when 
 the  Church,  founded  by  Christ  upon  a  rock,  shall  so  take 
 by  storm  all  the  power  of  the  devil  that  he  will  be  able  by 
 no  power  and  no  arts  to  resist.  The  Hebrew  is  (117^^1  7 
 that  is,  will  not  be  able  to  resist  it.  It  is  clear  that  S. 
 Hilary  is  of  this  opinion.  The  Church,  he  says,  shall 
 break  to  pieces  all  the  laws  and  gates  of  hell,  and  all  the 
 bonds  of  death.  By  the  gates  of  hell,  that  is,  the  power  of 
 the  devil,  some  of  the  Ancients  understand  heresies  ;  as  S. 
 Epiphanius  {In  Anchorat.).  Others,  vices,  as  S.  Ambrose 
 {De  Bon.  Mortis.,  chap,  xii.,  and  Coviuients.  on  S.  Luke,  ix.). 
 Others  both,  as  Origen  {Tract,  i.  on  S.  Matt?),  S.  Jerome, 
 and  Bede.  Others,  the  blasphemies  of  heretics  and  their 
 persecution  of  the  Church,  as  Euthymius.  Others,  all 
 persecutors  of  the  Church,  as  Theophylact.  It  is  better 
 not  to  narrow  the  meaning,  but  to  understand  generally  all 
 the  power  of  the  devil. 
 
 Against  it. 
 
 Origen  {Tract,  i.  on  S.  Matt)  and  S.  Chrysostom  {Honi. 
 Iv.)  think  that  the  relative  is  to  be  referred  either  to  the 
 rock  or  to  the  Church.  Doubtless  to  the  latter,  which  the 
 ancient  authors  think  more  probable,  and  the  rest  think 
 true  ;  although  Christ  said  that  the  gates  of  hell  should  not 
 prevail  against  the  Church,  because  it  was  founded  upon  a 
 rock  (as  above,  vii.  24,  25) ;  except  that  there  it  is  said  that 
 that  house  resisted  the  rains  and  waves  and  winds,  and  here 
 that  the  Church  shall  not  only  resist  hell,  but  shall  take  it 
 by  storm,  because  it  is  founded  upon  a  strong  rock.  For 
 the  Church  and  hell  are  spoken  of,  as  we  have  said,  as  like 
 
42  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xvi.  19. 
 
 two  cities  or  strong  citadels,  near  to  and  at  war  with  one 
 another  ;  of  which  the  one  that  hath  the  better  foundation, 
 and  is  the  most  strongly  fortified,  shall  take  the  other. 
 
 Verse  19.  Atid  I  zuill give  to  thee  the  keys. 
 
 The  power  of  opening  and  shutting  the  kingdom  of 
 heaven  is  called  the  keys  by  metaphor  (5.  Luke  xi.  52). 
 The  same  power  is  immediately  expressed  by  the  other 
 metaphor  of  binding  and  loosing. 
 
 The  question  is,  in  what  this  power  consists  ?  The 
 followers  of  Luther  and  Calvin  say  that  it  means  (merely) 
 the  teaching  that  their  sins  have  already  been  forgiven,  or 
 that  they  will  be  if  we  believe  the  Gospel.  But  if  so,  Christ, 
 in  giving  Peter  the  keys,  gives  him  nothing  more  than  that 
 which  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  had  before  (xxiii.  2,  and 
 5.  Luke  xi.  52) :  "  Woe  to  you  lawyers,  for  you  have  taken 
 away  the  key  of  knowledge  ;  you  yourselves  have  not 
 entered  in,  and  those  that  were  entering  in  you  have 
 hindered  ".  It  has  been  proved,  however,  that  Christ  not 
 only  gave  more  to  Peter  than  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees, 
 but  more  even  than  to  the  other  Apostles.  Something, 
 then,  is  meant  by  the  power  of  the  keys  more  than  the 
 power  of  teaching.  Besides,  Christ  gave  this  power  not 
 only  to  the  twelve  Apostles,  but  also  to  the  seventy-two 
 disciples  {S.  Ltike  x.  1).  But  the  keys  and  the  power  of 
 binding  and  loosing  He  gave  to  the  Apostles  alone.  Thus, 
 the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  and  the  power  of  teach- 
 ing are  not  one  and  the  same  power.  Besides,  Christ  had 
 already  given  the  power  of  teaching  to  the  Apostles  (x.  7); 
 but  that  of  the  keys  He  had  not  given. 
 
 It  has  been  shown  that  the  Apostles  had  had  given  to 
 them  a  general  power  of  teaching  ;  but  the  use  of  it  was 
 restricted  for  a  time,  that  they  should  not  go  among  the 
 Gentiles,  because  it  was  not  fitting  that  the  Gospel  should 
 be  preached  to  the  Gentiles  before  it  had  been  preached  to 
 
Ch.  XVI.  19.]  THE   KEYS.  43 
 
 the  Jews.  Supposing  a  special  power  only  to  have  been 
 given  to  them,  what  would  it  have  to  do  with  the  present 
 question  ?  Certainly,  if  to  teach  and  to  remit  sins  be  one 
 and  the  same  thing,  wherever  they  could  teach  they  could 
 also  forgive  sins.  But  we  see  that  the  power  of  teaching 
 had  been  given  them,  but  the  power  of  the  remission  of 
 sins  had  not  been  given.  Therefore  they  are  not  the  same 
 power. 
 
 We  see,  also,  that  in  this  place  where  the  keys  are  given, 
 and  with  them  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing,  no  men- 
 tion is  made  of  teaching.  On  the  other  hand  (xxviii.  19, 
 and  5.  Mark  xvi.  15),  where  the  Apostles  are  commanded 
 to  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature,  no  mention  is  made 
 of  the  keys,  or  of  binding  and  loosing.  For,  from  the 
 words  of  S.  John  (xx.  22,  23),  we  learn  that  Christ,  when 
 He  sent  the  Apostles,  said  :  "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost. 
 Whose  sins  you  shall  forgive,  they  are  forgiven  them  ;  and 
 whose  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained."  Though  it  was 
 said  to  be  about  the  same  time,  it  was  not  said  to  have 
 been  actually  the  same.  Besides,  as  in  many  other  in- 
 stances, S.  John  relates  this  as  having  been  passed  over  by 
 the  other  Evangelists. 
 
 It  is  not  the  least  argument  that  the  power  of  remitting 
 sins  was  given  to  the  Apostles  with  a  different  ceremony  to 
 that  of  teaching.  For,  when  He  gave  the  former,  He  is 
 said  to  have  breathed  upon  the  Apostles,  and  said,  "Receive 
 ye  the  Holy  Ghost  ".  But  when  He  gave  the  latter,  He  is 
 not  said  to  have  either  breathed  upon  them  nor  given  them 
 the  Holy  Spirit.  The  power  of  teaching,  then,  was  different 
 to  that  of  remitting  sins.  Add  to  this,  that  if  men  only 
 remit  sins  in  this  manner  by  teaching,  whoever  teaches 
 another,  even  if  the  teacher  be  a  woman,  will  remit  sins, 
 which  is  both  unheard  of  and  most  senseless. 
 
 Again,  if  to  teach  is  to  loosen,  that  is,  to  remit  sins,  not 
 to  teach  is  to  bind,  that  is,  to  retain  them.     So  that  every- 
 
44  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xvr.  19. 
 
 one  who  does  not  teach  has  the  power  of  binding,  that  is, 
 of  retaining  sins.  Again,  if  to  teach  is  to  loosen,  and  not 
 to  teach  is  to  bind,  Christ  had  not  given  the  Apostles 
 power  to  bind  when  He  commanded  them  to  teach  all 
 nations ;  that  is  (if  their  opinion  be  true),  to  loosen  all,  and 
 to  bind  none.  To  what  end  was  this  power  of  binding,  if 
 no  one  were  to  be  bound  ?  It  follows,  from  their  own 
 opinion,  that  the  saying  of  Christ  was  false.  For  if  to 
 teach  is  to  loosen,  it  is  not  the  case  that  whatever  the 
 Apostles  loosed  upon  earth  would  be  loosed  in  heaven  ; 
 for  how  many  have  been  taught  well  whose  sins,  for  their 
 unbelief,  have  not  been  loosed  in  heaven !  Nay,  how 
 many  who  have  believed  and  been  well  taught,  and  have 
 believed  rightly,  will  be  lost ! 
 
 Finally,  those  whom  we  read  of  as  having  been  bound  in 
 Scripture,  were  not  bound  cither  by  teaching  or  not  teach- 
 ing. S.  Paul  bound  the  Corinthian  (i  Cor.  v.  5).  He 
 bound  those  heretics  (i  Titu.  i.  20),  not  by  teaching,  but  by 
 delivering  them  to  Satan,  when  he  had  taught  them  well 
 before;  as  now  the  Catholic  Church  binds  the  heretics  with 
 whom  we  are  now  at  issue  by  excommunicating  them,  that 
 is,  by  delivering  them  over  to  Satan. 
 
 So  far  one  of  these  heretics  on  this  passage  has  been 
 answered.  The  second  is  their  denial  that  anything  was 
 given  to  S.  Peter  by  these  words,  which  was  not  given 
 equally  to  all  the  other  Apostles. 
 
 This  has  to  be  answered,  not  by  disputing  the  words, 
 "  Upon  this  rock,"  of  which  enough  has  been  said,  and  proof 
 shown  that  it  was  given  to  Peter  alone,  that  the  Church 
 should  be  built  upon  him.  We  are  now  to  treat  of  the 
 words  :  "  I  will  give  to  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of 
 heaven  ". 
 
 By  these  words,  I  maintain,  against  the  opinion  of  the 
 followers  of  Calvin,  and  even  of  some  Catholics,  that  the 
 primacy  of  the  Church  was  given  to  Peter  ;  not  that  these 
 
Ch.  XVI.  19.]  THE   KEYS.  45 
 
 Catholics  deny  it,  but  because  they  think  it  not  to  have 
 been  given  him  but  in  the  preceding  words,  "  Upon  this 
 rock  I  will  build  My  Church  "  ;  and  that  the  keys  were 
 not  given  to  S.  Peter  alone,  but  to  all  the  Apostles  col- 
 lectively. It  appears  that  in  both  forms  of  words  the 
 primacy  of  the  Catholic  Church  was  given  to  Peter. 
 
 The  words  mean  this.  P'or  the  keys  of  a  house  or 
 city  are  given  into  the  keeping  of  the  chief  of  the  house  or 
 city.  Therefore,  the  primacy  is  signified  in  Scripture  by 
 the  keys,  as  in  Isaiah  xxii.  22  :  "I  will  lay  the  key  of  the 
 house  of  David  upon  his  shoulder";  that  is,  I  will  give  to 
 him  the  supreme  power  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  The 
 words,  "  Upon  his  shoulder,"  when  keys  are  not  laid  upon 
 the  shoulder  but  carried  in  the  girdle,  are  used,  as  is 
 frequently  the  case  in  Scripture,  by  a  confusion  of  two 
 metaphors,  signifying  one  and  the  same  thing  ;  one  of  the 
 keys,  the  other  of  the  sceptre  ;  each  of  which  terms  ex- 
 presses the  supreme  power  ;  and  because  the  sceptre  is  laid 
 upon  the  shoulder,  He  says  that  He  would  place  the  keys 
 of  the  house  of  David  on  his  shoulder,  as  in  Isaiah  ix.  6  : 
 "  And  the  government  is  upon  his  shoulder  ".  In  the  same 
 sense  Christ  says  {Apoc.  i.  18)  that  He  has  the  keys  of  death 
 and  hell  ;  that  is,  that  He  is  the  Lord  of  life  and  death  ; 
 and  (iii.  7)  that  He  has  the  keys  of  David  :  "  He  that  hath 
 the  key  of  David  ;  He  that  openeth  and  no  man  shutteth, 
 shutteth  and  no  man  openeth".  In  this  sense,  then,  the 
 keys  were  given  to  Peter  ;  that  is,  the  supreme  power  in 
 the  Church,  that  he  might  shut  and  no  man  open,  and  that 
 he  might  open  and  no  man  shut ;  that  is,  that  no  man 
 should  loose  what  he  has  bound,  and  no  man  bind  what  he 
 has  loosed.  Hence,  the  power  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  is 
 most  effectually  proved  ad  reservatos  casus;  and  hence 
 it  is  concluded  that  to  Peter  alone  it  was  said  in  this  place  : 
 "  I  will  give  to  thee  the  keys  of  heaven  and  hell  " ;  and  so 
 said  as  if  they  were  not  to  be  given  to  any  other,  because 
 
46  THE   GOSrEL   OF    S.   MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xvi.  19. 
 
 he  alone  answered  :  "  Thou  art  Christ  the  Son  of  the  Hving 
 God  "  ;  as  it  was  said  to  him  alone  :  '•'  On  this  rock  I  will 
 build  My  Church  ".  For  by  both  metaphors,  one  of  the 
 foundation,  and  the  other  of  the  keys,  one  and  the  same 
 primacy  is  signified,  and  the  explanation  of  one  is  that  of 
 the  other. 
 
 2.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  other  Apostles  had  also 
 their  own  keys  ;  that  is,  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  ; 
 as  all  ancient  authors  teach,  saying  that  the  keys  were  given 
 to  all  ;  but  I  deny  that  they  had  the  keys  which  are  now  in 
 question,  and  that  those  which  all  Catholics  call  keys,  and 
 rightly  so,  but  in  a  different  sense,  are  ever  called  keys  in 
 Scripture.  It  is  a  most  unanswerable  proof  of  the  truth  of 
 this,  that  when  Christ  gave  the  other  Apostles  (xviii.  18; 
 5.  John  XX.  23)  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing,  He  made 
 no  mention  of  the  keys.  Peter  alone,  therefore,  had  those 
 keys  by  which  he  so  opened  that  no  one  could  shut,  and  so 
 shut  that  no  one  could  open.  So,  in  a  house,  all  or  many 
 have  their  own  keys,  but  the  master  alone  has  all  the  keys, 
 and  the  secret  ones,  by  which,  when  he  wills,  he  can  so  shut 
 that  no  one  can  open,  and  so  open  that  no  one  can  shut. 
 
 3.  The  third  error  of  the  followers  of  Calvin  is  that  the 
 power  which  was  given  to  S.  Peter  was  not  given  also  to 
 his  successors  ;  and  therefore,  even  if  it  be  granted  that 
 Peter  had  the  primacy  of  the  Church,  it  does  not  follow 
 that  his  successors  had  the  same,  but  that  this  power  was 
 given  (to  use  his  own  words)  to  Peter  personally.  Tertul- 
 Han  {De  Piidicitid)  seems  to  say  the  same,  but  he  spoke  not 
 as  a  Catholic,  but  as  a  heretic,  when  he  deserted  the  camp 
 of  the  Church  to  join  that  of  Montanus.  S.  Jerome  {Lit. 
 dc  Script.  Ecd.)  says  that  that  work  of  Tcrtullian  was 
 written  against  the  Church. 
 
 We  have  shown  that  the  keys  and  the  rock  upon  which 
 Christ  built  the  Church  mean  the  same  thing.  Who  is 
 so  senseless  as  to  believe  that  Christ  built  an  immortal 
 
Cii.  XVI.  19.]  THE   KEYS.  47 
 
 Church  upon  a  mortal  man,  after  whose  death  the  Church 
 must  necessarily  fall  into  ruins  ?  Not  upon  Peter  alone, 
 then,  but  upon  him  and  his  successors  was  the  Church 
 founded  ;  and  as  these  will  never  fail,  the  Church  will 
 remain  for  ever.  The  same  must  be  said  of  the  keys 
 which,  as  we  have  said,  mean  the  same  thing.  How,  too, 
 did  Christ  give  this  power  to  Peter  alone  and  to  his  suc- 
 cessors ?  For  He  instituted  His  Church  ;  He  instituted 
 her  officers  ;  and  that  not  to  the  honour  of  persons,  but  to 
 the  good  of  the  Church.  These  were  to  endure  as  long  as 
 the  Church  herself,  especially  that  which,  as  it  is  the 
 greatest  of  all,  so  it  was  the  most  necessary  of  all :  the  head 
 of  the  Church,  who  was  also  to  be  its  foundation.  There- 
 fore, as  the  other  and  lesser  offices  were  not  to  be  trans- 
 ferred to  later  ages,  it  was  yet  necessary  that  this  should  be 
 so,  as  all  ancient  writers  teach. 
 
 4.  The  fourth  error  of  these  men  is  the  denial  that  the 
 Roman  Pontiff  is  the  successor  of  Peter.  They  say  that 
 Peter  was  either  never  at  Rome  at  all,  or  if  he  were,  it 
 cannot  be  shown  that  whoever  was  the  Roman  Pontiff 
 then  was  his  immediate  successor.  This  error  shall  be 
 confuted  elsewhere.  Here  we  simply  bid  the  assertors 
 fight  against  the  whole  world.  For  there  never  was  any 
 before  them,  Catholic  or  heretic,  who  did  not  affirm — (1) 
 That  Peter  died  at  Rome  ;  (2)  That  the  Roman  Pontiffs 
 were  his  successors.  As  the  Wise  Man  says  therefore 
 ( Wisdom  V.  21):  "The  whole  world  shall  fight  with  him 
 against  the  unwise  ". 
 
 A  lid  zvhatsocvcr  t/iou  shalt  bhid. 
 
 This  is  a  metaphorical  saying,  by  which  the  same  thing 
 is  signified  as  was  contained  in  the  two  former  verses,  that 
 Peter  had  the  supreme  power  of  remitting  or  retaining 
 sins  ;  but  I  do  not  consider  that  it  was  said  to  Peter  in  the 
 same  sense   as  that    in  which    it   was    said    to  the  other 
 
48  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xvi.  ig- 
 
 Apostles,  though  all  authors  apparently,  except  Origen, 
 take  it  so  ;  but  in  the  sense  in  which  the  Church  was  built 
 upon  Peter  alone,  and  in  which  to  him  alone  were  given  the 
 keys,  so  to  bind  as  no  one  should  be  able  to  loose,  and  in 
 so  to  loose  as  no  one  should  be  able  to  bind.  This  is  to 
 be  proved  by  the  same  arguments  as  we  have  used  already 
 to  prove  his  primacy. 
 
 It  is  asked  in  what  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing 
 consists  ?  S.  Thomas,  in  his  Commentaries,  has  noticed 
 three  errors  on  the  subject  to  be  marked  and  avoided. 
 
 I.  That  of  those  who  appear  arrogantly  to  think  that  the 
 priesthood  can  arbitrarily  bind  or  loose  whomsoever  they 
 please ;  and  that  every  act  of  theirs,  whether  right  or 
 wrong,  will  be  ratified  in  heaven.  And  if  we  look  at  the 
 mere  words,  they  do  seem  to  bear  this  meaning.  For 
 "  Whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  upon  earth,  it  shall  be  bound 
 also  in  heaven ;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth,  it 
 shall  be  loosed  also  in  heaven".  But  it  is  not  so.  For  Christ 
 only  intended  to  give  to  Peter  first,  and  then  to  the  other 
 Apostles,  to  perform  His  offices  as  if  He  were  on  earth  : 
 binding  those  that  were  to  be  bound,  and  loosing  those 
 who  were  to  be  loosed ;  with  this  sole  exception,  that 
 Christ  would  bind  or  loose  in  His  own  power,  the  Apostles 
 in  another's,  that  is,  Christ's.  From  the  fact,  then,  that  He 
 gave  over  to  them  His  own  functions,  we  understand  that 
 they  should  bind  and  loose,  not  according  to  their  own 
 judgment,  but  according  to  His  ;  so  that,  as  S.  Cyprian 
 rightly  says  :  "  Let  no  one  prejudge  Christ  the  Judge  ". 
 This  is  what  theologians  and  Doctors  of  the  Church  call 
 "  Clave  non  errante  ". 
 
 2.  The  second  error  is,  that  to  bind  or  to  loose  is  nothing 
 else  than  the  declaration  that  men  arc  already  bound  or 
 loosed  by  God,  as,  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  priest  neither 
 made  nor  healed  the  leper,  but  merely  declared  that  he 
 was  actually  a  leper,  or  was  truly  healed  of  his  leprosy. 
 
Ch.  XVI.  19.]  THE    KEYS.  49 
 
 This  error  is  confuted  by  the  passage  before  us.  For,  if 
 this  were  so,  and  the  priest  could  only  loose  and  bind  in  this 
 manner,  Christ  would  not  have  said,  "  Whatsoever  thou 
 shalt  bind  upon  earth,  it  shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven," 
 but,  "  What  is  bound  in  heaven  you  shall  bind  on  earth  ". 
 But,  as  He  says,  on  the  contrary,  "  Whatsoever  you  shall 
 bind  on  earth  it  shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven,  and  what- 
 soever you  shall  loose  on  earth  it  shall  be  loosed  also  in 
 heaven,"  He  signifies  most  clearly  that  it  shall  be  loosed 
 by  the  Apostles  on  earth  before  it  is  loosed  by  God  in 
 heaven.  This  was  a  gift  befitting  the  Apostles,  as  repre- 
 senting the  Person  of  Christ,  that,  as  when  Christ  Himself 
 was  on  earth,  whatever  He  loosed  on  earth  was  loosed  by 
 the  Father  in  heaven,  so,  when  He  had  returned  to  heaven, 
 whatever  the  Apostles  loosed  on  earth  should  be  loosed  by 
 Him  also  in  heaven.  I  do  not  think  that  the  opinion  of  S. 
 Jerome  was  at  all  different,  nor  that  he  would  have  coun- 
 tenanced the  above  error,  but  that  he  only  desired  to  con- 
 fute the  former  one. 
 
 3.  The  third  error  is  that,  "  as  in  sin  there  are  two 
 things — the  fault,  and  the  penalty  of  eternal  punishment 
 — and  a  man  is  absolved  from  both  by  contrition,  the 
 eternal  punishment  being  commuted  into  a  temporal  one, 
 the  priest  can  do  no  more  by  his  absolution  than  diminish 
 some  part  of  the  temporal  penalty ".  This  is  easily 
 answered,  for  Christ  said  (5.  John  xx.  23)  :  "  Whose  sins 
 you  shall  forgive,  they  are  forgiven  them  ;  and  whose  sins 
 you  shall  retain,  they  are  retained ".  The  priest,  then, 
 remits  not  only  the  penalty  but  the  fault.  Nor  ought 
 it  to  appear  more  wonderful,  the  priest  doing  this  by  the 
 sacrament  of  penitence  than  by  that  of  baptism,  as  S. 
 Ambrose  says  against  the  Novatians  (lib.  i.  2,  De  Pccnit). 
 It  may  be  objected  that,  as  the  priest,  when  he  binds,  does 
 not  make  men  sinners,  but  only  declares  them  to  be  such, 
 so,  when  he  absolves,  he  does  not  make  men  righteous,  but 
 2—4 
 
50  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xvi.  19, 
 
 only  declares  that  they  are  so,  and  absolved  from  their 
 sins.  The  answer  may  be  that  this  is  not  a  seqiiitiir.  For 
 the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  was  given  to  the  Apos- 
 tles, not  for  the  righteous,  but  for  sinners.  For  those  who 
 are  righteous,  that  is,  who  are  loosed,  God  will  not  have 
 bound.  But  those  who  are  sinners,  that  is,  who  are  bound. 
 He  desires  to  have  loosed,  if  they  are  worthy,  and  to  be 
 bound,  if  they  are  unworthy.  Besides,  the  priest  is  not 
 able  to  bind  and  to  loose  in  the  same  way.  He  cannot 
 bind  in  the  same  manner  as  that  in  which  he  looses.  He 
 looses  by  truly  loosing ;  he  binds  by  not  loosing,  that  is, 
 not  by  causing,  but  as  S.  John  says,  by  retaining  sins. 
 
 On  eartJi. 
 
 Some  conclude  from  this  that  the  power  of  the  Church 
 of  binding  and  loosing  does  not  apply  to  the  dead,  because 
 they  are  not  upon  earth,  that  is,  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
 the  Church.  So  says  Strabo,  the  author  of  what  is  termed 
 the  ordinary  gloss.  Whether  this  be  so  or  not,  it  can  only 
 be  said  at  present  that  this  conclusion  does  not  follow 
 from  the  words  in  question,  for  the  words  "on  earth"  are 
 to  be  referred,  not  to  those  who  are  bound  or  loosed,  but 
 to  those  who  bind  or  loose  ;  as  if  Christ  had  said,  "  What- 
 ever you  who  are  living  on  earth  shall  bind  or  loose  shall 
 be  bound  or  loosed  by  God,  who  dv\'ells  in  heaven,"  or, 
 more  briefly,  "  Whatever  is  loosed  or  bound  by  you  men 
 shall  be  loosed  or  bound  by  God  ".  For  men  are  signified 
 by  "  earth,"  and  God  by  "  heaven  ".  It  is  an  elegant 
 antithesis  by  which,  from  the  great  distance  between  hea- 
 ven and  earth,  the  power  given  to  the  Apostles  is  com- 
 mended. As  if  a  prince  should  say  to  some  dependant  : 
 "  Whatever  you  do,  even  in  the  Indies,  I  shall  value  very 
 highly,"  to  show  how  thoroughly  he  confided  in  him,  and 
 how  ample  power  he  gave  to  him.  For  we  are  less  used  to 
 ratify  what  is  done  in  our  absence,  in  our  name,  by  some 
 
Ch.xvi.iq.]  the   keys.  5 1 
 
 one  else,  than  if  we  were  present  or  at  hand.  Servants, 
 the  longer  their  master  is  away,  are  the  more  apt  to  take 
 greater  licence,  as  the  parable  shows  {S.  Matt.  xxiv. 
 48,  49). 
 
 Two  premisses  ought  to  be  fixed  and  certain  : 
 
 1.  That  the  Church  has  the  power  of  excommunicating 
 even  the  dead — that  is,  of  depriving  them  of  the  prayers  of 
 the  Church,  which  seems  to  have  been  always  practised  by 
 SS.  Cyprian  and  Augustin  ;  and, 
 
 2.  That  the  Church  has  the  power  of  freeing  those  who 
 are  in  purgatory  by  her  prayers. 
 
 This  passage  is  also  one  from  which  the  practice  of 
 ecclesiastical  confession  is  most  clearly  proved.  For  this 
 power  which  was  given  to  the  Apostles  could  not  have 
 been  exercised  without  their  knowledge  of  the  sinners,  nor 
 could  the  sins,  which  are  for  the  most  part  secret,  be  known 
 without  the  explicit  confession  of  the  sinner.  Thus  all  the 
 ancient  Fathers  have  based  on  this  passage  the  practice  of 
 penance;  e.^:,  S.  Cyprian  {Serm.  on  "Lapsed''),  S.  Athana- 
 sius  {Horn,  on  the  words,  "  6^^?  into  the  village''),  S.  Basil 
 {Ep.  to  Amphiloch.).  We  may  add  that  Christ,  in  these 
 words,  not  only  gave  the  Apostles  the  power  of  absolving, 
 but  He  laid  upon  all  Christians  the  obligation  of  confession. 
 
 The  meaning,  then,  will  be  not  only  that  whatever  the 
 Apostles  loosed  on  earth.  He  Himself  would  loose  in 
 heaven  :  but  also  that  He  would  neither  loose  nor  bind 
 anything  in  heaven,  except  what  His  Apostles  or  their 
 successors  had  loosed  or  bound  on  earth.  For  He  bestowed 
 on  them  His  own  power  to  govern  the  Church  for  Him. 
 So  that  He  would  have  everyone  who  needed  forgiveness 
 come  to  the  Apostles  or  their  successors  as  if  to  Him,  if 
 He  were  on  earth,  and  seek  from  them  absolution  when 
 they  had  made  their  confession,  as,  if  He  were  living  on 
 earth.  He  would  absolve  no  one  from  his  sins  unless  he  had 
 first  made  confession  of  them. 
 
52  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xvi.20. 
 
 But  He  as  God  could  do  so  without  that  sacrament,  the 
 Apostles  as  men  could  only  do  so  through  the  sacrament  ; 
 as  if  that  were  the  hand  of  Christ  ;  that  is,  as  if  a  king 
 when  sending  some  minister  to  a  distant  province  to  govern 
 for  him,  should  say  :  "  Whatever  you  do  I  approve,"  and 
 he  should  give  orders  to  the  people  to  refer  any  question 
 or  difference  to  his  substitute  as  to  himself,  and  plead  all 
 causes  before  him  ;  not  that  he  deprived  himself  of  his 
 power,  so  that  he  could  not  judge  a  cause  if  he  pleased,  but 
 that,  by  the  transference  of  all  ordinary  power  to  his 
 substitute,  he  reserved  the  extraordinary  to  himself.  This 
 is  to  be  understood  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles.  The 
 ordinary  remedies  instituted  in  the  Church  for  the  remission 
 of  sins  are  the  sacraments,  without  which  men  cannot 
 remit  them.  Christ  is  able  to  do  this,  but  He  does  it  extra- 
 ordinarily, and  very  much  more  rarely  than  through  the 
 sacraments.  For  He  would  not  have  men  trust  to  extra- 
 ordinary means,  which  are  both  rare  and  uncertain,  for  the 
 remission  of  sins ;  but  He  would  have  them  seek  the  ordinary, 
 and,  so  to  say,  the  visible  aids  of  the  sacraments.  And  He 
 has,  therefore,  given  the  precept,  as  of  baptism  and  the 
 Eucharist,  so  of  confession  and  penance. 
 
 Verse  20.   TJiat  they  should  tell  no  man. 
 
 Why  Christ  so  frequently  forbade  His  acts,  which  clearly 
 discovered  Him  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  to  be  made  public 
 has  been  explained  (viii.  4  ;  ix.  30).  Why  He  forbade  it 
 now,  we  learn  from  S.  Mark  (viii.  30),  S.  Luke  (ix.  20),  and 
 S.  Matthew  in  verse  following.  For  all  these  three  Evan- 
 gelists relate  that  Christ,  immediately  on  Peter's  confession 
 that  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  began  to  explain  to  them 
 how  He  must  suffer  many  things  at  Jerusalem,  and  be  put 
 to  death.  From  this,  it  is  concluded  that  He  would  not 
 have  the  Apostles  publish  it,  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God, 
 lest  the  hearers,  if  they  should  afterwards  see  Him  dying, 
 
Ch.  XVI.20.]     CHRIST   FORETELLS    HIS    PASSION.  53 
 
 should  be  offended  by  that  weakness  of  the  flesh  and  lose 
 their  faith.  For,  while  He  was  hanging  on  the  Cross,  some 
 of  those  who  had  heard  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  said 
 (xxvii.  40)  :  "  If  Thou  be  the  Son  of  God,  come  down  from 
 the  Cross  ".  Christ  would  not  have  that  happen  to  all  at 
 His  death  which  did  happen  to  some.  This  is  the  reason 
 that  S.  Chrysostom,  S.  Jerome,  and  Bede  give. 
 
 A  double  question  here  arises,  i.  Why  (chap.  x.  7)  He 
 sent  the  Apostles  to  preach  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  was 
 nothing  but  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  God  ?  2.  Why  He 
 so  often  called  Himself  the  Son  of  God,  or  called  God  His 
 Father,  if  He  would  not  have  men  know  that  He  was  the 
 Son  of  God  ?  The  heretic  who  answers  that  that  mission 
 was  merely  temporal,  says  nothing  to  the  purpose.  For, 
 what  does  it  matter  whether  it  were  temporal  or  eternal, 
 if  they  preached  the  Advent  of  the  Son  of  God  ?  Origen 
 {Tract,  i.  on  S.  Matt.)  answers,  that  the  Apostles 
 preached  not  Christ,  but  the  kingdom  of  God.  S.  Jerome, 
 on  the  contrary,  says  that  they  preached  Christ  indeed,  but 
 not  Jesus  ;  that  is,  they  taught  that  He  was  a  righteous 
 man,  a  Prophet,  the  author  of  many  extraordinary  miracles, 
 the  Messiah  promised  by  God  ;  but  not  that  He  was  the 
 Son  of  the  living  God  :  that  is,  the  true  essential  God  by 
 nature,  which  Peter  now  confessed  Him  to  be  ;  for  perhaps 
 even  the  Apostles  themselves,  at  that  time,  did  not  under- 
 stand this.  And  He  now  forbade  them  to  say  that  He 
 was  Jesus  Christ,  as  is  found  in  some  copies.  For  Jesus  is 
 the  name  of  God,  and  means  the  Saviour  ;  Christ  is  the 
 name  of  the  Man.  The  reason  seems  a  good  one,  and  is 
 approved  by  S.  Ambrose  {On  S.  Luke  ix.)  and  Euthymius. 
 It  is  certain  that  before  His  passover,  Christ  never  told 
 His  disciples  to  preach  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  and 
 He  never  very  openly  said  so  ;  because,  while  some  were 
 offended  at  His  calling  God  His  Father,  He  derided  their 
 halting  opinion  by  the  ambiguity  of  the  term,  as  in  S.John 
 
54  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xvi.  21. 
 
 ^-  34)  35)  3^  '•  "  Is  it  not  written  in  your  law,  I  said  you  are 
 gods  ?  If  He  called  them  gods,  to  whom  the  word  of  God 
 was  spoken,  and  the  Scripture  cannot  be  broken,  do  you 
 say  of  him  whom  the  Father  hath  sanctified  and  sent  into 
 the  world.  Thou  blasphemest;  because  I  said  I  am  the  Son 
 of  God  ?  " 
 
 Verse  21.  From  that  time. 
 It  is  plain  that  the  Evangelist  wished  to  show  that  Christ, 
 from  the  time  when  Peter  confessed  Him  to  be  the  Son  of 
 God,  began  to  speak  of  His  coming  death,  and  not  once, 
 but  very  frequently,  to  admonish  the  Apostles  as  to  what 
 was  to  happen  ;  as  if  the  Evangelist  had  said,  from  that 
 time  He  did  not  keep  the  knowledge  back  as  a  secret  that 
 He  must  suffer,  but  spoke  of  it  openly  and  plainly.  We 
 may  ask  why  He  did  so  at  this  time  rather  than  before  ? 
 The  reason  is  obvious,  as  S.  Chrysostom,  Euthymius,  and 
 Theophylact  show.  It  was  because  He  had  not  been 
 sufficiently  known  by  the  Apostles,  or  declared  by  public 
 confession  to  be  the  Son  of  God  by  nature  ;  and  it  was  to 
 be  feared  that  if  He  had  made  mention  of  the  shame  of  His 
 future  death,  they  might  be  offended,  or  leave  Him,  or  be 
 hindered  in  the  course  of  their  faith.  But  why  afterwards  ? 
 For  the  same  reason  clearly  ;  for  when  they  had  confessed 
 Him  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  they  seemed  to  be  prepared  for 
 having  the  mystery  of  His  impending  death  explained  to 
 them.  It  was  very  necessary  that  this  should  be  done, 
 lest  afterwards,  if  they  had  not  been  forewarned  and  had 
 seen  Him  suffer,  they  might  have  doubted  of  His  Divinity, 
 as  has  been  observed  by  Theophylact.  He  did  the  same 
 at  another  time,  and  for  a  similar  cause  {S.  John  xvi.  1). 
 Some  give  another  reason :  that  by  His  own  example 
 Christ  might  strengthen  His  disciples,  as  is  learnt  from 
 verse  24  and  i  J^T.  Peter  ii.  21. 
 
 M7tSt. 
 
 Not  absolutely,  but  from  His  Father's  will,  b}'  which  He 
 
Ch.  XVI.  22.]  PETERS    REBUKE.  55 
 
 must  suffer  and  die  for  the  salvation  of  men  {S.  Liikc  xxiv. 
 46). 
 
 Verse  22.  And  taking  Hivi. 
 
 UpoaXa^o^ievo'^,  separating  or  leading  Him  apart,  as  if 
 he  did  not  venture  to  blame  Him  before  the  others.  So 
 say  S.  Chrysostom  and  Jerome,  Bede  and  Euthymius. 
 Uapd  Trpo&Xa/ji^dveiv  in  the  Scriptures  is  often  used  to 
 express  compassion,  as  Rom.  xiv.  i  :  "  Now  him  that  is 
 weak  in  faith,  take  unto  you,"  that  is,  to  take  compassion  ; 
 XV.  7  :  "  Wherefore  receive  one  another,"  take  him  to  you, 
 or  practise  mutual  compassion  one  to  another.  This  agrees 
 well  with  the  context  that  Peter,  when  he  heard  of  Christ's 
 approaching  sufferings,  moved  with  compassion,  that  is, 
 "  receiving  Him,"  began  to  dissuade  Him.  This  meaning 
 is  adopted  by  S.  Jerome.  "  S.  Peter,"  he  says,  "  receiving 
 Christ  into  his  sympathy." 
 
 Began  to  rebuke  Him. 
 
 Not  as  blaming  Him,  but  as  a  friend  giving  Him  counsel, 
 as  Bede  and  Euthymius  think.  SS.  Chrysostom  and  Jerome 
 speak  of  the  modesty  of  Peter  on  this  occasion  ;  for,  as 
 before  (verse  16),  in  confessing  Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  God, 
 he  had  shown  greater  faith  than  the  rest  of  the  Apostles, 
 so  he  now  showed  more  love  for  Him. 
 
 Lord,  be  it  far  from  Thee. 
 
 Our  version  could  not  have  rendered  better  the  Greek 
 TXetw?  (joL  No  doubt  the  Greek  translator  of  5.  MattJieiv 
 borrowed  the  expression  from  the  LXX. ;  for  these  used  it 
 in  two  places  and  senses — (i)  when  it  meant /rt.r  ///;/,  from 
 the  Hebrew  D3^  uh^  (as  in  Gen.  xliii.  23)  ;  or  (2)  when 
 it  meant  Jlb'^TTl  "prohibition,"  that  is,  absit  (as  in  i  Kings 
 xiv.  45  ;  XX.  2,  9).  It  is,  therefore,  a  word  of  aversion  and 
 deprecation  against  what  is  threatened  from  happening. 
 
56  THE    GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xvi.  23. 
 
 Verse  23.  W/io  Uirning. 
 That  is,  looking  back  (as  5.  Markv\\\.  33).  It  is  perhaps 
 a  Hebraism  by  which  a  contrary  answer  is  given,  as  if  the 
 Evangelist  had  said  that  Peter  rebuked  Christ  because  He 
 would  suffer,  but  Christ  on  the  other  part  rebuked  Peter 
 because  he  would  not  have  Him  suffer  (as  Ps.  Ixx.  2.  ; 
 Ixxxiv.  7)  :  that  is,  as  Thou  first  destroyedst  us,  so  now  on 
 the  other  hand  Thou  shalt  bring  us  back  again. 
 
 Go  behind  Me. 
 "''^n^^  \7  a  Hebrew  expression,  meaning  properly 
 "  Follow  Me,"  as  S.  Hilary  explains  it ;  as  if  Christ  had 
 said  :  "  Thou  oughtest  rather  to  follow  Me  and  imitate  My 
 suffering  than  call  Me  away  from  it".  Origen  (Tract,  i.  on 
 S.  Matt)  and  S.  Jerome  (in  his  Commentaries)  so  explain 
 it.  So  too  S.  Augustin  {Serm.  xiii.  de  verb.  Dom.  sec.  Matt)  ; 
 for  he  renders  it,  "  Retire  behind  Me  ".  It  is  certain  that 
 they  are  the  words  of  one  commanding  another  to  go  back, 
 as  Christ  had  said  to  Satan  before  (iv.  10). 
 
 Satan. 
 
 S.  Hilary  shrank  from  the  idea  of  the  name  of  Satan 
 having  been  given  to  S.  Peter ;  and  he  takes  the  passage  as 
 if  Christ  had  said  to  Peter  "  Vade  retro"  and  then  turned,  as 
 it  were,  to  the  devil  who  had  put  it  into  the  mind  of  Peter 
 to  dissuade  Him  from  death,  and  said  :  "  Satan,  thou  art 
 an  offence  unto  Me".  This  is  the  more  to  be  wondered, 
 because  in  his  Comments,  on  the  Psalms  (cxxxi.)  he  says 
 that  Peter  himself  had  been  called  Satan. 
 
 We  may  wonder  with  S.  Augustin  {Serm.  xiii.  de  verb. 
 Dom.  sec.  S.  Matt)  why  Christ  in  so  short  a  time  called  the 
 same  Peter  both  blessed  and  Satan.  S.  Jerome  says  that 
 the  Church  was  not  yet  built  on  him,  and  that  he  therefore 
 erred,  and  could  be  called  Satan.  S.  Augustin  and 
 Theophylact  say  that  he  was  called  "  blessed  "  because  not 
 
Ch.  XVI.  24.]  THE   CROSS.  57 
 
 flesh  and  blood,  but  the  Father  in  heaven  had  revealed  it 
 to  him,  and  "  Satan  "  when  he  savoured  not  of  the  things  of 
 God,  but  of  the  things  of  men. 
 
 Verse  24.   TJien. 
 
 That  is,  before  He  rebuked  Peter,  as  would  appear  from 
 S.  Luke,  who  has  placed  these  words  before  the  rebuke  of 
 Peter  (ix.  23),  although  S.  Chrysostom  and  Theophylact 
 think  otherwise. 
 
 To  His  disciples. 
 
 S.  Luke  (ix.  23)  says  He  said  to  them  all,  and  S.  Mark 
 (viii.  34). 
 
 This  divarication  between  the  two  Evangelists  may  be 
 explained  in  two  ways.  Either  that  Christ  spoke  to  the 
 Apostles  alone  in  the  presence  of  the  multitude,  and  before 
 witnesses,  or  that  He  wished  what  He  said  addressed  to  the 
 Apostles  especially,  but  that  the  multitude  thought  that 
 what  He  said  to  His  Apostles  was  said  to  themselves  also. 
 
 If  any  man  will. 
 
 S.  Chrysostom,  Euthymius,  and  Theophylact  rightly 
 observe  that  our  free-will  is  fully  established  by  these 
 words. 
 
 Let  Jiiin  deny  Jiiviself. 
 
 The  meaning  of  these  words  has  been  variously  ex- 
 plained. S.  Jerome  and  Bede  {in  loc),  S.  Gregory  {Horn.  x. 
 on  Esekiel),  think  the  meaning  to  be  simply  the  putting  off 
 of  the  old  man,  and  the  putting  on  of  the  new.  "  Then," 
 says  Bede,  "  do  we  deny  ourselves  when  we  avoid  what  we 
 were  before,  and  strive  for  that  to  which  we  are  called 
 anew."  But  it  is  clear  that  the  present  subject  was  not  the 
 manner  of  our  lives,  but  of  our  deaths,  as  is  shown  by  verse 
 25.  S.  Chrysostom  shows  better  what  it  is  to  deny  our- 
 selves from  the  denying  of  others.     To  deny  others  is  to 
 
S8  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.    [Ch.  xvi.  26,  27. 
 
 despise  and  forsake  them,  to  take  no  account  or  care  for 
 them,  to  think  their  Hves  of  no  consequence.  This  is  the 
 same  as  to  deny  ourselves  ;  to  hold  ourselves  of  no  value ; 
 to  despise  life  for  the  sake  of  Christ  when  need  be,  as  is 
 urged  on  us  in  verse  25.  For  Christ  does  not  call  the  soul 
 self  there,  but  the  life  of  the  body,  which  we  ought  to  hold 
 in  contempt  that  our  souls  may  live.  For  he  who  will  save 
 his  life,  that  is,  the  life  of  his  body,  shall  lose  it,  that  is,  the 
 life  of  his  soul;  as  is  explained  in  chap.  x.  38,  39. 
 
 Verse  26.  Suffer  the  loss  of  his  own  soul. 
 A  metaphor  from  the  courts.  For  if  a  man  sue  for  any 
 property,  however  precious,  and  also  for  his  life,  it  would 
 profit  him  little  to  gain  the  former  but  lose  his  life  ;  and 
 the  question  here  is  one  of  judgment,  from  what  follows 
 in  verse  27. 
 
 Or  what  exchange  shall  a  man  give. 
 A  metaphor  taken  either  from  the  courts  or  from  war. 
 In  the  former  a  man  may  redeem  his  life  for  money  ;  but 
 for  the  life  of  the  soul  in  the  judgment  of  God  no  money 
 and  no  compensation  can  be  received,  nor  can  God  the  Judge 
 of  all  be  corrupted  by  bribes.  In  war,  too,  the  vanquished 
 often  redeem  their  lives  by  ransom.  But  in  the  judgment 
 he  cannot  so  buy  himself  off  For  what  exchange  shall  he 
 give  for  his  soul  ?  Christ  plays  upon  the  double  meaning 
 of  the  terms,  and  argues  tacitly  from  the  life  of  the  body  to 
 the  life  of  the  soul.  For  the  word  "  life  "  {anitna)  means 
 either,  as  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  in  chap.  x.  38,  39  ;  as 
 if  it  were  said:  As  for  the  life  of  the  body  in  war  or  in  judg- 
 ment, no  one  can  make  a  really  equivalent  compensation, 
 much  less  can  he  make  one  for  tiic  life  of  his  soul. 
 
 Verse  27.  For  the  Son  of  man. 
 
 S.   Jerome  tliinks  that    Christ  said  this  to  comfort  His 
 disciples.      It   may   rather   be   thought   that    He   added   it, 
 
Ch.  XVI.  28.]  CHRIST  S   SECOND   COMING.  59 
 
 because  He  had  spoken  of  an  exchange  of  souls  which  had 
 been  transferred  from  the  judgment  of  the  courts.  He 
 proves  by  these  words  that  no  exchange  can  be  given  for 
 the  soul,  because  it  is  no  chance  judge,  but  the  Son  of  man 
 who  will  come  to  judgment  ;  nor  will  He  come  in  any 
 chance  manner,  but  in  the  glory  of  His  Father  and  with 
 His  holy  angels,  so  that  he  cannot  need  any  of  our  good 
 things.  Why  He  is  called  the  Son  of  man  has  been  shown 
 (viii.  20). 
 
 In  the  glory  of  His  Father. 
 
 "  In  "  is  a  Hebraism  for  "  with  ".  He  calls  the  glory  not 
 His  own,  but  His  Father's  ;  either  because,  though  it  was 
 His  own,  the  Father  had  given  it  to  Him,  or,  as  S.  Chrysos- 
 tom  and  Euthymius  think,  to  show  that  that  nature  was 
 common  to  Him  with  the  Father.  For  He  calls  the 
 angels  not  His  own,  but  the  Father's  ;  but  He  was  the 
 Lord  of  the  angels,  was  the  true  God,  and  had  His  glory 
 in  common  with  the  Father.  It  is  said  that  He  would 
 come  in  glory — as  if  He  were  not  in  glory  then — because, 
 although  He  had  the  same  glory  then,  it  was  hidden  to  be 
 revealed  hereafter. 
 
 Verse  28.   TJiere  are  some  of  them  that  stand  liere. 
 
 The  word  "  stand,"  as  has  been  said  before,  does  not 
 always  in  Scripture  refer  to  the  posture  of  the  body,  but  is 
 used  for  the  personal  presence. 
 
 TJiat  shall  not  taste  death. 
 
 A  Hebraism  for  "  shall  not  die  ".  So  5.  Luhe  ix.  27  ; 
 I/ed.  ii.  9.  With  the  Hebrews,  "  to  see "  means  "  to  ex- 
 perience ".  The  Greeks  more  properly  use  the  word 
 yeveaOai,,  "to  taste".  So  the  ecclesiastical  writers  (S. 
 Ambrose,  On  S.  Luke  ix.)  understand  it  of  the  death  of  the 
 soul ;  as  if  Christ  had  said  :   "  There  are  some  here   who 
 
6o  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xvi.  28. 
 
 shall  not  be  condemned  when  the  Son  of  man  comes"  ;  or, 
 "  who  shall  not  sin  any  more  until  they  see  the  Son  of  man 
 come  ".     But  this  is  somewhat  forced. 
 
 In  His  kingdom. 
 
 There  are  many  opinions  as  to  the  meaning  of  these 
 words.  Some  explain  them  of  the  last  judgment,  of  which 
 Christ  had  spoken  in  the  preceding  verse.  This  seems 
 consistent  with  the  context  ;  but  how  some  of  those  who 
 stood  there  should  not  die  till  the  day  of  judgment  does  not 
 seem  so.  Some  think  it  spoken  of  S.  John  the  Evangelist, 
 whom  they  believe  not  to  have  died,  though  I  only  find  it 
 actually  in  Strabus  ;  and  it  is  not  in  agreement  with  Scrip- 
 ture, for  S.  John  himself  seems  to  have  confuted  the  idea 
 (xxi.  23).  Others  explain  it  as  referring  to  the  period  after 
 Christ's  Resurrection.  For  He  calls  that  the  kingdom  of 
 God  because  He  then  rose  in  glory  (as  in  xxvi.  29 ;  vS.  Mark 
 xiv.  25  ;  S.  Lnke  xxii.  29,  30).  This  meets  the  approba- 
 tion of  some  of  the  Moderns,  but  seems  scarcely  probable  ; 
 both  because  Christ  calls  it  the  kingdom  of  God,  for  the 
 devil  was  now  conquered,  but  not  His  own  kingdom,  for 
 He  had  not  yet  come  in  His  glory  ;  and  because,  if  He  had 
 said  that,  He  would  have  said  nothing.  For  what  wonder 
 would  it  have  been  if  some  of  the  disciples  were  not  to  die 
 before  they  saw  Him  risen  from  the  dead,  when  not  only 
 some,  but  all  saw  Him  ?  For  when  He  said,  "  there  are 
 some,"  He  showed  clearly  that  not  all  the  disciples,  but 
 only  a  few,  and  those  the  elect,  and  those  to  whom  were 
 granted  that  singular  privilege,  should  see  that  kingdom  of 
 which  He  spoke  before  they  died.  The  opinion,  therefore, 
 of  all  the  Ancients  was  true  (Origcn,  Tr.  iii.  /;/  .S".  JMatt. ; 
 S.  Hilary,  Can.  xvi.  ,  S.  Chrysostom  ;  Bede  ;  Theophylact  ; 
 Euthymius,  In  Comin.  ;  S.  Ambrose,  ix.,  On  S.  Liike ;  S. 
 Augustin,  ii.,  0)i  Gal. ;  Remigius,  /;/  6".  Thomas)^  that  the 
 kingdom  of  God  meant  the  Transfiguration,  which  not  all, 
 
Ch.  XVI.  28.]  CHRIST'S   SECOND   COMING.  61 
 
 but  only  Peter,  James,  and  John  merited  to  see  before  they 
 died.  This  may  be  shown  from  the  fact  that  all  theEvange- 
 lists  immediately  add,  "after  six  days".  Christ  was  trans- 
 figured before  these  three  Apostles.  Besides  which,  if  the 
 words  cannot  be  understood  of  the  day  of  judgment,  or  of 
 the  time  of  the  Resurrection,  they  must  necessarily  be 
 understood  of  the  Transfiguration.  For  what  Bede  and 
 S.  Gregory  {^Ap.  S.  Thoniani)  say  of  the  propagation  of  the 
 Gospel  and  the  Church  seems  foreign  to  the  purpose. 
 Christ  calls  His  Transfiguration  His  kingdom,  not  because 
 it  was  such  properly,  but  because  it  was  the  image  of  it. 
 It  may,  however,  be  justly  doubted  why  Christ  said,  as  if  it 
 were  a  matter  of  great  moment,  that  some  of  those  who 
 stood  by  should  die  before  they  saw  His  kingdom  if  He 
 meant  His  Transfiguration,  which  happened  six  days  after, 
 when  not  only  the  three  who  saw  it,  but  all  the  Apostles 
 were  alive.  The  answer  may  be  that  the  words  may  be 
 referred  to  that  far  distant  kingdom  of  which  He  had  said, 
 in  the  preceding  verse  :  "  The  Son  of  man  shall  come  in 
 His  glory".  Not  to  die  before  the  sight  of  this  kingdom 
 was  indeed  a  very  great  thing  ;  but  that  very  kingdom 
 these  three  Apostles  did  see,  not  in  itself,  but  in  figure  ;  not 
 present,  but  in  a  glass  darkly  i^per  transcnnam). 
 
CHAPTER  XVII. 
 
 THE  TRANSFIGURATION  OF  CHRIST — HE  CURES  THE 
 LUNATIC  CHILD,  FORETELLS  HIS  PASSION,  AND 
 PAYS   THE   DIDRACHMA. 
 
 Verse  i.  After  six  days. 
 
 Referring  to  the  same  period,  S.  Mark  (ix.  2)  and  S. 
 Luke  (ix.  28)  say  that  these  events  took  place  after  eight 
 days.  The  difficulty  is  answered  by  S.  Jerome,  S.  Chry- 
 sostom,  Bede,  Theophylact,  and  Euthymius  on  the  passage, 
 and  by  S.  Augustin  {^De  Consens.,  ii.  56)  by  the  assertion 
 that  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark  have  not  counted  the  day  on 
 which  the  events  happened,  but  S.  Luke  has  ;  that  S. 
 Matthew  and  S.  Mark  count  the  time  exclusively  and  S. 
 Luke  inclusively  of  the  two  days  on  which  the  events 
 happened  ;  or  that  possibly  S.  Luke  only  wrote  generally, 
 and  therefore  said  "  about  eight  days  ". 
 
 Taketh. 
 
 Many  questions  may  here  be  asked. 
 
 I.  Why  Christ  chose  to  be  transfigured?  To  this 
 question  S.  Hilary,  S.  Chrysostom,  and  Euthymius  reply 
 that  it  was  to  console  the  disciples  when  they  should  be 
 grieved  at  Plis  death;  Theophylact,  that  it  was  to  preserve 
 the  truth  of  His  words  (xxi.  27),  that  He  would  come  in 
 the  glory  of  His  Father.  Either  of  these  opinions  is  more 
 probable  than  that  of  the  heretics,  that  Christ  wished  to 
 show  that  His  death  would  not  be  by  compulsion,  but  of 
 His  own  free-will,  as  He  was  the  Lord  of  so  much  glory. 
 
Ch.  XVII.  I.]  THE   TRANSFIGURATION.  Ct, 
 
 2.  The  next  question  is,  why  He  was  not  transfigured  in 
 the  sight  of  all  the  disciples  ?  The  answer  is  easily  seen  in 
 verse  9,  where  He  commanded  those  three  Apostles, 
 who  had  seen  His  glory,  not  to  inform  any  person  of  the 
 vision  till  the  Son  of  man  had  risen  from  the  dead  ;  for 
 Christ  would  not  have  His  glory  published  for  the  reasons 
 there  given. 
 
 3.  The  third  question  is,  why  was  His  glory  shown  to 
 three  witnesses,  and  neither  more  nor  fewer?  Probably 
 because  He  wished  that  there  should  be  some  witnesses  of 
 His  future  glory  ;  for  "  in  the  mouth  of  two  or  three 
 witnesses  every  word  shall  stand"  {Dent.  xix.  15  ;  .S. 
 Matt,  xviii.  16).  In  addition,  it  may  be  said  that  He  had 
 three  disciples  more  especially  capable  of  receiving  His 
 secrets.  These  three  He  used  to  take  with  Him  on  His 
 more  private  occasions  (as  in  5.  Matt.  xxvi.  37). 
 
 4.  The  fourth  question  is,  why  He  pleased  to  show  this 
 spectacle  to  these  rather  than  to  the  others  ?  One  reason 
 has  already  been  given  ;  another  is  that  Peter  was  both 
 the  first  of  the  Apostles  and  loved  Him  most  of  all.  He 
 Himself  loved  S.  John  the  most.  S.  James  was  the  next 
 after  S.  Peter,  and  the  most  ardent  in  faith.  As  such,  he 
 was  the  first  put  to  death  by  Herod  {Acts  xii.  2).  This 
 reason  is  given  by  Origen  {Tract,  iii.  on  S.  Matt.),  S. 
 Ambrose  {On  S.  Luke  ix.),  S.  Augustin  {On  Galat.  ii.),  S. 
 Jerome,  Theophylact,  and  Euthymius  (in  their  Com- 
 mentaries). SS.  Ambrose  and  Augustin  are  mistaken  in 
 saying  that  this  James  was  the  brother  of  the  Lord  ;  for 
 the  Evangelist  says  that  He  was  the  brother  of  John,  and 
 the  son  of  Zebedee. 
 
 Into  a  high  mountain. 
 
 The  Evangelists  do  not  say  what  mountain  this  was,  nor 
 apparently  does  any  ancient  author  of  credit.  It  was  long 
 the  opinion  that  it  was  Mount  Tabor,   which   S.  Jerome 
 
64  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xvii.  2. 
 
 says,  in  his  Loc.  Hcbr.,  was  in  the  midst  of  the  plains  of 
 Galilee,  and  was  very  lofty  and  round  in  shape.  Whether 
 it  were  this  or  some  other,  we  may  ask  why  Christ  went 
 up  into  a  mountain  to  display  His  glory  ?  One  reason  is 
 found  in  S.  Luke  ix.  28.  He  says  that  Christ  went  up  to 
 pray.  He  was  accustomed,  for  this  purpose,  to  ascend 
 mountains,  where  the  solitude  was  greater  and  more 
 complete,  and  there  was  a  wider  view  of  the  heavens  {S. 
 Mark  vi.  46  ;  S.  L^ike  vi.  12).  The  words  of  S.  Luke,  "  He 
 went  up  to  pray,"  are  not  perhaps  to  be  taken  as  if  He 
 went  up  with  that  intention,  but  because  in  all  events  of 
 great  importance  it  was  His  custom  to  commence  with 
 prayer ;  and  He  probably  did  not  inform  the  Apostles 
 when  He  went  apart  from  them  that  He  was  going  up  the 
 mountain  for  His  Transfiguration,  but  for  prayer,  lest  He 
 might  give  occasion  for  envy  to  those  who  were  left  below. 
 The  glory  of  God  has  most  frequently  been  shown  from 
 mountains,  which  are  nearer  to  heaven  and  more  remote 
 from  men.  So  the  majesty  of  God  appeared  to  Moses  on 
 Mount  Sinai  {Exod.  xix.  11),  and  was,  as  S.  Hilary  says,  a 
 type  of  the  Transfiguration. 
 
 Verse  2.  And  He  luas  transfigured  before  t/iejn. 
 
 We  should  observe,  as  S.  Jerome  says,  that  Christ  did 
 not  change  the  nature  of  His  body,  but  only  the  external 
 form  and  appearance. 
 
 As  snow. 
 
 Almost  all  the  Greek  copies  read,  "  as  light,"  w?  to  ^w<? — 
 our  version  says,  "  as  snow  " — as  do  some  Greek  copies. 
 This  reading  is  probably  the  correct  one,  both  because  S. 
 Mark  (ix.  3)  has  it,  and  S.  Hilary  and  almost  all  ancient 
 writers  concur,  and  because  the  comparison  is  more  just 
 and  more  common.  For  we  do  not  compare  whiteness  to 
 the  sun,  but  to  snow  ;  and  what  is  bright  to  the  sun.     The 
 
Ch.  XVII.3.]  THE   TRANSFIGURATION.  65 
 
 glory  of  the  blessed  also  is  prefigured  by  white  robes,  as  in 
 Apoc.  i.  14;  iii.  4,  5,   18  ;  iv,  4  ;  vi.  ii  ;  vii.  9,   13  ;  xix,  14. 
 
 Verse  3.  Moses  and  Elias. 
 
 We  may  reasonably  enquire  why  Christ  wished  for  the 
 presence  of  these  witnesses  from  the  other  world.  S. 
 Hilary  says  that  it  was  to  confirm  the  doctrine  of  the  Re- 
 surrection, by  the  restoration  to  life  of  Moses.  But  the 
 question  here  was  not  of  the  Resurrection,  but  of  the  future 
 kingdom  of  Christ.  There  appear  to  have  been  two 
 reasons  :  one,  that  the  Apostles  might  not  think  the  thing 
 a  fiction  ;  the  other,  that  the  future  kingdom  of  Christ 
 might  be  represented  to  the  life,  at  the  advent  of  which 
 two  witnesses  are  mentioned  by  S.  John  {Apoc.  xi.  3)  as 
 about  to  be  sent.  The  reason  of  these  two  having  been 
 chosen  rather  than  any  others,  is  held  by  all  ancient 
 authors  to  have  been  that  the  Law  might  be  represented 
 by  Moses,  and  the  Prophets  by  Elias  ;  and  that  the  Law 
 and  the  Prophets  tend  towards  Christ,  and  have  their  ful- 
 filment and  termination  in  Him.  So  Tertullian,  iv.,  Cont. 
 Marcion.  From  this  he  refutes  these  heretics,  showing 
 that  Christ  was  not  contrary  to  the  Law  and  the  Prophets. 
 S.  Hilary,  S.  Jerome,  Bede,  Euthymius  {in  loc),  S.  Ambrose 
 {On  S.  Luke  ix.),  S.  Augustin  {De  Qiiinq.  Hceres.,  vii.),  and 
 in  another  place  S.  Chrysostom  and  Euthymius,  give  as 
 reasons  that  both  Moses  and  Elias  worked  many  miracles, 
 and  that,  as  some  said  that  Christ  was  Elias,  others  one  of 
 the  ancient  prophets,  and  Moses  was  the  most  ancient, 
 Christ,  to  show  that  He  was  the  Lord  of  life,  brought  up 
 the  still  living  Elias,  and  Moses,  who  was  dead,  as  His 
 witnesses.  It  is  probable,  as  S.  Jerome  says,  that  Christ 
 was  willing  to  gratify  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  who  had 
 demanded  a  sign  from  heaven,  and  He,  therefore,  called 
 Elias  from  heaven,  and  Moses  from  Hades  {de  Ijiferno). 
 Others,  as  Euthymius,  say  that   the   disciples  might  imi- 
 
66  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xvii.  3. 
 
 tatc  the  meekness  of  Moses  and  the  zeal  of  Elias.  TertulHan 
 (Adv.  Prax.)  thinks  that  the  promise  of  God  in  Numbers 
 xii.  8,  that  He  would  speak  with  Moses  face  to  face,  was 
 fulfilled  here. 
 
 The  truest  reason  of  the  appearance  of  Moses  and  Elias 
 would,  perhaps,  appear  to  be  that  which  a  learned  Doctor 
 of  the  Church  of  our  own  times  has  signified  :  that  Christ 
 was  to  represent  the  image  of  His  second  coming.  But 
 before  this,  Moses  and  Elias  would  come,  as  is  clearly  to 
 be  gathered  from  Apoc.  xi.  3  :  "And  I  will  give  unto  My 
 two  witnesses,  and  they  shall  prophesy  a  thousand  two 
 hundred  and  sixty  days  clothed  in  sackcloth.  These  are 
 the  two  olive  trees  and  the  two  candlesticks  that  stand 
 before  the  Lord  of  the  earth.  And  if  any  man  will  hurt 
 them,  fire  shall  come  out  of  their  mouths,  and  shall 
 devour  their  enemies  ;  and  if  any  man  will  hurt  them,  in 
 this  manner  must  he  be  slain.  These  have  power  to  shut 
 heaven  that  it  rain  not  in  the  days  of  their  prophecy,  and 
 thsy  have  power  over  waters  to  turn  them  into  blood,  and 
 to  strike  the  earth  with  all  plagues  as  often  as  they  will." 
 In  these  words  Moses  is  openly  described. 
 
 We  may  ask  whether  they  truly  appeared  ?  That  they 
 did  so  is  the  opinion  of  all  the  authorities  except  Strabus 
 and  S.  Thomas.  The  former  {On  S.  Ljike  ix.),  thinks  that 
 the  appearance  was  not  of  themselves,  but  of  their  simili- 
 tudes. The  latter,  in  his  comments  on  the  passage,  ima- 
 gines that  Elias,  indeed,  who  was  not  dead,  was  truly 
 present ;  but  that  Moses,  who  was  dead,  did  not  appear 
 truly  and  perfectly,  but  that  his  soul  alone  did  so,  taking 
 not  his  own  but  some  other  body.  The  opinion  of  all 
 others  is  more  probable,  that  each  was  present  truly  and 
 each  wholly.  It  was  not  fitting  that  the  truth  should  be 
 proved  by  a  falsehood  ;  and  it  is  agreeable  to  reason  that 
 as  Christ  showed  not  a  false  and  shadow)',  but  His  true 
 and  express  glory,  so  that  it  should  be  confirmed  not  by 
 
Ch.  XVII.  4.]  THE    TRANSFIGURATION.  6^ 
 
 false  and  imaginary,  but  by  true  witnesses.  It  has  been 
 asked  how  the  Apostles  could  recognise  Moses  and  Elias, 
 whom  they  had  never  seen  ?  Euthymius  answers  that 
 their  forms  had  been  well  described  in  the  ancient  books  of 
 the  Hebrews,  or  were  familiar  from  tradition.  Theophylact 
 supposes  that  the  Apostles  might  have  known  them  from 
 the  conversations  they  carried  on.  Moses  might  have 
 said  :  "  Thou  art  He  whose  Passion  I  prefigured  in  the 
 Lamb  which  was  slain,  and  in  the  Passover  which  I  cele- 
 brated ".  And  Elias,  perhaps :  "  Thou  art  He  whose 
 Resurrection  I  foreshadowed  in  the  widow's  son  whom  I 
 raised  to  life".  S.  Luke  (ix.  30,  31)  relates  that  there  were 
 conversations  among  them,  but  not  on  these  subjects : 
 "  And  behold  two  men  were  talking  with  Him,  and  they 
 were  Moses  and  Elias  appearing  in  majesty,  and  they 
 spoke  of  His  decease  which  He  should  accomplish  in 
 Jerusalem ".  They  did  this  probably  to  confirm  what 
 Christ  had  said  just  before  of  His  coming  death,  and  that 
 the  Apostles  might  no  longer  be  offended.  Again,  it  may 
 have  been,  as  many  think,  that  the  Apostles  knew  them  by 
 inward  inspiration.  S.  Luke  says  that  Peter  and  they  who 
 were  with  him  were  heavy  with  sleep,  which  S.  Chrysostom 
 supposes  to  have  been  not  true  sleep,  but  a  stupor  closely 
 resembling  sleep  ;  for  how  could  they  sleep  in  the  midst  of 
 so  much  glory  ?  Unless,  perhaps,  in  the  meantime  they 
 began  to  sleep,  whilst  Christ  was  praying,  as  they  did  at 
 the  Passover  ;  and  by  divine  permission,  that  in  the  mean- 
 while Moses  and  Elias  might  come.  S.  Luke  appears  to 
 point  to  this  when  he  says  :  "  And  waking,  they  saw  His 
 glory,  and  the  two  men  that  stood  with  Him  ". 
 
 Verse  4.  A  iisiuering,  Let  us  make  here  three  tabernacles. 
 
 "  Answering  "  is  a  Hebraism  for  "  speaking  ".  S.  Peter 
 said  nothing  of  himself  or  the  other  Apostles,  he  only 
 spoke  of  Christ,  Moses,  and  Elias.     It  has  been  doubted 
 
68  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xvii.  5. 
 
 why  he  wished  to  make  tabernacles  there,  and  to  remain 
 in  the  place.  S.  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  and  Euthymius 
 say  that  it  was  for  fear  of  the  Jews,  lest  Christ,  as  He  had 
 said  before,  should  fall  into  their  hands,  whilst  they  would 
 be  safe  on  the  top  of  the  mountain,  and,  if  needs  were,  be 
 defended  by  Moses  and  Elias,  the  former  of  whom  destroyed 
 the  Egyptians  and  Amalekites,  and  the  latter  two  or  three 
 centurions,  with  their  soldiers,  by  calling  down  fire  from 
 heaven.  But  this  idea  seems  hardly  worthy  of  S.  Peter. 
 The  true  reason  seems  to  have  been  that  which  S.  Peter 
 himself  gave  :  "  It  is  good  for  us  to  be  here ".  Some 
 explain  the  word  "  good,"  as  used  here,  as  meaning  not 
 useful  and  safe,  but  pleasant.  The  glorious  company  of 
 Christ,  Moses,  and  Elias  pleased  S.  Peter,  and  he  supposed 
 that  he  himself  and  the  other  two  would  enjoy  it,  if  they 
 remained  on  the  mountain  always.  There  seems  another 
 reason.  S.  Luke  (ix.  33)  says  that  S.  Peter  said  this  when 
 he  saw  Moses  and  Elias  departing,  and  he  was  grieved, 
 and  wished  to  remain  there  always. 
 
 Verse  5.  BeJiold  a  hrigJit  cloud. 
 
 The  majesty  of  God  is  frequently  revealed  from  clouds 
 {Exod.  xvi.  10;  xix.  9,  et  passim  ;  and  David,  Ps.  cvii.  5). 
 To  vindicate  His  majesty,  Christ  will  come  on  the  clouds 
 to  judgment  isup.^  xxiv.  30;  xxvi.  64). 
 
 It  is  easy  to  see  why  this  should  be  so.  A  cloud  is  of 
 heaven.  The  divine  majesty  was  therefore  declared  by  a 
 cloud,  that  so  God  who  spoke,  and  who  is  the  ruler  of  the 
 heavens,  might  be  shown  to  be  true,  and  not  false  nor 
 earthly.  This  is  the  reason  why  the  cloud  here  descended, 
 that  the  voice  which  said  from  heaven,  "  This  is  My 
 beloved  Son,"  might  be  believed  to  have  been  no  other 
 than  the  voice  of  God,  as  Euthymius  says.  It  might  have 
 been,  as  S.  Ambrose  suggests,  a  cloud  interposed  between 
 the  Apostles  and  heaven,  to  enable   them  to  endure  the 
 
Ch.  XVII.  5.]  THE  TRANSFIGURATION.  69 
 
 majesty  of  God  speaking  to  them,  as  was  the  case  with 
 Moses  when  God  spoke  to  him  through  a  cloud.  S. 
 Chrysostom  and  Theophylact  have  observed  that  this 
 cloud  was  bright,  and  not  like  that  in  the  Old  Testament, 
 dark  and  black,  because  God  came  down  now,  not  to 
 terrify,  but  to  teach.  It  may  more  probably  have  been 
 because  the  brightness  might  agree  with  the  subject  in 
 hand,  the  glory  and  transfiguration  of  Christ. 
 
 And  h,  a  voice  out  of  the  cloud,  saying. 
 
 S.  Chrysostom  rightly  observes  that  this  cloud  was 
 sent  after  Moses  and  Elias  had  departed,  that  without 
 doubt  it  might  be  referred  to  no  other  than  Christ. 
 
 This  is  My  beloved  Son. 
 
 SS.  Ambrose  and  Jerome  think  that  there  should  be  an 
 emphasis  on  the  word  "This,"  as  if  the  meaning  were,  "Not 
 Moses,  and  not  Elias,  but  this  is  My  beloved  Son".  There 
 seems  indeed  to  be  an  emphasis  on  the  word,  but  a  diffe- 
 rent one.  For  the. Apostles  did  not  doubt  that  not  Moses, 
 nor  Elias,  but  Christ,  was  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  when 
 a  little  before,  when  they  had  not  yet  beheld  the  glory  of 
 Christ,  Peter  had  confessed  it.  There  was  no  need,  there- 
 fore, that  Christ  should  be  distinguished  from  Moses  and 
 Elias  by  a  voice  from  heaven. 
 
 The  emphasis,  then,  is  as  follows.  This — that  is.  He 
 whom  you  have  seen  like  the  sun  and  full  of  glory — is  My 
 Son.  For  this  voice  was  not  sent  to  teach  the  disciples 
 that  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God,  but  to  show  them  in  what 
 likeness  He  would  come  again,  and  to  confirm  what  Christ 
 had  said  {S.  Matt.  xvi.  27)  :  "  The  Son  of  man  shall  come 
 in  the  glory  of  His  Father,  with  His  angels  "  ;  and  to  approve 
 the  confession  of  S.  Peter  (v.  16):  "Thou  art  Christ,  the 
 Son  of  the  living  God,"  that  he  might  be  a  more  sure 
 witness  of  the  future  kingdom  of  Christ;   as  he  himself 
 
70  THE   GOSPEL   OF    S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xvii.  6, 9. 
 
 testifies  (2  Pet.  i.  18)  :  "This  voice  we  heard  brought  from 
 heaven  when  we  were  with  Him  in  the  holy  mount". 
 
 Hear  ye  Him. 
 God  appointed,  or  at  least  showed,  that  Christ  was  their 
 Lawgiver,  and  was  to  be  obeyed.  "  To  hear "  means,  in 
 Hebrew,  "  to  obey  "  {Heb.  i.  6).  TertuUian  (v.,  Marcion,  lib. 
 iv.)  explains  it  thus :  "  Hear  Him,  that  is,  not  Moses  nor  Elias, 
 as  if  in  this  place  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  were  done 
 away  ".  The  followers  of  Calvin  would  have  us  fix  these 
 words  in  our  minds  as  if  wc  should  listen  to  none  besides, 
 but  to  Christ  Himself  only.  It  were  to  be  wished  that 
 their  advice  were  followed  more  carefully,  and  that  men 
 would  listen  to  no  heretics  at  all.  We  should  never  have 
 any  such,  then,  for  our  guides,  and  they  would  have  none 
 to  listen  to  them. 
 
 Verse  6.  Fell  upon  their  face. 
 
 The  followers  of  Calvin  explain  this  wrongly.  They  say 
 that  the  Apostles  fell  on  their  faces  to  pay  worship,  for  the 
 Hebrew  words  "'237^^  75^  mean  this.  This  is  frequently 
 the  case,  but  not  always.  For  (i  Kings  xvii.  49)  Goliath 
 fell  on  his  face,  but  not  to  worship,  but  as  dying ;  and  Daniel 
 (viii.  18;  X.  9j  did  the  same,  but  not  to  worship,  but  as 
 amazed  and  terrified  by  the  vision. 
 
 In  the  present  instance  this  meaning  cannot  be  received  ; 
 for  the  Evangelist  (verse  7)  has  stated  why  they  so  fell. 
 Hence  it  is  clear  that  they  were  as  lifeless,  or  half-dead  ; 
 and  Christ  is  said  to  have  touched  them,  as  we  touch  those 
 who  arc  in  great  prostration,  to  restore  them  to  themselves. 
 They  fell  down,  then,  from  fear,  not  veneration.  But  why 
 did  they  fear?  Who  that  heard  God  speaking  would  not 
 fear?  {Ps.  xxviii.  4,  5,  6 ;  Amos  iii.  8). 
 
 Verse  9.    Tell  the  vision  to  no  man. 
 Thc}'  were  probabl)-  prohibited,  as  S.  Jerome'  and  Bede 
 
Ch.  XVII.  lo.]  THE   TRANSFIGURATION.  7 1 
 
 think,  from  speaking  of  what  had  happened,  that  they 
 might  not  inform  the  people  at  large  of  it ;  for  no  evil 
 could  have  happened  from  the  other  Apostles  knowing  of 
 it ;  and  there  would  have  been  this  good,  that  they  would 
 have  been  the  more  confirmed  in  faith,  whilst  if  the  multi- 
 tude had  been  informed  of  it,  the  unhappy  result  might 
 have  followed  which  has  been  mentioned  before  (xvi.  20). 
 For  they  who  had  heard  of  Christ's  glory,  if  they  had  sub- 
 sequently beheld  His  Crucifixion,  might  have  thought 
 themselves  deceived  as  it  were  by  a  false  report  of  His 
 glory,  and  have  fallen  away  from  faith.  So  think  S. 
 Chrysostom,  Euthymius,  S.  Jerome,  Bede,  and  Theophylact. 
 It  appears  more  in  accordance  with  the  Gospel  that  Christ 
 did  not  desire  even  the  other  Apostles  to  know  it.  {Vide 
 S.  Mark  ix.  10  ;  vS.  Luke  ix.  36.) 
 
 Till  the  Son  of  man  be  risen  from  the  dead. 
 
 Why  this  was  not  to  be  revealed  before  has  been  ex- 
 plained already.  Why  Christ  wished  it  to  be  known 
 afterwards  is  clear.  The  evil  that  might  have  happened 
 before  could  not  have  happened  subsequently,  and  the 
 Gospel  was  then  to  be  published  everywhere. 
 
 Verse  10.    Why,  then,  do  the  Scribes  say  ? 
 
 It  is  not  easy  to  see  why  the  Apostles  asked  this.  The 
 followers  of  Calvin  wickedly  assert  that  the  Apostles  asked 
 the  question  because  they  did  not  believe  that  Christ  was 
 the  Messiah  ;  S.  Jerome,  because  they  thought  that  He 
 had  come  in  glory  when  they  saw  Him  transfigured,  and 
 yet  Elias  had  gone  away.  It  would  appear  that  their 
 question  was  to  be  understood  from  the  words  of  Christ  : 
 "  Till  the  Son  of  man  be  risen  from  the  dead  ".  But  not 
 understanding  the  mystery  of  the  Resurrection,  they 
 thought  that  Christ  would  come  before  His  death  in  the 
 glory  of  which  He  had  spoken,  to   render   to   every  man 
 
72  THE   GOSPEL   OF  S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xvii.  ii. 
 
 according  to  his  works.  For  that  He  will  come  after  His 
 Resurrection  they  could  not  yet  understand  ;  because  then 
 they  thought  that  Christ's  coming  was  at  hand,  and  they 
 had  not  yet  seen  Elias  come  ;  at  least,  in  the  manner  in 
 which  it  was  said  that  He  would  come,  to  turn  the  hearts 
 of  the  fathers  to  the  children  and  the  hearts  of  the  children 
 to  the  fathers,  and  to  restore  all  things  (for  in  the  Trans- 
 figuration He  seemed  not  so  much  to  have  come  as  to  have 
 appeared),  they  ask  how  the  Scribes  say  that  before  His 
 advent  Elias  must  come  ? 
 
 That  was  not  the  private  opinion  of  the  Scribes  alone, 
 but  one  shared  in  by  the  whole  Jewish  people.  But  as  the 
 Scribes  were  the  Doctors  of  the  Law,  and  as  they  probably 
 used  to  explain  that  tradition  to  the  people,  it  was  ascribed 
 to  them.  So  among  ourselves  the  people  say  that  the 
 preachers  say  this  or  that  when  not  the  preachers  only, 
 but  all  Christians,  and  even  Scripture  itself,  says  it.  For 
 the  unlettered,  and  they  who  do  not  read  the  Scriptures, 
 generally  ascribe  all  things  to  their  teaching  and  preaching. 
 
 Verse  1 1 .  Elias  is  come. 
 
 The  present  is  here  put,  in  the  usual  manner,  for  the 
 future  or  indefinite,  with  a  word  signifying  obligation,  as 
 Elias  ought  to  come,  or  should  come  (so  iiifra,  verse  23, 
 and  S.  JoJin  xxi.  23J.  "Should  not  die;"  that  is,  would 
 not  die,  or  ought  not  to  die.  Christ  says  that  Elias  will 
 come.  The  followers  of  Calvin  say  that  what  He  said 
 about  the  future  coming  of  Elias  is  to  be  referred  to  S.John 
 the  Baptist,  as  Christ,  indeed,  seems  to  explain  in  the 
 verse  following.  But  Christ  does  not  say  that  Elias  has 
 come  already,  but  that  he  will  come ;  for  His  words  in 
 the  verse  following  are  spoken  not  of  Elias,  who  He  here 
 says  shall  come,  but  of  S.  John  the  Baptist,  who  had  come 
 in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias. 
 
 From  the  fact  that  He  speaks  of  S.  John  in  the  past 
 
Ch.  xvii.  II.]  ELIAS.  /I 
 
 tense,  and  of  Elias  in  the  future  (or  He  speaks  of  an 
 appointed  time  in  the  present  put  for  the  future),  they 
 ought  to  have  concluded  that  He  intended  to  teach  that, 
 besides  John,  who  had  already  come  in  the  spirit  of  Elias, 
 the  very  true  Elias  himself  would  come  hereafter :  as  also 
 from  the  words,  "he  will  restore  all  things,"  which  John  did 
 not  do.  Their  gloss  on  John's  having  restored  all  things, 
 because  he  preached  Christ,  who  restored  all  things,  is 
 nothing  to  the  purpose.  For  in  this  case  all  who  have 
 preached  Christ  have  restored  all  things.  But  it  is  clear 
 that  Christ  opposed  Elias  to  all  others,  as  if  he  alone,  after 
 Himself,  should  restore  all  things.  The  words  appear  to 
 be  a  kind  of  paraphrase  of  Malachi  iv.  6  ;  or  it  may  be  that 
 Elias  is  said  to  be  about  to  restore  all  things,  partly  because 
 he  did  restore  m2.x\y  per  se;  partly,  and  much  more,  because 
 he  was  to  be  the  sign  of  the  restitution  of  all  things,  that 
 is,  of  the  consummation  of  the  world,  which  could  not  be 
 in  the  case  of  John.  The  testimony  of  Malachi,  too,  is 
 clear  (iv.  5).  It  is  evident  that  the  Prophet  is  speaking  of 
 the  great  and  terrible  day  of  judgment,  before  which  the 
 promised  Elias  was  to  come.  This,  therefore,  is  to  be  under- 
 stood not  of  John,  but  of  the  true  Elias.  Again,  the  author 
 o{  Ecclesiasticus  (xlviii.  10),  speaking  of  Elias,  and  alluding 
 to  the  testimony  of  Malachi,  says :  "  Who  are  registered  in 
 the  judgments  of  time  to  appease  the  wrath  of  the  Lord,  to 
 reconcile  the  heart  of  the  father  to  the  son,  and  to  restore 
 the  tribes  of  Jacob".  But  they  say  that  this  is  not  a 
 canonical  book.  Granting  that  it  be  so,  yet  a  very  ancient 
 tradition  is  certainly  contained  in  it,  which  Christ  confirmed 
 in  the  same  words,  that  the  true  Elias  would  restore  all  things. 
 Again,  S.  John  in  the  Apocalypse  (xi.  3-6)  writes  so  clearly 
 that  Moses  and  Elias  would  come,  that  it  cannot  be  denied 
 with  any  sense  or  modesty.  "  And  I  will  give  unto  my  two 
 witnesses,  and  they  shall  prophesy  a  thousand  two  hundred 
 and  sixty  days,  clothed  in  sackcloth.     These  are  the  two 
 
 / 
 
74  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.        [Cii.  xvii.  ii. 
 
 olive  trees,  and  the  two  candlesticks  that  stand  before  the 
 Lord  of  the  earth.  And  if  any  man  will  hurt  them,  fire 
 shall  come  out  of  their  mouths,  and  shall  devour  their 
 enemies  ;  and  if  any  man  will  hurt  them,  in  this  manner 
 must  he  be  slain.  These  have  power  to  shut  heaven,  that 
 it  rain  not  in  the  days  of  their  prophecy  ;  and  they  have 
 power  over  waters  to  turn  them  into  blood,  and  to  strike 
 the  earth  with  all  plagues  as  often  as  they  will." 
 
 Who  these  were  he  immediately  describes.  "  These  have 
 power  to  shut  heaven."  Who  does  not  see  that  this  is 
 Elias  ?  And,  "  they  have  power  over  waters".  Who  does 
 not  see  that  Moses  is  pointed  out  as  by  the  finger  ?  This 
 was  the  reason  why  Moses  and  Elias,  rather  than  any  other 
 of  the  Prophets,  should  be  present  at  the  Transfiguration. 
 I.  Christ  pleased  to  show  His  future  coming  visibly  to 
 these  three  Apostles.  2.  Because,  in  His  second  advent, 
 Moses  and  Elias  were  to  be  sent  before  to  prepare  His 
 way,  as  John  had  done  at  His  first  coming.  Lastly, 
 this  was  the  opinion  of  all  the  Ancients  ;  of  Elias  it  was 
 most  constant,  and  without  any  dissentient  voice  ;  of 
 Moses  it  was  less  constant,  for  some  thought  that  he,  and 
 others  Enoch,  would  be  the  witness  of  the  second  advent 
 of  the  Lord. 
 
 The  followers  of  Calvin  object  that  in  the  following 
 (twelfth)  verse  Christ  says  :  "  I  say  unto  you  that  Elias  is 
 already  come";  and  (verse  13):  "Then  the  disciples 
 understood  that  He  spoke  to  them  of  John  the  Baptist,  and 
 that  John  came  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias,  as  the 
 angel  testified  "  (S.  Luke  i.  17).  But  we  maintain  that 
 Christ  did  not,  therefore,  deny,  but  rather,  in  plain  terms, 
 confirmed  the  fact  that  Elias  also  would  come  before  His 
 second  advent. 
 
 But  when  Christ  said,  "  IClias  has  come  already,"  He 
 wished  onl)-  to  signify  that  which  pertains  to  the  result, 
 that  is,  to  the  sign  of  the  first  advent,  and  to  the  preaching 
 
Ch.  XVII.  14.]      THE   LUNATIC   CHILD    HEALED.  75 
 
 of  repentance  (both  of  which  EHas  was  to  do  in  the  second 
 coming),  to  show  that  he  had  come  ah^eady,  because  in  the 
 first  coming  John  had  done  both.  For  Malachi  said  of  the 
 second  coming  :  "  Behold  I  will  send  you  Elias  "  (iv.  5),  as 
 of  the  first  coming  he  had  said  of  S.  John  the  Baptist : 
 "  Behold  I  send  my  angel,  and  he  shall  prepare  the  way 
 before  my  face  "  (iii.  i). 
 
 Christ,  therefore,  desired  to  say  that  this  was  not  the 
 cause  of  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews,  but  their  perverseness 
 and  obstinacy.  For  the  Elias  who  had  been  promised 
 before  His  first  coming,  that  is,  John,  had  come  as  Christ 
 had  declared  {supra,  xi.  14). 
 
 Verse  14.  For  he  is  a  lunatic. 
 
 S.  Mark  (ix.  17)  calls  him  dumb,  and  (verse  25)  deaf. 
 S.  Luke  (ix.  39)  says  that  he  was  possessed.  Hence  it 
 follows  that  he  was  not,  as  many  think,  the  subject  of 
 disease  by  nature,  but  that  he  was  afflicted  by  a  devil. 
 Why,  then,  is  he  termed  a  lunatic?  Some  think  that 
 he  was,  both  by  nature  and  disease,  a  lunatic,  and  vexed 
 by  a  devil.  But  the  opinion  of  S.  Chrysostom  {Honi. 
 Iviii.)  is  more  probable  :  that  he  was  not  a  lunatic  either 
 by  nature  or  disease,  but  by  the  craft  and  persecution  of  a 
 devil.  For  S.  Mark  calls  him  deaf  and  dumb  ;  S.  Luke 
 says  that  he  was  a  demoniac  ;  and  S.  Matthew  that  he  was 
 a  lunatic.  Different  authorities  have  given  many  different 
 reasons  why  the  devil  makes  some  men  lunatics.  Origen 
 {Tract,  iv.  on  S.  Matt.),  S.  Chrysostom  {Horn.  Iviii.),  S. 
 Jerome  {Comment,  on  S.  Matt.  iv.  24),  say  that  it  is  to  dis- 
 parage the  moon  as  a  creature  of  God,  as  if  it  were  the 
 cause  of  diseases  ;  Bede  and  Euthymius,  to  bring  ill-feel- 
 ing and  hatred  on  the  Creator  Himself,  that  men  might 
 blaspheme  Him.  It  is  not  improbable  that  the  devil  some- 
 times does  this  for  the  love  of  dissimulation  and  conceal- 
 ment.    S.    Luke   seems   to   imply   that   the  devil   did   not 
 
76  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch,  xvii.  15. 
 
 dwell  in  the  young  man  always,  but  sometimes  went  out 
 and  sometimes  came  back.  Christ  also  seemed  to  signify 
 the  same  thing  when  He  said  to  the  devil :  "  Deaf  and 
 dumb  spirit,  I  command  thee  go  out  of  him,  and  enter  not 
 any  more  into  him  "  (S.  Mark  ix.  24). 
 
 Verse  15.  And  I  brought  him  to  Thy  disciples,  and 
 they  could  not  cure  him. 
 
 It  is  very  likely  that  while  Christ  was  with  the  three 
 disciples  on  the  mount,  the  man  brought  his  son  to  the 
 others,  as  S.  Hilary  observes.  He  says,  somewhat  too 
 hardly,  that  as  the  people  formerly  while  Moses  was  in  the 
 mount,  so  the  Apostles  now  while  Christ  was  in  the  mount, 
 lost  their  faith.  For  if  they  had  less  faith  than  they  ought 
 to  have  had,  as  Christ  (verse  20)  seems  to  signify,  yet  they 
 assuredly  did  not  lose  it.  S.  Chrysostom  appears  to  think 
 something  of  the  same  kind  ;  for  he  says  that  the  Apostles 
 could  not  cast  out  the  devil  "  because  the  (three)  columns 
 of  the  Apostles  were  not  present  ".  He  does  not  say,  how- 
 ever, that  they  lost  their  faith.  S.  Mark  (ix.  14)  gives  a 
 fuller  and  more  copious  account  of  the  event.  When  Christ 
 had  comedown  from  the  mountain,  He  found  the  disciples  and 
 Scribes  disputing,  with  a  great  multitude  around  them,  and 
 He  asked  them  what  they  were  disputing  about.  One  of 
 the  multitude  answered  :  "  My  son  is  a  lunatic  and  suf- 
 fcrcth  much,  for  he  falleth  often  into  the  fire  and  often 
 into  the  water,  and  I  brought  him  to  Thy  disciples  ;  and 
 they  could  not  cure  him"  (verses  17,  18). 
 
 From  this  account  it  is  easy  to  see  that  the  Scribes  had 
 been  disputing  with  the  disciples  of  Christ,  and  upbraiding 
 them  because  they  could  not  cast  out  the  devil,  and  perhaps 
 calling  the  power  which  the  Apostles  had  affirmed  thcm- 
 .selves  to  have  received  from  Christ  for  casting  out  devils 
 and  performing  other  miracles  a  sham  and  a  delusion.  S. 
 Chrysostom,  S.  Jerome,  Thcophylact,  and   Bedc  think  that 
 
Ch.  XVII.  17.]       THE   LUNATIC   CHILD    HEALED.  77 
 
 the  man  silently  accused  the  disciples  to  Christ.  This  can 
 easily  be  believed  of  a  man  who  was  a  Jew,  but  we  may 
 judge  him  more  kindly  :  that  it  was  not  as  if  he  would 
 accuse  the  disciples,  but  he  might  exaggerate  the  malice  of 
 the  devil  and  the  gravity  of  the  case,  and  thus  have  said 
 that  they  could  not  cast  him  out. 
 
 Verse  ly.  O  unbelieving  generation. 
 
 Almost  all  ancient  writers  (S.  Hilary,  S.  Chrysostom 
 S.  Jerome,  Bede,  Theophylact,  and  S.  Thomas  in  his  Co!n- 
 Dicntaries)  think  that  Christ  said  this,  not  of  the  disciples, 
 but  of  the  father  of  the  youth,  and  of  the  whole  Jevvish 
 nation.  This  is  very  probable,  for  S.  Mark  says  :  "  He 
 (that  is,  Christ)  answered  the  father  of  the  youth  :  O 
 unbelieving  generation,"  &c.  Christ,  therefore,  called  the 
 father  of  the  youth  and  the  other  Jews  a  generation.  Not 
 the  weakest  argument  for  this  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the 
 father  said  to  Christ :  "  If  Thou  canst  do  anything,  help  us, 
 having  compassion  on  us  "  (verse  21),  as  if  he  doubted  the 
 power  of  Christ,  and  that  Christ  answered  :  "  If  thou  canst 
 believe,  all  things  are  possible  to  him  that  believeth,"  as  S. 
 Chrysostom  and  Theophylact  observe.  Some  think  that 
 the  words  in  question  were  addressed  to  the  disciples  alone, 
 as  Origen  {Tract,  iv.  07i  S.  Matt\  Others,  again,  that  they 
 were  spoken  both  to  the  disciples  and  to  the  people.  S- 
 Jerome,  Bede,  N.  de  Lyra,  S.  Thomas,  warn  us  that  these 
 words  of  Christ  are  not  words  of  anger,  but  of  reprehension 
 merely. 
 
 Ho%v  long  shall  I  be  with  you. 
 
 S.  Chrysostom,  Euthymius,  and  Theophylact  think,  but 
 erroneously,  as  may  be  supposed,  that  Christ  intended  by 
 these  words  to  show  that  He  was  possessed  by  the  desire 
 of  dying,  and  of  being  thus  delivered  from  the  wickedness 
 of  the  Jews.  It  would  rather  appear  as  if  the  words  were 
 those  of  one  who  desired  the  salvation  of  the  Jews,  and  of 
 
78  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.   [Ch.  svii.  17,  19. 
 
 a  Master  who  complained  of  the  lives  and  the  backwardness 
 of  His  disciples  :  as  He  said  to  the  Apostles  {S.  JoJni  xiv.  9). 
 
 Verse  17.  And  Jesus  rebuked  him. 
 
 The  Greek  is  i7reTifx,7]crep,  which  means  that  Christ 
 commanded  the  unclean  spirit,  for  the  word  means  to 
 rebuke,  to  command,  and  to  threaten  ;  as  the  Greek  author, 
 Euthymius,  with  most  careful  attention  to  the  exact 
 meaning  of  the  word,  has  observed,  both  on  this  passage 
 and  on  chap.  xvi.  22.  The  idea  of  commanding  agrees 
 better  with  the  context  than  that  of  rebuking,  as  S.  Mark 
 explains,  "  I  command  thee"  (ix.  24). 
 
 Verse  19.  Because  of  your  iinbelief. 
 
 Christ  first  blamed  the  unbelief  of  the  father  of  the  youth 
 and  all  the  Jews  publicly.  He  now  blames  that  of  the 
 Apostles,  but  in  private,  that  He  may  have  consideration 
 for  their  authority. 
 
 The  unbelief  with  which  He  upbraids  them  does  not 
 appear  to  have  been  any  actual  refusal  to  believe,  nor  can 
 we  suppose  that  their  faith  was  the  least  possible  (for  it 
 must  be  supposed  that  they  had  great  faith),  but  their 
 faith  appears  to  have  been  less  than  that  which  they  ought 
 to  have  had  after  having  lived  with  Christ  so  long,  and 
 seen  so  many  and  great  miracles.  It  is  for  this  that  Christ 
 reprehends  them.  We  may  also  believe,  as  S.  Chrysostom, 
 Jerome,  Bede,  Strabus,  Theophylact,  and  S.  Thomas  say, 
 that  it  was  not  only  through  their  own  want  of  faith,  but 
 also  through  that  of  the  father  of  the  youth,  that  they  were 
 unable  to  cast  out  the  devil.  This  may  be  concluded 
 from  .S".  Mark  ix.  22,  where  Christ  said  to  the  father,  "  If 
 thou  canst  believe,  all  things  are  possible  to  him  that 
 believeth,"  as  if  He  meant  that  it  was,  in  a  measure,  the 
 result  of  his  unbelief  that  the  Apostles  were  unable  to  cast 
 out  the  devil. 
 
Ch.xvii.  ig.]       THE   LUNATIC   CHILD   HEALED.  79 
 
 If  you  have  faith. 
 
 S.  Chrysostom  and  Euthymius  understand  the  faith  of 
 miracles,  not  that  by  which  we  are  Christians ;  as  also  do 
 the  heretics  of  our  times.  These  fathers,  however,  are  not 
 to  be  classed  with  the  former,  because  they  speak  with  as 
 good,  as  the  others  bad,  intention.  S.  Chrysostom  and 
 Theophylact  desired  to  lessen  the  fault  of  the  disciples, 
 that  they  might  not  appear  not  to  have  that  faith  by  which 
 we  are  Christians.     It  may  be  said  further — 
 
 1.  It  is  not  doubtful  that  Christ,  when  He  said  this,  did 
 blame  the  Apostles,  and  accuse  them  of  want  of  faith  (5. 
 Mark  xvi.  14).  He  upbraided  their  unbelief  But  no  man 
 can  be  blamed  for  not  having  the  faith  of  miracles.  For 
 this  is  the  gift  of  God,  and  in  no  degree  depends  upon  the 
 will  of  man,  but  solely  upon  that  of  God.  For  it  is  given, 
 not  to  those  who  will  it,  like  the  faith  by  which  we  are 
 Christians,  but  to  those  to  whom  God  pleases  to  give  it. 
 It  is  sometimes  given  to  those  also  who  have  not  Christian 
 faith,  like  prophecy,  and  gift  of  other  miracles,  as  we  have 
 said  before  on  chap.  vii.  22.  The  Apostles,  therefore,  are 
 no  more  to  blame  for  not  having  the  faith  of  miracles, 
 granting  that  there  is  .is  a  distinct  fides  iiiiraculormn,  than 
 for  not  having  the  gift  of  prophecy. 
 
 2.  Christ  blames  the  unbelief  of  the  father  of  the  youth 
 in  the  same  degree  as  that  in  which  He  blamed  the 
 Apostles.  The  unbelief  of  the  father  was  opposed,  not  to 
 the  faith  of  miracles,  but  to  faith  in  Christ,  because  he 
 doubted  of  the  divinity  and  power  of  Christ.  The  blame 
 of  the  Apostles,  therefore,  was  not  for  weakness  of  the 
 faith  of  miracles,  but  of  faith  in  Christ. 
 
 3.  Christ  spoke  not  only  in  blame,  but  also  in  exhorta- 
 tion, as  He  immediately  added  :  "  If  you  had  faith  as  a 
 grain  of  mustard  seed,"  &c.  But  no  one  exhorts  another 
 to  have  the  gift  of  miracles,  or  prophecy,  or  tongues,  be- 
 cause it  is  not  in  our  own  power  to  obtain  these. 
 
8o  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xvii.  19. 
 
 4.  Lastly,  it  is  clear  that  Christ  speaks  of  the  same  faith 
 as  S.  Paul  (i  Cor.  xiii.  2),  who  alludes  to  this  passage. 
 It  is  clear,  from  verse  13  of  that  chapter,  that  S.  Paul 
 speaks,  not  of  the  faith  of  miracles,  but  of  faith  in  Christ, 
 which  is  one  of  the  three  theological  virtues. 
 
 As  a  grain  of  mustard  seed. 
 
 All  authors  almost,  ancient  and  modern  alike,  as  Origen 
 {Tract,  iv.  on  S.  Matt.),  S.  Jerome,  Bede,  Strabus,  with 
 S.  Augustin,  agree  on  this  comparison  that  faith  is  not 
 compared  here  with  the  grain  of  mustard  seed  in  size,  but 
 in  efficacy  and  sharpness,  as  if  Christ  had  said :  "  If  you 
 have  faith  as  ardent,  vehement,  and  efficacious  as  a  grain 
 of  mustard  seed,  you  should  say  to  this  mountain.  Remove 
 from  hence,  hither,  and  it  shall  remove ".  This  view, 
 although  approved  by  many  of  the  highest  authority, 
 has  its  difficulties. 
 
 1.  We  do  not  compare  hot  and  pungent,  but  small 
 things,  to  mustard  seed. 
 
 2.  If  this  were  the  meaning,  it  would  not  have  been 
 necessary  to  compare  faith  to  the  grain  of  mustard  seed^ 
 but  to  the  seed  itself,  as  the  nature  and  effect,  and  not  the 
 smallness  of  the  size  alone,  was  the  point  of  comparison. 
 There  is  also  an  evident  antithesis  between  a  grain  of 
 mustard  seed  and  a  mountain.  The  one  is  the  smallest, 
 the  other  is  the  largest,  of  all  objects.  Christ  meant  that 
 the  least  faith,  like  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  could  move 
 even  the  largest  mountain.  It  is  a  question  of  the  great- 
 ness and  littleness,  not  of  the  efficacy,  of  faith. 
 
 A  strong  argument  for  this  opinion  may  be  derived 
 from  the  mind  and  majesty  of  Christ.  If  He  had  intended 
 to  say  :  "  If  you  had  faith  as  ardent  as  a  grain  of  mustard 
 seed,  you  would  say  to  this  mountain,"  &c.  It  would  have 
 been  true,  but  the  meaning  would  have  been  poor  and  low, 
 and  not  worthy  of  the  greatness  of  His  mind.     For  what 
 
Ch.  XVII.  19.]  FAITH.  81 
 
 grace  or  acuteness  is  there  in  saying  :  "If  you  have  burning 
 faith  you  shall  remove  mountains  ".  For  we  know  that 
 fire  moves  great  weights.  But  that  the  least  faith,  that  is, 
 faith  like  the  grain  of  mustard  seed,  should  be  able  to 
 move  a  vast  mountain,  shows  grace  from  the  antithesis,  and 
 acuteness  from  the  unexpected  declaration.  This  opinion 
 of  some  of  the  Ancients,  who,  as  S.  Jerome  says,  thought 
 thus,  confirms  the  present  view  of  the  case.  Hence  the 
 opinions  of  Origen  and  S.  Jerome,  Bede  and  Strabus,  that 
 it  is  not  the  least,  but  rather  the  greatest,  faith  that  is  here 
 compared  to  the  grain  of  mustard  seed,  and  which  S.  Paul 
 calls  "all  faith,"  that  is,  whole,  entire,  and  perfect  faith, 
 appears  contrary  to  the  meaning  of  the  passage.  Against 
 this,  however,  it  may  be  said  that  S.  Paul  certainly  alludes 
 to  this  passage  in  i  Cor.  xiii.  2,  and  that  he  speaks  not  of 
 the  least,  but  of  the  greatest,  faith.  The  same  faith,  I  reply, 
 is  termed  by  Christ  the  least,  and  by  S.  Paul  the  greatest, 
 in  different  senses  ;  the  least,  by  Christ,  with  regard  to  that 
 which  the  Apostles,  while  with  Christ,  ought  to  have  had. 
 Christ  does  not  mean  that  the  Apostles  had  not  even  the 
 least  faith,  for  they  assuredly  had  great  faith  when  they 
 confessed  Him  to  be  the  Son  of  God  ;  but,  as  one  blaming 
 them.  He  spoke  in  hyperbole  and  exaggeratedly,  as  if  He 
 had  said  :  If  you  had  the  least  faith,  that  is,  as  much  as  you 
 ought  to  have,  and  not  the  greater,  you  would  say  to  this 
 mountain,  "  Remove  from  hence,"  and  it  shall  remove.  As 
 we  say  to  a  person  of  good  faculties,  but  who  does  not  well 
 understand  what  we  say  :  "  If  you  had  the  least  sense  you 
 would  understand ".  We  do  not  mean  that  he  is  wholly 
 devoid  of  all  sense,  but  that  he  has  too  little  to  comprehend 
 this  particular  subject. 
 
 In  this  sense  Christ  speaks  of  the  least  faith.  But  S. 
 Paul,  in  comparison  with  that  which  either  he  himself  or 
 others  commonly  possessed,  calls  it  the  greatest — for  no 
 one  had  yet  arrived  at  the  point  of  removing  mountains. 
 
 2—6 
 
82  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xvii.  19. 
 
 Hence,  we  may  understand  that  it  is  not  necessary  that 
 everyone  who  has  the  least  faith,  nor  even  that  he  who  has 
 the  greatest,  should  remove  mountains. 
 
 For  we  may  believe  that  the  Apostles  had,  if  not  then, 
 at  least  afterwards,  as  great  faith  as  Christ  desired  in  them, 
 so  as  to  be  able  to  move  mountains,  but  we  do  not  find 
 that  they  ever  did  move  them.  What  S.  Chrysostom, 
 Euthymius,  and  Theophylact,  however,  declare  to  be  pro- 
 bable, is  not  to  be  denied,  that  they  perhaps  sometimes  did 
 so,  but  it  is  not  anywhere  related  in  Holy  Scripture  ;  for, 
 as  S.  John  says,  all  the  miracles  of  Christ  are  not  recorded. 
 The  same  authors  say,  that  if  not  Apostles,  yet  Apostolic 
 men  did  this  :  alluding  probably  to  the  well-known  history 
 of  S.  Greg.  Neocass.,  who,  according  to  Eusebius,  when  a 
 church  was  being  built,  removed  a  mountain  which  stood 
 in  the  way  to  another  place  {Hist.,  vii.  13).  The  same 
 authors  tell  us  why  the  Apostles  did  not  do  the  same.  It 
 was  not  necessary.  For  the  Apostles,  like  Christ  Himself, 
 did  not  do  all  that  they  could  have  done,  but  only  such 
 things  as  were  either  desirable  or  necessary.  The  law  of 
 necessity  is  the  glory  of  God  ;  when  this  requires  them, 
 miracles  are  to  be  performed  ;  when  it  does  not,  they  are 
 not  to  be  looked  for.  S.  Jerome,  Bede  (in  his  Commentary), 
 and  S.  Augustin  {De  Cons.,  i.  9)  explain  it  allegorically  : 
 understanding  human  pride,  which  the  Apostles  removed 
 and  overcame,  by  the  mountain. 
 
 B2ct  this  kind. 
 
 S.  Athanasius  {De  Virginit),  S.  Chrysostom,  Euthymius, 
 S.  Thomas  {Comment,  iti  loc),  think  that  not  merely  some 
 one  particular  kind  of  evil  spirit  is  here  meant,  but  every 
 kind,  because  they  are  all  of  the  same  nature,  so  that  they 
 cannot  be  cast  out  except  by  prayer  and  fasting.  But  the 
 Apostles  cast  out  many,  not  by  these  means,  but  by  calling 
 over  them  the  name  of  Christ  {S.  Luke  x.   17).      Christ, 
 
Ch.xvii.  21.]      OF   CASTING   OUT   EVIL   SPIRITS.  83 
 
 therefore,  speaks  of  some  particular  kind  of  evil  spirit,  in 
 the  casting  out  of  which  there  was  more  difficulty  than  in 
 others,  so  that  there  was  need  of  even  prayer  and  fasting. 
 What  kind  of  evil  spirit  this  was  is  wholly  uncertain.  S. 
 Jerome  (on  this  passage)  and  S.  Leo  (^Serm.  ii.  de  Jejun. 
 Mens.  Sept?)  suppose  it  to  have  been  some  especially 
 wicked  kind  of  spirit.  Others,  that  it  was  a  spirit  which 
 had  dwelt  in  the  man  a  very  long  time,  as  if,  like  the  cure 
 of  lasting  and  inveterate  diseases,  it  were  more  difficult  to 
 drive  out  a  spirit  which  had  long  had  possession  of  a  man 
 than  one  which  had  entered  him  lately.  This  these 
 authorities  think  the  reason  of  Christ's  having  asked  how 
 long  it  was  since  it  had  happened  {S.  Mark  ix.  20). 
 
 The  most  obstinate  and  the  fiercest  kind  of  evil  spirit  may 
 be  supposed  to  be  here  intended  ;  for  Christ  speaks  of  it 
 as  of  some  enemy  who  had  possession,  as  it  were,  of  the 
 citadel,  and  who  would  be  driven  out  with  the  greater 
 difficulty  as  he  was  the  more  ferocious  and  obstinate,  as  in 
 the  parable  {S.  Luke  xi.  21).  This  seems  a  conclusion 
 from  the  result  :  for  the  evil  spirit  had  made  the  youth 
 lunatic,  and  deaf,  and  dumb,  like  some  kinds  of  men  who 
 are  sullen  and  silent,  and  give  no  reply  to  questions,  and 
 are  deaf  to  prayers. 
 
 But  by  prayer  and  fasting. 
 It  has  been  doubted  whether  he  who  drives  out  the  devil 
 should  fast,  or  he  from  whom  it  is  driven  out.  Some  think 
 that  Christ  intended  the  latter  ;  others,  as  S.  Chrysostom, 
 Euthymius,  and  Theophylact,  say  that  both  should  do  so. 
 Doubtless  the  prayers  and  fasts  both  avail,  but  Christ 
 appears  to  speak  here  only  of  the  exorcisor  ;  for  He  was 
 teaching  the  Apostles  how  to  cast  out  this  kind  of  devil. 
 
 Verse  21,  And  zvhen  they  abode  together  in  Galilee. 
 "" Avacn pecpoixevwv.       The  meaning  of  this  is  ambiguous. 
 The  word  signifies  either  "  living  with  "  or  "  returning";  our 
 
84  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Cn.  xvii.  23. 
 
 version  rightly  renders  it  "  abode  together,"  because 
 Christ  had  now  been  Hving  some  time  in  Galilee,  and  the 
 Evangelist  had  not  mentioned  his  departure  from  it.  He 
 had  come  out  of  Phoenicia  some  time  ago,  as  said  by  S. 
 Matthew  (xv.  21),  and  the  constant  opinion  is  that  He  was 
 transfigured  in  Galilee  before  he  went  thence  ;  for  they 
 afterwards  came  out  to  go  into  Jud^a,  and  that  Christ 
 might  raise  Lazarus. 
 
 Verse  23.  Tlicy  that  received  the  didracJinia  came  to  Peter. 
 
 S.  Chrysostom,  S.  Jerome,  Bede,  Theophylact,  and 
 Euthymius  think  that,  from  the  greatness  of  Christ's 
 miracles,  they  did  not  venture  for  reverence  to  come  to 
 Him.  This  seems  more  likely  than  that,  as  some 
 think,  they  came  to  Peter  from  malice,  rather  than  to 
 Christ,  that  they  might  elicit  from  him  more  easily  whether 
 Christ  paid  tribute  to  Caesar  or  not,  and,  if  He  refused,  that 
 they  might  take  occasion  to  accuse  Him.  Why  they  came 
 to  Peter  rather  than  to  any  other  of  the  disciples  shall  be 
 explained  on  verse  27.  The  didrachma  was  a  silver  coin 
 about  equal  to  two  Spanish  reals,  or  equal  to  half  a  side, 
 or  fifteenpence  English  money. 
 
 There  is  a  doubt  as  to  what  this  tribute  was.  S.  Hilar}- 
 thinks  that  it  was  the  tax  which  the  Jews  were  ordered  to 
 pay  yearly  to  the  temple  {Exod.  xxx.  13);  S.  Chrysostom, 
 Euthymius,  and  Theophylact  think  that  it  was  the  tribute 
 which  the  Jews  were  commanded  to  give  to  the  Lord 
 {Numb.  iii.  46,  47)  for  those  first-born  that  exceeded  the 
 number  of  the  Levitcs.  This  does  not  seem  probable,  for 
 that  tribute  was  only  paid  by  two  hundred  and  seventy- 
 three  persons,  this  being  the  number  of  the  other  tribes  in 
 excess  of  that  of  Levi. 
 
 The  opinion  of  S.  Jerome  and  Bede  is  more  probable : 
 that  this  was  a  tax  which  Augustus  imposed  upon  the 
 Jews,  when  he  commanded  the  whole  world  to  be  enrolled 
 
Ch.  XVII.  24.]  THE   TRIBUTE   MONEY.  85 
 
 (S.  L2ike  \\.  i).  Their  conjecture  is  reasonable,  that 
 Vespasian,  when  Jerusalem  was  taken  by  siege,  imposed 
 upon  the  Jews  the  same  amount  of  tribute  as  they  had 
 before  paid  to  the  temple,  as  Josephus  {De  Bell.  Jud.,  vii. 
 26)  asserts.  It  is  probable  that  Vespasian  re-imposed 
 the  same  tribute  as  Augustus  first  laid  upon  them,  in 
 whatever  part  of  the  world  they  were,  and  from  which  they 
 hoped  to  have  freed  themselves  by  their  revolt.  S.  Hilary, 
 perhaps,  meant  that  Christ  paid  the  tribute  which  the 
 Jews  paid  to  the  temple,  not  as  to  Caesar,  but  as  to  His 
 Father. 
 
 Verse  24.    Yes. 
 
 S.  Peter  replied  affirmatively.  We  may  suppose  that  he 
 either  did  so  from  fear,  lest,  if  he  refused  or  should  appear 
 to  doubt,  he  might  offend  the  publicans,  as  if  Christ  were 
 among  the  number  of  those  who  refused  to  give  tribute  to 
 Caesar,  as  He  was  afterwards  accused  of  being :  or  that  he 
 had  no  doubt  about  Christ's  intention  :  or  that  he  knew  that 
 He  had  paid  it  in  former  years,  which  is  much  more 
 likely.  For  when  the  publicans  said,  "  Doth  not  your 
 Master  pay  the  didrachma?"  the  meaning  was,  "Is  He 
 not  in  the  habit  of  doing  so  ?  "  The  word  signifies,  not  an 
 act,  but  a  custom.  There  are  many  examples  of  this  in 
 Scripture,  as  in  .S.  John  iv.  9,  which  means  that  the  Jews 
 were  not  in  the  habit  of  communicating  with  the  Samari- 
 tans. S.  Peter,  in  confirmation  of  their  opinion,  answered, 
 "  Yes  ".  The  Evangelists  mention  this  particular  payment, 
 perhaps,  because  of  the  miracle  which  was  to  follow. 
 
 The  kings  of  the  earth. 
 Christ's  anticipation  of  Peter,  and  His  foreknowledge  of 
 his  thoughts,  was  in  itself  a  great  miracle.  Christ  may 
 seem  to  have  asked  Peter  that  question  inaptly,  because 
 He  seems  to  indicate  either  that  He  was  the  Son  of  an 
 earthly  king — namely,  Caesar — if  He  thus  desired  to  prove 
 
86  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Cir.  xvii.  24. 
 
 that  He  did  not  owe  tribute  to  Caesar  :  or  that  it  was  paid, 
 not  to  Caesar,  but  to  God,  whose  Son  He  was.  The 
 answer  may  be,  as  S.  Chrysostom  has  observed,  that  the  argu- 
 ment of  Christ  is  one  a  ininorc  ad  viajiis,  as  if  He  had 
 said,  "  If  the  sons  of  an  earthly  king  owe  no  tribute,  I, 
 who  am  the  Son  of  God,  the  King  of  kings,  owe  it  to  no 
 king".  He  might  allude  to  the  origin  of  that  tribute — that 
 it  should  be  paid  to  the  temple,  that  is,  to  God.  This  is 
 the  opinion  of  S.  Hilary  and  Theophylact  Some  have 
 raised  the  question  whether  Christ,  as  man,  owed  tribute  ? 
 They  answer  that  He  did  owe  it,  because  S.  Paul  says  that 
 He  was  like  us  in  all  things,  sin  only  excepted,  and  that  He 
 here  affirms  himself  to  be  free  from  tribute,  not  as  man, 
 but  as  God.  It  may  be  objected — (i)  that  Christ  seems 
 to  speak  not  only  of  Himself,  but  of  Peter  also  ;  and  (2) 
 that  He  spoke  in  the  plural  number — "  the  children," — and 
 added,  "  But  that  we  may  not  scandalise  them,"  &c.  The 
 first  reason  does  not  seem  of  much  weight,  because  it  is 
 certain  that  Christ  spoke  of  Himself  as  of  the  Son  of  God 
 by  nature,  which  S.  Peter  was  not,  and  he  therefore  could 
 not  be  included  in  the  number  of  sons.  But  Christ  spoke 
 in  the  plural,  because  He  included  all  the  sons  of  kings  in 
 general.  The  second  reason  seems  of  more  weight.  Christ 
 appears  to  desire  to  prove  that  neither  He  Himself  nor 
 His  disciples  owed  tribute.  He  did  not  owe  it  Himself, 
 because  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  nor  did  His  disciples, 
 because  they  were  of  the  number  of  His  friends  and  com- 
 panions. For  not  only  the  sons  of  kings,  but  also  their 
 attendants,  arc  exempt  from  tribute. 
 
 The  idea  of  some,  that  all  Christians,  as  being  the  sons  of 
 God  by  adoption,  or  in  some  way  the  friends  of  Christ,  are 
 free  from  tribute,  seems  to  be  a  question  of  no  difficulty 
 whatever.  For  although  Christians  are  the  sons  of  God  by 
 adoption,  and  bear  the  name  of  Christ,  they  are  not  of  His 
 household  like  the  Apostles.     And  S.  Paul  {Rom.  xiii.  7) 
 
Ch.  XVII.  26.]     MIRACLE   OF   THE   TRIBUTE   MONEY.  8/ 
 
 commands  Christians  to  render  to  each  his  own — honour 
 to  whom  honour,  tribute  to  whom  tribute.  S.  Augustin  is 
 also  of  this  opinion  {Quest.  Evang.,  i.  33).  S.  Jerome  might 
 have  been  brought  forward  in  support  of  the  above  opinion 
 with  more  appearance  of  reason.  He  says,  on  this  passage  : 
 "  He  bore  the  cross  for  us,  and  paid  our  tribute  ;  we,  in  His 
 honour,  pay  no  tribute,  and,  like  the  sons  of  a  king,  we  are 
 free  from  impost ".  But  he  either  spoke  allegorically,  that 
 we  do  not  any  longer  pay  tribute  to  the  devil  as  before,  or 
 he  alludes  only  to  Ecclesiastics,  who,  under  Christian 
 emperors,  were  freed  from  all  tribute. 
 
 Verse  26.  But  that  ive  may  not  scandalise  thcni. 
 The  scandal  of  which  the  Doctors  of  the  Church  speak 
 would  have  been  not  given  but  received  ;  but  Christ,  as  He 
 easily  could  do,  wished  to  avoid  even  this.  The  glory  of 
 God  required  Him,  as  He  could  easily  pay  this  tribute,  not 
 to  offend  the  publicans,  and  give  occasion  for  accusation  to 
 the  malevolent  Jews.  For  even  when  He  had  always  paid 
 the  tribute,  He  was  subsequently  accused  of  forbidding  to 
 pay  tribute  to  Caesar  (5.  Luke  xxiii.  2). 
 
 And  tJiat  fisJi  luhich  sJiall first  come  up. 
 It  is  certain  that  a  great  and  notable  miracle  was  here 
 performed,  but  S.  Jerome  doubts,  with  reason,  in  what  it 
 consisted  ;  whether  in  Christ's  knowledge  of  what  the  fish 
 would  be  which  would  have  the  coin  in  its  mouth;  or  in  His 
 knowing  that  it  would  come  up  the  first  of  all,  or  in  His 
 causing  it  to  do  so  ;  or  that,  in  the  fish  which  did  come  up 
 first.  He  should  have  created  the  stater.  The  last  idea 
 seems  the  most  probable,  because  fish,  if  they  swallow  a 
 coin  or  any  piece  of  money,  do  not  hold  it  in  their  mouths, 
 but  in  their  bellies.  The  fish,  therefore,  if  it  had  received 
 that  coin,  would  have  had  it  not  in  its  mouth,  but  in  its 
 belly.  Some  say,  according  to  Theophylact,  that  the  stater 
 was  not  a  coin,  but  a  pearl,  such  as  fish  do  contain.     This 
 
88  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xvii.  26. 
 
 is  not  likely,  however,  because  even  pearls  are  found,  not  in 
 the  mouth,  but  in  the  belly  ;  nor  are  pearls  found  in  fish 
 that  are  taken  in  a  net,  but  only  in  shell-fish,  which  divers 
 separate  from  the  rocks  by  their  hands. 
 
 A  stater. 
 A  stater  in  Greek  is  the  same  as  a  side  in  Hebrew.  It 
 is  a  word  of  both  Greek  and  Hebrew  origin.  It  was 
 equivalent  to  a  tretradrachma,  or  two  didrachmas.  Christ 
 ordered  it  to  be  given  for  Himself  and  for  Peter,  because 
 each  should  pay  a  didrachma,  that  is,  half  a  side. 
 
 For  Me  and  thee. 
 
 Why  for  Peter  rather  than  the  other  Apostles  ? 
 
 This  has  been  matter  of  much  perplexity.  S.  Chrysos- 
 tom  and  Euthymius  say  that  that  tribute  was  only  paid  by 
 the  first-born,  and  Peter  was  such.  But  beside  the  fact 
 that  this  opinion  is  refuted  by  the  preceding  verse,  it  may 
 also  be  so  by  the  more  than  great  probability  that  others 
 of  the  Apostles  were  the  same.  The  above  authors  and 
 S.  Jerome  give  a  better  reason — that  Christ  paid  for  Him- 
 self and  Peter,  because  Peter  was  the  head  of  the  Apostles. 
 This  does  not  meet  the  approbation  of  the  heretics  of  our 
 own  time,  but  it  is  better  than  their  assertion — that  Christ 
 paid  for  Peter  because  He  lived  in  Peter's  house.  For  it 
 has  been  shown  (viii.  14)  that  Peter  had  no  house  in 
 Capernaum.  Some  think  that  Peter  was  at  that  time  alone 
 with  Christ,  as  there  is  no  mention  of  the  other  disciples, 
 and  that  Christ  paid  for  him  because  the  publicans  came 
 to  him  only. 
 
 Another  question  has  been  raised  by  the  ancient  Fathers. 
 Why,  when  He  had  His  own  purse,  and  when  the  devout 
 women  who  had  come  with  Him  from  Jud.xa  supplied  Him 
 with  all  things  needful,  Christ  paid  the  tribute,  not  from 
 His  own  means,  but  frrim  the  fish? 
 
 The  reason  given  b)-  S.  Jerome,  that  Christ  would   not 
 
Ch.  XVII.  26.]      MIRACLE   OF   THE   TRIBUTE    MONEY.  89 
 
 have  the  goods  of  the  poor  converted  into  tribute,  finds 
 favour  with  few.  For  the  contents  of  the  purse  were 
 devoted  to  things  needful ;  and  the  payment  of  the  tribute, 
 when  Christ  willed  it,  was  one  of  them.  S.  Chrysostom 
 and  Euthymius  suppose  that  Christ  desired  to  show  that, 
 although  He  paid  tribute,  He  was  still  the  Lord  of  the 
 earth  and  the  sea,  because  He  took  the  tribute  from  the 
 latter.  The  same  authorities  give  another  and  apparently 
 a  better  reason.  That  Christ  would  neither  offend  the 
 publicans,  nor  part  with  His  own  right,  and,  therefore,  paid 
 the  demand,  not  from  His  own  purse,  but  from  dis- 
 covered money.  Though  the  true  reason  may  be  that  the 
 other  disciples  who  bore  the  purse  were  not  present,  and, 
 as  He  would  not  offend  the  publicans,  He  performed  a 
 miracle  to  pay  the  tribute. 
 
CHAPTER  XVIII. 
 
 CHRIST  TEACHES  HUMILITY,  TO  BEWARE  OF  SCANDAL, 
 AND  TO  FLEE  THE  OCCASIONS  OF  SIN — TO  DENOUNCE 
 TO  THE  CHURCH  INCORRIGIBLE  SINNERS,  AND  TO 
 LOOK  UPON  SUCH  AS  REFUSE  TO  HEAR  THE  CHURCH 
 AS  HEATHENS — HE  PROMISES  TO  HIS  DISCIPLES  THE 
 POWER  OF  BINDING  AND  LOOSING,  AND  THAT  HE 
 WILL  BE  IN  THE  MIDST  OF  THEIR  ASSEMBLIES — NO 
 FORGIVENESS   FOR   THEM  THAT  WILL   NOT  FORGIVE. 
 
 Verse  i.  At  tJiat  Jiojir. 
 "  About  that  time,"  sub  idem  tempus ;  a  Hebraism.  S. 
 Mark  (ix.  33)  says  that  Christ  anticipated  the  Apostles  and 
 asked  what  they  disputed  of  in  the  way.  They  had  dis- 
 puted which  of  them  should  be  the  greatest.  S.  Luke  (ix. 
 46)  says  that  Jesus,  knowing  their  thoughts,  did  not  ask 
 them,  but  took  a  child,  and  said  :  "Whosoever  shall  receive 
 this  child  in  My  name  receiveth  Me,  and  whosoever  re- 
 ceiveth  Me  receiveth  Him  that  sent  Me.  For  he  that  is 
 the  lesser  among  you  all,  he  is  the  greater."  Of  this  kind 
 of  contention,  S.  Augustin,  on  the  passage  {De  Conscns.,  ii. 
 61),  is  silent.  S.  Chrysostom  and  Euthymius  say  that  the 
 Apostles  disputed,  not  once,  but  frequently,  on  the  subject, 
 (i)  In  the  way;  (2)  In  the  house,  when  they  saw  Peter 
 preferred  to  them  in  the  payment  of  the  tribute;  (3)  When 
 Christ  asked  them  what  they  disputed  of  in  the  way.  (i) 
 Then  Christ  asked  the  Apostles  what  they  treated  of;  (2) 
 Then  the  Apostles,  seeing  that  their  thoughts  and  conten- 
 tion were  known  to  Christ,  asked  Him  what  they  had  not 
 ventured  to  ask  before— Which  of  them  was  the  greatest  ? 
 
Ch.  XVIII.  I.]       DISPUTE   WHICH    SHALL   BE    GREATEST.         91 
 
 It  has  been  doubted  on  what  occasion  they  asked  this.  S. 
 Jerome,  Bede,  and  Euthymius  think  that  it  was  when  they 
 saw  Christ  pay  the  tribute  for  Himself  and  Peter.  Others 
 differ,  because  it  appears  from  5.  Alark  ix.  33  that  they 
 had  had  their  thoughts  on  the  subject  in  the  way  before 
 they  came  to  Capernaum  and  the  tribute  had  been  paid  ; 
 but  we  have  said  from  S.  Chrysostom  and  Euthymius  that 
 they  had  frequently  and  on  different  occasions  discussed 
 the  question.  The  payment  of  the  tribute,  therefore,  did 
 not  put  the  thought  into  their  minds,  but  only  strengthened 
 that  which  was  in  them  already.  For  there  had  been 
 often  occasions  before.  They  had  seen  Peter,  with  two 
 others,  go  up  the  mountain  with  Christ,  and  the  keys  of 
 the  kingdom  of  heaven  given  to  him  (xvi.  19),  as  again  S. 
 Chrysostom  and  Euthymius  say.  Others  give  another  and 
 not  unacceptable  reason — that  they  had  heard  Christ  often 
 speak  of  His  death  as  being  now  very  near  at  hand,  and 
 wondered  which  of  them  would  be,  so  to  speak,  His  heir — 
 that  is.  His  vicar  after  His  death.  This  is  very  agreeable 
 to  human  nature  and  custom,  when  men  stand  around 
 those  who  are  at  the  point  of  death,  with  thoughts  of  their 
 succession.  The  Apostles  seem  to  have  done  this  on  the 
 eve  of  Christ's  Passion  (5.  L^lke  xxii.  24). 
 
 WJw  tJiinkcst  t/ioit. 
 
 The  comparative  is  put  for  the  superlative,  and  the 
 present  for  the  future,  by  a  Greek  idiom,  as  if  it  were 
 written.  Which  of  us  is  to  be  the  greatest  in  the  kingdom 
 of  heaven  ? 
 
 In  the  kingdoni  of  heaven. 
 
 Some,  as  SS.  Chrysostom  and  Epiphanius,  take  these 
 words  to  mean  the  kingdom  of  heaven  itself,  and  the 
 celestial  glory,  which  from  verse  3  seems  probable.  It  is 
 credible  that  Christ  answered  the  Apostles  about  the  same 
 kingdom  of  heaven  as  they  spoke  of 
 
92  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xviii.  2, 3. 
 
 But  it  is  more  likely  that  in  this  instance  the  Church 
 is  termed  the  kingdom  of  heaven — (i)  From  the  cause 
 of  their  asking  the  question  when  they  saw  Peter  in 
 every  respect  preferred,  and  they  thought  that  he  would  be 
 the  head  of  all  the  Church ;  (2)  From  their  having  been 
 blamed  by  Christ  when  He  rebuked  their  ambition.  To 
 wish  to  be  the  first  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  love,  not 
 ambition  ;  but  to  wish  to  be  first  in  the  Church,  and  to  be 
 placed  over  others,  was  to  incur  blame  as  being  ambitious. 
 This  may  be  proved  from  verse  3,  where  the  contrary 
 opinion  is  approved.  For  Christ  would  say  that  he  v/ho  is 
 least  in  the  present  kingdom  of  heaven — that  is,  the 
 Church — should  be  accounted  greatest,  and  should,  there- 
 fore, be  the  greatest  in  heaven.  So  speaks  S.  Luke  of  the 
 present  kingdom  of  the  Church  (ix.  48).  Christ  therefore 
 plays  on  the  ambiguity  of  the  words,  when  He  says, 
 "  Except  ye  be  converted,"  as  we  have  observed  that  He 
 has  often  done  before. 
 
 Verse  2.  And  Jesus  calling  to  Him  a  little  child. 
 Some  think  that  it  was  an  infant,  because  S.  Mark  says 
 that  Christ  took  him  up  in  His  arms  {S.  Mark  ix.  35;  x. 
 16).  But  they  are  in  error.  For  a  child  larger  than  an 
 infant  may  be  small  enough  to  be  taken  up  in  arms,  and 
 this  child  was  able  to  walk.  Christ  then  called,  not  an 
 infant,  but  a  child,  and  an  innocent  one,  and  placed  him  in 
 the  midst,  that,  as  has  been  observed  by  S.  Chrysostom,  he 
 might  teach  humility,  not  in  words,  but  by  actual  facts. 
 
 Verse  3.  Unless  you  be  converted. 
 It  has  been  erroneously  inferred  from  these  words  that 
 the  Apostles  were  then  in  a  state  of  mortal  sin,  because 
 Christ  said  "  except,"  as  if  they  were  not  able  to  enter  the 
 kingdom  of  heaven  at  that  time.  Christ  meant  simply 
 that  they  could  not  enter  it  themselves  unless  they  were 
 like  children  in  simplicity  and  humility.     This  is  not  to  be 
 
Ch.  XVIII.  5.]  HUMILITY.  93 
 
 understood  as  if  a  humility  and  simplicity  equal  to  that  of 
 children  were  required  in  all  men.  For  if  so,  who  would 
 ever  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ?  But  the  greatest 
 example  of  humility  is  put  forward,  not  that  we  may 
 wholly  come  up  to  it,  but  that  we  may  approach  as  near  to 
 it  as  we  possibly  can.  So  we  are  commanded  to  be 
 perfect  as  our  Father  in  heaven  is  perfect  (chap.  v.  48).  Nor 
 is  it  intended  that  the  Apostles  had  not  such  humility  as 
 would  enable  them  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  but 
 they  have  what  is  required  shown  to  them,  that  if  they  have 
 it  not,  they  may  gain  it,  and  if  they  have  it,  they  may  keep 
 it.  The  expression,  "  unless  you  become,"  &c.,  does  not 
 mean  that  they  were  not  such  then.  It  alludes  to  their 
 age,  that  as  they  are  fully  grown  now,  they  should  become 
 as  little  children,  as  Christ  said  to  Nicodemus  {S.  John 
 iii.  3). 
 
 But  Christ  blamed  the  ambition  of  the  Apostles. 
 Granted.  It  does  not  follow,  however,  that  it  was  such  as 
 to  be  a  mortal  sin,  or  to  hinder  them  from  entering  the 
 kingdom  of  heaven  ;  for  it  might  be  venial,  and  it  is  right 
 that  we  should  believe  it  to  have  been  such.  The  Apostles, 
 therefore,  are  to  be  excused  by  this  or  some  other  better 
 reason,  as  S.  Chrysostom  excuses  them,  not  blamed. 
 Christ  commands  us  to  be  like  children,  not  in  all  things, 
 but  in  simplicity,  in  humility,  and  in  innocence,  as  S.  Paul 
 (i  Cor.  xiv.  20),  as  say  S.  Clement  of  Alexandria  {Pcudag., 
 i.  5),  S.  Ambrose  {Serin,  x.). 
 
 Verse  5.  And  he  that  shall  receive  one  such  little  child. 
 
 The  reason  of  Christ's  saying  this  may  easily  be  gathered 
 from  what  has  gone  before  and  from  what  follows.  He 
 would  prove  that  he  is  the  greatest  who  most  resembles  the 
 least,  because  a  child  is  most  like  Himself  and  bears  His 
 Person.  He  proves  this  by  the  fact  that  whoever  receives 
 a  child  receives  Him.     But  to  receive  does  not  only  mean» 
 
94  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xviii.  6. 
 
 as  some  think,  to  receive  Him  into  our  houses,  but  to  follow 
 this  up  by  every  kind  of  well-doing  in  our  power :  in  a 
 word,  to  do  good,  as  He  will  say  in  the  judgment  (xxv.  40). 
 S.  Mark  and  S.  Luke  relate  only  this  part  of  Christ's  con- 
 versation, omitting  what  S.  Matthew  has  added.  Probably 
 because  in  this  lay  the  sum  of  the  whole  matter. 
 
 Verse  6.  But  he  that  shall  scandalise. 
 
 The  argument,  as  S.  Chrysostom  and  Theophylact  have 
 observed,  is  a  contrario.  To  scandalise  does  not  mean  here, 
 as  elsewhere,  to  set  a  bad  example,  but  to  injure  another,  as 
 Chrysostom,  Euthymius,  and  S.  Thomas  have  pointed  out. 
 This  is  also  clear  from  the  antithesis,  for  receiving  little 
 children  is  opposed  to  injuring  them.  To  receive  is  to 
 benefit.  To  scandalise,  therefore,  is  to  do  the  contrary 
 {bcneficere,  vialeficere).  By  little  ones  here  is  meant  not 
 merely  those  who  are  of  tender  age,  like  this  little  child, 
 but  those  who  are  so  in  their  lives.  For  Christ  adds,  "  who 
 believe  in  Me".  For  these  are  they  to  whom  injustice  is 
 most  commonly  done  under  the  idea  that  they  are  simple 
 or  of  low  degree. 
 
 A  millstone. 
 
 Many  think  that  the  lower  mill-stone  was  called  the 
 niola  asinaria,  or  in  Greek  0V09,  that  is  "  asinus,"  the  ass, 
 and  that  it  was  larger  than  the  upper  one.  But  Christ 
 clearly  meant  a  huge  stone  merely.  The  common  opinion 
 is  not  satisfactory,  for  Christ  used  the  Syriac  language,  in 
 which  this  ambiguity  is  not  found.  S.  Hilary  {Cati.  xviii.) 
 and  S.  Ambrose  {Sei'jn.  xviii.)  seem  correct — that  it  was 
 called  inola  asinaria,  because  an  ass  was  much  used  in  grind- 
 ing. It  was  called  inola  asinaria  to  distinguish  it  from  inola 
 trusatilis,  or  hand-mill.  Christ  named  the  former  because 
 it  is  much  larger  than  the  latter.  The  burial  of  an  ass  was 
 a  common  Jewish  custom  for  criminals.  Christ,  perhaps, 
 alluded  to  pride,  against  which  He  was  speaking  (as  in  xi. 
 
Ch.  XVIII.  7.]  THE   WOE    OF   OFFENCE.  95 
 
 23).     S.  Augustin  thinks,  allegorically,  that  the  inola  asina 
 is  intended  to  show  the  weight  of  men's  sins. 
 
 Verse  7.  Woe  to  the  ivorld  because  of  sin. 
 By  "  the  world  "  some  understand  the  authors  of  sin  ;  as 
 if  Christ  lamented  their  condition.  But  it  is  not  those  who 
 suffer,  but  they  who  commit  the  offence,  that  are  miserable. 
 The  opinion  of  S.  Hilary,  S.  Chrysostom,  Euthymius,  and 
 Theophylact  seems  better — that  they  are  called  the  world 
 who  are  in  the  world,  whom  Christ  had  called  the  little  ones 
 just  before,  and  of  whom  He  had  said,  "  whoever  shall 
 offend,"  &c.  For  as  He  had  spoken  of  their  offence  done 
 to  them.  He  adds  that  many  other  scandals  threaten  them. 
 I  cannot  agree  with  S.  Chrysostom,  Euthymius,  and  Theo- 
 phylact in  saying  that  Christ  said  this  in  blame  of  those 
 who  should  be  offended,  as  a  little  before  He  had  blamed 
 those  who  should  offend  them.  It  is  sin  not  only  to  offend, 
 but  also  to  be  offended,  as  this  is  a  mark  of  infirmity.  For 
 though  to  be  offended  is  sometimes  a  sin,  as  when  the 
 Pharisees  were  offended  at  the  miracles  of  Christ,  yet  their 
 view  is  not  apt ;  for  it  has  been  shown  on  the  preceding 
 verse  that  to  offend  in  this  passage  does  not  mean  to  cause 
 scandal,  but  to  do  a  wrong.  But  to  suffer  injury  is  not  a 
 fault,  but  a  great  virtue.  Christ,  therefore,  said  not  as 
 blaming  but  as  pitying  :  "  Woe  to  the  world,"  Vc2  irmndo. 
 
 He  says  it  must  needs  be — not  as  of  absolute  necessity, 
 but  as  from  human  perversity,  as  S.  Chrysostom,  S.  Jerome, 
 Bede,  and  Euthymius  observe,  that  offences  would  come  : 
 not  because  Christ  foretold  them,  but  that  He  foretold  them 
 because  they  would  come.  It  will,  perhaps,  be  objected 
 that  the  particles,  "but,"  "nevertheless"  (■tw?^w/'^?wfcv<!),  show 
 the  meaning  to  be  that,  however  necessary  it  be  that  offences 
 should  come,  he  who  causes  them  will  not,  therefore,  be 
 held  free  from  blame.  The  answer  again  may  be  that  this 
 is  not  the  actual  meaning,  but  one  closely  resembling  it. 
 
g6  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xviii.  8,  lo. 
 
 Although  offences  might  have  come  otherwise,  he  who 
 caused  them  will  not  on  that  account  be  blameless.  Saul 
 was  to  die,  but  he  who  put  him  to  death  was  not  on  that 
 account  blameless. 
 
 But  nevertheless,  luoe  to  that  man. 
 
 Many  of  the  Ancients  were  of  opinion  that  Judas  is  here 
 meant,  as  Philastrius  against  those  who  justified  his  treachery 
 — S.  Jerome  and  Bede  in  their  commentary  on  this  passage, 
 and  S.  Ambrose,  or,  as  I  think,  Remigius,  in  his  Covimentary 
 onyix.  i  of  i  Corinthians — but  the  application  is  evidently 
 general. 
 
 Verse  8.  And  if  thy  hand. 
 
 This  shows  how  careful  men  should  be  to  avoid  offences. 
 The  hand  is  to  be  cut  off ;  the  eye  plucked  out.  On  this 
 see  verses  29,  30. 
 
 Verse  10.   Their  angels. 
 
 Christ  shows  that  the  little  ones  are  not  to  be  offended  or 
 despised,  because  they  are  so  dear  in  the  sight  of  God  that 
 they  have  their  angels  in  His  presence,  by  whom  they  are 
 guarded.  From  this  and  other  passages  has  arisen  the 
 common  opinion  of  guardian   angels. 
 
 I.  It  appears  from  Scripture  that  every  kingdom  and 
 province,  even  of  unbelievers,  has  each  its  guardian  angel 
 set  over  it  {Dan.  x.  13-20).  This  all  ancient  writers,  and 
 most  especially  Clement  of  Rome  {Recog.,  ii.),  Clement  of 
 Alexandria  {Strom.,  vi.),  S.  Chrysostom  {Hom.  Ixi.  on  S. 
 Matt),  and  Theodoret  {Orat.  x.  on  Daniel),  conclude  from 
 Deut.  xxxii.  8,  following  the  LXX.,  who,  for  "sons  of  Israel," 
 read  "the  angels  of  God"  ;  as  if  the  meaning  were  that  to 
 every  province  and  people  one  angel  was  given  as  a  pro- 
 tector. It  appears  also  from  the  Apocalypse  (ii.  8,  12,  18  ; 
 iii.  I,  7,  14)  that  to  each  church  an  angel  is  given,  by  whom 
 it  is  ruled ;  according  to  S.  Hilary  {On  Ps.  cxxiv.),  S.  Gregory 
 
Ch.  xviii.  io.]  guardian   ANGELS.  9? 
 
 Nazianzen  {Orat.  Episc),  S.  Jerome  (chap,  i.,  Ecclesiast.),  and 
 the  author  of  the  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Corin- 
 thians, wrongly  ascribed  to  S.  Jerome  {Ep.  i.  1 1).  This  has 
 ahvays  been  believed,  not  only  from  universal  tradition,  but 
 also  from  the  more  than  probable  testimony  of  the  Holy 
 Scripture,  that  every  single  Christian  has  his  own  peculiar 
 angel,  to  whose  care  he  is  committed  ;  for  Christ  speaks 
 here  of  it  as  a  known  fact ;  and  as  it  is  certain  that  every 
 man  has  his  angel.  He  places  those  of  the  little  ones,  that  is, 
 of  the  just,  before  the  rest. 
 
 We  conclude  the  same  thing  from  Genesis  xlviii.  i6  and 
 Acts  xii.  15,  when  Peter  was  delivered  from  prison  by  his 
 own  angel  ;  and  when  he  had  knocked  at  the  door  in  the 
 night  they  said,  "  It  is  not  Peter  but  his  angel ".  So  far  all 
 ancient  authors  agree  (S.  Justin,  QuiEst.  30;  Lactantius,  ii.  15  ; 
 S.  Basil,  On  Ps.  xxxvii.-lviii.,  De  Spiritu  Sancto,  lib.  iii.  ;  S. 
 Chrysostom,  hoc  loc. ;  S.  Jerome,  On  Isaiah  Ixvi.  ;  Theo- 
 doret,  De  Div.  decret.,  lib.  v.,  Orat.  x.  on  Daniel ;  Isidore,  lib. 
 xii.,  De  Snmm.  Bon. ;  Origen,  passim).  Some  teachers, 
 neither  of  bad  repute  nor  mere  moderns,  have  gone  further 
 and  thought  that  Christ  Himself  had  an  angel,  of  which  S. 
 Luke  speaks  (xxii.  43)  ;  but  this  is  a  paradox  hardly 
 worthy  of  Christ  the  true  God.  He  had,  indeed,  angels 
 which  ministered  to  Him,  but  not  who  preserved  Him. 
 The  followers  of  Calvin,  indeed,  say  that  all  angels  are  the 
 guardians  of  all  men,  as  in  Heb.  i.  14.  Of  one  point  at 
 least  there  has  been  raised  a  partial  doubt — whether  angels 
 are  given  to  all  men,  even  to  those  who  are  not  Christians. 
 Origen  {Tract,  vi.  on  S.  Matt.)  and  The  Author  {Horn,  v.) 
 seem  to  think  that  they  are  only  given  to  the  baptised  ; 
 but  the  opinion  of  all  other  authorities  is  to  the  contrary 
 effect  ;  and  the  former  is  refuted  both  from  Scripture  and 
 reason.  For,  if  an  angel  was  set  over  Greece  and  the 
 kingdom  of  Persia,  we  may  believe  that  Persians  and 
 Greeks  had  each  his  own  angel  ;  for  God  regards  men 
 7 
 
98  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xviii.  io. 
 
 more  than   kingdoms,  and   He  seeks  the  salvation  of  all 
 men,  in  securing  which  He  uses  the  ministry  of  angels. 
 
 It  is  less  certain  whether  every  man  has  not  only  a  good 
 angel  on  the  one  hand  to  defend  him,  but  also  an  evil  one 
 on  the  other  which  assails  him.  But  this  also  is  proved 
 both  from  the  earliest  tradition,  not  only  of  Christians,  but 
 also  of  Jews ;  and  ancient  writers  produce  in  its  favour  the 
 example  of  Barnabas,  which  was  formerly  of  great  weight 
 in  the  Church,  as  Origen,  Cassian,  Bede  [Oti  Acts  xii.),  and 
 others  show.  S.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  (in  his  Life  of  Moses), 
 The  Author  {Hovi.  v.  on  S.  Matt?),  and  others  confirm  this 
 opinion.  There  is  some  trace  of  it  also  in  Scripture  ;  for 
 S.  Paul  speaks  of  an  angel  of  Satan  sent  to  buffet  him  (2 
 Cor.  xii.  7).  However  this  may  be  understood,  it  is  at  least 
 credible  that  the  devil,  the  prince  of  evil  spirits,  im.itates 
 God  in  the  administration  of  his  kingdom  ;  and  as  God 
 has  given  to  each  man  his  own  particular  good  angel  to 
 have  charge  of  him,  so  he  would  give  evil  ones  in  opposi- 
 tion ;  for  Christ  seems  when  He  says,  "  Their  angels  in 
 heaven  always  see  the  face  of  My  Father,  which  is  in 
 heaven,"  to  attribute  something  singular  to  the  angels  of 
 these  little  ones,  as  if  the  others  were  inferior,  and  these  saw 
 the  face  of  God  which  the  others  did  not.  Origen  {Honi. 
 XXXV.  on  S.  Licke)  confirms  his  error  from  this  passage,  as 
 if  even  the  good  angels  through  their  negligence  in  protect- 
 ing men  sometimes  lose  their  beatitude  ;  as  if  the  meaning 
 were  that  the  angels  of  other  men  sometimes  see  the  face 
 of  God  and  sometimes  do  not,  because  they  sometimes 
 guard  men  well  and  sometimes  ill,  but  that  the  angels  of 
 the  little  ones  always  see  it,  because  they  keep  them  always 
 well.  But  as  the  little  ones  are  kept  by  their  angels  more 
 carefully  than  other  men,  they  are  not  to  be  offended  or 
 despised. 
 
 S.  Chrysostom  thinks  that  a  singular  privilege  was  given 
 to  the  angels  of  the  little  ones,  and  that  as  not  all  angels, 
 
Ch.  XVIII.  II.]  GUARDIAN   ANGELS.  99 
 
 but  only  those  of  the  highest  order,  were  allowed  to  see  the 
 face  of  God,  it  is  signified  here  that  the  care  of  the  little 
 ones  was  committed  to  the  highest  angels.  There  certainly 
 appears  to  be  some  difference  between  the  angels  of  the 
 little  ones  and  those  of  other  men,  but  not  what  either 
 Origen  or  S.  Chrysostom  think  ;  but  the  angels  of  the 
 little  ones  are  greater  than  of  other  men.  Should  anyone 
 wonder  at  this,  he  must  remember  that  not  boys,  but  just 
 men,  are  here  called  the  little  ones,  and  the  Scripture 
 testifies  that  God  has  more  care  for  these  than  for  other 
 men.  For  that  the  angels  of  the  little  ones  are  greater 
 and  more  honourable  than  those  of  other  men  is  proved 
 from  the  fact  that  they  always  see  the  face  of  God, — not  as 
 if  the  other  angels  did  not,  but  that  by  that  expression  the 
 Hebrews  meant  one  who  was  near  to,  and,  as  it  were,  a 
 familiar  friend  of  God.  It  is  a  metaphor  taken  from  the 
 palace,  where  the  more  honourable  a  man  is,  the  nearer  he 
 is  placed  to  the  king,  and  the  more  continually  he  is  in  his 
 sight.  So  the  Queen  of  Sheba  said  of  the  servants  of 
 Solomon  :  "  Blessed  are  thy  men,  and  blessed  are  thy  ser- 
 vants who  stand  before  thee  always  and  hear  thy  wisdom  " 
 (3  Kings  X.  8  ;  S.  Gregory,  ii..  Moral,  ch.  iii,).  S.  Bernard 
 i^De  ded.  EccL,  Serm.  v.)  says  that  we  may  conclude  from 
 this  passage,  what,  indeed,  all  subsequent  divines  have 
 thought,  that  the  angels,  wherever  they  go,  always  bear 
 with  them  their  beatitudes,  that  is,  they  always  behold  the 
 face  of  God.  Christ  metaphorically  calls  the  splendour  of 
 the  Divine  Essence  the  face  of  God,  as  the  face,  or  rather 
 Ihe  countenance,  of  a  man  is  that  part  in  which  his  whole 
 person  shines  forth. 
 
 Verse  11.  For  the  Son  of  man  is  come  to  save  that  ivJiicJi 
 zuas  lost. 
 This  is  the  second  proof  of  Christ's  that  the  little  ones 
 are  not  to  be  despised,  since  the  Son  of  man  came  for  their 
 
lOO  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xviii.  12. 
 
 salvation.  We  find  a  like  argument  in  S.  Paul  (i  Cor.  viii. 
 11).  But  Christ  speaks  according  to  the  opinion  of  men, 
 who  think  those  who  are  most  especially  just,  because  they 
 see  them  downcast  and  humble,  to  be  sinners  above 
 all  men,  as  the  Pharisees  said  to  the  blind  man  whom 
 Christ  healed  {S.John  ix.  34):  "Thou  wast  wholly  born  in 
 sins".  When  Christ  says  this,  He  does  not  show  that  other 
 men  have  not  perished,  but  only  that  He  came  for  sinners, 
 so  that  if  any  man  were  not  a  sinner,  He  would  not  have 
 come  for  him. 
 
 Verse  12.  If  a  ?iian  have  an  hundred  sheep. 
 This  is  the  third  proof,  from  the  simile  of  a  shepherd, 
 which  Christ  gives  that,  as  a  Good  Shepherd,  He  counts  of 
 more  value  the  salvation  of  the  little  ones — that  is,  those 
 who  are  accounted  sinners,  than  that  of  other  men.  It  is 
 not  meant  that  there  are  any  men  who  have  not  sinned, 
 but  that  for  those  alone  who  have  sinned  Christ  came. 
 There  has  been  much  question  as  to  who  the  ninety-nine 
 are  who  have  not  sinned.  The  most  ancient  authors  say 
 that  they  are  the  good  angels.  For  the  sheep  are  all  the 
 rational  creatures  of  God,  of  whom  some — that  is,  men — 
 have  gone  astray  (S.  Irenaeus,  iii.  21,  39;  Origen,  ii..  In 
 Gen.,  and  vii..  On  Joshua;  S.  Cyril  Jerusalem,  Cat.  Lect., 
 XV.;  S.  Hilary,  in  hoc  loc.;  S.  Ambrose,  Apol.  David., 
 chap.  V.  ;  S.  Gregory,  Horn,  xxxiv.  iji  Evang.  ;  and 
 Theophylact).  S.  Jerome  (/;/  Jioc  loc.)  mentions  this 
 opinion,  and  S.  Athanasius  (q.  2).  But  it  cannot  be 
 doubted  that  Christ  speaks  only  of  men — unless  we  say 
 most  senselessly  with  Origen  that  He  came  for  the 
 angels  who  have  sinned.  The  meaning  then  is,  not  that 
 He  left  ninety-nine  sheep  which  had  not  gone  astray  to 
 seek  the  only  one  which  had,  but  He  made  the  salvation  of 
 even  one  man  of  so  great  account  that  if  there  had  been 
 only  a  hundred  men,  and  one  of  them  only  had  sinned.  He, 
 
Ch.  XVIII.  14,  15-]      SINS   OF   A   BROTHER   AGAINST    US.        lOI 
 
 like  a  good  shepherd,  would  have  left  the  ninety-nine  and 
 sought  the  one.  It  is  a  great  proof  of  His  love  to  us,  and 
 refutation  of  their  opinion  who  say  that  even  if  men  had 
 not  sinned  Christ  would  have  come.  Therefore  (verse  14) 
 Christ  does  not  conclude  with  saying  that  He  had  left  the 
 ninety-nine  which  had  not  strayed  to  seek  the  one  which 
 had,  but  He  said,  "  It  is  not  the  will". 
 
 Verse  14.  Even  so,  it  is  not  the  zuill. 
 
 That  is,  as  that  shepherd  does  not  suffer  even  the  least 
 sheep  of  his  flock  to  perish,  but  loves  the  safety  of  the  one 
 that  goes  astray  more  than  that  of  those  who  have  not  done 
 so,  so  it  is  not  the  will  of  His  Father  in  heaven  that  even 
 the  least  of  them  should  perish.  The  same  thing  is  taught 
 in  the  parable  of  the  lost  son  (5.  Luke  xv.  24,  &c.). 
 
 The  words  (5.  Matt,  xviii.  14)  ante  patrem  vestruvi  are  a 
 Hebraism  taken  from  the  edicts  of  kings  which  are  said  to 
 proceed  from  his  sight  that  they  may  be  sure  of  being  held 
 good.  Christ  spoke  of  the  divine  will  as  of  a  decree.  He 
 said  patrem  vestrevi,  and  not  meiun,  probably  to  harmonise 
 with  the  subject  of  His  words.  This  was  the  love  and 
 mercy  of  God  for  men,  both  of  which  are  the  property  of 
 the  Father. 
 
 Verse  1 5.  But  if  thy  brother  shall  offend  against  thee. 
 
 Christ  calls  all  Christians  generally  our  brothers,  for  He 
 only  speaks  of  these,  as  is  seen  by  His  own  words. 
 
 He  opposes  a  heathen  and  publican  to  brother  (verse  17), 
 and  the  Church  does  not  judge  those  who  are  without  (i 
 Cor.  v.  12),  Christ  now  properly  calls  the  one  whom  He 
 had  termed  a  little  one  (verse  10)  a  brother;  and  teaches 
 that  if  he  has  done  any  wrong,  he  is  not  to  be  treated 
 severely  and  as  an  enemy,  but  with  mercy  and  like  a 
 brother,  as  the  Son  of  man  treats  him,  who  came  to  save 
 that  which  was  lost. 
 
102  THE  GOSPEL  OF   S.   MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xviii.  15. 
 
 Against  thee. 
 
 It  may  be  rightly  asked  what  kind  of  sins  are  here 
 meant,  for  some  appear  to  be  of  such  a  nature  as  not  to 
 allow  one  who  commits  them  to  be  corrected  privately. 
 Origen  {Tract,  vi.  on  S.  Matt.)  explains  it  only  of  venial 
 sins,  whether  against  God  or  ourselves.  S.  Hilary,  S. 
 Chrysostom,  S.  Jerome,  S.  Ambrose  {On  S.  Luke  xvii.),  S. 
 Augustin  {Serin,  xvi.  de  verb.  Doni.  sec.  Matt?),  Theophy- 
 lact,  and  Euthymius  take  it  of  mortal  sins,  but  of  such  as 
 are  committed  only  against  ourselves,  and  not  against  God, 
 for  these  are  not  to  be  dissembled.  They  would  appear  to 
 be  every  kind  of  sin,  whether  against  ourselves  or  against 
 God.  We  must  keep  in  view  the  design  of  Christ,  that  we 
 should  not  accuse  a  sinner  with  bitterness,  but  correct  him 
 with  gentleness.  He  said,  "  If  he  sin  against  thee,"  because 
 we  are  apt  to  be  bitter,  and  sharp,  and  hard  on  those  who 
 have  sinned  against  us  when  we  rebuke  them ;  and  Christ 
 desired,  most  wisely,  when  the  danger  was  greatest,  to  im- 
 pose upon  us  some  restraints  against  violence.  Yet  from 
 one  kind  of  sin  we  may  understand  every  kind,  unless  there 
 be  any  obstacle  to  brotherly  correction. 
 
 We  may  doubt  why  Christ  did  not  say,  "  If  thy  brother 
 sin  against  thee,  forgive  him"  (as  chap.  v.  23,  24;  vi.  14).  The 
 answer  may  be  that  in  the  words, "  Rebuke  him  between  thee 
 and  him  alone,"  a  tacit  refusal  is  concealed.  As  if  Christ 
 had  said :  If  thy  brother  sin  against  thee,  do  not  accuse  him 
 at  once  before  the  Church,  but  first  correct  his  fault. 
 Whether  or  not  everyone  who  is  sinned  against,  or  who 
 knows  of  the  sin  of  another,  and  in  every  kind  of  sin  ought 
 to  correct  the  offender,  must  be  decided  by  the  rule  of  the 
 Doctors  of  the  Church,  which  is  formed  on  the  words  of 
 Christ :  "  If  he  hear  thee,  thou  hast  gained  thy  brother  ". 
 When,  then,  there  is  hope  of  spiritual  gain,  the  brother  is 
 to  be  corrected.     When  there  is  none,  he  is  either  to  be 
 
Ch.  xviii.  i6,  17.]     SINS   OF  A  BROTHER  AGAINST   US.  103 
 
 accused  before  the  Church  if  profit  can  be  hoped,  or  other- 
 wise to  be  left  to  God. 
 
 Verse  16.  Take  with  thee  one  or  two. 
 
 It  seems  uncertain  why,  after  the  first  admonition,  this  is 
 necessary.  Some  say  that  it  was  that  the  rebuke  might  be 
 more  severe,  and  that  the  offender  might  be  ashamed  from 
 the  presence  of  the  witnesses.  Others,  that  it  is  to  show 
 by  the  presence  of  the  witnesses  that  the  accuser  had  done 
 his  duty ;  as  Euthymius  and  others.  Some  again,  that  if  the 
 offender  did  not  correct  himself,  the  complainant  might 
 have  witnesses  to  accuse  him  before  the  Church.  This  is 
 the  opinion  of  many  moderns.  Others,  that  the  corrector 
 may  more  easily  persuade  the  other  when  he  does  not  stand 
 alone,  but  there  are  two  or  three  to  support  him,  as  S. 
 Chrysostom,  S.  Augustin  {Senn.  xvi.  de  verb.  Dom),  and 
 Theophylact  hold.  This  is  the  more  probable,  because 
 Christ  says  (from  Deuteronomy  xvii.  6),  "In  the  mouth  of 
 two  or  three  witnesses,"  &c.  There  is,  however,  this  dif- 
 ference. In  Deuteronomy  God  wished  to  terrify  men  from 
 the  commission  of  crimes,  but  here  Christ  means  that  two 
 or  three  witnesses  are  sufficient  to  prove  the  truth. 
 Whether  the  witnesses  are  to  be  called  in  succession  one 
 after  another  or  all  at  once  has  been  matter  of  doubt,  and 
 the  point  is  not  settled.  S.  Jerome  thinks  that  first  one 
 should  be  called,  and  then  the  second,  and  then  the  third. 
 But  from  the  result,  and  from  the  words  of  Deuteronomy, 
 which  are  cited  by  Christ,  it  is  clear  that  they  are  not  to  be 
 called  separately  but  all  at  once,  and  two  or  three  in  num- 
 ber at  least.  For  it  is  not  in  the  mouth  of  one  but  of  two 
 or  three  witnesses  that  every  word  shall  stand. 
 
