See other formats

Full text of "A commentary on the Holy Gospels"

NEW BOOKS AND NEW EDITIONS. 



The Heliotropium, or Conformity, of the Human : Will to the Divine. 

By JEREMY DREXELIUS. Translated from the Original Latin by R. N. 
SHUTTE, B.A. With a Preface by the late BISHOP FORBES. Second and 
Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo. 55. 

" A rational and simple-minded piety runs through the whole work, which forms excellent 
material for devotional reading, especially for men." Guardian. 

"An excellent book, and one that deserves to be more used than it is." Literary 
Churchiiian. 

Our Vicar s Stories. In Monthly Numbers. Illustrated. 6d each. No. I. 
RHODA ST. BARB: A Story in Three Chapters. No. 2. TRUE AS 
STEEL and WINNIE AND GRAND. No. 3. SUNFLOWER COURT : 
A Christmas Story. No. 4. THE PEARL MERCHANTS. No. 5. IN 
THE NEW FOREST. No. 6. JEM, A REAL REFORMER. Also the 
First and Second Series, cloth, 23. each ; and the Six Numbers in One 
Volume, cloth gilt, 35. 6d. 

The Autobiography of an Alms-Bag ; or, Sketches of Church and Social 
Life in a Watering- Place. By the author of " John Brown the Cordwainer," 
" Recreations of the People," &c. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. 

" A clever book. Sketchy, anecdotic, chatty, humorous, and suggestive. We read of 
many topics, nearly all full of interest. Curates, clergy-women, vicars, bishops, deans, 
parsons wives, and laymen of all sorts and conditions." Literary World. 

"Overflows with good stories effectively told, and most of them. brought into good and 
useful purpose." Guardian. 

A Chronicle of the English Benedictine Monks, from the Renewing of 
their Congregation in the Days of Queen Mary to the Death of James II. ; 
being the Chronological Notes of Dom. Bennett Weldon, O.S.B., a Monk of 
Paris. Edited, from a Manuscript in the Library of St. Gregory s Priory, 
Downside, by a Monk of the same Congregation. Demy 4to. 125. 6d. 

A Sketch of the Life and Mission of S. Benedict. With an Appendix, 
containing a complete List of the Benedictine Churches and Monasteries in 
England, with the Date of their Foundation. By a Monk of St. Gregory s 
Priory, Downsjde. Third Thousand, is. , post free. 

Notes on Ingersoll. By the Rev. L. A. LAMBERT, of Waterloo, New York. 
Revised and Reprinted from the 5oth Thousand. American Edition. Price 
2S. 6d. , post free. 



" By far the ablest antagonist infidelity has met with. Every possible objection brought 
by Ingersoll against Christianity is completely crushed by Lambert." Guardian, 

" We hail with gladness the appearance of this volume, and heartily wish it the extensive 
circulation in England it has had in America." Rock. 



Dishonest Criticism. Being a Chapter of Theology on Equivocation, and 
Doing Evil for a Good Cause. An Answer to Dr. RICHARD F. LITTLEDALE. 
By JAMES JONES, S.J., Professor of Moral Theology in St. Beuno s College. 
Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. 

" Nothing like it has appeared since Newman s reply to Kingsley." John Bull. 

A Latin Letter (with an English Translation) to His Holiness Pope 
Leo XIII., Successor of St. Peter and Primate of the Catholic Church. 8vo. 
is., post free. 

The Relations which at Present Exist between Church and State in 
England : A Letter to the Right Hon. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P., First Lord 
of the Treasury, &c. 8vo. is., post free. 



Mr. Gray and his Neighbours. Second Edition. Two Vols. Crown Svo. 
95. 

" The Bishop and Mr. Gunter the Evangelist are two as well sketched and illustrated char- 
acters as any that can be found out of the pages of Mr. Anthony Trollope. The reader will 
thoroughly enjoy the humorous situations in which these gentlemen are placed. Bishop 
Stubblegrass is equal to Bishop Proudie himself, which is saying not a little." Nonconformist. 

" Mr. Gunter, the very unspiritual Rector, who cares less for principles than preferment, 
and who makes his Laodicean principles pay, is a clever caricature." Standard. 

" Alice Gray is a finely drawn character with all the virtues of a sincere Christian and the 
heroism of a Grace Darling." Stamford Mercury. 

The Life of the Right Rev. Samuel Seabury, D.D., First Bishop of 

Connecticut and of the American Church. By E. E. BEARDSLEY, D.D., 

President of the General Convention of the American Church. Crown Svo. 

6s. , post free. 

" He has told in a calm and simple style, with much dignity and restraint of panegyric, the 

story of a great and good man whose deeds live after him to remote generations." The 

Literarv ll orld. 

" He was a man who was in advance of his age, to whom the Church must always look up 

with admiration and reverent thankfulness, and be grateful also to Dr. Beardsley for this 

tribute to his memory." The Guardian. 

The Children s Musical Longfellow. Containing about 400 Songs. The 
words from Longfellow. To be Published in Shilling Parts, each complete in 
itself, and sold separately. Part I., containing 30 Songs. Post free on receipt 
of is. 

The Westminster Hymnal, for Congregational Use. Containing the most 
popular English and Latin Hymns and Tunes, and also a Number of New 
Hymns and Tunes, Selected, Written, and Composed expressly for this Work. 
Edited by HENRI C. HEMY. Part I., containing 52 Hymns for Advent, 
Christmas, and Epiphany. Price is. [Now ready. 

Reflections Delivered at the Mid-day Celebration of Holy Communion, 
in the Church of S. Mary-le-Strand. By A. B. EVANS, D.D., Rector. Crown 
8vo., cloth. 6s. 
" Let a man, before preparing his own sermon, sit down and read through carefully and 

.slowly one of these Reflections, and he will certainly derive a lesson in method, and instruc 

tion how to reflect, from a true master of the science, which he could not easily learn else 

where. " Ecclesiastical Gazette. 

Christ and the People. Sermons on the Obligations of the Church to the 
State and to the People. By THOMAS HANCOCK, M.A., Lecturer at St. 
Nicholas Cole Abbey. 
" As compared with the general run of pious, feminine, hazy sermons, they are as a breeze 

on the hill-top to the close atmosphere of a sick-room, with its faint smell of medicines and 

perfumes." Church Times. 

BY STEWART D. HEADLAM, B.A. 
Priestcraft and Progress. Lectures and Sermons. Second Edition. 2s. 6d. 

The Service of Humanity, and other Sermons. Price 2s. 6d. 

"Almost every page.contains suggestive hints which all \vill do well to ponder, especially 
those brought into contact with secularism and infidelity." Ecclesiastical Gazette. 

" Our advice to the clergy and laity is to get this book, read it, preach it, and live by it." 
Church Times. 

Theology and Life. Sermons preached in Newcastle-on-Tyne. By Professor 

SYMES, M.A. Crown Svo. 25. 6d. 

" Mr. SYMES has taken great pains with his Newcastle sermons ; they are more individual 
in application, and the language is carefully chosen. To those of our readers who are per 
plexed and troubled by the incoming wave of Socialistic thought and action we commend these 
works. . . . Unless we highly mistake they will learn how to make the Church a greater social 
power, and if so the end of these publications will have been attained." Church. Times. 



The Life of Adrian IV. (Nicholas Brakespere), the only English Pope. 
By the Right Rev. EDWARD TROLLOPE, D.D., Bishop of Nottingham, Suffra 
gan of Lincoln. [/n the Press. 



JOHN HODGES, 25 HENRIETTA STREET, LONDON, W.C. 



CATHOLIC STANDARD LIBRARY 

JOHN MALDONATUS 
ON THE HOLY GOSPELS 



THE ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY PRESS: 

JOHN THOMSON AND J. F. THOMSON, M.A. 



A COMMENTARY 



ON THE 



HOLY GOSPELS 



JOHN MALDONATUS 



TRANSLATED AND EDITED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN BY 

GEORGE J. DAVIE, M.A. 

EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD 
ONE OF THE TRANSLATORS OF THE LIBRARY OF THE FATHERS, ETC. 



S. MATTHEW S GOSPEL, CHAPTERS I. TO XIV. 



SECOND EDITION 



JOHN HODGES 
HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON 

1888 



MAR 2 3 1959 



LIFE OF JOHN MALDONATUS. 



THE life of a member of a religious order, a student 
at once, and a teacher, is seldom one of much action 
or adventure, and that of John Maldonatus was no 
exception to this rule. 

We learn from his contemporary biographers that 
he was born of good parentage in the village of 
Zaphara or Safra, in Estramudura, in the south of 
Spain, about the year 1534; and he early distin 
guished himself as a scholar and divine. He studied 
in the University of Salamanca under the most cele 
brated teachers of the day : especially Fr. Dominic 
of the Order of S. Dominic, and Francis of Toledo, 
afterwards Cardinal. 

He became a member of the Society of Jesus in 
1562 at Rome, where for some time he was known 
as a teacher of Theology. He removed thence to 
Paris, in the newly-opened schools of which city he 
spent ten years as teacher of Philosophy and Theo 
logy, with great fame. His popularity was so great 
that his hearers frequently assembled two or three 
hours before the appointed time, in such numbers 
that there was a struggle for places, and he was 
obliged to give his lectures in the college quad 
rangle. 

He afterwards taught at Poitiers. The Cardinal 



VI LIFE OF JOHN MALDONATUS. 

of Lorraine, desirous of bringing renown to an 
institution which he had at heart, induced him to 
come to the university which he had founded at 
Pont-a-Mousson. On his return to Paris he con 
tinued to teach with undiminished reputation. 

But his zeal and learning did not, unfortunately, 
prevent him at one time from falling under suspicion. 
He was accused of having unduly influenced Presi 
dent Montbrun to make a bequest of the whole of 
his property to the Society of Jesus. Of this charge 
he was acquitted by a decree of the Parliament of 
Paris. He was also accused of having taught errors 
on the subject of the Immaculate Conception. The 
Sorbonne raised this indictment against him because 
he had said that this was not a certain and incon 
testable doctrine, an opinion which was then tenable. 
Pope Gregory XIII. referred the case to Dr. P. 
Gondi, Bishop of Paris, and subsequently Cardinal. 
The Bishop presided in person at an inquiry into 
his life and conduct, which resulted in his entire 
acquittal. This, however, only increased the desire 
to persecute him ; but he escaped his adversaries by 
withdrawing to Bourges, where he retired from 
public teaching and devoted himself to literary 
labours ; the chief of which was the compilation of 
those Commentaries on the Scriptures of which the 
present volume forms a part, and for which his 
name has since been so well known. In about 
eighteen months, Maldonatus was summoned to 
Rome, by Pope Gregory XIII., to superintend an 
edition of the Septuagint. After a short period he 
died in that city in the 5ist year of his age, A.D. 
1584. 



LIFE OF JOHN MALDONATUS. Vll 

Maldonatus was one of the most learned theo 
logians of his Society, and one of the finest geniuses 
of his age. He is described as being gifted by 
nature with admirable quickness of wit and great 
subtlety and penetration, excellent judgment, a most 
tenacious memory, and indefatigable diligence in 
study, by which he made himself master of the 
Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, and other Eastern languages, 
as is shown throughout his works. To this may be 
added a profound knowledge of the Greek and Latin 
fathers and historians of the Church. 

In his moral life, his goodness, or rather holiness, 
was great. He showed much contempt for worldly 
distinction and honour. He was humble of heart, 
and of alrrfost incredible modesty of mind. He was 
well received by the great, but his humility con 
stantly induced him to decline their overtures, even 
to the extent of being thought by some to be 
haughty and morose. He was ardent and continual 
in devotion, prayer, and divine meditation, exceed 
ingly simple and temperate in his diet, and so true a 
follower of primitive poverty as to refuse to possess 
anything of his own ; even when he travelled he 
took nothing with him but the clothes he was 
wearing, and these mean rather than even simple 
and unostentatious. In a word, he was a man 
crucified to the world and to himself. 

Maldonatus when near his end delivered his 
Commentaries to the care of Claude Aquaviva, 
General of his Society, who gave orders to the 
Jesuits of Pont-a-Mousson, in Lorraine, to print 
them from a copy which was sent to them. These 
acknowledge, in the^preface of the work, that they 



Vlil LIFE OF JOHN MALDONATUS. 

had inserted some things of their own, and that they 
had been obliged to correct the MS. copy, which 
was defective in some places, it not being in their 
power to consult the original, which was at Rome. 
The author, moreover, not having noted in the 
margin of the copy the books and places whence he 
had taken a good part of his citations, they had 
supplied this defect. 

Naturally, Maldonatus is not always as exact as if 
he had himself put the last touch to his Com 
mentary ; but, notwithstanding this defect, and 
some others easy to correct, it can be well seen that 
the author laboured with great diligence at t his 
excellent work. He allows no difficulty to pass 
which he does not examine to the bottom. When 
he finds many literal meanings to the same passage, 
he is accustomed to select the best, without having 
too much regard to the authority of ancient com 
mentators, nor even to the majority : considering 
only the truth in itself. He often rejects the inter 
pretation of S. Augustin, not only on points of 
grammar or criticism, but even in the important 
facts of Theology ; being persuaded, that whatever 
weight his authority has, it should not serve as a 
rule to theologians. He is not servilely attached 
to the opinions of scholastic theologians ; he 
thought for himself, and had opinions sufficiently 
free, and sometimes singular, but always orthodox. 
If he is a little too diffuse on some matters of con 
troversy, he could not be otherwise according to the 
design which he proposed to himself of replying to 
heretics, principally Calvinists, who had published 
Commentaries on the New Testament, filled with 



LIFE OF JOHN MALDONATUS. IX 

disputes of this kind. His controversies are not 
wearisome, because he does not make long digres 
sions. 

His style is clear and didactic. Great facility of 
expression, great vivacity, the presence of spirit and 
flexibility rendered him very formidable in disputa 
tion. He is, indeed, sometimes cutting and severe ; 
but if we compare him with Calvin and Beza, who 
continually declaim against the Roman Church, he 
appears moderate. Those even among the Cal- 
vinists who considered him an evil speaker, " male- 
dicentissimus Maldonatus," have not been able to 
refrain from praises of his strength of mind and 
great erudition. 

Of his works, we have : 

I. An excellent Commentary on the Gospels : the 
best editions of which are those of Pont-a-Mous- 
son, in folio, 1595, and the following ones until 
1617; for those which have been made since are 
much altered. 

II. A Treatise on the Sacraments, with other 
Opuscula, printed at Lyons, 1614, in quarto. 

III. A Treatise on Grace, one on Original Sin, 
one on the Rites of the Church ; Scholia on the 
Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, 
and Isaiah, and many other pieces : published in 
Paris in 1677, in folio. This volume is enriched 
with a preface in his praise. 

IV. A Treatise upon Angels and Demons, Paris, 
1617. This curious and rare work has only been 
printed in French ; being translated from the Latin, 
which has never seen the light, by Fr. Arnauld, 
Seigneur of Laborie. 



X LIFE OF JOHN MALDONATUS. 

V. Summula Casuum Conscientiae, the teaching 
of which appears somewhat lax. 

VI. Tractatus de Ceremoniis, which was printed 
for the first time at Rome in 1781, in quarto, by the 
care of Francois Antoine Zaccaria, in the Bibliotheca 
Ritualis. 

He alludes sometimes to writings which he had 
dictated, and which he had intended to publish, 
frequently citing one entitled, " Liber Hebraicarum 
lectionum," in which he treats, in several lectures, 
the Hebrew text where it differs from the Septuagint. 

M. du Bois, a learned doctor of the Sorbonne, 
who cannot be a suspicious witness, eulogises him in 
a preface which he wrote to the Theological works 
of this learned man, printed at Paris in 1677.* The 
present Translation has been made from the May- 
ence folio of 1596, collated with the octavo, also of 
Mayence, of 1853. It should be stated that the 
Editor of the latter has made several omissions from 
the folio, some of which, at least, appear of impor 
tance. These, with very rare exceptions, have been 
restored in the Translation, a few passages merely 
having been passed over which would seem to have 
been penned rather in the spirit of the times of Mal- 
donatus than of our own. None of these bear in 
any way on questions of doctrine, nor have any 
of them been ventured upon without the support of 
the octavo. Their existence forms one reason 
among others for our regret that the Author did 
not live to revise and correct his great work. 

* R. Simon, " Histoire critique des principaux Commentateurs 
du Nouveau Testament ". F. X. de Feller, Diet. Historique, Art. 
" Maldonat ". 



PREFACE. 



THE Preface shall consist of a brief preliminary 
disquisition on some points, before proceeding to 
the explanation of the Gospels themselves. They 
may be arranged under six heads. 

I. The meaning of the words " Evangel " and 

" Evangelist ". 

II. What and whence their authority. 
III. What their number, and why neither less nor 

more than four. 
IV. Where each was written. 
V. In what language. 
VI. To what end and purpose. 

CHAPTER I. 

OF THE VARIOUS MEANINGS OF THE WORDS "GOSPEL" 
(EVANGEL) AND "EVANGELIST". 

THE word " Gospel " means a happy and pleasant 
message, and evayyeXteu , or, as it is more frequently 
written, evayyeXi^ea-ffai, signifies the beginning of 
such a message. This is so well known that it 
needs less to be mentioned than not passed over. 
It is less known that these two words, although 



Xll THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. 

sometimes found in profane authors, are more pro 
perly the possession of the Church. Through the 
LXX. they seem to have been in a manner be 
stowed by the State upon the Church. For other 
Greek authors, even when relating the most fortu 
nate events, use the term of ordinary announce 
ments dyye XXeij>, rather than the more proper one 
uayyeXie^. But the Hebrews with the utmost 
scrupulousness retain the correct meaning of the 
term *W1 when relating prosperous circumstances. 
In all other cases they keep the usual expression 
TOT SPDt^n. The difference between the terms is 
seen in the following passages of Scripture : 2 
Kings iv. 10; xviii. 19, 25, 26, 31 ; 4 Kings vii. 9. 
There are two passages in which the word "fttH 
seems to be used in a calamitous sense (i Kings iv. 
17). Eli was told that the ark was taken by the 
Philistines, the people of Israel slaughtered and 
dispersed, and his two sons slain. The term used 
of the messenger is "Wlft " Evangelista". The 
other is (2 Kings i. 20) where David laments for 
the death of Saul and Jonathan, and says, " Publish 
it not in the streets of Ascalon," Ne ista Evan- 
gelizetis in plateis Ascalon, nsim VYttnn h& J^jWM. 
But even in these passages the true meaning of the 
word is preserved. In the former, not because it 
was a happy message, as some think, because 
wicked priests were killed. Even if so, it was not 
such to the father to be told that the people were 
destroyed and the ark taken, for on hearing it he 
fell to the ground as one dead and broke his neck ; 



PREFACE. Xlll 

but because the author of the book used the word 
not in accordance with truth and fact, but agreeably 
to the opinion and expectation of the people, who 
thought that the ark of the Lord in the camp was a 
sure harbinger of victory. Unless we are to think 
that the word was used ironically, which, in so great 
a calamity, we should hardly feel to be right ; to 
laugh at a person overwhelmed with misfortune, 
being to make light of his suffering. In the latter 
case, although the death of Saul and Jonathan 
caused grief to David, it brought joy to the Philis 
tines, " lest," as he immediately adds, " the daughters 
rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised 
triumph". In these cases the Hebrew *TO1 and the 
LXX. euayyeXieo-#ai are used properly. For while 
the LXX. emulously endeavoured to give the force 
of the Hebrew word, they made the word euayyeXi- 
ecr#cu so well known, that it seems to be not so 
much a word of the Greeks as of the Church. For 
the LXX. borrowed it from the Hebrews, the 
Apostles from the LXX., and the whole Church, 
both Greek and Latin, received it from the Apostles. 
The Church uses evangelizare like baptizare, so that 
if any abstained from their use he would be thought 
very little religious, and be justly considered to 
possess the spirit of Cicero rather than of the 
Church. The word " Gospel " (euayyeXio* ) then 
means a gift given to one who brings good tidings. 
It was used by Homer (xiv. 152) and by the Hebrews 
(2 Kings xviii. 20-22), mttfl, Though the LXX. 
in the two latter instances use not euayye Xto^, but in 



XIV THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. 

the one evayyeXLo-jjiov, and in the other evayyeXiav. 
So also a sacrifice which was offered in gratitude for 
the receipt of good news has been noticed by many, 
and is known, I suppose, by all. In the same way 
our great Divine Sacrifice was styled by the earliest 
Greek Christians Euxa/oicma, and the Latins took 
the term from them. To us Christians, then, the 
word " Gospel " means nothing else than a good and 
wished-for message, and not that only but the one 
than which none better or more desired could either 
be brought to man or sent by God : the Son of God, 
made man to procure our salvation, and by His 
death (that is, His most glorious victory), at the 
hands of the most cruel of men, to deliver us from 
certain and never-dying death. And this word has 
attained to more honour in the Church, in which He 
in a certain manner sojourned, than in Greece its 
own country. For, forgetful of all other meanings, 
it declares especially and above all others, /car l^o^p, 
only that which is the most excellent of all things^ 
proclaiming nothing less than Christ, the salvation 
of man, heaven, and a life of beatitude. 

Thus, and rightly, it was received by S. Ambrose, 
or, rather, Remigius (Rom. i. and Gal. i.) and Euse- 
bius (i., De Prcep. Evang.\ These define the Gospel 
as a good message by which sinners are brought to 
mercy. If we add " through Christ," the message 
will be not only perfect, but also more explicit. 
But even this does not exhaust the subject. 

The word Evangelium may be noticed as taken 
in the New Testament in four senses. 



PREFACE. XV 

1. For the joyful message itself which is an 
nounced (as in Matt. iv. 23 ; ix. 35 ; Mark i. 14). 

2. For the doctrine of Christ (Matt. xxiv. 14 ; 
xxvi. 12 ; Mark i. 15 ; viii. 35 ; x. 29). 

3. For the preaching of the Gospel, as very fre 
quently found in S. Paul (Rom. i. i ; xvi. 25 ; i Cor. 
iv. 15; ix. 23; Gal. ii. 2). 

4. The History in which the Gospel, that is, the 
coming of Christ to us and His life, are related 
(Mark i. i). I do not know if it be found in this 
sense elsewhere. For what S. Paul says, when 
speaking of S. Luke, " whose praise is in the 
Gospel," although many, and the great S. Jerome 
among them, on S. Luke (in his De Viris I I lust.}, 
think that wherever he speaks of his own Gospel, as 
he often does, that of S. Luke is to be understood ; 
yet the explanation is not certain. It is more pro 
bable that S. Paul was commending the great daily 
labour of S. Luke in preaching, beset as it was 
with many perils, than that of his writing, which 
was not so great, and was very brief and free from 
danger. 

In this sense, then, these four books are called 
the Gospels, so that we may define them to be a 
History containing the advent of Christ to us and His 
acts, and approved by the authority of the Catholic 
Church as dictated by the Holy Ghost. For not 
every History of Christ, though true, is a Gospel, 
unless the authority of the Church is given to it, as 
we shall show in the second Chapter of our Preface. 

The Evangelists, however that is, they who 

b 



xvi THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. 

wrote the Evangelical History although deriving 
their appellation from the Evangel, are never, as 
far as I remember, so called in Scripture, but they 
who preach the Gospel (Isa. lii. 7, although the 
Greek LXX. have not translated the passage, and 
Acts xxi. 8 ; Ephes. iv. 1 1 ; 2 Tim. iv. 2). Yet the 
ecclesiastical custom has obtained that they who 
never have this title in those books are always 
known by it in common life, and they who are 
called Evangelists in the Sacred Books are never 
ordinarily called so, whilst they who never bear that 
title in those writings always receive it in common 
conversation. Nor is the language of our mother to 
be held in contempt, but followed. For even in 
cities, they who use the language learnt from their 
mothers or nurses, so that it be not vulgar, but 
elegant and correct, are considered the best speakers, 
as was the case with the most famous orators of 
ancient Rome. And as in the city to use unpolished 
expressions is thought barbarous, so in the Church to 
make use of unecclesiastical terms savours of heresy. 
Let him, then, be an Evangelist to us who at the 
dictation of the Holy Ghost wrote the Evangelical 
History, and who has been approved as such by the 
Catholic Church. 

CHAPTER II. 

THE AUTHORITY OF THE EVANGELISTS. 

To those who have not studied the History of the 
Church it may appear strange that we should inquire 



PREFACE. XV11 

into the extent of the authority possessed by the 
Evangelists. But whosoever has done so will 
remember that many heretics were found in ancient 
times who sought to detract from the authority even 
of the four Evangelists themselves, whose words it 
seems to us profane to question ; and he will under 
stand that while in no sense doubting, ourselves, it is 
a duty for us to doubt for others, lest they doubt 
for themselves. 

The Ebionites received S. Matthew only because, 
while wholly intent on asserting the true human 
nature of Christ, this Evangelist appeared to be the 
one who less than the rest opposed their wickedness 
(S. Irenaeus, i. 26). Others admitted S. Mark only, 
whom S. Irenaeus (i. 26) reprehends without naming 
them. Others, like the Marcionists and Cerdonians, 
received only S. Luke. These are mentioned by 
Tertullian (De Prczs. and iv., Against Marcioii) ; 
S. Irenaeus (iii. 1 1); Philaster (chap, xlv.) ; S. Epipha- 
nius (Her., xlii.). The Manichaeans and others like 
them admitted only S. John, as we learn from S. 
Augustin. The Alogiani, a kind of Arians, accepted 
all but S. John. They could not hear that heavenly 
thunder by which their heresy was wholly destroyed, 
as smitten by a voice from heaven : "In the begin 
ning," &c. We are told this by S. Epiphanius 
(Her., 1L). 

Not, indeed, that these different heretics received 
the Gospels which they accepted, in their truth and 
integrity, but in a mutilated and, to use the words 
of S. Irenaeus, circumcised form. They carefully re- 



xviii THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. 

jected whatever was opposed to their own heresy, and 
under pretence of correcting they largely mutilated 
the text. They could not therefore be refuted by 
Catholics except from those texts which from forget- 
fulness, heedlessness, or over-confidence they had 
left uncorrupted. Tertullian (v., Contra Marcion) 
derides the sponge of Marcion, which he had not 
drawn with sufficient care over all those passages 
from which he could have been refuted. 

Others, not to appear profane, but religious, com 
prehended that the Evangelists had been corrupted 
by heretics, and that they might not prove them 
selves altogether false, under pretence of amend 
ing, they themselves corrupted them ; and thus a 
pretended adulteration became the cause of real 
corruption. " That heresy," says Tertullian (iv., 
Against Marcion], " is not of divine authority but 
of human temerity, which thus always mends when 
it vitiates the Gospels." All classes of heretics 
employed themselves in these practices, but the 
Manichaeans excelled them all. And thus S. 
Augustin (Ep. xix.) could scarcely find any locus 
standi against them ; but by these means they con 
tinually cut away the ground from under his feet. 
This was an old-standing artifice with heretics ; for 
even in the first age of the Apostles themselves, 
as S. Ignatius says (Ep. i. ad Philadelph.}, there 
were some so full of universal suspicion that they 
said they would not believe even the Gospels 
themselves unless they found them in the archives 
of the Church. 