 Verse  17.  And  if  he  ivill  not  hear  them,  tell  the  Church. 
 If  he  will  not  believe  them,  that  is,  then  it  shall  be  lawful 
 for  thee  to  bring  thy  brother  to  the  judgment  of  the  Church. 
 
I04  THE   GOSPEL   OF    S.   MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xviii.  i8. 
 
 The  word  "hear"  is  here  put  for  "obey"  by  a  Hebraism. 
 Some  heretics,  without  reason,  understand  by  the  Church 
 the  Jewish  synagogue.  For  nowhere  in  the  New  Testament 
 is  the  synagogue  called  the  Church,  as  S.  Augustin  {Ep.  to 
 Rom.  and  Ps.  Ixxxi.)  first  remarked,  and  on  the  verse  fol- 
 lowing, speaking  of  the  Church  before  which  the  offender 
 was  to  be  brought,  He  adds  "Whatever  you  bind,"  &c.  The 
 power  of  binding  and  loosing  was  given  not  to  the  Jewish 
 synagogue  but  to  the  Christian  Church ;  and  as  Christ  said 
 this  not  to  the  Jews  but  to  the  Apostles,  we  cannot  doubt 
 that  it  was  spoken  of  the  Church  and  not  of  the  synagogue. 
 It  is  clear,  however,  from  this  that  the  Church  is  a  visible 
 thing,  and  not,  as  these  would  have  it,  invisible,  or  rather  a 
 mere  nullity.  These  men  dread  the  judgment  of  the 
 Church,  and  therefore  would  not  have  it  to  be  a  visible 
 thing. 
 
 Let  Jiini  be  to  thee  as  the  heathen  and p2iblican. 
 
 Christ  alludes  to  the  custom  of  the  Jews,  who  abstained 
 from  the  society  of  ethnics  and  publicans,  esteeming  them 
 as  public  sinners.  The  meaning,  therefore,  is  that  they 
 who  will  not  obey  the  judgment  of  the  Church  are  to  be 
 avoided  as  if  they  were  heathens.  Christ  orders  this  to 
 be  done  for  two  reasons  : 
 
 1.  That  such  men,  when  they  see  themselves  separated 
 from  the  Church,  may  repent,  as  says  S.  Paul  (i  Cor.  v.  5), 
 that  their  souls  may  be  saved. 
 
 2.  Lest  they  who  are  in  good  plight  should  incur  the  risk 
 of  contagion  by  consorting  with  them,  as  above  (i  Cor.  v. 
 II  ;   Titus  iii.  10,  11  ;  2  John  10,  11). 
 
 Verse  18.    WJiatsocvcr  you  shall  bind. 
 Origcn,  Theophylact,  Anastasius  {Quast.   2    in   Scrip.), 
 and,  perhaps,  S.  Chrysostom  (but  he  speaks  with  obscurity), 
 think  that  these  words  were  addressed  to  all  Christians — 
 
Ch.  XVIII.  i8.]  THE   KEYS.  I05 
 
 deceived,  as  appears,  by  the  context  and  order  of  words  ; 
 for  Christ  said  before  (verses  15-18),  "  If  thy  brother  shall 
 offend  against  thee,"  and  then,  "  Whatsoever  you  shall  bind 
 upon  earth  ".  They  think  that  these  words  apply  only  to 
 those  against  whom  the  sin  was  committed  ;  as  if  the  mean- 
 ing were :  If  you  forgive  the  wrong,  God  will  forgive  it 
 also — if  you  do  not  forgive  it,  God  will  not  forgive  it. 
 
 It  is  clear  that  Christ  distinguished  him  against  whom 
 the  wrong  is  done — the  witnesses — from  the  Church,  and 
 says  to  the  latter  alone, "  Whatsoever  you  bind  ".  It  is  clear 
 that  the  Church  is  distinguished  from  him  who  has  brought 
 the  sinner  forward,  and  that  the  meaning  is :  If  he  does  not 
 obey  the  Church  which  binds  him,  let  him  be  to  thee  whom 
 he  has  wronged  as  a  heathen  and  a  publican  ;  for  he  who 
 receives  the  wrong  is  one,  and  he  who  binds  and  looses  is 
 another.  It  is  a  more  weighty  question  whether  the  subject 
 is  only  the  external  and,  so  to  speak,  political  power  of  the 
 Church,  as  some  have  thought.  There  is  no  doubt  that  it 
 is  both  the  external  and  internal  power  of  the  keys  of  which 
 Christ  speaks  when  He  says,  "  Whatsoever  you  shall  bind 
 upon  earth  shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven,"  that  is,  apnd 
 Deiim  ;  for  whatever  is  bound  and  loosed,  apnd  Dcnm,  is 
 bound  and  loosed,  not  only  extrinsically  and  in  the  opinion 
 of  men,  but  also  intrinsically  and  in  truth. 
 
 Christ  willed  the  Church  to  be  the  final  tribunal  before 
 which  sinners,  when  there  were  no  other  means  of  cure, 
 should  be  brought  ;  and  he,  therefore,  gave  it  the  highest 
 power  possible.  But  He  would  not  have  given  this  supreme 
 power  if  He  had  not  given  it  a  greater  than  every  state  has 
 by  its  own  right,  that  of  sending  malefactors  into  banish- 
 ment, which  is,  to  excommunicate  them  in  the  Church. 
 
 It  may  be  objeoted  from  this  passage,  either  that  it  only 
 treats  of  the  external  power  of  excommunication  and  not 
 of  the  power  of  absolution  in  the  Sacrament  of  Penance,  or, 
 if  tTiis  is  treated  of  at  all,  it  follows  that  no  one  who  is  not 
 
I06  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xviii.  19. 
 
 a  priest  can  excommunicate,  which  is  contrary  to  the  use 
 of  the  Church.  The  answer  is,  that  Christ  properly  treats 
 of  the  Sacrament  of  Penance,  and  that  the  power  of  ex- 
 communication is  part  of  that  power,  through  the  Sacra- 
 ment of  Penance,  of  binding  and  loosing  ;  for  whoever 
 does  not  absolve  a  penitent  after  he  has  heard  his  confes- 
 sion privately,  in  a  manner  excommunicates  him,  because 
 he  deprives  him  of  sharing  in  the  sacraments,  although, 
 because  the  excommunication  is  secret,  it  is  not  called 
 excommunication  ;  but  they  who,  when  not  priests,  ex- 
 communicate, do  it  in  alia  (another)  I'atione,  that  is,  as 
 being  superiors,  and  having  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  they 
 deprive  a  public  sinner  of  participating  in  the  sacraments 
 and  the  prayers  of  the  Church.  This  is,  therefore,  com- 
 monly called  excommunication. 
 
 Verse  19.  Again  I  say  unto  you. 
 
 These  words  do  not  seem  at  first  sight  to  agree  well  with 
 the  preceding  ones.  S.  Hilary,  S.  Chrysostom,  S.  Jerome, 
 Euthymius,  and  Theophylact  think  that  they  mean  that 
 Christ  the  more  commends  the  concord  of  which  He  began 
 to  speak  when  He  said,  "  If  thy  brother  shall  offend  against 
 thee,  go  and  rebuke  him  between  thee  and  him  alone," 
 meaning  that  it  was  of  so  much  value  that  if  two  men 
 agreed  together  to  ask  for  a  thing  God  would  give  it  to 
 them.  Then  Christ  perhaps  argues  a  minore  ad  viajus — 
 If  two  men  gained  from  God  whatever  they  asked,  how 
 much  more  shall  the  judgment  of  the  Church  be  confirmed  ? 
 as  S.  Gregory  {Ep.  ex.)  seems  to  imply.  And  this  is  the 
 meaning  of  the  words,  "  Again  I  say  unto  you,"  as  if  Christ 
 had  said,  "  Not  only  whatever  you  shall  bind  upon  earth 
 shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven,  but  also,  what  is  more,  I 
 also  promise  you  that  whatever  two  of  you  ask  by  common 
 consent,  you  shall  obtain  it  ". 
 
 It  will  be  said  that  the  subject  was  not  of  prayer,  but  of 
 
Ch.  xviii.  19.]  UNITED   PRAYERS.  IO7 
 
 the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  ;  to  what  end,  then,  was 
 the  addition,  "  If  two  of  you  "?  It  was  to  show  that  God 
 would  never  suffer  them  to  err  in  their  judgments,  that  is, 
 in  binding  and  loosing,  if  they  acted  in  His  name,  because 
 whatsoever  they  asked  the  Father  in  His  name  should  be 
 done  {S.  John  xiv.  13  ;  xvi.  23).  Some  think  that  Christ 
 added  this  about  prayer  because  He  knew  that  the  Apostles 
 and  whoever  had  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  would 
 never  use  it  without  prayer  beforehand,  in  which  they 
 would  beg  of  God  the  grace  of  rightly  and  justly  judging. 
 This  seems  reasonable. 
 
 If  tiuo  of  yoiL. 
 These  words  have  been  differently  explained.  Origen 
 {Tract,  vi.  in  S.  Matt)  refers  them  to  husband  and  wife, 
 who,  as  S.  Paul  (i  Cor.  vii.  5)  says,  if  they  abstain  from 
 conjugal  custom  for  the  sake  of  prayer  shall  obtain  what 
 they  ask.  Others  refer  them  to  the  soul  and  body,  as 
 Origen  {eod.  loc),  S.  Athanasius  {QucEst.  61),  S.  Ambrose 
 {Instit.  Virg.,  chap,  ii,,  and  On  S.  Liike  xiv.),  S.  Jerome 
 Bede,  and  Theophylact  in  his  commentaries.  Others  refer 
 them  only  to  the  Apostles,  as  S.  Chrysostom  and  Euthy- 
 mius.  Others,  as  Anastasius  {Qucest.  74),  to  him  who  is 
 blamed  and  to  him  who  blames.  Others  to  all  Christians, 
 because  it  follows,  "  Where  there  are  two  or  three  gathered 
 together  in  My  name  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them" 
 (verse  20),  for  the  promise  seems  to  be  general. 
 
 On  eartJi. 
 Earth  is  here  opposed  by  Christ  to  heaven,  to  signify 
 that  those  who  are  on  earth,  though  it  be  so  far  distant  from 
 heaven,  will  be  heard  there  when  they  pray,  as  explained 
 on  chap.  xvi.  29. 
 
 Concerning  any  tJiing  whatsoever. 
 Though    Christ   spoke   generally   and    universally,    His 
 words  are  not  so  to  be  understood  as  that  we  should  think  we 
 
I08  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xviii.  20. 
 
 shall  obtain  whatever  we  ask,  whether  good  or  evil,  honour- 
 able or  dishonourable.  For  Christ  takes  it  as  certain  that 
 good  men,  as  by  some  law  of  nature,  will  ask  only  what  is 
 good.  His  w^ords,  "any  thing  whatsoever,"  are  meant  to 
 include  not  only  good  and  evil,  but  also  small  and  great, 
 easy  and  difficult  things.  Why  we  do  not  always  gain 
 what  we  ask,  and  under  what  conditions  these  promises 
 are  to  be  understood,  has  been  stated  (vii.  7). 
 
 Verse  20.  Where  there  are  two  or  three  gathered  together  in 
 My  name. 
 
 This  is  a  confirmation  of  the  former  verse,  and  it  gives 
 the  reason  why  whatever  two  consent  together  to  ask  they 
 shall  obtain.  It  is  because  He  is  in  the  midst  of  them,  and 
 speaks,  as  it  were,  out  of  their  own  mouths  for  them  ;  or, 
 as  in  verse  18,  that  whatever  they  bind  and  loose  shall  be 
 bound  and  loosed,  because  He  is  in  the  midst  of  them 
 binding  or  loosing  for  them.  The  idea  of  S.  Hilary, 
 S.  Chrysostom,  and  Theophylact,  that  the  being  gathered 
 together  means  merely  consent  about  a  thing  or  union  as 
 friends  for  Christ's  sake,  is  forced.  For  when  Christ  says, 
 "  I  am  in  the  midst  of  them,"  He  clearly  means  an  assembly 
 and  session  in  which  He  sits  in  the  midst  as  a  judge.  He 
 alludes,  perhaps,  to  the  custom  of  the  Jews,  who  exercise 
 judgment  in  their  assemblies,  that  is,  their  synagogues. 
 
 It  is  more  difficult  to  explain  the  assembling  in  Christ's 
 name.  Some,  like  S.  Chrysostom  and  Euthymius,  take  it 
 to  mean  a  meeting  on  account  of  Christ ;  that  is,  that  they 
 who  arc  met  together  seek  for  nothing  else  but  only  the 
 glory  of  Christ.  Others  say  that  it  means  the  invoking  of 
 the  name  of  Christ,  and  this  the  rather  because  He  was 
 speaking  of  prayer.  The  meaning  seems  to  be  that  we 
 should  come  together  by  His  authority,  and  bearing  His 
 Person,  as  S.  Paul  says  (i  Cor.  v.  4),  that  he,  in  the  name 
 (that  is,  the  authority  and  power  of  Christ,  as  he  imme- 
 
Ch.  XVIII.  20.]  UNITED   WORSHIP.  IO9 
 
 d lately  declares)  delivered  over  that  Corinthian  to  Satan, 
 and  as  we  read  that  the  Apostles  in  the  name  of  Christ 
 baptised  and  wrought  miracles.  When,  therefore,  they 
 who  possess  the  power  in  the  Church  of  judging  come 
 together  for  judgment,  they  are  therefore  said  to  come 
 together  in  Christ's  name.  Nor  is  it  necessary  that  they 
 should  seek  nothing  else  than  Christ,  for  how  many  have 
 ever  done  this?  Besides,  it  can  never  appear  whether  they 
 are  assembled  in  the  name  of  Christ  or  not.  For  who  but 
 God  knows  the  wills  of  men  ? 
 
 When  the  heretics  say  that  we  must  judge  whether  the 
 assemblies  come  together  in  the  name  of  Christ,  by  whether 
 they  decree  nothing  except  from  the  Word  of  God,  they 
 speak  perversely.  For  it  is  not  because  they  decree  no- 
 thing contrary  to  the  Word  of  God  that  they  come  together 
 in  the  name  of  Christ,  but  because  they  come  together  in  the 
 name  of  Christ  they  cannot  decree  anything  except  from 
 the  Word  of  God.  For  they  come  together  in  the  name  of 
 Christ  before  they  decree  anything  ;  and  they  who  do  not 
 come  together  in  that  name  can  sometimes  decree  a  thing  ex 
 vcrbo  Dei.  They  therefore  give  us  an  uncertain  heresy  and 
 a  fallacious  rule ;  which,  if  it  were  true,  could  never  decide 
 for  us  whether  or  not  any  council  had  ever  met  in  the 
 name  of  Christ.  For  it  would  require  another  council  to 
 decide  whether  anything  had  been  ruled  not  ex  verbo  Dei ; 
 and  to  decide  whether  this  Latin  council  had  said  anything 
 beside  the  Word  of  God,  there  would  be  need  of  another, 
 and  so  our  faith  would  nowhere  find  a  place  for  its  foot. 
 
 There  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them. 
 Origen,  S.  Chrysostom,  and  Euthymius  observe  that 
 Christ  did  not  say,  "there  I  shall  be,"  but,  "there  I  am". 
 This  is  hardly  certain  perhaps.  They  should  rather  have 
 explained  what  Christ's  being  in  the  midst  of  them  is,  S. 
 Hilary  speaks  as  if  it  meant  simply  His  dwelling  in  them 
 
I  lO  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xviii.  20. 
 
 by  grace.  But  111  this  way  He  is  in  all  just  men,  even  if 
 not  assembled  together.  But  Christ's  words  mean  that  He 
 is  in  the  midst  of  those  who  are  assembled  together  in 
 another  manner  than  in  those  who  are  not  so.  Some 
 explain  "  I  am  in  medio  eoriini — in  the  midst  of  them,"  by, 
 "  I  am  there  to  ask  for  them,  to  pray  for  them  ".  The 
 words  would  appear  to  mean  not  only  assistance,  but  also 
 authority,  as  if  Christ  had  said  :  I  sit  in  their  midst  as  a 
 supreme  judge,  confirming  their  decisions  which  they  pro- 
 nounce in  My  name,  as  David  says  in  Ps.  Ixxxi.  i. 
 
 This  passage  is  brought  forward  to  prove  the  authority 
 of  councils,  which  not  only  heretics,  but  some  Catholics, 
 say  it  cannot  do,  because  it  treats  of  prayer  and  not  of 
 judgment  ;  and  of  the  assembling  of  two  or  three,  not  of 
 a  just  council. 
 
 These  do  not  appear  to  see  the  force  of  the  argument : 
 that  it  is  one  a  minorc  ad  majus.  For  if,  when  two  or 
 three  judges  of  the  Church  come  together  in  the  name  of 
 Christ  to  judge  of  some  matter  not  of  very  great  con- 
 sequence, Christ  declares  that  He  is  in  the  midst  of  them,, 
 how  will  He  not  be  so  when  not  two  or  three,  but  all  the 
 judges  of  the  Church — that  is,  the  bishops— come  together 
 to  judge,  not  some  small  matter,  but  the  faith,  the  religion,, 
 the  salvation  of  men,  the  government  of  the  whole 
 Church  ? 
 
 It  will  be  objected  that  by  this  same  passage  the  autho- 
 rity of  Provincial  Councils,  as  they  are  called,  will  also 
 be  established.  For  in  these  also,  not  two  or  three,  but 
 many,  bishops  arc  assembled.  It  may  be  granted  that  it 
 is  so ;  only  Provincial  Councils  must  be  assembled  in 
 Christ's  name.  They  are  so  assembled  when  they  meet  in 
 His  authority,  and  they  meet  in  His  authority  when  they 
 are  assembled  and  confirmed  by  the  authority  of  the 
 Roman  Pontiff,  His  Vicar  ;  without  which,  as  they  cannot 
 be  assembled  at  all,  nor  can  meet  in  the  name  of  Christ, 
 
Ch.  XVIII.  21,  22.]  PETER'S   QUESTION,  HI 
 
 we  do  not  deny  that  when  they  do  not  meet  in  the  name 
 of  Christ,  they  can  err. 
 
 Verse  21.   Then  came  Peter. 
 
 It  is  not  very  clear  what  moved  Peter  to  ask  this  ques- 
 tion. S.  Jerome  thinks  that  it  was  the  words  of  Christ 
 (verse  15) ;  for  Peter  may  have  honestly  doubted  how  often 
 he  ought  to  forgive  a  brother  who  had  offended  him  ;  but 
 Christ  had  spoken,  not  of  the  forgiveness  of  wrongs  but  of 
 brotherly  correction.  S.  Chrysostom  and  Euthymius  think 
 that  Peter  was  prompted  by  love  of  honour  and  the  desire 
 of  gaining  praise  for  mercy,  and  that  he  supposed  himself 
 to  be  the  author  of  a  great  saying  when  he  proposed  for- 
 giveness seven  times.  It  would  appear  that  he  was  urged 
 to  ask  the  question  by  the  words  of  Christ  {S.  Luke  xvii.  4). 
 For  although  S.  Matthew  has  passed  over  these  words  in 
 silence,  it  seems  probable  that  Christ  spoke  them  when  He 
 said,  "  If  thy  brother  shall  offend  against  thee,"  for  S.  Luke 
 unites  these  words  with  them  ;  though  S.  Augustin  thinks 
 that  they  were  spoken  at  some  other  time  and  on  some 
 other  occasion  {De  Consens./\\.  61);  but  it  appears  more 
 reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  Evangelist  wrote  at  one 
 time  and  in  one  order  what  Christ  spoke  in  another. 
 
 "  Till  seven  times : "  what  Christ  said  without  limit,  Peter 
 understood  definitely,  for  Christ  had  signified  that  the 
 brother  should  be  forgiven  seven  times ;  that,  is  as  often  as 
 he  had  offended.  For  seven  is  put  very  commonly  for  an 
 infinite  and  unlimited  number  (as  in  Prov.  xxiv.  16) ; 
 that  is,  as  often  as  he  falls  he  shall  rise  again,  because  the 
 Lord  will  not  desert  him. 
 
 Verse  22.  /  say  not  unto  thee,  &c. 
 
 An  infinite  number  multiplied  ten  times  and  multiplied 
 by  the  same  again   makes  the  result   still  more  infinite,. 
 
112  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xviii.  22. 
 
 although,  in  fact,  seven  times  and  seventy  times  seven 
 amounts  to  the  same  result,  as  each  amount  signifies  the 
 negation  of  number  ;  as  if  Christ  had  said,  I  say  unto  thee 
 not  only  that  thou  shalt  forgive  an  innumerable  number  of 
 times,  but  an  innumerably  innumerable  number.  So  say 
 S.  Chrysostom  and  Euthymius,  and  so  Genesis  iv.  24 ;  to 
 which  passage  S.  Hilary  thinks  Christ  here  made  allusion, 
 meaning  that  as  punishment,  so  pardon  should  be  extended 
 indefinitely;  because  "where  sin  abounded,  grace  did  more 
 abound  "  {Rom.  v,  20).  This,  as  S.  Jerome  and  Bede  have 
 observed,  is  to  be  understood  of  the  brother  who  sins 
 against  us  seventy  times  seven  in  the  same  day.  This  is 
 plain  from  S.  Luke. 
 
 The  priest  is  not  taught  by  this  to  give  absolution  heed- 
 lessly to  those  who  sin  frequently,  but  he  is  taught,  when 
 sinned  against,  to  be  always  ready  to  receive  the  sinner  to 
 forgiveness.  It  seems  to  be  difficult  how  Christ,  in  ^.  Luke, 
 said,  "If  he  be  converted  unto  thee,  forgive  him,"  as  if  the 
 meaning  were  that  he  ought  not  to  remit  the  offender 
 unless  he  be  first  penitent ;  to  do  which  would  be  entirely 
 contrary  to  all  Scripture,  for  it  is  the  most  certain  rule  : 
 "  Forgive  us  our  debts  as  we  also  forgive  our  debtors  ;  but 
 if  you  will  not  forgive  men,  neither  will  your  Father  forgive 
 you  your  offences"  (vi.  12-15).  I"  two  ways,  then,  we  for- 
 give an  offence:  (i)  Either  by  bearing  to  the  offender 
 no  ill-will  (and  this  we  should  always  do),  even  if  he  do 
 not  repent,  that  God  may  forgive  us  our  trespasses  ;  or  (2) 
 by  not  accusing  him.  For  not  to  accuse,  not  to  delate,  and 
 not  to  punish,  is  to  spare.  In  this  way  we  are  to  under- 
 stand that  Christ  would  not  have  us  forgive  our  brother 
 who  has  offended  us,  unless  he  first  repent.  His  object 
 was  to  teach  that  a  brother  is  not  to  be  brought  before  the 
 Church  unless  he  have  first  been  privately  admonished 
 before  two  or  three  witnesses  and  still  remain  obstinate  in 
 his  wickedness. 
 
Ch.  XVIII.  23.]   SERVANT  AND  TEN  THOUSAND  TALENTS.   II3 
 
 Verse  23.   Therefore  ("  Ideo  "). 
 
 We  should  rather  have  expected  quid  than  ideo,  but  either 
 Sm  or  Tov  is  put  for  on,  that  is,  propterea  for  qtiia,  as  some- 
 times the  Hebrews  put  1^7  "  for,"  or  we  must  understand 
 that  this  was  said  because  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  Hke  a 
 king,  that  is,  a  certain  king — a  Hebraism  which  has  been 
 found  in  many  places.  To  say  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
 is  like  a  king  is  the  same  as  saying  that  the  same  thing 
 takes  place  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  as  if  a  king  were 
 beginning  to  take  account  of  his  servants  (as  xi.  16)  ;  for 
 it  is  not  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  that  is,  the  Church,  but 
 the  Lord  of  the  kingdom  that  is  compared  to  the  king. 
 
 The  meaning  of  the  whole  parable  is  to  be  gathered  from 
 verse  35,  namely,  that  God  will  not  forgive  us  our  sins 
 unless  we  forgive  the  sins  of  our  brother,  as  it  is  more  right 
 that  we  should  forgive  him  than  that  God  should  forgive 
 us  ;  for  we  men  are  like  our  brothers,  but  God  is  unlike  us. 
 Our  sins  against  God  are  without  number,  and  infinitely 
 heavy  ;  the  sins  of  our  brother  against  us  are  both  few  and 
 for  the  most  part  light.  There  are  in  this  parable  as  in  all 
 the  others,  as  has  been  said  before,  some  things  necessary 
 and  properly  parts  of  it  ;  others  which  are  emblems,  em- 
 bellishments, and  additions  to  complete  the  whole.  The 
 necessary  parts  are  the  king  and  the  two  servants  :  the 
 one  whose  debt  the  lord  forgave,  the  other  whose  debt  his 
 fellow-servant  would  not  forgive.  Then  there  is  the  debt 
 of  the  ten  thousand  talents  which  one  servant  owed  the 
 king,  and  that  of  the  hundred  pieces  which  the  fellow- 
 servant  owed  the  other.  The  emblems  are  (i)  that  in  verse 
 25  the  king  is  said  to  have  commanded  the  wife  and 
 children  of  the  debtor  to  be  sold  for  the  ten  thousand 
 talents  ;  for  this  is  not  to  be  applied  to  the  subject  as  if  it 
 signified  that  the  wife  would  be  condemned  because  of  her 
 husband  and  the  children  because  of  their  father  ;  for  these 
 8 
 
114  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.   [Ch.  xviii.  24-34. 
 
 are  either  ornaments  or  they  mean  that  the  most  heavy- 
 punishment  is  signified,  such  as  that  which,  according  to 
 civil  law,  was  inflicted  not  only  on  him  who  had  committed 
 the  crime,  but  also  on  his  wife  and  children,  and  which  is 
 found  in  4  Kni£;s  iv.  i. 
 
 (2)  It  is  also  an  emblem,  as  is  shown  in  verse  31;  for  it 
 is  not  meant  that  the  saints,  that  is,  the  servants  of  God, 
 accuse  those  who  do  not  forgive  their  brothers'  trespasses, 
 but  it  is  said  because  it  is  often  the  custom  among  men  for 
 one  servant  to  accuse  another  to  his  master. 
 
 Verse  24.    Ten  tJioiisand  talents. 
 
 There  were  various  kinds  of  talents.  It  is  probable  that 
 Christ  spoke  of  that  which  was  most  in  use  among  the 
 Jews.  A  talent  was  in  value  about  ^^243,  15s.  It  does  not 
 matter  to  estimate  the  amount  precisely  ;  it  is  sufficient  to 
 understand  that  the  total  amount  was,  at  the  lowest,  very 
 considerable. 
 
 Verse  28.  An  hundred  pence. 
 A  Roman  penny  was  in  value  about  yld.     Whatever  the 
 exact  amount,  the  debt  was  at  most  a  very  insignificant  one. 
 
 Verse  34.  Until  he  paid. 
 That  is,  always,  as  S.  Chrysostom,  Euthymius,  and 
 Theophylact  suppose.  It  is  not  meant  that  they  who  are 
 condemned  will  ever  pay  their  penalties  and  be  freed  as  if 
 by  the  payment  of  their  debt.  This  was  the  error  of  the 
 followers  of  Origen.  But  they  never  will  be  freed  unless 
 they  pay  the  penalty  ;  and  as  they  can  never  do  this  they 
 never  can  be  freed.  Nor  is  the  meaning  that  God  calls 
 into  question  and  punishes  sins  forgiven,  because  of  the 
 commission  of  fresh  sins,  but  that  Christ  urged  upon  us  that 
 those  who  have  not  forgiven  their  brothers'  sins  God  in 
 turn  will  not  forgive,  although,  as  to  what  S.  Thomas 
 himself  said   (part  iii.,  q.   88,  art.   i.   3),  that   former  sins 
 
Ch.  XVIII.  34.]    SERVANT  AND  TEN  THOUSAND  TALENTS.    II5 
 
 which  have  been  forgiven,  if  new  ones  are  added,  are  in  a 
 manner  punished,  because  of  the  ingratitude  of  the  sinner. 
 It  is  true,  not  that  sins  that  have  been  forgiven  are 
 punished,  but  that  if  they  were  not  so,  a  following  sin 
 would  be  punished  less  heavily,  because  the  offender  would 
 be  less  ungrateful  if  he  committed  a  fresh  sin,  as  his  former 
 
CHAPTER  XIX. 
 
 CHRIST  DECLARES  MATRIMONY  TO  BE  INDISSOLUBLE — 
 HE  RECOMMENDS  THE  MAKING  ONESELF  AN  EUNUCH 
 FOR  THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN,  AND  PARTING  WITH 
 ALL  THINGS  FOR  HIM — HE  SHOWS  THE  DANGER  OF 
 RICHES  AND  THE  REWARD  OF  LEAVING  ALL  TO 
 FOLLOW   HIM. 
 
 Verse  i.    IVAen  Jesus  had  ended  these  zuords. 
 Either  when  He  had  finished  the  whole  conversation,  or 
 more  probably,  perhaps,  the  parable  concluded  in  the  last 
 chapter. 
 
 He  departed  from  Galilee. 
 
 S.  Hilary  reads  "into  Galilee"  with  an  opposite  meaning. 
 It  is  certain  that  Christ  was  at  this  time  in  Galilee,  and 
 therefore  could  not  depart  into  it.  Besides,  S.  Luke  says 
 (ix.  51),  that  He  departed  thence  that  He  might  go  to 
 Jerusalem.  S.  Hilary  probably  thinks  that  He  came  not 
 into  Judaea  but  into  its  confines. 
 
 It  has  been  questioned  whether  this  is  the  history  of  the 
 same  events  as  those  in  5.  Mark  x.  i  ;  5.  Liike  ix.  51  ;  .S. 
 JoJin  vii.  10.  All  agree  that  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark 
 speak  of  the  same  event.  The  doubt  is  of  the  other  two ; 
 for  each  relates  many  things  afterwards  which  could  not 
 have  happened  subsequently  to  this  arrival  of  Christ  in 
 Judaea. 
 
 There  seems  no  doubt  that  S.  Luke  relates  the  same 
 history : 
 
Ch.  XIX.  I.]  THE  LAST  JOURNEY  INTO  JUD^A.  11/ 
 
 1.  Because  it  appears  that  this  was  the  last  journey  of 
 Christ  into  Judaea. 
 
 2.  Because  the  EvangeHsts  do  not  mention  any  journey 
 after  this  one. 
 
 3.  Because  Christ  signified  this,  saying  (xvi.  21,  xvii.  22), 
 that  He  would  go  up  to  Jerusalem  and  there  suffer,  speaking 
 as  if  His  death  were  near  at  hand.  S.  Luke  also  speaks  of 
 it  as  the  last  journey.  That  he  afterwards  relates  many 
 things  which  took  place  subsequently  to  this  departure 
 need  not  seem  extraordinary,  as  we  continually  see  that 
 the  Evangelists  do  not  observe  the  order  of  events. 
 
 Many  think  that  S.  John  also  describes  the  same  events. 
 This  hardly  seems  credible  because — 
 
 1.  Christ  says  (vii.  6)  that  His  time  had  not  yet  come,  but 
 in  kS".  Matthew  He  twice  declares  the  contrary :  that  the 
 time  of  His  Passion  was  at  hand. 
 
 2.  He  is  said  in  S.  John  (vii.  9,  10)  to  have  gone  up  to 
 Judaea  alone  ;  while  it  is  said  here  that  not  only  the 
 disciples  but  also  a  great  multitude  followed  Him. 
 
 3.  Lastly,  the  departure  of  which  S.  John  there  speaks 
 was  not  the  last :  as  he  says  afterwards  (xi.  7)  that  Christ 
 came  into  Judaea  again  to  raise  Lazarus. 
 
 And  came  into  the  coasts  of  Jiid(Ea. 
 
 S.  Hilary,  as  before  said,  thinks  that  Christ  did  not  come 
 into  Judaea,  but  only  to  the  confines  of  that  country  and 
 Galilee ;  and  S.  Chrysostom  and  Euthymius  agree  with  him. 
 Some  think,  on  the  contrary,  but  apparently  with  no  good 
 reason,  that  He  came  to  Jerusalem  first,  and  then  returned 
 again  to  the  regions  of  Judaea  and  Galilee.  For  the 
 Evangelist  declares  plainly  that  He  came  directly  from 
 Galilee  to  the  confines  of  Judaea,  and  that  great  multitudes 
 followed  Him.  He  came  then  into  the  confines  of  Judaea 
 that  He  might  come  to  Jerusalem.  The  Evangelist 
 mentioned  that  place  to  describe  exactly  the  scene  of  the 
 
Il8  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xix.  2,  3. 
 
 miracle  which  he  was  about  to  relate  :  "  And,"  he  says,  "  He 
 healed  them  there  ". 
 
 Beyond  Jordan . 
 Both  Judasa  and  Galilee  were  on  this  side,  not  beyond 
 Jordan,  but  the  expression  "  beyond  Jordan  "  is  used  as  by 
 those   who   came   up    into   the    country   from    Egypt,   as 
 explained  on  chap.  iv.  15. 
 
 Verse  2.  . .'  nd  He  healed  them  there. 
 This  does  not  mean  that  Christ  healed  all  who  followed 
 Him,  but  all  who  were  sick,  and  perhaps  not  all  these,  but 
 only  such  as  were  worthy,  as  supra,  xiv.  14.  S.  Mark  (x.  i) 
 writes  that  He  taught  those  who  followed  Him,  which  S. 
 Matthew  passes  over.  But  even  if  S.  Mark  had  not  said 
 this,  we  might  have  inferred  it  from  Christ's  custom.  He 
 rarely  performed  a  miracle  without  teaching.  For  He 
 always  united  acts  with  His  words  ;  as  S.  Chrysostom  and 
 Euthymius  have  observed. 
 
 There. 
 
 That  is,  on  the  confines  of  Galilee  and  Judaea  :  for  He 
 
 would  not  have  the  Galileans  who  had  followed  Him  come 
 
 out  of  their  own   country  ;  or,  as  The  Author  supposed, 
 
 that  the  Jews,  who  were  slanderers,  might  not  say  that  He 
 
 led  a  great  multitude  after  Him  for  the  sake  of  His  own 
 
 glory. 
 
 Verse  3.  Aiid  there  came  to  Him. 
 
 It  is  not  said  whether  the  Pharisees  came  to  Christ  in 
 the  same  place,  but  it  is  most  likely  that  they  did  so,  for 
 the  order  of  the  history  both  in  5.  Mattliezv  and  5.  Mark 
 seems  to  imply  as  much.  And  this  is  the  opinion  of  S. 
 Chrysostom  and  Theophylact. 
 
 For  every  cause. 
 
 They  do  not  say  "  for  any  cause,"  but  "  for  every 
 cause".  For  they  had  no  doubt  about  some  causes,  as 
 Origen  {Tract,  vii.  on  S.  Matt),  S.  Jerome,  and  Bede  say. 
 
Ch.xix.  4.]      PHARISEES'   QUESTION    OF   DIVORCE.  I19 
 
 There  has  been  a  doubt  on  what  occasion  the  Pharisees 
 put  this  question.  Some  think  that  it  was  because  of  what 
 Christ  had  said :  "  All  the  Prophets  and  the  Law  prophesied 
 until  John  "  (xi.  13),  as  if  He  meant  that  the  Law  was  now 
 abrogated  ;  and  the  Pharisees  wished  to  know  whether  He 
 would  say  this,  in  answering  their  question.  But  this 
 reason  seems  very  remote  and  not  very  applicable  to  the 
 subject ;  both  because  Christ  had  long  since  declared  such 
 to  be  the  case,  and  as  they  might  have  raised  many  other 
 questions  with  the  same  object.  Theophylact  thinks  that 
 the  question  was  caused  by  Christ's  words  (chap.  v.  32). 
 The  Author,  that  the  Pharisees  raised  the  question  of  mar- 
 riage as  being  themselves  carnal ;  as  they  who  are  in  ill-health 
 talk  continually  of  medicines.  It  may  have  been,  as  has 
 been  suggested,  that  the  question  was  being  agitated  at  the 
 time  by  the  Jews,  like  that  of  paying  tribute  to  Caesar 
 (xxii.  17).  Men  ask  different  questions  at  different  times. 
 It  is  a  conjecture  worthy  of  the  minds  of  the  Pharisees 
 that  they  asked  this  question  rather  than  any  other,  because, 
 as  it  concerned  all  men,  it  was  full  of  invidiousness. 
 
 Verse  4.  Have  yon  not  read. 
 Christ,  in  reply,  exposed  their  ignorance  of  the  Law,  on 
 the  knowledge  of  which  they  especially  prided  themselves. 
 Christ  had  done  the  same  thing  before  (xii.  3-5),  as 
 Euthymius  observes.  S.  Mark  says  that  Christ  asked  them 
 what  Moses  had  commanded,  which  seems  opposed  to  the 
 passage.  S.  Augustin  (ii.  62,  De  Consens.  Evang.)  says 
 that  S.  Mark  wished  to  express,  not  the  words,  but  the  will 
 of  Christ.  It  is  probable  that  Christ  said  what  both  S. 
 Matthew  and  S.  Mark  relate,  but  that  He  first  asked  the 
 Pharisees,  "  What  did  Moses  command  you  ? "  and  they 
 answered,  "  Moses  permitted  us  to  write  a  bill  of  divorce 
 and  put  her  away  ".  Then  Christ  replied,  "  Have  you  not 
 read   that  He  who  made  them   in  the  beginning?"  &c. 
 
I20  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xix.  4. 
 
 (verse  4).  To  this  the  Pharisees  objected  again,  "  Why- 
 then  did  Moses  command  to  give  a  bill  of  divorce  and  to 
 put  her  away  ? "  (verse  7).  Christ  did  not  answer  them 
 directly,  but  cited  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  and  caused 
 God,  or  Moses,  of  whose  doctrine  the  Pharisees  boasted 
 themselves  followers,  to  answer  tacitly  for  Him,  as  say  S. 
 Chrysostom  and  Euthymius.  These  two  authors  observe 
 that  Christ  answered  His  opponents  both  by  facts  and  by 
 words  :  by  facts,  when  He  said,  "  Have  you  not  read  that 
 He  who  made  man  from  the  beginning  made  them  male 
 and  female  ?  "  and  by  words,  when  He  said,  "  For  this 
 cause  shall  a  man  leave  father  and  mother,"  &c.  (verses 
 4,5). 
 
 Male  a7id  female. 
 Questions  have  been  raised  as  to  where  the  force  of  these 
 words  lies.  Some  think  it  to  be  in  the  sex,  as  if  Christ 
 would  teach  that  from  the  difference  of  sex  one  man  ought 
 to  have  only  one  wife,  that  from  each  as  from  two  imperfect 
 parts,  as  Plato  says,  one  perfect  man  might  be  produced. 
 This  seems  the  opinion  of  S.  Augustin  {De  Civit., 
 xiv.  22).  All  others  put  it,  not  in  the  sex,  but  in  the 
 number  :  as  if  Christ  had  said,  "  If  God  had  intended  one 
 man  to  have  more  wives  than  one  He  would  not  have  made 
 only  one  woman  in  the  beginning,  but  more  ".  This  is  the 
 opinion  of  S.  Chrysostom,  Jerome,  The  Author,  Bede, 
 Thcophylact,  Euthymius,  and  Strabus.  To  this  it  may  be 
 objected  that  the  same  argument  would  avail  to  prove  that 
 if  the  first  wife  died  it  would  be  unlawful  to  marry  another. 
 The  first  and  second  are  accounted  to  be  one,  because  they 
 arc  both  one  flesh. 
 
 And  He  said. 
 He,    that   is,  God,  of  whom   Christ  speaks.     S.   Hilary 
 doubts  how  Christ  said  that  God  said  this,  when  it  was  not 
 God  but  Adam   who  said  it  {Geu.  ii.  24  ;  S.  Augustin,  De 
 
Ch.xix.  5.]       PHARISEES'   QUESTION    OF   DIVORCE.  121 
 
 Gen.  ad  Litt.,  ix.  19).  Theophylact  and  Euthymius  (in 
 Comment})  say  that  Adam  spoke  as  a  prophet  by  the  Spirit 
 of  God,  and  that  God  spoke  through  his  lips. 
 
 Verse  5.  For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  father  and  mother. 
 The  Latins  here  put  Jiomineni  for  virum,  as  the  Greeks 
 read  dvdpcoirov  for  avhpa  ;  so  verse  10. 
 
 And  iv ill  cleave  to  his  zuife. 
 S.  Chrysostom  tells  us  that  there  are  three  chief  points 
 to  be  observed  here.  i.  To  leave  his  father  and  mother. 
 2.  To  cleave  to  his  wife,  that  is,  not  in  any  chance  manner, 
 but  so  as  to  be  wholly  conjoined,  co-united,  agglutinated. 
 The  Greek  is  Ko\Xi]07]i'aL,  the  Hebrew  pll.  3.  To  be 
 one  flesh. 
 
 And  tJiey  tzvo  shall  be  in  one  flesh. 
 
 Ek  adpKa  fjilav,  in  carnem  nna^n,  "into  one  flesh  ".  The 
 Hebrew  TH^^  'HlI^iT'  ad  carnem  nnam,  that  is,  that  they ' 
 be  one  flesh,  as  explained  in  the  verse  following.  (So  Gen. 
 ii.  7.)  Adam  is  said  to  have  been  created  in  animam 
 viventem,  that  is,  "  a  living  man  ".  "  And  the  Lord  God 
 built  the  rib  which  He  took  from  Adam  into  a  woman, 
 n\i;'^^7  that  is,  that  she  should  be  a  woman.  But  how  man 
 and  woman  are  said  to  be  one  flesh  has  been  matter  of 
 question.  S.  Jerome,  Bede,  and  S.  Thomas  (in  Catena  and 
 Comment.)  think  that  it  refers  to  the  children,  which  are 
 the  one  common  flesh  of  the  husband  and  wife.  Others 
 explain  like  S.  Paul  (i  Co7'.  i.  16).  Others  of  mutual  love, 
 as  S.  Paul  in  Ephes.  v.  28  ;  or  of  the  power  which  the 
 husband  has  over  the  wife  as  over  his  own  flesh,  as  i  Cor. 
 vii.  4.  Others,  whose  opinion  seems  preferable  to  that  of 
 the  rest,  say  that  one  flesh  means  one  person  (Jiomo) ; 
 for  "  flesh  "  is  often  used  by  the  Hebrews  for  the  whole 
 individual.  Christ,  then,  means  that  man  and  wife  are 
 not  two  homines,  but  one  homo — the  wife  being  as  the  body, 
 
122  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xix.  6,  7. 
 
 the  man  as  the  spirit  and  soul.  The  man,  therefore,  ought 
 no  more  to  be  separated  from  the  wife  than  the  soul  from 
 the  body. 
 
 Verse  6.    JV/iat,  therefore,  God  Jiath  joined  together,  let  710 
 man  put  asunder. 
 
 Christ  does  not  say  "  whom,"  but  "  what,"  as  speaking 
 not  of  two  but  one  flesh,  as  a  little  before  He  had  said, 
 "  They  are  not  two  but  one  flesh  ". 
 
 S.  Chrysostom  has  observed  that  Christ  proved  the  bond 
 of  marriage  both  by  natural  and  divine  law  :  by  the  natural 
 in  the  fact  that  God  has  made  one  woman  for  one  man  ;  by 
 the  divine  in  the  words,  "  A  man  shall  leave  father  and 
 mother  and  cleave  to  his  wife ".  In  these  words  God 
 seems  to  have  inseparably  united  the  wife  to  the  husband, 
 as  the  Wise  Man  says  {Prov.  xix.  14). 
 
 Verse  7.  Why  then  did  Moses  coviviand. 
 S.  Mark  (x.  4)  does  not  say  that  the  Pharisees  answered 
 that  Moses  "commanded,"  but  Moses  "permitted".  S. 
 Matthew,  on  the  contrary,  says  that  Christ  said  that  Moses 
 did  not  command,  but  permitted  ;  but  S.  Mark  writes  that 
 Christ  said,  "  What  did  Moses  command  you?"  This  is 
 easily  explained  from  what  was  said  before.  i.  It  is 
 probable  that  Christ  had  asked  them  what  Moses  had  com- 
 manded, and  that  they  replied  that  Moses  permitted  them 
 to  put  away  their  wives.  2.  That  Christ  explained  the 
 origin  of  marriage,  and  brought  forward  the  testimony  of 
 Scripture  to  prove  that  the  wife  was  not  to  be  put  away. 
 That  the  Pharisees  further  objected  that  Moses  had  com- 
 manded, using  the  word  "commanded,"  not  "permitted,"  to 
 add  force  to  their  words.  Christ  again  answered,  not  using 
 the  word  "  commanding,"  but  "  permitting  "  :  "  Moses,  by 
 reason  of  the  hardness  of  your  hearts,  permitted  you  ". 
 In  this  way  there  is  no  divarication  between  the  Evan- 
 gelists. 
 
Ch.  XIX.  8.]       PHARISEES'  QUESTION  OF  DIVORCE.  1 23 
 
 Verse  8.  Moses,  by  reason  of  the  hardness  of  your  hearts, 
 permitted  yoii. 
 
 Christ  corrects  the  expression  of  the  Pharisees.  They 
 had  said  "  commanded  "  ;  Christ  said  "  permitted  ".  Why 
 did  Christ  say  that  Moses,  rather  than  God,  permitted  this, 
 when  in  verse  5,  on  the  contrary,  He  said  that  neither 
 Moses  nor  Adam,  but  God  said,  "  For  this  cause,"  &c.  ? 
 Christ  desired  to  add  force  to  His  words,  and  therefore, 
 when  asserting  that  it  was  not  lawful  to  put  away  a  wife, 
 He  said,  not  that  Adam  or  Moses,  but  God  had  said,  "  For 
 this  cause  shall  a  man  leave,"  &c.,  though  both  Adam 
 spoke  and  Moses  wrote  those  words.  When  Christ  an- 
 swered the  Pharisees,  He  would  not  say  that  God  but 
 Moses  permitted,  though  God  also  permitted  it.  This  is 
 how  these  many  authors  are  to  be  understood  who  explain 
 this  passage  as  if  Christ  signified  that  it  was  not  God,  but 
 Moses,  who  permitted  this  divorcement ;  as  if  Christ  wished 
 to  oppose  God,  whom  He  cited,  to  Moses,  whom  the  Phari- 
 sees cited.  Such  is  the  opinion  of  S.  Jerome,  Bede,  Strabus, 
 S.  Thomas,  Hugo. 
 
 There  are  many  questions  on  the  passage. 
 
 I.  For  what  reason  was  divorce  permitted  under  the  Old 
 Testament  ?  Tertullian  (iv.,  Co7it.  Marc.)  thinks  that  it  was 
 only  lawful  then,  as  now,  for  fornication  ;  for  he  so  explains 
 DeiLt.  xxiv.,  but  with  the  only  difference  that  when  a  wife 
 was  put  away  for  that  reason,  it  was  allowed  the  husband 
 to  marry  another,  and  now  it  is  not.  Origen,  S.  Chrysos- 
 tom,  and  others  think  that  divorce  was  lawful  for  many 
 other  reasons  than  this,  and  this  seems  much  more  pro- 
 bable ;  because — (i)  If  fornication  were  the  only  reason, 
 there  would  have  been  no  room  for  the  question  of  the 
 Pharisees.  For  it  would  have  been  great  insolence  in  them 
 to  ask  if  a  man  might  put  away  his  wife  for  every  cause,  if 
 it  had  only  been  permitted  for  fornication.  But  when  they 
 ask  whether  it  were  lawful  to  put  away  a  wife  for  every 
 
124  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xix.  8. 
 
 cause,  we  cannot  doubt  that  they  knew  of  many  other 
 reasons.  This  is  seen  from  Christ's  reply.  He  desired  to 
 narrow  the  licence  given  by  Moses,  and,  as  it  had  before 
 been  lawful  to  put  away  a  wife  for  many  reasons.  He  now 
 permitted  it  for  fornication  alone.  This  is  shown  also 
 from  the  above  words  of  Dent.  xxiv.  i,  in  which  it  is  plain 
 that  Moses  did  not  speak  of  fornication  :  for  which  the  wife 
 was  not  to  be  put  away,  but  stoned.  (2)  It  was  signified 
 in  the  libel  of  divorcement  that  the  woman  had  not  com- 
 mitted adultery,  chiefly  that  her  honour  might  be  preserved, 
 and  she  herself  be  at  liberty,  if  she  wished,  to  be  married  to 
 another  husband.  She  might  be  put  away,  then,  for  other 
 reasons  than  those  of  adultery. 
 
 What  these  were  is  not  certain.  De  Lyra,  in  his  Com- 
 ment, on  Dent,  xxiv.,  gives  two  opinions  :  i.  For  contagious 
 disease  or  the  like  before  the  marriage.  2.  Causes  opposed  to 
 marriage,  even  if  supervening  after  it,  as  if  the  woman  were 
 a  witch  or  a  child-murderer  ;  which  Origen  in  his  Tract. 
 vii.  on  S.  Matt,  seems  to  approve,  though  speaking  rather 
 of  the  Evangelical  than  of  the  Mosaic  Law. 
 
 2.  The  second  question  is  :  How  the  Jews  were  allowed 
 to  put  away  their  wives,  so  as  in  putting  them  away  they 
 might  not  sin,  or  so  as  that  they  sinned  indeed,  but  were 
 not  punished  by  the  Law.  That  great  divine,  S.  Thomas, 
 has  specified  four  ways  in  which  a  thing  can  be  permitted  : 
 
 (i)  Because  it  is  good,  but  not  commanded  ;  as  the  selling 
 of  all  we  have,  and  giving  to  the  poor,  which  is  not  com- 
 manded. 
 
 (2)  Because  it  is  a  less  good,  when  the  greater  good  is  not 
 commanded ;  as  marriage  is  allowed  because  virginit}-,  which 
 is  a  greater  good,  is  not  commanded. 
 
 (3)  As  it  is  evil,  but  not  forbidden  ;  as  God  is  said  to 
 permit  all  sins,  because  while  He  is  able  to  prevent  them, 
 He  does  not  please  to  do  so. 
 
 (4)  Or  because  the  thing  is  evil  indeed,  but  is  not  pun- 
 
Ch.  XIX.  8.]       PHARISEES'   QUESTION    OF   DIVORCE.  125 
 
 ished  by  the  Law  ;  as  God  permitted  the  Jews  to  practise 
 usury  with  Gentile  nations,  because  He  had  not  appointed 
 any  punishment  in  the  Law  against  those  who  did  it.  In 
 one  other  way  a  thing  is  said  to  be  permitted  :  when  it  is 
 evil,  if  it  is  permitted  by  Him  who  has  given  the  power  of 
 dispensation,  it  ceases  to  be  evil.  So  it  was  permitted  the 
 Prophet  Osee  to  have  children  of  fornication  {Osee  i.  2). 
 Some  think  that  either  in  this  last  manner,  or  as  a  less  good, 
 it  was  permitted  the  Jews  for  certain  reasons  to  put  away 
 their  wives  ;  others  that  it  was  not  as  a  less  good,  but  as  a 
 less  evil,  so  that  they  sinned  indeed  in  putting  them  away, 
 but  would  not  be  punished.  Either  opinion  is  probable, 
 and  each  has  good  authorities  in  its  support.  The  former, 
 The  Author  and  S.  Thomas  ;  the  latter,  Tertullian  {De 
 Monog.),  Origen  {Oti  S.  Matt.),  S.  Jerome,  and  others.  It 
 seems  a  hard  saying  that,  after  so  ample  a  permission  from 
 God,  the  Jews  sinned  in  putting  away  their  wives  ;  especi- 
 ally as  before  the  explanation  by  Christ  it  could  not  cer- 
 tainly be  discovered  from  the  words  of  Deuteronomy 
 whether  it  were  a  precept  or  a  permission  ;  and  if  a 
 permission,  it  did  not  appear  to  have  been  permitted 
 as  an  evil,  which  would  seem  sufficient  to  free  those 
 who  took  advantage  of  the  permission,  from  blame. 
 The  words  of  Christ,  that  it  was  permitted  from  the 
 hardness  of  their  hearts,  can  easily  be  explained.  It 
 was  permitted  for  this  reason,  that  they  might  thus  have 
 no  sin. 
 
 3.  The  third  question  is  :  With  what  ceremonies  and  pre- 
 cautions the  bill  of  divorce  was  given.  Ten  are  mentioned 
 by  the  Hebrews  : 
 
 (i)  That  the  wife  shall  not  go  away  without  the  per- 
 mission of  the  husband.  This  was  explained  in  the  bill  of 
 divorcement. 
 
 (2)  That  the  bill  shall  be  given  into  the  wife's  own  hand,, 
 as  directed  in  Detcteronomy. 
 
126  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xix.  9. 
 
 (3)  That  it  should  be  executed  under  the  hand  and  seal 
 of  at  least  two  witnesses. 
 
 (4)  That  there  should  be  three  generations  of  the  hus- 
 band. 
 
 (5)  That  it  should  be  written  legibly,  clearly,  and  dis- 
 tinctly ;  and  so  that  no  error  might  be  found  in  the  text. 
 
 (6)  That  if  any  spot  of  ink  fell  upon  the  page,  the 
 document  should  have  no  authority,  but  another  copy 
 should  be  prepared. 
 
 (7)  That  there  should  be  no  vestige  of  erasure,  to  avoid 
 all  possible  suspicion  as  to  its  genuineness. 
 
 (8)  That  the  document  should  be  longer  than  broad. 
 
 (9)  That  all  the  witnesses  present  should  seal  with  his 
 own  seal. 
 
 (10)  That  the  husband  on  giving  it  should  say  :  "  Re- 
 ceive this  bill  of  divorce  from  me,  and  be  cast  out  from  me, 
 and  be  given  to  some  other  man  ".  The  form  of  the  docu- 
 ment was  as  follows  : 
 
 "  I,  Rabbi  N.,  son  of  Rabbi  N.,  son  of  Rabbi  N.,  on  the 
 first  day  of  the  second  month  of  the  year  N.  from  the 
 creation  of  the  world,  have,  of  my  own  free  will,  without 
 compulsion,  repudiated  N.,  the  daughter  of  Rabbi  N.,  the 
 son  of  Rabbi  N.,  the  son  of  Rabbi  N.,  and  have  given  her 
 a  libel  of  Repudiation  in  her  hand,  a  paper  of  cutting  off, 
 and  a  sign  of  division,  that  she  may  be  cut  off  from  me 
 and  go  wherever  she  will,  and  that  no  one  be  able  to 
 prohibit  her,  according  to  the  constitutions  of  Moses  and 
 Israel ". 
 
 Verse  9.  yl  nd  I  say  to  yoii. 
 
 S.  Mark  (x.  10)  says  that  Christ  spoke  these  words  to 
 the  disciples  alone,  when  they  had  come  into  the  house. 
 Euthymius  observes  that  He  probably  said  them  twice. 
 First,  to  all  in  common,  as  S.  Matthew  states,  then  pri- 
 vately to  the  disciples  in  the  house;  and  it  is  very  probable 
 that,  as  he  relates  (verse  10),  the  disciples  said  to  Christ:  If 
 
Ch.  XIX.  9.]  MARRIAGE   INDISSOLUBLE. 
 
 127 
 
 the  case  of  a  man  with  his  wife  be  such,  it  is  not  expedient 
 to  marry ;  not  speaking  pubHcly  before  all  the  people,  but 
 privately  and  in  some  secret  place,  as  they  used  to  do  when 
 they  had  any  doubt  about  anything  in  His  conversations. 
 Then,  when  asked  by  the  disciples,  Christ  repeated  the 
 same  words,  although  S.  Matthew  does  not  relate  it,  and 
 He  added  what  S.  Matthew  says  about  eunuchs  and  S. 
 Mark  omits. 
 
 The  sum  of  the  question  is,  whether  the  words  of  Christ, 
 that  it  is  lawful  to  put  away  a  wife  for  fornication,  are  to  be 
 so  taken  as  to  allow  both  the  husband  who  puts  away  and 
 the  wife  who  is  put  away  to  enter  on  a  second  marriage  ? 
 There  are  apparently  three  opinions  on  the  point : 
 
 1.  That  it  is  lawful,  an  opinion  common  to  the  followers 
 of  Luther  and  Calvin,  and  which  is  also  found  even  among 
 some  Catholics. 
 
 2.  The  second  opinion  is  that  it  is  lawful  for  the  inno- 
 cent person,  not  for  the  guilty  one.  Some  of  the  Ancients 
 we  find  held  this  opinion,  as  Tertullian  (iv..  Against 
 Marcion)  and  S.  Ambrose,  or  Remigius  {On  i  Cor.  vii.). 
 Origen  {in  loc.)  also  says  that  some  Catholic  bishops 
 of  his  time  permitted  those  husbands  whose  wives  had 
 committed  adultery  to  put  them  away  and  marry  others. 
 This  was  allowed  in  the  Council  of  Elvir. 
 
 3.  The  third  is  that  which  the  Church  has  followed,  and 
 which  is  so  confirmed  by  the  Council  of  Trent  in  our  own 
 times,  that  it  cannot  be  a  matter  of  doubt  to  any  Catholic  : 
 that  Christ  so  permitted  the  adulterous  wife  to  be  put 
 away,  that  it  should  be  lawful  neither  for  the  adultress  nor 
 the  husband  to  marry  as  long  as  either  lived.  This 
 opinion  seems  so  binding,  both  from  the  authority  of  the 
 Church,  which  alone  ought  to  satisfy  a  Christian  man, 
 and  also  from  the  weight  of  the  arguments  by  which  it  is 
 supported,  that  the  only  wonder  is  that  anyone  can  be 
 found  to  dispute  it.     It  has,   firstly,  the  best   and    most 
 
128  THE    GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xix.  9. 
 
 ancient  authorities  in  its  support.  In  xlviii.  Can.  Apost., 
 whoever  puts  away  his  wife  and  marries  another  is  abso- 
 lutely, and  in  all  cases  without  exception,  if  only  he  had 
 put  her  away  for  fornication,  excommunicated.  This 
 reason  would  certainly  have  been  produced  if  it  had 
 been  lawful,  when  a  wife  was  put  away  for  this  cause,  to 
 marry  another.  So  Evaristus  (in  his  Epist.  ii.)  and  Cle- 
 ment {Alex.  Strom.,  ii.)  teach  without  any  exception. 
 Origen  {Tract,  vii,  on  S.  Matt.)  blames  those  bishops  who 
 allowed  this  in  his  time,  as  being  ignorant  of  the  custom  of 
 the  Church.  So  S.  Chrysostom  {Horn.  xvii.  o)i  S.  Matt.), 
 S.  Jerome  {in  loc,  and  in  his  Epitap.  Fabiolce),  Innocent 
 I.  {Ep.  to  Exnpcrms,  Bishop  of  Toulouse,  chap,  iv.),  S. 
 Augustin  {To  Polluentius),  Isidore  {De  Officiis,  ii.  19),  and 
 Bede  {Comin.  on  S.  Mark  x.).  So  the  early  councils  ruled 
 — Milevis  {Can.  xvii.),  Africa  (if  it  is  a  different  one),  and 
 others.  The  decrees  of  Elvir  and  Aries,  therefore,  cited 
 above,  to  the  contrary  effect,  are  either  spurious  or  apocry- 
 phal, or  are  to  be  so  understood  that  it  is  not  lawful  for  a 
 man  who  has  put  away  his  wife  for  adultery  to  marry 
 another  in  her  lifetime,  but  only  after  her  death.  It  may 
 be  asked  why  this  should  be  granted  when  no  one  doubts 
 that  it  was  lawful  ?  The  answer  may  be  that  it  was 
 expressed  to  show  the  difference  between  the  husband  and 
 the  adulterous  wife,  who,  even  after  her  husband's  death, 
 was  sometimes  ordered  for  penance  to  abstain  from 
 marriage.  Lest,  then,  any  should  understand  the 
 same  of  the  husband,  it  allowed  him  to  marry  another 
 wife,  but,  by  ordinary  ecclesiastical  law,  only  after  her 
 death. 
 
 Besides,  by  this  reason  which  Christ  gives,  cither  nothing 
 is  proved  or  this  is  proved.  He  first  declared  that  God  in 
 the  beginning  created  not  more  than  one  woman,  but  one 
 only  for  one  man,  and  therefore  that  it  was  not  lawful  to 
 have  more  wives  than  one — that  is,  to  put  away  one  and 
 
Ch.  XIX.  9.]  MARRIAGE   INDISSOLUBLE.  1 29 
 
 marry  another.  This  also  avails  to  prove  that  if  a  wife  is 
 put  away,  even  for  fornication,  it  is  not  lawful  to  marry 
 another.  For  it  does  not  matter  why  she  was  put  away, 
 the  same  reason  for  not  marrying  another  always  re- 
 maining— namely,  that  one  woman  was  made  for  one  man. 
 Besides  that  Christ  not  only  reduced  all  the  many  reasons 
 of  the  Jews  for  putting  away  their  wives  to  one  only — 
 fornication,  He  also  took  away  entirely  the  writing  of 
 divorcement,  which  He  said  was  only  given  them  because 
 of  the  hardness  of  their  hearts.  After  Christ,  a  writing  of 
 divorcement  was  not  heard  of  among  Christians.  But  the 
 giving  a  writing  of  divorce,  and  a  man's  being  able  to  marry 
 another  wife,  and  a  wife  to  marry  another  husband,  was  the 
 same  thing ;  and  thus  Christ  took  away  the  power  of  a 
 husband  marrying  another  wife,  and  of  a  wife  being  married 
 to  another  husband,  by  taking  away  the  writing  of  divorce- 
 ment. This  one  reason  alone,  if  there  were  no  other, 
 would  be  enough  and  more  than  enough  to  confirm  this 
 decision.  Again,  if  a  wife  who  had  been  put  away  for 
 fornication  were  allowed  to  be  married  to  another  husband, 
 it  would  follow  that  her  condition  would  be  better  than 
 that  of  a  woman  who  had  been  put  away  because  of  some 
 disease  or  something  that  was  not  her  own  fault ;  for  the 
 adul tress  would  be  allowed  to  be  married  to  another 
 husband,  while  her  husband  was  yet  alive,  and  he  would 
 not  be  allowed  to  marry  another  wife. 
 
 It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  Christ  allowed  the  putting 
 away  of  an  adulterous  wife,  that  the  husband  might  not  be 
 compelled  to  pass  a  life  of  unhappiness,  as  the  wife  had 
 proved  herself  unworthy  of  her  husband's  living  with  her. 
 But  this  reason  does  not  extend  so  far  as  to  allow  the 
 husband  to  marry  another  wife.  It  is  sufficient  for  him  to 
 be  freed  from  the  first. 
 
 The  assertion  of  heretics,  therefore,  that  Christ  gave 
 nothing  to  the  husband,  if  He  only  allowed  him  so  to  put 
 9 
 
I30  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xix.  g. 
 
 away  his  adulterous  wife,  as  to  be  obliged  to  live  without  a 
 wife  all  his  life,  is  senseless,  and  shows  that  these  valued 
 the  body  more  than  honour  and  tranquillity. 
 
 For  good  men  count  it  a  great  gain  to  be  free  from  a 
 wicked  wife,  although  not  allowed  to  marry  another.  Nay, 
 the  wisest  even  consider  this  a  benefit,  as  they  who  have 
 once  suffered  shipwreck  think  it  wrong  to  tempt  the  sea  a 
 second  time.  It  is  a  greater  good  to  miss  finding  a  bad 
 wife,  than  to  find  a  good  one.  But  a  man  cannot  miss  a 
 bad  wife  unless  he  is  unable  to  marry. 
 
 The  reasoning  of  S.  Jerome  certainly  has  much  weight. 
 That  if  husbands  who  have  put  away  adulterous  wives  were 
 allowed  to  marry  others,  it  would  be  a  daily  occurrence 
 that  men  who  desired  new  wives  would  invent  charges  of 
 adultery  against  their  present  ones,  that  they  might  put 
 them  away  and  take  others.  Christ,  therefore,  did  not 
 increase  the  strictness  of  the  old  Law,  but  loosed  it.  For 
 not  even  in  the  old  Law  was  there  so  much  room  for  the 
 desire  for  putting  away  wives,  since  the  adultress  was  not 
 to  be  put  away  but  stoned.  But,  as  these  heretics  falsify 
 the  matter,  Christ  gave  permission  to  husbands  to  change 
 their  wives  daily.  For  how  easy  is  it  to  discover  either 
 true  or  probable  adultery  in  a  wife !  How  easy  to  invent 
 it !  They  who  explain  the  words  of  Christ  thus  do  not 
 appear  to  understand  His  Spirit,  or  to  see  that  when  He 
 desired  to  restrain  evangelical  discipline,  and  to  teach  that 
 marriage  was  indissoluble.  He  ought  not  only  not  to  have 
 given  power  to  husbands  when  they  had  put  away  their  adul- 
 terous wives  to  marry  others,  but  rather  to  have  put  the  com- 
 pulsion upon  them,  if  they  would  not  be  without  wives,  of 
 enduring  the  adultress,  and  endeavouring  to  convert,  and 
 not  repudiate  her.  For  it  was  the  will  of  Christ  that  the 
 husband  should  not  put  away  even  the  adulterous  wife, 
 but,  to  console  his  suffering,  He  permitted,  not  commanded, 
 him  to  put  her  away. 
 
Ch.xxx.q.]  marriage   INDISSOLUBLE. 
 
 131 
 
 S.  Jerome  greatly  confirms  this  view,  namely,  that  Christ 
 did  not  say  that  the  woman  who  has  been  put  away  and  is 
 married  to  another  commits  adultery,  but  he  who  takes  her 
 does  so.     The  only  reason  of  this  must  be  that  Christ  was 
 speaking  of  the  wife  who  had,  in  fact,  been  put  away  for 
 adultery,  of  whom,  because  she  had  actually  committed  the 
 sin  already,  He  would  not  say  that  she  was  guilty  of  it,  for 
 this  would  have  been  to  say  nothing  new,  but  He  said  that 
 the  man  who  married  her  was  guilty,  to  show  that  it  was  un- 
 lawful either  for  a  woman  who  had  been  put  away  to  be  mar- 
 ried to  another  man  or  for  another  man  to  marry  her.    And 
 we  should  explain  this  passage  of  Scripture  by  others,  in 
 which  the  same  subject  is  treated  of    In  these  it  is  always  ab- 
 solutely said  that  it  is  not  lawful  for  a  woman  who  has  been 
 put  away  to  be  married  to  another  man,  as  in  5.  Matt.  v. 
 32  :  "I  say  to  you  that  whosoever  shall  put  away  his  wife, 
 except  by  the  cause  of  fornication,  maketh  her  to  commit 
 adultery  ;  and  he  that   shall  marry  her  that   is  put  away 
 committeth  adultery  "  ;  on  which  it  has  been  shown  that 
 the  word  "  whosoever  "  is  to  be  understood  without  limita- 
 tion.    Again,  SS.  Mark  and  Luke,  when  relating  the  same 
 history,  said  without  any  exception  that  whoever  married 
 a  woman  who  has  been  put  away  committeth  adultery : 
 "  Whosoever  shall   put  away  his  wife  and  marry  another 
 committeth  adultery  against  her"  (5.  Mark  x.   11).     No 
 other  reason  can  be  given  why  S.  Matthew  excepted  forni- 
 cation and  S.  Mark  did  not,  except  that  S.  Mark  wished  to 
 explain   that  it  was  sometimes  lawful  for  a  man  to  put 
 away  his  wife  ;  that  is,  if  she  had  committed  adultery.    But 
 S.  Mark  wished  to  teach  that  it  was  never  lawful  to  marry 
 another  wife  even  if  the  former  had  been  put  away  on  account 
 of  adultery.     In  these  words  S.  Mark  uses  the  word  super 
 earn,  that  is,  by  a  Hebraism,  contra,  the  word  vi^  in  Hebrew 
 meaning  both  super  and  contra.     S.  Mark  means  to  show 
 that  it  was  not  more  lawful  for  the  husband  of  an  adultress 
 
132  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xix.  g. 
 
 to  marry  another  woman  than,  when  his  wife  had  committed 
 adultery  against  him,  he  should  do  the  same  against  her ; 
 for  it  is  not  lawful,  in  this  kind  facere  paria.  S.  Luke  (xvi. 
 1 8),  however,  says  generally:  "Everyone  that  putteth  away 
 his  wife  and  marrieth  another  committeth  adultery,  and  he 
 that  marrieth  her  that  is  put  away  from  her  husband  com- 
 mitteth adultery  ".  Supposing  for  a  moment  that  S.  Matthew 
 had  not  written  his  Gospel,  we  could  have  gathered  no  other 
 meaning  from  SS.  Mark  and  Luke  than  that  it  was  never 
 lawful  for  a  husband  who  had  put  away  his  wife,  for  any 
 cause  whatever,  to  marry  another  ;  and  that  it  was  never 
 lawful  for  a  wife,  for  whatever  cause  put  away,  to  be  married 
 to  another  man.  There  would  have  been  no  room  for 
 doubt.  Now  S.  Matthew  has  written  but  obscurely,  so 
 that  there  has  been  a  controversy  about  his  meaning ; 
 and  we  should  explain  the  difficult  words  of  S.  Matthew 
 by  the  clear  and  perspicuous  ones  of  SS.  Mark  and 
 Luke.  These,  it  is  supposed,  wrote  after  S.  Matthew, 
 and  it  is  probable  that  they  would  seek  to  say  in 
 clear  and  lucid  terms,  and  without  ambiguity,  what  S. 
 Matthew  had  stated  darkly.  They  said  that  it  was  never 
 lawful  for  a  man  who  had  put  away  his  wife  to  marry 
 another  woman.  We  must  receive  this,  therefore,  which  was 
 spoken  without  ambiguity,  and  as  by  the  way  of  explana- 
 tion. Again,  S.  Paul  wrote  his  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and 
 Corinthians  after  S.  Matthew.  In  each  of  these  he  treats 
 of  this  question,  and  brings  up  no  exception  ;  but  (in  Rom. 
 vii.  3)  he  says  generally:  "  Whilst  her  husband  liveth  she 
 shall  be  called  an  adultrcss  if  she  be  with  another  man,  but 
 if  her  husband  be  dead  she  is  delivered  from  the  law  of  her 
 husband  ;  so  that  she  is  not  an  adultrcss  if  she  be  with 
 another  man";  and  (i  Cor.  vii.  10)  S.  Paul  explains  the 
 words  of  Christ  on  the  subject.  Who  doubts  that  he  would 
 have  stated  the  exception,  if  there  had  been  an)',  by  which 
 a  woman  put  away  was  allowed  to  be  married  to  another 
 
Ch.  XIX.  9.]  MARRIAGE   INDISSOLUBLE.  1 33 
 
 man  ?  As  it  is,  he  says  generally,  absolutely,  and  univer- 
 sally that  she  should  either  remain  unmarried  or  be  recon- 
 ciled to  her  husband.  He  speaks  of  a  wife  going  away 
 from  her  husband,  because  of  adultery,  for  which  cause 
 alone  she  could  do  so  ;  otherwise  he  would  not  have  left 
 it  in  her  own  power  that  she  should  either  remain  sepa- 
 rated from  her  husband,  but  continue  unmarried ;  or  be 
 reconciled  to  him  ;  but  he  would  have  directed  her  in  other 
 terms  to  return  to  him,  as  it  was  not  lawful  for  her  for  any 
 other  cause  than  fornication  to  live  separate  from  him.  He 
 gives  this  direction,  not  of  his  own  opinion,  but  from  the 
 law  of  Christ,  that  she  should  either  live  unmarried  or  be 
 reconciled  to  her  husband. 
 
 Again,  if  the  meaning  of  the  passage  were  what  these 
 heretics  think,  as  if  S.  Matthew's  words  (verse  9)  meant 
 that  whoever  puts  away  his  wife,  except  for  fornication, 
 and  marries  another,  commits  adultery,  but  whoever  puts  her 
 away  for  that  cause  and  marries  another  does  not  commit 
 it ;  and  whoever  marries  a  woman  put  away  for  any  other 
 reason  commits  adultery,  but  if  she  were  put  away  for  that 
 one  cause,  does  not  commit  it — if  this  were,  indeed,  the  mean- 
 ing, the  sentence  would  be  imperfect.  Christ  said  simply  : 
 "  Whoever  shall  put  away  his  .wife,  except  it  be  for  fornica- 
 tion, and  shall  marry  another,  committeth  adultery,  and  he 
 that  shall  marry  her  that  is  put  away  committeth  adultery". 
 This  in  the  judgment  of  the  heretics  is  understood  to  mean, 
 if  he  puts  her  away  for  any  other  cause  than  fornication 
 but  does  not  marry  another.  But  Christ  did  not  explain 
 this,  which  should  have  been  explained  first  of  all. 
 
 In  our  explanation  the  sense  is  full  and  perfect.  If  a 
 man  put  away  his  wife  for  any  other  cause  than  fornica- 
 tion, although  he  do  not  marry  another,  he  commits  adul- 
 tery, because  he  causes  his  wife  to  commit  it,  as  explained 
 on  verse  32.  But  if  he  put  her  away  for  fornication  and 
 marry  another,  he  also   commits  it,   not   because  he  put 
 
134  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xix.  io. 
 
 away    the    adultress,   but    because    he    married    another 
 woman. 
 
 The  word  adultery  therefore  applies  here  both  to  him  who 
 puts  away  his  wife  for  any  other  cause  than  adultery,  and 
 to  him  who,  when  he  has  put  her  away  for  this  reason, 
 marries  another.  That  is,  whoever  puts  away  his  wife, 
 except  for  fornication,  commits  adultery,  that  is,  causes  her 
 to  do  so  ;  and  whoever  marries  another  commits  adultery, 
 for  whatever  reason  the  first  was  put  away  :  commits  adul- 
 tery, that  is,  against  his  former  wife,  as  S.  Mark  explains  it. 
 It  will  be  objected  that  if  this  is  the  meaning,  the  Evan- 
 gelist ought  to  have  said.  Whoever  puts  away  his  wife 
 except  for  fornication,  and  he  who  marries  another,  com- 
 mits adultery.  But  he  does  not  say,  "and  who  marries 
 another,"  but  "  and  marries  another  ".  From  the  Hebrew 
 custom  the  relative  preceding  is  to  be  repeated  ;  all  else 
 requisite  to  the  understanding  of  the  passage  has  been 
 explained  on  chap.  v.  32. 
 
 Verse  10.    If  tlic  case  be  so. 
 
 S.  Ambrose  {ExJiort.  ad  Virg?),  S.  Jerome,  S.  Chrysos- 
 tom,  and  Euthymius  understand  these  words  to  mean  :  If 
 a  man  may  not  put  away  his  wife  except  for  the  cause  of 
 adultery ;  but  S.  Gregory  Nazianzen,  in  the  Oration  in 
 which  he  cites  these  words,  thinks  that  they  were  those  of 
 the  Pharisees,  either  from  lapse  of  memor)-,  or,  as  is  perhaps 
 more  likely,  signifying  that  they  were  those  of  the  Apostles, 
 speaking  from  the  custom  and  meaning  of  the  Pharisees. 
 
 If  it  be  so,  the  meaning  apparently  is  :  If  it  be  not  lawful 
 when  a  wife  has  been  put  away  for  adultery  to  marry  another, 
 it  is  better  not  to  marry.  We  can  believe  that  what  was 
 especially  new  and  more  than  commonly  difficult  may  have 
 the  more  moved  the  Apostles  ;  and  not  to  be  allowed  to 
 marry  another  wife  when  the  former  had  been  put  away  for 
 adultery  must  have  appeared  much  newer  and  more  difficult 
 
Ch.  XIX.  II.]  MARRIAGE   INDISSOLUBLE.  I35 
 
 than  not  being  allowed  to  put  a  wife  away  for  any  other 
 cause  than  adultery,  especially  as  there  was  the  question 
 before  them,  whether  she  could  be  put  away  for  any  reason 
 but  this. 
 
 TJie  case. 
 'H  airta,  "the  matter,"  or j 2 is  conjugate.  The  meaning  is-. 
 "If  it  be  so  between  man  and  wife,  or  if  a  man  marry 
 under  this  law  and  obligation,  that  if  his  wife  be  put  away 
 for  adultery,  he  may  not  marry  another,  it  is  better  not  to 
 marry.  This  is  the  view  of  Theophylact  and  others.  The 
 Greek  word  alria  means  properly  "  guiltiness  ". 
 
 Of  a  man. 
 Hominis    in    the    Latin    for    viri,    as    the    Greek    has 
 avOpwirov  for  dvSpa,  as  in  verse  5,  as  the  antithesis,  "  with 
 his  wife,"  shows. 
 
 li  is  not  expedient  for  a  man  to  marry. 
 The  Latin  here  reads  nnbere  for  iixorem  ducere,  contrarily 
 to  the  custom  of  the  language,  which  uses  iixorem  dncere  of 
 the  man  and  nnbere  of  the  woman.  It  follows  the  Greek,  in 
 which  'yafjbr^craL  is  used  of  either  the  man  or  woman.  In  this 
 case  there  is  no  question  as  to  the  application,  as  the  Apostles 
 spoke  of  the  position  of  the  man  towards  his  wife. 
 
 Verse  11.  Att  men  take  not  this  word. 
 They  seem  in  error  who  affirm  that  Christ  neither  allows 
 nor  disallows  the  assertion  of  the  Apostles,  that  it  is  not 
 expedient  to  marry.  He  approves  it ;  and  in  the  highest 
 degree  desiring  to  bring  them  on  to  such  a  point  of  perfec- 
 tion, that  what  they  had  spoken  in  words  they  should  carry 
 out  in  deeds,  He  shows  that,  as  we  say,  they  had  said 
 more  than  they  were  aware  of  His  words,  "  All  men  take 
 not  this  word,"  are  very  generally  explained  to  mean  : 
 "  Not  all  are  able  to  do  what  you  say — abstain  from   mar- 
 
136  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xix.  11. 
 
 riage,  for  all  have  not  the  gift  of  abstinence,  but  only  they 
 to  whom  it  is  given,"  as  S.  Paul  would  have  the  Corinthians 
 "  enlarged,"  that  they  might  be  capable  of  still  greater  gifts 
 from  God.  The  expression,  then,  here  means  that  they  are 
 not  capable  of  so  much  virtue  as  to  be  able  to  live  without 
 marriage.  Origen  {Tract,  vii.  07t  S.  Matt),  S.  Gregory 
 Nazianzen  {Orat.  in  hcBc  Verba)^  S.  Ambrose  {Ad  Virg:), 
 follow  this  meaning.  But  it  seems  an  erroneous  view  of 
 the  case,  because  when  Christ  said,  "He  that  can  take  it, 
 let  him  take  it"  (verse  12),  He  clearly  meant  by  "take" 
 "  understand,"  as  shall  be  shown  on  the  passage. 
 
 The  meaning,  therefore,  clearly  is,  that  not  all  under- 
 stand it ;  not  all  receive  it  into  their  minds.  The  word 
 verdnm,  although  it  sometimes  signifies  the  whole  matter, 
 yet  is  naturally  taken  only  for  a  discourse,  nor  should  it  be 
 understood  otherwise  unless  some  reason  compel  us. 
 Nothing  in  this  passage  does  so,  but  it  here  means  simply 
 "  to  understand,"  as  S.  Epiphanius  says,  whom  I  have  fol- 
 lowed :  "  Not  all  understand  my  saying  ".  Christ  was  ac- 
 customed to  speak  in  this  manner,  as  in  5.  /o/in  viii.  3  : 
 "  You  seek  to  kill  Me,  because  My  word  {sermo  mens) 
 hath  no  place  in  you  ". 
 
 It  may  be  objected  that  from  what  follows,  "  But  they  to 
 whom  it  is  given,"  is  to  be  understood  not  of  comprehend- 
 ing, but  of  the  gift  of  purity.  Even  to  understand  is  a  gift 
 of  God  ;  as  Christ  Himself  declares  :  "  No  man  can  come 
 to  Me  except  the  Father,  who  hath  sent  Me,  draw  him  " 
 {S.Jo/m  vi.  44).  For  He  was  speaking  against  those  who 
 did  not  believe  what  He  said,  because  they  did  not  under- 
 stand. 
 
 For  there  are  cunucJis. 
 
 Christ,  as  S.  Hilary  says,  describes  three  classes  of 
 eunuchs  :  those  by  nature  ;  who  are  made  such  by  men  ; 
 who  are  .self-made.     The  first  class  has  neither  merit  nor 
 
Ch.xix.  13.]      CHRIST   AND   THE   LITTLE   CHILDREN.  137 
 
 blame  ;  the  second  has  blame,  if  by  their  own  consent;  the 
 third  has  merit. 
 
 W/io  have  made  themselves. 
 There  is  a  twofold  force  in  these  words  :  (i)  They  show, 
 as  S.  Chrysostom  has  observed,  freedom  of  will  in  the  act ; 
 (2)  That  it  was  not  done  without  repugnance  of  the  flesh. 
 
 For  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
 
 That  is,  that  they  may  merit  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  as 
 Origen,  S.  Hilary,  S.  Chrysostom,  The  Author,  and  Euthy- 
 mius  agree  in  explaining  it. 
 
 He  that  can  take  let  Jiim  take  it. 
 Christ  did  not  mean  by  these  words  that  all  can  take  it. 
 He  alludes  to  the  stadium,  whence  the  metaphor  is  derived, 
 in  which  all  indeed  run,  but  only  one  receives  the  prize. 
 We  have  before  observed  that  "  take  "  means  here  "  under- 
 stand". Christ  desired  to  say  nothing  else  than  what  He 
 said  in  other  places,  when  treating  of  a  subject  of  import- 
 ance :  "  He  that  hath  ears  to  hear  let  him  hear  "  (xi.  1 5  ; 
 xiii.  9,  43,  &c.). 
 
 Verse  13.  TJien. 
 After  this,  but  it  does  not  appear  whether  immediately 
 after,  for  S.  Luke  relates   many  things  in  the  meantime, 
 and  we  should  not  narrow  the  history  too  much. 
 
 Were  little  children  presented  to  Him. 
 It  is  clear  from  6".  Luke  xviii.  15  that  there  were  not 
 only  young  children,  but  even  infants.  For,  when  they 
 saw  the  adult  men  and  women  who  came  to  Christ  loaded 
 with  benefits  of  different  kinds,  they  began  to  bring  their 
 infants  also,  that,  as  far  as  their  age  allowed,  they  also 
 might  share  in  His  gifts.  They  were  not  sent  to  be 
 healed,  like  the  men  and  women,  but  to  receive  some 
 spiritual  grace,  as  the  Evangelist  immediately  explains. 
 
138  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xix.  14. 
 
 That  He  sJioiild  impose  Jiands  7/po)i  them  and  pray. 
 It  was  a  custom  of  the  Hebrews,  for  the  elders  and  those 
 who  were  especially  gifted  with  divine  grace,  to  bless  the 
 youngers,  by  the  laying  on  of  their  hands  upon  them,  as  in 
 Gen.  xlviii.  14,  15.  For  these  reasons  parents  brought 
 their  children  to  Christ.  Hence  the  custom  arose  of  the 
 laity,  and  especially  children,  being  blessed  by  the  priests 
 and  bishops,  even  outside  the  Church — a  custom  which  The 
 Author  praises. 
 
 And  the  disciples  rebuked  tJiem. 
 That  is,  as  Euthymius  says,  prohibited  them.  The 
 Greek  word  e-mrLiJiav  also  bears  this  meaning,  as  has  been 
 said  before.  It  seems  doubtful  why  the  disciples  should 
 have  rebuked  these  parents.  S.  Chrysostom,  The  Author, 
 Euthymius,  and  Theophylact  say  that  they  thought  them 
 of  an  unbefitting  age  to  be  brought  to  Christ,  and  that  His 
 dignity  would  suffer  if  He  were  occupied  in  blessing  chil- 
 dren ;  and,  therefore,  like  servants  who  were  jealous  of  the 
 rank  of  their  master,  they  sent  them  away.  This  is  more 
 probable  than  the  opinion  of  S.  Jerome  and  Bede  ;  not  that 
 they  were  unwilling  that  the  children  should  be  blessed  by 
 the  hand  and  voice  of  the  Saviour,  but  that,  not  yet  having 
 the  fullest  faith,  they  thought  that  He  would  be  wearied 
 by  their  importunities.  The  words  of  Christ,  "Suffer 
 the  little  children  to  come  unto  Mc,  for  the  kingdom  of 
 heaven  is  of  such,"  seem  to  confirm  the  opinion  of  S. 
 Chrysostom. 
 
 Verse  14.  Suffer  the  tittle  children  to  come  to  Me. 
 Christ  calls  infants  in  age  and  simplicity  children,  as  He 
 immediately  explains.  For  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  of 
 such.  He  did  not  say  "of  these,"  but  "of  such,"  to 
 include  not  only  children  in  age,  but  such  as  resembled 
 them   in    disposition,   as  Origen,   S.   Jerome,  S.  Augustin 
 
Ch.  XIX.  i6.]      CHRIST   AND   THE   LITTLE   CHILDREN.         1 39 
 
 (i.  19,  De  Peccat.  Merit.),  Bede,  Theophylact,  and  Eusta- 
 thius  have  observed.  S.  Luke  has  expressed  it  more 
 fully  (xviii.  17)  :  "Amen,  I  say  unto  you,  whosoever  shall 
 not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  child,  he  shall  not 
 enter  into  it ".  The  followers  of  Calvin  have  no  other 
 testimony  in  proof  of  the  baptism  of  infants  than  this  : 
 "  Suffer  little  children  ".  For  they  apply  those  most  clear 
 and  powerful  words  {S.  John  iii.  3),  which  the  Church  has 
 always  produced  as  authority  for  the  baptism  of  infants, 
 not  to  baptism,  but  to  doctrine  ;  and  thus  they  are  unable 
 to  oppose  the  Anabaptists,  who  deny  that  infants  should  be 
 baptised  at  all.  For  although  some  argument  may  be 
 built  upon  this  passage,  as  S.  Bernard  has  shown  in  his 
 Epistle  ccxl.  it  is  not  strong  enough  to  form  the  foundation 
 of  a  doctrine  so  necessary  to  salvation. 
 
 And  ivJicn  He  had  imposed  hands  vpon  them. 
 
 The  Evangelist  said  (verse  13),  they  brought  children  to 
 Christ  that  He  might  lay  hands  upon  them  and  pray.  He 
 now  says  that  He  laid  His  hands  upon  them,  but  does  not 
 say  that  He  prayed.  The  reason  of  this  Origen  thinks  to 
 have  been  that  the  infants  were  capable  of  the  imposition 
 of  hands,  but  not  of  prayers,  for  from  their  tender  age  they 
 could  not  understand  them.  But  there  was  no  need  that 
 the  children  should  understand  the  prayers  to  be  made 
 partakers  of  them,  as  there  is  no  need  now  that  they  should 
 understand  the  words  of  baptism  to  gain  the  effects  of  it. 
 Prayer  is  continued  in  the  laying  on  of  hands ;  and  there 
 is  no  laying  on  of  hands  alone  without  prayer  and  benedic- 
 tion. S.Mark  (x.  16),  has  said  this  plainly:  "And  em- 
 bracing them  and  laying  His  hands  upon  them,  He  blessed 
 them  ". 
 
 Verse  16.  And  behold  one. 
 
 S.  Luke  (xviii.  18)  says  that  he  was  a  ruler,  that  is,  a 
 chief  man  ;    because,  as  S.  Matthew  (v.  22)  says,  he  was 
 
140  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xix.  i6. 
 
 very  rich.  Many  of  the  Ancients  seem  to  confuse  him  with 
 the  lawyer  of  whom  S.  Luke  (x.  25)  makes  mention  ;  for 
 they  say  that  this  man  was  also  a  lawyer,  as  S.  Jerome, 
 S.  Ambrose  {On  S.  Luke  xviii.),  and  S.  Cyril  Alexand. 
 {Thesaur.,  ii.  i).  More  correctly  S.  Basil  {Homil.  cont. 
 Divit.  Avarit.)  not  only  does  not  think  him  the  lawyer, 
 but  opposes  him  to  the  lawyer  of  whom  S.  Luke  wrote ; 
 for  the  lawyer  came  to  Christ  to  tempt  Him  :  this  man 
 came  to  learn  of  Him.  And  if  he  had  been  a  lawyer  the 
 Evangelists  would  rather  have  stated  this  than  the  other 
 circumstances  they  mention  so  carefully  ;  namely,  that  he 
 was  a  ruler,  that  he  was  rich,  that  he  was  young.  The 
 same  author,  as  well  as  S.  Epiphanius  {Ancorat.  and  Her., 
 Ixix.),  says  that  this  young  man  came  to  Christ,  not  with  a 
 guileless  and  honourable  intention,  but  for  the  purpose  of 
 tempting  Him,  an  opinion  which  S.  Basil,  as  above,  and  S. 
 Chrysostom  and  Euthymius  in  their  commentaries  on  this 
 passage,  seem  completely  to  refute. 
 
 First,  S.  Mark  (x.  17)  says  that  he  came  very  reverently, 
 humbly  kneeling,  which  the  haughty,  pride-inflated  Scribes 
 and  Pharisees  who  came  to  tempt  Christ  were  not  used 
 to  do. 
 
 Secondly,  whenever  anyone  came  to  tempt  Christ,  the 
 Evangelists  always  say  so ;  but  they  have  not  mentioned 
 such  a  thing  of  this  young  man. 
 
 Thirdly,  he  asked  what  he  wanted  yet,  to  obtain  eternal 
 life. 
 
 Fourthly,  when  Christ  said  to  him,  "  Go  sell  what  thou 
 hast  and  give  to  the  poor,"  he  departed  sorrowfully,  which 
 he  would  not  have  done  had  he  only  come  to  Christ  with 
 a  wicked  and  dissembling  mind.  S.  Chrysostom  appears 
 therefore  to  argue  much  better  for  his  opinion  than  S. 
 Jerome.  It  may  be  added  that  they  who  came  to  tempt 
 Christ  were  not  accustomed  to  ask  about  themselves  and 
 their  salvation,  but  about  the  law  and  controverted  ques- 
 
Ch.  XIX.  17.]  THE   RICH   YOUNG   MAN.  I4I 
 
 tions,  such  as  whether  it  were  lawful  to  give  tribute  to 
 Caesar,  to  put  away  a  wife  for  any  reason,  which  was  the 
 greatest  commandment,  whose  wife  the  woman  would  be 
 in  the  resurrection,  when  the  seven  brothers  had  had  her. 
 But  this  young  man  asked  no  such  questions,  but  only  those 
 which  were  necessary  for  himself :  "  What  good  shall  I  do 
 that  I  may  have  eternal  life  ?  " 
 
 Good  Master. 
 The  young  man  addresses  Christ  thus  to  gain  His  good- 
 will ;  others  called  Him  Rabbi,  when  about  to  ask  anything 
 of  Him.     This  man,  to  show  a  greater  attraction  of  mind 
 to  Him,  calls  Him  Good  Master. 
 
 Verse  17.  Why  askest  tJioii  Me  concerning  good. 
 The  Greek  in  almost  every  copy  has,  "  Why  callest  thou 
 Me  good,  there  is  none  good  but  only  God?"  and  so  Origen 
 {Tract.  Sept),  S.  Matthew,  with  SS.  Hilary,  Chrysostom,  and 
 others.  Our  version  reads  :  "Why  askest  thou  Me  ?  "  as  do 
 some  Greek  copies,  and  S.  Jerome  {in  loc.)  and  S.  Augustin 
 {De  Trinit.,  i.  13).  Origen  adopts  both  readings.  Their 
 opinion,  however,  can  hardly  be  admitted,  as  making  Christ 
 speak  in  a  double  manner,  i .  "  Why  callest  thou  Me  good  ?  " 
 Because  he  had  said  :  "  Good  Master  ".  2.  "  Why  askest 
 thou,"  &c.  If  we  read  it  thus,  the  meaning  is  not,  Why  dost 
 thou  ask  Me  what  good  thou  shouldst  do,  but  Why  dost 
 thou  ask  Me,  calling  Me  good. 
 
 One  is  good — God. 
 The  Arians  objected  this  text  to  the  Catholics,  as  prov- 
 ing that  Christ  was  not  God,  because  He  appears  by  it  to 
 shut  Himself  out  from  goodness  and  divinity  by  these 
 words :  as  say  S.  Epiphanius  {Her.,  Ixix.) ;  S.  Cyril  Alex- 
 andria (lib.  ii.,  Thess.  i.)  ;  S.  Basil  {Ep.  ad  Amphiloch.,  Com- 
 ment, on  S.  Luke  xviii.)  ;  S.  Ambrose  ;  S.  Augustin  (iii.  23, 
 Cont.  Maxim.  Episc.  Arian),  and  others  passim.     They  all 
 
142  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xix.  17. 
 
 answer  that  Christ  does  not  deny  Himself  to  be  good,  and 
 to  be  God.  For  men,  and  angels,  and  many  other  things 
 than  God,  each  in  his  own  way,  are  evidently  good,  as  S. 
 Epiphanius  proves  at  length  from  Scripture  ;  but  He  says 
 that  none  is  good  but  God,  in  the  way  in  which  God  is 
 good,  that  is, /^r  j-^,  and  in  His  own  nature.  So,  too,  says 
 S.  Paul  (i  Tim.  vi,  16),  that  God  alone  has  immortality, 
 though  it  is  certain  that  both  the  angels  and  our  souls  are 
 immortal.  But  God  alone  is  immortal  in  His  own  nature; 
 that  is,  not  by  participation  with  another,  as  S.  Justin  has 
 shown  in  his  questions  to  the  Christians.  Even  if  Christ, 
 therefore,  had  not  been  God,  He  would  have  been  good  ; 
 and  as  He  does  not  shut  Himself  out  from  goodness,  by 
 saying,  "  There  is  one  good,"  so  does  He  not  shut  Himself 
 out  from  divinity,  nay,  He  rather  shows  by  these  words, 
 as  shall  shortly  be  explained,  that  He  is  God. 
 
 But  why  did  Christ  so  answer  the  young  man  ?      The 
 reason  would  appear  to  be,  as  The  Author  {Hovi.  xxx.), 
 S.    Jerome    {Comment),    S.    Augustin     {De    Trinit,    xiii.), 
 Bede,  Theophylact,  Euthymius  {in  loc),  and  others  have 
 said,  that  the  young  man,  though  he  had  a  good  faith  in 
 Christ,  had  not  a  sufficiently  firm  and  perfect  opinion  of 
 Him.       It  is  clear  that  he  endeavoured  to  honour  Christ 
 with  the  highest  titles  he  knew  of,  to  obtain    His  favour ; 
 and  yet  we  see  that  he   called   Him   nothing  more  than 
 "  Good   Master,"  as  if  he  could  think  nothing  greater  of 
 Him.     For  if  He  had  believed  Him  to  be  God,  he  would 
 have  addressed  Him  either  as  his  God,  or  most  certainly 
 Lord  ;  but  Christ,  knowing  that  he  was  honestly  consulting 
 Him  about  his  salvation,  wished  to  assist  and  perfect  his 
 faith,  and  by  questioning  to  lead  him  on  to  the  belief  that 
 He  was  not  merely  a  "  good  master,"  but  that  He  was  the 
 good  God,  and  he  therefore  took  his  own  words  out  of  his 
 mouth,  to  teach  him  that  he  needed  to  understand  well 
 what  he  had  said.     He  had  called  Christ  "  Good  Master  ". 
 
Ch.  XIX.  i8.]  THE    RICH   YOUNG   MAN.  I43 
 
 Christ  teaches  him  that  no  one  is  good  but  God,  to  show  that 
 He  was  God  Himself  if  He  were  good,  as  the  young  man, 
 not  knowing  what  He  said,  had  called  Him.  There  may 
 be  some  ambiguity  in  the  words,  for  in  one  sense  He  is 
 called  "Good  Master,"  and  in  another  "Good  God";  but  this 
 very  ambiguity  adds  force  to  the  argument,  for  Christ 
 speaks  as  if  He  did  not  know  the  difference  between  "Good 
 Master"  and  "Good  God".  He  has  used  a  like  ambiguity 
 in  other  places  (chap.  viii.  22). 
 
 It  may  be  asked  why  Christ  did  not  answer  others  in 
 the  same  manner  who  may  reasonably  be  supposed  to  have 
 addressed  Him  either  in  the  same  or  in  similar  terms  ? 
 The  reason  may  be  that  this  young  man  called  Him  "  Good 
 Master,"  as  if  he  thought  himself  to  be  giving  Him  some 
 singular  title,  such  as  others  were  not  accustomed  to  give 
 Him.  Christ  wished  to  correct  this  opinion,  and  to  teach 
 him  that  he  had  given  Him  a  title  not  sufficiently  noble 
 and  great ;  for  He  was  not  only  a  "  Good  Master"  but  also 
 the  "  Good  God  ". 
 
 But  if  thou  wilt  enter  into  life,  keep  the  commandments. 
 
 As  here,  when  to  keep  the  commandments  is  said  to  be 
 the  only  cause  of  our  salvation,  faith  is  not  excluded  ;  but 
 the  meaning  is  that,  as  among  the  things  that  are  to  be 
 done,  it  is  enough  to  keep  the  commandments,  so  when 
 faith  only  is  named  among  the  causes  of  justification  and 
 salvation,  works  are  not  excluded  ;  but  again,  the  meaning 
 is  that  (among  the  things  that  are  not  to  be  done  but  are 
 to  be  known),  it  is  enough  to  believe ;  and  that  faith 
 although  dark,  and  knowledge  although  in  some  degree 
 obscure,  should  be  to  us  equal  to  all  sciences  and  all 
 doctrines. 
 
 Verse  18.    Which? 
 
 S.  Jerome,  as  above,  thinks  that  the  young  man  came  to 
 Christ  to  tempt   Him.     But  it  is  clear  from  the  context 
 
144  THE   GOSPEL   OF    S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xix.  i8. 
 
 that  he  asked  the  above  question  because  he  had  come  to 
 Christ  as  to  some  supremely  great  teacher,  to  learn  some- 
 thing above  the  Law  ;  but,  as  will  be  proved  on  verse  20, 
 he  not  only  knew  but  had  lived  in  the  practice  of  the  Law. 
 He,  therefore,  asked  "  which,"  as  thinking  that  perhaps 
 Christ  would  give  him  some  precepts  beyond  the  Law. 
 ThoiL  shall  do  no  murder. 
 
 Christ  sets  forth  the  precepts  of  the  Decalogue,  not  all, 
 but  only  those  of  the  second  table — nor  these  in  their 
 order,  but  as  they  suggested  themselves  ;  for  it  was  not 
 His  object  to  recite  the  whole  memoriler,  and  to  the  letter, 
 but  to  state  what  they  contained.  We  may  ask  why  He 
 did  not  mention  the  commandments  of  the  first  table 
 only  ?  Euthymius  says  that  it  was  because  the  observance 
 of  these  is  a  secret  one,  i.e.,  it  lies  hidden  in  the  soul  ;  but 
 the  works  of  the  second  are  manifest  :  not  to  kill,  not  to 
 commit  adultery,  &c.  This  does  not  appear  to  be  a  good 
 reason.  For  Christ  did  not  desire,  as  some  think,  to  con- 
 vict the  young  man,  but  to  teach  him,  and  not  to  teach 
 him  how  he  might  appear  to  be  good,  but  how  he  might  be 
 both  good  and  just  ;  for  Christ  desired  to  make  him  not  a 
 hypocrite  but  a  Christian.  The  true  reason  seems  to  be 
 that  whoever  keeps  the  second  table  keeps  also  the  first, 
 as  S.  Paul  says  [Rom.  xiii.  9-10).  Besides,  Christ  here,  and 
 S,  Paul  there,  desiring  the  observance  of  the  command- 
 ments, sets  forth  only  the  second  table. 
 
 It  may  be  objected  that  by  this  reasoning  S.  Paul  ought 
 much  more  to  have  set  forth  the  first  table,  for  he  who 
 keeps  the  first  table  keeps  the  second  also  ;  for  he  who 
 loves  God  does  all  things  that  He  commands;  and  the 
 first  table  is  much  shorter  than  the  second,  and  ought  to 
 be  set  forth  as  a  kind  of  summary  of  all  the  command- 
 ments. The  answer  may  be :  "  It  is  so  ;  yet  it  is  more 
 easy  to  love  our  neighbour  than  God,"  as  S.  John  says  (i 
 Ep.  iv.  20).     It  is  the  custom  of  Holy  Scripture  to  lead  us 
 
Ch.  XIX.  19-21.]  THE   RICH   YOUNG   MAN.  I45 
 
 to  the  observation  of  the  commandments  of  God  through 
 the  second  table,  as  by  a  more  easy,  full,  and  familiar  way. 
 
 Verse  19.    TJiou  shall  love  tJiy  neighbour  as  thyself. 
 This  is  in  a  manner  a  brief  compendium  comprehending 
 in  one  word  all  the  teaching  of  Christ,  like  that  of  S.  Paul 
 {Rom.  xiii.  9,  10  ;  Galat.  v.  14).    It  is  not  one  single  precept, 
 but  the  sum  of  all  those  in  Levit.  xix.  18. 
 
 Verse  20.  All  these  have  I  kept  from  my  youth. 
 S.  Hilary,  S.  Ambrose,  S.  Jerome,  and  others  on  this 
 passage,  think  that  the  young  man  was  speaking  untruly  ; 
 but  the  opinion  of  S.  Basil  {Hom.  cont.  Divit.  Avar),  S. 
 Chrysostom,  and  Euthymius  seems  more  probable,  that  he 
 spoke  the  truth,  and  that  when  Christ  heard  it  He  loved 
 him  (5.  Mark  x.  21).  This  would  not  have  been  the  case 
 otherwise ;  for  no  pretence  could  have  deceived  Christ, 
 who  knew  all  things.  Christ,  it  is  clear,  had  a  singular  love 
 for  the  young  man,  because  of  his  observance  of  the  com- 
 mandments— such  a  love  as  He  not  only  had  not  for  others 
 who  were  sinners,  but  not  even  for  this  young  man  before. 
 He  heard  his  words,  not  that  Christ  was  ignorant  before 
 or  that  He  did  not  love  the  young  man  before,  but  that  He 
 might  show  Himself,  after  the  manner  of  men,  to  have  learnt 
 by  the  answer  what  He  did  not  know  before,  and  to  have 
 begun  to  love  him  whom  He  had  not  loved  before.  Christ 
 loved  him,  not  only  for  his  natural  goodness,  as  He  loves 
 all  men  in  common,  but  in  a  peculiar  way,  because  of  his 
 having  kept  the  commandments,  to  do  which  is  not  of 
 nature. 
 
 Verse  21.  If  thou  wilt  be  perfect,  go,  sell  what  thou  hast,  and 
 give  to  the  poor. 
 
 That  Christ  in  these  words  is  giving,  not  a  precept,  but 
 a  counsel,  is  clearer  than  the  sun  at  mid-day  ;  for  who  is  so 
 2 — 10 
 
146  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xix.  21. 
 
 blind  as  not  to  see  in  what  chosen  words  He  carefully 
 distinguishes  between  precepts  and  counsels.  When  He 
 gives  a  precept  He  does  not  say,  "  If  thou  wilt  be  perfect," 
 but  "  If  thou  wilt  enter  into  eternal  life  ".  When  He  gives 
 a  counsel  He  does  not  say,  "  If  thou  wilt  enter  into  life," 
 but  "  If  thou  wilt  be  perfect".  He  gives  eternal  life  as  a 
 reward  for  keeping  the  commandments  ;  but  to  the  obser- 
 vance of  counsels,  not  life  eternal,  but  "  treasure  in  heaven  ": 
 that  is,  He  promises  the  greater  riches  of  eternal  life  ;  and 
 not  only  the  being  blessed,  but  the  being  chief  of  the  blessed, 
 and  their  judge — "  You  shall  sit  upon  twelve  thrones  judg- 
 ing the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel  ". 
 
 No  better  words  can  be  used  than  those  of  S.  Augustin 
 {Serjii.  Ixi.  de  Temp)  either  to  prove  or  explain  evangelical 
 counsels.  "  Counsel,"  he  says,  "  is  one  thing  ;  precept 
 another.  Counsel  is  given  that  virginity  may  be  preserved, 
 and  that  we  may  abstain  from  wine  and  flesh,  and  sell  all 
 things  and  give  to  the  poor ;  but  precepts  are  given  that 
 justice  may  be  preserved,  and  that  men  may  turn  from  evil, 
 and  do  good."  It  is  said  of  chastity,  "  He  that  can  take  it, 
 let  him  take  it "  ;  but  not  of  justice,  "  He  who  is  able  to  do 
 it,"  but  "  Every  tree  that  does  not  bring  forth  good  fruit ". 
 "  He  who  hears  counsel  willingly  and  obeys  it,  will  have  the 
 greater  glory  ;  he  who  does  not  fulfil  a  precept,  unless  he 
 afterwards  repent,  will  not  escape  punishment."  Again  to 
 the  same  purpose  in  many  other  of  his  writings. 
 
 A7id  thou  slialt  have  treasure  in  heaven. 
 
 Christ  alludes  to  the  custom  of  merchants  who  give  a 
 less  sum  in  present  money,  in  the  hope  of  receiving  more  in 
 future.  He  calls  eternal  life  a  treasure  because  goods  are 
 laid  up  here  that  they  may  be  found  there  with  increase ; 
 as  treasure  is  apt  to  increase  daily  when  it  is  put  out  (.S". 
 Matt.  vi.  20). 
 
Ch.xix.  21.]  THE   RICH   YOUNG   MAN.  I47 
 
 Christ  also  alluded  to  alms-giving,  signifying  that  he  who 
 gives  alms  lays  up,  as  it  were,  treasure  in  heaven,  as 
 Solomon  says  in  Proverbs  (xix.  27),  Christ  wished  to 
 meet  the  young  man  who  was  wealthy,  and  probably  given 
 to  making  money,  on  his  own  ground  ;  by  the  hope  of  still 
 greater  wealth,  to  entice  him  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  as 
 men  of  that  stamp  are  apt  to  be  led.  He  said,  in  a  manner, 
 "  Even  if  you  have  great  riches  here,  you  shall  have  much 
 greater  if  you  will  sell  these  and  give  them  to  the  poor  ". 
 It  was  so  far  from  the  will  of  Christ  to  make  allusion  to 
 the  wealth  which  the  young  man  thought  himself  to  possess, 
 that  He  rather  wished  to  signify  that  he  had  nothing,  if  it 
 were  compared  to  the  riches  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
 For  though  wealthy,  he  had  no  riches  at  all  if  compared  to 
 such  as  kings,  and  not  all  of  them,  possess,  but  he  should 
 have  a  treasure  in  heaven.  Christ  therefore  does  not 
 balance  the  riches  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  with  the 
 wealth  of  the  young  man,  but  opposes  the  former  to  the 
 latter,  as  if  one  should  compare  the  vast  wealth  of  the 
 entire  world  to  a  very  small  property.  Besides,  Christ 
 meant  that  he  should  have  greater  glory  in  heaven  if  he 
 followed  evangelical  counsels,  than  if  he  only  obeyed  mere 
 precepts.  For  they  who  follow  the  precepts  receive  each 
 his  penny,  as  shall  be  explained  in  the  following  chapter 
 (verse  19).  But  he  who  adds  besides  counsels,  as  by  giving 
 all  his  goods  to  the  poor,  will  receive  not  merely  a  penny 
 but  a  greater  treasure.  From  this  it  is  clear  that  men,  by 
 alms-giving  and  all  other  good  works,  do  merit  the  kingdom 
 of  heaven.  The  same  meaning  is  found  here  as  in  5. 
 Luke  xvi.  9  ;  nay,  even  a  greater.  For  there  also  Christ 
 treats  of  alms,  and  "to  make  themselves  friends"  is  nothing 
 else  than  to  merit  their  friendship  and  favour.  And  in 
 this  sense  all  the  ancient  authorities  explain  it  (S.  Cyprian, 
 Lib.  de  Op.  et  Eleemos. ;  S.  Hilary ;  S.  Chrysostom,  IIo?n.  Ixiv. 
 on  S.  Mattheiu ;  and  others). 
 
148  THE  GOSPEL  OF  S.   MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xix.  22, 23. 
 
 And  come  folloiv  Me. 
 
 There  are  three  counsels  that  Christ  gave  the  young 
 man  :  i.  To  sell  all  his  goods  ;  2.  To  give  the  money  to  the 
 poor  ;  3.  To  follow  Him.  This  was  the  last  of  all.  For 
 Socrates  and  many  other  philosophers,  as  S.  Jerome  says,  held 
 their  wealth  in  contempt  ;  but  because  they  did  not  follow 
 Christ,  this  was  of  no  advantage  to  them.  It  is  less  certain 
 what  Christ  meant  by  "  follow  Me  "  than  is  commonly  sup- 
 posed. S.  Clement  Alexandria  (^Strom.  iv.),  S.  Jerome  {in 
 loc),  and  some  others  understand  it  of  the  imitation  of 
 Christ.  S.  Matthew  seems  to  confirm  this  (x.  38;,  where 
 some  Greek  copies  read  :  "  Take  up  thy  cross ".  But  the 
 word  "  come "  shows  that  Christ  spoke  not  of  imitating 
 Him  alone,  but  of  a  bodily  presence  with  Him,  and  of  His 
 inviting  him  to  follow  Him  like  the  Apostles  and  disciples. 
 But  the  words  of  S.  Mark,  if  we  admit  them,  are  not 
 opposed  to  this  explanation.  For  the  Apostles  and  dis- 
 ciples most  especially  carried  the  cross,  following  Christ 
 not  only  with  their  hearts  but  also  with  their  persons. 
 
 Verse  22.  And  he  zvent  aivay  sad. 
 He  went  away  sad,  not  because,  as  some  have  heretically 
 said,  his  conscience  convicted  him  of  not  having  kept  the 
 commandments  as  he  boasted  to  have  done  {vide  verse  20)  ; 
 but  because  he  did  not  think  that  there  could  be  anything 
 so  difficult  as  that  which  Christ  had  counselled  him  to  do, 
 in  selling  his  goods  and  giving  to  the  poor.  The  Evan- 
 gelist tells  us  why  he  was  sad  :  "  for  he  had  great  posses- 
 sions ",  It  is  easier  to  part  with  a  {q.\v  things  than  with 
 many. 
 
 Verse  23.  ^  ricJi  man. 
 
 S.  Mark  (x.  23)  and  S.  Luke  (xviii.  24)  term  rich  men 
 those  who  have,  not  unlimited  wealth,  as  it  were,  but  con- 
 siderable property.  Christ  spoke,  as  S.  Matthew  explains 
 it,  of  men  with  great  possessions. 
 
Ch.  XIX.  24.]      RICHES  AND  THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN.       I49 
 
 Shall  hardly  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
 
 S.  Mark  says  that  Christ  looked  round  Him  and  said  : 
 "  How  hardly  shall  they  that  have  riches  enter  into  the 
 kingdom  of  God  ".  This  action  applies  both  to  the  "  com- 
 mendation "  and  emphasis  of  the  words.  Christ  seems  to 
 have  looked  round  Him  to  demand  attention  when  about 
 to  say  a  thing  very  important,  and  for  the  same  reason  to 
 have  used  an  expression  of  admiration. 
 
 We  may  question  how  far  Christ  said  this  of  the  rich 
 young  man,  and  how  far  to  the  Apostles,  when  his  riches 
 kept  the  former,  not  from  observance  of  the  Law,  nor  from 
 entering  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  only  from  the  attain- 
 ment of  evangelical  perfection.  We  may  reply  that  Christ 
 took  occasion,  from  the  young  man  who  was  deterred  by 
 his  wealth  from  evangelical  counsels,  to  speak  of  riches  at 
 large,  and  how  men  are  kept  back  by  them  from  eternal 
 life. 
 
 Verse  24.  And  again  I  say  to  you. 
 
 S.  Mark  (x.  24)  says  that  the  Apostles,  before  Christ 
 spoke  these  words,  wondered  at  the  meaning  because  of 
 their  hardness  and  severity.  Christ  answered  with  still 
 greater  severity  ;  for  the  above  words,  "  Again,  I  say,"  are 
 not  a  mere  repetition,  but  an  enlargement  of  the  former  as 
 well.  "  It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  pass  through  the  eye  of 
 a  needle  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  the  kingdom  of 
 heaven." 
 
 It  is  easier  for  a  camel. 
 
 The  inexplicability,  or,  rather,  the  wonderfulness,  of  this 
 saying,  has  caused  some  to  think  that  the  word  "  camel " 
 (Kdfi€\o<i)  should  have  been  rendered  "ship  cable,"  as  if  it 
 were  against  reason  that  such  a  huge  and  ill-shapen  beast 
 as  a  camel  should  go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle,  whilst  a 
 cable  has  some  affinity  with  a  needle ;  and  Suidas  tells  us 
 that  yta/xeXo?  carries  both  meanings.     Theophylact  under- 
 
150  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xix.  24. 
 
 stands  it  thus,  and  some  others,  probably  Greek  authors, 
 as  we  learn  from  Euthymius. 
 
 The  reference  has  been  thought,  with  less  reason,  to  be 
 to  a  certain  gate  in  Jerusalem,  which  was  so  small  that  a 
 camel,  unless  unloaded,  could  not  pass  through  it.  The 
 supporters  of  this  opinion  do  not  observe  that  the  more 
 extraordinary  the  saying  appears,  the  more  likely  it  is  to 
 be  true.  Christ  said  that  it  was  no  more  difficult  for  a 
 camel  to  pass  through  a  needle's  eye  than  for  a  rich  man 
 to  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  because  this  was  in  the 
 highest  degree  unreasonable  and  even  impossible.  Christ 
 desired  to  show  that  it  would  be  as  much  so  for  a  rich  man 
 to  enter  heaven,  as  He  added  in  verse  26.  The  reason, 
 therefore,  that  induced  these  persons  not  to  understand  the 
 passage  of  a  camel  should  rather  have  influenced  them  to 
 the  contrary  conclusion,  as  it  did  Origen,  SS.  Hilary,  Chry 
 sostom,  and  Jerome,  The  Author,  Juvencus  (Hist.  Evangel, 
 lib.  iii.),  and  Sedulius  [Carm.,  iv.).  The  Syriac  has  ^^'??2')T 
 which  can  only  be  explained  of  the  animal.  It  was,  in 
 fact,  a  proverb,  and  it  meant  when  a  thing  was  pronounced 
 impossible  that  a  camel  could  more  easily  pass  through  the 
 eye  of  a  needle  than  such  a  thing  be  done.  The  Tal- 
 mudists  frequently  use  the  expression,  as  many  of  the 
 learned  have  observed. 
 
 It  would  appear  to  be  of  more  importance  to  enquire  why 
 Christ  said  this  of  riches  rather  than  of  other  things,  so 
 many  of  which  hinder  a  man  still  more  in  this  course  ;  such 
 as  ambition,  lust,  anger.  The  reason  may  be  that  other 
 things,  although  they  hinder  some  more,  yet  retard  the 
 greater  number  less  ;  but  riches  commonly  hinder  almost 
 all  men,  because  almost  all  give  their  minds  up  to  avarice 
 from  the  greater  to  the  less  {Isa.  Ivi.  1 1  ;  Jercui.  vi.  13  ;  viii. 
 10).  S.  Paul  himself,  speaking  of  the  preachers  of  the  Gos- 
 pel themselves,  says  :  "  All  seek  the  things  that  are  their 
 own,  not  the  things  that  are  Jesus  Christ's"  {Philipp.  ii.  21). 
 
Ch.xix.  25-27.]  RICHES  AND  THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN.     151 
 
 Verse  25,    W/io,  t/ien,  can  be  saved? 
 
 It  is  as  if  they  had  said  :  "  As  all  men  so  study  wealth,  and 
 a  rich  man  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  who 
 can  be  saved  ?  "  S.  Mark  says  (x.  26)  that  the  Apostles 
 said  this  among  themselves,  that  is,  silently,  so  that  they 
 themselves  alone  might  hear.  This  is  to  be  understood 
 through  verse  26. 
 
 Verse  26.  Beholding. 
 Christ,  it  may  be  supposed,  looked  upon  the  disciples  to 
 show  that  He  knew  their  thoughts  and  understood  their 
 words,  though  secret.      S.   Mark   says  that   the  Apostles 
 murmured  these  things  among  themselves. 
 
 With  men  this  is  impossible. 
 All  the  Evangelists  agree  in  teaching  that  (i)  Christ 
 taught  that  it  was  difficult  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  the 
 kingdom  of  heaven  ;  (2)  that  it  was  impossible,  which  is  a 
 great  proof  that  they  have  given  us  not  merely  the  meaning 
 but  the  actual  words  of  Christ,  and  that  He  desired  to 
 confirm  His  doctrine  more  by  strengthening  it  ;  for  (i)  He 
 simply  said  that  it  is  difficult  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into 
 the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  and  (2)  that  it  was  easier  for  a 
 camel  to  pass  through  the  eye  of  a  needle ;  (3)  that  it  was 
 wholly  impossible,  but  with  men,,  not  with  God. 
 
 Verse  27.   TJien  Peter  ansivering. 
 
 That  is,  began  to  speak ;  a  Hebraism,  as  before  observed, 
 when  a  person  does  not  necessarily  reply  to  a  former 
 speaker  or  answer  a  question.  But  S.  Peter  may  appear 
 in  this  place  to  have  replied  to  the  words  of  Christ. 
 
 Behold  ive  have  left  all  things. 
 
 Some  think  the  reason  of  Peter's  having  asked  this  ques- 
 tion was  the  words  of  Christ  to  the  young  man, "  Go,  sell  all 
 
152  THE   GOSPEL  OF   S.   MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xix.  27. 
 
 thou  hast "  ;  but  Peter  doubted,  for  himself  and  the  other 
 Apostles,  what  reward  they  should  have.  For,  although 
 they  had  left  all  things,  they  had  not  sold  their  goods, 
 and  given  to  the  poor,  so  that  they  might  not  appear  to 
 have  satisfied  Christ's  counsel,  nor  to  be  worthy  of  obtain- 
 ing the  treasure  promised  to  the  young  man  in  heaven. 
 Or  it  may  be  that  Peter  wished  to  signify  that  he  and  the 
 other  Apostles  had  already  done  what  Christ  required  of 
 the  young  man,  as  Origen,  S.  Jerome,  and  S.  Chrysostom 
 say,  or  why  did  he  say  doubtfully,  "What  shall  we  have?" 
 Why  did  he  not  believe  that  he  and  the  other  Apostles 
 would  have  that  treasure  in  heaven,  because  Christ  pro- 
 mised treasure  to  the  young  man  if  he  would  leave  his  great 
 possessions  ?  But  the  Apostles  had  left  little,  or  almost 
 nothing,  and  therefore  did  not  venture  to  hope  for  a 
 treasure  in  heaven.  But  as  they  hoped  for  some  position 
 there,  they  asked  what  it  should  be  ?  It  cannot  be 
 thought,  as  some  say,  that  the  Apostles  had  not  sold  their 
 goods  and  given  to  the  poor ;  for  although  it  is  not  ex- 
 pressly said  in  Scripture,  yet  this  is  credible,  and  it  would 
 have  been  in  accordance  with  their  virtue  and  perfection, 
 that  either  all,  or  at  least  some  of  them,  should  have  sold 
 what  they  had,  and  given  to  the  poor ;  whilst  they  who  had 
 not  sold  it,  no  doubt  gave  it  to  their  kindred  who  were 
 poor.  This  is  easily  concluded  from  S.  Peter's  question ; 
 for  when  he  said,  "  We  have  left  all  things,"  although  he 
 did  not  say,  "  We  have  sold  all  things  and  given  to  the 
 poor,"  he  would  have  this  understood,  because  he  signified 
 that  he  had  done  all  that  Christ  commanded,  as  in  the 
 verse  following  Christ  answered,  "  Amen,  I  say  to  you  who 
 have  followed  Me,"  although  He  did  not  say  that  they  had 
 left  all  things,  this  may  surely  be  understood.  It  may 
 be  asked  how  S.  Peter  and  the  other  Apostles  had  done 
 what  Christ  required  of  the  young  man,  for  they  had  only 
 left  a  few  things  of  small  value,  but  he  was  commanded  to 
 
Ch.  XIX.  28.]     REWARDS  FOR  RESIGNING  THIS  WORLD.        I  53 
 
 leave  many  possessions.  S.  Gregory  {Hovi.  in  Evangel^ 
 shall  answer  this,  and  S.  Bernard  on  his  words  on  this 
 passage.  He  leaves  much  who  leaves  the  wish  of  having. 
 Such  things  were  left  by  His  followers  as  would  be  desired 
 by  those  who  did  not  follow  Him. 
 
 Verse  28.    Yoil  luho  have  followed  Me. 
 Christ  did  not  say,  "You  have  left  all  things,"  but  in 
 saying  the  greater.  He  understood  the  less,  as  S.  Jerome 
 has  shown. 
 
 In  the  regeneration. 
 
 S.  Hilary  and  The  Author  think  that  this  refers  to  our 
 baptisms.  But  it  is  clear  that  the  judgment  of  the  last  day 
 is  here  called  regeneration,  whether  because  the  whole 
 world  was  then  to  be  renewed,  and  in  some  degree  re- 
 generated, as  say  S.  John  {Apoc.  xxi.  i,  5),  S.  Peter  (2  Ep. 
 iii.  13)  ;  Isaiah  (Ixv.  17  and  Ixvi.  22),  and  S.  Paul  {Rom. 
 viii.  21);  or  because  men,  having  then  put  off  mortality, 
 and  put  on  immortality,  will-  be  in  some  way  regenerated, 
 as  S.  Paul  declares  (2  Cor.  v.  4;  Philipp.  iii.  21)  ;  so  too 
 S.  Augustin  {Cont.  Pelag.,  iii.  3  ;  iv.  11  ;  and  Cont.  Jul.,  ii.), 
 S.  Gregory  {Moral,  iv.  23),  Theophylact  and  Euthymius  {In 
 Comment^,  and  S.  Bernard  {in  loc). 
 
 When  the  Son  of  man  shall  sit. 
 S.  Hilary  and  The  Author,  who  explain  regeneration,  as 
 above,  of  our  baptisms,  take  the  sitting  to  be,  not  that  of 
 the  Son  of  man  on  His  tribunal  in  judgment,  but  the 
 session  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father  which  He  began  to 
 occupy  .shortly  after  His  Resurrection  and  Ascension.  But 
 S.  Chrysostom,  Euthymius,  and  Theophylact,  although 
 they  explain  this  of  the  judgment,  do  not  take  it  to  mean 
 any  session  either  of  Christ  or  the  Apostles,  but  only  His 
 glory  and  majesty,  in  which  Christ  and  the  Apostles  will 
 appear. 
 
154  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xix.  28. 
 
 It  is  clear  that  the  allusion  here  is  not  to  the  session  of 
 Christ  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father  ;  and  all  the  Fathers 
 of  the  Church  except  S.  Hilary  and  The  Author  say  that 
 when  Christ  speaks  of  the  judgment,  He  says,  "You  shall 
 sit ".  What  the  seats  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles  will  be 
 is  not  certain,  and  it  is  perhaps  curious  to  enquire,  and 
 rash  to  give  any  kind  of  definition.  But  it  is  not  so  to 
 follow  conjecture  wherever  it  may  probably  lead  us. 
 
 It  seems  probable,  then,  that  the  clouds  will  be  the  seat 
 of  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  because  Scripture  everywhere 
 says  that  Christ  will  come  on  a  cloud  (as  xxiv.  30 ;  xxvi. 
 64  ;  Apoc.  i.  7J,  and  it  is  very  probable  that  He  will  sit 
 on  the  same  cloud  as  that  on  which  He  will  come.  This 
 may  be  gathered  from  anc^ther  passage  of  the  Apocalypse 
 (xiv.  14).  For  S.  John  speaks  of  Christ  when  he  calls  Him 
 "  the  Son  of  man,"  and  of  the  judgment  as  a  sickle  in  His 
 hand.  Christ  signifies  in  this  place  that  the  seats  of  the 
 Apostles  will  be  like  His  own  :  "You  also  shall  sit  on  the 
 twelve  seats  ".  As  if  He  had  said  :  "  As  I  shall  sit,  so  also 
 shall  you  ". 
 
 It  may  be  a  question  how  there  will  be  twelve  seats,  when 
 it  is  plain  that  Judas,  one  of  the  twelve,  will  not  sit  with  the 
 rest.  If,  therefore,  there  were  only  eleven  to  sit  there,  there 
 would  only  be  eleven  seats  ;  and  if  S.  Paul  and  Barnabas, 
 who  were  afterwards  extraordinarily  called  to  be  Apostles, 
 are  added,  there  would  not  be  twelve,  but  thirteen.  S. 
 Augustin  {^De  Civit.,  xx.  5)  and  Bede  (in  his  commentary  on 
 this  passage)  say  that  a  certain  and  definite  number  is  put 
 for  an  indefinite  and  uncertain  one,  as  if  it  were  said,  "You 
 shall  sit  each  upon  his  own  seat ".  But  because  there  were 
 twelve  Apostles,  with  whom  He  spoke,  He  said  twelve 
 seats,  as  if  Judas  also  were  to  sit.  Not  that  Chri.st 
 thought  that  he  would  sit,  but  because  if  he  had  remained 
 in  his  office  like  the  others,  he  would  have  done  so,  as  has 
 been  observed  by  S.  Chrysostom.     For  Christ  speaks,  as 
 
Ch.  XIX.  28.]      APOSTLES  IN  THE  FUTURE  JUDGMENT.         I  55 
 
 theologians  say,  according  to  present  justice,  and  not  so 
 much  of  persons  as  of  the  status  of  the  persons.  As 
 if  He  said,  "  It  is  the  ofificium  of  Apostles  to  have  this 
 reward  proposed  to  them,  that  he  who  has  rightly  dis- 
 charged it  shall  sit  upon  his  seat  in  judgment  and  judge 
 the  rest". 
 
 Judging. 
 
 It  is  the  opinion  of  S.  Jerome  that  "to  judge"  means 
 here  to  condemn.  There  have  been  different  opinions  on  the 
 subject. 
 
 I.  The  common  opinion  is  that  the  Apostles  will  only 
 judge  by  comparison  ;  because,  while  they  themselves 
 believed,  the  other  Jews  did  not  ;  as  "the  men  of  Nineveh 
 shall  rise  in  judgment  with  this  generation  and  shall  con- 
 demn it,  because  they  did  penance  at  the  preaching  of 
 Jonas,  and  behold  a  greater  than  Jonas  is  here".  But  this 
 generation  at  the  preaching  of  Christ  Himself  will  not 
 repent.  The  Queen  of  the  South  will  condemn  the  Jews, 
 "  because  she  came  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  to  hear  the 
 wisdom  of  Solomon,  and  a  greater  than  Solomon  is  here  ". 
 This  is  the  opinion  of  S.  Jerome,  The  Author,  and  many 
 others. 
 
 2.  Others  say  that  as  Christ  promised  more  to  the 
 Apostles  in  this  place  than  to  the  men  of  Nineveh  or  the 
 Queen  of  the  South,  the  Apostles  would  judge  not  by  com- 
 parison merely  but  as  the  ministers  and,  as  it  were,  heralds 
 of  Christ  to  proclaim  His  sentence. 
 
 3.  Others,  again,  are  of  opinion  that  they  will  be  as 
 assessors  of  Christ ;  as  they  who  sit  with  the  judge  are  said 
 to  judge  with  him.  This  seems  less  probable,  because  the 
 heretics  put  it  prominently  forward,  referring  to  Rom.  xi. 
 34 :  "Who  hath  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord,  or  who  hath 
 been  His  counsellor?" 
 
 It  may  appear  certain  that  the  Apostles  will  not  judge  by 
 
156  THE   GOSPEL  OF   S.   MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xix.  28. 
 
 comparison  merely,  but  in  some  more  honourable  manner ; 
 because,  by  comparison,  not  only  all  the  just  but  many 
 sinners  also  and  unjust  will  judge  those  who  are  more 
 unjust  than  themselves,  as  the  men  of  Nineveh  will  judge 
 the  Jews  ;  and  it  is  clear  that  something  is  here  ascribed 
 to  the  Apostles  which  is  not  only  not  given  to  the  unjust, 
 but  not  even  to  all  the  just.  This  may  be  that  they  will 
 judge  as  Doctors  of  the  Church  and  witnesses,  to  accuse 
 those  who  would  not  receive  their  testimony  and  teaching. 
 They  will  condemn  these  men,  convincing  them  of  unbelief, 
 and  showing  that  they  did  all  they  could  that  they  might 
 not  believe  and  be  saved.  As  Christ  says  of  Moses  (S.  John 
 V.  45) :  "  Think  not  that  I  will  accuse  you  to  the  Father, 
 there  is  one  that  accuseth  you,  Moses  ". 
 
 Christ  says  that  Moses  will  accuse  them,  not  that  he  will 
 do  so  in  v/ords,  but  because  they  would  not  believe  in  him, 
 nor  keep  his  Law.  He  says  the  same  of  the  Apostles, 
 because,  as  Moses  was  the  Lawgiver  and  Doctor  of  the  Old 
 Testament,  so  were  the  Apostles  of  the  New.  As  Christ 
 then  said  in  the  former  case,  that  Moses  would  condemn 
 them,  so  He  here  uses  the  word  "judge". 
 
 But  it  will  be  asked,  Will  Moses  sit  upon  his  seat  and 
 judge  the  twelve  tribes  ?  Possibly  so  ;  and  why  not  ?  But 
 it  is  not  a  necessary  consequence,  because  Christ  does  not 
 give  this  honour  to  every  teacher,  but  only  to  those  who 
 have  left  all  things  for  the  sake  of  the  Gospel,  and  followed 
 Him  as  poor  men.  Shall  the  Apostles,  then,  alone  sit  ? 
 The  opinion  of  Origen  {Tract  viii.  on  S.  JMattlieiv),  S. 
 Augustin  [De  Civitate,  xx.  5),  S.  Cyril  Alexandria  {Com- 
 ment, on  Isaiah  Ix.),  seems  probable — that  all  who  have 
 done  the  same  thing,  that  is,  have  sold  their  goods  for  the 
 Gospel,  and  given  to  the  poor,  will  have  the  same  honour. 
 But  this  honour  may  appear  to  have  been  promised,  not 
 merely  because  they  were  teachers  of  the  Gospel,  but 
 because  they  were  the  first  by  whom  it  was  published  ;  as 
 
Ch.  six.  28.]      APOSTLES  IN  THE  FUTURE  JUDGMENT.         1 57 
 
 not  all  shall   possess  it  who  taught  the  old  Law,  but  he 
 alone  who  taught  it  first. 
 
 TJic  tzuelve  tribes  of  Israel. 
 
 A  similar  question  rises  here:  Why  are  the  Apostles 
 said  to  be  about  to  judge  the  twelve  tribes  only,  if  there 
 were  thirteen,  as  is  the  case  if  Levi  be  included,  which  is, 
 without  doubt,  to  be  judged  ?  and  the  Gospel  was  preached 
 not  to  the  Jews  only,  but  to  the  Gentiles  also,  of  whom 
 many  were  obstinate  and  would  not  believe.  S.  Augustin 
 and  Bede  again  reply  that  a  certain  number  is  put  for  an 
 uncertain.  This  is  probable ;  but  not  so  their  reasoning, 
 which  is  that  the  number  twelve  signifies  perfection  and 
 universality,  as  if  the  meaning  were  that  all  men  shall  be 
 judged.  For  why  did  they  use  the  number  twelve  rather 
 than  seventeen  or  ten,  which  are  also  used  to  express 
 universality  ?  The  reason  may  be  that  Christ  spoke  to 
 accommodate  Himself  to  those  to  whom  and  to  those  of 
 whom  He  spoke. 
 
 He  spoke  to  the  Apostles  who  were  twelve.  He  spoke 
 of  the  Jews  among  whom  He  was,  to  whom  He  had  first 
 come,  and  with  whom  He  desired  to  compare  the  Apostles. 
 For,  if  He  placed  the  latter  before  the  Jews,  He  placed 
 them  before  all  men.  But  although  there  were  in  fact 
 thirteen  tribes  of  the  Jews,  yet,  because  Levi  was  exempt 
 from  the  number,  and  was  given  by  God  in  the  place  of 
 the  first-born,  they  were  not  numbered  :  as  if  they  belonged 
 no  more  to  men  but  to  God,  and  there  were  always  said  to 
 be  only  twelve  tribes.  Christ,  therefore,  knew  that  not 
 only  twelve  Apostles,  but  even  thirteen,  Paul  and  Barnabas 
 being  added,  and  Judas  shut  out,  would  judge  not  only  the 
 twelve  tribes,  but  all  the  nations  as  well  to  whom  the 
 Gospel  had  been  preached. 
 
 There  is  another  reason  why  twelve  tribes  are  named. 
 The  Gentiles  who  believed  the  Gospel  were,  as  it  were. 
 
158  THE   GOSPEL   OF    S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xix.  29. 
 
 inserted  among  the  Jews  and  gifted  in  a  manner  with 
 citizenship  so  that  that  they  were  no  longer  Gentiles,  but 
 Jews  ;  that  is,  as  believing  and  confessing,  they  were  enrolled 
 among  the  chosen  people  into  the  twelve  tribes  ;  as  S. 
 Paul  says  to  the  Romans  (xi.  17,  19,  24):  "Thou  wert  a 
 wild  olive,"  that  is,  a  Gentile  grafted  into  the  people  of  the 
 Jews  ;  and  again  :  "  The  branches  were  broken  off,"  that 
 is,  the  Jews  who  did  not  believe  were  accounted  as  Gentiles  ; 
 I,  when  a  Gentile,  was  made  a  Jew  by  believing.  This  is 
 why  S.  John  in  the  Apocalypse  (vii.  5)  reduces  the  number 
 of  all  the  predestined  to  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel  ;  and 
 (xxi.  12)  says  that  he  saw  the  names  of  the  twelve  tribes  of 
 Israel  written  in  the  gates  of  the  Heavenly  Jerusalem.  The 
 opinion  of  Theophylact  and  Euthymius,  therefore,  that  the 
 Apostles  would  judge  the  Jews  alone,  seems  one  that  cannot 
 be  received. 
 
 Verse  29.  And  everyone  that  hath  left. 
 
 S.  Chrysostom,  The  Author,  and  Theophylact  think  the 
 meaning  to  be,  that  everyone  who  has  done  the  same  thing 
 shall  receive  the  same  reward.  But  Origen,  whose  opinion 
 seems  preferable,  thinks  that  Christ  spoke  of  another  and 
 inferior  grade  of  men.  He  had  spoken  before  of  those 
 who  had  sold  all  their  goods,  and  given  to  the  poor,  and 
 followed  Him.  He  speaks  now  of  those  who  have  not 
 sold  all  their  goods,  or  given  to  the  poor,  or  followed  Him 
 in  the  likeness  of  Apostles,  but  who  have  still  left  something 
 for  Him,  either  father  or  mother,  brothers,  sisters,  wives, 
 children,  houses  or  land.  To  these  no  so  great  honour  is 
 promised  as  to  the  Apostles,  but  they  would  have  a  great 
 reward,  receiving  a  hundredfold  and  life  eternal. 
 
 It  has  been  asked  how  a  wife  can  be  left  for  Christ, 
 because  marriage  cannot  be  dissolved.  S.  Chrysostom 
 and  Euthymius  reply  that  Christ  spoke  here  of  marriage  as 
 He  said  of  life  (x.  39)  :  "  He  that  findeth  his  life,  shall  lose 
 
Ch.  XIX.  2g.]      REWARDS  FOR  LEAVING  THIS  WORLD,  I  59 
 
 it,  and  he  that  shall  lose  his  life  for  Me  shall  find  it,"  and 
 vid.  xvi.  25.  Christ  would  not,  therefore,  have  the  marriage 
 dissolved,  but  He  would  be  preferred  to  the  wife,  and  if 
 the  wife  hinder  her  husband  from  following  Him,  she 
 should  be  left,  not  by  the  marriage  being  dissolved,  but 
 by  a  divorce.  He  wills  that  the  husband  should  lose  his 
 wife,  rather  than  Christ :  that  spiritual  be  preferred  to 
 carnal  things ;  as  explained  by  Fulgentius  {Ep.  ii.  de  Stat. 
 Viduali).  With  regard  to  the  marriage  of  Gentiles  :  if  one 
 have  been  made  a  Christian,  and  the  other  not,  and  this  one 
 cannot  live  with  a  Christian  without  injury  to  religion,  the 
 Christian  can  leave  the  non-Christian,  dissoluto  uiati'imonio, 
 as  S.  Paul  has  laid  it  down  in  i  Cor.  vii.  15.  But  a  general 
 sentence  ought  not  to  be  confined  to  one  kind  of  case. 
 
 He  shall  receive  an  hundredfold. 
 
 That  is,  more  things,  and  better  in  an  infinite  degree. 
 So  says  S.  Paul  {Rom.  viii.  18).  A  finite  number  is  here 
 again  put  for  an  infinite,  as  in  6".  Lnke  xviii.  30.  He  says 
 not  a  hundredfold,  but  "much  more".  S.  Luke  and  S.  Mark 
 (x.  30)  add,  "In  this  present  time".  The  words, as  we  learn 
 from  S.  Jerome,  gave  occasion  to  the  Millenarians  to 
 support  their  heresy.  They  say  that  after  the  Resurrec- 
 tion there  will  be  a  thousand  years  in  which  the  just,  for 
 everything  they  have  left  in  this  world,  will  receive  a 
 hundredfold.  S.  Jerome  replies  to  them  thus  :  "  They  do 
 not  understand  that  if  in  the  other  things  there  was  a 
 fitting  promise  of  payment,  in  the  case  of  a  wife  it  would 
 have  been  wickedness,  that  he  who  had  put  away  one  wife 
 for  his  Lord  should  receive  a  hundredfold  in  the  future  ". 
 Bede,  who  follows  S.  Jerome,  and  several  other  Moderns, 
 think  the  meaning  to  be,  to  use  the  words  of  S.  Jerome, 
 that  "  they  who  have  put  away  carnal  things  for  the 
 Saviour  shall  receive  spiritual  ones,  which  will  be  in  worth 
 and  comparison  as  if  they  received  a  hundred  for  one". 
 
l6o  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xix.  30. 
 
 But  this  is  opposed  to  what  S.  Mark  says.  He  says,  not 
 only  that  they  shall  receive  a  hundredfold  in  this  life,  but 
 he  explains  in  what  these  things  will  be  received  :  "  Houses, 
 and  brethren,  and  sisters,  and  mothers,  and  children,  and 
 lands ".  Hence  Origen,  The  Author,  Theophylact.  and 
 Euthymius  explain  a  hundredfold  as  meaning  that  love,  in 
 some  measure,  makes  all  things  among  Christians  common. 
 All  men  will  be  brothers,  all  women  sisters  ;  all  goods  will 
 be  in  common,  as  among  the  primitive  Christians  {Acts 
 iv.  34).  But  how  will  wives  be  in  common,  who  among 
 Christians  are  most  especially  proper?  It  may  be  said 
 that  they  will  be  so,  as  that  they  will  love  all  Christian 
 men  in  the  Lord  as  their  own  husbands. 
 
 There  seems  another  way  of  explaining  these  words  : 
 houses,  brothers,  mothers,  children — not  that  they  will 
 receive  these  things,  but  that  the}'  will  receive  Christ,  who 
 is  in  the  place  of  all  things,  and  who  ought  to  be  to  us 
 father  and  mother,  brother  and  sister,  wife  and  children, 
 house  and  lands,  as  Christ  Himself  has  said  (xii.  49,  50). 
 
 S.  Bernard,  on  this  place,  has  observed  that  Christ  did 
 not  say  this  to  the  Apostles,  because  they  had  not  left 
 house  and  land,  which  they  did  not  possess.  But  they 
 certainly  left  fathers  and  nets,  which  they  had,  and  followed 
 Christ  at  His  first  word  of  invitation  (iv.  22).  He  did  not 
 promise  these  things  to  them  therefore,  but  because  they 
 had  done  greater  things  than  these.  He  promised  them 
 greater  rewards  :  "  You  shall  sit  upon  twelve  seats,"  &c. 
 
 Verse  30.  And  ma?iy  that  are  first  shall  be  last. 
 
 It  hardly  appears  with  what  object  Christ  added  these 
 words.  S.  Chrysostom  and  Euthymius  think  that  He  did 
 it  to  incite  men  to  the  closer  following  of  evangelical  per- 
 fection, by  offering  them  more  valuable  rewards.  There 
 may  have  been  still  another  reason — that  the  Apostles 
 might  not   rest   in  too  great  security  because    they  were 
 
Ch.  XIX.  30.]  THE   LAST   FIRST.  161 
 
 called  the  first  of  all,  but  should  run  not  as  in  uncertainty 
 (i  Cor.  ix.  26,  27). 
 
 When  Christ  said,  "  Many  first  shall  be  last,"  it  is  clear 
 that  He  did  not  call  those  first  who  are  so,  either  in  their 
 own  opinion,  and  dignity,  and  merits,  or  who  think  them- 
 selves so,  but  those  who  were  called  first,  and  came  to  the 
 vineyard  of  the  Lord,  as  the  following  parable  declares 
 (xx.  16).  He  does  not  say  "all,"  but  "many,"  showing 
 that  some  who  were  first  will,  when  their  penny  is  paid,  be 
 first  still.  Lastly,  Christ  says  (not)  that  many  first  shall 
 be  nothing  {jmllos)  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven — that  is,  will 
 be  shut  out  of  it, — but  should  be  last — that  is,  less  than 
 many  who  came  after  them.  He  speaks  of  those  who 
 received  every  man  a  penny,  but  they  who  came  last 
 were  in  the  first  place,  as  the  following  parable  explains. 
 
CHAPTER   XX. 
 
 THE  PARABLE  OF  THE  LABOURERS  IN  THE  VINEYARD — 
 THE  AMBITION  OF  THE  TWO  SONS  OF  ZEBEDEE — 
 CHRIST   GIVES   SIGHT   TO   TWO   BLIND   MEN. 
 
 Verse  i.   TJie  kingdom  of  God  is  like  to  an  householder. 
 
 That  is,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  as  if  a  householder 
 went  out  early  in  the  morning  to  hire  labourers  into  his 
 vineyard.  The  Evangelist  does  not  compare  the  kingdom 
 of  heaven  to  a  man,  but  to  a  householder.  He  declares 
 the  men  to  resemble  labourers,  and  the  work  in  one  to 
 resemble  that  in  the  other  ;  that  is,  what  happens  in  the 
 kingdom  of  heaven  is  compared  to  what  happens  in  the 
 vineyard  ofthe  householder.  We  have  shown  this  from 
 Bishop  Hugo,  who  was  the  best,  and  perhaps  the  first,  to 
 explain  the  parable  thus. 
 
 The  kingdom  of  heaven  means  here  either  the  Church 
 militant  only,  as  many  think,  or  the  Church  both  militant 
 and  triumphant,  as  others  explain  it.  For  in  the  militant 
 Church  the  labourers  are  hired,  and  in  the  triumphant  the 
 penny  is  paid.  The  whole  parable  to  verse  i6  is  easy 
 there  being  only  two  points  in  it  which  have  any  difficulty  : 
 one.  What  is  the  object  ofthe  whole  parable?  that  is,  to  what 
 end  it  was  given  ;  the  other,  What  are  its  necessary  and,  as 
 it  were,  peculiar  parts,  which  add  to  the  meaning,  and  how 
 they  are  to  be  understood  ? 
 
 Some  Catholics  even  think  that  Christ  in  the  parable 
 only  intends  to  show  that  God,  contrarily  to  all  opinion, 
 will  give  to  some  more  and  to  others  less  than  they  ex- 
 
Ch.  XX.  I.]    PARABLE  OF  LABOURERS  IN  THE  VINEYARD.    163 
 
 pected.  But  there  seems  no  need  of  any  other  explanation 
 than  that  of  the  EvangeHst  himself.  He  had  said  in  the 
 former  chapter  :  "  Many  that  are  first  shall  be  last,  and  the 
 last  shall  be  first  ".  He  added  immediately  a  parable,  and 
 this  is  what  it  means  :  that  many  who  had  been  first 
 should  be  last,  and  many  that  had  been  last  should  be  first. 
 This  is  clear  from  the  last  verse  of  the  parable,  in  which 
 Christ  repeats  the  same  words :  "  So  shall  the  last  be  first, 
 and  the  first  last  "  (verse  16).  It  confirms  this  opinion  that 
 in  the  Greek  and  in  many  MS.  Latin  copies  the  causal 
 particle  "  for  "  {enwi,  jdp)  is  placed  at  the  beginning  of  the 
 first  verse :  "  For  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like,"  so  that 
 this  chapter  ought  not  to  be  distinguished  from  the  pre- 
 ceding, lest  the  subject  contained  therein  should  be  broken 
 off;  but  rather  from  the  following  verse  (17),  where  Christ 
 begins  a  new  subject.  Whoever  first  divided  the  chapters 
 did  not  see  this. 
 
 It  was  so  far  from  the  intention  of  Christ  to  teach  that 
 the  glory  of  all  the  blessed  would  be  equal  because  it  is 
 bestowed,  not  according  to  merits,  but  freely,  that,  in  fact, 
 He  showed  the  entire  contrary,  that  the  glory  of  all  would 
 not  be  equal,  because  it  is  not  bestowed  freely  but  accord- 
 ing to  merits  ;  and  that  which  is  given  according  to  merits 
 is  not  given  equally  to  all,  but  more  is  given  to  some  and 
 less  to  others,  according  to  the  merits  of  each.  This  is 
 plainly  shown,  first,  by  the  proposition,  to  prove  which  the 
 whole  parable  is  introduced.  The  proposition  is  :  "  Many 
 that  are  first  shall  be  last,  and  the  last  first  ".  The  subject 
 of  merits  and  reward  gave  occasion  to  the  parable.  For 
 Christ  had  said  to  the  young  man  :  "  If  thou  wilt  be  per- 
 fect, go,  sell  all  thou  hast "  (this  is  to  merit),  "  and  thou 
 shalt  have  treasure  in  heaven  "  (this  is  reward).  S.  Peter 
 had  said  :  "  We  have  left  all  things  and  have  followed 
 Thee  "  ;  that  is,  he  sought  a  reward  for  his  merits.  Christ 
 answered,  "Amen,  I  say  to  you".     He  promised  that  re- 
 
164  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xx.  i. 
 
 ward.  He  added  a  general  saying  :  "  Whoever  hath  left 
 house  or  brethren,"  and  this  is  also  merit ;  "  one  hundred- 
 fold ".  This,  again,  is  reward.  He  added  immediately : 
 "  And  many  that  are  first ".  He  signifies,  therefore,  that 
 many  who  are  first  shall  be  last,  because  although  they 
 came  first  to  the  vineyard  they  laboured  less,  and  therefore 
 merited  a  less  reward.  Again,  the  beginning  of  the  parable 
 refutes  those  mentioned  above.  "  He  went  out  early  in  the 
 morning  to  hire  labourers."  A  labourer  is  one  who  works 
 for  the  reward  which  he  has  merited  by  his  labour  ;  and 
 "to  hire  "  is  a  word  of  justice,  that  is,  of  merit  and  reward. 
 For  v/e  hire  on  a  compact,  according  to  desert ;  and  verse  2  : 
 "  Having  agreed  with  the  labourers  for  a  penny  a  day,  he 
 sent  them  into  his  vineyard  ".  To  make  agreement  for  a 
 penny  is  justice  and  not  grace  only.  Besides,  the  house- 
 holder said  in  verse  4 :  "  Go  into  my  vineyard,  and  I  will  give 
 you  what  shall  be  just  ".  He  could  not  more  clearly  state 
 the  justice  of  merit  and  reward.  But  here,  as  afterwards, 
 we  will  say  that  he  promised  less  than  to  the  first  labourers, 
 with  whom  he  made  agreement  for  a  penny  a  day.  But  he 
 promised  to  those,  not  a  penny,  but  whatever  was  just.  To 
 this  the  steward  (verses  13,  14)  answered  the  labourer  who 
 complained  :  "  Friend,  I  do  thee  no  wrong  ;  didst  thou  not 
 agree  with  me  for  a  penny  ?  Take  what  is  thine,  and  go 
 thy  way."  What  is  this  "  I  do  thee  no  wrong  "  but  "  I  have 
 given  thee  what  is  just  "  ?  What  is  "  Take  what  is  thine  " 
 but  "  Take  what  is  just  ;  take  what  is  owed  thee  ;  take 
 what  thou  hast  merited,  and  go  "  ?  As  the  labourers  in 
 the  vineyard  merit  properly  and  truly  their  day's  penny,  so 
 they  who  labour  in  the  Church  of  God  truly  merit  eternal 
 life.  The  end  of  the  parable  is  that  the  reward  of  eternal 
 life  answers  not  to  the  time  each  has  laboured,  but  to  his 
 labour  and  work  performed. 
 
 For  it  often  happens  that  one  man  may  only  labour  for 
 a  single  hour,  and  do  as  much  as  another  in  a  whole  day, 
 
Ch.  XX.  I.]     PARABLE  OF  LABOURERS  IN  THE  VINEYARD.    165 
 
 and  will  therefore  receive  an  equal  reward,  that  is,  the  same 
 penny,  in  the  same  sense  clearly  as  the  Wise  Man  ( Wisdom 
 iv.  13)  :  "  Being  made  perfect  in  a  short  space,  he  fulfilled  a 
 long  time  "  ;  and  thus  no  one  should  boast  of  the  length  of 
 his  service,  for  "  many  that  are  first  shall  be  last ". 
 
 It  may,  however,  be  asked  why  the  same  penny  is  given 
 to  all  ?  for  this  appears  to  show  an  equality  in  glory- 
 Christ  only  desired  to  teach  us  that  some  can  do  more  in  a 
 short  than  others  in  a  long  time. 
 
 But  why,  then,  did  the  householder  not  give  more  than  a 
 penny  to  those  who  came  at  the  eleventh  hour,  if  the  last 
 were  to  be  the  first  ?  These  were  preferred  to  the  others, 
 in  that  when  they  had  come  the  last,  they  received  their 
 penny  first  of  all.  They  received  the  same  penny,  then, 
 because  they  had  laboured  as  much  in  one  hour  as  the 
 others  had  done  through  the  whole  day.  They  received  it 
 first,  because  this  was  a  part  of  their  great  praise  by  which 
 they  gained  the  first  place  ;  because  they  had  worked  in 
 in  one  hour  as  much  as  the  rest  in  many.  For  equal  work 
 deserves  equal  payment  ;  greater  diligence  and  shorter 
 time  merit  the  first  place. 
 
 It  may  be  objected  that  this  is  said  in  verse  14  :  "I  will 
 give  to  this  last  even  as  to  thee,"  and  in  verse  15  :  "  Is  it 
 not  lawful  for  me  to  do  what  I  will  ?  " 
 
 It  appears  from  these  words  as  if  the  penny  were  given, 
 not  of  merit  and  justice,  but  only  at  the  will  of  the  house- 
 holder. This  was  not  the  reason  of  his  reply,  but  he  wished 
 to  maintain  the  dignity  of  his  position.  It  did  not  become 
 the  person  of  a  householder  to  inform  a  simple  labourer 
 why  he  should  give  the  same  to  the  last  as  to  the  first,  but 
 to  speak  as  his  master:  Sic  volo  sic  jubco.  For  wise  masters, 
 if  their  servants  ask  them  why  they  order  this  or  that 
 though  they  may  have  the  best  reason  for  what  they  do, 
 are  not  used  to  give  account  of  their  actions,  but  simply  to 
 state  their  will.     "  Why  dost  thou  direct  this  to  be  done  ?  " 
 
l66  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xx.  i. 
 
 "  Because  I  please."  And  this  wise  householder  did  not 
 wish  to  put  the  man  who  complained  to  shame,  by  explain- 
 ing why  he  gave  as  much  to  the  last  as  to  the  first,  namely, 
 because  they  had  done  as  much  as  the  others.  This,  as  S. 
 Chrysostom  has  said,  would  have  been  to  take  an  indirect 
 notice  of  the  negligence  of  himself,  and  those  others  who 
 came  first.  Pertinently  to  this  place  Theophylact,  in  his 
 Commentary  on  the  Romans  (ix.  1 9),  has  observed  that  God, 
 when  dealing  with  men  who  are  not  evil  and  unteachable, 
 does  give  account  of  His  actions,  but  when  dealing  with 
 the  evil  and  ill-disposed  only  declares  His  will,  such  men 
 not  being  worthy  of  His  giving  them  any  kind  of  account. 
 Of  this  there  are  innumerable  examples  in  Scripture,  some 
 of  which  Theophylact  produces,  and  this  one  among  them  ; 
 for  because  this  labourer  complained  unreasonably,  and 
 with  malice,  the  master  answered  as  he  did  :  "  Take  what 
 is  thine  ".  But  in  the  preceding  chapter,  when  Christ  was 
 conversing  with  the  Apostles  and  others  more  teachable, 
 He  explained  why  a  less  reward  should  be  given  to  some 
 and  a  greater  to  others.  For  to  those  who  only  kept  the 
 commandments  He  promised  eternal  life  (verse  17),  but  to 
 those  who  sold  all  they  had  and  gave  to  the  poor  and 
 followed  Him,  like  the  Apostles,  He  promised  treasure  in 
 heaven,  that  is,  a  greater  and  more  excellent  glory  (xix.  21) ; 
 and  a  greater  still  to  the  Apostles,  who  had  not  only  left 
 all  things,  but  were  to  be  the  first  preachers  of  the  Gospel 
 (verse  28),  with  a  less  glory  to  those  who  had  given  up  less 
 — house  or  brother  (verse  29). 
 
 So  far  we  have  explained  the  object  of  this  parable  to 
 which  all  its  particular  sayings  tend.  The  other  difficulty 
 is.  What  are  its  proper  and  necessary  parts  ?  and  what  is 
 the  meaning  of  each  ? 
 
 For,  as  has  often  been  said,  and  as  S.  Chrysostom 
 teaches,  in  every  parable  there  are  some  parts  peculiar  to 
 it,  and,  in  a  sense,  necessary,  without  which  the  conclusion 
 
Ch.  XX.  I.]    PARABLE  OF  LABOURERS  IN  THE  VINEYARD.    167 
 
 cannot  stand.  Others,  as  it  were  adjuncts  and,  as  they 
 may  be  termed,  ornaments  {emblemata),  either  for  the  ex- 
 planation or  the  ornamentation  of  the  whole. 
 
 In  this  parable  there  are  apparently  eight  necessary 
 parts.  I.  The  householder  who  hired  the  labourers  into 
 his  vineyard.  Most  authorities  suppose  that  he  was  God, 
 whose  is  the  vineyard,  and  of  whom  Christ  says  :  "  My 
 Father  is  the  husbandman  "  {S.  John  xv.  i)  ;  and  as 
 another  parable  says  in  the  following  chapter  (verses  28, 
 33)  ;  5.  Mark  xii.  i  ;  6".  Ltike  xiii.  6  ;  and  as  in  the 
 Prophets,  God  everywhere  calls  His  people  a  vineyard — as 
 Isa.  iii.  14;  V.  i,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7;  xxvii.  2;  xxxii.  12;  Jer. 
 ii.  21  ;  xii.  10;  Ezek.  xvii.  6,  7,  8  ;  Joel  i.  7,  12,  So  S. 
 Irenaeus  (iv.  yo),  S.  Athanasius,  or  whoever  was  the  author 
 of  The  Questions  (lib.  ii.),  S.  Gregory  {Horn.  xix.  in  Evangel.), 
 Bede  {Comment,  in  loc). 
 
 Others  think  Him  to  be  Christ,  who  is  always  going  out 
 into  this  world  as  into  a  market-place,  to  hire  labourers 
 into  His  vineyard — for  it  was  He  who  formerly  appeared 
 to  the  Patriarchs  and  spoke  to  the  Prophets.  So  say  S. 
 Hilary  {Can.  xx.  on  S.  Matt.),  The  Author  {Hom.  xxxiv.), 
 Theophylact  {iti  loc.).     Either  opinion  is  probable. 
 
 2.  The  second  part  of  the  parable  is  the  day,  in  the 
 morning  of  which  the  householder  went  into  the  market- 
 place, and  in  the  evening  of  which  he  paid  the  labourers. 
 Many  think  that  this  day  includes  all  the  time  from  the 
 beginning  to  the  end  of  the  world,  as  S.  Irenaeus  (iv.  70), 
 Origen  {Tract,  x.  on  S.  Matt.),  S.  Hilary  {Can.  xx.),  S. 
 Gregory  {Hom.  xix.  in  Evangel),  Bede  {in  loc),  and  others. 
 This  opinion  receives  confirmation  from  the  certain  fact 
 that  the  evening  signifies  the  day  of  the  last  judgment, 
 when  to  each  will  be  given  his  penny,  that  is,  his  reward 
 according  to  his  works  ;  and  as  the  evening  is  the  last  day  of 
 judgment,  the  morning  will  be  the  beginning  of  the  world, 
 and  the  day  whatever  time  may  intervene  between  the  two. 
 
l68  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xx.  i. 
 
 Some  think  the  day  to  be  not  the  whole  of  this  time, 
 but  the  period  from  the  first  to  the  second  Advent,  as  S. 
 Athanasius  {Qucsst.  52).  Others,  again,  take  it  for  the  entire 
 Hfe  of  each  man,  as  Christ  signified  when  He  said,  "  Walk 
 while  you  have  the  light"  {S.  John  xii.  35  and  ix.  4), 
 meaning  that  death  was  our  night.  So  S.  Jerome  and  S. 
 Chrysostom  understand  it  ;  and  Origen  seems  to  prefer  this 
 meaning  to  any  other.  Certainly  the  words  do  not  apply  to 
 the  age  of  the  world  in  which  each  man  was  called,  but  to 
 that  part  of  his  own  life  in  which  he  was  called. 
 
 3.  The  third  part  is  the  vineyard,  which  some  explain  of 
 the  justice  and  commandments  of  God,  to  observe  which  is 
 the  object  of  our  calling,  as  S.  Irenaeus,  S.  Chrysostom,  and 
 others.  S.  Athanasius  {QiicBst.  52)  and  Theophylact  hold 
 it  to  be  our  souls,  which  every  man  is  ordered  to  cultivate. 
 Some  understand  the  Church,  as  Origen  and  S.  Gregory 
 {Horn.  xix.  in  Evangel^,  which  appears  to  be  the  most  likely 
 idea  of  any. 
 
 4.  The  fourth  is  what  is  the  meaning  of  each  of  the 
 hours.  They  who  take  the  day  for  the  whole  age  of  the 
 world  explain  the  first  hour  to  be  the  time  from  Adam  to 
 Noah  :  the  third  that  from  Noah  to  Abraham  :  the  sixth 
 that  from  Abraham  to  Moses  :  the  ninth  that  from  Moses 
 to  Christ  :  the  eleventh  that  from  Christ  to  the  end  of  the 
 world.  S.  John  appears  to  allude  to  this  when  he  says  that 
 "this  is  the  last  hour"  {Ep.  i.  11,  iS)  ;  so  S.  Hilary,  The 
 Author,  S.  Gregory,  Theophylact,  and  others.  S.  Jerome 
 refers  to,  but  does  not  approve,  this  opinion.  Some  under- 
 stand the  different  hours  to  signify  the  different  stages  of 
 each  man's  life — the  first  hour,  infancy  :  the  third,  puberty  : 
 the  sixth,  manhood  :  the  ninths  the  decline  to  old  age  :  the 
 eleventh  decrepitude.  For  some  are  called  from  their  first 
 infancy  and  their  very  birth,  as  Samuel,  Jeremiah,  John  the 
 Baptist  ;  others  at  other  ages.  So  say  S.  Basil  {Rcgid. 
 brev.   Interi'og.^   ccxxiv.).      S.    Jerome,    Bede,    Euthymius, 
 
Ch.  XX.  I.]     PARABLE  OF  LABOURERS  IN  TPIE  VINEYARD.     169 
 
 Fulgentius,  Theophylact,  and  others  accept  this  view.  The 
 different  hours  do  undoubtedly  signify,  not  the  different 
 periods  of  the  world,  but  those  of  each  man's  life,  because 
 the  meaning  of  the  whole  parable  is  that  some  accomplish 
 more  in  a  short  time  than  others  do  in  a  longer.  To  prove 
 this  the  question  is  not  at  what  age  of  the  world  each  man 
 was  called,  but  at  what  period  of  his  life. 
 
 What  the  particular  hours  signify  should  not,  perhaps,  be 
 enquired  into  too  closely,  lest  we  narrow  the  meaning  too 
 much  ;  for  this  necessarily  belongs  to  the  meaning  of  the 
 parable,  as  explained  above.  That  Christ  named  these 
 five  was  not  of  necessity,  but  of  custom,  and  to  adorn  the 
 parable. 
 
 For  the  Jews,  like  many  other  nations,  divided  the  day, 
 from  the  rising  to  the  setting  of  the  sun,  into  twelve  equal 
 parts,  or  hours,  as  Christ  said  {S.  Jo/111  xi.  9)  ;  so  that  the 
 first  hour  was  at  the  rising  sun  and  the  beginning  of  the 
 day,  the  third  half-way  to  noon,  the  sixth  noon,  and 
 the  ninth  half-way  between  noon  and  sunset,  the  eleventh 
 one  hour  before  sunset.  The  whole  day  again  was  sub- 
 divided into  four  parts,  of  three  hours  each,  as  the  night 
 into  four  watches,  each  of  which  consisted  of  three  hours  ; 
 and  this  is  why  in  Scripture  the  first,  third,  sixth,  and  ninth 
 hours  are  mentioned  more  frequently  than  the  others,  as 
 they  contained  the  chief  portions  of  the  day.  Christ  also 
 mentioned  them  here,  not  to  signify  any  new  mystery,  but, 
 as  before  said,  to  show  that  some  were  called  by  God 
 earlier  and  others  later. 
 
 It  will  be  asked,  whj^  Christ  did  not  then  name  four  but 
 five  hours.  The  answer  is  obvious.  He  pleased  by  men- 
 tion of  the  first  quarter  of  the  day  and  of  the  last  to  show 
 that  some  were  called  at  the  beginning  and  some  at  the 
 close  of  their  lives. 
 
 5.  The  fifth  part  is  the  market-place  into  which  the 
 householder  is  said  to  have  gone  out  to  hire  the  labourers. 
 
I/O  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xx.  i. 
 
 Origen  and  S.  Augustin  rightly  understand  the  whole 
 world  which  is  outside  the  Church,  in  which  men  are  either 
 wholly  idle  or  are  absorbed  in  secular  business,  and  are 
 called  thence  into  the  Church  as  into  the  vineyard. 
 
 6.  The  sixth  part  is  the  penny,  which  signifies  beyond 
 doubt  salvation  and  eternal  life.  S.  Irenaeus  says  that  a 
 penny  was  given  because  it  had  the  image  of  the  king  on 
 it,  and  they  who  are  saved  {Rom.  viii.  29)  are  to  be  made 
 conformable  to  the  image  of  His  Son  {PJiilipp.  iii.  21). 
 This  seems  allegorical.  The  reason  why  a  penny  was  given 
 rather  than  any  other  coin  may  probably  have  been  that  a 
 penny  was  perhaps  the  usual  payment  for  a  day's  labour, 
 as  is  stated  (xviii.  28). 
 
 S.  Chrysostom  asks  why  the  householder  made  agree- 
 ment for  the  penny  with  those  only  whom  he  hired  in  the 
 morning,  but  simply  said  to  the  others,  "  What  shall  be  just 
 I  will  give  you  ".  Christ  spoke  probably  according  to  the 
 general  custom  ;  for  we  do  not  fix  a  price  to  any  labourers 
 but  to  those  whom  we  hire  in  the  morning  to  do  a  full  day's 
 labour  ;  and  if  any  come  later  in  the  day  we  make  no 
 certain  promise,  but  merely  assure  them  of  some  payment. 
 
 S.  Chrysostom,  also,  and  Euthymius  ask  why  God  did 
 not  call  them  all  in  the  morning.  They  reply  that  all 
 were  called,  but  all,  as  Origen  says,  were  not  willing  to 
 come  ;  but  it  is  shown  that  all  who  came  the  householder 
 hired.  God  therefore  calls  all  in  the  early  morning,  as 
 He  has  said  by  the  Prophet  Jeremiah  (vii.  13  ;  xi.  7,  8  ; 
 XXXV.  15). 
 
 S.  Chrysostom  thinks  that  their  excuse,  "  No  man  hath 
 hired  us,"  was  said  to  justify  themselves,  and  not  as  being 
 true,  which  appears  to  be  very  probable.  For  Christ  in 
 His  parables  describes  men  as  they  are,  and  the  slothful 
 and  the  idle  always  excuse  themselves  in  this  manner,  when 
 the  truth  is,  that  they  do  not  seek  employment,  because  they 
 are  not  willing  to  work.     Thus,  if  wc  ask  a  robust  young 
 
Ch.  XX.  I.]     PARABLE  OF  LABOURERS  IN  THE  VINEYARD.    171 
 
 mendicant  why  he  does  not  seek  for  work  rather  than  beg, 
 he  will  reply  that  he  wishes  for  nothing  else,  but  he  can 
 find  no  master.  He  does  not  find  a  master  because  he 
 does  not  seek  one,  and  he  does  not  seek  one  because  he 
 will  not  work.  S.  Chrysostom  thinks  that  the  householder 
 did  not  blame  these  men  for  their  falsehood,  because  he 
 would  not  accuse  them,  and  make  them  sad,  that  he  might 
 the  more  easily  induce  them  to  work  for  him.  The  more 
 obvious  answer  might  be  that  the  householder,  though 
 representing  God,  was  not  God,  but  man,  and  therefore 
 could  not  know  whether  the  men  were  speaking  truly  or 
 not.  Christ  said  what  was  probable,  and  the  labourers 
 excused  themselves,  and  the  householder  answered  them. 
 
 7.  The  seventh  part  is  the  evening,  when  the  penny  was 
 paid.  No  one  doubts  that  this  signifies  the  end  of  the 
 world,  and  the  time  of  the  final  judgment.  But  this,  it 
 may  be  said,  does  not  appear  to  agree  with  what  was  said 
 above,  that  the  day  does  not  mean  all  this  world,  but  the 
 life  of  each  man  in  it.  If  this  be  so,  the  evening  is  not  the 
 end  of  the  world,  but  the  close  of  each  man's  life.  Though 
 there  appear  to  be  this  difference,  it  comes  to  the  same 
 thing,  because  there  will  be  men  even  to  the  end  of  the 
 world,  and  the  day  is  the  life  of  each,  and  the  evening  is 
 the  death  of  each.  The  last  evening  will  be  the  end  of  the 
 world,  when  all  who  are  then  living  will  die  together,  or 
 be  caught  up  into  the  heavens,  as  S.  Paul  tells  us  in 
 I  Thess.  iv.  17. 
 
 8.  The  eighth  part  is,  that  the  householder  commanded, 
 when  the  payment  was  made,  that  those  who  came  last 
 should  be  paid  first.  This  is  of  especial  consequence  to 
 the  understanding  of  the  parable.  The  meaning  plainly 
 is,  that  they  who  came  at  the  eleventh  hour  were  preferred 
 to  the  others,  and  made  first,  because  they  had  laboured  as 
 much  in  one  hour  as  the  rest  in  the  whole  day.  The 
 payment  was  not  made,  as  S.  Chrysostom  thinks,  from  the 
 
1/2  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xx.  i. 
 
 generosity  of  the  householder,  and  not  from  the  deserts  of 
 the  labourers,  as  the  words  show :  "  I  will  give  you  what 
 shall  be  just ".  He  said  this,  not  only  to  those  who  were 
 hired  at  the  third  hour  (verse  4),  but  also  to  those  hired 
 at  the  eleventh,  as  the  Greek  version  (verse  7)  shows,  and 
 as  the  sense  requires,  and  as  is  to  be  understood  from 
 verse  4. 
 
 These  are  the  points  of  the  parable  which  have  a  neces- 
 sary meaning.  The  others  are  of  less  consequence.  Such 
 are,  why  five  hours  of  the  day  are  mentioned?  Why  the 
 men  were  found  idle  in  the  market-place  ?  Why  they 
 were  not  hired  ?  Why  the  householder  is  said  to  have  had 
 a  steward  ?  For  we  should  hardly  seek  in  the  kingdom  of 
 heaven,  of  which  the  parable  is  a  kind  of  description,  who 
 the  steward  was,  though  Christ  may  seem  to  be  such,  who 
 will  render  to  every  man  his  reward,  as  Isaiah  says  (xl.  10; 
 Ixii.  10;  Apoc.  xxii.  12).  Though  S.  Irenaeus  (iv.  70)  says 
 that  the  Spirit  is  He,  for,  as  S.  Paul  writes  (i  Co]\  xii.  11), 
 "  All  these  things  one  and  the  same  Spirit  worketh,  divid- 
 ing to  every  man  severally,  as  He  will ".  Of  the  same 
 kind  are  the  questions  why  a  penny  and  no  other  coin  was 
 given  ?  why  they  who  came  first  murmured  ?  For  it  is  not 
 meant  that  any  who  received  eternal  life  would  murmur, 
 because  others  would  receive  glory,  for  there  is  no  murmur- 
 ing in  heaven.  But  either  nothing  is  meant,  and  this  is 
 related  only  in  pursuance  of  the  general  custom  in  such 
 cases,  and  to  preserve  the  consistency  of  the  narrative  :  or  to 
 show,  as  S.  Chrysostom  thinks,  that  the  meaning  might  be, 
 that  they  who  came  last  would  receive  a  reward  so  great 
 that,  if  it  were  possible  for  the  blessed  to  murmur,  they 
 would  murmur  at  it,  as  in  verses  14,  15.  "  Is  it  not  lawful  for 
 me  to  do  what  I  will  with  mine  own  ?  "  as  the  Greek  reads, 
 and  as  probably  the  Latin  ought  to  read. 
 
 These  words,  as  has  been  said  before,  are  not 
 intended  to  show  that   God,  of  His  mere  will,  and  with 
 
Ch.  XX.  i6.]    PARABLE  OF  LABOURERS  IN  THE  VINEYARD.    1 73 
 
 no  regard  to  justice,  will  give  us  eternal  life  ;  but  they  are 
 said  because  it  is  credible  that  the  householder  would 
 answer  thus  if  any  labourer  complained  without  reason  ;  or 
 they  may  mean  simply  that  God  is  not  to  account  to  us 
 for  giving  more  to  some  and  less  to  others.  If  we  enquire 
 into  these  and  other  points  of  the  same  kind  too  closely,  we 
 shall  not  only  lose  our  labour,  but  we  shall  incur  the  danger 
 of  following  what  is  void  of  truth,  or  is  without  meaning,  or 
 at  least  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  For  whoever  seeks  for 
 that  which  does  not  exist,  sometimes  imagines  what  he  is 
 looking  for,  and  will  believe  what  is  false  rather  than 
 nothing.  The  human  mind  must  be  held  in  check  or  it 
 will  be  led  astray  by  its  own  subtlety,  beyond  all  reason, 
 and  on  matters  of  no  consequence. 
 
 Verse  16.  For  many  are  called,  but  fezv  chosen. 
 ,  It  may  appear  strange  why  Christ  added  these  words, 
 for  they  hardly  appear  to  be  in  harmony  with  what  has 
 gone  before.  In  the  early  part  of  the  parable  He  spoke 
 only  of  those  who  would  be  saved,  for  all  had  received  the 
 penny, — that  is,  eternal  life  ;  but  He  speaks  here  of  those 
 who  when  called  were  not  all  saved,  but  most  of  whom  were 
 lost.  Christ  appears,  from  some  special  case,  to  have  urged 
 a  general  conclusion.  He  had  shown  by  the  parable  that 
 all  would  not  receive  an  equal  reward,  but  many  of  the  last 
 would  be  first  and  the  first  last,  because  not  all  who  were 
 called  and  came  to  the  vineyard  laboured  with  the  same 
 diligence.  He  concludes  now  that  not  all  who  were  called 
 will  receive  the  same  reward,  because  many  would  not  come, 
 as  has  been  shown  from  Origen,  S.  Chrysostom,  and  Euthy- 
 mius  ;  so  in  the  previous  chapters  from  the  case  of  the  rich 
 young  man  who  was  hindered  by  his  riches,  and  would  not 
 follow  evangelical  counsels.  He  concluded  generally  of  all 
 rich  men,  and,  from  the  observance,  not  of  counsels,  but  of 
 precepts,  declared  that  it  is  difficult  for  a  rich  man  to  enter 
 
174  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xx.  17. 
 
 heaven.  It  is  not  meant  that  all  are  not  called,  for  He 
 calls  all,  who  came  into  the  world  to  call  sinners  to  repent- 
 ance (ix.  13).  For  all  were  sinners,  and  He  calls  all  who 
 died  for  all.  Why,  then,  did  Christ  not  say  "  all  "  but 
 "  many  "  ?  Because  the  all  are  many,  and  He  desired  to 
 oppose  many  to  a  few,  not  all  to  none,  as  S.  Paul  said  to  the 
 Romans  (v.  19).  For  through  the  disobedience  of  one  man 
 not  only  many  but  all  were  made  sinners,  as  he  had  said  be- 
 fore (verses  12,  18).  He  said  soon  after,  "  Through  the  dis- 
 obedience of  one  man  many  were  made  sinners,"  to  oppose 
 many  to  one,  and  to  add  force  not  only  to  the  assertion,  but 
 to  his  own  period.  In  the  same  manner  Christ  here  uses 
 the  words  "many"  and  "few";  by  "many"  meaning  "all". 
 This  is  shown  by  the  subsequent  parable  of  the  marriage 
 (chap.  xxii.).  Not  only  were  all  called  to  the  marriage, 
 —  the  lame,  the  blind,  and  those  in  the  highways, — but 
 they  were  even  compelled  to  come  in,  and  yet  Christ 
 concludes  the  parable  in  the  same  words,  "many,"  "few," 
 where  it  is  certain  that  He  opposes  "many"  not  to  all,  but 
 to  a  few  :  "  For  all  were  called  ". 
 
 Verse  17.  And  going  up. 
 
 "  Going  up  "  does  not  mean  here,  as  many  even  of  the 
 Jewish  Rabbis  think,  that  Jerusalem  was  the  highest  spot 
 in  the  whole  earth  ;  but  it  means  in  Syriac  and  Chaldee^ 
 the  language  used  by  Christ,  simply  "  to  go  ".  S.  Mark 
 relates  it  as  follows  :  "  And  they  were  in  the  way  going  up 
 to  Jerusalem,  and  Jesus  went  before  them  ;  and  they  were 
 astonished,  and  following,  were  afraid  ". 
 
 The  readiness  of  Christ  to  go  to  His  death,  and  the 
 wonder  of  the  Apostles,  and  their  fear  for  themselves, 
 are  signified.  They  marvel  at  His  going  to  Jerusalem  with 
 so  much  courage  and  firmness,  when  He  had  often  warned 
 them  that  He  should  undergo  many  sufferings  (xvi.  21  ; 
 xvii.    12).      They   feared    for    Him    and    for   themselves. 
 
Ch.  XX.  i8,  19.]     CHRIST   FORETELLS   HIS   DEATH.  1 75 
 
 Christ  went  before  to  show  the  Apostles  the  way  to  the 
 cross,  and  to  teach  them  how  readily,  when  the  need  arose, 
 they  should  endure  death ;  as  S.  Paul,  a  true  disciple  of 
 His,  says  {Ads  xxi.  13),  and  as  Origen  observed. 
 
 Took. 
 "  Separated  ;"  as  chap.  xvi.  22.  Christ  would  not  inform 
 the  disciples  before  the  people,  lest  the  matter  should  be 
 known  publicly,  and  either  His  death  be  hindered,  or  it 
 should  appear  to  be  brought  about  by  Himself  We  may 
 translate  the  Greek  word  irapeka^e  by  aggressiis :  He  ap- 
 proached them  to  speak  to  them,  as  has  been  said  before, 
 and  as  is  in  accordance  with  this  passage. 
 
 Verse  18.  Be/ioM. 
 This  word  appears  here  to  be  a  particle  indicative  of  a 
 time  near  at  hand. 
 
 Verse  19.  And  tJicy  sJiall  deliver  Him  to  the  Gentiles. 
 To  Pilate  and  the  Romans.  There  is  an  antithesis  here 
 between  Jews  and  Gentiles,  as  if  between  friends  and 
 enemies.  As  if  it  were  said  :  "  The  Jews  will  not  be  con- 
 tent to  punish  the  Son  of  man  ipsi  per  se,  but  they  vvill 
 give  Him  over  to  His  enemies  that  He  may  be  punished 
 the  more  severely  and  be  put  to  death  ".  For  it  was  not 
 lawful  for  them  to  put  anyone  to  death  {S.John  xviii.  31  ; 
 5".  Ljike  xviii.  34).  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  from  this  that 
 they  did  not  understand  the  words  of  Christ  that  He  was 
 going  to  His  death,  but  that  they  did  not  comprehend  the 
 mystery  of  His  death,  and  our  redemption  by  it.  For  if 
 they  had  literally  not  understood  His  words,  they  would 
 not  have  been  astonished  at  His  going  nor  have  dreaded 
 His  death,  as  S.  Mark  says  (x.  32).  We  may  enquire  why 
 Christ  said  these  words  to  the  Apostles  as  He  approached 
 Jerusalem.  S.  Chrysostom  says  that  it  was  to  strengthen 
 them,  and  to  teach  them  patience  and  constancy. 
 
176  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xx.  20. 
 
 Verse  20.   Then. 
 
 Then,  that  is,  when  she  saw  that  His  death  was  at 
 hand,  she  sought  about,  hke  the  friends  of  a  dying  man, 
 for  a  share  of  His  inheritance.  This  was  the  cause  of  her 
 desiring  them  to  be  near  Christ,  and  to  obtain  the  first 
 place  for  them  in  His  kingdom  :  namely,  what  He  had  said 
 of  His  closely  impending  death,  as  S.  Jerome,  Euthymius, 
 and  Bede  have  observed. 
 
 TJie  motJicr  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee. 
 
 Salome,  as  The  Author  observes,  and  as  is  found  by  a 
 comparison  of  SS.  Matthew  and  Mark  ;  for  her  whom  S. 
 Matthew  calls  the  mother  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  S.  Mark 
 calls  Salome  (vid.  S.  Matt,  xxvii.  56 ;  5.  Mark  xv.  40). 
 Who  they  were  is  stated  by  S.  Matthew  (x.  2).  S.  Mark 
 (x.  35)  says  that  "James  and  John,  the  sons  of  Zebedee, 
 came  to  Him  saying,  Master,  we  desire  that  whatsoever 
 we  shall  ask,  Thou  wouldst  do  it  for  us ".  This  seems 
 opposed  to  S.  Matthew,  but  it  is  not  really  so,  for  their 
 having  asked  it  through  their  mother  is  not  contrary  to 
 their  being  said  to  have  asked  it  themselves  ;  as  S. 
 Augustin  iJJc  Conscns.,  ii.  64),  S.  Chrysostom  {Hovi.  Ivi.) 
 reply.  There  is  a  similar  example  in  chap.  viii.  5,  where 
 S.  Matthew  says  that  a  centurion  came  to  Christ  and  asked 
 Him  to  heal  his  servant,  whilst  S.  Luke  (vii.  3)  says  that 
 he  did  not  come  himself  in  person,  but  that  he  came 
 through  his  friends. 
 
 It  is  uncertain  whether  the  Apostles  persuaded  their 
 mother  to  seek  this  honour  from  Christ  ;  as  if  a  woman, 
 and,  as  many  think,  a  relative  of  Christ — for  Salome  is  sup- 
 posed to  have  been  a  sister  of  the  Virgin  Mary — would 
 more  easily  obtain  such  a  request,  and  her  sons  would 
 escape  the  charge  of  immodesty  and  the  ill-will  of  the  other 
 Apostles,  if  what  they  asked  were  not  asked  by  them  for 
 
Ch.  XX.  20.]   REQUEST  OF  MOTHER  OF  SONS  OF  ZEBEDEE.    1 77 
 
 themselves,  but  by  their  mother  for  them.     So  think  many 
 
 of  the  early  Fathers — S.  Augustin  {De  Consens.,  ii.  64),  S. 
 
 Chrysostom,   The   Author,    Theophylact,    Euthymius,    S. 
 
 Gregory   {Horn,   xxvii.   in   Evangel.),  and   others.      Some 
 
 think,  with  great  probability,  that  Salome,  as  their  mother, 
 
 asked   it  of  her  own   motherly  impulse,  and  without  any 
 
 concert  on  their  part  (S.  Hilary,  Can.  xx.  on  S.  Matt. ;  S. 
 
 Ambrose,  De  Fide,  v.  3). 
 
 The  argument  of  some,  that  the  mother  of  these  Apostles 
 
 was  secretly  instigated  by  them  because  Christ  answered 
 
 them   and   not  her,  is  easily  answered.     "  You   know  not 
 
 what  you  ask."     "  Can  you  drink  the  chalice  I  shall  drink  " 
 
 (verse  22).     S.  Ambrose  and  S.  Jerome  offer  with  pleasing 
 
 piety  to  excuse  Salome.     The  former  says  :  "Consider  what 
 
 she   asked   with   her   sons,  and   for   them.     She   was  their 
 
 mother  indeed,  and  in  her  anxiety  for  the  advancement  of 
 
 her  sons,  she  showed  a  degree  of  importunity  somewhat 
 
 immoderate  no  doubt,  but  quite  to  be  pardoned.     And  she 
 
 was  a  mother  advanced  in  years,  of  a  devout  disposition, 
 
 deprived  of  her  comfort,  who  at  a  time  when  she  might 
 
 have  been   aided  or  maintained   by  the  exertions  of  her 
 
 sons,  suffered   them  to  go  from  her,  and  preferred  to  her 
 
 own  pleasure  the  reward  of  their  following  Christ.     Again, 
 
 although  it   were  an   error  it  was  a  pious  error.     For  a 
 
 mother's  longings  know  not  patience.     Although  desirous 
 
 of  obtaining   her   wish,    she   was    urged    by   a   venerable 
 
 cupidity  which  was  not  of  gold,  but  of  grace ;  nor  was  her 
 
 petition  an  unbecoming  one,  for  it  was  not  for  herself,  but 
 
 for    her    children.      Consider    the    mother,  think    of    the 
 
 mother."     S.  Jerome  adds  :  "  The  mother  of  the  sons  of 
 
 Zebedee  erred  by  a  womanly  error,  and  from  piety  ;  not 
 
 knowing  what  she  asked  ".      The  Author  excuses  them 
 
 because  they  asked  for  nothing  temporal,  or  carnal,  or  of 
 
 worldly  ambition,   but   only   for    spiritual    perfection.       S. 
 
 Ambrose  says  the  same  of  their  mother. 
 2 12 
 
178  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xx.  21. 
 
 Adoring. 
 TIpoa-Kvvova-a.     Bowing  herself,  or  bending  her  knee,  to 
 gain  the  favour  and  good-will  of  Christ. 
 
 A7td  asking  something. 
 The  word  "  something "  would  seem  to  imply  that  the 
 request  was  not  a  slight  one,  but  was  for  something  of 
 consequence.  So  the  Greeks  say,  rt  elvai,  "  it  is  something  " ; 
 that  is,  something  of  value.  It  was  for  this  reason,  pro- 
 bably, that  the  Evangelist  says  that  she  came  kneeling,  to 
 show  that  her  request  was  an  unusual  one.  Why  did  she 
 not  say  what  she  desired  at  once  ?  Because  she  wished  to 
 explain  herself  first,  and  therefore  she  did  not  state  at 
 once  what  she  sought  for,  but  asked  Christ  in  general 
 terms  to  grant  it,  as  we  find  in  .S.  Mark  x.  35.  This  was 
 not  said  by  the  sons,  but  by  their  mother,  as  shown  before. 
 The  mother  came  suppliantly  and  said,  "  I  would  that 
 Thou  wouldst  give  me  whatever  I  ask  ".  For  they  who 
 desire  a  thing,  but  are  in  doubt  whether  they  will  obtain  it, 
 do  not  speak  out  at  once,  lest  they  should  be  refused.  So 
 the  mother  of  Solomon  asked  her  son  not  to  put  her  to 
 confusion  (3  Kings  ii.  20). 
 
 Verse  21.    WJiat  zuilt  thou. 
 "  The  mother   asks,"  says   S.   Jerome,    "  and    the    Lord 
 speaks  to  the  disciples,  understanding  that  their  request 
 came   from    her   sons.      But "    (as    said    before)    "  Christ 
 answered  the  sons,  not  the  mother,  because,  if  not  at  their 
 suggestion,  yet  for  their  good,  the  request  was  made." 
 Say. 
 A  Hebraism  for  command,  order,  direct.     So  (chap.  viii. 
 8)  "  only  say  the  word  ". 
 
 That  they  may  sit. 
 
 Some,  among  whom   is   Euthymius,  think  that  Salome 
 was  moved  to  ask  this  by  the  words  of  Christ  (chap.  xix. 
 
Ch.  XX.  22.]   REQUE.ST  OF  MOTHER  OF  SONS  OF  ZEBEDEE.    1 79 
 
 28)  :  "  You  shall  sit  on  twelve  seats  ".  For  when  she  knew 
 that  all  the  Apostles  would  sit  around  Christ  in  the 
 kingdom  of  God,  she  wished  her  two  sons  to  sit,  the  one  on 
 the  right  hand  and  the  other  on  the  left.  Euthymius 
 thinks  that  she  feared  Peter,  whom  she  saw  preferred  to 
 the  other  Apostles  in  everything. 
 
 Verse  22.  Vou  knozu  not  what yoit  ask. 
 Many  thought  that  Christ  said  this,  because  they  sought 
 carnal  and  not  spiritual  things  ;  as  if  Christ  were  to  hold  a 
 temporal  rule  like  the  kings  of  this  world  who  have  princes 
 at  their  side,  of  whom  he  is  held  the  most  honourable  who 
 sits  nearest  to  him  (the  king)  ;  and  others,  as  S.  Chrysos- 
 tom,  Euthymius,  and  Theophylact,  take  it,  that  they  sought 
 for  spiritual  not  carnal  gifts,  and  that  Christ  said  :  "  You 
 know  not  what  you  ask,"  because  they  asked  for  something 
 greater  and  better  than  they  knew.  Others,  again,  say 
 that  they  asked  for  spiritual  gifts,  that  they  might  excel 
 the  other  Apostles  in  goodness  and  desert,  but  not  in  their 
 proper  order  ;  "  looking  for  the  triumph  before  the  victory," 
 as  The  Author  says.  The  words,  "  are  you  able,"  would 
 rather  seem  to  confirm  this,  as  if  to  show  them  by  what 
 means  they  might  be  placed  at  Christ's  right  hand  and  left. 
 "  You  know  not  what  you  ask  "  is  as  if  what  they  asked 
 were  good  indeed,  but  not  properly  understood  by  them  ; 
 the  places  they  sought  for  being  to  be  earned,  not  by 
 prayers,  but  by  desert.  All  these  suggestions  have  reason  : 
 the  last,  perhaps,  the  most. 
 
 Can  yon  drink  the  chalice  that  I  shall  drink. 
 It  is  clear  that  Christ  refers  to  His  passion  and  death — 
 which  He  calls  a  "chalice,"  as  in  chap.  xxvi.  39 ;  S.  Mark  xiv. 
 36  ;  5.  Ljike  xxii.  42  ;  6".  Jolm  xviii.  1 1  ;  but  why  He  calls 
 them  a  chalice  is  not  evident.  S.  Chrysostom,  Euthymius, 
 and  Theophylact  think  that  it  was  because  He  underwent 
 death  as  willingly  as  one  would  drink  a  cup  of  wine.     The 
 
l8o  THE   GOSPEL    OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xx.  22. 
 
 word  "  chalice  "  is  probably  derived  from  the  custom  of  a 
 criminal  having  to  drink  a  cup  of  poison,  as  in  the  case  of 
 Socrates.  So  Ps.  cxv.  13:  "I  will  take  the  chalice  of 
 salvation,  and  I  will  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  that 
 is,  I  will  endure  death  willingly,  and  call  upon  the  name  of 
 the  Lord.  So  it  is  understood  by  Origen  and  S.  Jerome. 
 There  is  also  another  metaphor  of  the  chalice  in  Scripture 
 from  the  ancient  custom  of  the  Jews,  by  which  the  father 
 of  the  family,  or  his  most  honoured  guest,  mixed  the  wine, 
 according  to  his  pleasure,  and  gave  to  some  more  and  to 
 others  less.  Thus  a  better  portion  fell  to  some  and  a  worse 
 to  others.  In  this  sense,  the  lot  of  each  man  as  sent  by 
 God,  good  or  bad,  is  called  in  Scripture  a  chalice,  as  in 
 Ps.  XV.  5  ;  xxii.  5,  which  speak  of  good  :  Ps.  x.  7  ;  Ixxiv. 
 8;  li.  17,  of  evil;  and  in  many  other  places  of  Scrip- 
 ture. The  same  thing  is  signified  by  another  metaphor. 
 For  baptism  is  also  put  for  suffering  and  death,  as  Christ 
 speaks  in  5.  L^tke  xii.  50.  Hence  martyrdom  is  also 
 called  baptism,  a  metaphor  taken  probably  from  those  who 
 are  sunk  into  the  sea  to  destroy  them  ;  for,  in  the  Greek, 
 baptism  means  submerging. 
 
 Christ  did  not  put  this  question  to  the  Apostles  from 
 ignorance,  but  according  to  the  custom  of  men  who  ask  a 
 general  who  is  looking  on  to  a  triumph  whether  he  can 
 defeat  the  enemy.  He  shows  by  what  means  they  can 
 arrive  at  the  way  to  such  honour,  both  by  His  words  and 
 by  His  example.  By  His  words,  as  when  He  said,  "Are 
 you  able  ?  "  and  by  His  example,  as  when  He  said,  "  The 
 chalice  that  I  shall  drink  ".  He  acted  as  a  good  leader, 
 encouraging  His  followers  to  fight.  So  S.  Paul  {Rom.  viii. 
 17  ;  PJiilipp.  ii.  5,  6,  7,  8  ;  2  Tim.  ii.  5). 
 
 We  cmi. 
 Some,  as  S.  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  and  Euthymius, 
 think  that  as  the  disciples  made  their  petitions  rashly  and 
 
Ch.  XX.  23.]  THE   SONS   OF   ZEBEDEE.  l8l 
 
 ambitiously,  so  they  answered  in  the  same  manner.  Others 
 say,  that  as  they  asked  for  they  knew  not  what  before,  so 
 now  they  promised  what  they  did  not  understand  ;  not 
 that  they  did  not  understand  that  Christ  spoke  of  His 
 death,  but  that  they  did  not  know  what  it  was  to  die.  Per- 
 haps they  answered,  neither  rashly  nor  ignorantly,  but 
 with  love  and  truth,  that  they  were  prepared  to  die  for 
 Christ,  as  the  result  proved.  Their  subsequent  flight  with 
 the  other  Apostles  can  very  easily  be  explained.  They 
 were  unable  to  assist  Christ  in  any  way,  and  we  read  that 
 S.  John,  one  of  the  two  sons  of  Zebedce,  followed  Him 
 even  to  the  cross. 
 
 Verse  23.  My  chalice,  indeed,  you  sJiall  drink. 
 
 It  is  questioned  by  Origen,  S.  Jerome,  and  S.  Chrysos- 
 tom,  how  the  two  sons  of  Zebedee  drank  the  chalice  of 
 Christ  ?  S.  James,  we  know,  was  put  to  death  by  Herod 
 {Acts  xii.  2),  but  we  do  not  find  that  S.  John  was  martyred, 
 and  he  has  been  supposed  to  be  alive  even  now.  They 
 answer  that  the  exile  of  John  was  in  the  place  of  martyr- 
 dom, and  that  he  was  thrown  into  boiling  oil  at  Rome. 
 Thus,  his  will  was  not  wanting  for  martyrdom,  but  martyr- 
 dom for  his  will.  But  when  Christ  said,  "  My  chalice  you 
 shall  drink,"  He  did  not  necessarily  foretell  that  they  should 
 meet  death  for  Him,  but  only  that  He  would  give  them 
 permission  to  drink  of  Hie  chalice,  but  that  to  sit  on  His 
 right  hand  and  on  His  left  could  only  be  given  to  those 
 for  whom  it  was  prepared  by  His  Father.  He  appears  by 
 these  words  to  oppose  these  two  things  to  each  other :  to 
 grant  them  to  drink  of  His  chalice  ;  and  to  permit  them  to 
 sit  on  His  right  hand  and  on  His  left. 
 
 Bnt  to  sit  on  My  right  or  left  hand  is  not  Mine  to  give  to  you, 
 but  to  them  for  ivhom  it  is  prepared. 
 The  Arians  frequently  apply  this  text  to  prove  that  the 
 power  of  Christ  is  less  than    that  of  the   Father.     They 
 
1 82  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xx.  23. 
 
 were  answered,  amonfr  others,  by  S.  Epiphanius  {Her.,  Ixix.), 
 S.  Ambrose  {De Fide,  v.  3),  S.  Augustin  {De  Trinitat.,\.  12), 
 and  S.  Cyril  {TJiesaiirtis,yL.  5).  They  answer  the  Arians  in 
 three  ways.  Some  say  that  Christ  spoke  these  words,  not 
 as  God,  but  as  man,  as  He  spoke  many  others;  e.g.,  S.John 
 xiv.  28  :  "  The  Father  is  greater  than  I  ".  S.  Augustin 
 says  that  the  word  *'  Mine "  does  not  mean  power,  but 
 office,  and  that  Christ  did  not  mean  that  it  was  not  in  His 
 power  to  do  this  but  in  His  office,  as  He  had  not  come  upon 
 earth  to  give  away  crowns  but  to  incite  to  conflict.  This 
 may  be  so,  but  it  does  not  appear  to  be  the  true  meaning 
 of  the  words.  The  true  meaning  of  them  is  that  expressed 
 by  S.  Ambrose,  S.  Epiphanius,  and  S.  Cyril,  as  above  ;  by 
 S.Chrysostom  {Horn.  Ixvi.),  and  by  S.Jerome  in  his  Conunen- 
 tary  {in  loc).  They  say  that  Christ  does  not  deny  that  it  is 
 His  power  and  office  to  give  this,  but  that  He  will  give  it 
 only  to  those  for  whom  it  is  prepared  by  the  Father.  The 
 sum  is  that  there  is  no  comparison  between  Christ  and  the 
 Father,  as  the  Arians  suppose,  as  if  the  Father  had  power 
 but  the  Son  had  not,  but  a  comparison  only  between  the 
 persons  to  whom  such  honour  should  be  given  ;  which 
 cannot  be  given  to  all,  but  only  to  those  for  whom  it  is 
 prepared  by  the  Father.  This  is  the  force  of  the  word 
 "  }-ou,"  as  if  Christ  had  said,  "  It  is  not  Mine  to  give  to  you 
 because  you  ask  it,  or  because  you  are  My  kindred,  and 
 who  have  not  yet  merited  it,  but  it  will  be  given  to  those  for 
 whom  it  is  prepared  by  My  Father,"  that  is,  to  those  who 
 have  merited  it,  and,  as  explained  by  Remigius  {In  S. 
 Thomas),  "  it  will  not  be  given  to  the  proud  and  ambitious, 
 which  you  are,  but  to  the  humble,  for  whom  it  is  prepared 
 by  My  Father  ". 
 
 "  If  a  king,"  say  the  above  Fathers,  "  gave  a  crown  to  the 
 victor  in  the  stadium,  and  held  it  in  his  hand,  but  one  who 
 had  not  only  not  conquered,  but  had  not  even  run  in  the 
 race  for  it,  should  ask  it  of  him,  the  king  would  rightly 
 
Ch.  XX.  23.]  THE   SONS   OF   ZEBEDEE.  1 83 
 
 reply,, 'You  could  have  run,  but  the  crown  is  not  mine  to 
 give,  but  it  is  for  those  for  whom  it  is  prepared,  that  is,  for 
 those  who  have  conquered  '."  The  king  would  not  say 
 that  he  could  not  give  it,  as  it  was  his,  but  that  he  ought 
 not  to  give  it  except  to  the  victorious,  for  whom  he  intended 
 it.  S.  Cyril  supposes  another  case,  "  If  a  man  should  ask 
 something  unjust  of  a  just  judge,  the  latter  would  rightly 
 answer  that  he  could  not  do  it ;  not  that  he  had  not  the 
 power,  but  that  he  ought  not  to  do  it."  Hence  follows  the 
 great  necessity  of  the  word  vobis,  "  to  give  to  you,"  though 
 it  is  not  read  in  most  Greek  copies,  nor  is  found  in  any 
 ancient  Greek  author  that  I  know  of,  nor  is  cited  by  S. 
 Augustin  {De  Trin.,  i.  12).  It  is  enough  that  the  ancient 
 version  has  it,  that  S.  Jerome  and  S.  Ambrose  read  it,  and 
 that  the  sense  requires  it  ;  but  even  if  it  were  not  found,  the 
 meaning  would  not  be  changed,  for  S.  Chrysostom,  S. 
 Cyril,  Theophylact,  and  Euthymius,  who  do  not  read  it, 
 agree  in  the  same  opinion. 
 
 Christ  was  so  far,  indeed,  from  meaning  that  it  was  not 
 His  office  to  distribute  the  rewards,  that  He  rather  declares 
 that  to  do  this  was  part  of  it  ;  for  when  He  said  that  it 
 was  not  His  to  give  to  all,  but  to  those  who  merited  and 
 were  worthy  of  it.  He  showed  that  He  would  be  the  judge 
 and  the  distributor  of  rewards,  as  in  6".  JoJin  v,  22 ;  vS.  Luke 
 xxii.  29,  30  ;  and  5.  Matt.  xix.  28.  He  promised  the 
 Apostles  that  they  should  sit  with  Him  upon  twelve  seats 
 as  if  He  were  about  to  grant  them  this.  "  Why,  then,"  it 
 will  be  said,  "  did  He  add,  '  but  for  whom  it  is  prepared  by 
 My  Father,'  as  if  He  opposed  Himself  to  the  Father  ?  "  He 
 did  not  say  without  reason,  "  It  is  not  Mine  to  give,  but  My 
 Father's  " ;  but  He  said,  "  For  whom  it  is  prepared  by  My 
 Father,"  not  that  He  might  have  it  supposed  that  He  was 
 not  able  to  give  it,  but  His  Father  was,  but  that  He  was  not 
 able  to  give  it  to  others  than  those  for  whom  it  was  pre- 
 pared by  His   Father,  as   S.  Chrysostom  has  rightly  ob- 
 
184  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xx.  24. 
 
 served.  But  why,  then,  did  He  say,  "  For  whom  it  is 
 prepared  by  My  Father,"  rather  than  "  by  Me,"  as  if  He 
 ascribed  more  power  to  His  Father  than  to  Himself?  The 
 answer  is  obvious.  It  was  said  by  an  attribution  common 
 in  Scripture,  in  which,  although  all  opera  externa,  as 
 theologians  say,  are  common  to  the  Three  Persons,  yet 
 some  are  attributed  to  one  Person  and  some  to  another,  as 
 if  proper  and  peculiar  to  them.  Thus  power  and  provi- 
 dence are  ascribed  to  the  Father,  wisdom  to  the  Son,  grace 
 and  its  gifts  to  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  because,  therefore,  esse  is 
 prepared,  esse  was  predestinated.  But  predestination  is  a 
 kind  of  providence  which  is  ascribed  to  the  Father  rather 
 than  to  the  Son  ;  for  we  do  not  find  in  Scripture  that  the 
 Son,  or  Holy  Spirit,  but  that  the  Father  alone,  predestinates. 
 
 For  ivJioni  it  is  prepared. 
 The  explanation  of  S.  Chrysostom,  which  Theophylact 
 also  approves,  is  wonderful — that  this  is  given  to  none,  man 
 nor  angel  ;  for  no  one  can  possibly  come  to  sit  on  the  right 
 or  left  hand  of  Christ,  who,  as  S.  Paul  says  to  the  Ephesians 
 (i.  20,  21),  was  placed  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father  in  the 
 heavenly  places,  above  all  principality  and  power,  and 
 virtue  and  dominion,  and  every  name  that  is  named,  not 
 only  in  this  world,  but  also  in  that  which  is  to  come  {Ep/ies. 
 i.  20,  21).  Wonderful  also  is  the  opinion  of  S.  Hilary,  who 
 explains  the  passage  of  Moses  and  Elias,  the  one  of  whom 
 will  sit  on  the  right,  the  other  on  the  left.  Wonderful 
 that  of  Euthymius,  "  For  whom  it  is  prepared,"  that  is, 
 for  SS.  Peter  and  Paul,  who  laboured  more  than  all.  It  is 
 evident  that  Christ  described  no  particular  individuals,  and 
 regarded  not  persons,  but  merits. 
 
 Verse  24.  And  the  ten  hearing  it  were  moved  with  itidigna- 
 tion  against  the  two  brethren. 
 The  Author  and  Euthymius  think  that  the  ten  were  not 
 less  ambitious  than  the  others,  because  the}'  were  indignant 
 
Ch.  XX.  25.]  THE   SONS   OF   ZE}3EDEE.  185 
 
 at  the  request.  But  S.  Chrysostom  piously  excused  them, 
 because  the  Holy  Ghost  had  not  yet  been  poured  into 
 them,  by  whom  all  human  vices  of  this  kind  are  purged 
 away. 
 
 Verse  25.  But  Jesus  called  tJiem  to  Him. 
 It  would  appear  that  the  two  sons  of  Zebedee,  with  their 
 mother,  had  come  to  Christ  apart  and  secretly,  that  the 
 other  disciples  might  not  know  it,  and  asked  the  first 
 place  of  honour,  but  the  other  Apostles  either  overheard 
 their  words,  or  conjectured  from  the  answer  of  Christ  what 
 the  two  had  asked,  and  were  indignant,  and  began  to 
 murmur.  Christ  therefore  called  them,  and  taught  them 
 that  He  knew  their  thoughts  and  words,  though  unex- 
 pressed, and  He  corrected  their  indignation,  as  He  had 
 corrected  the  petitions  of  the  others. 
 
 You  knoiu. 
 
 The  meaning  of  Christ  seems  to  be  :  "  Do  you  not  know 
 that  what  you  do  is  the  act  of  ambitious  rulers  ?  and  not 
 of  all  these,  but  of  those  of  the  Gentiles,  among  whom  not 
 virtue,  nor  justice,  nor  dignity,  but  ambition,  violence, 
 tyranny,  obtain  kingdoms  and  principalities  ;  and  where  the 
 rulers  seek  what  is  useful  and  honourable,  not  for  their 
 people,  but  for  themselves  ? "  Such  appears  to  be  the 
 opinion  of  Euthymius.  Christ  does  not  abrogate  the 
 authority  of  kings  and  princes,  for  S.  Paul  {Rom.  xiii.  i  ; 
 Titus  iii.  i)  and  S.  Peter  (i,  iii.  13,  14)  teach  that  all  power 
 is  of  God,  and  that  even  a  bad  ruler  is  to  be  obeyed  for 
 His  sake. 
 
 Much  less  does  He  take  away  the  ecclesiastical  autho- 
 rity by  which  S.  Peter  {Acts  v.  5,  10)  punished  Ananias 
 and  Sapphira,  and  S.  Paul  (i  Cor.  v,  5  ;  i  Tim.  i.  20)  gave 
 over  wicked  men  to  Satan,  and  which  He  commended  to 
 S.  Timothy  (i,  iv.  12).  He  only  signifies  that  the  Apostles, 
 who  are  called  to  govern  the  Church,  ought  not  to  follow 
 
1 86  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xx.  28. 
 
 the  ambition  and  tyranny  of  the  rulers  of  the  Gentiles. 
 Christ  does  not  speak  of  any  rulers  whatever,  but  only  of 
 the  Gentile  princes,  who  were  more  cruel  and  ambitious 
 than  those  of  the  Jews  who  were  given  by  God  and  were 
 restrained  by  His  fear  and  worship.  So  S.  Peter  (i,  v.  3) 
 warns  those  who  are  over  the  Church  not  to  oppress  the 
 clergy.  Lastly,  He  would  have  the  Apostles  to  be  such  as 
 S.  Paul  describes  himself  (2  Cor.  xii.  14,  15). 
 
 Exercise  pozver  upon  them. 
 "  Exercise    power."      Dominantiir   conim.      In  eos.     A 
 Grecism   and  Hebraism.      Our  version  follows   both — the 
 former  in  reading  eoruin  for  eos,  and  the  latter  in  adopting^ 
 not  the 
 
 Verse  28.  And  to  give  His  life  a  redemption  for  many. 
 
 Christ  states  here  what  good  pastors  of  the  Church 
 ought  to  do  ;  for  "  the  good  shepherd  layeth  down  his  life 
 for  the  sheep"  {S.fo/in  x.  11). 
 
 There  were,  in  S.  Augustin's  time,  a  body  of  heretics, 
 then  called  Predestinatians,  who,  like  Calvin  and  his 
 followers,  held  that  Christ  was  not  born  and  did  not  die 
 for  all  men,  but  only  for  those  who  were  to  be  saved,  or 
 the  predestined.  Godeschalcus,  in  the  time  of  Lothario,  in 
 France,  held  this  error.  He  was  opposed  by  Hincmar, 
 Bishop  of  Rheims.  They  founded  their  opinion  on  6". 
 Matt.  xxvi.  28  :  "This  is  My  blood  of  the  New  Testament, 
 which  shall  be  shed  for  many,  unto  remission  of  sins,"  and 
 Heb.  ix.  28  :  "Christ  was  offered  once  to  exhaust  the  sins 
 of  many". 
 
 But  what  can  be  plainer  than  the  words  of  S.  Paul 
 (i  Tim.  ii.  6  ;  2  Cor.  v.  14,  15).  But  why  did  Christ  here, 
 and  in  5.  Mark  x.  45,  not  say  that  He  came  to  give 
 His  life  for  the  redemption  of  all,  but  for  many  ?  Why 
 did  He  say  that  He  shed  His  blood  for  many,  and  why  did 
 
Ch.  XX.  30.]    UNIVERSALITY  OF  CHRIST'S  REDEMPTION.      187 
 
 S.  Paul  say  Christ  was  offered  once  to  exhaust  the  sins  of 
 many  ?     The  reasons  may  be  : 
 
 1.  Either  "many"  is  here  used  for  "all,"  the  part  for  the 
 whole,  as  the  Greeks  use  the  word  ttoWoc  to  express  an  infinite 
 number,  and  the  Latins  imiltitudo  to  express  all — omnes. 
 
 2.  Or,  more  probably,  Christ  regarded,  not  His  own 
 will,  but  the  fruit  of  His  suffering.  For,  if  we  regard  His 
 will,  He  died  for  all  men,  without  any  single  exception, 
 as  the  Scriptures  cited  above  demonstrate.  But,  if  we 
 consider  the  fruit  of  His  death.  He  did  not  come  for  all, 
 because  all  were  not  willing  to  share  in  it.  So  we  see  that 
 Christ  sometimes  prayed  for  all,  even  for  the  reprobate  and 
 for  those  who  crucified  Him  (5.  Luke  xxiii.  34),  to  show 
 that  He  wished  and  would  have  all  men  to  be  saved.  At 
 other  times  He  prayed  only  for  the  elect  {S.  John  xvii.  9). 
 This  is  how  the  question  is  answered  by  S.  Jerome. 
 
 Verse  30.  Ajtd  behold  two  blind  men. 
 
 It  is  doubtful  whether  S.  Matthew  describes  the  same 
 events  as  that  in  vS.  Mark  x.  46  and  5.  Luke  xviii.  35. 
 They  relate  the  cure  of  three  blind  men  by  Christ  near 
 Jericho.  Some,  as  Eustathius,  think  the  history  that  of 
 three  different  events,  because  S.  Matthew  speaks  of  two 
 blind  men,  S.  Mark  and  S.  Luke  of  one ;  and  S.  Mark  says 
 that  he  cast  off  his  garments,  and  leaped  up  and  came  to 
 Christ,  of  which  the  other  Evangelists  make  no  mention. 
 
 Others  think  the  accounts  histories  of  two  events  (S. 
 Augustin,  De  Consens.,  ii.  65,  and  Qiiczst.  Evangelic,  ii.  48  ; 
 Bede,  Strabus,  and  De  Lyra,  in  loc.).  For  what  S.  Matthew 
 and  S.  Mark  describe  as  one  history,  S.  Luke  describes  as 
 if  it  were  a  different  one.  The  former  two  Evangelists  say 
 that  the  cure  took  place  when  Christ  had  gone  out  from 
 Jericho  ;  but  S.  Luke  says  that  Christ  was  drawing  near 
 that  city.  These  accounts  seem  to  the  above  authorities 
 so  diverse  that  they  think  it  impossible  that  they  can  apply 
 
1 88  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xx.  30. 
 
 to  the  same  event.  Theophylact  seems  to  consider  more 
 rightly  that  the  three  accounts  form  one  history.  For  all 
 the  events  were  so  similar  that  it  cannot  be  thought  that 
 they  could  have  been  different  miracles.  All  the  Evange- 
 lists say  that  it  happened  in  the  last  journey  from  Galilee 
 to  Jerusalem  ;  all  put  it  in  the  same  place,  the  neighbour- 
 hood of  Jericho  ;  all  say  that  the  blind  man  or  men  sat  by 
 the  wayside  by  which  Christ  passed,  and  that  all  the  men 
 cried  out  in  the  same  words,  "  Thou  Son  of  David,  have 
 mercy  on  us  " ;  all  were  ordered  by  the  crowd  to  hold  their 
 peace  ;  all  cried  out  the  more  vehemently  ;  all  say  that 
 Christ  stood  and  called  the  blind  men  to  Him,  and  that  He 
 asked  them  all  the  same  question,  "  What  will  ye  that  I  do 
 to  you  ?"  There  could  not  possibly  have  been  so  many 
 similar  circumstances  in  two  or  three  different  histories. 
 
 As  to  what  S.  Matthew  says,  that  there  were  two  blind 
 men,  and  S.  Mark  and  S.  Luke  only  one,  S.  Augustin  pro- 
 perly says  that  there  were  two,  as  S.  Matthew  says,  but 
 one  was  of  higher  rank  than  the  other  and  better  known, 
 and  therefore  S.  Mark  and  S.  Luke  mentioned  him  only. 
 This  conjecture  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  S.  Mark 
 gives  his  name  and  that  of  his  father,  as  if  he  were  a  man 
 well  known  to  all,  calling  him  Bar,  the  son  of  Timaeus.  We 
 have  a  similar  expression  in  chap.  viii.  28,  where  S.  Matthew 
 says  that  the  two  demoniacs  were  healed  by  Christ,  in  the 
 region  of  the  Gerasines,  when  S.  Mark  (v.  2)  and  S.  Luke 
 (viii.  27)  speak  only  of  one. 
 
 It  is  a  more  difficult  question  how  S.  Matthew  (here)  and 
 S.  Mark  (x.  46)  say  that  this  happened  when  Christ  was 
 going  out  of  Jericho,  but  S.  Luke  (xviii,  35)  says  that  it 
 was  when  He  was  approaching  the  city.  The  Greek  will 
 not  admit  the  explanation  of  those  who  say  that  the  words 
 mean  when  He  was  going  out  thence,  but  was  still  near  it, 
 for  the  Greek  is  ev  tm  iyyl^etv  avrov  et?  ^lepi-x^w,  when  He 
 was  drawing  nigh  to  Jericho  to  enter  it. 
 
Ch.  XX.  31,  34-]        TWO   BLIND   MEN    HEALED.  1 89 
 
 Their  conjecture  appears  much  more  probable,  that  the 
 blind  man  of  higher  rank,  of  whom  S.  Mark  and  S.  Luke 
 make  mention,  when  Christ  was  drawing  near  the  city,  sat 
 down  by  the  wayside  and  cried  out  to  Christ  as  He  passed 
 by,  "Jesus,  thou  Son  of  David,  have  mercy  on  me";  but 
 Christ  would  not  heal  him  then,  that  He  might  heal  the 
 other  two  afterwards  at  the  same  time.  That  the  blind 
 man  again  sat  by  the  wayside,  because  he  knew  that 
 Christ  would  go  out  that  way,  and  he  cried  out  again  with 
 the  other  in  the  same  words,  and  that  they  were  then 
 called  by  Christ  and  healed.  Nor  is  there  any  difficulty  in 
 the  fact  that  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark  say  that  the  miracle 
 was  performed  when  Christ  went  out,  and  S.  Luke  when 
 He  drew  near ;  nor  in  S.  Mark's  account  of  the  blind 
 man's  casting  away  his  garment,  and  in  S.  Matthew's 
 relating  that  Christ  touched  his  eyes,  which  the  other 
 Evangelists  do  not  mention  ;  for  one  Evangelist  often 
 relates  a  circumstance  which  the  others  pass  over. 
 
 Thou  Son  of  David. 
 Why  Christ  was  so  addressed,  especially  by  those  who 
 sought  some  benefit  from  Him,  has  been  explained  in  the 
 Preface, 
 
 Verse  31,  And  the  niultitnde  rebuked  than  that  they  sJiould 
 hold  their  peace. 
 Not,  we  must  believe,  in  any  bad  spirit,  but  in  love,  and 
 with  the  desire  that  the  men  should  not  be  troublesome 
 to  Christ  by  their  clamour.  So  say  The  Author  and 
 Euthymius. 
 
 Verse  34.    Touched  their  eyes. 
 Why  Christ  did  this  has  been  explained  on  chap.  viii.  3. 
 S.  Mark,  however,  and  S.  Luke  add  that  Christ  said,  "  Thy 
 faith  hath  made  thee  whole  ".     How  this  is  to  be  under- 
 stood has  been  fully  explained  on  chap.  ix.  2. 
 
CPIAPTER   XXI. 
 
 CHRIST  RIDES  INTO  JERUSALEM  UPON  AN  ASS — HE  CASTS 
 THE  BUYERS  AND  SELLERS  OUT  OF  THE  TEMPLE — 
 CURSES  THE  FIG-TREE — AND  PUTS  TO  SILENCE  THE 
 PRIESTS   AND   SCRIBES. 
 
 Verse  i.  And  zuhen  they  drew  nigh  to  Jerusalem  and  were 
 come  to  Bethphage. 
 
 Bethphage  was  situated  at  the  foot  of  the  Mount  of 
 OHves,  close  to  Jerusalem  (^S.  Luke  xxi.  37).  S.  Mark  (xi, 
 i)  says  :  "  When  they  were  drawing  near  to  Jerusalem  and 
 Bethania,  at  the  Mount  of  Olives,"  &c.  ;  S.  Luke  (xix.  29)  : 
 "  It  came  to  pass  when  He  was  come  nigh  to  Bethphage 
 and  Bethania,  unto  the  mount  called  Olivet,  He  sent  two 
 of  His  disciples ".  Bethphage  and  Bethany  were  about 
 equidistant  from  Jerusalem,  for  S.  Matthew  says  :  "  When 
 they  drew  nigh  to  Jerusalem  and  were  come  to  Beth- 
 phage "  ;  and  S.  Mark :  "  When  they  were  drawing  near  to 
 Jerusalem  and  to  Bethany ".  Bethphage  was  about  a 
 Sabbath  day's  journey  from  Jerusalem  (^Acts  i.  12),  which 
 Origen  states  to  have  been  one  mile.  Others  think  that  it 
 was  two  miles.  S.  John  (xi.  18)  says  that  it  was  fifteen 
 furlongs  distant.  Christ  most  probably,  when  at  Jeru- 
 salem, went  at  night  to  the  Mount  of  Olives,  as  S.  Luke 
 says  (xxi.  37)  ;  and  He  may  have  frequented  the  house  of 
 Mary  the  sister  of  Lazarus,  which,  as  S.  John  (xii.  i)  tells 
 us,  was  in  Bethany. 
 
Ch.  XXI.  2,  4.]        ENTRY  OF  CHRIST  INTO  JERUSALEM.  191 
 
 Verse  2.  An  ass  and  a  colt. 
 S.  Mark  and  S.  John  speak  of  the  colt  alone  ;  S.  Matthew 
 describes  it  as  a  she-ass,  to  state  the  whole  event  as  it 
 happened,  and  to  show  that  the  words  of  Zacharias  (ix.  9) 
 were  fulfilled,  who  seems  to  speak  not  only  of  the  colt  but 
 also  of  the  ass  ;  the  latter  being  perhaps  mentioned  to 
 show  that  the  colt  was  so  young  as  not  yet  to  have 
 carried  a  rider,  as  described  by  S.  Mark  (xi.  2)  and  S.  Luke 
 (xix.  30)  ;  for  colts  are  not  separated  from  their  dams  until 
 they  can  carry.  The  other  Evangelists  only  mention  the 
 foal,  because  on  this  alone  Christ  sat. 
 
 Verse  4.   TJiis  ivas  done. 
 
 The  meaning  is  twofold.     It  may  be  intended  either  : 
 
 1.  To  signify,  not  the  cause,  but  the  effect,  as  explained 
 on  chap.  ii.  15,  as  if  it  were  said  that  Christ  did  so  that 
 the  prophecy  of  Zacharias  might  be  fulfilled  ;  or, 
 
 2.  To  show  the  final  cause,  as  if  the  Evangelist  meant 
 that  Christ  desired  to  enter  Jerusalem  on  an  ass,  to  show 
 that  the  prophecy  of  Zacharias  applied  to  Him.  This 
 appears  more  likely  ;  for  S.  Chrysostom  and  The  Author 
 say  on  this  passage,  "  that  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that 
 Christ  chose  to  enter  Jerusalem  on  an  ass  without  a  reason, 
 or  any  signification  of  mystery,  when  He  had  never  entered 
 it  so  before  ".  His  chief  reason  may  have  been,  perhaps, 
 to  compel  the  Jews  to  acknowledge  Plim  as  the  King  and 
 Messiah  from  that  prophecy.  For,  as  S.  Chrysostom 
 argues,  what  other  king  of  the  Jews  ever  entered  Jerusalem 
 on  an  ass  of  whom  this  prophecy  could  possibly  be  under- 
 stood ?  S.  Chrysostom  gives  another  reason  :  He  did  it  to 
 show  the  Apostles  and  all  men  an  example  of  humility. 
 The  Author  offers  a  third  :  that  Christ  wished  by  this  act 
 to  cause  enmity  in  the  minds  of  the  Jews  against  Him, 
 that,  now  the  time  of  His  death  was  come.  He  might  irri- 
 tate them  against  Him  and  cause  them  to  p-ive  Him  over 
 
192  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxi.  5. 
 
 to  death  ;  as  at  other  times,  when  His  death  was  not  near, 
 He  had  been  accustomed  to  dehver  Himself  out  of  their 
 hands,  as  related  by  S.  Luke  (iv.  30).  He  also  appears  to 
 have  wished  to  place  before  the  eyes  of  the  Apostles  the 
 nature  of  His  kingdom,  which  consisted  of  humanity. 
 
 Verse  5.   Tell  ye  the  daughter  of  Z ion. 
 
 These  words  are  not  in  Zacharias,  but  either  the  Evan- 
 gelist added  them  in  explanation,  or  he  put  into  one  the 
 words  of  Zacharias  and  Isaiah  (Ixii.  11).  The  latter  says  : 
 "  Tell  the  daughter  of  Zion  her  Saviour  cometh  "  ;  Zacha- 
 rias says  :  "  Rejoice  greatly,  O  daughter  of  Zion  ;  shout  for 
 joy,  O  daughter  of  Jerusalem.  Behold,  thy  King  will  come 
 to  thee  :  the  just  and  Saviour  ;  He  is  poor,  and  riding 
 upon  an  ass,  and  upon  a  colt,  the  foal  of  an  ass  "  (ix.  9). 
 S.  Matthew  did  not  cite  all  the  words  of  the  prophecy 
 because,  as  shall  be  explained  hereafter,  they  were  not 
 necessary  ;  nor  did  he  follow  the  Hebrew  version,  but,  as  in 
 many  other  places,  that  of  the  LXX. 
 
 Daughters  of  Si  on. 
 
 This  is  a  Hebraism,  and  a  Synecdoche;  a  Hebraism,  as 
 the  city  is  termed  "  a  daughter,"  an  expression  often  found 
 in  the  Sacred  Writings  and  among  the  Greek  poets.  The 
 Latins  followed  them,  and  frequently  called  their  cities  by 
 the  names  of  women.  And  a  Synecdoche,  as  taking  a  part  for 
 the  whole  ;  for  Sion  was  a  mountain  on  which  only  part  of 
 the  city  was  built.  The  city  was  called  Sion  because  the 
 palace  was  on  it.  S.  John  cites  the  prophecy  in  other 
 words  (xii.  15),  following  the  meaning  rather  than  the 
 words.  For  the  Prophet  says  "  Rejoice,"  and  the  Evan- 
 gelist "  Fear  not  "  ;  for  he  who  rejoices  does  not  fear. 
 
 Behold  thy  king. 
 The  Prophet  seems  to  point,  as  it  were  with  his  finger,  to 
 the  long-expected   Messiah,  as  now  at  hand,  and   before 
 
Ch.  XXI.  5.]      ENTRY  OF  CHRIST  INTO  JERUSALEM.  193 
 
 their  eyes.  Although  Zacharias  used  the  future,  it  was  no 
 doubt  according  to  the  Hebrew  idiom  that  he  put  that 
 tense  for  the  present.  The  LXX.,  knowing  this,  rendered 
 the   passage   by  the    present,  as    S.   Matthew    has    done : 
 
 CoDieth  to  thee. 
 These  words  are  to  be  taken  together,  as  is  clear  from 
 the  Hebrew  context:  y>  b^l^"^  veniet  tibi.  The  Prophet 
 signifies  to  the  daughter  of  Zion  that  her  King  is  come  to 
 her — that  is,  He  w^iom  she  has  expected  for  so  many  ages. 
 For  he  says  that  He  was  sent  properly  to  the  daughter  of 
 Zion — that  is,  the  Jewish  people  ;  for  Christ  had  not  come 
 but  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel,  as  He  had  said 
 (xv.  24).  They,  therefore,  who  join  the  words  "to  thee" 
 to  that  which  follows  "  meek,"  as  if  He  were  meek  to  thee 
 —  not  angry,  not  elated,  not  cruel — although  they  shoot 
 well,  shoot  beyond  the  mark. 
 
 Meek. 
 The  Hebrew  is  ^'IV  "pauper";  but  the  LXX.  converted 
 it  into  y^V  "  meek,"  because  they  probably  read  "'^i^  and 
 the  Evangelist  followed  them,  though  with  no  prejudice  to 
 the  meaning  of  the  Prophet  ;  for  the  poor  are  mostly 
 humble  and  meek,  and  the  two  words  in  Hebrew  are 
 derived  from  the  same  root. 
 
 Sitting  upon  an  ass,  and  a  colt. 
 A  question  arises  here  as  to  how  Christ  could  sit  both 
 upon  an  ass  and  a  colt.  Some,  as  S.  Jerome  and  Bede, 
 think  that  the  words  must  be  understood  allegorically  ; 
 others,  that  Christ  not  only  sat  upon  both,  but  that 
 He  sat  upon  the  ass  first  and  the  colt  afterwards. 
 This  they  regard  as  a  mystery.  They  think  the  ass 
 to  have  represented  the  Jews,  on  which  Christ  sat 
 first,  and  the  colt  the  Gentiles,  to  which  He  passed  on 
 when  He  had  left  the  Jews  ;  so  Thcophylact,  Strabus,  and 
 2—13 
 
194  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxi.  5. 
 
 others.  But  it  is  clear  from  the  other  Evangelists  that 
 Christ  sat  only  on  the  colt  ;  both  because  they  make  no 
 mention  of  the  ass,  and  because  SS.  Mark  and  Luke  show 
 that  inysterii  causa,  He  would  not  sit  on  a  female  or  even 
 on  a  male  ass,  but  only  on  a  colt  on  which  no  man  had 
 ever  sat.  Whether  this  was  because  He  desired  to  fore- 
 show the  Gentiles  as  being  yet  rude  and  unbroken,  or  that 
 it  did  not  become  Him  to  sit  on  an  ass  on  which  other 
 men  had  sat,  or,  as  some  think,  that  He  might  show  His 
 power  in  making  an  unbroken  colt  submit  to  Him. 
 
 There  is  another  question,  how  S.  Matthew  seems  not 
 merely  to  intimate  that  Christ  sat  both  on  the  ass  and  the 
 colt,  and  not  on  one  alone,  but  to  state  plainly  that  He  did 
 so.  Some  say  that  the  Greek  word  6vo<;,  although  meaning 
 both  a  male  and  female  ass,  should  be  rendered  asimtin 
 and  not  asinavi ;  as  if,  by  a  repetition  common  among  the 
 Hebrews,  who  often  express  the  same  thing  by  different 
 words,  to  show  that  there  was  only  one  animal,  and  not 
 two,  as  if  the  Evangelist  had  said  sitting  upon  an  ass  and 
 a  colt  the  foal  of  an  ass,  which  had  been  broken  to  the 
 yoke.  The  Hebrew  word  "^V^DH  cJiamor,  used  here  by  the 
 Prophets,  almost  always  means  the  male  animal  ;  very 
 seldom  the  female. 
 
 Euthymius  is  of  this  opinion,  and  it  seems  very  probable  ; 
 but  we  should  observe  that  S.  Matthew  speaks  so  as  to 
 leave  no  doubt  that  he  meant  to  say  that  Christ  sat  upon  a 
 female  ass,  and  a  colt  ;  nor  was  it  without  reason  that  the 
 word  which  in  the  Prophet  is  doubtful,  and  may  be  taken 
 to  mean  either  a  male  or  female  animal,  is  rendered  by 
 him  without  ambiguity  by  the  latter  ;  especially  as  neither 
 Jonathas  the  Chaldean  Paraphrast  nor  the  LXX.  had  so 
 rendered  it.  Our  version  appears  quite  correct  in  using  the 
 word  asina  (female  ass)  ;  for  Christ,  in  verse  2,  spoke  of  an 
 ass  and  her  colt  where  the  Greek  participle  SeSe/jLei'ijr, 
 "  bound,"  being  in  the  feminine,  removes  all  ambiguity. 
 
Ch.  XXI.  7.]      ENTRY  OF  CHRIST  INTO  JERUSALEM.  195 
 
 I  approve,  therefore,  the  opinion  of  those  who  say  that 
 the  Evangehst  spoke  by  Synecdoche  or  Syllepsis,  as  we 
 speak  of  one  thing  by  the  expression  of  more  than  one  ;  as 
 when  it  is  said  that  the  Apostles  murmured  about  the 
 ointment,  when  it  is  clear  that  Judas  alone  did  so  ;  and  as 
 we  are  told  that  the  thieves  at  the  Crucifixion  railed,  when 
 another  Evangelist  says  that  only  one  did  so.  I  think 
 that  the  Evangelist  said  designedly  asinain,  and  not  asinuni, 
 and  so  spoke  as  to  show  that  Christ  seemed  to  have  sat 
 upon  each,  so  that  if  a  person  should  understand  the 
 Prophet  in  this  sense,  namely,  that  the  coming  King  would 
 sit  on  an  ass  and  a  colt  both,  he  could  not  blame  the 
 Prophet  as  if  the  prophecy  were  not  fulfilled  in  Christ. 
 Why,  then,  did  the  Apostles  spread  their  garments,  not 
 only  upon  the  colt,  but  also  upon  the  ass  ?  as  is  said  in 
 verse  7.  Euthymius  answers  that  it  was  because  they  did 
 not  know  which  of  the  two  Christ  would  prefer — the  ass 
 or  the  colt.  This  is  not  probable,  however,  because  when 
 S.  Mark  and  S,  Luke  say  that  Christ  said  to  those  whom 
 He  sent  to  loose  the  colt,  "  You  shall  find  the  colt  of  an 
 ass  tied,  on  which  no  man  hath  ever  sitten  "  {S.  Luke  xix. 
 30),  they  could  not  be  ignorant  that  Christ  would  choose 
 to  ride,  not  upon  the  ass,  but  upon  the  colt.  We  shall, 
 therefore,  answer  the  question  better  by  saying  that  the 
 Evangelist  spoke,  as  in  other  cases,  by  Syllepsis. 
 
 Verse  7.  A  nd  made  Him  sit  thereon. 
 The  word  "  thereon,"  kirdvui  avTwv,  may  apply  either  to 
 the  ass,  or  to  the  garments,  as  is  observed  by  Euthymius 
 and  Theophylact. 
 
 Verse  8.  And  a  very  great  multitude. 
 This  multitude  was  composed  of  those  who  had  followed 
 Christ  to  Jerusalem  for  the  sake  of  the  miracles,  as  is  clear 
 from  S.  John  xii.  12,     The  Apostles  appear  to  have  begun 
 the  rejoicing  {S.  Luke  xix.  37). 
 
196  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxi.  9. 
 
 Verse  9.  Hosanna  to  the  Son  of  David. 
 
 Many  different  meanings  of  these  words  have  been 
 given  ;  some  have  taken  them  to  be  a  mere  exclamation 
 of  rejoicing  or  entreaty.  S.  Jerome  to  Damasus  objects  to 
 S.  Hilary's  assertion  that  it  means  "  Redemption  of  the 
 house  of  David  "  ;  an  idea  which  S.  Ambrose  {On  S.  Luke 
 xix.)  may  be  thought  to  have  borrowed  from  him  ;  each, 
 as  shall  be  shown  by  and  by,  was  unjustly  blamed.  Others, 
 as  Euthymius,  think  that  the  words  were  a  hymn,  meaning 
 "  Praise  to  God  ".  Others,  again,  understand  by  them,  the 
 boughs  which  the  Jews  used  to  carry  on  the  feast  of 
 Tabernacles,  crying,  "Hosanna,  Hosanna";  they  who  carried 
 them  being  accustomed  to  cry  "  Hosanna,"  and  the  boughs 
 themselves  having  gained  the  title  of  "  Hosanna"  from  being 
 thus  carried.  The  Jews  in  memory  of  this  custom  are 
 supposed  to  have  now  broken  off  the  branches,  and  cried, 
 "  Hosanna,"  as  if  they  had  said,  "  Cut  them  off  and  give 
 them  to  the  Son  of  David  ". 
 
 But  this  seems  questionable.  Because  it  does  not  seem 
 probable  that  the  multitude  would  have  been  induced  by 
 the  custom  of  tabernacles  to  carry  branches  before  Christ, 
 because  He  had  no  part  in  them  ;  they  being  only  carried 
 to  commemorate  the  time  during  which  the  Jews  were 
 dwelling  in  tents,  and  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the 
 multitude,  more  especially  when  under  the  guidance  of  the 
 Apostles,  would  have  cut  down  branches  from  the  trees 
 without  reason. 
 
 The  opinion  of  S.  Jerome,  then,  both  on  this  passage 
 and  in  his  Epistle  to  Damasus,  seems  most  probable, 
 that  Hosanna  means  only  h52ni^''1I>irT  "  Preserve,  I  pray 
 Thee" — salvuin  fac  obsecro  —  and  is  taken  from  Ps. 
 cxvii.  25. 
 
 But  it  is  doubtful  to  whom,  as  the  agent  {personam 
 agentem),  and  to  whom  as  the  object  {patietis),  the  words 
 apply.     All  ancient  commentators  seem  to  refer  them  to 
 
Ch.  XXI.  9.]     ENTRY  OF  CHRIST  INTO  JERUSALEM.  1 97 
 
 Christ  as  the  former,  and  to  the  multitude  as  the  latter ;  as 
 if  they  said  :  "  Save  us,  O  Son  of  David  ".  S.  Irenaeus  (iv. 
 24),  Origen  {Tract,  xv.  on  S.  Matt),  S.  Hilary  {Cait.  xxi.), 
 S.  Ambrose  {On  S.  Luke  xix.),  S.  Jerome  and  Bede 
 {in  loc),  S.  Hilary,  and  S.  Ambrose  had  this  meaning 
 when  they  said  that  "  Hosanna "  meant  "  Redemption  of 
 the  house  of  David,"  as  if  the  multitude  which  cried 
 "Hosanna,"  that  is,  "Save,  I  beseech  Thee,"  had  professed 
 by  that  word  that  Christ  was  come,  as  the  Redeemer  of 
 the  house  of  David. 
 
 But  there  is  much  to  be  urged  against  this  view. 
 
 1.  The  multitude  does  not  seem  to  have  thought  of  Christ 
 as  the  true  God  and  Redeemer;  as,  on  the  other  hand,  they 
 were  not  ignorant  that  the  hymn  of  "Hosanna"  was  not 
 sung  but  to  the  true  God  alone. 
 
 2.  Because  the  words  which  immediately  followed, 
 "  Blessed  is  He  who  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord," 
 are  referred  to  Christ,  not  as  the  agent  {persona  agens),  but 
 as  the  one  blessed,  for  they  did  not  pray  Christ  to  bless 
 Himself,  but  that  God  would  bless  Him. 
 
 3.  In  the  Psalm  from  which  the  words  are  taken, 
 "Hosanna"  is  referred,  not  to  Him  "who  cometh  in  the 
 name  of  the  Lord,"  but  to  God,  and  it  is  not  to  be  supposed 
 that  the  multitude,  much  less  the  Apostles,  who  went  before, 
 spoke  the  words  in  any  other  sense  than  that  in  which  they 
 were  uttered  by  David. 
 
 4.  The  meaning  does  not  agree,  for  what  sense  is  there 
 in  saying,  "Save  us  to  the  Son  of  David"  {Salva  nos  filio 
 David)  ;  and  although  some'  authorities,  and  S.  Irenaeus 
 among  them,  read  "  O  Son  "  {fili  not  filio),  yet  the  texts  of 
 both  the  Greek  and  Latin  versions  unite  in  reading  the 
 dative  and  not  the  vocative. 
 
 5.  If  we  follow  this  explanation,  the  question  will  arise, 
 How  we  are  to  understand  what  immediately  follows  : 
 "  Hosanna  in  the  highest  "  ?     For,  what  meaning  is  there 
 
198  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxi.  9. 
 
 in  "  Save  us,  O  Son  of  David,  in  the  highest "  ?  I  entirely 
 accept  the  opinion  of  the  moderns,  who  say  that  the  words 
 should  be  referred  to  God  as  the  agent,  and  to  Christ  as 
 the  object.  For  the  people  prayed  to  God  to  keep  and 
 prosper  the  new  king  so  long  wished  for,  as  in  Psalm  xliv. 
 4,  5.  David  speaks  of  Christ  :  "  Gird  Thy  sword  upon  Thy 
 thigh,  O  Thou  most  mighty  ;  with  Thy  comeliness  and  Thy 
 beauty  set  out,  proceed  prosperously,  and  reign  "  ;  and  as 
 we  are  accustomed  to  pray  for  the  prosperity  of  new  kings, 
 and  to  cry  "  Vivat  Rex,"  and  as  the  Jews  of  old  did  ;  as  i 
 Kings  X.  24;  3  Kings  i.  25,  39,  40,  and  many  other  like 
 passages  of  Scripture  show. 
 
 This  "  Hosanna,"  then,  has  the  same  meaning  as  Vivat 
 Rex;  and  the  people's  carrying  palm  branches  resembled 
 the  custom  of  their  own  and  other  nations,  of  carrying 
 boughs  of  trees  to  celebrate  victories  and  triumphs  (i 
 Machab.  xiii.  51). 
 
 The  idea,  therefore,  of  those  who  would  refer  the  whole 
 ceremony  to  the  festival  of  Tabernacles,  cannot  be  received. 
 For  in  that  feast  the  people  carried  branches,  not  in  token 
 of  joy,  but  in  commemoration.  But  this  multitude  carried 
 them  like  those  who  are  triumphant  and  rejoicing.  It  is 
 clear,  besides,  that  all  who  take  this  view  must  wholly  do 
 away  with  the  mystery  of  this  remarkable  act.  Nor  can  we 
 doubt  that  the  multitude  acted  by  no  blind  and  unreasoning 
 impulse,  but  by  deliberate  design  or,  more  probably,  divine 
 impulse,  that  all  might  understand  that  what  David  said  of 
 the  future  Messiah  was  fulfilled  in  Christ.  A  strong  argu- 
 ment for  this  opinion  is  seen  in  verse  15,  when  even  infants 
 are  said  to  have  cried  out  in  the  same  words.  They  could 
 only  have  done  this  by  divine  influence  ;  not  by  custom  or 
 any  human  design,  so  that  they  did  not  now  cry  out 
 Vivat  Rex,  but,  in  its  place,  "  Hosanna  ". 
 
 But  it  will  be  objected  that  this  explanation  is  at  vari- 
 ance with  the  Greek  and  Latin  construction  ;  for  when  the 
 
Ch.  XXI.  9.]     ENTRY  OF  CHRIST  INTO  JERUSALEM.  1 99 
 
 multitude  prayed  God  to  keep  Christ,  it  did  not  say, 
 "  Hosanna  to  the  Son  "  {Filio),  but  "  Hosanna  the  Son  " 
 {Filimn)  of  David.  The  reply  is  that  this  is  a  Hebraism 
 which  both  the  Greek  and  Latin  follow.  For  the  Hebrew 
 word  i^lt?"'  is  found  not  only  with  the  accusative,  but  also 
 with  the  dative  case,  as  in  Dent.  xxii.  27  ;  JosJiua  x.  4  ; 
 Judges  vii.  2  ;  i  Kings  xxv.  26  ;  Ps.  xliii.  4  ;  Ixxxv.  16. 
 
 Blessed  is  He  that  conicth. 
 That   is,   May   His   coming  be  blessed,  as  cited  before 
 from  Ps.  xliv.  5. 
 
 In  the  name  of  the  Lord. 
 These  words  mean  not  only  one  who  was  sent  by  God, 
 but  also  one  who  bore  the  person  of  God,  who  through 
 him  visited  His  people.  S.  Mark  adds  (xi.  10)  :  "  Blessed 
 be  the  kingdom  of  our  father  David  that  cometh,  Hosanna 
 in  the  highest".  The  repetition  of  the  word  "  Hosanna  "  is 
 the  result  of  strong  feeling.  One  of  the  best  explanations 
 of  "  Hosanna  in  the  highest "  seems  to  be  that  the  Greek 
 pronoun  6  should  be  understood  after  "  Hosanna  qui  es  in 
 attissimis,"  an  example  of  which  ellipsis  is  found  in  Ps. 
 cxiviii.  I.  But  this  seems  a  hard  and  unusual  explanation. 
 A  still  better  may  be  that  the  word  iv  is  put  for  eV,  as  in 
 Hebrew  1  for  '^  (Exod.  xii.  43  ;  Levit.  viii.  32  ;  2  Paralip. 
 xvi.  6 ;  and  in  Ps.  cxiviii.  cited  by  others).  "  Praise  the 
 Lord,  praise  Him,  de  ccelis  in  exeelsis,"  as  if  it  had  been  said 
 de  excelsis.  It  is  clearly  a  repetition  and  a  Hebraism.  The 
 LXX.  and  S.  Jerome  follow  it  and  read  " /// "  for  '' de" 
 altissiviis,  for  they  ask  God  to  keep  the  new  king  de  ca:Io — 
 that  is,  from  heaven,  divinely,  wonderfully.  Hence  we  see 
 how  S.  Luke's  saying  (xix.  38)  that  the  multitude  cried 
 out,  ''Pax  in  Cado  et  gloria  in  excelsis"  ("  Peace  in  heaven 
 and  glory  in  the  highest "),  is  not  opposed  to  his  words  (chap. 
 ii.  14).  For  there  the  angels  announced,  Glory  to  God, 
 peace  to  men  :  here  the  multitude  pray  for  glory  and  peace 
 
200  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxi.  io. 
 
 to  Christ,    in  cxcclsis,  that  is,   ab  excdsis,  and  from  God. 
 For  S.  Luke  puts  eV  for  eV,  and  in  for  de. 
 
 Verse  i  o.  TJie  ivJiolc  city  zuas  moved. 
 It  is  not  to  be  believed  to  the  letter  that  every  individual 
 person  in  the  city  was  moved,  but  at  least  the  greater  part 
 of  the  city  was  so  ;  eg:,  the  Scribes,  Pharisees  and  priests, 
 who  were  the  chief  people  in  authority.  In  like  manner, 
 the  Evangelist  says  (chap.  ii.  3),  that  the  whole  city  was 
 moved  by  the  arrival  of  the  Magi.  But  the  city  was  not 
 moved  now  by  joy,  or  wonder,  or  fear,  but  by  envy  and 
 malignity,  at  seeing  Christ  received  with  such  honour  ;  as 
 the  following  words  seem  to  signify. 
 
 Who  is  this  ? 
 
 They  were  not  ignorant  who  Christ  was,  for  they  had 
 known  Him  now  three  years.  They  meant,  Who  is  He 
 that  He  should  receive  so  much  honour  ?  So  the  men  of 
 Nazareth  had  said  :  "  Is  not  this  the  carpenter's  son '' 
 (chap.  xiii.  55). 
 
 A  nd  the  people. 
 
 That  is,  the  multitude  which  followed  Him,  not  the 
 people  of  Jerusalem.  S.  Matthew  opposes  the  multitude 
 who  followed  Christ  to  the  citizens  of  Jerusalem.  The  latter 
 asked  in  contempt  and  envy,  "  Who  is  this  ?  "  the  former 
 answered  in  faith,  "This  is  Jesus  the  Prophet  from  Nazareth". 
 The  word  "  prophet "  here  does  not  include  any  prophet 
 whatever,  but  that  Messiah  promised  of  old,  and  long  ex- 
 pected. This  is  clear  from  the  preceding  acclamation, 
 "  Hosanna,"  and  "  Blessed  is  He,"  &c.  For  the  Messiah 
 had  been  promised,  not  only  under  the  name  of  a  King, 
 but  also  of  a  Prophet  (as  in  Dent,  xviii.  15),  which  S.  Peter 
 {Acts  iii.)  and  S.  Stephen  (vii.  37)  explain  of  Christ. 
 
 Of  Nazareth. 
 Christ  had  three  places  of  abode — Bethlehem,  in  which  He 
 was  born  ;  Nazareth,  in  which  He  was  brought  up  ;  and 
 
Ch.  ,^xi.  12.]  CHRIST   IN    THE   TEMPLE.  20I 
 
 Capernaum,  in  which  He  mostly  Hved — as  has  been  ex- 
 plained on  chap.  ix.  i. 
 
 Verse  12.   And  Jesus  ivent  into  the  Temple  of  God. 
 
 It  is  not  quite  clear  when  Christ  entered  the  Temple. 
 Some  say  that  He  rode  through  the  city  on  the  ass  and 
 went  directly  into  the  Temple.  Others  say  that  it  was  not 
 on  the  same  day  as  that  on  which  He  entered  the  city,  but 
 the  day  after,  as  S.  Mark  seems  to  imply  (chap.  xi.  15), 
 and  that  S.  Matthew  mentioned  the  entrance  by  anticipa- 
 tion. Others  think  that  He  entered  the  Temple  on  the 
 same  day  as  that  on  which  He  entered  the  city,  and  that 
 S.  Mark  has  not  kept  the  order  of  events,  but,  as  a  recapi- 
 tulation, relates  on  the  following  day  what  happened  on  the 
 day  previous.  This  is  the  opinion  of  S.  Augustin  (ii.  6"],  De 
 Consejis.),  and  he  supports  it  from  verse  17  :  "  And  leaving 
 them  He  went  out  of  the  city  into  Bethania  and  remained 
 there ".  In  these  words  the  Evangelist  indicates  that 
 Christ,  before  He  went  out  of  the  city  to  go  to  Bethany, 
 held  the  disputation  related  by  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark 
 with  the  priests ;  though  S.  Mark  mentions  it  as  having 
 taken  place  on  the  second  day,  when  Christ  had  returned 
 from  Bethany  to  Jerusalem  again. 
 
 Others,  to  harmonise  SS.  Matthew  and  Mark,  say  that 
 Christ  entered  the  Temple  on  both  days.  This  is  very 
 probable,  because  whenever  Christ  was  in  Jerusalem  He 
 went  into  the  Temple  ;  but  it  is  not  to  the  purpose  {abs  rey 
 because  the  Evangelists  designed  to  speak  not  of  every 
 entrance  of  Christ  into  the  Temple,  but  only  of  the 
 particular  one  in  which  the  events  related  by  them  took 
 place,  when  the  children  who  were  in  the  Temple  cried  out 
 "  Hosanna,"  and  the  priests  asked  Christ  if  He  heard  what 
 they  said.  It  is  probable  that  this  was  done,  not  on  the 
 second  day,  but  on  the  first  ;  and,  therefore,  the  opinion  of 
 S.  Augustin  appears  to  be  much  more  likely,  for  S.  John 
 
202  THE  GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxi.  12. 
 
 has  given  a  similar  account  (xii.  14,  15).  And  it  is  very 
 probable,  as  S.  Chrysostom,  S.  Augustin,  and  Euthymius 
 think,  that  this  is  a  similar  account,  but  not  the  same,  and 
 that  Christ  twice  cast  out  the  buyers  and  sellers  from  the 
 Temple. 
 
 When  Christ  is  said  to  have  entered  the  Temple,  the 
 first  part  of  it  must  be  understood,  which  is  called  "  The 
 Hall  "  and  "  Solomon's  Porch  ".  Here  Christ  used  to  teach 
 and  to  walk  (S.  John  x.  23)  ;  for  this  part  was  common  to 
 all  {Acts  iii.  1 1  ;  verses  1 1,  12).  For  into  the  other  two  parts 
 the  priests  alone  entered,  as  S.  Paul  says  [Hcb.  ix.  6,  7). 
 It  was  in  the  hall  of  the  Temple  that  the  buyers  and  sellers 
 took  their  stations. 
 
 That  sold. 
 
 This  passage  cannot  be  better  explained  than  by  the 
 words  of  S.  Jerome.  "  We  must  remember,"  he  says,  "  in 
 the  first  place,  that  according  to  the  commands  of  the  law 
 in  the  Temple  of  the  Lord,  the  most  august  in  the  world, 
 an  innumerable  number  of  victims  was  offered  up  by  the 
 Jewish  people  who  flocked  into  it  from  almost  all  parts  of 
 the  world,  and  most  epecially  on  the  Jewish  festivals — 
 bulls,  rams,  goats — the  poorer  classes  offering  the  young  of 
 doves  and  turtles  that  they  might  not  be  without  sacrifices. 
 For  it  very  frequently  happened  that  such  as  came  from  a 
 distance  had  no  victims  to  offer.  The  priests  then  con- 
 sidered how  they  could  make  a  profit  out  of  the  people, 
 and  sell  all  the  animals  required  for  sacrifice  in  such  a 
 manner  as  both  to  dispose  of  them  to  those  who  had  none, 
 and,  when  sold,  to  get  possession  of  them  again  themselves. 
 This  artifice,  however,  was  often  defeated  by  the  poverty  of 
 the  strangers,  who  were  of  the  indigent  classes,  and  not  only 
 had  no  sacrificial  victims,  but  were  even  in  want  of  the 
 means  of  purchasing  birds  and  the  more  humble  kinds 
 of  offerings.  Accordingly  they  placed  money-changers  to 
 lend  money  under  security  ;  but,  because  it  was  forbidden 
 
Ch.  xxr.  12.]  CHRIST   IN    THE   TEMPLE.  203 
 
 by  the  law  to  take  usury,  and  money  lent  which  had  no 
 percentage  of  interest  brought  no  profit,  and  they  some- 
 times lost  their  capital,  they  thought  of  another  plan,  and 
 made  '  Colybists  '  instead  of  money-changers.  The  mean- 
 ing of  this  word  is  not  expressed  in  Latin,  but  it  has  the 
 same  meaning  as  the  Greek  word  trage^nafa,  offerings  of  no 
 value.  Such  are  parched  peas,  dried  grapes,  and  apples  of 
 different  kinds.  The  Colybistse,  therefore,  who  were  not 
 allowed  usury,  and  who  lent  money  at  interest,  received 
 different  kinds  of  articles  in  return  in  the  place  of  usury,  so 
 that  what  they  could  not  gain  in  money  they  gained  by 
 such  things  as  are  procured  by  money."  The  only  doubt 
 about  this  account  of  S.  Jerome  is  whether  the  custom  was 
 really  originated  by  the  priests. 
 
 A]id  overtJirezv  the  chairs  of  them  that  sold  doves. 
 
 It  may  be  asked  why  the  Evangelist  did  not  say  that 
 Christ  overthrew  the  seats  of  the  money-changers  rather 
 than  of  those  who  sold  doves,  as  the  former  would  be  more 
 likely  to  use  seats  than  the  latter.  The  answer  may  be, 
 that  the  Evangelist  desired  to  describe  the  greater  and  to 
 pass  over  the  less  ;  and,  as  with  regard  to  the  money- 
 changers, it  was  a  greater  thing  to  overturn  their  tables 
 with  their  money  than  their  seats.  S.  Matthew,  therefore, 
 mentioned  the  former  and  not  the  latter. 
 
 Many  have  wondered  why  the  money-changers,  and 
 that  class  of  avaricious  men,  offered  no  resistance  to  Christ. 
 S.  Jerome  well  says  :  "Many  have  thought  that  the  greatest 
 miracles  were  the  raising  of  Lazarus  from  the  dead  ;  the 
 making  a  man,  blind  from  His  birth,  to  see  ;  the 
 voice  of  the  Father  being  heard  at  the  Jordan  ;  Christ's 
 showing  His  pride  and  glory  in  His  Transfiguration  on  the 
 mount.  To  me,  among  all  the  others,  it  seems  more 
 wonderful  that,  as  one  Man,  and  He  at  the  time  con- 
 temptible and  so  vile  as  to  be  subsequently  crucified,  with 
 
204  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxi.  13,  16. 
 
 the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  raging  against  Him,  and  seeing 
 their  gains  destroyed,  He  could  by  the  stripes  of  His  single 
 scourge  cast  out  so  great  a  multitude,  overthrow  the  tables, 
 break  the  seats,  and  do  other  things,  which  a  whole  army 
 could  not  have  done.  For  something  of  fire  and  of  the 
 sidereal  flashed  from  His  eyes,  and  the  majesty  of  His 
 Divinity  shone  in  His  face." 
 
 Verse  13.  //  is  turittcn. 
 {Jeremiah  vii.  11.)     What  Jeremiah  said  of  the  men  of 
 his  own  time,  Christ  applied  to  these  money-changers  and 
 sellers  of  doves,  as  (xv.  8)  the  prophecy  is  not  interpreted, 
 but  applied  to  individual  persons. 
 
 Verse  16.  Out  of  the  mouths  of  infants. 
 It  is  doubtful  whether  the  children  who  so  cried  were 
 actually  infants  or  children  of  a  somewhat  more  advanced 
 age,  who  heard  the  multitude  cr}-,  "  Hosanna  to  the  Son  of 
 David,"  and  imitated  them.  S.  Hilary,  The  Author,  and 
 Strabus  think  that  they  were  children  and  not  infants.  S. 
 Chrysostom,  Euthymius,  and  Theophylact,  that  they  were 
 really  and  strictly  infants.  This  seems  more  probable, 
 both  because  this  would  greatly  augment  the  glory  of 
 Christ,  and  because  the  words  have  this  meaning.  Christ 
 also  seems  to  speak  in  this  sense  when  He  sa}s,  "If  these 
 shall  hold  their  peace  the  very  stones  will  cry  out"  {S. 
 Luke  xix.  40). 
 
 Thou  hast  perfected  praise. 
 KaTijpTLcroi  ahov.  Thou  hast  attained  to  perfect  praise. 
 In  the  same  sense,  David  says,  "Thou  hast  perfected 
 praise  "  {Ps.  viii.  3) — that  is,  Thou  hast  made  it  firm,  per- 
 petual, immortal,  as  there  explained.  David  from  humble- 
 ness called  himself  a  babe  and  suckling,  out  of  whose 
 mouth,  as  it  gave  thanks  for  the  victory  over  Goliath,  God 
 
Ch.  XXI.  17,  18.]    CHRIST  TO  CHIEF  PRIESTS  AND  SCRIBES.   205 
 
 gained  great  praise,  as  the  words  immediately  following 
 show :  "  That  thou  mayest  destroy  the  enemy  and  the 
 avenger" — that  is,  "  Because  thou  hast  destroyed  him,"  this 
 being  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew.  It  should  be  observed 
 that  by  this  application  of  the  words  to  Himself,  Christ 
 declares  His  Divinity.  For  what  David  said  to  God,  He 
 explains  as  said  to  Himself 
 
 Verse  17.  And  leaving  tJiem. 
 "  Them  " — that  is,  the  chief  priests  and  Scribes — who  are 
 spoken  of  in  verse  15.  There  are  various  opinions  as  to  the 
 reason  of  Christ  having  left  them.  The  Evangelist  seems 
 to  signify  that  there  was  on  His  part  some  fixed  and  not 
 slight  reason  for  what  He  did,  or  S.  Matthew  would  not 
 have  said,  "  He  left  them  and  went  out,"  but  it  would  have 
 been  sufficient  merely  to  say  that  He  returned  to  Bethany, 
 for  He  had  His  dwelling  there.  The  words  "  leaving 
 them  "  seem  to  show  that  He  left  them  for  their  own  good. 
 S.  Chrysostom,  The  Author,  and  Euthymius  say  that  He 
 left  them  that  they  might  not  seize  Him  before  His  time. 
 Theophylact,  because  they  were  not  worthy  of  His  pre- 
 sence. Either  reason  is  more  probable  than  that  of  S. 
 Jerome,  Bede,  and  Strabus,  that  because  He  was  poor.  He 
 could  find  no  hospitality  in  the  city.  It  is  incredible  that 
 no  one  would  have  received  Him  into  his  house,  when  so 
 many  believed  in  Him. 
 
 Verse  1 8.  He  was  hungry. 
 
 Some  think  that  Christ  was  not  really  hungry,  as  it  was 
 morning,  but  that  He  pretended  to  be  so  to  work  a  miracle, 
 as  Euthymius  (and  perhaps  S.  Augustin)  thinks.  This  is 
 very  probable.  For,  as  will  be  shown.  He  feigned  to  look 
 for  figs  on  the  fig-tree,  when  He  knew  that  it  had  none. 
 Certainly,  if  He  had  been  really  hungry,  S.  Chrysostom 
 seems   to  judge  rightly  that  it  was  not   with   a   natural 
 
206  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxi.  rg. 
 
 hunger,  but  with  one  assumed  voluntarily,  to  give  cause  for 
 the  miracle,  as  (in  chap.  viii.  24)  the  storm  on  the  lake  was 
 not  a  natural  storm,  but  one  caused  by  His  will,  that  He 
 might  have  occasion  to  put  forth  His  power  of  ruling  the 
 winds  and  the  sea,  and  so  to  show  His  Divinity. 
 
 Verse  19.  And  found  nothing  on  it. 
 
 It  is  not  wonderful  that  Christ  found  no  fruit,  for,  as  S. 
 Mark  says  (xi.  13),  the  time  of  figs  was  not  yet.  It  was  the 
 eleventh  day  of  March,  as  the  Evangelists  clearly  show. 
 Calvin  says  preposterously  that  Christ  looked  for  fruit,  as 
 not  knowing  what  the  tree  was,  and  thinking  at  a  distance 
 that  it  was  some  other  kind  of  tree,  such  as  might  have  had 
 ripe  fruit.  Christ  could  not  have  been  ignorant  what  kind 
 of  tree  it  was,  and  that  no  tree  could  give  ripe  fruit  at  that 
 time  of  year.  To  use  the  language  of  Calvin  for  a  moment 
 — that  Christ  did  not  know  the  tree — why  did  He  curse  it 
 when  He  saw  that  it  was  a  fig-tree,  which  could  not  then 
 have  ripe  fruit  ?  Christ,  therefore,  spoke  as  He  did,  de- 
 signed!}', knowing  both  that  it  was  a  fig-tree  and  that  it 
 had  no  fruit,  but  pretending,  more  homitiuin,  that  He  was 
 looking  for  fruit  which  He  knew  that  He  should  not  find — 
 acting  thus  either  to  give  occasion  for  the  miracle,  as  S. 
 Augustin  {QiicBst.  Evang.,  ii.  5),  and  S.  Chrysostom  and 
 Euthymius  {in  loc.)  suppose,  or  perhaps  to  set  forth  the 
 mystery  which  shall  shortly  be  explained. 
 
 There  is  another  question.  Why  did  Christ  curse  the  fig- 
 tree,  and  make  it  wither  away,  as  if  in  punishment  because 
 it  had  no  fruit  at  a  time  when  it  could  not  have  had  any  ? 
 as  S.  Mark  says,  as  if  to  excuse  the  tree.  For  it  was  not 
 the  time  for  figs  (xi.  13).  He  acted,  then,  not  in  a  fit  of 
 anger,  which  could  not  affect  Him,  nor  to  bring  punishment 
 on  a  tree  which  could  not  have  deserved  such,  nor  have  felt 
 it  if  it  had ;  but  only  to  declare  a  mystery,  as  Origen,  in  his 
 Tract,  on  S.  Matt,  xvii.,  and  SS.  Hilary  and  Jerome  suppose. 
 
Ch.  XXI.  19.]  THE   BARREN    FIG-TREE.  20/ 
 
 The  mystery  is  that  the  Synagogue  was  the  tree  planted  by 
 God  in  His  own  vineyard,  from  which  He  had  often  sought 
 fruit,  but  on  which  He  had  never  found  any,  as  is  said  Isaiah 
 V.  2,  and  by  the  parable  of  the  other  fig-tree  in  5.  Luke  xiii. 
 6,  7.  As  that  one,  therefore,  was  cut  down,  so  now  Christ 
 withered  up  this  one  ;  that  is.  He  did  away  with  the  Law 
 and  the  Synagogue,  because  they  bore  the  fruits  of  no  good 
 works;  as  Christ  teaches  in  the  other  parable  of  the  vineyard 
 soon  after,  in  verse  33 — the  conclusion,  in  verse  43,  being  : 
 "  The  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  from  you  and  given 
 to  a  nation  yielding  the  fruits  thereof".  Christ  shows  that 
 it  should  be  given  to  the  Gentiles  because  they  would  bring 
 forth  the  fruits  of  it,  and  taken  away  from  the  Jews  because 
 they  had  brought  forth  none  ;  rather,  they  had  slain  the 
 only  son  and  heir  of  the  lord  of  it. 
 
 It  will  be  said  that  it  was  shown  by  the  tree  that  the 
 time  was  not  come  when  the  Synagogue  should  bring  forth 
 fruit.  "  For  it  was  not  the  time  of  figs."  The  fig-tree  was 
 not  withered  away  for  this  reason,  but  because  Christ  only 
 desired  by  that  act  without  words  to  show  that  He  could 
 wither  up  the  Synagogue  because  it  did  not  bear  fruit,  as 
 the  Synagogue  had  borne  none.  In  that  point  only,  there- 
 fore, which  Christ  desired  to  teach,  ought  the  fig-tree  to  be 
 compared  to  the  Synagogue — neither  of  them  had  any  fruit. 
 But  no  comparison  should  be  instituted  on  those  points  on 
 which  Christ  did  not  raise  a  comparison  between  them  ;  as 
 that  because  it  was  not  the  time  when  the  fig-tree  should 
 have  had  fruit,  therefore  it  was  not  yet  the  time  for  the 
 Synagogue  to  bring  forth  good  works.  For  there  is  this 
 difference  between  trees  and  men — that  trees  by  their 
 nature  can  only  give  fruit  at  a  certain  time  of  the  year,  but 
 men  ought  to  do  good  works  all  through  their  lives. 
 
 Our  whole  life  is  a  summer ;  it  ought  all  to  be  full 
 of  fruit,  nor  does  anything  but  our  own  will  make  it 
 sterile. 
 
208  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxi.  20-28. 
 
 Verse  20.  And  the  disciples  seeing  it. 
 
 On  the  following  day,  which  was  the  third  from  that  on 
 which  He  entered  Jerusalem,  and  when  He  was  going  up 
 to  Jerusalem  from  Bethany ;  as  is  plain  from  6".  Mark 
 xi,  20. 
 
 Verse  21.  And  stagger  not. 
 
 Mr)  KaTaKpiOrjre.     Do  not  dispute  like  those  who  are  in 
 doubt  about  a  point  (Acts  x.  17  ;  Rom.  iv,  20). 
 Verse  24.  /  a/so  ivill  ask  you. 
 
 Christ  did  not  answer  the  question  of  the  priests,  lest  He 
 should  excite  them  more  against  Him  by  the  truth  ;  but 
 He  proposed  another  question  for  them  to  answer.  For 
 they  could  not  answer  that  the  baptism  of  John  was  from 
 heaven,  because  they  would  have  been  compelled  to  admit 
 by  the  testimony  of  all  men  that  Christ  performed  all  His 
 acts,  not  by  human,  but  by  divine,  authority  ;  for  John  had 
 said  of  Him,  "  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  behold  Him  who 
 taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world  "  (i.  29).  By  the  baptism 
 of  John,  Christ  means  not  his  mere  baptism  alone  of  men 
 by  water,  but  his  whole  profession,  teaching,  preaching,  and 
 doctrine,  as  the  whole  Law  of  Moses  is  expressed  by  the 
 word  "  circumcision  "  {Gal.  v.  3). 
 
 Verse  27.  Neither  do  I  tell  you. 
 He  docs  not  answer  as  they  did,  "  I  know  not,"  for  He 
 could  not  with  truth.  He  said,  "  but  neither,"  and  there- 
 fore the  particle  nee,  which  usually  expresses  similitude, 
 does  do  so  here,  not  to  that  which  was  said,  namely, 
 nescinms,  but  to  that  which  was  understood  or  which 
 follows ;  that  is,  because  they  did  not  answer  Christ  as  to 
 whence  was  the  baptism  of  John,  so  neither  did  Christ  tell 
 them  by  what  authority  He  performed  His  works. 
 
 Verse  28.  A  certain  man  had  tivo  sons. 
 The   priests   would    not   answer  Christ   lest   they  should 
 
Ch.  XXI.  28.]  PARABLE   OF   THE   TWO   SONS.  209 
 
 be  compelled  to  admit  the  authority  of  Christ  ;  for  they 
 knew  that  the  baptism  of  John  was  from  God,  not  men. 
 What  Christ  would  not  reply  to  them  then,  He  now  puts 
 into  a  parable  :  showing  that  John's  baptism  was  from 
 heaven,  and  that  they  were  without  excuse,  because  when 
 the  publicans  and  harlots  believed  on  John,  and  listened  to 
 his  preaching,  and  brought  forth  penance,  they  would  do 
 neither.  The  parable  to  the  end  of  the  32nd  verse  is  easy. 
 The  father  of  the  two  sons  was  undoubtedly  God  ;  who  the 
 sons  were  is  more  of  a  question.  The  Ancients  agree  with 
 wonderful  unanimity  that  they  were  the  Gentiles  and  the 
 Jews.  The  former,  when  commanded  by  God  to  labour  in 
 the  vineyard,  by  the  natural  law,  replied  that  he  would 
 not;  for  he  would  not  observe  that  law.  But  he  afterwards 
 repented  and  went  into  the  vineyard  ;  that  is,  he  received 
 not  only  the  natural  law,  but  also  the  evangelical  law,  and 
 kept  them.  The  Jew,  on  the  other  hand,  when  ordered  by 
 God  to  go  into  the  vineyard,  that  is,  to  keep  the  Law, 
 answered  that  he  would  go,  as  in  Exodus  xix.  8,  but 
 afterwards  he  went  not,  that  is,  he  did  not  obey  the  Law. 
 So  say  Origen  {Tract,  xviii.  on  S.  Matt.),  S.  Athanasius 
 {QucBst.  39),  S.  Chrysostom,  The  Author,  S.  Jerome,  Bede, 
 and  Euthymius  {in  loc).  But  the  parable,  which  ends  at 
 verse  31,  probably  shows  two  kinds  of  men  of  the  Jews. 
 The  first :  the  people  and  publicans,  harlots  and  sinners,  who 
 were  commanded  by  God  to  labour  in  His  vineyard,  that 
 is,  to  observe  the  Law,  answered,  not  in  words  but  in  deeds, 
 that  they  would  not,  because  they  did  not  do  so.  After- 
 wards, moved  by  the  example  and  preaching  of  John,  they 
 repented,  and  not  only  observed  the  ancient  law,  but  also 
 received  the  new  evangelical  one. 
 
 The  second   class  was  the  priests  and  Pharisees,   who, 
 
 when   ordered    to    labour   in   the   vineyard,  answered  that 
 
 they  would  go,  that  is,  they  professed  obedience  to  the 
 
 Law,  and  a  close  and  perfect  one  ;  but,  in  fact,  they  went 
 
 2 — 14 
 
210  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.     [Cu.  xxi.  31,  32. 
 
 not,  because  they  in  no  way  kept  the  Law,  nor  believed 
 in  John,  of  whom,  as  Christ  Himself  declares  (verses  31,  32), 
 the  Prophets  had  spoken.  It  is  credible,  at  the  same  time, 
 that  Christ  also  obscurely  and  indirectly  pointed  at  the 
 people  of  Jews  and  Gentiles.  For  the  publicans  and 
 harlots  seem  to  form  an  exact  image  of  the  Gentiles,  and 
 the  priests,  Scribes,  and  Pharisees  of  the  Jews ;  and  we  see 
 in  another  place  that  Christ,  by  another  parable  of  two  sons, 
 showed  the  people  of  Gentiles  and  Jews  {S.  Liike  xv.  20). 
 Verse  31.  The  publicans  and  the  harlots  shall  go  into  the 
 kingdom  of  God  before  you. 
 
 Christ,  by  these  words,  seems  to  show  that  even  the 
 priests  with  whom  He  was  speaking  should  go  into  the 
 kingdom  of  God,  as  Origen  explains  it.  It  is  as  if  Christ 
 meant,  not,  indeed,  these  very  men  with  whom  He  was 
 conversing,  but  other  priests  to  the  end  of  the  world  ;  for, 
 as  S.  Paul  says,  "the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  shall  come  in, 
 and  they  (the  Jews)  shall  be  converted  and  enter  into  the 
 kingdom  of  God"  {Rovi.  xi.  25,  26).  But  this  does  not 
 appear  to  have  been  the  meaning  of  Christ,  but  rather  the 
 contrary,  that  the  priests  were  not  to  enter  into  that 
 kingdom.  He  says  that  the  publicans  and  harlots  go 
 before,  not  that  the  priests  follow,  but  that  as  they  were 
 teachers  of  the  Law,  and  ought  to  go  before,  they  not  only 
 do  not  this  but  will  not  even  follow,  as  He  said  (viii.  11,  12). 
 What  appears  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  passage  is : 
 "  They  go  before  you  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  " — that 
 is,  they  show  you  the  way,  they  give  you  an  example  ;  as 
 explained  in  the  following  verse  :  "  I  say  unto  you,  that 
 many  shall  come  from  the  east  and  the  west,  and  shall 
 sit  down  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the  kingdom 
 of  heaven  ;  but  the  children  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  cast 
 out  into  the  exterior  darkness  ". 
 
 Verse  32.  But  you  also  sec  it. 
 
 That  is,  when  you  saw  the  example  of  the  publicans  and 
 
Ch.  XXI.  33.]   REBUKE  TO  PRIESTS  AND  PHARISEES.  211 
 
 harlots  who  believed  in  John,  and  brought  forth  penitence, 
 you  were  not  aroused,  even  by  their  example,  either  to 
 believe  or  to  repent ;  and  thus,  probably,  it  is  written,  not 
 in  regno,  ev,  but  z«  regmnn,  eU.     rrju  ^ao-Lkeiav  rov  @eov. 
 
 For  John  came  to  you. 
 Christ  now   answers   what  the  priests  had    refused   to 
 answer,  and  declares  that  John  was  sent  from  God,  and 
 that  his  baptism  was  from  God,  not  from  man. 
 
 In  the  ivay  of  justice. 
 This  is  a  Hebraism,  that  is,  per  inoduin  Justifies,  bearing 
 justice  per  se :  having  the  life  of  a  just  man.  Christ  ap- 
 pears not  to  speak  so  much  of  true  and  inward  righteous- 
 ness (though  this  of  John's  was  most  true),  as  of  that  which 
 alone  seemed  such  to  the  priests,  and  which  consisted  of 
 outward  things  alone  :  dress,  fasts,  and  other  like  things, 
 which  were  in  John  in  a  remarkable  degree — as  said  in  chap, 
 xi.  18:  "For  John  came  neither  eating  nor  drinking,  and 
 they  say,  He  hath  a  devil ".  When,  then,  John  especially 
 displayed  this  righteousness,  which  the  priests  thought  the 
 sole  or  chief  righteousness,  they  had  no  excuse  for  their 
 unbelief 
 
 Did  710 f  even  afterzvards  repent,  that  y 021  might  believe  him. 
 Christ  reprehends  the  priests  for  two  things  :  (i)  Un- 
 belief: from  which  they  did  not  believe  John  as  His 
 messenger;  and  (2)  Stubbornness  and  obstinacy:  from  which, 
 when  they  had  seen  the  publicans  and  harlots  believe,  they 
 would  not  believe  themselves.  This  is  the  meaning  of  the 
 words,  "  did  not  even  afterwards  repent,"  that  is,  not  even 
 after  you  had  seen  their  example  would  you  change  your 
 opinion. 
 
 Verse  33.  Hear  ye  a?iother  parable. 
 
 S.  Matthew  says  that  Christ  proposed  this  parable  to  the 
 same  priests  ;  S.  Luke  (xx.  9),  to  the  people.     It  has  been 
 
212  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxi.  33. 
 
 explained  that  Christ  puts  it  forth  first  to  the  priests  with 
 whom  He  was  conversing,  but  because  the  people  came 
 round  Him  in  numbers  to  listen,  S.  Luke  says  that  He 
 addressed  it  to  the  people.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind, 
 that,  as  in  all  the  parables,  the  necessary  and  peculiar 
 parts  must  be  carefully  distinguished  from  the  adjuncts, 
 and  what  may  be  termed  the  accidental  parts.  In  this 
 parable,  to  verse  46,  there  appear  to  be  six  peculiar  and 
 necessary  parts. 
 
 1.  The  man  who  planted  a  vineyard,  who  was,  beyond 
 doubt,  God. 
 
 2.  The  vineyard  itself  which  he  planted.  S.  Athanasius 
 {Quasi.  49)  explains  it  of  the  world  which  God  has  created  ; 
 S.  Irenaeus  (iv.  70),  of  the  whole  race  of  man  ;  but  if  so, 
 who  were  the  husbandmen  to  whom  it  was  let  out  ?  Others, 
 more  correctly,  assert  it  to  have  been  the  Church  in  which 
 God  would  have  men  labour.  The  metaphor  is  a  common 
 one  in  Scripture  ;  as  in  Ps.  Ixxix.  6  ;  ha.  v.  2  ;  Jer.  ii.  2 1  ; 
 xii.  10  ;  Joel  i.  7.  God  is  said  to  have  planted  the  vineyard 
 when  He  gave  the  Law,  because  He  in  a  manner  planted 
 the  knowledge  of  Himself  in  men's  minds  through  the  Law  ; 
 as  S.  Augustin  says  {Serin,  lix.  de  Verb.  Dodl). 
 
 3.  He  made  a  hedge  round  it,  and  put  a  wine-press  in  it, 
 and  built  a  tower,  which  three  things  appear  to  form  a 
 part  of  one  whole  ;  and  they  mean  merely  that  God  did  for 
 His  Church  all  that  was  necessary,  that  it  might  be  well 
 protected  and  cultivated,  as  is  said  by  Isaiah  (v.  4).  For 
 Christ  described  only  what  the  owners  of  vineyards  do 
 that  the  labourers  may  want  nothing  for  good  cultivation 
 of  them  and  for  rendering  the  fruits  when  due.  For 
 they  who  plant  vineyards  first  hedge  it  round,  that  wild 
 animals  and  thieves  may  not  break  into  it  ;  then  they 
 make  a  winc-prcss,  to  collect  and  press  out  the  vintage  , 
 lastly,  they  build  a  tower,  partly  for  ornament,  and  partly 
 that   the    vinc-drcsscr   may   see   that  no   one   breaks    in. 
 
Ch.  XXI.  33-]  PARABLE   OF   THE   VINEYARD.  213 
 
 Ancient  authors,  indeed,  assert  that  the  three  requisites 
 have  each  its  own  meaning.  Many  explain  the  hedge 
 to  mean  the  protection  of  God  and  the  angels,  as  Origen 
 {Tract,  on  S.  Matt,  xix.),  S.  Ambrose  {On  S.  Luke  xx.), 
 The  Author,  S.  Jerome  {in  loc.) ;  so  too  in  Ps.  Ixxix. 
 13  :  "Why  hast  thou  broken  down  the  hedge  thereof,  so  that 
 all  they  that  pass  by  the  way  do  pluck  it  ?  "  God  is  said 
 to  have  destroyed  the  hedge,  because  He  had  taken  away 
 the  help  by  which  He  used  to  protect  and  defend  it,  and, 
 as  it  were,  had  deserted  it,  as  in  verse  15.  Others  say  that 
 the  hedge  is  the  names  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  by 
 which  the  Jews  were  distinguished  from  the  Gentiles  (S. 
 Hilary,  Can.  xxii.).  Others  think  it  the  Law  and  precepts 
 by  which  the  Jews  were  hedged  in  as  within  certain  limits  ; 
 so  S.  Irenaeus  (iv.  yd)  and  The  Author  {Horn.  xl.).  The 
 press  is  by  some  said  to  be  the  altar  which  overflowed 
 with  the  blood  of  the  victims,  like  must  (Origen,  S.  Jerome, 
 Bede,  Euthymius,  and  Theophylact).  By  others  it  is 
 thought  to  be  the  spirit  of  the  Prophets,  which  was 
 agitated  like  must  (SS.  Irenaeus,  Hilary,  Ambrose,  and 
 Jerome).  The  Author  says  that  it  is  the  Church  ;  S. 
 Athanasius  {QjicEst.  49)  that  it  is  baptism,  which  seems  the 
 least  probable  of  all,  as  Christ  was  speaking,  not  of  the 
 Church  of  the  Gospel,  but  of  the  Synagogue  of  the  Jews,  in 
 which  there  was  either  no  baptism  at  all  or  it  could  not  have 
 been  figured  by  the  wine-press.  Very  many,  as  Origen,  S. 
 Jerome,  Bede,  and  Theophylact,  explain  the  tower,  of  the 
 Temple  of  Jerusalem  ;  some,  as  S.  Irenaeus,  of  the  city,  which 
 was  built  on  one  side  on  a  mountain  ;  a  few,  as  S.  Ambrose, 
 S.  Luke  (xx.).  The  Author,  S.  Jerome  {in  he),  say  that  it 
 is  the  breadth  of  the  Law. 
 
 4.  The  husbandmen.  Many  think  these  the  priests 
 alone  with  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  by  whom  the  vineyard 
 was  to  be  cultivated,  that  is,  the  people  were  to  be  instructed; 
 so  Origen,  S.  Hilary,  The  Author,  Euthymius,  and  Theo- 
 
214  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxi.  33, 
 
 phylact  In  confirmation  of  this  opinion  Christ  disputed 
 with  the  priests  alone,  and  directed  the  parable  against 
 them  ;  while  the  rest  of  the  people  of  the  Jews  would 
 appear  to  have  been  not  so  much  the  husbandmen  as  the 
 vineyard.  From  the  conclusion  of  the  parable,  we  see  that 
 not  only  the  priests  but  the  whole  nation  of  the  Jews  were 
 meant  by  the  husbandmen,  because  Christ  concluded  that 
 the  vineyard  should  be  taken  from  the  Jews  and  given  to 
 other  husbandmen,  that  is,  to  the  Gentiles.  Such  is  the 
 explanation  of  S.  Ambrose.  God  is  said  to  have  given  the 
 vineyard  to  the  husbandmen,  because  to  those  who  laboured 
 in  it  He  had  promised  the  certain  reward  of  eternal  life,  as 
 in  the  similar  parable  in  the  preceding  chapter.  Thus  even 
 from  the  mere  locatio  verboruvi,  rage  the  heretics  as  they 
 will,  the  merits  of  good  works  is  proved, 
 
 5.  The  fifth  point  is  the  servants  whom  the  Lord  of  the 
 vineyard  sent  at  different  times  to  collect  the  fruits.  All 
 authorities  are  agreed  that  these,  as  is  evident  from  the 
 words  of  Christ  Himself,  were  the  ancient  Prophets.  How 
 some  of  these  were  slain  and  others  stoned  may  be  read  in 
 Heb.  xi.  and  S.  Jerome's  Comment,  {in  loc). 
 
 6.  The  sixth  is  the  son.  That  he  was  Christ  even  the 
 priests  themselves,  against  whom  the  parable  was  directed, 
 could  not  be  ignorant  of 
 
 These  things  have  a  peculiar  and  necessary  meaning  ; 
 the  other  points  are  accidental,  and  should  not  be  made 
 any  part  of  the  essence  of  the  parable.  Such  as  these  are 
 the  hedge,  the  press,  the  tower,  the  departure  of  the  lord 
 of  the  vineyard  for  the  strange  country,  which  is  thought 
 by  S.  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  and  Euthymius  to  signify 
 the  long-enduring  patience  of  God  towards  the  Jews.  S. 
 Jerome  and  Bede,  however,  think  that  they  still  had  their 
 free-will  left  to  labour  or  not  as  they  chose,  as  men  of  that 
 class  in  the  absence  of  their  master  usually  have.  This 
 part  of  the  parable  may  not  appear  to  have  any  fixed  and 
 
Ch.  XXI.  41.]         PARABLE   OF   THE   VINEYARD.  21$ 
 
 necessary  application,  but  it  may  have  been  added  to  fill 
 up  and  set  oflf  the  parable.  Otherwise,  the  opinion  of 
 Origen  {Tract,  on  S.  Matt,  xix.)  and  Theophylact  seem 
 the  best.  They  say  that  the  lord  of  the  vineyard,  that  is, 
 God,  went  away  into  a  strange  country  because,  when  He 
 appeared  to  the  Jews  at  Sinai  to  plant  His  vineyard  among 
 them,  that  is,  to  appoint  the  Law,  and  make  a  covenant 
 with  them  to  keep  it,  He  afterwards  ceased  to  appear,  as  if 
 He  had  gone  to  a  far  country.  The  adjective  part  is,  that 
 it  is  said  in  the  parable  that  the  time  of  the  fruits  drew 
 near  :  as  if  it  were  not  always  the  time  of  fruits,  or  as  if 
 God  did  not  always  require  the  fruit  of  good  works  from 
 the  Jews. 
 
 Again,  what  is  said,  "  They  will  reverence  my  son,"  is 
 said,  not  as  being  necessary  to  the  meaning  of  the  parable, 
 but  because  it  was  probable  that  the  lord  of  the  vineyard, 
 when  he  sent  his  son,  would  say  so.  S.  Chrysostom,  Eu- 
 thymius,  and  Theophylact  read  :  "  It  may  be  that  they 
 will  reverence  my  son,"  as  5.  Ltike  xx.  13.  They  think 
 that  this  was  said  that  the  lord  of  the  vineyard  might  show 
 the  husbandmen  what  they  ought  to  do,  and  not  as  if  he 
 were  ignorant  that  they  would  not  reverence  his  son  ;  and 
 that  they  might  not  say  that  they  were  compelled  by  the 
 divine  prophecy.  But,  doubtless,  all  these  things  were 
 said  as  if  of  man,  not  as  if  of  God.  For  the  man  could  not 
 know  that  the  husbandmen  would  kill  his  son.  He  ought 
 rather  to  have  believed  that  they  would  reverence  him. 
 
 Verse  41.   They  say  to  Him,  He  will  bring  tJiese  evil  men  to 
 an  evil  end. 
 
 S.  Mark  (xii.  9)  and  S.  Luke  (xx.  16)  say  that  these 
 words  were  spoken,  not  by  the  priests,  but  by  Christ.  On 
 the  contrary,  S.  Luke  says  that  the  priests  answered,  "  God 
 forbid,"  as  if  they  denied  and  detested  what  Christ  said. 
 S.  Augustin  {De  Cons.,  ii.  70)  answers  that  these  words  were 
 
2l6  THE   GOSPEL  OF  S.   MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxi.  42. 
 
 spoken  by  the  priests,  as  S,  Matthew  says,  but  because 
 they  were  true,  and  what  was  and  is  true  comes  from  the 
 truth,  and  Christ  was  the  Truth,  the  other  two  Evangelists 
 ascribe  these  words  to  Christ.  This  may  appear  forced. 
 What  S.  Chrysostom  and  Euthymius  say  seems,  therefore, 
 more  probable  :  that  these  words,  as  S.  Matthew  writes 
 them,  were  first  said  by  the  priests  ;  but  that  Christ  con- 
 firmed and  explained  them,  so  that  the  priests  might  see 
 and  understand  that  He  was  speaking  against  them,  and 
 desired  to  signify  that  God  would  destroy  them  as  evil 
 husbandmen,  and  give  their  vineyard  to  other  husbandmen. 
 Moreover,  S.  Mark  and  S.  Luke  ascribe  these  words  to 
 Christ,  and  that  the  priests  then  answered  in  the  words  of 
 S.  Luke,  "  God  forbid,"  Absit  (xx.  16). 
 
 Verse  42,  Have  you  never  read. 
 
 Christ  upbraids  the  priests  who  professed  the  knowledge 
 of  the  Law  with  their  ignorance  of  it,  as  He  had  done  before 
 (verse  16 ;  xii.  3-5  ;  xix.  4).  He  proves  by  another  meta- 
 phor, and  by  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  that  what  the 
 priests  hated,  saying,  ''Absit"  would  come  to  pass.  Thus 
 if  S.  Luke  had  not  written  that  word,  this  passage  would 
 not  have  seemed  to  harmonise  well  with  the  preceding  text ; 
 but  now,  as  S.  Augustin  {De  Cons.,  ii.  70)  has  observed,  it 
 does  so  well.  For  because  the  priests  had  said,  "  God 
 forbid"  {Absit),  denying  that  what  Christ  had  said  would 
 come  to  pass,  He  proves  the  contrary :  because  the  stone 
 which  they,  the  builders,  had  refused  was  made  the  head  of 
 the  corner,  and  whosoever  fell  upon  it  would  be  broken, 
 but  upon  whom  it  falls  it  shall  grind  him  to  powder. 
 Christ,  as  in  other  places,  suddenly  changes  His  metaphor  ; 
 for  the  Church  which  He  had  before  compared  to  a  vine 
 He  now  compares  to  a  building  which  God  has  built,  as 
 does  S.  Paul  (i  Cor.  iii.  9  ;  2  Cor.  xiii.  10 ;  and  Epiies.  ii.  21  ; 
 iv.  12),  and  those  whom  He  had  before  called  husbandmen 
 
Ch.  XXI.  42.]       HEAD   STONE   OF   THE   CORNER.  21/ 
 
 He  now  calls  builders  ;  Him  whom  He  had  before  called 
 the  Son  He  now  calls  a  Stone,  as  S.  Jerome  and  Euthymius 
 have  observed.  It  is  a  customary  metaphor  in  Scripture  to 
 call  Christ  a  Stone  {Isa.  xxviii.  i6 ;  Daji.  ii.  34 ;  Zach.  iii. 
 9).  Christ  is  the  Stone  hewed  out  of  the  mountain  without 
 hands.  Christ  is  called  a  Stone,  in  respect  of  the  Church, 
 as  having  a  firm  foundation,  as  S.  Paul  says  (i  Cor.  iii.  11 ; 
 Eph.  ii.  20).  Nor  is  it  doubtful  that  David  {Ps.  cxvii.  22, 
 whence  this  text  is  taken)  spoke  of  Christ  and  called  Him 
 the  Stone,  which  not  even  these  priests  themselves,  the 
 enemies  of  Christ,  could  deny. 
 
 The  stone. 
 The  stone,  lapidem,   is  put  by  a  Hebraism,  which  the 
 Septuagint  {Ps.  cxvii.  22),  and  the  Greek  interpreter  of  S. 
 Matthew,  and  the  Latin  have  followed  :  for  A.t'^09  and  lapis 
 in  qiiem  is  read  for  lapis  queni. 
 
 Which  the  builders  rejected. 
 
 This  is  also  a  Hebraism  in  which  the  participle  oIkoSo- 
 lxovvTe<i,  cedificantes,  is  put  for  the  substantive — cedificantes 
 for  (Edificatores .  It  has  been  a  question  as  to  who  are  the 
 men  called  builders  by  Christ,  and  by  David  before  Christ. 
 S.  Chrysostom,  Euthymius,  and  Theophylact  think  that  it 
 meant  the  priests  alone,  because  they  were  in  a  manner  the 
 architects  of  the  ancient  Synagogue,  and  built  it  ;  that  is, 
 they  taught :  for  to  build  is  to  teach,  as  Jer.  i.  10,  and  as  S. 
 Paul  speaks  {Rom.  xv.  20  ;  i  Cor.  iii.  10;  Gal.  ii.  18  ;  Ephes. 
 ii.  20),  who  calls  himself  an  architect  of  the  Gospel  (i  Cor. 
 iii.  10).  S.  Peter  seems  to  allude  to  this  passage  {Acts  iv.  11): 
 "  This  is  the  stone  which  was  rejected  by  you  the  builders  ". 
 Others  think  that  all  the  Jews  together  are  meant ;  because 
 all,  though  not  each  one  in  particular,  "  rejected  "  Christ ; 
 that  is,  threw  aside,  as  useless  and  without  value  for  the 
 building,  as  the  wicked  say  in  Wisdom  ii.  12:  "  Let  us 
 therefore  lie  in  wait  ". 
 
2l8  THE    GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxi.  42. 
 
 TJie  same  is  become  the  head  of  the  cor7ier. 
 Christ  is  called  the  head  of  the  corner  for  three  reasons  : 
 
 1.  First,  because  it  is  the  strongest  stone  of  the  whole 
 building,  and  that  which  holds  together  and  supports  all  the 
 others,  as  S.  Peter  says  {^Acts  iv.  11)  where  he  opposes  the 
 head  of  the  corner  to  reprobation,  and  as  Isaiah  (xxviii.  16) 
 calls  the  precious  stone,  Jwnorem  injuria;  ;  that  is,  the  stone 
 which  is  placed  in  the  most  honourable  position.  In  the 
 same  sense  S.  Paul  says  to  the  Ephesians  (ii.  20)  :  "  You 
 are  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets, 
 Jesus  Christ  Himself  being  the  chief  corner-stone,"  explain- 
 ing the  highest  and  first  on  which  all  the  others  depend  to 
 be  the  chief  corner-stone. 
 
 2.  Because  it  is  a  stone  of  offence  to  many.  For  corner- 
 stones often  stand  out  from  the  building,  so  that  careless 
 passengers  are  apt  to  strike  against  them  in  passing,  as  the 
 Jews  did  against  Christ.  So  S.  Peter  (/  Epist.  ii.  7,  8).  In 
 the  same  sense  S.  Paul  wrote  to  the  Romans  (ix.  32,  33). 
 
 3.  Because  He  unites  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  into  one 
 among  themselves,  as  S.  Paul  says  {EpJi.  ii.  14).  This  explana- 
 tion is  followed  by  almost  all  the  Ancients:  Origen  {Tract, 
 in  Matt,  xix.; ;  S.  Hilary  {Can.  xxii.)  ;  S.  Augustin  {On  Ps. 
 Ixxxviii.  and  cxix.,  and  Tract,  in  Johan.,  and  Scrm.  xviii., 
 xlix.,  de  Verb.  Dom.) ;  S.  Jerome,  Theophylact,  Bede,  and 
 Euthymius  {in  loc). 
 
 Christ  seems  to  have  united  all  these  senses  in  Himself: 
 
 1.  Because  He  signifies  that  though  rejected  by  the  Jews 
 He  would  be  held  in  the  greater  honour  by  the  Gentiles. 
 
 2.  Because  He  foretold  that  the  Jews  would  dash  against 
 Him  and  be  broken :  as  He  said,  Qui  ceciderit,  "  Whoever 
 shall  fall  ". 
 
 3.  He  showed  that  He  would  make  this  a  gain,  for  from 
 being  rejected  by  one  people  He  would  have  two  instead 
 of  one,  that  is,  as  the  corner-stone  unites  and  connects  two 
 walls  of  a  house; 
 
Ch.  XXI.  43-]         HEAD   STONE   OF   THE   CORNER.  219 
 
 By  the  Loi^d  this  has  been  done. 
 
 It  is  said  to  have  been  done  by  the  Lord,  because  it  was 
 
 done  by  the  Lord  alone,  not  by  human  design  ;  that  when 
 
 the  Jews  did  not  believe,  the  Gentiles  should  do  so  ;  as  is 
 
 shown  by  the  grafting  of  the  wild  into  the  good  olive-tree, 
 
 as  described  at  length  and  with  great  skill  by  S.  Paul  {Rom. 
 
 xi.). 
 
 A7id  it  IS  wonderful  tn  our  eyes. 
 
 It  justly  seemed  wonderful  to  the  Jews,  in  whose  person 
 this  was  said  by  David,  that  the  grace  of  Christ  should  be 
 given  not  only  to  the  Jews,  but,  when  they  had  wickedly 
 rejected  it,  much  more  abundantly  to  the  Gentiles.  For 
 even  S.  Peter  himself,  now  made  to  be  the  chief  of  the 
 Apostles,  did  not  understand  it  {Acts  x.  14),  nor  possibly 
 could  have  understood  it,  except  the  sheet  had  been  let 
 down  from  heaven,  filled  with  all  kind  of  animals,  to  teach 
 him. 
 
 Verse  43.  The  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  from  yon. 
 This  is  the  conclusion  of  the  parable,  by  which  is  signified 
 the  abolition  of  the  Synagogue  and  the  transference  of  the 
 Church  of  God,  which  is  here  called  the  kingdom  of  God, 
 and  is  described  above  as  the  vineyard,  to  the  Gentiles,  as 
 SS.  Paul  and  Barnabas  said  to  the  Jews. 
 
 Yielding  the  fruits  thereof 
 To  advance  which  the  vine  was  planted,  and  to  collect 
 which  the  servants  were  sent  by  the  Lord.  When  it  is 
 said,  "  Shall  be  given  to  a  nation  yielding  the  fruits  thereof," 
 it  is  not  that  merit  is  meant,  but  the  cause  of  its  being 
 given  to  the  Gentiles,  that  they  would  yield  the  fruits  of  it, 
 that  is,  would  cultivate  it  well  and  render  the  fruits  to  the 
 owner.  Indirectly,  the  sin  of  the  Jews  is  noted  for  which 
 it  was  taken  from  them,  namely,  that  they  did  not  render 
 the  fruits  of  it.  S.  Paul  uses  similar  language  to  the 
 Romans  (xi.  19,  20). 
 
220  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxi.  44. 
 
 Verse  44.  And  whosoever  shall  fall  on  this  stone  shall  be 
 broken. 
 
 It  is  clear  that  Christ  here  means  to  show  a  twofold  kind 
 of  punishment — a  lesser  and  a  greater ;  as  one  who  falls 
 upon  a  great  stone  hurts  himself  and  often  breaks  a  bone, 
 but  is  injured  much  less  than  if  a  stone  had  fallen  from 
 some  high  place  upon  him,  for  this  would  destroy  him 
 utterly. 
 
 The  question  is  what  is  meant  by  falling  upon  the  stone 
 and  the  stone  falling  upon  the  person.  It  cannot  be 
 doubted  that  the  metaphor  is  taken  de  medio  ;  for  when  a 
 man  falls  upon  a  stone  he  does  not  fall  with  such  violence 
 as  to  suffer  any  injury  or  fracture  of  limb.  And  who  can 
 doubt  that  to  fall  upon  a  stone  is  to  stumble  at  Christ  as  at 
 a  stone  ?  for  He  is  termed  a  stone  of  stumbling  and  a  rock 
 of  offence  by  Isaiah  (viii.  14),  and  in  i  Peter  ii.  8. 
 
 The  Author,  S.  Jerome,  and  Bede  think  that  they  who 
 believe  in  Christ,  but  commit  sin  and  offend  Him,  fall  upon 
 the  stone,  because  they  are  punished,  indeed,  but  more 
 lightly ;  but  upon  those  who  do  not  believe  in  Him  the 
 stone  falls,  that  is,  they  are  punished  more  heavily.  S. 
 Chrysostom,  S.  Augustin  {Serin,  xl.  de  Verb.  Dom\  Euthy- 
 mius,  and  Theophylact  seem  to  think  that  to  fall  upon  the 
 stone  is  not  to  believe  in  Christ  ;  which  would  appear  to  be 
 the  true  sense,  because  the  falling  upon  Christ  is  spoken  of 
 in  the  same  sentence  as  that  in  which  Christ  is  called  the 
 Stone  of  Offence.  He  is,  therefore,  called  such,  because 
 naany  who  saw  His  miracles,  and  ought  to  have  been 
 brought  by  them  to  believe  in  Him,  were  so  far  from  doing 
 so  that  they  rather  made  them  a  reason  for  calumniating 
 Him.  This  is  to  fall  upon  the  stone ;  and  S.  Paul  to  the 
 Romans  (ix.  33)  and  S.  Peter  {Ep.  i,  ii.  7,  8)  seem  to  have 
 spoken  to  this  effect :  "  To  you,  therefore,  that  believe ". 
 Not  to  believe,  then,  is  to  fall  upon  the  stone ;  but  what  it 
 is  for  the  particular  stone  to  fall  upon  a  particular  person  is 
 
Ch.  XXI.  44-1       HEAD   STONE   OF   THE   CORNER.  221 
 
 more  doubtful.  S.  Chrysostom,  Euthymius,  and  Theophy- 
 lact  say  that  it  is  nothing  more  than  that  Christ  was 
 angry ;  but  this  will  hardly  seem  to  be  probable.  S. 
 Augustin  seems  to  speak  to  better  purpose  {Serin,  xl.  de 
 Verb.  Dom.  ) — that  the  stone  falling  upon  anyone  is  Christ 
 coming  from  heaven  to  judge  and  condemn.  It  is  the 
 same,  therefore,  as  if  Christ  had  said  that  whoever  does 
 not  believe  in  Him  is  miserable  even  in  this  life,  that  is, 
 he  falls  upon  the  stone,  but  that  he  will  be  far  more 
 miserable  in  the  next  life  when  He  condemns  him,  that  is, 
 when  that  stone  had  fallen  upon  him.  In  the  same  way  S. 
 John  in  \hQ  Apocalypse  (ii.  ii  ;  xx.  14 ;  xxi.  8)  speaks  of  the 
 first  and  second  death  as  if  to  distinguish  between  two 
 punishments — the  one  greater,  the  other  less. 
 
CHAPTER   XXII. 
 
 THE  PARABLE  OF  THE  MARRIAGE  FEAST — CHRIST  ORDERS 
 TRIBUTE  TO  BE  PAID  TO  CAESAR— HE  CONFUTES  THE 
 SADDUCEES — SHOWS  WHICH  IS  THE  FIRST  COMMAND- 
 MENT  IN   THE   LAW — AND   PUZZLES   THE  PHARISEES. 
 
 Verse  i.  And  Jesus  answering. 
 "  Answering  "  is  put  for  "  speaking  "  by  a  Hebraism,  as  fre- 
 quently before. 
 
 Verse  2.  Is  likened. 
 Authorities  differ  as  to  whether  or  not  this  is  the  same 
 parable  as  that  of  S.  Luke  (xiv.  16). 
 
 Some,  for  many  reasons,  think  it  a  different  one. 
 
 1.  The  giver  of  the  feast  in  this  is  a  king.  In  5.  Luke 
 he  is  not. 
 
 2.  Here  the  feast  is  a  dinner  {prandittm).  There  it  is  a 
 supper  iccend). 
 
 3.  Here  are  many  servants,  and  they  were  sent  fre- 
 quently to  call  those  who  were  invited.  There  there  is  only 
 one,  and  he  was  only  sent  once. 
 
 4.  In  this  the  invited  guests  do  not  excuse  themselves, 
 but  merely  neglect  to  come.  In  that  they  excuse  them- 
 selves, each  in  his  own  manner. 
 
 5.  In  this  the  servants  are  ill-treated  or  killed.  In  that 
 they  are  not. 
 
 6.  In  this  an  army  is  sent  by  the  lord  of  the  vineyard 
 {sic  in  the  text,  but  read  "  the  king  ")  to  slay  the  "  husband- 
 men ".     In  that  there  is  none. 
 
Ch.  XXII.  2.]     PARABLE   OF   THE   MARRIAGE   FEAST.  223 
 
 7.  In  this  the  king  enters  the  guest-chamber  and  finds  a 
 man  not  having  on  a  wedding-garment,  whom  he  com- 
 mands to  be  bound  and  cast  into  outer  darkness.  In  that 
 nothing  of  the  kind  takes  place. 
 
 This  is  the  opinion  of  S.  Augustin  {De  Consens.,  ii.  70), 
 S.  Gregory  {Horn,  xxxviii.  in  Evangel^,  Strabus,  and  S. 
 Thomas, 
 
 Others  think  the  two  parables  the  same  because  they 
 have  each  a  marriage,  the  feast  of  which  is  called  a  dinner 
 by  S.  Matthew  and  a  supper  by  S.  Luke. 
 
 This  is  the  opinion  of  S.  Irenseus  (iv.  70,  76)  and  Theo- 
 phylact  {in  loc).  Even  S.  Gregory  thinks  it  probable.  It 
 appears  to  be  the  more  so  because  the  other  facts  recorded 
 here  by  S.  Matthew,  and  elsewhere  by  S.  Luke,  are  very 
 similar ;  while  the  differences  are  too  slight  to  cause  them 
 to  be  regarded  as  different  parables.  For  there  being 
 mention  of  a  king  in  one  and  not  in  another,  and  S.  Mat  • 
 thew's  speaking  of  a  dinner,  and  S.  Luke  of  a  supper,  is 
 without  weight.  S.  Gregory  himself  says  that  the  Ancients 
 did  not  dine  before  the  ninth  hour,  and  they  called  supper 
 {avnain)  prandiuvi.  This  may  not  be  certain.  All  the 
 arguments  on  the  other  side  of  the  question,  however,  can 
 be  answered  with  one  word.  The  Evangelists,  when  de- 
 scribing the  same  parable,  or  even  the  same  history,  do  not 
 relate  all  the  facts,  nor  use  the  same  words,  but  give  the 
 sam^e  meaning.     This  is  the  case  here. 
 
 What  may  appear  to  be  of  greater  weight  is  that  S.  Luke 
 relates  this  parable  as  having  been  given  at  a  different  time 
 and  place,  namely,  when  Christ  was  supping  at  the  house 
 of  one  of  the  chief  Pharisees,  and  a  guest  said  :  "  Blessed  is 
 he  that  shall  eat  bread  in  the  kingdom  of  God  "  (xiv.  15). 
 This  objection  can  be  answered  without  difficulty.  Either 
 S.  Matthew  or  S.  Luke  did  not  observe  the  07'do  temporis, 
 as  is  often  the  case  with  them.  It  is  more  probable  that 
 S.  Luke  followed  time  and  place,  while  S.  Matthew  related 
 
224  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxii.  2. 
 
 the  parable  here,  because  it  resembled  the  preceding  one, 
 and  he  was  not  solicitous  to  construct  a  history  of  the  events 
 as  they  happened,  but  to  relate  the  teaching  of  Christ.  He 
 therefore  referred  all  His  discourses  of  the  same  significa- 
 tion, and  containing  the  same  doctrine,  to  the  same  place. 
 
 To  a  king. 
 
 That  is,  the  same  thing  happens  in  the  kingdom  of 
 heaven,  as  if  a  king  had  made  a  marriage  for  his  son,  as 
 explained  on  chap.  xxi.  16  ;  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
 — that  is,  the  Church — is  not  compared  to  the  king, 
 but  to  the  guest-chamber  where  the  supper  was  held.  We 
 must  first  see  to  what  the  parable  tends,  and  then,  as  we 
 have  said  before,  what  are  the  peculiar  and  necessary  parts 
 that  contain  the  meaning. 
 
 Christ  seems  to  have  intended  to  teach  two  things  : 
 
 First,  That  many  are  called  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven, — 
 that  is,  the  Church, — but  few  come.  With  this  He  con- 
 cludes at  verse  14. 
 
 Secondly,  That  not  all  who  come  when  they  are  called 
 to  the  Church  will  be  saved, — that  is,  are  worthy  of  the 
 heavenly  banquet,  because  some  have  not  on  the  wed- 
 ding-garment (as  in  verse  11).  The  parable  is  directed 
 against  the  Jews,  who,  when  invited,  would  not  come,  and 
 the  Gentiles  were  therefore  put  into  their  place. 
 
 The  necessary  portions  of  the  parable  appear  to  be  seven. 
 
 1.  The  first  is  the  king,  who  is  undoubtedly  God.  That 
 He  is  not  called  "  a  man,"  but  "  a  king,"  may  be  partly  to 
 show  His  Divine  Majesty,  and  partly  to  account  for  the 
 splendour  of  the  feast. 
 
 2,  The  second  part  is  the  marriage — that  is,  the  feast — 
 for  the  Evangelist  all  through  the  chapter  calls  the  marriage 
 a  feast.  Some  say  that  the  feast  signifies  the  glory  of 
 heaven  and  the  life  of  beatification,  under  which  similitude 
 they  are  often  described  in  Scripture  (as  in  Ps.  xvi.  15  ; 
 Apoc.  xix.  9;  5.  Luke  xiv.  15;  xxii.  29,  30).     So  says  S. 
 
Ch.  XXII.  2.]    PARABLE   OF   THE   MARRIAGE   FEAST.  225 
 
 Hilary  {Can.  xxii.  on  S.  Matt).  Others  think  the  feast  to 
 have  been  the  outpouring  of  divine  grace,  given  to  those 
 who  come  into  the  Church,  or  the  Word  of  God,  by  which 
 they  are  fed  ;  for  the  Word  of  God  is  often  compared  to 
 food,  as  by  S.  Paul  (i  Cor.  iii.  2;  Heb.  v.  12).  In  Amos 
 (viii.  11),  in  like  manner,  God  threatens  to  send  a  famine 
 into  the  land  :  not,  indeed,  a  famine  of  bread,  but  of  the 
 Word  of  God.  So  Origen  {Tract,  xx.  on  S.  Matt?),  The 
 Author,  and  Euthymius. 
 
 3.  The  third  part  is  the  son  of  the  king,  whose  marriage 
 is  celebrated.  He  is  clearly  Christ,  who  is  often  called  the 
 bridegroom  (as  ix.  15;  xxv.  i  ;  S.  John  iii.  29  ;  Apoc.  xix. 
 7-9).  It  is  not  so  clear  who  the  bride  is.  Some  think  that 
 she  is  each  man's  soul  ;  as  Theophylact,  The  Author  {Ho?n. 
 xli.).  Others  say  that  she  is  the  Church  ;  as  Ongcr\  {Tract. 
 XX.  in  S.  Matt.),  S.  Hilary  {Can.  xxii.),  S.  Jerome  (in 
 Comment.),  S.  Gregory  {Horn,  xxxviii.  in  Evangel.).  This 
 would  appear  more  probable,  because  S.  John  {Apoc.  xxi. 
 2)  calls  the  Church  "the  spouse  of  Christ".  S.  Paul 
 {Ephes.  V.  25)  exhorts  husbands  to  love  their  wives  as 
 Christ  loved  the  Church  :  signifying  that  the  Church  was 
 His  bride ;  and  in  verses  31,  32. 
 
 Authorities  vary  as  to  when  this  marriage  between 
 Christ  and  the  Church  is  celebrated.  Some  say  that  it 
 was  to  be  after  the  Resurrection,  but  that  the  guests  were 
 invited  to  a  future  marriage.  So  Origen  and  S.  Hilary. 
 And  it  is  hardly  to  be  doubted  from  the  parable  (xxv.  i) 
 of  the  bridegroom  coming  in  the  middle  of  the  night  that  the 
 time  of  the  Resurrection  and  the  last  advent  of  Christ  are 
 signified.  S.  John  also  {Apoc.  xix.  9)  speaks  of  this  mar- 
 riage, which  is  to  be  celebrated,  not  on  earth,  but  in  heaven, 
 after  the  time  of  the  Resurrection.  Others  say  that  the 
 marriage  was  celebrated  when  the  Son  of  God  was  made 
 the  Son  of  man,  for  He  then  united  the  Church  to  Himself 
 as  to  a  bridegroom.  So  says  S.  Gregory  {Hom.  xxxviii.  in 
 2—15 
 
226  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxii.  2. 
 
 Evangel).  Each  opinion  is  true  ;  for,  as  has  been  said 
 elsewhere,  the  marriage  of  Christ  has  been  celebrated 
 often  :  (i)  When  He  was  made  man,  His  Incarnation 
 being  as  a  spousal  rite.  (2)  It  will  be  celebrated  when  He 
 shall  have  formed  for  Himself  a  glorious  Church  not 
 having  spot  or  wrinkle.  This  will  be  when  He  shall  unite 
 it  to  Himself  in  heaven  freed  from  every  stain.  Men  are 
 invited  to  both  these  marriages — to  the  first,  that  they  may 
 come  to  the  Church  of  God  and  be  fed  by  the  Word  of 
 God  ;  to  the  second,  that  they  may  be  saved,  and  may  eat 
 and  drink  at  the  table  of  Christ  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 
 
 4.  They  who  are  invited.  These  are  said  by  S.  Ambrose 
 {Comment,  on  S.  L?ike  xiv.)  to  be  Gentiles,  Jews,  and  here- 
 tics. All  other  authorities  explain  it  only  of  the  Jews.  It 
 is  very  plain  that  Christ  propounded  the  parable  most 
 especially  against  them,  to  show  that  the  Jews  who  were 
 invited  would  not  come,  but  that  the  Gentiles  did. 
 
 It  may  be  a  question  whether  this  is  to  be  understood  of 
 all  Jews,  or  only  of  those  who  lived  after  the  Incarnation 
 of  Christ.  S.  Hilary  says  that  those  alone  are  invited 
 whom  Christ  Himself,  as  man,  or  the  Apostles  and  their 
 successors,  called.  Origen,  however  ( Tract,  xx.  on  S.  Matt.), 
 S.  Athanasius  {Quest.  45),  S.  Jerome,  Bede,  Euthymius, 
 Theophylact  (in  his  Comment.),  and  S.  Gregory  {Hom. 
 xxxviii.)  think  that  it  should  be  understood  of  all  Jews, 
 even  of  those  who  lived  before  the  Incarnation  of  Christ. 
 This  is  the  more  likely  because  they  were,  without  doubt, 
 the  men  who  ill-treated  and  killed  the  servants  that  were 
 sent  by  the  king,  that  is,  the  ancient  prophets. 
 
 But  how  could  they  who  are  so  far  remote  from  the 
 coming  of  Christ  be  invited  to  His  marriage?  They  were 
 invited  to  His  future  marriage  that  they  might  believe  in 
 the  Christ  who  was  to  come,  and  be  fed  in  the  meantime 
 by  the  word  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  If  they  kept 
 their  Law  and  precepts,  they  would  be  invited  to  that  final, 
 
Ch.  XXII.  2.]     PARABLE   OF   THE   MARRIAGE   FEAST.  22/ 
 
 that  is,  to  that  heavenly  marriage,  to  which  we  also  who 
 are  now  guests  at  the  first  are  bidden. 
 
 As  S.  Gregory  says,  "  God  invites  both  those  who 
 were  before  the  Incarnation  of  Christ  and  those  who 
 were  after  it " — because  "  He  announced  by  the  Prophets 
 that  the  Incarnation  of  the  Only-begotten  Son  should 
 be  brought  to  pass,  and  by  the  Apostles  that  it  should 
 be  accomplished  ". 
 
 5.  The  fifth  part  is  the  servants.  S.  Jerome  says  that  in 
 many  copies  the  word  is  found  in  the  singular,  as  in  5.  Luke ; 
 but  our  version  reads  it  in  the  plural,  and  the  sense  of  the 
 passage  seems  to  require  this,  as  being  more  expressive. 
 Who  the  servants  were  whom  the  king  sent  first  to  invite 
 the  Jews  is  obvious,  yet  all  the  authorities  do  not  agree  on 
 the  point.  S,  Hilary  says  that  it  was  the  Apostles  alone  ; 
 all  others — Origen,  S.  Chrysostom,  S.  Jerome,  S.  Gregory, 
 and  Bede — say  that  they  were  the  Prophets  and  Apostles. 
 For  the  Prophets  were  sent  first,  and  were  treated  with 
 contumely,  and  put  to  death.  Afterwards  the  Apostles 
 were  sent  into  the  streets  and  highways,  to  bring  in  all — 
 not  the  Jews  only,  but  also  the  Gentiles. 
 
 Theophylact  and  The  Author  ask  how  they  were  called 
 who  had  before  been  invited  ;  or  how  they  were  invited 
 before  they  were  called  ;  since  the  same  persons  seem  to 
 have  been  both  invited  and  called.  Theophylact  answers 
 that  they  were  probably  invited  by  the  natural  law  to  live 
 rightly  and  holily,  and  were  afterwards  called  by  the 
 Prophets,  to  come.  It  would  have  been  better  to  have  said 
 that  they  were  invited  through  the  Law  of  Moses.  For 
 not  only  the  Jews,  but  all  men,  were  invited  by  the  natural 
 law,  and  there  is  no  distinction  in  the  parable  to  signify 
 that  men  were  first  invited  and  afterwards  called ;  but 
 Christ  spoke  as  from  custom,  and  described  not  what  God 
 did  to  the  Jews,  but  what  men  did  usually  to  each  other. 
 Thus   it   often    happens   that    men    are    first    invited    and 
 
228  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxii.  2. 
 
 bidden  to  a  feast,  and  afterwards,  when  the  time  is  come, 
 are  called  to  it. 
 
 6.  The  sixth  part  is  the  entrance  of  the  king  into  the  guest- 
 chamber,  while  the  feast  was  in  progress.  The  Author  ex- 
 plains this  to  mean  God's  proving  men,  to  see  their  value 
 and  fitness  for  their  place  in  the  Church.  S.  Jerome  and 
 Bede  say  better  that  it  means  the  coming  of  God  to  judg- 
 ment ;  to  retain  those  who  have  the  wedding-garment,  and 
 to  reject  those  who  are  without  it.  That  the  Day  of 
 Judgment  is  intended  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  the  man 
 who  had  no  wedding-garment  was  to  be  bound  hand  and 
 foot  and  cast  into  outer  darkness,  where  was  the  weeping  and 
 gnashing  of  teeth.  We  see  the  same  thing  in  this  parable 
 and  the  previous  one  of  the  cockles  (xiii.  24),  and  of  the  net. 
 The  reader  will  ask  how  it  can  be  said  that  the  king  would 
 come  into  the  guest-chamber,  when  it  is  not  the  king  him- 
 self, but  the  king's  son — that  is,  Christ — who  would  come 
 to  judgment.  The  king  will  come  because  his  son  will 
 come  for  him  {S.  John  v.  22). 
 
 7.  The  seventh  part  is  that  of  the  man  who  had  not  on 
 a  wedding-garment.  There  have  been  different  opinions 
 as  to  what  the  wedding-garment  is.  S.  Iren^us  (iv.  70) 
 and  S.  Hilary  {in  loc.)  explain  it  to  mean  the  Holy  Spirit, 
 as  Christ  says  in  5.  Ljikc  xxiv.  49.  But  S.  Augustin 
 {Co7it.  Faust.,  xxii.  19)  says  that  it  is  the  glory  of  Christ,  and 
 that  whoever  seeks  this  is  endued  with  the  marriage-gar- 
 ment ;  whilst  all  who  seek  not  this  but  their  own  glory 
 have  it  not,  because  they  bear  not  His  "insignia,"  but  their 
 own.  S.  Augustin  seems  to  think  that  the  marriage-gar- 
 ment was  some  well-known  and  remarkable  dress,  such  as 
 the  bridegroom  himself  wore,  and  such  as  we  see  the 
 children  of  kings  wear,  of  some  marked  and  notable  colour, 
 called  the  royal  colour,  to  distinguish  them  from  the 
 children  of  other  men.  But  there  is  no  account  in  the 
 history  of  the  Jews,  or  any  other  people,  of  such  a  thing. 
 