PREFACE. XIX 

The Manichaeans, by a different but not a lighter 
wickedness, said that our Gospels were not written 
by those whose names they bear, but by others long 
after them, who had neither seen what they relate 
themselves, nor received them from those who had. 
So S. Augustin (xxxiii., 3, Cont. Faust?). Faustus 
himself, a chief man among the Manichaeans, says 
that the Manichaeans had their own pure and in 
corrupt Gospel, which the Holy Ghost had given 
to Manichseus. It was the custom, indeed, of all 
heretics not to admit the Scriptures, but to make 
them ; not to receive, but to give them. And in 
these days we should not have the four Gospels but 
for the good-will and pleasure of Calvin, for he 
might have rejected these with the same audacity as 
that by which he rejected so many other books 
that are approved by the Church. The four 
Evangelists, then, have the same authority as 
the Holy Spirit Himself has, whose amanuenses 
in the composition of them they were. Our own 
letters derive not their authority from being written 
by a servant, but from having been dictated by 
ourselves. 

Modern heretics are offended, and regard us with 
a holy horror, because we say that the Evangelists 
and other sacred writers derive their authority from 
the Church, as if we were putting the Church before 
God. They do not understand, acute as they think 
themselves, that we say that the Church gives 
authority to Scripture, because she declares that it 
was given and dictated by God. Why do they not 



XX THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. 

blame those who say that royal letters have their 
authority from the chancellor who affixes the seal 
to them, as if they set the servant above the lord ? 
The Church, and not Calvin, has the seal of God, 
that very Spirit which was promised and given, not 
to Calvin, but to the Church, that He might remain 
with her for ever. It is He who first dictated the 
four Gospels, and then taught us that they were 
dictated by Him, through the Church. And He, 
the same Spirit, tells us that the spirit of Calvin, by 
which he approves these Scriptures and disapproves 
those, is an heretical one. But whilst all the sacred 
writers have the very greatest authority that they 
can possibly have, yet the four Evangelists, if there 
can possibly be a greater than the greatest, have 
one greater than the greatest. For there is no 
Christian but, by some religious impulse, whilst he 
ascribes to the sacred writers the most authority 
possible, gives to the four Evangelists still more, both 
because these commemorate the very words and 
acts of Christ, so that when he reads them, he seems 
to see and hear Christ Himself, as S. Basil has 
observed on the opening words of S. John s Gospel, 
and because the Gospels are the end of the ancient 
Scriptures, the foundation of the new, and the first 
fruits, as Origen calls them of all (Origen, torn, i., In 
Joann.\ and because the same things have been said 
by four witnesses. This multitude of witnesses is 
necessary, not, indeed, to the faith, but to human 
frailty. 



PREFACE. XXI 

CHAPTER III. 

THE NUMBER OF THE EVANGELISTS. 

THAT there were many writers of the Gospels we 
have the evidence of one who deserves the highest 
confidence S. Luke (i.). We learn the same fact 
still more clearly and distinctly from the writings of 
antiquity. For in S. Clement (Alex. Strom., ii., Hi.), 
Origen (Tract, in S. Matt.}, S. Irenaeus (i. 15), S 
Athanasius (In Synops.), S. Epiphanius (Her., xxvi., 
xlvi.), S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome (Prolog, in S. 
Matt.}, S. Ambrose (i., On S. Luke i.), we read of 
the Gospel of the Hebrews, Nazarenes, Ebionites ; 
of James, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, 
even Judas the traitor, and the twelve Apostles. 
Many heretics also composed or invented Gospels, 
as Apelles and Basilides in S. Epiphanius. Of so 
many the Church, by a mystical number as has been 
thought, only approved four. The heretics, when 
they had rejected the four true, received the false. 
As Origen and S. Ambrose have truly said : " The 
Church, although she has only four books of the 
Gospel, overflows through the whole world with 
Evangelists ; heresy, while it has many Gospels, 
has not one. It has been asked why, as so many 
wrote Gospels, the Church has never received more 
than four ? The answer is obvious. She found 
that no more than four were written by the Holy 
Spirit. This is believed to have been the act of the 
Holy Spirit. Many reasons are given for it, but 



XX11 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. 

those of S. Irenaeus (iii. n), Anastasius (Qucest. 5 
in Script. \ S. Jerome (Prologue in Matt.), and S. 
Augustin (De Consens., i. 2) seem to be the best- 
that there are four quarters of the globe through 
which the Gospel was to be published. For God 
in the government of His Church seems to have a 
regard to this number, so as to act and speak in 
accordance with the custom of men and the nature 
of things. Thus Christ says (S. Matt. xxiv. 31) 
that when the Gospel is about to be ended and the 
harvest gathered in, He would send His angels (four 
in number, very probably) to the four winds to reap 
where they have sowed ; and there will be an equal 
number of the morning and evening in a fourfold 
division of the earth. 

So, in the Apocalypse (vii. i), the lour angels will 
hold the four winds, and, in Ezekiel i. 16 and 
Apocalypse iv. 6, the chariot on which the Divine 
Majesty sits will be drawn by the four beasts. The 
Gospel is the chariot of God, in which the Divine 
Majesty shines most brightly ; for, as S. Paul says, 
"it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone 
that believeth" (Rom. i. 16). It was therefore to be 
drawn by the four beasts. 

And as the four Evangelists were represented in 
the Old Testament by the creatures, ancient authors 
have said that they were so by the four rivers of 
Paradise, and (S. Jerome, Prolog, in S. Marc.) by 
the four rings by which the ark was carried, the 
other figures seem to be both rightly adapted to 
them, and probable. This one seems not only pro- 



PREFACE. XX111 

bable, but even certain, and to have been instituted 
by the Holy Spirit to this very end the fore 
showing of the future Evangelists. 

For it cannot be doubted that the four beasts 
mean the same thing in Ezekiel and the Apocalypse. 
But as it is clear that the twenty-four Ancients who 
sit around the throne (Apoc. iv.) signify the four- 
and-twenty columns of the Church, the twelve 
Patriarchs and the twelve Apostles, it is clear that 
the four beasts which bear the throne show the four 
Evangelists. It was not without reason, nor, as I 
believe, divine inspiration, that while the ancient 
Fathers differ in assigning the figures to the four 
Evangelists, they all agree on this point (S. 
Irenaeus, iii. i ; S. Jerome, Prol. to Matth. ; and 
others). Human minds are seldom found in har 
mony with the Divine Spirit. But why God sat 
with those four animals the man, the ox, the lion, 
and the eagle rather than any others, some reasons 
have been given in the Commentary on Ezekiel. It 
is sufficient here to give a few of those which the 
ancient Fathers have given. These four animals 
seem the best adapted to express the peculiar 
features of the four Evangelists. For S. John, fly 
ing upwards with a great rush even to the Divinity 
of our Lord, resembles the eagle ; S. Luke, begin 
ning with the offices of a priest, resembles the ox of 
sacrifice ; S. Mark, beginning with the voice of one 
crying in the desert, represents the lion roaring in 
the wilderness ; S. Matthew, beginning from the 
human generation of Christ, makes himself, as 



XXIV THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. 

it were, a man with Christ. Thus almost all authors 
apply these four creatures to the four Evangelists, 
some a little differently to others ; for S. Iremeus, 
the most ancient of all, makes S. John the lion and 
S. Mark the eagle, because the former commences 
boldly at once : " In the beginning," and S.Mark, 
with the spirit of prophecy, begins : " The voice of 
one ". But this diversity does not detract from the 
faithfulness of the figure. Sedulius, a Christian 
poet, thinks that the Evangelists being four in 
number represents the universality of the times. 
For he says that the twelve Apostles signify the 
twelve months of the year, and the four Evangelists 
the four seasons through which the sun of the 
Gospel takes his annual course. 

CHAPTER IV. 

AT WHAT TIME THE EVANGELISTS WROTE. 

WITH regard to the time at which each Evangelist 
wrote his Gospel, almost all authors seem to agree 
that they wrote them in the order in which they 
now stand. It is not doubtful, therefore, that S. 
Matthew comes first, S. Mark second, S. Luke 
third, and S. John last. But the precise time and 
place are uncertain. 

Most say that S. Matthew wrote in the third year 
of Caligula that is, the eighth after the Ascen 
sion, when S. Peter and S. Paul were preaching at 
Rome and that he composed it most especially for 
his own people in Judea. So say S. Irenaeus (iii. 



PREFACE. XXV 

i), though he does not mention the time of Cali 
gula ; S. Athanasius (Synop.) ; Eusebius (Hist., v. 
8, and Chron.} ; S. Chrysostom ; S. Augustin (De 
Consens., i. 2) ; and Theophylact (Comment, on S. 
Matt.\ These mention it as the tradition of the 
Church. Eusebius and S. Athanasius say that S. 
Mark was then at Antioch ; Theophylact says that 
S. Mark published his Gospel ten years after, S. 
Luke fifteen, S. John thirty-two ; he says in his 
prologue that S. John wrote his Gospel in the 
island of Patmos ; Nicephorus and others that he 
wrote it at Ephesus, after his return from banish 
ment. S. Isidore (De Sanct. Nov. Test.\ Bede, 
Euthymius, Theophylact, Nicephorus, say that he 
wrote it before the destruction of Jerusalem, thirty- 
two or thirty-three years after the Ascension, and 
they who assert that he wrote it at Patmos must 
hold the same opinion. S. Jerome and others say 
that he wrote it after the destruction of that city 
sixty-eight years. Bede says sixty-five after the 
Ascension. 

CHAPTER V. 

IN WHAT LANGUAGE THE EVANGELISTS WROTE. 

IT was the constant opinion of all the Ancients that 
the others wrote in Greek, which was then the 
almost universal language, but that S. Matthew 
wrote in Hebrew. This was the opinion of the 
authors mentioned above, Papias, a very ancient 
author quoted by Eusebius (Hist., iii. 39), S. Epi- 
phanius (Her., xxx), S. Chrysostom (Horn. i. in 



XXVI THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. 

Matt.\ S. Jerome (De vit. Illust. and Prol. in 
Matt.}, and whoever has treated of the subject. 
But who translated it into Greek is quite uncertain. 
Few say anything on the subject, and those do not 
agree among themselves. For S. Athanasius says 
it was James the brother of S. John ; Theophylact 
that it was S. John himself. S. Augustin leaves it 
undecided ; and I seem most inclined to follow his 
opinion. S. Jerome says that he saw the Hebrew 
version, and there is one still extant; but whether it 
is in all respects the same as that mentioned by S. 
Jerome may be a question. I cannot help the sus 
picion that it has passed through the hands first of 
Jews and then of heretics neither of them very 
trustworthy persons. 

To deny that S. Matthew wrote a Gospel in 
Hebrew, as some not unlearned men of our age 
have done, is somewhat rash. I, at least, cannot 
agree with them, for the constant opinion of anti 
quity, and the authority of all ancient writers, are of 
more weight with me than the reasoning of these 
persons, however acute. Their assertion, that S. 
Matthew could not have written in Hebrew because 
he so often explains Hebrew words (as "Emmanuel," 
that is, "God with us" ; "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani" 
that is, " My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken 
me "), is not of sufficient weight to induce me to give 
up an opinion confirmed by so many ages of anti 
quity, and the question why he explains these two 
Hebrew words rather than all the others, if he wrote 
all in Hebrew, is of still less. 



PREFACE. XXV11 

In what language should he explain them? In 
Hebrew ? This was not needed. In some other ? 
He could not when he was not writing in any other. 
By this reasoning it might be proved that the Old 
Testament was not written in Hebrew, nor the New 
in Greek. 

For even in the Old Testament Hebrew words 
are sometimes explained by Greek, often by Latin, 
ones ; and in the New Testament we have Greek 
explanations, as (i Kings vii. i2)*rtyn pN mwnN 
frn,T1 "He called its name Ebenchezer," to w^hich 
the LXX. added the explanation : "He called the 
place The stone of help ". 

In Gen. xxxi. 48 : " The name thereof was 
called iyh$". The Latin adds: " That is, the wit 
ness heap ". 

In Gen. xxxv. 18, she called his name *01N"p 
that is, "the son of my pain," as is added by the 
Latin, and again " but his father called him "pMl". 
The Latin explains it as "the son of my right 
hand ". 

Exodus xvi. 15, 31 : "The house of Israel called 
the name thereof NIPT p " The Latin adds " which 
signified! What is this ? " 

In Apocalypse ix. n : "Whose name in Hebrew 
is Abaddon, and in Greek Apollyon ". The Latin 
version adds: " In Latin Exterminans ". 

If Moses wrote in Hebrew, how does he explain 
Hebrew words? If S. John wrote in Greek, how 
does he explain Greek words by Latin ? These 
explanations are not the work of the author, but of 



xxviii THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. 

the translator, and it is not improbable that a writer 
in Hebrew may explain one Hebrew word by 
another ; as we often do in ordinary conversation 
with a compound word or one not in common use. 

For example, the Hebrew vNl^fcV which not only 
can be explained but which needs explanation. 
i:ny mm "The Lord with us," or htt 12By "God 
with us/ and "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani" which is 
Syriac, and can be translated into Hebrew. 

In the extant Hebrew Gospel, the explanation of 
these words is not found. I am not speaking of 
what has been done, but of what I think it possible 
to do. It appears more probable that derivations 
and explanations of this kind were the work of the 
translator. But this does not in any degree detract 
from the authority of Scripture. 

CHAPTER VI. 

WHY THE EVANGELISTS WROTE. 

WITH what design and from what motives the 
Evangelists were induced to write the Gospels they 
partly inform us themselves, and partly we learn 
from the authoritative statements of the Ancients, 
and our own conjectures on the subject. S. Luke 
(i. i) signifies that he himself was led to write 
because he saw that many were endeavouring to 
compose Gospels who did the work with very little 
truthfulness. This fact, although he does not state 
it directly, he wishes to be understood. For when 
he says that "It seemed good to me, having dili- 



PREFACE. XXIX 



ligently attained to all things from the beginning, to 
write " (i. 3), he points indirectly to those of whom 
he was speaking, and who had not learnt the truth 
sufficiently as having taken in hand to write. But 
so holy a man judged it more in accordance with 
modesty to state his own diligence and faithfulness 
in the composition of his history than to blame the 
negligence and untruthfulness of others. This 
appears to be his meaning, though not openly stated 
by him. For the word used by him in the begin 
ning of his Gospel, eVe^e i^o-a^, have " taken in 
hand," signifies that they whom he is tacitly accus 
ing made their attempt indeed, but very little carried 
it out into practice, as the Ancients (Origen, Horn. i. 
in Luc.; S. Ambrose, In Luc. i.; S. Augustin, De 
Consens., iv. 8), have observed. 

That the same cause induced the other Evan 
gelists to give us their Gospels we may understand 
from S. Luke. 2. S. John brings another reason, 
which, although the others do not, but as they had 
one heart and one soul, and the same holiness, 
we must believe to have been common to all. 
"These," says S. John, "are written that you 
1 may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son 
of God, and that believing you may have life in 
His Name" (xx. 31). 3. A third cause seems to 
have been that the hearers might have in writing 
what the Apostles had taught them by word of 
mouth, that they might not forget them or under 
stand them amiss. S. Luke gives this reason (i. 4), 
or, as the Greek says more emphatically: "Which 



XXX THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. 

thou hast heard viva voce ". 4. That what they had 
taught their hearers when present they might teach 
them still in their absence by their writings. In this 
manner S. Paul speaks to the Romans (x. 18), for 
their own voices would be very shortly silenced on 
earth. 5. That not only during their lives, but also 
after their death, they might preach the Gospel, not 
to those alone who were then living, but also to all 
who should live hereafter; that as it had been 
preached to the dead, so it should be preached 
through the dead. The knowledge was of such 
importance that it had to be taught in all places, at 
all times, to all manner of men, and through every 
class of the human race. 

These are general reasons, but each Evangelist 
must also have his own particular ones. For all 
ancient authors relate that S. John was compelled 
to write because of heretics. For as the Ebionites, 
Cerinthians, and Nicolaitans denied the Divinity of 
Christ, and he saw that the other Evangelists laid 
less stress on asserting it, he judged that he himself 
ought most especially to write in its support. So 
says S. Jerome (De vir. illust. in Joann.), S. Epi- 
phanius (H&r., li.), S. Augustin (in his Introduction 
to S. Jo/in}. This object, besides the fact that the 
Ancients tell us of it, appears clearly, not only ex 
initio, but from his whole work, for he everywhere 
teaches the Divinity of Christ. And that the other 
Evangelists also had their own peculiar reasons for 
writing is taught and explained by S. Epiphanius 
(Hcer., li.) and Eusebius (Eccl. Hist., iii. 24). 



THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE TITLES OF THE GOSPELS. 

"THE Gospel according to S. Matthew." This title, the 
names of the authors only being changed, is prefixed to 
all the Gospels. Some think that this was done by the 
Evangelists themselves, to increase the authority of their 
works ; and Tertullian upbraids Marcion because he would 
not prefix the name of Luke to that Gospel the only one 
he received. 

From this it is plain that all the Gospels always had this 
title. But that it was added by the Evangelists themselves 
is a matter quite beyond proof. The addition was made 
not by them, but by the Church. For if the Evangelists 
themselves had given the titles, they would not have used 
the same words to each : " The Gospel according to ". 
The difference between the Greek and Latin versions also 
shows this. For the Greek has " The Gospel according 
to," the Latin in most copies " The Holy Gospel of Jesus 
Christ according to ". The Greek Church added the Greek 
title, the Latin Church the Latin. 

But the books themselves have not less authority than if 
the Evangelists had done this. For we should not have 
believed their assertion that they were the authors unless 

the Church had authoritatively informed us of the fact. 

I 



2 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. i. i. 

The titles were added not only to give additional weight 
to the books from the names of their authors, but also to 
distinguish the Gospels from one another. The words 
Kara MarOaiov mean that others indeed wrote Gospels, but 
not in the same manner. Nor do the words imply any 
difference in doctrine or opinion among the Evangelists, as 
with the Greek philosophers, according to Aristotle or 
according to Plato, but only diversity of authorships and of 
styles of writing. 

Verse i. The Book of the Generation. 

Some think that this is not the title of the whole book, 
but the beginning of the genealogy of Jesus Christ alone. 
They explain the words to mean here " The Narration," as 
the Hebrew "IDD (Gen. v. i). This is the book of the 
generation of Adam that is, the relation of the genealogy 
deduced from Adam as we read of Liber Justorum and 
Liber Dei, in which the names and acts of the just are 
related (Exod. xxxii. 33 \Josue x. 13 ; 2 Kings \. 18). Others 
think it the title of the book, but taken from what is related 
in the beginning that is, the genealogy of Christ as the 
book of Genesis, or the generation of all things, is so termed, 
although this particular subject is treated of in the first 
chapter alone. This is the opinion of the greatest number 
of authors, and of those of the greatest weight (S. Augustin, 
ii. 6, Cont. Faustuni}. Others, again, think it to be not 
merely a part of the book, but the expression of the whole 
subject ; for the Hebrew word JTlvin (yei/eo-is in Greek) 
signifies not only the generation, but the whole life, of a 
man, and all that happens in the course of it as Gen. vi. 9 : 
" Noe was a just and perfect man in his generations," that 
is, in all parts of his life ; as if it were said here, " The Book 
of the Life of Jesus Christ". This opinion seems better 
than that of the others, because it agrees with the Hebrew, 
and is more full. 



CH. i. i.] THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST. 3 

Of Jesus Christ. 

Jesus means Saviour and Christ anointed, thus signifying 
that Messiah for whom the Jews looked so earnestly. The 
Evangelist appears to have wished to excite the people s 
minds and gain their goodwill, by saying that he was giving 
them the history of that Saviour whom they so desired and 
so looked for. This appears from the words of chapters 
i. 16; ii. 4 ; xvi. 16, 20; xxvii. 17, 22; ,S. Luke iii. 15; iv. 
41 ; xxii. 66 ; xxiii. 2 ; xxxv. 9. 

The Son of David, the Son of Abraham. 

There are three questions here : i. Why the Evangelist 
names these two especially, out of a long series of the fore 
fathers of Christ ? 2. Why David, the younger, is put be 
fore Abraham the elder ? 3. To whom the genitive case, 
the Son (filii\ refers whether to Christ or to David ? 

1. On the first question all authorities agree. To these 
two most especially the promise that Christ should be born 
of them was made. To Abraham (Gen. xii. 13 ; xxii. 18), 
which S. Paul teaches us to understand of Christ (Galatians 
iii. 17): to David (2 Kings vii. 12 ; I Paralip. xvii. 1 1 ; Psalm 
Ixxxviii. 4 ; cxxxi. n). For the condition which follows 
verse 12 does not apply to Christ as if He were not to reign 
if the sons of David did not keep the commandments of 
God. The kingdom was rent because they did not keep 
them (3 Kings xii. 20). The promises were made to David 
and Abraham by name, because the promises of the Messiah, 
which, as the Jews knew were made to them, were, as S. 
Matthew taught, fulfilled in Christ. This was the Gospel, 
the good message which He brought to them. So say S. 
IREN/EUS (viii. 18), S. AMBROSE (Comment, on S. Luke iii.), 
S. CHRYSOSTOM (Horn. ii. on S. Matt/tew), S. JEROME (in 
loc.). 

2. To the second question all do not give the same answer. 
Some say that when the Evangelist had named Christ, and 



4 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. i. i. 

sought to ascend to the first source, Abraham, he in the 
ascent found David, as it were another fountain from which 
Christ the living water flowed, and he necessarily named 
him. This opinion S. Chrysostom mentions (Horn. ii. on S. 
Matthew) and refutes, because, in the same manner, S. Luke 
would have related the generations of Christ, whilst it 
appears that he followed the contrary plan. S. Luke ascends 
from Christ to God, not that he may descend again, but that 
he may remain there. Against which plan, Moses, when 
he had come, as it were, from heaven to earth as by one 
bound, saying, " In the beginning God created heaven and 
earth," again ascended from earth to heaven pedetentim (step 
by step), through the generation of each created object. 
The earth was void and empty. 

S. JEROME thinks that this was done lest, if S. Matthew 
had named Abraham before David, Abraham would have 
had to be named again, that the steps of the descent might 
be derived from him ; and the Evangelist would have been 
compelled to return again from David to Abraham, and 
from Abraham again to David the son of Abraham ; the 
son of David ; " but Abraham begat," &c. This view has its 
supporters, but it does not appear satisfactory. The Hebrews 
certainly in enumerations often put the names of those last 
from whom they begin ; as, " In the beginning God created 
heaven and earth : and the earth," &c. 

S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius give a 
better reason : that although there was a promise both 
to Abraham and to David, that to David was higher and 
greater than that to Abraham, and was therefore more 
pleasing to, and more valued by, the Jews. The promise to 
Abraham was of a multitude of descendants ; to David, of 
a perfect throne and a kingdom which the King of kings 
and the Lord of lords should possess for ever, who should 
save His people and break in pieces the Gentiles. All 
therefore knew that the Messiah was to be the Son of 



CH. i. 2.] THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST. 5 

David. The Pharisees, when asked by Christ (S. Matthew 
xxii. 42), " What think you of Christ, whose Son is He ? " 
immediately answered, " David s ". The multitude, when 
they saw the wonderful works of Christ, said, " Is not this 
the Son of David ? " and, therefore, when He entered 
Jerusalem, they cried out, " Osanna to the Son of David ". 

And it may be observed, that all who sought any good 
from Christ termed Him " the Son of David," to show that 
He was the Messiah who would heap benefits on His 
people (S. Matthew ix. 27 ; xv. 22 ; xx. 30, 31 ; S. Mark 
x. 47, 48, et passim). When, therefore, God said that His 
kingdom should endure for ever, He said so not for the sake 
of Abraham, but of David (3 Kings xi. 12, 13, 32, 34 ; xv. 
4, et a/.). 

When, then, the Evangelist had mentioned Christ, he 
immediately added, "the Son of David," to show that he did 
not speak of any Christ whatever, but of Him only who was 
so looked for, and who was to be the Son and successor of 
David in his kingdom for ever. 

3. To the third question, many say that the genitive Filii 
refers to Christ ; as if S. Matthew had said, "The Book of 
the generations of Jesus Christ, who was the Son of David 
and Abraham ". S. Jerome so understood it ; but the 
Hebrew idiom is against this, which S. Matthew no doubt 
followed here. The Hebrews always, in recounting their 
genealogies, refer the last genitive to the nearest father 
(e.g., i Kings i. I ; I Paralip. \. 47, et at.). Why does S. 
Matthew call David the son of Abraham, when the genealogy 
is not of David, but of Christ ? He does so of necessity, 
because when he desired to ascend from David to Abraham 
he was compelled to say that David was the son of Abraham, 
lest he should be going up extra viam out of the track. 

Verse 2. Abraham begat Isaac. 
There is no mention of Ishmael or Esau, because Christ 



6 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. i. 2. 

was not descended from them. S. Chrysostom and Euthy- 
mius say that the brothers of Judas are named generally 
because they were Patriarchs, each of his own tribe, and 
were as the twelve columns of the Jewish people and of the 
Kingdom of Christ, and were the builders of His Kingdom. 
They were not, therefore, described by name as Judas was, 
but generally, and, as S. Chrysostom observes, as the com 
panions of Judas. S. Ambrose thinks that Phares was 
named to signify the mystery of the fruitfulness of the 
Jewish people, because he and Zara were born at one birth. 
But by this reasoning Esau should have been named with 
Jacob. 

S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact say that it 
was to show the mystery of the two peoples, the Jews and 
Gentiles, so that they would be under the twofold law ot 
Moses and the Gospel. But the same reason would hold 
good also with Jacob and Esau, and even the more, because 
this latter mystery is described in Scripture (Gen. xxv. 22, 
23) ; the former is not. 

The true reason would appear to be that, in their birth, 
Zama put forth his hand first, though Pharez was born first. 
For the infants seem to have contended even in utero matris 
as to which should be the first born and the forefather of 
Christ, and thus the Evangelist wished to share the honour, 
in a manner, between them, so numbering Pharez in the 
genealogy of Christ, as not to exclude Zara, but by his 
narration to reserve for him his own rights that he appeared 
to have, in the one way in which he was able to do so. 
For it was great praise to have been so nearly the forefather 
of Christ. 

A similar event happened in the birth of Esau and 
Jacob : for Jacob, in his mother s womb, held the heel of 
Esau, as if endeavouring to be born first ; but he did not 
succeed like Pharez, nor did he gain the primogeniture by 
right or his own strength, but by the stratagem of his 



CH. i. 3, 5.] THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST. 7 

mother, the grace of God, and the fault of his brother. 
There was another reason why Zara should be numbered 
rather than Esau : Esau not only recklessly sold his right 
to the ancestorship of Christ, but he also, still more reck 
lessly, separated himself from the Body of Christ, which is 
the Church, and founded a people alien to the people of 
God, and, as it were, another Church, as the heretics have 
done. 

Verse 3. Of TJiamar. 