Ch.  xxii.  2.]     PARABLE   OF   THE   MARRIAGE   FEAST.  229 
 
 It  would  seem,  rather,  to  have  been  not  any  certain  and 
 peculiar  attire,  which  all  such  guests  wore,  but  some  habili- 
 ment more  costly  and  splendid  than  that  of  ordinary  life  ; 
 such  as  was  worn  by  those  who  were  invited  to  do  honour 
 to  a  bridegroom,  and  to  adorn  his  feast  ;  and  that  the  man 
 who  was  cast  out  had  none  such,  and  was  sent  away  for  his 
 shamelessness  in  entering  in  his  ordinary  sordid  and  ragged 
 attire,  where  all  the  rest  wore  garments  of  cost. 
 
 But  the  question  is,  what  is  signified  by  that  garment  ? 
 The  followers  of  Calvin  say  that  it  is  faith — for  everything 
 is  faith  with  them  when  they  themselves  have  no  faith  ; 
 nor,  acute  as  they  think  themselves,  do  they  consider  that 
 that  guest  came  only  by  faith,  without  which  he  could  not 
 have  entered  the  guest-chamber — that  is,  the  Church.  For 
 to  come  is  to  have  faith.  They  who  are  invited  and  do  not 
 come  are  said  not  to  come  because  they  have  no  faith. 
 This  man  had  faith,  indeed,  but  he  had  no  marriage- 
 garment.     The  marriage-garment,  therefore,  is  not  faith. 
 
 The  opinion,  then,  of  Tertullian  {De  Resurrect.  Car7i), 
 Origen,  S.  Chrysostom,  The  Author,  S.  Ambrose  {Serin. 
 xiv.  de  Natal.  Domin.),  S.  Jerome,  S.  Gregory,  Theophy- 
 lact,  and  Euthymius  is  true,  that  the  marriage-garment  is 
 charity,  good  works,  and  a  life  answering  to  the  faith  of 
 Christ.  The  whole  history  agrees  with  this  view  most 
 perfectly  and  aptly.  For  as  they  who  are  invited  to  a 
 wedding  ought  to  have  clothing  proper  to  the  occasion,  so 
 they  who  are  invited  and  come  to  the  Church  through 
 faith,  ought  to  lead  a  life  worthy  of  faith,  and  of  a  follower 
 of  Christ.  We  see  that  a  good  life  is  figured  in  Scripture 
 by  a  garment,  as  in  Apoc.  iii.  17,  18  ;  Ephes.  iv.  24 ;  Coloss. 
 iii.  9,  10.  Let  these  men  pardon  us,  then,  if  we  show  from 
 this  passage  that  faith  alone  is  not  sufficient  for  salvation ; 
 for  the  guest  at  this  feast  had  faith,  but  because  he  had  no 
 marriage-garment — that  is,  good  works — he  was  cast  into 
 outer  darkness. 
 
230  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxii.  2. 
 
 It  will  be  asked  how,  if  he  had  faith,  he  was  cast  out  of 
 the  guest-chamber,  that  is,  the  Church  ?  as  if  the  king 
 preferred  not  to  have  his  faith,  to  having  it  without 
 his  works.  The  answer  is  eas}-.  The  whole  question  is 
 to  be  referred  to  the  Day  of  Judgment,  when  God  will  cast 
 those  who  have  faith  without  its  good  works  out  of  the 
 feast,  that  is,  out  of  heaven — not  that  they  were  in 
 heaven  before,  but  that  when  they  were  in  the  Church 
 they  appeared  to  be  in  heaven.  If  to  their  faith  they  had 
 added  good  works,  they  would  have  been  transferred  to 
 heaven. 
 
 The  rest  of  the  parable  consists  of  accretions,  which  were 
 uttered  to  complete  and  beautify  the  narrative ;  such  as 
 verse  4 :  "I  have  prepared  my  dinner,  my  beeves  and 
 fatling.s,"  &c.,  which  means  that  all  was  prepared,  that  God 
 is  waiting  for  men,  that  His  grace  is  at  hand  for  all,  and 
 that  it  does  not  remain  with  Him  that  men  are  not  con- 
 verted from  their  sins.  He  named  beeves  and  fatlings, 
 because  these  formed  the  provisions  at  costly  banquets. 
 Bulls  or  young  bullocks  are  such  as  have  never  been  sub- 
 jected to  the  knife  or  yoke,  and  which  are  often  mentioned 
 in  Scripture  as  peculiar  delicacies  {Gen.  xviii.  7  ;  i  Ktfigs 
 xxviii.  24).  The  man  whose  prodigal  son  returned  to  him 
 (5.  Luke  XV.  23)  slew  the  fatted  calf 
 
 Such  is  the  true  meaning  of  these  words,  though  many 
 ancient  Fathers  thought  this  a  necessary  and  peculiar  part 
 of  the  parable,  with  its  own  proper  and  distinctive  meaning. 
 S.  Gregory  thinks  that  the  bulls  signify  the  Fathers  of  the 
 Old  Testament,  and  the  fatlings  those  of  the  New,  who 
 have  received  a  higher  grace,  and  are  mentioned  in  a 
 spiritual  sense.  Theophylact  takes  the  bulls  to  be  the  Old 
 Testament  itself,  and  the  fatlings  to  be  the  New.  S.  Jerome 
 and  Euthymius  more  correctly  take  them  for  nothing  more 
 than  the  liberal  furniture  of  the  feast.  What  is  said  in 
 verse  5,  and  S.  Luke's  words,  "  I  have  bought  five  yoke  of 
 
Ch.  XXII.  2.]   PARABLE   OF   THE    MARRIAGE   FEAST.  23 1 
 
 oxen  (xiv.  19),  and  another,  I  have  married  a  wife,"  means 
 nothing  more  than  that  the  invited  guests  went  each  to  his 
 own  occupation,  his  farm,  or  his  merchandise,  preferring  their 
 temporal  to  their  spiritual  interests. 
 
 The  more  abstruse  meaning  may  be  found  in  Origen  {in 
 loc)  and  S.  Ambrose  {Conwient.  in  Luc.  xiv.).  The  king 
 sending  forth  his  army  to  destroy  those  murderers  shows 
 that  the  wrath  of  God  will  descend  upon  all  who  refuse  His 
 invitation.  There  may,  however,  be  something  in  the  sug- 
 gestion of  S.  Chrysostom,  The  Author,  and  Euthymius, 
 that  the  Roman  armies  of  Titus  and  Vespasian  may  be 
 foreshown,  as  about  to  take  the  most  utter  vengeance  on 
 the  Jews  ;  though  the  opinion  of  S.  Jerome  and  S.  Gregory 
 is  more  probable — that  the  army  was  the  evil  angels  whom 
 God  sometimes  uses  to  punish  men ;  as  Ps.  Ixxvii.  49.  So 
 by  the  servants  who  are  sent  a  second  time  into  the  high- 
 ways and  hedges  to  call,  or,  as  S.  Luke  says,  to  compel  all 
 to  enter,  nothing  else  is  meant  than  that  there  is  no  dis- 
 tinction of  countries,  but  the  Gospel  is  to  be  preached 
 throughout  the  whole  world  to  every  creature,  as  Christ 
 afterwards  declared  (xxviii.  19;  ^.  Mark  xvi,  15).  So 
 again  the  words  of  S.  Luke  (xiv.  21),  that  they  should 
 bring  in  the  poor,  weak,  blind,  lame,  means  only  that  there 
 should  be  no  distinction  of  nation  or  persons,  but  that  all 
 should  equally  be  invited  to  the  Gospel ;  and  Christ  names 
 the  poor,  the  weak,  the  blind,  the  lame,  rather  than  any 
 other  class  of  persons,  because  such  are  not  usually  invited, 
 and  we  are  to  understand  that  from  the  banquets  of  the 
 Gospel  no  one  whatever  is  to  be  excluded. 
 
 The  words  "  compel  them  to  come  in  "  do  not  mean  that 
 men  will  be  literally  forced  into  the  Gospel,  but  that  they 
 should  be  so  entreated  and  urged  as  almost  to  appear  to 
 be,  in  a  manner,  compelled.  Lastly,  the  binding  of  the 
 man  who  had  not  on  the  wedding-garment  shows  only 
 that  they  who  will  be  condemned  will  be  no  more  able  to 
 
232  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxii.  13,  14. 
 
 resist  the  execution  of  their  sentence  than  if  they  were 
 literally  confined  by  manacles  and  fetters. 
 
 Verse  13.  Into  the  exterior  darkness. 
 On  this  see  chap.  viii.  12. 
 
 Verse  14.  Many  are  called,  but  few  are  chosen. 
 
 This  is  the  conclusion  of  the  parable,  and  it  appears  to 
 contain  a  difficulty.  For  while  one  only  of  all  the  guests 
 was  rejected,  Christ  says,  "  Many  are  called,  but  few  are 
 chosen  "  ;  whereas  not  a  few  only,  but,  with  one  exception, 
 all  were  chosen.  S.  Augustin  {Lib.  Cotzt.  Dottat)  says  that 
 the  one  who  was  cast  out  represents  in  his  own  person  all 
 the  reprobate,  who  are  many  more  in  number  than  the 
 elect,  and  that  Christ,  therefore,  concluded  with  the  words, 
 "  Many  are  called,  but  few  are  chosen ",  These  words 
 would  seem  to  apply  not  so  much  to  those  immediately 
 preceding  as  to  the  whole  of  the  earlier  part  of  the  parable, 
 in  which  we  see  that  many  were  called  but  few,  in  fact, 
 came,  while  of  these  not  all  were  chosen. 
 
 Why  was  one  only  cast  out,  when  the  greater  number 
 are  to  be  finally  cast  out — that  is,  condemned — as  Christ 
 signifies  in  chap.  vii.  13,  14,  and  i  Pet.  iv.  18?  It  is  easy 
 to  answer  that  Christ  spoke  the  parable,  not  against  the 
 Gentiles,  but  against  the  Jews,  who,  when  invited  in  the 
 first  place,  not  only  refused  to  come,  but  treated  the  ser- 
 vants of  the  king  who  were  sent  to  call  them  with  outrages 
 and  death.  Of  them,  therefore,  Christ  concluded,  "  Many 
 are  called  ".  He  would  also  have  them  know,  by  the  way, 
 that  they  who  had  come,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  ought 
 not  to  trust  in  themselves,  merely  because  they  were  per- 
 mitted to  enter  the  guest-chamber  ;  for  they  would  be  cast 
 out  if  they  had  not  on  the  wedding-garment.  To  show  this, 
 it  was  enough  that  one  of  those  who  were  present  was  cast 
 out,  as  not  having  on  that  garment.     But  if  a  greater  number 
 
Ch.  XXII.  i6.]  THE    HERODIANS.  233 
 
 were  to  be  cast  out  than  retained,  why  did  not  Christ  say  : 
 "  The  many  shall  be  cast  out,  the  few  only  shall  be  retained  "  ? 
 Because  this  was  not  done  in  fact.  Christ  only  said  what 
 He  did  to  show  that  many  were  called,  few  chosen. 
 
 Verse  16.  And  they  send  their  disciples  with  the  Herodians. 
 
 For  the  Herodians,  see  chap.  xii.  14. 
 
 Maldonatus  goes  into  the  question  of  who  they  probably 
 were  at  length.     He  shows  : 
 
 1.  That  they  were  not  Gentiles  under  the  rule  of  Herod. 
 
 2.  Nor  the  followers  of  Herod  Antipas,  who  was  taken 
 by  them  for  the  Messiah. 
 
 3.  Nor  the  soldiers  of  Herod  the  Great ;  for  he  was  dead, 
 and  his  sons  ruled  in  Galilee,  not  Judeea. 
 
 4.  Nor  those  Jews  who  denied  the  payment  of  tribute  to 
 Caesar  (^Acts  v.  37). 
 
 Two  opinions  remain  which  have  some  show  of  pro- 
 bability. I.  That  of  those  (Origen,  Tract,  on  S.  Matt. 
 xxi. ;  S,  Jerome,  Comment. ;  and,  apparently,  S.  Cyril  of 
 Alexandria)  who  think  that  they  who  allowed  the  payment 
 of  tribute  to  Caesar  were  called  Herodians,  because  Herod 
 was  a  thorough  follower  of  Caesar,  and,  as  Josephus  says, 
 had  been  overseer  of  the  tribute  in  Judaea.  S.  Cyril  says 
 that  the  Herodians  were  publicans  and  collectors  of  the 
 tribute.  This  is  the  more  likely  because  the  Pharisees,  who 
 were  the  chief  supporters  of  Jewish  liberty,  and  were  op- 
 posed to  Herod,  as  Josephus  says,  pretended  to  constitute 
 Christ  judge  of  the  question,  the  better  to  conceal  their 
 own  hatred,  and  to  show  that  they  referred  to  Him  for  the 
 purpose,  not  of  trying  Him,  but  of  putting  an  end  to  the 
 question  ;  whereas  their  real  object  was  to  excite  ill-will 
 against  Him. 
 
 For  if  He  had  answered  that  the  tribute  was  not  to  be 
 paid,  they  would  have  accused  Him  of  lese-majesty,  as 
 they  afterwards  did  (5.  Luke  xxiii.  2).      If  He  had  said 
 
234  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxii.  19. 
 
 that  it  ought  to  be  paid,  He  would  not  have  been  thought 
 to  be  Christ,  and  the  promised  king  of  the  Jews;  for,  so  far 
 from  freeing  them,  as  they  hoped,  from  the  foreign  rule, 
 He  would  rather  have  brought  them  under  the  Gentile 
 power.  This  opinion  is  strengthened  at  once  by  S.  Luke, 
 who  calls  the  false  accusers  simnlatores,  and  by  Christ 
 Himself,  in  verse  18:  "Why  do  you  tempt  Me,  ye 
 hypocrites  ? " 
 
 2.  The  other  opinion  is  that  of  those  who  think  that  the 
 Herodians  were  some  domestic  sect,  who  followed  Herod, 
 to  whom,  so  that  he  could  keep  his  crown,  every  religion 
 was  good.  But  this  is  less  likely  to  be  true  than  the  former, 
 because  there  is  neither  authority  nor  probability  for  it  in 
 history  ;  although,  on  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  so  far 
 possibly  true,  that  there  is  nothing  against  it,  and  the 
 Evangelists  seem  to  describe  the  Herodians  as  some  sort 
 of  a  religious  sect  like  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  for 
 they  mention  them  in  conjunction  with  these. 
 
 Verse  19.  Shoiu  mc  the  coin  of  tJic  tribute. 
 A  coin  of  the  kind  in  which  the  tribute  was  paid. 
 
 And  tJicy  offered  Him  a  penny. 
 
 This  is  to  be  understood  of  the  Roman  penny,  which 
 had  Caesar's  image  and  superscription  on  it ;  things 
 which,  as  most  especially  hateful,  the  Jews  would  by  no 
 means  permit  on  their  coins.  The  penny  seems  to  have 
 been  equal  to  an  Attic  drachma  in  value.  A  question  has 
 arisen  as  to  how  a  Roman  penny  could  be  called  the  tri- 
 bute-money, as  if  each  person  paid  a  penny,  when  Christ 
 paid  a  stater  for  Himself  and  Peter  (.V.  Matt.  xvii.  26)  ; 
 that  is,  four  silver  drachmas,  or  fourpencc.  It  has  been 
 suggested  that  this  was  a  different  tribute  ;  but  the  Romans 
 exacted  no  other  tribute  from  the  Jews  than  the  poll-tax, 
 which  they  had  previously  paid  to  the  Temple  :  that  is,  half 
 
Ch.  XXII.  21-29.]  THE   TRIBUTE   MONEY.  235 
 
 a  side,  equal  to  two  Roman  denarii.  Pliny  (xxxiii.  13) 
 says  that  the  Romans  required  from  conquered  nations 
 only  silver  money.  It  is  more  probable,  as  others  say, 
 that  each  Jew  paid  two  denarii,  and  that  the  money  was 
 divided  into  two  parts  for  the  sake  of  convenience. 
 
 Verse  2 1 .   TJic  tilings  that  are  God's. 
 These  words  do  not  refer  merely  to  the  tribute  paid  for 
 the  Temple,  but  they  are  spoken  generally.      The  things 
 that  are  God's  are  faith,  hope,  charity,  obedience. 
 
 Verse  23.  That  day. 
 It  is  not  quite  certain  whether  this  happened  on  the 
 same  day  as  that  on  which  Christ  was  tempted  by  the 
 Pharisees  and  Herodians  ;  for  it  may  be  a  Hebraism  and 
 mean  "  about  that  time ".  But  it  is  more  probable,  as 
 Origen  and  The  Author  think,  that  it  was  the  same  day, 
 because  S.  Matthew  here,  S.  Mark  (xii.  18),  and  S.  Luke 
 (xx.  27)  so  unite  this  with  the  preceding  events,  that  the 
 conversation  would  appear  to  have  taken  place  on  the 
 same  day. 
 
 There  came  to  Him  the  Sadducees. 
 For    the    Sadducees,    see    chap.    iii.    7.      They    would 
 believe  nothing  above  or  beyond  nature,  and  therefore  they 
 would  not  believe  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.     Hence 
 their  senseless  question  to  Christ. 
 
 Verse  24.  Moses  said,  If  a  man  die. 
 For  an  explanation  of  these  words,  see  chap.  i.  16. 
 
 Verse  29.    Ye  err,  not  knozuing  the  Scjdptiires. 
 
 Because  the  Sadducees  had  appealed  to  the  Scriptures, 
 
 Christ  answers  that  they  did  not  understand  the  Scriptures, 
 
 as  S.  Chrysostom  says.     Christ  shows  two  sources  of  error 
 
 in  them  ;  one,  that  they  did  not  understand  the  Scriptures  : 
 
236  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxii.  30. 
 
 the  other,  that  they  did   not  allow  for  the  goodness  and 
 power  of  God,  as  S.  Mark  (xii.  24)  describes  more  plainly. 
 
 Verse  30.  In  the  resni'rection. 
 "  In  "  is  used  by  a  Hebraism  for  "  after,"  as  in  Ps.  cxxv.  i  : 
 "  When  the  Lord  turned  back,"  in  convertendo.  The  time 
 which  will  ensue  after  the  Resurrection  is  called  the  Resur- 
 rection ;  as  in  verse  28  the  whole  time  during  which  the 
 law  of  circumcision  was  in  force  is  called  "  the  Circum- 
 cision "  {Rom.  IV.  10). 
 
 They  shall  neitlier  marry,  nor  be  married. 
 
 A  Hebraism  and  a  Graecism  at  once.  A  Hebraism 
 because  the  third  person  plural  is  put  for  the  passive  verb 
 impersonal,  as  in  some  Latin  works  diauit  is  put  for  dicitur, 
 nubcnt  for  nubctiir.  It  is  a  Graecism,  which  the  Latin 
 translator  would  not  render  perhaps,  for  some  reason, 
 idiomatically.  For  as  the  Greek  word  f^afietv  was  applied 
 to  the  marriage  of  either  man  or  woman,  and  mibere  was 
 used  in  Latin  of  the  woman,  and  iixorcm  ducere  of  the  man, 
 and  the  Greek  expresses  both  in  one  word,  the  Latin 
 author  chose  to  follow  the  Greek,  because  it  was  not  in 
 that  age  considered  barbarous.  This  is  the  opinion  of 
 Tertullian  {Dc  Resurrect)  and  Ruffinus  (///.  Exposit. 
 Symb.).  S.  Jerome  says  himself  that  he  would  not  have 
 so  rendered  it,  though  he  would  not  correct  it.  The  mean- 
 ing appears  to  be  that  after  the  Resurrection  men  will  not 
 marry  women,  nor  will  women  be  married  to  men.  In  a 
 word,  there  will  then  be  no  marriages. 
 
 But  shall  be  as  the  angels  of  God. 
 Christ  does  not  compare  the  blessed  to  the  angels  in 
 everything,  but  only  in  the  point  on  which  He  was  speak- 
 ing— marriage ;    as    S.   Jerome    has    observed.      For   the 
 angels    are    immortal,   and    therefore    have   no   need    of 
 
Ch.  XXII.  30.]  THE   SADDUCEES   CONFUTED.  237 
 
 marriage,  the  object  of  which  is  the  continuance  of  the 
 human  race,  as  explained  by  S.  Luke  (xx.  35,36).  It  may 
 be  observed  that  all  the  three  Evangelists — S.  Matthew, 
 S.  Mark,  and  S.  Luke — here  use  the  present  tense,  "  are 
 equal  to  the  angels,"  when  they  had  before  used  the  future, 
 niLbent — nubenhir.  Christ  probably  desired  to  place  the 
 future  state  of  beatitude  before  the  sight,  and  spoke  of  it  as 
 a  thing  present.  The  Author,  not  without  reason,  asks 
 why,  when  Christ  spoke  of  fasting,  alms,  and  other  spiri- 
 tual virtues.  He  did  not  institute  any  comparison  of  men 
 with  angels,  but  only  did  so  when  His  subject  was  chastity. 
 His  answer,  which  is  a  true  one,  is  that  there  is  no  virtue 
 so  angelical  as  this  one. 
 
 /  am  the  God  of  A  braJiam. 
 
 There  is  a  double  difficulty  in  this  passage.  First,  it 
 does  not  appear  how  it  can  rightly  be  concluded  from  the 
 words,  "  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,"  &c.,  that  Abraham, 
 Isaac,  and  Jacob  were  still  living ;  for  God  might  be  called 
 their  God,  not  because  He  was  so  then,  but  because  He 
 had  been  so  before  :  as  James  and  John  are  called  the  sons 
 of  Zebedee  when  Zebedee  was  now  dead,  and  no  one  is  the 
 son  of  a  dead  man,  but  of  a  living  one.  The  meaning  is, 
 that  they  had  been  his  sons. 
 
 Secondly,  that  even  if  it  could  be  proved  that  the  souls 
 of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  were  alive,  it  is  not  therefore 
 proved  thereby  that  they  will  rise  again. 
 
 To  the  first  question,  it  has  been  replied  that  the  force 
 of  the  argument  consists  in  this :  that  God  did  not  say,  "  I 
 was  "  {fill  mit  eram),  but  "  I  am  "  their  God.  So  say  S. 
 Chrysostom,  Euthymius,  and  Theophylact.  But  it  may  be 
 objected  that  the  passage  should  be  understood,  "  I  am 
 that  God  who  was  the  God  of  Abraham  while  Abraham 
 was  alive".  Or,  according  to  others,  God  is  called  the 
 God  of  those  of  whom  He  receives  acknowledgment  and 
 
238  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        Xh.  xxii.  30. 
 
 worship,  as  He  is  called  the  God  of  Elias  and  Daniel 
 because  Elias  and  Daniel  worshipped  Him.  Hence  Abra- 
 ham, Isaac,  and  Jacob  are  not  wholly  dead,  because  God 
 was  called  their  God — that  is,  He  was  worshipped  by  them. 
 Others  suppose  that  the  force  of  the  words  lies  in  this,  that 
 although  in  that  sense  God  can  be  called  the  God  of 
 Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  because  He  was  once  their 
 God,  yet  it  is  not  to  be  thought  that  God  would  deign  to 
 be  called  the  God  of  those  who  were  now  dead.  But  this 
 is  not  of  much  weight.  There  appears  to  be  a  higher  than 
 common  meaning  in  the  words,  S.  Chrysostom,  Theophy- 
 lact,  and  Euthymius  have  said  what  seems  true,  but  is  not 
 sufficient.  For  the  force  of  the  whole  undoubtedly  lies  in 
 God  not  having  said,  "  I  was,"  but  "  I  am  "  ;  not  fiii  or 
 eram,  but  sum ;  and  the  meaning  may  be :  "I  am  the 
 God  who  made  a  covenant  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
 Jacob  to  perpetuate  their  seed,  and  I  therefore  wish  to 
 keep  it,  because  they  still  live  and  urge  Me  daily  by  their 
 prayers  to  deliver  their  children  from  the  captivity  of 
 Egypt  ".  For  we  keep  covenant,  not  with  the  dead,  but 
 with  the  living. 
 
 And  Christ  pleased  to  bring,  not  an  unanswerable  argu- 
 ment, but  one  so  far  convincing  as  to  be  sufficient  for  the 
 conviction  of  the  Sadducees.  For  He  by  these  means  re- 
 pressed their  arrogance  and  shamelcssness  ;  so  that  when 
 they  proposed,  in  derision,  a  Scripture,  as  if  Christ  could 
 not  escape  from  it,  He  showed  them  that  they  were  so  dull 
 and  ignorant  that  they  could  not  reply  to  even  the  very 
 lightest  argument  of  Moses  in  proof  of  the  Resurrection. 
 
 The  explanation  of  the  second  question  is  less  difficult. 
 The  Sadducees,  as  Origen  and  S.  Jerome  and  The  Author 
 have  observed,  denied  the  Resurrection,  because  they  did 
 not  believe  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  as  is  clear  from 
 Acts  xxiii.  8.  And,  therefore,  if  the  immortality  of  the  soul 
 were  proved  by  an  admitted  testimony,  the  Resurrection 
 
Ch.  xxii.  30.]         THE   SADDUCEES   CONFUTED.  239 
 
 would  be  also  proved.  Formerly,  too,  not  only  among  the 
 Jews,  but  also  almost  all  the  schools  of  philosophy,  the  two 
 questions  of  the  Immortality  of  the  Soul  and  the  Resurrec- 
 tion were  so  united  together  as  to  be  taken  for  one  and  the 
 same  thing.  Thus,  we  see,  the  author  of  the  second  Book  of 
 Machabees  (xii.  43)  from  the  Immortality  of  the  Soul  proves 
 the  Resurrection.  The  same  is  also  done  by  S.  Paul  (i 
 Cor.  XV.),  where  all  the  arguments  for  the  resurrection  of 
 the  body  only  avail  to  prove  the  immortality  of  the  soul  ; 
 but  as  no  one  denied  the  Resurrection  who  did  not  believe 
 that  the  soul  died,  the  same  arguments  prove  the  Resurrec- 
 tion. 
 
 He  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead^  but  of  the  living. 
 Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  were  now  dead.  But  Christ 
 denied  that  they  were  dead  in  the  sense  supposed  by  the 
 Sadducees  ;  that  is,  that  their  souls  were  dead.  For,  in  the 
 sense  in  which  we  call  men  dead  whose  souls  are  separated 
 from  their  bodies,  God  is  called  the  Lord,  not  only  of  the 
 living,  but  also  of  the  dead  {Rom.  xiv.  8),  as  S.  Chrysostom 
 has  observed.  S.  Luke  (xx.  38)  adds  what  seems  rather  to 
 weaken  than  add  force  to  the  argument ;  for  he  says,  "  all 
 live  "  ;  for  if  all  the  former  live  to  God,  even  those  who  are 
 dead,  these  live  also  ;  and  then  it  does  not  follow  that  Abra- 
 ham, Isaaac,  and  Jacob  are  not  dead,  as  Christ  would  have 
 proved.  The  answer  may  be  that  when  Christ  added  these 
 words,  He  only  gave  a  reason  for  calling  Abraham,  Isaac, 
 and  Jacob  living  who  had  died  ;  for  all,  not  only  those  who 
 are  alive  in  the  body,  but  also  those  who  are  dead,  are  alive 
 to  God  :  not  only  because  their  souls  are  alive,  but  also 
 because  God  wills  to  bring  it  to  pass  that  they  should  re- 
 turn to  their  bodies,  and  live  in  the  same  way  as  they  had 
 lived  before;  as  Christ  said  (ix.  24),  "The  girl  is  not  dead, 
 but  sleepeth ".  Or  they  are  dead  to  us,  but  live  to  God, 
 because  we  only  see  their  bodies,  and  their  bodies  are 
 dead  :  God  sees  their  souls,  and  these  are  truly  alive. 
 
240  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxii.  35.37. 
 
 Many  ask  why,  as  there  are  so  many  and  plain  testi- 
 monies in  Holy  Scripture  to  the  Resurrection,  Christ  Him- 
 self did  not  most  especially  bring  them  forward.  Origen 
 {On  S.  Matt,  xxi.),  S.  Jerome,  and  Bede  reply  that  the 
 Sadducees  only  received  as  Scripture  the  five  books  of 
 Moses,  and  that  in  consequence  Christ  must  necessarily 
 answer  them  out  of  these. 
 
 Verse  35.  And  one  of  them,  a  doctor  of  the  laiv. 
 S.  Luke  (xx.  39,  40)  says  that  one  of  the  Scribes,  when 
 the  Sadducees  had  been  answered,  said  to  Him,  "  Master, 
 Thou  has  well  said ;  and  after  that  they  durst  not  ask  Him 
 any  more  questions  ".  This  appears  to  apply,  not  to  the 
 Scribes  and  Pharisees  (who  take  this  opportunity,  as  S. 
 Matthew  says,  of  tempting  Christ  again,  to  show  that  they 
 were  more  learned  than  the  Sadducees),  but  to  the  Saddu- 
 cees themselves.  For  the  man  whom  S.  Matthew  calls  a 
 doctor  of  the  law,  S.  Mark  (xii.  28)  calls  a  Scribe.  Hence 
 we  see  that  although  the  duties  of  the  Pharisees  and  Scribes- 
 were  different,  the  same  person  was  at  times  both  a  Phari- 
 see and  a  Scribe.  For  it  is  clear  from  verse  34  that 
 this  doctor  of  the  law  of  whom  S.  Matthew  speaks  was  a 
 Pharisee. 
 
 Verse  36.    Which  is  the  great  commandment  in  the  Law  ? 
 
 The  positive  is  here  by  a  Hebraism  put  for  the  superla- 
 tive ;  as  in  J>.  Mark  xii.  28,  29. 
 
 Verse  37.  TJiou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God. 
 S.  Mark  (xii.  29)  begins  with,  "  Hear,  O  Israel  ".  S.  Mat- 
 thew only  gives  the  first  words,  because  in  Moses  both 
 commandments  are  in  the  same  place  and  refer  to  the  same 
 thing  {Dent.  vi.  4,  5).  The  first  is.  Thou  shalt  believe  in 
 one  God.  The  second.  Thou  shalt  love  Him  with  thy 
 whole  heart,  and  with  thy  whole  soul ;  because  he  that 
 believes  in  more  than  one  divides  his  love,  and  does  not 
 
Ch.  XXII.  39-]  LOVE   OF   GOD   AND   OUR    NEIGHBOUR.  241 
 
 love  one  with  his  whole  heart  ;  as  in  chap.  vi.  24  :  "  No  man 
 can  serve  two  masters,"  &c. 
 
 JVit/i  thy  whole  heart,  and  zvith  thy  ivhole  soul. 
 Some  raise  on  these  words  a  distinction  apparently  too 
 subtle.  The  meaning  simply  appears  to  be  that  we  should 
 love  God  with  all  our  strength,  and  look  to  Him  for  every- 
 thing. S.  Augustin  has  expressed  this  in  the  following 
 words  :  "  When  God  said,  '  with  the  whole  heart,  the  whole 
 soul,  the  whole  mind,'  He  left  no  part  of  our  life  from 
 which  He  would  be  absent,  and  which  should  yield,  as  it 
 were,  to  the  fruition  of  some  other  object.  But  whatever 
 else  enters  the  mind  as  an  object  of  love,  it  should  be 
 carried  off  at  once  whither  the  impulse  of  entire  love  hurries 
 it."  Lastly,  what  is  read  in  Dent.  vi.  5,  in  other  words,  is 
 compressed  by  S.  Luke  into  one  word  (x.  27)  :  "  Thou 
 shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  strength  ". 
 
 Verse  39.    Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself. 
 
 Christ  says  that  these  are  the  two  great  precepts  of  the 
 Law.  They  are  not  distinct  from  the  others,  but  a  com- 
 pendium of  them.  Of  the  first  table,  "  Thou  shalt  love  the 
 Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,"  &c.  Of  the  second, 
 "Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself". 
 
 It  will  be  asked  how  Christ  says  that  this  is  the  greatest 
 of  all  the  commandments,  if  they  are  not  different  com- 
 mandments? It  would  seem  to  be  as  if  He  had  said  all 
 the  commandments  are  the  greatest.  In  answer  Christ 
 meant  only  that  all  the  commandments  tend  to  the  result 
 that  we  should  love  God  with  our  whole  hearts,  and  our 
 neighbours  as  ourselves  ;  as  S.  Paul  said  to  the  Romans  : 
 "Love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  Law"  (xiii.  10);  and  as 
 Christ  Himself  said  (verse  40)  :  "On  these  two  command- 
 ments dependeth  the  whole  Law  and  the  Prophets  ". 
 
 How  we  are  to  understand  the  words,  "  Thou  shalt  love 
 
 our  neighbour,"  depends  on  two  things  :  (i)  on  our  know- 
 2—16 
 
242  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxii.  39. 
 
 ing  who  is  called  our  neighbour  ;  (2)  the  meaning  of  the 
 word  "  as,"  siait. 
 
 Christ  has  explained  who  our  neighbour  is  by  an  entire 
 parable  (5.  Ltike  x.  30).  He  says  that  every  man  is  our 
 neighbour. 
 
 The  meaning  of  the  word  "as"  is  not  so  obvious.  Some 
 take  it  materially,  as  if  we  were  ordered  to  wish  for  our 
 neighbour  all  that  we  wish  for  ourselves.  Others  regard 
 the  quality  and  manner,  and  that  we  must  love  our  neigh- 
 bour in  the  degree  in  which  we  love  ourselves.  Others 
 regard  the  result,  that  we  should  love  our  neighbour  with 
 such  effort  and  feeling  {conatu  et  effectu)  as  those  with  which 
 we  love  ourselves. 
 
 All  these  meanings  seem  contained  in  the  word  "as". 
 For  there  can  be  no  question  but  that  God  willed  us  to 
 desire  for  our  neighbour  all  that  we  desire  for  ourselves, 
 and,  for  the  sake  of  God,  to  love  him  as  we  love  ourselves. 
 But  the  question  is,  as  S.  Augustin  has  said,  how  we  are 
 commanded  to  wish  for  our  neighbour  what  we  wish  for 
 ourselves,  when  we  often  wish  for  evils — riches,  honours, 
 pleasures  ;  or  how  we  are  to  love  him  as  ourselves,  when 
 we  often  love  ourselves  wrongly  or  more  than  we  ought. 
 It  is  certain  that  we  ought  to  wish  for  ourselves  only  what 
 is  good,  and  to  love  ourselves  only  propter  Deiim.  If  we  do 
 this,  we  cannot  love  ourselves  otherwise  than  as  we  ought ; 
 and  we  are  therefore  commanded  to  love  our  neighbour  in 
 the  same  way. 
 
 It  will  be  objected  that  even  from  the  first  command- 
 ment of  loving  God  with  our  heart,  the  second  of  loving 
 our  neighbour  will  follow  ;  and  there  was  no  need  in  conse- 
 quence to  command  us  to  love  our  neighbour  as  ourselves. 
 The  obvious  reply  is,  that  it  is  less  natural  to  us  to  love  our 
 neighbour  than  it  is  to  love  ourselves ;  that  everyone  loves 
 himself  most  ;  and  that  the  law  in  question  was  given  us 
 for  this  especial  reason. 
 
Ch.  XXII.  41-44.]     THE   PHARISEES   ANSWERED.  243 
 
 Verse  41.  A)id  the  Pharisees  being  gathered  together. 
 
 S.  Mark  (xii.  35)  says  that  Christ  proposed  this  question 
 while  He  was  teaching  in  the  Temple  ;  but  the  explana- 
 tion is  more  obvious,  that  the  Pharisees  were  assembled  in 
 the  Temple. 
 
 SS.  Mark  and  Luke  do  not  say  that  Christ  asked  the 
 Pharisees,  but  said  to  them,  when  He  was  teaching,  "  How 
 do  the  Scribes  say?"  but,  as  S.  Augustin  {De  Consensu,  ii. 
 74)  says,  it  is  a  matter  of  no  moment.  S.  Matthew  has 
 given  both  the  question  and  the  objection,  "  What  think 
 you  ?  "  He  said,  "  How  then  doth  David  in  spirit  call  him 
 Lord  ?  " 
 
 The  other  two  Evangelists  have  not  given  the  question, 
 but  only  the  objection.  And  because  they  had  not  said 
 that  Christ  asked  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  they  do  not 
 say  "as  you  say,"  but  "as  the  Scribes  say".  Their  saying 
 "  as  the  Scribes  say "  when  it  was  not  the  Scribes,  but 
 Scripture,  has  been  explained  on  chap.  xvii.  10;  for  Scripture 
 is  said  to  say  what  is  not  found  in  it,  because  the  interpre- 
 ters of  Scripture  said  it. 
 
 Verse  43.  Hozu  then  doth  David  in  spirit. 
 That  is,  when  he  was  full  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  not  of  his 
 own,  which  might  be  deceived  and  lie,  but  of  the  Spirit  of 
 God,  which  can   do  neither.     It  is  a  Hebraism,  as  in  Ps. 
 XXX.  23  and  cxv.  2. 
 
 Verse  44.   The  Lord  said  to  my  Lord. 
 
 (See  Ps.  cix.  6.)  The  objections  of  the  Jews  were  chiefly 
 two  : 
 
 I.  That  the  psalm  was  not  written  by  David,  but  either 
 by  Melchisedech,  as  Rabbi  Abraham  says  in  his  commen- 
 taries, or  by  Eliezer,  the  servant  of  Abraham,  or  by  some 
 one  who  wrote  psalms  in  the  time  of  David,  as  Aben  Ezra 
 supposes. 
 
244  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxii.  45. 
 
 2.  The  second  objection  is  that  the  words  are  not  to  be 
 understood  of  Christ,  but  either  of  Abraham — as  is  the 
 present  opinion  of  the  Jews — or  of  David,  as  Aben  Ezra 
 and  Rabbi  David  think  ;  or  of  Ezechia,  king  of  the  Jews, 
 as  we  learn  from  S.  Justin  Martyr  {In  Tryph?)  and  Tertul- 
 h"an  iCont.  Mairion.,  v.)  that  the  Jews  used  to  explain  them 
 after  the  time  of  Christ.  This  has  been  refuted  on  the 
 Psalm  cix.  For  if  it  had  not  been  certain  in  the  time  of 
 Christ  that  the  Psalms  were  both  written  by  David,  and 
 must  be  understood  of  Christ,  it  would  have  been  obvious 
 for  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  who  were  much  more  learned 
 than  the  Jews  of  later  ages,  to  have  replied  to  it.  Now, 
 however,  the  modern  Jews  are  clearly  confuted  by  the 
 silence  of  their  forefathers. 
 
 Verse  45.  If  David  then  call  Him  Lord,  how  is  He  his  son  ? 
 Christ  speaks  from  the  opinion  of  the  Pharisees,  who 
 thought  that  Christ  would  be  a  mere  man,  although  Scrip- 
 ture declared  that  He  would  be  not  only  man,  but  also 
 God.  The  words  of  Christ,  then,  do  not  prove  that  He 
 was  not  the  son  of  David,  but  that  He  was  more  than  the 
 son  of  David  :  that  is,  the  son  of  God,  and  true  God  ;  and, 
 therefore,  David  called  Him  Lord. 
 
CHAPTER   XXIII. 
 
 CHRIST  ADMONISHES  THE  PEOPLE  TO  FOLLOW  THE  GOOD 
 DOCTRINE,  NOT  THE  BAD  EXAMPLE  OF  THE  SCRIBES 
 AND  PHARISEES — HE  WARNS  HIS  DISCIPLES  NOT  TO 
 IMITATE  THEIR  AMBITION,  AND  DENOUNCES  DIVERS 
 WOES  AGAINST  THEM  FOR  THEIR  HYPOCRISY  AND 
 BLINDNESS. 
 
 Verse  i.   Then. 
 
 When  He  saw  that  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  were  past 
 being  influenced  (S.  Chrysostom,  The  Author,  Euthymius). 
 
 Spoke  to  the  viultitiides  and  His  disciples. 
 
 Probably  not  to  all  the  disciples,  but  to  those  of  them 
 who  were  less  familiar  with  Him  and  not  so  deeply 
 instructed.  For  it  would  hardly  have  seemed  necessary  to 
 give  these  admonitions  to  the  Apostles  and  to  those  who 
 were  always  with  Him  (Origen,  Tract,  on  S.  Matt.  xiv.). 
 
 Verse  2.   On  the  chair  of  Moses. 
 
 Some  think  that  the  chair  of  Moses  was  a  platform  from 
 which  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  read  the  Law  in  the  hear- 
 ing of  the  people,  as  Esdras  did  (2  Esdras  viii.  4).  This  is 
 the  opinion  of  Euthymius,  though  confuted  by  others, 
 because  (5.  Liike  iv.  16  ;  Acts  xiii.  16)  we  learn  that  it  was 
 not  the  custom  of  the  Jews  that  they  who  read  or  explained 
 the  Scriptures  should  mount  a  platform,  but  should  speak 
 standing ;  as  is  the  custom  among  the  Jews  still,  and  was 
 
246  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxiii.  3. 
 
 formerly  among  Christians,  and  as  S.  Paul  wished  to  be 
 done  (i  Cor.  xiv.  30).  By  the  seat  of  Moses,  S.  Jerome 
 and  Bede  understand  the  doctrine  of  Moses.  Whoever 
 taught  this,  used  to  sit  on  a  seat,  though  such  is  not  the 
 custom  now. 
 
 Scribes  and  Pharisees. 
 On  these  and  their  duties,  see  chap.  ii.  4. 
 
 Verse  3.  ,1 II  things,  therefore,  zuhat soever  they  shall  say 
 to  you,  observe  and  do. 
 
 It  will  occur  to  the  reader  to  ask  how  Christ  could  teach 
 that  all  things  which  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  ordered 
 should  be  done,  when  He  so  frequently  blamed  their  doctrine 
 and  warned  them  (xvi.  1 2)  to  beware  of  their  leaven,  and 
 accused  the  disciples  (verses  16,  17)  of  their  false  doctrine. 
 S.  Augustin  {De  Doctrina  Christi,  lib.  iv,  27 ;  Cont.  Faust., 
 xvi.  29)  answers,  that  Christ  spoke  only  of  the  Pharisees  as 
 sitting  in  the  seat  of  Moses,  for  then  the  very  seat  itself 
 compelled  them  to  speak  the  truth.  But  who  can  doubt 
 that  they  would  have  taught  their  false  doctrines  in  that 
 seat  if  they  had  sat  on  it,  or  in  the  synagogue  and  school 
 of  Moses?  S.  Chrysostom  and  Euthymius  think  that  Christ 
 could  not  have  meant  all  their  Law,  but  only  those  things 
 which  were  necessary  to  salvation,  such  as  the  precepts  of 
 the  Decalogue  ;  for  He  was  so  far  from  commanding  the 
 observance  of  ceremonies  and  the  other  precepts,  which 
 were  only  given  for  a  time,  that  He  rather  did  them  away. 
 This  is  more  likely,  but  it  is  not  certain,  because  not  only 
 here  but  everywhere  else  He  commanded  them  to  keep  the 
 Law  and  its  ordinances,  and  He  Himself  kept  them  till  His 
 death,  because  they  were  not  then  done  away.  He  does 
 not  speak  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  but 
 of  the  Law  and  Moses  ;  as  if  He  had  said,  All  things  which 
 the  Law  and  Moses  say,  when  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees 
 read  them  to  you,  observe  and  do  ;  but  according  to  their 
 
Ch.  XXIII.  4,  5.]   THE    SCRIBES   AND   PHARISEES.  247 
 
 works  do  ye  not.  So  S.  Hilary  and  S.  Jerome  think.  It 
 will  be  asked  why  He  did  not  say,  "  Whatever  Moses  says," 
 but  instead,  "  Whatever  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  say, 
 observe  and  do  "  ?  Two  reasons  can  be  given  for  this  :  (i) 
 He  desired  to  expose  the  hypocrisy  of  the  Scribes  and 
 Pharisees,  which  He  would  not  have  done  if  He  had  not 
 said  that  they  taught  in  one  manner  and  lived  in  another  ; 
 and  (2)  He  was  about  to  censure  them  very  heavily,  and  it 
 seemed  more  befitting  to  praise  them  first,  that  He  might 
 not  appear  to  disapprove  everything  with  passion  and 
 without  judgment. 
 
 Verse  4.  For  they  bind  Jieavy  burdens. 
 
 The  meaning  is  not,  as  S.  Chrysostom  thinks,  of  cere- 
 monial burdens  ;  because,  as  said  before,  Christ  had  not  yet 
 done  away  the  Law  of  which  S.  Peter  spoke  in  Acts  xv.  10, 
 but  of  those  traditions  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  which 
 were  either  wholly  contrary  to  Scripture,  or  certainly  not 
 necessary  to  salvation  ;  such  as  are  mentioned  with  disap- 
 probation in  verses  5,  16,  17,  as  Origen  and  Theophylact 
 explain. 
 
 But  ivitJi  a  finger. 
 
 Christ  opposes  the  finger  to  the  shoulders.  The  Scribes 
 and  Pharisees  would  not  help  the  unhappy  persons  whom 
 they  had  burthened  with  their  senseless  laws  even  by  their 
 little  finger ;  they  would  neither  encourage  them  by  their 
 example  to  bear  their  burthens,  nor  act  as  stewards  in  their 
 own  traditions,  when  they  would  often  do  so  in  the  law  of 
 God  ;  that  is,  they  would  not  move  them  with  a  finger. 
 
 Verse  5 .  For  they  make  broad. 
 Christ  proves  the  truth  of  the  words  immediately  preced- 
 ing by  two  of  the  most  trivial  things — their  phylacteries 
 and  fringes.     For  how  could  they  who  placed  their  pride  in 
 such  matters  care  for  greater  ones  ? 
 
248  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTH?:W.        [Ch.  xxiii.  8. 
 
 Their  phylacteries. 
 
 Phylacteries,  as  Origen,  S.  Chrysostom,  S.  Jerome,  and 
 Euthymius  say,  were  parchments  on  which  precepts  of  the 
 Law  were  written,  and  which  the  Pharisees  and  Scribes 
 bound  round  their  heads  and  arms  to  keep  the  law  of  God 
 continually  before  their  eyes,  as  ordered  in  Dent.  vi.  8.  S. 
 Jerome  says  that  the  Indians,  Persians,  and  Babylonians 
 did  the  same  in  his  time  ;  and  thc}^  were  called  phylacteries 
 by  the  Greeks  because  the}'  were  instituted  to  preserve  the 
 memory  of  the  Law. 
 
 Certain  unwoven  fringes  il!^"'!*  hung  down  from  the 
 bottom  of  the  dress,  and  were  called  fimh'ite,  or  fringes, 
 by  the  Hebrews,  il^i''!?  tsitsith  {Numb.  xv.  28),  as  Rabbi 
 David  explains  it,  and  D''T'"f^   {Dcitt.  xxii.  12). 
 
 The  Jews  were  commanded  by  God  to  make  fringes  of 
 blue  in  the  two  passages  cited  above,  to  keep  them  in  re- 
 membrance of  the  Law.  The  Scribes  and  Pharisees  in- 
 creased their  size  more  than  the  other  Jews.  S.  Jerome 
 says  that  they  even  used  to  fasten  them  with  very  sharp 
 thorns,  which  pricked  them  when  they  walked  or  sat 
 down,  and  by  the  pain  reminded  them  of  the  Law.  It  may 
 be  asked  why  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  made  their  hems 
 and  fringes  broad  from  ambition.  It  has  been  answered 
 that  the  mere  precepts  of  the  Law  could  be  written  on 
 their  phylacteries,  but  it  cannot  be  said  of  the  fringes,  on 
 which  no  precepts  could  be  written.  It  is  more  likely,  as 
 Theophylact  thinks,  that  they  did  it  to  make  themselves 
 more  conspicuous  as  they  walked  about,  and  that  they 
 might  be  seen  to  be  observers  of  the  Law  ;  or,  as  is  the 
 opinion  of  S.  Chrysostom,  that  they  might  show  that  they 
 kept  the  Law  more  careful  1\-  than  the  other  Jews. 
 
 Verse  8.  But  be  not  ye  called  Rabbi. 
 From  these  words  to  verse   13  the  whole  is  a  \\'arning  of 
 
Ch.  xxiir.  13.]      THE   SCRIBES   AND   PHARISEES.  249 
 
 the  disciples  not  to  follow  the  example  of  the  Pharisees. 
 God  does  not  forbid  father  or  master  to  call  or  be  called  this, 
 absolutely,  but  only  in  comparison  with  Himself ;  and  the 
 Pharisees  of  whom  He  was  speaking.  That,  in  comparison 
 with  God,  we  should  think  that  there  could  be  neither 
 father  nor  master;  nor  prefer  either  these  titles  of  honour 
 and  love,  to  the  honour  and  love  of  Him.  In  comparison 
 with  the  Pharisees  ;  that  we  do  not  call  them  father,  or 
 master,  in  the  same  sense  as  they  do— that  is,  ambitiously 
 and  in  vain-glory — like  those  who  said,  "  I  am  of  Paul," 
 and  another,  "I  am  of  Apollo"  (i  Cor.  iii.  4),  glorying 
 each  in  his  own  master.  In  any  other  sense  we  may, 
 beyond  doubt,  both  call  ourselves  and  be  called  father  or 
 master. 
 
 Verse  1 3.  But  woe  to  yo7t. 
 This  verse  is  put  as  the  14th  by  S.  Chrysostcm,  Euthy- 
 mius,  Theophylact,  and  The  Author,  and  the  14th  is  put 
 here.  Christ  speaks  with  great  anger  of  the  Scribes  and 
 Pharisees  to  the  end  of  the  chapter,  especially  accusing  them 
 of  hypocrisy  :  not  in  any  sudden  outbreak  of  powerless 
 anger  or  slander,  but  with  the  fixed  plan  and  determination 
 of  warning  the  unhappy  people  before  His  approaching 
 death  not  to  be  deluded  by  the  false  pretences  of  these 
 men.  It  is  matter  of  doubt  whether  all  that  Christ  says 
 against  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  in  this  chapter  was  said 
 at  the  same  time  and  place.  For  S.  Luke  (xi.  39,  42-52) 
 relates  much  of  it  as  if  spoken  at  a  different  time  ;  and  S. 
 Augustin  (JDe  Consens.,  ii.  75)  thinks  that  there  were  two  con- 
 versations, one  given  by  S.  Matthew,  the  other  by  S.  Luke, 
 and  that  Christ  said  the  same  things  twice.  But  it  would 
 appear  more  probable  that  He  said  all  once,  and  at  the 
 same  time,  as  appears  from  S.  Luke,  but  that  S.  Matthew 
 brought  all  into  one  in  this  place  because  the  argument 
 was  the  same,  and   that  He  acted  thus,  not  to  frame  the 
 
2  50  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.xxiii.  13. 
 
 history  in  the  exact  order  of  time,  but  to  set  forth  the 
 doctrine  of  Christ,  as  in  the  preceding  chapter  (verse  2) 
 under  similar  circumstances. 
 
 Because  you  shut  the  kijigdoin  of  heaven. 
 
 S.  Luke  says  a  Httle  otherwise  (xi.  52)  :  You  have  taken 
 away  the  key  of  knowledge.  These  words  have  more  force, 
 for  they  signify  that  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  had  so 
 usurped  to  themselves  the  knowledge  of  the  Law  that  they 
 thought  that  no  one,  unless  they  themselves  showed  them 
 the  way,  could  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  The 
 metaphor  is  taken  from  the  master  of  the  house,  who  keeps 
 the  key  of  it  if  he  does  not  wish  persons  to  enter  or  leave 
 it  without  his  consent.  The  Scribes  and  Pharisees  are  said 
 to  shut  the  kingdom  of  heaven  because  they  taught  men 
 that  no  one  could  enter  unless  they  themselves  opened, 
 that  is,  taught  them  how  to  enter  ;  under  which  idea  they 
 placed  upon  the  people  all  the  traditions  they  pleased,  like 
 heavy  burthens.  The  words  "  Before  men  "  is  a  Hebraism 
 D1^5  ^y&7  "  the  opening  of  the  door  before  the  eyes  of 
 men,"  by  which  is  meant  that  they  prevented  many  who 
 were  at  the  threshold  of  the  gate  of  heaven  ;  and  who, 
 unless  they  prevented  them,  would  enter  in,  as  S.  Chrysos- 
 tom  perceived  and  as  is  indicated  in  the  next  words,  Vos 
 nan,  "  You  yourselves  do  not  enter  in,  and  those  that  are 
 going  in  you  suffer  not  to  enter  ". 
 
 The  meaning  of  the  words,  "  You  yourselves  do  not  enter 
 in,"&c.,  has  been  explained  in  two  ways.  Origen,  Hilary, 
 The  Author,  S.  Jerome,  and  Bcde  think  that  they  them- 
 selves did  not  believe  in  Christ  and  hindered  others  from 
 doing  so  ;  but,  as  was  said  on  verse  3,  Christ  is  speaking 
 here  of  the  observance  of  the  Law.  S.  Chrysostom's 
 opinion  seems  better  :  that  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  had 
 not  entered  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  because  they  did 
 not  keep  the  ordinances  of  God  ;  and  they  prevented  others 
 
Ch.  XXIII.  14.]      THE   SCRIBES   AND   PHARISEES.  25 1 
 
 from  doing  so,  because  they  loaded  them  with  useless  and 
 intolerable  traditions  ;  and  when  the  people  could  not 
 keep  them  they  could  not,  at  least  in  the  opinion  of  the 
 Pharisees,  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  but  it  did  not 
 hinder  their  salvation  that  they  had  not  kept  the  traditions 
 of  the  Pharisees.  Christ,  however,  speaks  from  the  opinion 
 of  the  Pharisees.  This  meaning  is  easily  gathered  from 
 verse  16,  &c. 
 
 Verse  14.  Because  yoii  devour  tJie  houses  of  ividows. 
 
 Some  think  that  Origen  and  S.  Jerome  did  not  read  this 
 verse,  as  they  did  not  explain  it,  and  it  is  not  in  the  eighth 
 Canon  of  the  Gospels,  in  which  only  SS.  Mark  and  Luke 
 are  contained.  This  would  go  rather  against  the  Canon 
 than  the  Gospels,  for  all  versions,  Latin,  Greek,  and  Syriac, 
 have  it.  This  and  the  former  verse,  as  said  before,  have 
 been  transposed  by  the  Greeks. 
 
 The  Scribes  and  Pharisees  are  said  to  devour  widows' 
 houses,  that  is,  their  property  ;  but  the  manner  of  their 
 doing  so  is  not  certain.  Some  think  that  they  visited  the 
 houses  of  widows  to  give  them  consolation  as  such,  and 
 being  entertained  liberally  for  their  office  and  dignity,  they 
 thus  devoured  their  substance.  Others  suppose  that 
 widows  sought  them  as  men  of  holiness,  and  purchased 
 their  prayers.  This  is  more  likely,  as  the  words  that 
 follow  immediately,  "  Praying  long  prayers,"  show:  giving 
 the  probable  reason  of  their  devouring  their  houses,  that 
 they  sold  these  prayers.  Christ  seems  to  have  mentioned 
 widows  rather  than  other  women  for  two  especial  reasons  : 
 (i)  because  such  are  thought  to  be  more  especially  religious, 
 and  are  much  more  easily  imposed  upon  by  the  appearance 
 of  holiness  ;  and  (2)  because  it  was  a  much  greater  wicked- 
 ness in  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  to  devour  the  substance 
 of  widows,  who  should  rather  have  received  comfort  and 
 support,  than  to  consume  the  property  of  other  less  un- 
 
25?  THE   GOSPEL   OF    S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxiii.  15. 
 
 happy  persons.     This  is  the  view  taken  by  S.  Chrysostom 
 and  Euthymius. 
 
 Praying  long  prayers. 
 
 The  Greek  adds  Ka\  7rpo(f)da6L  fxaKpa  7rpoaev)(0[xevoi,  "and 
 for  a  pretence,  or,  for  an  occasion,  making  long  prayers  "  ; 
 our  version  does  not  contain  the  words  Kal  or  irpoc^daei.. 
 The  former  seems,  indeed,  not  to  be  required  by,  but  to  be 
 at  variance  with,  the  text.  The  other  word,  "  for  an 
 occasion  "  (Trpocjidaet),  seems  to  be  tenable  and  agreeable 
 to  the  meaning  of  the  passage.  Our  interpreter  probably 
 read  them,  but  gave  the  meaning  rather  than  the  words. 
 The  word  "  occasion,"  if  it  remain,  may  mean  the  bait 
 which  the  priests  and  Pharisees  used  with  their  long 
 prayers  to  take  the  means  of  the  women  ;  as  it  is  used  by 
 S.  Paul :  "  What  then  ?  So  that  by  all  means,  whether  by 
 occasion  or  by  truth,  Christ  be  preached ;  in  this  also  I 
 rejoice,  yea,  and  will  rejoice"  i^PJiil.  i.  18). 
 
 For  this  yon  shall  receive  the  greater  jndgnient. 
 
 That  is,  double  the  judgment  of  the  rest,  as  the  next 
 verse  describes,  because  they  sinned  twofold  :  (i)  by  con- 
 suming the  means  of  the  widows  ;  and  (2)  by  doing  it 
 under  the  pretence  of  holiness  ;  as  S.  Chrysostom  and  The 
 Author  have  observed.  "Judgment"  is  put  by  a  Hebraism, 
 and  according  to  Scripture,  for  condemnation.  "Receive" 
 signifies  in  Hebrew  both  to  receive  and  to  bear  (ferre). 
 
 Verse  1 5.  Yon  go  abont  the  sea  and  the  land  (^'aridam  "). 
 That  is,  you  leave  nothing  undone  to  make  one  proselyte. 
 This  seems  a  kind  of  proverb  like  leaving  no  stone  un- 
 turned among  the  Latins,  and  "  to  move  every  rope " 
 among  the  Greeks.  The  land  is  called  aridani  (dry)  in 
 agreement  with  the  Hebrew,  as  in  Goi.  i.  10,  and  as  the 
 Greeks  often  called  it.     S.  Chrysostom  and  Euthymius  on 
 
Ch.  XXIII.  15.]       THE    SCRIBES   AND    PHARISEES.  253 
 
 the  passage  say  that  the  words  describe  not  the  diHgence 
 of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  but  the  difficulty  of  the 
 matter,  as  if  the  meaning  were  :  "  Woe  to  you,  Scribes  and 
 Pharisees,  who  by  your  wickedness  so  turn  away  strangers 
 from  all  desire  of  the  divine  Law,  that  it  is  so  difficult  to 
 make  even  one  proselyte  to  the  true  religion,  that  you  are 
 compelled  to  go  round  about  sea  and  land  for  him".  But 
 it  is  clearly  not  the  difficulty  that  is  meant,  but  the  zeal 
 and  ambition  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  who  endea- 
 voured most  anxiously  to  draw  the  Gentiles  to  the  Jewish 
 religion,  either  from  ambition  that  they  might  increase 
 the  number  of  the  people  of  God,  and  have  the  government 
 of  them  from  their  holiness  and  doctrine,  as  some  say  ;  or, 
 as  The  Author  and  others  think,  that  by  augmenting  the 
 number  of  the  Jews,  they  might  increase  the  number  of 
 sacrifices,  and  thus  get  greater  profit  for  themselves. 
 Either  is  credible  of  the  Pharisees.  The  Greeks  called 
 those  who  turned  from  Gentile  superstitions  to  the  religion 
 of  the  Jews,  proselytes,  the  Hebrews  D'^'^^  and  Christians, 
 neophytes  (i  Tim.  iii.  6). 
 
 A  nd  wJien  he  is  made,  you  make  him  the  child  of  hell. 
 
 This  is  a  Hebraism,  by  which  he  is  called  a  child  of  hell 
 who  has  merited  hell,  as  he  is  called  a  child  of  death  who 
 is  in  time  to  die. 
 
 Twofold  more  than  yoiir selves. 
 
 AiifXorepov  vixwv,  "Twofold  more  than  yourselves";  that 
 is,  you  merit  a  twofold  condemnation  and  punishment,  but 
 you  make  him  merit  a  more  than  twofold.  It  was  shown 
 in  the  preceding  verse  how  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  were 
 deserving  of  a  twofold  punishment.  Their  sin  was  twofold  : 
 avarice  and  the  simulation  of  holiness.  How  they  could 
 make  their  proselytes  worse  than  themselves  may  be  a 
 question,    for   it    seems    scarcely    possible.      The   Author 
 
254  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxiii.  i6. 
 
 thinks  that  the  proselytes  deserved  a  heavier  punishment 
 than  the  Pharisees,  because  they  sinned  more  heavily  in 
 not  believing  Christ  when  they  had  forsaken  their  idolatry, 
 than  if  they  had  never  left  it.  S.  Chrysostom  says  that  the 
 Pharisees  deliberately  endeavoured  to  make  their  converts 
 from  idolatry  worse  than  themselves.  The  Author  and 
 Euthymius  say,  with  more  reason,  that  they  were  more 
 inclined  by  nature  to  copy  vice  than  virtue,  and  that  thus 
 the  masters  were  easily  surpassed  in  wickedness  by  their 
 disciples. 
 
 Verse  i6.  Blind  guides. 
 They  are  called  guides,  not  as  being  true  guides,  but 
 either  from  their  office  of  teachers,  or  from  the  opinion  of 
 those  who  set  themselves  up  as  the  leaders  of  the  rest :  as 
 the  idols  of  the  Gentiles  are  called  gods,  because  the 
 Gentiles  thought  them  such,  and  the  false  prophets  are 
 often  called  Prophets. 
 
 Whosoever  swears  by  the  Temple. 
 'Ev   rS   vacu,   by  a    Hebraism    for  per,   "  by,"   as   in   the 
 following  verses  1  is  put  both  for  in  and  per. 
 
 It  is  notJiing. 
 
 That  is,  the  person  owes  nothing,  is  not  a  debtor.  Some 
 say  that  this  is  not  to  be  taken  absolutely,  but  compara- 
 tively ;  for  it  is  not  likely  that  the  Pharisees  were  so 
 shameless  as  to  teach  that  it  was  no  sin  to  swear  by  the 
 Temple :  but  that  it  was  a  less  sin  than  to  swear  by  the 
 gold  of  the  Temple,  though  many  of  the  Ancients  thought 
 this.  S.  Jerome,  Theophyiact,  and  S.  Thomas  explain  it 
 thus.  If  any  man,  in  any  suit  or  doubtful  question,  swore 
 by  the  Temple,  and  was  afterwards  convicted  of  falsehood, 
 he  was  not  held  guilty  ;  but  if  he  swore  by  the  gold  and 
 money  which  were  offered  to  the  priests  in  the  Temple,  he 
 was  at  once  compelled  to  make  good  that  which  he  had 
 
Ch.  XXIII.  17-23.]  THE   SCRIBES   AND   PHARISEES.  255 
 
 sworn  to  do.  Again,  if  a  man  swore  by  the  altar,  no  one 
 thought  him  guilty  of  perjury  ;  but  if  he  swore  by  the 
 oblations — that  is,  the  victims  or  sacrifices,  or  other  offerings 
 to  God  on  the  altar — the  vow  was  required  to  be  most 
 strictly  performed.  The  above  authors  think  that  avarice 
 was  the  original  cause  of  this  tradition.  It  is  a  question 
 what  was  meant  by  the  gold  of  the  Temple.  Theophylact 
 thinks  it  meant  all  the  gold  with  which  the  interior  of  the 
 Temple  was  adorned  ;  Euthymius,  the  vessels,  candle- 
 sticks, and  other  gold  furniture  of  the  Temple ;  S.  Jerome 
 and  Bede,  all  the  money  of  the  Temple,  which  is  more 
 likely. 
 
 Verse  1 7.  For  zvJictJicr. 
 
 Christ  gives  as  His  reason  for  calling  the  Pharisees  blind 
 that  they  do  not  see  that  the  Temple  is  greater  than  the 
 gold.  Christ  argues  from  the  natural  axiom  which  is 
 found  in  Aristotle,  "  That,  because  of  which  a  thing  is  such 
 as  it  is,  is  greater  than  the  thing"  (lib.  i.,  poster.  2).  For  the 
 gold  in  the  Temple  would  not  be  holy  unless  the  Temple 
 were  holy.     The  Temple,  therefore,  is  more  holy. 
 
 Verse  22.  And  Jie  that  sivcarcth  by  heaven. 
 Chap.  V.  34  explains  this. 
 
 Verse  23.  And y on  have  left. 
 
 The  time  past  is  meant  here,  when  the  Scribes  and 
 Pharisees  had  consigned  the  most  weighty  precepts  of  God 
 to  oblivion,  as  completely  as  if  they  had  been  abrogated. 
 
 Judgment. 
 
 Christ  explains  the  more  weighty  precepts  of  the  Law, 
 which  they  had  long  ago  forsaken  :  judgment,  by  which 
 his  right  is  rendered  to  every  man — for  the  Scribes  and 
 Pharisees  were  often  judges,  as  in  chap.  v.  22 — and  Scrip- 
 
256  Till-:   (JOSPEL   OF    S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxiii.  24,  23. 
 
 ture  hates  nothing  more  than  corrupt  or  perverse  judgment 
 {Dent.  xvi.  19 ;  ha.  i.  25  ;  Midi.  iii.  1 1  ;  vii.  3). 
 
 Mercy. 
 Love  of  our  neighbour,   which    God    prefers   before  all 
 things  {Osee  vi.  6  ;  Apoc.  ix.  13  ;  Mich.  vi.  8  ;  ZacJi.  vii.  9). 
 
 Faith. 
 Not  divine  faith,  by  which  we  believe  in  God,  but  the 
 human  faith,  by  which  we  keep  our  mutual  compacts.  It 
 is  defined  to  be  "  trustworthiness  in  speech  and  act "  {Lib. 
 de  Offic,  i.).  God  would  have  it  carefully  kept  {Levit. 
 vi.  2,  4,  5). 
 
 Verse  24.    WJio  strain  out  a  gnat  and  swalloiv  a  camel. 
 
 In  hot  climates  gnats  are  apt  to  get  into  the  wine,  so 
 that  it  is  often  necessary  to  strain  it  before  drinking.  A 
 camel  is  named,  after  the  custom  of  the  country,  as  the 
 greatest  object  opposed  to  the  least  (ix.  27).  It  appears  to 
 have  been  a  proverb  like  the  other,  "  It  is  easier  for  a 
 camel  to  go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle". 
 
 Verse  25.  The  outside  of  the  cup  and  the  dish. 
 TO  e^wOev  Tov  TroTrjpiov.  The  outside  of  the  cup  and  of 
 the  dish,  or,  what  would  be  nearer  the  Greek  idiom,  c/uod 
 extra  calicein  et  paropsidcni  est.  S.  Matthew  calls  the  cup 
 caliceut,  and  the  dish  from  which  the  food  was  taken 
 paropsidein.  S.  Luke  calls  the  latter  catinuiii,  which  is  a 
 similar  thing  or  the  same. 
 
 But  ivitJiin. 
 That  is,  the  contents,  for  ra  is  understood.  The  cup  and 
 the  dish  are  the  man  him.self.  The  outside  is  the  defile- 
 ments of  the  body,  the  inside  those  of  the  soul.  The  appli- 
 cation is  to  those  who  gave  too  much  care  to  the  removal 
 of  bodily  stains,  and  too  little  to  remedy  the  faults  of  the 
 
Ch.  XXIII.  26,  29.]     THE   SCRIBES   AND   PHARISEES.  257 
 
 soul.  This  also  appears  to  have  been  a  proverb,  by  which 
 is  meant  a  man  who  regards  too  much  the  things  that  are 
 less  essential,  and  neglects  what  is  of  real  importance  ;  as 
 if  he  should  clean  the  outside  of  a  vessel  which  contains 
 meat  or  drink,  and  leave  the  inside  unclean. 
 
 Verse  26.  That  the  outside  may  become  clean. 
 It  has  been  asked  how,  the  inside  being  cleansed,  that 
 which  is  without  should  be  cleansed  ;  for  there  appears  to 
 be  no  obstacle  to  a  man  having  a  clean  mind  but  a  soiled 
 body.  That  which  is  from  without  is  ordered  to  be  made 
 clean  after  the  inside  has  been  so ;  whereas  the  outside  does 
 not  more  defile  than  if  it  were  not  unclean,  as  is  said 
 in  chap.  xv.  11  :  "  Not  that  which  goeth  into  the  mouth 
 defileth  a  man,  but  what  cometh  out  of  the  mouth,  this  de- 
 fileth  a  man  "  ;  and  Titus  i.  15:  "  All  things  are  clean  to 
 the  clean  ;  but  to  them  that  are  defiled  and  to  unbelievers 
 nothing  is  clean  ;  but  both  their  mind  and  their  conscience 
 are  defiled  ". 
 
 Verse  29.    That  build  the   sepulchres  of  the  Prophets  and 
 adorn  the  monuments  of  the  Just. 
 
 Christ  seems  to  call  the  same  persons  Prophets  and 
 just  men,  as  in  other  places,  and  ^.  Jo/m  ix.  17:  as  the 
 tombs  and  monuments  are  the  same.  The  Hebrew  often 
 expresses  the  same  idea  in  different  words.  They  built  the 
 tombs  of  the  Prophets,  as  S.  Hilary  says,  when  decayed  by 
 time.  It  appears  from  this  passage  that  these  tombs  were 
 held  in  honour  by  the  Jews,  and  it  was  not  blameable,  but 
 praiseworthy,  in  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  to  take  care  of 
 them,  as  Origen  {Tract,  in  Matt,  xxvi.),  S.  Chrysostom,  and 
 Euthymius  point  out.  Christ  does  not  blame  them  for 
 this ;  but  because,  when  they  had  built  these  up,  they 
 committed  worse  murders  than  they  who  killed  the  Pro- 
 phets, whose  sepulchres  they  built. 
 2—17 
 
258  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.    [Ch.  xxiii.  31,32. 
 
 Verse  31.  Wherefore  yon  are  witnesses  against  yourselves, 
 that  yoii.  are  the  sons  of  them  that  killed  the  PropJiets. 
 Christ  convicts  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  out  of  their 
 own  lips  of  being  the  sons  of  those  who  slew  the  Prophets  : 
 "If  we  had  been  in  the  days  of  our  fathers  we  would  not 
 have  been  partakers  with  them  in  the  blood  of  the  Pro- 
 phets " — that  they  bear  witness  against  themselves  that 
 the}-  are  the  sons  of  those  who  killed  the  Prophets  ;  but  S. 
 Luke  states  the  case  a  little  differently  (xi.  48)  :  "  Truly 
 you  bear  witness  that  you  consent  to  the  doings  of  your 
 fathers  :  for  they  indeed  killed  them,  and  you  build  their 
 sepulchres  ".  It  is  probable  that  Christ  said  both  what  S. 
 Matthew  and  what  S.  Luke  ascribe  to  Him,  and  that  S. 
 Matthew  recorded  one  of  the  sayings  and  S.  Luke  the 
 other.  It  remains  to  be  seen  how,  in  .S.  Luke,  Christ  con- 
 cludes that  they  bear  witness  that  they  consented  to  the 
 deeds  of  their  fathers.  Christ  does  not  appear  to  conclude 
 this  ex  a7iimi  sententia,  but  only  to  turn  the  argument  which 
 the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  used  to  prove  their  holiness 
 against  them,  and  to  prove  their  wickedness.  For  they 
 who  built  the  tombs  of  the  Prophets  might  appear  either 
 to  have  done  so  in  their  honour,  or  to  kill  them  a  second 
 time — that  is,  to  bury  their  memories  with  their  bodies  ; 
 like  robbers,  who  bury  their  victims,  not  from  humanity, 
 but  to  prevent  their  being  discovered.  The  Scribes  and 
 Pharisees  use  the  argument  in  the  former  sense ;  Christ  in 
 the  latter ;  not  to  show  that  they  built  the  tombs  of  the 
 Prophets  with  the  design  of  consenting  to  the  murders  of 
 their  fathers,  but  that  the  fact  itself  might  be  taken  in  this 
 sense,  as  well  as  in  the  contrary  one. 
 
 Verse  32.  Fill yc  up  then  the  measure  of  your  fathers. 
 That  is,  "Kill  those  Prophets  whom,  as  thc}'  were  not  yet 
 in  existence,  your  fathers  could  not  kill".     Christ  means 
 Himself  and  those  whom  He  said  (verse  34)  that  He  would 
 
Ch.  XXIII.  33,  34-]      THE   SCRIBES   AND   PHARISEES.  259 
 
 send.  S.  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  and  Euthymius  have 
 observed  that,  although  Christ  appears  to  command,  He 
 does  not  really  do  so,  but  foretells  what  would  happen,  as 
 He  did  when  He  said  to  Judas  Iscariot  (5.  John  xiii.  27), 
 "  That  which  thou  doest,  do  quickly  ".  It  might  rather  be 
 said  that  He  made  a  concession  to  them. 
 
 Verse  33.  You  serpents,  generation  of  vipers. 
 ( Vide  chap.  iii.  7.)    The  meaning  is,  as  they  were  the  sons 
 of  vipers,  what  could  they  be  but  vipers  themselves?  for  the 
 offspring  cannot  be  better  than  their  parents,  though  they 
 are  often  worse. 
 
 Hoiu  zvill  you  flee  from  the  judgment  of  Jiell? 
 That  is,  how  can  you  be  saved,  being,  as  you  are,  vipers? 
 This  is  not  said  as  a  thing  impossible,  for  they  might  brhig 
 forth  penitence  and  be  saved  :  but  that  those  who  have 
 persisted  long  and  obstinately  in  wickedness  rarely  repent ; 
 or  they  might  have  been  so  hardened  as  to  appear  beyond 
 the  hope  of  amendment. 
 
 Verse  34.  Therefore. 
 Christ  does  not  say  why  He  would  send  Prophets,  and 
 wise  men,  and  Scribes,  for  He  was  not  about  to  send  them 
 on  account  of  the  wickedness  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  ; 
 but  He  gives  the  reason  for  which  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees 
 would  put  them  to  death.  They  were  serpents  and  genera- 
 tions of  vipers,  which  are  hostile  to  the  life  of  man,  S.  Luke 
 (xi.  49)  speaks  otherwise :  "  For  this  cause  also  the  wisdom  of 
 God  said,  I  will  send  to  them  Prophets  and  Apostles,  and 
 some  of  them  they  will  kill  and  persecute  ".  Christ  seems  to 
 bring  up  the  testimony  of  some  Prophet,  when  none  such 
 is  in  Scripture.  It  is  credible  that  Christ  said  what  is 
 related  by  S.  Luke,  and  did  not  say,  "  Behold,  I  send,"  as  S. 
 Matthew  says,  but  "  The  wisdom  of  God  said,  I  will  send," 
 lest  if  He  had  said,  "  I  send,"  He  should  appear  to  make 
 
260  THE   OOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxiii.  35. 
 
 Himself  God,  whose  prerogative  it  is  to  send  the  Prophets. 
 S,  Matthew  gives  the  meaning,  but  not  the  words.  For  it 
 is  the  same  thing  in  Him  to  say,  "The  wisdom  of  God 
 sends,"  and  "  I  send,"  because  He  is  the  wisdom  of  God, 
 and  by  the  ambiguity  of  His  words  He  escaped  ill-will. 
 He  would  not  therefore  cite  the  words  of  any  of  the  Pro- 
 phets, but  spoke  as  Himself  interpreting  the  will  of  God 
 and  announcing  the  future.  As  the  Prophets  used  to  say, 
 "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  so  He  said,  "  The  wisdom  of  God 
 saith  " — that  is,  "  decreed  " — a  Hebraism. 
 
 Prophets  and  wise  men  and  Scribes. 
 S.  Luke  says  Prophets  and  Apostles  ;  hence  it  appears 
 that  Christ  called  His  Apostles  Scribes  and  Prophets,  as  in 
 accordance  with  the  ordinary  language  of  the  Jews,  by 
 whom  the  Scribes  were  called  Doctors  of  the  Law  (xiii.  52  ; 
 I  Cor.  i.  20).  Where  is  the  wise  ?  Where  is  the  Scribe  ? 
 Where  is  the  disputer  of  this  world  ? 
 
 Verse  35.  That  upon y 021.  may  come. 
 
 Euthymius  rightly  observes  that  in  this  passage  "  that " 
 signifies  not  the  cause  but  the  effect.  It  is  a  Hebrew 
 expression  signifying  that  the  blood  of  one  may  come 
 upon  another,  or  upon  his  head ;  that  is,  that  he  may  suffer 
 the  punishment  of  murder,  as  chap,  xxvii.  25  :  "  His  blood 
 be  upon  us  and  upon  our  children" — that  is,  "we  and  our 
 children  will  answer  for  it,  and  if  there  be  any  sin,  we  will 
 suffer  the  penalty".  A  similar  expression  is  found  in  other 
 places  :  Levit.  xx.  9-13  ;  Joshua  xi.  19  ;  2  Kings  i.  16.  As 
 the  Latins  say,  "If  any  evil  happen,  on  me  and  my  head 
 be  it "  (Seneca,  De  Bcneficiis,  xxxi.). 
 
 TJiat  upon  you  may  come  all  the  Just  blood  that  hath  been 
 
 shed  upon  the  earth,  Jroni  the  blood  oj  Abel  the  Just  even 
 
 to  the  blood  of  Zacharias  the  son  of  BaracJiias,  zvhom 
 
 yoji  killed  between  the  Temple  and  the  Altar. 
 
 Christ  evidently  intended  to  say  that  they  should  suffer 
 
Ch.  XXIII.  35.]       THE   SCRIBES   AND    PHARISEES.  261 
 
 punishment  for  the  death  of  all  the  Prophets  who  had  been 
 slain  by  the  Jews.  Abel  is  numbered  among  the  Prophets, 
 because  he  seemed  to  foreshow  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  by 
 his  own,  as  S.  Paul  says  {Heb.  xi.  4).  Christ  enumerates 
 Abel  amongst  those  who  were  slain  by  the  Jews,  when  he 
 was  not  so,  because  Cain,  by  whom  he  was  slain,  was  the 
 head  of  all  murderers,  and  although  he  was  not  by  nature 
 the  father  of  the  Jews,  he  was  so  by  imitation.  The  Jews 
 are  said  to  be  his  sons,  therefore,  in  the  sense  in  which  they 
 are  said  to  be  the  sons  of  the  devil  (5.  John  viii.  44 ;  5. 
 Jude  11).  So  says  The  Author.  There  is  a  question  here 
 as  to  who  was  the  Zacharias  of  whom  Christ  speaks,  as 
 there  were  many  of  that  name.  Some  think  that  Christ 
 speaks  of  Zacharias  the  father  of  John  the  Baptist.  These 
 mention  an  ancient  apocryphal  tradition  that  when,  after 
 the  birth  of  Christ,  His  mother  went  as  before  to  sit  among 
 the  virgins,  the  priests  prevented  her,  as  she  had  borne  a 
 son  ;  and  slew  Zacharias,  her  defender,  who  knew  that  she 
 was  a  virgin,  and  that  for  this  reason  he  was  slain  by  the 
 other  priests  between  the  Temple  and  the  Altar.  So  say 
 Origen  {Tract,  in  S.  Matt,  xvi.),  S.  Basil  {Hojh.  de  Human. 
 Generat.  Christ.),  Theophylact  and  Euthymius  {in  ioc),  Epi- 
 phanius  {Hceres.  Gnost.).  This  would  agree  well  with  the 
 text  if  there  were  any  support  for  it  from  history.  For 
 Zacharias,  the  father  of  John,  was  the  last  of  the  Prophets; 
 and  it  is  clear  that  Christ  intended  to  say  that  the  Scribes 
 and  Pharisees  should  suffer  punishment  for  the  blood  of  all 
 the  Prophets  who  had  been  slain  from  the  first  to  the  last. 
 But  the  name  Barachias  does  not  agree,  for  there  is  nothing 
 to  show  that  the  father  of  Zacharias  vvas  Barachias. 
 
 Others  think  that  Christ  spoke  of  that  Zacharias  who 
 was  one  of  the  Prophets,  for  {Zach.  i.  i)  he  is  called  the 
 son  of  Barachias.  Origen,  S.  Chrysostom,  and  S.  Jerome 
 think  this.  Others,  again,  suppose  him  to  have  been  the 
 Zacharias   the   son  of  Jehoida  the  priest,  who   (2   Paral. 
 
262  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Cii.  xxiii.  35. 
 
 xxiv.  21)  is  said  to  have  been  slain  between  the  Temple 
 and  the  Altar.  This  is  the  opinion  of  S.  Jerome,  Bede, 
 and  all  the  later  authorities.  It  is  more  likely  than  the 
 others,  as  this  is  the  only  Zacharias  mentioned  in  Scripture 
 as  having  been  slain  between  the  Temple  and  the  Altar  ; 
 and  it  is  very  probable  that  Christ  would  have  alluded  to 
 a  fact  that  was  well  known  and  which  is  related  in  Scrip- 
 ture. There  is  one  objection,  however,  to  this.  The 
 Zacharias  of  Scripture  is  called  the  son,  not  of  Barachias, 
 but  Jehoida.  Two  answers  have  been  given  to  the  objec- 
 tion. I.  As  S.  Jerome  says,  Christ  regarded  not  the  sound 
 of  the  name  (vox  nominis),  but  the  meaning.  Barachias 
 means  in  Hebrew,  "Blessed  of  the  Lord"  ;  that  is,  a  just 
 man,  one  abounding  in  divine  grace,  such  as  all  Scripture 
 states  Jehoida  to  have  been.  2.  Jehoida  had  two  names, 
 and  was  called  Jehoida  by  name  and  Barachias  by  sur- 
 name. This  conjecture  is  probable,  and  in  confirmation  of 
 it  S.  Jerome  says  that  he  read  in  the  Gospel  of  the 
 Nazarenes,  for  "  the  son  of  Barachias,"  "  the  son  of 
 Jehoida". 
 
 Another  objection  may  occur,  that  this  Zacharias  was 
 not  the  last  of  the  Prophets,  as  Christ  appears  to  signify ; 
 for  there  were  many  after  him,  and  John  Baptist  was  the 
 last  who  was  slain.  The  answer  is  easy.  Christ  only 
 speaks  of  those  Prophets  who  are  mentioned  as  having 
 been  slain  in  Holy  Scripture,  that  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees 
 might  not  be  able  to  deny  that  these  were  put  to  death  by 
 their  fathers.  Among  those  of  whom  we  read  in  Scripture 
 as  having  been  put  to  death,  that  Zacharias,  the  son  of 
 Jehoida,  was  the  last. 
 
 Another  question  may  here  arise  —  how  Christ  could 
 threaten  that  all  the  blood  of  the  ancient  Prophets  should 
 come  upon  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  when  they  had  not 
 killed  them  themselves,  and  the  son  ought  not  to  bear  the 
 iniquity  of  his  father  {Ezck.  xviii.  19). 
 
Ch.  xxiii.  35.]        THE   SCRIBES   AND   PHARISEES.  263 
 
 It  has  been  answered  that  all  the  Jews  were  as  one  con- 
 gregation and  nation.  In  nations,  the  deeds  of  the  fathers 
 are  accounted  as  those  of  their  descendants.  Thus  the 
 Amalekites,  because  they  refused  a  passage  through  their 
 country  to  the  children  of  Israel  when  coming  out  of 
 Egypt,  are  ordered  to  be  wholly  cut  off  {Exod.  xvii.  8-14). 
 This  was  not  done  till  more  than  four  hundred  years  after, 
 when  none  of  those  who  refused  the  Israelites  were  alive 
 (i  Kings  XV.  6,  7).  On  the  same  principle,  the  Scribes  and 
 Pharisees  were  made  accountable  for  the  blood  of  the 
 Prophets  ;  not  that  they  killed  them  themselves,  but  as 
 their  state  and  forefathers  did  so,  they  themselves  are  said 
 to  have  done  it.  So  say  S.  Jerome  and  Bede.  Others  say 
 that  the  sons  often  share  the  punishment  of  their  fathers 
 when  they  follow  their  sins,  as  God  has  threatened  {Exod. 
 XX.  5).  Others,  again,  that  the  children  are  not  punished 
 for  the  sins  of  their  fathers,  even  when  they  follow  their  sins : 
 but  are  said  to  be  so,  because,  when  they  did  not  reject 
 their  example,  they  suffered  heavier  punishments.  So 
 say  S.  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  and  Euthymius.  It 
 does  not  seem  necessary  to  speak  here  as  to  whether 
 children  are  punished  for  the  sins  of  their  fathers,  because 
 the  question  has  been  discussed  at  length  on  Exod.  xx. 
 5.  It  would  appear  that  in  this  instance  Christ  spoke 
 in  the  ordinary  human  manner,  and  meant  only  that  the 
 Scribes  and  Pharisees  would  suffer  such  heavy  punishments 
 for  their  murders  that  they  might  seem  to  bear  the  weight 
 even  of  those  of  their  fathers,  as  well  as  their  own  :  not 
 that  they  had  to  bear  them  both,  but  that  they  would  be 
 punished  more  heavily,  and  they  merited  no  mercy.  We 
 say  of  an  assassin  who  has  committed  many  murders  with 
 impunity,  if  he  perpetrates  a  fresh  one  and  is  convicted  and 
 executed,  that  he  has  paid  all  at  once.  Not  that  he  has 
 done  so  literally,  one  by  one :  not  that  he  suffered  greater 
 punishment  than  he  deserved  for  his  last  crime  ;  but  he  is 
 
264  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.   [Ch.  xxiii.  36,  37. 
 
 punished    without    mercy,   and    has    undergone   the   very 
 greatest  penalty  possible. 
 
 The  event,  as  found  in  verse  38,  "  Behold  your  house 
 shall  be  left  to  you  desolate,"  and  the  whole  chapter  fol- 
 lowing, shows  that  this  was  the  meaning  of  Christ.  In 
 that  destruction  it  was  scarcely  possible  that  the  Scribes 
 and  Pharisees  could  have  undergone  greater  punishments 
 than  they  did,  as  Josephus  has  related  in  full.  But  if  they 
 had  put  no  other  prophet  or  disciple  of  Christ  to  death, 
 they  would  have  merited  punishments  far  more  heavy  for 
 having  crucified  Christ  Himself.  Thus  they  were  so  far 
 from  having  expiated  the  guilt  of  their  forefathers,  that 
 they  did  not  suffer  the  full  penalty  even  for  their  own 
 offences  ;  but  they  are  said  to  have  paid  the  penalty  of  the 
 blood  of  all  the  Prophets,  because  they  suffered  the  most 
 they  could. 
 
 Verse  36.  Amen,  I  say  unto  you,  all  these  i/mtgs  shall  come 
 upon  this  genei-ation. 
 The  exclamation,  "  Amen,"  and  its  repetition  show  that, 
 as  was  said  before,  the  threat  is  not  to  be  considered  an 
 empty  one.  Christ  means  the  whole  race  of  Jews  by  the 
 words  "this  generation".  It  is  a  Hebraism,  and  the  word 
 means  genus. 
 
 Verse  37.  How  often  would  I  have  gathered  together  thy 
 
 children,  as  the  hen  doth  gather  the  chickens  under  Jier 
 
 wings,  ajid  thou  wojddest  not. 
 
 All  ancient  authorities  agree  that  the  meaning  is,  that 
 
 God  called  the  Jews  to  a  better  mind,  and  they  would  not 
 
 come,  as  is  shown  in  the  parable  in  the  preceding  chapter 
 
 (verse  3) ;  and  in  Prov.  \.  24 :  "  Because  I  called,  and  you 
 
 refused ;  I  stretched  out  My  hand,  and  there  was  none  that 
 
 regarded";   and    Isa.    Ixv.    12,   and    Ixvi.    4:  "Because    I 
 
 called,  and  ye  did  not  answer ;  I  spoke,  and  you  did  not 
 
Ch.  XXIII.  38,  39.]       THE   COMING   DESOLATION.  265 
 
 hear";  and  Jer.  vii.  13  :  "I  have  spoken  to  you,  rising  up 
 early  and  speaking,  and  you  have  not  heard ;  and  I  have 
 called  you,  and  you  have  not  answered  ".  To  call,  and  to 
 wish  to  gather  together,  is  the  same  thing  ;  and  not  to 
 answer,  and  to  refuse  to  be  gathered  together,  is  the  same 
 thing. 
 
 Verse  38.  Behold,  your  house  shall  be  left  unto  yoii  desolate. 
 
 The  word  "Behold"  seems  to  indicate  the  near  approach 
 of  the  event,  as  observed  (ii.  i)  in  many  other  passages. 
 By  "your  house"  Christ  either  meant  the  city,  as  Bede 
 supposes  :  that  being  their  city  which  was  speedily  to  be 
 laid  waste,  as  God  had  before  threatened — "  And  now  I 
 will  show  you  what  I  will  do  to  My  vineyard.  I  will  take 
 away  the  hedge  thereof,  and  it  shall  be  wasted  ;  and  I  will 
 break  down  the  wall  thereof,  and  it  shall  be  trodden  down ; 
 and  I  will  make  it  desolate"  {Isa.  v.  5) — or,  as  is  more 
 probable,  the  Temple,  as  S.  Jerome  and  Theophylact  say ; 
 because,  as  of  old,  so  in  these  days,  the  Jews  so  trusted  to 
 their  Temple  that  they  thought  themselves  to  possess  a 
 most  certain  protection  in  it,  as  we  find  from  Jer.  vii.  4  : 
 "  Trust  not  in  lying  words,  saying,  The  temple  of  the  Lord, 
 the  temple  of  the  Lord,  it  is  the  temple  of  the  Lord  ".  For 
 in  the  time  of  Jeremiah,  before  the  Jews  were  taken  cap- 
 tive, God  had  uttered  a  like  threat  against  them,  as  recorded 
 by  Jeremiah  (xii.  7)  :  "I  have  forsaken  My  house,  I  have 
 left  My  inheritance  ;  I  have  given  My  dear  soul  into  the 
 hand  of  her  enemies  ". 
 
 Verse  39.  Fo7'  I  say  unto  you. 
 
 Christ  tells  them  the  reason  of  this  coming  desolation. 
 He  Himself,  by  whom,  as  by  the  truth,  the  figure  was 
 fulfilled,  was  after  a  little  while  to  leave  the  world  ;  and  as 
 a  house,  when  its  owners  have  left  it,  will  fall  into  ruins, 
 
266  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Cii.  xxiii,  39. 
 
 SO    the    Temple,    after    His   departure,    would    be    utterly 
 destroyed. 
 
 Till  yoii  say,  Blessed  is  He  that  cometJi  in  the  name  of  the 
 Lord. 
 
 All  ancient  Fathers  agree  that  this  refers  to  the  second 
 coming  of  Christ ;  but  all  do  not  agree  as  to  how  the  Jews 
 will  say,  "  Blessed  is  He  that  cometh,"  &c.,  of  Him.  Some 
 of  the  most  early  think  that  many  of  the  Jews  will  believe 
 in  Him  at  the  end  of  the  world,  and  will  speak  these  words. 
 S.  Jerome  says  that  the  meaning  is:  "You  shall  not  see  Me 
 again  until  you  confess  Me  to  be  Him  who  cometh  in 
 the  name  of  the  Lord  ".  Euthymius,  Theophylact,  and 
 apparently  S.  Chrysostom,  think  that  the  Jews  will  then 
 make  that  confession,  not  willingly,  but  by  compulsion. 
 
 They  may  probably  then  say  many  things  unwillingly  ; 
 but  from  their  minds,  and  not  from  their  lips  alone.  For 
 Christ  appears  to  speak  as  if  a  king  should  say  to  some 
 one  who  would  not  acknowledge  him  as  such,  "  I  will  put 
 thee  to  death,  and  then  thou  wilt  confess  me  to  be  a  king," 
 as  meaning,  not  that  the  man  would  confess  it  in  words, 
 but  that  he  would  discover  it  to  be  so  in  fact.  So  Zach. 
 xii.  10  and  S.  John  xix.  37,  where  the  words,  "  They  shall 
 look,"  have  the  same  meaning  as  "  You  say  "  in  the  text. 
 Christ  probably  alludes  to  what  had  happened  shortly 
 before  (xxi.  16).  When  the  children  cried  out  "  Hosanna," 
 the  Scribes  said  with  indignation,  "  Hcarcst  thou  ?"  as  if 
 they  thought  the  children  guilty  of  blasphemy  because  they 
 sang  to  Christ,  "  Hosanna  to  the  Son  of  David  ".  Christ 
 therefore  tells  them  that  the  time  would  come  when  they 
 themselves  would  be  compelled  to  say  the  same.  S.  Chry- 
 .sostom,  Theophylact,  and  Euthymius  have  observed  that 
 the  word  "  henceforth,"  aiuodo,  air'  apri,  marks,  not  a 
 point  of  time,  but  the  time  of  the  Passion  ;  after  which, 
 although  the  Apostles  and  some  of  the  disciples  saw  Him 
 when  risen,  the  Jews  of  whom  He  spoke  did  not  sec  Him. 
 
CHAPTER   XXIV. 
 
 CHRIST  FORETELLS  THE  DESTRUCTION  OF  THE  TEMPLE  : 
 WITH  THE  SIGNS  THAT  SHALL  COME  BEFORE  IT, 
 AND  BEFORE  THE  LAST  JUDGMENT — WE  MUST 
 ALWAYS    WATCH. 
 
 Verse  i.  And  Jesus  being  come  ont  of  the  Temple,  ivent  azvay. 
 
 Kal  e^eXOctiv,  et  egressns.  Our  translation  seems  to  have 
 read  /cat  with  a  better  meaning.  For  "Jesus  being  come 
 out,  went  from  the  Temple,"  appears  tautological.  Some 
 Greek  copies  also  have  the  reading  of  our  version. 
 
 And  His  disciples  came. 
 
 S.  Mark  (xiii.  i)  says  that  one  of  His  disciples  only 
 came,  but  Eustathius  thinks  that  all  the  disciples  spoke 
 first  among  themselves  about  the  beauty  of  the  Temple, 
 and  then  that  they  came  to  Christ,  as  S.  Matthew  says  ; 
 and  that  one  of  them  said  for  the  rest,  "  Master,"  &c.,  as 
 related  by  S.  Mark  :  or  that  S.  Matthew  may  have  spoken 
 by  syllepsis,  saying  that  they  came  to  Him,  because  one 
 did  (as  in  chap.  xxvi.  8)  :  whilst  from  vS".  John  xii.  4  it  is  clear 
 that  only  one  murmured;  and  we  read  in  chap,  xxvii.  44  that 
 the  "  thieves  cast  the  same  in  His  teeth,"  when  from  .5".  Lnke 
 xxiii.  30  we  know  that  only  one  of  the  thieves  blasphemed. 
 
 To  shozu  Him  the  buildings. 
 
 Origen,  S.  Hilary,  S.  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  and 
 l^luthymius  think,  what  was  very  probable,  that  they  were 
 moved  by  the  words  (xxiii.  38),  "  Behold,  your  house  shall 
 be  left  to  you  desolate,"  to  show  Christ  the  Temple  ;  or,  as 
 
268  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxiv.  2. 
 
 some  others  suggest,  by  admiration  :  for  it  did  not  seem 
 possible  that  a  temple  so  vast  and  splendid  should  be 
 demolished  ;  or,  as  others  say  more  probably,  from  pity  at 
 the  intolerable  thought  that  an  edifice  so  splendid  and 
 wonderful  should  be  laid  in  ruins.  They  appear,  as  Origen 
 says,  to  have  wished  to  arouse  in  Christ  feelings  of  com- 
 miseration for  it,  so  as  to  induce  Him  to  recall  His 
 sentence  against  it. 
 
 It  was  built  by  Herod  from  the  foundation  with  incredible 
 labour.  It  is  described  by  Josephus  in  his  Antiquities  (xv. 
 14)  as  having  been  one  hundred  cubits  in  length  and  one 
 hundred  and  twenty  in  height ;  built  of  very  massive 
 stones  of  twenty-five  cubits  in  length,  twelve  in  breadth, 
 eight  in  height.  It  was  this  which  induced  the  disciples 
 to  say  to  Christ  {^S.  Mark  xiii.  i)  :  "Master,  behold  what 
 manner  of  stones,  and  what  buildings  are  here". 
 
 Verse  2.  Do  you  sec  all  these  tilings? 
 
 Ov  /SXeVere,  nonne  videtis.  Our  version  does  not  seem 
 to  give  it  as  a  negation,  and  the  meaning  is  thus  more  em- 
 phatic ;  for  Christ  signifies  that  they  should  contemplate 
 the  Temple  again  and  again,  that  they  might  be  the  more 
 impressed  by  its  destruction.  The  words  used  by  Christ 
 describe  a  total  destruction  such  as  Josephus  describes 
 {Antiq.,  xv.  14,  and  De  Bell.  Jud.,  vii.  9,  10)  ;  though  none 
 may  think  for  a  moment  that  He  used  any  exaggeration 
 or  hyperbole.  S.  Chrysostom  {Cont.  Jtid.  Orat.,  ii.  3),  S. 
 Gregory  Nazianzen  {Cont.  Jnliamnn  Apostatani),  Theo- 
 doret  {Hist.,  iii.  20),  tell  us  that  Julian  the  Apostate  per- 
 mitted the  Jews  to  rebuild  the  Temple,  which  they  set 
 about  with  the  utmost  alacrity.  But  when  they  had  dug 
 out  the  old  foundations  of  the  Temple  to  lay  a  new  one, 
 flames  burst  forth  from  the  foundation  and  killed  many  of 
 those  who  were  engaged  in  the  work.  Thus  the  Jews 
 fulfilled    the  prophecy  of   Christ — with   their   own    hands 
 
Ch.  XXIV.  3.]  CHRIST   ON    MOUNT   OLIVET.  269 
 
 destroying  the  former  Temple  so  completely,  if  anything 
 remained  of  it,  that  there  was  left  no  stone  upon  another, 
 while  they  were  forbidden  by  divine  interposition  from 
 building  a  new  one. 
 
 Verse  3,  And  ivhen  He  was  sitting. 
 It  is  easily  seen  from  a  comparison  of  the  Evangelists 
 that  this  was  on  the  fourth  day  after  Christ's  entrance  into 
 the  city  with  the  palm  branches  and  Hosannahs.  For  that 
 same  day  he  entered  Bethany.  On  the  second,  returning 
 from  Bethany,  he  cursed  the  fig-tree.  On  the  third,  when 
 He  returned  again  from  Bethany,  the  disciples  saw  the  fig- 
 tree  withered  away  {S.  Mark  xi.  13,  14,  21).  On  the  same 
 — that  is,  the  third — day  He  returned,  according  to  His 
 custom,  from  Jerusalem  to  Bethany,  that  He  might  pass 
 the  night  there  (5.  Luke  xxi.  '^^'j).  Thus  on  the  fourth  day 
 He  was  at  Bethany,  both  because  no  Evangelist  says  that 
 He  returned  to  Jerusalem  on  the  fifth  day  before  He 
 celebrated  the  Passover,  and  because  S.  Matthew  (xxvi.  6) 
 says  that  He  was  in  the  house  of  Simon  the  leper  two 
 days  before  it.  Bethany,  as  has  been  said,  was  at  the  foot 
 of  the  Mount  of  Olives  (xxi.  i).  It  is  therefore  probable 
 that  Christ,  when  He  had  gone  up  into  the  mount,  which 
 is  little  more  than  a  mile  from  the  city,  contemplated  the 
 city  and  Temple  from  it,  and  uttered  that  prophecy  of  its 
 impending  destruction  which  prompted  the  disciples  to  say  : 
 "  Lord,  tell  us  when  shall  these  things  be  ?  "  This  may  be 
 gathered  from  6".  Mark  xiii.  3  :  "  And  as  He  sat  on  the 
 Mount  Olivet  over  against  the  Temple,"  showing  that  He 
 looked  upon  the  Temple  and  spoke  of  it. 
 
 The  disciples  cmne  to  Him. 
 
 S.  Mark  says  that  only  four  came — Peter,  James,  John, 
 and  Andrew  ;  and  we  may  doubt  whether  the  word 
 "  privately  "  is  to  be  understood  that  those  four  came  apart 
 
270  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Cii.  xxiv.  5. 
 
 from  the  rest  ;  or,  as  Euthymius  thinks,  that  all  came,  but 
 apart  from  the  multitude.  The  former  seems  the  more 
 probable.  For  S.  Mark  appears  to  have  stated  their  names  ; 
 and  it  is  likely  that  those  four,  who  were  the  most  intimate 
 with  Christ  of  any,  and  who  were  used  to  be  with  Him  in 
 His  most  secret  actions,  wished  to  ask  Him  by  themselves 
 of  a  matter  of  such  great  consequence,  thinking  that  He 
 would  be  more  likely  to  tell  them  by  themselves,  then,  than 
 to  all  the  others  in  common.  For  it  was  hazardous  to 
 speak  of  the  Temple.  The  Jews  object  against  S.  Stephen 
 (Acts  vi.  14) :  "For  we  have  heard  him  say  that  this  Jesus 
 of  Nazareth  shall  destroy  this  place,  and  shall  change  the 
 traditions  which  Moses  delivered  unto  us".  The  Author 
 thinks  that  they  put  this  question  to  Christ  from  their 
 desire  of  enjoying  the  reign  of  Christ  in  heaven  :  as  if  He 
 seemed  to  delay  it  too  long. 
 
 IV/ien  sJiall  these  things  be,  ami  ivhat  shall  be  the  sign  of 
 Thy  coini7ig,  and  of  tJie  cojisnniniation  of  tJie  %vorld? 
 The  Apostles  ask  three  things,  i.  When  the  ills  Christ 
 had  foretold  to  the  city  and  Temple  would  come  to  pass  ? 
 2.  What  sign  would  precede  His  coming  ?  3.  What 
 would  precede  the  end  of  the  world?  As  S.  Hilary,  S. 
 Jerome,  and  Strabus  say,  what  should  prevent  the 
 Apostles  from  being  clearly  taught  that  the  coming  of 
 Christ  and  the  end  of  the  world  would  take  place  at  the 
 same  time  ?  They  thought,  indeed,  that  the  destruction  of 
 the  Temple  would  happen  at  the  same  time,  as  shall 
 shortly  be  explained.  It  is  plain  to  all  that  questions  on 
 the  destruction  of  the  Temple  and  on  the  coming  of  Christ 
 arc  different  ones. 
 
 Verse  5.  For  many  luill  come  in  My  name. 
 The  Apostles  undoubtedly  thought  that  the  advent  of 
 Christ  and  the  end  of  the  world  would  come  soon  after  the 
 destruction  of  Jerusalem  ;  but  it  is  doubtful  whether  He  here 
 
Cir.  XXIV.  5.]  SIGNS   OF   DESTRUCTION    OF   JERUSALEM.      2/1 
 
 answered  about  His  coming  and  the  end  of  the  world,  or 
 not.  All  the  most  ancient  authors  refer  His  words  to  the 
 end  of  the  world  :  as  S.  Irenaeus  (v.  25),  S.  Hilary  {in 
 loc.)  and  S.  Gregory  {Horn.  i.  in  Evangel.).  The  others,  as 
 S.  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  Euthymius,  understand  them 
 of  the  end  of  the  world  only  as  far  as  verse  23.  A  middle 
 view  seems  the  best,  and  such  as  S.  Augustin  also  embraced 
 {Ep.  Ixxx.  ;  S.  Jerome  and  Bede,  in  loc),  namely,  that  Christ 
 answered  both  questions  without  order,  and  without  regard  to 
 their  sequence,  as  the  Apostles  had  so  asked  them.  He  pro- 
 bably did  this  by  a  fixed  and  divine  decree,  that  no  one 
 might  know  of  the  end  of  the  world.  For  the  Apostles 
 thought  that  the  end  of  the  Temple  and  the  end  of  the 
 world  would  happen  together,  and  Christ  would  not 
 disabuse  them  of  this  mistake,  that  they  might  not  grow 
 secure  by  long  waiting  after  the  destruction  of  the  Temple. 
 Due  discrimination  will  enable  us  in  some  degree  to  dis- 
 tinguish between  what  is  said  of  the  destruction  of 
 Jerusalem  and  of  the  end  of  the  world.  What  Christ  now 
 said  appears  to  apply  to  either.  For  before  the  destruc- 
 tion of  Jerusalem  many  false  Christs  arose,  and  before  the 
 end  of  the  world  many  others  will  do  so,  as  S.  John  says 
 in  the  Apocalypse.  Whilst,  therefore,  we  may  understand 
 His  words  in  a  general  sense,  we  must  not  limit  them,  lest 
 we  appear  to  put  bounds  to  the  Holy  Spirit  by  which 
 Christ  spoke.  S.  Luke  tells  us  of  Theudas  {Acts  v.  36) ;  and 
 Josephus  {Antiq.,  xx.  4,  and  De  Bell.  Jud.,  ii.  12)  also 
 mentions  him  and  other  seducers  of  the  people.  S.  Jerome 
 speaks  of  the  Simon  Magus  of  Acts  viii.  10,  who  came 
 under  the  false  name  of  Christ,  being  called  "the  great 
 power  of  God  ".  A  multitude  of  others  followed,  clearly 
 by  the  divine  judgment,  that  they  who  would  not  believe 
 in  Christ  as  the  very  Son  of  God  might  believe  in  these 
 seducers,  as  Christ  Himself  foretold  (5.  John  \.  43,  and 
 2  Thess.  ii.  10,  11). 
 
272  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxiv.  6. 
 
 Verse  6.  Vo?<  sJiall  hear. 
 MeXKi](Tere  Se  uKoveiv,  auditiiri  cnim  cstis,  but  he,  "  but," 
 is  put  for  'yap,  "  for  ".  Our  version,  therefore,  has  rendered 
 the  passage  better  than  some  more  recent  ones  ;  for  Christ 
 gives  the  reason  of  what  follows,  "  See  that  ye  be  not 
 troubled":  as  if  He  had  said,  "I  warn  you  not  to  be 
 troubled  when  you  hear  of  wars  and  rumours  of  wars  ".  It 
 is  a  Hebraism  Hi^'IT^II^  "  the  hearing  "  ;  that  is,  "  rumour  ". 
 Some  appear  to  distinguish  between  "  wars  "  and  "  rumours 
 of  wars  "  with  too  much  subtlety.  Origen  and  Euthymius  are 
 among  them.  The  former  thinks  allegorically  that  "the  wars" 
 were  those  carried  on  in  Jerusalem  ;  and  "  the  rumours  "  are 
 of  such  as  would  arise  in  other  cities  of  Jud.nea.  If  there  be 
 any  real  difference,  it  may  be  thought  that  "  wars  "  refers 
 to  the  present  and  "  rumours  "  to  the  future  ;  the  meaning 
 being  that  they  should  see  with  their  own  eyes  many  present 
 wars,  and  hear  with  their  own  ears  of  many  that  were  yet 
 in  the  distance  :  war  thus  arising  from  war,  and  evil  from  evil. 
 
 For  these  things  imist  come  to  pass,  but  the  end  is  not  yet. 
 
 This  is  not  the  case  absolutely  :  it  means  the  wickedness 
 of  men  being  supposed,  and  the  decree  of  God  that  He  would 
 punish  them  (as  in  chap,  xviii.  y  ;  i  Cor.  xi.  19).  Many — 
 e.g.,  S.  Chrysostom  and  S.  Hilary,  The  Author,  Euthymius, 
 Theophylact,  and  Bede — understand  it  of  the  wars  which 
 preceded  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which  Josephus  has 
 described  in  his  Antiq.,  xx.,  and  his  seven  books,  De  Bell.Jud. 
 Others,  as  S.  Jerome,  take  it  of  the  wars  of  Antichrist,  which 
 shall  be  before  the  end  of  the  world.  Either  is  possible  :  as 
 the  former  can  be  established  by  the  facts  of  history,  and 
 the  latter  from  the  Apocalypse;  and,  as  said  before,  when  the 
 words  can  be  taken  in  a  general  sense,  they  arc  not  to  be 
 narrowed  in  meaning. 
 
 lint  the  end  is  not  yet. 
 
 S.  Jerome  and  Theophylact  think  that  this  "  end  "  is  the 
 
Ch.  XXIV.  7-12.]     THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  SORROWS.  273 
 
 end  of  the  world.     Euthymius  and  others,  that  it  refers  to 
 the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
 
 Verse  7.  For  natmi  shall  rise  against  nation. 
 S.  Augustin  {Ep.  Ixxx.j  refers  this  both  to  the  destruc- 
 tion of  Jerusalem  and  to  the  times  of  Antichrist.  His 
 opinion  seems  preferable  to  that  of  those  who  refer  it  only 
 to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  as  S.  Chrysostom,  Euthy- 
 mius, and  Theophylact.  Many  other  examples  to  the 
 same  effect  may  be  found  in  Josephus  {Antiq.,  lib.  xx., 
 caps,  vii.,  viii.,  xv.  ;  and  De  Bell.  Jnd.,  xi.,  xii.,  xiv.,  xix., 
 XX.,  xxi.,  XXV.),  and  in  Hegesippus  (lib.  ii.,  caps,  xi.,  xiv., 
 xvi.,  xvii.). 
 
 And  there  shall  be  pestilences  and  famines. 
 
 From  the  Acts  (xi.  28)  and  Josephus  {Antiq.,  xx.  2) 
 we  learn  that  there  were  famines  before  the  taking  of 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 Verse  8.  Nozv  all  these  are  the  beginnings  of  sorrows. 
 That  is,  they  are  light  compared  with  those  which  were 
 to  follow.  It  is  a  metaphor  from  the  travail  of  women, 
 such  as  is  often  found  in  Scripture  (^Ps.  xlvii.  7  ;  Isa. 
 xiii.  7,  8  ;  fer.  iv.  31  ;  Ezck.  xxx.  16;  Osee  xiii.  13;  MicJi. 
 iv.  9,  10  ;  and  the  Prophets, /^ri-j-Zw). 
 
 Verse  12.  And  because  inkjnity  hath  abounded  the  charity 
 of  many  shall  grozv  cold. 
 
 Even  those  who  had  been  used  to  receive  the  Apostles 
 and  disciples  of  Christ  with  charity,  and  assist  them,  would 
 be  terrified  by  the  cruelties  and  persecutions  practised 
 generally  against  them,  and  their  hearts  would  grow  cold. 
 This  is  the  iniquity  here  spoken  of  as  abounding  ;  for  scarce 
 anyone  would  be  found,  even  among  Christians,  to  give 
 them  aid  or  protection,  lest  he  should  be  suspected  himself 
 of  being  a  Christian.  An  example  in  proof  of  this  is  found 
 2—18 
 
274  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxiv.  14. 
 
 in  the  history  of  S.  Paul  in  his  second  Epistle  to  Timothy 
 (iv.  16). 
 
 Verse  14.  And  this  gospel  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  preached 
 in  the  whole  zvorld. 
 S.  Jerome  and  Bede  conclude  from  these  words  that  the 
 subject  is  not  the  destruction  of  the  city  and  Temple,  but 
 the  end  of  the  world  ;  because  it  is  said  the  Gospel  should 
 be  first  preached  in  the  whole  world ;  which  evidently 
 neither  was  done,  nor  could  have  been  done,  before  the 
 taking  of  Jerusalem.  S.  Chrysostom  and  Theophylact, 
 however,  persist  in  their  opinion  that  the  reference  is  only 
 and  wholly  to  the  taking  of  Jerusalem  ;  and  many  of  the 
 moderns  have  followed  them.  They  say,  in  support  of  their 
 opinion,  that  the  Gospel  had  been  preached  to  the  whole 
 world  before  Jerusalem  was  taken  :  as  S.  Paul  bears  wit- 
 ness {Rom.  i.  8).  But  the  Gospel  had  certainly  not  been 
 preached  in  many  parts  of  the  world ;  for  even  in  our 
 fathers'  time  there  had  been  no  knowledge  of  it  in  more 
 than  a  quarter  of  the  globe  ;  and  S.  Augustin  testifies  in  his 
 eightieth  Epistle  that  in  his  day  many  natives  of  Africa 
 had  neither  received  nor  heard  of  it.  This  is  true ;  but  the 
 answer  is  that  the  words  of  S.  Paul,  and  Christ  Himself, 
 are  somewhat  hyperbolical,  and  that  the  Gospel  in  truth 
 had  only  been  preached  in  most  places.  For  when  Jeru- 
 salem was  taken  there  was  scarcely  a  region  of  the  then 
 known  world  where  the  Gospel  had  not  been  heard. 
 
 A  nd  shall  be  preached. 
 Some  think  that  the  word  "and"  here  has  a  disjunctive 
 force,  as  is  frequently  the  case  with  the  Hebrew,  and  that 
 the  meaning  is  :  "  Although  all  these  things  shall  come  to 
 pass,  yet  this  shall  be  no  obstacle  to  the  Gospel  being 
 preached  ;  for  it  shall  make  its  own  way  through  all  hin- 
 drances ".    So  say  Theophylact  and  Euthymius.     It  would 
 
Ch.  XXIV.  14.]        DESTRUCTION  OF  JERUSALEM.  275 
 
 appear  to  mean  that  although  all  the  calamities  which 
 Christ  had  foretold  should  happen  at  the  destruction  of 
 Jerusalem,  yet  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  end  of  the 
 world  has  therefore  arrived  ;  for  the  Gospel  must  first  be 
 preached  throughout  it,  as  S.  Mark  more  clearly  states 
 (xiii.  10)  :  "Unto  all  nations  the  Gospel  must  first  be 
 preached  "  ;  that  is,  before  the  end  of  the  world.  It  is 
 called  the  Gospel  of  the  Kingdom,  because  the  kingdom 
 of  heaven  is  said  to  be  at  hand,  as  in  chaps,  iii.  2,  iv.  17,  x. 
 7,  as  there  explained. 
 
 For  a  testimony  to  all  nations. 
 
 Christ  here  signifies  that  the  Gospel  is  to  be  preached  to 
 all  nations,  that  no  one  may  have  any  plea  of  ignorance  to 
 urge  against  his  being  condemned,  and  that  this  might  be 
 a  testimony  at  the  last  judgment  against  those  who  have 
 either  not  received  or  who  have  not  kept  it ;  as  S.  Ch^^sos- 
 tom  and  others  explain,  and  chaps,  viii.  4  and  x.  18  state. 
 
 And  then  shall  the  consummation  come. 
 
 S.  Chrysostom  and  Theophylact  think  that  the  reference 
 is  to  the  taking  and  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  S.  Jerome, 
 Bede,  and  all  the  more  ancient  authorities  take  it  of  the 
 end  of  the  world,  which  appears  more  probable  ;  for  we 
 can  easily  believe  that  Christ  answered  the  question  of  the 
 Apostles.  This  was  :  "  What  should  be  the  sign  of  the  end 
 of  the  world  ?  "  (verse  3). 
 
 Christ  answered  that  the  Gospel  should  be  preached  to 
 all  parts  of  the  world,  and  then  should  come  the  end.  S. 
 Jerome  understands,  therefore,  the  end  of  the  world,  of 
 which  the  Apostles  had  asked  Him.  But  the  meaning  does 
 not  appear  to  be  that  which  S.  Jerome  thinks  :  that  the 
 preaching  of  the  Gospel  throughout  the  world  was  to  be  a 
 certain  sign  of  the  end  of  the  world  being  at  hand  ;  for  we 
 have  no  sure  sign,  and  to  take  this  were  to  narrow  Christ's 
 meaning  too  much. 
 
2/6  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxiv.  15. 
 
 The  meaning  appears  to  be,  that  the  end  of  the  world 
 would  not  be  before  the  Gospel  had  been  preached 
 throughout  all  parts  of  the  world.  It  is  certain  that  the 
 Gospel  will  be  preached  to  all  nations.  It  is  not  certain 
 that  when  it  has  been  preached,  the  end  will  immediately 
 come. 
 
 Verse  15.    When  you  see  the  abomhiation. 
 
 S.  Irengeus  (v.  25),  S.  Hilary,  and  The  Author  {m  loc) 
 refer  this  also  to  the  end  of  the  world.  S.  Jerome  and 
 Bede  cannot  oppose  this  opinion,  although  they  do  not 
 wholly  approve  it  ;  and  some  of  it  may  apply  to  the  times 
 of  Antichrist,  as  in  Dan.  xii.  11,  and  as  S.  Paul  signifies  to 
 the  Thessalonians  (2  Thess.  ii.  4).  But  although  Christ 
 here  looked  on  perhaps  to  the  time  of  Antichrist,  we  cannot 
 doubt  that  He  spoke  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ;  and 
 none  but  Calvin  and  his  followers  have  ever  doubted  it. 
 
 It  is  of  consequence  to  the  understanding  of  the  passage 
 to  know  whence  this  testimony  was  taken  ;  for  Daniel 
 speaks  in  two  places  of  the  future  abomination  (ix.  27  and 
 xii,  11).  Calvin  says  that  they  who  think  it  taken  from 
 the  former  passage  are  in  error,  but  the  error  is  his  who 
 thinks  it  taken  from  the  latter  ;  for,  as  we  have  shown  on 
 that  passage,  Daniel  does  not  speak  of  Antiochus  and  Titus 
 and  Vespasian,  but  of  Antichrist,  and  in  chap.  ix.  he  so 
 unites  the  abomination  in  the  Temple  with  the  death  of 
 Christ  that  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  he  speaks  of  the 
 destruction  of  the  Temple,  which  followed  so  very  shortly 
 after  the  death  of  Christ. 
 
 It  is  a  graver  question.  What  is  that  abomination  of 
 which  Christ  speaks  ?  The  authorities  who  have  been 
 cited  as  referring .  the  prophecy  to  the  time  of  Antichrist 
 think  that  it  was  Antichrist  himself  who,  as  S.  Paul  says, 
 would  sit  in  the  Temple  and  profane  it  (2  Thess.  ii.  4). 
 S.  Jerome  gives  two  other  opinions  as  well,  both  of 
 which  he  thinks  equally  probable  :  one,  that   the  statue 
 
Ch.  XXIV.  15.]  THE  ABOMINATION  OF  DESOLATION.  277 
 
 of  Cssar,  which  Pilate  had  placed  in  the  Temple,  was  so 
 called  ;  the  other,  that  it  was  the  statue  of  Adrian,  which 
 was  placed  there  afterwards.  Neither  opinion  seems 
 probable  ;  for  Pilate  did  not  place  the  statue  of  Caesar  in 
 the  Temple,  but  brought  it  into  the  city  alone,  and  that 
 secretly,  in  the  dead  of  night,  and  with  a  military  force,  and 
 it  only  remained  a  few  days  ;  for  Pilate,  overcome  by  the 
 prayers  of  the  Jews,  removed  the  soldiers  (Josephus,  Antiq., 
 xviii.  5  ;  De  Bell.  Jud.,  ii.  8).  When  Christ  said  these  words, 
 too,  the  deed  had  been  done  some  time.  This  could  not 
 possibly,  therefore,  have  been  the  abomination.  Still  less 
 could  it  have  been  the  statue  of  Adrian,  for  he  lived  long 
 after  the  taking  of  Jerusalem  ;  and  Christ  spoke  of  the 
 abomination  as  the  sign  of  a  coming  destruction. 
 
 Some  think  that  the  term  abomination  was  applied  to 
 the  Roman  army  which  besieged  Jerusalem.  Origen  says 
 this  {Tract,  xxix.) ;  and  many  moderns,  apparently  with 
 some  reason,  have  adopted  his  opinion  from  what  Christ 
 said  in  this  place  :  "  When,  therefore,  you  shall  see  the 
 abomination  "  ;  and  S.  Luke  (xxi.  20)  :  "  When  you  see 
 Jerusalem  compassed  about  with  an  army,  then  know  that 
 the  desolation  thereof  is  at  hand  ". 
 
 But  it  does  not  seem  probable  that  the  Roman  army  is 
 called  the  abomination  here,  because  Christ  added,  "  Stand- 
 ing in  the  holy  place,"  and  S.  Mark  (xiii.  14),  "  Standing 
 where  it  ought  not  "  (by  which  description  I  doubt  not  that 
 the  Temple  is  intended,  as  Daniel  says,  in  express  terms)  ; 
 for  the  Roman  army  never  stood  in  the  Temple  until  after 
 the  city  had  been  taken  and  plundered  by  Titus,  when,  as 
 Josephus  says,  the  Temple  itself  was  burnt.  The  army, 
 therefore,  could  not  be  the  sign  of  the  destruction  of  the 
 Temple  and  the  city  ;  and  when  Christ  said,  "  Standing  in 
 the  holy  place,"  and  "  Standing  where  it  ought  not,"  He 
 seemed  to  allude  to  a  statue. 
 
 It  seems  probable  that  Christ  uttered  the  words  both  of 
 
2/8  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxiv.  15. 
 
 S.  Matthew  and  of  S.  Luke,  and  that  S.  Matthew  gave  some 
 and  S.  Luke  the  others.  S.  Augustin  {De  Cons.,  ii.  jy) 
 appears  to  be  of  this  opinion.     Euthymius  certainly  is  so. 
 
 Others  think  that  the  reference  is  to  the  sedition  among 
 the  Jews,  which  took  place  under  Florus,  and  of  which  the 
 Zelotai,  as  they  were  called,  were  the  authors,  when  they 
 betook  themselves  to  the  Temple  and  profaned  it 
 (]osephus,  De  Be//,  /nd.,  vi.  i).  This  sedition  took  place 
 before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ;  but  it  can  hardly  be 
 what  Christ  meant. 
 
 S.  Chrysostom,  Euthymius,  and  Theophylact  say  that 
 the  statue  of  the  Emperor  Titus  was  placed  in  the  Temple» 
 and  that  this  was  the  abomination.  But  there  is  no  author 
 of  credit  to  be  vouched  for^the  assertion  ;  for  Josephus, 
 who  was  living  at  the  time,  says  nothing  of  it. 
 
 In  a  matter  of  such  uncertainty  the  most  probable  ex- 
 planation seems  to  be  that  the  abomination  of  desolation 
 meant  the  desolation  itself,  and  that  it  is  a  Hebrew 
 expression  to  express  a  dreadful  and  terrible  desolation, 
 as  S.  Paul  (2  Thess.  ii.  10)  speaks  of  "  the  operation  of 
 error,"  that  is,  that  working  and  operative  error  which 
 draws  men  into  destruction. 
 
 There  is  one  thing  against  this  view — that  Christ  speaks 
 of  a  sign  of  a  future  desolation  of  which  the  desolation 
 itself  cannot  be  a  sign.  The  answer  may  be  that  it  was 
 not  Christ's  intention  to  teach  by  these  words  when  the 
 Temple  was  to  be  destroyed.  He  said  this  in  other  words 
 {S.  Lu/ce  xxi.  20)  ;  but  He  would  have  them  admonished 
 that  when  they  saw  that  abomination  and  desolation  of  the 
 city  and  Temple  they  should  understand  that  the  prophecy 
 of  Daniel  was  fulfilled,  that  the  sacrifice  was  taken  awa}-, 
 and  the  ruin  of  the  Jewish  people  completed,  and  that  the 
 city  and  Temple  should  never  be  built  again  as  they  were 
 after  the  captivity  of  Babylon,  and  the  sacrifices  should  be 
 no   more  renewed,   but  the  Law  should    be  utterly  done 
 
Ch.  XXIV.  i6.]      DISCIPLES  WARNED  TO  FLIGHT.  279 
 
 away,  as  Daniel  had  foretold.  Thus  the  two  verses,  15th 
 and  1 6th,  are  not  to  be  joined  as  some  join  them,  but  the 
 whole  sentence  ends  with  verse  15,  nor  depends  at  all  upon 
 the  one  that  follows,  "  When  you  see,"  &c.,  as  even  Euthy- 
 mius  thinks.  It  does  not  seem  correct  to  take  these,  as  so 
 many  do,  as  the  words  of  the  Evangelist,  and  to  include 
 them  in  a  parenthesis. 
 
 Verse  16.   Then. 
 
 All  the  authorities  understand  this  word  "  and,"  as  ap- 
 plying to  those,  "  When  you  see  the  abomination  of  deso- 
 lation ".  It  may  be  referable  not  merely  to  the  words  of 
 the  verse  immediately  preceding,  but  to  the  entire  preced- 
 ing text  from  the  sixth  verse,  as  if  Christ  had  said,  "  When 
 you  hear  of  wars  and  rumours  of  wars,  and  see  all  the 
 other  signs  of  the  coming  destruction  that  I  have  described, 
 then  let  those  that  are  in  Judaea  flee  to  the  mountains  ". 
 In  these  words  Christ  foretells  the  destruction  of  the  Jews, 
 and  He  speaks  of  their  fleeing  to  the  mountains  as  people 
 do  when  there  is  any  terror  upon  them,  and  they  betake 
 themselves  to  the  mountains  and  inaccessible  places,  as  in 
 Gen.  xix.  17.  The  angels  said  to  Lot  when  they  com- 
 manded him  to  flee  from  the  city  of  Sodom,  "  Save  thyself 
 in  the  mountain  ".  Christ  perhaps  alluded  to  this,  for  He 
 spoke  with  His  disciples  and  good  men,  whom  He  wished 
 to  escape  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  as  Lot  from  Sodom. 
 Eusebius  says  {Hist,  iii.  5)  that  the  Christians  who  were  in 
 the  city  then  received  divine  warning  to  escape.  But  the 
 other  Jews,  who  not  only  did  not  believe  in  Christ,  but  even 
 persecuted  Him,  not  only  received  no  such  warning,  but 
 came  into  the  city  from  all  parts  of  Judsea,  partly  for 
 fear,  and  partly  for  the  sake  of  the  Paschal  Feast,  and 
 were  shut  up  in  it  and  slaughtered  like  victims,  as  Euse 
 bins  says  again. 
 
 The  rest  to  verse   19  means   simply  that  a  great  and 
 sudden   evil  would  overtake  them,  and  that  the  fugitives 
 
28o  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxiv.  ig. 
 
 should  make  no  delay,  even  in  taking  away  what  they 
 valued  most,  and  that  which  was  necessary  for  their  flight ; 
 that  is  (verse  17),  he  that  is  on  the  housetop,  let  him  not 
 come  down.  The  roofs  of  the  houses  in  Palestine  are 
 flat  (x.  20),  and  as  the  Jews  used  to  sup  and  walk  on  them, 
 Christ  warns  them  that  if  any,  at  the  time  of  this  visitation, 
 be  upon  the  housetop,  they  should  not  come  down  to  take 
 money  or  any  other  necessary  for  their  flight,  but,  by  leaping 
 or  climbing  or  flying,  escape  the  quickest  way  they  could  ; 
 as  Lot  when  fleeing  from  Sodom  was  commanded  not  to 
 look  back,  that  is,  to  get  away  without  delay.  God  often 
 speaks  thus  by  His  Prophets,  as  in  Jer.  xlvi.  5  ;  xlviii.  6; 
 xlix.  8. 
 
 Verse   19.  And  li'oe  to  tJieni  luho  are  tuith  child,  and  that 
 give  Slick  in  those  days. 
 
 Origen  thinks  the  meaning  of  this  woe  upon  these 
 women  was  that  the  cruelty  of  the  enemy  would  be  so 
 great  that  they  would  have  no  regard  even  for  pregnant 
 and  suckling  women.  We  find  the  like  aggravated  inhu- 
 manity of  enemies  in  other  places  ;  as  in  4  Kings  viii.  12, 
 which  was  fulfilled  (xv.  16),  and  Anios  i.  13.  Theophylact 
 thinks  that  this,  which  is  described  by  Joscphus  (vii.  8,  De 
 Bell.  Jnd.)  as  having  happened  at  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  was 
 said  to  foreshow  that  nursing  mothers  would  be  compelled 
 to  eat  their  children.  But  S.  Hilary,  Chrysostom,  Jerome, 
 The  Author,  Bcde,  and  Theophylact  himself,  elsewhere, 
 that  it  was  said  because  such  women  would  not  be  able  to 
 fly  ;  as  it  immediately  follows  (verse  20):  "Pray  that  your 
 flight  be  not  in  winter,  nor  on  the  Sabbath  day". 
 
 Christ  might  have  named  the  lame,  the  halt,  the  impo- 
 tent, and  others,  who  were  little  prepared  for  flight  ;  but 
 the  mention  of  these  women  would  seem  rather  to  show- 
 that  He  mentioned,  not  only  those  who  were  hindered 
 from  flying,  but  also  those  who  were  living  apparently  in 
 the  utmost  enjoyment  and  security. 
 
Ch.xxiv.  20,  23.]     THE  END   OF   THE  WORLD.  281 
 
 Verse  20.  But  pray  that  your  flight  be  not  in  zuinter  or  on 
 the  Sabbath. 
 
 Christ  said  this  for  the  same  reason  as  He  said  above  to 
 the  women,  "  Woe  to  them " ;  for  the  winter  and  the 
 Sabbath  were  as  little  favourable  to  flight  as  women  in  the 
 above  condition — the  winter,  from  its  inclemency,  and  the 
 Sabbath,  because  the  Jews  were  forbidden  to  travel  on  that 
 day  more  than  a  mile,  or,  at  the  most,  two.  So  say  S. 
 Augustin  {Quest.  Ev.,  i.  37),  S.  Jerome,  The  Author,  S. 
 Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  Euthymius,  Bede,  S.  Gregory 
 (/;/  Evangel.,  Ham.  xii.).  But  S.  Chrysostom,  Euthymius, 
 and  Theophylact  object  that  by  this  Christ  appears  to 
 approve  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  which  He  had 
 either  wholly  done  away,  or  at  the  time  of  the  destruction 
 of  Jerusalem  intended  to  do  away.  They  reply  that  Christ 
 spoke  according  to  the  custom  and  feeling  of  the  Jews, 
 who  would  still  observe  the  Sabbath,  though  after  the 
 preaching  of  the  Gospel  they  ought  not  to  have  done  so. 
 They  were  worthy  of  double  blame :  first,  as  being  still 
 held  by  superstition  ;  and  secondly,  because  it  hindered 
 them  from  attempting  their  flight. 
 
 Verse  23.   Then. 
 
 This  word  "  then  "  has  not  the  same  meaning  as  in  verse 
 16,  for  it  does  not  signify  the  immediate  time,  but  that 
 which  would  pass  between  the  taking  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
 end  of  the  world,  as  S.  Chrysostom,  S.  Jerome,  The  Author, 
 Theophylact,  and  Euthymius  have  observed.  So  S. 
 Matthew  (iii.  i),  "In  those  days  cometh  John  the  Baptist, 
 preaching  in  the  desert  of  Judaea,"  when  he  came  thirty 
 years  after. 
 
 Christ  therefore  passes  from  the  end  and  destruction  of 
 Jerusalem  to  the  end  of  the  world.  For  the  destruction  of 
 Jerusalem  was  a  figure  and  type  of  the  destruction  and 
 end  of  the  world  ;  according  to  the  saying :  Quod  fit  in 
 circulo  fit  in  coelo. 
 
282  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxiv.  24. 
 
 Christ  here  appears  to  intend  to  teach  that  He  only 
 was  the  promised  Messenger,  and  that  if  any  man  should 
 say,  "Lo,  here  is  Christ,  or  lo,  there,"  he  is  not  be  believed ; 
 for  there  is  only  one  Christ,  who  has  already  come,  nor  is 
 any  other  to  be  looked  for,  and  whoever  says  hereafter  that 
 he  is  Christ  is  a  liar.  Eusebius  {Hist.,  iv.  6)  says  that 
 many  such  had  come,  and  S.  John,  again,  foretells  that 
 many  would  come  ;  and  many  do  come,  to  our  cost,  every 
 day,  for  all  heretics  are  such.  Christ  says  of  these,  in 
 warning,  "Believe  them.  not".  For  whoever  should  pre- 
 tend to  be  Christ  after  Him  would  not  be  Christ,  but  Anti- 
 christ. So  every  mystical  body,  except  the  Body  of  Christ 
 Himself,  which  is  the  Church,  however  it  may  feign  itself 
 to  be  the  Church,  is  not  the  Church,  but  the  synagogue  of 
 Satan  ;  that  is,  it  is  not  the  Body  of  Christ,  but  of  Anti- 
 christ. 
 
 Verse  24.  And  shall  shoiv great  signs  and  zvondcrs. 
 On  these  miracles  of  the  false  prophets,  see  chap.  vii.  22. 
 Christ  does  not  say  that  all  who  should  work  miracles 
 were  false  prophets,  but  that  they  were  not  necessarily  to  be 
 taken  therefore  for  true,  and  that  they  who  preach  another 
 Christ,  although  they  work  great  miracles,  are  not  to  be 
 believed.  For  they  do  not  preach  the  same  Christ  who 
 do  not  preach  the  same  Church.  For  the  Church  is  the 
 Body  of  Christ.  Christ  warns  us  in  no  way  to  believe  in 
 heretics,  even  if  they  do  work  miracles. 
 
 Insivniich  as  to  deceive  if  possible  even  the  elect. 
 
 Christ,  when  He  said  "  if  possible,"  showed  that  it  was, 
 in  fact,  impossible.  But,  granted  the  doctrine  of  divine 
 predestination,  we  cannot  conclude  its  immovableness  and 
 certainty  from  these  words. 
 
 Christ  speaks,  not  of  every  kind  of  error,  but,  so  to 
 speak,  of  final  error.  For  the  elect  may  often  be  led  into 
 error,  but  they  cannot  die  in  it,  as  in  Prov.  xxiv.  16;  and  S. 
 
Ch.  XXIV.  26-28.]     CHRIST'S   SECOND  COMING.  283 
 
 Luke  (xvii.  20,  21),  says  that  Christ,  when  asked  by  the 
 Pharisees,  replied,  "The  kingdom  of  heaven  cometh,  not 
 with  observation,"  &c.  He  means  to  teach  them  that  His 
 coming  would  be  so  sudden  that  it  could  not  be  foreknown 
 by  celestial  signs,  as  the  rain  and  other  phenomena  are 
 foreseen  ;  and  that  men  therefore  ought  not  to  observe  the 
 heavens,  but  to  practise  their  minds  in  holiness  and  virtue  : 
 "  For  behold  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  within  you  ".  He 
 here  mentioned  those  outward  signs,  because  they  might, 
 unless  warned  beforehand,  perplex  the  minds  even  of  the 
 elect. 
 
 Verse  26.  If,  therefore,  they  shall  say  to  you :  Behold,  he  is 
 in  the  desert,  go  not  out.  Behold,  he  is  in  the  closet, 
 believe  it  not. 
 
 Christ  speaks  of  two  opposite  places,  the  desert  and  the 
 closet,  the  most  secret  and  private  part  of  the  house,  to 
 show  that  in  whatever  manner,  in  whatever  garb,  in  what- 
 ever place,  another  Christ  may  come,  they  are  not  to 
 believe  him. 
 
 Verse  27.  For  as  the  ligJitning  covieth  out  of  the  East. 
 
 Christ  compares  His  second  coming  to  lightning,  because 
 as  lightning  bursts  out  suddenly  and  unexpectedly,  and  no 
 one  can  foretell  by  observation  at  what  moment  it  will  break 
 out  of  the  clouds,  so  He  will  come  suddenly  and  when  we 
 least  expect  Him  ;  and  as  lightning  in  one  moment  shines 
 forth  from  the  East  to  the  West,  so  will  He  come,  so 
 splendid  and  glorious,  that  no  one  but  must  see  Him.  So 
 SS.  Hilary,  Jerome,  Chrysostom,  The  Author,  and  Euthy- 
 mius  explain  it. 
 
 Verse  28.    WJieresoever  the  body  shall  be. 
 The  Greek  is  to  irrMfxa,  "the  carcase,"  a  word  better  suited 
 to  the  metaphor  used  by  Christ.     S.  Ambrose,  in  his  com- 
 mentary on  Ps.  xlviii.,  renders  the  word  by  ruitia,  and  it 
 
284  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxiv.  29. 
 
 is  SO  used,  as  observed,  on  Ps.  cix.  6.  For  eagles  and 
 vultures  fly  to  carcases.  It  is  a  Hebrew  proverb  apparently, 
 as  may  be  concluded  from/od  xxxix.  30.  Christ  therefore 
 compares  Himself  to  the  carcase,  as  He  had  previously 
 done  to  the  lightning  ;  and  says,  when  He  appears.  He 
 cannot  be  hid,  as  the  carcase  cannot  escape  the  eagle,  but 
 wherever  it  is  the  eagles  find  it,  as  by  some  natural  instinct. 
 Who  they  are  whom  Christ  compares  to  the  eagle  is  not 
 certain.  S.  Irenjeus  (iv.  28)  and  Bede  (in  loc)  think  that 
 the  allusion  is  to  the  blessed  who  enjoy  Christ  now,  and 
 who  will  enjoy  Him  before  the  Judgment,  because  they  fly 
 very  high,  and  follow  Christ  wherever  He  goes,  and  will 
 come  with  Him  to  the  judgment.  S.  Hilary  and  The 
 Author  understand  the  saints,  who,  when  Christ  comes,  will 
 be  found  alive,  and  who,  as  S.  Paul  says  (i  TJiess.  iv.  16), 
 will  be  taken  up  to  meet  Christ  in  the  air.  S.  Chrysostom 
 and  Euthymius  understand  the  angels  and  holy  martyrs, 
 with  whom  Christ  will  come.  Others,  as  Theoph}-lact  and 
 Bede,  take  them  to  be  all  men.  This  seems  more  likely  ; 
 for  Christ  signifies  that  all  men  will  fly  together  to  where 
 He  is,  to  be  judged  :  like  eagles  to  the  carcase,  and,  I'clint 
 nolint,  they  will  see  Him. 
 
 Verse  29.   TJtc  sun  sJiall  be  darkened. 
 
 Whether  the  sun  will  be  actually  darkened  is  not  quite 
 sure  ;  most  likely  it  will  be,  as  Origen  and  S.  Hilary  seem 
 to  conclude.  How  it  will  be  darkened  is  a  further  question. 
 Origen  thinks  that  the  world  will  be  burnt  up,  and  that 
 the  smoke  of  its  conflagration  will  be  so  great  as  to  obscure 
 the  sun. 
 
 Others  think  that  it  will  be  darkened  by  the  surpassing 
 glory  and  brightness  of  Christ's  appearance,  like  the  stars 
 when  the  sun  rises.  So  say  S.  Hilary,  S.  Chrysostom, 
 S.  Jerome,  Theophylact,  and  Euthymius  ;  as  Isa.  xxiv.  23. 
 Some    say    that   clouds    will    intervene.       Some   heretical 
 
Ch.  XXIV.  29.]  CHRIST'S  SECOND  COMING.  285 
 
 teachers  say  that  the  sun  will  not  be  actually  darkened, 
 but  that  men  will  be  so  astonished  that  they  will  not  be 
 able  to  see  the  sun  ;  for  the  Prophets  in  similar  visitations 
 say  that  the  sun  will  be  darkened  {Isa.  xiii.  9,  10  ;  xxxiv. 
 4  ;  Jcr.  XV.  9  ;  Amos  viii.  9  ;  Esek.  xxxii.  7,  8  ;  Joel  ii.  10, 
 30,  31  ;  iii.  14,  15.) 
 
 My  own  belief,  like  that  of  the  Author,  is  that  it  will  be 
 darkened,  neither  in  man's  opinion,  nor  by  the  interposition 
 of  any  object,  but  that  it  will  be  darkened  : 
 
 1.  Because  we  believe  that  it  was  to  be  darkened  in  the 
 same  way  at  His  Advent  as  at  His  Death.  We  read  that 
 at  the  latter  it  was  truly  darkened. 
 
 2.  Because  to  be  darkened  in  any  other  way  seems  too 
 little  ;  for  it  is  plain  that  Christ  said  that  a  great  thing, 
 such  as  had  never  been  seen  before,  would  happen  when,  on 
 His  coming  to  judgment,  the  sun  himself  and  all  the  stars 
 should  quake,  and,  as  if  struck  with  fear,  withdraw  their 
 light,  as  men  turn  pale  from  fright.  In  this  way  the  sun 
 was  darkened  at  the  Passion  of  Christ,  as  if  it  trembled  at 
 the  sight  of  the  death  of  God. 
 
 And  tJic  stars  shall  foil  from  heaven. 
 
 There  is  the  same  question  about  the  falling  of  the  stars 
 from  heaven  :  whether  they  will  really  fall  or  not.  Origen 
 {Tract.  XXX.  on  S.  Matt.)  says  that  they  will  not  actually 
 fall  from  heaven,  but  that  they  will  lose  their  light,  and 
 what  is  earthly  in  them  will  fall  to  earth.  This  savours  of 
 Platonism.  S.  Jerome  and  Bede  think  that  they  will  fall 
 in  the  same  manner  as  that  in  which  the  sun  will  be 
 darkened,  because  they  will  not  shine  in  the  brightness  of 
 Christ.  Some  of  the  Ancients  think  that  it  will  not  be  the 
 actual  stars,  but  evil  angels,  of  which  the  air  is  full,  and 
 who  are  described  by  the  name  of  stars,  and  who  will  fall. 
 Others,  more  modern,  take  them  not  for  real  stars,  but  for 
 what  are  called  comets.     It  is  the  opinion  of  many  that 
 
286  THE    GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxiv.  30. 
 
 they  will  not  fall  in  fact,  but,  from  not  shining,  will  appear 
 to  fall.  This  seems  no  way  credible,  because  Christ  said, 
 as  of  the  sun  and  moon,  that  they  should  not  give  their 
 light,  and  now  when  He  says  that  they  shall  fall  He  seems 
 undoubtedly  to  mean  something  greater  ;  and  so  say 
 S.  Chrysostom  and  Euthymius,  who  therefore  appear  to  be 
 correct  when  they  affirm  that  the  stars  will  truly  fall. 
 
 And  the poivers  of  Jicaven  shall  be  moved. 
 The  moderns  almost  universally  explain  the  powers  of 
 heaven  to  be  the  stars,  the  host  of  heaven,  as  they  are 
 called.  But  Christ  declared  that  the  stars  should  fall, 
 which  is  more  than  being  moved,  so  that  He  can  hardly  be 
 thought  to  have  spoken  in  this  passage  of  the  stars. 
 The  Ancients — Origen,  S.  Chrysostom,  Bede,  Euthymius, 
 Theophylact — say  that  the  angels  are  called  the  powers  of 
 heaven,  as  in  the  annual  Church  hymn  they  are  called  "  the 
 powers  of  heaven  and  the  heavens"  ;  so  that  the  meaning 
 will  be,  the  angels  themselves  will  be  astonished,  and,  as  it 
 were,  will  be  shaken  with  amazement.  It  always  seemed 
 to  me  that  the  powers  of  heaven  here  spoken  of  were  those 
 whom  Job  by  figure  calls  "  the  poles  of  heaven  "  (xxii.  14) ; 
 Moses  {Dent.  xxx.  4,  and  i  Ki)igs  ii.  8),  "  poles  of  the 
 earth  ".  By  another  metaphor  they  arc  termed  "  the  poles 
 of  the  world"  {Prov.  viii.  26)  and  "the  ends  of  the  sea"  {Job 
 xxxvi.  30),  by  which  he  meant  only  the  firmament  and  its 
 strength,  as  the  word  "  powers "  itself  expresses.  Christ, 
 therefore,  teaches  that  those  poles  and,  as  it  were,  the 
 foundations  of  heaven  shall  be  shaken  for  fear,  as  S.  Peter 
 says  (2  Ep.  iii.  10). 
 
 Verse  30.    Then  shall  appear  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  man. 
 
 Authorities  differ  as  to  what  this  sign  was.  Origen 
 thinks  that  it  means  the  power  and  glory  which  Christ 
 gained  for  Himself  on  the  Cross,  which  he  thinks  is  meant 
 
Ch.  XXIV.  30.]  CHRIST'S   SECOND   COMING.  287 
 
 by  the  "  sign  of  the  Son  of  man  "  ;  so  that  the  meaning  is 
 that  all  shall  see  Christ  coming  with  so  great  glory  and 
 majesty  as  to  render  it  impossible  to  doubt  that  He  was 
 the  true  Judge.  In  the  same  manner  S.  Jerome  and  Bede 
 understand  the  banner  of  the  victory  of  Christ.  But  The 
 Author  understands  the  signs  of  the  Passion,  as  the  marks 
 of  the  stripes,  the  cicatrices,  wounds  of  the  nails,  which  he 
 says  are  to  be  called  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  man.  It  has 
 been  the  common  opinion  that  the  Cross  was  called  the 
 sign  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  that  that  should  appear  at 
 His  coming,  in  heaven  or  in  the  air,  as  His  standard.  So 
 say  S.  Chrysostom,  S.  Jerome,  Bede,  Euthymius,  and 
 Theophylact,  and  it  seems  very  probable.  For  Christ 
 spoke  of  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  man  as  some  certain  and 
 well-known  sign,  which  the  Cross  alone  can  be. 
 
 Then. 
 When  they  shall  see  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  man  :  as  if 
 He  had  said  all  the  tribes  of  the  earth  should  mourn,  for 
 they  shall  see  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  man  and  be  terrified. 
 
 Shall  mourn. 
 
 That  is,  they  shall  beat  their  breasts  for  grief  and 
 repentance,  but  too  late. 
 
 All  tribes  of  the  earth. 
 
 Some  individuals  from  all  :  for  the  good  will  not  mourn, 
 but  rather  rejoice,  because  "they  love  His  coming,"  as 
 S.  Paul  says  (2  Tim.  iv.  8). 
 
 They  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  the  elands  of  heaven. 
 
 That  is,  of  the  air.  Christ  describes  Himself  as  God, 
 whose  prerogative  it  is  to  come  with  glory  and  majesty  and 
 terror,  as  in  Ps.  xlix.  3  ;  ciii.  3.  Christ  was  taken  up  in  a 
 cloud  into  heaven  {Acts  i.  9),  and  in  the  same  way,  as  the 
 angels  said  to  the  Apostles  (verse  11),  He  will  come  again. 
 
288  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxiv.  31. 
 
 Verse  31.  And  He  shall  send  His  angels. 
 When  Christ  says  that   He  will  send   His   angels   and 
 calls  them  "  His,"  He  shows  himself  to  be  God  ;  for  this  is 
 the  prerogative  of  God  {Ps.  ciii.  4). 
 
 With  a  trumpet  and  a  great  voice ^ 
 
 Christ  is  always  said  to  be  about  to  come  with  a  trumpet 
 (as  in  I  Cor.  xv.  52;  i  TJiess.  iv.  15):  not  only  because  men 
 are  to  be  summoned  to  judgment  by  a  trumpet,  but  because 
 a  trumpet  is  the  sign  of  kingly  majesty  ;  for  a  trumpet  is 
 sounded  before  kings  when  they  come  to  a  place. 
 
 Of  what  nature  the  trumpet  was  to  be — whether  an 
 actual  or  figurative  trumpet — neither  can  nor  need  be 
 known  ;  but  it  is  probable  that  it  will  be  but  the  latter, 
 and  that  a  voice,  loud,  deep,  far-sounding,  dreadful,  and 
 like  a  trumpet  in  sound,  is  here  called  a  trumpet ;  as  S. 
 John  in  the  Apocalypse  (i.  10 ;  iv.  i  ;  xix.  6)  says  that  he  heard 
 in  that  vision  of  the  last  judgment  which  he  saw.  When 
 Christ  says,  therefore,  "with  a  trumpet  and  a  great  voice," 
 it  is  the  same  as  if  He  had  said,  "  with  a  trumpet,"  that  is, 
 "  a  great  voice,"  the  word  "  and  "  being  here,  as  in  many 
 other  places,  exegctical. 
 
 In  confirmation  of  this,  many  Greek  copies  have  fj,e.Ta 
 auXiTL'y'yo'^  (f)oom]<i  fieyd^'q^;,  cnvi  tuba  vocis  viagncB,  as  Eusta- 
 thius  reads  it,  or  cum  tuba  magna,  as  S.  Chrysostom  ;  for 
 Christ  describes  not  two  things,  but  only  one.  So  Isa.  Iviii. 
 I  :  "  Cry  aloud,  cease  not  ;  lift  up  thy  voice  like  a  trumpet  ". 
 
 It  is  matter  of  doubt  whose  that  voice  is  or  what  it 
 signifies.  S.  John  (v.  25)  says  that  it  will  be  the  voice  of 
 Christ  Himself,  as  also  Joel  had  said  (ii.  11).  But  S.  John 
 (in  Rcv.vm.  6,  ix.  i,  13,  and  xi.  15)  mentions  angels  as 
 using  the  trumpet  at  the  judgment  ;  and  S.  Paul  (i  Thess. 
 iv.  15)  says  that  it  will  be  the  voice  of  an  archangel.  It  is 
 very  likely,  therefore,  that  both  Christ  will  speak  with  a 
 loud  voice  to  send  His  angels,  and  that  the  angels  and 
 
Ch.  XXIV.  32,  34.]      THE   END   OF   THE   WORLD.  289 
 
 archangels  and  the  other  heavenly  powers  will  utter  a 
 sound  like  the  sound  of  a  trumpet.  It  is  not  to  be  thought 
 that  the  voice  of  Christ  Himself  is  called  a  trumpet,  because 
 He  spoke,  without  doubt,  after  the  manner  and  custom  of 
 men.  Kings  do  not  ordinarily  sound  the  trumpet,  but 
 their  attendants. 
 
 Some  think  the  figure  taken  from  the  assemblies  of  the 
 Jews,  who  used  to  be  called  together  by  the  sound  of  a 
 trumpet,  as  in  Numb.  x.  2  ;  Isa.  xviii.  3  ;  and  supra,  chap.  vi.2. 
 It  may  be  so,  but  it  was  probably  a  similitude  derived  from 
 war  ;  for  the  trumpet  is  not  only  used  for  peaceful  as- 
 semblies, but  also  for  martial  ones,  to  terrify  the  enemy,  as 
 in  Isa.  xviii.  3  ;   Sophonias  i.  16,  17  ;  ZacJi.  ix.  14. 
 
 Verse  32.  And  from  the  fig-tree  learn  a  parable. 
 
 So  5.  Luke  xxi.  29,  30  :  "  And  He  spake  to  them  a 
 similitude  :  See  the  fig-tree  and  all  the  trees  ;  when  they 
 now  shoot  forth  their  fruit,  you  know  that  summer  is  nigh  ". 
 It  is  probable  that  Christ  used  the  words  of  both  Evange- 
 lists. 
 
 Verse  34.    This  generation. 
 
 Many  Catholics,  as  well  as  teachers  of  heresy,  and  some 
 of  the  highest  antiquity,  have  explained  this  of  an  age,  as 
 if  the  meaning  were,  that  before  the  age  of  men  then  living 
 should  be  ended  Jerusalem  would  be  destroyed.  Origen 
 calls  them  simple.  S.  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  Euthy- 
 mius,  and  The  Author  explain  it  of  the  generation  of 
 faithful  men,  as  if  Christ  had  said,  "  Although  calamities,  so 
 many  and  so  great,  are  about  to  happen,  yet  the  Church 
 shall  not  perish  to  the  end  of  the  world  ".  S.  Jerome,  how- 
 ever, understood  the  whole  human  race  as  if  the  meaning 
 were,  "  Before  the  human  race  is  ended,  all  these  things 
 which  Christ  has  foretold  shall  come  to  pass  ".  But  the 
 whole  world  would  seem  to  be  called  a  generation,  as  it  is 
 elsewhere  called  a  creature,  as  being  wholly  created  and 
 2 — 19 
 
290  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxiv.  35,  36. 
 
 generated.  And  thus  the  meaning  of  the  verse  would 
 seem  to  be,  that  what  Christ  foretold  was  so  certain  to 
 come  to  pass,  that  the  world  will  not  be  ended  before  it  has 
 been  fulfilled.  This  is  clearly  to  be  concluded  from  the 
 words  that  follow  :  "  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass,  but  My 
 words  shall  not  pass  ".  They,  therefore,  who  have  taken 
 an  age  to  be  the  meaning  of  generation  have  marred  the 
 whole  text. 
 
 Verse  35.  Heaven  and  eartJi  shall  pass. 
 This   is   a   Hebraism,    meaning   that   they   should   pass 
 away  as  to  their  present  state,  "but  My  words  shall  not 
 pass  " — shall  not  fail  nor  prove  false. 
 
 Verse  36.  But  of  the  day  and  Jionr  no  one  knoioeth,  no,  not 
 the  angels  in  heaven,  but  the  Father  alone. 
 It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  Son  of  man  is  also  ex- 
 cluded from  this  knowledge,  as  S.  Mark  (xiii.  32)  says,  in 
 plain  words,  "Of  that  day  or  hour  no  man  knoweth,  neither 
 the  angels  in  heaven,  nor  the  Son,  but  the  Father  ".  This 
 passage,  therefore,  proved  a  great  battle-field  in  the  contest 
 between  the  Catholics  and  Arians — the  latter  taking  it  as 
 a  great  authority  for  the  denial  of  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord. 
 Some  of  their  opponents  were  content  to  say  that  the 
 passage  was  corrupt.  Among  these  were  S.  Jerome  [in 
 loe)  and  S.  Ambrose  {De  Fide,  v.  8).  Others  said  that 
 Christ  did  not  indeed  know  the  day  of  judgment  as  long 
 as  He  was  in  this  life,  but  that  He  would  know  it  as  soon 
 as  He  had  ascended  to  the  Father.  So  Origen  {Tract,  xxx. 
 on  S.  Alatt.)  said  that,  when  Christ  said  this,  it  meant  that 
 He  did  not  know  the  day  then,  but  that  after  the  Pentecost 
 He  would  know  it,  because  He  then  would  have  been 
 made  a  King  or  Judge  by  the  Father.  There  were  certain 
 heretics  known  as  Agnotita^,  because  they  held  that  Christ 
 knew  not  the  day  of  judgment,  as  S.  John  Damascus  in- 
 
Ch.  XXIV.  37.]  CHRIST  IGNORANT  OF  DAY  OF  JUDGMENT.  29 1 
 
 forms  US.  But,  as  he  says  further,  they  attributed  ignor- 
 ance both  to  the  divine  and  human  natures  of  Christ, 
 simply  and  without  any  distinction,  because  they  beheved 
 that  the  Divinity  would  be  changed  into  the  humanity. 
 Most  of  the  ancient  Fathers  held  that  Christ  did  not  know 
 the  day  of  judgment,  not  as  being  really  ignorant  of  it,  but 
 because  He  would  not  have  us  know  what  He  did  not 
 please  to  reveal  to  us,  w^hat  His  Body — that  is,  the  Church 
 — did  not  know,  and  what  He  dissembled  His  knowledge 
 of  These  opinions  all  come  to  the  same  thing,  and  the 
 Ancients  sometimes  speak  one  way  and  sometimes  another 
 (Origen,  Tract,  xxx.  on  S.  Matt.  ;  S.  Chrysostom,  Honi. 
 Ixxviii.  OH  S.  Matt,  and  xiv.  on  S.  Mark ;  S.  Augustin, 
 Lib.  Qncsst.,  Ixxxiii.,  q.  61,  De  Triu.,  lib.  i.  12,  and  De 
 Genes,  cont.  Manich.,  xxiii.  ;  S.  Gregory,  lib.  viii.,  cap.  xlii.  ; 
 S.  Jerome,  Bede,  Theophylact,  In  Conini.,  in  loc.). 
 
 Others  say  that  He  was  ignorant  of  that  day — that  is. 
 He  had  not  yet  found  it.  Origen  (as  above),  Epiphanius 
 {HcBK,  Ixix.),  S.  Chrysostom  {Hoin.  de  Trin^,  Euthymius, 
 and  others  say  that  the  Son  does  not  know  unless  the 
 Father  knows  ;  but  because  the  Father  knows,  therefore 
 the  Son  knows. 
 
 But  all  these  opinions  appear  inharmonious.  For  they 
 who  ascribe  ignorance  to  Christ,  either  always  or  for  a 
 time,  are  to  be  rejected  at  once,  being  refuted  by  the  whole 
 of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  by  S.  Paul  most  especially,  as 
 in  Col.  ii.  3. 
 
 As  to  the  common  idea  of  Christ  not  knowing  it, 
 because  He  has  not  revealed  it  to  us,  it  seems  to  be 
 supported  by  no  basis  of  probability,  because  in  that  way 
 the  Father  also  must  be  ignorant,  because  He  did  not 
 reveal  it  to  us  ;  and,  by  the  same  argument,  the  opinion  of 
 Origen  and  Epiphanius  would  be  disproved,  that  Christ 
 did  not  know  the  day  of  judgment,  because  He  had  not 
 proved  it.     For  the  Father  had  not  done  so. 
 
292  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxiv.  36, 
 
 Many  ancient  authors — S.  Athanasius  [Cont.  Avian., 
 Serm.  iv.),  S.  Ambrose  {De  Fide,  v.  8),  S.  Gregory 
 Nazianzen  {Orat.  iv.  dc  Theolog.),  Theodoret,  and  The 
 Author — openly  taught  that  Christ  as  man  did  not  know 
 the  day  of  judgment,  and  meant  to  say  so  in  this  place. 
 This  seems  at  first  sight  detestable,  but  if  understood 
 rightly,  it  may  bear  a  true  meaning.  But  it  must  first 
 be  remembered  that  Christ,  as  God,  can  be  ignorant  of 
 nothing,  and,  moreover,  as  man.  He  could  be  ignorant 
 neither  of  the  day  of  judgment,  nor  of  anything  else  ; 
 but  the  difficulty  is,  that  when  we  say  that  Christ,  as 
 He  is  man,  is  ignorant  of  the  day  of  judgment,  the  word 
 "as"  must  be  taken  as  having  either  a  specific  or  a 
 causal  meaning.  If  the  former,  the  sense  will  be  that 
 Christ,  in  His  human  intellect,  does  not  know  the  day 
 of  judgment :  which  is  in  no  sense  the  truth,  for  not 
 only  His  divine,  but  also  His  human  nature  knows  it ; 
 for  in  Him,  as  S.  Paul  says,  are  hid  all  the  treasures  of 
 wisdom  and  knowledge  {Col.  ii.  3).  If  taken  in  the  latter 
 sense,  the  meaning  will  be  that  Christ  does  not  know 
 the  day  of  judgment,  as  He  is  man,  but  because  God  is 
 man  ;  for  if  He  had  been  man  only,  however  perfect  and 
 however  pleasing  to  God,  He  would  not  have  known  it. 
 For  the  angels  do  not  know  it,  who  are  most  perfect  and 
 most  pleasing  to  God.  Christ,  therefore,  does  not  deny 
 that,  even  as  man,  He  knows  that  day:  but  that  He  knows 
 it  eo  titulo,  that  He  is  man.  It  is  certain  that,  not  only  the 
 Son  of  man  denies  that  He  knows  the  day  of  judgment, 
 but  He  also  affirms  that  the  Father  alone  knows  it,  by 
 which,  not  only  is  the  Son  excluded,  but  the  Holy  Ghost 
 also. 
 
 Christ  seems  to  speak  in  the  same  manner  as  that  in 
 which  He  said  (xx.  23),  "  To  sit  on  My  right  hand  is  not 
 Mine  to  give  to  you,  but  to  them  for  whom  it  is  prepared  by 
 My  Father".     He  thus  shows  that,  not  only  as  man,  but 
 
Ch.  XXIV.  37-43-]    COMING   OF   THE   DAY   OF   JUDGMENT.    293 
 
 also  as  God,  He  is  in  some  way  ignorant  of  the  day  of 
 judgment :  not  that  He  does  not  know  it,  but  that  it  is  not 
 His  office  to  know  it ;  as  He  did  not  say,  "  for  whom  it  is 
 prepared  by  Me"  but  " by  My  Father ".  Not  that  it  was 
 not  prepared  by  Him,  but  because  to  prepare  the  kingdom 
 — that  is,  to  predestinate — was  not  His  office,  but  the 
 Father's.  So  it  is  the  office  of  the  Father  also  to  deter- 
 mine when  the  world  shall  be  dissolved,  and  when  the  day 
 of  judgment  is  to  be,  as  He  said  to  the  Apostles  {Acts  i.  7): 
 "It  is  not  for  you  to  know  the  times  or  moments  which  the 
 Father  hath  put  in  His  own  power".  For  the  Father  alone 
 is  said  to  know.     And  this  appears  to  be  the  true  meaning. 
 
 Verse  37.  ^ J"  in  the  days  of  Noe. 
 That  is,  "What  happened  in  the  time  of  Noe  will  happen 
 at  My  coming,"  as  explained  in  the  verses  following. 
 
 Verse  40.  One  shall  be  taken,  and  one  shall  be  left. 
 
 That  is,  one  shall  be  chosen  out  and  saved,  and  the 
 other  reprobated  and  lost.  So  S.  Jerome  and  Theophylact 
 explain  it. 
 
 S.  Luke  relates  the  same  conversation,  but  appears  to 
 place  it  at  a  different  time,  and  on  a  different  occasion  ;  but, 
 as  Euthymius  thinks,  Christ  may  have  said  the  same  thing 
 twice,  at  different  times. 
 
 Verse  43.  At  zvhat  hour  the  thief  zvoidd  come. 
 Tloia,  (pvXaKrj  6  /cXeTrr?;?  ep')(^eTai,  qua  vig ilia  fur  venit,  "at 
 what  watch".  Our  version  has  expressed  the  sense,  though 
 I  think  that  Christ,  without  a  reason,  said,  "  in  what 
 watch,"  for  He  had  said  just  before,  "Watch" — that  is, 
 keep  guard  like  soldiers.  The  allusion  is  to  the  military 
 custom  of  keeping  watch  throughout  the  night,  to  guard 
 against  any  surprise  of  the  enemy.  On  the  four  night 
 watches,  vid.  chap.  xiv.  15. 
 
294  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Cn.  xxiv.  45,  51. 
 
 Verse  45.  To  give  them  meat  in  due  season. 
 That  is,  to  give  to  each  servant  his  due  allowance.  S. 
 Luke  said,  To  give  them  their  measure  of  wheat  in  due 
 season  (xii.  42).  The  allusion  is  to  the  custom  of  servants, 
 over  whom  the  most  trustworthy  one  was  placed  to  govern 
 them,  and  give  them  their  meat  according  to  their  desert ; 
 money  payments  being  rare,  they  received  portions  of  corn 
 in  proportion  to  their  work  done. 
 
 Verse  51.  And  shall  separate  him. 
 These  words  have  been  taken  to  allude  to  a  supposed 
 Jewish  custom  of  cutting  criminals  in  half,  as  in  Dan.  xiii. 
 55.  59,  and  i  Kings  xv.  33.  This  was  a  manner  of  punish- 
 ment among  the  Romans,  as  we  learn  from  A.  Gellius 
 (xx.  i),  but  not  among  the  Jews,  who,  as  has  been  said  on 
 verses  22,  23,  had  but  four  kinds  of  punishment,  of  which  this 
 was  not  one,  and  it  does  not  agree  with  the  meaning  of  the 
 present  passage.  Some  have  taken  the  meaning  to  be, 
 that  he  shall  be  deprived  of  his  promised  good  and  reward. 
 So  S.  Hilary  [in  loc),  Origen,  and  Theophylact  say  that  it 
 was  the  loss  of  his  original  grace  and  favour.  The  true 
 meaning  is  that  which  is  given  by  S.  Jerome,  Euthymius, 
 and  The  Author.  He  shall  cast  him  out  of  his  family  ; 
 cut  him  off  from  the  society  of  his  fellow-servants  ;  as 
 before  (xxii.  12,  13),  the  king  commanded  the  man  who 
 had  not  on  a  wedding-garment  to  be  cast  out  of  the 
 banqueting-room,  and  thrust  into  outer  darkness.  Two 
 punishments  are  therefore  mentioned:  (i)  deprivation  of 
 the  office  which  had  been  abused  ;  (2)  the  being  cast  into 
 the  place  of  torment  where  wicked  servants  are  sent. 
 
 And  appoint  his  portion. 
 Christ,  after  the  manner  of  the  Hebrews,  calls  the  man's 
 unhappy  condition  a  portion.     So  Job  xx.  29  ;  xxvii.  13  ;  Ps. 
 X.    7.     The    word    is   used    in    a    good    sense    (/V.    x\-.    5 ; 
 Ixxii.  26). 
 
Ch.  XXIV.  51.]  THE    DAY   OF   JUDGMENT.  295 
 
 With  the  hypocrites. 
 Christ  calls  the  slothful  and  negligent  servants  hypo- 
 crites {vid.  chap.  xxv.  26,  30).  He  gives  them  this  name, 
 because  such  servants  work  only  in  the  presence  of  the 
 master,  and  are,  as  S.  Paul  says  to  the  Ephesians,  "eye- 
 servers  "  (vi.  6),  caring  less  to  be  good  servants  than  to 
 appear  such.  Of  such  sort  are  they  who  are  sent  to  the 
 place  of  torture.  Christ  in  these  words  alludes  to  hell, 
 which  is  the  place  of  the  slothful,  as  appears  from  the 
 words  that  follow  :  "  There  shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing 
 of  teeth  ".     On  this,  see  chap.  xiii.  42. 
 
CHAPTER  XXV. 
 
 THE  PARABLE  OF  THE  TEN  VIRGINS,  AND  OF  THE 
 TALENTS — THE  DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  LAST  JUDG- 
 MENT. 
 
 Verse  i.   TJien. 
 
 "  Then,"  when  the  Lord  shall  appear  suddenly.  The  mean- 
 ing depends  on  the  former  chapter.  He  teaches  the  same 
 thing  in  the  two  parables  of  the  Ten  Virgins  and  the 
 Talents  ;  the  same  thing  in  the  parable  of  the  Servant 
 (xxiv.  45),  &c. 
 
 SJiall  be  like. 
 
 That  is,  what  does  not  appear  now,  while  the  good  are 
 joined  with  the  evil  in  the  Church,  will  appear  then.  The 
 same  thing  takes  place  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  that  is, 
 the  Church ;  as  if  the  ten  virgins  received  the  lamps  to  go  out 
 to  meet  the  bridegroom,  as  explained  chap.  xv.  i6.  To  what 
 the  whole  parable  tends  is  clear  from  the  conclusion  (verse 
 13),  that  we  ought  always  to  watch,  always  to  be  ready,  as 
 the  Lord  will  come  in  an  hour  we  know  not  of;  and  always 
 to  prepare  by  good  works  for  His  presence.  The  argu- 
 ment of  the  last  chapter  is  followed  up  in  this. 
 
 The  parable  consists  of  fifteen  portions  : 
 
 I.  The  Bridegroom,  who,  beyond  doubt,  is  Christ, 
 as  has  been  explained  chaps,  ix.  15;  xxii.  2.  The 
 words,  "and  the  bride,"  are  not  found  in  the  Greek, 
 nor  do  S.  Basil,  S.  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  or   Euthy- 
 
Ch.  XXV.  I.]         PARABLE   OF   THE   TEN   VIRGINS.  297 
 
 mius  read  them,  but  they  are  found  in  Origen,  S. 
 Hilary,  S.  Augustin,  and  the  Syriac.  They  should,  there- 
 fore, be  read  :  if  not  of  necessity,  yet  on  account  of  their 
 antiquity,  and  the  authority  of  the  above  early  Fathers.  S. 
 John  {Apoc.  xxi.  2)  shows  that  the  Church  triumphant,  like 
 a  bride,  will  come  forth  with  Christ  to  judgment. 
 
 2.  The  second  part  of  the  parable  is  the  Ten  Virgins,  on 
 which  there  is  a  threefold  question  :  (i)  Why  they  were 
 virgins  ;  (2)  Why  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  compared  to 
 ten;  (3)  What  the  virgins  signify. 
 
 Origen  and  others  think  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
 is  compared  to  virgins  rather  than  to  others,  to  signify  the 
 integrity  of  faith,  which  has  its  parallel  in  purity  of  the 
 body.  S.  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  and  Euthymius  say, 
 that  as  virginity  is  the  highest  point  of  perfection,  so  Christ 
 declares  that  no  one  ought  to  trust  to  his  own  good,  because 
 not  all  virgins,  though  of  the  most  spotless  purity,  entered 
 into  the  marriage,  that  is,  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Others, 
 more  modern,  whose  opinion  seems  preferable,  say  that  the 
 kingdom  of  heaven  is  specially  compared  to  virgins  only, 
 because  it  was  the  custom  of  virgins  before  others  to  carry 
 torches  and  to  conduct  the  bride  and  bridegroom  to  their 
 house. 
 
 As  to  the  number  ten,  S.  Jerome,  S.  Augustin,  and  others 
 say  that  it  shows  the  five  senses  ;  they  who  rule  them  well 
 being  wise,  and  they  who  do  otherwise  foolish.  So  say  S. 
 Jerome  and  Bede  {in  loc),  S.  Augustin  {Ep.  cxx.  33),  S. 
 Gregory  {Horn.  xii.  in  Evang).  Thus  there  are  ten.  It 
 would  rather  appear  that  this  number  was  chosen  to  show 
 a  great  number  of  persons,  and  that  universality  was  meant. 
 So  Gen.  xxxi.  7,  41  ;  Levit.  xxvi.  26  ;  Numb.  xiv.  22.  Thus 
 the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  said  to  be  like  ten,  that  is,  to 
 many.  By  ten  virgins,  S.  Chrysostom,  Theophylact, 
 Euthymius,  S.  Augustin,  S,  Gregory,  as  cited  above,  think 
 that  all  who  were  truly  virgins  are  meant,  but  this  is  too 
 
298  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxv.  i. 
 
 forced  a  sense,  perhaps,  S.  Hilary  and  The  Author,  on  the 
 contrary,  hold  that  all  mankind  are  intended,  the  faithful 
 and  unbelieving  alike,  with  a  meaning  perhaps  too  ex- 
 tended ;  Origen  and  S.  Jerome  {in  loc),  and,  as  appears,  S. 
 Ambrose  {Scnn.  xiv.  <?//  Ps.  cxviii.j,  neither  of  all  men,  nor 
 of  virgins  alone,  but  of  all  the  faithful,  and  of  these  alone. 
 Their  opinion  seems  good — first,  because  it  is  plain  that 
 Christ  speaks  only  of  those  who  had  received  lamps,  which 
 only  the  faithful  have :  for  the  lamp  is  faith  {Ps.  cxviii.  105)  ; 
 secondly,  because  Christ  teaches  that  faith  without  good 
 works  does  not  satisfy  for  salvation. 
 
 Another  part  of  the  question  is  the  meaning  of  the  five 
 wise  and  the  five  foolish.  S.  Hilary  says  that  the  five  wise 
 include  all  the  faithful,  and  the  five  foolish  all  the  contrary. 
 The  Author  makes  the  wise  all  spiritual  men,  and  the 
 unwise  all  carnal  ;  or,  by  the  former,  all  who  are,  as  S. 
 Paul  says  (i  Cor.  vii.  34),  virgins  both  in  body  and  spirit  ; 
 by  the  latter,  those  that  are  virgins  in  body  but  corrupt  in 
 soul.  S.  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  Euthymius,  and,  per- 
 haps, S.  Ambrose  {Serin,  xiv.  on  Ps.  cxviii.),  by  the  wise,  all 
 who,  besides  the  true  virginity  of  mind  and  person,  have 
 also  mercy  and  charity,  and  show  them  in  giving  of  alms 
 largely  ;  by  the  foolish,  all  who,  though  virgins,  are  not 
 merciful,  that  is,  have  no  oil  in  their  vessels,  and,  therefore, 
 do  not  works  of  almsgiving.  S.  Augustin  (Pj).  cxx.),  S. 
 Gregory  {Noni.  xii.  on  Gospels),  and  Bede  (/;/  loc^)  make  the 
 five  wise  all  virgins  who  have,  as  is  said,  a  good  intention 
 and  seek  praise  for  their  virtue,  not  from  men,  but  from 
 God  ;  the  others  are  such  as  seek  after  human  praise  and 
 flattery.  Origen,  S.  Jerome,  and  S.  John  Damascus,  or 
 whoever  is  the  author  of  his  history,  say  that  the  wise 
 virgins  are  all  men  who  have  good  works  with  faith,  and 
 that  the  foolish  are  such  as  have  faith  indeed,  but  not  works. 
 
 This  seems  not  merely  the  best,  but  the  only  good  ex- 
 planation, because  the  great  subject  of  the  parable  is  that 
 
Ch.  XXV.  I.]  PARABLE   OF   THE   TEN   VIRGINS.  299 
 
 faith  without  works  is  of  no  avail  for  salvation.  Again, 
 because  the  same  is  taught  both  by  previous  parables  (xxiv. 
 45)  and  subsequent  ones  (verse  14),  that  it  is  not  enough  to 
 believe  unless  we  also  watch  to  good  works,  because  we 
 know  not  at  what  hour  the  Lord  w^ill  come.  The  same  is 
 again  inculcated  in  another  parable  (xxii.  12),  in  which,  as 
 here  are  the  virgins,  so  there  is  the  guest  who  entered  in  at 
 the  wedding  feast  by  faith,  but  who,  because  he  had  no 
 wedding-garment,  that  is,  works,  was  cast  out. 
 
 3.  The  third  point  of  the  parable  is  the  lamps  which  all 
 the  virgins  received,  and  by  which  S.  Hilary  understands 
 our  human  bodies,  in  which  the  divine  light  of  the  soul 
 shines.  S.  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  Euthymius,  Bede,  S. 
 Augustin,  and  S.  Gregory,  in  the  works  cited  above,  think 
 that  bodily  virginity  is  intended.  S.  Jerome,  of  the  bodily 
 senses,  and — with  S.  Hilary,  Origen,  and  The  Author — he 
 explains  it  of  faith.  This  agrees  well  with  the  sense  of  the 
 parable  ;  for  all  take  that  to  be  faith  from  which  they  went 
 out  to  meet  Christ,  but  all  did  not  go  in  with  Him  to  the 
 marriage,  because  all  had  not  good  works. 
 
 4.  The  fourth  point  is  the  oil  which  the  wise  virgins  had 
 and  the  foolish  ones  had  not,  and  which  S.  Chrysostom, 
 Euthymius,  Theophylact,  and  S.  Ambrose  ex^Dlain  to  be 
 alms  and  mercy,  as  these  are  compared  in  Scripture  to  oil. 
 But  S.  Augustin,  S.  Gregory,  and  Bede  think  it  the  good 
 will  which,  as  said  before,  seeks  praise,  not  of  men,  but  of 
 God.  The  opinion  of  Origen,  S.  Hilary,  The  Author,  and 
 S.  John  Damascus  is  the  only  true  and  probable  one.  They 
 understand  by  the  oil  good  works,  without  which  faith  does 
 not  shine,  that  is,  is  dead  (S.  fames  ii.  26),  and  by  which,  if 
 present,  faith  is  kindled,  shines,  is  made  to  appear,  to 
 show  (5.  James  ii.  I'j).  The  foolish  virgins  say  (verse  8), 
 '  Give  us  of  }'our  oil,  for  our  lamps  are  gone  out ".  Not 
 that  without  works  faith  is  at  once  extinguished,  but  that 
 when  it  does  not  shine  through  works,  it  appears  to  be  so, 
 
300  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxv.  i. 
 
 and  avails  no  more  to  salvation  than  if  it  were  wholly 
 extinct ;  or,  as  The  Author  says,  because  it  is  so  ordered 
 by  nature  that  whereas  faith  is  cherished  and  kept  alive  by 
 good  works,  so  without  them  it  languishes,  and  by  degrees 
 becomes  dead.  To  take  oil  then  in  the  lamps  is  to  lay  up 
 a  plenty  and,  as  it  were,  a  treasure  of  good  works  against 
 the  future  coming  of  Christ,  as  in  chap.  vi.  20. 
 
 5.  The  fifth  part  is  the  vessels  which,  S.  Hilary  says,  are 
 our  human  bodies,  as  S.  Paul  wrote  (2  Cor.  iv.  7).  It  would 
 be  better  understood  as  the  soul  or  conscience,  which  is  the 
 seat  and  receptacle  of  good  works. 
 
 6.  The  sixth  part  is  the  bridegroom  being  said  to  have 
 tarried.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  by  this  Christ  meant  to 
 teach  us  that  the  time  of  His  second  coming  would  be  long, 
 that  He  might  disabuse  the  disciples  of  the  false  idea  that 
 He  would  come  immediately  after  His  Resurrection,  as  S. 
 Chrysostom  has  observed.  To  the  same  purpose,  S.  Jerome 
 and  S.  Hilary  say  that  the  delay  of  the  bridegroom  is  a 
 time  of  penance.  But  Christ  speaks  accommodatingly  to 
 the  virgins,  to  whom,  because  He  did  not  come  immediately, 
 as  they  expected,  He  appeared  to  delay  too  long  ;  for,  to 
 those  who  are  waiting,  all  time  naturally  seems  long. 
 Otherwise  Christ  did  not  desire  to  signify  of  His  own 
 intention  that  His  absence  should  be  greatly  prolonged  ; 
 for,  as  S.  John  says  (i  Ep.  ii.  18),  "It  is  the  last  hour"  ;  and 
 it  was  not  in  harmony  with  the  parable  to  teach  that  His 
 absence  would  be  long,  lest  men  whom  He  desired  to  teach 
 to  be  diligent,  watching,  and  always  ready,  should  become 
 negligent,  slothful,  and  secure. 
 
 7.  The  seventh  part  is  all  the  virgins  being  said  to  have 
 slumbered  and  slept,  which  S.  Hilary  and  S.  Chrysostom 
 {in  he),  S.  Augustin  [Ep.  cxx.,  chap,  xxxii.),  S.  Basil  {In 
 Moral.,  chap,  v.),  explain  by  saying  that  all  the  virgins 
 were  dead  before  Christ  came.  The  Author  says  that  they 
 were  negligent.     This  would  seem  very  good  were  it  not 
 
Ch,  XXV.  I.]        PARABLE   OF   THE   TEN    VIRGINS.  3OI 
 
 said  that  both  the  wise  and  the  foolish  slept.  It  should 
 therefore,  perhaps,  be  understood  that  they  had  ceased  to 
 think  of  the  bridegroom  coming,  and  did  not  expect  him 
 when  he  came.  This  would  happen  both  to  the  good  and 
 the  bad.  For  they  who  wait  long  for  a  person  often  cease 
 to  expect  him,  and  when  they  are  not  looking  for  or 
 thinking  of  him,  that  is,  when  they  are  sleeping,  he  sud- 
 denly comes.  This  is  shown  further  by  the  time  at  which 
 the  bridegroom  came  :  midnight. 
 
 8.  The  time  at  which  the  bridegroom  came — that  is, 
 midnight — is  the  eighth  part  of  the  parable.  They  who 
 think  from  this,  as  some  do,  that  the  usual  hour  of 
 the  bridegroom's  coming  to  the  house  of  the  bride  was 
 midnight,  seem  not  only  to  miss  the  point  of  the  parable, 
 but  to  pervert  it,  and  to  seek  to  reconcile  things  contra- 
 dictory. For  if  midnight,  and  not  earlier,  were  the  time 
 of  the  coming  of  the  bridegroom,  how  did  he  delay  when 
 that  period  had  not  yet  arrived  ?  how  did  he  seem  to 
 the  virgins  to  tarry  overlong,  when  they  knew  that 
 he  would  not  come  before  it  ?  Some  ancient  Fathers  be- 
 lieved that  Christ  would  come  at  midnight,  and  so  the 
 Church  Hymn  seems  to  imply.  S.  Jerome  says  that  it  was 
 an  apostolic  tradition  that,  at  the  Passover,  it  was  not 
 lawful  to  dismiss  the  people  before  midnight,  because  it 
 was  thought  that  He  would  come  at  that  hour,  as  in  Egypt 
 of  old.  The  Jews  also  expected  their  Messiah  at  midnight. 
 But  we  must  keep  to  the  words,  "  You  know  not  the  day 
 nor  the  hour ".  The  meaning,  therefore,  is  that  He  will 
 come  when  He  is  least  expected.  For  who  could  believe 
 that  He  would  come  in  the  middle  of  the  night,  when  men 
 are  buried  in  repose?  So  say,  with  justice,  S.  Gregory,  S. 
 Hilary,  S.  Jerome,  S.  Augustin,  Theophylact,  and  Bede. 
 
 9.  The  ninth  point  is  the  cry  "  Behold  ".  This  doubtless 
 is  the  great  voice  mentioned  in  chap.  xxiv.  31,  and  the 
 trumpet ;    as  Origin,  S.  Chrysostom,  The  Author,  Euthy- 
 
302  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxv.  i. 
 
 mius,  Theophylact,  S.  Jerome,  S.  Augustin  {Ep.  cxx.,  chap. 
 iii.),  have  explained. 
 
 ic.  The  tenth  point  is  contained  in  verse  7  :  "  Then  all 
 those  virgins  arose  and  trimmed  their  lamps,"  which  is  ex- 
 plained by  S.  Hilary  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and 
 the  restoration  of  all  things.  S.  Augustin  (in  the  above 
 Epistle),  The  Author,  and  Bede  {in  he)  explain  it  better, 
 that  a  rumour  will  be  heard  of  the  coming  of  Christ ;  all 
 men  who,  as  if  oppressed  with  sleep,  had  not  thought  of 
 Him  would  arise,  as  S.  Paul  says  {Rom.  xiii.  11).  To  trim 
 the  lamps  is  to  call  to  mind  the  works  which  everyone  has 
 done,  to  give  account  of  them  in  the  judgment. 
 
 1 1.  The  eleventh  point  is  the  saying  of  the  foolish  virgins 
 to  the  wise  :  "  Give  us  of  your  oil,  for  our  lamps  are  gone 
 out ".  It  is  clear  that  the  meaning  is  that  men  who  have 
 no  good  works  of  their  own,  v/hen  it  is  too  late,  and  they 
 are  called  to  judgment,  will  implore  the  help  of  the  saints, 
 as  The  Author  explains  it;  as  if  they  wished  to  cover  them- 
 selves under  the  good  works  of  others. 
 
 12.  The  twelfth  point  is  the  answer  of  the  wise  virgins  : 
 "  Lest,  perhaps,  there  be  not  enough  for  us  and  for  you,  go 
 ye  rather  to  them  that  sell  and  buy  for  yourselves  ".  In 
 this  two  things  seem  remarkable  :  {a)  That  the  wise  virgins 
 refuse  their  help  to  the  foolish,  not  because  they  would  not 
 give  it  if  they  could,  but  because  at  so  late  an  hour  they 
 were  not  able.  So  say  S.  Chrysostom,  Euthymius,  and 
 Theophylact.  Or,  as  is  more  probable  (as  The  Author 
 says),  because  in  that  dreadful  judgment  no  one  will  have 
 sufficient  confidence  in  himself,  or  appear  to  have  enough 
 of  good  works  ;  for  the  words,  "  lest,  perhaps,  there  be  not 
 enough  for  us  and  for  you,"  evidently  point  to  this.  In 
 these  words,  neither  the  treasure  of  the  Church,  which 
 consists  of  the  merits  of  the  saints,  nor  their  suffrages  for 
 others,  are  destroyed,  as  if  the  good  works  of  one  could  not 
 profit  another.     By  the  same  reasoning,  it  would  be  proved 
 
Ch.  XXV.  I.]        PARABLE   OF   THE   TEN   VIRGINS.  303 
 
 that  the  saints,  even  while  alive,  could  not  help  other  living 
 persons  by  their  prayers,  which  is  contrary  to  all  Scripture, 
 from  which  we  learn  that  by  the  merits  of  the  saints  the 
 dead  are  aided.  We  find  this  in  6".  Luke  xvi.  9  :  "  Make 
 unto  you  friends  of  the  mammon  of  iniquity,  that  when  you 
 shall  fail  they  may  receive  you  into  everlasting  dwellings," 
 where  Christ  says  that  the  faith  and  labour  of  some  can 
 profit  others.  Many  Ancients  have  rightly  concluded  the 
 same  from  chap.  ix.  2  :  "And  Jesus,  seeing  their  faith,  said  to 
 the  man  sick  with  the  palsy.  Be  of  good  heart,  son,  thy  sins 
 be  forgiven  thee,"  as  has  there  been  explained.  What,  then, 
 is  the  meaning  of  the  passage  ?  This,  that  everyone  in 
 that  last  great  final  judgment  will  be  judged  by  his  own 
 works,  and  not  by  those  of  others,  as  S.  Paul  said  (2  Cor. 
 V.  10),  and  should  bear  his  own  burden  {Gal.  vi.  5).  S. 
 Augustin,  in  his  oft-cited  Ep.  cxxix.,  S.  Hilary,  and  S, 
 Chrysostom  are  to  be  understood  in  this  sense  when  they 
 say  that  this  passage  shows  that  no  one  is  aided  by  the 
 works  of  another. 
 
 {b)  The  second  point  is  the  foolish  virgins  being  sent  to 
 those  who  sold,  to  buy  oil  for  themselves.  Origen  and  The 
 Author  explain  this  to  mean  the  teachers  of  the  Church, 
 who  sell  the  Word  of  God,  not  for  a  price,  but  for  salvation 
 and  by  the  confession  of  faith,  as  is  said  by  S.  Paul  (2  Cor. 
 xii.  14),  and  as  he  calls  those  whom  he  brought  to  the 
 Gospel  his  joy  and  crown  {PJiil.  iv.  i).  S.  Augustin,  S. 
 Gregory,  and  Bede,  by  the  sellers  understand  flatterers,  who 
 sell  the  fumes  of  false  praise  ;  as  if  it  w^ere  said  in  irony, 
 "  Go  to  those  flatterers  in  whose  praises  you  take  delight, 
 and  see  what  good  they  can  do  you  ".  S.  Jerome  thinks 
 that  the  foolish  virgins — that  is,  those  who  have  no  good 
 works — are  sent  into  the  world  to  gain  with  much  labour 
 the  oil  of  good  works.  This  would  appear  to  be  no  part 
 of  the  parable,  but  an  oflshoot  of  what  either  might  have 
 been  or  was  very  probable,  and   added   to  complete  the 
 
304  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxv.  i. 
 
 narrative,  as  were  the  words  of  the  wise  virgins,  "  lest, 
 perhaps,  there  be  not  enough  for  us  and  for  you  ".  Both 
 may  have  been  added,  not  to  carry  any  meaning,  but  as  it 
 was  very  probable  that  the  virgins  would  have  spoken  in 
 this  manner.  The  words  cannot  mean  that  those  who  had 
 no  good  works  should  be  sent  into  the  world  to  buy,  that 
 is,  procure  them.  It  was  said  because  it  was  very  probable 
 that  the  foolish  virgins  would  go  to  buy  oil  when  they 
 could  obtain  none  from  the  others,  and  Christ  must  form  a 
 truth-like  narrative.  Or,  if  this  part  have  any  meaning  at 
 all,  it  may  only  be  that  the  foolish  and  improvident  would 
 desire  to  do  good  works,  and  to  be  diligent  in  them,  when 
 the  time  is  past  and  it  is  too  late. 
 
 1 3.  The  thirteenth  point  is  the  coming  of  the  bridegroom, 
 which  means,  as  no  one  doubts,  the  coming  of  Christ  to 
 judgment. 
 
 14.  The  fourteenth  is  the  entering  in  of  those  who  were 
 prepared  with  the  bridegroom  into  the  marriage  and  the 
 supper,  by  which  the  beatific  life  is  described,  as  Rev. 
 xix.   7. 
 
 15.  The  fifteenth  is  the  door  being  shut  when  the  foolish 
 virgins  returned  ;  which  only  means  that  they  wished  to  do 
 good  works  when  it  was  too  late,  and  when  it  was  no  longer 
 a  time  to  work,  as  Christ  said  {S.  John  ix.  4),  "  The  night 
 cometh  when  no  man  can  work  ".  Nor  needs  there  further 
 discussion  of  how,  when  the  final  judgment  was  ended,  the 
 foolish  virgins  returned  to  heaven,  and  beat  the  door,  and 
 entreated  Christ  with  prayers  to  open  to  them.  All  this, 
 as  has  been  said,  was  added,  not  for  a  meaning,  but  to 
 amplify  and  adorn  the  parable ;  nor  that  it  would  happen 
 in  heaven,  but  that  it  was  very  likely  to  happen  among 
 men  ;  and,  as  S.  Gregory  said  {Hovi.  xii.)  on  these  words, 
 this  only  was  intended,  that  he  cannot  possibly  merit  to 
 obtain  from  God  what  he  asks  there,  who  would  not  listen 
 to  what  He  commands  here. 
 
Ch.  XXV.  12,  14.]    PARABLE  OF  THE  TEN   TALENTS.  305 
 
 Verse  12.  I  knozu you  not. 
 All  authorities,  ancient  and  modern,  agree  that  the  word 
 "  know"  here  and  in  other  places  does  not  mean  recogni- 
 tion, but  feeling,  and,  as  they  say,  scientia  approbationis ; 
 as  if  Christ  said,  "  I  do  not  approve  you  ;  I  do  not  acknow- 
 ledge you  as  My  children";  or,  as  the  Author  says,  "  I  do 
 not  see  in  you  the  marks  of  My  spirit,"  of  which  S.  Paul 
 speaks  (2  Cor.  i.  22  ;  and  Ep/i.  i.  3  ;  iv.  30). 
 
 Verse  14.  For  even  as  a  man  going  into  a  far  country. 
 
 This  is  imperfect,  and  a  pendens  oratio.  For  there 
 is  nothing  to  which  the  words  "  even  as  "  can  refer  to  com- 
 plete the  sentence,  as  Origen  has  observed  {Tract,  xxxiii. 
 in  S.  Matt?).  We  must  therefore  understand  some  such 
 words  as  "Such  is  the  kingdom  of  God,"  as  Christ  said, 
 "  The  kingdom  of  God  is  like  ten  virgins  ".  A  similar  form 
 of  speech  is  found  in  5".  Mark  xiii.  34. 
 
 It  is  doubtful  whether  the  parable  is  the  same  as  that  of 
 S.  Luke  (xix.  11)  ;  for  there  are  many  points  of  difference 
 between  the  two.  S.  Luke  mentions  his  as  given  at  another 
 time  and  place,  when  Christ  had  dined  at  the  house  of 
 Zaccheus  on  His  way  to  Jerusalem,  before  He  entered  the 
 city  on  the  ass  :  S.  Matthew,  when  He  was  sitting  on  the 
 Mount  of  Olives  on  the  third  day  after  His  entry,  as  shown 
 on  chap.  xxiv.  3.  S.  Luke  says  that  the  master  gave  to  each 
 of  ten  servants  a  pound  :  S.  Matthew,  that  he  distributed 
 his  goods  to  three  servants,  giving  to  one  five  talents,  to 
 another  two,  to  a  third  one.  S.  Luke  says  that  the  first 
 servant  gained  ten  pounds,  the  second  five  ;  S.  Matthew 
 says  that  the  first  gained  five,  the  second  gained  two.  S. 
 Luke,  that  the  slothful  servant  bound  his  pound  in  a  nap- 
 kin :  S.  Matthew,  that  he  hid  it  in  the  earth. 
 
 These  differences  induced  S.  Chrysostom  to  consider  them 
 different  parables.  S.  Jerome,  however,  and  S.  Ambrose, 
 in  his  Conimentaiy  on  S.  L21C.,  xix.,  think  them  the  same. 
 
306  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxv.  14. 
 
 This  opinion  appears  more  probable,  both  as  being  that  of 
 all  the  more  modern  authors,  from  whom  we  should  not 
 differ  without  great  reason  ;  and  because  it  seems  scarcely 
 probable  that  Christ  would  have  spoken  the  same  parable 
 twice  in  so  short  a  time  in  different  words.  S.  Luke's 
 indication,  that  it  was  spoken  at  a  different  time  and  place 
 to  S.  Matthew,  is  no  novelty,  as  the  Evangelists  appear  to 
 differ  in  the  details  of  time  and  place:  whilst  they  take 
 account  of  the  thing  done,  not  of  the  order  and  time  of  the 
 events  described  by  them. 
 
 Christ  probably  spoke  this  parable  before  He  entered 
 Jerusalem,  because  S.  Luke  said  so,  and  S.  Matthew, 
 though  silent,  does  not  contradict  him.  In  the  other  points 
 on  which  they  appear  to  differ,  they  give  not  the  exact 
 words  of  Christ  ;  but  the  sense  of  the  whole  parable  is  the 
 same  both  in  S.  Luke  and  S.  Matthew,  though  their  ac- 
 counts vary.  S.  Matthew  probably  retained  the  words  of 
 Christ  rather  than  S.  Luke  ;  both  because  he  was  present, 
 and  because  he  appears  to  relate  the  whole  parable  more 
 distinctly.  S.  Luke,  perhaps  because  Christ  in  the  pre- 
 ceding parable  had  compared  the  kingdom  of  heaven  to 
 the  ten  virgins,  introduced  the  same  number  here.  But 
 this  does  not  affect  the  meaning.  It  is  to  be  wished  that 
 S.  Augustin,  in  his  De  Conscnsti,  had  given  his  opinion, 
 but  he  does  not  raise  the  question. 
 
 We  have  now  to  see  to  what  the  parable  tends.  Euthy- 
 mius  says  that  its  meaning  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  former 
 parable  of  the  faithful  servant  whom  his  lord,  when  going  on 
 a  far  journey,  set  over  his  household  (xxiv.  45)  ;  and  as  that 
 of  the  preceding  one  of  the  ten  virgins,  that  the  grace  and 
 faith  given  by  God  are  to  be  cultivated  and  increased  by  dili- 
 gence and  good  works,  as  S.  Paul  says  of  himself  (i  Cor. 
 XV.  10).  Then  also  each  will  be  judged  according  to  his 
 own  works.  Lastly,  through  our  acceptance  of  the  grace 
 of  God  given  to  us,  we  merit  addition  of  the  same  grace. 
 
Ch.  XXV.  14.]  PARABLE  OF  THE  TEN  TALENTS.        307 
 
 The  parts  of  the  parable  seem  to  be  twelve. 
 
 1.  The  departure  of  the  man  into  the  far  country,  whom 
 no  one  can  doubt  to  be  Christ.  S.  Luke  says,  more 
 plainly :  "  A  certain  nobleman  went  into  a  far  country  to 
 receive  a  kingdom"  (xix.  12).  He  calls  him  a  nobleman, 
 but  not  a  king,  because  he  had  not  yet  received  possession 
 of  the  kingdom.  When  he  had,  he  called  him  a  king. 
 So  S.  Matthew  styles  him  first  a  man  (verse  14),  and  then  a 
 king  (verse  34). 
 
 2.  The  second  is  the  departure  of  the  nobleman,  that  is, 
 Christ,  into  the  far  country.  S.  Chrysostom  and  Theophy- 
 lact  explain  this  of  the  Incarnation,  because  He  departed 
 for  a  far  country  when  He  came  down  from  heaven  to 
 earth,  and  He  again  departed  for  a  far  country  when  He 
 returned  from  earth  to  heaven.  Not  that  heaven  is  far 
 from  the  earth,  but  that  the  heavenly  status  of  Christ,  by 
 which,  before  the  Incarnation,  He  was  in  the  form  of  God, 
 and  by  which,  after  the  Ascension,  He  sits  at  the  right 
 hand  of  the  Father,  was  very  far  distant  from  that  habit 
 {habitus)  in  which  He  dwelt  among  us  {P/ii/.  ii.  7)  :  "  But 
 emptied  Himself,  taking  the  form  of  a  servant,  being  made 
 in  the  likeness  of  men,  and  in  habit  found  as  a  man  "  ;  or 
 rather  {Ps.  xxi.  7)  :  "  But  I  am  a  worm  and  no  man,  the 
 reproach  of  men  and  the  outcast  of  the  people  ".  Some 
 think  the  journey  to  have  been  His  ascent  into  heaven,  which 
 is  far  distant  from  earth  (Origen,  S.  Augustin,  S.  Jerome, 
 Bede).  Others  that  He  would  not  return  for  a  long  time, 
 as  if  He  had  taken  a  journey  of  many  years  duration. 
 This  is  the  opinion  of  S.  Chrysostom,  and  seems  the  best 
 of  any.  For  the  distance  of  place  has  nothing  to  do  with 
 the  question ;  the  length  of  time  has  much.  For  the 
 lord  wished  to  try  the  faith  and  diligence  of  his  servants  by 
 a  long  absence,  as  in  chaps  xxi.  33  ;  xxiv.  48  ;  and  supra, 
 verse  5. 
 
 3.  The  third  part  is  the  servants,  whom  the  greater  number 
 
308  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    IMATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxv.  14. 
 
 of  authorities  regard  as  the  Doctors  of  the  Church,  because 
 Christ  has  seemingly  given  to  them  different  talents  ;  that 
 is,  to  some  greater  grace,  and  to  some  less,  to  preach  the 
 Gospel  and  explain  the  Holy  Scriptures.  So  Origen 
 ( Tract,  xxxiii.  on  S.  Matty),  S.  Chrysostom,  S.  Jerome,  Bede, 
 Euthymius,  Theophylact  {Comment.),  S.  Ambrose  {07i  S. 
 Liike  xix.),  S.  Justin  (/«  TrypJio).  Others,  by  the  servants, 
 understand  all  men,  at  least  all  Christians  ;  for  to  all  God 
 has  given  some  talent,  that  is,  some  grace  by  which  to 
 trade,  that  by  the  addition  of  their  own  diligence  they 
 might  merit  increase  of  grace  and  eternal  life.  So  say 
 Anastasius  {Quest.  84)  and  Theophylact  of  Antioch  {Alleg., 
 lib.  1.).  This  seems  better  than  the  former,  because,  as 
 S.  Luke  says,  Christ  proposed  this  parable  not  only  to  the 
 Apostles,  who  are  Doctors  of  the  Gospel,  but  to  all  His 
 hearers  ;  and  also  because,  as  has  been  said  more  than  once, 
 the  meaning  of  Scripture  is  not  to  be  narrowed  without 
 very  good  reasons. 
 
 4.  The  fourth  part  is  that  he  who  is  called  a  man  gave 
 his  servants  goods  ;  that  is,  as  afterwards  explained, 
 talents  (verse  15  and  following).  S.  Ambrose  {Comment, 
 on  S.  Luke  xix.)  says  that  these  talents  are  our  natural 
 reason,  which  whoever  cultivates  is  thereby  rendered 
 worthy  to  receive  the  addition  of  grace,  that  more  talents 
 may  be  committed  to  him. 
 
 Maldonatus  then  gives  the  opinion  of  different  Fathers 
 and  others  as  to  what  the  talents  are  intended  to  signify. 
 S.  Ambrose  thinks  that  they  are  our  natural  reason,  which 
 must  be  improved  by  grace.  S.  Jerome  and  others, 
 that  they  show  different  offices  in  the  Church — bishops, 
 priests,  deacons.  S.  Justin  Martyr,  Origen,  and  others, 
 that  they  are  the  Gospel,  which  has  to  be  taught  and 
 explained  by  the  Doctors  of  the  Church.  Others,  that  they 
 signify  the  different  kinds  of  grace  that  are  given  to  us 
 gratis. 
 
Ch.  XXV.  14.]     PARABLE   OF   THE   TEN   TALENTS.  309 
 
 Having  expressed  his  disagreement  with  these  opinions, 
 as  restricting  the  meaning  of  Christ  too  much,  he  gives  his 
 own  :  that  they  are  generally  all  the  gifts  of  God  to  us, 
 among  which  the  grace  {gratuvi  facieiis),  as  the  Schoolmen 
 say,  is  the  first  and  foremost.  This  being  given  to  us  by 
 God,  to  multiply  it  and  increase  it,  and  not  to  bury  it  in 
 the  earth  ;  that  is,  suffer  it  to  become  unproductive,  as 
 Paul  says  of  himself  (i  Cor.  xv.  10),  and  as  he  warns  the 
 Corinthians  that  they  receive  not  the  grace  of  God  in  vain 
 (2  Cor.  vi.). 
 
 5.  The  fifth  part  of  the  parable  may  be  the  number  of 
 talents,  because  to  one  was  given  five,  to  another  two,  and 
 to  another  only  one. 
 
 Maldonatus  gives  many  mystical  explanations  of  the 
 number  of  the  talents  from  different  Fathers  and  others ; 
 but  he  concludes  that  the  numbers  have  no  real  bearing  on 
 the  meaning  of  the  parable,  because  S.  Luke  (xix.  13)  does 
 not  speak  of  five,  two,  and  one,  but  says  that  each  servant 
 received  one  mina.  S.  Luke  would  not  have  written  this 
 if  the  numbers  had  any  real  significance,  for  he  would  then 
 have  altered  the  meaning  of  Christ.  But  because  the  chief 
 meaning  of  the  parable  is  to  teach  that  some  work  more 
 diligently  with  the  grace  of  God,  and  some  less,  S.  Luke 
 only  meant  this  when  he  said  that  one  of  these  servants 
 gained  ten  and  another  five.  If  the  number  had  had  any 
 mystical  meaning  with  S.  Matthew,  it  had  only  this  :  to 
 show  generally  that  neither  are  all  gifts  given  equally  to  all 
 men,  nor  do  all  men  co-operate  equally  with  those  they 
 have.  But  his  mentioning  five  rather  than  six,  and  two 
 rather  than  three,  seems  to  have  no  mystery  in  it.  But  the 
 words  of  Christ,  "  to  everyone  according  to  his  proper 
 ability,"  are  not  so  easily  understood.  S.  Hilary,  The 
 Author,  and  Theophylact  take  Him  to  mean  the  peculiar 
 virtue  of  each,  which,  as  each  receives  from  God  in  a 
 greater  or  less  degree,  he  receives  a  greater  or  less  grace : 
 
310  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxv.  14. 
 
 a  dangerous  idea  if  they  understand  us  to  have  faith  of 
 ourselves,  as  each  one's  virtue  may  be  said  to  be  his 
 own.  For,  as  S.  Paul  says,  "  It  is  the  gift  of  God"  {Eph.  ii. 
 8).  Origen  held  this  error,  as  appears  from  his  Commen- 
 taries on  this  passage  and  S.  Augustin  once  did  the  same, 
 as  he  often  blames  himself  for  having  done  in  his  writings 
 against  the  Pelagians. 
 
 S.  Hilary,  S.  Jerome,  and  Bede  thought  that  the  words, 
 "  God  gives  His  grace  to  each  according  to  his  proper 
 ability,"  mean  that  He  does  so  as  each  disposes  himself 
 to  receive  it ;  for  this  is  a  truth  of  the  Church,  though  the 
 heretics  oppose  it,  and  it  is  wholly  true,  though  we  may 
 hardly  venture  to  assert  that  Christ  intended  to  assert  it 
 here.  It  is  either  the  true  explanation,  or  it  is  very  like 
 the  truth.  I  should  not  think  it  senseless  to  say  that  nature 
 was  the  peculiar  virtue  of  each,  which,  although  we  have  it 
 of  God  and  not  of  ourselves,  yet  can  be  said  more  truly 
 than  anything  else  to  be  our  own.  It  is  very  probable,  too, 
 that  in  giving  us  His  gifts  God  regards  the  nature  of  each, 
 according  to  which  He  appears  to  act ;  as  when  He  gave 
 to  Moses  a  greater  faculty  and  grace  for  ruling,  because  he 
 was  very  prudent  by  nature,  and,  as  Scripture  says,  the 
 meekest  of  all  men.  Or  He  may  work  exceptionally,  as  in 
 the  case  of  Balaam's  ass. 
 
 It  may  be,  however,  that  the  words  have  no  meaning  as 
 to  the  parable,  but  are  introduced  to  explain  it,  and  that 
 Christ  used  them  ex  consuetudine  houiinuni,  as  we  have 
 seen  before:  e.g.,  verses  10,  11,  12.  Because  men  then  en- 
 trust their  servants  with  their  property,  not  at  random,  and 
 equally  one  with  another,  but  according  to  each  one's 
 worth  and  faithfulness,  Christ  said  that  this  man,  when 
 going  a  long  journey,  gave  to  one  five,  to  another  two,  and 
 to  a  third  one,  "  to  everyone  according  to  his  proper 
 ability":  not  that  God  gives  His  grace  according  to  the 
 peculiar  virtue  of  each  ;  for  on  this  the  parable  is  not  to  be 
 
Ch.  XXV.  14.]    PARABLE   OF   THE   TEN    TALENTS.  31I 
 
 adapted  to  the  thing!  signified :  but  that  men,  of  whom 
 Christ  speaks,  do  so,  and  He,  in  His  parables,  as  we  have 
 often  said,  speaks  what  is  truth-Hke  and  customary  among 
 men  ;  though  what  He  says  has  no  immediate  bearing  on 
 the  point  of  the  parable. 
 
 6.  The  sixth  part  is  the  words  of  the  servant  (verse  20)  : 
 "  Lord,  thou  didst  give  to  me  five  talents  ;  behold  I  have 
 gained  other  five  over  and  above  ".  The  same  language  is 
 used  by  him  who  received  two  talents  and  gained  other  two. 
 But  the  meaning  of  gaining  others  over  and  above  has  been 
 questioned. 
 
 Some  of  the  authorities  mentioned  above  take  the  in- 
 creasing of  the  talents  to  mean  the  bringing  of  more  men 
 to  Christ,  as  S.  Paul  says  (i  Cor.  ix.  19,  20).  Others,  as 
 S.  Jerome  in  his  Commentary,  say  that  it  is  the  gaining  of 
 more  knowledge  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  divine  sub- 
 jects. Others,  that  it  is  the  addition  of  works  to  faith  (S. 
 Hilary,  Can.  xxvii.). 
 
 All  these  views  narrow  the  meaning  of  Christ  too  much  ; 
 and  thus  the  opinion  of  The  Author  seems  better,  that  the 
 good  use  of  grace  received,  merits  additions  of  the  same. 
 This  the  Catholic  Church  teaches,  and  it  agrees  well  with 
 this  text,  where  Christ  tells  us  that  they  who  use  their 
 talents  with  diligence  are  worthy  of  receiving  more,  as  in 
 verses  28,  29.  Unless  we  say  that  to  gain  more  talents  is 
 through  grace  received  to  perform  other  good  works,  from 
 which  results,  as  has  been  said,  that  by  how  much  we  do 
 more  good  works,  by  so  much  we  deserve  greater  accession 
 of  grace  ;  as  the  one  talent  of  the  unprofitable  servant  was 
 given  to  him  who  had  gained  the  five. 
 
 7.  The  seventh  part  is  from  verse  18:  "digged  in  the 
 earth  ".  We  must  see  what  it  is  to  bury  a  talent  in  the 
 earth.  There  appear  to  be  two  things  intended  here.  Too 
 great  neglect  in  business,  to  which  are  opposed  the  words 
 of  the  lord  to  the  servant  (verse  27).     We  give  the  bankers 
 
312  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxv.  14. 
 
 the  money  with  which  we  wish  to  traffic,  and  lay  by  what 
 we  have  superfluous.  To  hide  the  talent  in  the  earth,  then, 
 means  to  have  received  the  grace  of  God  in  vain,  as  S.  Paul 
 says  (2  Cor.  vi.  i).  The  excessive  fear  of  losing  the  talent 
 is  also  shown.  Each  of  these  faults  happens  to  those  who, 
 through  too  great  fear  of  breaking  either  their  vows  or 
 evangelical  counsels,  are  content  with  the  mere  observance 
 of  precepts,  lest,  while  they  wish  to  add  that  of  counsels, 
 they  do  not  even  observe  the  precepts.  That  is,  while  they 
 give  a  talent  for  traffic,  they  not  only  make  no  profit  from 
 it,  but  they  lose  their  capital :  like  the  negligent  servant, 
 who  complained  of  his  master  being  hard,  reaping  where  he 
 had  not  sown,  and  gathering  where  he  had  not  strewed.  By 
 hiding  his  talent  in  the  earth,  he  not  only  gained  no  profit, 
 but  he  lost  the  talent  which  he  desired  by  so  doing  to  keep 
 in  safety. 
 
 The  words  of  S.  Matthew  (that  the  slothful  servant  buried 
 his  talent)  and  of  S.  Luke  (that  he  laid  it  up  in  a  napkin) 
 come  to  the  same  thing.  The  meaning  is  that  while  we 
 seek  to  keep  our  grace  too  timidly,  it  may  be  rendered 
 useless,  and  at  last  lost  entirely.  Some  doubt  why  Christ 
 said  that  the  servant  who  received  the  one  talent  hid  it  in 
 the  earth  rather  than  the  others  who  had  received  more. 
 There  is  no  mystery  in  this,  as  S.  Luke  sa}'s  that  each 
 servant  received  a  pound  ;  or,  if  there  is,  it  is  probable  that 
 he  exaggerated  the  fault  and  negligence  of  that  servant 
 who,  when  he  had  received  less,  could  have  kept  it,  or 
 traded  with  it,  with  less  trouble.  As  he  did  not  do  this,  he 
 deservedly  had  his  talent  taken  from  him.  But  it  is  not  to 
 be  concluded  from  the  parable,  that  they  who  have  received 
 fewer  graces  from  God  are  always  less  careful  to  cultivate 
 them.  For  this  is  not  the  case  ;  but  they  are  rather  to  be 
 blamed,  who,  when  they  have  received  a  less  responsibility, 
 bear  it  with  less  diligence  and  courage,  and  they  who,  when 
 they  have  received  less  grace,  give  a  less  good  account  of 
 
Ch.  XXV.  14.]    PARABLE   OF   THE   TEN    TALENTS.  313 
 
 it ;  because  it  is  more  easy  to  give  account  of  a  small  trust 
 than  of  a  great  one. 
 
 8.  The  eighth  is  in  verse  19  :  "  But  after  a  long  time  the 
 lord  of  those  servants  came  "  ;  from  which  it  is  not  doubt- 
 ful that  the  second  coming  of  Christ  is  meant,  which  was 
 to  take  place  a  long  time  after. 
 
 9.  The  ninth  part  is  in  the  words  that  immediately 
 follow:  "And  reckoned  with  them";  the  meaning  of  which 
 is  that  Christ  will  require  in  the  judgment  an  account  from 
 everyone  who  calls  himself  His  servant,  of  the  grace  given 
 to  him. 
 
 10.  The  tenth  is  in  verse  21  :  "  His  lord  said  unto  him, 
 Well  done,  good  and  faithful  servant;  because  thou  hast 
 been  faithful  over  a  few  things  I  will  place  thee  over  many 
 things  :  enter  thou  into  the  joy  of  thy  lord  "  ;  in  which  the 
 same  thing  is  said  as  is  said  to  the  other  servant  who  had 
 increased  the  two  talents  (verse  23).  By  this  Christ 
 teaches  us  that  He  will  give  His  good  servants  rewards 
 greater  than  their  merits  {Rom.  viii.  18  ;  Isa.  Ixiv.  4  ;  i  Cor. 
 ii.  9),  as  S.  Jerome  says.  Are  we  then  to  receive  a  reward 
 which  we  have  not  merited  ?  By  no  means  ;  for  every 
 reward  which  we  shall  receive  we  shall  have  merited, 
 or  it  would  be  no  reward  ;  but  because  we  must  look  not  to 
 the  equality  of  justice,  but  to  the  analogy  of  the  giver  and 
 receiver,  the  reward  is  said  to  be  greater  than  the  merit. 
 There  is  a  well-known  anecdote  of  Alexander  the  Great. 
 He  commanded  a  large  sum  of  money  to  be  given  to  a 
 certain  poet.  The  poet  answered,  "  This  is  too  much  for  a 
 poet  ".  "  But,"  replied  Alexander,  "  it  is  not  too  much  for 
 Alexander." 
 
 "  Enter  thou  into  the  joy  of  thy  lord,"  is  not  a  part  of 
 the  parable,  but  an  explanation  of  the  former  words,  "  I 
 will  place  thee  over  many  things  "  ;  that  is,  "  I  will  make 
 thee  a  sharer  of  the  same  kingdom,  the  same  glory,  and, 
 what  follows,  of  the  same  joy,"  as  is  said  of  Christ  Himself 
 
314  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxv.  14. 
 
 (^Phil.  ii.  7,  8,  9),  and  as  S.  Paul  says  of  the  Corinthians 
 (2  Cor.  i.  7,  and  2  Tim.  ii.  12;  6".  Luke  xix.  17),  because 
 one  pound  had  gained  ten,  and  again  of  the  other  servant 
 whose  one  pound  had  gained  five  (verse  19).  This  is  to  be 
 taken  generally,  not  specifically,  and  not  as  if  the  meaning 
 were  that  in  heaven  men  will  be  put  over  cities,  or  in  such 
 positions :  but  that  according  to  their  merits  they  will 
 receive  rewards,  some  greater  and  other  less  ;  either 
 Christ  or  the  Evangelist  expressed,  ex  consiietiidine,  the 
 meaning  of  the  former,  not  the  words,  when  He  said,  "  Be 
 thou  over  ten  cities,"  because  He  spoke  of  a  kingdom  ;  and 
 it  is  the  custom  of  kings  to  place  deserving  persons  to 
 govern  cities. 
 
 ir.  The  eleventh  part  is  in  verse  24:  "  But  he  that  had 
 received  the  one  talent  came  and  said  :  Lord,  I  know  that 
 thou  art  a  hard  man  ;  thou  reapest  where  thou  hast  not 
 sown,  and  gatheredst  where  thou  hast  not  strewed  ". 
 
 Some  have  thought  this  an  essential  and  peculiar  part  of 
 the  parable,  and  (verse  26)  Christ  seems  to  make  it  so. 
 Some  have  thought  the  words  "  reaping  where  thou  hast 
 not  strewed "  to  mean  that  God  requires  righteousness 
 from  those  Gentiles  in  whose  minds  He  had  not  sown  the 
 seed  of  a  Law.  S.  Hilary  is  the  author  of  this  view;  but  S. 
 Jerome  understands  that  God  requires  good  works,  not  only 
 from  those  to  whom  He  has  given  either  the  Mosaic  or  the 
 Evangelical  Law,  but  also  from  the  philosophers  who  lived 
 without  law. 
 
 It  does  not  appear  to  be  any  part  of  the  parable,  but  an 
 addition  or  supplement  added  for  explanation.  Nor  is  it 
 likely  that  anyone  finally  condemned  by  Christ  would 
 so  reply  to  Him  ;  but  it  is  probable  that  the  slothful 
 servant  would  so  answer  his  master  when  requiring  an 
 account  of  his  truth,  and  when  he  was  rebutting  the  charge 
 of  negligence  from  himself,  and  excusing  his  own  slothful- 
 ness  by  the  severity  of  his  master.     Verse  26  therefore  is 
 
Ch.  XXV,  14.]     PARABLE   OF   THE   TEN   TALENTS.  315 
 
 not  to  be  understood  as  if  what  the  slothful  servant  said 
 the  good  master  acknowledged  to  be  the  truth,  but  because 
 the  servant  said  it  not  as  from  the  truth,  but  as  from  his 
 own  opinion  ;  for  the  master  wished  to  confute  him  from 
 his  own  words,  as  S.  Luke  (xix.  22)  has  expressed. 
 
 12.  The  twelfth  part  is  verse  27  :  "  Thou  oughtest,  there- 
 fore, to  have  committed  my  money  to  the  bankers,  and  at 
 my  coming  I  should  have  received  my  own  with  usury  ". 
 
 Maldonatus  gives  us  different  explanations  of  the  verse. 
 Some  think  that  the  slothful  servant  was  a  priest  or 
 teacher  who  had  not  duly  executed  his  office.  Others, 
 that  the  people  are  termed  bankers,  who  desire  to  hear 
 the  Word  of  God,  which  increases  to  them  as  money  at 
 usury.  But  he  rejects  them  all,  as  though,  perhaps,  partly 
 true,  yet  not  sufficiently  full  and  perfect.  He  himself 
 thinks  that  the  words  are  no  essential  part  of  the  parable, 
 and  that  their  meaning  is,  as  before,  that  we  should  simply 
 seek  to  increase  the  grace  given  to  us,  by  every  means  in 
 our  power,  Christ  having  given  us  an  example  from  things 
 in  most  ordinary  use,  and  which  are  known  to  all.  God 
 does  not  require  us  to  increase  our  grace  by  wicked  means, 
 nor  does  He  approve  of  usury.  He  only  requires  dili- 
 gence. As  when  He  praised  the  wicked  steward  who  said 
 to  the  debtor  who  owed  a  hundred  barrels  of  oil  :  "  Take 
 thy  bill  and  sit  down  quickly  and  write  fifty  "  {S.  Luke  xvi. 
 6);  and  when  He  commands  us  to  make  friends  of  the  Mam- 
 mon of  iniquity.  He  does  not  approve  of  the  fraud  of  the 
 man,  but  his  diligence  and  prudence,  which  He  would  have 
 us  practise  also.  Some  distinguish  between  wickedness 
 and  sloth — the  former  meaning  unbelief,  the  latter  negli- 
 gence. 
 
 13.  The  thirteenth  is  from  the  rest  of  verse  27  :  "That 
 at  my  coming  I  should  receive  my  own  with  usury ". 
 Usury  there  meaning  every  good  thing,  either  to  the  re- 
 ceiver of  grace,  or  to  those  to  whom  he  ministers  it. 
 
3l6  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxv.  29. 
 
 14.  The  fourteenth  is  verse  28  :  "  Take  ye  away,  there- 
 fore, the  talent  from  him  ".  The  meaning  generally  is 
 that  the  gifts  of  God  are  often  taken  away  from  those  who 
 do  not  use  them  well.  This  is  true  for  the  most  part  ;  and 
 always  in  the  sense  gratum  faciens,  in  the  other  graces 
 often. 
 
 15.  The  fifteenth  is  from  the  words:  "And  give  it  to 
 him  that  hath  ten  talents  ".  This  does  not  seem  to  be 
 properly  a  part  of  the  parable  ;  for  the  grace  that  is  taken 
 from  one  is  not  given  to  another  ;  but  it  would  be  said, 
 either  because  it  happens  among  men  that  money  taken 
 from  a  slothful  or  untrustworthy  servant  is  given  to  a 
 faithful  and  diligent  one,  or  because  it  was  very  likely 
 that  the  master  would  do  so,  though  God  does  not.  It 
 does  not  mean,  therefore,  what  God  does,  but  what  the 
 negligent  and  diligent  servants  merit.  It  will  be  asked 
 how,  after  the  judgment,  account  is  to  be  rendered,  and 
 grace  taken  from  one  and  given  to  another  ;  not  indeed 
 the  same  grace  (as  has  been  shown  before),  but  different  in 
 different  cases.  The  answer  is,  that  this  either  does  not 
 apply  to  the  object  of  the  parable  :  or  if  it  do,  it  is  to  be 
 understood,  not  of  the  Last  Judgment,  but  of  every  day, 
 and  particular  ones  ;  although  the  parable  properly  points 
 to  the  Last  Judgment.  For  God  daily  judges  men,  and 
 takes  His  grace  from  the  unworthy  and  gives  it  to  the 
 deserving. 
 
 The  parable  has  so  far  been  explained  ;  the  conclusion 
 follows  with  a  general  application. 
 
 Verse  29.  For  to  everyone  that  hath  shall  be  giveii,  ami  he 
 shall  abound. 
 Origen  explains  these  words  thus  :  To  him  who  has  ex 
 se  faith  and  good-will  towards  God,  grace  shall  be  given 
 which  he  has  not  ex  se.  A  caution  against  this  error  has 
 been  given  above.     The  Author,  S.Jerome,  and  Bede  speak 
 
Ch.  XXV.  29.]     PARABLE   OF   THE   TEN    TALENTS.  317 
 
 to  the  same  effect,  except  that  they  do  not  speak  of  any- 
 one having  faith  ex  se.  S.  Jerome  says  :  To  him  who  has 
 faith  and  good-will  towards  God,  even  if  in  some  degree 
 deficient  in  good  works,  it  will  be  given  by  the  good  Judge 
 to  have  the  want  supplied.  But  he  who  has  not  faith  will 
 lose  the  other  virtues  which  he  appears  to  have.  S.  Hilary 
 says  :  To  everyone  who  has  the  Gospel,  the  Law  also  will 
 be  added  ;  but  from  he  who  receives  not  the  Gospel,  the 
 Law  also  will  be  taken  away.  Either  must  be  understood 
 according  to  the  subject-matter  of  the  parable.  This  was 
 the  question  of  two  servants,  one  of  whom  rendered  more 
 than  he  had  received,  the  other  the  same  amount.  "  Be- 
 hold," he  said,  "  here  thou  hast  that  which  is  thine  :  "  the 
 meaning  being,  not  that  generally  to  everyone  who  has  it  is 
 given,  and  from  everyone  who  has  not  it  is  taken  away  ;  but 
 to  everyone  who  has  more  grace  than  he  received,  because 
 he  increased  it  by  his  diligence,  still  more  is  given  ;  and 
 from  everyone  who  has  not  increased  the  grace  he  received, 
 but  keeps  it  unprofitable  and  useless,  even  that  which  he 
 has,  because  he  has  shown  himself  unworthy  of  it,  is  taken 
 away. 
 
 It  has  been  asked  why  it  was  not  said,  "  That  which  he 
 hath,"  but  "  That  which  he  seems  to  have  "  ?  The  reason 
 may  be  that  the  servant  who  hid  the  money  in  the  earth 
 had  it  as  if  he  had  it  not,  because  it  was  idle  and  useless. 
 This  is  meant  to  show  that  they  treat  the  grace  of  God  in 
 like  manner,  so  that  they  attempt  no  good  from  it ;  do  not 
 so  much  possess  the  grace,  as  seem  to  possess  it.  It  may 
 be  said,  if  he  has  grace  truly  who  has  it  thus,  how  did 
 Christ  say  just  after,  "from  him  that  hath  not"?  These 
 words  are  not  to  be  referred  to  the  grace  received,  but  to 
 the  increase  of  grace  which,  when  he  ought  to  have  it,  he 
 has  it  not  ;  for  the  servant  had  the  talent,  but  had  not  the 
 profit  from  it  ;  and  it  was  of  this  that  Christ  said,  "  from 
 him  that  hath  not "  ;  but  it  was  of  the  talent  which  the 
 
3l8  THE   GOSPEL  OF   S.   MATTHEW.   [Ch.  xxv.  30,  31. 
 
 servant  possessed  indeed,  but  uselessly,  and  not  otherwise 
 than  as  if  he  had  not  possessed  it  at  all,  that  Christ  said 
 afterwards,  "what  he  seemed  to  have  shall  be  taken  away". 
 
 Verse  30.  Into  the  exterior  darkness. 
 This  has  been  explained  on  chap.  viii.  12. 
 
 Verse  31.    When  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  His  majesty. 
 
 Such  seems  to  be  the  explanation  of  the  foregoing 
 parable.  Christ  says  that  in  the  judgment  He  will  take 
 account  of  His  servants  (verse  19).  Why  Christ  is  called 
 the  Son  of  man  has  been  explained  (viii.  20). 
 
 In  His  majesty. 
 
 That  is,  to  show  His  majesty,  which,  when  He  spoke 
 these  words.  He  had  not  shown.  Christ  here  contrasts  the 
 present  with  the  future,  and  His  second  coming  with  His 
 first.  What  SS.  Chrysostom  and  Jerome  say  is  very 
 probable,  that  Christ  spoke  of  His  future  majesty  and 
 glory  because  He  was  to  come  long  after  His  death,  so  as 
 that  these  might  compensate  for  His  present  weakness, 
 and  that  He  might  elevate  the  minds  of  His  disciples,  lest 
 they  should  fail  in  faith,  which,  as  has  before  been 
 observed,  they  had  done. 
 
 And  all  the  angels  ivitJi  Him. 
 Christ  says  this  both  to  show  that  all  the  angels  were 
 His,  and  to  place  the  majesty  of  His  future  coming  before 
 the  eyes  of  the  disciples.  For  as  all  the  ministers  precede 
 the  king  when  he  is  going  on  a  procession  of  state,  so  all 
 the  angels  will  accompany  Christ  when  He  comes  to 
 judgment.  They  will  all  come,  as  S.  Chry.sostom  thinks, 
 as  witnessing  the  actions  of  those  who  arc  to  be  called  to 
 judgment  ;  as  S.  Paul  says  {Heb.  i.  14). 
 
Ch.  XXV.  32.]     DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  LAST  JUDGMENT.         319 
 
 TJien  shall  He  sit. 
 
 This  does  not  mean  that  He  will  not  so  sit  before :  for 
 He  is  sitting  even  now  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father, 
 which  is  the  seat  of  majesty ;  but  it  is  an  antithesis 
 between  the  time  of  the  second  advent  and  the  first,  when 
 these  words  were  spoken.  For  He  had  not  then  sat  on 
 the  seat  of  His  majesty.  He  spoke  not  of  truth,  but  of  the 
 future  demonstratiom  of  His  majesty  ;  but  He  is  truly 
 sitting  now.  Men  do  not  see  Him  sitting  ;  but  they  shall 
 see  Him  then,  and  thus  it  is  that  He  says,  "  Then  shall  He 
 sit ". 
 
 Upon  the  seat  of  His  majesty. 
 
 Ao^rj'i  avTov  "  of  His  glory  ":  a  Hebraism  for  His  glorious 
 seat.  Origen  {Tract  xxxiv.  on  S.  Matt.)  takes  the  seat 
 to  be  either  the  perfection  and  virtues  of  the  saints,  because 
 Christ  will  come  accompanied  by  them,  an  opinion  which 
 is  approved  by  The  Author  ;  or  the  angels,  who  are, 
 therefore,  called  Thrones  {CoL  i.  16  ;  Ps.  xcviii.  i  ;  Ixxix. 
 2  ;  xvii.  11).  Bede  thinks  it  the  Church  as  being  Christ's 
 tribunal.  These  views  have  an  air  of  probability,  but  they 
 are  rather  allegorical  than  literal. 
 
 The  meaning  may  be  that  Christ  will  sit  upon  some 
 bright  cloud,  because  (ist)  He  was  so  taken  up  into  heaven 
 (Ads  i.  9),  and  it  was  said  that  He  would  so  come 
 again  ;  though  this  may  possibly  refer  not  so  much  to  the 
 manner  of  His  return  as  to  its  truth  ;  (2ndly)  because  it  is 
 everywhere  said  that  He  would  come  on  the  clouds  of 
 heaven  (xxiv.  30  ;  xxvi.  64)  ;  and  (srdly)  because  the  Divine 
 Majesty  seems  always  to  have  been  shown  through  a  cloud  ; 
 as  chap.  xvii.  5  ;  Exod.  xvi.  10. 
 
 Verse  32.   And  all  nations  shall  be  gathered  together  before 
 Him. 
 Origen   raised  the  question  whether  all  nations  will  be 
 gathered  together,  or  only  those  who  were  then  among  the 
 
320  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxv.  32. 
 
 living,  or  only  Christians  ;  and,  if  these,  whether  all  or  only 
 those  then  living?  He  and  Euthymius  think  that  it  will 
 be  only  Christians,  because  the  rest  have  already  been 
 judged  ;  as  S.  John  (iii.  18),  "  He  that  doth  not  believe  is 
 already  judged,"  says.  Bede  thinks  that  there  are  four 
 classes  of  men.  i.  Some  who  will  not  be  judged,  but  will 
 judge,  as  the  Apostles,  to  whom  it  was  said  (xix.  28)  :  "  I 
 say  to  you  that  you,  who  have  followed  Me,  in  the  regene- 
 ration, when  the  Son  of  man  shall  sit  on  the  seat  of  His 
 majesty,  you  also  shall  sit  on  twelve  seats,  judging  the 
 twelve  tribes  of  Israel";  and  S.  Paul  says  (i  G?r.  vi.  3), 
 "  Know  ye  not  that  the  saints  shall  judge  the  world  ?  " 
 
 2.  Others  who  will  be  judged,  but  will  not  judge,  yet 
 they  will  be  saved ;  as  those  to  whom  it  was  said,  "  Come, 
 ye  blessed  of  My  Father,  possess  you  the  kingdom  prepared 
 for  you  from  the  foundation  of  the  world  ". 
 
 3.  Those  who  will  neither  judge,  nor  be  judged,  but  will 
 perish  ;  of  whom  it  was  said  {Ps.  i.  5),  "  Therefore  the 
 wicked  shall  not  rise  again  in  judgment,  nor  sinners  in  the 
 council  of  the  just". 
 
 4.  Those  who  will  not  judge  but  will  be  judged,  and 
 being  condemned  in  the  judgment,  will  perish,  of  whom 
 will  be  said  (verses  41,  42):  "Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed, 
 into  everlasting  fire,  which  was  prepared  for  the  devil  and 
 his  angels.  For  I  was  hungry,  and  you  gave  Me  not  to 
 eat :  I  was  thirsty,  and  you  gave  Me  not  to  drink." 
 
 Scripture  says  everywhere  that  all  men  shall  appear 
 before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ  {Ro})i.  xiv.  10  ;  2  Cor. 
 V.  10).  The  words  of  S.  John,  "  He  that  believeth  not  is 
 condemned  already"  (iii.  18),  signify  merely  that  his  case 
 is  so  clear  that  there  is  no  need  for  his  being  brought  to 
 judgment  at  all :  for  in  not  believing  he  condemns  himself; 
 as  in  TitKS  iii.  ir.  It  has  been  objected  that  such  sayings 
 as  (xxv.  35)  "  For  I  was  hungry,  and  you  gave  Me  to  eat ; 
 I  was  thirsty,  and  you  gave  Me  to  drink  ;  I  was  a  stranger, 
 
Ch.  XXV.  33-]  THE   LAST  JUDGMENT.  32 1 
 
 and  you  took  Me  in,"  and  the  opposite  (verses  42,  43) 
 cannot  apply  to  all  men  :  for  many  will  be  condemned 
 who  never  saw  Christ  hungry,  and  who  never  knew  Him, 
 and  were  ignorant  that  the  poor  represented  Him  ;  and 
 again,  that  infants  who  must  either  be  saved  or  not,  and 
 who  will  not  be  saved  because  they  fed  Christ  when  He 
 was  hungry,  nor  be  condemned  for  not  having  done  so,  will 
 not  therefore  be  brought  into  judgment.  There  is  one 
 easy  and  obvious  answer  to  this  and  all  such  questions. 
 Christ  here  puts  one  class  for  the  whole  race,  as  we  often 
 do  ;  and  thus  He  will  not  say  to  all  who  will  be  saved,  "  I 
 was  hungry,  and  you  gave  Me  to  eat,"  nor  to  all  who  will 
 be  condemned  the  contrary,  but  only  to  some  ;  for  by  this 
 example  He  intended  to  teach  simply  that  He  will  neither 
 save  nor  condemn  men  rashly,  nor  without  most  just 
 reasons,  declared  openly  and  publicly,  and  before  all  men. 
 Infants,  therefore,  and  all  men,  believers  or  not,  will  be 
 judged,  and  the  reason  of  the  salvation  or  condemnation  of 
 each  will  be  given.  If  it  is  asked  why  Christ  said  "all 
 nations,"  rather  than  all  men,  the  reason  may  be  that  "  all 
 nations  "  may  have  been  used  to  give  weight  to  the  asser- 
 tion, and  to  show  not  only  numbers  but  varieties,  as  in- 
 tending to  increase  the  majesty  of  the  Judge  when  it  will 
 be  seen  that  He  comes  as  the  Judge  of  all  the  different 
 nations. 
 
 Verse  33.  And  He  shall  set  the  sheep  on  His  right  hand,  but 
 the  goats  on  His  left. 
 Beyond  question,  the  sheep  are  the  good,  and  the  goats 
 the  wicked  ;  but  why  they  should  be  so  seems  doubtful. 
 Origen,  Euthymius,  and  Theophylact  think  the  sheep  are 
 the  good,  as  being  gentle  ;  and  the  goats  the  wicked  because 
 they  are  rough,  and  climb  precipitous  places,  that  is,  do 
 not  walk  in  the  straight  paths.  SS.  Hilary  and  Chrysos- 
 tom,  Euthymius  and  Theophylact,  think  that  the  sheep  are 
 
322  THE   GOSPEL   OF    S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxv.  34. 
 
 the  good,  because  they  are  profitable,  and  the  goats  are  the 
 contrary.  It  may  be  because  Christ  had  before  used  the 
 figure  of  sheep  and  goats,  as  He  had  in  the  preceding 
 verse,  "  All  nations  shall  be  gathered  together  before  Him, 
 and  He  shall  separate  them  one  from  another,  as  the  shep- 
 herd separateth  the  sheep  from  the  goats  "  :  understanding 
 the  good  by  the  sheep,  and  the  evil  by  the  goats,  because 
 sheep  are  better  than  goats.  For  the  same  reason  He  says 
 that  He  will  place  the  sheep  on  the  right  hand,  as  the  place 
 of  honour,  and  the  goats  on  the  left ;  as  S.  Hilary  says,  whose 
 opinion  seems  preferable  to  that  of  Origen,  S.  Jerome,  Bede, 
 and  The  Author,  who  think  that  the  good  are  placed  on  the 
 right  hand  and  the  evil  on  the  left,  because,  in  Holy  Scrip- 
 tures, the  good  is  signified  by  the  right,  and  the  evil  by  the 
 left ;  as  in  Ecdcs.  x.  2 :  "  The  heart  of  a  wise  man  is  in  his 
 right  hand,  and  the  heart  of  a  fool  in  his  left  hand  ". 
 
 The  question  is  often  asked  where  those  infants  will  be 
 who  die  unbaptised,  and  who  would  be  condemned,  not  for 
 any  works  of  their  own,  but  from  their  sinful  origin.  They 
 will  assuredly  be  placed  on  the  left  hand,  as  the  others, 
 who  will  be  placed  on  the  right,  will  be  saved,  not  for  their 
 own  good  works,  but  because  of  the  grace  of  their  baptism. 
 But  in  the  judgment,  as  appears  ex  scntciilia,  the  question 
 will  be  only  of  good  and  evil  works.  This  I  firmly  deny, 
 for  the  merits  of  each  will  be  weighed,  and  these  do  not 
 always  consist  of  acts  done,  but  sometimes  in  intention 
 alone,  or  in  grace  alone.  But,  as  has  been  said,  it  was  not 
 the  intention  of  Christ  to  explain  all  the  reasons  of  the 
 salvation  of  some  and  the  condemnation  of  others,  but  to 
 give  an  example  only  of  one  kind  from  which  the  rest  may 
 be  concluded. 
 
 Verse  34.    TJicn  shall  tJic  king-  say. 
 Christ  has  not  called  Himself  a  king  before,  but  a  man, 
 or  the  Son  of  man  ;  and,  in  6".  Luke  xiv.  12,  a  nobleman, 
 
Ch.  XXV.  34.]  THE   LAST  JUDGMENT.  323 
 
 who  was  going  to  a  far  country  to  obtain  a  kingdom.  But 
 He  now  calls  Himself  a  king,  because  He  is  speaking  of 
 the  time  when  He  will  have  received  the  kingdom  and 
 come  back  again  ;  and,  again,  because  He  had  not  spoken 
 of  royal  dignity  before  ;  now  that  He  has  done  so,  He 
 rightly  styles  Himself  a  king. 
 
 To  tJicni  that  shall  be  at  His  right  hand. 
 Christ  begins  from  the  more  honourable,  as  observing  the 
 custom  of  men  :  or,  as  The  Author  says,  He  begins  with 
 those  who  are  on  the  right  hand,  that  is,  with  the  good, 
 because  He  is  more  ready  to  save  than  to  condemn. 
 
 Cojnc. 
 Christ  calls  them  to  Him,  because  He  wishes  to  make 
 them  partakers  of  His  kingdom  ;  as  in  ^.  John  xii.  26. 
 Because  then  He  had  received  possession  of  His  Father's 
 kingdom,  He  calls  His  servants  to  the  same;  for  He  speaks 
 as  if  immediately  about  to  return  to  Him,  and  He  desires 
 His  servants  to  follow  Him. 
 
 Ye  blessed  of  My  Father. 
 
 Some  explain  this  to  mean  those  on  whom  the  Father 
 has  heaped  many  blessings,  because  "  to  bless "  most 
 frequently  means  in  Scripture  to  confer  blessings  on.  But 
 this  does  not  seem  satisfactory,  because  it  does  not  seem 
 possible  to  understand  the  words  of  past  blessings,  which 
 may  perhaps  have  been  given  in  greater  abundance  to 
 many  of  the  condemned  ;  but  they  apparently  refer  to  the 
 future  glory  to  which  Christ  invites  them.  It  is  the  same, 
 then,  as  if  Christ  had  said,  "  Blessed  of  My  Father,"  and  as 
 such  to  have  the  gift  of  eternal  life  ;  as  chap.  xxi.  9.  When 
 the  people  said  to  Christ,  "Blessed  is  He  that  cometh  in  the 
 name  of  the  Lord,"  they  did  not  speak  of  grace  received, 
 but  they  prayed  for  that  which  was  to  be  given  to  them  by 
 
324  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxv.  34. 
 
 God.  Nor  does  their  opinion  seem  sound  who  refer  the 
 words  to  predestination,  as  if  the  reason  of  their  salvation 
 were  tacitly  implied,  that  they  are  blessed  of  the  Father 
 because  they  were  predestinated  by  Him. 
 
 Possess  you  the  kingdom  prepared  for  you. 
 
 KXr]poi'o/xeiTe  ;  that  is,  possess  you  your  inheritance.  The 
 followers  of  Calvin  speak  as  if  these  words  destroyed  all 
 idea  of  merit.  For  they  say,  if  it  is  heirship,  it  is  not 
 reward  (merces),  and  is  not  given  to  labour  or  merit,  but  to 
 birth  {origini),  as  we  are  the  sons  of  God,  and  if  sons,  then 
 heirs  {Rom.  viii.  17).  We  are  sons  by  faith,  but  with  them 
 heresy  is  faith,  and  thus  everything  falls  in  niJiihim. 
 
 But  these  cannot  deny  that  eternal  life  is  called  in 
 Scripture  reward  ;  so  chaps,  v.  12  ;  vi.  i  ;  x.  41,  42  ;  xx. 
 8  ;  I  Cor.  iii.  S,  14  ;  ix.  18;  Apoc.  xi.  18  ;  xxii.  12.  They 
 answer  that  it  is  called  reward  not  because  it  is  such,  but 
 because  it  is  given  like  a  reward  after  labour ;  but  given 
 post  laborcm,  non  propter  laborem,  after  labour,  not  because 
 of  labour. 
 
 If  there  were  no  other  passage  but  this,  it  would  be  clear 
 that  eternal  life  is  given  not  on\y  post  opera,  h\x\. propter  opera^ 
 and  is  therefore  truly  and  properly  a  reward.  In  the  same 
 manner,  in  the  same  context,  in  the  same  words,  in  the 
 same  sense,  it  is  said  to  the  good,  "  Come,  ye  blessed  of  My 
 Father,  possess  you  the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  from 
 the  foundation  of  the  world.  For  I  was  hungry,  and  ye 
 gave  Me  to  eat,"  &c.  And  to  the  wicked,  "  Go,  ye  cursed, 
 into  everlasting  fire,  which  was  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his 
 angels :  for  I  was  hungry,  and  ye  gave  Me  not  to  eat,"  &c. 
 It  is  clear  that  not  merely  the  consequence,  as  the  above 
 heretics  say,  but  the  true  cause  is  shown.  They  are  con- 
 demned because  they  truly  and  properly  deserved  it ;  for 
 when  Christ  was  hungry  they  fed  Him  not.  When,  there- 
 fore, it  is  said  to  the  good,  "  Come,  ye  blessed  of  the 
 Father,  possess  the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  :  for  I  was 
 
Ch.  XXV.  34.]  THE   LAST   JUDGMENT.  325 
 
 hungry,  and  ye  gave  Me  to  eat,"  not  only  the  con- 
 sequence, but  the  cause  and  merit  are  given,  as  may 
 indeed  be  proved  more  clearly  from  some  other  passages. 
 For  that  it  is  properly  a  reward  the  heretics  themselves  are 
 forced  to  confess,  and  given  not  only  post  but  propter 
 laborevi.  That  it  is  so  given  we  know  from  the  fact  that 
 to  the  greater  labour  is  given  the  greater  reward,  and  to 
 the  less  labour  the  less  reward.  S.  Paul  testifies  that  in 
 this  way  life  eternal  is  given  (i  Cor.  iii.  8):  "Everyone 
 shall  receive  his  own  reward  according  to  his  own  labour  ". 
 What  is  this  but  to  say  that  he  who  has  laboured  more 
 shall  receive  a  greater,  and  he  who  has  laboured  less  shall 
 receive  a  less,  reward  ?  Besides,  when  Christ  said  (x.  41), 
 "  He  that  receiveth  a  prophet  in  the  name  of  a  prophet 
 shall  receive  the  reward  of  a  prophet,"  who  in  his  senses 
 can  doubt  that  He  distinguished  between  a  greater  and  a 
 less  reward  in  the  reception  of  a  prophet  and  a  righteous 
 man,  as  it  is  an  act  of  greater  merit  to  receive  a  prophet 
 than  a  righteous  man?  These  persons,  then,  should  have  no 
 difficulty  in  understanding  why  eternal  life  is  called  both  a 
 reward  and  an  heirship — reward,  because  given  to  desert : 
 heirship,  because  given  to  sons.  But  they  are  deceived  by 
 thinking  God  to  be  like  men,  among  whom  heirships  are 
 often  given  rashly,  and  without  judgment,  to  good  sons  and 
 to  bad  sons.  But  God  does  not  act  thus.  He  gives  the 
 kingdom  of  heaven  only  to  His  sons,  because  His  sons 
 only  have  merited  it  ;  and  not  only  as  they  are  sons,  but  as 
 they  are  worthy.  He,  therefore,  does  not  give  an  equal 
 part  to  all  ;  but  the  better  part  to  the  more  deserving,  as  a 
 wise  father  does.  S.  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  and  Euthy- 
 mius  have  observed  that  the  word  Kk^povoyidv  has  the 
 force,  not  of  the  receipt  of  a  thing  in  any  manner  whatever, 
 but  as  an  heirship,  as  a  propriiuii,  as  a  dcbituni,  because 
 they  assert  the  freedom  of  the  will  and  the  merits  of  good 
 works.     Calvin  often  calls  them  philosophers. 
 
326  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.         [Cn.  xxv.  35. 
 
 TJie  kingdom  prepared  foj'  yoii. 
 
 That  is,  predestinated,  as  in  chap.  xx.  23,  where  the  pro- 
 nouns vobis,  "  to  you,"  and  qiiidas,  "  for  whom,"  have  the 
 same  force  as  vobis,  "  for  you,"  here  ;  so  that  the  meaning 
 is  "  for  you  merit  it,"  as  there,  "  for  whom  it  is  prepared," 
 that  is,  for  those  who  merit  it ;  for  the  causal  particle  "  for  " 
 in  the  next  verse  is  to  be  referred,  as  is  thought,  here, 
 "  For  I  was  hungry  "  :  the  meaning  being,  "  Possess  ye  the 
 kingdom  which  the  Father  hath  prepared  for  you,  because 
 I  was  hungry,  and  you  gave  Me  to  eat,"  as  S.  Chrysostom 
 and  S.  Jerome  explain.  But  the  subject  of  Christ's  words 
 is  rather  the  cause  of  the  glorification  of  the  saved  than 
 of  their  predestination,  as  the  antithesis  shows :  "  Depart 
 from  Me,  you  cursed,  into  everlasting  fire,  which  was  pre- 
 pared for  the  devil  and  his  angels  ".  But  Christ  does  not 
 say  here  why  fire  was  prepared  for  these  from  eternity,  but 
 why  they  were  sent  into  it.  In  fact  He  says  that  the  fire 
 was  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels.  In  the  same 
 manner  are  to  be  understood  the  words  following  :  "  Come, 
 possess  ye  the  kingdom,  for  I  was  hungry  ". 
 
 Verse  35,  For  I  uuxs  hiingiy. 
 It  has  been  made  a  question  whether  Christ  will  speak 
 these  actual  words  when  He  comes  to  judgment.  We  may 
 think  that  He  will  say  not  only  these,  but  others  not 
 uttered  by  Him,  or  recorded  by  the  Evangelists  ;  for,  as 
 beforesaid,  not  all  who  will  receive  the  kingdom  will  receive 
 it  as  having  fed  Christ  when  He  was  hungry.  And  we 
 may  believe  that  the  reason  will  be  given  to  each  why  he 
 is  admitted  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  for  to  do  so  would 
 pertain  both  to  the  dignity  of  the  judge  and  the  glory  of 
 the  blessed.  Why,  then,  did  He  speak  only  of  those  who 
 gave  Him  meat  when  He  was  hungry  ?  It  has  been  shown 
 above  that  He  gave  one  case  as  an  example  of  the  whole  ; 
 and  He  gave  this  rather  than  any  other,  because  nothing  is 
 
Ch.  XXV.  37-4I-]  THE   LAST   JUDGMENT.  327 
 
 SO  praiseworthy  in  us  than  that  charity  to  our  neighbours 
 which,  though  it  takes  many  forms,  appears  in  none  to 
 more  advantage  than  in  the  feeding  of  the  hungry  poor, 
 as  Euthymius  has  observed. 
 
 Verse  37.   TJien  shall  the  just  ansiver  Him,  Lord,  zvhen  did 
 zue  see  Thee  Jmngry  ? 
 
 Origen  and  The  Author  think  that  the  just  said  this,  not 
 from  forgetfulness,  but  from  humility,  as  if  not  admitting 
 that  they  had  that  grace  of  charity  for  which  Christ  praised 
 them.  It  may  be  rather  that  they  answer  thus  because 
 they  did  not  understand  the  words  of  Christ,  for  they 
 could  not  be  ignorant  that  they  had  at  times  fed  the  poor 
 of  Christ,  but  because  He  will  not  say,  "  The  poor  were 
 hungry,  and  you  fed  them,"  but  "  I  was  hungry,  and  you  fed 
 Me,"  and  they  will  know  that  they  had  never  fed  Christ 
 Himself,  therefore  they  will  ask,  "  When  saw  we  Thee 
 hungry?"  It  seems  to  be  thus  from  Christ's  explanation, 
 verse  40. 
 
 Verse  40.  As  long  as. 
 
 'E(f)'  oaov,  As  far  as  you  did  it  to  one  of  these.  My  least 
 brethren,  you  did  it  to  Me  :  that  is,  what  you  did  to  them, 
 you  did  to  Me  ;  as  verse  45. 
 
 Verse  41.  You  cursed. 
 Origen  and  S.  Chrysostom  observe  that  Christ  did  not 
 say,  "Cursed  of  My  Father,"  as  He  had  said  to  the  just, 
 "  Blessed  of  My  Father "  (verse  34),  because  God  is  the 
 author,  not  of  cursing,  but  of  blessing  :  not  of  punishment, 
 but  of  reward.  Not  that  He  is  not  also  the  author  of 
 punishment,  but  He  has  prepared  rewards  freely,  and  out 
 of  the  inclination  of  His  own  mind.  He  prepared  punish- 
 ments unwillingly,  as  it  were,  and  to  satisfy  His  justice. 
 
 Into  everlasting  fire. 
 These  words  confute   the    opinion   of   the  followers  of 
 Origen,  who  denied  the  eternity  of  the  punishment  of  hell, 
 
328  THE  GOSPEL   OF    S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxv.  41. 
 
 against  whom  Bede  and  Theophylact  argue  on  this  passage. 
 Origen  himself,  in  his  Tractat.  xxxiv.,  speaks  very  soundly 
 on  it. 
 
 It  has  been  doubted  whether  it  will  be  a  true  and  literal 
 fire.     Two  things  are  certain  on  the  subject : 
 
 1.  That  the  Faith  teaches  us  that  the  punishment  will 
 be  a  true  one,  felt  not  in  thought  only,  but  in  sense  and 
 contact. 
 
 2.  There  is  another  less  certain,  not  taught  by  the  Faith, 
 but  held  by  almost  all  ancient  authorities,  that  the  fire 
 would  not  be  of  the  same  nature  as  ours.  So  say  Origen 
 {Horn,  ad  Diversos.,  and  Ti'act.  xxxiv.  on  S.  Matt.),  S. 
 Ambrose  {Coninicnt.  on  S.  Lnke  xiv.),  S.  Jerome  {On  Isa. 
 Ixv.,  Ixvi.),  Damascene  {De  Fid.,  iv.,  last  chapter,  adfiti.). 
 
 But  it  does  not  follow  from  this  that  it  is  not  true  fire  ; 
 and  we  cannot  safely  deny  that  it  is,  because  Scripture 
 everywhere  calls  the  pains  of  hell,  fire.  If  this  were  a 
 metaphor  and  not  the  literal  truth,  they  would  sometimes 
 be  described  otherwise,  and  not  so  frequently  termed  fire. 
 Which  zvas  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels. 
 
 Christ  does  not  say,  "  Which  was  prepared  for  you,"  as 
 of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  (verse  34,  and  i  Tim.  ii.  4  ; 
 Wisd.  i.  13  ;  Eccles.  vii.  30).  God  prepared  the  kingdom  of 
 heaven  for  all  men,  if  they  will  be  saved  from  all  eternity  : 
 but  eternal  fire  only  by  necessity  and  a  kind  of  compulsion 
 to  punish  the  wickedness  of  the  angels.  So  say  Origen,  S. 
 Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  and  Euthymius.  For  the  same 
 reason,  perhaps.  He  did  not  sa)-,  "  Which  is  prepared  from 
 the  foundation  of  the  world,"  as  He  had  said  of  the  kingdom 
 of  heaven  (verse  34)  :  because  He  had  prepared  the  king- 
 dom of  heaven,  which  He  made  of  His  own  will,  for  men 
 from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  that  is,  before  He  created 
 men  them.selves.  He  prepared  the  fire  only  from  compul- 
 sion, and,  therefore,  not  from  the  foundation  of  the  world, 
 but  after  this,  and  after  sin. 
 
CHAPTER  XXVI. 
 
 THE  JEWS  CONSPIRE  AGAINST  CHRIST— HE  IS  ANOINTED 
 BY  MARY  —  THE  TREASON  OF  JUDAS  —  THE  LAST 
 SUPPER — THE  PRAYER  IN  THE  GARDEN  —  THE  AP- 
 PREHENSION OF  OUR  LORD  —  HIS  TREATMENT  IN 
 THE   HOUSE   OF   CAIAPHAS. 
 
 Verse  i.  And  it  came  to  pass. 
 S.  Chrysostom  and  Theophylact  think  this  a  continua- 
 tion of  the  preceding  ;  the  Evangeh'st  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  li'ords. 
 S.  Hilary  and  others  understand  the  discourses  of  the 
 last  chapter  on  the  future  j'udgment  ;  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  com- 
 
330  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxvi.  2. 
 
 prehend  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. 
 
 Verse  2.    You  knoiv  that  after  tzvo  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. 
 
 n.  On  what  day  Christ  celebrated  the  Passover. 
 
 HI.  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  12th  day  of  the  ist  month 
 of  the  Hebrews  (Nisan),  which  is  our  March,  because  the 
 Passover  was  celebrated  at  the  end  of  the  14th  and  begin- 
 of  the  15th  day  {Exod.  xii.  6-18),  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  erro- 
 neous (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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  2.]  QUESTION    ON    VERSE    2.  33 1 
 
 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  15th  day.  He  died  on  the  sixth  hoiir  of  the 
 folloiving  day  (the  dies  nsjialis,  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  (in 
 verse  12)  that  Christ  made  the  great  entry  into  Jerusalem. 
 It  is  probable  that  He  did  not  enter  the  city  on  the  pre- 
 ceding 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  JMartis  (Tuesday). 
 
 The  order,  then,  of  the  Acts  of  Christ  from  the  Sabbath 
 day  on  which  He  was  at  Bethany  to  the  day  of  the  Pass- 
 
332  THE    GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxvi.  2. 
 
 over,  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.  18  ;  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  (5.  Mark  xi.  20-27),  and  He  returned  to  Bethany  the 
 same  day  ;  as  it  was  His  custom  (5.  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  Jerusa- 
 lem 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. 
 
 H.  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,  w^hich  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  Pass- 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  2.]       THE   DAY   OF   THE   LAST   SUPPER.  333 
 
 over,  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.  07i  Matt),  S.  Chrysostom,  Theophylact  {In 
 S.  John  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  argu- 
 ments are  as  follows  : 
 
 (i)  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. 
 
 (3j  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.  18  ;  Lcvit.  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  Coninicntary  on  S.  JoJui  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 
 
334  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         Xh.  xxvi.  2. 
 
 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  n''2')>*n  ]"^1 
 "  between  the  two  evenings,"  that  is,  on  the  confine  of  each 
 da}',  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  {Excd.  xii.  10  ;  Lcvit.  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  four- 
 teenth day  and  sometimes  on  the  fifteenth,  as  in  verse  17, 
 and  5.  Mark  xiv.  12,  and  5.  Litkc  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  Lcvit.  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  ;  Lcvit.  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  ex- 
 plained, 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  un- 
 leavened 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  ques- 
 tion. 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. 
 
 HI.  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 
 
336  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxvi.  2. 
 
 many  have  adopted  it.     The  following  arguments  may  be 
 added  in  its  favour  : — 
 
 (i)  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  ;  J>.  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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  2.]      THE   DAY   OF   THE   LAST   SUPPER.  337 
 
 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. 
 
 (11)  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,  Coniin.  on  S.  JoJin  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 
 
33^  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxvi.  2. 
 
 the  Passover  on  the  same  day  as  the  Jews,  but  one  day 
 earlier.  Of  this  opinion  were  Origen  {Tract,  xxxv.  07i  S. 
 Matt.),  S.  Chrysostom  and  Theophylact  {On  S.  John  xviii.), 
 Euthymius  {lioc  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  wc  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  con- 
 sequence, 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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  2.]     THE   DAY   OF   THE   LAST   SUPPER.  339 
 
 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.  JoJin 
 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  viane  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. 
 
 {b)  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 
 
340  THE  GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxvi.  2. 
 
 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.  V>y  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  pre- 
 pare what  was  necessary  for  subsistence.  Hence  it  was 
 called  by  the  Greeks  TrapaaKev/],  and  by  the  Hebrews  ll^DD 
 "  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). 
 
 /3.  Again,  we  never  read  of  a  parasceue,  but  of  the  Sabbath, 
 as  S.  Matt,  xxvii.  62  ;  5.  Liike  xxiii.  54  ;  and  more  clearly 
 6".  Mark  XV.  42.  As  if  explaining  what  parasceue  meant, 
 he  calls  it  irpoadlBIBaTov,  "  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  sko  instituto  ;  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 
 
Ch.xxvi.  2.]     THE    DAY   OF   THE   LAST   SUPPER.  341 
 
 one  word  the  reader  might  understand  that  the  day  follow- 
 ing 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  ordi- 
 nary one,  but  more  holy  and  noble  that  year  than  any  other 
 year.  But  it  could  not  be  so  unless  the  Pasch  were  cele- 
 brated 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.  Pie  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. 
 xii.  16).  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. 
 
 id)  The  fourth  reason  is  taken  from  .S.  ]\Iatt.  (verse  5)  and 
 5.  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 
 
342  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Cii.  xxvi.  2. 
 
 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  cele- 
 brated both  by  Christ  and  themselves  the  day  after ;  but 
 the  Jews  had  not  discovered  any  means  of  seizing  Christ. 
 
 /8.  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  con- 
 sulting about  the  seizure  of  Christ,  he,  covetous  and  per- 
 fidious as  he  was,  and  desiring  of  finding  purchasers,  would 
 not  lose  the  opportunity  of  selling  his  Master. 
 
 {c)  The  fifth  is  5.  John  xiii.  i  :  "  Before  the  festival  da}' 
 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  ques- 
 tion whether  S.  John  is  to  be  understood  of  the  Pasch 
 wliich  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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  2.]      THE   DAY   OF   THE   LAST   SUPPER.  343 
 
 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  Jincni),  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  befoFe. 
 
 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. 
 
344  THE    GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Cii.  xxvi.  2. 
 
 (^)  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  (5.  Liikc  xxiii. 
 56). 
 
 (//_)  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,  the}-  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  ;  namel}-,  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  among  the  people  ". 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  2.]      THE   DAY   OF   THE    LAST   SUPPER.  345 
 
 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  four- 
 teenth 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. 
 
34<5  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxvi.  2. 
 
 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  Evan- 
 gelists 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. 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  2.]      THE   DAY   OF   THE   LAST   SUPPER.  347 
 
 (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  (ii.)  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. 
 
348  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxvi.  2. 
 
 (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  accord- 
 ing 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  Iamb  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  day.s — 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 
 Pasclial  lamb  on  the  day  following. 
 
 4.  The  fourth  question  now  remains  to  be  answered. 
 This,  although  the  most  difficult,  has  been  fully  answered 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  2.]     QUESTION    ON    THE   DAY   OF   PASCH.  349 
 
 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  Euthy- 
 mius  {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  an)^  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 perfectiim,  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  follow- 
 ing 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  pre- 
 vented from  keeping  Pasch  on  the  day  appointed,  should 
 keep  it  on  the  fourteenth  of  the  following  month  {Numb. 
 ix.  10,  1 1). 
 
 It  seems  to  be  concluded  that  neither  did  Christ  antici- 
 pate 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. 
 
350  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxvi.  2. 
 
 Rupertus  {in  loc),  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  Covi- 
 inentary  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  bs  the  Pasch. 
 The  feast  of  Pasch  shall  be  celebrated,  or  the  lamb  slain. 
 The  word  Pasch  means  both. 
 
 A  nd  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. 
 IlapaBiSoTai,  "  is,"  for  "  shall  be,"  as  before.     By  whom 
 delivered  up,  the  Evangelist  does  not  say.     Origen,  and  S. 
 Thomas  in  his  Commentary,  have  observed  : 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  2.]    BY   WHOM   CHRIST   WAS   DELIVERED    UP.      35 1 
 
 (a)  That  He  was  delivered  up  by  the  Father  (Ro7;i.  viii. 
 32). 
 
 (d)  That  He  was  deHvered  up  by  Himself  (Ga/.  ii.  20  ; 
 Ep/i.  V.  2,  25). 
 
 (c)  By  the  devil  {S.  John  xiii.  2). 
 
 (<^)  By  Judas  {S.  Matt.  x.  4  ;  xxvi.  15,  16). 
 
 {e)  By  the  Jews  (xxvii.  2  ;  5".  Jf^zr-^  xv.  i  ;  5.  John  xviii. 
 35). 
 
 (/)  By  Pilate  to  the  soldiers  {S.  Matt,  xxvii.  26). 
 
 He  was  delivered  with  a  different  animns  by  different 
 agents. 
 
 {a  and  b)  By  Himself  and  by  His  Father  to  redeem 
 men. 
 
 {c)  By  the  devil  to  prevent  the  Redemption  and  to  incite 
 sinners  to  that  wickedness. 
 
 (<^)  By  Judas  from  avarice. 
 
 ie)    By  the  Jews  from  hatred. 
 
 (/)  By  Pilate  from  fear,  lest  he  should  not  appear  suffi- 
 ciently 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.  18,  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  ". 
 
352  THE   GOSPEL   OF    S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxvi.  3. 
 
 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  "  (5.  Luke  xxiii.  21).  Christ,  as  has  been  said,  spoke 
 most  especially  of  them. 
 
 Verse  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. 
 
 \  Vcrc  gatJicrcd  togctJicr  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.  ii.  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  6".  Mark 
 xiv.  I ;  ^.  Liike  xxii.  2  ;  and  above,  chap.  ii.  4.  These  consti- 
 tuted the  Jewish  council — viz.,  the  chief  priests,  that  is,  the 
 heads  of  the  priestly  families  ;  with  the  chief  priest,  who  was 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  3.]    CONSPIRACY  OF  JEWS  AGAINST  CHRIST.         353 
 
 merely  called  princess  saccrdotuni ;  the  Scribes,  who  were 
 doctors  of  the  Law,  the  elders  of  the  people  ;  like  the  three 
 estates  of  a  republic  {vid.  chap.  ii.  4). 
 
 Into  the  court. 
 
 Ek  rrjv  avKrjv,  III  ail  Iain.  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.  Athenaeus  (lib.  v.)  says  that  avXri  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  aidiei,  our  version  always  renders  it  atrium 
 (court),  as  here  and  infra,  verses  58,  69  ;  5.  Mark  xiv.  54,  ^6  ; 
 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  Evan- 
 gelist speaks,  and  which  he  calls  avXi],  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  with- 
 out, and  so  says  S.  Mark  (xiv.  6%  ;  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  {Antig.,  xviii.  3,  6). 
 
354  THE   GOSPEL  OF   S.   MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxvi.  5. 
 
 And  they  consiilted  together. 
 Kal  a-vve/BovXeva-avTo,  "  They  took  counsel  unanimously  ". 
 
 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. 
 
 Verse  5.  B7it  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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  6.]     CONSPIRACY  OF  JEWS  AGAINST  CHRIST.        355 
 
 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  tJiere  should  be  a  twmilt. 
 revTjTat.  First,  it  may  be  asked  why  they  feared  the 
 people  ?  We  may  safely  say,  sa/va  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  con- 
 course 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  (5.  Mark  xi.  18  ; 
 xii.  12  ;  5.  Luke  xx.  19  ;  xxii.  2). 
 
 Verse  6.  And  zvhen  Jesus  zuas  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  ^.  Mark  xiv.  3  ;  5.  Lnke  vii,  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  ? 
 
356  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxvi.  6. 
 
 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.,  ii.  69),  Bede  {Comm.  on  S.  Luke  vii.), 
 and  Euthymius  (/;/  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 — ist,  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  (Ivi.  on  S.  Luke 
 vii.)  think  that  they  were  the  same  Simon.  This  view  seems 
 the  more  probable  of  the  two,  for  the  following  reasons  : 
 
 (i)  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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  6.]        ANOINTING  OF  CHRIST  S  HEAD.  35/ 
 
 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  (Tract,  xxxvi.  on  S.  Matt.)  thinks  it  pro- 
 bable that  there  were  four  different  women  mentioned  by 
 the  four  EvangeHsts,  who  all  anointed  Christ.  But  this 
 does  not  appear  to  be  a  matter  open  to  discussion.  Be- 
 cause 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  ;  an- 
 other, 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  {Coniinent.  in  loc),  and 
 Euthymius.  They  suggest,  also,  and  with  some  proba- 
 bility, 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  lo,  12).  Besides,  the  woman 
 in  vS.  Lnke  anointed  Christ  a  long  time  before  His  pass- 
 over,  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  {Serm. 
 de  Mar.  Magd.)  think  that  there  was  one,  of  whom  S.  Luke 
 writes,  and  another,  a  second,  of  whom  we  read  in  S.  Mat- 
 thew, 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 
 
358  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxvi.  6. 
 
 only,  the  latter  His  feet  and  head,  as  will  be  explained 
 hereafter.  The  latter,  of  whon:i  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.John,  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.,  ii.  69),  S.  Gregory  {Horn.  xxxv.  in  Evang.),  Bede 
 {in  he.  ;  and  S.  Luke,  vii.).  This  seems  much  the  more 
 probable,  because  : 
 
 (i)  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, 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  6.]      OF  THE  WOMAN  WHO  ANOINTED.  359 
 
 that  there  was  not  one  single  anointing,  but  a  second  one. 
 And  although  S.  Luke  does  not  expressly  say  so,  it  is  pro- 
 bable 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  S.  JoJm.  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  men- 
 tions 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  vii.  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  onl}^  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 
 
360  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S,    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxvi.  6. 
 
 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  (vii.  5.  Luke)  ;  S.  Augustin 
 {De  Conscns.,  ii.  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 
 
Ch.  xxvi.  6.]      OF  THE  WOMAN  WHO  ANOINTED.  36 1 
 
 of  ointment — spikenard,  very  precious  ;  there  was  the  same 
 murmuring  of  the  Jews,  the  same  defence  by  Christ ;  for 
 how  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  dvaKecfiaXatcoa-L^i :  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  ^S.  MattJiezv  and  5.  Mark  the  woman  appears  to 
 have  anointed  only  the  head,  and  in  6".  JoJin  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,  omits  the  anointing  of  the  head,  which  was 
 usual ;  and  mentions  that  of  the  feet,  which  was  uncommon. 
 
362  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxvi.  6. 
 
 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  (5.  Mark  xvi.  9). 
 
 In  the  house  of  Simo?i  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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  7.]      OF  THE  WOMAN  WHO  ANOINTED.  363 
 
 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  Mark 
 had  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. 
 
 Verse  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  effec- 
 tually— /cat  (7VVTpl"^a(Ta  to  akd^aarpov  Kaieyeev  avTOV  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 
 
364  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxvi.  7. 
 
 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. 
 
 BapvrifMov,  "  of  heavy  value,"  gravis  prctii,  as  the  Latins 
 sometimes  say,  or  TroXvTL/jiov,  as  some  copies  read,  and 
 as  we  find  it  in  ^^  fo/in  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  pistiann — 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  uiigucnti  nardi  pisiici,  or,  as  the  Greek  is, 
 vdphov  7riaTCKi}<i.  As  these  passages  are  joined  with  the  one 
 now  under  discussion  of  S.  Matthew,  we  may  explain  it  here 
 by  the  way.  What  nard  is  wc  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  ;  iv.  13,  14).  From  the 
 word  TTiaTiK))  some,  as  S.  Augustin  (Tract,  iv.  on  S.  John), 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  7.]  THE   SPIKENARD.  365 
 
 have  thought  that  the  pistaccio  was  the  nardus ;  but  there 
 is  no  authority  for  this  among  cosmographers.  The  ordi- 
 nary and  more  generally  received  explanation,  as  we  have 
 hinted  before,  is  that  nardus  is  called  pistiais  from  the 
 Greek  word  irLariKo^,  meaning  genuine,  approved,  not 
 tampered  with  or  adulterated.  This  is  the  opinion  of 
 Euthymius  and  Theophylact  on  6".  Mark  xiv.  This  may 
 be  so  ;  but  there  are  the  following  objections  : 
 
 1.  The  nard  is  not  called  TTLartfcr]  but  Tria-Tr],  as  meaning 
 true,  tested. 
 
 2.  The  word  Tnarr]  so  used  is  rare  and  novel.  It  is  not 
 used  of  inanimate  objects.  Besides,  it  is  not  the  nard  but 
 the  ointment  that  should  be  called  pisticiun.  For  it  was 
 not  the  nard  but  the  ointment  that  could  be  adulterated 
 by  the  artifices  and  greed  of  the  vendors  ;  and  the  Evan- 
 gelist calls  the  ointment  pretiosiis  and  the  nard  pisticiis. 
 Lastly,  if  the  ointment  were  pisticiim  because  tested,  and 
 of  the  best  quality,  it  would  be  pretiosuin.  But  the  Evan- 
 gelists distinguish,  and  call  one  pistiaini  and  the  other 
 pretiosiun. 
 
 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  Evan- 
 gelists describe.  If  so,  it  is  called  irLanKy],  from  ineiv,  "to 
 drink  ".  It  may  be  brought  against  this  view  that  in  this 
 sense  it  is  not  the  nard  but  the  ointment  that  should  be 
 called  pistiann,  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 
 nard  {pistici pretiosi). 
 
 It  was  the  custom  with  the  Jews  and  other  ancient 
 nations    to    have    their    guests    at    their    entertainments 
 
366  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.   [Ch.  xxvi.  8,  9. 
 
 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. 
 
 Verse  8.  A  nd  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.,  ii.  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  avari- 
 ciousness.  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  ob- 
 served. The  other  Evangelists  speak  by  syllepsis,  as  is 
 their  frequent  custom,  as  when  {S.  Matt.  xiv.  15)  the  dis- 
 ciples 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. 
 
 Verse  9.  And  given  to  the  poor. 
 S.  John  informs  us  of  the  spirit  in  which  Judas  said  this 
 (xii.  6). 
 
Ch,  XXVI,  lo,  12.]      CHRIST'S  REBUKE  OF  JUDAS,  367 
 
 Verse  lO.  And  Jesus  knoiving  it. 
 Understanding  the  words  and  thoughts  of  Judas,  though 
 he  spoke  apart  and  silently.  The  Evangeh'st  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  Trpo?  kavrov<i, 
 apitd  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 ". 
 
 Verse  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  ; 
 5.  Mark  xvi.  i  ;  S.  Liike  xxiii.  56;  xxiv.  i  ;  5,  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.  The  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 :  Teri^prjKev  avTo,  "  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 
 
368  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxvi.  12. 
 
 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  unneces- 
 sary, 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  anoint- 
 ing, and,  in  some  way  burying.  Him.  Not,  perhap.s,  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  /oc.)  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  (5.  Luke  vii.  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  con- 
 siders as  done  to  Himself,  as  He  said  (xxv.  40),  yet  that 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  13,  14.]    CHRIST   ANOINTED   BY   MARY.  369 
 
 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  (///  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  insti- 
 tuted in  honour  of  Christ,  but  regarded  by  heretics,  like  the 
 ancient  Gentiles,  with  derision,  as  Theophylact  says. 
 
 Verse  13.  Amen,  I  say  tinto yoii  wheresoever  tJiis  Gospel 
 shall  be  preached. 
 
 This  and  6".  Jllark  xiv.  9  are  the  only  places,  as  we 
 have  observed  in  the  Preface,  where  the  word  Evangeliiivi 
 is  used  for  Evangelica  Historia. 
 
 In  the  whole  zvorld,  that  also  which  she  hath  done  shall  be 
 
 told  for  a  memory  of  Jier. 
 The  memory  and  praise  of  this  woman  shall  be  cele- 
 brated 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). 
 
 Verse  14.   Then  zvent  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  destruc- 
 tion of  Christ.  This  is  the  opinion  of  Bede,  and  seems  to 
 be  the  more  common  opinion  in  the  Church.  The  argu- 
 2 — 24 
 
370  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxvi.  14. 
 
 ment  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  seme  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.,  \crse  15). 
 I-'or,  if  so,  they  would  not  have  discussed  the  manner  of 
 Christ's  capture,  but  have  gladly  accepted  the  conditions  of 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  14.]  JUDAS   ISCARIOT.  37 1 
 
 Judas,  as  described  by  S.  Mark  (xiv.  1 1)  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  tivelve. 
 The  Evangelist  seems  to  use  this  expression  to  show  the 
 magnitude  of  the  offence  ;  that  one  of  Christ's  own  twelve 
 Apostles  and  His  familiar  friend  should  have  sold  Him, 
 while  a  woman,  a  stranger,  and  not  long  since  a  sinner,  did 
 for  Him  a  singular  office  of  love  and  piety. 
 
 Who  was  called  Judas  Iscariot. 
 
 The  two  names  of  Judas  arc  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  pos- 
 session 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  Spiritit 
 Sancto,  iii.)  have  explained,  and  as  appears  from  S.  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 
 
372  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.        [Cii.  xxvi.  14. 
 
 to  have  entered  into  him  then  ?  It  seems  that  S.  Luke 
 wished  to  convey  the  idea  of  the  fouhiess  and  profanity  of 
 the  deed,  as  if  he  had  said  more  plainly,  It  was  so  wicked 
 an  act  that  only  by  Satan's  entering  into  him  could  he 
 possibly  have  done  it ;  and  thus  Satan  is  not  said  to  have 
 entered  into  him  when  he  was  guilty  of  only  lighter 
 offences,  although  he  committed  them  at  the  instigation  of 
 the  same  prompter. 
 
 Thus  we  often  say,  when  we  see  a  man  committing  some 
 more  common  and  less  heinous  offence,  "  The  devil  has 
 deluded  him  "  ;  but  when  he  perpetrates  some  unheard  of 
 and  enormous  wickedness,  we  say  that  he  is  a  devil 
 incarnate,  because  but  for  the  suggestions  of  the  devil  he 
 could  not  have  committed  it.  Thus  is  answered  the 
 question,  Why,  when  S.  Luke  says  that  "  Satan  now 
 entered  into  Judas,"  S.  John  (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  cither  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  Ilim  than 
 to  sell  Him.  This  is  certain,  as  Bede  and  Euth}'mius 
 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  can- 
 not be  false. 
 
 To  tJic  chief  priests. 
 
 S.  Luke  (xxii.  4)  adds  aTpaT7jryoL<;,  "  captains,"  whom  he 
 distinguishes  from  the  chief  priests  and  elders  (v.  52),  and 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  15.]     THE   THIRTY   PIECES   OF    SILVER.  373 
 
 calls  cTTpaTTjjoL'i  "  magistrates  of  the  Temple "  ;  that  is, 
 officers  who  were  over,  or  in  charge  of,  the  Temple,  who 
 were  possibly  soldiers  whom  some  of  the  priests  had  under 
 them  for  the  safe  custody  of  the  Temple,  and  who  were, 
 therefore,  called  duces.  For  the  Jews  were  not  allowed  by 
 the  arbitrary  power  of  the  Romans  to  have  any  other 
 military  force. 
 
 Verse  15.  But  they  appointed  hivi  thii^ty  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  two- 
 fold— 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  ?1D3  D'^'II^'T'IZ^  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  111  and  the  side, 
 which,  perhaps,  as  being  of  greater  weight,  was  called  ^p^ 
 that  is,  pondus  (weight).  But  when  the  word  ?lDi!3  argentci 
 (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  f^D^  with  a 
 numeral,  renders  it  side,  as  in  Gen.  xxxvii.  28  ;  xlv.  22  ; 
 Judges  xvi.  5;  xvii.  2,  4,  10;  2  Kings  xviii.  ii,  12; 
 4  Kings  vi.  25 ;  Isa.  vii.  23.  In  other  passages,  like  the 
 Evangelist,  he  renders  it  apf^vpeovi,  argenteas,  as  in  Judges 
 
374  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.    [Ch.  xxvi.  17,  18. 
 
 xvii.  4-10  ;  Zach.  xi.  12.  So  Josephus  {Antiq.,  iii.  9  ;  ix.  2) 
 renders  the  word  argcntcis  (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  {Exod. 
 XXX.  13;  Levit.  xxvii.  25;  Numb.  iii.  47;  xviii.  16; 
 Ezek.  xlv.  12),  that  a  siclus  had  tAventy  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  (5.  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. 
 
 Verse  17.  And  tJie  first  day  of  tJie  Azynics. 
 
 On  the  Azymes,  vide  verse  2  and  following. 
 
 Verse  18.  Go  ye  i?ito  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  pre- 
 ceding 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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  i8.]   PREPARATIONS   FOR   THE   PASSOVER.  375 
 
 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  vian. 
 
 Ilpb'^  TOP  Seli'a,  to  a  particular  person,  but  one  who  is  not 
 named.  As  S.  Jerome  has  observed,  the  Hebrews  express 
 it  thus  :  ^:i^^2^. 
 
 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  b}-  name,  or,  as  we  shall 
 shortly  prove,  He  did  not  do  this,  but  pointed  him  out  b}' 
 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  likel}',  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  (5.  Mark  xiv.  13  ;  5.  Luke 
 xxii.  10).  For  if  Christ  had  named  the  man,  what  need 
 would  there  have  been  of  an}-  description  ?  He  would 
 have  said  in  one  word,  Go  to  Peter  or  Paul. 
 
 S.  Jerome  and  Bede  offer  as  the  reason  wh}-  Christ  did 
 not  name  the  man  that  wc  may  understand  b\-  His  silence 
 that  all  men  are  invited  to  celebrate  with  Him  the  New 
 Pasch.     S.  Ambrose  {On  S.  Luke  xxii.)  says  that  "he  was 
 
376  THE    GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxvi.  i8. 
 
 described  without  a  name  that,  as  a  poor  and  unknown 
 man,  he  might  be  held  in  esteem  "  ;  as  Christ  chooses,  not 
 the  rich  and  noble,  but  the  poor,  and  men  of  no  regard, 
 with  whom  to  share  His  mysteries.  But  this  is  opposed 
 to  S.Mark  xiv.  15  and  S.  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  "fur- 
 nished " — 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  iarpoofievov 
 €TOLfiov,  "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  {Honi.  Ixxxii.), 
 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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  i8.]     PREPARATIONS   FOR   THE   PASSOVER.  377 
 
 counsel  for  His  death.  So  that  God  would  appear  to  have 
 led  the  man  to  the  fountain  to  draw  water  that  he  might 
 meet  the  disciples,  and  bring  them  to  the  house  in  which 
 all  things  were  prepared  for  celebrating  the  Pasch ;  so  that 
 nothing  might  retard  the  celebration  of  the  Pasch,  nor 
 hinder  the  divine  decree. 
 
 Maldonatus  then  enters  at  much  length  into  what  he 
 admits  to  be  a  fruitless  inquiry  as  to  who  the  man  may 
 possibly  have  been — and  he  gives  the  opinions  of  several 
 early  authors  on  the  subject ;  but  he  confesses  at  the  same 
 time  that  nothing  is  or  can  be  known  as  to  who  he  actually 
 was.  He  considers  that  most  probably  he  was  some 
 wealthy  Jew,  who  was  a  friend  of  Christ,  and  a  believer  in 
 Him,  but  secretly,  like  Joseph  of  Arimathea  and  Nico- 
 demus  ;  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. 
 
 TJie  Master  saitJi. 
 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  dis- 
 ciples 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 
 
3/8  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxvi.  20. 
 
 probable,  and  it  confirms  our  idea  of  Christ  having  cele- 
 brated 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  ex- 
 pression like  that  in  ^".  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  Screnus,  De  Traiiqiiilit.   Vii.,  ii.). 
 
 With  My  disciples. 
 
 Christ  seems  to  have  added  this  to  warn  His  host  to 
 prepare  for  the  reception  of  thirteen  persons.  From  this 
 we  may  suppose  that  the  man  had  some  acquaintance  with 
 Christ,  and  knew  that  He  had  His  disciples  with  Him. 
 
 Verse  20.  When  it  was  evening. 
 S.  Mark  says  the  same.  They  mention  the  evening  to 
 show  that  Christ  celebrated  the  Pasch  at  the  time  appointed 
 by  the  Law,  which  commanded  that  the  lamb  should  be 
 slaughtered  between  the  two  evenings:  that  is,  between  the 
 sun.set  of  the  14th  and  the  night  of  the  15th,  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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  20.]  THE   PA.S.SOVER.  379 
 
 of  the  sun  appear  to  commit  a  double  error  :  both  as  they 
 speak  contrarily  to  the  Law,  which  commanded  the  Iamb 
 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  dozvn. 
 ^AveKeiTo,  disaimbebat,  properly  rcatnibcbat.  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.  II):  "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  to- 
 gether. 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  ; 
 ^.  JoJin  xiii.  12).    S.  Matthew,  too,  as  if  speaking  of  another 
 
380  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Cii.  xxvr.  20. 
 
 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,  aviTrecre,  as 
 S.  Matthew  here  has  uveKelro. 
 
 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  Evan- 
 gelists bear  such  open  witness  to  the  contrary.  It  deserves 
 no  answer. 
 
 When,  therefore,  the  Evangelists  say  that  Christ  re- 
 aibuissc  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  sa)^  in 
 Latin,  accuiiibcrc,  at  table,  although  we  sit.  The  Evangelists, 
 therefore,  though  they  used  the  ordinary  word,  reannbo, 
 would  not  signify  that  Christ  really  reclined,  but  came  to 
 the  table  and  supped. 
 
 With  His  twelve  disciples. 
 It  may  be  thought  that,  in  mentioning  the  number  of  the 
 disciples  with  whom  Christ  ate  the  Paschal  lamb,  the 
 PLvangclist  meant  to  show  that  Christ  on  this  point  also 
 observed  the  Law.  For  the  Law  commanded  the  master 
 of  the  house  to  cat  the  lamb  with  his  whole  family  {Exod. 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  20.]  THE    PASSOVER.  38 1 
 
 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.  iv.  13,  De  Alyster.).  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  dis- 
 tribution 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  king- 
 dom 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  repent- 
 ance. As  to  what  some  say,  that  Judas  was  indeed  a 
 sinner,  but  not  a  public  one,  and  to  men  of  this  class  the 
 
382  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxvi.  20. 
 
 Sacrament  oui^ht  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.  Theo- 
 phylact  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  Cecil.  Doin.  ;  S.  Chrysostom, 
 Hoin.  in  S.  Matt.  Ixxxii.,  and  Honi.  de  prod.  J  11  dec ;  S. 
 Jerome,  ///  loc. ;  S.  Augustin,  Ep.  Ixiii.  and  Tractat.  in 
 Joann. ;  Theodosius,  On  i  Cor.  xi.  ;  Leo,  De  Pass.  Doni., 
 Serin,  vii.). 
 
 This  opinion  can  be  proved,  because  it  is  not  credible 
 that  before  all  was  finished  Judas  rose  from  the  table  to  go 
 to  the  chief  priests  ;  for  he  would  thus  have  betrayed  his 
 treachery,  which  he  greatly  wished  to  conceal.  Again, 
 after  the  Eucharist  had  been  given  by  Christ,  S.  Luke 
 speaks  of  Christ  as  addressing  Judas,  who  was  still  present 
 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  cither  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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  21.]  THE   PASSOVER.  383 
 
 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  Hkely  that  when  he 
 had  received  the  sop  he  should  have  waited,  however  short 
 a  time,  and  received  the  Holy  Sacrament.  The  words  of 
 Christ — "  I  will  not  drink  from  henceforth  of  the  fruit  of 
 the  vine  until  the  day  when  I  shall  drink  it  new  with  you 
 in  the  kingdom  of  My  Father" — do  not  necessarily  imply 
 that  Judas  was  not  then  present,  because,  although  Christ 
 does  not  drink  with  him  hereafter,  He  does  so  with  others  ; 
 and  this  is  sufficient  for  Him  to  say,  "  until  I  drink  it  new 
 with  you,"  the  words  "  with  you  "  referring  to  the  Apostles 
 as  a  whole. 
 
 Maldonatus  then  discusses  the  opinion  of  Euthymius  and 
 some  others,  that  there  were  more  than  the  Apostles  present. 
 Maldonatus  decides  the  question  in  the  negative — first, 
 because  the  Evangelists  have  given  the  names  in  full,  and 
 with  exactness,  and  secondly,  because  the  Law  commanded 
 that  the  Pasch  should  be  eaten  by  the  members  of  each 
 household,  except  there  were  not  enough  in  number  to 
 consume  the  lamb,  when  strangers  might  be  added.  This 
 was  not  the  case  here. 
 
 Verse  21.  One  of  yoii. 
 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 
 
384  THE   GOSPEL   OF    S.    MATTHEW.   [Ch.  xxvr.  22, 23. 
 
 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  particu- 
 larly, that  the  others,  struck  by  His  words,  might  show 
 themselves  by  their  countenances  to  be  innocent,  while 
 Judas  discovered  himself  as  the  traitor. 
 
 Verse  22.  And  they,  being  very  viuch  troubled. 
 It  seems  strange  why  the  Apostles  who  were  innocent 
 should  have  been  troubled,  as  if  each  thought  the  above 
 words  spoken  of  himself  Nor  were  they  only  so  much 
 grieved  at  the  great  wickedness  that  Christ  should  be 
 betrayed  by  His  own  follower,  whoever  he  were — though 
 no  doubt  this  did  afflict  them  greatly — but,  as  S.  Matthew 
 shows,  they  were  sorry  because  each  thought  the  saying 
 possibly  spoken  of  himself,  and  was  anxious,  and  said, 
 "  Is  it  I  ?  "  Origen,  S.  Chrysostom,  Euthymius,  and  Theo- 
 phylact  give  as  the  cau.se,  that  even  if  they  knew  them- 
 selves innocent,  yet  they  put  more  faith  in  the  words  of 
 Christ  than  in  their  own  consciences. 
 
 Verse  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.  Wc  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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  23.]  JUDAS    ISCARIOT.  385 
 
 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.JoIni  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 
 2 — 25 
 
386  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxvi.  23. 
 
 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"  (5.  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  com- 
 mon 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):  "  Fvcn  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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  24.]  JUDAS   ISCARIOT.  387 
 
 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. 
 
 Verse  24.   The  Son  of  man  indeed goeth. 
 
 Christ  compares  His  own  position  to  that  of  Judas,  and 
 prefers  it.  At  this  time  Judas  appeared  to  be  in  a  better 
 position  than  Christ.  Christ  was  the  sold :  he  was  the 
 seller.  Christ  was  going  to  death  :  Judas  to  reward.  Christ 
 was  about  to  be  deserted  even  by  all  His  disciples  :  Judas 
 was  to  be  united  to  the  chief  priests,  the  Scribes  and  elders, 
 in  favour  and  friendship  ;  and  might  therefore  appear  much 
 more  happy  than  Christ  in  the  judgment  of  men.  Christ 
 Himself  refutes  this  opinion,  and  declares  that  in  a  short 
 time  He  should  be  in  a  better  state  than  Judas.  That  He 
 was  to  suffer  and  die  seemed  to  Him  neither  an  affliction 
 nor  a  calamity,  nor  a  thing  unexpected  or  compulsory;  but 
 on  the  contrary,  one  that  was  pleasant,  laudable,  duteous, 
 voluntary  :  a  thing  undertaken  with  the  intention  of  obey- 
 ing 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). 
 
388  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxvi.  24. 
 
 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  pro- 
 ceeded 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 "  {PJiil.  ii.  9). 
 Judas,  on  the  other  hand,  who  appeared  to  go  to  profit  and 
 the  favour  of  men,  would  go  to  the  noose ;  and  to  eternal 
 punishment  so  severe  that  it  would  have  been  better  for 
 him  if  he  had  not  been  born. 
 
 Maldonatus  then  enters  into  some  abstract  questions  of 
 Predestination  and  others  depending  on  it.  The  8vo  omits 
 the  whole.     It  may,  however,  be  thus  stated  in  summary. 
 
 Objection  :  That  Judas  in  betraying  Christ  fulfilled  the 
 divine  decree  equally  with  Christ  Himself,  and  therefore 
 that  Judas  was  not  more  guilty  than  Christ. 
 
 S.  Chrysostom,  Euthymius,  Theophylact,  and  all  Catholic 
 teachers  say  in  reply  that  it  was  not  decreed  or  predes- 
 tinated 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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  25.]  JUDAS   ISCARIOT.  389 
 
 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.  vii.  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. 
 
 Verse  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  com- 
 
390 
 
 THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxvr.  26. 
 
 pelled  by  the  example  of  the  rest.  Hence  he  asked  last  of 
 all,  and  perhaps  after  Christ  had  in  some  way  pointed  him 
 out  by  the  words,  "  He  that  dippeth  with  Me  in  the  dish, 
 he  shall  betray  Me  "  ;  for  the  Evangelist  relates  the  former 
 before  the  latter.  Such,  at  least,  is  the  opinion  of  Origen, 
 S.  Chrysostom,  and  Bede.  These  observe  that  Judas  did 
 not  say  like  the  rest,  "  Is  it  I,  Lord  ?  "  but  "  Is  it  I,  Rabbi  ?  " 
 as  if,  even  when  he  most  especially  wished  to  dissemble  his 
 treachery,  he  was  compelled  by  his  pride  to  betray  himself  by 
 addressing  Christ  with  a  less  honourable  title  than  the  rest. 
 
 Thou  hast  said  it. 
 This  mode  of  answering  was  honourable,  and  with  the 
 least  possible  offence  to  him  addressed;  nor  had  it  any- 
 thing of  the  petulance  which  we  are  apt  to  show  when 
 questioned.  But  S.  Augustin's  idea  that  Christ's  words 
 conveyed  neither  assent  nor  denial  cannot  be  reconciled 
 with  the  ordinary  forms  of  speech.  It  is  supposed  that 
 Christ  said  this  to  Judas  after  He  had  given  him  the  sop 
 as  mentioned  by  S.  John. 
 
 Verse  26.  And  ivJiilst  they  were  at  supper, 
 iadiovrcov  8e  avTcou,  vescentibus  a2itein  illis.  Our  version 
 renders  the  meaning,  not  the  words.  They  were  at  supper, 
 because  it  was  cvcniiig,  and  the  food  taken  then  is  called 
 supper.  S.  Mark  uses  the  word  eaOi.oviwv,  "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,  ea6(6vrcou  Be 
 avTcou,  aunantidus,  aut  manducaiitibus  illis,  are  not  be  under- 
 stood as  if  Christ  had  done  it  during  the  supper,  but  imme- 
 diately on  its  being  ended,  before  they  rose  from  the  table, 
 and  the  fragments  were  removed. 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  26.]  THE   LAST   SUPPER.  391 
 
 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  S.  Liike  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 
 
392  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxvi.  26. 
 
 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,  eu;j^a- 
 pLarijaai,  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  evxapicTTia  and  evXoyia,  which 
 arc  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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  26.]  THE    LAST   SUPPER.  393 
 
 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. 
 
 A  nd  blessed. 
 
 (On  these  words  we  have  followed  the  Folio  and  inserted 
 much  that  the  8vo  omits.) 
 
 Kai  evXo'^i^a-a^y  "  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 
 cgerit). 
 
 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.  EuXo-yelu,  used  here  by  S.  Matthew  and  by  S.  Mark 
 (xiv.  22)  of  the  bread,  has  the  same  meaning  as  eL';\^apicrTeif 
 — that  is,  "to  give  thanks";  for  S.  Matthew  (here)  and 
 S.  Mark  (xiv.  22)  say  ei)\o7?;o-a?  here  of  the  bread,  and  in 
 the  verse  following  use  the  word  euxapicm^aa'i  of  the  cup  ; 
 and    S.    Matthew    and    S.    Mark    say    evXoyi'jaa^    of    the 
 
394  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxvi.  26. 
 
 bread,  S.  Luke  (xxii.  19),  S.  Paul  (i  Cor.  xi.  24)  say 
 eu)(^api(TTi]aa<i.  S.  Matthew  (xv.  36)  uses  ev-)(apicrri'i(Ta^  of 
 the  seven  loaves  and  two  fishes.  S.  Mark  (viii.  6)  says 
 eu)(^apLaTi]aa<i  of  the  loaves  and  evXayijaa^  of  the  fishes.  S. 
 Matthew  (xiv.  19),  S.  Mark  (xvi.  42),  and  S.  Luke  (vi.  11) 
 say  evxapL(jri]aa<i  of  the  five  loaves;  S.  John  (vi.  11) 
 euxapta-Trjaa^.  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  113 
 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.  16):  "The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless" — that  is, 
 consecrate  by  blessing.  By  these  words  it  is  clear  that  the 
 blessing  was  bestowed  on  the  subject-matter ;  that  is,  the 
 Bread  and  Wine,  as  shown  in  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.  iv.  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  Secojid  Apologia, 
 calls  the  Eucharist  "  food  blessed  by  thanksgiving  "—  that 
 is,  consecrated;  and  S.  Irena^us  (iv.  34,  35)  says  the  same; 
 and  S.  Cyprian  {Dc  Cam.  Do}?i.)  says  :  "  The  substantial 
 bread  and  the  cu[)  consecrated  by  solemn  benediction  avail 
 to  the  life  and  salvation  of  the  whole  man  ".     So  S.  Ambrose 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  26.]  THE   LAST   SUPPER.  395 
 
 and  the  poet  Juvencu.s  say  "  sanctumque  precatus  " — that 
 is,  sanctifying  by  prayer. 
 
 3.  The  followers  of  Calvin  err  in  thinking  that  the  bless- 
 ing 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)  5.  Matt.  (xiv.  19),  6".  Mark  (vi.  41),  5. 
 Ltikc  (ix.  16),  when  He  multiplied  the  five  loaves  ;  (2)  Ji. 
 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.  Why  do  they  all  relate  the  whole  act  so  elaborately, 
 as  if  it  were  a  thing  of  the  very  greatest  importance  ? 
 
 Lastly.  Why  do  they  say  that  He  blessed  both  the  bread 
 and  the  cup  separately,  as  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark  do? 
 or  why  do  they  describe  the  whole  so  exactly  that  we  may 
 see  that  Christ  blessed  both  the  bread  and  the  cup,  as  S. 
 Luke  says  (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  ? 
 A  nd  broke. 
 
 It  was  an  ancient  custom  among  the  Jews  for  the  father 
 
396  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Cn.  xxvi.  26. 
 
 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 
 Hcbreivs  entitled  ")-  72.  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  (feccrit)  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  un- 
 leavened 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 
 
 *  Fccissc-faclo  =  irouo)  ;  to  sacrifice, /iif/c;  or  sncri-fncio. 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  26.]  BREAKING   OF   THE   BREAD.  397 
 
 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  recep- 
 tion 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,  be- 
 cause 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  Lajn.  (iv.  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  ii.  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 
 
398  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxvi.  26. 
 
 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  Spcctac.  Ch.  de  Mtinere), 
 S.  Cyril  Jerusalem  {Cat.  v.,  Myst.),  S.  Augustin  {Scrvi. 
 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  hcavil}-,  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. 
 
 T/iis  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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  26.]  "  THIS   IS    MV    BODY."  399 
 
 the  flesh :  none  of  these  is  taught  in  words  so  plain, 
 so  perspicuous,  so  eloquent.  For  where  does  Scripture  sa/ 
 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  inter- 
 pretation 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  we  retort  upon  them  on  the 
 Trinity,  the  Incarnation,  the  Resurrection  of  the  dead,  that 
 so  they  may  either  cease  their  attacks  upon  the  mystery  of 
 the  Eucharist,  or  that  their  arguments  may  cease  to  be 
 urged.  The  Arians,  Marcionists,  Manichaeans,  Origenists, 
 have  invented  many  explanations  against  the  words  cited 
 
400  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxvi.  26. 
 
 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. 
 
 TJiis. — 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  signi- 
 fies 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  Iioe, 
 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,"  wh}'  did  He  not  more  clearl}-,  in  one  word,  say 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  26.]  "THIS    IS    MV   BODY".  4OI 
 
 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  vieuui  ?  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  ii.  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.  vii.  12).  Or' 
 because  it  bears  the  form  of  bread  as  before,  as  they  were 
 called  tongues  that  sat  upon  the  Apostles  {Acts  ii.  3)  ;  not 
 that  they  were  actually  tongues,  but  that  they  had  the 
 appearance  of  such.  This  reply  might  be  sufficient,  though 
 we  do  not  seem  compelled  to  offer  any  explanation  at  all. 
 It  must  be  denied  again  and  again  that,  in  the  places  cited, 
 the  word  "  bread  "  is  to  be  taken  either  for  bread  or  for  the 
 figure  {figura)  of  bread,  for  it  is  called,  not  bread,  but  the 
 Body  of  Christ,  as  is  clear  from  S.  John  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. 
 
 2 — 26 
 
402  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    INIATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxvi.  26. 
 
 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.  Jolui  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  iv.  13,  14):  "Whosoever 
 drinketh  of  this  water  shall  thirst  again,  but  he  that  shall 
 drink  of  the  water  that  I  will  give  him  shall  not  thirst  for 
 ever  ;  but  the  water  that  I  will  give  him  shall  become  in 
 him  a  fountain  of  living  water  springing  up  unto  life  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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  26.]  THE   BODY   OF   CHRIST.  403 
 
 it  from  true,  natural  bread,  as  the  words  in  S.  John,  "  which 
 I  will  give,"  queni  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  io,  pa nis,  is  drawn  from  the  difference  of  genders, 
 both  in  the  Latin  and  Greek.  The  words  hoc  and  tovto  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  tovto  and  hoc  are  not  adjectives 
 but  substantives,  and  that  there  is  no  need,  therefore,  that 
 they  should  agree  in  gender  with,  paiiis,  and  that  the  mean- 
 ing 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 
 
404  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxvi.  26. 
 
 pronoun  Jioc  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  individitiim  vagum. 
 
 Though  I  contend,  omnibus  viribiis,  that  it  is  an  adjective, 
 and  can  in  no  way  be  a  substantive,  or  be  taken  for  any- 
 thing 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  tovto  ro  iron'jpLov.  Ergo,  when 
 Christ  says  "  Hoc  est  corpus  meuin,"  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  Jiic,  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  individmun  vagum. 
 
 This,  it  may  be  said,  is  tautology.  For  if  hoc  is  taken 
 for  Bod)',  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  net  a  new 
 saying,  but  a  well-known  and  even  necessary  one,  as 
 dialecticians  teach,  that  in  every  true  proposition  the  subject 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  26.]  TFIE   BODY   OF   CHRIST.  405 
 
 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  predi- 
 cate 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 
 ■3in(\  pe7'  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  expres- 
 sion ;  because  it  means  the  same  thing,  but  not  in  the  same 
 manner.  "  My  Body  "  signifies  the  Body  distinctly  and  by 
 name.  "This,"  not  by  name,  nor  distinctly,  but,  so  to  say, 
 mutely.  As  the  French  say,  when  a  person  so  speaks  of 
 another  as  not  to  give  him  an  appellation,  but  to  describe 
 him  ;  he  has  not  named  him,  but  pointed  him  out  by  his 
 finger,  which  is  the  same  thing  as  if  he  had  named  him. 
 So  we  commonly  say,  "This  is  my  brother";  when  the 
 word  "this"  is  taken  of  nothing  but  my  brother,  nor  has 
 in  that  place  any  other  meaning,  although  not  in  the  same 
 manner  ;  for,  when  I  call  him  my  brother,  I  name  him. 
 When  I  say,  "This  is  my  brother,"  I  do  not  name  him,  but 
 (what  comes  to  the  same  thing)  I  point  him  out  as  such. 
 But  if  anyone  should  say,  Hoc  est  f rater  mens,  he  would 
 
406  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxvi.  26. 
 
 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  ineani ;  hoc  being 
 used  as  a  substantive.  The  solecism  does  not  indeed  ap- 
 pear with  corpus,  because  both  words  are  neuter  ;  but  it 
 would  in  sanguis,  for  no  one  would  say,  Hoc  est  mens  sanguis. 
 S.  Cyprian,  indeed,  has  so  rendered  it,  but  the  passage  is 
 thought  corrupt.  So  Scripture  commonly  speaks — Hie  est 
 Filius  Ulcus.  Hie  sajiguis  novi  Testaineuti — ^\  JMatt.  (iii. 
 17)  ;  Hcb.  (ix.  20),  and  in  many  other  like  passages. 
 
 It  may  be  affirmed  that  when  the  Father  said,  Hie  est 
 Filius  Dieus,  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 
 hoJHO,  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 
 hoviO),  for  the  genders  do  not  agree.  How  certain  and 
 clear,  then,  it  is  in  this  proposition.  Hie  est  hoino,  or  Hie  est 
 pajiis,  that  the  pronoun  hie  cannot  possibly  be  taken  for 
 anything  but  for  houio  and  panis,  which  is  put  for  the  pre- 
 dicate ;  and  any  tyro  in  the  Greek  language  would  know 
 that  TovTo  can  be  referred  to  nothing  but  the  Body  of 
 Christ,  for  it  is  written  thus,  AajBcov  6  'Irjaov'i  rbv  ciprov  kol 
 euXoy/jaai;  eKXaae  Kal  eBiSov  tol^  fxadrjTaU  Kol  elire,  XdjSeTe, 
 (pdyeie-  touto  iari  to  aMfid  fiov  (Accipiens /esus panem,  et 
 cum  betiedixisset  f regit  et  dabat  diseipulis,  et  dixit  Accipitc 
 manducate  hoc  est  corpus  meiini). 
 
 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  firmh-, 
 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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  26.]  THE   BODY   OF   CHRIST.  407 
 
 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  pro- 
 positions 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  mcnin ;  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  vinuvi.  The 
 Jioc  showed  not  the  water,  but  the  wine.  The  meaning  was 
 net  that  the  water  was  wine  or  signified  wine,  but  that  it 
 was  changed  by  that  word  into  wine.  This  example  is  the 
 more  to  our  purpose  because  the  Ancients  have  used  it  to 
 prove  and  explain  the  faith  of  this  Sacrament — e.g.,  S. 
 Cyril  of  Jerusalem  {Catech.  Mystag.,  iv.). 
 
 Is. — It  is  easy  from  what  has  been  now  said  about  the 
 word  "  is  "  to  show  the  error  of  those  who  think  that  it  is 
 taken  for  "  signifies  ".  The  verb  substantive  does  not  mean 
 "signifies,"  either  in  Latin,  Greek,  or  Hebrew,  either  in 
 sacred  or  profane  literature,  nor  is  it,  nor  can  it  be,  taken 
 
408  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.xxvi.  26 
 
 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  sub- 
 stance, 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  substan- 
 tive, 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 
 nieum. 
 
 I.  Christ  did  not  sa)',  "  which  is  given  to  you,"  as  He  must 
 have  tlone  if  He  had  given  them  a  figurative  Body  ;  but, 
 '"which  is  given  y^r  you".  He  gave  them  something  which 
 could  be  offered  in  expiation  of  sin,  which  assuredl}-  a 
 figurative  body  could  not ;  for  only  the  true  Body  of  Christ 
 is  given  for  us. 
 
 A  follower  of  Calvin  might  answ^er  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 
 
Ch.  XXV!.  26.]  THE    BODY   OF    CHRIST.  409 
 
 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  qiwd  pro  vobis 
 datur  and  pro  vobis  funditiir,  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,  tovto  to  ttot/]- 
 pi,ov  7)  KaLvrj  SiadiJKT]  ev  r(p  aiixari.  fxov  inrep  v/xcov  eK')(yv6iJL6vov. 
 Hoc  est  poculuin  novum  testameiitiun  in  inco  sanguine,  gnod 
 pro  vobis  effnndiUir.  1  have  preferred  to  render  it  thus, 
 to  prevent  the  ambiguity  which  exists  in  our  version,  in 
 which  it  is  not  clear  whether  the  words,  qni  pro  vobis  effun- 
 dit2ir,  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  tco  aifxart,  or 
 if  expressed  by  a  passive  participle,  fiisiis,  in  the  nomina- 
 tive, as  if  our  version  read,  "This  is  the  cup — fiisns,  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 
 
4IO  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxvi.  26. 
 
 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  man\-,  but 
 because  Judas  was  present,  and  the  Bod\-  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. 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  26.]  THE   BODY   OF   CHRIST.  4I I 
 
 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  ealix  in  inco  smi- 
 guine,  which  is  the  same  as  if  He  had  said,  Hie  est  ealix 
 sanguinis  niei,  "  This  the  chalice  of  My  Blood,"  it  is  the 
 same  as  S.  Luke  and  S.  Paul  say,  Hie  est  ealix  in  sanguine 
 ineo,  and  as  SS.  Matthew  and  Mark,  Hie  est  sanguis  vieus. 
 
 The  followers  of  Calvin  insist  that  as  the  word  ealix  here 
 used  is  figurative,  so  the  words  hoe  est  eorpus  nieuni  are 
 figurative  also.  But  the  contrary  is  the  truth.  The  word 
 ealix  is  not  figurative,  and  therefore  the  words  Jwe  est  eorpus 
 incuin  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  ealix.  Calix,  therefore,  is  not  put  for  a  true  chalice, 
 but  for  the  figure  of  a  chalice  ;  as,  they  say,  eorpus  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  Tes- 
 tament in  My  Blood  " — what  could  be  more  senseless  ? 
 
 2.  Again,  if  there  is  any  figure  in  the  word  ealix,  it 
 would  be  the  same  as  that  which,  they  say,  is  in  the  word 
 corpus.  But  in  eorpus  they  say  that  the  figure  is  that  the 
 word  eorpus  is  put  for  the  figure  of  eorpus ;  ergo,  if  there  is 
 any  figure  in  ealix,  it  is  that  the  word  ealix  is  put  for  the 
 fig-ure  of  the  ealix. 
 
412  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxvi.  26. 
 
 Finally,  if  there  is  a  fii^ure  in  the  calix,  there  is  certainly 
 none  in  the  sanguis ;  for  what  could  be  more  senseless  than 
 to  sa\-,  "  This  is  the  chalice  of  My  Blood  "  ?  that  is, "  the 
 figure  of  the  chalice  which  is  the  figure  of  i\Iy  Blood  ".  To 
 this  result,  however,  in  their  opinion,  the  words  of  our  Lord 
 must  nccessaril}-  be  reduced.  Again,  if  there  were  a  figure, 
 it  would  be  that  which  they  assert  to  be  in  the  words  on 
 which  the\'  la\-  so  much  stress:  Peira  crat  CJiristits.  Here 
 there  is  no  figure  at  all,  or  it  is  not  in  the  Christus,  but  in 
 the  word,  pctra  ;  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  "  {pctra  crat  Christ  us,  for  CJiristus  crat  pctra) — and 
 1\i\\s pctra  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  He- 
 brews repeat  the  labt  word  at  the  beginning  of  the  next;  as, 
 "  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth, 
 and  the  earth,"  &c.  yGcn.  \.  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  an\-  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  literallj-  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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  26.]  THE    BODY   OF   CHRIST.  413 
 
 taken  here  in  the  .same  sense  as  the  word  "  Flesh  "  in  .V. 
 John  (vi.  51).  Pauis  .  .  .  caro  viea^  for  that  which  He 
 promised  there,  He  gives  here  ;  as  the  word  panis  shows  ; 
 for  it  is  not  taken  for  the  Body  of  Christ,  unless  as  far  as  it 
 is  given  under  the  form  of  bread.  Their  denial  that  that 
 chapter  of  .S\  John  refers  to  the  Sacrament,  refuted  as  it 
 has  been  by  so  many  men  of  learning,  needs  no  answer  here  ; 
 and  they  object  themselves  to  us  that  Christ  said,  "  The 
 flesh  profiteth  nothing  "  (verse  64),  as  if  He  were  speak- 
 ing 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  pants,  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  ".  P^or  He  op- 
 poses that  bread  to  the  true  natural  bread  ;  and  when  He 
 said,  Hoc  est  corpus  niaini,  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  \-ery 
 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  (5.  JoJin  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  them- 
 selves 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"  (ii.  21).  He  had  said,  "If  I  be  lifted  up  from 
 the  earth,  I  will  draw  all  things  to  Myself"  (xii.  32;.    There 
 
414  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Cu.  \xvi.  26. 
 
 is  no  hi;urc  here,  but  only  obseurity.  He  explains  it  (verse 
 33) :  "  Now  this  He  said  signitying-  what  death  He  should 
 die  ".  He  said  (5.  Matt.  xvi.  6)  :  '•  Beware  of  the  leaven 
 of  the  Pharisees,"  which  was  spoken  obscurely  and  in 
 figure,  Christ  Himself  explained  it  (verses  11.  12).  He  had 
 said  [S./o/ift  XV.  i)  :  "1  am  the  true  vine"  ;  He  explained 
 His  words  immediatel}-  after  (verse  4).  S.  Paul  had  called 
 the  Church  "  the  Body  of  Christ  "  (Co/oss.  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  "  Bod}-,"'  none  of 
 the  I'.vangelists.  or  S.  Paul  alone,  either  b\-  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 
 — wh>-,  then,  did  none  oi'  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  (5.  J/nff. 
 xiii.  3)  even  when  they  did  not  ask  Him  (verse  iS).  They 
 doubted  about  the  parable  of  the  Tares.  The>-  asked  and 
 receiveci  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  unworthil\-,  shall  be  guilty  of  the  Body 
 and  Blood  of  the  Lord ".  Wh\-  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 
 
Cn.  XXVI.  26.]  lUI';    HOUY   OF   CHRIST. 
 
 415 
 
 have  ?jccn  .l^uilty  because,  thfHi,:,'h  ihcy  did  not  receive  it  in 
 reality,  they  did  receive  it  in  figure,  and  they  dishonoured 
 this  ;  or,  in  the  future  of  the  15ody  and  Blood  of  Christ 
 they  dishonour  the  hody  and  iilofjd,  and  treat  it  without 
 reverence  and  respect. 
 
 We  may,  perhaps,  say  what  they  cannot,  as  they  think 
 that  no  reverence  is  to  be  j^aid  to  .Sacrannents,  and  deride 
 us  for  saying  that  the  sanne  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  le.se- 
 majesty.  They  take  for  granted  what  they  ought  to  prove 
 — that  the  Sacraments  are  signs.  This  has  been  answered 
 again  and  again.  Let  them  take  an  example  in  the  image 
 of  the  king.  If  a  man  misconduct  himself  to  it  is  he  guilty 
 of  lese-majesty  ?  Surely  not,  or  they  must  grant  what  they 
 deny  so  obstinately,  that  honour  is  due  even  to  the  images  of 
 the  things  signified.  S.  Paul  gives  the  rea.son  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  liody  of  Christ 
 is  spoken  of  in  three  ways  only  : 
 
 1.  Properly,  for  the  natural  and  true  Ikjdy. 
 
 2.  Metaphorically,  for  the  Church  iColoss.  i.  24). 
 
 3.  For  the  Gospel,  or  the  truth  answering  to  the  ancient 
 figures  {Coloss.  ii.  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  J^lood,  could  He  have  spoken  more  clearly,  more 
 explicitly,  more  distinctly  than  He  did?       "This  is    My 
 
4l6  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxvi.  26. 
 
 Body,"  "  This  is  ]\Iy  Blood  " — why,  then,  should  we  seek  to 
 obscure  b}^  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  necessar\'  result,  therefore,  that  in  the 
 Supper  of  the  Lord  we  truly  receive  the  Body  and  Blocd 
 of  Christ"  {Institutes,  iv.  17).  And  in  his  Covinientary: 
 "The  Lord  would  command  us  to  cat  bread,  declaring  it 
 to  be  His  Body,  to  no  purpose,  unless  the  result  truly  fol- 
 lowed the  figure.  For  although  we  there  discern  nothing 
 but  bread,  He  docs  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  merel}'  a  figure,  but  His  very  Bod}- 
 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  sa)',  '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  Trinit)-,  the  Incarnation,  and  the  Resur-. 
 rection.  It  shall  now  be  shown  that  we  believe  these  by 
 the  same  right,  or,  if  possible,  a  still  better  one,  than  the 
 followers  of  Calvin  believe  the  above;  and  we  explain  them 
 without  any  figure.  In  this  present  point,  as  has  been 
 said,  they  can  find  no  figures.  In  those  other  mj-sterics 
 the  ancient  heretics  found  them,  and  sought  to  prove  them 
 from  Scripture.     "I  and  the  Father  are  one"  {S.John-s..  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  iv.  32.;  6".  Jolm  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?  Thefollowersof  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  theyeven  seemedtoprove  ithy Roni.v'm.'^;  P/iilipp.n.6,'/. 
 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  asser- 
 tions 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. 
 
 2 — 27 
 
4Io  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxvi.  26. 
 
 Maldonatus  gives  some  pages  of  citations  from  the 
 primitive  Fathers.  He  names  S.  Justin  Martyr  {Apol.  ii.)  as 
 teaching  that  the  bread  and  wine  are  changed  into  our 
 body  and  blood  when  we  eat  and  drink  them. 
 
 S.  Cyprian  {^De  Cccna  Do7n.,  Hb.  ii.)  teaches  that  the  bread 
 was  changed  not  in  effigie  but  in  nature,  and  made  by 
 Omnipotent  power  "  the  flesh  of  the  Word  ". 
 
 S.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  {Cat.  Mystag.,  iv.). 
 
 Eusebius  of  Emissa  {Horn.  v.  de  Pasch). 
 
 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.,  iv.  5). 
 
 S.  Gregory  Naz.  {Orat.  ii.  in  Pasch). 
 
 S.  Gregory  Nyss.  {Orat.  Catech.,  chap,  xxxvii.). 
 
 S.  Leo  {Serin,  vi.  de  Jej'un.  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. 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  26.]  PRESENCE  OF  CHRIST  IN  THE  EUCHARIST.  419 
 
 The  followers  of  Calvin  object  the  words  of  S.  John  (vi.  64), 
 "  It  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth,  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing" 
 {i>id.  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  ". 
 
420  THE   GOSPEL   OF    S.    MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxvi.  26. 
 
 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  previ- 
 ously 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  com- 
 pared 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  no- 
 where 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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  26.]   PRESENCE  OF  CHRIST  IN  THE  EUCHARIST.  42 1 
 
 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  espe- 
 cially 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  sacravientalis  lociitio  mean  that 
 the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  were  given  to  us,  not  really, 
 not  truly,  not  substantially,  as  Calvin  says,  but  only  in  mys- 
 tery, 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  signi- 
 fied 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  ii.  3)  were  a  sign  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  they  signi- 
 fied 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 
 
422  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxvi.  27. 
 
 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  {sacramenio  temis),  because 
 the  Body  of  Christ  is  not  properly  broken,  but  the  Sacra- 
 ment. 
 
 Verse  27.  A7id  taking  the  c/iaiice,  He  gave  thanks. 
 On  the  giving  of  thanks — evxapia-ria — 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  com- 
 mandment 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  bap- 
 tism, 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  excom- 
 municated, if  Christ  willed  all  to  receive  it  ?  In  fact,  Christ 
 did  not  say,  "Drink  yc  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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  28.1  PRESENCE  OF  CHRIST  IN  THE  EUCHARIST.  423 
 
 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  Conscns.^  iii. 
 i)  and  Euthymius  (/;/  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. 
 
 Verse  28.   TJiis  is  My  Blood. 
 For  information  on  this  subject,  see  verse  27. 
 
 Of  the  N'ezv  Testament. 
 To  Tr}<i  Katvrj'i  Bt,ad7]KT]<i,  Sanguis  Novi  Testanienti.  AiaOtJKrj 
 properly  means  a  disposal  of  property.  It  applies  therefore 
 to  Qvery  fcrdns  (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)  :  Dis- 
 pone donuii  tueu,  "Take  order  with  thy  house".  The 
 Hebrew  is  r\T^l  which  carries  the  same  meaning.  S. 
 Paul  {Heb.  ix.  16,  17)  uses  SLadtJKr]  for  a  will  as  applied 
 to    both    Old    and    New   Testaments.      The   followers   of 
 
424  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxvi.  28. 
 