S. Jerome has observed that, in the whole genealogy of 
Christ, excepting only His most holy Mother, who was 
named of necessity, there is no mention of holy women, but 
of such only as Holy Scripture reprehends : Thamar, who 
acted to Juda as a harlot; Ruth, who, before her lawful 
marriage, lay with Booz ; Bersabee, who committed adultery 
with David. The reason of this may have been that of the 
other women there need be no doubt, because they were all 
Jewish women and lawful wives, and none can doubt that 
the sons mentioned by the Evangelist were born of them. 
He may have doubted of Rahab, because she was an alien 
and a harlot ; of Bersabee, because she was an adultress ; 
of Ruth, because she was a Moabitess; of Thamar, because 
she conceived extra legitimum. He passed by what was 
ordinary and to be understood per se, but he states at 
length all that was singular and doubtful. This he has 
done in other passages than this (e.g., infra, verse 25). 

Verse 5. And Salmon begat Booz of RaJiab. 

A doubt has been raised here as to whether or not this 
were the Rahab of Jericho (Joshua ii. i, 2), or another of 
the same name. She is named only as having been a harlot, 
a stranger, and a benefactor of the Jews. A few have 
thought that she was not a harlot, but a publican, which 
the Hebrew would allow. But there is no sufficient proof 
of this, and the probabilities are against it (e.g., the LXX. ; 



8 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. i. 5. 

Heb. xi. 31 ; 5. James ii. 25) and the Chaldean version 
which these Apostles follow. Kimshi adds that the publican 
women were often harlots. 

But here arises another question : How did Salmon marry 
Rahab, an alien and a harlot ? a thing prohibited by the 
law (Exod. xxxiv. 16 ; Deut. vii. 3 ; 3 Kings xi. 2). It has 
been answered that, though she had been a harlot, she had 
ceased to be such, and then Salmon might have married 
her. For the prohibition was not of Gentile women, as 
such, but as they were idolaters, and Rahab would appear 
to have renounced idolatry and become a Hebrew woman 
(Jos/Mia ii. n). David married Maacha, the daughter of 
Tholmal, King of Gessur (2 Kings iii. 3). The same would 
apply to Ruth as a Moabitess. 

And Obed begat Jesse. 

It has been doubted how, between Salmon and David, 
there are mentioned only three names Booz, Obed, Jesse 
for it appears that there were 366 years between them. 
For the building of the Temple was begun 480 years after 
the Exodus, in the fourth year of Solomon s reign. Sub 
tract from these 480 years, four of Solomon s reign after the 
death of David (3 Kings vi. i), the 70 years of David s 
life, the 40 years wandering in the desert before Jericho 
was taken, which happened immediately on their having 
crossed the Jordan (Joshua vi. i, 5), and the result will be 
366. The truth probably is, that those four, especially in 
those times, lived for the space of 366 years, and if we in 
clude Salmon, and he was probably a young man when he 
married Rahab, they would have lived less than 100 years 
each. Moses at the same time (140 years before), with all 
his cares and labours, had lived to 120 (Dent, xxxiv. 7). 

Jesse seems to have been in a humble position, as Saul 
often called David, as a disgrace, the Son of Jesse as in 
i Kings xx. 27-30, 31 ; xxii. 7, 8, 9, et al. He was 



CH. i. 5.] THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST. 9 

chosen to be a root of the kingdom of CHRIST, as in Isaiali 

xi. i. 

David the King. 

David is called "the king," although there were many 
others who are numbered among the kings, because to him 
first, and alone, the promise of a perpetual kingdom was 
given (2 Kings vii. 12; Psalm Ixxxviii. 4; cxxxi. 11). 
Saul reigned before David, but he did not belong to the 
flock of Christ, and he was chosen, not by the divine 
will, but by the desire of the headstrong people : so as to 
appear the king, not of the kingdom of GOD, but of the 
Jews, and as if he had been given by GOD for a time until 
David grew up, who, as GOD knew, would be a king after 
His own heart ; and that the Jews might appear to have 
brought a yoke upon themselves, and not had it forced 
upon them by GOD. 

Of her that had been the wife of Urias. 

It may appear strange why the Evangelist did not call 
Bethsabee by her name, but used a form of circumlocution 
to describe her. The reasons may have been (i) that he 
wished to relate the event truly as it happened : that 
Solomon was born of Bethsabee, who, although she had 
previously been the wife of Urias, was not so then, but the 
lawful wife of David, as Solomon was born of her ; and (2) 
that it might not be thought that he was born in adultery. 

Thus some think that the meaning would have been 
clearer if it had been rendered "fuerat" instead of " fuit 
uxor Uriae". For if it had been said of her "erat," it might 
have been supposed that she was the wife of Uria when 
Solomon was conceived by her ; but the first renders it clear 
that she had been such previously, but was not such when 
she conceived Solomon. There is, therefore, no fault in 
our version, though, as before said, we may confess that it 
might have been better to read " fuerat ". 



IO THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. i. 8. 

Verse 8. And J or am begat Ozias. 

Joram did not beget Ozias but Ochozias, and Ochozias 
Joas, and Joas Amasia, and Amasia Ozias, who is said to 
have been begot by Joram (4 Kings viii. 24 ; xi. 2 ; xii. 21 ; 
xiv. 21 ; I Paralip. iii. I ; xxxvi. i). Ozias was called also 
Azarias. 

Two questions arise here: (i) Why the Evangelist passed 
over three kings in the direct line of the genealogy, Ocho 
zias, Joas, and Amasia? (2) How he says that Joram 
begat Ozias, when Ozias was begotten, not by Joram but 
by Amasia? 

Ansiver to Question i. One answer is that the Evangelist 
did this to include all the generations to Christ in fourteen, 
and that these were passed over rather than others, because 
they were sinners and had mixed the royal blood of Judah 
with that of Achab. This is the opinion of S. Hilary and 
S. Jerome, and it is followed by others. 

It may be thought that they should rather have been 
excluded because they were born of the seed of Achab, for 
Joram begat Ochozias of the daughter of Achab, and 
Ochozias begat Joas, and Joas Amasia, and Amasia Ozia, 
and therefore they seem to have been passed over, not for 
their own sins so much as for the sins of Achab, or, to 
speak more truly, because of the word of God when He 
threatened, by Elias, to cut off the posterity of Achab 
for ever (3 Kings xxi. 2), that is to the fourth generation, 
which ended in Amasias. For the wife of Joram, the 
daughter of Achab, was the first generation, Ochozias 
the second, Joas the third, Amasias the fourth. So on the 
contrary Jehu, though a wicked king, because he cut off 
the posterity of Achab, was promised the throne to the 
fourth generation. These three kings, then, were not 
mentioned because, although they lived and reigned, they 
were slain, and condemned by divine judgment as civilly 
dead. 



CH. i. 8.] THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST. I I 

But another question yet remains : Ochozias is not said 
in Scripture to have been the son of the daughter of Achab, 
but of Athalia, the daughter of Amri, King of Israel (4 
Kings viii. 26 ; xi. I ; 2 Paralip. xxii. 2, 10). If so neither 
Ochozias nor Joas and Amasias, who followed him, were of 
the line of Achab, and therefore were not passed over on 
that account. 

The answer is that Athalia, the mother of Ochozias, was 
not the real daughter of Amri, but of Achab, and was called 
the daughter of Amri, being his granddaughter. This is a 
common Hebraism. 

For Achab was the son of Amri (3 Kings xvi. 29). The 
reasons of the above answer are: (i) Scripture says plainly 
that Joram married the daughter of Achab (4 Kings viii. 
1 8), and he had no other wife of whom Ochozias could be 
born ; (2) That Jehu, in obedience to the divine command 
to cut off the house of Achab, slew Ochozias, King of 
Judah (4 Kings ix. 27). He would not have done this had 
Ochozias not been of the family of Achab, especially when 
he had no hostility against him. Scripture, perhaps, would 
not have Athalia called the daughter of Achab, but rather 
of Amri, because the memory of Achab was execrated ; and 
it would not appear to contradict itself when it said that all 
its posterity were cut off. For all were cut off who were 
in Samaria ; but Athalia, who was in Jerusalem, could not 
be put to death by Jehu, although she did not escape 
the divine justice; for soon after, when Joas, her son, 
entered on the kingdom, she was put to death (i Kings 
xi. 1 6). R. R. David and Levi, among others, take this 
view. 

There is another difficulty still remaining : How Joram 
is said to have begotten Ozias, when not he but Amasia 
did so? 

The answer may be that the word " begot " is to be taken 
not literally but in a general sense ; as when Adam is said 



12 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. i. n. 

to have been the father of all men, that is, not ipse per sese, 
but through his sons and descendants. 

Verse n. And Josias begot Jechonias and his brethren. 

This passage is more difficult than is generally supposed. 
Infidels have taken advantage of it. Porphyry especially 
urged it against the Christians as unanswerable (S. Jerome 
on Dan. i.). Josias was especially commended (4 Kings 
xxii. 2 ; 2 Paralip. xxxiv. 2). He revived the temple wor 
ship, abolished idolatry, restored the Book of the Law 
through Helcias the high priest (4 Kings xxii. 8 ; 2 Paralip. 
xxxiv. 14), and it is said that Jeremiah wrote the Book of 
Lamentations on his death. He had four sons (i Paralip. 
iii. 15) : (i) Johanan, also called Joachaz (4 Kings xxiii. 
30, 31); (2) Joachin ; (3) Sedecias, previously called 
Matthanias (4 Kings xxiv. 17) ; (4) Sellum. Hence the 
question : How is lie (Josias) Jiere said to have begotten 
Jechonias, as none of his sons were so called? S. Ambrose 
(Comment, on S. Luke, lib. iii.); S. Epiphanius (H<zr. in 
Sect. Epicur^] ; S. Augustin (De Cons., ii. 4) ; Euthymius (in 
loc.\ with many others of authority, both ancient and 
modern, think that Joachim, the second son of Josias, was 
also called Jechonias. 

But we do not find in the Canonical Scriptures that 
Joachim, the son of Josias, was ever called Jechonias. He 
was previously called Eliacim (4 Kings xxiii. 34). But 
Pharaoh Necho, King of Egypt, when he had killed his 
father Josias, bound Joachaz, Josias eldest son, and led 
him away to Egypt, making Eliacim King of Judah, and 
changing his name to Joakim. He had a son Joakin, the 
same name, except that the father s name was written with 
a p and the son s with 3 ; and he is called Jechonias 
(i Paralip. iii. 16 ; Jeremiah xxii. 24, 28 ; xxiv. i ; xxvii. 
20 ; xxviii. 4 ; xxix. 2 ; xxxi. i), but he had no brethren. 

For Nebuchodonosor, King of Babylon, when he had 



CH. i. ii.] THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST. 13 

brought him to Babylon, made his uncle, Matthanias, king, 
changing his name to Sedecias (4 Kings xxiv. 17), but 
Pharaoh would doubtless have made a brother king, if 
Joakin had had one. These facts almost compel us to 
believe that we ought to read, "J osl as begat Joakim and his 
brothers ". For, as many admit the passage to be corrupt, 
and that one generation is wanting, as we shall shortly 
state, it appears the duty both of prudence and religion not 
to invent names for the correction of particular passages, 
but to take them from the Sacred Writings. 

Esdras, indeed, calls Joacim the son of Josias Jechonias 
(iii. ; Esdras i. 34). Euthymius cites this, from which we 
find that he had that book in Greek, which we want,, 
unless he, as a Greek, read the Latin as we Latins read the 
Greek. But the book has no ecclesiastical authority, and 
in all copies Jechonias is erroneously written for Jeconias. 
For if the name had to be enlarged, as from Joachim is 
produced Jechonias, so should Jechonias, or rather Jeconias, 
have been produced from Joacim. And as this latter 
mistake has crept into the text, the former might have 
done the same, and Jechonias have been written for Joacim. 
All is correct if we read, "Josias begot Joacim and his 
brethren". 

What arises from the explanation of the second question, 
which has its origin from this, is more clear. All authorities 
justly wonder how it is that when the Evangelist says that 
he has recounted thrice fourteen (that is, forty- two) genera 
tions from Abraham to Christ, forty-one only are found. 

The second question, therefore, is : Is there any genera 
tion wanting ? Some answer in the negative ; but they do 
not all prove it in the same manner. For some say that 
David must be mentioned twice, that he may be the end of 
the first and the beginning of the second tessaradecad, and 
also that Josias is the end of the second, and the beginning 
of the third. If so, and Christ be not counted, there will 



14 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. i. n. 

be no gap, for the Evangelist did not speak of forty-two 
persons, but of forty-two generations. 

Others include Christ, but think that Jechonias must be 
numbered twice : the father at the end of the second, and 
the son who is the beginning of the third tassaradecad (S. 
Augustin, De Cons., ii. 4 ; S. Jerome, On Dan. i.). Others, 
like Theophylact, think that the Captivity should be taken 
as one person, and then there would be no deficiency. 

The opinion of SS. Ambrose, Epiphanius, and Euthy- 
mius seems better : that there is one generation wanting. 
But this is not in the first tessaradecad, which is from Abra 
ham to David, nor does the gap occur at the point of 
junction between the second and third tessaradecad. 

The third question is : Whether the deficiency is in the 
second or third tessaradecad? If we reckon the second from 
Solomon to Jechonias, who is here called " the father of 
Salathiel," there will be a deficiency of one generation in 
the third tessaradecad. If we put Jechonias, the father of 
Salathiel, in the third, there will be a gap in the second 
tessaradecad. Many, therefore, think that the deficiency is 
here. This seems more probable, because the Evangelist 
describes the people under three governments : Judges, 
Kings, Rulers. Jechonias, the father of Salathiel, was 
under the kings, and was himself a king. He therefore 
belongs to the second and not to the third tessaradecad. 

On the other hand, if Jechonias is put in the second 
tessaradecad, then, counting Joachim and his brethren, 
there would be, not fourteen, but fifteen in it. Hence, some 
think that the deficiency is in the second and not in the 
third tessaradecad, and these put Jechonias, the father of 
Salathiel, in the third. For, though Jechonias was a king, 
yet, after his father Joachim, or rather Josias his grand 
father, the three kings, Joachim, Jechonias, and Sedecias, 
reigned, not as kings, but as servants of the king of 
Babylon. 



CH. i. ii.] THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST. 15 

Nor is it necessary that all in the first tessaradecad 
should have been under judges, nor all in the second under 
kings, nor all in the third under governors. For, in the 
times of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, there were no judges, 
and these came under the first tessaradecad. In fact, the 
gap seems to have been neither in the second nor third 
tessaradecad, but in the space between the two. For, if 
there are fourteen from Solomon to Jechonias (or rather 
Joakim and his brethren), although from Jechonias, the 
father of Salathiel, to Christ, we find other fourteen genera 
tions, yet between the two tessaradecads, the words, "Joakim 
begat Jechonias," are wanting, which belong to neither 
tessaradecad, because Joakim, or Jechonias, had been already 
numbered in the second, and Jechonias is immediately 
numbered in the third. 

Hence arises the fourth question : How the omission 
came to exist? Was it (i) by the Evangelist purposely ? or 
(2) from the unusual similarity of names? or (3) by mystery? 
or (4) by the fault of the transcriber ? As many as are the 
parts of the question, so many have been the opinions on 
it. Some think that it was done with intention, and that 
Joachim was omitted because he was made king, not by 
the people, but by Pharaoh Necho (4 Kings xxiii. 34 ; 
2 Paralip. xxxvi. 4). 

Others, that it was because, as there was mention of 
Jechonias, father and son, the same name had to be read 
twice. And thus, though it does not appear, two persons, 
father and son, are meant by the same name, Jechonias. 
So says S. Augustin (De Cons., ii. 4). He says: "This was 
properly done, as in the corner of the second and third 
tessaradecad, for when, in numbering the stones of a build 
ing, we come to the corner, we count the corner stone 
twice ". Many agree with this, and the name of an author 
so great must carry much weight. 

The third explanation, also that of S. Augustin, is that 



1 6 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. i. u. 

there was a mystery in Jechonias having been mentioned 
twice, as if to show, at the corner, a turning to the Gentiles. 
The fourth explanation is that of S. Epiphanius. He 
says, and many moderns agree with him, that it was the 
result of the transcriber s want of care. He says that after 
the words, "Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration 
of Babylon" the words, "Jechonias begat Jechonias," have 
dropped out, for when the name of Jechonias was repeated 
four times, the transcribers, being ignorant that both father 
and son were called Jechonias, and thinking the words a 
redundancy, omitted them. S. Epiphanius seems right in 
thinking the transcriber in fault, and that some words have 
dropped out, by which it was signified that Joachim, the son 
of Josia, begat Jechonia. It would appear that there is an 
omission, but the words dropped out were probably 
"Joakim begat Jechonias". For, as said above, Joakim, 
the son of Josias, is never called Jechonias, and thus the 
entire passage would be, "Josias begat Joacim and his 
brethren in the transmigration of Babylon"; as Stapulensis 
says he read in an ancient Greek codex, " But Joachim 
begat Jechonias ". 

And his brethren. 

They are called brethren because, although Christ did not 
come of them, they all held His kingdom. For Joachaz,. 
called also, as above, Johanas, reigned three months (4 
Kings xxiii. 30, 31 ; 2 Paralip. xxxvi. i, 2) ; and Matta- 
thias, called also Sedecias, eleven years (4 Kings xxiv. 
17, 18; 2 Paralip. xxxvi. n) ; Sellum only did not reign, 
because before he could do so, the kingdom was destroyed 
(4 Kings xxv. 7 ; Jeremiah, however (xxii. 1 1), says that he 
did reign, as we have shown in loc^}. 

In the transmigration of Babylon. 

While the transmigration was imminent ; for when 
Josias begat Joachim and his brethren, the people had not 



CH. i. 12.] THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST. 17 

migrated to Babylon. The transmigration took place in 
the third month of the reign of Jechonias, the son of 
Joachim (4 Kings xxiv. 12 ; 2 Paralip. xxvi. 10). Be 
tween the birth of Joachim, therefore, and the transmi 
gration was a space of thirty-six years and three months. 
For Joachim was twenty-five years old when he began to 
reign, and he reigned eleven years (4 Kings xxiii. 36 ; 2 
Paralip. xxxvi. 5). But all this time is called the time of 
the transmigration, whether because, in comparison with the 
kingdom, it is short ; or because the kingdom of Juda had 
not yet fallen, but was trembling. This is properly called 
eVt rr/9 peroiKeaCa^ sub transmigration* that is, a little 
before it. It is a point of no great consequence, yet it 
should not be passed over, that the Evangelist reads as 
above, not captivity, but transmigration ; because the two 
tribes of which the kingdom of Juda consisted were twice 
transferred to Babylon. The first was in the reign of 
Jechonia (4 Kings xxiv. 12 ; 2 Paralip. xxxvi. 10); 
then in that of Sedecia (4 Kings xxv. 7 ; Jerem. xxxix. 
7 ; Hi. 4). The former is properly called in Hebrew Trh$ 
and in the Latin and Greek "transmigration," and not 
"captivity". The second is called in Hebrew "the 
captivity," because in the first, Jechonias, with all the 
people, freely gave himself up at the advice of Jeremiah, 
and went to Babylon (4 Kings xxiv. 12). But in the 
latter, in which the kingdom was utterly destroyed, the 
people did not give themselves up voluntarily, but were 
forcibly taken captive to Babylon (4 Kings xxv. 8 ; 
Jerem. xxxix. 7). It is a distinction, however, not always 
observed. Sometimes (as Esdras ii. i) the two words 
are used, airo 7-779 al^aXwcrew^ 7-779 unoi/cias ; but as the 
Evangelist desired to preserve the distinction, the heretic 
Beza ought not to tender it, "the deportation" (Beza, /;/ /^.). 

Verse 1 2. Jechonias begat Salathiel. 
In i Paralip. iii. 17, 18, eight sons of Jechonias are 



1 8 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. i. 16. 

enumerated, of whom the second is named Salathiel. In 
many other places Salathiel is called the son of Jechonia. 
But there is a question from Jerem. xxii. 30 : " Write this 
man barren ". This does not mean that he should be 
childless, as in the same chapter (verse 28) we read, " he 
and his seed," but that none of his children should sit on the 
throne. There is another question, namely, How Jechonia 
when in captivity could beget sons? The answer is that, Evil 
Merodach, after the death of his father Nebuchodonosor, 
brought Jechoniah out of prison, and treated him like a king 
(4 Kings xxv. 27, 28 ; Jerem. lii. 31, 37), in the thirty-seventh 
year of the transmigration, when he begat sons who are 
said to have been " cast into a land which they know not " 
(Jerem. xxii. 28), because they were born in captivity. 
For at the time of the transmigration Jechonia had a wife 
(4 Kings xxiv. 15), but probably not till then children, or 
Nebuchodonosor would not have put Mathanias, his uncle, 
on the throne, but one of his sons (4 Kings xxiv. 17). Thus 
it may have been that his grandson, Zorobabel, the son of 
Salathiel, may have lived on till the time of the restoration, 
and, when returned from captivity, have been made a ruler 
(i Esdras iii. 2 ; v. 2 ; 2 Esdras xii. i). Thus the history 
is perfectly self-consistent. 

Verse 16. And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary. 

Now follow the two questions : (i) Of the genealogy of 
Christ; (2) Of the agreement of the two Evangelists SS. 
Matthew and Luke. 

The first question is this : If Christ were not the son of 
Joseph, as He was not, what has the genealogy of Joseph 
to Abraham to do with Him? For it was not the genealogy 
of Joseph, but of Christ, that was in question.* All the 
Ancients answer, as one, that Joseph, and Mary the Mother 

* The 8vo omits all that follows to the words : " It is clear," p. 21. 



CH. i. 16.] THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST. 19 

of Christ were of the same tribe and family, and therefore 
that when SS. Matthew and Luke recount the genealogy 
of Joseph, they recount that of Mary and Christ also. (S. 
Irenaeus, iii. 18; Tertullian, Cont.Jud.; S. Athanasius, Epistle 
to Epictetus ; S. Ambrose, De Pcen., ii. 8 ; Comm. in Luc. y lib. 
iii. ; S. Augustin, Quest, 47 in Jud., and qq. in Nov. Test. 
86 ; Cont. Faust., xxiii. 3, 4; S. Jerome, in loc.; S. Greg. Nyss., 
Orat. de Nativ. ; Juvencus Poet., Quest. 9 in Nov. Test. ; 
Damasc., iv. 15, De Fide.) 

The opponents of the Christian faith the Jews, Celsus, 
Julian, Porphyry, and others denied this, and affirmed that 
Mary the Mother of God was of the tribe of Levi. For she 
was of kin to Elizabeth the wife of Zecharias (S. Luke i. 
36), who was of the daughters of Aaron, and she was 
not, therefore, of the tribe of Juda, and much less of the 
family of David, like Joseph. 

Our authorities most certainly show that she was of the 
family of David, and of the tribe of Juda. For the Evange 
list S. Matthew himself, who says (i. 20) that Mary con 
ceived, not of Joseph, but of the Holy Ghost, calls Christ 
the son of David (verse i). But he could not be the son 
of David except through His Mother ; she was, therefore, 
of the house of David. Besides, S. Luke (i. 35) says that 
Christ was born of the Virgin Mary without man, of the 
Holy Ghost, and (i. 23) that He was supposed to be, that is, 
He was not in truth the son of Joseph. The angel says 
the same (chap. i. 32), and Zacharias (verse 39) the same. 
Chap. ii. 4 says that Joseph and Mary went up out of 
Galilee to the city of Jerusalem, to be enrolled there, because 
they were of the family of David ; and in the books of the 
New Testament, He is everywhere said, not by the multi 
tude but by the Apostles, to be the son of David (Rom. i. 
3 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8 ; Apoc. xxii. 16). How, then, was Mary kin 
to Elizabeth? S. Augustin (Quest. 47 on Judges) answers 
rightly that a man of the tribe of Juda, and the family of 



20 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. i. 16. 

David, married a wife of the tribe of Levi, of which mar 
riage Mary was born. How marriages could be made 
among different tribes shall be explained hereafter. Thus 
far it is clear, that when the Evangelists relate the genea 
logy of Joseph, they relate that of Mary also. 

The second question arises here, Why did not the 
Evangelists bring down the genealogy to Mary, rather 
than to Joseph, which would have been no more diffi 
cult in itself, and much clearer to the understanding 
of the descent of Christ ? The Ancients gave two rea 
sons for this : (i) It was not the custom of the Hebrews 
to deduce genealogies through females. But this genea 
logy might have been deduced to Mary per vires. 
And Mary herself, because she conceived of the Holy 
Ghost prceter consuetudinem, might have been numbered 
prczter consuetudinem. (2) This reason, which, however, is 
not sufficient of itself, is strengthened by another, that it 
was the law (Numb, xxxvi. 7) that a man should marry his 
wife from his own tribe, that the property might not be 
diverted from one tribe to another. Joseph, as a just man, 
would have observed this. So say SS. Jerome, Ambrose, 
Augustin, and others, as above. But this law was not 
observed even by the most just. For the parents of Mary, 
the most holy Mother of Christ, were just persons, yet, 
though they were of the tribe of Judah, they contracted 
marriage with that of Levi. David was a just man, yet, 
though he was of the tribe of Juda, he married Michol the 
daughter of Saul, who was of the tribe of Benjamin (i 
Kings viii. 27 ; ix. i). Joiada the high priest was a just 
man, and yet he received in marriage the daughter of Joram 
the king, of the royal tribe of Juda (2 Paralip. xxii. n). 
Moreover, the law applied only to women who, not having 
brothers, succeeded to the heritage (S. Ambrose, In Luc., lib. 
iii.). Thus it must be proved that Mary was an heiress for 
her to be unable to marry out of her own tribe. But even 



CH. i. i6.] THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST. 21 

this would not be sufficient to solve the question ; for if 
Blessed Mary were of the same tribe, it does not follow 
that she was of the same family. 

The answer is, that the law and its interpretation were 
true, and that the marriages which are alleged by the 
opponents were formed among different tribes, because in 
them the requirements of the law had no place. But it 
was so well known that Joseph and Mary were not only of 
the same tribe, but also of the same family, that the Evan 
gelists have not mentioned it. 

The law (Numb, xxxvi. 6, 7) is to be understood not 
only of the same tribe, but of the same family, that when a 
woman is sole heiress, she could only be married to a man 
of the same family, and who was also her nearest relative. 
It prohibited marriages out of the same tribe, lest the 
possessions, which, by the will of God, had been equally 
distributed among the tribes (Jos/iita xix.), should be dis 
turbed. The same rule held in each family, which had 
received equal portions of land in the same tribe. This is 
the meaning of the frequent expression of Josue, per cog- 
nationes suas. S. Hilary (Can. in Matt) says that Mary 
was married to Joseph, ex lege. Eucherius (ix. 2, On S. 
Matt), Theophylact, Euthymius (/;/ Comm.), explain the 
law not of the same family ; but Holy Scripture itself 
decides the question (Numb, xxxvi. 8).* It is clear both 
from tradition and Scripture that the Blessed Virgin 
had no brothers, or Scripture would have mentioned 
them. 

The conclusion, then, is that the Evangelists were content 
with giving the genealogy of Joseph, which was certain, and 
well known to be the same as that of the Blessed Virgin, and 
in this SS. Matthew and Luke agree. 

Let us now come to those points on which the Evange 
lists seem to differ. They are many in number. 

* The 8vo here returns to the text of the folio. 



THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. CH. i. 16.] 

1. S. Matthew calls Joseph the son of Jacob : S. Luke of 
Heli. 

2. From Joseph to Zorobabel, S. Luke gives different 
names of the forefathers of Christ to those of S. Matthew. 

3. S. Matthew gives only nine generations from Joseph 
to Zorobabel : S. Luke eighteen. 

4. S. Matthew calls Salathiel the son of Jechonia: S. 
Luke of Neri. 

5. From Salathiel to David, S. Matthew gives different 
names to S. Luke ; and S. Matthew reaches David through 
Solomon, S. Luke through Nathan. 

6. S. Matthew stops at Abraham : S. Luke goes up to 
Adam and God. 

7. S. Matthew comes down from father to son : S. Luke 
goes up from son to father. 

For the first divarication, S. Augustin (Quest. 5 de Evang. 
and Consens., ii. 2, 3) says that it may be answered in three 
ways : i. That Heli is called the father of Joseph by S. 
Luke, not as having actually been so, but because he was 
the father-in-law of Joseph, and the father of Mary ; and 
Jacob, by S. Matthew, because he was his actual father. 
Others have followed S. Augustin. But it is clear that the 
Evangelists desired to describe the true descent of Joseph. 
2. The second answer of S. Augustin is, that Joseph was 
the son of one by nature, and of the other by adoption, like 
Ephraim and Manasses (Gen. xlviii. 5. 6), who were the 
sons of Joseph by nature, and of Jacob by adoption, and 
therefore, like the other Patriarchs, each formed his own 
tribe. This is at least probable, and may be received, if no 
better explanation offer. 3. The third answer is, that 
Joseph was the actual son of one, and the son by the law of 
the other ; for Jacob and Heli were brothers, and one 
died without children, and the other married his widow 
according to the law (Dent. xxv. 5). From this marriage 
Joseph was born, who is, therefore, called the son, sometimes 



CH. i. 16.] THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST. 23 

of his actual father, and sometimes of him whose wife was 
his mother. This explanation was generally received by 
the kindred of Christ themselves, as Africanus says. He 
adds, in a letter to Aristides, that it was also approved by 
the Ancients (S. Justin, Mart, Quest. 66 ad Orth. ; Eusebius, 
History, i. 7 ; S. Jerome, in loc. ; S. Ambrose, On Luke iii. ; 
Eucherius, Quest. 3 on Matthew ; Damas, De Fide, 
iv. 15; Bede, On S. Luke x.; Theophylact, On S. Luke iii). 
The only wonder is that S. Augustin alone did not receive 
it (Quest. 5 de Evang.), at least until the end of his life 
(Retract., ii. 7). 

It is often asked whether Jacob or Heli were the actual 
father of Joseph. Some say that Heli was the actual, and 
Jacob the legal, father; as, among the Ancients, S. Ambrose, 
and others mentioned by S. Augustin in Quest. 56 in Nov. 
Test., and many others more recent. But these are among 
heretics who gladly turn from the via regia. All others 
think that Jacob was the actual, and Heli the legal, father. 
Mathan, who is called by S. Matthew the father of Jacob, 
and Matthat, whom S. Luke calls the father of Heli, had the 
same wife, whom, as a widow, or as having been put away 
by one, the other married ; by her Mathan had Jacob, and 
Matthat Heli. These, Jacob and Heli, were therefore 
brothers by the same mother, whose name was said to have 
been Hesta, but not by the same father. Heli married and 
died without children ; Jacob, according to the law, married 
his widow and had Joseph. This opinion, both as having 
more and greater authorities, and a better basis, seems much 
the more probable. 

It is clear that S. Matthew, by his mention at the 
beginning of David, intended to show the continuation of 
the royal line to Christ, which would be proved much more 
clearly if Jacob were the actual than if he were the legal 
father of Joseph. 

Then again, as S. Augustin and Africanus have observed, 



24 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. i. 16. 

S. Matthew has used deliberately the word "begat"; S. 
Luke seems, equally de industria, to have avoided it. This, 
though not conclusive, renders it probable that S. Matthew 
wrote earlier than S. Luke ; and it is also probable that he 
who did this would have named the actual father ; and the 
other, after mention of the actual, have inserted the name 
of the legal father. 

For the second divarication three reasons are generally 
given. Some think that S. Luke mentioned different 
names of the ancestors of Christ from Joseph to Zorobabel 
to those of S. Matthew, because the persons enumerated 
had tivo names, and that S. Matthew gives one, and 
S. Luke the other. This opinion has the authority of 
Philo. There were, no doubt, many who had two 
names, but this would involve not merely a few but all 
having had such. Others say that S. Matthew gives the 
royal, and S. Luke the priestly, line (S. Augustin, Cons., i. 2; 
S. Ambrose, iii., On Luke; Pomerius, ditto). But it does not 
appear that Christ had any part in the tribe of Levi, and 
many eminently learned Catholics have expressly denied it, 
because S. Paul (Hebrews vii.) denies it through the whole 
chapter. The assertion (in Luke i. 36) that the Blessed 
Virgin was related to Elizabeth can easily be explained by 
saying that the father or grandfather of Elizabeth, a priest 
of the tribe of Levi, married a wife of the tribe of Juda and 
of the family of David, from which Elizabeth was born ; 
and she was thus related to the Blessed Virgin on that side, 
as she was of the family of David : but not on the other, 
on which she was of the tribe of Levi. And S. Ambrose 
supposes Elizabeth to have been related to the Blessed 
Virgin in no other way than as each was of the tribe of 
Juda. Again, we do not find that any of those whom S. 
Luke mentions as her parents was a priest. But if he had 
been giving a priestly history, he ought to have mentioned 
priests first of all. 



CH. i. 16.] THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST. 25 

3. The third reason is, that one of the Evangelists relates 
the natural, and the other the legal, origin of Christ. This 
opinion appears to be, in genere, one, but in specie and de 
velopment, threefold, for (a) Some say that S. Matthew 
gives the natural, S. Luke the legal, source ; the former 
through Solomon, the son of David, naturally : the latter 
through Nathan, the son by adoption. This is the opinion 
of N. de Lyra; but whence derived I know not, for Scripture 
makes Nathan, not the legal, but the actual son of David. 
() Others think that S. Luke relates the natural, and S. 
Matthew the legal, ancestors, and, therefore, that there are 
fewer in S. Matthew than in S. Luke, because legal 
ancestors are always fewer than natural. The followers of 
this opinion would have those who are mentioned by S. 
Matthew to be called legal ancestors, because the successors 
of Solomon came to an end in King Ochozia (4 Kings ix. 
27); for Joas, who reigned after him (4 Kings xi. 12; 2 
Paralip. xxiii. 11), although called the son of Ochozia, was 
not the true son, but, because he was born from David 
through Nathan, and touched Ochozia in the nearest de 
gree, he was called his son. There remains, however, the 
third opinion (e), which seems the most probable of any, 
that S. Matthew recounts the natural, S. Luke the legal, 
genealogy ; not that all whom S. Luke mentions were legal 
ancestors, but that S. Matthew numbers Jacob, who was 
the natural, and S. Luke Heli, who was the legal, father of 
Joseph. 

The third divarication has been answered in different ways. 
The idea of those mentioned above, that fewer ancestors of 
Christ are mentioned by S. Matthew than by S. Luke, be 
cause the latter speaks of the natural, and S. Matthew of 
the legal, parents, who as such are fewer in number than 
the natural, however easy, has no sure foundation, and 
therefore cannot be received. S. Ambrose (iii., On S. Luke] 
and S. Augustin (lib. i., Quest, in Gen., q. 121) think, with 



26 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. i. 16. 

much more reason, that those whom S. Matthew enume 
rates were of longer life than those who are mentioned by 
S. Luke. Besides, S. Matthew has designedly passed over 
three kings (verse 8). 

The fourth divarication has commonly been answered thus. 
Salathiel was the son of Jechonia naturally, but of Neri by 
adoption. More probably, perhaps, it was that Jechonia, 
though Scripture does not say so, married the daughter of 
Neri, who was descended from David through Nathan, and 
from this marriage was born Salathiel, who was really the 
son of Jechonia, but is called the son of Neri as being the 
son of his daughter, as is stated in verse 8. It is said that 
Athalia was the daughter of Amri, because she was his 
granddaughter. When S. Luke, therefore, saw that S. 
Matthew had carefully brought down the origin of Christ 
from David through Solomon, he desired to show the same 
through Nathan, to prove that Christ was every way the 
son of David, and either way the successor to his kingdom. 
But when he came to Salathiel, who derived his origin 
from David only on the mother s side through Nathan, 
he would not mention his mother, according to the custom 
mentioned above, but he counted his grandfather as his 
father. 

The fifth divarication can be answered in the same way as 
the second. 

The sixth divarication Why S. Matthew stops at Abra 
ham, while S. Luke goes up to God, has been answered 
thus : S. Luke desired to show that Christ had no other 
father than God, and therefore stopped at God. But S. 
Matthew took into account the promises that had been 
made to David and Abraham, as has been said on verse I 
(S. Ambrose, In Luc., lib. i., and Theophylact, in loc.). Three 
other reasons suggest themselves. 

i. That S. Luke desired to show his diligence and good 
faith. For the tracing of the history of Christ from the 



CH. i. 17.] THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST. 2/ 

beginning of the world was a proof of the former, and it 
increases the trustworthiness of history. 

2. He regarded the first promise in Genesis iii. 15, "He 
shall crush thy heel," and wished to go back to Adam, as 
by his sin the original cause of the coming of Christ (i 
Cor. xv. 47). He may also have had in his mind the 
manner of the births, for Adam was made of virgin earth, 
and Christ of the Virgin Mary, and each had God alone 
for his Father. 

3. He wished to trace back the advent of Christ, not to 
natural causes, but to the eternal predestination of God ; 
for the Son of God was predestinated from all eternity ; 
the Lamb was slain from the beginning of the world (Rom. 
i. 4 ; Apoc. xiii. 8). 

The seventh divarication is easy. It was the custom of 
the Jews, when recounting genealogies, to begin with the 
last named as, out of many others, I Paralip. v. When, 
therefore, S. Matthew, for reasons explained on verse I, had 
named Abraham last, he proceeded downwards to Christ ; 
but S. Luke, when he had said, " And Jesus Himself was 
beginning about the age of thirty years" (iii. 23), continued 
the account by ascending to God. 

Verse 1 7. So all the Generations. 

i. Two points have to be explained to make the meaning 
clear. 

(1) Why all the generations are divided into three tessara- 
decads. 

(2) Why there is a direction to this, which every reader 
could see for himself by counting. 

One reason for this is given by all authorities ; other 
reasons are given by others. 

The one reason is, that S. Matthew wished to show the 
threefold state of the people under (i) judges, (2) kings, 
(3) rulers and priests a sufficiently clear and obvious 



28 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. i. 18. 

reason, and the more probable because so many different 
opinions have concurred on it But other reasons, which 
have been suggested by other authorities, must not be over 
looked. S. Augustin thinks it a mystery, in which our 
whole life is shown by the number forty. For if Christ be 
not numbered, and Jechonias, whom he thinks to be 
numbered twice, be numbered but once, there will be found 
to be forty persons. But Origen and S. Jerome think with 
greater probability that these forty-two generations answer 
to the forty-two mansions or journeys of the Israelites in 
their passage from Egypt to the Promised Land. For by 
so many generations, like steps, the children of Abraham 
reached the promised haven of safety. 

But S. Chrysostom (Horn. iv. on S. Matt.) seems to come 
the nearest to the truth. He says that the Evangelist de 
sired to show that God, before He sent His Son, had tried 
all ways of ruling His people, and keeping them to their 
duty by all classes of rulers by judges, by kings, by 
leaders, and by priests ; and when nothing succeeded, He 
sent His Son. This agrees with the parable (S. Mattheiv 
xxi. 33 ; 5. Luke xx. 9), where the Lord sent three classes 
of servants into the vineyard, and when they failed, at last 
He sent His Son. 

2. Two reasons may be given why the Evangelist most 
especially gave a summary of the generations: (i) That we 
might understand that there was a mystery in it; (2) that 
no one might think that he had passed over those three 
kings from error or forgetfulness. He might also have 
wished to prevent the generations of Christ from being 
corrupted by diminutions or additions. 

Verse 1 8. Now the Generations of Christ. 

Some Greek copies add Irjcrov, but S. Chrysostom and 
Theophylact do not read it. Euthymius, however, does. 
The present version seems preferable as being more ancient 



CH. i. 18.] THE CONCEPTION OF CHRIST. 2(J 

and agreeing better with what has gone before, from the 
transmigration of Babylon to Christ. Because the Evange 
list had numbered the generation of Christ with that of 
others, lest any should think that He was born in the same 
manner as they, he describes the peculiar method of His 
birth. " Now the generation of Christ was in this wise," i.e., 
not as others. "When as His Mother Mary." To the same 
effect he speaks of Christ s Mother, signifying that He had 
no father, and, with the same care as he had said (in verse 
1 6), "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom 
was born Jesus who was called Christ ". 

When as His Mother Mary was espoused. 

The Greek reads /j,vr]crTev0elcrr)s yap, but the word yap is 
not in our version, and rather interferes with the meaning. 
Some, consideringthestrictmeaningof the word /uLvrjo-reveaOai 
and ya/jLelv, think that the Blessed Virgin, when she conceived 
Christ, was not married, but only betrothed. For the Greek 
words fjivrjarevecrOaL and 7a/xeZi differ like the Latin desponderi 
and nubere. These think that Joseph had not yet brought 
Mary home, and that this is the meaning of verse 20, as if 
he had not yet married her. Of this opinion were Origen 
(Homily in Evang.\ S. Hilary (in loc.\ S. Basil (Hum. Nat. 
Christi), S. Epiphanius (Her., Ixxxviii.); but the opinion of 
S. Chrysostom, The Author (Horn, i.), S. Ambrose (ii., In 
Luc.\ Theophylact (in loc.\ and almost all others, that she 
was then married, is to be preferred. The Holy Spirit 
willed Christ to be born of a married woman, to preserve 
the honour of the Blessed Virgin, which would not have 
been done if she had only been espoused ; and Joseph is 
called avrjp avrfjs (verse 19), not vvpfaos, or sponsus, while 
she is called yvvrj, wife of Joseph (verse 20). 

S. Matthew, therefore, uses the word fjuwrja-revQelcrav, spon- 
sam, of the Blessed Virgin, not as if she were not married, 
but, as S. Chrysostom very rightly observes, because she was 



30 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. i. 18. 

not known by her husband, otherwise than sponsce^ who 
are not yet married. But we cannot accept the view of 
SS. Chrysostom and Bernard when they say that it was 
the custom of the Hebrews for sons-in-law to live in the 
houses of their fathers-in-law before marriage. They urge 
the case of the sons-in-law of Lot (Gen. xix. 14) as their 
authority, but Scripture does not say that they lived in his 
house. Doubtless then, as all, or the best, authorities hold, 
the marriage of Joseph and Mary when Christ was con 
ceived was a true one ; as S. Augustin proves against 
Julian the Pelagian, who defined marriage to be concubitus. 
Why Christ pleased to be born ex nupta is easily under 
stood, but there zxe five especial reasons for it. 

1. That given by S. Ambrose : Christ would rather that 
His own birth should be doubted than His mother s honour. 
" For He preferred to be thought the son of Joseph to being 
thought the son of an immodest mother." 

2. That He might not appear to be spurius. For if 
the Jews despised Him as the son of a carpenter, what 
would they not have done in this case ? 

3. That Joseph and Mary might have the care and 
custody of the Infant. Thus when anything was to be done, 
the word of the Lord came to Joseph, and not to Mary 
(S. Matt. ii. 13, 19) ; and when the Child was lost, He was 
sought for by Joseph (5. Luke ii. 48). 

4. That Joseph might be a witness to the virginity of Mary. 
For no one could have been so worthy of belief in asserting 
her chastity as he who was her guardian. He ought to have 
known, and he could have known it better than- any other. 
For it would have been more likely that Joseph, with the 
natural zeal of a husband, would have suspected unchastity 
where it was not, than have defended it where it was. 

5. The fifth reason, acknowledged by almost all autho 
rities, is that the mystery of Christ s birth might be concealed 
from the devil, lest he should lay snares for the Infant. But 



CH. i. iS.] THE CONCEPTION OF CHRIST. 31 

the question is, how the devil could be ignorant of the 
virginity of the Blessed Virgin when he could have seen 
that she was pure and incorrupt though married. 

Before they came together. 

S. Hilary explains this to mean, before they had come 
together in conjugis nomen. But it has been shown that 
they were fully married, and therefore the words "came 
together" must mean here, as S. Jerome says, rent matrimonii 
exercere. The Evangelist wished to give the reason of 
Joseph s desire of putting Mary away privately before they 
came together. This was the argument chiefly relied upon 
by those who were afterwards called antidicomarianitce by S. 
Epiphanius (Her.^ Ixxviii.), by Jovinianus (S. Augustin, De 
Hczresib.}, and by Helvidius (S. Jerome, Lib. Cont. Helvid.}. 
They believed that after the birth of Christ the Blessed 
Virgin had sons by Joseph, who were the persons called 
the brothers of Christ (S. Matt. xii. 46-7 ; xiii. 55 ; 5. Mark 
xiii. 31, 33 ; 5. Luke viii. 19, 20). This error has been so 
thoroughly confuted by S. Jerome, that to attempt it again 
would be actum agere. The result is, that to say of non 
factum esse ante, is not to say f actum est post. To use 
an example of S. Jerome, when we say that heretics will 
not perform penance before they die, we do not mean 
that they will do so afterwards ; but we are silent on 
a matter that is certain, we speak of one that is doubt 
ful. No man, assuredly, can perform penance after his 
death (Psalm vi. 6), but it is unknown whether he will do so 
before it. It is certain that Joseph knew not Mary after 
the birth of Christ, for she had no other son than Christ ; 
of Him there was no question. The question was, whether 
He were conceived by Joseph or the Holy Ghost. This was 
doubtful, and needed explanation. The Evangelist, then,, 
explained what was doubtful and necessary to be known ; 
he passed over what was not inquired about, and was not 



32 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. i. 18. 

necessary to be told. How these persons were called the 
brothers of Christ shall be explained in chap. xii. 46. 

She was found. 

Origen (Horn. i. in Evang.} and S. Jerome (in loc.) say that 
Joseph so found her, as being her husband. But the Greek 
evp07j does not mean finding a thing by seeking and 
inquiring, but rather by not seeking and not thinking, 
and contrarily to all opinion and expectation ; as has been 
observed by S. Chrysostom, a good judge of the Greek lan 
guage. Joseph then found the Blessed Virgin with child, 
not by investigation, or inquiry, or contact, but by an 
observation most pure and free from all curiosity. Nor is 
it signified that she was so found by Joseph rather than by 
any other, but that she suddenly and unexpectedly pre 
sented such a personal appearance that all who saw her 
could perceive her condition. 

Of the Holy Ghost. 

Some unite these words to those immediately preceding, 
understanding by them that Joseph not only found that 
Mary was with child, but that she was so by the Holy 
Ghost. For it is clear from what follows that he did not 
know by whom she had conceived, and he therefore wished 
to put her away. Upon this he was informed of the truth 
by the Angel. In this all the authorities agree. 

Of the Holy Ghost. 

Not that the Holy Ghost was the Father of Christ, as 
some, according to S. Jerome, formerly thought, but that it 
was caused by the power of the Holy Ghost, that Mary 
should conceive sine mro. Nor is Christ said to have been 
conceived by the Holy Ghost, as if He only, and not the 
Father and the Son Himself, who was begotten, caused 
His birth. For that is a true law of the ancient Fathers, 



CH. i. 18.] THE CONCEPTION OF CHRIST. 33 

and retained by the Schoolmen, that " all the acts of the 
Trinity, out of Itself, were common to all the Persons". 
Christ is said to have been conceived by the Holy Ghost 
by that " attribution " which is commonly spoken of in 
Holy Scripture, and by which what is common to the 
THREE PERSONS is, on account of office or peculiar act, 
ascribed to one only ; as the office and power of govern 
ment is ascribed to the Father, of wisdom to the Son, of 
love, kindness, beneficence, liberality, fecundity to the Holy 
Ghost. 

For two reasons, therefore, the conception of Christ is 
attributed to the Holy Ghost, both because He is the 
highest goodness, and the head of all benefits to men, and 
also because He is the work of fecundity, and He is the 
Life-giver. For the Holy Ghost is as a divine seed, by 
which all things are made fruitful, as Gen. i. 2 : " The 
spirit of God moved over the waters" is often explained, 
and is, as it were, the life and soul by which all things are 
animated and vivified (Psalm ciii. 31 ; S. John vi. 64). 

There is a strong resemblance between Christ and Chris 
tians, that is, between the head and the members, which 
almost all ancient writers, SS. Ambrose, Augustin, Leo, 
have observed. Christ was born of the Blessed Virgin, 
Christians of the Virgin Church. The Church is the Virgin 
and Mother, without spot or wrinkle, like Mary (Ephes. v. 
27). The womb is the fount of baptism ; the seed of the 
Church is water, which produces the living soul ; the Holy 
Ghost is the seed. As, therefore, Christ was born of the 
Blessed Virgin and the Holy Ghost, so Christians, that is, 
the members of Christ, ought to be reborn of water and 
the Holy Ghost. So S. John iii. 5. We may observe that 
one version uses the word "De" "De Spiritu Sancto" when 
we should rather have looked for ""," as in verses 3, 5, 
1 6, 20; xviii. n, and others. "E" would have expressed 
better than " De " the idea of a material source. 

3 



34 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. i. 19. 

Verse 19. Being a just man. 

The Greek and Latin versions both admit a double 
meaning to these words: (i) Although he was; (2) be 
cause he was. The Latin cum ; cum esset Justus, is a causal 
word. The cause of the events that follow is given. 

The cause of each event is given, as two events follow ; 
(i) He would not expose her; (2) he wished to put her 
away privately. Some, like S. Chrysostom, think that the 
cause of the second clause is given, and that he wished to 
put her away because he was just, and would not retain 
one whom he suspected of adultery. SS. Chrysostom, Jerome, 
and others of authority, thought that it was not lawful for a 
man to put away a wife who was an adulteress. And it was 
ordered by some decrees of the Church that this should not 
be done. Others, SS. Jerome, Ambrose, Theophylact, think 
that the reason of the first clause is given. This seems 
much more probable. For the words, "He woidd not expose 
her! are opposed egrjyrjTiica)? to saying, " He was a just 
man" and therefore would not expose her, but began to 
think of some other manner of putting her away. The 
opinion of S. Chrysostom is abandoned, not only by divines, 
but by the whole Church. For the law permitted the 
putting away of an adulteress, but did not command it, 
Christ Himself so explaining it (S. Matt. xix. 8 ; 5. Mark 

x. 5). 

It will be said, If the law permitted it, it was lawful to 
accuse the adulteress. Hence Joseph, though a just man, 
was able, salva justitia, to do this. Joseph was called a 
just man, not because he was endowed with justice, one of 
the four moral virtues, but because, as S. Chrysostom says, 
he possessed, as a heap, every species of virtue. Whoever 
js of such a nature follows S. Paul, and says (i Cor. x. 22), 
" All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expe 
dient ". 

Joseph, therefore, had the power to expose her, but he 



CH. i. 19.] THE ESPOUSAL OF MARY. 35 

ought not to have done so, because it was an act of greater 
charity to put her away privately. Because he was a just 
man, that is, endowed with great charity, he would not do 
what justice indeed, a single virtue, allowed, but what 
charity, the queen of all virtues, demanded. 

Publicly to expose Jier. 

Traducere, 7rapa$eiy/j,aTi(Tai, to see punished by public 
example, to accuse ignominiously. In a word, S. Augustin 
explains it by exemplare (Ep. 59), although he elsewhere 
paraphrases it by divulgare solet. S. Joseph would have 
done this if he had called her to judgment, and set her out 
before all men as an adulteress. S. Paul uses the same word 
(Heb. vi. 6), where our version reads ostentatui Jiabentes, 
making Him a mockery. The LXX. uses the word in the 
same sense (Numb. xxiv. 4 ; Esther xiv. 8). 

Was minded to put Jier away privately. 

Origen (Horn. i. onEvang^ S. Jerome(C0mment.) t S. Bernard 
(in loc), and others, think that Joseph wished to put her away, 
because he knew that she had conceived by the Holy 
Ghost, and that he was therefore unworthy of her society ; 
as S. Peter said to Christ, " Depart from me " (S. Luke v. 
8), and the centurion, " Lord, I am not worthy " (S. Matt 
viii. 8). Others, on the contrary, as S. Chrysostom (in loc.), 
S. Augustin (Ep. $4,Serm. xvi. de Temp.: if his),Theophylact 
and Euthymius think that he would have put her away as 
suspecting her of adultery, and that Joseph, thinking that 
she had conceived, not of the Holy Ghost, but of adultery, 
feared to receive her, lest he might either appear to approve 
of her crime, or because he was unwilling to bear the 
injury he supposed done to him (S. Chrysostom, in loc., and 
De S. Susanna ; S. Augustin, Ep. 54, Serm. xvi. De verb. 
Dom., Serm. XVU L de Temp.; Theophylact and Euthymius, 
Comment.). Joseph s reason for thinking of putting her 



36 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. i. 20. 

away privately is uncertain. The reason of Abulensis, that 
he thought to give her a writing of divorcement privately, 
does not seem good, for, however privately he m ight have given 
it, every writing is, sua natura, public. Besides, the divorce 
and disgrace could not be concealed, if, after living in the 
same house, they had been separated, private judicio, and 
especially at a time when Mary s condition was apparent. 
The opinion of those, therefore, who say that Joseph thought 
of retiring into a voluntary exile, under pretence of taking 
a journey, that he might appear not to have put her away 
for any fault, but to have left her from necessity, seems more 
probable. Not only does the \d0pa, but also a7ro\vaai, 
seems to warrant this. 

Verse 20. But while he thought of these things. 

How he should put her away privately, before he had 
found any plan for doing so, or had followed out his 
design. The Evangelist seems to signify that God awaited 
a fit moment to send the angel. If He had sent him before 
Joseph knew the condition of Mary, Joseph perhaps, like 
Zacharias, would not have believed him. If sent after Joseph 
had left her, the angel would have been sent too late. God, 
therefore, sends the physician to the sick man neither before 
he begins to be amiss nor after he has died and ceased 
to be so. The same authors give another reason why 
Joseph would not have been so good a witness of the 
virginity of Mary if he had been warned by the angel be 
fore he thought of putting her away. For who would not 
have believed a husband who bore witness of the purity of 
his wife, and a husband who had gone so far as to suspect 
her of adultery, and to meditate a divorce ? 