 Luther  and  Calvin  therefore  err  in  calHng  the  Old  and 
 New  Testament  fccdiis  and  not  Testainentum.  S.  Mark 
 uses  the  same  word  as  S.  Matthew :  Hie  is  sanguis 
 i>icus  Novi  Testamenti ;  S.  Luke,  however,  says,  touto  to 
 7TOT7]piov  7]  Kaivrj  hiaOi^Krj  iv  toj  aifMiiri  fjuov,  Hlc  est  calix 
 Novu7n  Testainentum  in  ineo  sanguifte  (xxii.  20)  ;  S.  Paul, 
 Hie  calix  Noviini  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  Xovum 
 Testametitiun,  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.  Alatthew 
 and  S.  Mark,  rather  than  those  of  S.  Luke  and  S.  Paul. 
 xAgain,  the  words  of  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark  better 
 express  what  Christ  did — the  giving  of  His  Body  and 
 Blood.  The  words  Novum  Testamentum  would  appear  to 
 have  been  added  in  passing  and  by  way  of  explanation,  as 
 appears  from  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark.  S.  Luke  and  S. 
 Paul  would  appear  to  speak  as  if  the  first  object  of  S.  Paul 
 had  been  to  declare  that  He  gave  the  New  Testament 
 rather  than  His  Blood.  It  may  be  thought,  therefore,  that 
 He  used  the  words  of  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark  rather  than 
 those  of  S.  Luke  and  S.  Paul.  Still,  the  meaning  would 
 not  be  what  these  make  it,  nor  would  it  lend  any  support 
 to  their  view.  For  if  Christ  said,  "This  is  the  chalice  the 
 New  Testament  in  My  l^lood,"  as  the  words  of  S.   Luke 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  28.]  ^RESE^'CE  OF  CHRIST  IN  THE  EUCHARIST.  425 
 
 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  He- 
 braism. As,  then,  calix  in  ineo  sanguine  and  smiguinis  viei 
 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  Tcstamentiun.  They 
 who  reduce  everything  to  figure  say  that  there  is,  because  the 
 New  Testament  is  called  a  chalice.  I,  who  seek  not  figure 
 but  truth,  find  none  here.  We  see  that  in  all  languages  the 
 word  fwdics  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  fccdiis,  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 
 6".  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. 
 
426  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxvi.  28. 
 
 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  sa}',  "  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  vico  sa?igiiinc  meaning  per  ineuin  sangiiinem. 
 They  used  this  expression  because  they  called  the  New 
 .Testament  a  chalice,  and  it  is  better  called  the  New  Tes- 
 tament,/^/' smigninein,  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  z«  san- 
 guine, 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  in- 
 wardly by  His  own  Blood.  Hence,  perhaps,  the  force  of  the 
 word  eK^vvofxevov,  which  is  poured  out,  that  is,  "sprinkled". 
 Christ  calls  the  x\&\\ pacUivi  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 
 5.  l\Iatthezu  and  5.  Mark,  to  a't/xa  ;  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  Tcstanicntuni 
 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. 
 
428  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxvi.  28. 
 
 "  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. 
 
 I  Vh  ich  fo  r .  ma  nj '. 
 
 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,  \>\.\\.  pcri'crso  imiino ;  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  }'OU, 
 and  He,  therefore,  opposes  "  many  "  to  "  all  "  who  were 
 present.     When   Christ  said   those  words,  therefore,  it  is 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  28.]  PRESENCE  OF  CHRIST  IN  THE  EUCHARIST.    429 
 
 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  miiltis  effiindetiir. 
 
 The  objection  may  be  raised  that  the  Church  thinks 
 that  Christ  said  both  pro  vobis  and  pro  inultis.  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, 
 fiinde  vimtin,  "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  c'halice  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. 
 
430  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxvi.  29. 
 
 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. 
 
 Verse  29.  /  ivill  not  drink  frovi  JicncefortJi. 
 
 Ov  jjbi]  TTioi  fW  apTL  €K  TovTov  Tov  ryei'vijfxaTO^;  T?}?  d/uLTreXov, 
 dc  Jure  generatione  aut  de  Jioc  fnictii  vitis.  The  ancient 
 translator,  to  express  the  sense  of  the  Greek,  used  a  word 
 not  commonly  employed  by  the  Latins.  Without  doubt, 
 the  expression  geninien  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.  11  ;  Dent. 
 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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  29.]  PRESENCE  OF  CHRIST  IN  THE  EUCHARIST.  43 1 
 
 it  is  simply  bread  and  wine,  and  to  exclude  the  Body  and 
 Blood  of  Christ.  The  early  Fathers  (Origen,  Tract,  on  S. 
 Matt,  yi^yiyi.  ;  S.  Cyprian,  Ep.  Ixviii.  to  C(2cilian  ;  S.  Chrysos- 
 tom,  Hoin.  in  loc,  Ixxxiii. ;  S.  Epiphanius,  Ha^r.  xlvii.  ;  S. 
 Jerome,  Comment.;  S.  Augustin,  Qiicsst.  Evangel.,  \.  42; 
 Bede,  Euthymius,  Theophylact,  in  loc.)  refer  it  to  the  Blood 
 of  Christ,  but  in  another  sense  than  that  of  the  followers  of 
 Calvin. 
 
 These  persons  say  that  Christ  called  what  He  gave  to 
 the  Apostles  wine,  because  it  was  wine  ;  but  the  Fathers 
 above  mentioned  say  that  He  called  the  wine  His  Blood 
 (as  in  ^.  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  (gcnimine)  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 
 
432  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxvi.  29. 
 
 the  reason  of  His  wish  to  eat  this  supper  with  them  that  it 
 was  the  last,  as  explained  by  S.  Luke. 
 
 Besides,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  Christ  spoke  in  the 
 usual  manner  of  men,  who,  when  about  to  leave  their 
 friends,  say,  "  We  shall  not  drink  together  again ".  But 
 Christ  would  not  have  said  this  of  His  Blood,  which, 
 although  it  was  true  blood,  was  given  under  a  ceremony 
 and  Sacrament  ;  but  He  said  it  of  the  true  and  right 
 supper,  to  which  also  His  words  apply  better. 
 
 3.  The  words  which  follow,  "  when  I  shall  drink  it,"  can 
 only  be  understood,  as  will  be  shortly  shown,  of  heaven  ; 
 for  in  heaven  He  will  not  drink  His  Blood:  neither  literally 
 nor  in  metaphor.  But  He  will  drink  wine  in  metaphor,  for 
 He  said  :  "  I  dispose  to  you,  as  My  Father  hath  disposed 
 to  Me,  a  kingdom,  that  you  may  eat  and  drink  at  My 
 table  in  My  kingdom  ".  He  did  not  speak,  therefore,  of 
 His  Blood,  but  of  wine,  when  He  said,  "I  will  not  drink 
 from  henceforth  of  this  fruit  of  the  vine ".  This  would 
 tend  to  support  our  previous  opinion,  which  is  also  that  of 
 S.  Augustin  and  Euthymius,  that  there  were  not  two  cups, 
 but  one  only.  I  only  differ  from  them  in  that  they  suppose 
 Christ  to  have  said  of  this  cup  :  (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  ordi- 
 nary 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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  29.]  THE   LAST  SUPPER.  433 
 
 of  the  vine,"  and  did  not  empty  the  chalice,  but  left  some  wine 
 in  it  which  He  afterwards  consecrated  to  be  His  Blood  and 
 gave  to  the  Apostles  ;  and  that  the  Evangelists  so  mixed 
 up  these  words  with  that  chalice  that,  unless  read  with 
 attention,  they  might  appear  to  have  been  spoken  of  the 
 one  in  which  He  gave  His  Blood.  It  appears  certain  that 
 the  words  were  not  spoken  of  the  Blood  of  Christ.  S. 
 Matthew  and  S.  Mark,  therefore,  without  keeping  the  order 
 of  time,  related  the  words  which  Christ  spoke  before  the 
 consecration  of  the  chalice  after  it. 
 
 Until  that  day  wJien  I  shall  drmk  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  circum- 
 stances ;  and  because  the  word  "  it "  {ilhid)  does  not 
 appear  to  allow  the  idea,  for  it  must  necessarily  refer  to 
 the  wine  (vimcin).  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 
 
 2—28 
 
434  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxvi.  29. 
 
 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  insti- 
 tution 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  Bedc,  think  that  the  Church 
 is  called  the  kingdom  of  the  Father.  Others,  again,  take 
 the  words  oi  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  Futhy- 
 mius.  These  explanations,  however,  are  to  be  answered 
 b)'  the  same  arguments  as  the  first.  For  '*  that  day  "  can 
 only  refer  to  the  most  distant  and  last  day,  as  the  Day  of 
 Judgment  is  commonly  called  the  Last  Day,  Dies  ilia. 
 Besides,  it  may  be  observed  that  although  the  kingdom  of 
 God  is  sometimes  put  for  the  Church,  and  sometimes  for 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  29.]  THE   LAST   SUPPER.  435 
 
 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  ; 
 6".  Matt.  viii.  1 1  ;  ^.  Luke  xiv.  15  ;  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  drink  the  new  but  the  old.  But 
 the  new  wine  agrees  well  with  the  life  of  beatitude,  because, 
 as  said  before,  the  Hebrews  called  everything  sweet  and 
 pleasant  "  new,"  as  the  ancients  fabled  of  nectar  and  am- 
 brosia. In  this  sense,  Origen  (Tract,  xxxv.  z?i  /oc),  S. 
 Gregory  Nazianzen  {Orat.  ii.  zn  Sand.  Pasch.),  and  Bede 
 receive  the  words.  One  who  prefers  the  first  explanation  of 
 the  words  may  object  that  this  one  does  not  satisfy,  because 
 it  is  not  credible  that  Christ  in  such  a  short  time  would  have 
 changed  the  meaning  of  His  words,  so  as  to  call  the  fruit 
 of  the  vine  at  one  moment  true  wine,  and  at  another, 
 metaphorically,  the  sweetness  of  eternal  life — a  slight 
 objection.  If  Christ  called  His  Blood  the  new  wine.  He 
 changed  the  meaning  of  His  words.  For  the  Blood  of 
 Christ  is  not  literal,  but  metaphorical,  wine,  and  we  must 
 remember  what  has  been  said  before,  that  Christ  often 
 in  the  same  sentence  uses  the  same  word  in  a  double  sense. 
 
436  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxvi.  29. 
 
 and  that,  not  only  without  any  fault,  but  very  elegantly, 
 forcibly,  and  pointedly.  "  Let  the  dead  bury  their  dead." 
 In  the  first  clause.  He  uses  the  word  metaphorically  ;  in 
 the  second,  literally.  So  in  S.  John  iv.  13,  14,  which 
 very  closely  resembles  the  passage  of  which  we  are  speak- 
 ing :  "  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  con- 
 tained, whether  literally  or  metaphorically,  under  the  name 
 of  wine  ;  but  in  the  text  "  this  "  {Jwc)  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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  30.]  THE   LAST  SUPPER.  437 
 
 usual  manner,  and  as  if  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of 
 nature,  but  occasionally,  by  the  way,  as  by  stealth,  and 
 only  to  show  that  He  had  risen  from  the  dead.  He  was 
 accustomed  to  speak  of  the  actions  which  He  did  in  another 
 manner  after  His  Resurrection  to  that  before,  as  if  He  had 
 not  done  them.  "  These  are  the  words  which  I  spoke  to 
 you  while  I  was  yet  with  you  "  (S.  Ltike  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  pro- 
 duces, than  one  who  says  that  he  will  not  take  any  food, 
 although  there  is  none  which  the  earth  does  not  produce  ; 
 for  the  periphrasis  and  manner  of  speech  adds  force  to  the 
 words. 
 
 Verse  30.  And  a  hymn  being  said. 
 
 Kal  v/j,vi]cravTef:.  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  hymno- 
 
438  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxvi.  30. 
 
 logy.  S.  Chrysostom  accommodates  it  to  the  sacrifice  of 
 the  Mass,  concluding  that  no  one  should  depart  from 
 church  before  the  final  thanksgiving.  Some  think  that 
 Christ  sang  some  usual  form  of  Jewish  hymn  ;  for  the 
 Evangelists  say,  as  of  some  ordinary  hymn,  "The  hymn 
 being  sung"  {hymno  dicto).  Paul  Bergensis  says  that  the 
 Jews,  as  a  thanksgiving,  used  to  sing  seven  psalms,  from 
 the  cxii.,  the  beginning  of  which  is,  "  Praise  the  Lord,  ye 
 children"  {Laudate  pneri),  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  ivent  out. 
 They  went  out,  either  from  the  house  where  they  had 
 supped,  or  from  the  city.  This  will  be  treated  of  on  5. 
 Jo/m  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  vS",  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  Me":  as  if  He  op- 
 posed 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". 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  31.]  THE    LAST   SUPPER.  439 
 
 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  cf  it,  as 
 the  Hebrew  word,  meaning  a  rich  valley,  indicates. 
 
 Verse  31.  All  you  shall  be  scandalised. 
 This  does  not  mean,  as  some  have  erroneously  supposed, 
 that  the  Apostles  would  lose  their  faith,  nor,  as  others  say, 
 that  they  would  waver  or  deny  Christ,  but  that  they  would 
 forsake  Him.  This  is  seen  from  the  answer  of  S.  Peter : 
 "And  Peter  answering  said,  Although  all  shall  be  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  dis- 
 tinguishing 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, 
 
440  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxvi.  31. 
 
 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. 
 
 In  Me. 
 A   Hebraism  for    "  because  of  Me,"   when  you  see  Me 
 suffering  unworthy  treatment,  you  will  take  the  occasion  to 
 forsake  Me  ;  that  is,  you  will  be  scandalised  in  Me. 
 
 For  it  is  written. 
 
 Christ  applies  the  words  of  Zacharias  (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  no- 
 thing 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  irard^ov.  VVe  might  easily  conclude, 
 even  from  this  passage,  that  for  Trard^ay  we  should  sub- 
 stitute TTUTa^ov,  perciite,  "  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  aliuni  does  it  per  se.     It  shows, 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  32,  34-]  THE   LAST   SUPPER.  44I 
 
 therefore,  that  it  was  God  who  struck  His  own  Son,  as  in 
 Rom.  viii.  32. 
 
 Verse  32.  But  after  1  shall  be  risen  again  I  will  go  before 
 you  into  Galilee. 
 Christ,  by  these  few  words,  restored  the  spirits  of  the 
 Apostles,  saying  that  He  would  rise  again  from  the  dead, 
 and  that  He  would  appear  to  them  in  Galilee. 
 
 Verse  34.  Amen,  I  say  to  thee  that  in  this  night,  before  the 
 cock  crozv,  tJiou  shall  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.  Ltike 
 xxii.  34,  and  S.  fohn  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  crow- 
 ing of  the  cock,  not  the  sound  which  the  bird  utters  in  the 
 middle  of  the  night,  but  that  before  the  dawn  ;    for  the 
 
442  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxvi.  36. 
 
 former  is  properly  called  the.  gallicinitnn,  or  "cock-crowing," 
 gain  cantus,  because  the  first  crowing  is  called  by  another 
 name,  "  the  midnight "  {media  nox).  The  time,  therefore, 
 which  precedes  the  dawn,  when  the  cock  crows,  if  it  were 
 not  called  the  "  cock-crow "  {galli  cantus),  could  not  be 
 called  by  any  other  name.  Scripture  speaks  thus :  "  And 
 it  came  to  pass  about  the  cock-crowing,  Raguel  ordered  his 
 two  servants  to  be  called  for,"  &c.  {Tobias  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  de- 
 scribe. 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,  be- 
 cause they  have  greater  force.  For  Christ  opposes  num.ber 
 to  number,  as  if  He  had  said,  "  Thou  wilt  be  more  active  in 
 denying  Me  than  the  cock  in  crowing  ;  for  before  he  crows 
 twice  thou  shalt  deny  Me  thrice".  We  see  that  the  whole 
 speech  of  Christ  is  emphatic:  "Amen,  I  say  to  thee,"  and 
 "in  this  night" ;  as  if  He  had  said  :  "  In  this  very  night  in 
 which  thou  boastest  that  even  if  thou  shouldest  die  for  Me 
 thou  wilt  not  deny  Me,  before  the  cock  crow  twice,  thou 
 shalt  deny  Me  thrice  ", 
 
 Verse  36.  Into  a  country  place. 
 Ek  x^copiov.     The  same  word  is  used  by  S.  Mark.      It 
 was  a  garden,  as  we  learn  from  5.  /o/in  xviii.  i,  26,  which 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  37.]  IN    THE   GARDEN.  443 
 
 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  thither 
 to  conceal  Himself,  but  rather  that  He  might  be  more 
 easily  found  by  Judas  and  the  band  of  soldiers,  as  those 
 words  of  S.  John  denote. 
 
 Which  is  called  Gethsemani. 
 It  should  rather  have  been  called  Gechemani,  or  Gese- 
 mani — that  is,  "the  eighth"  valley  or  garden ;  or  "the  fruit- 
 ful," because  it  was  fertile;  and  "the  eighth"  because,  as  some 
 are  of  opinion,  that,  as  there  were  many  pleasant  country- 
 houses  and  gardens  around  Jerusalem,  they  took  their 
 names  from  their  relative  distances  from  the  city.  Thus 
 one  was  called  the  first  garden,  and  another  the  second ;  as 
 among  the  Romans  there  was  the  first,  second,  third  from 
 the  central  milestone.  S.  Cyril  {Comment,  on  S.  John 
 xviii.)  thinks  that  there  was  a  mystery  in  Christ's  seeking 
 to  be  taken  in  a  garden,  and  that  the  garden  itself  was  a 
 symbol  of  paradise  ;  for  when  in  paradise  we  were  taken 
 captive  by  the  devil,  and  were  delivered  in  a  like  paradise  : 
 the  taking  of  Christ  being  the  beginning  of  our  freedom. 
 
 Verse  37.  Pete?'  and  the  tivo  sons  oj  Zebedee. 
 James  and  John.  The  reason  of  Christ's  having  taken 
 some  of  the  Apostles  is  obvious.  He  wished  to  have  wit- 
 nesses 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  sup- 
 posed that  He  took  these  three  rather  than  the  others 
 because  He  trusted  them   more,  and  was  therefore  more 
 
444  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxvi.  37. 
 
 accustomed  to  admit  them  to  all  His  more  secret  actions, 
 as  in  the  Transfiguration. 
 
 He  began  to  grozv  sorroivfid  and  to  be  sad. 
 "Hp^uTo  XxnreicrdaL  koL  dh-qfiovelv,  Tristari  et  anxio  esse 
 animo.  ahr^iiovdv  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  be),  S.  Ambrose  {Covivi.  on  S.  Luke  xxii.),  and  S.  John 
 Damascus  {De  Hceres,  Ixxxiv.).  S.  Hilary  says,  perhaps 
 incongruously,  that  Christ  felt  no  pain.  Evagrius  {Ori 
 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  Comnmitary,  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— /rtj-i'/c',  irdOo^ — hvX  pi'opassio,  irpoiradeia:  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  yp^aro  to  mean  that  the  sorrow  was 
 begun  indeed,  but  not  ended  ;  for  propassio  had  not  ex- 
 tended 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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  37.]  IN    THE   GARDEN.  445 
 
 in  what  manner  He  would,  as  is  seen  from  other  circum- 
 stances. 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  imme- 
 diately began  to  be  sorrowful,  as  the  Evangelists  have  de- 
 scribed it  ;  showing  that  when  He  pleased,  and  in  the 
 manner  in  which  He  pleased.  He  was  sorrowful.  S.  Augus- 
 tin  {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  de- 
 signed 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  key- 
 note ;  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  neces- 
 sity 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 
 
446  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Cii.  xxvi.  37. 
 
 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  w^as  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 
 )'et,  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  sorrow- 
 ful even  unto  death,  by  which  He  showed  that  sorrow 
 possessed  His  entire  soul  ;  and  soon  after  He  said  :  "  Not 
 as  1  will,  but  as  Thou  wilt "  ;  and  more  plainl}'  in  S. 
 Luke  :  "  Not  My  will,  but  Thine  be  done  ".  By  this  He 
 shows  that  even  in  His  will,  which  is  the  higher  point  of 
 His  soul.  He  was  sorrowful,  and  shrank  from  death ;  and,  in 
 fact,  from  that  passage,  the  Sixth  (Ecumenical  Council  and 
 otiier  ancient  authorities  prcncd  that  there  were  two  wills  in 
 Christ,  a  divine  and  a  human.  They,  therefore,  who  ex- 
 plain "  will "  to  mean  here  the  appetite  of  the  sentient  part 
 arc  not  to  be  apj^rovcd.  It  is  better  defined  that,  even 
 when  in  happiness,  it  was  ordered  b\'  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,  con- 
 ceal it,  that  He  might  yield  (ov  a  time  to  sorrows  which 
 was  one  future  part  of  ills  Passion. 
 
 Again,  it  has  been  asked  why  Christ  was  sorrowful. 
 S.  Hilary,  S.  Jerome,  and  Bcde  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 
 w  ill  not  be  sorrowful,  because  the  scandal  will  then  have 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  37-]  IN    THE   GARDEN.  447 
 
 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 
 
448  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   ^5ATTHE\V.  [Ch.  xxvi.  37. 
 
 men,  so  that,  as  S.  Luke  relates  (xxii.  44),  great  drops,  or, 
 as  in  the  Greek,  dpofi^oi,  "  gouts,"  flowed  down  from  His 
 body  to  the  earth  ?  S.  Hilary,  indeed  {De  Trin.,  x.),  and 
 S.  Jerome,  against  the  Pelagians  of  his  time  (ii.),  say  that 
 the  account  of  this  sweat  and  the  angel  that  strengthened 
 Him  are  omitted  in  many  copies  of  both  Greek  and  Latin  ; 
 but  it  is  more  probable  that  there  was  an  omission  of  these 
 particulars  than  that  anyone  would  have  added  them. 
 Others  do  not  deny  the  words,  but  destroy  their  force  ;  as 
 if  Christ  did  not  actually  sweat  blood,  but  was  only  said  to 
 do  so  by  a  proverbial  expression,  meaning  that  He  was 
 seized  by  a  violent  terror :  as  we  say  of  those  who  are  under 
 some  great  anxiety  and  mental  pressure,  "  They  sweat 
 drops  of  blood".  This  is  held  by  Theophylact  and  Euthy- 
 mius  ;  but  when  the  Evangelist  says  that  His  sweat  flowed 
 down  to  the  ground,  he  cannot  be  understood  otherwise 
 than  as  meaning  that  Christ  sweated  actual  blood.  As 
 regards  this  act,  although  some  think  it  to  have  been 
 against  nature,  it  may  rather  appear,  on  the  other  hand,  to 
 have  been  a  natural  sweat,  that  by  some  mystery  His 
 whole  Body,  which  is  the  Church,  might  be  seen  to  be 
 suffused  with  His  blood  ;  but  because  it  was  unusual  it 
 seemed  to  be  a  miracle,  as  all  rare  events  are  apt  to  be 
 considered.  Aristotle  says  that  this  phenomenon  may  be 
 natural,  and  that  it  has  happened  at  times  {Hist.  Anim., 
 vii.  16  ;  De  Part.  Aniin.,  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, 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  38.]     THE  FIRST  PRAYER  IN  THE  GARDEN.  449 
 
 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.  Am- 
 brose has  spoken  well  and  devoutly  of  this  in  his  Com- 
 mentary on  S.  Luke  xxii.  :  "  It  had  benefited  me  less  if 
 Christ  had  not  taken  my  passions.  He  grieved,  therefore, 
 for  me,  who  had  no  cause  of  grief  for  Himself,  and  laying 
 aside  the  delights  of  His  Eternal  Divinity,  He  is  affected 
 by  the  weariness  of  my  infirmity.  He  took  my  sorrow, 
 that  He  might  share  His  joy  with  me,  and,  in  our  footsteps, 
 He  descended  even  to  the  anguish  of  death,  to  recall  us  to 
 life.  I  speak  of  grief,  therefore,  with  confidence,  because  I 
 preach  the  Cross  ;  for  Christ  took  not  the  appearance,  but 
 the  truth  of  Incarnation.  He  ought,  therefore,  to  take 
 grief  also,  that  He  might  conquer,  not  exclude,  sorrow. 
 For  they  who  endure  the  stupor  rather  than  have  the  pain 
 of  wounds,  have  no  praise  for  fortitude." 
 
 Verse  38.  My  soul  is  sorrozufnl  even  imto  death. 
 
 JleptXuTTo?,  "  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.     There  is  another  more  modern  opinion  :  "  My 
 
 soul  is  so  sorrowful  that  the  sorrow  itself  seems  to  bring 
 2 — 29 
 
450  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxvi.  39. 
 
 Me  death  ".  As  we  say,  "  I  am  dying  of  grief,"  "  I  am 
 dying  of  hunger  ".  The  true  meaning  is  that  of  Euthy- 
 mius:  "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  y 02 1  Jiere. 
 Meivare,  sustinetc.  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). 
 
 Verse  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  {Coinnie7it.  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  arc 
 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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  39-     THE  FIRST  PRAYER  IN  THE  GARDEN.  45  I 
 
 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  FatJiej%  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  com- 
 parison of  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark,  we  see  that  S.  Augustin 
 (yDe  Conscns.,  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 potcs). 
 
 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,  ndrep,"  ex- 
 plaining the  former  by  the  latter.  S.  Paul  does  the  same 
 in  two  places — Ro?/i.  viii.  15  ;  Galat.  iv.  6.  S.  Augustin 
 thinks  this  a  mystery,  to  show  that  God  is  the  Father  of 
 both  Jews  and  Gentiles. 
 
 Pass. 
 napeXOiro)  d-v'  ifxov, pnutereat  a  me;  or,  as  the  Latins  say, 
 pvcEtereat  vie. 
 
452  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        lCh.  xxvi.  39. 
 
 TJiis  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  rever- 
 ence" {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 
 {Cout.  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  un- 
 known, 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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.40.]  IN    THE   GARDEN.  453 
 
 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  (reatsavit)  death,  was  not 
 full  and  absolute,  but  what  is  termed  by  divines  condi- 
 tional. For  He  did  not  say  to  Himself,  "  I  will  not  die," 
 but,  "  I  would  not  die,  if  it  might  be  so  ".  The  wish  was 
 not  sin,  as  there  was  a  guiltless  condition  annexed. 
 
 Verse  40.  A  nd  He  covicth  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. 
 
 A  nd  He  findeth  them  asleep. 
 Grief  causes  tears  and  vapours  in  the  brain,  from  which 
 arises  sleep.      We  see   that  infants,  after  they  have  wept 
 much,  sleep  deeply  ;  and   that   men,  when  in  trouble,  are 
 oppressed  with  sleep. 
 
 What,  could yoii  not  ivatch  one  hour  ivith  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  Mc?"  Chribt  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 
 
454  THE   GOSPEL   OF    S.   MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxvi.  40. 
 
 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  cal- 
 culated to  prick  the  hearts  of  the  disciples  deeply.  "While 
 I  was  praying,  toiling,  and  struggling  with  death,  you,  who 
 ought  to  fight  while  I  am  sleeping,  could  not  watch  for 
 even  the  briefest  period  of  time  possible." 
 
 That  ye  enter  not  into  temptation. 
 Not  to  enter  into  temptation,  in  the  language  of  Bede, 
 Euthymius,  Theophylact,  and  others  later,  docs  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. 
 
 TJic  spirit  indeed  is  ivilling,  hut  tJic  flcsJi  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  Hoh-  Ghost,  not  the 
 Spirit  of  Christ  Himself,  but  the  will  of  the  disciples.  So 
 S.  Paul  (i  Cor.  vii.  34)  :  "  That  she  "  (the  virgin)  "  ma\-  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  the\-  said  one  after  another,  "Though  I 
 should  die  with  Thee,  I  will  not  dcii)^  Thee,"  repeating  the 
 words  of  S.  Peter.  Christ  did  not  wish  to  show  disappro- 
 bation 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  promjn  in  His 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  43,  44.]   THE  THIRD  PRAYER  IN  THE  GARDEN.      455 
 
 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.  iv.  7). 
 
 Again  the  second  time. 
 
 Unless  we  understand  the  Hebrew,  this  will  seem 
 tautological.  The  Hebrews  had  said  n'^DU^^^Tll  and  He 
 returned  a  second  time  and  prayed,  as  if,  Tu  conversiis 
 vivificabis  me,  that  is,  "  Thou  shalt  make  live  again  ".  We 
 have  explained  the  idiom  more  than  once  before.  The 
 meaning  is  the  same,  therefore,  as  if  it  had  been  said  in 
 other  words,  "  He  returned  and  prayed  a  second  time  ". 
 
 Verse  43.  For  their  eyes  were  heavy. 
 Either  from  sleep,  as  the  night  was  now  advanced,  or,  as 
 S.  Luke  says,  from  sorrow  (xxii.  45). 
 
 Verse  44.  A  nd  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?"  (5. 
 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 
 
456  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxvi.  44. 
 
 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  modera- 
 tion, 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  pra)-crs  the  angel  appeared.  It  is 
 not  probable,  as  some  have  thought,  that  he  appeared 
 at  each. 
 
 We  must  believe  that  he  was  sent  to  answer  Christ's 
 prayer  and  to  convey  the  feeling  of  the  Father  to  Him  ; 
 and  if  so,  he  would  not  come  before  the  end  of  the 
 third  prayer,  for  if  he  had  come  sooner  it  is  hardly 
 probable  that  Christ  would  have  repeated  the  same 
 prayer.  When  S.  Luke  says,  therefore,  that  Christ  came 
 to  the  disciples  and  found  them  sleeping,  after  he  had 
 described  the  appearance  of  the  angel,  we  must  under- 
 stand him  to  speak  by  Jiysteron  protcron.  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  )ct  speaking  to  the  disciples, 
 this  is  not  to  be  referred  to  the  words  immediately  pre- 
 ceding, "  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.  ^latthew 
 and  S.  Mark,  after  Christ  had  said  those  words,  He  retired 
 to  pray  twice,  and  when    lie  returned   to  the  disciples  the 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  45-]  THE   BETRAYAL.  457 
 
 third  time  He  did  not  say  "  Watch,"  &c.,  but  "  Sleep  ye 
 now  and  take  your  rest"  (verse  45),  and  then  Judas  ap- 
 peared. 
 
 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  [jion  ca  qucE 
 dixerat  sed  ea  qiice  taaicrai)  ;  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, 
 unitins  the  events  of  the  third  to  the  first. 
 
 Verse  45.  Sleep  ye  now  and  take  your  rest. 
 
 S.  Augustin  {De  Consens.,  iii.  4)  and  Bede  think  that 
 Christ  said  this  not  ironically,  but  with  a  serious  meaning, 
 because  S.  Mark  says  (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 
 Lheophylact,  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 — up- 
 braiding them,  as  it  were,  because,  when  He  had  previously 
 ordered  them  to  watch,  they  slept. 
 
 Into  the  hands  of  sinners. 
 
 The  Gentiles.  The  Hebrews  called  all  Gentiles,  ab- 
 solutely, sinners,  as  we  find  in  .S".  Luke  xxiv.  7  and  Gai. 
 ii.  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. 
 
458  THE   GOSPEL   OF    S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxvi.  47,  4S. 
 
 Verse  47.  As  He  yet  spoke. 
 The  three  Evangelists— S.  Matthew,  S.  Mark,  S.  Luke- 
 have  said  that  Judas  came  while  Christ  was  speaking,  with 
 the  design,  probably,  of  showing  that  the  words  uttered  by 
 Him  just  before  (verse  46)  were  true :  "  Rise,  let  us  go ; 
 behold  he  is  at  hand  that  will  betray  Me".  The  same 
 thing  is  said  by  S.  John  in  other  words  (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  vmltitiide. 
 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. 
 
 Verse  48.  Gave  them  a  sign. 
 Judas  had  given  one  before.  Christ  was  so  well  known  to 
 all  that  we  may  wonder  why  there  was  any  need  of  a  sign. 
 Origen  {in  loe.)  says  that  it  was  a  tradition  of  his  time  that 
 Christ  had  two  faces  :  one  a  natural  and  ordinar}-  one  in 
 which  all  men  knew  Him,  the  other  assumed  by  Him  at 
 times,  as  in  the  Transfiguration.  Thcoph}lact,  with  more 
 reason,  says  that  the  greater  number  of  those  who  came  to 
 seize  Christ  were  soldiers  ;  that  is,  Gentiles  who  were  not 
 used  to  hear  Him,  as  being  men  who  had  no  part  in  the 
 religion  of  the  Jews. 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  48.]  THE   BETRAYAL.  459 
 
 Leontius,  in  his  Commentary  on  S.  JoJin  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.  Chry- 
 sostom,  Theodore  Heracleota  (in  the  Catetta  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.  John  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.  iv.  27;  xviii.  7.  The  same 
 custom  was  in  use  among  Christians  {Acts  xx.  37  ;  Roi?i. 
 xvi.  16;  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  Orationc,  "  This  is  what  Christ  complained 
 of  to  the  Pharisee".  S.  Luke  vii.  45  :  "Thou  gayest  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 
 
460  THE   GOSPEL  OF  S.  MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxvi.  49. 
 
 His  miracles  were  done  by  magical  arts,  as  Christ  Himself 
 signifies  (5.  JoJin  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  "  (^S.  John  7it  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.  Lcontius  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  fxiv.  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  (5.  Luke  iv.  30  ;  S.  JoJin  viii.  59). 
 This  is  the  opinion  of  S,  Chrysostom  and  S.  Jerome. 
 S.John  sa}'s  that  ''Jesus,  knowing  all  things,  went  forth 
 and  said.  Whom  seek  yc?"  These  are  not  the  words  of  a 
 man  in  fear,  wIkj  wcnild  deny  that  he  was  he  whom  they 
 had  come  to  seek,  but,  as  Leontius  says,  of  one  undismayed, 
 and  who  challenged  them. 
 
 Verse  49.  Hail,  Rabbi. 
 Judas  endeavoured,  by  his  words  and  kiss,  to  conceal  his 
 wickedness.     On  the  other  hand,  Christ  shows  that  He  was 
 not  ignorant  with  what  intention  Judas  came,  as  He  asked 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  50.]  THE   BETRAYAL.  46 1 
 
 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  Conscns.,  v.  3). 
 
 Verse  50.  Friend,  zuhereto  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 " 
 (vS.  JoJin  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 
 6".  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 
 
462  THE    GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxvi.  51. 
 
 them  power  to  seize  Him,  and  without  them  their  hands 
 would  have  been  tied. 
 
 Verse  51.  And  beJiold  one  of  them  that  zuere  ivith  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  ofif  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. 
 
Ch.  XXV!.  52.]  THE   BETRAYAL.  463 
 
 Ciit  off  his  car. 
 
 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  ex- 
 pression 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). 
 
 Verse  52.  All  that  take  the  sivord  shall  perish  zuith 
 the  szoord. 
 
 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.  Euthy- 
 mius  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  {Qucsst. 
 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, 
 
464  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxvi.  52. 
 
 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  ever}'  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  vS.  Luke  xxii.  51:"  Suffer  ye  thus  far  ".  ^.  JoJni  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  [Qjiccst.  104  in  Vet.  ct  Nov.  Test.). 
 
 But  it  is  clear  that  S.  Peter  was  blamed  by  Christ  ;  and 
 wh}-  ? 
 
 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".  Jo/ui  xviii.  ii).  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. 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  53.]  THE   BETRAYAL.  465 
 
 Verse  53.  Think  est  thou  that  I  cminot  ask  My  Fatlier. 
 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  circum- 
 stances, as  if  He  had  said  :  "  Do  you  not  think  that,  if  I 
 had  not  known  that  it  was  determined  by  My  Father 
 that  I  should  die,  I  could  have  asked  for  twelve  legions 
 of  angels,  and  that  He  would  have  given  them  to 
 Me?" 
 
 Tivelve  legions  of  angels. 
 Both  the  word  and  the  thing  is  of  Rome.  The  Evan- 
 gelists, 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  Judcea.  Among  the  Romans,  as  Vegetius 
 {^De  re  Alilit.,  ii.  2)  and  S.  Jerome  say,  a  legion  consisted  of 
 6000  men,  or,  as  Polybius  informs  us  (lib.  vi.),  ordinary 
 legions  contained  4200  foot  and  300  horse.  In  wars  o-f 
 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  kw,  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 
 2—30 
 
466  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxvi.  54. 
 
 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  the}'  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  11317  castrainetabitur ; 
 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  {^.  13,  20,  21  ;  xii.  i),  that  they  are  sometimes 
 sent  to  fight  for  us  in  war.     Christ  alluded  to  this  custom. 
 
 Verse  54.  Hoiu  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  vS.  Luke  xxiv.  25.  The  Scriptures  and 
 the  Prophets  to  whom  Christ  alluded  are  Isaiah  (liii.  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.  11)  says 
 that  Christ  answered  Peter  otherwise:  "The  chalice  which 
 My  Father  hath  given  Me,  shall  I  not  drink  it?"  The 
 opinion  of  S.  Augustin  i^De  Consens.^  iii,  5)  is  probable — 
 that  Christ  said  both.  First,  "The  chalice"  {S.John  xviii. 
 1 1),  and  second,  "  How  then  "  {S.  lilatt.  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 
 
€h.  XXVI.  55.]  THE    IJETRAVAL.  467 
 
 possible,"  &c.,  referring  to  a  thing  bitter  and  full  of  suffer- 
 ing. In  the  words  {S.  Jo/m  yiv'm.  iij,  "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.  51J  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 
 Pe-ter,  and  at  the  same  time  to  show  those  who  seized  Him 
 that  He  had  power  to  defend  Himelf  from  them,  who  by 
 His  mere  touch  could  heal  that  wounded  member  ;  for  it 
 was  He  who  "killeth  and  maketh  alive;  He  bringeth 
 down  to  hell  and  bringeth  back  again"  (i  Kings  ii.  6). 
 S.  John  alone  tells  us  that  the  man's  name  was  Malchus 
 (xviii.  10). 
 
 Verse  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 
 
468  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxvi.  56,  57. 
 
 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  not 
 able  (5.  Luke  iv.  30  ;  5.  John  viii.  59).  This  is  the  ex- 
 planation of  .S'.  Luke  xxii.  53:  "This  is  your  hour"; 
 that  is,  "  Now  you  are  able  to  do  to  Me  whatever  you 
 will  :  not  that  )'OU  are  stronger  than  I,  but  because  the 
 hour  has  come  when  it  was  determined  by  the  Father  that 
 I  should  die  ". 
 
 Verse  56.  Then  the  disciples,  all  leaving  Him,  fled. 
 Peter,  however,  followed  Him,  though  afar  off  (verse  58). 
 So  did  S.  John,  as  he  himself  testifies  (xviii.  15).  Thus  the 
 words  of  S.  Matthe\v,  "  all,"  must  either  be  understood  of 
 the  greater  number,  as  Theophylact  says,  or  we  must 
 suppose  that  all  fled  at  first,  and  that  Peter  and  John 
 returned  soon  afterwards  and  followed  Him. 
 
 Verse  57.  To  Caiaphas. 
 Sec,  on  Caiaphas,  verse  3.  S.  John  (xviii.  13)  says  that 
 Christ  was  first  led  to  Annas,  and  he  writes  as  if  he  in- 
 tended 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  by- 
 standers. 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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  57.]  CHRIST   BEFORE   CAIAPHAS.  469 
 
 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  know^n  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 
 
470  THE   GOSPEL   OF    S.    MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxvi.  59, 60. 
 
 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,  cnreareCkev 
 ovv  avTov  6  "Avva<i  SeSefievov  irpo^  K.aiu<^ai\  that  it  might  be 
 rendered,  "  Annas  had  sent  Him  bound  to  Caiaphas".  But 
 the  former  seems  preferable.  But  why  did  the\-  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  possibl\-  the  house 
 of  Annas  was  on  the  way  to  that  of  Caiaphas. 
 
 Verse  59.  A  ?id  t/w  chief  priests. 
 The  Greek  adds,  "  and  the  elders  ". 
 
 Verse  60.  And  t/uy  found  not. 
 Kal  ovx  evpui',  Kai  iroWon'  yp-evBo/jLaprvpa)}'  TrpoaeXSui'Tcov 
 ovx  evpof,  Et  110)1  invciicnint,  ct  qnidcni  iiniltis  acccdciitHnis 
 falsis  tcstibus  nan  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 
 
Ch.  xxvr.  6i.]  CHRIST   BEFORE   CAIAPHAS.  4/1 
 
 when  they  had  determined,  justly  or  unjustly,  to  put  Christ 
 to  death  ?  They  wished,  however,  by  their  iniquitous  con- 
 duct, to  make  some  show  of  justice. 
 
 Verse  6i.  /  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 
 ii.  19).  Origen,  S.  Chrysostom,  S.  Jerome,  Bede,  Theo- 
 phylact,  and  Euthymius  rightly  reply  that  they  are  called 
 false  witnesses  because  they  repeated  with  a  wicked  inten- 
 tion 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  5.  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.  Mark 
 adds  :  "  And  their  evidences  were  not  agreeing  " — Ka\  ovhe 
 ovTco'i  tarj  r/p  1)  fiaprvpia  aurow,  Ac  nee  sic  qiiidem  eorum 
 testimonium  ceqttiim  erat  ant  equale.  Some  have  thought 
 that  the  witnesses  themselves  did  not  agree  among  them- 
 selves. 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  con- 
 demnation 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 
 
472  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxvi.  62,  63. 
 
 I  will  build  another  not  made  with  hands,"  the  chief 
 priests  did  not  think  this  evidence  sufficient  for  the  con- 
 demnation of  Jesus  to  death.  Witnesses  agree  among  them- 
 selves 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  tradi- 
 tions which  Moses  delivered  unto  us  ". 
 
 Verse  62.  And  the  high  priest,  rising  np. 
 The  judge  ought  not  to  rise  up,  but  to  sit.      The  high 
 priest  did  not  speak  as  a  judge  sitting  on  the  judgment- 
 seat,  but  as  a  priest  in  the  synagogue,  where  everyone  who 
 spoke  or  read  was  accustomed  to  rise,  as  in  6".  Luke  iv.  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  guilt}'.  Evi- 
 dence which  appeared,  even  to  him,  frivolous,  he,  by  unjust 
 questioning,  exaggerated:  as  if  to  say,  "Ansvverest  Thou 
 nothing,  when  charges  so  heavy  are  brought  against  Thee  ?  " 
 
 Verse  G^^.  I  adjure  Thee  by  the  living  God. 
 ^E^opKi^o)  ere  Kara  tov   Geov,  tov  ^w/'to?.     This  properly 
 signifies,  "  In  the  name  of  God,"  and  is  intended,  as  by  a 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  63.]  CHRIST    BEFORE   CAIAPHAS.  473 
 
 command,  to  bind  one  to  speak  or  to  act.  It  was  in 
 common  use  among  the  Jews,  as  we  learn  from  the 
 Holy  Scriptures. 
 
 If  Thou  be  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God. 
 
 "As  Thou  commonly  teachest  that  Thou  art,  and  as 
 Thou  callest  Thyself."  For  this  reason  the  Jews  on  other 
 occasions  had  endeavoured  to  stone  Jesus  Christ.  This  was 
 not  the  present  subject,  but  the  high  priest  asked  Christ 
 the  question,  because  he  was  then  .seeking  every  means  of 
 condemning  Him,  and  Christ  used  to  confess  that  He  was 
 such.  He  thought  that  when  asked  the  question  under 
 trial  Christ  would  not  deny  it,  and  that  he  could  not  find 
 a  better  reason  for  condemning  Him  to  death  than  His 
 being  convicted  of  blasphemy. 
 
 For  it  was  blasphemy  among  them  for  any  man  to  call 
 himself  the  Son  of  God  ;  for  he  could  not  be  such  by 
 nature,  unless  he  were  God  Himself.  Thus  the  heresy  of 
 Arius  was  confuted  even  in  the  opinion  of  the  Jews.  It  is 
 said  by  S.  Luke  (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  emphaticall}-  before,  ''Tit  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,  there- 
 
474  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Ch.   xxvi.  64. 
 
 fore,  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  re- 
 corded 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  b\'  the  whole  assembly,  but 
 he  makes  no  mention  of  the  adjuration  ;  for  the  Evangelists 
 pass  over  many  things. 
 
 Verse  64.    T/iot{  hast  said  it. 
 
 On  this  expression  see  verse  25  and  chap,  xxvii.  11. 
 Christ  used  the  same  words  to  Pontius  Pilate.  S.  I\Iark 
 relates  (xiv.  62)  that  Christ  answered,  Ego  sum,  "  I  am,"' 
 the  meaning  being  the  same.  Hence  we  see  that  the  words 
 t}i  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.  6"]),  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  >'ou,"  and  that  the  high  priest  then 
 ailjurcd  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  merel)-  as  much  as  He  was  asked, 
 but  even  more  than  He  was  asked  ;  for  the  question  was 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  54.]  CHRIST   BEFORE    CAIAPHAS.  475 
 
 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  particnla 
 adversativa.  It  appears  to  be  opposed  to  words  which  the 
 Evangelist  has  not  expressed,  but  left  to  be  understood, 
 and  which  are  found  in  S.  Luke :  "  If  I  shall  tell  you,  you 
 will  not  believe  Me"  (xxii.  6y)\  "nevertheless,  I  say  to 
 \'ou  "  (5.  Matt.  xxvi.  64),  the  full  meaning  of  which  words 
 is  given  by  S.  Luke  (xxii.  6j,  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 
 )'0u  will  or  not,  you  will  be  compelled  to  believe  "  (5.  JoJin 
 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  ainodo,  "  hereafter,"  in  Greek,  Inr  apn,  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  Da}-  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  negationevi,  "  You  shall  not  see  Me  as  now  in  the 
 
476  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxvi.  65. 
 
 guise  of  a  criminal,  but  in  that  of  the  Son  sitting  on  the 
 right  hand  of  the  power  of  God,  and  coming  in  the  clouds 
 of  heaven ".  He  therefore  tacitly  opposes  His  second 
 coming  to  His  first.  But  how  would  they  see  Him  sitting 
 on  the  right  hand  of  the  power  of  God,  as  they  were  not 
 able  to  see  God  Himself?  They  were  to  see  Christ  come 
 with  so  great  majesty,  that  they  might  easily  understand 
 Him  to  be  placed  in  what  may  be  termed  the  better  part 
 of  the  Divinity  ;  that  is,  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  God 
 and  showing  most  especially  His  Divinity.  "The  right 
 hand  of  the  power  of  God  "  is  a  Hebraism  for  "  the  power- 
 ful right  hand  of  God ".  How  He  would  come  on  the 
 clouds  has  been  explained  on  chaps,  xix.  28  ;  xxiv.  30. 
 
 Verse  65.  Rent  Jiis  ganucnts. 
 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  (^-£"w.,  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.  yi'w.  6\  Judges 
 xi.  35  ;  I  Kings  iv.  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  V^'2  for  this  is  the  proper  meaning 
 of  the  Hebrew  word  i^'^3  and  of  the  Greek  ^Xaa^rjixdv. 
 The  high  priest,  against  all  the  requirements  of  justice  when 
 he  was  the  judge,  acted  the  part  of  an  advocate,  and  made 
 the  accusers  the  judges. 
 
 He  is  guilty  of  death. 
 The    Law    commanded    the    blasphemer   to   be   stoned 
 {Lcvit.  xxiv.  iG).     They  say  here  that  Christ  was  guilty  of 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  67,  68.]     CHRIST   BEFORE   CAIAPHAS.  477 
 
 death  for  calling  Himself  the  Son  of  God,  and  in  5.  Jolin 
 X.  31  they  endeavoured  to  stone  Him. 
 
 Verse  ^y.    Then  tJicy  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  vS.  Ltike  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  others  struck  His  face  zuith  the  palms  of  their  hands. 
 
 Ot  Be  eppciTTLo-av,  struck  Him  with  cudgels  or  staves,  or 
 perhaps  with  their  slippers,  which  were  much  used  by  the 
 Jews  for  this  purpose  ;  for  the  word  pdin^,  whence  the  verb 
 paTTi^eiv,  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. 
 
 Verse  68.  Prophesy  unto  71s. 
 
 Christ  was  generally  considered  to  be  a  great  Prophet 
 (xxi.  II,  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). 
 
478  THE    GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxvi.  69. 
 
 Verse  69.  But  Peter  sat  without  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  with- 
 out 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  hiui  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.  6y)  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  vii.  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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  70,71.]  THE   DENIAL   OF    PETER.  479 
 
 him,"  Art  not  thou  also  one  ?  "  But  S.  Luke  (xxii.  56)  says, 
 "  When  a  certain  servant  maid  had  seen  him  sitting  at  the 
 h'ght,  and  had  earnestly  beheld  him,  she  said,  This  man  also 
 was  with  Him  ".  We  must  believe,  therefore,  that  she  said 
 all  these  words.  First,  as  doubtful,  "  Art  not  thou  also  one 
 of  this  man's  disciples  ?"  as  S.  John  says.  Then  she  spoke 
 positively,  "  Thou  also  wast  with  Jesus  the  Galilean  "  (S. 
 Matt.  V.  69) ;  and  lastly,  she  turned  to  the  bystanders  and 
 said,  "  This  man  also  was  with  Him"  {S.  Luke  xxii.  56). 
 
 Verse  70.  But  he  denied  befoj'e  them  all,  saying,  I  knozv 
 not  zvhat  thon  sayest. 
 
 S.  Matthew  sa)-s  that  the  denial  was  made  before  all  the 
 people  present,  either  as  a  fact  that  increased  the  gravity 
 fif  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  wit- 
 nesses. 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,  exag- 
 gerandi  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. 
 
 Verse  Ji.  A  nd  as  he  zvent  out  of  the  gate. 
 ' E^eX66vTa  8e  avrov  et?  top  irvXcova,  egressuni  auteni  euin 
 in  vestibuluni.     S.  Mark  says,  "  He  went  forth  before  the 
 
480  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Cn.xxv1.71. 
 
 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  sa\-s,  that  this  second  denial  of  Peter  was 
 made  when  he  was  warming  himself  at  the  fire.  So  that, 
 probabh-,  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  sa}'s  that  between 
 the  second  and  third  denial  there  was  the  space  of  one 
 hour  (xxii.  59),  and  all  the  Evangelists  say  that  imme- 
 diately 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  crow- 
 ing 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  intervejied  between  the  first  and 
 second  denial. 
 
 From  S.  John  we  learn  how  the  words  of  S.  Matthew, 
 "  As  he  went  out,"  i^eXdovra,  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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  71.]  PETER'S   DENIALS.  48 1 
 
 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  ques- 
 tioned S.  Peter  before — Ka\  7]  TraihlcrKr)  ISovaa  avrov  iraXiv 
 7]p^aTo  Xeyetv  rol^i  TrapearTjKocnv,  riwsuvi  aiiteni,  aim  vidisset 
 euni  ajicilla  c<2pit  dicere  circiunstantibiis.  S.  John  says  that 
 many  questioned  S.  Peter  at  this  second  denial  (xviii.  25). 
 
 Some,  unable  to  harmonise  these  sayings  with  one 
 another,  have  been  led,  audaciously  as  may  be  said,  to 
 assert  erroneously  that  S.  Peter  denied  Christ  more  than 
 three  times.  Some  even  say  that  he  did  so  seven.  Christ 
 forewarned  him  that  he  should  deny  Him,  not  four  times, 
 nor  five,  nor  seven,  but  three  only.  Christ  would  have 
 said  that  he  would  do  so  more  often  if  it  had  been  the 
 truth,  since,  as  has  been  shown,  Christ  desired  to  dwell 
 with  emphasis  on  Peter's  fears  and  inconsistency.  Hence, 
 according  to  S.  Mark,  He  said,  "  Amen,  I  say  to  thee  to- 
 day, even  in  this  night,  before  the  cock  crow  twice,  thou 
 shalt  deny  Me  thrice  "  (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 
 2—31 
 
482  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxvi.  71. 
 
 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,  ?;  irai- 
 8l(tk7],  the  article  is  not  to  be  taken  relatively  as  referring 
 to  the  portress  whom  he  had  mentioned  before  ;  and  when 
 he  says,  ttuXlv,  "  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  pre- 
 viously 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,  aV^ptuTro?,  /i07»o, 
 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 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  71.]  PETER'S   DENIALS.  483 
 
 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)  men- 
 tioned 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,  elirov  ovv  avroj,  "  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  sub- 
 ject, as  "  they  love,"  ainant ;  that  is,  amatur.  This  is  true 
 although  done  only  by  one,  as  they  say  in  'L2i\.\r\,  perhibent, 
 fcriint,  diciint,  for  perhibeUir,  fertur,  dicitur.  Although, 
 therefore,  only  one  maid-servant  said  to  S.  Peter,  "  Art 
 not  thou  also  one  of  His  disciples?"  S.  John  could  truly 
 say,  "They  said,  then,  to  him  ".  Hence  it  is  credible  that 
 (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. 
 
 This  man  also  ivas  ivitJi  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  affirma- 
 tion, "  Thou  also  art  one  of  them,"  as  S.  Luke  says ;  then 
 that  she  turned  to  the  bystanders  and  said,  "  This  is  one  of 
 
484  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.    [Ch.  xxvi.  72, 73. 
 
 them,"  as  S.  Mark  says;  and  "This   man  also  was  with 
 Jesus  of  Nazareth,"  as  S.  Matthew  says. 
 
 Verse  72.  A^id  again  he  denied,  with  an  oath. 
 Peter  increased  his  offence.  The  first  time  he  did  not 
 swear,  but  only  denied  ;  now  he  both  denies  and  swears. 
 S.  Luke  writes  that  he  said,  "  O  man,  I  am  not "  ;  S.  John, 
 "  I  am  not ".  It  is  credible  that  at  first  he  merely  said,  "  I 
 am  not,"  as  S.  John  says.  Then,  when  either  the  maid- 
 servant or  they  who  were  present  pressed  him,  he  added,  as 
 in  S.  Luke,  "O  man,  I  am  not";  and  lastly,  when  they 
 urged  him  again,  he  exclaimed  :  "  I  know  not  the  Man,"  as 
 S.  Matthew  says. 
 
 Verse  y^.  And  after  a  little  while. 
 S.  Luke  (xxii.  59)  says  that  it  was  "  after  the  space,  as  it 
 were,  of  one  hour  ". 
 
 WJiile  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  sec  that  the  men  of  Ephraim  were  unable 
 to  pronounce  the  word  "  Schibbolcth  "  like  the  rest  of  the 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  74,  75.J     PETER'S   DENIAL   AND   OATH.  485 
 
 Jews,  but   said    "  Sibboleth "    instead,  which    caused    the 
 destruction  of  many  {Judges  xii.  6). 
 
 Verse  74.  Then  began  he  to  curse. 
 KaTavaOe/iiaTc^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,  diris,  as  the  Latins  say,  which  was  an  execrable 
 oath. 
 
 And  to  szvear  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. 
 
 A  nd  iviniediatcly  the  cock  crezv. 
 S.  Luke  says,  "  immediately,  as  he  was  yet  speaking  ". 
 This  minute  account,  so  carefully  expressed,  shows  that 
 Christ's  words  (verse  34)  were  true.  All  the  Evangelists 
 have  related  the  same  circumstance  with  the  same  design, 
 but  S.  Luke  the  most  fully. 
 
 Verse  75.  And  Peter  remembered  the  ivords  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 
 
486  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxvi.  75. 
 
 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  {m  ioc),  S.  Ambrose  (lib.  x.,  Comment,  in 
 S.  Luke),  S.  Leo  {Serm.  iii.  de  Pass.  Dojn.).  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  (5.  Ljike  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  Prudcntius  says  in  his  CatJicmcrin  (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  retaiii'd. 
 
 3.  The  opposite  error  must  also  be  avoided.  That,  when 
 he  denied  Christ,  Peter  either  did  not  sin,  or  at  least  did  not 
 
Ch.  XXVI.  75.]  Peter's  tears.  487 
 
 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  i\postle  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  fort Ji,  Jie  zucpt  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. 
 
488  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxvi.  75. 
 
 However  this  may  be,  he  showed  a  great  example  of 
 penitence.  S.  Ambrose  well  says  in  his  Comvientaiy  on 
 S.  Luke,  "  Even  the  fall  of  the  saint  is  useful.  Peter's 
 denial  does  me  no  harm  ;  his  self-correction  profits  me. 
 I  have  learnt  to  mistrust  the  promises  of  the  faithless. 
 Peter  denied  among  the  Jews.  Solomon  erred  among 
 Gentile  associates.  Peter  wept  bitterly  that  he  might  wash 
 out  his  fault  by  his  tears  "  ;  and  as  we  read  in  S.  Clement 
 of  Rome,  "  The  pain  of  his  fault  was  so  deeply  rooted  in 
 his  mind,  that  all  his  life,  whenever  he  heard  a  cock  crow, 
 he  fell  on  his  knees,  and  sought  pardon  for  his  offence  with 
 tears  ". 
 
CHAPTER  XXVII. 
 
 THE    CONTINUATION    OF   THE    HISTORY   OF   THE    PASSION 
 OF   CHRIST— HIS   DEATH   AND   BURIAL. 
 
 Verse  i.  And  whett  mo7'ning  ivas  coine. 
 
 S.  Mark  says,  "Straightway  in  the  morning";  S.  Luke, 
 "  As  soon  as  it  was  day  ". 
 
 Took  counsel. 
 S.  Luke  says,  "  Came  together,"  cojiveneriint  (xxii,  66). 
 It  is  probable  that  the  first  council  was  dissolved  ;  for  it  is 
 not  Hkely  that  the  priests,  scribes,  and  elders,  however 
 great  their  rage  against  Christ,  would  have  remained  in 
 assembly  without  any  repose  through  the  whole  night. 
 The  events  related  by  S.  Matthew  (verses  62,  6^,  of  the 
 last  chapter)  took  place  in  this  morning's  council.  This 
 is  clear  from  S.  Luke  also,  whose  account  has  been  shown 
 to  be  the  same  as  that  of  S.  Matthew. 
 
 All  the  chief  priests  and  ancients  of  the  people. 
 S.  Mark  and  S.  Luke  add  "Scribes";  these  three  classes, 
 as  has  been  said  more  than  once,  forming  a  Jewish  council. 
 On  the  number  of  chief  priests,  see  chap.  ii.  4. 
 
 That  they  might  put  Him  to  death. 
 
 Had  they  not  just  said,  "  He  is  guilty  of  death"?  (xxvi, 
 66).  We  have  said  that  these  words  were  spoken  in  this 
 place  and  in  this  council  ;  but  S.  Matthew  said  as  a  sum- 
 mary, "  They  took  counsel,"  because,  having  interposed 
 the  account  of  Peter's  denials,  he  had  broken  off  the  thread 
 
490  THE   GOSPEL   OP^   S.   MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxvii.  2. 
 
 of  the  history.  The  false  testimony  did  not  seem  to  them 
 sufficient  for  Christ's  condemnation  to  death,  as  S.  Mark 
 implies  (xiv.  56)  ;  and,  therefore,  when  the  day  began  to 
 dawn,  and  they  had  no  sufficient  reason  for  bringing  Him 
 before  Pilate,  they  assembled  the  council  again  to  deli- 
 berate as  to  what  they  could  accuse  Him  of  to  the  governor 
 that  would  be  thought  to  deserve  death.  They,  therefore, 
 asked  Him  whether  He  were  the  Christ,  as  S.  Matthew 
 says  (xxvi.  63) ;  for  they  knew  that  He  would  not  deny 
 this,  and  it  might  seem  a  capital  offence  to  the  governor  ; 
 because  it  was  the  opinion  of  all  Jews  that  Christ  would 
 be  a  king  and  deliver  them  from  the  Roman  yoke,  and 
 whoever  called  himself  Christ  professed  to  be  a  king — of 
 all  things  the  most  criminal  in  the  eyes  of  the  usurping 
 Romans. 
 
 Verse  2.  And  they  brought  Him  bound. 
 Kal  8r](TavTe<i  avrov,  Et  cuvi  enin  vi7ixisset,  as  S.  Mark 
 says  (xv.  i).  S.  John  (xviii.  12)  says  that  Christ  had  been 
 bound  before  when  He  was  seized:  but  He  had  either  been 
 loosed  in  the  house  of  the  chief  priest,  whence  they  thought 
 that  He  could  not  escape,  or  His  hands  were  not  manacled. 
 When  they  brought  Him  from  the  house  of  Caiaphas  to 
 that  of  Pilate,  they  bound  Him  again. 
 
 A  nd  delivered  Him  to  Pontius  Pilate,  the  governor. 
 It  may  be  asked  why  they  gave  Him  over  to  the  governor, 
 and  did  not  kill  Him  themselves,  sive  Jure  sive  rabie. 
 S.  Chrysostom  thinks  that  they  delivered  Him  to  Pilate 
 because  it  was  a  feast  day,  on  which  it  was  not  law- 
 ful to  put  anyone  to  death.  But  (xxvi.  2)  it  has  been 
 shown  that  it  was  not  such.  Thcophylact  thinks  that  they 
 delivered  Him  up  to  Pilate  because  they  accused  Him  of 
 laying  claim  to  the  kingdom,  which  would  greatly  concern 
 Pontius  Pilate,  the  Roman  governor.     S.  John  states  the 
 
Ch.  xxvii.  2.]  PONTIUS   PILATE.  49 1 
 
 true  reason.  It  was  not  lawful  for  them  to  put  any  man  to 
 death  (xviii.  31)  ;  whether  this  were  absolutely  forbidden 
 by  the  Romans,  as  almost  all  ancient  writers  think  :  or,  as 
 some  say,  it  was  not  lawful  for  them  to  crucify,  but  they 
 must  either  stone,  strangle,  burn,  or  slay  with  the  sword 
 (as  described  in  chap.  v.  22) :  the  cross  was  a  punishment 
 introduced  into  Judaea  by  the  Romans,  and  the  Jews 
 desired  to  crucify  Christ,  this  being  of  all  deaths  the  most 
 ignominious. 
 
 It  will  be  urged  in  objection  that  Stephen  {Ac^s  vii.  58) 
 was  stoned,  and,  therefore,  that  all  capital  punishment  was 
 not  taken  from  the  Jews.  The  obvious  answer  is  that  that 
 manner  of  death  was  not  forbidden  them,  because  they 
 endeavoured  to  stone  Christ  Himself  on  other  occasions,  as 
 related  by  S.  John  (x.  31).  But  if,  as  is  most  likely,  all 
 capital  punishment  was  taken  from  them,  it  must  be  re- 
 peated that  they  stoned  Stephen,  and  endeavoured  to  stone 
 Christ,  not  according  to  law,  but  by  impulse. 
 
 How  Pontius  Pilate  was  made  governor  has  been  related 
 by  Josephus.  We  have  said  (xiv.  i)  that  the  kingdom  of 
 Herod  the  Great  was  divided,  after  his  death,  into  tetrar- 
 chies,  as  S.  Luke  says  (iii.  i).  Judaea  was  one  of  these. 
 Archelaus,  the  son  of  Herod  the  Great,  ruled  over  it  for  ten 
 years,  partly  as  a  tetrarch  and  partly  as  a  king.  At  the  end 
 of  that  time  he  was  accused,  before  the  Emperor  Augustus, 
 of  having  slaughtered  3000  Jews  who  had  fled  into  the 
 Temple  on  the  day  of  Pasch,  and  of  having  practised 
 tryanny  against  the  Jews  and  disposed  of  the  priesthood, 
 setting  up  some  and  depriving  others  as  he  pleased.  He 
 was  banished  to  Vienne  in  Gaul,  as  Josephus  informs  us 
 {Antiq.,  xvii.  19  ;  xviii.  i).  Judaea  was  then  reduced  to  a 
 Roman  province,  governed  by  procurators  like  other  pro- 
 vinces. Pontius  Pilate  was  the  sixth  procurator  (Josephus, 
 Antiq.,  xviii.  4).  Theophylact  thinks  that  he  was  called 
 Pontius  as  having  been  a  native  of  Pontus.     But  this  does 
 
492  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxvii.  3. 
 
 not  seem  a  reason  of  much  weight,  as  there  were  others  of 
 the  name  at  Rome. 
 
 Verse  3.    TJien  Judas,  wJio  betrayed  Him,  seeing  that  He 
 luas  condemned. 
 
 The  meaning  of  this  passage  is  no  doubt  that  Judas, 
 seeing  Christ  condemned  by  the  Jews,  who  all  cried  out 
 with  one  voice,  "  He  is  guilty  of  death,"  and  dragged 
 before  Pilate — an  act  which  they  would  not  have  committed 
 had  they  not  resolved  to  persevere  until  He  was  con- 
 demned to  the  cross — brought  back  the  thirty  pieces  of 
 silver.  The  chief  priests  are  said  to  have  delivered  Christ 
 to  death,  because  it  was  they  who  gave  Him  over  to  Pilate 
 with  that  intent  {S.  Luke  xxiv.  20). 
 
 From  this  it  has  been  concluded  that  Judas,  when  he 
 betrayed  Christ,  did  not  do  so  with  the  object  of  His  being 
 put  to  death,  nor  with  any  expectation  that  such  would  be 
 the  result.  This  is  the  opinion  of  Theophylact  and  others. 
 In  this  he  was  in  some  slight  degree  better  than  the 
 priests,  scribes,  and  elders,  because,  although  he  sold  his 
 Master  from  avarice  and  unbelief,  he  had  no  thought  of 
 His  being  put  to  death. 
 
 Repenting  Jiimself. 
 Origen  and  S.  Jerome  speak  of  the  repentance  of  Judas 
 in  such  a  manner  as  to  appear  even  to  praise  him.  They 
 refute  the  error  of  the  Manicha^ans,  who  say  that  we  have 
 two  natures— a  good  and  a  bad.  They  do  not  understand, 
 I  think,  that  that  of  Judas  was  not  wholly  good  {bonam 
 omnino,  folio  and  8vo,  but  query  malam\  but  had  some 
 particle  of  good  in  it,  for,  although  he  did  not  amend 
 the  sin,  yet  he  felt  it,  confes.sed  it,  and  grieved  for  having 
 committed  it.  The  Greek  word  S.  Matthew  uses,  yuera- 
 fj.€Xr)0€i^,  means  to  grieve  for  sin,  and  to  be  troubled  at  it. 
 It  differs  from  ixeravodv,  as  it  means  to  acknowledge  a  sin 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  4.]  REMORSE   OF   JUDAS.  493 
 
 and  to  grieve  for  it.  Meravoelv  means  this,  and  also  to  atone 
 for  it.  S.  Peter  did  the  latter  and  Judas  the  former.  He 
 is  not  described,  therefore,  as  /j,€Tavor]6ei<i  or  fieravoayv,  but 
 /j,eTa/x€\7]d6L<;.  S.  Leo  {Serm.  v.  de  Pass.  Dom.)  says, 
 "  Justly,  and  as  the  Prophet  had  foretold,  '  His  prayer  was 
 turned  to  sin  '  {Ps.  cviii.  7) ;  for,  when  he  had  consummated 
 his  crime,  the  conversion  of  the  wicked  man  was  so  per- 
 verse that  even  in  his  repentance  he  committed  sin  ".  And 
 S.  Ambrose,  in  his  Conunent.  on  S.  Luke,  bk.  x. :  "  Although 
 the  repentance  of  the  traitor  was  vain,  because  he  sinned 
 against  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  had  still  some  shame  in  acknow- 
 ledging his  deed.  Although  he  is  not  absolved,  the  malice 
 of  the  Jews  is  confuted,  for  when  the  confession  of  the  traitor 
 had  convicted  them,  they  still  claimed  the  right  of  the  wicked 
 contract,  and  considered  themselves  free  from  blame  by 
 saying,  'What  is  that  to  us?  see  thou  to  it'.  They  were 
 plainly  senseless  to  suppose  that  they  were  absolved  from 
 the  wickedness  of  Judas  rather  than  bound  by  it." 
 
 Origen  and  Theophylact  say  that  it  was  the  wish  of 
 Judas,  when  he  could  not  prevent  the  death  of  Christ,  to 
 die,  himself,  before  Him  that  he  might  meet  Him  in  the 
 other  life,  and  there  seek  forgiveness  for  his  iniquity.  This 
 partakes  much  of  the  nature  of  fable,  but  it  has  at  least 
 the  good  of  proving  that,  in  the  time  of  Origen,  the  doc- 
 trine of  purgatory  and  of  the  remission  of  sins  after  this  life 
 was  well  known. 
 
 Verse  4.  /  Jiave  simied  in  beti-aying  innocent  blood. 
 
 Innocent  blood;  that  is,  a  just  man  to  death.  Judas 
 did  not  believe  Christ  to  be  God,  but  he  confessed  Him 
 to  be  a  just  man,  and  innocent.  God  chose  that  Christ 
 should  have  the  testimony  of  every  class  against  the 
 wickedness  of  the  priests  and  elders  ;  even  that  of  His 
 judge  Pilate,  of  Pilate's  wife,  and  of  His  betrayer  who  had 
 sold  Him. 
 
494  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.         [Ch.  xxvii.  5. 
 
 What  is  that  to  7(s  ? 
 These,  as  S.  Ambrose  says,  are  the  words  of  men  Winded 
 and  "  who  thought  that  they  were  absolved  by  the  wicked- 
 ness of  the  agent,  rather  than  bound  by  it.  In  pecuniary 
 affairs,"  he  continues,  "  if  the  price  is  refused  the  obligation 
 is  at  an  end.  These  priests  accept  the  terms,  and  follow 
 up  their  sacrilege,  pertinaciously  claiming  for  themselves 
 the  mortal  sin  of  bloodshed,  when  the  trafficker  would  have 
 refunded  the  price  of  his  crime." 
 
 Verse  5.  And  cast  down  the  pieces  of  silver  in  the  Temple. 
 
 Judas  by  this  act  appeared  to  himself  to  give  it  to  the 
 priests,  and  so  to  rescind  his  bargain  with  them. 
 
 He  departed,  and  luent  and  hanged  Jiimself  with  a  halter. 
 
 ^Air^y^aro,  Laqneo  prcefocatiis  est.  S.  Peter  says  {Acts  i. 
 18)  :  "  being  hanged,  he  burst  asunder  in  the  midst,  and  all 
 his  bowels  gushed  out,"  koli  7rp7]ur]<;  yev6fjievo<i  iXdfCtjcre  fie(TO<;, 
 et  prczceps  factus  crepuit  inedius.  This  does  not  appear  to 
 agree  with  S.  Matthew.  Some  say  that  Judas  first  hanged 
 himself,  as  S.  Matthew  says,  but  that  the  tree  bent,  and  he 
 thus  survived  ;  but  afterwards  died  of  a  dropsy  and  burst 
 asunder  in  the  midst,  as  S.  Peter  says.  This  is  the  opinion 
 of  Theophylact.  Others  {e.g.,  Euthymius)  say,  that  while 
 he  was  hanging  he  was  recognised  by  the  passers-by  and 
 cut  down,  and  lived  some  time  after  in  secrecy,  falling  at 
 last  from  that  lofty  spot,  and,  being  swollen,  burst  asunder. 
 Others  say  that  the  halter  broke  and  he  fell,  and  so  burst 
 asunder.  (Ecumcnius  says  this  {Comment.  Acts  Apost,  i.) 
 from  Papias — a  very  ancient  authority. 
 
 More  probably,  as  some  others  think,  he  first  threw  him- 
 self down  from  some  lofty  spot  to  die  the  more  quickly, 
 and  afterwards,  either  from  the  breaking  of  the  rope,  he 
 fell  down  and  his  bowels  gushed  out,  or  he  became  so 
 swollen  that  after  a  time  he  burst  in  two  ;  for  all  who  are 
 hanged    swell    much.       It  is  doubtful   whether  he  hanged 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  6.]  THE   DEATH   OF   JUDAS.  495 
 
 himself  immediately  on  returning  the  money.  Some  say 
 that  he  did  not  do  so  until  after  the  Resurrection  of  Christ, 
 and  that  when  he  heard  of  this  he  lost  all  hope  of  salvation, 
 because  he  had  sold  the  Saviour  of  the  world ;  and  he  then 
 went  out  and  hanged  himself.  But  this  is  uncertain  and 
 has  no  proof.  The  Evangelist  says  that  he  threw  down 
 the  pieces  of  silver,  and  immediately  went  out  and  hanged 
 himself.     This  seems  more  probable. 
 
 Maldonatus  enters  into  the  curious  and  confessedly  use- 
 less question  as  to  what  tree,  if  any,  Judas  hanged  himself 
 from.  He  thinks,  from  tradition,  that  it  was  most  probably 
 a  fig-tree,  this  having  been  the  tree  from  which  Adam  and 
 Eve  ate  the  forbidden  fruit.  He  cites  the  lines  of  Juvencus 
 to  this  effect  : 
 
 "  Exorsusque,  suas  laqueo  sibi  sumere  poenas, 
 Informem  rapuit  ficus  de  vertice  mortem  ". 
 He  having  by  the  noose  begun 
 Himself  a  punishment  to  give, 
 A  shameful  death  he  did  not  shun, 
 But  from  the  fig-tree's  top  he  ceased  to  live. 
 
 Verse  6.  But  the  chief  pj'iests  having  taken  the  pieces  of 
 silver. 
 
 Why  did  the  chief  priests  accept  this  money  now,  which 
 they  had  such  a  short  time  before  refused  ?  Because  Judas 
 then  gave  it  back  as  if  he  would  have  undone  his  own  act. 
 They  would  not  receive  it,  therefore,  lest  they  should  appear 
 to  annul  their  compact,  and  be  compelled  to  give  up  Christ 
 to  him,  as  he  had  given  back  the  money.  They  took  it 
 now  because  he  cast  it  into  the  Temple,  and  what  was  cast 
 into  the  Temple  was  considered  to  be  offered  to  the  Temple 
 and  to  God.  As  the  priests  used  to  accept  these  offerings, 
 they  now  took  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver  also. 
 
 It  is  not  laiufil  to  put  them  into  the  Corbona. 
 
 I'^'^pil  in  Hebrew  is  "  to  offer  ".  Hence  the  word  l^'^p 
 which  properly  means  an  oblation,  and  is  frequently  found 
 
496  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxvii.  7. 
 
 in  Scripture  {Levit.  i.  2,  3 ;  ii.  5,  7;  vi.  20  ;  Njunb.  vii.  13; 
 xxviii.  2).  It  is  sometimes  used  for  ''  an  oath,"  which  was 
 made  by  p'^p  that  is,  the  offerings  of  the  Temple  by  which 
 the  Jews  sometimes  swore :  as  in  S.  Matt,  xxiii.  16, 
 18.  Josephus  (i.,  Cont.  Apion.)  is  our  authority.  This  is 
 perhaps  the  meaning  of  S.  Mark  vii.  11.  The  word  was 
 then  made  to  apply  to  the  place  where  the  treasures  of  the 
 Temple  were  kept,  that  is,  the  sacred  treasury  (Josephus, 
 Bell.  Jud.,  ii.  8).  The  Greeks  use  the  word  ya^ocfivXaKtov 
 (4  Kings  xii.  9,  10 ;  ^.  Mark  xii.  41,  43 ;  5.  Luke  xxii.  i ;  ^. 
 John  viii.  20).  Some  understand  niittere  to  mean  remittere, 
 "  to  put  back,"  thinking  that  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver  were 
 taken  out  of  the  treasury  by  the  priests  to  buy  Christ. 
 Juvencus  was  of  this  opinion,  and  it  has  much  probability. 
 For  public  costs,  pertaining  to  the  Temple  and  religion, 
 were  defrayed  from  the  sacred  funds.  The  priests  thought 
 the  murder  of  Christ,  who  called  Himself  the  Son  of  God, 
 a  case  of  this  kind. 
 
 Because  it  is  the  price  of  blood. 
 
 Blood  is  here  used  by  a  Hebraism  for  death.  They 
 ought  to  have  added  "  of  a  just  man,"  as  even  Judas 
 had  done,  but  men  who  are  blinded  by  error  know  not 
 how  either  to  think  or  speak  the  truth.  The  Jews 
 were  forbidden  to  offer  any  wicked  gain  in  the  Temple 
 {Dent,  xxiii.  18).  Hence  they  decided  by  analogy  not  to 
 offer  the  price  of  blood  to  God  (verse  6)  ;  nor,  which  was 
 greater  foolishness  still,  to  put  it  into  the  treasury.  When 
 they  took  the  silver  pieces,  they  accepted  them  as  an  obla- 
 tion made  to  God,  thus,  like  madmen,  judging  that  more 
 reverence  was  to  be  paid  to  the  treasury  than  to  God. 
 
 Verse  7.  And  after  they  had  consulted  together. 
 It  is  not  probable  that  this  took  place  immediately,  but 
 after  Christ  was  crucified,  and   perhaps  after  the  day  of 
 
Ch.  xxvii.  7.]  THE   potter's   FIELD.  49/ 
 
 Pasch.  For  they  were  occupied  all  that  day  in  His  accusation 
 and  crucifixion,  and  on  the  day  following  in  the  Passover, 
 when  it  was  not  lawful  to  engage  in  any  business.  But  S. 
 Matthew,  having  begun  to  describe  Judas'  restoration  of 
 the  thirty  pieces,  concluded  the  entire  history  and  showed 
 what  was  done  about  them.  His  account  of  the  consul- 
 tation and  purchase  of  the  field  must  be  looked  upon  as 
 related  by  anticipation. 
 
 They  boiigJit  ivith  them  the  potter's  field. 
 
 It  is  uncertain  why  S.  Matthew  calls  it  the  potter's  field. 
 It  might  be  because  it  belonged  to  some  particular  potter: 
 or  because  potters  dug  earth  from  it  to  make  their  vessels : 
 or  that  they  threw  the  broken  fragments  upon  it  so  as  to 
 make  it  useless  for  cultivation,  and  fit  only  for  a  burial- 
 place.  However  this  be,  it  is  certain  that  the  field  was 
 commonly  known  by  this  name,  both  because  the  Evan- 
 gelists speak  of  it  as  a  spot  well  known,  and  because  the 
 Greek  describes  it  with  the  article  rov  iv^pov,  which  shows 
 that  it  was  well  known. 
 
 To  be  a  bury ing-place  for  strangers. 
 The  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  were  accustomed  to  bury 
 their  dead  either  in  some  public  place,  or  each  on  his  own 
 land,  where  he  had  a  burying-place,  in  which  all  of  the 
 same  family  were  interred.  They  thought  it  a  great  con- 
 solation in  death  to  be  buried  in  the  tombs  of  their  fathers, 
 as  is  clear  from  many  passages  in  the  Books  of  Kings. 
 But  strangers,  having  no  burial-place  in  the  city,  found 
 sepulture  a  matter  of  difficulty.  On  this  public  good  those 
 holy  chiefs  of  the  priests  expended  the  money  brought  to 
 the  Temple  :  for  an  offering  could  not  be  thought  sacred 
 to  God  unless  expended  on  some  pious  work.  This  is  the 
 interpretation  of  Origen.     Others  think  that  the  strangers 
 
 here  referred  to  were  the  Gentiles,  who  sometimes  took  up 
 2—32 
 
498  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.    [Ch.  xxvii.  S,  9. 
 
 their  abode  in  the  city,  or  frequently  visited  it,  but  who,  if 
 they  died  in  it,  had  no  burying  place  ;  for  all  consorting  of 
 Jews  with  Gentiles  was  unlawful,  not  only  in  life  but  even 
 after  death. 
 
 Verse  8.  For  this  cause  the  field  ivns  called  Aceldaina,  that  is, 
 tJie  field  of  blood,  even  to  this  day. 
 It  was  surely  of  the  divine  counsel  that  the  means  used 
 by  them  to  cover  and,  as  it  were,  bury  their  wickedness, 
 carried  it  down,  by  an  enduring  monument,  to  all  posterity. 
 So  that  whenever  Aceldama,  that  field  of  blood,  was  men- 
 tioned, their  wickedness,  as  S.  Chrysostom  and  Euthymius 
 have  observed,  should  be  called  to  mind.  Aceldavia  is  a 
 Syriac  word.  The  Jews  then  used  this  language.  It 
 means  the  "  field  of  blood,"  so  called  as  having  been 
 bought  by  the  price  of  blood.  The  word  is  not  used  by 
 S.  Matthew,  but  its  Greek  equivalent,  the  "  field  of  blood  ". 
 Nor  does  S.  Chrysostom  {in  loc),  or  Eusebius  {Demons.,  x. 
 4),  when  referring  to  this  passage,  make  use  of  it.  It 
 has  been  thought,  with  some  probability,  that  the  word  has 
 crept  into  this  text  from  Acts  i.  19,  where  it  is  used  by  S. 
 Peter. 
 
 Verse  9.   Then  zvas  fulfilled  that  ivhich  ti:as  spoken  by 
 feremias  the  Prophet. 
 
 It  is  an  ancient  and  weighty  question,  how  S.  Matthew 
 cites  these  as  the  words  of  Jercmias,  when  they  are  not  such, 
 but  are  those  of  Zacharias  (xi.  13).  ]\Iuch  labour  has  been 
 bestowed  upon  the  point. 
 
 I.  Some  think  that  they  are  really  Jeremias',  but  taken 
 by  S.  Matthew  from  some  lost  work  of  his.  For  it  is  plain 
 from  the  Books  of  Ki7igs  and  Paralipomcnon  that  other 
 Prophets,  and  Jercmias  most  especially  by  name,  wrote 
 other  books  than  those  wc  have.  We  read  this  in  2  Mac- 
 chab.  ii.  I. 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  9.]      PROPHETS  JEREMIAS   AND   ZACHARIAS.      499 
 
 2.  It  has  been  thought  these  words  were  written  by 
 Jeremias,  and  in  the  book  which  we  have  of  his,  but  that 
 they  were  subsequently  removed  from  the  text  by  the 
 malevolence  of  the  Jews.  Eusebius  holds  this  opinion 
 {Demons.,  x.  4). 
 
 3.  Another  opinion  is  that  they  are  taken  from  some 
 apocryphal  writings  of  Jeremias,  for  even  the  Apostles 
 themselves  sometimes  make  citations  from  such  works,  as 
 S.  Paul  (2  Tim.  iii.  8)  speaks  of  Jannes  and  Jambres,  from, 
 probably,  some  apocryphal  work.  Origen  thought  this, 
 and  S.  Jerome  seems  to  confirm  it,  by  saying  that  a  certain 
 Jew  once  gave  him  an  apocryphal  book  of  Jeremias,  in 
 which  this  citation  was  found  to  the  letter. 
 
 4.  Others  suppose  it  to  have  been  a  lapse  of  memory  in 
 the  Evangelist,  and  that  when  the  name  of  Jeremias  oc- 
 curred to  him,  instead  of  Zacharias,  he  wrote  it :  but  that 
 he  either  discovered  the  mistake  himself  subsequently,  or 
 some  reader  of  his  gospel  pointed  it  out  to  him,  and  he 
 would  not  correct  it  because  he  believed  it  to  be  the  work 
 of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  spoke  the  same  things  by  the 
 mouths  of  all  the  Prophets  ;  and  that  it  could  not  matter 
 what  was  said  by  which  Prophet,  for  the  words  of  all 
 were  common,  so  that  what  is  spoken  by  one  may  be 
 considered  to  have  been  spoken  by  all.  This  is  the 
 opinion  of  S.  Augustin  and  Bede,  but  it  is  wholly  un- 
 tenable. 
 
 For  although  some  learned  men  and  Catholic  authors 
 have  said  that  the  Evangelists  sometimes  commit  errors  of 
 memory,  and  that  the  authority  of  Scripture  is  nowise 
 lessened  thereby,  it  cannot  be  seen  how,  with  the  dictation 
 of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  maintenance  of  the  faith  of  the 
 Scriptures — which  ought  always  to  be  the  highest  and 
 firmest  possible — this  could  have  happened.  To  say  that 
 Jeremias  could  have  been  cited  for  Zacharias  because  the 
 same  Holy  Spirit  says  the  same  thing  by  all  the  Prophets, 
 
500  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxvii.  9. 
 
 appears  to  me  to   do  violence  to  the   inspiration  of  the 
 sacred  text. 
 
 5.  Origen  and  Eusebius  say,  and  without  disapprobation, 
 that  Jeremias  was  inserted  into  the  text  by  mistake  from  its 
 resemblance  to  the  word  Zacharias.  But  there  is  no  such 
 resemblance.  Some  are  of  opinion  that  Zacharias  had  two 
 names,  and  was  sometimes  called  Jeremias;  but  this  requires 
 proof.  Others,  with  the  approbation  of  S.  Augustin, 
 suppose  that  Jeremias  was  really  intended,  and  that  the 
 reference  is  to  chap,  xxxii.  9  and  his  purchase  of  the 
 field.  But  there  is  nothing  in  common  between  this 
 and  the  citation  from  Jeremias  except  the  allusion  to 
 the  field — nothing  of  the  "  potter  "  or  of  the  "  price  "  of 
 him  that  was  prized,  whom  they  prized  of  the  children 
 of  Israel.  Nor  did  Jeremias  buy  a  field  for  thirty  pieces 
 of  silver,  but  for  seventeen  —  ten  pieces  of  silver  and 
 seven  staters. 
 
 Some  say  that  a  prophecy  of  Jeremias  was  intended — 
 not  one  in  his  written  works,  but  one  received  from  tradi- 
 tion, as  the  passage  in  S.  Lukr.  where  Christ  spoke  of 
 the  tower  of  Siloe  (xiii.  4).  This,  if  nothing  better  could 
 be  offered,  might  be  received  as  possible. 
 
 6.  The  best  opinion  seems  to  be  that  of  those  who  say 
 that  the  Evangelist  mentioned  the  name  of  no  Prophet  at 
 all,  but  merely  said,  "Then  was  fulfilled  that  which  was 
 spoken  by  the  Prophet,"  as  in  many  other  instances  (i.  22  ; 
 ii.  5,  15,  23  ;  xiii.  35  ;  xxi.  4  ;  35  of  this  chapter),  and  that 
 some  transcriber,  thinking  the  words  to  be  those  of  Jere- 
 mias, inserted  his  name  in  the  margin,  and  some  one  else 
 placed  it  in  the  text.  In  confirmation  of  this — (i)  the 
 Syriac  version  of  this  Gospel  does  not  contain  the  name  of 
 Jeremias  at  all,  and  (2)  S.  Augustin  {Dc  Cons.,  iii.  7)  says 
 that  in  his  time  the  word  was  not  found  in  several  Latin 
 copies.  Against  this  opinion,  S.  Augustin  argues  that 
 there  was  no  reason  why  the  name  of  Jeremias  should  be 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  9.]     PROPHETS   JEREMIAS   AND   ZACHARIAS.       50I 
 
 added  :  but  there  was  this  one  why  it  should  rather  have 
 been  erased,  that  Jeremias  might  be  thought  to  be  cited 
 wrongly.  It  is  strange,  as  he  says  in  the  same  place  that 
 there  was  sufficient  reason  for  giving  this  prophecy  to 
 Jeremias,  because  he  bought  a  field  (xxxii.  9),  that  he  now 
 denies  that  that  reason  was  sufficient  for  one  who  thought 
 that  the  Evangelist  alluded  to  Jeremias,  to  have  inserted 
 his  name  in  the  margin,  and  another  to  have  transferred  it 
 to  the  text. 
 
 There  may  be  another  reason  for  ascribing  the  passage 
 to  Jeremias.  The  words  of  Zacharias  in  the  LXX.  differ 
 so  widely  from  the  truth  of  the  Hebrew  as  to  have  no 
 resemblance  whatever  to  it ;  so  that  they  could  not  be 
 recognised  by  the  Greek  readers,  who,  in  all  probability, 
 added  the  name  of  Jeremias.  As  regards  the  meaning  of 
 the  passage,  the  Evangelist,  in  accordance  with  his  frequent 
 practice,  describes  neither  word  nor  person,  being  content 
 to  give  the  meaning  and,  as  he  desired,  to  show  the  fulfil- 
 ment of  the  prophecy. 
 
 And  they  took  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver. 
 
 flDDH  a^U^S^  nnpi^l.  "And  I  took"  {accept).  The 
 Prophet  spoke  in  the  first  person  to  show  that  he 
 had  performed  what  the  Lord  commanded.  The  Evan- 
 gelist, with  the  same  meaning,  has  rendered  the  words  in 
 the  third  person,  to  show  that  the  whole  was  fulfilled  by 
 the  priests,  whom  in  this  the  Prophet  represented  ;  although 
 eXa/Bov  in  Greek  may  be  the  first  person  singular. 
 
 The  price  of  him  that  was  prized. 
 
 Trjv  TLfjLrju  Tov  T€Ti/xr]/jb€uov  "^jTil  "^It^.  This  was  called 
 a  little  before  by  the  Prophet  in  other  words,  '^p'^'il  decus 
 pretii  or  pretium  cestiinationis.  The  Evangelist  appears  not 
 to  have  read  Tf'^p''  pretii  or  czstimationis,  but  "Ip''  czstimati, 
 T€TCfirjju.evov,  which  the  Latin  renders  appretiati. 
 
502  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxvii.  io. 
 
 WJioin  they  priced  of  the  children  of  Israel. 
 'Ov  iTi/j,7]aavT0  aizo  v'lOiv  ^lapar'fK,  DH'^^'i^Q  ^PHp^  "^tl^N 
 "  by  which  I  was  prized  by  them  ".  The  Evangelist  has 
 changed  the  first  person  singular  into  the  third  person 
 plural,  and  the  passive  into  the  active  voice,  but  has 
 kept  the  same  meaning.  Whom  they  prized  a  filiis 
 Israel,  that  is,  g2ii  ex  filiis.  The  relative  o'l  is  to  be 
 understood  like  the  Hebrew  "^ll^b^  as  I  have  shown  in 
 my  work.  Idiom.  Hebrcu.  A  similar  example  is  found  in 
 fudith  viii.  17. 
 
 Verse  10.  And  they  gave  tJiem  unto  the pottc^'^s  field,  as  the 
 Lord  appointed  vie. 
 
 Kal  ehwKav    avra   €4?  top    aypov  rod    KepafJi,e(o<i,     y^'Cy^'^ 
 
 ^rs^  n"^n  mn^  h^  -ii^vrr  "And  i  cast  them  (the 
 
 silver  or  the  price)  into  the  house  of  the  Lord  to  the 
 statuary ".  That  is,  that  from  them  a  field  might  be 
 bought,  a  figulo,  as  the  Evangelist  {optivms  interpres)  has 
 expressed  it. 
 
 Thus,  Rabbi  David  Kimshi  and  other  expositors  of  this 
 passage  of  Zacharias  are  not  to  be  trusted,  who  think  that 
 'yr^  figulavi,  "potter,"  was  written  for  "^!it^  by  the  change 
 of  the  letter  ^  thesaurus,  "treasure,"  that  the  meaning  may 
 be,  "  I  cast  it  into  the  house  of  the  Lord,"  to  the  treasure, 
 or  to  the  treasury  ;  that  is,  that  it  might  be  laid  up  among 
 the  sacred  treasures.  If  in  the  Greek  of  the  Evangelist 
 we  read  eScoKu,  dedi  (I  gave),  for  ehwKav,  dederunt  (they 
 gave),  the  Greek  will  agree  with  the  Hebrew.  There  is 
 no  mention  of  the  word  agri  (field)  in  the  Prophet,  but 
 as  it  is  contained  in  a  manner  in  the  word  figuli,  "  potter  " 
 (the  meaning  as  we  have  said,  being  "  I  cast  it  to  the 
 potter,"  that  is,  that  the  field  might  be  bought  by  the 
 potter),  the  Evangelist,  as  explaining  the  Prophet,  ex- 
 pressed it,  et9  Tov  a<ypov  rov  Kepa/Meco^,  i)i  agruui  figuli, 
 unto  the  potter's  field. 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  II.]  THE   potter's   FIELD.  503 
 
 As  tJic  Lord  appointed  me. 
 
 These  words  are  not  found  in  the  Prophet,  but  the  sense 
 and  the  fact  are.  It  was  said  by  the  Prophet  that  the  Lord 
 commanded  him  to  cast  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver  to 
 the  statuary,  that  is,  the  potter.  He  subsequently  says 
 that  he  did  so,  and  thus  fulfilled  the  command  of  the 
 Lord.  The  Prophet  himself  did  not  say  this  in  words, 
 but  he  said  it  in  fact,  by  doing  it.  S.  Matthew  ex- 
 plained the  whole  to  teach  us  that  it  was  done,  not 
 by  accident,  nor  by  the  will  of  man,  but  by  the  com- 
 mand of  God.  Hence  the  priests  bought  the  potter's 
 field  for  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver  by  the  providence 
 and  impulse  of  God. 
 
 Verse  11.  And  Jesus  stood  before  tJie  governor. 
 
 S.  John  (xviii.  28)  says  that  Christ  was  brought  to  the 
 governor's  hall.  But  the  Jews  themselves  did  not  venture 
 to  enter,  lest  they  should  be  defiled,  and  that  they  might 
 be  able  to  eat  the  Pasch.  Pilate  went  out  to  them, 
 therefore,  and  asked  them  :  "  What  accusation  bring 
 you  against  this  man  ? "  These  words  were  spoken  as 
 if  intended  to  show  that  Pilate  himself  thought  Jesus 
 innocent.  As  if  he  had  said :  "  What  offence  can  be 
 brought  against  this  just  man  ? "  The  Jews,  as  if  the 
 question  had  done  them  some  injustice,  replied  (verse 
 30)  :  "If  He  were  not  a  malefactor  we  would  not  have 
 delivered  Him  up  to  thee  ".  After  these  words  should  be 
 placed  those  of  S.  Luke  (xxiii.  2) :  "  And  they  began  to 
 accuse  Him,  saying.  We  found  this  man  perverting  our 
 nation,  and  forbidding  to  give  tribute  to  Caesar,  and  saying 
 that  He  is  Christ  the  King  ".  Then  follows  S.  John  (xviii. 
 31):  "Pilate  therefore  said  to  them,  Take  Him  you,  and 
 judge  Him  according  to  your  law".  It  appears  that  the 
 governor  tried  every  means  possible  to  avoid  judging  Christ 
 
504  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxvii.  ii. 
 
 The  Jews,  therefore,  said  to  him  :  "  It  is  not  lawful  for  us 
 to  put  any  man  to  death".  S.  John  adds:  "That  the 
 word  of  Jesus  might  be  fulfilled  which  He  said  signifying 
 what  death  He  should  die" — referring  to  S.  ]\IattJiew  yiyi. 
 1 8,  19.  S.  John  intimates  that  the  Jews  would  not  use  the 
 power  given  to  them  by  the  governor  (xviii.  31):  "Take 
 Him  you  and  judge  Him  according  to  your  law,"  because 
 it  was  not  lawful  for  them  to  crucify  anyone.  And  this 
 was  the  death  they  especially  designed  for  Christ,  and  that 
 by  which  Christ  had  foretold  that  He  should  die.  Or 
 they  may  have  supposed  that  Pilate  spoke  ironically. 
 S.  John  signifies  that  it  was  not  from  the  virtue  of 
 the  Jews,  but  rather  from  their  cruelty,  and  from  the 
 divine  counsel  by  which  it  was  decreed  that  Christ  should 
 be  crucified,  that  the  Jews  w^ould  not  judge  Him  by  their 
 law. 
 
 After  these  things,  as  S.  John  says,  the  governor  entered 
 into  the  hall,  and  while  the  Jews  stood  without,  called 
 Christ  to  him,  and  asked  Him,  in  the  words  of  S.  Matthew 
 and  S.  John,  "Art  Thou  the  king  of  the  Jews?"  The 
 governor  asked,  then,  only  of  the  kingship  and  tribute,  the 
 latter  being  contained  in  the  former.  If  Christ  were  a 
 king,  He  would  undoubtedly  refuse  tribute  to  Caesar. 
 For  the  Jews  raised  these  two  objections  amongst  others, 
 which  they  thought  likely  to  influence  Pilate  :  (i)  That 
 He  made  Himself  a  king  ;  and  (2)  that  He  taught 
 that  it  was  unlawful  to  give  tribute  to  Caesar.  These 
 accusations  could  be  answered  even  by  their  own  evidence  ; 
 for  when  they  asked  Him  whether  it  were  lawful  to  give 
 tribute  to  Caesar,  He  answered  :  "  Render  to  Caesar  the 
 things  that  are  Caesar's,  and  to  God  the  things  that  arc 
 God's"  (xxii.  21).  There  were  also  Roman  witnesses,  and 
 Jewish  publicans,  who  could  testify  that  Christ  not  only 
 taught  them  to  pay  tribute  to  Ci\:sar,  but  even  paid  it  Him- 
 self.      They  object  nevertheless,  against  their  own   con- 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  II.]  CHRIST   BEFORE   PILATE.  505 
 
 sciences,  an  odious  offence,  and  one  that  they  knew  would 
 appear  the  more  probable  to  Pilate,  because  the  sect  of  the 
 Herodians  was  then  flourishing,  who  are  believed  to  have 
 held  it  unlawful  for  Jews  to  pay  tribute  to  a  foreign  king, 
 as  has  been  explained  (xxii.  16). 
 
 TJwiL  saycst  it. 
 
 The  words  of  S.  John  (xviii.  33,  34),  "Art  Thou  the 
 king  of  the  Jews?  Jesus  answered,  Sayest  thou  this  thing 
 of  thyself,  or  have  others  told  it  thee  of  Me  ?  "  are  to  be 
 placed  before  these.  Christ  would  appear  by  these  words 
 to  have  pricked  the  conscience  of  Pilate,  as  if  He  had  said, 
 "Thou  knowest  that  I  am  not  the  king  of  the  Jews,  but 
 thou  askest  this  at  their  demand  ".  Pilate  answered,  "  Am 
 I  a  Jew  ?  Thy  own  nation  and  the  chief  priests  have 
 delivered  Thee  up  to  me;  what  hast  Thou  done?"  He 
 saw  that  he  was  constrained  by  Christ,  and  he  therefore 
 appears  to  have  answered  with  anger  that  he  had  not 
 asked  this  of  his  own  will :  for  he  was  not  a  Jew  ;  but  he 
 performed  the  duties  of  a  judge,  and  he  was  compelled  as 
 such  to  examine  Christ  on  the  points  that  were  brought 
 against  Him  by  the  Jews  who  had  delivered  Him  up  to 
 him.  Jesus  answered  :  "  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world" 
 — that  is,  it  is  not  mundane,  not  of  the  earth,  not  temporal, 
 but  heavenly  and  spiritual.  It  is  not  only  the  society  of 
 the  blessed,  but  the  congregation  of  the  faithful,  even  upon 
 earth.  It  is  in  the  world,  yet  it  is  not  of  the  world.  It 
 has  its  beginning  not  from  the  earth,  but  from  heaven,  as 
 Christ  is  its  head.  By  Him  it  is  assembled  and  formed. 
 It  descends  from  heaven  ;  for  faith,  which  is  its  form,  and 
 charity,  which  is  its  bond  and  hope,  which  promises  its 
 rewards,  are  sent  from  heaven,  as  Christ  said  {S.  Jo/ai  viii. 
 23  ;  XV.  19).  The  whole  question  may  be  answered  thus  : 
 Christ,  as  He  is  God,  is  not  only  the  spiritual,  but  also  the 
 temporal  King  of  the  whole  world,  both  of  the  higher  and 
 
506  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxvii.  ii. 
 
 of  the  lower.  Hence  {Apoc.  xix.  i6),  "  He  hath  on  His 
 garment  and  on  His  thigh  written,  King  of  kings  and 
 Lord  of  lords":  to  show  that  He  is  not  King  by  force,  nor 
 by  oppression,  nor  by  election,  nor  by  adoption,  but  by 
 nature:  for  this  is  the  meaning  of  "His  thigh";  and  because 
 by  nature  being  in  the  form  of  a  servant,  He  thought  it 
 "  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God  "  {Philip,  ii.  6).  Abra- 
 ham commanded  his  steward  to  put  his  hand  under  his 
 (Abraham's)  thigh,  and  swear  by  the  God  of  heaven  and 
 earth,  because  Christ  would  be  born  of  his  thigh  {Gen.  xxiv. 
 2).  Christ  assuredly,  as  He  is  man,  is  the  Spiritual  King 
 of  the  whole  Church.  This  is  the  kingdom  which  He 
 bought  for  the  Father  with  His  blood,  and  which  He  will 
 give  back  to  Him  at  the  end  of  the  world  (i  Cor.  xv.  24). 
 This  is  the  kingdom  of  which  David  says,  in  Ps.  ii.  6-8, 
 "  I  am  appointed  king  by  Him  "  ;  he  immediately  goes  on 
 to  describe  it  as  a  spiritual  and  not  a  temporal  kingdom, 
 "preaching  His  commandment"  upon  His  holy  mountain, 
 because  that  Sion  is  to  be  understood  in  a  spiritual 
 sense,  as  S.  Augustin  says  {Tract,  cxv.  on  S.JoJui).  To 
 teach  the  precepts  of  God  is  the  work  not  of  a  temporal, 
 but  of  a  spiritual  King.  This  is  the  kingdom  of  which 
 David  sa}'s  in  the  same  second  Psalm  :  "  I  will  give  thee 
 the  Gentiles  for  thy  inheritance  "  ;  because  the  Church  was 
 to  be  spread  throughout  the  whole  earth,  and  carried  from 
 sea  to  sea.  This  is  the  kingdom  of  which  Christ  spoke 
 after  His  Resurrection  (.V.  Matt,  xxviii.  18,  19).  He  de- 
 scribes the  nature  of  its  power  in  the  verse  following  : 
 "  Going,  teach  ye  all  nations,  baptising  them  in  the  name  of 
 the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost".  These 
 are  not  the  acts  of  a  temporal,  but  of  a  spiritual  King.  And 
 as  in  a  temporal  kingdom  the  king  alone  has  power  to  make 
 the  laws,  so  Christ  alone  in  the  Church  has  power  to 
 institute  the  Sacraments,  which  are  the  remedy  for  sin  in 
 His  spiritual  kingdom,  like  the  laws  in  a  republic.     But  as 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  12.]  CHRISTS   KINGSHIP.  50/ 
 
 far  as  Christ  is  man,  He  is  not  the  temporal  king  of  the 
 whole  world.  So  says  S.  Augustin  in  the  passage  just 
 cited,  and  all  good  teachers  agree  in  the  same  view. 
 For  if  so  He  must  be  king  :  (i)  By  a  natural,  (2)  by 
 a  divine,  or  (3)  by  a  human  law.  He  was  not  king 
 by  a  natural  law,  because  He  was  not  the  son  of  a  king, 
 which  is  to  be  a  king  by  nature.  He  was  not  a  king 
 by  divine  right,  because  all  the  Scriptures  which  speak 
 of  His  kingdom  are  to  be  understood,  as  S.  Augustin  says, 
 of  a  spiritual  kingdom.  He  was  not  king  by  a  human  law, 
 because  He  w^as  not  chosen  to  be  such  by  the  consent  of 
 the  whole  world  ;  and  when  the  Jews  wanted  to  take  Him 
 by  force  and  make  Him  a  king.  He  escaped  from  them  (5. 
 John  vi.  15).  Christ  shows  (5.  JoJin  xviii.  36)  that  His  king- 
 dom was  not  of  the  world,  for  if  it  had  been.  He  would  have 
 had  servants  of  this  world  to  fight  for  Him.  But  He  was 
 so  far  from  having,  or  desiring  to  have,  an  earthly  kingdom, 
 that  He  rebuked  Peter  severely  for  wounding  the  servant  of 
 the  high  priest  in  self-defence,  and  commanded  him  to  put 
 up  his  sword  again  into  the  sheath,  signifying  that  his  ser- 
 vants were  not  of  earth  but  heaven  :  that  is,  they  were  the 
 angels  (xxvi.  53).  Pilate  now  asked  Him  if  He  were  a 
 king,  and  He  answered,  as  here  related  by  S.  Matthew 
 (verse  11),  "Thou  sayest".  By  this  expresssion  He 
 answered,  not  ambiguously,  as  S.  Augustin  and  some 
 others  think,  but  firmly,  that  He  was  a  king,  using  the 
 same  words  as  supra,  chap.  xxvi.  25-64. 
 
 Verse  12.  And  wJien  He  luas  accused  by  the  cJiicf  priests  and 
 ancients,  He  anszuered  nothing. 
 
 S.  Lnke  xxiii.  4  should  come  before  this,  for,  as  S.  John 
 says  (xviii.  38),  Pilate,  after  he  had  questioned  Christ 
 as  to  whether  He  were  a  king,  went  out  to  the  Jews  who 
 were  outside  the  praetorium,  and  said,  "  I  find  no  cause," 
 that  is,  no  fault,  "in  Him  ". 
 
508  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.    [Ch.  xxvii.  13,  14. 
 
 Verse  1 3.   TJicu  Pilate  said  to  Him,  Dost  Thou  not  hear  hoiv 
 great  testimonies  they  allege  against  Thee  ? 
 
 S.  Matthew  does  not  mention  these  testimonies,  but  S. 
 Luke  (xxiii.  5,  6)  does.  Herod  was  glad  when  he  saw 
 Christ,  because  he  had  heard  much  about  Him  before,  and 
 he  desired  to  see  some  sign  from  Him.  He  questioned 
 Christ  much,  but  He  did  not  answer.  The  chief  priests 
 and  scribes  vehemently  accused  Him  to  Herod.  Herod, 
 when  Christ  answered  nothing,  held  Him  in  contempt, 
 and  put  a  white  robe  upon  Him  as  an  opprobrium,  and 
 sent  Him  back  to  Pilate  ;  and  Pilate  and  Herod  were 
 made  friends  from  that  day,  when  they  had  before  been 
 at  variance. 
 
 When  Christ  was  sent  back  to  Pilate,  Pilate  called  the 
 chief  priests  and  said  to  them,  the  ofificers,  and  the  people 
 (.S".  Luke  xxiii.  14-16):  "You  have  presented  unto  me  this 
 man  as  one  that  pervertcth  the  people,  and  behold  I,  having 
 examined  Him  before  you,  find  no  cause  in  this  man  in 
 those  things  wherein  you  accuse  Him  ;  no,  nor  Herod 
 neither.  For  I  sent  you  to  him,  and  behold,  nothing 
 worthy  of  death  is  done  to  Him.  I  will  chastise  Him, 
 therefore,  and  release  Him."  This  may  be  understood 
 cither  of  stripes  or  of  words.  At  these  words  of  Pilate 
 the  Jews  probably  began  to  insist  and  be  urgent,  and  to 
 accuse  Christ,  although  the  Evangelists  do  not  mention  it. 
 Pilate  may  then  have  said  what  S.  Matthew  has  related  : 
 "  Dost  Thou  not  hear  how  great  testimonies  they  allege 
 against  Thee  ?  "  (v.  14). 
 
 Verse  14.  And  He  a?isiuered  him  to  never  a  zuord,  so  that 
 the  governor  zvondered  exceedingly. 
 
 It  may  appear  strange  that  Christ  kept  such  a  resolute 
 silence  now,  especially  as  He  previously  answered  so  freely. 
 The  reason  of  His  having  answered  before  was  clearly  that 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  15.]      SILENCE   OF   CHRIST    BEFORE   PILATE.        509 
 
 He  was  then   examined  as  to  whether  He  were  a  king  ; 
 that  is,  whether  He   were  the  Christ :    a  fact  which   He 
 could  not  deny,  as  He  had  come  into  this  world  to  teach 
 that  He  was  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God. 
 Many  reasons  may  be  given  for  His  present  silence  : 
 
 1.  (which  is  deduced  per  contrariuni).  He  was  not  now 
 asked  about  the  chief  question,  but  about  the  commotion  of 
 the  people.  His  doctrine,  and  other  similar  subjects  of  which, 
 as  open  and  notorious,  they  could  not  be  ignorant  ;  and 
 there  was  therefore  no  need  for  Him  to  answer  about  them, 
 as  He  had  before  answered  the  chief  priest  {S.  John  xviii. 
 20). 
 
 2.  The  reason  given  by  S.  Ambrose  {Coj/nn.  on  S.  Luke), 
 S.  Chrysostom,  and  Euthymius  {in  ioc),  is  that  Christ  knew 
 that  if  He  did  answer,  the  Jews  would  not  believe  Him,  as 
 He  had  said  {S.  Luke  xxii.  67). 
 
 3.  Theophylact  says  that  if  He  had  answered,  the  anger 
 of  the  Jews  would  have  been  excited,  and  their  offence 
 made  greater. 
 
 4.  S.  Jerome  and  Bede  say  that  if  He  had  answered  and 
 confuted  the  accusation,  He  would  have  been  acquitted, 
 and  the  fruit  of  the  Cross,  our  salvation,  would  have 
 perished. 
 
 5.  S.  Ambrose  said  that  He  was  silent  because  He 
 needed  no  defence :  "  The  Lord  is  accused  and  He  holds 
 His  peace.  He  is  rightly  silent  who  needs  no  defence. 
 They  take  pains  to  defend  themselves  who  fear  to  be  con- 
 victed. Christ  did  not  confirm  the  accusation  by  His 
 silence :  He  despised  it  by  not  replying  to  it." 
 
 6.  The  prophecy  was  fulfilled  by  this  very  silence  {Isa. 
 liii.  7). 
 
 Verse  1 5 .  Noiv  upon  the  solemn  day. 
 
 The  day  of  Pasch,  which  was  especially  called  the 
 solemn  day  (6".  John  xviii.  39;.      Whether  the  Jews  ob- 
 
510  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.    [Ch.  xxvii.  i6,  17. 
 
 tained  this  as  a  new  boon  from  the  Romans  when  these 
 took  possession  of  Judaea,  or  it  was  an  ancient  custom  con- 
 tinued to  them  by  the  Romans,  is  uncertain.  It  was  most 
 probably  an  ancient  Jewish  tradition  to  set  at  liberty  a 
 prisoner  on  this  day,  in  remembrance  of  their  delivery  out 
 of  Egypt. 
 
 Verse  16.  And  he  had  then  a  notorious  prisoner  that  was 
 called  Barabbas. 
 
 Notorious  —  eTriai-jfiov,  "  remarkable,"  "  notorious,"  but 
 in  a  bad  sense.  He  was  in  prison,  not  for  virtue,  but 
 for  his  crimes.  S.  Mark  (xv.  7),  S.  Luke  (xxiii.  19),  and 
 S.  John  (xviii.  40)  call  him  Xtjo-ttiv,  the  equivalent  of 
 the  Latin  word  latro,  one  who  robs  and  murders  on  the 
 highway  ;  a  robber  on  a  large  scale,  not  a  petty  thief 
 (KXeTTTrjv). 
 
 Verse  17.    JVhom  ivill  yon  that  I  release  to  you,  Barabbas,  or 
 Jesus  that  is  called  Christ  ? 
 
 It  is  clear  from  many  circumstances  that  Pilate  sought 
 by  every  means  in  his  power  to  release  Christ,  i.  As  soon 
 as  Christ  was  brought  before  him,  he  asked  the  Jews  what 
 accusation  they  brought  against  Him  (5.  John  xviii.  29). 
 This  was  equivalent,  as  before  said,  to  his  asking  them 
 what  accusation  they  brought  against  one  who  was  both 
 just  and  innocent.  2.  When  he  had  questioned  Christ 
 within  the  pra^torium,  he  went  out  to  the  Jews,  and  said, 
 "  I  find  no  cause  in  this  man  "  {S.  Liike  xxiii.  4 ;  5.  John 
 xviii.  38)  ;  and  when  he  heard  that  Christ  had  taught 
 throughout  all  Galilee,  he  gladly  seized  the  occasion  of 
 sending  Him  as  a  Galilean  to  Herod  {S.  Luke  xxiii.  7). 
 When  He  was  sent  back  by  Herod,  he  again  endeavoured 
 to  set  Him  free,  saying  that  neither  he  himself  nor  Herod 
 found  any  fault  in  Him.  When  this  did  not  mitigate  the 
 rage  of  the  Jews,  he  would  have  chastised  Him,  whether 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  17.]  BARABBAS.  511 
 
 with  blows  or  words,  and  let  Him  go  (5.  Luke  xxiii.  i6). 
 Pilate  now  brings  their  religion  before  the  Jews,  that,  at 
 least  from  respect  to  the  solemn  feast,  when  criminals  were 
 released,  Christ,  against  whom  no  fault  could  be  proved, 
 might  be  set  free.  He  used  still  other  means.  He  does 
 not  name  Christ  singly,  nor  with  a  number  of  others,  but 
 with  Barabbas,  the  most  wicked  of  men,  that  the  Jews, 
 unless  they  were  wholly  blind,  or  beyond  measure  lost, 
 might  be  compelled  to  choose  Christ.  Who  could  have 
 supposed  that  Barabbas — a  homicide,  a  seditious  man, 
 and  a  public  robber  —  would  have  been  preferred  to 
 Christ,  against  whom  nothing  could  be  objected,  or  at 
 least  substantiated?  But  the  hatred  of  the  Jews  and 
 the  unjust  conduct  of  Pilate  prevailed.  But  Pilate  still 
 endeavoured  to  release  Christ,  for  when  the  Jews  in- 
 sisted, "Away  with  Him,  crucify  Him"  {S.John  xix. 
 15),  he  exclaimed:  "Shall  I  crucify  your  king?"  as 
 if  it  were  against  their  honour  to  do  this  deed,  however 
 bad  His  conduct — for  kings  are  beheaded,  not  crucified. 
 The  chief  thing  was  the  sending  of  the  messenger  by 
 Pilate's  wife  to  warn  him  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  that 
 just  man,  who,  she  had  heard  from  the  Jews,  declared  Him- 
 self to  be  the  Son  of  God.  Thus,  as  Pilate  had  previously 
 endeavoured,  from  justice  and  religion,  to  set  Christ  free,  he 
 now  attempted  the  same  thing  from  fear.  These  events 
 are  all  related  by  the  Evangelists,  no  doubt  to  show  us  how 
 unjustly  Christ  was  condemned — (i)  when  a  wicked  and 
 unjust  judge  sought  again  and  again,  from  mere  motives  of 
 religion  and  justice,  to  set  Him  free  ;  (2)  from  a  com- 
 parison of  Pilate  and  the  Jews  to  show  the  incredible 
 iniquity  and  injustice  of  both  ;  (3)  that  from  the  manner  of 
 His  condemnation,  extorted  as  it  was  by  importunity  from 
 an  unjust  judge,  who  was  wholly  averse  to  the  act,  it  might 
 be  seen  that  Christ  was  given  over  to  the  cross,  not  so  much 
 by  man,  as  by  the  will  of  the  Father. 
 
512  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxvii.  19. 
 
 Verse  19.  A7id  as  he  zvas  sitting  in  the  place  of  Judgment. 
 That  is,  this  happened  very  opportunely,  as  Pilate  was 
 now  ready  to  give  sentence,  that  the  whole  act  might  seem 
 not  to  have  been  brought  about  by  chance,  but  ordered  by 
 the  Divine  Will.  S.  Matthew,  who  is  the  only  narrator  of 
 the  event,  has  implied  this. 
 
 His  wife  sent  to  him,  saying,  Have  thou  jiotJiing  to  do  zvith 
 that  jnst  ma7i. 
 That  is,  do  not  be  concerned  in  His  condemnation. 
 Pilate's  wife  called  Christ  a  just  man  both  from  common 
 report  and  from  her  dream.  She  used  the  word  "just"  to 
 persuade  Pilate  the  more  easily  either  by  fear  or  religion. 
 She  was  no  doubt  a  pious  woman,  and  either  previously, 
 or  now  from  her  dream,  believed  in  Christ.  At  the  same 
 time  she  may  have  had  some  good  womanly  feeling,  and 
 feared  lest  any  evil  should  befal  her  husband  if  he  con- 
 demned a  just  man. 
 
 For  I  have  suffered  many  things  this  day  in  a  dream  because 
 of  Him. 
 
 The  Evangelist  has  not  told  us  what  it  was,  but  we  may 
 easily  believe  that  she  was  taught  at  once  that  Christ  was 
 innocent  and  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  she 
 foresaw  the  evils  that  would  happen  to  Jerusalem  from  His 
 death,  and  feared  lest  Pilate,  as  the  author  of  it,  might  be 
 involved  in  them. 
 
 It  has  been  asked  of  what  nature  the  dream  was. 
 Writers  on  the  subject  have  described  four  kinds  of 
 dreams  :  i.  The  natural  dream,  such  as  those  of  bile,  san- 
 guineousness,  and  melancholy.  2.  The  moral  dreams,  aris- 
 ing from  our  desires,  actions,  thoughts,  and  manner  of  life. 
 In  these  we  dream  of  what  we  do,  or  think  strongly 
 about,  or  desire.  Hence  Plato  justly  thought  that  the 
 dreams  of  a  philosopher  and  a  wise  man  were  different  to 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  ig.]  DREAM   OF   PILATE'S   WIFE.  513 
 
 those  of  ordinary  persons  {In  ThecBtetd).  3.  The  divine 
 dream,  which  is  frequently  sent  by  God  either  with  or 
 without  the  agency  of  angels.  Of  these  there  are  many 
 notable  examples  in  Scripture,  as  we  have  shown  (ii.   13). 
 
 4.  The  diabolical  dream,  which  comes  from  the  devils  ; 
 such  are  impure  dreams. 
 
 That  the  dream  of  Pilate's  wife  was  a  natural  dream,  no 
 one  can  say  with  any  appearance  of  probability.  Some 
 think,  or  do  not  deny,  that  it  was  a  moral  dream,  she 
 having  dreamed  of  Christ  that  night  because  she  knew  that 
 He  was  accused  by  the  Jews.  There  was  not  only  a 
 common,  but  a  very  ancient  opinion,  as  we  learn  from  S. 
 Ignatius  {Ep.  v.  to  Philip.)  and  from  Bede  (iti  loc),  that  it 
 was  a  diabolical  dream.  For  the  devil  had  begun  to  per- 
 ceive the  Divinity  of  Christ,  and  to  understand  the  mystery 
 of  His  death,  by  which  the  world  would  be  freed ;  and  that 
 he  thus  endeavoured  to  prevent  His  death.  This  opinion, 
 however  supported,  appears  quite  untenable.  For  we  have 
 shown  that  Satan  had  already  discovered  the  Divinity  of 
 Christ  (iv.),  and  if  he  wished  to  hinder  His  death,  why 
 did  he  not  rather  act  upon  the  minds  of  the  Jews,  who 
 were  the  authors  of  the  entire  tragedy,  than  terrify  by 
 dreams  a  stranger  woman,  in  whose  sex  even  true  divina- 
 tions are  considered  mere  illusive  dreams  ? 
 
 The  dream,  therefore,  was  sent  by  God.  This  is  the 
 opinion  of  Origen,  S.  Hilary,  S.  Leo  {Serin,  xi.  de  Pass.), 
 
 5.  Chrysostom,  S.  Jerome,  Euthymius,  and  Theophylact 
 {in  loc). 
 
 It  has  been  asked  why  the  dream  was  not  sent  by  God 
 to  Pilate  rather  than  to  his  wife.  S.  Chrysostom,  Theo- 
 phylact, and  Euthymius  give  two  reasons  :  either  Pilate 
 was  unworthy  of  a  revelation  from  God  ;  or  he  would  have 
 been  suspected  by  the  Jews  of  having  invented  the  account, 
 the  better  to  procure  the  acquittal  of  Christ.  God,  if  we 
 may  form  a  conjecture  on  the  subject,  may  have  chosen 
 
514  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxvii.  23. 
 
 that  Christ's  condemnation  should  have  been  so  conducted 
 that  His  innocence  should  be  shown  by  every  means,  by 
 the  opinion  of  men  of  all  classes,  and,  as  it  were,  even  by 
 the  consent  of  the  elements  themselves. 
 
 Not  only  the  Jews,  then,  many  of  whom  believed  in 
 Him  :  not  only  the  judge  who  had  to  give  sentence  in  His 
 cause :  not  only  the  judge's  wife,  a  woman  previously  un- 
 godly, and,  as  a  witness,  capable  of  no  suspicion  of  double- 
 dealing  :  not  only  the  centurion  and  the  soldiers,  who  had 
 a  little  before  heaped  revilings  upon  Him  ;  but  the  dark- 
 ened sun,  the  rent  rocks,  the  divided  veil,  the  earthquake, 
 all  gave  evidence  of  the  innocence  and  the  Divinity  of 
 Christ. 
 
 Origen,  S.  Chrysostom,  and  Theophylact  think  it  pro- 
 bable that  the  wife  of  Pilate  was  saved  through  that 
 dream  of  Christ. 
 
 Verse  23.    What  evil  hath  He  done  ? 
 
 S.  Mark  (xv.  14)  says  the  same  thing  and  in  the  same 
 words.  S.  Luke  says,  rt  7ap  kukov  iiroLija-e.  The  causal 
 particle  yap,  "  for,"  renders  the  meaning  difficult,  for  it 
 does  not  seem  clear  what  is  its  force.  The  Jews  cried  out, 
 "  Crucify  Him  ".  Pilate  answered,  "  Why,  what  evil  hath 
 He  done  ?  "  We  may  suppose,  therefore,  that  yap  is  put 
 for  ovv,  the  meaning  being,  "  If  you  wish  me  to  crucify 
 Him,  what  evil  has  He  done  that  I  should  do  so  ? "  that  is, 
 "  Give  me  a  reason  for  such  an  act ".  Pilate  appears  to  have 
 answered,  not  to  what  was  said,  but  to  what  was  understood. 
 For  the  Evangelists  do  not  recount  all  the  events  ;  but  S. 
 John  says,  that  when  the  Jews  raised  the  cry,  "  Crucify 
 Him,"  Pilate  answered,  "Shall  I  crucify  your  king?"  as 
 meaning,  "  I  will  not  do  so,  for  what  evil  has  He  done?" 
 S.  Luke  adds  that  Pilate  said,  "  I  will  chastise  Him  and 
 release  Him ".  TraiSeucra?  ovv,  "  either  by  words  or  by 
 scourges".     It  appears  from  S.  John,  as  we  shall  shortly 
 
Ch.  xxvii.  24.]      PILATE  S  EFFORTS  TO  RELEASE  CHRIST.     515 
 
 show,  that  He  was  scourged.  After  this,  which  is  described 
 in  the  same  manner  by  S.  ]\Iatthew  and  S.  Mark,  He  was 
 beaten  with  rods,  crowned  with  thorns,  robed  in  purple, 
 and  led  forth  to  the  Jews,  Pilate  saying  his  Ecce  homo  : 
 that  by  this  unhappy  spectacle  the  ferocious  minds  of  the 
 Jews  might  be  pacified.  But  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark, 
 because  they  had  begun  to  describe  the  condemnation  of 
 Christ,  and  to  avoid  breaking  the  thread  of  the  history, 
 put  these  things  first.  Such  is  the  opinion  of  S.  Augustin 
 {De  Consens.,  iii.  9).  S.  Hilary,  however,  thinks  that  they 
 have  kept  the  order  of  events.  Some  say  that  Christ  was 
 scourged  twice.  Firstly,  now  at  this  time  to  mitigate  the 
 rage  of  the  Jews,  that,  being  contented  with  this  punishment, 
 they  might  release  Him,  as  S.  John  says  ;  and  a  second  time 
 when  He  had  been  condemned.  For  S.  Jerome  says  that 
 it  was  the  custom  of  the  Romans  to  crucify  no  man  until 
 he  had  been  scourged.  This  can  easily  be  believed  of  the 
 cruelty  of  the  Jews,  though  there  is  no  proof  of  it  in  the 
 Gospels.     Bede,  however,  approved  it. 
 
 Verse  24.  And  Pilate  seeing  that  he  prevailed  nothing,  but 
 that  rather  a  tiinmlt  was  made. 
 
 This  does  not  excuse  Pilate  but  Christ,  while  it  shows 
 that  the  governor,  without  any  fitting  testimony  or  any 
 proof  of  crime,  but  only  from  fear  of  a  popular  tumult,  con- 
 demned Christ,  and  in  such  a  manner  that  his  condemna- 
 tion was,  in  truth,  His  acquittal. 
 
 Taking  water,  ivasJied  his  Jiajids  before  the  people. 
 Some  think  that  it  was  not  the  custom  of  the  Jews 
 alone  that  the  judges  of  life  and  death  should  wash  their 
 hands,  as  in  Dent.  xxi.  6,  but  that  heathen  nations  did  the 
 same,  as  they  find  in  Sophocles  and  Virgil  {/En.,  ii.  717). 
 It  may  have  been  the  custom  of  other  nations,  but  it  was 
 not  that  of  the  Romans,  as  Origen  has  observed,  and  as 
 
5l6  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.   [Ch.  xxvii.  25,  26. 
 
 we  learn  from  their  historians.  Pilate,  though  a  Roman, 
 in  the  cause  of  a  Jew  and  before  Jewish  judges,  wished  by 
 this  means  to  testify  his  innocence.  The  Jews  he  knew 
 practised  the  washing  of  hands  as  a  proof  of  innocence, 
 as  shown  by  the  passage  of  Deuteronomy  cited  above,  and 
 by  Psalm  xxv,  6  :  "I  will  wash  my  hands  among  the 
 innocent "  ;  but  an  offence  of  such  gravity  is  not  washed 
 away  by  water,  and  S.  Leo  has  well  said,  "  The  washing  of 
 his  hands  did  not  cleanse  the  defilement  of  Pilate's  mind, 
 nor  did  the  sprinkling  of  water  upon  them  expiate  the 
 wickedness  of  his  soul.  The  wickedness  of  the  Jews 
 surpassed  the  offence  of  Pilate.  They  compelled  him  from 
 fear  of  Cresar,  and  by  their  voices,  to  the  committal  of  this 
 crime  ;  but  he  did  not  escape  the  guiltiness  of  the  act  by 
 resigning  his  proper  office  of  judge,  when,  in  co-operation 
 with  these  seditious  men,  he  fell  into  the  commission  of  a 
 heinous  crime  "  {Scrm.  viii.  dc  Pass.). 
 
 I  am  innocent  of  the  blood  of  this  just  man. 
 
 Pilate  expressed  in  words  what  he  signified  by  the  act  of 
 washing  ;  and  before  he  condemned  Christ  he  acquitted 
 Him,  calling  Him  "  that  just  man  ".  At  the  same  time  he, 
 by  these  same  words,  condemned  himself,  by  sentencing 
 one  whom  he  had  so  called.  He  spoke  falsely,  therefore, 
 when  he  said,  "  I  am  innocent "  ;  for  he  could  not  be  so, 
 having  condemned  the  innocent. 
 
 Verse  25.  His  blood  be  vpon  us  afid  upon  07ir  children. 
 
 This  is  a  Hebraism  for  "  We  will  bear  the  penalty " 
 {Lcvit.  XX.  9,  12,  16;  fosh.  ii.  19  ;  2  Ki7igs  i.  16;  Eack. 
 xxxiii.  4  ;  Osea  xii.  14). 
 
 Verse  26.  Having  scourged. 
 (See  verse  23.)    What  kind  of  scourge  it  was  is  unknown, 
 and  it  is  useless  to  enquire.     It  is  commonly  supposed  to 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  27,28.]    THE   SCOURGE — CROWN — REED,  517 
 
 have  been  made  of  thorns.  Euthymius  conjectures  that  it 
 may  have  been  of  cords,  or  thongs  of  leather*  It  was  more 
 probably  of  twigs,  such  as  the  Romans  used,  and  such  as 
 were  carried  by  the  lictors  before  the  consuls. 
 
 Then  the  soldiers  of  the  governor. 
 The  word  "  then  "  in  this  instance  does  not  mean  con- 
 secutiveness  of  the  events  related,  but  the  whole  period  of 
 Christ's  Passion.  For  we  have  shown  from  ^^  Joh7t  (on 
 verse  23)  that  the  things  which  S.  Matthew  describes 
 as  having  been  done  then,  had  been  done  before.  The 
 word  "  then "  means  here  sub  idem  tempiis^  "  about  the 
 time  "  ;  that  is,  a  little  before. 
 
 Verse  27.  Taking  Jesus  into  the  hall. 
 That  is,  into  the  place  where  the  tribunal  of  the  praetor 
 was,  which  was  called  the  praitorium.  S.  Mark  explains  it 
 (chap.  XV.  16).  It  was  in  the  hall,  or  somewhere  near  it  ; 
 where  they  who  had  causes  for  trial  might  assemble.  Why 
 the  soldiers  led  Christ  into  that  place  may  be  conjectured 
 from  the  event.  They  wished  to  place  Him  in  the 
 tribunal,  as  a  king  in  mockery.  We  see  this  from  the 
 crown  which  they  placed  on  His  head,  and  the  purple  robe 
 which  they  put  upon  Him,  and  the  reed  which  they  gave 
 Him  for  a  sceptre.  Finally,  they  placed  Him  on  the 
 tribunal  as  on  a  throne.  We  conclude,  from  6".  John 
 xix.  I,  2,  that  all  that  the  soldiers  did  they  did,  by  com- 
 mand of  Pilate. 
 
 Gathered  together  unto  Hhn  the  whole  band. 
 As  if  to  a  king,  to  render  their  mockery  more  complete. 
 
 Verse  28.  And,  stripping  Him,  they  put  a  scarlet  cloak 
 
 about  Him. 
 S.  Mark  (xv.  17)  and  S.  John  (xix.  2)  explain  the  word 
 "  scarlet "  by  purple.      Everyone  knows  that  purple  was 
 
5l8  THE   GOSPEL   OF    S.   MATTHEW.    [Ch.  xxvii.  29,32. 
 
 the  proper  colour  of  kings,  not  only  among  the  Romans, 
 but  other  nations  as  well.  Kings  allowed  some  favourites 
 to  wear  purple  as  a  peculiar  privilege  (3  Esdras  iii.  6  ; 
 I  Macchab.  x.  20  ;  xi.  58  ;  xiv.  43,  44). 
 
 Verse  29.  And  platting  a  crown  of  thorns. 
 
 It  was  platted  in  the  shape  of  a  crown,  as  for  a  king:  and 
 of  thorns,  to  show  that  He  was  not  a  true  king,  but  outcast 
 and  miserable.  With  the  same  object  they  put  a  reed  into 
 His  right  hand. 
 
 Verse  32.  And goitig  out. 
 
 As  they  were  going  out  of  the  city  or  at  the  gate.  The 
 Greek  does  not  use  the  aorist,  i^e\66vT€<i,  "  when  they  went 
 out,"  but  the  present,  i^epxofj'evoc,  which  has  the  meaning 
 of  their  having  met  the  man  of  Cyrene  actually  at  the  gate 
 of  the  city. 
 
 They  found  a  man  of  Cyrene. 
 
 He  was  so  called,  either  as  having  been  born  at  Cyrene, 
 or  as  being  a  native  of  the  country,  for  the  word  included 
 both  the  capital  city  and  an  entire  region  of  Decapolis  in 
 Syria,  which  took  its  name  from  the  city  (Pliny,  v.  5 ; 
 Strabo,  xvii.  ;  Melas,  i.;  A.  Marcellinus,  xxii.).  In  this 
 city  and  region  were  formerly  Jews,  as  we  find  from 
 Acts  ii.  10.  It  is  uncertain  whether  Simon  were  a  Jew  or 
 Gentile.  S.  Hilary,  S.  Ambrose,  Bede,  and  S.  Leo  {Servt. 
 viii.  de  Pass.)  think  that  he  was  a  Gentile,  and  they  suppose 
 that  there  was  a  mystery  in  the  case — showing  that  when 
 the  Jews  did  not  believe,  the  Gentiles  carried  the  cross. 
 But  as  S.  Mark  (xv.  27)  says  that  he  was  the  father  of 
 Alexander  and  Rufus,  he  was  most  probably  a  Jew,  for 
 he  names  those  men  as  well  known,  or,  as  some  think,  even 
 disciples  of  Christ. 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  32.]  SIMON    OF   CYRENE.  519 
 
 Him  they  forced. 
 
 Angariavenint.  On  the  meaning  of  this  word,  vide  chap. 
 V.  41.  S.  John  (xix.  17)  says  that  Christ  bore  His  own 
 cross.  This  can  be  easily  be  harmonised  with  S.  Matthew 
 and  S.  Mark  if  we  say  that  at  first  the  soldiers  placed  the 
 cross  on  Christ,  and  that  He  carried  it  through  the  whole 
 length  of  the  city  ;  but  at  the  gate  Simon  the  Cyrenian 
 was  met,  and  was  compelled  to  carry  it  to  the  place  of 
 crucifixion.  So  think  Origen  {Tract,  xxxv.  o?t  S.  Matt.), 
 S.  Athanasius  {Dc  Pass,  et  Crnc.  Doin^,  S.  Augustin 
 {De  Consens.,  iii.  10),  S.  Jerome,  Bede,  Euthymius,  and 
 Theophylact. 
 
 It  appears  to  have  been  the  custom  of  those  who  were 
 to  be  crucified  to  carry  their  own  cross.  And  it  was  there- 
 fore laid  at  first  upon  Christ.  Why  Simon  was  compelled 
 to  bear  it  afterwards  the  Evangelists  do  not  say,  but  it  has 
 been  conjectured  that  Christ  may  have  been  so  wearied  by 
 His  watching  and  the  scourging  that  He  could  carry  it  no 
 farther.  For  although  as  God  "  He  upholds  all  things  by 
 the  word  of  His  power  "  {Heb.  i.  3),  He  allowed  His  human 
 nature  to  suffer,  as  if  He  had  not  been  God.  Some  think 
 that  this  was  done  by  the  design  of  the  Jews,  who  so 
 wished  to  accelerate  His  death  ;  that,  as  He  was  hindered 
 by  the  weight  of  the  cross  from  moving  as  quickly  as  they 
 wished,  they  caused  a  strong  man  whom  they  happened  to 
 meet  to  carry  it. 
 
 Perhaps,  too,  it  was  in  mystery,  that  He  might  fulfil  the 
 type  of  Isaac,  who  bore  on  his  shoulders  the  wood  by  which 
 he  was  to  be  sacrificed  {Gen.  xxii,  6),  and  as  S.  Chrysostom 
 {Horn.  Ixxxiv.  on  S.  John),  S.  Augustin  {Tract,  cxvii.  on 
 S.  John),  and  Theodoret  {In  Impatib)  explain  it ;  but  that 
 it  was  afterwards  carried  by  Simon,  that  Christ  might 
 teach  by  facts  what  He  had  taught  before  in  words  (xvi. 
 24)  :  "  If  any  man  will  come  after  Me,  let  him  deny  himself, 
 and  take  up  his  cross,  and  follow  Me".     S.  Ambrose  (lib. 
 
520  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxvii.  32. 
 
 X.,  On  S.  Liikc)  says  :  "  It  is  a  fitting  order  of  events,  that 
 He  should  first  erect  the  trophy  of  His  cross,  and  then  pass 
 it  on  to  His  martyrs  to  erect  it ". 
 
 It  is  related  by  S.  Luke  (xxiii.  27)  that  some  women 
 followed  Him,  and  a  great  multitude  of  people  weeping 
 and  lamenting.  S.  Matthew  tells  us  who  these  women 
 were :  "  Among  whom  were  Mary  Magdalene,  Mary  the 
 mother  of  James  and  Joseph,  and  the  mother  of  the  sons 
 of  Zebedee  "  (verse  56),  and  that  the  rest  of  the  multitude 
 flocked  together  to  Him.  The  chief  priests  may  have 
 alluded  to  these  (^.  JoJin  vii.  49),  who  probably  alone 
 believed  in  Christ.  It  is  also  related  by  S.  Luke  (xxiii. 
 28,  29)  that  Christ  turned  to  the  women,  and  said  : 
 "  Daughters  of  Jerusalem,  weep  not  over  Me,  but  weep  for 
 yourselves  and  for  your  children.  For  behold,  the  days 
 shall  come."  The  word  "  behold "  shows  that  Christ 
 alluded  to  some  time  near  at  hand.  It  cannot  be  doubted 
 that  He  meant  the  coming  destruction  of  Jerusalem — 
 that  by  Titus  and  Vespasian,  when  all  the  Jews,  and 
 especially  the  women,  underwent  sufferings  so  dreadful 
 that,  as  related  by  Josephus,  some  were  compelled  to  eat 
 even  their  own  infants. 
 
 Christ  spoke  to  the  women  rather  than  to  the  men  :  (i) 
 Because  it  is  to  be  thought  that,  according  to  their  nature, 
 the  women  lamented  more  than  the  men  ;  and  (2)  because 
 in  the  slaughter  at  the  taking  of  the  city,  they  would  suffer 
 more  misery  than  the  men.  Christ  forbids  them  to  weep 
 for  Him,  showing  that  it  was  not  ill  with  Him,  for  He 
 was  not  dragged  by  force  to  obey  His  Father's  will  and 
 free  man  from  the  tyranny  of  the  devil  ;  but  that  He  was 
 going  to  death  voluntarily,  and  would  soon  be  exalted 
 to  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  and  receive  a  name  above 
 every  name.  He  bids  them  weep  for  themselves,  because 
 they  would  soon  have  to  pay  the  penalty  of  His  death — 
 the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  its  result,  being  imminent. 
 
Ch.  xxvn.  32.]      CHRIST'S  WORDS   TO   THE  WOMEN.  521 
 
 Not  that  these  women  would  witness  that  catastrophe 
 themselves,  for  all  of  them  would  probably  die  before  it  ; 
 but  that  the  women  then  living  would  suffer  such  and 
 so  great  miseries,  that  He  could  say  :  "  Blessed  are  the 
 barren,  and  the  wombs  that  have  not  borne,  and  the  paps 
 that  have  not  given  suck "  {S.  Luke  xxiii.  29).  For,  al- 
 though He  spoke  to  those  persons.  He  did  not  speak  of 
 them,  but  of  the  whole  body  of  women ;  as  in  chap.  iii.  11, 
 S.  John  Baptist  did  not  mean  that  those  particular  in- 
 dividuals with  whom  he  was  speaking  would  be  baptised 
 by  Christ,  and  who  perhaps  never  were  so,  but  that  the 
 Jews,  quales  illi  erant,  would  be  baptised  by  the  Holy 
 Ghost  and  by  fire.  The  Evangelist  describes  the  lamen- 
 tations of  the  women,  which,  in  their  self-forgetfulness, 
 are  apt  to  be  raised  for  their  children  rather  than  them- 
 selves. David  (in  Ps.  Ixvii.  6"^)  describes  in  other  terms 
 the  last  extremity  of  distress.  S.  Matthew  uses  a 
 different  but  similar  figure  to  the  same  result  (xxiv. 
 19)  :  "  Woe  to  them  that  are  with  child  and  that  give 
 suck  in  those  days,"'  because  such  women  would  be 
 impeded  in  their  flight,  and  undergo  double  suffering, 
 for  themselves  and  for  their  infants.  "  Then  shall  they 
 begin  to  say  to  the  mountains,  Fall  on  us,  and  to  the 
 hills.  Cover  us."  These  are  the  words  of  men  suffering 
 the  last  extremity  of  ill,  who  wish  to  die  but  cannot,  and 
 who,  overwhelmed  by  the  greatness  of  their  sufferings, 
 cry  to  the  mountains  to  fall  upon  and  deliver  them. 
 The  same  expression  is  found  in  Isa.  ii.  19  ;  Osee  x.  8  ; 
 Apoc.  vi.  16.  "  For  if  in  the  green  wood  they  do  these 
 things,  what  shall  be  done  in  the  dry  ?  "  Christ  compares 
 Himself  to  the  green  tree  and  the  Jews  to  the  dry,  because 
 as  a  green  tree  is  ill  adapted  for  burning  and  the  dry  is 
 very  fit  for  it,  so  He  is  very  little  fit  for — that  is,  is  no  way 
 worthy  of — punishment,  but  the  Jews  are  most  fit — that  is, 
 most  worthy — if  for  no  other  reason,  at  least  for  this,  that 
 
522  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxvii.  33. 
 
 they  delivered  Christ  to  death,  whom  they  ought  to  have 
 received  as  their  Saviour. 
 
 What  Christ  here  calls  "  the  green  tree,"  S.  Paul,  by 
 another  metaphor,  calls  "  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  for  destruc- 
 tion "  {Rom.  ix.  22),  that  is,  vessels  so  frail  as  to  be  broken 
 by  the  slightest  touch.  S.  Paul  desires  to  point  out  those 
 who,  by  adding  sin  to  sin,  are  so  ripe  for  punishment  that, 
 unless  the  infinite  mercy  of  God  sustained  them,  the  earth 
 would  open  and  swallow  them.  The  Prophets  compare 
 such  men  to  stubble,  and  the  wrath  of  God  to  the  flames 
 {Isa.  V.  24;  xxxiii.  11;  xlvii.  14;  Abdias  i.  18;  Malachi 
 iv.  i).  Christ  argues,  therefore,  from  the  less  to  the  greater: 
 If  God  have  not  spared  Me  who  am  innocent,  but  have 
 commanded  Me  to  undergo  such  heavy  punishment  for 
 others,  how  will  He  spare  those  who  have  brought  Me  to 
 the  cross?  S.  Peter  uses  a  similar  argument  (i  Epist.  iv. 
 17,  18). 
 
 Verse  33.    And  they  come  to  the  place  that  is  called  Golgotha, 
 zuhich  is  the  place  of  Calvary. 
 
 The  Hebrews  call  it  TOy^'^  "a  head,"  because  it  is  round, 
 The  Syriac  and  Chaldean,  by  the  addition  of  one  letter, 
 b^Jl^^vn  "  Golgotha  ".  P'or  so  it  should  be  read.  By  the 
 fault,  probably  of  the  transcriber,  that  letter  has  dropped 
 out,  and  length  of  time  has  confirmed  the  error.  Why  the 
 place  was  so  called  is  not  known.  The  ancient  opinion, 
 which  has  the  support  of  many  early  authors,  is  that  it  was 
 called  Golgotha — that  is,  Calv'ary,  or  a  skull — because  the 
 head  of  Adam,  the  first  man,  was  found  there  ;  for  there 
 was  a  strong  tradition  that  Adam  was  buried  in  that  place. 
 Of  this  opinion  were  Origen  {Tract,  xxxiii.  /;/  >S".  I\fatt.), 
 S.  Cyprian  {Scrm.  dc  Resurrect),  S.  Athanasius  {Serm.  de 
 Passione  et  Cntcc),  who  cites  the  authority  of  ancient 
 1  lebrcw  Doctors.  S.  Ambrose  {Comment,  on  S.  Luke)  does 
 the  same. 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  34]  TRADITION    OF   CALVARY.  533 
 
 So  also  thought  S.  Basil  {Comment,  on  Isaiah  v.).  S. 
 Epiphanius  {Hcer.  xlvi.,  and  Anchoratus),  S.  Chrysostom 
 {Ham.  Ixxxiv.  on  S.  John),  S.  Augustin  {Se7'm.  Ixxiv. 
 de  Temp. ;  De  Civitat.,  vi,  32),  and  Paula  and  Eustochium, 
 two  learned  women,  in  a  letter  to  Marcella,  in  the  works  of 
 S.  Jerome.  S.  Jerome  himself  refutes  this  opinion,  rightly 
 perhaps,  but  by  an  argument  of  no  great  force.  "  Scripture," 
 he  says,  "  teaches  us  that  Adam  was  not  buried  near  Mount 
 Sion  and  Jerusalem,  formerly  called  Jebus,  but  in  Hebron." 
 The  name  Hebron,  we  are  told  by  Joshua  (xiv.  15),  was 
 formerly  Cariath  Arbe.  "  The  name  of  Hebron  before  was 
 called  Cariath  Arbe.  Adam,  the  greatest  among  the 
 Enacims,  was  laid  there."  The  word  "  Adam  "  here  is  not 
 a  proper  name,  but  an  appellative,  which  it  is  not  strange 
 that  S.  Jerome,  learned  father  as  he  was,  but  occupied  with 
 other  subjects,  did  not  see.  Some  thought,  as  S.  Cyril  of 
 Jerusalem  says  in  his  Thirteenth  Catechetical  Lecture,  that 
 the  mountain  was  called  Calvary  from  its  resemblance  to 
 a  human  head,  but  he  rejects  the  opinion  for  topographical 
 reasons  :  "  There  is  no  mountain,"  he  says,  "  on  that  spot 
 called  Calvary ".  He  thinks  that  the  place  was  so  called 
 prophetically,  because  Christ,  our  Head,  was  to  suffer  there. 
 The  opinion  of  S.  Jerome  and  Bede  seems  better.  They 
 say  that  the  name  Calvary  was  given  to  the  place  because 
 criminals  were  decapitated  there,  and  the  place  was  full  of 
 skulls.  They  who  were  crucified  there  were  taken  away 
 and  buried,  but  such  as  were  beheaded  were  left,  as  S. 
 Jerome  tells  us,  without  burial. 
 
 Verse  34.  And  they  gave  Him  wine  to  drink  mingled 
 with  gall. 
 
 S.  Mark  (xv.  23)  says  that  they  gave  Him  wine  mingled 
 with  myrrh.  The  Ancients  explain  the  apparent  contra- 
 diction in  different  manners.  S.  Augustin  {De  Conscjis.,  iii. 
 11)  thinks  that  S.  Mark's  "  wine  mingled  with  myrrh  "  was 
 
524  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxvii.  34. 
 
 not  infected  by  the  gall,  but  S.  Matthew  says  that  it  was 
 mixed  with  gall.  Gall  is  bitter  ;  as  we  say  of  a  thing  that 
 is  bitter,  "  It  is  gall,"  or  "  mixed  with  gall  ".  He  also 
 thinks,  and  Bede  and  Strabus  follow  him,  that  the  wine, 
 myrrh,  and  gall  were  mixed  together,  and  that  S.  Matthew 
 speaks  of  the  gall  and  not  of  the  myrrh  ;  S.  Mark  of  the 
 myrrh  and  not  of  the  gall. 
 
 Euthymius  thinks  that  two  draughts  were  offered  by  two 
 different  persons,  one  mixed  with  myrrh,  the  other  with 
 gall. 
 
 Some  suppose  that  the  devout  women  who  followed 
 Christ  lamenting  first  gave  Him  wine  mingled  with  myrrh 
 to  remove  or  deaden  the  pain,  as  was  usually  done  to  those 
 who  were  crucified.  They  suppose  that  this  draught,  and 
 the  one  mentioned  by  S.  Luke  (xxiii.  36)  and  S.  John  (xix. 
 29)  as  given  to  Christ  on  the  cross  when  He  was  at  the 
 point  of  death,  were  one  and  the  same.  S.  Chrysostom 
 originated  this  opinion,  and  Euthymius  adopted  it  ;  but 
 from  the  different  accounts  of  the  Evangelists,  it  is  evident 
 that  they  were  different  draughts.  S.  Matthew  and  S. 
 Mark  imply  that  the  wine  mingled  with  myrrh  was  given 
 before  He  was  crucified  to  deaden  the  pain.  But  S.  Luke 
 and  S.  John  say  that  the  other  draught  was  given,  not  only 
 when  He  was  on  the  cross,  but  when  He  was  on  the  point 
 of  resigning  His  breath,  and  had  undergone  all  the  full 
 tortures  of  the  cross.  Again,  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark 
 speak  of  wine ;  S.  Luke  and  S.  John  of  vinegar.  For 
 although  the  Greek  here  reads  o^o<;,  "vinegar,"  and  Origen, 
 S.  Chrysostom,  Euthymius,  and  S.  Jerome,  and  still  more, 
 the  Syriac,  so  read  it,  yet  it  is  clear  from  S.  Mark  that  it 
 is  a  wrong  reading,  in  whom,  as  he  relates  the  same  event, 
 no  one  ever  read  anything  but  "wine".  It  is  most  certain 
 that  S.  ]\Iark,  speaking  a  little  after  of  the  drink  which  S. 
 Luke  and  S.  John  state  to  have  been  given  to  Christ  when 
 dying,  says  :  "  And  immediately  one  of  them,  running,  took 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  34-]  THE   WINE   AND   VINEGAR.  525 
 
 a  sponge  and  filled  it  with  vinegar,  and  put  it  on  a  reed, 
 and  gave  Him  to  drink "  (verse  48),  distinguishing  that 
 draught  beyond  question  from  the  one  spoken  of  here. 
 The  one  speaks  of  wine,  the  other  of  vinegar  ;  one  as  given 
 before  Christ  was  nailed  to  the  cross,  the  other  when  He 
 was  hanging  on  it ;  the  one  was  given  probably  in  a  vessel, 
 the  other  in  a  sponge  on  a  reed  ;  the  one  when  He  did  not 
 ask  for  it,  the  other  when  He  said,  "  I  thirst ".  Our  version 
 certainly  here  reads  "wine,"  not  "vinegar".  So  do  S. 
 Hilary,  S.  Ambrose  {Comment,  on  S.  Liike),  S.  Augustin  {De 
 Cons.  Evang.,  iii.  11),  Juvencus  {Hist.  Evang.^  iv.),  Sedulius 
 {Carin.,  v.),  and  probably  S.  Jerome,  for  he  speaks,  in  his 
 commentary,  not  of  vinegar,  but  wine.  But  some  unskilful 
 hand  erased  the  word  "  wine "  from  a  corrupt  copy,  and 
 substituted  "  vinegar,"  transferring  it  into  the  text  of  S. 
 Matthew  found  in  the  commentaries  of  S.  Jerome.  Cer- 
 tainly, S.  Hilary  and  S.  Ambrose  think  the  former  offer- 
 ing mentioned  by  S,  Matthew  (verse  34)  and  the  latter  in 
 verse  48,  of  which  S.  Luke  and  S,  John  also  speak,  to  be 
 different.  That  this  is  so  must  appear  to  every  careful 
 student  of  the  Gospels  beyond  dispute. 
 
 And  zvJien  He  had  tasted  He  zuoidd  not  drmk. 
 
 S.  Mark  says  that  He  received  it  not.  The  two  passages 
 seem  to  be  at  variance,  but  they  do  not  really  differ.  S, 
 Matthew  says  that  He  received  it — that  is,  He  tasted  it ; 
 S,  Mark  that  He  did  not  receive  it — that  is,  He  did  not 
 drink  it,  as  S.  Augustin  explains  it  in  the  passage  cited 
 above.  Why  Christ  would  not  drink  the  wine  when  He 
 had  tasted  it  may  be  a  question.  Possibly  He  tasted  it  that 
 He  might  not  appear  to  despise  wine  offered  according  to 
 custom ;  but  He  would  not  drink  it,  to  show  that  He  had 
 no  need  of  medicaments  to  help  Him  in  bearing  the 
 agonies  of  the  cross. 
 
 Thus  we  ourselves,  if  invited  to  drink  when  we  do  not 
 
526  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxvii.  35. 
 
 thirst,  taste  wine  offered  to  us,  in  acknowledgment  of  the 
 courtesy,  but,  for  temperance,  we  do  not  drink  deeply.  This 
 double  draught  fulfilled  the  words  of  David  {Ps.  Ixviii.  22)  : 
 "  They  gave  me  gall  for  my  food,  and  in  my  thirst  they 
 gave  me  vinegar  to  drink  ".  Wine  was  given  first  to  Christ 
 mixed  with  gall,  or  with  myrrh,  which  from  its  bitterness 
 was  called  gall,  and  then  vinegar.  But  the  gall,  according 
 to  the  Prophet,  was  given  to  Him  not  to  drink,  but  to  eat. 
 And  rightly  so  ;  for  as  David  spoke  of  gall  only,  which,  if 
 not  diluted  with  some  other  fluid,  has  more  of  the  nature 
 of  food  than  drink,  he  called  it  food,  and  not  drink.  S. 
 Matthew,  with  this  view,  perhaps,  though  he  knew  that 
 that  wine  was  not  mixed  with  real  gall,  but  was  only  said 
 to  be  so  by  metaphor  (that  is,  it  was  diluted  with  bitter 
 myrrh),  yet  said  that  it  was  mixed  with  gall,  to  show  by  a 
 word  in  passing  that  the  prophecy  was  fulfilled. 
 
 It  has  been  asked  why  Christ  chose  this  kind  of  death. 
 S.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  {Orat.  de  Resurrect.  Chti.)  and  S. 
 Thomas,  in  his  commentary  on  this  passage  of  6".  Maitheiv, 
 have  given  reasons  for  this.  That  of  S.  Paul  to  the  Philip- 
 pians  would  have  been  sufficient — Christ  desired  to  undergo 
 the  most  shameful  death  for  us,  that  He  might  thus  humble 
 Himself  and  show  His  great  love  for  man,  and  afford  an 
 example  of  humility  {Philip,  ii.  8  ;   i  Pet.  ii.  21). 
 
 Verse  35.  And  after  they  had  crucified  Hi^n  they  divided 
 His  garments. 
 
 S.  Luke  says  that  Christ  even  on  the  cross  prayed  for 
 His  murderers  :  "  Father  forgive  them,  for  they  know 
 not  what  they  do "  (xxiii.  34).  Christ  showed  clearly 
 by  these  words  that  He  underwent  death  even  for  the 
 very  men  who  crucified  Him  ;  thus  confuting  the  ancient 
 heresy  of  the  Predcstinatians  and  their  successors,  the 
 followers  of  Calvin,  who  assert  that  He  died  only  for  the 
 predestinate. 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  35-]  THE   SEAMLESS   COAT.  527 
 
 Casting  lots. 
 
 S.  Mark  (xv.  24)  says  :  "  They  divided  His  garments, 
 casting  lots  upon  them,  what  every  man  should  take  ".  S. 
 Luke  (xxiii.  34)  :  "  They,  dividing  His  garments,  cast  lots". 
 These  three  Evangelists,  and  especially  S.  Mark,  write  as 
 if  all  the  clothing  of  Christ  was  distributed  by  lot,  nor 
 could  we  have  understood  them  in  any  other  sense,  unless 
 S.  John  had  related  it  more  distinctly  (xix.  23,  24),  From 
 this  it  appears  that  not  all  Christ's  garments,  but  only  the 
 coat,  was  so  disposed  of,  as  has  been  observed  by  Euthy- 
 mius.  Some  conclude  from  S.  Luke  that  Christ  had  five 
 coats,  but  it  is  clear  from  S.  John  that  He  had  only  one. 
 For  he  says  that  the  soldiers  divided  His  garments,  and 
 also  His  coat,  opposing  this  to  the  others.  This  Euthy- 
 mius  has  clearly  perceived.  What  the  coat  and  the  other 
 garments  were  is  not  known  with  certainty.  We  may  con- 
 jecture that  the  coat  was  that  which  came  next  to  the 
 under-garment,  if  Christ  used  one,  and  covered  the  whole 
 person.  There  is  no  kind  of  garment  more  probably  with- 
 out a  seam.  By  the  other  garments,  the  upper  one  in 
 place  of  which  the  soldiers  put  on  the  purple  robe,  the 
 shoes,  and  the  other  clothing  such  as  even  poor  men  wear 
 may  be  understood. 
 
 There  was  a  tradition,  not  devoid  of  probability,  that 
 the  seamless  coat  had  been  woven  for  Christ  by  His 
 Mother  when  He  was  a  child.  This,  as  very  ancient, 
 is  mentioned  with  approbation  by  Euthymius.  The 
 reader  will  question  whether  the  garments  of  the  rob- 
 bers were  also  divided  by  the  soldiers,  for  the  Evange- 
 lists are  silent  on  the  point.  It  was  probably  the 
 custom  of  the  Romans,  as  of  other  nations,  to  leave  the 
 clothing  of  those  who  had  been  put  to  death  to  the  execu- 
 tioner. The  garments  of  the  robbers,  therefore,  may  have 
 been  distributed  among  the  soldiers,  but  the  Evangelists, 
 because  they  were  writing  the  history  of  Christ  and  not  of 
 
528  THE  GOSPEL  OF   S.    MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxvir.  37. 
 
 the  thieves,  and  as  they  knew  that  in  the  division  of  their 
 clothing  there  was  no  mystery,  whereas  that  of  Christ  was 
 not  only  by  custom,  but  there  was  mystery  in  it,  that  the 
 words  of  David  might  be  fulfilled  (Ps.  xxi.  19),  made  no 
 mention  of  the  robbers',  but  only  of  Christ's. 
 
 Hence  S.  Matthew  immediately  adds,  "  that  it  might  be 
 fulfilled,"  &c.  (verse  35).  Although  these  words  are  not 
 found  in  some  Greek  copies,  and  Origen  and  Euthymius 
 do  not  read  them,  yet  our  Latin  version  has  them,  as  has 
 also  the  Syriac  ;  and  it  can  easily  be  believed  that  S. 
 Matthew  wrote  them,  as,  of  all  the  Evangelists,  he  is  the 
 most  careful  always  to  point  out  the  prophecies  that  were 
 fulfilled  by  Christ. 
 
 Verse  37.  Ajid  tJicy  put  over-  His  head  His  cajise  ivrittcn. 
 