It is Divine Providence which permits one man to be 
sick, that from his disease it may make medicine for many. 
It was this which permitted S. Peter and S. Thomas to fall 
in the faith, that we might not fall. It waited until Joseph 



CH. i. 20.] JOSEPH S DREAM. 37 

doubted of the chastity of Mary, lest we should doubt, as 
we have said on verse 19 from S. Bernard. 

Why, again, was the angel sent to Mary before she con 
ceived ? 

1. Probably because her consent was to be obtained before 
she could become the spouse of the Holy Ghost and con 
ceive by Him. 

2. Because it was not fitting that she should be ignorant 
whom she bore in her womb, and whence she had con 
ceived. 

3. Before that warning she could not have become the 
mother of Christ her Son (S. Augustin, De Virg. Sanct ; S. 
Leo, Serin, de Nat. Dom.}. She knew Christ by faith before 
she conceived Him in her body, whom, unless so warned, 
she could not have possessed. 

It has also been asked, why the angel was sent to Mary 
when watching and to Joseph when sleeping? Apparently 
faith and consent were required from Mary, as has been 
said. The question of Joseph is not so easy. S. Chrysos- 
tom says, with much reason, that Joseph was a just man, 
whom it was sufficient to warn in sleep. 

Again, knowing the condition of Mary, and doubting 
about her, he might in a moment be led to believe that it 
was the work of the Holy Ghost. It may seem very strange 
that the Blessed Virgin did not acquaint her husband with 
what the angel had said to her, that she might free herself 
from the risk of infamy, and her husband from sinister 
suspicion. Here again S. Chrysostom answers, that Joseph, 
whilst in doubt about the purity of his wife, would not 
have believed her own testimony, however holy she were, 
of herself as, what husband, uninformed by God, would 
have done so ? 

That which is conceived in her. 
The words of the angel are directed to comfort Joseph, 



38 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. i. 21. 

who was then in trouble and perplexity, and to prove to 
him that it was needless for him to doubt or despond, but 
that he should rejoice that his wife was about to be the 
mother of that Messiah who had been so long looked for. 
The angel calls Joseph the Son of David, not only as it 
was a title of honour, but also to show that He who was 
conceived of the Blessed Virgin was of the same family, and 
was that Messiah who was to be the Son of David. He wished 
also to bring to Joseph s mind the words of Isaiah vii. 14, 
" Behold, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son," that he 
might believe and rejoice that this was accomplished in his 
wife. 

Verse 21. And she shall bring forth a Son. 

Teftrat Se Be seems put for yap pro, for (as in xxiii. 5, 
and many other passages) the words appear to have been 
spoken by the angel to confirm the faith of Joseph. As if he 
had said : " Your wife is not the adulteress you fear, but she 
is that most spotless Virgin of whom Isaiah spoke (vii. 14). 
She shall bring forth a Son, not a daughter, and when you 
see this, you will not doubt that He was conceived by the 
Holy Ghost. For when you see that what I have foretold 
you as future, has come to pass, you will believe that the 
past, of which I have told you, is also true." 

And thou shalt call His name Jesus. 

This additional honour was bestowed upon Joseph, that 
he should give His name to Him who was born not of him 
self, but of the Holy Ghost, as if He had been his own son. 
Some have said that this was done merely as it was the 
custom for fathers to give the children their names. This 
may have been the general custom, but it was not universal, 
for Rachel called her son Benoni (Gen. xxxv. 1 8), and his 
mother, not his father, gave Jabes his name, " Because I 
bore him with sorrow" (i Paralip. iv. 9). And what is 
here said to Joseph is said to Mary (S. Luke i. 32). 



CH. i. 21.] JOSEPH S DREAM. 39 

And tJwu shall call His name Jesus. 

This is certain proof that the angel wished to honour 
Joseph with the duty of a father, and at the same time to 
prove what he had said that the child was conceived not 
of him but of the Holy Ghost, and from heaven, as His 
name was given from heaven. To those who are conceived 
divinitus names are given before their birth from heaven. 
So Isaac (Gen. xvii. 17), S. John Baptist (S. Luke i. 13). 
From His name we are taught what manner of Infant He 
would be, that is, He who was sent to free His people from 
their sins. That is, ^WlIT Jesus the Saviour. It is certain 
that the name Jesus was borrowed by the Greeks from the 
Hebrews, and by the Latins from the Greeks ; for every 
where in the Old Testament ^WlJT is used as a proper name. 
The LXX. have rendered it by "Irjo-ovs, adapting the 
Hebrew word to the Greek, as they could, or as they knew 
how. In i Paralip. vii. 27 the reading is "Irjaovs. The 
word signifies Salvation or Saviour ; and although we read 
of many so called, as Jesus the son of Nave, and the son 
of Josedech the priest (Agg. i. 12-14), the name was given 
to them by accident, but to Christ by design, and not by 
human but divine design : truly saviours, but Christ was 
more than it signifies. 

In others, therefore, the name was in some sense common 
and usual. In Christ it was peculiar, and as the Prophet 
had foretold, new and singular, because in the sense in 
which it was used of Christ, it was used of no other ; be 
cause in no other is there salvation ; and by it His divine 
and human natures are both signified, as well as His most 
excellent office of Redeemer (Philipp. ii. 10). 

It has been rightly observed, therefore, that the Evange 
lists, when they desire to describe our Saviour by His 
proper name, call Him, not Christ, but Jesus, as in this 
passage and in 5. Luke i. 31 ; iii. 23 ; iv. I. Christ is the 
name of His office, Jesus of His natures and person. 



40 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. i. 22. 

It has been asked how the angel ordered Him to be 
called Jesus, when Isaiah had said that His name should 
be Emmanuel ? The Jews are the most persistent objectors 
to this, to prove that that prophecy does not apply to 
Christ. But ancient Fathers have answered the question 
most completely (S. Justin Mart, Quest. 131 ad OrtJiad. ; 
Tertullian, Adv. Marc., lib. iii. ; Lactantius, iv. 12, De Ver. 
Sact.; S. Chrysostom, De Incarn., chap. ii.). The Prophet 
desired to describe Him, who was to be called Christ, but 
who was yet to be ; the Evangelist to declare Him, who 
was both to be called and to be Christ. The Prophet 
wishes to say, not that the proper name of Christ should be 
Emmanuel, but that the thing meant by it should fit Him, 
and that He should be called by it. As the same Prophet 
had foretold of Jerusalem (i. 26), not that it was to be called 
by that name, in fact, but that it should be such a city that 
it might be so called. In the same way he had said (Ix. 
14), "They shall call thee the City of the Lord, the Sion 
of the holy one of Israel," when it never would bear that 
name. Like examples are found \i\Jeremiah iii. 175 ZacJi. 
viii. 3 ; and of Christ Himself (Isaiah ix. 6), not that He 
was to have so many names, but so many offices (Jerem. 
xxiii. 6) ; also, " The Lord our just one/ for Christ the 
Lord was truly "the just one," and also truly Emmanuel, 
which is " God with us ". It is clear that the Evangelist 
understood that passage of Isaiah in that sense, from the 
fact that when he had said, " Thou shalt call His name 
Jesus," he cited the passage of Isaiah, " His name shall be 
called Emmanuel" (vii. 14). He is therefore Jesus and 
Emmanuel, for He is God with us, which is Emmanuel, 
and God our Saviour, which is the meaning of Jesus. 

Verse 22. Now all this. 

S. Augustin, Theophylact, and Euthymius think these 
.the words of the angel ; but they are, beyond doubt, 



CH. i. 23.] JOSEPH S DREAM. 41 

those of the Evangelist, who wished to prove his faith by 
the testimony of the Prophet. 

All. 

That the Blessed Virgin should conceive, and that the 
Infant, not yet born, should be called Jesus. 

Verse 23. Behold a Virgin. 
The Jews bring FIVE arguments against this passage. 

1. Isaiah has not H^ini which is properly a virgin, but 
nft^yn which means not a virgin but a young girl, and 
refers to age, not condition. To this no one has replied 
with more effect than S. Jerome (In tmdit. Heb. in Gen. ; 
lib. i., Cont. Jovinian ; and in his Comment, on Isaiah vii.). 
He says that TTfchy means not only a virgin, but more 
even than that, a young girl (puella) who has been hidden 
and kept carefully ; who has not even met the eyes of any 
man, and who, not only in person but in aspect, is chaste. 
The origin of the word shows this; for she was called T^hy 
which is to hide as a virgin, to be concealed or secluded. 
Nor is the word ever used in Scripture of any but a virgin, 
as (Gen. xxiv. 16) of Rebecca. She is called HftSy (v. 43). 
The same of Mary, the sister of Moses (Exod. ii. 8), in the 
Punic language, which derives its origin from the Hebrew. 
Thus, rninn means virginity alone, Tfchty virginity and 
age together. 

And this is emphatically the meaning of the Prophet, 
namely, that a virgin, tender as yet, and who has not met 
even the gaze of men, should conceive. Some add that the 
particle of emphasis H is added in this place to the word 
lift 7^ which has a like force to that of the Greek article 6, 
signifying here, as S. Chrysostom observes, a virgin of the 
highest worth one most especially a virgin. 

2. The SECOND argument is that it is against all common 
sense to say that a virgin, remaining such, should conceive ; 



42 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. i. 23. 

but one who having been a virgin before should afterwards 
do so. The ancient Fathers reject this as not only false, 
but also absurd and ridiculous ; for in this case there would 
have been no sign, and no miracle. The Prophet intended 
to show a sign before unheard of and most wonderful, as in 
verses 7, 10, 14. So say S. Justin Mart, Against Tryplio ; 
Tertullian, Against the Jews, and III., Against Marcion ; 
S. Basil (Horn, on the Human Generation of Christ) ; S. 
Epiphanius, Against Ebionites ; S. Cyril Alexand. and S. 
Chrysostom, On Isaiah vii. 

3. The THIRD objection is from Isaiah, from the name 
Emmanuel, which Christ had not. This objection has 
been answered on verse 21. 

4. The FOURTH objection is that from the circumstances 
of place. It appears that this prophecy was uttered of the 
wife of Achaz and his son Ezechia, whom she was about to 
bring forth. S. Epiphanius and S. Jerome greatly deride 
this idea, for the prophecy was uttered when Achaz was 
reigning, and it was therefore directed to him as king. 
Assuming it to have been uttered in the first year of his 
reign, Ezechia would have been nine years old at least ; 
for Achaz reigned sixteen years (4 Kings xvi. 2 ; 2 
Paralip. xxviii. i), on whose death his son Ezechia reigned 
at once (4 Kings xvi. 20) ; for he was twenty-five when 
he began to reign (4 Kings xviii. 2 ; 2 Paralip. xxix. i). 
Nor is there any more in what some others say, that it was 
spoken of the wife of Isaiah, for she was neither a virgin, nor 
ever brought forth a son who was, or was called, Emmanuel. 

5. The FIFTH objection is one raised by the more modern 
Jews. The ancients have scarcely noticed it. It was not 
possible that the sign could have been given to Achaz, 
because he would not be able to see it, for it was not to 
happen for eighty years. 

S. Chrysostom, in his Commentary in loc., answers that 
the sign was not given to Achaz, but to the house of David, 



CH. i. 23.] JOSEPH S DREAM. 43 

which was not only to endure to the time of Christ, but 
was to produce Christ Himself. In the beginning the 
Prophet offered the condition of a sign to Achab, that he 
should ask whatever he would ; from which he might 
understand that God would be with him against the king 
of Assyria (vii. n) ; and when Achaz would not ask, the 
Prophet changed his language, and foretold another and 
greater sign than that which Achaz did not venture to ask, 
an argument of a greater liberation, that God would give, 
not to Achaz, but to the house of David (verses 1 3, 14). As if 
he had said : "Because you do not care to ask God, God will 
give you, of His own free-will, not such a gift as I offered 
to the king, that God would deliver him out of the hands 
of the king of Assyria ; but a far greater one, that He 
would deliver His people from sin and the tyranny of the 
devil". From the major is proved the minor. 

And they shall call. 

Some have wondered that Isaiah says " Thou shalt call," 
and that the Evangelist says here " They shall call," but it 
is of no moment, because, as S. Jerome says, the Evange 
lists frequently give the meaning rather than the words. 
Whether he had said KaXecret?, thou shalt call, or /caXecret, 
he shall call, or KdXeaovcn, they shall call, the meaning 
would be the same. 

Which being interpreted is, God with us. 

It has been a question how these words should be under 
stood. Some, with whom we cannot agree, think that they 
have a spiritual meaning alone God with us, God recon 
ciled with us (Coloss. iv. 2) because our sins had separated 
us from Him (Isaiah lix. 2). But S. Chrysostom and 
others think, more correctly, that the words are intended to 
convey the doctrine of the actual incarnation of the Son of 
God. For God is with us not only as He gives us help 



44 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. i. 25. 

and puts away our sins in which manner He was with the 
ancient Jews also but He was the Word made flesh. Some 
infer from this passage that S. Matthew did not write in 
Hebrew, but we have answered this in the Preface, chap. v. 

Verse 25. And he knew her not. 

The Jovinians, the Helvidians, the Ebionites, and, as 
Auctor Imperfecti Operis says, the Eunomians, take occasion 
from these words to assail the perpetual virginity of the 
Blessed Virgin after the birth of Christ (v. 18). But it need 
only be said that the particles "before," "before that," "until" 
antequam, prius quam, donee, usque, and the like, do not 
always convey an affirmation of the thing in question 
afterwards, if a negative has preceded, nor a denial when 
an affirmative has been given before, as S. Jerome against 
Helvidius, and S. Chrysostom on this passage have shown 
by many examples. 6". Matthew xxviii. 30 does not mean 
that He would not be present afterwards, but much more 
present ; 2 Kings vi. 23 does not mean that Michal had a 
child after her death ; Psalm cix. I, 2, is not as if He would 
not sit at the right hand afterwards; 5. Matthew v. 18 
not that that word should perish after heaven and earth 
should have passed away. In all these cases that which is 
doubtful is expressed, that which is uncertain is left unsaid. 

Her first-born Son. 

It was another argument of the opponents of the per 
petual virginity of the Blessed Virgin, that the Evangelist 
calls Christ the first-born, as if after Him she had other 
sons, and as if there could be no first-born unless there 
were a second-born. S. Jerome against Helvidius rightly 
says that Christ is called the first-born of Mary, not because 
there was another son after Him, but because before Him 
there had been none. For it is the custom of Scripture to 
call the only-born the first-born, because he who is uni- 



CH. i. 25.] THE BIRTH OF CHRIST. 45 

genitus is necessarily before others ; that is, no one else 
could have been before him, and this is to be the first-born. 
So (Exodus iv. 22) God calls the people of Israel His first 
born, as He had no others, and (xii. 29) He is said to have 
slain all the first-born of the land of Egypt ; among these, 
beyond doubt, were many only-born ; and (xiii. 2 ; xxii. 29) 
He commanded all the first-born to be sanctified to Him, 
among whom were included the only-born, otherwise such 
must have been waited for until others were born after 
wards. 

S. Paul (Heb. i. 6) calls Christ the first-born, for the 
only-born of God. The Evangelist used the expression 
first-born to show, probably, that Mary not only conceived 
but also brought forth as a virgin. For he had said of the 
conception (v. 18), "Before they came together she was 
found with child of the Holy Ghost," and he now says of 
the birth (v. 25), " He knew her not till she brought 
forth her first-born son ". That is, when Joseph had not 
known her, she brought forth her Son, who, being her only 
Son, is therefore most properly called her first-born, for he 
who opened the womb was the first-born (Exodus xiii. 2 ; 
xxxiv. 19) ; and he only opened it who found it closed, as 
has been said by Tertullian. The words " to have opened " 
should be taken not as if He literally opened it, but opened 
it, as it were, by being truly born. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE OFFERING OF THE WISE MEN THE FLIGHT INTO 
EGYPT THE MASSACRE OF THE INNOCENTS. 

Verse i. When Jesus, therefore, was born in Bethlehem of 

Juda. 

THE Evangelist, according to the laws of history, de 
scribes the place, time, and circumstances of the event : 
The place Bethlehem ; the time in the days of Herod the 
king ; the circumstances wise men came from the East. 

Why Christ was born in Bethlehem is plain. i. Because 
Micheas the Prophet had so foretold (v. 2), and He must be 
born on native soil to prove Himself the Ruler of whom the 
Prophet spoke. 2. Because David was born in the same 
place (i Kings xvi. I ; xvii. 12), and Christ came as his suc 
cessor, the restorer of His kingdom, and the flower of the 
root of Jesse. He must necessarily spring up where the 
root was. When, therefore, He was as yet scarce born, He 
compelled His enemies, the chief priests and scribes, if not 
to believe Him to be Christ, yet in a manner to profess 
so (verse 5). Hence, as Joseph and Mary lived not in 
Bethlehem, but in Nazareth, they came to Bethlehem on 
the enrolling of Augustus (S. Luke ii. i), as if the whole 
world were so described, for no other reason than that 
the Lord of it might not be born out of His own country, 
(extra), God thus ordering it that the imperial edict should 
serve the cause of truth. 

Juda. 

Manyc opies have Judcea, and so S. Chrysostom, Euthy- 



CH. n. i.] THE OFFERING OF THE WISE MEN. 47 

mius, and many others seem to read it on the authority of 
the greater number of copies. S. Jerome, however, with 
good reason, in this passage and on Micheas v., thinks that 
Judcea is incorrectly read for Juda. For Judaea included the 
whole territory of the twelve tribes, but Juda only that of 
the tribe of Juda. As there were two Bethlehems, one in the 
tribe of Juda, where David and Christ were born, and 
another in the tribe of Zabulon (Joshua xix. 1 5), the Evan 
gelist clearly desired to distinguish the Bethlehem of Juda 
from that of Zabulon, which he would not have done if he 
had said Bethlehem of Judaea, for both were in Judaea, but 

only one in Juda. 

Herod. 

This was not Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee (S. 
Luke i. 5), who put John Baptist to death and mocked 
Christ, nor the Herod who slew James and bound Peter, 
but the father of the former and the grandfather of the 
latter ; who was called " Herod the Great," " Ascalonita," 
" Antipater," and to whom the Romans first gave the title of 
King of Judaea (Josephus, Antiq., xiv. 18 ; Hegesippus, i. 36; 
Eusebius, i. 6). The years were now first numbered 
according to the Caesars (as in 6\ Luke iii. i ; Acts xi. 
28), but S. Matthew, as speaking of the kingdom of Herod, 
makes mention of him rather than of Caesar. 

The King. 

To distinguish him from the tetrarch. The Evangelist 
seems to wish to show that the time was now come when 
Christ should be born ; for, as it had been foretold that the 
sceptre should not depart from Juda, he shows that, by the 
rule of a stranger, it had done so, and that the time had 
arrived when, according to the prophecy of Jacob, Christ 
should be born. So say S. Chrysostom and Theophylact. 

Behold. 
This particle (ecce) has here a twofold force. It shows 



48 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. n. i. 

that the Magi came immediately on Christ s birth, as we 
shall shortly explain, and that they came unexpectedly, 
when, as is shown in verse 3, the city was troubled. 



There came wise men from the East. 

Four questions may here be asked i. Who they were? 
2. How many were there ? 3. Whence did they come ? 

4. When ? For, of the star, whatever it was, and how they 
knew by it of the birth of Christ, we will speak here 
after. 

The first question seems to depend on another. Did S. 
Matthew write in Greek or in Hebrew ? If in Hebrew the 
meaning of the word ^tO^H will have to be followed ; if in 
Greek, that of the word pdryoi. In the Preface, chap, v., it is. 
proved that he wrote in Hebrew. We must see, then, who 
they are who are called in Hebrew ^ftEnn the word 
found in this passage. The Hebrews call ^tOin what 
the Latins term pr&stigiatores ; that is, those who by incan 
tations or some other art change the appearance of things 
so that they seem to be other than they are. Such 
were the magicians of Pharaoh, who by diabolical arts 
imitated the divine acts of Moses in transforming things 
(Exod. vii. n, 22 ; viii. 7). But neither our version nor the 
LXX. calls these Magi, but the former in every case calls them 
malefici, the latter <f>dpiuueoi or tyap/juaicevs (Exod. vii. II ; 
Deut. xviii. 10; 2 Paralip. xxxiii. 6 ; Jerem. xxvii. 9 ; Dan. 
ii. 2; M alack, iii. 5). But both our version and the LXX. 
call those Magi whom the Hebrew terms ^tt^ft that is, 
those who, by inspecting the stars, foretell the future, 
interpret dreams (Dan. i. 20; ii. 10, 27 ; iv. 4 ; v. 7, 1 1, 15). 
The ancient writer calls them Magi, the Hebrews illNn 
Pythones, the LXX. eyyaarpL/jildai, (Levit. xix. 31 ; xx. 6;. 
I Sam. xxviii. 3, 9). We scarcely believe those of whom 

5. Matthew speaks to have been prcestigiatores a name 



CH. u. i.] THE MAGI. 49 

infamous among all nations since the Evangelist appears 
to call them Magi, a title of honour. 

Magi are so called from three causes. They who practise 
the arts, not only of natural but diabolical magic, are so 
termed (Levit. xix. 31 ; xx. 6 ; Acts viii. 9; xiii. 6), and in 
Strabo it is the name, not of any art or condition, but of a 
nationality ; for among the five nations who inhabited 
Media, he mentions the Magi. S. Epiphanius, in his Epitome 
of the Catholic Faith, does the same, except that he gives 
them another origin and abode ; for he says that they 
were the sons of Abraham by Keturah, and when sent out 
of the country by Abraham, they came to Magodia, a region 
of Arabia, and there took up their abode hence, he thinks, 
they received their name. But the more ordinary meaning 
of the word is, that the Magi were called by the Persians, 
in their mother tongue, Sapientes (wise men), as among 
the Greeks are Philosophers ; among the Italians of Het- 
ruria, Aruspices and Pontifices ; among the Indians, 
Brachmans or Gymnosophists ; among the Babylonians, 
Chaldaeans ; among the Egyptians, Hierophants ; among 
the Gauls, Druids, as stated by Cicero (lib. i., De Divin.\ 
Strabo (xvi.). and Tertullian (Against Marcion) ; in which 
sense, as seems very probable, and is most commonly 
believed, the Magi are mentioned here: both as they came 
from the East, where the name of Magi was famous, and 
were led by a star, like men who governed the whole course 
of their lives by the observation of the stars, in which all 
their wisdom consisted ; and because the Evangelist seems 
to have termed them Magi for reasons of honour. 

Whether or not they were kings is less certain. A 
heretic Beza derides the Catholic Church because she 
believes them to have been such as \iPsalm Ixxi. 10, 1 1, had 
been wrongly understood. He must, therefore, laugh at 
Tertullian (i., Against the Jews), and (lib. iii., Against Marcion); 
at S. Cyprian ( Serm. de Bapt.), at S. Chrysostom (Horn. vi. 

4 



50 THE GOSPEL OF S, MATTHEW. [Cn. n. i. 

on S. Matt.\ at S. Hilary, S. Basil, Idacius, S. Jerome or 
his contemporary (on Ps. xxi.), S. Augustin, or the author 
of bk. iii. on The Miracles of Scripture^ Isidore, Bede, 
Strabus, and others. All these believe that they were 
kings, and put faith in that Psalm. Not that they believe 
them to have actually ruled over Tharsis, for that word is 
used for Gentile kings in general, but they think that 
David mentioned them exempli gratia, as Tertullian shows 
from many other examples. The Church does the like, 
using this Psalm in the same sense, on the feast of 
Epiphany, often adapting, not in ignorance but wisely and 
designedly, to one person what was originally said of 
another. She applies, for instance, the words of S. Luke 
(x. 42) of Mary Magdalene, the sister of Lazarus, to Mary 
the mother of Christ, on her festival, because she herself 
was a Mary, and had also chosen the best part. 

That the Magi were actually kings is held, not as a 
certain article of the Catholic faith, but as a probable 
opinion ; and some learned and devout men, not scoffingly 
but earnestly, have held the contrary opinion. They say 
that if they had been kings, the Evangelist would not have 
forborne to mention their names, for these would have 
added to the honour of the worship of Christ, and that 
kings would have been received with greater state by 
Herod. 

This may be granted, and still the opinion be held that 
they were kings ; not Persian nobles, but genuine princes 
who merited the titles of kings or princes ; chiefs (regu- 
lorum\ as the man mentioned by S. John (iv. 46, 49), and 
as the friends of Job are called (Tobit ii. 15), and as S. 
Mark (vi. 14) called Herod, the son of Herod the Great, a 
king when he was not such, but tetrarch of Galilee (SS. 
Matt. xiv. i, Luke iii. i). The poet Juvencus says that 
they were not kings, but he admits them to have been the 
chiefs and nobles of their race. 



CH. ii. i.] THE MAGI. 51 

We may suppose them to have been kings (i) as they 
came from the East, whence private philosophers would 
not have taken so long a journey ; (2) as they came to 
worship one born a king, which only princes do ; (3) as 
they brought treasures ; (4) as they were not seized by 
Herod as soon as they came, and dragged off to the cross ; 
(5) it cannot be that Herod said falsely that he also would 
come to worship as soon as he knew where the infant was, 
yet he certainly pretended to be true, as if all kings ought, 
after the example of the Magi, to worship the new king ; 
whereas private persons would not venture to confess before 
the reigning sovereign that he was born a lawful king. 

But why did not the Evangelist call them kings ? Why 
did not the author of the Book of Job call his friends kings, 
but the author of the Book of Tobias did ? If another 
Evangelist had written the account of the marriage of 
Cana, he might perhaps have given some other name to 
him whom S. John called a ruler. S. Matthew might have 
called them Magi instead of kings, when they were both, for 
some other reason. He desired to give the tacit reason for 
their knowing from the star that it was Christ who was 
born. For this was the work of Magi, not of kings. 

Their number is less certain. The common opinion, not 
only of the vulgar, but of great authorities (S. Augustin, 
Serms. xxix.-xxxiii. de Tempore; S. Leo, Serms. i., iv.-viii., 
de Epiphania; Rupertus, Comment.}, is that they were three 
in number, which appears the most likely of any. It is 
certain that there were more than one, or even two, for the 
Evangelist always speaks of them as many, and he does 
not even use the dual number of them, but always the 
plural. That they were three is not a matter of certainty, 
but from the number of their gifts it is a probable con 
jecture ; for it is more likely that they all gave different 
gifts than that all should have given the same for this was 
more usual, and was considered more honourable both to 



52 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. 11. i. 

giver and receiver. This opinion has some reason at least 
to support it ; the other has none. 

Whence did they come ? This is the third question. 
Although it is in great part answered by the Evangelist, 
there is yet some room for conjecture. Many ancient 
authors think that they came from Arabia (S. Justin Mart., 
Adv. Try ph.; Tertullian, Adv.Jud., and iii., Adv. Marc. ; S. 
Cyprian, Serm. de Stella et Magis; S. Epiphanius, Epitome}. 
They are justly influenced in this belief by David (Ps. Ixxi. 
10) : " The kings of the Arabians and of Saba shall bring 
gifts"; and that country produces these things, Arabia and 
Saba having even been celebrated by the poets for their 
abundance of gold, perfumes, and frankincense. Others, 
S. Chrysostom among them, suppose them to have been 
Chaldaeans. Their chief argument is, that it was impossible 
for them to have come from Persia and Arabia in the 
space of thirteen days. But this is scarcely tenable, for 
although Chaldsea lies between the North and East, it is 
the custom of Scripture to call it the North. The ordinary 
opinion, that they came from Persia, seems the best, both 
as having more authority, and because the word magi itself 
is a Persian one, and the Evangelist says that they came 
from the East. They also displayed Persian manners ; for 
the Persians adore their kings and approach them only 
with gifts, as all writers on the subject inform us. How 
they could have performed the journey in thirteen days 
shall be explained hereafter. 

The fourth question remains : When did they arrive, and 
wlten did they set out ? For the question consists of these 
two parts. S. Epiphanius (Hcer., 30, 31) affirms, on the 
authority of verse 6, and vehemently contends for it, that 
they arrived two years after the birth of Christ. So too 
Eusebius in his Chronicon. The opinion of the Church is 
much more truth-like, that they came on the thirteenth day 
after the birth of Christ. So said S. Augustin (DeEpipk., i., ii., 



CH. n. i.] THE MAGI. 53 

iii), and S. Leo (Serm. Oct.). It certainly appears that they 
arrived not many days after. This the Evangelist signifies 
when he says, "When Jesus was born, behold there came 
wise men ". For both the connection of the sentence and the 
word " behold " show that the arrival of the Magi followed 
immediately after the birth of Christ (as in Gen. xxiv. 15, 
xxix. 9), and because it is certain that Joseph and Mary 
did not remain in Bethlehem beyond the forty days of her 
Purification as ordered by the Law (Levit. xii. 2). For 
they immediately came to Jerusalem, "to present Him to 
the Lord " (Luke ii. 22), and then returned at once to 
Galilee (v. 39). But the Magi found Christ in Bethlehem 
(S. Matt. ii. 9). They therefore came before the fortieth day 
from His birth. 

2. When did they set out from their country ? The 
opinion of S. Augustin (Serm. xxxii.) seems the best, that 
they did not leave their country till after the birth of Christ. 
Their words, " We have seen His star in the East," seem to 
imply this. But when it is proved that they offered their 
worship thirteen days after, it follows that they could not 
have been longer than eight or nine days on the road ; for 
they did not set out on the same day as that on which they 
saw the star, and it seems most likely that at least two days 
passed whilst Herod was questioning them and consulting 
with the scribes and priests. This makes it much more 
wonderful that they were able to come from Persia in so 
short time. But two circumstances lessen this wonder : (i) 
It is probable that they may have come, not from the 
furthest, but from the nearest parts of Persia, which are 
scarcely more than two hundred leagues from Jeru 
salem (2) That they may have travelled on camels, 
which, although loaded, are said to perform a journey 
of forty leagues a day. It is not necessary to adopt 
the opinion of Remigius, that the journey was performed 
by divine power. 



54 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. n. 2. 

Jerusalem. 

It is strange that the wise men should have come to 
Jerusalem when they were led by the star to Bethlehem. 
Some think that the star disappeared near Jerusalem, that 
the Magi might relate that a King was born in the Royal 
City, lest the Jews should appear ignorant of what they 
had learnt from the testimony of the Gentiles. So S. Am 
brose (lib. ii., On S. Luke, chap, ii.), S. Augustin (Serms. 
xxx., xxxi., xxxv., de Temp.}, S. Chrysostom (Horn. vii. on S. 
Matt}, S. Basil (Horn, de Hum. Gen. Chti.}, Theophylact, and 
S. Bernard on this passage. This is the more probable be 
cause the people of Jerusalem did not see the star ; for if 
they had, the Evangelist would not have passed it over in 
silence, and if it had not disappeared, all the city must 
have seen it. The Evangelist seems to signify this in 
verse 9 as if while they were at Jerusalem they had not 
seen the star, but as soon as they left the city, they began 
to see it again. S. Bernard thinks that the Magi desired 
to come to Jerusalem first, to ask about the new-born King, 
and therefore that the star hid itself that they who sought 
for human counsel might lose the divine guidance. Their 
coming to Jerusalem would appear to have been caused 
not so much by their desire for knowledge as by the will 
of God partly that the Jews might be without excuse, as 
S. Jerome says: partly that Christ being born a King 
might be announced by the Gentiles before it was so by 
the Jews, lest the testimony of the Jews to their own King 
might appear matter of suspicion, as S. Basil suggests in 
his Homily de Hum. Gen. CJiristi ; for human reason re 
quired that one who came to seek a new-born King should 
come to the Royal City. 

Verse 2. That is born. 

The assertion of the Magi is notable, for they did not 
ask, as men in doubt, whether He were born, but, like men 



CH. ii. 2.] THE MAGI. 55 

instructed by God, they asserted decidedly that He was so. 
They seem to speak as if all would affirm that He was so, 
and all knew it. Who, indeed, could suppose that men of 
Persia would know this, but that the Jews would be 
ignorant of it ? It may be, too, that they inquired for a 
new King, of whom, when they knew nothing, they came 
to Jerusalem, to learn in the Royal City what they could 
not discover in other cities. 

King of the Jews. 

These words may be taken in two ways : either the 
King of the Jews who is born, or who is born King of the 
Jews. Either meaning is probable, but the second seems 
the better as being the more forcible ; nor could the Magi 
be ignorant that Herod was not the lawful and natural 
King, but a factitious one given by the Romans. They 
place the natural King in opposition to the factitious one. 

For we have seen His star. 

The star being the index of His birth, five questions 
may be asked about this star : 

1. Of what nature it was (qualis fueri)t 

2. When was it first seen (^quando) ? 

3. Where (//&) ? 

4. How did the Magi know by it that Christ was born 
(quomodd) ? 

5. Why were they taught by it rather than by any other 
means (cur) ? 

S. Gregory Nyss. thinks that it was one of the other stars, 
and that it came down to render the Magi obedience (Horn, 
de Incarn^}. Almost all others suppose that it was not an 
actual star, but only had the appearance of one (S. Chry- 
sostom, On Matt. vi. ; S. Basil, Horn, de Hum. Gen. Christi ; 
S. Ambrose, 1. ii., On S. Luke ; S. Augustin, Serm. xxx. de 
Temp.; Fulgentius, Horn. deEpiph.; author of work De Mira- 



56 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. n. 2. 

bit. Nat., ascribed to S. Augustin, iii. 4). They prove this by 
many arguments : (i) It was never seen before ; (2) never 
after ; (3) it was not in the heavens, or it could not have 
shown the way ; (4) it travelled from east to west, con- 
trarily to the natural course of stars ; (5) it shone not only 
by night, but also by day ; (6) it sometimes concealed 
itself, as has been said on verse I ; (7) it stood over the 
house where the Child was. All these are probable but 
not conclusive arguments ; for He who at one time caused 
the sun to stand still, and at another to go back, could 
cause the star to leave its natural station and perform acts 
beyond its ordinary nature. But because God is not 
accustomed to work miracles without necessity, and as we 
ought not to receive them as miracles without proof, it is 
more credible that it was not a true star, though it could 
bear the resemblance of one, and it was sufficient for the 
Evangelist to give it that name from its resemblance to a 
real star and not because it really was one, as we call a 
comet a star. 

What it was has caused much discussion among the 
learned. Some suppose it to have been the Holy Ghost, who, 
as He appeared after the baptism in the form of a dove, so 
now He descended in the appearance of a star to point out 
Christ. Others think that it was an angel who assumed 
the form of a star ; for the angels are called stars (Apoc. i. 
20). Many others suppose it to have been a comet. I 
have said that it was either a comet or an angel. 

2. When it appeared is not so certain ; some say 
that it was seen two years before Christ was born ; they 
conclude this from the words " two years and under " 
(verse 16), as Euthymius says. The Author and Nice- 
phorus (i. 13) think the same, as at one time did S. 
Augustin (Serm. xxxvi. de Temp.\ though he afterwards 
altered his opinion. Others prefer to say one year. S. 
Chrysostom, Euthymius, Theophylact, and others, put the 



CH. n. 2.] THE MAGI. 57 

appearance on the same day as that of Christ s birth 
(S. Augustin, Serni. iv. de Epipk.}. This seems the most 
probable ; for there is this force in the words, " We have 
seen His star in the east," that is, the star which shows us 
that He is born ; and in the others, " Where is He who is 
born?" as if they certainly knew from the star, not that 
Christ was to be born, but that He actually was born. 
Why Herod slew the infants from two years and under 
shall be explained on verse 16. 

3. Where the Magi saw the star is not certain ; for the 
words are ambiguous, "We have seen His star in the east". 
The meaning may be either that when they were in the 
east they saw the star in the west, or that they saw the star 
which appeared in the east. Some think that the star 
appeared, not in the east, but in the west. But it does not 
seem doubtful that it first appeared in the east, and became 
the guide of their journey. For when they said, "We have 
seen His star in the east," they meant to describe not so 
much the place whence they came as the motive which 
induced them to come namely, their having seen the star ; 
the meaning, therefore, is that the star appeared in the east ; 
for the question was, not whence they themselves were, but 
where they had seen it. For if it had appeared in the west, 
that is, in Judaea, it would have been seen by the Jews : a 
circumstance which the Evangelist could not have passed 
over in silence. Besides, although he does not say that the 
star went before the Magi the whole way, yet, as he says 
(verse 9) that it went before them after they went out of Jeru 
salem, until " it came and stood over where the Child was," 
we must believe that it had previously done the same thing 
as they journeyed from the east to the west. 

4. How the Magi knew that Christ was born from the 
sight of the star is difficult to be explained. It is certain 
that no man by natural knowledge could ever discover that, 
not to say, God, but even man, was born. It remains, there- 



58 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. n. 2. 

fore, that the Magi knew it by revelation from God. But 
how or when this was made may be matter of question. 
S. Jerome (On Isaiah xix.) thinks it to have been done by 
the devils ; and Origen (i., Cont. Cels.} seems to have been 
of the same opinion. Others consider the angels to have 
been the means employed ; others, again, that it was the 
work of God by inward inspiration. 

But it is the most prevalent opinion of almost all the 
Ancients that the Magi had long known from the prophecy 
of Balaam that a star should arise on the birth of Christ 
(Numbers xxiv. 7) ; and the Magi were either the descen 
dants of Balaam or they received the tradition from such of 
them as were living in their neighbourhood (Origen, Horn. 
xiii. in Numbers ; S. Ambrose, ii., On S. Luke ; S. Chrysos- 
tom, Horn. i. in Evangel. ; S. Epiphanius, Epit. ; S. Basil, 
Horn, de Hum. Gen. C/iti.}. This, as well from the great 
number of witnesses in its favour as from its intrinsic 
probability, seems extremely likely. The Magi, when they 
said, " We have seen His star in the east," seem to speak of 
a thing that was known to the Jews, supposing that they 
could not be ignorant of a prophecy which they themselves, 
as Gentiles, knew. For they did not say, We have seen a 
star, but His star; speaking of that star, which, as all knew, 
would appear when Christ was born. It increases the 
probability of this that Herod believed that Christ would 
be shown by this star as a thing known to all the people; 
for he did not ask the chief priests whether a star should 
appear when Christ was born, but where Christ should be 
born. 

The objection of some to that prophecy, that Balaam 
calls Christ Himself a star, when it had been said that a 
star should arise out of Jacob (Levit. xxiv. 17), cannot be 
denied. But it is common, especially in the Prophets, for 
the same word to signify both Christ Himself and the 
figure of Christ, as in verse 1 5. This at least appears certain, 



CH. 11.4.] THE MAGI. 59 

that, either from this Prophet, or from some other source, 
the Magi had a divine revelation ; for they say, persistently, 
and like men taught by God, " Where is He that is born 
King of the Jews?" 

5. The last question is, Why did God teach the Magi by 
means of a star? It is not difficult to answer. S. Gregory 
says that God willed to instruct them in accordance 
with their own knowledge, that they who had passed their 
lives in the observation of the stars might learn Christ from 
the stars. In all things we can both seek and find God. 

And are come to adore Him. 

They who see nothing here but the worship of Urbanity 
seem to me themselves too urbane ! For why did none but 
these Magi come with toil to worship any of the numerous 
kings of the Jews ? as S. Athanasius asks in his book De 
Incarnatione. How would they worship one in a stable, 
and lying in a manger, if they thought Him nothing more 
than man? and how did Herod say that he also would 
come and worship Him ? God would, in truth, to no pur 
pose, have taught them by a great miracle to worship a 
man only, and not God also. 

Verse 4. And assembling together all the chief priests . 

It is clear from many places that there was only one 
chief priest (S. Matt. xxvi. 59, 61, 65 ; 5. Mark i. 44; ii. 
26 ; vS. Luke xxii. 50, 54 ; Acts iv. 6 ; v. 17, 21, 27 ; ix. I ; 
xxii. 5 ; xxiii. 2 ; xxiv. i). It may therefore be rightly asked 
how they are called chief priests, as if they were many ? 
The same expression is found in other places also (S. Matt. 
xvi. 21 ; xx. 1 8, et #/.). Some say that all who had once 
held the office of high priest were called chief priests ; 
for the office had been annual and venal (S. John xi. 49 ; 
xviii. 13) from the time of Pompey s taking the city and 
bringing the office into his own power and that of the 



60 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. n. 6. 

Romans (Josephus, Antiq., xviii. 6 ; Eusebius, Hist., i. 6). So 
S. Chrysostom and Euthymius on chap. xxvi. 5, and Theo- 
phylact on S. Mark xiv. Their opinion is answered as 
follows : Even before the office was annual, and while it 
was still held for life, we read of many called chief priests 
(2 Paralip. xxxvi. 14). They were therefore one and 
many one supreme, who was termed absolutely the chief 
priest or pontifex. There were many who were heads of 
priestly families, as in Paralip. xv. 6, 12 ; xxiv. 6. Herod 
therefore calls the priests because it was their duty to 
answer for the law (Malach. ii. 7) ; but he did not call all 
of them, because their number would have been infinite, but 
the chiefs, who were fewer and more learned, and of the 
number of the ordinary judges of the Sanhedrim, and in a 
manner councillors, as I Paralip. xxiii. 4 ; 5. Matt. xxvi. 
3 ; vS. Mark xi. 18 ; Acts iv. 26, and many other places, 
where without the chief priests no council is assembled. 

And the scribes of the people. 

The scribes were properly the public notaries, whose 
duty it was not only to prepare public instruments, but also 
to keep the holy writings incorrupt, and to explain their 
meaning; as we learn from 4 Kings xxii. 8, 9, 10 ; I Esdras 
vii. 10, 1 1 ; 5. Matt. vii. 29; xvii. 10, et al. They are called 
lawyers, therefore (S. Luke vii. 30; xi. 46), but they were not 
legislators, as some say. Their rank was high, as among 
the Greeks the grammarians were placed in the first order 
as knowing letters, that is, how to read and write. They 
corrected their authors and interpreted them, and were the 
judges in all questions of history, fables, the doubtful 
meaning of writers. They were therefore summoned by 
Herod, and also because they formed a great part of the 
council (S. Mark xiv. 53 ; xv. I ; 5. Luke xxii. 66). 

Verse 6. And thou, Bethlehem. 
A difference, which at first sight appears great, between 



CH. ii. 6.] BETHLEHEM. 6 1 

the Evangelist and Prophet renders this passage one of 
difficulty. They appear to be at variance on four points : 

1. The Evangelist says " Thou Bethlehem, the land of 
Juda " ; the Prophet" Thou, Bethlehem Ephrata ". 

2. The Evangelist " Art not the least "; the Prophet 
" Thou art the least ". 

3. The Evangelist "Out of thee shall come a Governor" ; 
the Prophet does not name a Governor. 

4. The Evangelist says " Who shall rule (regaf] or feed 
(TTO travel} my people ". The Prophet says " Who shall 
rule " (dominetur, vltflft). 

5. " The Evangelist," says S. Jerome, " seems in no way to 
agree either with the Prophet or the LXX." 

Some reply, too readily, that the Evangelists, from lapse 
of memory, frequently cite passages of Scripture, not only 
in other words, but in a different and even contrary sense 
to that of the text. They cite S. Jerome, in his Epistle to 
PammachiuS) as the author of this opinion. To say that 
the Evangelists ever quote Scripture in a contrary sense I 
hold to be blasphemous ; nor does S. Jerome ever say this. 
The meaning of what he does say on this passage in the 
letter mentioned is opposite to that which these assert it to 
be. He does not say that the meaning of the passage in 
the Evangelist is contrary to that of the Prophet, but that 
the meaning of one word of the Evangelist compared with 
that in the Prophet, if considered per se, is contrary. For 
"thou art the least," and " thou art not the least," taken 
per se, are altogether contrary ; but, as said by the Evan 
gelist and Prophet, they are not contrary, but one and the 
same, as shall shortly be shown. But let those who ascribe 
a lapse of memory to the Evangelists, by whose mouths 
the Holy Ghost spoke, although they excuse it as a human 
failing, consider whether they do not excuse in the Evan 
gelists that for which, if a man excused it in himself, they 
would think him an object of ridicule. It seems, too, to be 



62 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. n. 6. 

blasphemy, or very closely bordering upon it. S. Jerome 
was more careful ; for he thought that the priests and 
scribes should be blamed rather than the Evangelist. He 
says, in his Commentary on the Fifth Chapter of Micheas, 
that the Evangelist intended to show not what the Prophet 
said, but what the priests and scribes answered, that he 
might show their ignorance of Scripture. But it can 
hardly be supposed that the priests, however ignorant, cited 
the words of the Prophet incorrectly, especially when it 
was probable that, in a question of so much weight, the 
book itself would be produced. The Evangelist seems, 
moreover, to have repeated their answer rather to praise 
than blame them, that he might show, even from the 
opinion of His enemies, that Christ was to be born in 
Bethlehem. Some think that the Prophet is to be under 
stood interrogatively, and that the words, "Art thou the 
least " and " Thou are not the least," have the same 
meaning ; but this could not be received even if it could 
be proved. Others maintain that "V^! is put by the 
Prophet in the neuter gender, so that the sense may be : 
It is little that thou art among the thousands of Juda ; that 
is : Thou art the greatest, that thou may be among the 
princes of Juda, as the Evangelist says : " Thou art by 
no means the least". It seems no objection to this view 
that the Hebrews do not generally use "P^S in this 
sense, but 10^^ as in Gen. xxx. 15 ; Isa. vii. 13. The 
explanation of the passage probably depends upon another 
point whether they are the words of the priests and scribes, 
or of the Evangelist. Some commentators think them the 
words of the Evangelist. It is not easy to see how they 
explain the question, but the context and connection of 
the words seem to confute them. They are then, it may 
be thought, the words of the priests, faithfully repeated by 
the Evangelist. It appears that the Evangelist s intention 
was not to recite the words of the Prophet, but the inter- 



CH. ii. 6.] HEROD. 63 

pretation of the priests and scribes, which was something 
as follows : " And thou, Bethlehem Ephrata," that is, " the 
land of Juda ". For this Bethlehem was formerly called 
Ephrata (Gen. xxxv. 16, 19; xlviii. 7). For there was 
another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulon (Josh. xix. 1 5 ; 
Judges xii. 8), which was not called Ephrata ; and the 
Prophet added this epithet to distinguish it from the other. 
The priests wished to explain this by a name still more 
clear : " And thou, Bethlehem Ephrata " ; that is, who art 
in the land of Juda, not Zabulon, to teach Herod that the 
meaning of the Prophet was that, not in the Bethlehem of 
Zabulon, but in the Bethlehem of Juda, Christ should be 
born ; for Herod thought it of the greatest consequence to 
his interests that he should know this. The words that 
follow, " Thou art the least," they explain as if the Pro 
phet had spoken ironically: "Thou seemest to be the least, 
if the circuit of thy walls be regarded ; but thou art by no 
means the least, for out of thee shall come forth the Captain 
that shall rule My people ". " Among the thousands " (in 
millibus, D^Q 7fcO they interpret " Among the princes " (in 
ducibus) that is, among leaders, or in the production of 
leaders ; for the word D^D ;>N signifies both leaders and a 
thousand : for leaders are mostly over a thousand men, 
hence they are called chiliarchs by the Greeks. For the 
people were divided into thousands, as everyone is aware, 
and as is plain from Exod. xviii. 25, and I Paralip. xxiii. 4. 
The same, as we have seen from Aristotle and Plato, was 
the order of the ancient Greek republic. It is certain that 
the Prophet not only looked forward to the future coming 
of Christ, but also alluded to the past of David, signifying 
that a small city had already produced one most eminent 
chief David, and would shortly produce another far more 
excellent Christ ; and, as it was a question about the 
birth of Christ, the priests appositely rendered rmrP 
l among the leaders of Juda vttMD* Their substi- 



64 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. n. 7, 10. 

tution of TToifjuavel (feeding) for dominetur (ruling) came 
from their wish to show His manner of ruling, signifying 
that Christ would not rule His people with an iron rod, like 
the Gentiles, but with the crook of a kind shepherd, whose 
sheep were his own. At the same time, they probably 
allude to David, the figure of Christ, who was brought from 
feeding his sheep to the feeding of the people of God, as in 
Ps. Ixxviii. 70, 71, 72. Our version reads reget, more pro 
perly, perhaps, than pascet ; for they did not call Christ 
Troi/jieva, a shepherd, as Homer calls his kings, but rj^/efjiova 
(ducetn). And the word " ruling " applies better to Him 
than " feeding ". S. Chrysostom and The Author blame 
the priests because they did not give the full testimony of 
the Prophet. For there follows : " And His going forth is 
from the beginning, from the days of eternity ". But they 
seem to have been silent, not from malignity so much as 
from prudence, because the words had nothing to do with 
Herod s question of where Christ was born. 

Verse 7. TJien Herod privately calling the wise men. 

He called them privately because he was preparing a 
snare for Christ. 

What time the star. 

The time when the star appeared, that is, when it first 
began to be seen by them. 

Verse 10. When they saw the star. 

They who conclude from these words that the star had 
not led the Magi the whole of their journey, because they 
now rejoiced at it as if rendering them a new service, do 
not appear to observe that in the same way it might be 
proved that it had never been seen before at all. When 
the Magi were at Jerusalem it disappeared, as has been 
said on verse I. But they seem not to have understood 



CH. ii. ii.] THE MAGI. 65 

the force of the above words, for the Evangelist does 
not appear to mean that the Magi were rejoiced at the 
sight of the star, which seems to have vanished before, for 
if he meant this he would have said "before" and not 
" now ". " And behold the star which they had seen in the 
east went before them, until it came and stood where the 
Child was. And seeing the star they rejoiced with exceed 
ing great joy" (verses 9, 10). He signifies that they were 
glad to see the star (as he had just said) standing over 
where the Child was. They rejoiced, not because they saw 
the star, which they had often seen before, but because 
they had found Christ, for whom they had been seeking. 

Verse 1 1. And when they were come into the house. 

A question has arisen, from the Magi being said to have 
entered a house and not the stable, as to whether or not 
they found Christ lying in the manger. Almost all the 
Ancients say that they found Him in the inn and wor 
shipped Him (S. Just. Mart., Cont. Tryph.; S. Chrys., Horn. 
vii. ; S. Aug., Serms. i., ii., on Epiph^]. His having been 
placed in a stable was partly a mystery, and partly from 
necessity, because as all who were of the family of David 
came from all parts to Bethlehem, because of the taxing, 
there would not have been room in the inn (S. Liike ii. 7). 
The mystery was thus fulfilled. 

With Mary His Mother. 

That Joseph was not mentioned was perhaps by chance : 
or he might not have been in the house : or the omission of 
his name was by mystery, that the Magi might not suppose 
him to have been the father of Christ ; for the shepherds 
are said to have found the Babe with Joseph and Mary (S. 
Luke ii. 16). 

They offered Him gifts ; gold, frankincense, and myrrh. 

In which the East abounds ; yet the mystery, acknow- 

5 



66 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. n. 14. 

ledged with one consent by all ancient authors, should by 
no means be left out of sight that gold is given to kings, 
frankincense to God, myrrh to men. It seems a less 
mystery that a woman should have poured ointment on 
Christ, which, however, was an Eastern custom ; yet Christ 
said it was done to signify His burial, of which the woman 
perhaps had no thought (S. Matt. xxvi. 12). Of this 
mystery we have not Christ Himself, indeed, as a witness, 
but all the ancient Fathers as authorities (S. Irenaeus, i. 3, 
10 ; S. Cyprian, Serm. de Stell. et Mag. , Origen, i., Cont. Cels.; 
S. Basil, Horn, de Hum. Generat. ; S. Greg. Nyss., De 
Nativ. ; S. Cyprian, i., De Evang. ; S. Ambrose, i., De Fid. ; 
S. Aug., Serm. i. de Epiph., and Serm. xxxvii. ; S. Jerome, 
Comment. ; Juvencus and Sedulius in their poems). 

Verse 14. Who arose. 

Who arose, that is, when he awoke immediately after the 
vision, he took the Child and fled by night. It is probable 
that there were executioners at hand who were seeking for 
the Infant, as they were directed to depart in the night. 
They fled neither from Bethlehem nor from Jerusalem, but 
from Nazareth in Galilee, as is plain from .S. Luke ii. 39. 
One reason why Egypt is named is clear : it was out of the 
jurisdiction of Herod. The Evangelist gives another : 
" That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Osee the 
Prophet I call my Son out of Egypt" (x. i), though the 
event rather than the reason is signified here. For Egypt 
was the refuge of the Isaelites. They were driven thither 
by famine, and, long after, when oppressed by the Chal- 
daeans in war, the remnant betook themselves thither (4 
Kings xxv. 26). Egypt seems to have been the school of 
the sons of God, who cannot flourish unless they are 
oppressed. 

And was there until the death of Herod. 
How long Christ remained in Egypt, or in what place 



CH. ii. 14.] CHRIST IN EGYPT. 67 

He lived, the Evangelist does not mention, and it cannot 
probably be known now. 

It is the almost universal opinion of antiquity that 
Christ spent two years in Egypt. If we wish to ascertain 
what is most probable, three principia may be laid down 
which can easily be proved from the Gospel. 

1. The flight into Egypt happened in the same year as 
the adoration of the Magi, and not long after it. Verse 
1 6 shows this : " Then Herod, perceiving that he was de 
luded by the wise men " ; and verse 13: " And after they 
were departed, behold an angel of the Lord appeared in 
sleep to Joseph ". Although this does not prove that 
the departure of Joseph took place immediately after 
that of the Magi, yet it certainly shows that not long after 
it Joseph was warned to depart, and Herod sought to kill 
the Child. 

2. Christ returned from Egypt in the same year as 
that of Herod s death. This is proved from verses 19, 

20. 

3. The Magi, as shown above, came a few days after 
the birth of Christ. From these three principia, although 
two others might be added from profane authors (viz., 
how many years Herod reigned, and in what year of his 
reign Christ was born), we shall certainly find sufficient 
time for Christ to have stayed in Egypt. 

Of these two last principia one is certain, that Herod 
reigned thirty-seven years. We learn this from most 
credible sources (Josephus, Bell. Jud., bk. i., xxi. ; Eusebius, 
Chron^). 