 That  is,  they  affixed  to  the  part  of  the  cross  which  was 
 over  the  head  of  Christ.  It  is  not  certain  whether  there 
 was  a  scroll  fastened  to  the  wood  of  the  cross,  or  whether 
 it  was  written  on  the  cross  itself ;  the  former  is  the  most 
 generally  believed,  and  is  the  most  probable.  For  (i)  there 
 would  hardly  have  been  room  on  the  cross  itself  for  so 
 many  words  in  three  languages,  and  of  a  size  to  be  read 
 by  passers-by.  (2)  One  who  was  about  to  place  such  an 
 inscription  on  the  cross  of  a  man  crucified  would  naturally 
 write  it  on  a  tablet.  (3)  The  Empress  Helena,  the  mother 
 of  Constantine,  is  said  to  have  found  such  a  tablet  apart 
 from  the  cross  (Ruffinus,  Hist.  Ecdes.,  i.  7). 
 
 It  has  not  been  a  question,  though  it  might  have  been, 
 whether  the  robbers  also  had  titles.  It  would  appear 
 probable  that  they  had  ;  for  it  was  the  custom  that  his 
 offence  should  be  stated  on  the  cross  of  everyone  who 
 suffered  death  upon  it.  It  was  under  this  law  that  Christ's 
 title  was  imposed. 
 
 S.  Ambrose  {prat,  dc  obitu  ct  vita  Thcodosii)  and  other 
 ancient  authors  relate  that  when  Helena  found  the  crosses. 
 
Ch.  xxvh.  37.]         THE   TITLE   ON   THE   CROSS.  529 
 
 that  of  Christ  was  distinguished  from  the  rest  by  its  title. 
 This  is  very  probable.  It  might  have  been  identified,  not 
 as  having  had  a  title  while  the  others  had  none,  but  as 
 the  title  of  Christ's  had  been,  "  This  is  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
 the  King  of  the  Jews  ".  From  these  words  it  would  be 
 clear  that  it  was  the  cross  of  Christ. 
 
 This  is  Jesus  the  King  of  the  Jezvs. 
 
 S.  Mark  (xv.  26)  only  gives,  "  The  King  of  the  Jews  ". 
 S.  Luke  (xxiii.  38),  "  This  is  the  King  of  the  Jews  ".  S. 
 John  (xix.  19),  "Jesus  of  Nazareth  the  King  of  the 
 Jews ".  All  the  Evangelists,  therefore,  seem  to  have 
 given  the  meaning  of  the  title,  but  none  of  them  all  the 
 words  of  it.  From  the  whole  we  may  conclude  the 
 words  to  have  been,  "  This  is  Jesus  of  Nazareth  the 
 King  of  the  Jews". 
 
 S.  John  says  that  the  title  was  placed  by  the  command 
 of  Pilate,  whether  according  to  custom,  because  it  was  the 
 duty  of  the  judge  to  state  the  offence  of  a  condemned  crimi- 
 nal, or  that  that  was  done  by  private  design  in  the  case  of 
 Christ  alone  which  was  not  done  to  others  ;  that  as  the 
 cause  of  Christ  was  most  just,  and  He  Himself  was  un- 
 justly condemned,  Pilate  might  clear  himself  by  this  public 
 eulogy ;  pretending  that  Christ  was  justly  condemned  for 
 asserting  that  He  was  a  king  against  the  faith  due  to 
 Csesar,  It  is  clear  from  S.  John  that,  whatever  his  inten- 
 tion, it  was  overruled  by  divine  counsel ;  so  that  even  the 
 judge  himself  who  had  condemned  Christ,  really  proved 
 by  the  very  title  by  which  he  sought  to  show  that  he 
 condemned  Christ  justly,  that  he  had  done  so  unjustly, 
 thus  bearing  witness  that  Christ  was  the  true  King  of  the 
 Jews,  that  is,  the  Messiah.  For,  when  the  Jews  asked 
 Pilate,  on  reading  the  inscription,  not  to  put  "The  King 
 of  the  Jews,"  but  "  He  said,"  &c,,  Pilate  answered,  "  What 
 I  have  written,  I  have  written".  "I  cannot  alter  it,  because 
 2—34 
 
530  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.     [CH.xxv11.3S. 
 
 it  was  held,  as  it  were  in  the  divine  hand,  that  I  should  be 
 be  impelled  to  write  these  words." 
 
 It  cannot  be  doubted  that  Pilate,  in  the  words,  "  This  is 
 Jesus  of  Nazareth  the  King  of  the  Jews,"  meant  nothing 
 but  that  which  the  Jews  required  of  him  :  "  This  is  Jesus  of 
 Nazareth  who  made  Himself  the  King  of  the  Jews";  but  it 
 was  of  Divine  Providence  that  he  used  words  which  showed 
 Christ  to  be  truly  such.  God  thus  extorted  the  truth  from 
 the  unjust  judge. 
 
 Verse  38.     Then  were  crucified  ivith  Him  two  thieves,  one  on 
 the  right  hand  and  one  on  the  left. 
 
 S.  Mark  (xv.  28)  gives  one  reason  why  Christ  was  cruci- 
 fied with  the  thieves,  that  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  (liii.  12) 
 might  be  fulfilled.  But  Pilate,  who  was  a  profane  man  and 
 thought  nothing  of  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy,  may  have 
 supposed  that  if  he  crucified  Christ  by  Himself,  he  might 
 appear  to  do  so  at  the  wicked  entreaties  of  the  Jews,  and 
 not  from  justice  ;  but  when  He  crucified  Him  with  men  of 
 this  class,  whom  no  one  could  doubt  to  be  justly  con- 
 demned, the  similarity  of  the  deaths  might  go  some  way 
 to  prove  a  similarity  in  their  crimes  ;  it  is  not  impro- 
 bable that  the  Jews  even  solicited  Pilate  to  crucify 
 Christ  with  the  thieves,  that  His  death  might  be  more 
 ignominious. 
 
 That  Christ  was  placed  between  the  two  thieves  may  be 
 thought  the  result  at  once  of  the  human  design  of  the  Jews 
 and  of  the  divine  counsel  of  God.  Of  the  Jews,  to  show 
 that  Christ  was  the  head  and  chief  of  wicked  men,  and 
 therefore  should  be  crucified  in  the  midst  of  such,  that  by 
 this  kind  of  contumelious  distinction  His  disgrace  might 
 be  the  more  augmented  ;  for  the  leaders  of  robbers,  when 
 taken  with  their  followers,  arc  hung  in  the  midst  of  them, 
 and  in  some  conspicuous  place.  Of  the  counsel  of  God,  to 
 show  that  Christ  laid  down  His  life  for  sinners,  that  who- 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  3S.]    CHRIST   BETWEEN    THE   TWO   THIEVES.      53  I 
 
 ever  would  have  life  might  receive  life.  The  event  proved 
 the  mystery,  for  one  of  the  two  robbers  believed,  the  other 
 blasphemed. 
 
 He  who  was  crucified  calls  all  sinners  to  Himself.  So 
 says  S.  John  (xii.  32).  He  draws  all  things  to  Himself, 
 not  in  effect,  but  in  will.  He  would  have  drawn  both  the 
 thieves  to  Him  if  they  would.  He  wished  to  draw 
 both — seizing  one,  as  it  were,  by  the  right  hand  and  the 
 other  by  the  left.  He  drew  one,  the  other  He  did  not 
 draw.  The  one  suffered  himself  to  be  drawn,  the  other 
 did  not.  Tertullian  finds  another  mystery  in  this.  "  Christ," 
 he  says,  "  is  always  crucified  between  two  thieves."  He 
 calls  the  Church  and  the  doctrine  Christ,  as  Christ  Him- 
 self did  when  He  said,  "  Saul,  Saul,  why  persecutest  thou 
 Me?"  and  that,  when  Saul  was  persecuting,  not  Christ 
 Himself,  whom  he  believed  to  be  dead,  but  His  Church 
 and  doctrine.  We  see,  as  Tertullian  says,  that  the 
 Church  is  most  frequently  persecuted  between  two  op- 
 posite heresies. 
 
 The  Ebionites  said  that  Christ  was  God  alone,  and  had 
 only  the  appearance  of  man.  The  Church  stands  in  the 
 midst,  and  joins  the  two  in  one — true  God  and  true  man. 
 
 The  Sabellians  taught  that  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost 
 were  not  only  one  nature,  but  one  Person  also. 
 
 The  Arians  said  that  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  were 
 not  only  three  Persons,  but  three  natures  also. 
 
 The  Church  stands  in  the  middle,  teaching  one  nature, 
 three  Persons. 
 
 The  Nestorians  said  that  in  Christ  were  not  only  two 
 natures,  but  two  Persons  also. 
 
 The  Eutychians  taught  that  there  was  both  one  Person 
 and  one  nature. 
 
 The  Church,  in  the  middle,  says  one  Person,  two  natures. 
 
 The  Manichaeans  of  old,  and  the  followers  of  Luther 
 and    Calvin  in  these   days,  deny  that  man   has  any  free- 
 
532  THE   GOSPEL  OF   S.   MATTHEW.   [Ch.  xxvii.  39,42. 
 
 dom  of  will,  and  refer  everything  either  to  nature  or  divine 
 grace. 
 
 The  Pelagians  say  that  we  have  such  strength  of  free-will 
 that  we  have  no  need  of  divine  grace. 
 
 The  Church  is  in  the  middle,  and  says  that  we  have  in- 
 deed free-will,  on  the  one  hand,  but  that,  on  the  other,  we 
 still  need  the  grace  of  God. 
 
 Verse  39.  A  nd  they  that  passed  by  blasphemed  Him. 
 
 S.  Matthew  says  "  they  that  passed  by,"  meaning  all  who 
 did  so,  to  show  that  not  by  one  or  two,  but  by  all  in  com- 
 mon, were  insults  heaped  upon  the  crucified  Christ. 
 
 Wagging  their  heads. 
 
 To  move  the  head  was  a  sign  among  the  Jews  sometimes 
 of  commiseration  or  of  admiration  united  with  pity,  some- 
 times also  of  derision.  In  Job  xvi.  5  ;  xlii.  11,  it  is  a  sign 
 of  commiseration  ;  that  is,  they  wept  with  him  that  wept 
 according  to  the  admonition  of  S.  Paul  {Rom.  xii.  15  ; 
 Ecclus.  xii.  18,  19  ;  Jerem.  xviii.  16).  Of  derision,  4  Kings 
 xix.  21  ;  Is.  xxxvii.  22  ;  Ps.  xxi.  8,  in  which  this  scene  was 
 foretold  long  before.  For  that  whole  psalm  is  to  be  under- 
 stood of  Christ  suffering,  as  He  Himself  shows  (verse  46) 
 by  repeating  its  commencement  ;  and  Ps.  cviii.  25  ;  Ecclus. 
 xiii.  8  ;  Lam.  ii.  15. 
 
 Verse  42.  If  He  be  the  King  of  Israel.,  let  Him  noio  come 
 doivn  from  the  cross. 
 
 It  was  not  for  the  king,  as  such,  to  come  down  from  the 
 cross ;  for  a  king  may  be  no  stronger  nor  more  able  to 
 work  miracles  than  another  man.  The  words  arc  to  be 
 understood  as  in  adaptation  to  the  subject.  They  under- 
 stand the  king  who  would  be  the  Messiah,  and  the  Son 
 of  God,  as  Christ  professed  Himself  to  be  {S.  Illark  xv.  32  ; 
 5.  Luke  xxiii.  35). 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  43,  44-]  CHRIST   REVILED.  533 
 
 Verse  43.  He  trusted  in  God.  Let  Hiin  noiv  deliver  Him  if 
 He  will  have  Him. 
 The  priests  showed  their  blindness,  bringing  up  Scrip- 
 ture against  themselves ;  for  these  words,  which  they  used 
 to  convict  Christ,  are  taken  from  Ps.  xxi.,  which,  as  just 
 stated,  was  written  entirely  of  Christ.  They  are  the 
 words  of  the  wicked  who  opposed  not  only  the  Divine 
 Providence  but  even  God  Himself ;  and  derided  the  holy 
 David,  who  served  Him  because  he  trusted  to  Him  in 
 adversity.  "  He  trusted  in  God,"  they  say ;  "  let  God 
 deliver  Him,  seeing  that  He  delighteth  in  Him  " ;  that  is, 
 David  loved  Him,  that  is,  God — as  if  they  had  said,  "  Let 
 the  God  whom  He  loves  deliver  Him ".  In  the  same 
 sense  we  should  understand  what  is  here  put  concisely, 
 "  Let  God  deliver  Him  if  He  will  have  Him  "  ;  that  is,  if 
 He  love  God.  It  is  a  Hebraism — ^311  velle  ;  that  is,  amare, 
 "  to  love  ".  In  the  Greek  it  is  expressed  more  at  length — 
 pvcrdadw  avrov  el  6e\ei  avrou,  liberet  nunc  eiim  si  vult  eum  ; 
 that  is,  si  amat  eiun,  keeping  the  same  Hebraism  ;  for  the 
 Greeks  do  not  say  6e\eL  avrov.  The  unwise  priests,  whilst 
 they  endeavour  to  mock  Christ,  prove  Him  by  their  very 
 act  to  be  the  true  Christ  ;  for  they  fulfil  the  prophecy  of 
 David  which  was  spoken  of  Christ.  For  although  those 
 words  were  written  by  David  of  himself,  as  if  spoken  to 
 him  by  his  enemies,  it  cannot  be  but  that  he  showed  in  his 
 own  person  what  would  happen  to  Christ. 
 
 Verse  44.  Ajtd  the  self -same  thing. 
 That  is,  the    same    words,  or   the  same   reproaches    in 
 other  words  :  "  If  Thou  be  Christ,  save  Thyself  and  us  " 
 
 {S.  Luke  xxiii.  39). 
 
 The  thieves  also  that  zuere  crucified  zuith  Him. 
 
 S.  Mark  describes  the  same  thing  in  the  same  words.     S. 
 Luke  says  that  one  only  of  the  thieves  mocked  Him.    Many 
 
534  THE   GOSPEL   OF    S.   MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxvir.  44. 
 
 of  the  Ancients  have  therefore  supposed  that  at  first  both  of 
 the  thieves  mocked  Christ  ;  but  that  afterwards  one  of 
 them,  seeing  the  portents  which  were  taking  ^XslCQ,  patieiite 
 C/iristo,  and  His  singular  patience  and  meekness,  believed  in 
 Him,  and  rebuked  the  other.  Origen,  S.  Athanasius  {Serm. 
 cont.  Hares.  Oinn.),  S.  Hilary,  S.  Cyprian,  Theophylact, 
 and  Euthymius  {in  loc.)  are  of  this  opinion.  S.  Ambrose, 
 S.  Jerome,  and  Bede  think  it  probable.  S.  Cyprian  {Serm. 
 de  Pass.  Dom.),  S.  Cyril  Jerusalem  {Cat.  Coinvi.,  xiii.), 
 S.  Augustin  {De  Cons.,  iii.  17),  S.  Ambrose  {Comnient.  on 
 S.  Lnke),  S.  Jerome  {in  loc),  S.  Leo  {Serin,  ii.  de  Pass.), 
 and  S.  Gregory  {On  Job  xxvii.  16)  hold  the  opinion,  which 
 appears  more  probable,  that  only  one  of  the  thieves 
 reviled. 
 
 It  is  easy  to  see  why  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark  spoke  of 
 the  thieves  in  the  plural  number.  They  did  so  by  syllepsis. 
 S.  Ambrose  and  S.  Augustin  bring  many  similar  passages 
 from  Scripture.  "The  kings  of  the  earth  stood  up,  and  the 
 princes  met  together  against  the  Lord,  and  against  His 
 Christ"  {Ps.  ii.  2),  though  there  was  only  one  Herod  who 
 conspired  against  Him,  as  S.  Peter  says  {Acts  iv.  26,  27). 
 Again  {Heb.  xi.  33,  34),  Daniel  alone  stopped  the  mouths 
 of  lions,  and  (verse  37)  Isaiah  alone  was  cut  asunder. 
 Euthymius  says  that  the  Evangelists  related  these  insults 
 of  the  thieves  to  show  us  what  and  how  many  contumelies 
 were  endured  by  Christ,  when  not  only  the  chief  priests  and 
 the  others  who  brought  Him  to  that  place,  but  even  the 
 thieves  who  were  His  companions  in  His  punishment,  and 
 who  should  have  been  filled  with  compassion  both  for 
 themselves  and  for  Him,  covered  Him  with  reproaches. 
 The  robbers  were  probably  Jews  :  (i)  because  one  received 
 Christ,  even  when  hanging  on  the  cross,  as  the  Messiah  so 
 long  expected  by  the  Jews  ;  and  (2)  because  the  other 
 treated  Him  with  all  the  malice  and  incredulity  of  the 
 Jews.     S.  Luke  (xxiii.  40)  says  that  the  other  rebuked  the 
 
Ch.  xxvrr.  44-]  THE    TENITENT   THIEF.  535 
 
 blasphemer,  saying,  Ncqiie  tu  times  Dciim,  oi/Se  <po0f/  crv 
 TOP  Qeov.  These  few  words,  "  variously  taken  with  each 
 other,"  admit  of  several  explanations. 
 
 1.  If  joined  together  thus  :  "  Nee,  'neither,'  fearest  thou 
 God,"  the  nee  being  referred  to  times,  "fearest,"  and 
 meaning,  "  Thou  not  only  dost  not  love  and  revere  God, 
 but  thou  dost  not  even  fear  Him  ".  This  opinion,  which  is 
 a  more  modern  one,  seems  hardly  tenable,  because  no 
 doubt  the  good  and  faithful  thief  meant  to  compare  the 
 other  with  the  Jews.  This  comparison  is  contained  in  the 
 word  nee,  "  neither,"  as  if  he  had  said, "  Not  only  those  who 
 are  under  no  punishment  feel  no  fear  of  God,  but  even 
 thou,  who  art  in  the  same  condemnation,  feelest  none  ". 
 
 2.  If  the  stress  comes  on  Dcjtm,  "  God,"  the  meaning 
 will  be,  "  Not  only  dost  thou  not  fear  man,  but  not  even 
 God  Himself".  This  also  seems  inadmissible,  because  it 
 is  not  in  agreement  with  the  subject.  There  is  no  force  in 
 the  faithful  thief  saying,  "  Thou  fearest  not  men  alone,  but 
 thou  dost  not  even  fear  God  ".  It  seems  clear  that  the  words 
 are  to  to  be  taken  as  meaning,  "  Neither  dost  tJioii  fear 
 God,"  although  the  Greek  is  ouSe  ^oyS^  av  rov  Qeov.  Our 
 version  rightly  alters  the  order  of  the  words,  and  makes 
 the  meaning  plainer.  The  meaning  will  then  be  that,  "  Not 
 only  these,  who,  as  they  are  suffering  no  punishment,  are 
 moved  by  no  pity  for  that  of  this  man,  but  rather  forgetful 
 of  the  fear  of  God,  heap  insults  upon  Him,  but  not  even 
 dost  thou,  who  art  under  the  same  punishment  as  He,  and 
 who  oughtest,  therefore,  not  to  insult,  but  to  commiserate 
 Him,  fear  God,  but  like  the  rest,  without  fear,  addest 
 affliction  to  the  afflicted  ".  This  is  the  meaning  of  that 
 40th  verse  of  S.  Luke :  "  Neither  dost  thou  fear  God,  seeing 
 thou  art  under,"  or  "  because  thou  art  under,"  "  the  same 
 condemnation,"  as  our  version  renders  the  Greek,  which  is 
 somewhat  obscure. 
 
 An  entirely  new  explanation  has  been  offered  by  some 
 
536  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxvii.  44- 
 
 Moderns — ore  iv  tw  avrw  KpLfiaTi  et  ;  that  is,  "  Because 
 thou  art  under  the  same  condemnation,"  as  if  the  thief  had 
 said,  "  Though  thou  art  at  the  point  of  death,  and  art 
 undergoing  the  most  extreme  punishment,  thou  dost  not 
 fear  God  ".  But  the  Greek  does  not  allow  this  ;  for  the 
 Evangelist  did  not  say,  on,  ev  tm  aura)  Kpl/jLarc,  but  otl  iv  tw 
 avTM  T&)  tcpifiari.  These  words  mean  not  "  that,"  but  "  the 
 same  "  condemnation.  But  as  the  expression  "  the  same  " 
 can  only  be  used  by  comparison,  another  difficulty  arises. 
 With  zu/iat  condemnation — that  is,  with  za/iat  punishment 
 (for  it  is  clear  that  condemnation,  or,  as  the  Greek  word  is, 
 Kplfxa,  judicium^  is  called  punishment) — is  that  of  the  thief 
 compared  ?  Some  think  it  the  condemnation  of  the  Jews, 
 as  if  the  meaning  were,  "  Neither  dost  thou  fear  God  more 
 than  these  Jews,  though  thou  deservest  the  same  punish- 
 ment as  they  for  the  contumelies  heaped  upon  Christ ". 
 
 This  explanation  seems  to  be  strengthened  by  the 
 opinion  we  have  lately  offered,  that  by  the  words  "  neither 
 dost  thou"  the  other  thief  was  compared  to  the  Jews. 
 Some  suppose  that  there  is  a  comparison  by  the  penitent 
 thief  of  his  own  punishment  with  the  punishment  of  the 
 other.  As  if  he  had  said  :  "  While  you  are  in  the  same 
 suffering  as  I,  you  yet  do  not  fear  God  more  than  the 
 rest".  But  this  explanation  is  abs  re.  The  comparison 
 seems  to  be  between  the  punishment  of  Christ  and  that  of 
 the  thief;  and  thus  the  meaning  will  be  taken  to  be: 
 "Although  you  are  in  the  same  punishment  as  Christ,  and, 
 what  is  more,  you  are  suffering  justly  and  He  unjustly, 
 neither  your  fellowship  in  His  punishment,  nor  His  innocence 
 moves  you  to  pity  Him".  The  stress  rightly  falls  upon  the 
 words  (verse  41),  "we  indeed  justly,  but  He  hath  done  no- 
 thing amiss,"  which  is  a  correction  of  verse  40.  As  the  good 
 thief  had  said  that  the  other  was  under  the  same  punishment 
 as  Christ,  he  might  have  appeared  to  signify  that  Christ  had 
 therefore  committed   a   like  offence.     To  prevent   this  he 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  44]  THE   PENITENT   THIEF.  537 
 
 classes  himself  by  his  words,  "  we  indeed  justly,"  with  the 
 other,  that  his  blame  might  be  more  moderate  and  gentle  ; 
 and,  not  to  appear  to  visit  him  too  severely,  he  blamed 
 himself  in  an  equal  degree.  Nihil  viali  gessit — that  is.. 
 ovhev  aroirov — nothing  unbecoming  a  good  man.  The  good 
 thief  wished  by  these  words  to  show,  not  merely  that  there 
 was  no  great  wickedness  in  Christ,  but  that  there  was  not 
 even  the  very  slightest  cause  for  blame.  The  word  utoitov 
 shows  this,  and  therefore  the  thief  used  the  word  "  Lord  " 
 {S.  Luke  xxiii.  42).  These  words  mean,  not  "when  Thou 
 comest  to  reign,"  but  "  when  Thou  comest,  reigning  al- 
 ready "  ;  not  "  when  Thou  comest  to  obtain  a  kingdom," 
 but  "when  Thou  hast  obtained  it" — as  Christ  will  come 
 to  the  judgment.  A  brief  but  full  confession  ;  for  the 
 thief  confessed  in  a  few  words  that  Christ  is  both  God  and 
 King :  a  King  when  he  said,  "  when  Thou  comest  to  Thy 
 kingdom,"  and  God  when  he  calls  Him  "  Lord,"  and  con- 
 fesses Him  to  be  such  a  King  as  to  be  able  to  forgive  sins. 
 Lastly,  the  words  "  Remember  me"  show  that  He  believed 
 in  Christ's  Resurrection.  For  he  would  not  have  asked 
 One  who  was  apparently  drawing  His  last  breath  to  re- 
 member him  when  He  came  to  His  kingdom,  unless  he 
 believed  that  He  would  both  rise  again  and  reign  after  He 
 had  risen. 
 
 This  confession,  though  most  admirable  in  itself,  yet  is 
 more  so  if  we  take  the  time,  place,  and  circumstances  into 
 consideration,  as  S.  Chrysostom  {Hojn.  ii.  de  Criice  et 
 Latr.)  and  S.  Leo  {^Serin.  ii.  dc  Passionc)  have  ob- 
 served. S.  Leo's  words  are  as  follows  :  "  What  exhorta- 
 tion urged  to  that  confession  ?  What  teaching  instilled  it  ? 
 What  preacher  kindled  it?  The  thief  had  not  seen 
 Christ's  miracles  before  :  His  care  of  the  sick,  His  giving 
 sight  to  the  blind.  His  raising  the  dead,  had  ceased.  The 
 events  that  were  to  be  had  not  yet  taken  place,  and  still 
 he  confessed  Him,  whom  he  only  saw  as  a  sharer  of  his  own 
 
538  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxvii.  44. 
 
 punishment,  to  be  his  Lord  and  King."  "  Remember  me." 
 A  modest  request.  The  thief  did  not  ask  to  be  made  a 
 sharer  of  Christ's  kingdom,  or  to  have  a  more  honourable 
 place  in  it  than  others,  nor  to  sit  on  His  right  hand  or  on 
 His  left,  as  the  wife  of  Zebedee  asked  for  her  sons  (xx.  21). 
 He  only  said,  "Remember  me";  as  if  he  had  said,  "Do 
 not  shut  me  out,  or  take  account  of  my  sins,  but  for  Thy 
 mercy  and  loving-kindness  admit  me  even  to  the  lowest 
 place.  S.  Augustin  rightly  concludes  from  these  words 
 that  there  is  a  purgatory.  The  thief  saw  that  he  would 
 shortly  die,  and  yet  he  prayed  Christ  to  remember  him — 
 that  is,  to  forgive  his  sins  after  his  death.  He  believed, 
 therefore,  according  to  the  Jewish  religion,  that  sins  would 
 be  forgiven  after  death.  But  this  can  only  be  done  in 
 purgatory.  S.  Luke  (xxiii.  43)  says  that  Christ  answered, 
 "  Amen,  I  say  to  thee  this  day  thou  shalt  be  with  Me  in 
 paradise  ".  Three  difficult  questions  are  caused  by  these 
 words:  (i)  on  "this  day";  (2)  on  "in  paradise";  (3)  on 
 "with  Me".  I.  Some  join  the  words  "this  day"  to  "say," 
 as  if  Christ  had  said,  "  Amen,  I  say  to  thee  this  day,"  not 
 "  Thou  shalt  be  with  Me  this  day,"  as  Theophylact  says. 
 If  this  had  been  Christ's  meaning  He  would  assuredly  have 
 said,  "Amen,  I  say  unto  thee  now,"  and  not  "this  day". 
 Others  even  more  senselessly  refer  these  words  to  a  period 
 after  the  Resurrection,  that  is,  to  the  Day  of  Judgment;  as 
 if  Christ  had  said,  "  This  day,"  that  is,  after  the  Resurrec- 
 tion and  last  judgment.  This  would  involve  the  souls  of 
 the  blest  not  being  in  any  state  of  bliss  before  the  supreme 
 judgment.  If  Christ  had  meant  this  He  would  not  have 
 answered  the  prayer  well  ;  for  although  this  would  only 
 have  granted  what  was  asked,  it  is  clear  that  Christ  granted 
 far  more  than  this.  The  thief  had  said,  "  Remember  me  "  ; 
 that  is,  "Forgive  my  offences".  Christ  answered,  "This 
 day  thou  shalt  be  with  Me  in  paradise";  that  is,  "I  will 
 not  only  forgive  thy  sins,  but  I  will  give  thee  the  best  place 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  44.]    CHRIST'S  PROMISE  TO  PENITENT  THIEF.      539 
 
 — I  will  bring  thee  into  paradise  to  be  with  Me".  As  if 
 He  had  said,  "  Near  Me  where  I  am  " — as  He  said  before 
 {S.John  xii.  26),  "Where  I  am  there  also  shall  My  minister 
 be".  The  thief  had  asked  to  be  remembered,  not  im- 
 mediately, but  when  Christ  should  come  into  His  kingdom. 
 The  answer  of  Christ  was,  "This  day" — "I  will  not  delay 
 the  granting  of  thy  prayer  so  long  as  thou  askest — for  so 
 many  ages  ;  I  will  give  thee  thy  prayer  this  day ".  The 
 words  "  this  day "  correspond  to  the  thief's  "  when  Thou 
 comest ",  Others  have  passed  this  over.  S.  Augustin 
 alone  seems  to  have  seen  it  {Cent.  Felician,  cxv.). 
 
 2.  "  In  paradise."  These  words  have  been  explained 
 both  by  Ancients  and  Moderns,  and  in  many  different 
 senses.  Some,  as  S.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  {Catcch.  Comm., 
 xiii.),  S.  Greg.  Nyss.  {Serin,  de  Resiir.  Dovi),  S.  Chrysos- 
 tom  {Horn.  ii.  de  Criice  et  Latr.),  S.  Augustin  {Tract,  cxi. 
 on  S.  John),  say  that  paradise  here  means  heaven.  If  it  be 
 asked  how  the  thief  could  be  in  heaven  with  Christ  on 
 that  day,  when  He  Himself  would  not  ascend  into  it  till 
 after  forty  days,  the  above  authors  and  others  who  hold 
 this  opinion  answer  that  Christ,  as  He  is  God,  is  everywhere 
 present,  and  that  He  was  therefore  in  heaven  on  that  da}-. 
 But  Christ  evidently  meant  that  not  only  the  thief,  but  that 
 He  Himself  also  should  be  that  day  in  paradise,  where, 
 when  He  spoke  those  words.  He  was  not.  There  is  a  sort 
 of  tacit  comparison  of  persons  and  antithesis  of  places  in 
 these  words,  as  if  Christ  had  said  :  "  As  thou  art  with  Me 
 in  the  same  punishment  now,  so  thou  shalt  be  with  Me 
 this  day  in  the  same  paradise". 
 
 Others  explain  paradise  to  be  the  place  of  Adam  where 
 was  the  terrestrial  paradise.  Among  these  are  Theophylact 
 and  Euthymius.  But  these  from  the  word  "paradise"  would 
 place  Christ  and  the  thief  in  the  country  of  Mesopotamia, 
 or  wherever  Adam's  paradise  was.  But  what  would  Christ 
 do  there  after  His  death,  or  what  benefit  would  it  have  been 
 
540  THE    GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxvii.  44. 
 
 to  the  thief  to  be  carried  to  a  place  which  is  now  waste 
 and  barren  and  without  enjoyment  ?  Others  think  that  no 
 especial  place  was  intended,  but  that  wherever  Christ  is, 
 and  is  seen  to  be  God,  there  paradise  is  said  to  be  ;  and 
 because  the  soul  of  the  thief  was  to  follow  Christ  and  see 
 Him  as  God  on  that  day,  he  is  therefore  said  to  be  about 
 to  be  with  Christ  in  paradise.  Many  Moderns  adopt  this 
 idea,  and  cite  S.  Augustin  and  Bede  as  its  author.  Let 
 them  see  how  truly.  It  seems  to  be  an  idea  which,  who- 
 ever was  its  author,  cannot  be  maintained  ;  for  Christ  spoke 
 of  paradise  as  a  place  where  He  then  was  not.  On  the 
 other  hand,  this  opinion  seems  open  to  objection  ;  for  if 
 paradise  is  merely  a  place  whence  God  is  seen,  the  thief 
 was  in  paradise  when  hanging  on  the  cross,  for  he  there 
 saw  God,  and,  as  the  Doctors  of  the  Church  agree,  never 
 ceased  to  be  in  bliss. 
 
 Paradise,  in  fact,  would  appear  to  be  the  bosom  of 
 Abraham,  the  place  where  the  holy  men  of  old  were  in 
 waiting  until  the  way  to  heaven  was  opened  to  them. 
 This  place  was  called  paradise  and  the  place  of  rest ; 
 for  into  it  as  a  place  of  enjoyment,  or  certainly  of  rest, 
 Lazarus  was  carried  by  the  angels  after  his  death  {S.  Luke 
 xvi.  22).  As,  then,  Christ  was  about  to  go  down  thither  on 
 that  same  day  to  show  Himself  to  the  holy  fathers  and  the 
 spirits  who  were  there,  and  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  them, 
 as  S.  Peter  tells  us  (i  Ep.  iii.  19),  that  returning  thence  He 
 might  lead  captivity  captive  {Ephes.  iv.  8),  Christ  promised 
 the  thief  that  he  should  go  thither  with  Him  that  same 
 day.  This  is  the  opinion  of  S.  Justin  Martyr  {Qiicsst.  y6 
 ad  OrtJiod),  S.  Athanasius  {Ep.  to  Epictetus),  S.  Augustin 
 {Dc  Genes,  ad  Litt.,  xii.  34),  and  Prudentius  {Hymn,  pro  De- 
 fnnctis).  From  this  it  is  clear  how  the  third  word,  viectun, 
 is  to  be  understood  :  "  Where  I  also  shall  be,  whither  I  am 
 about  to  go".  It  is  said  by  some  teachers  of  heresy  that 
 there   is  no    purgatory,  and  that    no    offence    is    remitted 
 
Ch,  XXVII.  44.]  PARADISE.  54 1 
 
 without  also  the  remission  of  the  punishment,  for  both 
 were  remitted  to  the  thief,  who  was  not  sent  into  purgatory 
 after  his  death  but  was  admitted  to  paradise.  These  argue 
 from  the  particular  to  the  general.  There  was  no  purga- 
 tory for  the  thief,  therefore  there  is  none  for  any  man  ;  the 
 offence  of  the  thief  was  remitted  and  his  punishment  was 
 remitted  also  ;  to  none,  therefore,  when  the  fault  is  remitted 
 is  the  punishment  retained.  By  this  reasoning  there  would 
 be  neither  paradise  nor  hell.  Not  to  speak  of  the  other 
 thief,  an  infinite  number  of  lost  souls  have  no  paradise.  Are 
 we,  therefore,  to  conclude  that  there  is  no  paradise  for 
 anyone  ?  Not  only  for  this  thief  of  whom  we  are  speaking, 
 but  also  for  the  Apostles  and  many  others  of  the  blessed, 
 there  was  no  hell.  Is  there  none,  therefore,  for  any  man  ? 
 It  would  be  well  if  this  were  so  ;  we  should  then  be  free 
 from  the  numberless  evils  by  which  God  punishes  us.  Who 
 denies  that  diseases,  the  miseries  of  this  life,  and  death 
 itself  are  the  penalties  of  original  sin  ?  But  the  fault  of 
 original  sin  is  remitted,  though  the  punishments  of  it  are 
 retained.  Who  does  not  know  that  the  offence  of  David's 
 adultery  was  forgiven,  though  some  portion  of  the  punish- 
 ment was  inflicted  upon  him  (2  Kings  xii.  13,  14)  ? 
 
 The  words  of  S.  John  (xix.  25,  26,  27)  apply  here  : 
 "  Now  there  stood  by  the  cross  of  Jesus  His  Mother  and 
 His  Mother's  sister,  Mary  of  Cleophas,  and  Mary  Magda- 
 lene. When  Jesus,  therefore,  had  seen  His  Mother  and  the 
 disciples  standing  whom  He  loved.  He  said  to  His  Mother, 
 '  Woman,  behold  thy  son '."  Christ  called  His  Mother 
 woman  and  not  mother  to  show  that  she  was  widowed  and 
 alone  ;  but  when  He  said,  "  Behold  thy  son,"  He  did  not 
 commend  that  disciple  to  her,  but  He  commended  her  to 
 the  disciple,  as  if  to  say,  "  I  do  not  leave  thee  wholly 
 deserted.  That  disciple  shall  fulfil  My  offices  to  thee  ; 
 he  shall  console  thee,  protect  thee,  support  thee ".  Then 
 He  said   to  the  disciple,    "  Behold   thy  mother ".      These 
 
542  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxvii.  45- 
 
 words  are  to  be  understood  in  a  contrary  sense,  because 
 of  the  difference  of  the  persons  ;  for  Christ  does  not  now 
 commend  the  disciple  to  the  mother,  but  the  mother  to 
 the  disciple,  as  if  to  say,  "  Henceforth  thou  shalt  have 
 her  as  thy  mother  ;  thou  shalt  cherish  {cold)  her,  comfort 
 her,  protect  her,  support  her  (ales). 
 
 Verse  45.  Noiu  from  the  sixth  Jioiir. 
 
 We  have  now  to  meet  the  difficult  question  of  the  hour 
 at  which  Christ  was  crucified.  S.  Mark  (xv.  25)  says  that 
 it  was  the  third  hour.  Hence  it  has  been  concluded  that, 
 as  there  was  darkness  for  three  hours,  Christ  hung  on  the 
 cross  during  that  time,  for  the  words  of  S.  Mark  are  not 
 contrary  to  those  of  S.  Matthew.  For  although  S.  Matthew 
 does  not  state  directly  at  what  hour  Christ  was  crucified, 
 yet  when  he  says  that  the  darkness  happened  at  the  sixth 
 hour  (after  the  distribution  of  His  clothes,  the  blasphemies 
 of  the  Jews  as  He  was  hanging  on  the  cross,  and  the 
 conversation  of  Christ  and  the  thief),  he  shows  that  Christ 
 was  crucified  before  the  sixth  hour.  But  S.  John  appears 
 to  be  at  variance  with  S.  Mark  ;  for  S.  John  says  (xix.  14), 
 "  And  it  was  the  parasccue  of  the  Pasch,  about  the  sixth 
 hour  ".  Christ,  therefore,  could  not  have  been  crucified  at 
 the  third  hour,  as  S.  Mark  says  ;  nor  even  at  the  sixth, 
 when  S.  Matthew  speaks  of  the  darkness  while  He  was  on 
 the  cross  ;  for  there  were  so  many  things  done  in  the 
 interval  between  His  condemnation  and  crucifixion.  He 
 was  brought  by  the  soldiers  into  the  hall.  He  was 
 scourged,  crowned  with  the  thorns,  clothed  in  the  purple 
 robe,  mocked,  and,  lastly,  led  slowly  to  Calvary,  as  a  man 
 so  greatly  wearied  and  carrying  his  cross  would  necessarily 
 be.  All  these  things  could  not  have  been  done  in  the 
 space  of  one  hour  only.  S.  Augustin  has  solved  the 
 difficulty  in  two  ways  {Tract,  on  S.  JoJlu  cxvi.,  and  Dc 
 Cojtscns.,  iii.  13). 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  45.]  THE   DARKNESS.  543 
 
 1.  At  the  third  hour,  as  S.  Mark  says  (xv.  25),  Christ  was 
 crucified,  not  by  the  hands  of  the  soldiers,  but  by  the 
 tongues  of  the  Jews  ;  for  it  was  at  that  hour  that  they 
 cried  out  to  Pilate,  "Crucify  Him!  crucify  Him!"  But 
 this  explanation  does  not  appear  to  agree  with  the  words 
 of  the  Evangelists.  For  it  is  clear  that  S.  Mark  docs  not 
 speak  of  that  metaphorical  crucifixion  of  tongues,  but  of 
 the  actual  crucifixion  ;  for  he  speaks  at  once  (xv.  24,  25)  of 
 His  being  crucified  and  of  the  division  of  His  garments. 
 Again,  he  had  said  just  before  (verses  13,  14)  that  the  Jews 
 cried  out  to  Pilate,  "  Crucify  Him  !  "  Why  should  it  have 
 occurred  to  him  to  say  a  second  time  that  Christ  was  cruci- 
 fied by  the  tongues  of  the  Jews  ?  Lastly,  it  is  clear  from 
 S.  Matthew,  S.  Mark,  and  S.  Luke  that  Christ  was  crucified 
 before  the  sixth  hour,  for  they  all  three  say,  Eojani  crucifixo, 
 "  When  He  was  now  crucified  the  darkness  came  ".  He 
 could  not  have  been  crucified,  therefore,  at  the  sixth  hour, 
 and  much  less  condemned  by  Pilate.  Hence  if  one  or 
 other  Evangelist  requires  to  be  explained — S.  Mark  or 
 S.  John — it  must  be  S.  John  rather  than  S.  Mark,  for  his 
 opinion  seems  to  be  less  in  harmony  with  that  of  the  others. 
 
 2.  The  second  opinion  of  S.  Augustin  is  that  Christ  was 
 condemned  at  the  sixth  hour  of  the  night,  and  not  of  the 
 day,  and  that  He  was  crucified  at  the  third  hour,  not  of 
 the  night,  but  of  the  day,  as  S.  Mark  says.  S.  John  does 
 not  say  absolutely  that  it  was  the  sixth  hour,  but  that  it 
 was  about  {quasi)  the  sixth  hour  of  the  Parasceue.  The 
 Parasceue  was  not  only  the  day,  but  also  the  night  ;  or,  as 
 S.  Augustin  thinks,  the  night  rather  than  the  day.  But 
 S.  Augustin  himself  thinks  this  idea  less  tenable  than  the 
 other,  and  can  be  more  easily  refuted.  We  have  said 
 before,  and  it  is  certain  from  S.  Luke  xxii.  66,  that 
 the  day  had  certainly  dawned  before  Christ  was  brought  to 
 Pilate.  But  even  if  He  had  been  condemned  as  soon  as 
 He  was  accused,  He  could  not  have  been  condemned  at 
 
544  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxvii.  45. 
 
 the  sixth  hour  ;  and,  besides,  many  things  had  happened 
 before  His  condemnation,  but  after  He  was  brought  to 
 Pilate.  Pilate  made  many  efforts  to  set  Him  free.  He 
 examined  Him  carefully  as  to  whether  He  were  the  King 
 of  the  Jews.  He  sent  Him  to  Herod.  Herod  sent  Him 
 back.  He  scourged  Him  when  sent  back.  Some  have 
 conjectured  that  the  word  "  third  "  in  5.  Mai'k  xv.  25  has 
 got  into  the  text  from  a  mistake  of  the  transcriber,  and 
 that  for  the  third  hour  we  should  read  the  sixth.  This  may 
 easily  have  happened  from  the  resemblance  of  the  Greek 
 letters  <r  and  7,  which  represent  three  and  six.  But  there  is 
 no  evidence  in  support  of  this  opinion,  and  we  should  not 
 alter  the  text  merely  to  meet  a  difficulty.  And  even  if  this 
 conjecture  were  true,  the  passage  would  not  be  explained  ; 
 for,  supposing  S.  Mark  to  have  said  that  Christ  was  cruci- 
 fied at  the  sixth  hour,  how  could  He  have  been  cruci- 
 fied then,  as  S.  John  says  that  He  was  condemned  at  that 
 hour,  and  between  His  condemnation  and  crucifixion  there 
 must  have  been  at  least  an  hour  ?  How  do  S.  Matthew, 
 S.  Luke,  and  even  S.  Mark  himself,  say  that  the  darkness 
 was  at  the  sixth  hour,  when  Christ  had  been  crucified 
 much  before  ?  Again,  S.  Mark  (verse  33)  says,  "When  the 
 sixth  hour  was  come  "  {^evoixkvr]'^  Se  wpa^i  ckt^s:),  when  he 
 had  said  before  that  Christ  was  crucified  at  the  third  hour, 
 thus  opposing  the  sixth  hour  to  the  third  when  Christ  was 
 crucified.  For  the  word  yevofjuivr}^  {/actc^,  "  come  ")  has  the 
 force  here  of  meaning  that  it  had  not  come  before,  and  the 
 particle  Si,  "  but,"  is  a  disjunctive  one,  by  which  S.  Mark 
 opposes  that  hour  to  the  one  in  which  he  had  said  that 
 Christ  was  crucified.  If  any  passage  has  to  be  corrected, 
 it  should  rather  be,  as  some  still  think,  that  of  S.  John,  that 
 for  the  sixth  we  may  read  the  third  hour.  But  this,  again,  is 
 not  to  correct,  but  to  deprave  Scripture,  and  the  same  ques- 
 tion will  remain  :  How  could  Christ  have  been  condemned 
 at  the  third  hour,  when  S.  Mark  says  that  He  was  crucified 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  45-]  THE   SIXTH   HOUR.  545 
 
 then,  and  at  least  one  hour  must  have  elapsed  before  His 
 condemnation  and  crucifixion  ?  The  question  is  easy,  and 
 it  would  have  been  already  answered  by  N.  de  Lyra  if 
 many,  from  over  much  curiosity  and  subtlety,  had  not 
 made  it  difficult. 
 
 It  has  been  observed  on  chap.  xx.  that  the  Hebrews 
 divided  the  day  into  twelve  hours,  called  by  astronomers 
 nsualcs  and  incsquales.  These  twelve  hours  they  sub- 
 divided again  into  four  parts,  as  they  did  with  the  night 
 also,  only  that  each  division  of  the  latter  had  its  own 
 military  name  of  watch — cpvXaKal,  each  soldier  keeping 
 guard  for  three  hours.  The  four  divisions  of  the  day, 
 each  consisting  of  three  hours,  having  no  proper  name 
 of  their  own,  received  one  from  the  end  of  the  preced- 
 ing division.  The  entire  space  of  three  hours,  therefore, 
 which  intervened  between  sunrise  and  the  third  hour  of  the 
 day  was  called  the  third  hour,  from  the  third  hour,  which 
 was  the  last  of  that  interval  if  described  strictly  and 
 accurately.  It  was  the  custom  of  the  Jews,  as  it  is  ours,  to 
 call  the  hours  that  follow  by  those  that  have  last  passed. 
 Thus  when  the  clock  has  struck  twelve  we  call  it  noon  till 
 one  o'clock ;  or  at  least  until  twelve  is  nearly  over,  though 
 it  is  not  properly  noon,  but  one  o'clock,  or  the  first  hour 
 after  noon  ;  for  the  hour  of  noon  is  that  which  begins  at 
 eleven  and  ends  at  twelve. 
 
 When  we  speak  of  the  time,  therefore,  between  eleven 
 and  twelve,  we  sometimes  call  it  eleven  and  sometimes 
 twelve,  at  one  time  naming  it  from  the  beginning,  and  at 
 another  from  the  end  of  the  hour.  S.  Mark  and  S.  John 
 speak  in  the  same  manner.  For  as  Christ  was  condemned 
 and  crucified  in  the  interval  between  the  end  of  the  third 
 hour,  which  is  the  beginning  of  the  sixth,  and  the  end  of 
 the  sixth,  which  is  the  beginning  of  the  ninth,  S.  John, 
 dating  from  the  end  of  the  third  hour,  calls  it  the  sixth 
 hour :  S.  Mark,  dating  from  the  beginning  of  that  period, 
 2—35 
 
546  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxvii.  45. 
 
 calls  it  the  third  hour ;  but  because  it  is  not  likely  that  S. 
 John  would  have  called  it  the  sixth  hour  until  the  time 
 was  getting  on  towards  the  end  of  the  sixth  hour,  as  we 
 should  not  call  it  one  o'clock  until  it  was  at  least  half-past 
 twelve,  it  is  to  be  supposed  that  Christ  was  condemned 
 after  half-past  ten  if  we  reckon  by  our  own  time  ;  for  their 
 third  hour  answered  to  our  nine  o'clock,  their  sixth  to  our 
 twelve,  and  their  third  hour  and  half  was  our  half-past  ten. 
 At  that  time,  therefore,  Christ  was  condemned,  and  S.  John 
 says  that  He  was  condemned  about  the  sixth  hour.  He 
 was  crucified  about  an  hour  later,  that  is,  about  half-past 
 eleven,  which  S.  Mark  calls  the  third  hour,  because  the 
 whole  time  between  the  third  and  sixth  hours  was  called 
 the  third  hour. 
 
 Christ  had,  therefore,  been  crucified  one  and  a  half  hour 
 when  the  darkness  came  on.  His  garments  were  then 
 divided  by  the  soldiers,  the  revilings  of  the  Jews  took 
 place,  and  paradise  was  promised  to  the  thief 
 
 From  this  it  follows  that  they  are  in  error  who  think  that 
 Christ  hung  on  the  cross  alive  for  six  hours  ;  that  is,  from 
 nine  o'clock  in  the  morning  till  the  third  hour  after  noon  ; 
 that  is,  three  o'clock.  By  this  account  of  time  He  could 
 not  have  hung  on  the  cross  alive  more  than  four  hours  ;  for 
 He  was  crucified  after  eleven  o'clock,  and  at  the  ninth  hour, 
 that  is,  the  third  after  noon,  or  shortly  after.  He  expired  ; 
 as  S.  Matthew  relates  in  verses  46  to  50. 
 
 Origen  and  Theophylact  say  that  Christ  was  crucified 
 at  the  same  hour  as  that  in  which  Adam  fell,  which  was 
 about  noon  ;  others,  that,  at  the  hour  of  the  expulsion  of 
 Adam  from  paradise,  Christ  opened  the  gates  of  it  again. 
 
 S.  Luke  (xxiii.  44)  says  that  it  was  almost  the  sixth 
 hour  ;  not  that  it  was  not  the  sixth  hour,  but  either  he 
 was  not  quite  sure  whether  or  not  the  sixth  hour  was  com- 
 pleted, or  he  would  not  affirm  that  it  was,  he  added  the 
 word  "almost,"  as  wc  do  when  we  state  the  time,  but  it  is  of 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  45-]  THE   DARKNESS.  547 
 
 no  consequence  to  be  exact.  Both  S.  Matthew,  in  this 
 place,  and  S.  Mark  (xv.  33)  say  :  "  When  the  sixth  hour 
 was  come  there  was  darkness  over  the  whole  earth  until 
 the  ninth  hour".  The  three  Evangelists  say  that  it  was 
 the  sixth  hour — that  is,  midday — that  the  miracle  might 
 appear  more  wonderful  ;  for  when  the  sun  was  at  its  height 
 the  darkness  came,  as  Amos  had  foretold  (viii.  9)  :  "  And 
 it  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day,  saith  the  Lord  God,  that 
 the  sun  shall  go  down  at  midday,  and  I  will  make  the 
 earth  dark  in  the  day  of  light ".  They  seemed  opposite 
 events,  and  therefore  more  wonderful,  that  the  sun  should 
 be  in  the  meridian  and  go  down.  The  Evangelists  probably 
 named  the  sixth  hour  that  no  one  might  endeavour  to 
 obscure  a  miracle,  so  notable  and  clearer  than  the  day,  by 
 saying  that  it  was  not  true  darkness,  but  that  it  was  either 
 morning  or  evening,  and  that  the  interposition  of  an  un- 
 usually dense  cloud  made  it  appear  that  there  was  darkness 
 when  there  was  not  really  such. 
 
 There  was  darkness. 
 
 It  may  not  have  been  a  darkness  as  thick  and  dense  as 
 that  of  midnight,  when  there  is  neither  sun  nor  moon,  but 
 such  as  that  of  a  total  eclipse  of  the  sun  ;  for  neither  the 
 Mother  of  Christ  nor  S.  John  left  the  place,  nor  the  soldiers 
 nor  the  other  spectators,  whom  no  love  of  Christ  detained 
 at  the  cross  as  it  did  the  disciple  and  the  Mother,  For  it 
 would  have  been  wonderful  if  during  those  three  full  hours 
 the  darkness  had  been  as  dense  as  night  and  they  had  not 
 gone  away.  The  Evangelists  do  not  explain  how  the 
 darkness  was  caused,  and  therefore  we  cannot  know  to  any 
 certainty.  But  we  may  conceive  what  is  most  likely.  Some 
 enemies  of  Christ,  to  magnify  the  miracle  forsooth,  have 
 said  that  it  was  a  simple  eclipse,  as  Origen  and  S.  Jerome 
 inform  us  when  treating  of  the  passage.  But  they  easily 
 answer  the  objection  and  expose  their  ignorance. 
 
548  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxvii.  45. 
 
 It  was  the  season  of  Pasch,  which  always  falls  on  the 
 fifteenth  day  of  the  first  month,  when  the  moon  is  at  the 
 full  ;  whereas  an  eclipse  of  the  sun,  which  is  caused  by  the 
 irregularity  of  the  natural  course  of  the  stars,  can  only 
 happen  when  the  moon  is  new,  for  then  it  is  in  conjunction 
 with  the  sun  and  the  earth,  and  intercepts  the  light  of  the 
 sun.  Others  think  that  it  was  an  eclipse,  but  a  super- 
 natural one.  For  when  the  moon  was  distant  from  the  sun 
 half  the  breadth  of  the  heavens,  as  is  the  case  when  it  is 
 full,  at  the  commandment  of  God  it  went  back  and  returned 
 to  the  place  of  the  sun  and  darkened  it,  as  happened  at  the 
 prayer  of  King  Ezechia,  when  the  sun  went  back  ten 
 degrees.  Origen  and  Dionysius  the  Areopagite  were  the 
 authors  of  this  opinion.  The  latter,  when  he  was  in  Egypt 
 with  his  attendant  Apollophanes,  has  recorded,  in  his  letter 
 to  S.  Polycarp,  that  he  saw  that  eclipse  which  was  caused 
 in  contradiction  to  the  laws  of  nature.  This  opinion  is 
 held  by  almost  all  Catholics  and  is  very  probable,  ipse  per 
 se,  without  the  weight  of  authority.  The  only  point  against 
 it,  as  will  be  shown  by  and  by,  is  the  fact  that  the  darkness 
 was  only  seen  in  Judaea,  and,  therefore,  that  it  could  not 
 have  been  visible  in  Egypt,  a  country  so  far  distant.  This 
 objection  shall,  shortly,  be  answered.  Others  think  that 
 the  sun  was  darkened  by  the  subtraction  of  its  rays  ;  as 
 if  it  were  astounded,  as  S,  Jerome  says,  witnessing  so 
 shameful  a  deed.  Others,  again,  hold  that  dense  clouds 
 were  interspersed,  as  in  the  miraculous  darkness  in  Egypt 
 {Exod.  X.  22,  23).  Origen  appears  to  have  been  of  this 
 opinion,  and  S.  Chrysostom,  in  his  Horn.  Ixxxix,  oji  S. 
 Matt.  So  also  were  Theophylact  and  Euthymius.  It 
 would  not  be  foreign  to  our  object  to  enquire  why  this 
 darkness  was  sent  ?  Some  think — e.g.,  S.  Leo  {Senn.  x,  de 
 Pass.  Doin.) — that  it  was  to  signify  the  blindness  of  the 
 Jews  ;  others,  as  S.  Jerome,  that  it  was  to  show  the  detes- 
 tation felt  by  God  for  wickedness  so  flagrant. 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  45.]  THE   DARKNESS.  549 
 
 Others  say  that  it  was  sent  to  show  that  Christ,  the  Sun 
 of  Righteousness,  had  set  {Ajuos  viii.  9;  S.  Cyril  of  Jerusa- 
 lem, Catech.  CoiHiii.,  xiii.). 
 
 Others,  still,  that  it  was  to  declare  the  divine  wrath. 
 This  opinion  seems  the  more  reasonable,  because  it  is  in 
 agreement  with  other  passages  of  Scripture  (so  Jei'.  xv.  9  ; 
 Esek.  xxxii.  7,  8 ;  Joel  ii.  10,  30,  31  ;  iii.  14,  15).  It  might 
 be  thought  that  these  and  the  other  miracles  which  took 
 place  at  the  death  of  Christ  were  performed  to  bear  testi- 
 mony to  His  Divinity.  For,  as  before  said,  God  so  willed 
 His  Son  to  be  condemned,  so  willed  Him  to  die,  that  in 
 that  very  condemnation,  in  the  ignominy  of  the  cross,  in 
 His  very  death  itself,  not  only  His  innocence,  but  also  His 
 Divinity,  should  especially  shine  forth  :  lest,  if  He  had  died 
 without  miracles,  He  might  have  been  thought  a  mere  man  ; 
 and  the  rather  because  He  closed  His  life  hanging  on  the 
 cross,  and  He  did  not  come  down  from  it  when  the  Jews 
 cried  out  to  Him,  "  If  Thou  be  the  Son  of  God,"  &c.  By  the 
 most  wise  counsel  of  God,  therefore,  so  many  and  great 
 miracles  were  opposed  to  the  cross,  that  our  faith,  which 
 might  have  been  weakened  by  the  ignominy  of  the  cross, 
 might  be  strengthened  by  the  multitude  and  greatness  of 
 them. 
 
 Another  question  on  the  subject  is :  How  far  the  darkness 
 extended  ?  S.  Matthew  says,  "  Over  the  whole  earth  " ;  and 
 SS.  Mark  and  Luke  say  the  same  in  other  words.  Thus 
 many  good  authorities,  such  as  S.  Chrysostom,  Euthymius, 
 Theophylact,  think  that  the  darkness  extended  over  the 
 whole  world.  In  confirmation  of  this  idea,  we  may  cite  the 
 letter  of  Dionysiu.s  to  Polycarp,  stating  that  he  saw  it  in 
 Egypt.  The  opinion  of  Origen,  however,  seems  more  ten- 
 able, that  it  only  extended  over  Judjea,  and  that  it  was  sent 
 for  the  Jews  only,  and  to  those  places  in  which  Christ  had 
 preached  the  Gospel,  that  so  His  Divinity  and  doctrine 
 might  be  confirmed.      It  is  also  very  unlikely  that  none 
 
550  THE  GOSPEL  OF   S.   MATTHEW.      [Cn.  xxvii.  45. 
 
 of  all  the  many  Greek  and  Latin  historians  should  have 
 recorded  an  event  so  remarkable,  if  it  had  extended  and 
 had  been  known  throughout  the  entire  world. 
 
 Again,  it  was  not  possible  that  there  should  have  been 
 darkness  over  the  whole  earth  at  that  sixth  hour,  when  in 
 the  central  parts  of  the  earth  it  was  night ;  and  in  many 
 others  where  it  was  day,  it  could  not  be  the  sixth  hour, 
 that  is,  noon.  For  this  happens  in  different  countries  at 
 different  times  ;  and  it  is  evident  that  the  Evangelists  not 
 only  wished  to  relate  the  miracle,  but  that  it  happened  at 
 the  sixth  hour,  that  is,  noon,  when  the  miracle  would  be 
 greater.  In  those  countries,  then,  where  it  was  not  noon  at 
 that  time,  that  miracle  was  not  v/rought. 
 
 But,  then,  how  do  the  three  Evangelists  say  that  the  dark- 
 ness was  over  the  whole  earth?  Origen  answers  rightly, 
 that  the  word  "  whole  "  is  to  be  applied  to,  and  understood 
 of,  the  place  in  question  in  which  the  event  happened.  The 
 event  happened  in  Judaea  :  the  darkness  therefore  happened 
 throughout  the  whole  of  Judaea.  So  in  3  Kings  xviii.  10. 
 When  Abdias  found  the  prophet,  he  had  certainly  not  been 
 into  all  kingdoms,  but  into  all  the  parts  of  his  own  king- 
 dom. So  again  5.  Ljike  ii.  i.  The  whole  world  was  not 
 literally  enrolled,  for  Caesar  was  not  master  of  this,  but  all 
 those  parts  of  it  within  which  the  Roman  Empire  was  con- 
 tained. But  how  was  it  that  S.  Dionysius  saw  the  darkness 
 in  Egypt  ?  for  neither  his  authority  nor  the  authenticity  of 
 his  letter  is  to  be  given  up.  The  darkness  was  probably 
 caused  by  the  total  opposition  of  the  moon  ;  and  therefore 
 in  Judaea,  where  the  eclipse  was  full,  the  darkness  was 
 great ;  but  in  other  places,  where  the  moon  did  not  conceal 
 the  whole  sun,  it  was  less,  as  each  country  was  more  or  less 
 distant  from  Jerusalem.  Dionysius,  therefore,  in  Egypt 
 could  see  the  eclipse,  but  not  the  great  darkness  that  was 
 in  Judaea,  although  he  says  that  he  saw  the  great  darkness 
 — great,  that  is,  probably  as  compared  with  other  dark- 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  46.]  ELI,   ELI.  55 1 
 
 ness  :  such  as  that  which  happens  at  the  ech"pse  of  the 
 sun.  But,  then,  why  has  no  Greek  or  Latin  historian  men- 
 tioned the  event  ?  One  has  done  so,  for  Origen  mentions 
 Phlegontes,  the  author  of  Egyptian  Chronicles,  who  de- 
 scribed it. 
 
 Verse  46,  And  about  the  ninth  hour  Jesus  cried  zvith  a 
 lo7id  voice. 
 
 This  ninth  hour  answers,  as  has  been  said,  to  our  three 
 in  the  afternoon.  S.  Mark  says  :  Exclaviavit  voce  magna. 
 He  increases  the  force  of  the  cry  by  the  addition  of  ex  to 
 the  verb,  and  by  the  words  magna  voce,  by  epitasis.  So  S. 
 Paul  {Heb.  v.  7).  That  Christ,  when  at  the  point  of  death, 
 could  cry  with  a  loud  voice  surpasses  human  nature.  For 
 the  voice  of  the  dying,  or  even  of  those  in  dread  of  death, 
 is  apt  to  fail  at  the  outset.  Christ,  although  He  was  dying 
 as  man,  yet,  as  God,  was  able  to  cry  with  a  loud  voice, 
 supra  Jiominem.  His  having  thus  cried  out  cannot  be 
 thought  void  of  a  reason  and  mystery.  Origen  thinks  that 
 it  was  to  show  that  there  was  a  great  mystery  in  His 
 death.  This  would  not  have  been  without  probability  had 
 he  not  turned  the  whole  into  an  allegory.  He  supposes  the 
 voice  to  have  been  great,  not  because  it  was  loud  and  strong, 
 but  because  it  was  full  of  teaching  and  mystery.  For  every 
 voice  of  Christ  is  great.  Euthymius  thinks  that  Christ 
 cried  with  a  loud  voice  to  show  that  He  truly  suffered  of 
 His  own  free-will.  But  this  would  rather  tend  to  prove 
 that  He  did  not  suffer  at  all,  as  He  was  able  to  cry  out 
 with  so  powerful  a  voice.  It  may  rather  be  thought  that 
 His  reason  was  that  all  who  were  present  might  recognise 
 the  words  of  Psalm  xxi.,  and  see  that  He  was  the  Christ 
 of  whom  it  was  written  :  Eli,  Eli,  lama  Sabacthani.  S. 
 Mark  (xv.  34),  by  a  slight  alteration,  reads  Eloi,  but  it  is 
 the  same  Hebrew  word.  They  expressed  Dens  mens  by 
 both  Eli  and  Eloi.     It  is  easy  to  understand  that  Christ 
 
552  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxvii.  46. 
 
 might  have  used  either  expression  ;  but  as  He  was  reciting 
 
 the  Psalm,  we  must  suppose  that  He  did  not  say  Eloi,  but 
 
 Eli,  as  written  therein.     The  bystanders,  too,  thought  that 
 
 He  called  for  Elias,  which  they  would  not  so  readily  have 
 
 done  had  He  said  Eloi,  instead  of  Eli,  Eli,  lama  Sabacthani, 
 
 L  .     . 
 
 ^2ilp21I^  n^/.     This  is  Syriac,  which  language  was  then 
 
 used  by  the  Jews.     The  Hebrew  is  ^-HlZ^i^.     They  are  the 
 
 words  of  David   in  his  complaint  against  God   of  being 
 
 deserted  by  Him  in  adversity.     The  words  that  follow  are 
 
 Td^^I?  nni  "-nO^ltl^^ri    'p'^Xrs    huge   a   salute    mca  verba 
 
 rngitus  mei ;  that  is,  "  my  complaints  before  Thee  are  far 
 
 from  bringing  me  any  salvation  and  deliverance".     From 
 
 the  similarity  of  the  Hebrew  word  the  LXX.  have  rendered 
 
 rngitus  7rapa7rT(Ofidro)v,  delictoruvi,  that  is,  "  I  cry  to  Thee 
 
 for  safety,  but  my  sins  cry  to  Thee  against  it,  so  that  I  am 
 
 far  from   it ".      But  as   the  whole    psalm   was   written   of 
 
 Christ,  as  we  see  from  verses  17,  19,  which  can  apply  to  no 
 
 other,  it  cannot  be  doubted,  that  when  David  uttered  these 
 
 words,  he  had  regard  to  Christ.     Christ,  then,  when  dying 
 
 uttered  the  beginning  of  the  psalm  to  show  that  He  was 
 
 the  Christ  of  whom  the  psalm  speaks. 
 
 But  here  arises  another  question.     How  could  Christ  say 
 
 that    He  was    forsaken    by  God  ?      Calvin    is    not   to   be 
 
 listened  to  who  says  that  He  suffered  all  the  pains  of  the 
 
 condemned,  among  which  was  utter  despair.     Christ's  own 
 
 words  disprove  this  :   "  Into  Thy  hands  I   commend   My 
 
 spirit "    {Ps.    XXX.    6).      Nor   was    it   either   necessary  or 
 
 possible  that  He  should  suffer  all  the  punishments  of  the 
 
 lost,  or  He  must  have  blasphemed   God,  and   done  other 
 
 things  which  these  do,  and  which,  although  committed  of 
 
 their  free-will,  are  punishments  of  sin.     Nor,  again,  was  He 
 
 required  to  undergo  the  heavy  punishments  which  many  of 
 
 His  martyrs  have  endured  for  Him.     For  it  was  not  the 
 
 greatness  of  His  punishment,  which,  however  great  it  was, 
 
 could  not  compare  with  the  multitude  and  greatness  of  our 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  46.]  ELI,   ELI.  553 
 
 sins,  but  the  condition  of  His  Person  which  satisfied  God; 
 for  whatever  it  was  that  God  suffered,  it  was  so  great  that 
 it  satisfied  even  an  angry  God. 
 
 The  ancient  Fathers,  although  they  explain  the  words  in 
 different  manners,  yet  all  claim  His  own  glory  for  Christ. 
 Their  most  general  explanation  is  that  He  spoke  them  not 
 in  His  own  Person,  but  in  ours — that  is  in  the  person  of  all 
 sinners.  For  when  the  Arians  brought  this  passage  for- 
 ward in  depreciation  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  and  said  that 
 He  was  so  far  from  being  God,  that  He  cried  out  that  He 
 was  forsaken  by  God — all  Catholic  Fathers  answered  that 
 He  cried  out  not  for  Himself,  but  for  us  whom  He  saw  to 
 be  deserted  by  God,  and  alienated  from  Him,  and  whom 
 He  desired  to  restore  to  His  favour.  So  say  S.  Athanasius 
 {Orat.  i.,  ii.,  and  Serni.  iii.,  iv.,  coiit.  Avian.,  and  Qttod  Dais  de 
 Deo) ;  S.  Gregory  Nazianzen  {Orat.  iv.  de  Theolog.)  ;  S.  Cyril 
 Alexandria  {De  Fid.  ad  Reg.)  ;  S.  Augustin  {Ps.  xxi.)  ;  S. 
 I.eo  {Serin,  xvi.  de  Pass.)  ;  S.  John  Damascene  {De  Fide,  iii. 
 2,  24),  and  Euthymius  {in  loc).  "  Hence  it  is,"  says  S.  Leo, 
 "  that  our  Head,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  transforming  all  the 
 members  of  His  Body  into  Himself,  what  He  had  formerly 
 ejaculated  in  the  psalm,  that  He  repeated  on  the  cross  in 
 the  voice  of  their  Redeemer  :  '  My  God,  My  God,  look 
 upon  me,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  me?'"  He  confirms 
 this  opinion  by  the  words  of  S.  Augustin  which  immediately 
 follow,  "  Far  from  Thy  salvation  are  the  words  of  my  sins," 
 which  can  apply  to  us,  but  cannot  to  Christ. 
 
 Others  think  that  Christ  called  Himself  forsaken  by  the 
 Father,  because  when  He  was  in  the  form  of  God,  by  the 
 decree  of  the  Father  He  "  emptied  Himself  and  assumed 
 the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  man  ; 
 and  being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  when  He  had  under- 
 gone so  many  and  great  punishments.  He,  as  it  were,  re- 
 pented that  He  had  been  made  man".  This  is  the  opinion 
 of  Origen,  and  one  not  apparently  very  tenable. 
 
554  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.       [Cn.  xxvir.  47. 
 
 The  opinion  of  those  who  say  that  Christ  spoke  those 
 words  as  man,  for  Himself,  as  He  had  said  to  the  Father, 
 "  Father,  if  it  be  possible,"  &c.,  seems  better.  For  as  He 
 was  both  God  and  man,  so,  as  we  have  said  before,  God 
 permitted  the  manhood  so  to  suffer  (restraining,  as  it  were, 
 the  Godhead)  as  if  He  had  been  a  mere  man.  Thus, 
 although  He  was  God,  He  prayed  as  a  mere  man.  Like  a 
 mere  man  He  complained  that  He  was  deserted  by  God. 
 Not  that  He  thought  Himself  so,  for  He  soon  after  com- 
 mended His  spirit  into  His  hands,  but  that  He  felt  Him- 
 self suffering  as  if  He  had  been.  Hence  He  cried  out  like 
 a  man  deserted  by  God,  "  My  God,  My  God,"  to  express 
 the  person  of  a  man  suffering  the  most  extreme  punish- 
 ment and  deserted  by  God.  This  is  the  opinion  of 
 Tcrtullian  {Adv.  Prax.),  S.  Hilary  {Cou.  xxxiii.  07i  S. 
 Matt),  S.  Epiphanius  {Her.  Ixix.),  S.  Cyril  {T/iesaurns,  x. 
 2),  S.  Ambrose  {Comment,  x.  on  S.  Luke,  and  De  Fide,  i.  6), 
 S.  Jerome  (zw  loc.).  But  S.  Hilary  and  S.  Ambrose  are  to 
 be  received  with  caution  ;  for  they  explain  it  as  if  when 
 Christ  died  His  Godhead  was  separated  from  His  soul 
 and  body.  "The  man,"  they  say,  "  when  on  the  point  of 
 death,  cried  out  from  the  separation  of  the  Divinity." 
 They  doubtless  meant,  not  that  His  Godhead  was  truly 
 separated  from  the  body  and  soul  of  Christ,  but  that  He  so 
 suffered  and  so  died  as  if  it  had  been. 
 
 Verse  47.  And  some  that  stood  tlicre  and  heard,  said.  This 
 man  calletJi  Elias. 
 It  is  uncertain  who  these  were.  Theophylact  supposes 
 them  to  have  been  Jews  ;  not  the  Priests,  or  Scribes,  or 
 Pharisees,  or  others  who  understood,  or  professed  to  under- 
 stand, the  Scriptures,  but  the  ordinary  unlearned  people, 
 who  had  no  knowledge  of  them,  and  therefore  thought  that 
 Christ  had  called  for  Elias.  Others  say  that  they  were 
 learned  Jews,  or  Priests,  or  Scribes,  or  Pharisees,  who  not 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  48.]  THE   THIRST.  555 
 
 from  ignorance  of  Scripture,  but  from  forwardness,  and  from 
 making  the  resemblance  of  Eli  to  Elias  a  pretext  for  ridi- 
 cule, said,  "  He  calleth  for  Elias ".  This  opinion  finds 
 favour  with  S.  Jerome  and  Bede.  Others,  again,  think  that 
 they  were  the  Roman  soldiers,  who  from  ignorance  of 
 Hebrew,  as  S.  Jerome,  Bede,  Strabo,  and  Euthymius 
 suppose,  or  from  the  license  of  mirth,  said,  "  He  calleth  for 
 Elias".  For  their  intention  we  cannot  speak,  but  it  may 
 be  safely  affirmed  that  they  were  soldiers,  because  S. 
 Matthew  and  S.  Mark  say  that  they  who  said,  "  He  calleth 
 for  Elias,"  or  one  of  them,  immediately  offered  Christ  the 
 vinegar.  S.  Luke  (xxiii.  36)  and  S.  John  (xix.  29)  say 
 that  they  who  did  this  were  Roman  soldiers. 
 
 Verse  48.  And  immediately  one  of  them  rnn7iing  took  a 
 sponge,  and  filled  it  zvith  vinegar. 
 
 S.  Matthew  (here)  and  S.  Mark  (xv.  36)  seem  to  say  that 
 it  was  one  of  the  soldiers  who  ran  and  offered  the  vinegar, 
 because  Christ  was  thought  to  have  called  for  Elias.  This 
 seems  scarcely  in  harmony  with  the  history,  for  what  had 
 Elias  to  do  with  vinegar?  S.  John  explains  it  more  fully  : 
 "  Afterwards  Jesus  knowing  that  all  things  were  now 
 accomplished,"  that  is,  that  He  had  now  suffered  all  things 
 that  the  Father  had  determined,  and  that  nothing  re- 
 mained but  that  He  should  give  up  His  life,  "  that  the 
 Scripture  " — that  is,  that  the  prophecy  of  David — "  might  be 
 fulfilled"  {Ps.  Ixviii.  22),  "said,  'I  thirst'".  By  these  words 
 He  declared  His  thirst,  of  which  David  had  spoken,  and 
 He  showed  that  the  time  was  now  come  when  the  vinegar 
 should  be  offered  to  Him. 
 
 It  may  appear  strange  that  there  should  have  been 
 vinegar  at  that  place,  and  at  hand  to  be  given  to  Christ. 
 S.  John  says  that  it  was  there.  It  was  no  doubt  placed 
 there  according  to  custom,  for  vinegar  was  given  to  men 
 crucified  or  about  to  be  fixed  on  the  cross.  The  reason 
 of  this  has  caused  some  speculation  among  commentators. 
 
556  THE    GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxvii.  49- 
 
 Theophylact,  whom  all  the  more  recent  authors  follow, 
 says  that  it  was  given  that  the  criminal  might  die  and  be 
 released  from  his  sufferings  the  quicker.  It  may  rather  be 
 thought  that  it  was  given  to  sustain  the  spirits,  if  any  man, 
 from  fear  of  death,  before  being  nailed  to  the  cross,  were 
 seized  with  faintness.  It  is  still  used  for  that  purpose  in 
 cases  of  execution  or  phlebotomy.  But  as  Christ  was 
 hanging  on  the  cross,  and  the  vinegar  could  not  be  given 
 out  of  a  vessel,  a  sponge  was  wetted  with  it,  and  offered 
 Him  on  a  reed.  S.  John  speaks  of  hyssop.  Some  have 
 thought  that  it  was  a  stalk  of  hyssop,  as  Euthymius  [On  S. 
 JoJin  xix.)  says,  "  because  although  hyssop  is  a  mere  shrub 
 with  us,  in  Judaea  it  grows  to  the  size  of  a  small  tree." 
 But  this  hardly  seems  probable,  for  neither  Pliny  nor 
 Dioscorides,  nor  any  other  botanical  writer,  has  mentioned 
 this,  and  the  author  of  the  Books  of  Kings  says  the 
 contrary.  He  tells  us  that  Solomon  treated  of  trees,  from 
 the  cedar  that  is  in  Libanus  unto  the  hyssop  that  comes 
 out  of  the  wall  (3  Khigs  iv.  33).  The  opinion  of  Theophy- 
 lact is  preferable  that  S.  John  called  the  reed  hyssop,  from 
 some  resemblance  to  the  uppermost  leaves  of  the  herb,  but 
 the  question  is  where  is  the  resemblance  to  be  found  ? 
 Some  say  that  the  sponge  was  bound  round  the  reed  by 
 hyssop,  hyssopo  being  not  the  dative  but  the  ablative  of 
 the  instrument.  S.  John  may  not  have  meant  that  the 
 sponge  was  placed  about  the  hyssop  as  about  a  reed,  on 
 which  the  vinegar  might  be  offered,  but  as  a  medicament 
 which  was  given  to  the  dying  with  vinegar.  So  the  soldiers 
 first  bound  the  hyssop  round  the  reed,  and  then  placed  the 
 sponge  about  the  hyssop,  as  S.  John  says,  that  Christ  might 
 thus  take  the  juice  of  the  h}-ssop  with  the  vinegar. 
 
 Verse  49.  And  the  others  said. 
 S.  Mark  (xv.  36)  says  that  the  words  that  follow  were 
 spoken,  not  by  the  others,  but  by  the  man  who  ran  to  give 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  49-]  LET   BE.  55/ 
 
 the  vinegar.  It  has  been  thought  that  the  passage  is 
 corrupt,  and  that  it  should  not  be  read  Xiycov  dcfyere,  but 
 oL  Se  XoLTTol  eXeyov  ;  but  the  rest  said,  "  Let  be,"  sinetc,  as  S. 
 Matthew  reads.  These  maintain  that  the  words  ol  8e 
 XoLiroi  have  fallen  out  of  the  text  of  S.  Mark,  and  that 
 for  eXeyov  has  been  substituted  Xeywv,  and  d(J36T€  for  a^e*,. 
 They  support  their  opinion  by  the  Syriac  and  some  Greek 
 copies  of  S.  Mark  which  read  as  above;  and  because  S. 
 Mark  relates  the  Passion  of  Christ,  not  only  generally  as 
 S.  Matthew  does,  but  he  almost  always  uses  the  same 
 words.  We  should  not  venture,  however,  to  alter  Scrip- 
 ture without  stronger  proofs  than  this.  The  proverb,  A^c 
 moveas  lineavi,  "  Move  not  the  line,"  ought  to  be  kept  to. 
 Certainly  S,  Augustin  {^De  Consens.,  iii.  17)  read  the 
 passage  of  S.  Mark  as  we  do,  though  he  does  not 
 attempt  to  solve  the  difficulty.  The  correction  does  not 
 appear  in  any  way  necessary  to  the  reconcilement  of  the 
 Evangelists  ;  for  the  words  of  S.  Matthew,  "  The  others 
 said.  Let  be,  let  us  see  whether  Elias  wall  come  to  deliver 
 Him,"  are  apparently  to  be  referred  not  to  verse  48  but  47. 
 For  the  Evangelist  does  not  oppose  the  others  to  him 
 who  ran  and  filled  the  sponge  with  vinegar,  but  to  those 
 who  said,  "  This  man  calleth  Elias,"  as  if  he  had  said, 
 "  Some  said,  '  This  man  calleth  Elias,'  but  others  said, 
 '  Let  be,  let  us  see,' "  &c.  He  who  ran,  as  S.  Mark  says, 
 and  filled  the  sponge  may  have  been  one  of  these.  If  it  be 
 objected  that  they  do  not  say  sitzite  but  sine,  the  answer 
 is  that  it  is  a  Hebraism,  by  which,  even  when  more  than 
 one  was  spoken  of,  they  used  the  singular,  saying  ^H 
 sine.  S.  Mark,  however,  who  says  that  one  especially,  as 
 speaking  with  the  others,  uttered  those  words,  does  not  say 
 that  he  used  the  expression  sine  but  sinete.  What  is  this 
 to  the  vinegar?  It  seems  to  confirm  the  idea  that  the 
 speakers  addressed  not  him  who  offered  the  vinegar,  but  all 
 in  common.      As  they   saw  that   Christ  was  dying,  and 
 
558  THE   GOSPEL   OF    S.    MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxvii.  50. 
 
 thought,  or  pretended  to  think,  that  He  called  upon  Elias, 
 they  wished  to  recruit  His  strength  by  the  vinegar,  and  to 
 see  whether  He  would  die  before  Elias  came  to  deliver 
 Him.  One  of  those,  therefore,  who  said,  "  Let  be,"  ran  for 
 the  vinegar.  The  reason  of  their  pretending  to  think  that 
 Elias  would  come,  may  have  been  that  it  was  a  common 
 opinion  among  the  Jews,  and  a  true  one,  that,  before  the 
 coming  of  Christ,  Elias  would  appear  {yid.  xi.  14 ;  xvii.  10, 
 11)  ;  and  although  these  were  Roman  soldiers,  from  having 
 lived  among  the  Jews,  they  had  some  knowledge  of  their 
 belief  on  the  subject,  and  spoke  from  it. 
 
 Verse  50.  And  Jesus  again  crying  zvitJi  a  loiid  voice. 
 Christ  had  so  cried  before  (verse  46).  Hence  the  force  of 
 the  word  "  again  ".  So  5.  Mark  xv.  37.  The  carefulness 
 of  the  Evangelists  in  relating  this  shows  that  there  was 
 some  mystery  in  it  which  may  be  worth  enquiring  into. 
 The  Ancients  give  many  and  probable  explanations  of  it. 
 Origen  {Tract,  xxxv.  in  Matt?)  says  that  it  was  that  Christ 
 might  show  that  He  died  not  in  fear,  but  in  confidence  and 
 with  security,  as  one  who  knew  that  after  death  He  would  be 
 placed  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  and  receive  a  name 
 that  is  above  every  name.  S.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  {Catech., 
 xiii.),  S.  Chrysostom  {Horn,  xxxix.),  S.  Jerome,  Euthymius, 
 and  Theophylact  {in  loc.)  think  that  it  was  to  show  that  He 
 died,  not  from  any  necessity  of  nature,  but  from  His  own 
 will,  dying  with  so  loud  a  cry.  Euthymius  says  that  even 
 with  His  last  breath,  as  He  had  done  through  His  whole 
 life,  He  professed  that  He  and  the  Father  were  One,  com- 
 mending His  spirit  to  Him.  Some  say  that  He  cried 
 with  the  loud  voice  that  all  might  understand  how  far  He 
 had  humbled  Himself  for  the  sins  of  men.  S.  Ambrose, 
 in  his  Commentary  on  S.  Luke  xxiii.,  is  the  author  of 
 this  idea.  Christ  appears  to  have  desired,  as  we  have 
 said  before,  by  this,  as  by   His  other  miracles,  to  show 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  50.]  THE    LOUD   CRY.  559 
 
 His  Divinity,  that  He  who  could  supernaturally  cry  with  a 
 loud  voice  at  the  last  moment  of  life  might  be  believed  in 
 as  more  than  man.  The  event  that  followed  confirms  this 
 opinion.  For  S.  Mark  says  (xv.  39)  that  the  centurion 
 said,  •'  Indeed,  this  man  was  the  Son  of  God  ".  We  know 
 from  S.  Luke  alone  what  Christ  said,  "  Father,  into  Thy 
 hands  I  commend  My  spirit ".  Christ  evidently  calls  His 
 soul  His  spirit. 
 
 He  commended  His  soul,  therefore,  to  His  Father,  not 
 in  the  sense  in  which  holy  men  do  when  they  die,  nor  even 
 in  that  of  S.  Stephen  (Acts  vii.  58),  "  Lord  Jesus,  receive 
 my  spirit  ".  For  men  commend  their  souls  to  God,  that 
 He  may  not  destroy  them,  but  make  them  partakers  of 
 everlasting  life.  Christ  did  not  so,  for  He  knew  that  He 
 could  not  be  lost,  and  He  had  no  sin  for  the  forgiveness  of 
 which  He  must  pray  to  the  Father  ;  but  He  commended 
 His  soul  to  Him  that  He  might  not  leave  it  in  hell,  whither 
 He  was  about  to  descend,  nor  suffer  His  holy  one  to  see 
 corruption,  as  David  said  of  Christ  (Ps.  xv.  10). 
 
 In  a  word,  as  He  was  to  remain  dead  three  days,  which 
 He  would  pass  in  hell.  He  deposits  His  soul,  which  He 
 would  receive  again,  in  the  hands  of  His  Father,  or,  as 
 He  says  Himself,  commends  it  to  Him.  So  one  who  was 
 going  a  three  days'  journey  would  give  into  the  keeping 
 of  his  most  trusted  friend  whatever  he  especially  valued, 
 saying,  "  I  commend  this  to  thy  care ".  So  Tertullian 
 (Co7tt.  Prax.)  and  S.  Ambrose  (On  S.  Luke  xxiii.)  explain 
 these  words  of  Christ.  Christ  took  them  from  Psalm  xxx. 
 6,  and  applied  to  Himself,  with  a  change  of  meaning,  what 
 David  had  said  of  himself  David  commended  to  God, 
 not  his  soul,  but  his  life,  which  he  meant  by  the  word 
 "  spirit "  (Ps.  xxx.  6)  ;  but  Christ  calls  His  soul  His 
 spirit.  The  prayer  of  David,  too,  is  conditional,  as  if  he  had 
 said,  "  As  often  as,"  or,  "  If  I  commend  my  life  into  Thy 
 hands,  although  I  be  in  extreme  peril  of  death.  Thou  hast 
 
56o  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxvii.  50. 
 
 redeemed  me " ;  that  is,  "  Thou  wilt  redeem  me,"  and 
 as  Thou  hast  promised  to  be  present  with  me,  so  wilt 
 Thou  do ;  but  Christ's  prayer  was  not  conditional,  but 
 absolute. 
 
 Yielded  2ip  the  ghost. 
 This  expression  also  shows  that  the  death  of  Christ  was 
 not  compulsory,  but  voluntary  ;  as  S.  Ambrose,  S.  Jerome, 
 and  Bede  have  observed.  S.  Ambrose  says,  "  He  gave  up 
 His  spirit,  and  He  gave  it  up  well,  for  He  did  not  lose  it 
 against  His  will ".  In  fine,  S.  Matthew  says  that  He 
 yielded  up  His  spirit  {cmisit).  But  what  is  yielded  up 
 (emittitur)  is  given  voluntarily  ;  what  is  lost  {amittitiir)  is 
 involuntary.  So  says  S.  John  (xix.  30) :  "  Bowing  His 
 head,  He  gave  up  the  ghost  ".  His  meaning  is  that  Christ 
 bowed  His  head,  not  of  necessity,  but  of  His  own  free-will, 
 as  being  about  to  lay  down  His  life  gently.  We  must  not 
 suppose,  however,  that  Christ  gave  up  His  spirit  in  that 
 great  cry,  for,  as  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark  say,  He  first 
 cried  out,  and  then,  in  the  words  of  S,  John,  "  bowing 
 His  head.  He  gave  up  the  ghost ".  There  is  no  ambiguity 
 here  in  S.  Matthew's  using  the  aorist  tense  Kpd^a<; — Kpd^a^ 
 (pcovfj  fieydXrj  d(f>riic6  to  Trvevfia,  cum  clamasset  voce  magna 
 emisit  spiritum.  S.  Mark  speaks  much  more  hesitatingly  : 
 d^eU  <pci)vi]v  fieydXTjv,  emittcns  vocem  magnam.  We  must 
 explain  this  by  S.  Matthew:  "yielded  up,"  emittcns ;  that 
 is,  C2im  cmisissct,  "  when  He  had  sent  forth  ".  Euthymius 
 thinks  that  Christ  commended  His  Mother  to  S.  John 
 between  that  great  cry  and  His  giving  up  His  spirit.  The 
 contrary  appears  to  be  the  fact  from  S.  John,  who  says 
 that  He  had  done  this  a  long  time  before.  For  he  says 
 that  Christ,  before  He  bowed  His  head  and  died,  cried  out, 
 "  It  is  finished ".  The  followers  of  Luther  and  Calvin 
 strangely  pervert  the  meaning  of  this  word,  as  if  it  had 
 been  the  intention  of  Christ  to  take  away  the  Sacrifice  of 
 the  Eucharist  and  all  our  satisfaction,  and   meant  to  say 
 
CH.xxvn.50.]  "IT    IS   FINISHED."  561 
 
 that  all  sacrifices  are  now  ended,  and  none  are  to  be 
 offered  henceforth  ;  for  all  satisfaction  and  all  our  sancti- 
 fication  were  now  perfected. 
 
 But  Christ  did  not  speak  of  the  satisfaction  of  sacrifice, 
 but  of  His  own  Passion.  He  meant  that  this  was  com- 
 pleted ;  that  is,  that  all  that  He  had  to  suffer  was  com- 
 pleted, and  nothing  remained  to  be  done  but  to  lay  down 
 His  life,  which  He  had  only  taken  that  He  might  die,  and 
 had   only  kept   to   that   end. 
 
 For  these  words  are  to  be  explained  according  to  the 
 harmony  of  time,  place,  and  the  subject  matter.  It  was 
 the  season  of  the  Passion.  Christ  was  hanging  on  the 
 cross.  He  had  endured  all  the  punishment  He  had  to 
 endure  for  us.  He  said,  "  It  is  finished  "  ;  that  is,  there  is 
 nothing  now  remaining  for  Me  to  suffer.  As  if  his  friend 
 should  say  to  a  patient  who  had  to  undergo  amputation  of 
 his  limbs,  when  the  operation  was  over :  "  It  is  done  ;  you 
 have  borne  all  ;  there  is  nothing  more".  In  short,  Christ 
 only  meant  what  S.  Paul  says  {Rom.  vi.  9).  Granting  for 
 a  moment  that  Christ  spoke  of  the  sacrifices  and  figures  of 
 the  Old  Law,  as  certainly  many  even  of  the  Ancients  under- 
 stood it ;  as  if  He  had  said,  "  It  is  finished,"  that  is,  all  the 
 prophecies  and  figures  of  the  Old  Law  are  fulfilled  which 
 (as  we  shall  show  on  verse  47)  was  signified  by  the  rending 
 of  the  veil  :  yet  what  has  this  to  do  with  the  taking  away 
 of  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Eucharist  ?  what  to  the  taking  away 
 of  the  satisfaction  of  good  works  ?  The  Ancients  who  re- 
 ceived the  above  explanation  believed  both  these  doctrines. 
 But  the  Moderns  explain  the  words  in  question  to  mean 
 that:  "There  is  nothing  now  to  be  done  either  by  us  or 
 by  them  to  insure  our  salvation ".  If  so,  why  do  we 
 believe  ?  why  are  we  baptised  ?  why  do  we  take  the 
 Eucharist  ?  why  are  good  works  required  of  us  even  after 
 the  death  of  Christ,  if  we  are  absolutely  saved  only  by 
 those  three  words,  "  It  is  finished  "  ? 
 2—36 
 
562  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxvii.  51. 
 
 There  is  another  meaning  latent  in  these  words.  Christ 
 showed  that  He  was  willing  to  die  then,  and  not  before, 
 and  not  after  ;  for  He  died  not  by  any  law  of  nature,  but  by 
 His  own  will  and  for  the  sake  of  His  office,  and  as  He 
 meant  to  satisfy  the  Father's  will  and  decree  ;  and  as  He 
 had  not  satisfied  these  before,  He  would  not  die  before  ;  but 
 when  He  had  satisfied  them,  even  though  nature  required 
 Him  to  live  some  time  longer,  yet,  lest  He  might  appear 
 to  live  even  a  few  hours  to  no  purpose  after  He  had  dis- 
 charged His  office.  He  willed  to  die.  This  is  the  meaning 
 of  "  It  is  finished  "  ;  as  if  He  had  said,  "  The  time  is  come 
 for  Me  to  lay  down  My  life  ".  And  thus  Pilate,  not  under- 
 standing the  mystery,  wondered  that  He  was  dead  already 
 {S.  Mark  xv.  44).  Their  opinion  cannot  be  assented  to 
 who  say  that  Christ,  because  He  had  endured  greater 
 sufferings  throughout  the  night  than  the  thieves,  therefore 
 died  sooner  than  they.  To  increase  the  sufferings  of  Christ 
 they  diminished  the  mystery. 
 
 Verse  51.  And  behold. 
 S.  Augustin  {De  Conscns.,  iii.  19)  rightly  concludes  that 
 the  word  "  behold  "  means  that  immediately  upon  Christ 
 having  given  up  His  spirit  the  veil  of  the  Temple  was  rent ; 
 so  that  His  death  is  proved  to  have  been  the  cause  of  the 
 rending  of  the  veil,  and,  therefore,  that  when  S.  Luke  (xxiii. 
 45)  unites  this  with  the  darkness  which  happened  while 
 Christ  was  still  alive,  he  does  so  by  anticipation. 
 
 Tlie  veil  of  the  Temple  was  rent  in  two  from  the  top  even  to 
 the  bottom. 
 
 S.  Mark  (xv.  39)  writes  to  the  same  effect.  It  is  a  mystery 
 the  meaning  of  which  has  been  differently  explained  by 
 different  authorities. 
 
 I.  The  greater  number  say  that  it  was  that  the  ancient 
 sacraments  and  types,  which  scarcely  the  most  learned  of 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  51.]  THE   VEIL   RENT.  563 
 
 the  Doctors  of  the  Law  understood,  were  rent  and  laid 
 open  that  all  might  penetrate  into  the  very  Sanctum 
 Sanctonuii,  which  had  been  separated  by  the  veil  — 
 that  is,  into  the  very  penetralia  and  most  secret  and  oc- 
 cult mysteries  of  the  Old  Law  ;  for  what  appertained  to 
 the  Hebrews  in  figure  we,  by  the  taking  away  of  the  veil, 
 look  upon,  as  S.  Paul  says,  with  open  face  (2  Cor.  iii.  18). 
 Origen  {Tract,  xxxvi.  on  S.  Matt.),  S.  Ambrose  (x..  On  S. 
 Luke),  S.  Jerome  {in  loc),  S.  Cyril  Alexandria  (x.  37, 
 On  S.  Jo/m),  Theodoret  {Orat.  ix.  on  Dan?),  S.  Augustin 
 {On  Ps.  Ixiv.,  Ixx.  ;  Cont.  Faust.,  xii.  ii  ;  and  Semi.  iv.  de 
 Verb.  Doin.  sec.  Joan)),  S.  Leo  ( Serin,  x.  de  Pass.),  Sedulius, 
 and  others  are  the  authorities  for  this  opinion. 
 
 2.  Others  think  that  the  words  signified  the  abrogation 
 of  the  Synagogue.     So  S.  Augustin  {De  Temp.,  cxiv.). 
 
 3.  Others  that  the  Passion  of  Christ  was  ended.  For 
 the  flesh  of  Christ  was  signified  by  the  veil  of  the  Temple. 
 And  by  the  rending  of  the  veil  was  meant  either  the 
 piercing  of  His  body,  or  the  separation  from  it  of  His 
 soul.  So  S.  Cyril  Jerusalem  {Cat.  xiii.);  Theodoret  {Dial. 
 i.  de  Impatib.). 
 
 4.  Others  say  that  the  veil  was  as  the  clothing  of  the 
 Temple  ;  and  as  the  Jews,  when  in  affliction,  used  to  rend 
 their  clothes,  so  the  Temple,  like  one  mourning,  rent  its 
 veil  on  the  death  of  Christ.  Sedulius  thus  expresses  it 
 {Carm.  v.)  : 
 
 "  Illud  ovans  templum,  majoris  culmina  Templi 
 Procubuisse  videns,  ritu  plangentis  alumni 
 Saucia  discisso  nudavit  pectora  vela". 
 
 That  glorious  Temple,  seeing  then  the  height 
 Of  a  far  nobler  Temple  overthrown, 
 Like  to  a  mourning  follower  rent  its  veil 
 Baring  its  wounded  breast. 
 
 5.  Others  take  it  as  foreshowing  the  division  and  dis- 
 persion of  the  Jews  (S.  Hilary,  Can.  xxxiii.  on  S.  Matt). 
 
564  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxvii.  52. 
 
 6.  Others  that  the  Temple,  which  had  been  holy  hither- 
 to, would  henceforth  be  profaned.  This  is  said  by 
 Theophylact. 
 
 7.  Others  that  the  way  of  the  Holies  was  laid  open  ;  as 
 S.  Paul  says  {Hcb.  ix.  8).  That  is,  the  gate  of  heaven  was 
 opened  to  us,  which  before  the  death  of  Christ  was  closed, 
 and  henceforth  all  who  would  might  enter  it.  For  the  veil 
 of  the  Temple  was  opposed,  that  no  one  but  the  high 
 priest  might  enter  into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  and  that  only 
 once  a  year,  and  not  without  blood  :  which  was  also  a 
 figure  of  heaven  {Hcb.  ix.  24,  25).  This  interpretation  with 
 the  above — No.  i — as  having  the  most  authorities,  seems 
 the  best. 
 
 A  nd  the  earth  quaked  and  the  rocks  zvcre  rent. 
 That  there  was  some  mystery  here  cannot  be  doubted,, 
 though  not  the  same  as  in  the  rending  of  the  veil.  It  is 
 probable  that  Christ  showed  His  Divinity  by  these  two 
 events.  The  divine  presence  and  majesty  is  shown  by  the 
 earthquake  and  the  rending  of  the  rocks,  as  in  Ps.  Ixvii. 
 8,  9  ;  xcvii.  7-9  ;  xcviii.  i  ;  cxiii.  6,  7  ;  Joel  ii.  10.  The 
 divine  wrath  that  was  hanging  over  the  Jews  may  also  have 
 been  signified  (Joel  iii.  16  ;  Aggciis  ii.  22,  23  ;  Ps.  xlv.  7). 
 A  question  may  be  raised  as  to  the  extent  of  the  earth- 
 quake, like  that  of  the  darkness.  Origen  thinks  that,  like 
 the  darkness,  it  extended  only  over  Judaia.  The  author  of 
 the  book  on  the  miracles  of  Scripture,  falsely  ascribed  to  S. 
 Augustin,  says  (ii.  3)  that  it  extended  farther,  and  over- 
 threw eleven  cities  in  Thrace.  It  does  not  seem  probable, 
 however,  that  eleven  cities  should  have  been  destroyed 
 in  a  country  where  the  people  were  innocent,  and  none  in 
 Judaea,  the  seat  of  the  crime. 
 
 Verse  52.  yi;/c/  the  graves  zccrc  opened. 
 It  does  not  appear  clearly  from  the  Evangelists  at  what 
 time  the  graves  were   opened.       S.    Chrysostom   {in  lac). 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  52.]  THE   GRAVES   OPENED.  565 
 
 thinks  that  it  was  while  Christ  was  yet  living,  because 
 they  who  rose  accompanied  Christ  to  hell.  This  does  not 
 seem  to  agree  with  the  words  of  the  Evangelist,  who, 
 although  he  does  not  say  that  the  tombs  were  opened  im- 
 mediately after  Christ's  death,  yet  clearly  implies  that  such 
 was  the  fact.  Theophylact,  more  in  accordance  with  the 
 history,  thinks  that  it  took  place  then,  when  also  the  veil 
 was  rent,  the  earth  quaked,  and  the  rocks  were  divided. 
 But  there  is  this  difficulty.  As  the  tombs  were  opened 
 only  that  the  dead  might  rise,  or  to  testify  that  they  had 
 risen,  and  those  dead  rose  only  by  their  resurrection  to 
 bear  witness  to  the  Resurrection  of  Christ,  it  would  appear 
 useless  that  they  should  have  risen  before  Christ  did  so. 
 For  what  could  they  have  done  in  the  meantime  ?  Again, 
 it  seems  most  probable  that  Christ  visited  those  who  rose 
 while  they  were  yet  in  Hades,  as  He  did  the  other  dead 
 who  were  there,  and  took  them  with  Him  thence,  that  they 
 might  rise  with  Him  when  He  rose.  Lastly,  in  verse  53, 
 S.  Matthew  says:  "And  coming  out  of  the  tombs  after 
 His  resurrection,  came  into  the  holy  city  and  appeared  to 
 many ".  The  words  seem  to  imply  that  they  rose  only 
 after  Christ's  Resurrection.  From  these  premisses  Origen, 
 S.  Jerome,  and  Bede  conclude  that  they  rose  after  the 
 Resurrection  of  Christ  ;  although  the  two  last  think  that 
 the  tombs  were  opened  immediately  after  His  death,  though 
 the  dead  did  not  rise  till  after  the  Resurrection  of  Christ. 
 But  why  were  the  tombs  opened  immediately  if  the  dead  were 
 not  to  rise  ?  It  may  appear  more  probable  that  the  tombs 
 were  not  opened,  and  that  the  dead  did  not  rise  until  after 
 Christ  had  risen  ;  but  that  S.  Matthew,  when  He  began  to 
 relate  the  miracles  which  happened  on  the  death  of  Christ, 
 joined  this  also  to  the  others,  the  cause  of  which,  as  of  the 
 rest,  was  the  death  of  Christ. 
 
 Why  those  dead  rose  is  a  question  that  may  rightly  be 
 asked.    The  answer  would  not  be  difficult.    Christ  desired  to 
 
566  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxvii.  52. 
 
 have  companions  znd  witnesses  of  His  Resurrection  :  for  if 
 He  had  risen  alone  He  might  have  been  thought  a  phantom  ; 
 but  when  He  had  others  with  Him,  who  rose  at  the  same 
 time  as  He  did,  He  could  easily  show  that  He  could  rise, 
 because  He  raised  them. 
 
 For  this  reason  they  who  rose  are  said  to  have  appeared 
 to  many  in  the  city.  This  was  a  proof  of  singular  love. 
 For  He  chose  to  die  alone  who  would  not  rise  alone.  For 
 the  thieves  who  were  crucified  with  Him  were  not  crucified 
 by  Him,  but  by  their  own  crimes.  But  they  who  were 
 raised  with  Him  were  raised  by  Him.  His  death  was  the 
 cause  of  our  resurrection  :  the  cause  of  our  death  is  our- 
 selves. 
 
 It  has  been  asked  whether  they  who  rose  again  with 
 Christ  died  again  ?  It  is  the  opinion  of  Theophylact  that 
 they  did.  The  opinion  of  those  Moderns  who  think  that 
 they  did  not,  but  were  taken  by  Christ  to  heaven  with 
 Him,  seems  better.  For  what  would  they  have  done 
 among  the  living  who  had  received  a  taste  of  the  divine 
 glory  ?  Their  condition  would  have  been  worse  than  if 
 they  had  never  been  raised  at  all  ;  for  they  would  have 
 been  recalled  from  Abraham's  bosom,  where  they  were  in 
 rest,  and  brought  back  to  a  life  of  turbulence,  to  remain  in 
 it  for  some  time,  and  then  to  die  again.  And  what  if,  in 
 the  bosom  of  Abraham,  where  we  must  believe  them  to 
 have  been,  as  the  Evangelist  calls  them  saints,  they  were 
 certain  of  salvation,  while  in  this  life  they  were  not  so,  for 
 they  might  sin  again  ?  If  they  had  risen  to  die  again  they 
 would  have  appeared  not  to  many,  as  the  Evangelist  says, 
 but  to  all.  For  they  would  have  lived  among  men  as  they 
 did  before  they  died,  and  as  Lazarus  did  after  He  had 
 been  raised  by  Christ.  But  now  that,  as  the  Evangelist 
 says,  they  appeared  to  man)',  he  signifies  clearly  that  they 
 did  not  appear  in  common  to  all,  but  only  to  those  to 
 whom  the  Resurrection  of  Christ  was  to  be  confirmed.    And 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  53,  54.]  THE   CENTURION.  567 
 
 even  Christ  Himself,  because  He  was  not  to  die  again,  but 
 shortly  to  return  into  the  heavens,  was  not  seen  by  all,  but 
 only  by  the  Apostles  and  other  faithful  witnesses,  as  S. 
 Peter  says  (Acts  x.  41)  ;  nor  did  He  live  with  them 
 after  His  death  as  He  had  done  before  it,  daily,  and  in 
 an  ordinary  manner  ;  but  He  now  appeared,  now  disap- 
 peared. 
 
 Verse  53.  Ca7ne  into  the  holy  city  and  appeared  to  many. 
 
 Jerusalem  was  called  the  Holy  City,  not  as  being  so  at 
 that  time — for  it  had  recently  been  defiled  by  the  blood  of 
 Christ — but  because  it  had  formerly  possessed  the  Temple 
 of  Solomon  and  the  Holy  of  Holies.  So  S.  Jerome  and 
 Bede  explain  it.  In  like  manner,  S.  Matthew,  after  he 
 became  a  disciple  of  Christ,  was  still  called  a  publican, 
 because  he  had  been  one  before.  Why  they  did  not 
 appear  to  all  has  been  explained  in  the  preceding  verse. 
 
 Verse  54.  Noiv  the  centnrion  and  they  that  zvere  ivitJi  him 
 
 luatching  Jesus,  Jiaving  seen   the  earthquake   and  the 
 
 things  that  zvere  done,  zvere  sore  afraid,  saying :  Indeed 
 
 this  zvas  the  Son  of  God. 
 
 S.  Mark  (xv.  39)  gives  another  reason  for  the  excessive 
 
 fear  of  the  centurion  and  the  soldiers  :  "  And  the  centurion 
 
 who  stood  over  against  Him,  seeing  that,  crying  out  in  this 
 
 manner,  He  had  given  up  the  Ghost,  said  :  Indeed  this  man 
 
 was  the  Son  of  God  ".     Each  cause,  we  may  believe,  moved 
 
 the  centurion — the  great  cry,  the  darkness,  the  earthquake, 
 
 and  the  other  miracles  which  S.  Luke  (xxiii.  47)  describes 
 
 in  a  few  words  :  '"'  Now,  the  centurion,  seeing  what    was 
 
 done,  glorified  God,  saying  :  Indeed  this  was  a  just  man  ". 
 
 The  fear  of  the  soldiers   is  not   difficult  of  explanation. 
 
 They  feared  lest  the  divine  vengeance  should  be  directed 
 
 against  those  who  had   been  instrumental  in  so  unjust  a 
 
 death  ;  for  they  acknowledged  Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  God, 
 
568  THE   GOSPEL  OF   S.    MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxvir.  55. 
 
 who,  they  thought,  would  not  suffer  the  death  of  His  Son 
 to  be  unpunished.  S.  Luke  says  that  the  centurion 
 glorified  God  and  confessed  Christ  to  be  indeed  the  Son  of 
 God.  The  Hebrew  expression,  "  to  glorify  God,"  means 
 to  give  glory  to  Him,  to  acknowledge  our  offence  or  His 
 glory  and  majesty,  as  S.  JoJin  ix.  24 ;  Joshua  vii.  19. 
 
 Indeed  this  was  the  Son  of  God. 
 So  S.  Mark.  But  S.  Luke  says  :  "  Indeed  this  was  a  just 
 man "  (xxiii.  47).  S.  Augustin  {De  Consens.,  iii.  20)  ex- 
 plains the  difference  by  saying  that  the  centurion  either 
 said  both — that  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God,  and  was  a  just 
 man — and  S.  Matthew  has  related  one,  and  S.  Luke  the 
 other  ;  or  S.  Luke  wished  to  explain  in  what  sense  the 
 centurion  called  Christ  the  Son  of  God — that  is,  not  that 
 he  thought  Him  such  by  nature,  but  in  that  sense  in  which 
 all  just  men  are  called  the  sons  of  God  {Ps.  Ixxxi.  6). 
 This  opinion  of  S.  Augustin  is  probable  ;  but  it  is  more 
 likely  that  the  centurion  applied  both  expressions  to  Him, 
 considering  a  just  man  the  son  of  God.  Not  perhaps  that 
 he  called  Christ  a  just  man  in  the  ordinary  sense — for  these 
 miracles  did  not  take  place  at  the  death  of  other  righteous 
 men — but  he  called  Him  just,  as  He  was  called  by  others 
 who  believed  in  Him..  My  own  firm  opinion  is  that  the 
 centurion  was  moved  by  the  multitude  and  greatness  of 
 His  miracles  to  believe  in  Christ.  S.  Luke,  moreover,  says 
 that  the  whole  multitude  of  them  "  that  came  together  to 
 that  sight,  beholding  the  things  which  were  done,  smote 
 their  breasts  and  returned "  (xxiii.  48).  They  returned 
 as  if  acknowledging  their  fault,  and  abhorring  the  wicked- 
 ness of  that  innocent  death. 
 
 Verse  55.  And  tJiere  were  many  ivonien  afar  off. 
 S.  Mark  says  the  same.     S.   Luke  adds,  "  And   all   his 
 acquaintance  "  (xxiii.  49).     This,  however,  cannot  be  taken 
 in  a  general  sense,  as  the  disciples  had  almost  all  fled.    But 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  55.]  THE   DEVOUT   WOMEN.  569 
 
 as  there  were  women  present  who  were  known  to  Him, 
 and  as  S.  John  was  among  them  (xix.  26),  S.  Luke  said 
 that  "  all  His  acquaintance  were  there,"  not  meaning, 
 probably,  that  all  were  present,  but  that  all  that  were  so 
 stood  afar  off.  This  is  not  opposed  to  what  S.  John  says 
 (xix.  25),  that  the  Mother  of  Christ  and  the  beloved  disciple 
 stood  by  the  cross.  For  they  were  both  near  the  cross  and 
 afar  off — near,  to  see  His  sufferings  and  hear  Him  speak  to 
 them  ;  and  afar  off,  because  they  were  not  so  close  to  the 
 cross  as  the  soldiers  who  had  the  custody  of  Christ,  and 
 the  multitude  of  Jews  who  passed  their  revilings  upon  them. 
 The  expression  of  S.  Matthew,  "  afar  off,"  does  not  imply 
 that  the  women  who  were  near  the  cross  came  from  a 
 distance,  for  this  is  asserted  soon  after:  "And  the  women 
 that  were  come  with  Him  from  Galilee  following  after  saw 
 the  sepulchre  and  how  His  body  was  laid,"  but  that  they 
 were  afar  off  from  the  cross  ;  which  is  also  the  meaning  of 
 the  Greek  /xaKpodeu  deoypova-at. 
 
 JV/io  Jiad  follo^vcd  Jesus  from  Galilee,  viijiistering  unto  Him. 
 The  Evangelist  describes  a  threefold  office  of  these 
 devout  women  :  i.  They  were  where  the  Apostles  who 
 had  said  that  they  would  die  with  Christ  dared  not  be. 
 2.  They  had  left  their  homes  and  country  in  Galilee  and 
 followed  Christ.  3.  They  ministered  to  Him.  They  did 
 this  by  attending  on  Him  and  supplying  Him  with  things 
 needful,  as  related  by  S.  Luke  (viii.  3).  Because  faithful 
 men  were  wanting,  it  pleased  God  to  raise  up  women  to  be 
 witnesses  both  of  the  death  and  burial  of  Christ  ;  for  even 
 the  Apostles  would  have  been  unable  to  assure  us  that 
 Christ  had  truly  risen  from  the  dead  unless  for  these 
 women,  who  could  declare  to  His  having  been  truly  dead 
 and  truly  buried.  The  death  and  burial  of  Christ  are 
 proved  by  the  word  and  testimony  of  the  women  ;  His 
 resurrection  by  those  of  the  Apostles. 
 
570  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxvii.  56. 
 
 Verse  56.  Among  whom  was. 
 S.  Luke  implies  that  there  were  many  more.  S.  Matthew 
 only  names  three,  both  because  these  were  more  known 
 and  had  been  more  active  in  their  ministrations,  and 
 because,  while  the  rest  were  absent,  these  kept  their 
 stations  to  the  end  of  the  burial,  as  in  verse  61.  We 
 except  the  Mother  of  Christ,  than  whom  none  was  better 
 known,  and  none  more  zealous  in  attendance  upon  Him. 
 She  was  not  at  His  burial,  perhaps  because  John,  to  whom 
 she  had  been  commended  by  Christ  before  His  death,  had 
 taken  her  to  his  home,  lest  she  should  die  of  grief. 
 
 Mary  Magdalene. 
 
 The  sister  of  Lazarus  and  Martha  {S.  John  xi.  5),  as  is 
 the  general  belief,  though  some  think  (from  5.  Ltike  viii.  2) 
 that  she  was  of  Galilee,  and  had  no  connection  with 
 Lazarus.  Out  of  her  Christ  had  cast  seven  devils  {S.  Luke 
 viii.  2). 
 
 A7td  Alary,  the  mother  of  James  and  Joses. 
 
 In  the  Greek  'Icoo-r;  (Jose).  She  was  the  sister  of  the 
 Mother  of  the  Lord,  as  has  been  shown  chaps,  x.  3,  xii.  46. 
 S.  John  says  (xix.  25):  "Now  there  stood  by  the  cross  of 
 Jesus  His  Mother  and  His  Mother's  sister,  Mary  of 
 Cleophas,  and  Mary  Magdalene ".  Mary,  the  wife  of 
 Cleophas,  and  Mary,  the  mother  of  James  and  Joses,  was 
 the  same  person.  She  is  called  Cleophae  from  her  husband, 
 and  Jacobi  and  Jose  from  her  sons.  This  James  was  the 
 Apostle.  He  was  called  "  James  the  Less  ".  He  is  the 
 author  of  the  Epistle,  and  he  is  called  "  the  brother  of  the 
 Lord,"  and  "the  son  of  Alphaeus ".  He  was  the  first 
 bishop  of  Jerusalem,  as  stated  on  chap.  x.  3.  Alphasus  was 
 the  cognomen  of  Cleophas,  the  father  of  James. 
 
 A  nd  the  mother  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee. 
 S.  Mark  (xv.  40)  calls  her  by  another  name — Salome. 
 To  this  is  to  be  referred  what  S.  John  has  related  (xix. 
 
Ch.  xxvii.  56.J  THE   SIDE   PIERCED.  571 
 
 31  to  37)  but  the  other  EvangeHsts  have  passed  over: 
 "  Then  the  Jews,  because  it  was  the  parasceue,  that  the 
 bodies  might  not  remain  upon  the  cross  on  the  Sabbath 
 day  (for  that  was  a  great  Sabbath  day),  besought  Pilate 
 that  their  legs  might  be  broken  and  that  they  might  be 
 taken  away  ".  We  have  spoken  of  the  parasceue  and  the 
 great  Sabbath  day  on  chap.  xxvi.  2.  The  unwillingness  of 
 the  Jews  to  allow  the  bodies  to  remain  on  the  cross  on 
 the  Sabbath  day  was  a  senseless  and  revolting  piece  of 
 hypocrisy.  They  did  not  think  it  contrary  to  religion  to 
 crucify  the  innocent  Christ,  to  go  to  Pilate  on  the  very  day 
 of  Pasch,  to  ask  him  for  soldiers  to  guard  the  tomb,  to  seal 
 the  stone  ;  but  they  did  think  it  so  to  leave  the  bodies  on 
 the  cross  that  day.  S.  John  adds  :  "  The  soldiers  therefore 
 came,  and  they  broke  the  legs  of  the  first  and  of  the  other 
 that  was  crucified  with  him  "  (verse  32).  It  was  apparently 
 the  custom  to  break  at  times  the  legs  of  those  who  were 
 crucified,  that  they  might  die  more  speedily.  This  cannot  be 
 considered  a  singular  event,  for  in  this  case  the  Jews  would 
 scarcely  have  ventured  to  make  application  to  Pilate. 
 
 S.  John  proceeds  :  "  But  after  they  were  come  to  Jesus, 
 when  they  saw  that  He  was  already  dead,  they  did  not 
 break  His  legs;  but  one  of  the  soldiers  with  a  spear  opened 
 His  side,  and  immediately  there  came  out  blood  and  water". 
 This  piercing  of  the  side  of  Christ  was  done  at  once  by 
 the  insolence  of  the  soldier  and  the  divine  counsel.  Of  the 
 former,  as  he  took  it  amiss  that  Christ  had  died  in  so  short 
 a  time,  and  had  escaped  his  intended  torture,  and  the 
 contumelies  of  the  Jews  and  the  soldiers.  When,  there- 
 fore, he  found  that  he  could  not  torment  the  living  he 
 insulted  the  dead.  The  divine  design  ordered  it  that 
 blood  and  water,  the  symbols  of  our  salvation,  should  flow 
 thence,  as  all  the  ancient  authorities  agree.  For  we  are 
 redeemed  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  washed  by  the 
 waters  of  baptism,  with  which,  as   it  were,  His  blood  is 
 
572  THE   GOSPEL  OF   S.   MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxvii.  57. 
 
 mingled.  By  the  blood  the  Eucharist,  by  which  we  are 
 nourished,  and  by  the  waters  of  Baptism,  by  which  we  are 
 born,  the  two  chief  sacraments  of  our  salvation  are  signified. 
 Christ  is  therefore  said  to  have  come  through  water  and 
 blood.  There  are  three  witnesses  who  bear  testimony  to 
 Christ  on  earth  (i  S.  John  v.  6) — the  Spirit,  the  water,  and 
 the  blood.  The  Spirit  who  descended  upon  Christ  and 
 testified  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God  ;  the  water  and  the 
 blood  which  issued  from  His  side  after  His  death.  This, 
 as  it  was  not  merely  human,  showed  Him  to  be,  not  a 
 mere  man,  but  God.  S.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  has  treated 
 fully  of  this  in  his  thirteenth  Catechetical  Lecture.  The 
 assertion  of  Calvin,  therefore,  on  the  subject  is  profane, 
 and  opposed  to  the  divine  intention.  He  says  that  the  flow 
 of  blood  and  water  from  the  side  shows  that  it  was  a  natural 
 event,  whereas  S.  John  himself  says  that  it  was  supernatural 
 (verse  35).  Because  it  appeared  to  be  incredible  he  affirms 
 that  it  did  happen,  and  that  he  saw  it  and  related  the  truth. 
 That  Christ's  legs  were  not  broken  is  taken  by  S.  John 
 to  be  a  mystery  that  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled  {Exod. 
 xii.  46  ;  ZacJi.  xii.  10).  The  latter  prophecy  was  not 
 fulfilled  at  that  time  wholly,  but  it  began  to  be  so.  They 
 pierced  Christ,  then,  which  was  one  part  of  the  prophecy, 
 but  it  will  not  be  until  the  Day  of  Judgment  that  they  shall 
 look  on  Him  ;  as  S.  John  explains  {Apoc.  i.  7). 
 
 Verse  57.  And  wJicn  it  ivas  cvcjiing  Q'sero"). 
 ''  Si-ro"  here  does  not  mean  that  it  was  actually  evening, 
 but  that  it  was  inclining  towards  evening.  If  it  had  been 
 actually  evening  it  would  not  have  been  lawful  to  take 
 Christ  down  from  the  cross  and  bury  Him  ;  because  the  rest 
 and  observation  of  the  Sabbath  began  with  evening.  For 
 this  reason  they  hastened  His  burial  ;  for,  if  the  Sabbath 
 had  begun,  it  would  not  have  been  lawful  to  perform  it,  as 
 is  said  by  S.  Mark  (xv.  42)  and  S.  Luke  (xxiii.  54). 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  58.]  S.   JOSEPH   OF   ARIMATHEA.  573 
 
 There  came  a  rich  man  of  Arimathca. 
 S.  Luke  (xxiii.  51)  says  that  Arimathea  was  a  city  of 
 Judsea.     Eusebius  says  that  it  was  formerly  called  Ruma 
 and  Remptis.     It  was  in  the  tribe  of  Judah  {Judges  ix.  41  ; 
 4  Kings  xxiii.  36). 
 
 Who  also  himself  zvas  a  disciple  of  Jesus. 
 He  gave  his  reason  secretly  for  desiring  to  take  charge 
 of  the  burial  of  Christ.  S.  John  describes  him  as  "  a  dis- 
 ciple of  Jesus,  but  secretly  for  fear  of  the  Jews"  (xix.  38). 
 S.  Mark  (xv.  43)  calls  him  "a  noble  counsellor,"  evax^j/^'Oov 
 /3ou\€VT7]<i  :  "  Who  was  also  himself  looking  for  the  king- 
 dom of  God  ".  S.  Luke  speaks  to  the  same  effect  (xxiii. 
 51),  adding  that  he  had  not  consented  to  the  counsel  and 
 doings  of  the  Jews,  so  that  it  would  appear  that  he  was 
 not  only  a  counsellor,  but  that  he  had  also  been  present  at 
 the  council  in  which  they  deliberated  about  seizing  Christ, 
 and  putting  Him  to  death,  and  had  not  agreed  with  them. 
 
 Verse  58.  He  zvent  to  Pilate. 
 Before  the  Sabbath  had  begun  {S.  Mark  xv.  43  ;  5. 
 Luke  xxiii.  52).  It  was  not  lawful  to  take  down  and  bury 
 the  bodies  of  criminals  without  the  permission  of  a  judge 
 (lib.  \.ff..,  De  Cadav.  Piiniend.).  Joseph,  therefore,  asked  the 
 body  of  Christ  from  the  governor. 
 
 Then  Pilate  commanded  that  the  body  should  be  delivered. 
 S.  Mark  (xv,  44)  says  that  Pilate  wondered  that  Christ 
 was  dead  so  soon,  and  that  he  sent  for  the  centurion  to 
 enquire  whether  it  were  really  so  ;  and  when  he  knew  the 
 truth  he  gave  the  body  to  Joseph.  It  is  possible  that 
 Pilate  may  have  suspected  deceit,  and  thought  that  Joseph, 
 a  disciple  of  Christ,  though  a  secret  one,  had  asked  for  His 
 body  while  He  was  yet  alive,  that  under  the  pretence  of 
 burying  Him  he  might  deliver  Him  from  the  cross  and 
 death.     All  this  was  done  by  the  divine  counsel,  that  the 
 
574  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxvii.  59,  60. 
 
 judge  himself  who  had  condemned  Christ  might  know 
 from  the  testimony  of  the  centurion  and  the  others  who 
 guarded  Him  on  the  cross  that  He  was  truly  dead,  and 
 might  bear  witness  to  His  death  :  that  none  might  say 
 hereafter  that  He  had  not  truly  risen  (not  having  truly 
 died),  but  had  been  taken  down  from  the  cross  alive,  and 
 shut  up  in  a  tomb. 
 
 It  may,  perhaps,  be  matter  of  wonder  that  neither  the 
 Apostles,  nor  the  others  who  openly  professed  themselves 
 Christ's  disciples,  should  have  performed  this  office  for 
 Him,  but  that  it  should  have  been  left  to  Joseph  who  was 
 a  secret  believer,  and  to  Nicodemus,  who,  as  S.  John  says 
 (iii.  2  ;  vii.  50),  was  another.  S.  Ambrose  {On  S.  Luke  x.) 
 says  :  "  Why  did  not  the  Apostles,  but  Joseph  and  Nico- 
 demus, the  one  a  just  man  and  constant,  and  the  other  in 
 whom  was  no  guile,  bury  Christ  ?  That  burial  was  one 
 in  which  there  could  be  no  fraud  or  deception  ;  all  room 
 for  tergiversation  is  done  away,  and  the  Jews  are  rejected 
 by  their  own  testimony.  For  if  the  Apostles  had  buried 
 Christ  themselves,  it  might  have  been  said  that  He  had  not 
 been  actually  buried,  whom  the  Jews  feign  to  have  been 
 carried  off." 
 
 Verse  59.  Wrapped  it  in  a  clean  linen  cloth. 
 It  was,  without  doubt,  to  honour  Christ  that  Joseph 
 wrapped  His  body,  not  in  any  kind  of  ordinary  linen,  but 
 in  such  as  was  fine  and  new,  and  which  S.  Mark  says  he 
 bought  for  the  purpose  (xv.  46).  Although  the  Ancients 
 saw  a  divine  mystery  in  the  fact,  it  was  becoming  that 
 the  body  of  Christ,  which  was  most  pure,  should  be 
 wrapped  in  linen  both  clean  and  new. 
 
 Verse  60.  And  laid  it  in  his  oivn  nczv  monument,  zvhich  he 
 had  hewed  out  in  a  rock. 
 This    also   was    done    to   honour   Christ  ;   and    for    this 
 reason  this  entombment  is  so  carefully  described  by  the 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  6o.]  THE   BURIAL   OF   CHRIST.  575 
 
 Evangelists.  Joseph  laid  Christ  not  in  any  ordinary  tomb, 
 but  in  his  own,  which,  as  S.  Matthew  says,  "  he  had  hewn 
 out  in  the  rock  ".  This  was  done,  not  by  his  forefathers, 
 but  by  himself ;  and  the  tomb  was  not  built  of  stone,  but 
 was  hewn  out.  Only  the  great  and  illustrious  are  buried 
 in  this  style.  S.  Luke  adds  :  "  Wherein  never  yet  had  any 
 man  been  laid  "  (xxiii.  53).  S.  John  adds  what  the  rest 
 omit  :  "  That  the  body  was  inclosed  with  spices,  as  the 
 manner  is  of  the   Jews  to  bury"    (xix.  39,  40). 
 
 We  see  that  Joseph  and  Nicodemus  omitted  no  kind  of 
 honour  to  the  tomb  of  Christ.  But  His  body  was  then 
 dead,  and  what  could  they  do  for  the  living?  The  Ancients 
 saw  a  mystery  in  this  also.  They  say  that  the  tomb  of 
 Christ  should  resemble  His  mother's  womb,  in  which  there 
 never  was  any  other.  Christ  must  be  both  purely  conceived 
 and  purely  buried. 
 
 This  also  all  tends  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  Resurrec- 
 tion :  as  Bede,  Theophylact,  and  Euthymius  observe.  For 
 if  the  tomb  had  not  been  a  new  one,  the  Jews  might  have 
 said  that  it  was  not  Christ  who  rose  from  the  dead,  but 
 some  other  person  who  was  buried  in  the  same  place.  If 
 the  tomb  had  been  built  of  stones,  they  would  have  said 
 that  the  disciples  had  dug  under  them  and  carried  off  the 
 body,  nothing  of  which  could  be  said  of  a  tomb  hewn  out 
 of  a  rock.  This  has  been  pointed  out  by  S.  Jerome  and 
 Bede.  This  also  applies  to  the  rolling  of  the  stone 
 described  by  S.  Matthew  (verse  60) :  "  He  rolled  a  great 
 stone  to  the  door  of  the  monument,  and  went  his  way  ". 
 
 It  could  not  be  said  that  Christ  not  being  really  dead, 
 the  stone  was  removed  and  He  escaped  ;  nor  that  the  dis- 
 ciples had  opened  it,  and  stolen  the  body.  Bede,  on  this 
 passage,  describes  the  tomb  from  the  account  of  those  who 
 {religonis  cmisa)  had  visited  Jesusalem  in  his  time,  as  being 
 round,  hewn  out  of  the  rock,  of  such  a  height  that  a  man, 
 standing  up  inside  and    raising   his    arms,  could   scarcely 
 
576  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Ch.  xxvii.  6i,  62. 
 
 touch  the  top.  It  had  an  entrance  from  the  east,  at  which 
 the  great  stone  was  rolled  and  placed  against  it.  In  the 
 north  part  is  the  tomb  itself;  that  is,  the  place  of  the  Lord's 
 body,  made  of  the  same  rock.  It  is  seven  feet  in  length, 
 and  it  is  higher  than  the  rest  of  the  floor  by  three  palms' 
 breadth.  It  is  open,  not  from  below,  but  on  the  whole 
 south  side,  whence  the  body  was  brought  in.  The  colour 
 of  the  tomb  and  sepulchre  is  red,  or  red  mixed  with  white. 
 
 Verse  61.  And  there  zuere  there  Mary  Magdalene  and  the 
 other  Mary. 
 On  Mary  Magdalene  see  verse  56.  The  other  Mary  is 
 the  mother  of  James  and  Joses,  of  whom  we  have  also 
 spoken  on  verse  56.  It  is  plain  from  S.  Mark  (xv.  47)  that 
 this  is  she  who  is  to  be  understood  here  by  the  name  of 
 "  the  other  Mary  ".  S.  Matthew,  when  he  speaks  of  the 
 other  Maries,  always  puts  Mary  Magdalene  first,  and  by 
 "the  other  Mary"  he  understands  the  mother  of  James 
 and  Joses,  as  in  chap,  xxviii.  i.  They  were  present  to  see 
 where  the  body  of  Christ  was  laid,  that  they  might  return 
 after  the  Sabbath  and  anoint  it  (5.  Mark  xv.  47  ;  xvi. 
 I  ;  5.  Luke  xxiii.  55). 
 
 Verse  62.  A?id  the  next  day  ivhich  folloivcd  the  day  of 
 
 preparatio)i. 
 That  is,  the  Sabbath,  on  which  day  the  Jews,  that  year, 
 kept  the  Passover,  as  explained  chap.  xxvi.  2. 
 
 TJie  chief  priests  and  Pharisees  came  together  to  Pilate. 
 
 These  placed  their  whole  religion  in  an  even  supersti- 
 tious observance  of  the  Sabbath  ;  yet  they  were  so  blinded 
 by  their  hatred  of  Christ  that  they  violated  it  ;  for  it  was 
 not  lawful  for  them  by  their  law  and  tradition,  on  the 
 Sabbath,  and  that  the  day  of  the  Pasch,  to  approach  a 
 judge  :  to  ask  for  soldiers  :  to  bring  armed  men  to  the 
 sepulchre  :  or  to  seal  the  tomb. 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  63,  64.]     THE   JE^YS   DEMAND   A   GUARD.  577 
 
 Verse  63.    JVe  have  remembered. 
 
 They  would  rather  blame  their  own  negligence  and  for- 
 getfulness  than  seem  careless  in  guarding  a  man  now  dead. 
 They  speak  as  if  they  had  previously  forgotten  the  point — 
 "  We  have  remembered  " — and  that  Pilate  might  not  won- 
 der at  their  not  having  asked  for  a  guard  of  soldiers  at  first, 
 and  their  asking  it  now  that  Christ  was  buried. 
 
 TJiat  that  seducer  said  while  He  was  yet  alive.  After  three 
 days  I  zvill  rise  again. 
 Christ  had  not  said  that  He  would  rise  again  after  three 
 days,  but  on  the  third  day  (xvi.  21  ;  xx.  19).  The  opinion 
 of  those  who  explain  "  after  "  by  "  within  "  three  days, 
 or  on  the  third  day,  as  the  Latins  say,  seems  correct.  For 
 if  the  priests  and  Pharisees  had  understood  Christ  to  say 
 that  He  would  not  rise  till  after  three  days  had  been 
 completed,  they  would  have  had  no  reason  to  fear  that  the 
 disciples  would  steal  Him  away  in  the  interval.  It  is  indeed 
 most  improbable  that  they  would  have  attempted  such  a 
 thing  before  the  day  He  Himself  had  named.  Again,  they 
 would  have  taken  care  to  watch  the  tomb  not  only  during 
 those  days,  but  for  many  days  after,  as  He  did  not  signify 
 that  He  would  rise  immediately  after  the  third  day,  but 
 that  He  would  not  do  so  before  it,  as  in  6".  Mark  viii.  31  : 
 "  He  began  to  teach  them  that  the  Son  of  man  must  suffer 
 many  things,  and  be  rejected  by  the  ancients  and  by  the 
 high  priests  and  the  scribes,  and  be  killed,  and  after  three 
 days  rise  again  ". 
 
 Verse  64.  Command  therefore  the  sepulchre  to  be  guarded 
 
 until  the  third  day. 
 
 As  when    they    asserted    before   that    Christ   had    said, 
 
 "  After  three  days  I  will  rise  again,"  the  word  "  after  "  did 
 
 not  mean  that  the  three  days  must  be  passed  before  He 
 
 2—37 
 
578  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxvii.  65. 
 
 would  rise  from  the  dead  ;  so  here  when  they  say,  "  until 
 the  third  day,"  the  word  "  until "  does  not  mean,  as  it 
 usually  does,  the  beginning  but  the  end  of  the  third 
 day ;  as  if  they  had  said,  Command  the  tomb  to  be 
 guarded,  until  the  third   day  has  passed. 
 
 A  lid  steal  Hint. 
 The  Greek  adds  vvKTO<i,  noctu,  "  by  night,"  e\dovT€<;  /cXe- 
 ■y^wai.     The  passage  may   be  read,  "  Lest  they  come  by 
 night  and  steal  Him  away,"  or  "  lest  they  come  and  steal 
 Him  away  by  night".     The  meaning  will  be  the  same. 
 
 And  they  say  to  the  people,  He  is  risen  from  the  dead. 
 As  if  their  meaning  were,  "  They  would  not  say  this  to 
 us,  who  are  men  of  learning  and  refinement,  and  should  by 
 no  means  believe  them,  but  they  might  make  such  an 
 assertion  to  the  ignorant  multitude,  which  yields  easy  faith 
 to  every  rumour  ".  The  Jews  used  to  say,  what  the  heretics 
 do  now,  that  Christ  had  no  disciples  but  the  rude  and 
 ignorant.     So  ^.  JoJin  vii.  47,  48,  49. 
 
 And  the  last  error  should  be  zvorse  than  the  first. 
 
 By  the  "  first  error  "  they  meant  that  Christ,  while  alive, 
 persuaded  the  people  by  miracles,  performed  by  diabolical 
 agency,  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God  ;  "  the  last "  would 
 be,  if  the  disciples  persuaded  the  people,  that  He  had  risen 
 from  the  dead.  This  would  be  worse  than  the  first,  because 
 the  first  was  contained  in  it.  For  if  He  had  risen,  which 
 is  of  all  things  the  most  difficult,  they  would  believe  the 
 more  readily  that  all  He  had  taught  during  His  life  was 
 true. 
 
 Verse  65.    You  have  a  guard. 
 
 Some  think  that  they  had  a  military  force  for  the  pro- 
 tection of  the  Temple.  That  there  were  armed  men  kept 
 for  this  purpose  is  certain,  because,  among  other  officers, 
 
Ch.  XXVII.  66.]  THE   SEPULCHRE   SEALED.  579 
 
 mention  is  made  of  a  aTpdrT]yo<;  or  dux.  These  suppose 
 Pilate  to  have  answered,  "  You  have  a  guard,"  as  meaning 
 that  it  was  needless  to  ask  for  what  they  had  already.  If 
 they  had  soldiers  they  would  have  been  confined  to  the 
 protection  of  the  Temple,  and  could  not  have  been  em- 
 ployed in  any  other  manner.  If  Pilate  spoke  of  a  Jewish 
 soldiery,  these  could  only  have  been  of  the  priestly  tribe, 
 because  to  them  alone  was  confided  the  protection  of  the 
 Temple,  and  what  need  to  offer  these  money,  to  feign  what 
 they  did  about  the  stealing  away  of  the  body  ?  They 
 would  have  been  certain  to  say  this  of  their  own  accord. 
 Some  take  the  words,  "  You  have,"  e^ere,  for  the  impera- 
 tive, and  that  Pilate  meant  to  command  them  :  "  Go  and 
 take  ".  This  is  an  error.  The  word  here  is  an  indicative, 
 and  means  that  Pilate  did  not  command  or  direct  them  to 
 take  a  guard,  but  merely  granted  one  :  "Whatever  military 
 force  I  have  is  in  your  power  ;  go,  keep  the  tomb  ".  This 
 is  rightly  expressed  by  Juvencus  in  the  following  lines  : 
 
 "  Et  Pilatus  ad  haec,  miles  permittitur,  inquit, 
 Servate  ut  vultis,  corpus  tellure  sepultum  ". 
 Said  Pilate,  "  Soldiers  shall  for  this  be  found, 
 Keep  you  the  body,  buried  in  the  ground  ". 
 
 Verse  66.  And  they,  departing,  made  the  sepulcJire  S2ire. 
 
 The  Greek  is  da(j)aXi^a),  "  to  make  safe ".  The  same 
 word  is  used,  in  verses  64,  65,  by  the  Pharisees  to  Pilate, 
 and  by  Pilate  to  the  Pharisees,  when  he  said,  "  Go,  guard 
 it  as  you  know  ".  The  words  that  follow  are  to  be  united 
 thus — although  separated  by  Jiyperbaton,  or  transposition — 
 as  if  it  were  written,  "  They  made  the  tomb  sure  with  a 
 guard,  having  first  sealed  the  stone ".  They  sealed 
 the  stone  with  a  ring,  or  something  of  the  sort,  that  the 
 disciples  might  not  come  while  the  soldiers  slept  and 
 open  the  tomb — in  which  case  the  theft  would  have  been 
 discovered  by  the  seal  having  been  broken — nor  the  soldiers 
 
580  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxvii.  66. 
 
 themselves  be  bribed  by  the  disciples  to  give  up  the  body. 
 So  Darius  sealed,  with  his  own  ring,  the  den  of  lions  into 
 which  Daniel  was  thrown  {Dan.  vi.  17),  that  no  one  might 
 say  that  he  had  delivered  the  Prophet  by  stealth,  or  that 
 others  had  entered  the  den  and  slain  him,  and  given  out 
 that  he  had  been  killed  by  the  lions. 
 
 The  diligence  of  the  priests  in  darkening  the  divinity 
 and  glory  of  Christ  was  wonderful  ;  but  the  Divine  Provi- 
 dence, which  made  use  of  their  labours  and  artifices  to 
 publish  it,  was  more  wonderful.  The  priests  feared  lest 
 the  disciples  should  persuade  the  people  that  Christ  had 
 risen,  as  He  had  foretold.  They  employed  keepers  to  this 
 end  :  but  these  very  persons  bore  witness,  not  to  the 
 people,  but  to  the  priests  themselves,  and  to  the  Pharisees, 
 by  whom  they  were  employed,  that  Christ  had  risen 
 (xxviii.  1 1).  They  sealed  the  stone  of  the  sepulchre  that 
 no  one  might  steal  the  body  ;  but  the  stone  itself,  carefully 
 guarded  as  it  was,  certified  that  the  body  of  Christ  was  not 
 removed  from  the  tomb  by  force  or  fraud,  but  was  raised 
 by  divine  power.  Nothing  is  closed,  nothing  is  sealed 
 to  God  ;  but  "  He  catcheth  the  wise  in  their  craftiness, 
 and  disappointeth  the  counsel  of  the  wicked"  {Job  v.  13), 
 and  "  The  wisdom  of  this  world  is  foolishness  with  God  ". 
 For  it  is  written,  "  I  will  catch  the  wise  in  their  own 
 craftiness"  (i  Cor.  iii.  19).  S.  Hilary  says  well:  "Their 
 fear  that  the  body  would  be  stolen,  and  their  guarding  and 
 scaling  the  stone,  are  a  proof  of  their  folly  and  unbelief 
 For  they  desired  to  seal  the  tomb  of  Him,  whom,  accord- 
 ing to  His  own  saying,  they  beheld,  when  dead,  risen  from 
 the  sepulchre." 
 
CHAPTER   XXVIII. 
 
 THE    RESURRECTION     OF     CHRIST — HIS     COMMISSION     TO 
 HIS   DISCIPLES. 
 
 Verse  i.  And  in  the  end  of  the  Sabbath. 
 This  passage  has  been  thought  one  of  very  great 
 difficulty,  because  the  wording  is  obscure  in  itself  and  the 
 other  Evangelists  do  not  appear  to  agree  with  S.  Matthew; 
 nor  S.  Matthew  with  himself ;  nor  the  others  among  them- 
 selves ;  nor  S.  Mark  with  himself  S.  Matthew,  it  seems, 
 says  that  the  women  came  to  the  tomb  "  at  the  end  of  the 
 Sabbath,  when  it  began  to  dawn,  towards  the  first  day  of 
 the  week ".  S.  Mark  (xvi.  2) :  "  Very  early  in  the 
 morning,  the  first  day  of  the  week  ".  S.  Luke  (xxiv.  i)  : 
 "  On  the  first  day  of  the  week,  very  early  in  the  morning  ". 
 S.  John  (xx.  i) :  "On  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when  it 
 was  yet  dark ".  So  that  the  three  Evangelists  seem  to 
 contradict  S.  Matthew,  and  S.  Matthew  to  contradict 
 himself  For  when  he  had  said  that  the  women  came  at 
 the  end  of  the  Sabbath,  he  says  in  the  same  place,  "  When 
 it  began  to  dawn  towards  the  first  day  of  the  week," 
 showing  that  it  was  morning. 
 
 The  other  Evangelists  seem  to  differ  among  themselves) 
 because  they  say  : 
 
 S.  Mark  :  "  When  the  sun  had  risen  ". 
 
 S.   Luke  :    "  Very  early  in   the  morning,"  and,   a  little 
 further  on  (verse  22),  "before  it  was  light". 
 
 S.  John  :  "  When  it  was  yet  dark  ". 
 
 S.  Mark  seems  to  contradict  himself  by  saying,  "  Very 
 
582  THE   GOSPEL  OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxviii.  i. 
 
 early  in  the  morning,"  and  then  adding,  "  when  the  sun 
 was  risen  ". 
 
 They  did  not  come  very  early  if  they  came  after  the 
 sun  had  risen. 
 
 The  seeming  difference  between  S.  Matthew  and  the 
 others  has  been  thus  explained  : 
 
 That  the  same  women,  in  their  anxiet}-,  came  twice,  or 
 more  (S.  Jerome,  Comment. ;  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  to 
 Basilides). 
 
 Others  say  that  they  came  four  times. 
 
 1.  In  the  evening,  as  S.  Matthew  says. 
 
 2.  In  the  morning,  when  it  was  dark,  as  S.  John  says. 
 
 3.  Very  early  in  the  morning,  as  S.  Luke  says. 
 
 4.  When  the  sun  had  risen,  as  S.  Mark  says. 
 
 They  therefore  give  four  different  times  (S.  Athanasius, 
 Qucest.  90).  But  S.  Matthew,  S.  Mark,  and  S.  Luke  appear 
 to  speak  as  if  their  visit  were  in  the  beginning  of  the 
 morning,  as  will  be  shown  (verse  3). 
 
 Others  think  that  the  women  who,  as  S.  Matthew  says, 
 came  in  the  evening  of  the  Sabbath  were  different  to  those 
 who  came  on  the  dawn  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  ;  and  as 
 it  must  be  objected  that  one  of  those  who  came  in  the 
 evening  and  one  who  came  in  the  morning  was  each  called 
 Magdalene  by  S.  Matthew,  as  well  as  by  the  other  three 
 Evangelists,  these  make  two  Magdalenes — one  who  came  in 
 the  evening  and  one  who  came  in  the  morning.  So  S. 
 Ambrose  {Covim.  on  S.  Luke  xxiv.),  Eusebius,  and  others  in 
 Anastatius. 
 
 But  that  there  was  only  one  Magdalene  is  the  constant 
 statement  of  all,  and  is  clear  from  every  place  in  which 
 any  mention  of  the  name  is  made  {S.  Matt,  xxvii.  56  ;  S. 
 Mark  XV.  40  ;  xvi.  i  ;  S.  Luke  viii.  2,  3  ;  xxiv.  10  ;  5. 
 JoJin  XX.  i)  ;  for  they  all  call  her  Mary  Magdalene,  to 
 distinguish  her  from  the  other  Maries.  And,  if  there  had 
 been  a  second  Magdalene,  she  would  have  had  some  other 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  I.]    TIME  OF  VISIT  OF  WOMEN  TO  SEPULCHRE.   583 
 
 distinctive  title,  and  would  have  been  called,  for  example, 
 the  sister  of  Martha  or  Lazarus.  The  reason  of  S.  Am- 
 brose forming  this  opinion  will  be  answered  on  verse  9. 
 
 Others  think  that  they  were  the  same  women,  and  came 
 to  the  tomb  only  once ;  that  is,  on  the  night  which  followed 
 the  Sabbath. 
 
 For  whether  they  came  twice,  orto  jam  die,  or  once  only 
 is  another  question  which  will  be  discussed  (verse  3). 
 
 These  think  that  they  began  to  come  in  the  evening,  and 
 arrived  early  in  the  morning  ;  not  that  they  passed  the 
 whole  night  in  so  short  a  journey,  but  that  they  seem  to 
 have  begun  to  come  in  the  evening,  because  they  then  got 
 ready  the  spices  for  the  following  morning  {S.  Mark  xvi.  i  ; 
 S.  Luke  xxiii.  56).  So  say  Bede,  Strabus  Rabanus  {Ap. 
 Thojn.),  Rupertus  {In  Covnn.  on  S.John),  and  De  Lyra  {in 
 loc). 
 
 Some  think,  as  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  to  Basilides, 
 S.  Greg.  Nyss.  {Orat.  ii.  de  Resurt'.),  S.  Cyril  Alexandria 
 (xii.,  On  S.John),  S.  Augustin  {De  Cons.,  in.  24),  Eutychius, 
 Theophylact,  S.  Thomas,  and,  perhaps,  S.  Ambrose  {On 
 S.  Luke  X.),  that  S.  Matthew  calls  the  whole  night  the 
 evening. 
 
 This  opinion  appears  the  most,  indeed  the  only,  correct 
 one,  and  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  it  was  the  intention  of 
 S.  Matthew  to  say  the  same  as  the  others,  and  most  espe- 
 cially of  S.  Mark,  who  was  S.  Matthew's  interpreter  in  a 
 manner. 
 
 The  other  Evangelists  make  no  mention  of  any  visit  in 
 the  evening,  but  state  that  the  women  came  early  in  the 
 morning.  S.  Matthew  meant  the  same.  When  he  speaks, 
 therefore,  of  the  end  of  the  Sabbath,  he  does  not  mean  the 
 evening,  the  time  between  the  day  and  night,  but  the  whole 
 night ;  at  the  end  of  which,  that  is,  at  the  dawn  of  the 
 day,  the  women  came  to  the  tomb.  This  would  appear 
 less    strange    if  the    Hebrew   expression    (which    even    S. 
 
584  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxviii.  i. 
 
 Thomas  has  observed)  were  understood.  The  Hebrews  call 
 not  only  the  evening  but  the  whole  night  21V  "  evening," 
 as  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  abundantly  proves. 
 
 Some  oppose  this,  and  say  that  S.  Matthew  said  that  it 
 was  not  only  the  evening,  but  the  evening  of  the  Sabbath. 
 But  the  evening  of  the  Sabbath  must  be  part  of  the 
 Sabbath,  like  the  morning.  But  the  night  which  followed 
 the  Sabbath  was  not  part  of  it,  and  therefore  could 
 not  be  called  the  evening  of  the  Sabbath.  It  seems 
 strange  that  men  of  learning  and  judgment  should  have 
 been  so  completely  mistaken  as  to  the  true  meaning 
 of  S.  Matthew,  and  from  so  slight  a  cause.  They  ought 
 first  to  have  observed  that  S.  Matthew  did  not  say,  eairepa 
 he  aa^^uTcov,  vespera  mitevi  Sabbati,  sed  oyjre  Se  aa^^d-wv, 
 "  ad  verbum  "  :  sero  SabbatoruDi,  ant  tarde  Sabbatonun,  if 
 we  may  so  speak  in  Latin.  S.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  both  by 
 birth  and  language  a  Greek,  and  S.  Ambrose,  apparently 
 following  him,  have  observed  that  the  words  properly  mean 
 when  the  Sabbath  was  long  passed,  after  a  considerable 
 interval,  for  the  Greeks  spoke  thus  :  o-v/re  rov  Kat.pov  irapa- 
 ryeyova'i,  serins,  qiiam  pro  opportuno  tempore,  vcnisti,  ct :  oyjre 
 TJ}?  wpa<;,  transacta  longe  hora,  ct :  6-\jre  t?)?  ;i^pef'a9,  /ofige 
 serins,  qnain  opus  crat.  In  the  same  sense,  therefore,  S. 
 Matthew  said,  o^e  cra/3/9aTQ)i/,  scro  Sabbati ;  that  is,  the 
 Sabbath  having  passed  some  considerable  time,  because, 
 between  the  Sabbath  and  the  morning  the  whole  night, 
 as  he  desired  to  point  out,  had  intervened.  But  if  S. 
 Matthew  had  called  it  the  evening  of  the  Sabbath,  it 
 would  not  follow  that  it  was  part  of  the  Sabbath.  For 
 Scripture  frequently  calls  that  the  evening  of  the  day  of 
 which  it  is  no  part,  but  follows  it.  i  Kings  xx.  5  calls 
 the  following  night  the  evening  of  the  third  day  ;  for 
 as  the  king  supped  at  evening,  David  signified  that  he 
 should  not  .sup  with  him;  and  Exod.  xii.  6,  18,  where  it 
 is    clear   that  the   following    night    is  called    the   evening 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  I.]  END   OF   THE   SABBATH.  585 
 
 of  the  fourteenth  day,  which  was  a  part,  not  of  the  four- 
 teenth, but  of  the  fifteenth  day.  For  the  lamb  was 
 sacrificed,  not  on  the  fourteenth,  but  the  fifteenth  day. 
 That  is,  after  the  day  of  Pasch,  and  the  feast  of  Azymes 
 had  begun.  A  similar  example  is  found  in  Levit.  xxiii.  5  ; 
 Niunb.  ix.  3,  5,  1 1. 
 
 Hence  it  appears  that  there  is  no  difference  between  S. 
 Matthew  and  the  other  Evangelists  ;  and  in  the  same  way 
 it  is  proved  that  S.  Matthew  does  not  differ  from  himself 
 For  he  does  not  mean  both  the  evening  and  the  morning, 
 but  only  the  morning. 
 
 But  the  reader  may  ask  how,  if  it  were  night,  it  could 
 have  begun  to  dawn  ?  Some  think  it  a  Hebrew  idiom, 
 because  candles  were  lighted  in  the  houses  at  the  begin- 
 ning of  the  night,  as  is  taught  by  the  traditions  of  the 
 Talmudists.  S.  Jerome  is  not  averse  to  this  opinion. 
 Others  think  it  a  Hebrew  expression,  by  which  the  night 
 is  said  to  dawn  when  it  begins,  the  expression  being  de- 
 rived from  the  day,  for  it  begins  to  be  day  when  it  begins 
 to  dawn.  This  is  so,  and  it  is  proved  by  S.  Luke  (xxiii. 
 54),  "And  it  was  the  day  of  the  Parasceue,  and  the  Sabbath 
 drew  on "  (ilhtscesccbat),  that  is,  it  had  begun,  or  was  at 
 hand.  For  the  Evangelist  speaks  of  the  time  when  Christ 
 was  buried,  that  is,  the  day  of  Parasceue,  before  the  Sabbath, 
 the  day  then  declining.  And  he  says  that  the  Sabbath 
 had  then  begun  to  dawn  ;  that  is,  it  had  commenced,  or  was 
 at  hand.  But  again.st  this  and  the  former  explanation  is 
 not  merely  the  unusual  expression,  but  the  truth  of  the 
 history.  For  it  has  been  shown  that  S.  Matthew,  like  all 
 the  other  Evangelists,  meant  not  the  evening  but  the 
 morning.  The  lighting  of  the  candles,  therefore,  of  the 
 Talmudists  and  the  Hebraism  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
 passage  ;  for  S.  Matthew  or  his  interpreter  used  the  Greek 
 correctly.  He  wished  to  say  that  the  day  had  begun  to 
 dawn. 
 
5S6  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxviii.  i. 
 
 Some  think  the  meaning  to  be  that  the  evening — that  is, 
 the  night — had  begun  to  dawn  {illiicescere)  to  the  first  day 
 of  the  week,  because  it  was  incHning  towards  the  following 
 day.  As  if,  on  the  other  hand,  we  should  say  that  the  day 
 had  begun  {iioctcscerc)  to  dawn  towards  night  ;  not  that  it 
 could  really  do  so,  but  that  the  night  was  coming  on,  and 
 the  day  was  in  a  manner  changed  into  night,  as  Juvencus 
 says  : 
 
 "  Sidera  jam  noctis,  venture  cedere  soli 
 Incipiunt,  tumuli  matres  tunc  visere  septum 
 Concurrunt  ". 
 
 Now  to  the  coming  sun  the  stars  of  night 
 Begin  to  render  up  their  fading  light ; 
 And  onwards  to  the  stone-defended  tomb 
 Together  now  the  holy  women  come. 
 
 S.  Augustin,  Euthymius,  and  Theophylact  are  of  this 
 opinion.  I  do  not  differ  from  them  in  the  opinion  itself, 
 but  only  in  their  explanation  of  it.  They  seem  to  think 
 that  it  was  the  night  which  is  here  said  hicescerc,  but  S. 
 Matthew,  in  my  opinion,  means  that  it  was  not  the  night 
 but  the  day.  He  does  not  use  the  word  cither  "night" 
 or  "  day,"  but  says  "0-<]re  aa^^drwv,  ttj  i'rrL<^co<JKovar]  ek 
 fiiav  aa^/3dro)v,  "  in  the  end  of  the  Sabbath,"  the  morning 
 which  dawned  to  the  first  day  of  the  week.  When  the 
 article  must  express  either  day  or  night,  the  Greek 
 requires  us  to  understand  the  da>-  rather  than  the 
 night,  as  in  chap.  vi.  34  ;  ^V.  JoZ/u  i.  35  ;  xii.  12  ;  Ac/s  iv. 
 3-5  ;  XX.  7  ;  and  S.  Javics  iv.  14  ;  nor  do  I  remember  the 
 article  ever  to  be  used  absolutely  when  the  night  is  in- 
 tended. In  this  way  the  meaning  is  better  and  less 
 cramped.  For  that  the  da}-  should  begin  to  grow  light  is 
 both  in  fact  and  expression  natural.  That  the  night  can 
 do  so  is  unusual,  and  only  to  be  taken  in  figure.  It  may 
 be  objected  to  this  view,  though  it  has  not  been  so,  that 
 it  seems   tautology,  or   at    least    an    expression    not   well 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  I.]    THE   FIRST   DAY   OF   THE   WEEK.  587 
 
 balanced,  to  say  that  the  day  began  to  dawn  to  the  first 
 day  of  the  week,  when  by  the  first  day  of  the  week  the 
 day  that  is  said  to  dawn  [liicesccrc)  is  meant.  It  may  seem 
 so  if  the  word  "  day  "  is  expressed.  But  when  it  is  not,  it 
 is  no  more  out  of  place  than  if  we  said  de  die  Dominican 
 lognejttes,  "  the  day  began  to  dawn  in  Dominicam  ".  For 
 by  the  expression  "  Dominicam  "  we  understand  dicvi,  but 
 because  dies  is  not  expressed,  and  the  meaning  is  that  the 
 dies  Dojiiinica  begins  to  dawn  {illucesccrc'),  there  is  no 
 tautolog}-. 
 
 Oil  the  first  day  of  the  tveck  ("  in  prima  Sabbati"). 
 
 Ek  ficav  aa^/Bdrcov,  in  unani  Sabbaioniin,  a  more  lucid 
 expression.  The  motion  and  progress  of  the  night  towards 
 the  day  is  shown  by  the  use  of  the  preposition  /;/,  with  the 
 accusative.  So,  probably,  it  was  rendered  at  first  ;  but  the 
 final  "  m  "  may  have  dropped  out  from  the  fault  of  the  tran- 
 scriber. The  Hebrews  called  the  whole  week,  as  well  as 
 the  seventh  day,  Sabbatnni ;  and  when  they  meant  the 
 whole  week,  they  called  the  first  day  of  it  prima  Sabbati, 
 the  second  seainda,  and  so  on.  It  has  been  observed  that 
 when  the  seventh  day  alone  is  intended,  Sabbaium,  ad/3- 
 ^arov,  is  used  in  the  singular  number ;  when  the  whole 
 week  is  intended,  the  plural  ad^/Sara,  Sabbata,  is  found,  as 
 in  this  place  and  in  5.  Mark  xvi.  2  ;  5.  Lnke  xxiv.  i  ;  6". 
 John  XX.  1-19  ;  Acts  xx.  7.  But  this  is  not  universal  ;  for  in 
 ^.  Mark  xvi.  9,  we  find  prima  Sabbati,  aa^^druv,  when  the 
 whole  week  is  meant ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  in  Acts  xiii. 
 14,  on  the  day,  roov  o-a^^drcov,  when  only  the  Sabbath  day 
 was  meant.  Again,  nnam  Sabbati  \s  used  {ox  prima.  Our 
 version  renders  the  Hebrew  by  Latin  words,  when  it  often 
 keeps  the  expression,  as  in  vS.  Mark  xvi.  2  ;  ^.  Luke  xxiv. 
 I — una  Sabbatoriim,  ?ina  Sabbati.  The  first  day  of  the  week, 
 as  all  know,  is  our  "  Lord's  day,"  which,  as  the  world  was 
 first  created,  and   then   redeemed   by  the  Resurrection  of 
 
588  THE   GOSrEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxviii.  i. 
 
 Christ  on  it,  is  kept  in  the  place  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  ;  as 
 Gaudentius  {On  Exod.  i.)  and  Sedulius  {Carni.,  hb.  v.)  say: 
 
 "  Cceperat  interea,  post  tristia  Sabbata,  felix 
 Irradiare  dies,  culmen  qui  nominis  alti 
 A  domino  dominante  trahit,  primusque  videri 
 Promeruit  nasci  mundum,  atque  resurgere  Christum  ". 
 
 Now,  that  sad  Sabbath  past,  begins  to  dawn 
 The  day,  the  great  and  happy  day  ;  whose  crown 
 Of  a  most  lofty  name,  from  Him  derived 
 The  Lord  and  Ruler,  but  now  first  deserved. 
 That  day  on  which  was  born  the  world,  and  now 
 The  Christ  doth  rise,  victorious  o'er  the  tomb. 
 
 We  have  now  to  see  how  the  other  three  Evangelists 
 agree  among  themselves  as  to  the  time  at  which  the 
 women  came  to  the  sepulchre.  The  greatest  divarication 
 seems  to  exist  between  .S.  Mark  and  S.  John.  S.  Mark 
 says  that  the  sun  had  risen  (xvi.  2);  S.  John:  "When 
 it  was  yet  dark  ".  S.  Luke  says  the  same  in  other  words  : 
 "  Before  it  was  light  ". 
 
 Some  would  correct  the  text  of  S.  ]\Iark,  by  the  inser- 
 tion of  a  negative,  and  read,  "  The  sun  having  not  yet 
 risen  ".  They  have  no  other  authority  than  the  fact  that 
 in  some  Greek  copies  the  reading  is  eVt,  and  that  Eusebius 
 so  receives  it,  and  the  opinion  that  the  one  word  ovk  may 
 have  easily  dropped  out.  No  one  of  the  Ancients,  except 
 Eusebius,  so  reads  it,  and  our  version  has  it  as  it  is  ;  S. 
 Dionysius  of  Alexandria  {Ep.  ad  Basi/ides),  S.  Augustin 
 {De  Cons.,  iii.  24),  Rupertus  {On  S.  John  xx.),  De  Lyra  {On 
 S.  Mark  xvi.),  do  the  same.  It  would,  indeed,  be  a  very 
 excellent  thing  if  the  negative  were  read  ;  but,  as  we  have 
 said,  Scripture,  which  of  all  things  ought  to  be  to  us  the 
 most  holy,  is  not  to  be  altered  on  such  insufficient  grounds. 
 It  may  be  better  to  think  with  others  that  the  common 
 explanation  may  be  true,  that  the  women,  "  very  early  in 
 the  morning,"  as  S.  Mark  says,  left  their  houses  "when 
 it   was   yet   dark,"  as  S.   John    says,   and    arrived    at  the 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  I.]    THE   FIRST   DAY   OF   THE   WEEK.  589 
 
 tomb  "  when  the  sun  had  risen,"  as  S.  Mark  says  (xvi.  2). 
 For,  although  the  distance  from  the  city  was  not  great,  yet 
 it  was  so  great  that,  if  they  set  out  while  it  was  dark,  they 
 •would  hardly  arrive  till  the  sun  had  risen  ;  as  Dionysius, 
 in  the  letter  which  we  have  cited  more  than  once,  explains ; 
 or  they  may  have  come  when  the  sun  was  risen  {ortd), 
 that  is,  oriente,  sole.  The  sun  is  said  to  be  risen,  not  only 
 when  the  solar  body  appears  above  the  earth,  but  also 
 when  his  rays  have  dispelled  the  darkness  of  the  night, 
 as  S.  Augustin,  Euthymius,  Bede,  Theophylact,  and  De 
 Lyra  say.  This  view  will  be  more  probable  if  we 
 read  the  latter  oricnte,  as  S.  Augustin  and  Theophylact  do, 
 whether  they  take  the  Greek  aorist  avaTelXavro^  as  mean- 
 ing the  present  avarkXKovro'^,  or  read  not  dvaT6L\avTo<i  but 
 avare\\ovTo<i.  This  appears  more  easy  of  belief  than  the 
 supposition  that  the  entire  word  ovk,  "not,"  has  fallen  out  of 
 the  text.  And  the  meaning  would  not  be  greatly  changed  ; 
 for  it  is  easier  to  suppose  that  the  Greek  copyist  had 
 inserted  -TeiX-  for  -reXk-  than  that  he  had  omitted  a  word, 
 especially  in  a  passage  in  which  the  omission  would  strike 
 everyone  at  once  as  senseless,  and  out  of  harmony  with  the 
 context.  Read  thus  there  is  no  divarication  between  the 
 Evangelists  ;  for  so/e  jam  oriente  and  sole  nonduvi  orto  are 
 much  the  same  thing. 
 
 It  seems  hardly  probable,  too,  that  the  women  would 
 have  had  the  courage  to  come  to  the  tomb  before  daylight. 
 If  so,  and  even  if  S.  Mark  had  not  said,  orto  jam  sole  (xvi. 
 2),  both  S.  John's  adJnic  te7iebrcs  sunt  and  S.  Luke's  ante 
 lucem  are  to  be  understood  as  marking  the  time,  not  of  the 
 women's  coming  to  the  tomb,  but  of  their  setting  out  from 
 their  homes  ;  and  thus  we  see  how  S.  Mark  does  not  con- 
 tradict himself  when  he  says,  valde  mane,  "  very  early  " : 
 meaning  when  they  set  out  from  home  ;  and  orto  jam 
 sole,  "  the  sun  being  now  risen,"  when  they  came  to  the 
 tomb. 
 
590  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Ch.  xxviii.  i. 
 
 Came  Mary  Magdalene  and  the  other  Mary. 
 On  Mary  Magdalene,  vide  chap,  xxvii.  56.  By  the  other 
 Mary  is  meant  the  wife  of  Cleophas  and  the  mother  of 
 James  the  Less  and  Joses,  as  chap,  xxvii.  61,  and  as  is 
 clear  from  ^\  Mark  xvi.  i.  S.  Mark  also  mentions  Salome, 
 mother  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee.  S.Luke  (xxiv.  10)  speaks 
 of  many  other  women,  as  also  in  chaps,  viii.  3  and  xxiii. 
 55.  Some  think  that  the  Blessed  Virgin,  the  Mother  of 
 Christ,  was  among  them,  as  S.  Greg.  Nyss.  {Orat.  ii.  de 
 Resurr.)  and  Sedulius  : 
 
 "  Hoc  luminis  ortu 
 Virgo  parens,  alijeque  simul  cum  munere  matres, 
 Messis  aromaticae  noctu  venere  gementes 
 
 Ad  tumulum  ". 
 
 Now  when  the  sun  begins  to  appear, 
 The  Virgin  Mother  draweth  near, 
 And  with  her  sad  companions  come, 
 To  bring  sweet  spices  to  the  tomb. 
 
 It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  Blessed  Virgin  yielded 
 to  none  in  love  and  zeal  towards  Christ ;  but  that  she 
 came  with  the  other  women  seems  hardly  probable, 
 for  none  of  the  Evangelists  mention  her,  and  they 
 would  not  have  passed  her  over  if  she  had  been  present 
 with  the  others.  We  see  that  all  the  Evangelists  name 
 Mary  Magdalene  in  the  first  place,  as  the  most  noble 
 of  all  the  women  who  came  to  the  tomb,  and  as  she 
 was  in  a  sense  their  leader.  But  they  would  have  placed 
 the  Blessed  Virgin,  if  she  had  come  with  them,  before 
 Magdalene.  S.  John  says  that  Mary  the  Mother  of 
 Christ,  and  Mary  Cleophas,  and  Mary  Magdalene  were 
 at  the  cross.  He  puts  Mary  the  Mother  of  Christ 
 before  all  the  rest,  and  the  other  Evangelists  would 
 have  done  the  same  here  if  she  had  come  with  them 
 to  the  tomb.  The  opinion  of  S.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  seems 
 wholly  untenable — that  by  the  other  ]\Iary  S.  John  meant 
 
Ch.  xxviii.  I.]      VISIT  OF  WOMEN  TO  THE  SEPULCHRE.        59I 
 
 the  Mother  of  Christ.  S.  Mark  tells  us  plainly  who  she  was. 
 S.  John  (xx.  i)  says  that  Mary  Magdalene  came  alone — 
 probably  because  she  was  the  head  of  the  band  and  she 
 alone  held  the  conversation  with  the  angels,  which  S. 
 John  desired  to  commemorate.  The  other  Evangelists 
 speak  not  all  of  the  same  number,  but  all  mention  more 
 than  one,  because  they  desired  to  show  that  the  three 
 women  (5.  Mark  xvi.  i)  were  the  first  witnesses  of  the 
 Resurrection,  and  there  must  be  two  witnesses  at  least  to 
 prove  a  thing,  as  Dent.  xvii.  6  ;  5.  Matt,  xviii.  16. 
 Besides,  S.  Matthew  speaks  of  two,  S.  Mark  of  three, 
 S.   Luke  of  more. 
 
 To  see  the  sepulchre. 
 
 S.  Mark  (xvi.  i)  and  S.  Luke  (xxiv.  i)  say  that  they 
 came  to  anoint  Christ.  S.  John  does  not  state  the  cause 
 of  their  coming.  This  has  caused  some  to  think  that  the 
 women  came  twice — the  first  time  not  to  anoint  Christ, 
 but,  as  S.  Matthew  says,  to  see  the  tomb ;  and  then  to 
 anoint.  Among  these  are  S.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria 
 and  S.  Jerome  {in  loc,  and  Quest.  6  to  Hedibias).  But  this 
 has  been  answered  above,  and  will  be  answered  again  by 
 and  by  at  more  length. 
 
 But  why  did  S.  Matthew  say  that  they  came  to  see  the 
 tomb  ?  Not  to  show  that  they  came  only  to  see  it  and 
 not  to  anoint  the  body  of  Christ,  but  to  show  that  they 
 came  to  anoint,  but  doubted  whether  they  could  succeed, 
 because  they  knew  that  the  tomb  was  sealed  with  a  great 
 stone.  And  thus  they  talked  anxiously  among  themselves 
 as  they  came  along  :  "  Who  shall  roll  us  away  the  stone 
 from  the  door  of  the  sepulchre?"  {S.  Mark  xvi.  3).  S. 
 Matthew  meant  that  they  came  to  see  the  sepulchre 
 whether  it  were  so  closed  and  kept  as  to  allow  of  their 
 entering,  and,  when  they  had  entered,  of  anointing  the 
 body  of  Christ. 
 
592  THE   GOSPEL  OK  S.  MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxviii.  2. 
 
 Verse  2.  And  behold  there  zuas  a  great  earthquake. 
 The  word  ccce,  "  behold,"  shows  that  the  earthquake  took 
 place  as  the  women  were  going  to,  or  approaching,  the 
 tomb.  On  the  force  of  ecce,  vide  chap.  ii.  i.  The  Evangelist 
 clearly  shows  the  cause  of  the  earthquake — viz.,  the  descent 
 of  the  angel  from  heaven,  for  he  uses  the  causal  particle 
 "  for ".  Why  the  earthquake  took  place  on  that  descent 
 the  Evangelist  does  not  say.  The  probable  reason  may 
 have  been  that  given  by  S.  Chrysostom  {Horn.  xc.  on  S. 
 Matt).  Euthymius  and  Theophylact  {in  he.)  say  that  the 
 keepers  of  the  tomb,  who  were  sleeping,  might  be  aroused 
 by  the  commotion,  and  so  be  compelled  to  become  wit- 
 nesses of  Christ's  Resurrection.  The  reason  may  have 
 been  to  show  the  women  and  keepers  of  the  tomb  that 
 they  who  appeared  by  the  tomb  in  shining  apparel  were 
 not  men,  but  angels  ;  that  is,  heavenly  and  divine  mes- 
 sengers. It  has  been  shown  (xxvii.  51)  from  many  pas- 
 sages of  Scripture  that  such  convulsions  signify  the  presence 
 of  God,  or  of  some  representative  of  God.  That  the  keepers 
 and  women,  therefore,  might  believe  the  angels,  it  was 
 necessary  that  they  should  recognise  them,  not  only  by 
 their  shining  garments,  but  by  the  shaking  of  the  ground. 
 There  might  have  been  another  reason  :  that  the  keepers 
 might  understand  that  Christ  was  not  taken  away  by  theft 
 nor  by  any  human  means,  but  that  He  had  risen  by  the 
 divine  power  by  which  the  earthquake  itself  was  caused. 
 
 For  an  angel  of  the  Lord  descended  from  heaven. 
 
 One  reason  of  this  descent  has  been  mentioned  :  the 
 rolling  away  of  the  stone.  There  may  be  others.  S. 
 Chrysostom  mentions  three,  besides  the  rolling  away  of 
 the  stone. 
 
 I.  That  the  angels  might  show  that  God  was  buried 
 there,  since  they  stood  at  the  tomb,  as  they  do  in  heaven 
 where  He  dwells. 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  2.]  DESCENT   OF   THE   ANGEL.  593 
 
 2.  To  teach  the  women  that  Christ  had  truly  risen  from 
 the  dead,  and  to  warn  them  to  tell  the  Apostles  as  soon  as 
 possible.  For  if  they  had  not  been  taught  by  the  angels, 
 they  would  not  have  believed  ;  for  it  appears  from  S.  John 
 that  even  after  they  had  been  taught  by  them,  they  did  not 
 wholly  believe,  but  rather  thought  that  He  had  been  taken 
 away  by  theft. 
 
 3.  To  anticipate  all  frauds  and  machinations  ;  and  that 
 the  Jews,  when  they  heard  that  Christ  had  risen,  might 
 not  put  another  in  the  tomb  in  His  place  that  He  might 
 appear  not  to  have  risen. 
 
 Heretics  dispute  with  the  Church  as  to  why  the  angel 
 moved  the  stone.  Some  think  that  it  was  done  that  Christ 
 might  rise  and  go  out  from  the  tomb  ;  of  which  opinion 
 S.  Hilary  {Can.  xxxiii.  on  S.  Matt?)  seems  somewhat  a 
 favourer.  S.  Leo  {Ep.  Ixxxiii.)  to  the  monks  of  Palestine  : 
 "  Let  these  Christian  teachers  of  a  phantasm  say  what 
 substance  of  the  Saviour  was  fixed  to  the  Cross  ;  what  lay 
 in  the  tomb,  and,  when  the  stone  was  rolled  away,  what 
 flesh  rose  on  the  third  day ".  But  it  is  clear  from  the 
 words  of  the  Evangelists,  that  Christ  rose  before  the  angel 
 rolled  away  the  stone.  For  S.  Matthew  clearly  says  that 
 the  earthquake  was  on  account  of  the  descent  of  the 
 angel.  But  if  Christ  had  not  yet  risen,  he  would  have  said 
 that  the  earthquake  was  not  because  of  the  descent  of  the 
 angel,  but  because  of  the  Resurrection  of  Christ.  Besides, 
 S.  Mark  says  that  the  stone  was  rolled  away  by  the 
 angel,  not  that  Christ  might  rise,  but  that  the  women 
 might  enter  and  see  that  the  tomb  was  empty  (xvi.  3,  4)  : 
 quite  as  if  he  had  said,  "  The  angels  came  in  good 
 time  and  rolled  away  the  stone  for  the  women,  who 
 were  anxious  on  the  subject  before  they  came  to  the 
 sepulchre  ". 
 
 Lastly,  as  S.  Jerome  {Qiicest.  6  to  Hedibias),  S.  Greg. 
 Nyss.  {Orat.  ii.  dc  Resnrr.),  Euthymius  (/;/  loc.)  say, 
 2-38 
 
594  THE   GOSPEL   OF    S.    MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxvm.  2. 
 
 "  No  one  ever  knew  at  what  hour  Christ  rose  ".  But  that 
 at  which  the  stone  was  rolled  away  is  found  from  all  the 
 Evangelists.  For  as  the  earthquake,  as  S.  Matthew  says, 
 was  on  account  of  the  descent  of  the  angel,  and  it  took 
 place  as  the  women  were  approaching  the  sepulchre,  as 
 the  word  "  Behold  "  shows,  and  the  angel,  as  S.  Matthew 
 says,  rolled  away  the  stone  :  it  follows  that  it  was  rolled 
 away  as  the  women  approached.  All  the  Evangelists  state 
 that  they  set  out  from  their  homes  early,  when  it  was  yet 
 dark,  as  S.  John  says  ;  and  they  arrived  when  the  sun  was 
 rising  or  risen,  as  S.  Mark  says.  The  stone,  therefore,  was 
 rolled  away  then.  It  was  not  rolled  away,  therefore,  as  the 
 above-named  modern  heretics  say,  that  Christ  might  come 
 out.  For  all  the  ancient  authors  have  taught,  what  the 
 Evangelists  clearly  teach,  that  the  stone  was  rolled  away, 
 not  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  but  for  the  women  :  as  S.  Jerome 
 writes  to  Hedibias,  and  others  to  be  cited  shortly  ;  and 
 the  angels  were  not  sent  to  aid  Christ,  as  if  He  could  not 
 have  come  out  of  the  tomb  without  their  assistance  ;  but 
 they  sat  as  witnesses  and  heralds  of  His  Resurrection. 
 In  the  same  manner  they  did  not  come  to  Christ  during 
 His  Temptation,  when  He  was  tempted  by  the  devil,  lest 
 they  should  have  been  thought  to  have  come  to  help  Him ; 
 but  they  came  after  He  was  tempted,  and  after  His  victory, 
 that  they  might  celebrate  His  triumph  and  acknowledge 
 Him  as  conqueror.  All  ancient  authors  teach  that,  in  the 
 same  manner  as  that  in  which  Christ  passed  out  of  His 
 Mother's  womb.  He  came  out  of  the  tomb,  and  went  in  to 
 the  disciples  ;  that  is,  as  by  His  own  body  He  neither 
 opened  nor  burst  that  of  His  mother,  so  neither  did  He 
 the  stone  of  the  tomb  nor  the  doors  of  the  house  where  the 
 disciples  were,  nor,  what  is  similar,  soften,  but  penetrate 
 them.  So  say  S.  Justin  Martyr  {Oiicust.  \iy  ad  Orthod), 
 S.  Chrysostom  {Horn.  ii.  /.  Bapt),  S.  Gregory  Nazianzen 
 (Tmgccd.   dc    Christ,   patient),   S.    Jerome   {Qiiccst.   6   ad 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  3.]  THE   ANGELS.  595 
 
 Hcdib.),    S.    Augustin    {Scrvis.    cxxxviii.,   clix.,  de   Tevip.), 
 Euthymius  {iji  loc). 
 
 A  nd  sat  upon  it. 
 The  angel  sat  upon  the  stone  as  if  expecting  the  coming 
 of  the  women  ;  and  as  if  to  show  that  it  was  he  who  had 
 rolled  away  the  stone,  for  he  sat  upon  his  own  work.  But 
 how  he  is  said  here  to  sit,  when  S.  Luke  (xxiv.  4)  describes 
 the  angels  as  standing,  and  what  the  stone  was  upon 
 which  they  sat,  shall  be  described  in  the  following  verse. 
 
 Verse  3.  And  Jiis  countenance  zvas  like  lightning,  and  his 
 raiment  white  as  snozv. 
 All  the  Evangelists  describe  the  peculiar  clothing  of  the 
 angel  carefully,  but  S.  Matthew  the  most  so  of  all  {S.  Mark 
 xvi.  5  ;  S.  Luke  xxiv.  4;  5.  John  xx.  12).  Such  care  is 
 not  devoid  of  mystery,  and  it  is  some  proof  of  it.  We 
 often  read  of  angels  visiting  men  in  the  usual  habit  of  men, 
 so  as  to  be  thought  to  be  men  {Gen.  xvi.  7  ;  xviii.  1,2; 
 xix.  I  ;  xxxii.  24  ;  Joshua  v.  13  ;  Judges  ii.  i,  4  ;  Da7i.  viii. 
 16;  Zach.  ii.  i;  Tobit  v.  5,  6  ;  xii.  15).  But  here  the 
 angels  appear  in  a  new  clothing ;  in  a  new  manner  and 
 with  a  new  splendour.  It  is  easy  to  suppose  that  they 
 were  sent  to  assure  us,  by  heavenly  and  divine  authority, 
 of  the  Resurrection  of  the  Lord.  And  it  was  therefore 
 needful  that  they  should  come  with  such  an  appearance  as 
 to  render  it  certain  that  they  were  angels.  When  it  was 
 not  necessary  that  they  should  be  known  as  such,  or  it 
 was  better  that  they  should  not  be,  they  appeared  in  the 
 usual  guise  of  men,  as  to  Abraham  {Gen.  xviii.  2),  to  Lot 
 (xix.  i),  and  to  the  son  of  Tobias  (v.  7).  But  when  it  is 
 necessary  that  they  should  be  recognised  as  angels,  they  bear 
 a  more  exalted  appearance  than  that  of  men,  as  Acts  i.  10. 
 This  is  the  reason  given  by  S.  Cyril  (chap.  xlvi.  oji  S.  John 
 xii.).     But  S.  Gregory  {Honi.  xx.  in  Evangel.)  and  Bede  {in 
 
596  THE    GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW      [Ch.  xxviii.  3. 
 
 loc)  give  another,  why  the  angels  here  appeared  in  shining 
 apparel — to  show  the  glory  of  the  rising  of  Christ  and  our 
 joy  thereat.  To  the  same  effect  is  S.  Mark's  calling  the 
 angel  a  young  man,  for  the  angels  never  appear  in  any  but 
 a  youthful  form,  that,  as  S.  Dionysius  {Coolest  Hier.,  xv.) 
 says,  their  vis  vitalis  may  never  appear  as  aged,  but 
 always  youthful  and  flourishing,  and  that  their  immortality 
 might  be  seen.  S.  Matthew  and  S.  John  call  them  angels. 
 S.  Mark  and  S.  Luke  men  ;  the  former  as  what  they  were, 
 the  latter  as  what  they  appeared  at  first  sight. 
 
 There  are  many  other  difficult  questions  in  this  place, 
 besides  the  apparent  divarication  on  the  above  point 
 between  the  Evangelists. 
 
 1.  How  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark  speak  of  one  angel  ;  S. 
 Luke  and  S.  John  of  two. 
 
 2.  How  S.  Matthew  says  that  the  angel  sat  upon  the 
 stone  which  he  had  rolled  away,  which  was  outside  the 
 tomb,  so  that  the  angel  must  necessarily  have  been  outside 
 also,  while  S.  Mark  (xvi.  5)  and  S.  John  (xx.  12)  say  that 
 he  was  inside  ;  the  former  speaking  of  a  young  man,  and 
 the  latter  of  two  angels. 
 
 3.  How  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark  speak  of  the  angel  as 
 sitting  ;  while  S.  Luke  says  that  the  angels  were  standing, 
 and  were  seen  to  be  so  by  the  women. 
 
 4.  How  S.  Matthew,  S.  Mark,  and  S.  Luke  speak  of 
 more  women  than  one  as  having  seen  the  angels  ;  S.  John 
 only  of  Mary  Magdalene. 
 
 5.  How  S.  John  says  that  Mary  Magdalene,  when  she 
 came  first  to  the  tomb,  found  the  stone  rolled  away,  but 
 did  not  see  the  angel  until  she  had  returned  and  told  the 
 disciples  of  the  Resurrection  ;  when  S.  Matthew,  S.  Mark, 
 and  S.  Luke  say  that  the  women  not  only  saw  the  angel 
 when  they  came  first,  but  that  he  told  them  to  go  and 
 announce  the  Resurrection  to  the  disciples. 
 
 To  the  first  question.     They  who  follow  the  opinion  of  S. 
 
Ch.  xxvin.  3.]  THE   ANGELS.  597 
 
 Augustin  {De  Cons.,  iii.  24),  and  think  that  the  women  came 
 twice,  not  in  the  evening  and  morning,  as  S.  Jerome  says, 
 but  when  the  sun  had  risen,  easily  (though  whether  truly 
 or  not  may  be  a  question)  answer  that  when  they  came 
 the  first  time  they  saw  one  angel,  and  when  they  came  the 
 second  time  the}^  saw  two. 
 
 Others  think  that  at  first,  before  they  went  into  the 
 tomb,  they  saw  one  angel,  and  then  when  they  had  entered 
 they  either  saw  one  and  then  another,  as  S.  Mark  indicates, 
 or  two,  as  S.  Luke  and  S.  John  say.  So  it  is  explained  by 
 Theophylact  {in  loco)  and  S.  Thomas.  It  may  be  sug- 
 gested, however,  that  there  are  three  difficulties  here : 
 
 \.  That  the  women  came  to  the  tomb  twice. 
 
 2.  That  when  they  came  first  they  saw  either  no  angel 
 at  all,  or  only  one. 
 
 3.  That  they  saw  one  angel  outside  the  tomb,  the  other 
 inside  ;  or  one  outside  and  two  inside. 
 
 To  these  three  points,  because  the  explanation  of  all  the 
 other  proposed  questions  depends  upon  them  in  great  part, 
 it  may  be  worth  while  to  reply. 
 
 The  first  and  second,  because  they  are  so  closely  united 
 that  they  cannot  be  separated,  stand  together  and  may  be 
 refuted  by  the  same  arguments. 
 
 I.  When  S.  Matthew,  S.  Mark,  and  S.  Luke  say  that  the 
 women  came  to  the  tomb,  it  is  not  a  question  that  they 
 speak  of  their  first  visit.  They  add  that  they  came  suinmo 
 viane,  to  show  that  they  came  when  it  was  first  possible  ; 
 both  because  of  the  Sabbath  and  the  night  that  followed 
 it.  As  if  they  had  passed  the  whole  night  without  sleep, 
 and  waited  for  the  morning  that  they  might  hasten  to  the 
 tomb.  But  the  Evangelists  say  that  when  they  came  in 
 the  morning,  they  then  saw  the  angels,  and  it  cannot  be 
 doubted  that  the  women,  at  the  commandment  of  the 
 angel,  then  told  Peter  and  John  of  the  Resurrection,  and 
 that  they  thereupon  ran  to  the  tomb  to  judge  for  them- 
 
598  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.     [Cii.  xxviii.  3. 
 
 selves.  For  S.  Mark  says  in  plain  words  (xvi.  7)  that  the 
 angel  said  to  the  women,  "  But  go,  tell  His  disciples  and 
 Peter  that  He  goeth  before  you  into  Galilee  ;  there  you 
 .shall  see  Him  as  He  told  you  ". 
 
 They  therefore  saw  the  angel  before  they  told  Peter  and 
 John,  and  before  Peter  and  John  came  to  the  tomb.  For 
 what  need  would  there  have  been  to  command  them  to 
 tell  Peter  that  Christ  had  risen  if  he  had  already  come  and 
 seen  the  empty  tomb  with  his  own  eyes  ? 
 
 They  who  think  that  the  women  came  to  the  tomb 
 twice,  and  when  they  came  the  first  time  saw  no  angel, 
 say,  or  must  say,  that  Peter  and  John  came  to  the  tomb 
 before  the  women  saw  any  angel,  as  S.  John  seems  to  indi- 
 cate, by  whose  account  they  are  urged  into  this  opinion. 
 But  this  opposes  the  plain  words  of  S.  Mark.  Besides,  S. 
 Matthew  relates  clearly  that  the  women  and  the  soldiers 
 both  saw  the  angel  at  the  same  time  (xxviii.  4),  and  it  is 
 clear  that  before  Peter  and  John  came,  the  soldiers  had 
 seen  the  angel  and  gone  away  terrified.  For  Peter  and 
 John  would  not  have  come  to  the  tomb  so  boldly  unless 
 they  had  heard  from  the  women  that  the  soldiers  had  gone 
 away  ;  but  this  hardly  applies  to  the  women.  It  is  no 
 matter  of  wonder  that  they  had  the  courage  to  come  to 
 the  tomb  while  it  was  yet  guarded  by  the  soldiers  ;  for 
 these  are  apt  to  be  severe  towards  men  when  they  spare 
 the  women.  Besides,  S.  Luke  (xxiv.  13)  says  that  on  that 
 same  day,  as  when  two  of  the  disciples  were  going  to 
 P^mmaus,  Christ  joined  Himself  to  them,  and  that  they 
 said  (verses  21,  22,  23),  "And  now,  besides  all  this,  to-day 
 is  the  third  day  since  these  things  were  done.  Yea,  and 
 certain  women  also  of  our  compan)-  affrighted  us,  who, 
 before  it  was  light,  were  at  the  sepulchre.  And,  not  finding 
 His  body,  came,  saying,  that  thc}-  had  also  seen  a  vision  of 
 angels,  who  say  that  He  is  alive.  And  some  of  our  people 
 went  to  the  sepulchre,  and  found  it  so  as  the  women  had 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  3.]     THE   WOMEN   AND   THE   ANGELS.  599 
 
 said  ;  but  Him  they  found  not."  It  cannot  be  doubted 
 that  the  words  "some  of  our  people"  refer  to  S.  Peter 
 and  S.  John  ;  the  Evangelist  had  said  that  the  women  saw 
 the  vision  of  angels,  and  told  it  to  Peter  and  the  other 
 disciples.  To  this  should  be  added  the  greatest  authorities, 
 who  think  that  when  the  women  came  first  to  the  tomb 
 they  saw  the  angels.  Among  these  is  S.  Greg.  Nyss.  {De 
 Resiirr.  Chti.,  Orat.  ii.).  As,  then,  they  who  say  that  the 
 women  came  to  the  tomb  twice  do  so  only  that  they  may 
 not  appear  to  contradict  S.  John,  who  seems  to  say  that 
 the  women  when  they  came  the  first  time  did  not  see  the 
 angels  ;  and  as  it  has  been  sufficiently  proved  that  they 
 saw  them  when  they  came  the  first  time,  there  is  no 
 reason  why  they  should  say  that  the  women  came  twice. 
 The  passage  in  S.  John  shall  shortly  be  explained,  so  as 
 to  show  that  there  is  no  contradiction  in  it.  It  appears, 
 therefore,  both  that  the  women  only  came  once,  and  that 
 when  they  came  the  first  time  they  saw  the  angels. 
 
 2.  The  third  question  is  more  easily  answered.  5.  Ulark 
 xvi.  4,  5  :  "  And,  looking,  they  saw  the  stone  rolled  back. 
 For  it  was  very  great.  And  entering  into  the  sepulchre, 
 they  saw  a  young  man  sitting  on  the  right  side,  clothed 
 with  a  white  robe  ;  and  they  were  astonished."  S.  Mark 
 means  that  they  saw  one  angel  inside  the  tomb,  even  if 
 they  saw  another  outside,  as  S.  Matthew  is  commonly 
 taken  to  mean.  It  would  seem  that  the  angel  of  whom 
 S.  Matthew  speaks,  and  the  one  mentioned  by  S.  Mark, 
 were  the  same  ;  for  they  both  used  the  same  words.  Each 
 said,  "  Fear  not  "  {S.  UTatt.  xxviii.  5).  "  Fear  not  you  : 
 for  I  know  that  ye  seek  Jesus  who  was  crucified.  He  is 
 not  here  :  for  He  is  risen  as  He  said.  Come,  see  the  place 
 where  the  Lord  was  laid.  And  going  quickly,  tell  ye  His 
 disciples  that  He  is  risen  ;  behold  He  will  go  before  you 
 into  Galilee,  there  you  shall  see  Him  "  {S.  Mark  xvi.  6). 
 As,  then,  the  angel  of  whom  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark  wrote 
 
600  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Ch.  xxviii.  3. 
 
 was  the  same  angel — and  S.  Mark  says  in  plain  words  that 
 he  was  seen  by  the  women  inside  the  tomb,  and  S.  Matthew- 
 does  not  say  that  he  was  seen  outside,  but  only  that  he  was 
 sitting  upon  the  stone  which  he  had  removed — it  follows 
 that  he  was  seen  not  outside  the  tomb,  which  S.  Matthew 
 does  not  say,  but  inside  it,  which  S.  Mark  does  say.  And 
 most  especially  when  the  other  Evangelists,  S.  Luke  (xxiv. 
 4)  and  S.  John  (xx.  12),  say  that  two  angels  were  seen, 
 not  outside,  but  inside. 
 
 What  mostly  influences  the  maintainers  of  the  other 
 view  is  the  words  of  S.  Matthew  (verse  2) :  "  An  angel  of 
 the  Lord  descended  from  heaven  ;  and,  coming,  rolled  back 
 the  stone,  and  sat  upon  it  ".  The  stone  they  conclude  from 
 S.  Mark  to  have  been  outside  the  tomb  and  not  inside  of  it. 
 "  Who,"  they  say,  "  shall  roll  back  ; "  and,  therefore,  they 
 assume  that  it  was  at  the  door  of  the  tomb,  that  is,  outside 
 it.  It  is  matter  of  wonder  that  it  has  escaped  the  notice 
 of  authorities  that  there  were  two  stones,  and  that  each 
 was  rolled  back  by  the  angel.  S.  Augustin  {De  Consens., 
 \ny24)  thinks  that  the  sepulchre  alone  did  not  contain 
 the  tomb  of  Christ,  but  that  it  was  a  building  called  by 
 him  a  maceria,  a  wall  of  enclosure,  having  an  outside 
 arched  door  by  which  it  was  entered  ;  and  within  this  was 
 the  tomb  where  the  body  was  laid,  which  was  closed  by 
 another  stone.  That  it  was  a  tomb  of  this  kind,  Bede, 
 Bocardus  {On  Jerusalem  and  tJic  Holy  Land'),  ?iX\6.  all  who 
 have  seen  it  agree  iino  ore.  There  were,  therefore,  two 
 stones — one  outside  by  which  the  door  of  the  whole  monu- 
 ment was  closed,  the  other  inside  by  which  the  tomb  was 
 closed  ;  and  the  angels  removed  both — the  first,  that  the 
 women  might  enter  ;  the  second,  that  they  might  see  that 
 the  tomb  was  empty.  The  angel  did  not  sit  upon  the  first, 
 but  upon  the  second  ;  for  if  he  had  sat  upon  the  first,  the 
 women  would  have  been  terrified  at  the  first  sight  of  him, 
 and  they  would  not  have  ventured  to  enter  the  tomb.     It 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  3.]     THE   ANGEL   AND   THE   STONES.  6oi 
 
 was  fit  that  the  angel  should  have  sat,  not  upon  the  first 
 stone,  but  upon  the  second  ;  both  to  show  that  he  had 
 moved  away  the  stone  that  the  women  might  see  that  the 
 sepulchre  was  empty ;  and  to  point,  as  it  were,  with  his 
 finger  to  the  place  where  Christ  had  been  placed,  and 
 show  that  it  was  empty,  as  in  verse  6. 
 
 When,  therefore,  S.  Matthew  says  that  the  angel  moved 
 the  stone,  he  means  both  stones.  When  he  says  that  he 
 sat  upon  it,  he  means  the  second  stone  which  was  inside 
 the  tomb.  For,  as  he  could  not  have  sat  upon  both 
 stones,  he  must  have  sat  either  upon  the  first  or  the 
 second.  S.  Matthew  does  not  say  that  he  sat  upon  the 
 first.  S.  Mark,  S.  Luke,  and  S.  John  clearly  say  that  he 
 sat  upon  the  second,  when  they  say  that  he  sat  inside  ; 
 and,  therefore,  S.  Matthew  also,  when  he  says  that  he  sat 
 upon  the  stone,  understands  the  second  stone ;  whence  it 
 follows  that  even,  according  to  S.  Matthew,  the  angel  was 
 seen  by  the  women,  not  outside  the  tomb,  but  inside  it. 
 It  will  be  objected  that  S.  Matthew  (verse  6)  says  that  the 
 angel  said  to  the  women,  "  Come,  see  the  place  where  the 
 Lord  lay  "  ;  as  if  they  had  not  yet  entered  the  tomb,  but  he 
 were  inviting  them  to  do  so.  These  words  have  deceived 
 many  into  thinking  that  the  women  were  invited  by  the 
 angel  to  enter  the  tomb,  whereas  they  were  not  invited  to 
 enter,  but  to  come  ;  that  is,  to  draw  near  and  see  the  tomb. 
 The  angel  did  not  say  "Enter"  but  "Come".  For  they  were 
 then  inside  the  tomb,  as  S.  Mark  and  S.  Luke  state  most 
 clearly.  Then,  when  they  had  come  to  the  tomb  and 
 unexpectedly  found  the  first  stone,  about  which  they  had 
 been  anxious  on  the  way,  rolled  back,  they  boldly  entered. 
 When  they  were  inside,  and  saw  the  angel  sitting  upon  the 
 stone,  they  were  astonished,  and  did  not  venture  to 
 approach  the  tomb.  But  the  angel  first  directed  them  to 
 lay  aside  their  fear,  saying,  "  Fear  not"  (verse  5),  and  then 
 invited  them  to  come,  and  see  the  tomb  :  "  Come,  see  ". 
 
602  THE   GOSI'EL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Cii.  xxviii.  3. 
 
 What  S.  Luke  says  (xxiv.  2,  3,  4)  may  be  objected.  He 
 here  indicates  that  the  women  had  entered,  not  only  into 
 the  monument  but  even  to  the  tomb  as  well,  which  was 
 within,  and  had  seen  that  it  was  empty  before  the  angel 
 invited  them,  or  they  had  even  seen  him. 
 
 The  answer  is  that  S.  Luke  spoke  by  anticipation,  for  he 
 was  desirous  of  passing  on  tf;  relate  that  the  women  had 
 not  found  Ciirist  in  the  tomb,  because  He  had  risen  ;  and 
 he  therefore  said  this  before  stating  that  the  angels  were 
 .seen  by  them,  and  that  by  their  testimony  the  Resurrection 
 of  Christ  was  confirmed. 
 
 Thus  the  first  and  second  of  the  five  questions  proposed 
 above  have  been  answered. 
 
 The  first  by  the  proof  that  there  were  two  angels,  as 
 S.  Luke  and  S.  John  relate  ;  but  because  one  only  spoke 
 with  the  women,  we  must  believe  that  S.  Matthew  and 
 S.  Mark,  as  they  esijccially  desired  tc^  relate  what  the 
 angels  said  t(j  the  women,  make  mention  of  one  only.  It 
 would  certainly  have  been  superfluous  that  the  other  angel 
 should  si)eak,  as  he  could  only  have  repeated  what  the 
 other  had  said.  So,(;n  the  (jther  hand,  whilst  more  women 
 than  one  came  to  the  sepulchre,  one  only,  Mary  Magda- 
 lene, spoke  both  with  the  angels  and  with  Christ.  S.  John 
 mentions  her  alone  ;  but  as  S.  Luke  and  S.  John  wished  to 
 show  that  the  Resurrection  of  Christ  was  proved  by  the 
 testimon>'  of  the  angels,  they  were  compelled  to  mention 
 mcjre  angels  than  one.  Thus  it  was  fitting  that  at  least 
 two  angels  should  ai)i)ear  as  witnesses,  that  "  b)- the  mouth 
 of  two  or  three  every  word  should  be  established  ".  And 
 wc  .see  in  the  similar  case  of  the  Ascension  of  Christ  into 
 heaven,  two  angels  also  appeared  in  white  garments,  who 
 testified  to  them  that  He  had  gone  up  to  heaven,  and 
 would  so  return   (. /r/.v  i.  loj. 
 
 \h\t  the  words  of  S.  Luke  (xxiv.  5)  seem  oi)posed  to  this, 
 and  S.  John  (xx.  12)  relates  that  the  angels  said  to  Magda- 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  3.]  THE   ANGELS.  603 
 
 lene,  "  Woman,  why  weepest  thou  ?"  The  answer  is  easy. 
 They  speak  by  syllepsis,  as  often  before  ;  for  example,  the 
 thieves  on  the  cross,  and  as  in  //</'.  xi.  33.  ^~.  The 
 Prophets  "  were  cut  asunder,"  whereas  onl\-  one  was  so 
 treated — Isaiah :  "and  stopped  the  mouths  o( lions,"  whereas 
 only  Daniel  did  so.  The  angels,  then,  arc  said  by  S.  Luke 
 and  S.  John  to  have  spoken  with  the  women  because  one 
 of  them  did  so. 
 
 The  answer  to  the  second  question  is  clear  /<;•  -t<-. 
 It  has  been  proved  that  the  angel,  of  whom  S.  Matthew 
 speaks,  sat  upon  the  second  stone,  not  outside  the  tomb 
 but  inside  it  ;  and,  therefore,  that  there  is  no  difference  in 
 this  respect  between  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark  and  the 
 other  Evangelists. 
 
 The  third  question  is  how  S.  Matthew,  S.  Mark,  and  S. 
 John  sa\-  that  the  angels  sat,  and  S.  Luke  that  the  angels 
 stood.  The  question  seems  to  depend  on  the  proper  sense 
 of  the  worti  "stand  ".  S.  Augustin  and  his  followers  think 
 that  there  was  one  angel,  of  whom  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark 
 speak,  and  others  of  whom  S.  Luke  and  S.  John  speak,  and 
 that  the  former  sat  while  the  latter  stood.  I^ut  what  will 
 the}-  do  with  S.  John,  who  saN's  of  the  two  angels,  of  whom 
 S.  Luke  writes,  that  thc\-  sat,  when  S.  Luke  says  that  they 
 stood?  Some  say  that  they  sat  at  first  (as  in  .s".  J/,?//.. 
 >S\  Mark,  and  vS".  Jo/iti),  and  when  the\-  spoke  with  the 
 women  they  rose  up  and  stood,  as  S.  Lukr  sa\s :  a 
 distinction  very  little  neccssar}-,  for  S.  Luke's  words  nia\- 
 be  more  easil\-  explained  b\-  the  proper  understanding  o( 
 the  word  "stood".  It  has  been  said  (vi.  5)  that  the  word 
 "  stand  "  in  both  Latin  and  Greek  docs  not  alwa}-s  mean 
 an  upright  position  of  body,  but  sometimes  the  mere 
 presence  alone,  and  at  others  repose  alone  ;  for  he  is  not 
 onl}'  said  to  stand  who  is  in  an  upright  position,  but  he 
 who  is  simpl}-  present  though  he  be  sitting;  as  chap.  xvi. 
 28,  "There  are  some  of  them  that  stand  here,"  that  is,  they 
 
604  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxviii.  3. 
 
 who  are  present;  and  ^.  Mark  xi.  25,  "And  when  ye  stand 
 to  pray,"  where  there  is  no  command  to  stand  upright, 
 but  to  stand,  that  is,  to  pray  in  quiet  or  put  themselves  as 
 it  were  in  God's  presence,  for  praying  is  to  address  God  ; 
 and  5.  Luke  vii.  37,  38,  "And  standing  behind  at  His  feet," 
 she  was  not  standing  erect,  but  was  prostrate  at  the  feet  of 
 Christ,  when  she  washed  His  feet  with  her  tears  and  wiped 
 them  with  the  hairs  of  her  head  and  kissed  His  feet  ;  and 
 ^".  Litke  xviii.  11,  "The  Pharisee,  standing,  prayed,"  where 
 it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  a  man,  and  a  hypocrite 
 especially,  stood  to  pray  ;  and  6".  JoJin  i.  26,  "  There  hath 
 stood  one,"  that  is,  among  you,  present  with  you. 
 
 The  fourth  question  is  answered  by  another  similar  ques- 
 tion being  asked.  It  is  asked,  how  S.  John  says  that  Mary 
 Magdalene  alone  saw  the  angels,  whilst  the  other  Evan- 
 gelists say  that  there  were  more  women  who  saw  them  ? 
 It  may  be  asked  in  return,  why  S.  John  says  that  Mary 
 Magdalene  alone  came  to  the  tomb,  when  the  other  Evan- 
 gelists say  that  more  came  than  she?  It  was  no  intent  of 
 the  Evangelists  to  describe  fully  every  circumstance. 
 There  were  more  women  than  one  around  the  cross  of 
 Christ  and  many  men  besides,  as  signified  by  S.  Luke 
 (xxiii.  49)  and  S.  Matthew  (xxvii.  55);  yet  he  names  three 
 women  alone,  as  being  better  known  and  more  active,  and 
 no  man  at  all.  In  the  same  manner  S.  John  says  that 
 Mary  Magdalene  both  alone  came  to  the  tomb  and  alone 
 saw  the  angels,  because  it  is  not  doubtful  that  Mary 
 Magdalene  took  the  chief  part  and  was  the  highest  in 
 position  of  any.  We  may  see  this  from  the  other  Evan- 
 gelists always,  when  naming  the  other  women,  placing  her 
 first,  as  in  S.  Matt,  xxvii.  56,  61,  and  in  this  chapter,  verse 
 I  ;   .V.  Mark  xv.  40  ;  xvi.  i. 
 
 The  fifth  question,  which  alone  of  all  seems  to  contain 
 any  real  difficulty,  turns  upon  the  right  understanding  of  S. 
 John.     How  he  seems  to  say  that  Mary  Magdalene,  when 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  3.]     S.  MARY  MAGDALENE  AND  THE  ANGELS.    605 
 
 she  came  to  the  sepulchre  first,  saw  neither  angel  nor  the 
 Lord,  but  when  she  saw  the  stone  rolled  away  she  returned 
 at  once  and  told  Peter  and  John,  "  They  have  taken  away 
 my  Lord,"  &c.  ;  but  he  signifies  that  she  returned  after- 
 wards and  saw  the  angels  and  Christ.  S.  John  seems  to 
 relate  the  whole  so  clearly  and  fully  that  most  writers 
 have  thought  that  the  other  Evangelists,  who  appear  to 
 contradict  him,  are  to  be  explained  from  him.  The  other 
 Evangelists,  however,  seem  so  clearly  to  contradict  him, 
 that  he  is  rather  to  be  explained  from  them  ;  and  if  they 
 have  not  so  much  perspicuity,  we  must  still  yield  to  them 
 as  superior  in  numbers.  How  can  it  be  supposed  that  the 
 three  Evangelists  conspired  as  if  by  design  to  speak 
 obscurely  ?  It  is  more  easy  to  suppose  that  one  did  so 
 than  that  many  did.  That  Mary  Magdalene  and  the 
 other  women  came  only  once  to  the  tomb,  and  that 
 before  they  told  the  above  events  to  Peter  and  John  they 
 had  seen  the  angels,  has  been  clearly  proved. 
 
 How,  then,  is  S.  John  to  be  understood  ?  He,  like  the 
 other  Evangelists,  did  not  keep  the  order  of  events,  but 
 such  as  happened  at  the  same  time  are  related,  some  first 
 and  others  later.  Mary  Magdalene  came,  and  she  saw  the 
 angels  at  the  same  time.  He  says  that  she  came  and  saw 
 the  stone  rolled  away  first,  and  afterwards  saw  the  angels. 
 This  would  appear  more  likely  if  we  could  find  a  probable 
 reason  for  this  infraction  of  the  order  of  events.  S.  Greg. 
 Nyss.  {Orat.  ii.  de  Resurrect)  thinks  that  Mary  was  reluc- 
 tant to  say  anything  to  Peter  and  John  about  the  angels 
 she  had  seen,  because  she  doubted  that  they  were  real 
 angels,  and,  therefore,  that  she  did  not  say  anything  of 
 the  Resurrection,  but  only  "  They  have  taken  away  the 
 Lord  out  of  the  sepulchre,  and  we  know  not  where  they 
 have  laid  Him  ".  S.  John,  in  fact,  appears  to  wish  to  pass 
 over  everything  else,  that  he  may  hasten  to  the  explana- 
 tion of  how  he  and  Peter  ran  together  to  see  the  tomb,  at 
 
606  THE   (GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxviii.  3. 
 
 the  first  word  of  Mary  Magdalene  ;  and  he  therefore  omits 
 the  vision  of  the  angels,  and  Christ,  and  describes  his  own 
 and  Peter's  hastening  to  the  tomb,  not  from  any  vainglory 
 (for  he  was  so  far  from  this  that  he  would  not  even  mention 
 his  own  name),  but  from  his  desire  of  proving  the  Resur- 
 rection of  Christ,  and  that  he  might,  as  soon  as  possible, 
 bear  witness  that  he  himself  and  Peter  had  actually  seen 
 it,  and  thus  gain  great  belief  for  the  history.  But  it  may 
 be  said  that  not  only  was  S.  John  silent  on  the  subject,  but 
 that  even  Mary  Magdalene  herself  did  not  tell  Peter  and 
 John  that  she  had  seen  the  angels  and  Christ,  but  that  she 
 rather  indicated  that  she  had  not  done  so,  when  she  said, 
 "They  have  taken  away  the  Lord,"  &c.  For  if  she  had 
 seen  the  angel  and  been  taught  by  him  that  Christ  had 
 risen,  she  would  have  said  so,  and  not  that  He  had  been 
 taken  out  of  the  tomb  ;  and  she  would  have  proved  her 
 words  both  by  the  vision  and  by  the  testimony  of  the  angels. 
 In  fact,  she  would  have  said  what  would  have  done  much 
 more  to  cause  belief  that  she  had  seen  Christ  Himself 
 
 What  if  she  did  not  say  to  Peter  and  John  that  she  had 
 seen  the  angels  and  the  Lord,  because,  as  soon  as  they 
 heard  her  words,  not  expecting  anything  more,  they  ran 
 off  to  the  tomb  ?  And  what  if  she  would  not  relate  her 
 vision  of  the  angels  and  the  Lord  from  prudence,  but  re- 
 lated the  fact  as  if  Christ  had  been  taken  out  of  the  tomb 
 — that  she  might  the  more  incite  them  to  go  and  sec  it 
 and  seek  Him,  believing  that  if  they  went  to  the  tomb  and 
 saw  the  angels  and  Christ,  as  she  had  done,  they  would 
 have  no  more  need  of  her  testimony  ? 
 
 S.  Luke,  however  (xxiv.  23),  .seems  to  oppo.se  this  idea. 
 He  says  that  the  women  told  the  disciples  that  they  also 
 had  seen  at  the  tomb  a  vision  of  angels,  and  that  some  of 
 the  disciples — that  is,  Peter  and  John — ran  to  the  tomb. 
 But  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the  women  wished  at  first  to  say 
 nothing  of  their  having  seen  the  angels  and  Christ,  nor  of 
 
Ch.  xxviii.  4.]    S.    MARY   AND    SS.    PETER   AND   JOHN.  607 
 
 this  Resurrection,  but  only  said,  "  They  have  taken  away 
 the  Lord  "  (as  if  they  thought  that  He  had  been  removed 
 by  theft),  that,  as  has  been  said,  they  might  incite  the 
 disciples  to  go  to  the  tomb.  What  was  sufficient  to  arouse 
 S.  Peter  and  S.  John,  who  were  more  ardent  than  the  rest, 
 was  not  enough  to  move  the  others,  and,  therefore,  when 
 those  Apostles  had  gone  out,  they,  to  convince  the  others, 
 related  the  whole  more  clearly,  and  told  them  that  they 
 had  seen  both  the  angels  and  Christ.  And  this  was  the 
 cause  of  their  being  upbraided  by  Him  :  "  At  length  He 
 appeared  to  the  eleven  as  they  were  at  table,  and  He 
 upbraided  them  with  their  incredulity  and  hardness  of 
 heart,  because  they  did  not  believe  them  who  had  seen 
 Him  after  He  was  risen  again  (S.  Mark  xvi.  14). 
 
 This  explanation  is  both  intelligible  per  se,  and  is 
 incapable  of  refutation  by  those  who  do  not  receive  it. 
 In  this  way  the  Evangelists  agree  most  perfectly  among 
 themselves.  For  S.  John  wished  to  relate  his  own  and  S. 
 Peter's  visit  to  the  tomb  first.  When  he  had  done  this,  he 
 returned,  by  way  of  summary,  to  the  explanation  of  the 
 vision  of  the  angels  and  of  Christ  (xx.  11).  His  asser- 
 tion that  Mary  stooped,  when  S.  Mark  and  S.  Luke  say 
 that  she  entered  the  tomb,  is  not  contradictory.  She  did 
 both.  She  both  entered  and  stooped  that  she  might  see 
 the  tomb  ;  or  she  entered,  stooping  when  she  had  brought 
 not  her  feet  but  her  head  and  body  inside  the  sepulchre, 
 that  she  might  see  the  tomb. 
 
 Verse  4.  And  for  fear  of  him. 
 For  fear  of  the  angel,  of  whom  S.  Matthew  had  last 
 spoken.  Although  we  m.ay  easily  believe  that  the  keepers 
 were  terrified  by  the  earthquake,  yet,  as  that  might  appear 
 to  be  a  natural  event,  they  were  thrown  into  much  greater 
 consternation  by  the  sight  of  the  angel.  How  they  saw 
 the  angels  when  they  themselves   were  outside  and    the 
 
6o8  THE   GOSPEL   OF    S.    MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxviii.4. 
 
 angels  inside  may  be  reasonably  asked.  It  is  probable 
 that  the  angels,  when  they  first  came  and  removed  the 
 stone  from  the  door  of  the  tomb,  showed  themselves  also 
 outside,  that  the  keepers  might  see  them  and  be  seized 
 with  terror.  For  they  had  come  that  the  keepers  might 
 be  witnesses  of  the  Resurrection  of  Christ  even  against 
 their  will.  It  is  also  probable  that  the  guards,  when 
 they  saw  that  the  stone  had  been  removed,  went  into 
 the  tomb  before  the  women  came,  to  see  if  the  body  of 
 Christ,  which  had  been  committed  to  their  faith  and 
 keeping,  were  in  the  tomb,  and  that  they  then  saw  the 
 angels  sitting  inside  it. 
 
 A  nd  became  as  dead  men. 
 
 The  same  thing  happened  to  Daniel  when  he  saw  the 
 angel  (x.  8).  The  keepers  feared,  not  with  a  mere  human 
 fear,  lest  the  body  of  Christ  should  be  required  of  them  to 
 whom  it  had  been  committed,  and  when  they  could  not 
 produce  it  (as  if  the  disciples  had  either  stolen  it  away 
 through  their  negligence,  or  had  bribed  them  to  give  it), 
 that  they  should  be  punished  :  but  they  feared  much  more 
 with  a  divine  fear  lest,  when  they  saw  the  Resurrection  of 
 Christ  and  that  it  confirmed  His  Divinity,  they  should  be 
 punished  from  heaven,  either  by  fire  sent  thence  or  by  the 
 earth  opening,  as  men  who  had  assisted  the  Jews  in  their 
 wickedness  ;  and  as  Pilate,  when  he  heard  that  Christ  was 
 the  Son  of  God,  feared  to  condemn  Him,  and  sought 
 occasion  to  set  Him  free  {S.  JoJui  xix.  8). 
 
 The  women  also  feared  when  they  saw  the  angels  (verse 
 8  ;  S.  Mark  xvi.  6-8  ;  S.  Ljike  xxiv.  5),  but  none  of  the 
 Evangelists  says  that  their  fear  was  as  great  as  that  of 
 the  soldiers,  who  became  as  dead  men.  S.  Luke,  on  the 
 contrary,  signifies  that  theirs  was  rather  the  fear  of  humility 
 than  the  dread  of  any  danger  (xxiv.  5)  ;  for  to  bow  the 
 head  to  the  ground  was  less  a  sign  of  fear  than  of  humility. 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  5.]  THE   ANGEL.  609 
 
 Who,  indeed,  would  not  fear  at  the  sudden  and  super- 
 human sight  of  angels  ?  Daniel  feared  (x.  8,  16) :  Zac- 
 charias  feared  (S.  Luke  i.  12)  :  the  Virgin  Mary  herself 
 feared  (5.  L^ikc  i.  29)  :  but  the  good  fear  in  a  different 
 manner  to  the  bad,  for  an  evil  conscience  increases  fear  to 
 the  latter.  The  evil  fear,  as  wicked  servants,  lest  they 
 should  meet  punishment  ;  the  good  fear,  as  sons,  lest 
 before  the  angels  they  appear  too  little  reverent,  and 
 because  human  weakness  is  not  able  to  endure  a  divine 
 vision.  The  soldiers  fear,  and  are  as  dead  men  :  the 
 women  fear,  but  are  not  disheartened,  because,  like  S. 
 Antony,  as  S.  Thomas  in  his  commentary  and  S.  Jerome 
 on  this  passage  say,  when  a  good  angel  appears  to  good 
 men,  even  if  by  his  unexpected  appearance  he  strike 
 terror  at  first,  he  leaves  in  the  end  comfort  and  tran- 
 quillity. The  angel,  therefore,  comforted  the  women,  not 
 the  trembling  soldiers  (verse  5).  "  Fear  not  you,"  as  S. 
 Jerome  and  the  poet  Juvencus  have  observed.  Such  is 
 the  force  in  this  passage,  as  shall  be  explained,  of  the 
 word  "  you  ". 
 
 Verse  5,  And  tJie  angel  answering. 
 "Answering"  is  a  Hebraism,  by  which  7Xy^  means  both 
 "  to  answer "   and   "  to  begin  to  speak,"  as  explained   on 
 chaps,  xi.  25,  xxii.  i. 
 
 Fear  not  you. 
 As  if  the  angel  had  said,  "  Let  the  soldiers  fear  who 
 came  with  the  evil  intention  of  preventing  if  they  could  the 
 Resurrection  of  Christ.  You,  who  have  come  not  to  hinder 
 Him,  but  to  render  to  Him  all  the  offices  of  piety  and  love, 
 have  no  cause  for  fear."  The  word  "  you  "  has  here  the 
 force  of  opposition  to  the  soldiers,  as  has  been  observed  by 
 S.  Cyril  Jerus.  {Cat.  Lect.,  xiv.),  S.  Chrysostom  {Honi.  xc), 
 S.  Gregory  {Horn,  in  Evang.,  xxi.),  Bede,  Euthymius,  Theo- 
 2—39 
 
6lO  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       Cii.  xxviii.  5. 
 
 phylact.  "  Let  those  fear,"  says  S.  Gregory,  "  who  love  not 
 the  visits  of  citizens  from  on  high  ;  let  those  live  in  dread 
 who,  oppressed  by  carnal  desires,  despair  of  being  able  to 
 attain  to  their  fellowship  ;  but  for  you,  why  should  you 
 fear  who  see  in  them  your  fellow-citizens  ?  " 
 
 For  I  knotu  tJiat  you  seek  Jesus  z^-'ho  Iluis  crucified. 
 The  angel  gives  the  reason  why  they  need  not  fear.  They 
 had  come,  not  with  an  evil  but  with  a  good  and  holy 
 intention,  to  seek  the  body  of  Christ  and  perform  the 
 religious  duty  of  anointing  it.  The  angel  shows  them  that 
 he  knows  this,  lest  perhaps  the  women,  although  their  con- 
 sciences were  good,  might  fear  some  evil  from  him,  as, 
 not  knowing  why  they  came,  he  might  suspect  that  they  in- 
 tended to  steal  the  body  or  do  some  other  wrong.  But  the 
 fact  that  the  angel  named  Jesus  by  His  proper  name,  and  his 
 saying  that  He  was  crucified,  tended  to  cause  faith  in  the 
 women,  and  to  show  that  he  knew  Christ  truly,  and  that 
 He  was  crucified  and  had  died  and  been  buried  in  that 
 place,  and  had  risen  again.  The  angel  {S.  Mark  xvi.  6) 
 called  Christ  "  Jesus  of  Nazareth  who  was  crucified," 
 which  tends  to  the  same  result.  S.  Matthew  omits  the 
 words  "  of  Nazareth ".  S.  Luke  (xxiv.  5)  uses  other 
 words :  "  Why  seek  ye  the  living  with  the  dead  ? " 
 S.  John  (xx.  13)  still  others:  "Woman,  why  weepest 
 thou  ? "  It  is  to  be  believed  that  the  angel  uttered 
 them  all.  The  women  first  began  to  lament  when 
 they  saw  the  door  open,  thinking  that  the  body  of  Christ 
 had  been  taken  away.  This  is  the  meaning  of  S.  John  xx. 
 II:  "  Mary  stood  at  the  sepulchre  without,  weeping," 
 naming  only  one  woman,  but  understanding  all.  Soon 
 after  they  entered  the  tomb  weeping,  and  the  angels  said, 
 "  Why  weep  ye  ?  "  S.  John,  speaking  of  Mary  Magdalene, 
 says  that  she  alone  answered  for  all  (verse  yi).  The 
 angel  then  answered,  speaking  for  himself  and  the  other 
 
Ch.  xxviii.  6.]       THE  ANGELS   AND   THE   WOMEN.  6ll 
 
 angel,  "Fear  not,"  &c.  (S.  Matt,  xxviii.  5),  as  if  gently  and  in 
 kind  words  blaming  their  unbelief;  for  if  they  had  had  faith 
 in  the  words  of  Christ  which  He  spoke  while  yet  alive,  that 
 He  should  rise  again  on  the  third  day,  they  would  not 
 have  sought  the  living  among  the  dead,  but  would  have 
 believed  for  certain  that  He  was  alive.  Lastly,  he  added 
 what  S.  Matthew,  S.  Mark,  and  S.  Luke  all  record  :  "  He 
 is  not  here,  for  He  has  risen  as  He  said  "  ;  and  he  com- 
 manded them  to  go  to  the  Apostles  and  tell  them  that 
 Christ  had  risen,  as  the  same  three  Evangelists  relate. 
 
 Verse  6.  He  is  not  Jicre^for  He  is  risen. 
 It  was  not  sufficient  to  say,  "  He  is  not  here,"  for  He 
 might  not  have  been  there  and  yet  not  have  risen  again. 
 He  might  have  been  carried  thence,  or  His  body  stolen  ; 
 and,  therefore,  the  angel  added,  "for  He  is  risen";  as  if  he 
 had  said,  "  He  is  not  here :  not  because,  as  you  suppose, 
 He  has  been  removed  or  stolen,  but  because  He  is  risen 
 again  "  ;  and  that  this  might  not  appear  new  or  strange,  he 
 added  the  words,  "as  He  said,"  confirming  Christ's  Resur- 
 rection from  His  own  words,  and  as  silently  observing  the 
 unbelief  of  the  women  ;  as  if  he  had  said,  "  If  you  had 
 believed  Christ  when  He  said  that  He  would  rise  again 
 on  the  third  day,  you  would  not  now  need  my  testimony, 
 but  you  would  readily  have  believed  ". 
 
 Come  and  see  the  place  zu/iere  the  Lord  was  laid. 
 What  the  angel  had  proved  by  his  own  testimony  and 
 by  that  of  Christ,  he  now  confirms  by  the  evidence  of  the 
 women's  senses,  and  he  endeavours  to  instil  belief  into  their 
 minds  by  the  actual  sight  of  the  place :  "  Come  and  see  the 
 place,"  &c.  In  calling  Christ  "  Lord,"  the  angel  confessed 
 Him  to  be  God  ;  for  who  but  God  is  Lord  of  angels  ? 
 The  angel  seems  to  have  used  the  same  words  deliberately 
 as  Mary  had  used  before,  as  we  learn  from  S.  JoJin  xx.  2. 
 
6l2  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxviii.  6. 
 
 She  had  called  Him  her  Lord;  the  angel  called  Him  not 
 only  his  own  Lord,  but  the  Lord  of  all,  both  men  and  angels. 
 He  showed  this  when  he  called  Him  Lord,  absolutely  and 
 without  addition. 
 
 We  have  purposely  deferred  to  this  place  the  question 
 at  what  hour  Christ  rose  from  the  dead  ;  because  in  this 
 place  mention  is  first  made  of  His  Resurrection. 
 
 All  admit  that  He  arose  in  the  night  which  intervened 
 between  the  Sabbath  and  the  first  day  of  the  week,  which 
 we  call  the  Lord's  day.  Almost  all  ancient  authors  agree 
 that  He  did  not  rise  before  midnight,  though  some,  as 
 S.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  in  his  letters  to  Basilides,  from 
 S.  Matthew's  words  (verse  i) — "And  in  the  end  of  the 
 Sabbath,  when  it  began  to  dawn  towards  the  first  day 
 of  the  week,  came  Mary  Magdalene  and  the  other  Mary 
 to  see  the  sepulchre  " — say  that  He  rose  in  the  beginning 
 of  the  night.  He  was  the  author  of  this  opinion,  which 
 is  received  by  few,  and  has  been  answered  above.  That 
 He  rose  in  the  middle  of  the  night,  as  He  was  believed 
 to  have  been  born  in  the  middle  of  the  night,  was  the 
 opinion  of  many,  who,  as  Dionysius  adds,  therefore  ended 
 the  Lent  fast  at  midnight  before  the  day  of  Pasch,  as  was 
 ordered  by  the  Eighty-ninth  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Con- 
 stantinople in  Trullo,  as  Balsamon  states  in  his  commentary 
 to  Dionysius.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  ancient  custom  of 
 almost  the  whole  Church,  which  used  to  celebrate  at  mid- 
 night the  Mass  of  the  Resurrection,  which  we  now  cele- 
 brate on  the  Saturday  at  about  ten  in  the  morning. 
 
 Others  believe  that  He  arose  towards  dawn,  at  or  about 
 the  crowing  of  the  cock.  S.  Greg.  Nyss.  {Orat  ii.  de 
 Resurrect.)  inclines  much  to  this  opinion.  S.  Dionysius 
 says  that  it  was  the  custom  of  the  Romans  to  end  the  fast 
 at  that  hour,  as  believing  that  Christ  rose  then.  Euthy- 
 mius  also  states  this  as  the  opinion  of  all  the  early  Fathers, 
 and  that  he  himself  followed  it  as  the  most  probable.     It 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  7.J        THE   TIME  OF   CHRIST'S   RISING.  613 
 
 is  most  certain,  indeed,  as  S.  Greg.  Nyss.  in  the  above- 
 named  oration,  S.  Jerome  {Qiuest.  6  to  Hedibias),  and 
 Euthymius  {in  loc.)  say  that  no  man  can  know  the  hour  at 
 which  Christ  rose  from  the  dead  ;  for  He  Himself  alone 
 can  know  it  who  rose  as  He  would,  and  when  He  would. 
 But  if  certain  proof  be  wanting,  there  is  some  room  for 
 conjecture  ;  and  in  matters  of  uncertainty  that  which 
 appears  most  probable  may  be  received  for  truth,  until  the 
 truth  itself  appear.  We  must  believe  that  Christ  rose 
 about  the  dawn  of  day.  For  as  the  angels  came  down 
 from  heaven  to  witness  of  His  Resurrection,  it  is  probable 
 that  they  descended  immediately  as  He  rose  ;  lest,  in  the 
 meantime,  the  soldiers  or  the  priests  who  had  closed  the 
 tomb  had  opened  it,  and,  not  finding  the  body,  had  concluded 
 that  it  had  been  taken  away  by  theft,  and  had  published  it 
 as  a  fact,  not  with  the  gift  of  bribes,  but  gratis,  and 
 supposing  themselves  to  be  speaking  the  truth.  That  the 
 angels  came  about  dawn  is  clear,  because  the  earthquake 
 happened  at  the  time  of  the  arrival  ;  and  this,  as  S.  Mark 
 relates,  took  place  as  the  women  drew  near  the  tomb,  when 
 the  sun  was  just  rising.  This,  however,  is  only  a  conjecture, 
 and  may  be  taken  simply  for  what  it  is  worth. 
 
 Verse  7.  And  going  quickly. 
 The  angel  commanded  them  to  go  quickly  that  they 
 might,  as  soon  as  possible,  cheer  those  who  were  sad,  by 
 the  most  joyful  news  of  the  Resurrection,  and  sustain  their 
 failing  faith  before  it  gave  way  altogether.  We  learn  from 
 S.  Mark  (xvi.  7)  that  the  angel  said,  "  Go  tell  His  disciples 
 and  Peter,  that  He  goeth  before  you  into  Galilee;  there 
 you  shall  see  Him  as  He  told  you".  S.  Peter  was  named 
 especially,  lest  from  his  thrice-repeated  denials  of  Christ 
 he  might  think  himself  shut  out  from  the  benefit  of  the 
 Resurrection.  So  say  S.  Gregory  {Horn.  xxi.  in  Evang.) 
 and  Euthymius. 
 
6 14  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.       [Cn.  xxviii.  7. 
 
 TJiat  He  has  risen. 
 Quia  S7irrexit,  a  Hebraism,  as  said  before,  for  siirrexisse. 
 
 And  behold  He  ivill go. 
 
 The  angel  signifies  that  Christ  had  already  gone  into 
 Galilee,  either  because  he  thought  so,  or  because  he  knew 
 that  Christ  intended  to  go  there  after  His  Resurrection, 
 and  show  Himself  to  His  disciples.  Unless  we  take  the 
 present  tense  by  a  Hebraism  for  the  future,  as  if  the  angel 
 had  said,  "  Behold  He  will  go  before  you  into  Galilee,  hasten 
 as  you  may  " ;  for  he  knew  that  Christ  passed  hither  and 
 thither  in  a  moment.  The  angel  was  ignorant,  apparently, 
 of  what  was  shortly  to  take  place — that  Christ  would  show 
 Himself  to  the  women  as  they  returned  to  the  city.  He 
 acted  with  the  view  of  kindling  the  zeal  of  the  disciples, 
 that  when  they  heard  of  Christ's  having  already  gone  into 
 Galilee,  they  might  hasten  thither  more  readily,  and  not  be 
 reluctant  to  follow,  if  they  had  been  so  to  go  before. 
 
 Wonderful  is  the  infirmity  of  human  nature,  and  wonder- 
 ful its  inconsistency  ;  for  it  was  much  more  easy  for  them 
 to  follow  Christ  when  He  was  going  into  Galilee  and  had 
 now  risen,  and  was  become  glorious,  than  to  follow  Him  to 
 the  cross  when  infirm  and  weighed  down  with  ignominy  ; 
 and  yet  all  promised  this  (xxvi.  35),  although  they  did  not 
 perform  it.  For  when  these  words  were  related  by  the 
 women  to  the  disciples,  "they  seemed  to  them  as  idle  talcs, 
 and  they  did  not  believe  them  "  {S.  Luke  xxiv.  1 1). 
 
 A  twofold  question  arises  here: 
 
 1.  Why  Christ  wished  to  show  Himself  to  the  Apostles 
 in  Galilee,  rather  than  in  Judaea? 
 
 2.  Why,  contrarily  to  what  He  had  determined  and  said. 
 He  showed  Himself  in  Judaea  before  He  went  into  Galilee? 
 
 Many  answer  the  first  question  as  follows  : 
 Christ  desired  to  appear  to  the  disciples  in  Galilee,  that 
 He  might  converse  with  them  and  teach  them  more  freely  ; 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  7-]       WHY   CHRIST   WENT   TO   GALILEE.  615 
 
 for  in  Judaea  their  dread  of  the  priests  and  Pharisees  might  be 
 a  hindrance  to  them.  So  say  S.  Chrysostom  {Horn,  xc.)  and 
 Euthymius.     S.  Ambrose  says  the  same  {On  S.  Liike  xxiv.). 
 
 Others  say  that  as  He  had  preached  the  Gospel  in 
 Gahlee  a  long  time,  He  had  many  disciples  in  the  country, 
 whom  He  wished  to  strengthen  at  the  same  time.  S. 
 Jerome  and  Bede  give  another,  but  allegorical  reason  : 
 that  Galilee,  as  its  name  indicates,  was  a  very  hog-stye  of 
 all  vices,  and  it  ought  therefore  to  be  purified  by  the 
 presence  of  Christ,  as  Isaiah  had  said  long  before  (ix.  i,  2), 
 and  as  S.  Matthew  (iv.  15,  16)  applied  his  words  to  the 
 preaching  of  Christ. 
 
 But  why  did  He  not  go  there  at  once  ?  This  is  the 
 second  question.  Because  He  saw  the  Apostles  lingering 
 and  doubting,  and  that  they  would  not  go  into  Galilee 
 unless  He  first  appeared  to  them  in  Jerusalem  to  confirm 
 their  faith.  This  is  said  by  S.  Ambrose.  Christ  did  not 
 therefore  falsify  His  promise,  but  He  exceeded  it,  for  He 
 did  more  than  He  promised.  He  had  promised  to  appear 
 to  the  disciples  in  Galilee,  and  He  appeared  also  to  them 
 in  Jerusalem  ;  as  S.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  says. 
 
 Lo,  I  Jiave  foretold  it  to  ypii. 
 These  words  would  tend  to  cause  the  disciples,  when 
 they  should  see  Christ  in  Galilee,  to  believe  that  He  was 
 not  a  phantom  nor  a  spirit,  but  Himself  in  verity,  the  true 
 Christ,  ipsissinmui  Christum ;  they  would  have  seen  that 
 the  angel  had  foretold  the  truth,  and  therefore  that  He 
 could  only  have  spoken  from  God.  They  must,  therefore, 
 have  believed  that  it  was  Christ  whom  they  saw,  as  it  had 
 been  foretold  by  the  same  angel  that  they  should  see  Him. 
 So  Samuel,  to  persuade  Saul  that  what  he  had  foretold  to 
 him  should  come  to  pass,  foretold  certain  other  things 
 which  Saul  should  experience  on  that  same  day,  that  these 
 might  confirm  the  others  ;  e.s^.^  i  Kins^s  x.  2,     In  the  same 
 
6l6  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.    [Ch.  xxviii.  8,  9. 
 
 way  Christ  said  {S.John  xiv.  29)  :  "  Now  I  have  told  you 
 before  it  come  to  pass,  that  when  it  shall  come  to  pass  you 
 may  believe  ".  S.  Mark's  words  (xvi.  7)  are  slightly  diffe- 
 rent, that  the  angel  might  say  that  it  was  not  himself  but 
 Christ  that  foretold  this,  alluding  to  the  words  which  He 
 addressed  to  the  disciples  shortly  before  His  death  (xxvi. 
 32).  Perhaps  "he"  should  be  read  for  "I,"  a  lapse  easily 
 made  by  the  change  of  one  Greek,  and  the  dropping  out 
 of  one  Latin,  letter.  If  so,  there  will  be  no  divarication 
 between  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark. 
 
 Verse  8.  And  they  ivent  out  quickly  from  the  sepulchre  with 
 fear  and  great  Joy. 
 They  went  out  quickly,  both  at  the  command  of  the 
 angel  who  had  told  them  to  do  so  (verse  7),  and  from  fear 
 at  once,  and  joy.  These  feelings  cause  men  to  act  thus. 
 Why  the  women  felt  both  at  the  same  time  can  be  more 
 easily  understood  than  described.  They  feared  because 
 they  had  seen  the  angels  ;  and  we  fear  the  sight  of  heavenly 
 and  divine  beings,  as  we  are  unable  to  endure  it.  They 
 rejoiced  because  they  had  heard  that  Christ  had  risen 
 again.  It  is  said  by  S.  Mark  (xvi.  8),  "  But  they,  going 
 out,  fled  from  the  sepulchre.  For  a  trembling  and  fear 
 had  seized  them,  and  they  said  nothing  to  any  man,  for 
 they  were  afraid."  The  words,  "  They  said  nothing  to  any 
 one,"  are  not  to  be  taken  to  mean  that  they  did  not  speak 
 to  anyone  whatever,  not  even  to  the  Apostles,  of  what 
 they  had  seen;  for  S.  Luke  (xxiv.  11,  22,  23)  makes  it 
 clear  that  they  told  the  disciples  that  they  had  seen  the 
 angels  in  the  tomb ;  but  S.  Mark  signifies  that  they  kept 
 such  strict  silence  on  the  way,  that,  like  those  who  arc  under 
 the  influence  of  great  fear,  they  did  not  speak  of  ^\•hat  had 
 happened,  either  to  those  whom  they  met  or  to  one  another. 
 
 Verse  9.  And  behold  fesns  met  them. 
 The  account  given  by  S.   IMark  and  S.  John  docs  not 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  9.]      APPEARANCE   OF   CHRIST   TO   MARY.  617 
 
 appear  to  agree  very  well  with  these  words.  S.  Mark 
 (xvi.  9)  says,  "  But  He,  rising  early  the  first  day  of  the 
 week,  appeared  first  to  Mary  Magdalene,  out  of  whom  He 
 had  cast  seven  devils,"  as  if  Christ  did  not  then  appear 
 either  to  the  other  women  or  to  Magdalene  herself,  as  she 
 went  to  the  disciples,  but  at  another  time  ;  but  S.  John 
 (xx.  13-17),  when  he  had  said  that  Mary  Magdalene  stood 
 without  the  tomb  weeping,  and  when  she  stooped  down 
 and  looked  into  the  sepulchre  saw  the  angels,  who  asked 
 her,  "  Woman,  why  weepest  thou  ? "  added,  "  Because 
 they  have  taken  away  my  Lord,  and  I  know  not  where 
 they  have  laid  Him.  When  she  had  thus  said,- she  turned 
 herself  back,  and  saw  Jesus  standing  ;  and  she  knew 
 not  that  it  was  Jesus.  Jesus  saith  to  her :  Woman,  why 
 weepest  thou  ?  whom  seekest  thou  ?  She,  thinking  that 
 it  was  the  gardener,  saith  to  Him  :  Sir,  if  thou  hast  taken 
 Him  away,  tell  me  where  thou  hast  laid  Him,  and  I  will 
 take  Him  away.  Jesus  saith  to  her :  Mary.  She,  turning, 
 saith  to  Him  :  Rabboni,  which  is  to  say.  Master.  Jesus 
 saith  to  her  :  Do  not  touch  Me,  for  I  am  not  yet  ascended 
 to  My  Father ;  but  go  to  My  brethren  and  say  to  them, 
 I  ascend  to  My  Father  and  to  your  Father,  to  My  God 
 and  to  your  God." 
 
 As  regards  S.  Mark,  the  difficulty  is  less ;  for  as  it  was 
 his  object  to  tell  the  disciples  that  Christ  had  appeared  to 
 the  women,  he  passed  by  all  the  circumstances,  and  said 
 that  Christ  rose  on  the  same  day :  not  speaking  of  the 
 Resurrection,  so  to  say,  but  of  the  rising  up  {noii  de  rcsiir- 
 rcctione  sed  de  siirrectione)^  as  if  He  had  first  sat  down  and 
 then  appeared  to  Mary  Magdalene  ;  for  the  Hebrew  speaks 
 of  "  rising  up  "  isnrgendi)  to  undertake  some  work,  although 
 the  person  do  not  literally  rise,  as  Exod.  xxxii.  6  ;  ^.  Jllatt. 
 xxii.  II,  24.  S.  Mark  had  no  wish  to  teach  us  at  what 
 hour  Christ  rose,  which,  as  said  on  verse  6,  is  altogether 
 uncertain,  but  at  what  hour  He  appeared  to   the  women. 
 
6l8  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Cii.  xxviii.  9. 
 
 His  having  mentioned  Mary  Magdalene  alone,  may  have 
 been  either  because  Christ  appeared  at  first  to  her  alone,  as 
 will  be  shortly  shown,  or  because,  although  He  appeared  to 
 all  the  other  women  as  well.  He  first  spoke  to  her  alone. 
 
 The  account  of  S.  John  has  more  difficulty.  From  his 
 words  some  think  that  Christ  showed  Himself  to  the  women 
 twice — the  first  time  to  Mary  Magdalene  alone  as  she 
 stood  near  the  sepulchre  and  turned  back,  as  S.  John 
 seems  to  say  (xx.  14),  and  then  to  all  the  women  who  had 
 come  to  the  tomb,  as  they  returned  to  tell  the  disciples. 
 For  when  all  who  were  in  the  tomb  had  prepared  to  go 
 away,  Mary  Magdalene  remained  alone  weeping.  She  then 
 turned  back  and  saw  Christ  ;  and  when  He  asked  her  why 
 she  wept  or  whom  she  sought,  she  answered,  thinking  Him 
 the  gardener,  "  Sir,  if  Thou  hast  taken  Him  hence,"  &c. 
 Christ  answered  and  called  her  by  her  name,  Mary.  The 
 other  events  related  by  S.  John  then  happened.  She  soon 
 after  left  the  tomb  and  overtook  the  other  women,  who  had 
 gone  on  before  ;  and  when  she  was  on  the  way  with  them, 
 Christ  appeared  to  them  again,  as  described  by  S.  Matthew. 
 So  think  S.  Augustin  {De  Consciis.,  iii.  24)  and  Severus  (in 
 the  Coviincntary  of  S.  Thomas). 
 
 Others  suppose  that  there  were  indeed  two  appearances  of 
 Christ,  but  at  different  times — the  first  when  Mary  Magda- 
 lene came  to  the  sepulchre  alone,  and  that  Christ  was  seen 
 by  her  then,  as  St.  John  says;  then  that  she  returned  to  the 
 tomb  with  the  other  women,  and  as  she  was  going  back 
 thence  to  the  Apostles  again,  Christ  met  them  in  the  wa}-, 
 as  S.  Matthew  says.  S.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  is  the  author 
 of  this  opinion.  The  original  difficulty  lies  in  the  supposi- 
 tion that  Mary  Magdalene  came  to  the  tomb  twice  and 
 that  Christ  appeared  to  her  twice.  Why  must  we  think 
 this,  when  S.  Matthew  clearly  signifies  that  all  the  women 
 came  to  the  tomb  at  the  same  time  ?  that  all  returned 
 together,   and    Christ    appeared  to  all    as    the}-   returned  ? 
 
Cii.  XXVIII.  g.]    APPEARANCE  OF  CHRIST  TO  THE  WOMEN.   619 
 
 The  statement  of  S.  Mark  that  He  appeared  first  to  Mary 
 Magdalene  can  easily  be  explained.  The  Evangelist 
 opposes  Mary  Magdalene  not  to  the  other  women  but  to 
 the  Apostles  :  the  meaning  being  that  Christ  appeared  to 
 her  not  before  He  appeared  to  the  other  women,  but  before 
 He  appeared  to  the  Apostles.  For  although  not  written, 
 it  is  truly  believed  by  all  Catholics,  that  Christ  appeared 
 first  of  all  to  His  own  Mother.  If  so,  the  meaning  cannot 
 be  that  He  appeared  first  to  Mary  Magdalene  :  that  is, 
 that  He  was  seen  by  her  before  all  the  women.  That  S. 
 Mark  names  Mary  Magdalene  alone  is  in  no  respect 
 matter  of  wonder,  as  S.  John  mentions  no  other  woman 
 either  as  coming  to  the  tomb,  or  returning,  or  seeing 
 Christ ;  and  it  appears  from  the  other  Evangelists  that 
 others  came  with  her  to  the  tomb,  and  saw  Christ  on  their 
 return.  Why  S.  Mark  so  mentioned  her  alone  has  been 
 explained.  She  began  to  speak  first,  and  perhaps,  of  all 
 who  were  with  her,  she  first  saw  Christ.  As  regards  what 
 S.  John  says,  although  it  may  appear  somewhat  difficult,  it 
 may  be  explained  without  much  more  difficulty. 
 
 I.  He  says  that  S.  Mary  Magdalene  was  standing  by  the 
 tomb  weeping.  Then  she  turned  and  saw  Christ.  This 
 may  be  understood  not  of  her  turning  and  looking  back  at 
 the  tomb,  but  of  her  returning  on  her  way  to  the  Apostles. 
 For,  although  it  may  appear  contradictory  of  this  that  she 
 mistook  Christ  for  the  gardener,  which  she  would  not  have 
 done  if  she  had  not  seen  Him  in  the  garden  where  the 
 tomb  was,  this  may  be  understood  to  mean  that  Christ 
 appeared  to  the  women  as  they  were  returning,  but  when 
 they  had  not  yet  got  out  of  the  garden  :  or,  if  they  had 
 done  this,  yet  that  Christ  appeared  as  if  going  to  the 
 garden,  or  that  He  was  in  such  guise  as  to  be  easily  mis- 
 taken for  the  gardener,  and  that  Mary  thought  Him  to  be 
 such.  The  words,  too,  "  Why  weepest  thou  ? "  may  be 
 taken   to  mean   that  on  their  return   they  all,  and   most 
 
620  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.      [Cii.  xxviii.  9. 
 
 especially  S.  Mary  Magdalene,  wept,  because,  as  S.  Gregory 
 of  Nyssa  says,  and  as  is  clear  from  S.  John,  she  did  not 
 wholly  believe  even  the  angel  when  he  said  that  Christ  had 
 risen  {Orat.  de  CJirist.  Iiicarnat.).  For  after  his  words  she 
 still  wept,  as  if  believing  that  Christ  had  not  risen,  but  had 
 been  taken  away  by  stealth.  And  thus  she  said,  "  Sir,  if 
 thou  hast  taken  Him  hence,  tell  me,"  as  she  had  said  to 
 the  Apostles,  "  They  have  taken  away  the  Lord  out  of  the 
 sepulchre,  and  we  know  not  where  they  have  laid  Him  "  ; 
 for  when  she  said  this  she  had  seen  the  angel,  as  we  have 
 fully  proved  (verse  3).  That  S.  John  named  Mary  alone  is 
 less  wonderful  than  that  S.  Mark  did  so,  for  he  had  said 
 that  she  did  not  come  alone  to  the  tomb,  but  that  other 
 women  were  with  her.  S.  John,  however,  said  that  she 
 came  alone.  It  would  be  rash  to  adopt  this  opinion 
 against  so  many  authorities,  did  not  S.  Augustin  take  the 
 same  view  {Orat.  dc  Christ.  Incarnat). 
 
 All  hail. 
 "s'^uy^  Pax  vobis.  So  the  Hebrews  spoke,  but  the 
 Greeks  said,  yalpere,  avete.  The  Hebrews  use  this  form  of 
 address  most  especially  when  they  bid  those  to  whom  they 
 speak  not  to  fear  but  be  of  good  heart,  as  Gen.  xliii.  23  ; 
 Judges  vi.  23 ;  xix.  20.  It  agrees  well  with  this  passage, 
 because  Christ  saw  that  the  women  were  filled  with  fear, 
 as  if  He  had  said,  "  Peace  be  with  you,  be  of  good  cheer, 
 I  come  not  as  an  enemy,  but  as  a  friend  ".  So,  in  the  fol- 
 lowing verse.  He  says,  "  Fear  not ". 
 
 Jhit  they  came  up  and  took  hold  of  His  feet. 
 S.  John  (xx.  17)  signifies  that  S.  Mary  ^Magdalene  did 
 not  touch  the  feet  of  Christ,  for  He  forbade  her.  If,  as 
 appears  to  be  the  case,  this  is  the  same  vision  as  the  one 
 mentioned  by  S.  John,  it  is  easy  to  explain  the  points  on 
 which  the  two  Evangelists  seem  at  issue.  S.  John  does 
 not  say  that  S.  Mary  Magdalene  did  not  touch  the  feet  of 
 
Ch.  xxviir.  g.]  "  TOUCH    ME   NOT."  621 
 
 Christ,  but  that  Christ  said,  "  Do  not  touch  Me,"  and  per- 
 haps, as  many  think,  when  He  said  this  she  had  already 
 touched  them.  Perhaps,  from  the  strength  and  pertinacity 
 of  her  love,  she  had  touched  them  despite  His  prohibition. 
 We  read  an  instance  of  this  in  chap.  ix.  30,  31,  when 
 Christ  cured  the  blind  men  and  commanded  them  to  tell 
 no  man,  but  they  thought  it  a  kind  of  piety  and  obedience 
 rather  to  break  His  command. 
 
 S.  John  says  that  S.  Mary  Magdalene  alone  was  so 
 forbidden.  What  if  all  were  so  forbidden,  but  S.  John 
 only  mentioned  her,  as  he  had  said  that  she  alone  came  to 
 the  tomb,  and  she  alone  saw  Christ  and  thus  was  forbidden 
 to  touch  Him  ?  The  other  Evangelists  who  speak  of  the 
 other  women  do  not  say  that  they  were  forbidden,  nor  that 
 S.  Mary  Magdalene  was  forbidden.  As,  therefore,  they 
 pass  over  what  was  done  in  the  case  of  S.  Mary  Magda- 
 lene, they  may  have  passed  over  the  same  thing  that  was 
 done  in  that  of  the  other  women.  It  was  not  what  Christ 
 forbade,  but  what  was  done.  They  did  not  intend  to 
 record  the  will  of  Christ,  but  the  love  of  the  women  for 
 Him. 
 
 If,  as  many  think,  this  was  a  different  vision  to  that 
 described  by  S.  John,  a  question  arises — not  the  same,  but 
 very  similar — why  Christ  forbade  Mary  Magdalene  only  to 
 touch  Him  there,  and  did  not  forbid  her  and  the  other 
 women  to  touch  Him  here  ?  What  if  He  also  forbade 
 them  here,  but  the  Evangelist  omitted  to  mention  it  ?  S. 
 John,  because  he  did  not  relate  this  vision,  if  it  be  a 
 different  one  :  the  others  because,  although  they  relate  it, 
 yet,  as  has  just  been  said,  they  wished  to  relate  not  what 
 Christ  forbade,  but  what  the  women  did  ?  And  thus, 
 although  it  is  not  related  either  that  all  were  permitted, 
 or  that  all  were  forbidden,  to  touch  Him,  yet  it  might  have 
 been  related.  Hence,  whether  all  or  some  touched  Him, 
 whether  all  or  some  were  forbidden  to  touch  Him,  yet 
 
622  THE   GOSPEL   OF    S.   MATTHEW.        [Ch.  xxviii.  9. 
 
 there  remain  two  questions  :  i.  Why  either  all  or  some 
 touched  Him  ?  all  certainly  wished  to  do  so.  2.  Why 
 Christ  forbade  either  all  the  women,  or  certainly  Mary 
 Magdalene  alone,  to  touch  Him,  or  at  least  willed  to  do 
 so?  To  the  first  question  Nature  herself  makes  reply.  For 
 what  Christian,  seeing  Christ  raised  from  the  dead  before 
 him,  would  not  be  suddenly  overpowered  by  joy,  and  rush 
 into  His  arms  ?  It  was  the  nature  of  womanly  modesty 
 and  respect  not  to  embrace  the  body  but  the  feet,  as  Theo- 
 phylact  and  Euthymius  say.  It  was  also  among  the  Jews 
 a  kind  of  reverence  and  adoration,  especially  of  women  to 
 men,  to  touch  the  feet,  as  {Exod.  iv.  25)  Sephora  touched 
 the  feet  of  her  husband  as  if  in  deprecation,  and,  in  4 
 Kings  iv.  27,  the  Sunamite  woman,  when  she  had  come  to 
 Elisai^us,  touched  his  feet,  and  prayed  him  to  come  and 
 raise  up  her  son.  The  Greeks  had  the  same  custom  {Iliad, 
 A.  500),  and  Pliny  has  written  upon  it  at  length.  It  is 
 certain  that  the  custom  flourished  long  in  the  Church,  for, 
 as  we  find  in  the  decrees  of  councils,  those  who  saluted 
 bishops  used  to  touch  their  knees.  In  this  manner  IMary 
 Magdalene,  from  reverence  {S.  Luke  vii.  38),  held  the  feet 
 of  Christ,  and  all  the  women  here  did  the  same.  The 
 Evangelist  explains  this,  and  adds  immediately,  "  and 
 adored  ".  They  touched  His  feet  that  they  might  adore. 
 Another  reason  of  their  touching  Him  might  have  been  to 
 prove  whether  He  were  the  true  Christ,  or  a  spirit  which 
 deluded  them  by  the  appearance  of  Christ.  Theophylact 
 says  that  many  thought  this.  The  women  might  think 
 this  not  without  example,  for  even  the  Apostles,  as  S.  Luke 
 says  (xxiv.  2,y),  when  they  first  saw  Christ,  thought  that 
 they  saw  a  spirit. 
 
 But  why  did  Christ  forbid  the  women,  or  certainly  Mary 
 Magdalene,  to  touch  Him  ?  The  reason  is  given  by  Christ 
 Himself:  "I  am  not  yet  ascended  to  My  Father".  But 
 this  reason  makes  the  question  more  difficult.     For  what 
 
Cn.  XXVIII.  9.]  "  TOUCH    ME    NOT."  623 
 
 is  the  meaning  of  those  words,  as  if,  after  He  had  ascended 
 to  the  Father,  she  might  touch  Him,  as  S.  Aiigustin  says 
 more  than  once  ?  But  she  seemed  able  to  touch  Him,  and 
 it  appears  as  if  she  ought  to  have  touched  Him,  for  the 
 reason  that  He  had  not  yet  ascended  to  the  Father.  If  He 
 had  done  so,  she  neither  ought  to  have  touched  Him  nor 
 could  she  have  done  so.  Some  think  that  Christ  did  not 
 altogether  forbid  Himself  to  be  touched,  but  to  be  touched 
 in  the  manner  in  which  Mary  seemed  to  touch  Him  ;  that 
 is,  as  a  man  who  would  live  with  his  friends,  and  suffer 
 himself  to  be  touched  in  the  same  manner  as  He  used  to 
 do  before  His  death  :  when  He  was  not  to  live  with  them 
 as  before,  but  after  the  manner  of  a  spirit,  who  is  neither 
 seen  nor  touched,  but  sometimes  appears  and  sometimes 
 disappears.  So  say  S.  Justin  {Qitcest.  48  ad  Orthod.) 
 and  S.  Cyril  {Oji  S.John  xii.  50).  Hence  the  custom  was 
 introduced  into  the  Church,  when  the  mysteries  had  been 
 consecrated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  cry  "  Sancta  Sanctis^' 
 as  Christ,  before  He  ascended  and  sent  the  Holy  Ghost  on 
 the  Apostles,  would  not  suffer  Himself  to  be  touched  by 
 the  women.  For  if  He  offered  Himself  to  be  touched  by 
 the  Apostles,  and  said,  "Handle  Me  and  see"  {S.  Luke 
 xxiv.  39)  ;  and  if  He  commanded  S.  Thomas  to  put  his 
 finger  into  His  side,  and  in  the  place  of  the  nails,  He  did  it 
 necessarily  to  cure  his  unbelief ;  as  before  His  death  He 
 used  to  heal  the  sick  by  His  touch.  An  ingenious  expla- 
 nation, but  where  is  the  connection  with  the  words,  "  I  am 
 not  yet  ascended  to  My  Father  "  ? 
 
 Others  think  that  Mary  Magdalene  was  not  allowed  to 
 touch  Christ  because  she  was  unworthy  to  do  this,  who  had 
 doubted  about  His  Resurrection,  even  when  the  angels 
 had  borne  testimony  to  it,  and  she  herself  was  seeking  the 
 living  among  the  dead.  S.  Chrysostom  {Hoin.  on  John 
 BapL),  S.  Ambrose  {Serin.  ■  Iviii.,  and  On  Ps.  xlvi.,  and 
 Conini.  on  S.  Litke  x.),  S.  Jerome    {Qucsst.  5  to  Hedibias, 
 
624  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxviii.  9. 
 
 Letter  to  Paul  on  the  Death  of  Blcsilla),  S.  Augustin  {Ep. 
 Iviii.). 
 
 Others  think  it  a  mystery,  and  that  S.  Mary  Magdalene 
 signifies  the  Church  of  the  Gentiles,  which  did  not  believe 
 before — to  believe,  being  to  touch  Christ  before  He 
 ascended  to  the  Father.  S.  Augustin  explains  it  thus, 
 in  his  treatise  on  S.  John  xxvi.  and  cxxi.  Granting  it  to 
 be  a  mystery,  yet  it  cannot  be  granted  to  be  only  a 
 mystery,  and  nothing  more. 
 
 S.  Augustin  gives  another  explanation  in  two  of  his 
 writings  [Ep.  ccxxii.  and  De  Trinit.,  iv.  3).  His  words 
 are  as  follows  :  "Thus  Jesus  desired  Himself  to  be  believed 
 in  "  ;  that  is,  to  be  spiritually  touched,  because  He  and  the 
 Father  were  one.  He,  in  a  manner,  ascends  to  the  Father 
 in  his  most  inward  feelings,  who  has  become  so  far  a 
 proficient  in  Him  as  to  acknowledge  Him  to  be  the  equal 
 of  the  Father,  otherwise  He  is  not  rightly  touched  ;  that 
 is,  He  is  not  rightly  believed  in  :  "  For  I  have  not  yet 
 ascended  to  My  Father :  then  shalt  thou  touch  Me  when 
 thou  believest  Me  to  be  God,  and  not  unequal  to  the 
 Father  ".  Fulgentius,  the  disciple  of  S.  Augustin  {Lib.  ii.  to 
 Thrasyvmndiis),  and  S.  Chrysostom  {Hovi.  v.  de  Rcsun-ect.) 
 say  the  same.  "  Touch  me  not,"  he  says,  "  you  ought  not 
 to  touch  me  to  believe." 
 
 Calvin,  without  warrant  or  authority,  says  that  Christ  did 
 not  speak  these  words  until  S.  Mary  Magdalene  had  not 
 only  touched  Christ's  feet,  but  had  touched  them  too  closely 
 and  fondled  them  ;  as  if  He  forbade  not  the  simple  touch, 
 but  the  too  close  and  intimate  touch.  But  what  have  the 
 words  that  follow,  "  I  am  not  yet  ascended,"  to  do  with 
 too  close  contact  ?  Nor  shall  it  be  passed  over  in  silence, 
 that  Calvin  terms  Mary  Magdalene's  piety  and  devotion 
 "  superstition,"  and  her  love  for  Christ  "  foolish  fervour  ". 
 To  write  this  is  dreadful ;  but  it  would  appear,  in  the  open 
 interest  of  the  Church,  that  Catholics  should  know  how 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  9.]  "TOUCH    ME    NOT."  625 
 
 heretics  speak  of  holy  men  and  women,  and   from  their 
 words  judge  of  their  reh"gion  and  doctrine. 
 
 To  return  to  the  subject.  None  of  the  above  explana- 
 tions appear  sufficient,  because  they  do  not  possess  any 
 connection  with,  nor  in  any  way  account  for,  Christ's 
 addition,  "  I  am  not  yet  ascended  to  My  Father ".  It 
 may,  perhaps,  be  allowed  me  to  suggest  that  S.  Mary 
 Magdalene  wished  to  touch  Christ  as  if  she  were  not  to  see 
 Him  more  ;  and  she  feared  that  He  would  depart  imme- 
 diately, or  ascend  to  the  Father,  and  she  should  have  no 
 future  opportunity  of  embracing  or  worshipping  Him.  In 
 this  sense  He  answers,  "  Touch  Me  not "  ;  as  if  to  say, 
 "  Thou  wilt  have  sufficient  time  to  touch  Me  frequently 
 before  I  go  up  to  My  Father  ;  touch  Me  not  now,  cling 
 not  to  My  feet  now,  but  go  quickly  to  My  brethren,  and 
 tell  them  to  go  into  Galilee,  where  they  shall  see  Me  ". 
 The  only  point,  apparently,  against  this  explanation  is 
 that  Christ  does  not  say,  "  I  shall  not  ascend,"  or,  "  I  do 
 not  ascendj"  but  "  I  have  not  yet  ascended  ".  The  answer 
 is  obvious.  We  speak  thus  in  common  when  we  desire  to 
 signify  that  we  are  not  about  to  go  away  immediately,  but 
 that  we  have  still  sufficient  time  to  converse  with  our 
 friends.  It  has  also  been  said  before,  more  than  once,  that 
 words  frequently  mean  not  the  actual  and  literal  act,  but 
 the  will  and  resolution  to  act.  Peter  said,  "I  go  a-fishing" 
 (S.  JoJiu  xxi.  3)  ;  that  is,  I  have  resolved  to  go,  but  he  was 
 not  actually  going.  The  others  answered,  "  We  also  come 
 with  thee " ;  that  is,  we  wish  to  come,  but  they  were  not 
 actually  coming.  In  the  same  manner  Christ  says,  "  I 
 have  not  yet  ascended  "  ;  that  is,  "  I  have  not  yet  resolved 
 to  ascend  to  My  Father  ".  If,  therefore,  Christ  forbade  all 
 the  women  to  touch  Him,  He  forbade  them  in  this  sense. 
 If  He  forbade  Mary  Magdalene,  He  forbade  her  alone, 
 because  she  alone  touched  Him  in  this  sense,  and  with  this 
 intention.  He  did  not  therefore  forbid  the  other  disciples 
 2 — 40 
 
626  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxviii.  g. 
 
 to  do  SO,  but  rather  encouraged  them  (S.  Lake  xxiv.  39  ; 
 S.  JoJin  XX.  27). 
 
 It  has  often  been  asked  why  Christ  was  seen  by  the 
 women  before  the  men,  and  especially  the  Apostles.  One 
 reason  may  easily  occur  to  the  mind.  The  women  saw 
 Him  first  because  they  were  the  first  to  seek  Him.  Their 
 diligence  was  worthy  of  that  reward.  S.  Cyprian  says  : 
 "They  saw  Him  first  and  recognised  Him.  They  loved 
 Him  more  ardently,  and  sought  Him  more  eagerly"  {Serin, 
 de  Resurrect^).  And  S.  Jerome,  "  They  who  so  sought 
 Him,  and  so  ran  to  Him,  deserved  to  meet  their  risen 
 Lord,  and  to  hear  first  '  His  peace  be  to  you,'  that  the 
 curse  of  the  woman  Eve  might  be  reversed  ".  But  why 
 did  the  women  seek  Him  first  rather  than  the  men  ?  It  is 
 not  for  us  to  weigh  the  zeal  and  piety  of  the  women  with 
 those  of  the  Apostles,  and  to  lay  it  down  that  the  women, 
 and  not  the  Apostles,  came  to  seek  Christ,  because  they 
 had  more  zeal  towards  Him  and  more  piety.  This  we 
 must  leave  to  God,  We  can  see  another  and  very  obvious 
 reason.  The  women  came,  desiring  to  anoint  the  body  of 
 Christ ;  and  this,  and  the  offices  of  the  dead,  were  more 
 the  employment  of  women  than  men.  The  women,  there- 
 fore, did  not  ask  Christ,  but  the  body  of  Christ ;  and  they 
 were  therefore  reprehended  by  the  angels  :  "  Why  seek  ye 
 the  living  with  the  dead  ?  "  Yet,  because  their  work  was 
 one  of  devotion,  it  did  not  want  its  reward  :  that  they 
 should  be  the  first  to  see  Christ.  There  may  be  another 
 reason  for  Christ's  having  appeared  to  the  women  before 
 the  men.  When  the  disciples  fled  hither  and  thither,  the 
 women  remained  firm,  not  only  until  the  death  of  Christ, 
 but  also  until  the  end  of  His  burial  {S.  Litkc  xxiii.  55). 
 They  who  had  been  witnesses  of  His  death  and  burial 
 were  therefore  able  to  be  witnesses  of  His  Resurrection. 
 Vox  Christ  knew  that  the  women  would  believe  more 
 easily  tlian  the  Apostles,  when  they  had  seen   Him,  as  the 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  lo.]       "  GO   TELL   MY   BRETHREN."  627 
 
 nature  of  women  is  more  prone  to  believe  than  that  of 
 men.  The  result  proved  this.  For  we  find  that  the 
 Apostles,  even  when  they  had  seen  Christ,  still  doubted 
 (verse  ly  ;  S.  Lu/ce  xxiv.  38,  39).  The  women,  when  they 
 saw  and  heard  the  angel,  doubted,  as  we  learn  from  S. 
 John  ;  but  no  Evangelist  tells  us  that  they  did  so  when 
 they  saw  Christ.  Christ  desired,  therefore,  through  the 
 women  who  believed  in  His  Resurrection,  to  prepare  the 
 Apostles  gradually  to  believe  in  it  also. 
 
 It  may  be  asked  why  Christ  Himself  did  not  appear 
 to  the  women  before  the  angels.  The  reason  is 
 obvious.  They  would  not  have  believed  that  He  was 
 Christ  unless  they  had  first  been  taught  by  the  angel 
 that   He  had   risen. 
 
 Verse  10.  Then  Jesus  said  to  tJicvi,  Fear  not. 
 It  is  very  probable  that  the  women  came  to  the  feet 
 of  Christ,  although,  on  the  one  hand,  filled  with  sudden 
 joy  because  they  saw  Him  before  them,  yet  that,  on  the 
 other,  they  trembled  and  doubted  whether  He  were  not 
 a  phantom  before  they  saw  Him  nearer  and  recognised 
 Him  and  heard  Him  speak  ;  and  that  it  was  for  this 
 reason  that  He  said  unto  them,  "  Fear  not ". 
 
 Go  tell. 
 
 Christ  commanded  them  to  do  the  same  thing  as  the 
 angels  had  done,  that  He  might  confirm  the  truth  of  the 
 angelic  vision.  Thus  a  mutual  service  was  performed  by 
 Christ  to  the  angels,  and  by  the  angels  to  Christ. 
 
 Aly  brethren. 
 
 Some  suppose  that  the  word   "  brethren  "  here  meant 
 
 only  the  relatives  of  Christ,  but   it    should   be  taken   to 
 
 include  all  His  disciples,  as  the  angel  said  (verse  7),  for 
 
 the  women  did  not  tell  only  His  personal  kindred  of  His 
 
628  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxvni.  ii. 
 
 Resurrection,  but  all  the  Apostles  (verse  16  ;  S.  Luke  xxiv. 
 10;  S.  John  XX.  18).  Christ  calls  all  His  disciples  His 
 brethren,  because,  although  in  a  different  sense  to  Him- 
 self, they  were  all  sons  of  God,  and  did  His  will  as  He 
 said  (xii.  48-50  ;  Ps.  xxi.  23),  as  explained  by  S.  Paul 
 {Heh.  ii.  12).  Christ  here  calls  them  His  brethren  very 
 opportunely,  that  He  might  both  show  Himself  to  be 
 Christ,  and  relieve  their  minds  when  depressed  by  fear, 
 and  prevail  on  them  to  come  to  Him. 
 
 To  go  into  Galilee. 
 ( Vide  verse  7).  Christ  knew  that  the  Apostles  would 
 not  go  into  Galilee  on  the  sole  testimony  of  the  women, 
 but  He  did  what  lay  in  Him,  and  because  it  was  expedient 
 that  they  should  go  there  and  see  Him  there  first.  He, 
 however,  not  the  less  directed  them  to  go  thither, 
 because,  as  we  have  frequently  seen,  Christ  orders  that 
 to  be  done,  not  that  would  be,  but  that  He  knew  ought 
 to  be,  done. 
 
 Verse  1 1.    Who,  li'hcn  they  iverc  departed,  behold  some  of  the 
 guards. 
 
 The)'  went  to  tell  the  Apostles,  as  directed  b}'  Christ 
 and  the  angels.  It  would  appear  that  all  the  keepers  did 
 not  come  before  the  chief  priests.  There  have  been  many 
 conjectures  on  this.  i.  That  the  others  were  terrified  and 
 only  thought,  if  possible,  of  concealing  themselves,  to 
 escape    punishment    for    having    neglected    their    watch. 
 
 2.  They  dared  not  tell  the  truth  to  the  priests,  as  they 
 would  not  believe  them,  but  would  cast  the  blame  upon 
 them  as  if  they  had  been  guilty  of  falsehood,  and  had  sold 
 the  body  of  Christ  to  His  disciples,  and  endeavoured  to 
 conceal    their    treacher}-    by    the    fiction    of     a    miracle, 
 
 3.  They  who  came  may  have  come  as  a  deputation 
 from  the    rest,  as   the   poet   Juvencus  says,  and   as  may 
 
Ch.  xxviii.  12,  14.]  BRIBE  TO  CONCEAL  THE.RESURRECTION.  629 
 
 be  concluded  from  verse  11.  For  not  only  to  the  depu- 
 tation but  to  the  others  also  money  was  given  to  induce 
 them  to  publish  the  falsehood.  Some  think  that,  in  the 
 hope  of  extorting  money  from  the  priests,  the  soldiers 
 related  what  they  had  seen,  knowing  that  though  the  others 
 were  the  most  avaricious  of  men,  yet  that  they  were  filled 
 with  such  hostility  to  Christ,  and  feared  so  greatly  lest  He 
 should  be  believed  to  have  risen  again,  that  they  would 
 probably  be  induced  without  difficulty  to  give  them  money 
 to  conceal  His  Resurrection,  This,  however,  is  not  easy 
 of  belief,  for  they  would  scarcely  have  incurred  the  risk  to 
 themselves  of  capital  punishment  on  so  uncertain  a  hope. 
 They  came,  therefore,  not  to  extort  money,  but  to  give  an 
 account  of  their  watch,  lest  they  should  be  accused  before 
 the  governor  of  neglect  of  duty. 
 
 Verse  12.  And  they  assembled  together  luith  the  ancients. 
 
 The  ancients,  that  is,  the  Scribes  ;  for  a  council  at  Jeru- 
 salem consisted  of  these  classes,  as  has  been  described  on 
 chap.  ii.  4.  The  hardened  malice  of  the  priests  against  the 
 known  truth  is  detestable  ;  and  as  they  were  the  most 
 avaricious  of  men,  they  purchased  only  falsehood  and  their 
 own  condemnation.  But  truth  cannot  be  overcome  by 
 money.  And  we  can  easily  believe  that  the  very  men  who 
 were  bought  over  to  publish  falsehoods,  the  soldiers,  pub- 
 lished among  their  acquaintance  both  the  glorious  Resur- 
 rection of  Christ  and  the  infamy  of  the  priests  who  gave 
 them  money  to  darken  it. 
 
 Verse  14.  A  nd  if  the  governor  shall  hear  of  this. 
 
 'EttI  rov  t]<y€fiovo<;.     Apiid  prcesidcm   or    Coram  prceside. 
 
 That  is,  if  the  report  reach  him.     This  is  the  force  of  eV/', 
 
 as  in  I  Tim.  vi.  13,  where  it  is  rendered  in  our  version  sub, 
 
 as  if  it  had  been  written  viro.     Perhaps,  in  this  passage  as 
 
630  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.    [Ch.  xxvin.  14. 
 
 in  Others,  airo  is  put  for  eV/,  which,  as  has  been  said  before, 
 is  joined  to  the  agent  with  verbs  passive,  and  thus  we  have 
 the  expression  a  prceside.  The  soldiers  had  reason  to  fear 
 being  punished  by  the  governor,  either  for  neglect  of  their 
 watch  or  their  falsehood.  Against  this  danger  the  priests 
 promised  their  assistance,  that  by  their  own  falsehood, 
 in  addition  to  that  of  the  soldiers,  they  might  succeed  in 
 persuading  and  convincing  the  governor.  He  would 
 readily,  they  thought,  believe  them  if  they  w^ho  ought 
 to  have  been  the  first  to  accuse  them  took  their  parts. 
 "  The  keepers,"  says  S.  Hilary,  "  who  saw  all  that  hap- 
 pened, purchased  with  money  their  silence  on  the  Resur- 
 rection, and  their  falsehood  about  the  theft  of  the  body " 
 {Can.  xxxiii.  in  S.  Matt.).  This  has  been  elegantly  and 
 forcibly  commented  on  b}-  the  poet  Sedulius. 
 
 "  Fare,  improbe  custos. 
 Responde  scelerate  cohors  si  Christus,  ut  audes 
 Dicere,  concluso,  furtim  productus  ab  antro, 
 Sopitos  latuit,  cujus  latet  intus  amictus 
 Cujus  ad  exuvias  sedet  angelus  ?  anne  beati 
 Corporis  ablator  velocius  esse  putavit 
 Solvere  contectum  quam  devectare  ligatum  ? 
 Cum  mora  sit  furtis  contraria  ?  cautius  ergo 
 Cum  domino  potuere  magis  sua  lintea  toUi 
 Mentita  est  vox  vana  sibi,  tamen  ista  figuram 
 Res  habet  egregiam,  Jud:eis  constat  ademptum, 
 Quem  nos,  devoto  portamus  pectore  Christum." 
 
 Say,  wicked  keeper,  say,  atrocious  band, 
 
 If  from  the  fast-closed  tomb  by  robbers'  hand, 
 
 Unseen  by  sleeping  guards,  as  you  declare. 
 
 The  Christ  was  brought — whose  clothes  are  lying  there  ? 
 
 Whose  is  that  winding-sheet,  which  angels  bright 
 
 Sit  watching,  clad  in  robes  of  shining  white  ? 
 
 When  fatal  had  been  all  unwise  delay. 
 
 Why  should  the  robbers  there  still  lingering  stay, 
 
 When  they  the  blessed  form  must  slow  unwind 
 
 From  burial  clothes,  left  there  for  men  to  find .' 
 
 Vain,  lying  tale  !     But  wondrous  is  the  truth  : 
 
 For  Him,  who,  Jews  affirm,  was,  without  ruth. 
 
 Stolen  from  his  rock-hewn  bed  of  deathly  rest 
 
 Wc  ever  bear  enshrin'd  w  ithin  our  breast  ! 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  15,  16.]      CHRIST'S   BODY    NOT   STOLEN.  63 1 
 
 Verse  1 5.  Ajid  this  word  was  spread  abroad  among  the  Jeivs 
 even  unto  this  day. 
 "This  word,"  namely,  that  Christ  was  stolen  away  by  the 
 disciples.  So  S.  Chrysostom  {Honi.  xci.  on  S.  Matt.),  Euthy- 
 mius  (in  his  commentary),  and  Rabanus  (in  S.  Thomas)  ex- 
 plain it.  This  was  indeed  the  almost  universal  opinion  ; 
 though  it  does  not  appear  unreasonable,  if  it  be  referred  to 
 the  words  of  the  Evangelist,  that  the  falsehood  was  pub- 
 lished abroad,  even  among  the  Jews  themselves,  that  the 
 soldiers  had  money  given  to  them  by  the  priests  to  say 
 that  the  disciples  stole  away  the  body  while  they  slept. 
 There  seems  no  objection  to  this  view  but  the  want  of 
 authority.  Indeed,  it  may  appear  more  probable  per  se, 
 because  the  Evangelist  had  more  reason  for  saying  this 
 than  that  which  the  commentators  suppose  him  to  have 
 said.  For  it  was  more  in  accordance  with  the  history 
 that  the  Evangelist  should  say  that  the  falsehood  of  the 
 priests  did  not  escape  the  knowledge  of  the  Jews  them- 
 selves (that  no  one  might  suppose  him  guilty  of  bringing 
 a  false  accusation  against  them),  than  it  would  be  to 
 say  that  the  Jews  believed  Christ  to  have  been  furtively 
 carried  off  by  the  disciples,  the  exposition  of  which  the 
 history  did  not  require  of  him. 
 
 Verse  16.  And  the  eleven  disciples. 
 Judas  had  either  hung  himself,  as  is  the  general  opinion, 
 or,  having  lost  all  hope  of  salvation,  he  had  thought  of 
 doing  so.  At  least  he  had  not  ventured  to  return  to  the 
 communion  of  the  Apostles.  The  prophecy  of  David  {Ps. 
 Ixviii.  26),  as  S.  Peter  explains  it  {Acts  \.  20),  must  be 
 fulfilled.     See  on  chap,  xxvii.  5. 
 
 Went  into  Galilee. 
 Not  immediately,  but  after  eight  days  at  least,  as  S. 
 Augustin  proves  {De  Cons.,  iii.  25).     S.   Matthew  passes 
 
632  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.     [Ch.  xxviii.  16. 
 
 over  many  circumstances  which  the  other  Evangelists 
 mention  as  having  been  done  by  the  Apostles  during  the 
 eight  days  which  they  spent  at  Jerusalem.  That  this  may 
 be  understood  clearly  and  in  proper  order,  it  will  be  well 
 to  relate  at  what  time  and  to  what  persons  Christ  appeared 
 after  His  Resurrection. 
 
 1.  He  appeared  to  His  mother.  Not  that  the  Evangelists 
 say  so,  but  because  it  was  right  that  He  should  have  done  so. 
 
 2.  On  the  second  day  He  appeared  to  S.  Mary  Magda- 
 lene, either  alone,  as  S.  Augustin  and  most  others  suppose, 
 or,  as  has  been  said  above,  with  the  other  women  who  came 
 with  her  to  the  tomb  {S.John  xx.  12). 
 
 3.  He  appeared,  as  most  think,  to  all  the  women  who 
 came  to  the  tomb  on  their  return  to  the  city.  This 
 happened  on  the  same  day. 
 
 4.  On  the  same  day  also  He  is  believed  to  have  appeared 
 to  S.  Peter,  either  alone,  as  S.  Leo  thinks  {Cont.  M.  Con- 
 stant., XV.),  or,  as  is  probable,  to  S.  John  also,  when  they 
 had  returned  from  the  tomb  (.V.  Luke  xxiv.  13  ;  i  Cor. 
 XV.  3,  4,  5). 
 
 5.  On  the  same  day  again  He  was  seen  by  the  two  dis- 
 ciples as  they  were  going  to  Emmaus  {S.  Luke  xxiv.  13). 
 
 6.  On  the  same  day,  about  evening.  He  appeared  to  the 
 ten  disciples  when  they  were  assembled  in  a  house  in 
 Jerusalem  in  the  absence  of  S.  Thomas.  Hence  it  follows 
 that  He  supped  with  those  two  disciples  at  Emmaus,  as  S. 
 Luke  says,  and  appeared  to  the  ten  disciples  at  Jerusalem  ; 
 for,  like  a  spirit.  He  passed  over  great  distances  in  a 
 moment  of  time.  These  six  appearances  happened  on  the 
 same  day  as  His  Resurrection. 
 
 7.  After  eight  days  He  appeared  to  the  eleven  in  the 
 presence  of  S.  Thomas  at  Jerusalem  (5.  John  xx.  26). 
 Although  S.  Jerome  thinks,  but  apparently  with  little 
 probability,  that  this  appearance  took  place  on  the 
 mountain  of  Galilee  mentioned  by  S.  Mattlx^w. 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  i6.]  APPEARANCES  AFTER  THE  RESURRECTION.  633 
 
 8.  He  was  seen  by  the  seven  disciples  :  Peter,  Thomas, 
 the  two  sons  of  Zebedee,  Nathaniel,  and  two  others,  whom 
 the  Evangelist  does  not  name,  as  they  were  fishing  in  the 
 Sea  of  Galilee  (S.  John  xxi.  i,  2).  Hence,  when  S.  John 
 says,  "  This  was  the  third  time  that  Jesus  was  manifested 
 to  His  disciples "  (verse  14),  he  is  not  to  be  understood 
 as  meaning  that  Christ  had  been  only  seen  three  times 
 before,  for  the  contrary  has  been  proved  above  ;  but,  either, 
 as  S.  Augustin  explains  [De  Cons.,\\\.  25),  the  word  "third" 
 is  to  be  understood,  not  of  the  number  of  appearances,  as  if 
 Christ  then  appeared  for  the  third  time,  but  to  the  number 
 of  the  days  on  which  He  appeared.  In  this  manner  He 
 appeared  the  third  time.  For  on  the  first  day  of  His 
 Resurrection  He  appeared  six  times;  eight  days  after  He 
 appeared  again  ;  now,  for  the  third  time,  as  the  disciples 
 were  fishing  :  or  perhaps  S.  John  speaks  not  of  any  par- 
 ticular appearance,  but  of  a  public  and  general  one  in 
 which  Christ  was  seen  either  by  all  the  disciples  at  once, 
 or  by  most  of  them.  For  although  He  had  appeared  to 
 His  Mother  in  private,  and  to  Peter,  and  to  the  two  dis- 
 ciples as  they  went  to  Emmaus,  He  had  not  appeared  to 
 all  or  to  most  of  them  together,  but  twice  before :  first,  on 
 the  day  of  His  Resurrection,  when  Thomas  was  absent  ; 
 secondly,  eight  days  after,  when  Thomas  was  present  ; 
 thirdly,  on  this  occasion,  when  the  seven  disciples  were 
 fishing  in  the  sea  of  Tiberias.  For  the  ninth  time  He 
 appeared  to  all  the  disciples  at  once  on  Mount  Galilee,  as 
 described  in  this  place  by  S.  Matthew.  This,  in  the 
 opinion  of  S.  Chrysostom,  was  the  last  appearance  before 
 the  Ascension.  S.  Augustin  adds,  as  the  tenth,  that  in 
 which  He  was  seen  by  the  disciples  on  His  ascent  into 
 heaven.  From  i  Cor.  xv.  6,  7,  there  appear  to  have 
 probably  been  two  others.  If  we  add  to  these  that  which 
 S.  Paul  describes,  as  made  to  himself  after  the  Ascension, 
 there  will  be  altogether  thirteen  appearances. 
 
G34  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.    [Ch.  xxviii.  17. 
 
 Unto  the  vwuntain  where  Jesus  had  appointed  them. 
 The  Evangelists  do  not  relate  that  Christ  said  anything 
 to  the  women  about  the  mountain  ;  nor  does  it  appear 
 whether  He  appointed  this  to  them  or  to  the  Apostles. 
 It  is  clear,  however,  from  this  passage  that  He  spoke  on 
 some  occasion  about  it ;  either,  as  Euthymius  thinks,  before 
 His  death,  when  He  said  to  them,  "  After  I  shall  be  risen 
 again  I  will  go  before  you  into  Galilee  "  (xxvi.  32),  or  after 
 the  Resurrection,  when,  in  the  opinion  of  others,  He  ap- 
 peared to  the  disciples  at  Jerusalem.  It  may  easily  be 
 conjectured  why  He  directed  the  disciples  to  go  to  the 
 mountain.  He  desired  to  speak  to  them  freely  and  with- 
 out judges,  and  whenever  He  did  this  He  led  them  into  a 
 mountain  apart,  as  in  chaps,  xiv.  23  ;  xv.  29  ;  xvii.  i  ;  as 
 Euthymius  has  shown.  What  mountain  it  was  is  a  matter 
 of  uncertainty.  It  must,  however,  have  been  one  somewhere 
 near  the  Sea  of  Tiberias.  For  the  disciples  went  from  the 
 mountain  where  they  were  to  the  sea,  as  a  place  close  at 
 hand  to  fish  {S.  John  xxi.  2).  Thus  the  opinion  of  those 
 who  think  that  this  was  the  mountain  from  which  Christ 
 was  afterwards  taken  up  into  heaven  cannot  possibly  be 
 correct  ;  for  this,  S.  Matthew  says,  was  in  Galilee,  but  that 
 of  the  Ascension  was  a  mile,  or,  as  some  say,  two  miles,  from 
 Jerusalem,  as  is  also  shown  from  Acts  i.  12.  Others  think 
 that  it  was  the  mountain  on  which  Christ  was  transfigured, 
 and  v.hich  they  called  Tabor.     On  this,  vid.  chap.  xvii.  2. 
 
 Verse  17.  And  seeing  Hitn  they  adored. 
 To  their  inward  belief  the}-  added  external  adoration, 
 confessing  Him  to  be  not  only  Christ,  but  also  true  God  ; 
 as  they  could  now  no  longer  doubt  of  His  Resurrection. 
 The  Evangelist  opposes  adoration  to  doubt,  adding  imme- 
 diately, "  But  some  doubted  ".  On  these  words  it  has  been 
 asked  how  the  disciples  could  doubt  after  so  many  and 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  17.]  CHRIST  AND  THE  DISCIPLES  IN  GALILEE.   635 
 
 plain  appearances.  Some  say  that  the  doubters  were  none 
 of  the  eleven  disciples,  but  some  of  the  others  who  also 
 had  that  name  ;  for  these  had  not  seen  Christ  after  His 
 Resurrection.  Theophylact  is  of  this  opinion.  Others 
 think  that  the  words  were  spoken  of  the  Apostles  them- 
 selves ;  not  that  they  both  worshipped  and  doubted,  at  the 
 same  time  and  in  the  same  place,  but  that  they  who  now 
 worshipped  on  the  mountain  had  doubted  before  in 
 Jerusalem.  Theophylact  mentions  this  opinion  with  ap- 
 probation. It  is,  however,  unquestionable  that  the  Evan- 
 gelist meant  not  only  to  distinguish  between  times  and 
 places,  but  persons  also,  and  to  say  that  some  believed 
 and  worshipped,  but  that  others  doubted.  It  is  evident 
 that  all  did  not  doubt.  S.  Matthew  is  not  therefore  to  be 
 understood  as  meaning  that  the  same  persons  both  doubted 
 and  worshipped. 
 
 Others  are  of  opinion  that  some  of  the  Apostles,  as  soon 
 as  they  saw  Christ  on  the  mountain,  fell  at  His  feet  in 
 adoration  ;  while  others  hesitated  and  delayed,  not  as 
 doubting  of  His  Resurrection  and  Divinity,  but  whether 
 He  whom  they  then  saw,  and  whom  they  had  often  seen 
 in  others  places  since  His  Resurrection,  were  Christ.  So 
 S.  Chrysostom  {Horn.  xci.  on  S.  Matt.),  S.  Greg.  Nyss. 
 {Orat.  ii.  de  Resnrr.),  Juvencus,  and  Euthymius. 
 
 Others  say  that  the  words  apply,  not  to  this  vision  on 
 the  mountain  in  Galilee,  but  to  that  at  Jerusalem  when  S. 
 Thomas  doubted,  and  when  the  other  disciples  thought 
 that  they  had  seen  a  spirit  (5.  Ltike  xxiv.  37;  S.  John  xx. 
 25,  27);  for  S.  Matthew,  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  com- 
 pressed all  the  visions  into  one,  and  only  mentioned  what 
 was  notable  in  each.  But  it  had  happened  that  some 
 disciples,  and  especially  S.  Thomas,  had  doubted.  S. 
 Matthew  said,  therefore,  "  But  some  doubted,"  not,  that  is, 
 at  the  mountain,  but  previously  at  Jerusalem.  It  will  be 
 said  that  not  only  S.   Thomas  at  Jerusalem,   but  almost 
 
6t,6  the   gospel   of   S.    MATTHEW.    [Ch.  xxyiii.  i8. 
 
 all  the  other  disciples  doubted,  and  thought  Christ  a 
 spirit  (S.  Ljike  xxiv.  37).  It  has  been  urged,  and  with 
 probability,  by  those  who  take  this  view,  that  S.  Luke 
 said  generally  that  the  disciples  thought  that  they  saw  a 
 spirit.  Not  that  they  all  thought  so,  but  that  some  did  ; 
 as  S.  Matthew  (xxvii.  44)  relates  that  the  thieves  on  the 
 cross  reviled  Christ,  when  only  one  did  so.  This  opinion 
 seems  probable,  and  it  finds  favour  with  Bede  and  Theo- 
 phylact  also. 
 
 Verse  18.  And  Jesus  coming. 
 Some  think  that  this  did  not  happen  now,  but  on  the 
 last  occasion  of  Christ's  showing  Himself  to  His  disciples, 
 when  He  ascended  into  heaven.  This  appears  very  pro- 
 bable. For  S.John  (xxi.  15  and  following)  relates  many 
 things  that  have  been  passed  over  by  the  other  Evan- 
 gelists, and  which  happened  after  the  appearance  at  the 
 mountain  in  Galilee  before  this  and  before  the  events  now 
 described  by  S.  Matthew  took  place.  Such  are  Christ's 
 asking  Peter  thrice  if  he  loved  Him,  and  giving  him  the 
 charge  to  feed  His  sheep  :  His  signifying  by  what  death 
 He  should  die  :  Peter's  question  about  John,  "  Lord,  and 
 what  shall  this  man  do?"  (xxi,  21),  and  Christ's  answer 
 (verse  23),  all  which,  Deo  adjnvante,  shall  be  explained 
 in  the  Connnentmy  on  S.  John. 
 
 All poivcr  is  given  to  Me  in  heaven  and  in  earth. 
 l^efore  Christ  gave  the  Apostles  the  power  of  preaching 
 the  Gospel,  He  said  that  all  power  was  given  to  Him  in 
 heaven  and  on  earth.  His  object  was  to  show  that  He 
 assumed  nothing  arbitrarily  to  Himself;  that  He  gave 
 nothing  to  them  which  He  did  not  possess  Himself;  and, 
 as  is  proverbially  said.  He  showed  them  His  letters  patent, 
 by  which  it  is  seen  by  what  authority  He  made  them 
 Apostles,  and  bestowed  such  powers  upon  them. 
 
Ch.  xxviii.  i8.]      "  ALL  POWER  IS  GIVEN  TO  ME."  G^J 
 
 It  may  seem  strange  that  He  should  say,  "  All  power  is 
 given  to  Me,"  when  He  has  all  power,  ipse  per  se.  The 
 followers  of  Arius  did  not  overlook  this.  They  brought 
 the  above  with  other  passages  of  Scripture  against  the 
 Divinity  of  Christ ;  saying  that  He  could  not  be  God  in 
 whom  power  was  not  innate,  but  on  whom  it  was  conferred 
 (S.  Athanasius,  Dens  ex  Deo ;  and  S.  Cyril,  ii.  73,  On  S. 
 John).  Those  ancient  Fathers  answered  in  two  ways. 
 I.  That  Christ  said  this,  because  when  He  was  made 
 man,  He  received  that  power  with  the  human  nature, 
 that  He  might  share  it  with  us.  He  implies  therefore 
 that  it  was  given  to  Him,  not  so  much  for  Himself,  as 
 for  us.  So  reasons  S.  Athanasius.  2.  He  received  that 
 power  indeed  as  man,  which  as  God  He  had  by  nature 
 (S.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  S.  Cyril  of  Alexandria).  They 
 could  allow  without  difficulty  that  as  He  was  God  He 
 had  received  from  the  Father  all  power,  as  well  as  the 
 divine  nature,  by  eternal  generation,  as  in  5.  Liike  x.  22. 
 This  is  true,  but  perhaps  hardly  sufficient.  For  Christ 
 speaks  here  not  of  any  kind  of  power  whatever,  but 
 of  that  which  He  gave  to  the  Apostles  ;  that  is,  the 
 power  of  gaining  and  recruiting  His  spiritual  kingdom, 
 to  which  end  He  sent  His  Apostles.  He  speaks  as  if 
 before  His  Resurrection  He  had  it  not,  as  S.  Athanasius 
 observes  in  another  place.  For  He  said,  as  if  of  a 
 new  matter,  "  All  power  is  given  to  Me ".  He  did  not 
 speak  of  that  power  which  He  had  as  God,  nor  of  that 
 which  He  had  as  man,  but  of  that  which  He  had  as 
 the  Redeemer  of  mankind,  and  which  He  had  gained 
 through  His  Death  and  Resurrection.  For  as  He  had 
 redeemed  all  men  by  His  blood,  He  had  the  right  to  gather 
 them  ail  into  His  kingdom,  and  to  make  them,  as  it 
 were,  His  subjects.  It  is  of  this  power  that  the  Father 
 speaks  {Ps.  ii.  8  ;  cix.  i  ;  Isa.  xlix.  6,  8,  9).  He  speaks 
 of  it  Himself  in  Dan.  vii.  13,  14;  and  through  S.  John  (xvi. 
 
63S  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.    [Ch.  xxviii.  19. 
 
 33).  This  is  the  power  which  He  says  was  given  to  Him 
 by  His  Death  and  Resurrection,  because  He  merited  it 
 {Philip,  ii.  9).  By  this  power  He  sent  His  Apostles  to 
 extend  the  boundairies  of  His  kingdom  ;  as  Vigilius  seems 
 rightly  to  explain  against  Eutyches  (lib.  v.).  The  words 
 "  in  heaven  and  earth "  were  uttered  by  Him  that  He 
 might  declare  Himself  to  have,  as  S.  Paul  says,  the  power 
 of  ruling  everywhere.  One  part  of  this  kingdom  of  His, 
 that  which  is  in  heaven,  was  long  since  wholly  gained  and 
 pacified.  The  other,  that  on  earth,  has  yet  to  be  fully 
 acquired  by  spiritual  warfare.  To  this  office  the  Apostles 
 were  sent  by  Him. 
 
 Verse  19.    Going. 
 
 Christ  means  going  into  the  whole  earth,  as  He  had 
 said,  "  All  power,"  &c.  He  Himself  ascended  into  heaven, 
 that  is,  that  part  of  His  kingdom  which  was  now  at  length 
 pacified,  that  He  might  sit  on  His  throne  on  the  right 
 hand  of  His  Father.  He  sent  the  Apostles  into  the  other 
 part  of  it — that  is,  into  all  the  earth — to  recall  all  men 
 to  Himself  S.Mark  (xvi.  15)  describes  this  more  fully: 
 "  Go  ye  into  the  whole  world,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to 
 every  creature  ".  Christ  opposes  the  whole  world  to  the 
 boundary  line  of  the  Jews,  by  which  He  had  previously 
 limited  the  embassage  of  the  Apostles  (x.  5).  As  He 
 was  then,  by  hereditary  right  as  it  were,  king  of  the  Jews, 
 He  sent  His  Apostles  to  them  alone.  Now,  by  His  Death 
 and  Resurrection,  He  had  gained  the  power  of  ruling  over 
 all  men,  and  thus  He  sends  the  Apostles  into  the  whole 
 world,  declaring  that  by  His  Death  the  wall  which  had 
 kept  the  kingdom  of  the  Jews  inclosed  on  all  sides, 
 within  their  own  bounds,  was  broken  down,  as  is  said 
 by  S.  Paul  {Eplics.  ii.  14),  and  that  the  limits  of  His 
 kingdom  were  therefore  to  be  extended  farther ;  nor 
 were  there  to  be   any  other  bounds   to  that  kingdom — 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  19.]     COMMISSION  TO  APOSTLES  TO  BAPTISE.     639 
 
 that  is,  the  Church — than  those  of  the  entire  world  (Ps. 
 Ixxi.  8).  God  was  known  before  in  Judaea  alone,  now 
 He  was  to  be  known  everywhere  {Ps.  xvii.  44,  45  ;  /sa. 
 Ixvi.  I  ;  Osce  ii.  23  ;  Pom.  ix.  25).  "  As,  therefore,  you 
 are  sent  by  Me,  to  whom  is  given  all  power  in  heaven 
 and  earth,  and  that  power  is  communicated  from  Me  to 
 you " — for  this  is  the  force  of  the  word  "  therefore " — 
 "  teach  not  human  wisdom,  for  nothing  is  more  adverse 
 to  My  kingdom  (i  Cor.  iii.  19),  but  divine,  which  is 
 foolishness  to  men.  Teach  My  cross "  (i  Cor.  i.  23). 
 Christ  showed  them  what  to  teach  [S.  Mark  xvi.   15). 
 
 These  words  were  perverted,  not  only  by  the  modern 
 Anabaptists,  but  also  by  some  Fathers  of  old,  as  Tertullian 
 {De  Bapt.)  and  Nicetas  in  his  commentary  on  S.  Gregory 
 Nazianzen  {Oration  on  Holy  Baptisni),  to  prove  that  Baptism 
 ought  not  to  be  given  to  infants  except  when  in  peril  of 
 death,  because  Christ  commanded  that  those  who  were  to 
 be  baptised  should  first  be  taught,  and  this  cannot  be  done 
 to  infants.  They  do  not  see  that  Christ  does  not  forbid 
 those  who  cannot  be  taught  to  be  baptised,  but  that  He 
 only  commands  all  who  have  been  taught  before  to  be 
 baptised.  That  they  who  are  not  yet  capable  of  learning, 
 if  we  wish  them  to  be  saved,  ought  to  be  baptised,  He  has 
 taught  elsewhere  {S.  John  iii.  5).  Hence  Calvin  and  his 
 followers,  who  hold  that  this  passage  applies  not  to  the 
 Sacrament  of  Baptism  but  to  the  regeneration  of  faith, 
 have  no  sufficient  evidence  from  Scripture  of  the  necessity 
 of  infant  baptism. 
 
 Baptising  them  in  the  name  of  the  FatJier,  and  of  the  Son, 
 
 and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
 To  the  doctrine  of  Baptism   Christ    unites  the   Sacra- 
 ment, not,  as  Calvin  teaches,  as  the  sign  of  grace  already 
 received,  but  as  the  sign   and  profession  of  doctrine  and 
 faith.      Thus  among  the  Greeks,  ^airTi^eiv  means  to  dip 
 
640  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.    [Ch.  xxviii.  19. 
 
 into  water,  to  wash,  to  blot  out,  and,  as  Tertullian  renders 
 it,  to  sprinkle.  Thus  the  matter  of  the  Sacrament  is 
 explained  by  the  meaning  of  the  word  ;  that  baptism 
 should  be  performed  by  water,  as  Christ  Himself  more 
 forcibly  expresses  it  in  S.  John  iii.  5.  It  is  evident  that 
 the  Apostles  never  baptised  with  anything  but  water,  and 
 there  was  much  contention  between  the  disciples  of  Christ 
 and  John,  because  the  disciples  of  Christ,  like  those  of 
 John,  baptised  with  water  (^".  JoJni  iii.  26).  It  was  also 
 decided  by  S.  Philip  in  the  case  of  the  eunuch  of  Queen 
 Candace,  that  those  who  believe  in  Christ  should  be 
 baptised  with  water  {Acts  viii.  36,  and  x.  46,  47).  The 
 same  thing  was  done  in  figure,  as  shown  in  i  Cor.  x.  2  ; 
 I  5.  Peter  iii.  31.  As  in  the  flood,  eight  persons  were 
 saved  by  water,  so  now  baptism  of  like  form  saves  many. 
 Thus  it  is  concluded  that  as  the  sea  and  the  flood  consisted 
 of  water,  so  baptism  ought  to  be  performed  by  the  same 
 matter,  and  thus  the  heresy  of  Seleucus  and  Hermias  is 
 confuted.  S.  Augustin  {Dc  Harcsibns,  Ixix.)  says,  "  They 
 said  that  baptism  should  be  without  water,  because  when 
 the  baptism  of  John  is  compared  with  that  of  Christ,  the 
 former  is  said  to  be  performed  with  water,  the  latter  with 
 the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire  (5.  Matt.  iii.  11;  i\  Mark 
 i.  8  ;  S.  Luke  iii.  16  ;  ^\  JoJin  i.  26,  33  ;  Acts  xi.  16).  But 
 when  the  baptism  of  Christ  and  John  are  thus  compared, 
 the  meaning  is  not  that  Christ  would  not  baptise  with 
 water :  but  not,  like  John,  with  water  only.  Beside  water, 
 which  is  given  outwardly.  He  would  pour  out  the  Holy 
 Ghost,  which  is  shed  inwardly;  as  was  shown  by  the  descent 
 of  the  tongues  of  fire  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  as  explained 
 by  S.  John  Damascus  (iv.  10,  Dc  Fid.  OrtJtod). 
 
 The  form  of  baptism  is  also  prescribed  in  these  words. 
 For  although  it  may  not  be  demonstrable  from  this  pas- 
 .sage  to  a  curious  enquirer  that  the  form  which  we  now  use 
 ought  to  be  that  of  baptism,  "  I   baptise  thee  in  the  name 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  ig.]       THE   COMMAND   TO    BAPTISE.  64I 
 
 of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
 yet  the  tradition  of  the  Church  approves  it.  That  the 
 Church  has  always  thus  baptised  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
 whoever  uses  any  other  form  is  condemned  and  excom- 
 municated. The  forty-ninth  of  the  Canons  of  the  Apostles 
 excommunicates  all  bishops  and  priests  who  baptise 
 otherwise  than  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
 Ghost.  By  this  rule  the  Marcionites  are  condemned  by 
 S.  Irenaius  (lib.  i.)  and  by  S.  Epiphanius  {Hcer.  xxxiv.)  as 
 not  administering  true  baptism,  because  they  did  not  use 
 this  form.  So  the  baptism  of  the  Paulianists  was  rejected 
 by  the  Council  of  Nice  {Can.  xix.),  6th  Council  of  Carthage 
 [Can.  xix.),  and  by  S.  Innocent  I.  {Ep.  xxii.  5).  Thus  all 
 subtleties  by  which  the  force  of  the  words  may  be  eluded 
 are  done  away  :  as,  if  it  were  said  that  the  meaning  is  not, 
 "  Baptising  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
 Ghost,"  that  is,  by  invocating  or  appealing  to  the  name, 
 but  doing  so  by  the  authority  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
 Ghost  ;  although  we  find  in  many  places  that  baptism 
 was  administered  in  the  name  of  Christ,  this  was  not  that 
 he  who  baptised  said,  "  I  baptise  thee  in  the  name  of 
 Christ,"  but  that  he  did  so  by  His  authority,  as  shall  be 
 shown  hereafter.  Especially  if  it  be  maintained  that  it 
 does  not  follow  from  the  above  words  that  the  baptiser 
 ought  to  say,  "  I  baptise  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
 Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,"  for  Christ  does  not  say  this  ;  but 
 that  it  is  enough  to  pour  water  and  say,  "  In  the  name  of 
 Father,  Son,  Holy  Ghost ".  Or  lastly,  if  it  be  asserted  that 
 the  words  may  be  taken  disjunctively  and  the  meaning  be, 
 "  Baptising  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  or  of  the  Son,  or  of 
 the  Holy  Ghost,"  which  the  facts  of  the  case  seem  to  sanc- 
 tion ;  for  many  of  great  authority  say  that  the  Apostles 
 often  baptised  in  the  name  of  Christ  alone.  All  these 
 astute  glosses  the  one  tradition  of  the  Church,  that  best 
 interpreter  of  Holy  Scripture,  does  away  altogether.  For 
 2 — 41 
 
642  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.   MATTHEW.    [Cn.  xxviii.  19. 
 
 the  question  is  not  how  the  words  may  be  taken,  but  how 
 they  ought  to  be  taken.  They  ought  to  be  taken  in  the 
 sense  in  which  Christ  spoke  them,  and  not  in  that  in  which 
 everyone  may  form  for  himself  The  meaning  of  Christ, 
 as  appears  from  the  use  and  tradition  of  the  Church,  was 
 that  when  the  Apostles  baptised,  they  should  say,  "  I 
 baptise  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
 Ghost,"  or  in  words  that  mean  the  same  thing.  How  it 
 was  that  they  sometimes  baptised  in  the  name  of  Christ 
 alone,  as  in  Ac/s  ii.  38,  shall  be  explained  elsewhere. 
 
 It  may  be  properly  asked,  why  Christ  willed  Baptism 
 to  be  administered  in  this  form  ?  Many  reasons  may  be 
 given. 
 
 1.  To  show  whence  Baptism  has  its  power,  namely  (i), 
 from  the  Father  who  sent  His  Son  to  die  for  men.  (2) 
 From  the  Son  who  instituted  the  Sacrament,  and  by  His 
 own  blood  moistened  it  as  it  were,  and  made  it  fruitful 
 and  efficacious.  (3)  From  the  Holy  Ghost,  who,  as  water 
 washes  the  body  outwardly,  so  Himself  washes  the  soul 
 inwardly,  sanctifying  it. 
 
 2.  That  those  who  are  baptised  may  not  suppose  that 
 they  have  received  a  merely  human  gift,  and  so  should 
 divide  not  only  men,  as  they  did  who  said,  "  I  am  of  Paul 
 and  I  am  of  Apollo"  (i  Cor.  i.  12),  but  even  God  Himself 
 as  it  were,  saying,  "  I  am  of  the  Son,  I  am  of  the  Holy 
 Ghost,"  as  if  they  were  baptised  in  the  name  of  one  Person 
 only. 
 
 3.  As  Fulgentius  says  (Dc  fid.  OrtJiod.  ad  Donat.),  "  that 
 men  may  know  that  they  have  the  same  Author  of  their 
 regeneration  as  of  their  natural  birth,  the  Father,  the  Son, 
 and  the  Holy  Ghost".  The  meaning,  then,  is  that  the 
 Apostles  should  testify  that  they  baptised  not  in  their  own 
 names,  but  in  that  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
 Ghost ;  and  that  what  they  did  was  done,  not  in  their  own 
 persons,  but  in  the  person  of  God,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
 
Ch.  xxviii.   ig.]      BAPTISM  IN  NAME  OF  HOLY  TRINITY.       643 
 
 the  Holy  Ghost;  lest  it  be  considered  their  own  baptism, 
 and  not  the  Baptism  of  God  ;  as  S.  Augustin  says,  in 
 passages  without  number,  of  the  baptism  of  John,  that  it 
 was  so  called  as  being  done  in  his  own  name  and  person, 
 although  by  the  command  and  inspiration  of  God,  but 
 not  in  the  person  of  God ;  and  therefore  that  the  words  of 
 baptism,  "In  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
 Holy  Ghost,"  are  not  only  to  be  referred  to  the  word 
 "  baptising,"  but  also  to  those  who  baptise. 
 
 From  these  words  also  the  ancient  Fathers  rightly 
 proved  the  mystery  of  the  Holy  Trinity.  By  them  they 
 answered  the  Sabellians,  who  perverted  them  to  prove  that 
 Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  were  one  only  Person,  be- 
 cause Christ  did  not  say,  "  Baptise  in  the  names,"  but  "  in 
 the  name  ".  S.  Basil  refutes  them  {Ep.  Ixiv.),  concluding 
 from  the  same  words  that,  on  the  contrary,  they  were  three 
 Persons  and  one  Nature,  because  while  the  Father,  Son, 
 and  Holy  Ghost  are  mentioned  as  three  distinct  Persons, 
 there  is  only  one  name  of  God,  and  one  authorship  among 
 them. 
 
 From  the  same  words,  others  have  proved  the  divinity 
 and  equality  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  against 
 Arius  and  the  Arians  ;  for  we  are  not  baptised  in  the  name 
 of  any  creature.  So  S.  Athanasius  {Serin,  iii.  cont.  Avian.; 
 Or  at.  de  yEtern.;  Subst.  F.  et  SS.  cont.  Sabell.;  and  Orat.  on 
 S.  Ljikc  X.  22,  Disput.  cont.  Ar.  in  cone.  Niccsn.  Ep.  ad 
 Scrap.  Profess,  reg.  CathoL),  S.  Hilary  {De  Trin.,  ii.),  S. 
 Gregory  Nazianzen  {Orat.  Coram  cl.  Episcop.  de  Theolog.), 
 S.  Ambrose  {De  Sptu.  Sto.,  i.  14),  Didymus  {De  Spin.  Sto., 
 ii.),  Theodoret  {Hcer.  Fab.  v.  de  Sptu.  Sto),  Fulgentius 
 {Cont.  Arian.  and  De  fid.  Orthod.,  and  De  Incarnat.  et 
 Grat.,  ix.). 
 
 S.  Marks  adds  to  the  above  words,  "  He  that  believeth 
 and  is  baptised  shall  be  saved,  but  he  that  believeth  not 
 shall  be  condemned.      And  these  signs  shall  follow  them 
 
644  i'lili   GOSTEL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.    [Cii.  xxviii.  20. 
 
 that  believe.  In  My  name  they  shall  cast  out  devils,"  &c., 
 showing  the  universal  effect  of  baptism.  For  not  only 
 faith, but  also  baptism  saves  us,  as  S.  Peter  says  (i  Ep.  iii.  21). 
 His  words  refer  not  only  to  those  who  believe,  but  also  to 
 all  who  are  baptised.  For  they  who  believed  could  not 
 perform  such  miracles  as  these  before  they  were  baptised. 
 Of  this  there  is  a  notable  example  in  the  Book  of  Acts 
 (xix.  6).  It  is  not,  however,  to  be  understood  that  all  who 
 were  baptised  could  perform  these  miracles,  but,  because 
 many  would  do  them,  and  not  only  in  their  own  name, 
 but  also  in  the  name  and  to  the  good  of  others,  Christ, 
 that  both  their  own  faith  and  the  faith  of  others  might 
 be  strengthened,  said  generally,  "These  signs  shall  follow": 
 not  that  they  would  d(j  so  in  every  case,  but  because  it 
 would  be  necessary  for  the  confirmation  of  the  faith.  As 
 if  Christ  had  said,  "  The  faith  of  those  who  believe  shall 
 be  confirmed  by  miracles".  This  shall  be  explained  more 
 fully  on  J>".  Mark. 
 
 Verse  20.  Teaching  than  to  observe  all  things  icliatsoevcr  I 
 have  commanded  you. 
 After  faith  and  baptism,  Christ  enjoins  the  observance 
 of  His  laws,  showing  that  neither  faith  nor  baptism  arc 
 sufficient  for  our  salvation  unless  we  keep  the  laws  of  God  ; 
 as  Theophylact  has  observed  {in  loc.). 
 
 And  behold  I  am  with  you. 
 Christ  sent  the  Apostles  to  teach,  as  if  to  a  warfare  with 
 the  entire  world.  It  was  to  be  feared  that  they  might 
 despond  under  tiic  weight  of  so  great  a  work  and  the 
 prevision  of  future  dangers.  Christ  bids  them  be  strong  of 
 heart,  and,  that  they  might  stand  firmly  against  all 
 dangers.  He  promised  to  be  with  them,  and  that  not 
 too  late  but  in  good  season.  The  two  words  "  Behold " 
 and   "  I  "    have    this    force.       The    former    alludes    to    the 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.  20.]       PROMISE   OF   CHRIST'S   PRESENCE.  645 
 
 present  opportune  time,  as  if  it  were  said,  "As  soon  as 
 need  arises  I  will  be  unexpectedly  with  you  "  ;  and  as  the 
 proverb  says,  '■'Dens  ex  inachuia".  The  word  "I"  refers 
 to  Him  who  is  able  to  deliver  from  all  dangers.  As  if 
 the  general  should  say  to  a  soldier  in  battle,  "  Be  brave  and 
 firm,  I  am  here,  and  am  bringing  you  assistance":  as  in 
 vS.  John  xvi.  33  Christ  said  to  the  disciples,  "  Have  con- 
 fidence, I  have  overcome  the  world ".  "  I  am  with  you, 
 who  have  overcome  that  world  against  which  you  will 
 have  to  contend.  I  am  with  you,  in  whom  the  prince  of 
 this  world  has  nothing  "  {S.  John  xiv.  30).  "  I  am  with 
 you,  whose  Father  has  promised  to  put  all  My  enemies 
 under  My  feet  as  My  footstool  "  {Ps.  cix.  2). 
 
 The  opinions  of  the  Ancients  on  the  meaning  of  this 
 passage  differ  greatly.  Some  think  that  Christ  spoke  not 
 of  His  human  but  of  His  divine  nature,  which  is  every- 
 where present.  Such  is  the  opinion  of  S.  Augustin  {Tract. 
 Ix.  on  S.  John),  Fulgentius  (iii.,  Cont.  Thrasyninnd.,  and  Lib. 
 de  Incarn.  ct  Grat.,  ix.).  But  it  is  clear  that  Christ  promised 
 something  less  general  to  the  Apostles.  He  promised  to 
 be  with  them  in  another  sense  than  that  in  which  He  is 
 present  with  other  things  and  other  men. 
 
 Others  think  that  He  spoke  of  His  Divine  Providence, 
 by  which  God  is  said  to  be  present  to  men  rather  than  to 
 inanimate  objects,  and  among  men  to  the  just  rather  than 
 to  the  unjust  ;  and  that,  even  if  He  should  depart,  He 
 would  still  be  with  them,  because  He  would  send  His 
 Holy  Spirit  in  His  place  to  teach  them  all  truth,  and 
 direct  and  govern  them  as  He  had  promised  {S.  John 
 xiv.  18).  Thus  S.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  {De  Trinit.,  vii.), 
 Salvian  (ii.,  De  Jiidic.  et  Provident.  Dei),  and  S.  Leo  {Ep. 
 li.,  xcii.)  explain  these  words.  This  is  all  true ;  but  the  ques- 
 tion is  not  merely  what  is  true,  but  what  is  best  adapted 
 to  the  meaning  of  the  passage.  It  is  to  be  admitted  that 
 Christ,  as  He  is  God,  is  everywhere  present,  but  He  here 
 
646  THE   (JOSI'EL   OF   S.    MATTHEW.  [Cn.  xxviii.  20. 
 
 promises  iinother  kind  of  presence  to  the  Apostles. 
 Christ,  after  He  had  sent  His  Holy  Spirit,  rules  His 
 Church  even  to  the  end  of  the  world.  I  do  not  deny  that 
 this  is  to  be  concluded  from  the  present  passage,  as  the 
 authors  mentioned  above  rightly  say,  but  the  question  is 
 not  what  may  be  gathered  from  what  He  said,  but  what 
 He  intended  to  say.  S.  Chrysostom  (JIoiii.  xci.  on  S. 
 Matt.),  S.  Jerome  {Ep.  to  Dantasus),  Prosper  (lib.  ii.,  Dc 
 Vocat.  Goii.),  Bede,  and  Euthymius  appear  to  have  ex- 
 plained the  passage  most  admirably,  in  saying  that  Christ 
 speaks  not  only  of  His  divine  but  also  of  His  human 
 presence.  Not  that  as  man  He  would  be  present  with  the 
 Apostles  in  His  body,  but  He  calls  His  grace  and  assistance 
 "  His  presence  ".  He  was  about  to  give  them  this,  not  only 
 as  He  was  God,  but  also  as  He  was  man.  For  it  is  said 
 that  He  would  be  present  with  them,  because  He  would  be 
 their  helper  in  all  things  ;  as  God  is  said  to  have  been  with 
 Joseph  in  the  pit,  because  He  brought  him  help  in  prison 
 ( IVisd.  X.  13  ;  Acts  vii.  9  ;  Ps.  xxxiii.  20) ;  and  in  2  Titn.  iii. 
 1 1,  where  S.  Paul  says  that  God  delivered  him  out  of  all  his 
 persecutions  ;  and  as  Christ  was  with  S.  Stephen  when  he 
 was  stoned,  when  S.  Stephen  himself  saw  Him  standing  in 
 heaven,  and  stretching  out  His  hand,  as  it  were,  to  help 
 him  {Acts  vii.  56)  ;  and  as  God  said  to  the  Prophet  Jere- 
 mias  when  he  refused  the  work  appointed  {Jcr.  i.  8),  "  Be 
 not  afraid  at  their  presence,  for  I  am  with  thee  to  deliver 
 thee,  saith  the  Lord  "  ;  and  to  Plzekiel  (iii.  8,  9),  "  I  have 
 made  thy  face  stronger  than  their  faces,  and  thy  forehead 
 harder  than  their  foreheads.  I  have  made  thy  face  like 
 an  adamant  and  like  flint  ;  fear  them  not,  neither  be 
 thou  dismayed  at  their  presence  ;  for  they  are  a  provoking 
 house  "  ;  and  as  Prosper  says  (chap,  ii.,  De  Vocat.  Gcjit.), 
 "  When  you  enter  like  sheep  in  the  midst  of  wolves,  fear 
 not  for  your  infirmity,  but  trust  in  My  strength,  who  will 
 be  with  you   in  every   work   of  yours  to  the  end  of  the 
 
Ch.  XXVIII.   20.]     PRESENCE  OF  CHRIST  IN  HIS  CHURCH.     647 
 
 world  :  not  that  you  may  suffer  nothing,  but,  what  is 
 much  more,  to  insure  you  from  being  overcome  by  any 
 cruelty  of  the  oppressors.  In  My  power  you  shall  preach, 
 and  by  Me  it  shall  be  that  among  the  enemy  and  perse- 
 cutor sons  shall  be  raised  up  of  these  stones  to  Abraham. 
 I  will  bring  to  pass  what  I  have  taught.  I  will  do  what  I 
 have  promised."  Lastly,  as,  when  Christ  sent  the  Apostles 
 to  preach  the  Gospel  to  the  Jews,  He  promised  them  His 
 presence  and  the  help  of  His  Holy  Spirit  (chap.  x.  19,  20), 
 so  now  He  promises  His  aid  and  presence  to  those  who 
 are  sent  to  teach  all  nations. 
 
 Even  to  the  consummation  of  the  world. 
 Christ  shows  that  He  speaks  not  with  the  Apostles 
 alone,  but  with  all  who  should  come  into  their  place,  and 
 who.  He  also  signifies,  shall  be  Apostles.  For  the  eleven, 
 with  whom  He  spoke,  would  not  live  to  the  end  of  the 
 world,  as  S.  Augustin  {De  Genes,  ad  litt.,  vi.  8)  and  Theo- 
 phylact  {in  loc.)  say.  This  is  preferable  to  S.  Jerome's 
 idea.  He  thinks  the  meaning  of  the  words  to  be,  that 
 the  Apostles  would  live  even  to  the  end  of  the  world, 
 because,  though  dead  in  the  body,  they  would  always  live 
 in  the  soul.  But  Christ  did  not  promise  to  be  with  them 
 in  heaven,  where  there  is  no  such  need  of  His  promise,  but 
 on  earth,  in  the  dust,  in  the  arena,  in  the  conflict.  S. 
 Jerome  {Against  Helvidius)  and  S.  Gregory  Nazianzen 
 {Orat.  iv.  de  Theolog.)  have  rightly  pointed  out  that  the 
 words  "  even  to  "  do  not  exclude  the  time  after  the  end  of 
 the  world,  as  if  Christ  meant  that  after  that  period  He 
 would  not  be  with  them.  On  this,  vid.  chap.  i.  25.  That 
 only  is  asserted  which  is  doubtful.  It  was  not  doubtful 
 that  after  the  end  of  the  world  Christ  would  be  with  the 
 Apostles  in  His  kingdom  ;  but  it  may  be  doubtful  whether 
 He  will  be  with  them  in  conflict,  as  in  Ps.  cix.  i  the  Father 
 says  to  the  Son,  "  Sit  thou  at  My  right  hand,  until  I  make 
 
64cS  THE   GOSPEL   OF    S.    MATTHEW.   [Cn.  xxviii.  20. 
 
 Thy  enemies  Thy  footstood  ".  This  does  not  mean  that 
 after  His  enemies  were  subdued  He  should  not  sit  on  the 
 right  hand  of  the  Father  ;  nay,  He  will  in  a  manner  sit 
 there  the  more,  for  His  glory  and  majesty  will  be  the  more 
 displayed.  But  even  if  the  explanation  we  have  cited  be 
 admitted,  nothing  wrong  would  follow  if  we  say  that  the 
 words  "even  to"  {iisgiie)  do  exclude  the  time  that  comes 
 after.  For  in  the  manner  in  which  Christ  said  that  He 
 would  be  with  the  Apostles  even  to  the  end  of  the  world  : 
 that  is,  by  aiding  them  in  their  conflicts  :  because  there  will 
 be  no  warfare  then,  but  they  will  reign,  He  will  not  be 
 with  them.  But  He  will  be  with  them  in  another  manner, 
 for  they  will  cat  and  drink  with  Him  in  His  kingdom  {S. 
 Liikc  xxii.  30). 
 
 END   OF   VOL. 
 
 ^ 
 
 h 
 
 ¥ 
 
 The  Aberdeen  University  Press. 
 
r"'^'"""- 
 
■fc'f^ 
 
BS2575.M244V.2 
 
 A  commentary  on  the  Holy  Gospels ... 
 
 Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Librar 
 
 1    1012  00064  6176