As regards the other, authors differ as to two years. Some 
say that Christ was born in the forty-first year of the 
Emperor Augustus (S. Iren., iii. 24 ; Tertull., Adv. Jtid.) ; 
others in the forty-second (Euseb., Hist., i. 5 ; Epiphan., 
Her,, li.). Again, it is further doubted, by another year, 
what year of Augustus fell on what of Herod. 



68 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. n. 14. 

Some, like Eusebius, think that the forty-first year of 
Augustus was the thirty-first of Herod ; others e.g., S. 
Epiphanius, that it was the thirty-second. 

If we follow S. Irenaeus and Tertullian, and say that 
Christ was born in the forty-first year of Augustus, and 
Eusebius in saying that that was the thirty-first of Herod, 
Christ would necessarily have stayed six entire years in 
Egypt : or seven if we include the year of his flight, i.e., 
the thirty-second of Herod. This is the first and, as 
appears, the most ancient opinion. 

But if we follow S. Irenaeus and Tertullian on the years 
of Augustus, and S. Epiphanius on those of Herod, there 
will remain five, or, if we include the first, six years, 
during which Christ was in Egypt, and as many, 
according to Eusebius, if we follow him alone on the 
years both of Augustus and Herod. But if we follow 
Eusebius on the years of Augustus, and Epiphanius on 
the years of Herod, Christ was in Egypt at most five 
years if we count the first year, and at least four if we do 
not count it. 

So that it is alone certain that Christ spent not more than 
seven, and not less than four, years in Egypt. Hence the 
common opinion of two years, and that of Nicephorus of 
three has no probability, unless we say that the adoration 
of the Magi took place two years after Christ s birth. 
But we have refuted this opinion of verse i. 

In what city of Egypt Christ dwelt, or what He did 
there, is unknown. There are many accounts by authors 
of no name, of miracles done by Christ in Egypt. We 
have John the Evangelist, who teaches us that Christ 
wrought His first miracle in Cana of Galilee, by turning 
water into wine (ii. n), and although this may be confined 
to what He did after His return from Egypt, it is much 
more probable that that which is spoken universally 
should be understood universally. This, however, need 



CH. ii. 15.] CHRIST IN EGYPT. 69 

not weaken our faith in authors of good repute who 
say that when Christ entered Egypt the idols fell 
down, as S. Jerome says without disapprobation, and 
which so many have repeated that it may appear to be a 
true tradition. Sozomen also (v. 20) relates a tradition 
that when Christ came to Hermopolis, a city of Egypt, a 
certain lofty tree inclined its head. 

Verse 15. That it might be fulfilled. 

The word " that," in this place, does not seem to me to 
signify the cause but the event, as S. Chrysostom and John 
Damasc. have observed in many parts of Scripture (as 
infra, verse 16 ; 5. John ix. 39). For Christ did not fly 
into Egypt that the prophecy might thus be fulfilled, but 
when He had fled thither to escape from Herod, it was 
so that the prophecy should appear to be thus properly 
fulfilled. And as this expression very frequently occurs 
in Scripture, it shall be explained once for all. There 
are apparently four methods in which a prophecy may be 
fulfilled. 

1. When the thing itself comes to pass in the proper 
and literal sense : as when S. Matthew says (i. 22) that 
the prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled in Mary : " Behold a 
Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son " (vii. 14). 

2. When the thing itself of which the Prophet is rightly 
understood to speak does not take place, but that 
which is signified by it, as 2 Kings vii. 14 : "I will be to 
Him a Father and He shall be to me a Son," which, as 
is plain, was properly said to Solomon, yet is applied by 
S. Paul to Christ, whose figure Solomon was (Heb. i. 6), 
as if it were fulfilled in Him, and Exod, xii. 46: "Neither 
shall you break a bone thereof." is certainly understood 
of the Lamb ; yet S. John (xix. 36) says that it was ful 
filled in Christ, who was signified by the Lamb. 

3. When neither that of which the prophecy is 



70 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. n. 15. 

properly understood takes place, nor that which is signi 
fied by it, but something that resembles it and is of the 
same nature, so that the prophecy may appear to be said 
not less aptly of it than of that of which it was spoken. 
For the words, " This people with their lips glorify Me " 
(Isa. xxix. 13), were spoken by God of the Jews of the 
time of Isaiah, but Christ shows that they were fulfilled 
by those of His own time (S. Matt. xiii. 14; Acts xxviii. 
26). 

4. When precisely the same thing which had been 
spoken by prophecy or in Scripture, although it had 
already taken place, is fulfilled more and more, Scripture 
is then said to be fulfilled : that is, what was spoken by it is 
done most cumulatively. We may observe, also, that it 
often happens in Scripture that a thing is spoken of which 
has not merely begun to be done, but which is being done 
more and more, as in 5. John xi. 12. The disciples, when 
they saw the miracle of the water turned into wine, believed 
more and more, for they had certainly believed before, as, 
Deo volente, we will explain that most difficult passage of 
the book of S. James (ii. 23.) 

That prophecy of Osee, then, " Out of Egypt," &c., was 
properly understood of the people of Israel when God 
called His first-born Son (Exodus iv. 22), as is clear from 
the words of the Prophet. But it is said now to have been 
fulfilled in a second and third manner. For that people 
was banished into Egypt, and could thus be called a figure 
of Christ, who was to be banished to the same place : as 
now the mystical body of the Church is a figure of the 
natural body of Christ, and Christ resembles the people in 
each being called the Son of God. But the Evangelist 
signifies that the prophecy could not be properly and 
perfectly fulfilled in the people, as they were not properly 
and by nature the Son of God ; but in Christ, who was 
such in both senses, it was fulfilled most perfectly. As if we 



CH. ii. i6.] CHRIST IN EGYPT. 71 

should say that the words, "I will be to thee a Father," were 
not properly spoken of Solomon, who was not properly and 
by nature a son ; but of Christ, who was such in both 
senses, they were properly said. For " I call my son out of 
Egypt" (Osee xi. i), the LXX. reads "his sons," either 
because for ^1 " my son," they read V01 " his sons," 
by the addition of one letter, or because they thought the 
meaning more applicable, as, indeed, it would have been 
had not the Evangelist read " my son ". Julian, therefore, 
ignorantly objected this passage to the Christians, as if the 
Evangelist had cited the testimony of the Prophet in bad 
faith, not observing that he followed not the Greek LXX. 
version, but the Hebrew text of the Prophet (S. Jerome, On 
Osee xi.). 

Verse 16. Then Herod. 

The word " then " does not seem in this passage to refer 
to a point of time, as if Herod slew the children immediately 
on the departure of the Magi. Some distance of time must 
necessarily have elapsed between the two events, both 
because Christ was presented in the Temple on the twenty- 
second day after the Adoration, for He stayed in Nazareth 
some time after (S. Luke ii. 39) ; and because it is probable 
that Herod, although a bloodthirsty and cruel tyrant, tried 
first to find Christ, that he might kill Him alone, before 
putting to death all the other infants ; a thing that, as he 
knew, he could not do without incurring the utmost hatred 
of the people ; especially as we know, from Josephus, that 
he was accustomed by every means in his power to hunt 
after their favour, lest he should be deprived of the throne 
as a stranger. When, therefore, he sought for Christ, but 
could not find Him, that one child might not escape, he 
slaughtered all, which he could not have done without the 
lapse of time. 

Sent forth. 

A Hebraism rVWO, The Hebrews use the word 



72 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. 11. 16. 

and the Greeks dTroo-reXXeiv, absolutely the person con 
cerned not being expressed, but understood, which the 
Latins seldom or never do Understand executioners as 
in chap. xiv. 10 ; xxvii. 19 ; Psalm Ivi. 4 ; civ. 19 ; S. Mark 
iii. 31 ; vi. 17. 

From two years old and under. 

This passage, from the difficulty of the history and the 
difference of opinions, is obscure. Some say that the Magi 
came two years after the birth of Christ, and that this was 
the reason of Herod s killing the children of two years. 
Others say one year or thereabouts after it. This would 
very easily solve the difficulty ; but these opinions have 
been proved erroneous (verses i, 2). Others say that Herod 
did not kill the infants immediately on the departure of 
the Magi, but two years afterwards he having meanwhile 
been summoned to Rome to account for having put his 
sons to death. But this is also confuted, both by the words 
of the Evangelist, who does not allow so long a time, and 
by history. For it appears from the Chronicon of Eusebius 
that he had put his sons to death five years before. We 
who believe that the star did not appear before the birth of 
Christ, and that the Magi did not arrive many days after it, 
cannot adopt these explanations. The opinion of Strabus 
and Euthymius, with which also many of the learned of 
our time agree, seems very probable, that Herod added 
two years to the time of which he inquired of the Magi ; 
and hence the words, " According to the time which he had 
diligently inquired of the wise men," do not mean that all 
the infants were slain who were born two years after the 
star had appeared to the Magi, but those who were born 
two years before it appeared. It may be asked, Why two 
years before, and not two years after ? The answer may 
be : (i) Because there were not two years after, but only a 
few days, as shown on verses I, 2 ; (2) because the Magi, 
as has been said on verse 2, said, not that Christ would be 



CH. ii. 17, 18.] MASSACRE OF THE INNOCENTS. 73 

born, but that He actually was born, but hoiv long He had 
been born they did not say, and possibly did not know. 
For the star showed that He actually was born, not when 
He was born. Herod then sought, for caution and security 
to himself, to put to death all who had been born two years 
before the star appeared ; and he slew not only those in 
Bethlehem, where the priests had said that Christ would 
be born, but also all who were born in all the adjacent 
country ; and he thus extended his cruelty not only in 
place, but also in time, beyond what was necessary. That 
he might not accidentally err, he augmented his error. 

Verse 17. Then was fulfilled. 

This prophecy was now fulfilled in the same manner as 
that s& Jeremiah xxx. i. 

Verse 1 8. A voice in Rama was heard. 
The Hebrews explain 4 Kings xxiv. 10, xxv. 4, of the 
leading away captive of the two tribes Juda and Benjamin. 
Nor is it doubtful from the circumstances of Jeremiah that 
it ought so to be understood, and that by Rachel the whole 
territory of the two tribes is signified by a double meto 
nymy ; one, by which a place is understood by a person ; 
the other, by which a whole country is understood by a 
single city. Rachel was buried in Bethlehem (Genesis 
xxxv. 19). Hence by Rachel, Bethlehem is to be under 
stood. Why, then, did not the Prophet simply say, " Beth 
lehem weeping for her children," but spoke of Rachel, who 
had long been dead, when the dead do not lament ? The 
reason may be that Rachel was a woman, and it is the 
nature of women to lament in calamities of this kind. I 
know not if the Prophet alludes to her birth ; for she is 
said to have brought forth Benjamin with severe suffering 
(Genesis xxxv. 18), and mothers usually lament over those 
lost children the most whom they have brought forth with 
the most labour. But Rachel s weeping, who was now 



74 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. n. 18. 

dead, may be thought not only elegant, but also of great 
force and full of meaning. For, by this expression, the 
Prophet most probably wished to show that the future 
calamity of the people would be so great that not one 
woman would remain who could weep, so that the mourners 
must call up even the dead. We see something of the same 
kind in tragedies, when the manes of the dead or the shades 
of the cities that have been overthrown are introduced 
lamenting. But why, by the weeping of Rachel, is the 
calamity of the kingdom of Judgea signified, when Rachel 
was the mother, not of Juda, but Benjamin ? (Genesis xxxv. 
1 8). Because the head of the kingdom was Jerusalem, 
formerly called Jebus, which was in the tribe of Benjamin 
(Jos/ma xviii. 28 ; I Paralip. xi. 4). 

What the Prophet, then, spoke of the captivity, S. Mat 
thew applied to the slaughter the infants, showing that 
the prophecy, though not spoken of them, co e applied 

to them much more properly than to the captive Jews, and 
because the former were men, and the latter infants ; the 
former deserving punishment, the latter innocent and un 
deserving ; the former captives, the latter cruelly slain ; the 
former of Juda, the latter of Bethlehem. Rachel, therefore 
that is, Bethlehem should rather lament the infants 
than the men. A deep and profound grief is expressed by 
the accumulation of words " lamentation, and mourning ) 
and woe ". Our version, indeed, expresses only two, and 
perhaps more rightly, because two only are found in the 
Prophet ^ITC unless we say that the Evangelist fol 
lowed the LXX., which has rendered the two Hebrew 
words by the three Greek ones, tfpr^o? >cal K\av6^o^ KOI 
oSvp/j,os, and by the addition of the word great, which in 
the Hebrew is Q H QfcO (bitter). The meaning, however, is 
the same, for in Latin we often say, to weep bitterly, that 
s, much. 

No one denies that Rama was the name of a city, but 



CH. ii. 18.] MASSACRE OF THE INNOCENTS. 75 

because it is neither in the tribe of Juda nor near Bethlehem, 
but in the tribe of Benjamin and near Gabaon (Joshua xviii. 
25), the translators did not think that the Prophet could 
have spoken of it. It appears, however, that the Prophet 
did name that city, because it was not in the tribe of Juda, 
but in that of Benjamin ; for he wished to show that there 
would be a grief common to each tribe, because each would 
be taken captive. He therefore named one city of Juda, 
Bethlehem, and another of Benjamin, Rama. The Prophet 
named Rama rather than any other city because it was on 
the confines of Benjamin and Juda, and his intention was 
to show that the lamentation of Juda would be so great 
that it would be heard even in the tribe of Benjamin. 

Because they are not. 

Here also the Evangelist, or his Greek interpreter, fol 
lowed not the original Hebrew, but the LXX. For the 
Prophet had said I^N ^ " because he is not " ; that 
is, because none of them had remained, but all were 
either slain or led into captivity. The LXX., however, 
because the Prophet had spoken of sons in the plural num 
ber, to obviate any difficulty, translated it also in the plural, 
" because they are not," as is done in many other passages. 
It is a Hebraism, showing that they who were before 
were wholly and suddenly dead, so as to seem to have 
instantaneously disappeared (Gen. v. 24), where it is said of 
Henoch that he was not ; that is, he was not seen any more 
because God took him (and Ps. xxxvi. 36, of the wicked). 
It is signified here, therefore, that the Jewish men were 
carried into Babylon, and the infants into Abraham s bosom. 

All ancient writers, with wonderful consent, make these 
infants true martyrs. For, although neither baptised, nor 
dying of their own will for Christ, they were baptised in 
their own blood ; and that which the faith of another does 
the perverse will of the tyrant, in putting them to death 



76 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn.ii. 19,20,22. 

for Christ, effected ; and as much as Herod harmed them, 
his cruelty profited them. So say S. Irenaeus, S. Justin 
Martyr, S. Cyprian, S. Chrysostom, and others. 

Verse 19. But when Herod ivas dead. 

Josephus (Antiq., xvii. 8; Bell. Jud., 21), Hegesippus 
(i. 45), Eusebius (i. 8), tell us of what death he died. 
Eusebius adds, that for the slaughter of the Innocents he 
was destroyed by a shameful disease. 

Verse 20. They are dead. 

This is by syllepsis, by which, when speaking of one 
person, the plural is used. Herod alone was dead, but 
many executioners, by his command, sought the young 
Child s life. 

Verse 22. But hearing that Archelaus reigned. 

Herod had nine wives. By two one his cousin by the 
mother s side, the other his brother s daughter he had no 
sons. By the others he had nine Alexander, Aristobulus, 
Antipater, Herod, Antipas (who also afterwards took the 
name of Herod), Archelaus, another Herod, Philip, Phasel- 
lus ; and three daughters Roxane, Salome, and Olympias 
(Josephus, Antiq., xvii. i; xvii. 7; Bell. Jud.,\. 18). He 
strangled his two eldest sons in his lifetime (Antiq., xvi. 17 ; 
Bell. Jud., i. 17). He put Antipater to death five days 
before he died himself (Antiq., xvii. 9). The others were 
dead. Three survived their father Archelaus, Antipas, 
and Philip. Herod made two wills. In the first he 
named Antipas heir of his kingdom. In the second he 
suddenly changed his intention, and made Archelaus king 
of Judsea, Antipas tetrarch of Galilee and Petraea, Philip 
tetrarch of Trachonitis, Gaulonitis, Batansea, and the region 
of Paneas ; but on the condition that Archelaus should not 
assume the name of king, and that nothing mentioned in 
his will should be carried into effect without the approba- 



CH. ii. 23.] THE RETURN FROM EGYPT. 77 

tion of Caesar (Josephus, Antiq.. xvii. 10 ; Bell. Jud., i. 21). 
Although Caesar would not give Archelaus the name of 
king, he made him ethnarch of Judaea, Idumaea, and 
Samaria (Antiq. xvii. i). Yet, as he practised kingly 
power, and as the soldiers immediately after his father s 
death saluted him as king (Antiq., xvii. 10), he was com 
monly called king, and the Evangelist has here given him 
this title. 

It may appear strange that Joseph should have been 
perplexed on hearing that Archelaus was reigning, and 
have therefore feared to go into Judaea, as he might, we 
should suppose, have thought that one of Herod s sons 
would succeed him in his kingdom. Joseph may have 
thought either that no one would succeed him, as he had 
possessed the kingdom by no kind of right, or that Antipas 
would do so, according to his father s first will, whom 
Joseph knew to be of a milder disposition. This might 
be one reason why he was directed by the angel to go into 
Galilee, where Antipas ruled, although there is another 
more certain. When there was a question about Christ as 
King of the Jews, more was to be feared from Archelaus, 
the king, than from Antipater, the tetrarch. 

Verse 23. That it might be fulfilled. 

This testimony is found in the same words in none of the 
sacred writers. This has given cause for various explana 
tions. S. Chrysostom (Horn, ix.), Theophylact, and Euthy- 
mius think that none of the Prophets works now extant is 
cited, but some that have perished, such as Nathan s, Esdras , 
and others, whose writings S. Chrysostom, S. Athanasius in 
the Synopsis, and the thing itself, show to have perished. 
But it is difficult to believe that the Evangelist cited, and 
without apparent reason, prophecies which are not extant, 
although we find a lost prophecy of Enoch cited, under 
wholly different circumstances, by S. Jude. Some think 



78 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. n. 23. 

that the Evangelist is producing a testimony from Prophets 
whose writings were extant in his day, but which were not 
in the ecclesiastical canon. Others think that the Pro 
phets are cited that is, the interpreters of the Prophets, 
who have elicited this meaning from the canonical writers, 
although it is not expressly found in their books, viz., that 
Christ should be called a Nazarite (NazarcMts). 
There were three divisions of Prophets : 

1. The first, to whom the Holy Spirit was always 
present ; as the Greater Prophets, as they are called. 

2. The second, to whom the Spirit was not always 
present, but was so very frequently, like the Minor Prophets. 

3. The third, who were called Prophets, not because 
they foretold future events, but because by the Spirit of 
God they interpreted the sayings of the Prophets. These 
are called the Sons of the Prophets in the Old Testament 
(3 Kings xx. 34 ; 4 Kings ii. 3, 5, 7 ; iv. 38 ; v. I ; ix. i). 
In the New Testament they are also called Prophets (i Cor. 
xii. 28 ; xiv. 29, 32, 37). 

These authors, however, do not seem to prove that the 
Evangelist speaks of the third class of Prophets, whose 
testimony none of the Apostles has ever produced. Others, 
again, suppose the Book of Judges to be referred to, where 
it is said, " The Child shall be called a Nazarite (Nazaraus) 
from his birth ". Although this was said of Samson, the 
Evangelist says that it was fulfilled in Christ, of whom 
Samson was a figure, like the other prophecies (verses 13, 
14) ; and, therefore, that he did not say " by the Prophet," 
but "by the Prophets"; because that book was not written 
by one, but by many in succession, each after each. 

Opposed to this explanation is the fact that Christ is not 
called "VW Nasirceus, like Samson, but "H^ Natzereus, or 
Natzareus, as is seen from the title on the cross and the 
testimony of the ancient Hebrews. 

Others still refer to Isaiah xi. I. The Hebrew is 



CH. n. 23.] TESTIMONY OF VERSE 23. 79 



germen, surculus, which is the source of the word 
Natzarceus. S. Jerome and The Author think this probable. 
Others think that no single testimony of any one Prophet 
is produced, but one from all the Prophets, for all the 
Prophets called Christ " Holy," nay, " Most Holy" (Daniel 
ix. 14), because the word "H O Nazarceus, means separated, 
consecrated to God. S. Jerome seems to agree to this. 
I for my own part, if my opinion be of any value, think 
that the Evangelist desired to change the odium of the 
word into honour, and whence Christ was derided, to 
prove that He was indeed the true Messiah. Christ was 
called by the Jews, in contempt, a Nazarene, and we know 
that all Christians were known to the Gentiles by the same 
term of contempt, as they are termed G" 1 ""^ by the Jews 
to this day ; and this has been one great hindrance to many 
to confess Christ to be the Messiah. " Can anything of 
good come from Nazareth?" (S. John i. 46 ; vii. 41, 42). 
And again (verse 52), "Search the Scriptures, and see that 
out of Galilee a prophet riseth not". The Evangelist 
would have taught us that this ought not to be any hind 
rance to us in confessing Christ to be the Messiah. For 
although Scripture does not say that He would not come 
from Nazareth of Galilee, but from Bethlehem of Juda, 
yet Christ was not called a Nazarene because He was 
born in Nazareth, but because He lived in it. For He was 
born in Bethlehem Juda. The name Nazarceus is rather 
a proof that He was the Christ, for Isaiah calls Him *\!E 
that is, Nazarceus, a Nazarene. 

There are three objections, however, to this view. 
I. Christ is called in one sense ""122 germen or flos, by 
the Prophet. He is called in another by the Jews V"^^ 
Nazarceus, from the city Nazareth. The Evangelist was 
not ignorant of this, but was content to teach us that the 
very name which was given to Christ by the Jews in 
contempt had been ascribed to Him by the Prophet as an 



8O THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. n. 23. 

honour. He thus retorted their calumny upon them 
selves. 

2. Nazareth was not written with 2? but with t ; that is, 
it was not written with s but z. But 1*0 that is, Naza- 
rceuS) was written by Isaiah with s "1!, But 

(i.) The Greeks could easily change s into s. 

(ii.) The name of the city is not found written in the Old 
Testament, that we might judge by what letters it would 
have been written. 

(iii.) Lastly, from the title on the Cross, and from the 
writings of the Hebrews, it is clear that the city was called 
by the Jews JT"^! NatsaretJi, as Christ derived from it 
it the name of *H!3 Natsarczus ; but the Greeks and Latins 
softened the sound of the word to Nazareth and Nazarene. 

3. The Evangelist does not say that it was said by the 
Prophet, but by the Prophets, as if, as S. Jerome says, it 
were certain that he was not bringing a testimony from the 
Scriptures. It was nothing new that when the testimony 
of one Prophet only was produced, it should be said to have 
been written by the Prophets. Of this we have instances 
in this same Gospel (xxvi. 56), and 5. John (vi. 45), and 
Acts (xiii. 40; xv. 15). We have, indeed, seen a similar 
syllepsis in verse 20 just preceding, where it is said, " They 
who sought the life of the Child are dead," when, in fact, 
it was Herod alone who had died. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE PREACHING OF JOHN CHRIST IS BAPTISED. 

Verse i. In those days. 

THE whole twenty-three years and more which Christ is 
believed to have spent in Nazareth until He approached 
His thirtieth year, the age of a doctor of the Church, have 
been passed over by the three Evangelists, SS. Matthew, 
Mark, and John, in almost total silence. S. Luke alone 
has told us a little of His childhood (ii. 40 fT.). 

In those days. 

This was clearly thirty years later, or thereabouts, as is 
gathered from S. Luke (iii. i), who says that the coming of 
S. John Baptist took place in the fifteenth year of Tiberius 
Caesar. It is certain that Christ was born in the forty-first 
or forty-second year of the reign of Augustus (vide chap. 
1.13). Augustus reigned fifty-six years. We may therefore 
ask why S. Matthew says " in those days " ? A day is 
clearly put in Hebrew for a year (Gen. xxiv. 55 ; Exod. xiii. 
10 ; Levit. xxv. 29 ; Judges xix. 2 ; I Kings i. 13 ; Amos 
iv. 4) ; also for any time, however long (Judges xviii. I ; 
EzekielncxxviL 17). These words, therefore, mean the same 
as after some years, or after some time, as S. Chrysostom 
(Horn, x.) and Strabus show. Or, more probably, the time 
referred to is that which Christ spent in Nazareth. The 
words of the Evangelist thus cohere best. For he had 
said (ii. 23) : " He came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth," 



82 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. in. 2. 

and then he added : " In these days " ; that is, while He 

was living there. 

Came. 

Why did He not come before ? Because He was not yet 
thirty years old, before which age no one could perform 
the work of a priest, doctor of the Church, or prophet, as 
the Jews say, and as is clear from Scripture (i Paralip. 
xxiii. 3). This was the reason why Christ Himself did not 
begin to teach before His thirtieth year. The Evangelist 
does not say that S. John then first came into the desert, 
but then first showed himself in it, and began to preach 

repentance. 

In the desert of Judcea. 

We read of many deserts in Scripture. The desert of 
Ziph (i Kings xxiii. 15), between the west and south, a 
long way from Jerusalem ; the desert of Maon near it 
(i Kings xxiii. 24), Engeddi (xxiv. 2), Pharan (xxv. i), 
Edom to the south (4 Kings iii. 8). But when a desert is 
mentioned absolutely, that of Juda is meant (S. Matt. iv. 
i ; xi. 7 ; xv. 23 ; 5. Mark i. 3, 4, 12, 13 ; 5. Luke i. 80, iii. 2), 
unless another is evidently intended, as in S. John iii. 14. 
S. Matthew adds the word Juda that it might be dis 
tinguished from others. It lay between the east and north 
on this side of Jordan ; at the top, on the north and east 
point, were Enon and Salim, where John baptised. 

Verse 2. Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 

Some think that the kingdom of heaven here means 
grace, faith, and renewal of spirit, which is said to be 
within us, as in 5. Luke xvii. 21. It may be so, but in this 
passage it would rather appear that heaven itself is in 
tended, as in 6". Matt. xxv. 34 ; S. Luke xiii. 28, 29 ; xxiii. 41. 
It seems to be a tacit allusion and antithesis to the exodus 
of the Israelites from Egypt, and their return from Babylon 
into the land of Canaan, which had been promised them, 
and which no doubt was a figure of heaven. 



CH. in. 3, 4.] S. JOHN BAPTIST. 83 

The meaning, then, is : Prepare yourselves by penitence ; 
that is, do not serve Pharoah and the king of Babylon, who 
are as Satan. In other words, do not prefer slavery to free 
dom, captivity to a kingdom, as some idle and degenerate 
Israelites formerly did. For the time is at hand when they 
who wish may enter heaven. Joshua speaks in the same 
manner to the people when they entered the land of 
Canaan, after their long wanderings (iii. 5). The kingdom 
of heaven is said to be at hand because, although shut 
before, it was to be opened after the death of Christ (Heb. 
ix. 8 ; xi. 29, 40). Christ Himself also teaches this ; for 
what is the meaning of 5. Matt. xxvi. 29, and 5. Luke xxii. 
1 8, but that He, by His death, would open the kingdom of 
heaven ? The thief on the cross understood this (S. Luke 
xxiii. 42). The Cross of Christ was the ark of the covenant, 
by which the waters of Jordan were divided, and entrance 
was made to the promised land (Joshua iii. 16). 

Verse 3. This is he. 

Euthymius thinks these the words of S. John. But it is 
clear from .S. Mark i. I, and 5. Luke iii. 4, that they are 
those of the Evangelist, who applied, as he often does, the 
words of the Prophet (Isaiah xl. 3) to S. John. " The 
voice of one crying " (vox damans) ; or, in Hebrew, Tip 
N"Ylp for the Hebrew is ambiguous. Not only do 
S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke apply this testimony to 
S. John, but he himself also declares that he was the voice 
(S. John i. 23). The words of Isaiah, " preparing the way 
in the wilderness," were spoken of the souls of the Jews, 
which, as undisciplined and stony, they were exhorted to 
soften, and so prepare by humility, faith, and patience, that 
Christ might pass through them per eos transeatznd 
receive them with Himself in heaven. 

Verse 4. The same John had his raiment of camel s hair. 
S. Luke describes the appearance of S. John with great 



84 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. in. 6, 7. 

exactness, partly, perhaps, in praise of his sanctity, and 
partly to show tacitly why he raised so high an opinion of 
himself that the people flocked from all parts to see him. 

His meat was locusts. 

The locusts of S. John were the insect locusts which were 
allowed to be eaten by the Law (Levit. xi. 22). Almost all 
the ancient writers state that S. John s diet consisted of 
them. (Origen, Horn, in Luc. ; S. Hilary, Can. ii. ; 
S. Ambrose, in Luc. ii. 3 ; S. Chrysostom, Horn. ii. in 
Marc.; The Author, Horn, iii.; S. Augustine, Confess., iii. 31.) 

Wild honey. 

The land was described as flowing with milk and honey 
(Exod. iii. 8, 17; xiii. 5 ; Levit. xx. 24 ; Numb. xiii. 28 ; xiv. 
8 ; Deut. vi. 2, et al.}. 

Verse 6. And were baptised of him in Jordan, confessing 
their sins. 

Although the Catholic Doctors of the Church do not 
prove the doctrine of Confession from this passage, they 
affirm that they who came to John s baptism did not merely 
confess themselves generally to be sinners for who does 
not confess himself to be a sinner ? but that each declared 
his own specific sin that he might receive pardon ; for this 
is to confess sins. The Evangelists relate this not as a 
customary thing which was done by all who confessed 
themselves to be sinners, but as something new, singular, 
and admirable ; for it was both new and admirable that 
arrogant men should not only confess themselves to be 
sinners, but guilty of such and such sins. 

Verse 7. And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 

These were two classes of men of very great favour and 

authority among the Jews. Christ, we find, had contentions 

with them, as also with the scribes (chap. v. 20 ; xvi. n, 



CH. in. 7.] THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES. 85 

et al.}. We find no mention of them in the Old Testament, 
for they were not men of office and authority like the 
priests and scribes, but of a heresy not much before the 
time of Christ, as we learn from Josephus, who describes 
these among the other Jewish sects (Antiq., xiii. 9, 23 ; xvii. 
I ; xviii. 2 ; De BelLJud^ i. 17 ; and S. Epiphanius, Panar., lib. 
i.). Some think that they were called Pharisees, as being 
always before the eyes of the people, because they enlarged 
their phylacteries (S. Mattheiv xxiii. 5) and loved salutations 
in the market places (v. 7 ; 5. Luke xx. 46) ; for D"W 
means to expose, unroll, unfold. Others derive the word 
from min JIN tWnQ "explaining the Law"; this they 
conclude from Josephus, who says that they were great 
expositors of the Law. A better authority is found in 
Ben Gorton, iv. 6. The derivation shows that they are in 
error ; for they are not termed in Hebrew DW1G exposi- 
tores, but D^tiTVlD expositi, or separated. I therefore rather 
follow the Hebrews, who, as Baal Haruch says, teach that 
the Pharisees were so called as being separated from other 
men through their remarkable learning and holiness ; for 
this is the meaning of tHD like Nazaraei of old, who were 
called from ^"0 that is, to separate. By the Latins also 
they who are in any respect remarkable and noble are called 
egregii, eximii, " singulares" . S. Epiphanius (Her., xiv.) and 
S. Jerome (Comment, on S. Matthew, xxiii.) think that the 
Sadducees were so called from p1! justice as being 
just men. The Pharisees had the office and authority of 
public teachers, which was confirmed by the testimony of 
Christ Himself (S. Matthew xxiii. 2). The scribes are 
always put before the Pharisees, perhaps because they were 
more ancient and of divine institution. For the Pharisees 
were of human origin alone. 

The Jews themselves considered the Sadducees as 
heretics. They believed neither the Resurrection, nor the 
immortality of the soul, nor spirit, nor anything but what 



86 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. in. 7. 

they could apprehend by their senses or mere reason (S. 
Mark xii. 18; Acts v. 17; xxiii. 8). They admitted no 
unwritten traditions, and of the sacred writings they received 
what they would and rejected what they would. They only, 
therefore, received the Pentateuch as inspired by God ; the 
other books they said were of men, and liable to error. 
This is thought to have been the reason why Christ, when 
disputing with them on the Resurrection, urged them only 
with citations from the Pentateuch, when there are others 
more plain (Matt. xxii. 31, 32). Such as the Pharisees and 
Sadducees were, however, it is strange that they should 
have received such harsh treatment from S. John as to be 
called a generation of vipers (Origen). S. Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, and others say that S. John knew that they 
came not with a true, but with a false and pretended 
repentance. He adds, therefore, " Bring forth, therefore, 
fruits meet for repentance ". As if he had said, Show by 
your actions that you do not come here with dissimulation, 
but in sincerity. 

Why did they come if they came hypocritically ? Origen 
(torn, vi., On S. John) replies : because they would not be 
thought wicked and heretics by the people whose opinion 
of John was so exalted. This is confirmed by xxi. 26, where 
they did not venture to say that the baptism of John was 
of men, because they feared the people; " for all held John 
as a prophet". 

Generation of vipers. 

S. Ambrose (On S. Liike, ii. 3) thinks this not so much 
blame as praise ; as if he praised them because when they 
were the sons of vipers they did not follow their parents, 
but came to repentance. But both from the words and 
manner of speaking, and from the same expression having 
been used by Christ (xxiii. 33), not in praise, but blame, we 
may see that S. John speaks here in the same sense, and 
most severely ; for D^DNIl ^TT " sons of vipers," that is, 



CH. in. 7.] S. JOHN BAPTIST. 8/ 

vipers, is a Hebraism ; for as children most frequently re 
semble their parents, he calls them sons of vipers, to call them 
vipers themselves. And Christ said, " Fill ye up the 
measure of your fathers" (S. Matt, xxiii. 32). Vipers are 
known as the most venomous of beasts, so that when S. 
Paul was bitten by one, and did not immediately swell out 
and die, the people thought him a god. John compares 
the excessive malice of the Pharisees and Sadducees to the 
most noxious of animals, especially the calumniating and 
backbiting of the saints, which is as proper and peculiar 
to the Pharisees and Sadducees as venom to the viper, as 
is explained by S. Jerome (On Isaiah xxx.) and S. Gregory 
(Horn. xx. on the Gospels). 

Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come ? 

Who taught you to come hither to flee from the wrath to 
come ? you who are vipers rather than men. As if S. John 
had said, as SS. Chrysostom and Ambrose explain it: This 
is not of yourselves, but of divine grace and providence: or, 
Who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come but 
your own consciences, which inwardly condemn you and 
compel you to seek a remedy ? For who can teach you 
who teach all men, and are yourselves taught by none? 
as God said to Adam, " Who hath told thee that thou wast 
naked ? " Some Latin copies read, " Who will show you ?" 
This reading, if it were supported by the Greek, would 
please me greatly, as the meaning is better. " The soldiers 
and the publicans and the multitude have sought of me the 
way of salvation, and I have shown it to them ; but who 
can show it to hypocrites like you, who seek it with feigning? 
No one. For who that conceals his disease can be healed 
by the physician ? " Like Christ, S. John uses the words, 
" Flee from the wrath to come ". We should allow no rash 
corrections of the text, yet V7re&ei%ev, " who hath shown," 
may be easily read or written for uTroSetfet, " shall show ". 



88 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. in. 8, 9. 

From the wrath to come. 

It cannot be doubted that S. John calls future damna 
tion the wrath to come, both because he opposes it to 
salvation and the kingdom of heaven, which he said was at 
hand, and because what S. Matthew here calls the wrath 
to come, Christ (xxiii. 33) calls the judgment of Gehenna. 

Verse 8. Bring forth, therefore, fruits worthy of penance. 

The Greek is /cdpTrov afyov T?}? ^eravoua^, that is, " show 
that you come hither not hypocritically ". By fruits of 
penance S. John meant all outward signs by whrch true 
penitence of the heart may be discovered, such as tears, 
detestation of past sins, good works opposed to former ones. 

Verse 9. And think not to say within yourselves. 
It is more easy to explain the meaning than the words 
of this sentence. The meaning clearly is : Be not content 
and secure because you are the sons of Abraham, as if that 
were sufficient for your salvation. You have need of acts, 
and if you are the sons of Abraham do the works of Abra 
ham (S. John viii. 39). But the words of the Greek are 
obscure //.^ Sof^re \eyew eV e airrot?, meaning either " think 
not" or "you seem not to say". It is an unusual expression, 
and appears sumptum de media, like 5. Luke iii. 8 : " Do not 
begin to say ". This is as if S. John had said, " Cease to 
say ". We must believe that S. Matthew meant to say the 
same here, in other words : "Do not appear to say," that is, 
" Do not show yourselves to be saying, We are the sons of 
Abraham. Do not show yourselves contented because 
you can call yourselves such. Do not rest in a name, but 
show forth works worthy of it. If you are the sons of 
Abraham, do the works of Abraham." These three last 
words seem to have this force, and to be used by the 
Evangelist with great choice of selection " to seem," " to 
say" each word is opposed to truth and "in yourselves". 
That is, " You teach that you are the sons of Abraham, not 



CH. in. 10.] S. JOHN BAPTIST. 89 

in deeds and acts, but in opinion and words". S. Paul 
appears to use the word SoKelv, existimettir, "should be 
thought," in the same sense (Hebreivs iv. i). 

God is able of these stories. 

S. John means actual stones, from which God was not 
less able to raise up sons to Abraham than He was to 
create Adam out of the earth, and Eve out of the side of 
Adam, Isaac the son of Abraham out of the womb of 
Sarah, which had been long dead. The Evangelist 
appears to allude to this. At the same time he looks to 
the calling of the Gentiles, from whom, as from shapeless 
and unpolished stones, God would create sons to Abraham : 
that is, faithful men, as S. Jerome and the Ancients explain 
it. Nothing differs more from life and reason than a stone; 
nothing is more difficult than to make men, or anything 
like men, out of stones. S. John took, therefore, as an 
example, a thing of all most difficult, to teach that with 
God nothing is difficult (as chap. iv. 3 ; 6". Luke xvii. 40 ; 
Deut. xxxii. 13). What Remigius says, that John with these 
words pointed to the stones which the Israelites, when 
crossing the Jordan, erected as an everlasting monument 
(Josh. iv. 7), is not necessary to be believed, and too much 
confines the sense. The expression to raise up sons is a 
Hebraism, and means more than to beget : that is, to beget 
where it did not seem possible. Thus a living brother was 
said to raise up seed to his dead brother, which the latter 
was said, in a manner, to beget (Genesis xxviii. 8 ; Deut. 
xxv. 5, 6 ; Ruth iv. 10). 

Verse I o. Noiv is the axe laid to the root of the tree. 

There are five words translated here, and therefore the 
meaning is difficult axe, root, tree, cut down, cast into the 
fire. It is clear that the "tree" means a man, as in xii. 33 ; 
5. Luke xxiii. 6. What the other words signify is not so 
clear. Some explain the " axe " as the word of God and 



9O THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. in. 10. 

the power of the Gospel, and the " root " the faith of each 
(S. Irenaeus, v. 15 ; S. Jerome, In Comment^}. Others think 
death to be the axe, and life the root (S. Athanasius, 
Qucest. xliii., and others, mentioned by Euthymius). Others 
again say that Christ is the axe, as S. Gregory (Horn. xx. 
in Evang.}. The meaning seems easy. S. John calls the 
divine judgment the axe, because it cuts everything to 
the quick, as appears, ex circumstantiis, chap. iii. 10. This, 
then, and the great final sentence, "Go, ye cursed, into 
everlasting fire," is called the axe. The trees are the Jews, 
for it is spoken of them. Abraham is the root from which, 
like divers trees, all the Jews were propagated. John, then, 
shows that they ought not to be content because they were 
the sons of Abraham, nor to trust in that root which was 
shortly to be plucked up. Let them trust in Christ, and 
in those good works which could not be destroyed. These 
points agree well with the text, and in this sense, for the 
most part, SS. Hilary, Chrysostom, and Theophylact under 
stand them. But it seems difficult to see how we are to 
understand that Abraham was to be cut off. John does not 
say that the root itself was to be cut ofif, but the tree which 
does not bring forth good fruit. Why, then, is the axe laid 
at the foot of the tree ? Not that the root itself, but that 
the trees from the root were to be cut down. In this sense 
the root also would be cut down. For the Jews are said 
to be cut off from Abraham as their root, when they are 
declared by divine sentence not to be the true sons of 
Abraham, because they do not follow his faith and works 
(Romans ix. 7, 8 ; Galat. iv. 28). Why, also, is the axe said 
to be put to the root of the tree now, as if it had not been so 
before ? For even before this time, they who did not 
imitate the faith and works of Abraham were cut off, not 
less than now. Dathan and Abiram show this (Numbers 
xvi. 31), as also the many thousands in the wilderness 
(Numbers xxvi. 65 ; I Cor. x. 10). They are said to be 



CH. in. ii.] S. JOHN BAPTIST. 91 

cut off now and not before, because the Jews took pleasure 
before in being the sons of Abraham according to the flesh ; 
because, too, the law was given to them which was not 
given to the other nations, and they could be saved more 
easily by the law than without the law (Romans iii. I, 2). 
But after the coming of Christ, it availed them not at all, 
because the Gospel was not preached more to them than 
to the other nations. " For all the Prophets and the law 
prophesied until John," but after John, "the kingdom of 
heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away"; so 
that if they do not follow Abraham they will be cut off 
from the root and cast into the fire ; that is, that no more 
than the other nations will they be judged to be the sons 
of Abraham. The Gentiles are not said to be cut off, 
because they never were in the root : that is, they never 
were the sons of Abraham. 

Verse 1 1. / indeed baptise you in water. 
I indeed, who am only a man, baptise you only with 
water, and merely wash your bodies. 

Unto penance. 

That you may bring forth penance, and be ready to receive 
Him who is to come after me. My baptism warns you 
that as water cleanses the body, so you should be careful 
to wash your souls from the stains of sin. 

But He that shall come after me. 

He that shall come after me means one who is already 
born, and whose coming is at hand that is, Christ 

Is mightier than I. 

Is more powerful, and of greater virtue, so that I am not 
worthy to loose His shoe that is, to do Him even the 
very lowest service. The other Evangelists express the 
same thing in other words (S. Mark i. 7 ; 5. Luke iii. 1 6 ; 
5. John i. 26, 27). It is a Hebrew phrase from the custom 



92 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. in. u. 

of persons who enter holy places taking off their shoes 
(Exod. iii. 5 ; Joshua v. 15). Such as were of higher rank 
had slaves to carry their shoes when they had taken them 
off. To this S. Matthew alludes. In hot countries shoes 
consist only of the lower soles, which are fastened above, 
and must be unbound before they can be taken off. They 
are called in Greek t^oS^/mra, and in Latin crepidce. He 
is greater and stronger than I, because He is not man only, 
but God also, and He would baptise you with the Holy 
Ghost, and with fire that is, He would cleanse not your 
bodies alone, as I do, but your souls also pouring out 
upon them the Holy Ghost, and kindling them with fire 
from heaven. Some modern heretics, among other perver 
sions of Scripture, have said that John instituted the Sacra 
ment of Baptism, and that his differed in no respect from 
Christ s, except that it was given by a different hand. Each 
was of water ; each of God ; each to repentance ; each for 
remission of sins ; each in the name of Christ ; each re 
quired the same confession of faith ; each was delivered by 
the same doctrine ; nor would Christ receive any other 
baptism from John than His own. They who think that 
the baptism of John and of Christ were the same seem to 
have understood neither the words of John, nor why he 
spoke them ; for why should he have mentioned the 
baptism of Christ, except that from the different condition 
of that to his own he might prove the different condition 
of Christ to himself. The Jews thought that when Christ 
came He would baptise (S. John i. 25). They saw that 
John baptised, and they began to doubt whether he were 
not the Christ. They therefore sent priests and Levites to 
ask him, " Who* art thou ? " and when they disputed with 
him on baptism (S. John i. 19, 25 ; 5. Luke iii. 15, 16), he 
proved from the effects of his baptism that he was not 
Christ, because he only baptised with water, but Christ 
would baptise with the Holy Ghost. He only cleansed 



CH. m. ii.] S. JOHN BAPTIST. 93 

their bodies, Christ would cleanse their souls. But these 
heretics say, " John did not speak of the baptism of Christ 
by water, but of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the 
day of Pentecost". Yet they cannot deny that he also 
spoke of the baptism of Christ by water, of which Christ 
Himself said : " Except a man be born of water and the 
Holy Ghost" (S.John iii. 5). Their denial that baptism is 
treated of at all in this passage is so senseless as to need no 
refutation. The baptism of Christ consists of water and 
the Holy Spirit, as man consists of body and soul. The 
baptism of John was of water alone, and, as he himself said, 
did not confer the Holy Ghost. It is not, therefore, the 
same. Moreover, when John said, " He shall baptise you in 
the Holy Ghost and fire," it is clear from 5. John iii. 5 that 
His baptism did not consist of water alone, but of the Holy 
Ghost and fire ; and, therefore, when John says, on the 
other hand, " I baptise you with water," the word " only " 
must be understood. If so, he makes his own baptism far 
inferior to that of Christ. The words, " He is mightier 
than I," have this force ; for why does he call Christ 
mightier rather than better, more holy, greater, except that 
he desired to show that he could not do by his own baptism 
what Christ would do by His? Besides, John said that he 
baptised to repentance (S. Mark i. 4 ; 5. Luke iii. 3 ; Acts xix. 
4), and it is called the baptism of repentance, which Christ s 
never is. Again, the baptism of John was not conferred 
on repentance now brought forth, but that it might be 
brought forth. The baptism of Christ was not that it 
might be, but as it was now actually brought forth. John 
is not said to preach repentance and baptism, but baptism 
and repentance, or, which is the same thing, the baptism of 
repentance ; because baptism preceded, repentance followed. 
For S. Peter does not say of the baptism of Christ, " Be 
baptised and repent," but " Repent and be baptised " (Acts 
ii. 38) ; because baptism followed, repentance preceded. It 



94 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. in. 13. 

was not, therefore, the same baptism. What can be 
clearer ? For they who had received the baptism of John 
were commanded to be baptised again by S. Paul (Acts 
xxix. 15). 

And fire. 

It is beyond doubt that by fire is meant the Holy Ghost ; 
for the word " and " here is not conjunctive but explicative. 
The explanation is added to show that it is not the com 
munication of any holy spirit whatever that is meant, but 
that most notable One which was made by fire on the day 
of Pentecost. A proof of this is the fact that when Christ 
spoke of the baptism of water only (S. John iii. 5) He did 
not add this explanation. 

Verse 13. Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan. 

Why Christ pleased to be baptised by John, the Lord by 
the servant, is explained in verse 15 : "to fulfil all justice". 
The Ancients add other very probable reasons : 

1. That testimony might thus be given to Him from 
heaven, as says S. Jerome. For this reason, chiefly, John 
was commanded to baptise, that he might show Christ to 
the multitudes who came together from every part. 

2. That Christ might give authority to John s baptism. 

3. That He might thus allure more to His baptism, and 
that men might not think it a grievous thing, as S. Augus- 
tin says, to come to the baptism of the Lord when He, the 
Lord Himself, did not think it so to come to the baptism 
of His servant. 

4. That by touching the water He might sanctify it to 
baptism (S. Epiphanius, Anchor.*}. 

We might add that Christ wished, before He began to 
teach, to be in a manner initiated, and, if it may be said, 
when about to teach that He was Christ, to be made a 
Christian, if in any manner the baptism of John could 
make Him such, because it showed the way to Christ. It 



CH. in. 14.] THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST. 95 

is certain that he received baptism from no necessity of 
bringing forth repentance, who had done no sin, and in 
whose mouth was found no guile ; but rather that, when 
about to carry our sins into the desert, like the scapegoat 
of old, He might in the baptism of repentance put on the 
person of a sinner. 

Verse 14. But John stay &d Him. 

John stayed Him, because he knew that He did not need 
baptism, and because, if not needing it, He wished to be 
baptised, John knew that he himself was not worthy to 
baptise Him. This is the meaning of his words : " I ought 
to be baptised by Thee, and comest Thou to me ? " From 
this it is plain that John knew Christ, and who He was. 
This is more clear from 5. John i. 29, 30. Hence arises the 
question how the same John said (verse 33): "I knew Him 
not". S. Augustin says that John knew before that He 
was Christ, but not that He would reserve to Himself the 
power of baptising with fire, until he saw the Spirit descend 
ing on Him. But he had said : " He shall baptise you in 
the Holy Ghost and fire ". So that S. Chrysostom, in his 
Sixteenth Homily on S. John, Euthymius, and Theophylact, 
on S.John i. 33, say, with more correctness probably, that 
John, from the time when he leaped in his mother s womb, 
always knew Him to be the Saviour, and God, and all that 
He was, but did not know His person before He came to 
baptism ; for Christ had passed His whole life in Egypt 
and Nazareth, and he himself in the desert. But, as soon 
as he saw Him, he knew by divine inspiration that He was 
the one whom he had known when born, and whom he 
foretold as to come after him, and baptise with the Spirit 
and fire. So, says Rupertus, Samuel knew that among the 
sons of Jesse there was one who was to be anointed king 
of Israel, when as yet he knew the faces of none of them ; 
but as soon as he saw David, he knew him by inspiration 



96 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. |CH. in. 15. 

(i Sam. xvi. 12). Their opinion cannot be received who 
say, in apparent opposition to the words of the Evangelist, 
that the dove came down upon Christ before He was bap 
tised. Or why was it said to John : " Upon whom thou 
shalt see the Spirit descending, He it is"? S. Hilary says, 
indeed (De Trin., vi.), that that was not said to John on his 
own account, but because of the bystanders ; that he might 
teach by divine testimony that He was Christ whom he 
had proclaimed before he knew Him, lest, as S. Chrysostom 
says, anyone should think that the testimony of John was 
not confirmed by divine witness, or that it was given to 
personal recognition, or friendship, or favour. What, then, 
did John learn from the descent of the Spirit, and the 
voice from heaven ? Nothing new ; but the knowledge 
which he possessed before was made perfect and confirmed 
as Bede and Rupertus say on John i. 

I ougJit to be baptised by Thee. 

Some think, from these words, that John was baptised 
by Christ afterwards ; as well as from the following : 
" Suffer it to be so now " (S. Chrysostom, Jerome, Euthy- 
mius, Theophylact, in loc.\ 

Verse 15. Suffer it to be so now. 

Now, when I have not yet been declared to be Christ by 
the descent of the Holy Ghost, and the Voice from heaven, 
I come not as Christ, but as one of the multitude, a private 
person ; and thou oughtest not therefore to refuse baptism to 
Me because I am greater than thou. So S. Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, and others. 

So. 

That is, when the greater is baptised by the less, the 
master by the servant. 

It behoves us to fulfil. 
If it be not actually necessary, yet it is becoming. It is 



CH. in. 15.] S. JOHN BAPTIST AND CHRIST. 97 

a work, as it is called, of supererogation. " We " may 
mean myself in undergoing, you in administering, baptism ; 
and " to fulfil," the omitting nothing not only that is 
necessary, but even that is profitable and becoming. This 
is the force of the word " fulfil ". 

All justice. 

Some explain this of the justice of the Law, which, as 
S. Paul says, consists of washings and external ceremonies 
(Heb. ix. 10), which Christ pleased to fulfil, as He pleased 
to be circumcised, because He came not to destroy the 
Law, but to fulfil it (Matt. v. 17), as S. Jerome and Euthy- 
mius, who say that most necessarily the baptism of John 
was a sacrament of the Old Law; an assertion which many 
of the old Schoolmen adopt from their Master, the Master 
of the Sentences. 

S. Thomas, who alone was as great as all the rest, says, 
more correctly, that it was neither a sacrament nor a 
ceremony of the Law, but a mean between the Law and 
the Gospel ; instituted indeed by God, but only for a brief 
period, that He might bring in Christ and His baptism, as 
John himself was a mean between the Prophets and 
Christ. 

The word "justice" in this passage may be taken to 
mean no part of the Old Law, nor justice placed in any 
positive precept, which was of necessary observation, but 
whatever was agreeable to the virtue and duty of a holy 
man, though not to do it might be without sin. All the 
words of John show this. " I ought to be baptised by 
Thee," as if he had said : " Thou hast no need of me ". 
Christ answers : " Though it be not necessary, yet it be 
comes Me to be baptised by thee, that we may fulfil all 
justice" ; that is, that we may perform not only the Com 
mandments, but whatever is just and consistent with holi 
ness. Why it behoved Christ to be baptised has been said 
on verse 17. 

7 



98 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. in. 16. 

Verse 16. And Jesus being baptised, forthwith came out of 

the water. 

The word "forthwith" is very forcible. S. Mark (i. 10) 
also uses it. It does not refer to the verb went up, 
but to what follows : " And the heavens were opened " ; 
and the words are thus to be united : " Immediately that 
He was baptised, when He had scarcely come up out of the 
water, the heavens were opened ". This meaning may be 
gathered from the words of S. Mark : " And forthwith 
coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opened " ; 
that is : " Immediately on His ascending ". Reason also 
teaches this. For there was no need to tell us that 
Christ, immediately after He had received baptism, went 
up out of the water. Who doubts this, or what did 
Christ, when baptised, do in the river ? But when it is said 
that : " Immediately after His baptism, and going up out 
of the river, He saw the heavens opened," there was not 
merely a useful, but a necessary reason. For the Evangelist 
desired to teach that the heavenly and divine testimony 
was so united with the baptism that there was no delay 
between them, and that God seems to have awaited nothing 
else to show His own testimony to Christ but that His 
baptism and the testimony of John should precede it ; for 
God should confirm the testimony of man, not man that of 
God. 

S. Luke says, that on the prayer of Christ the heavens 
were opened, and the dove descended. We must believe 
that, as soon as Christ came up out of the water, He threw 
Himself upon His knees to receive His Father s testimony 
with due reverence ; for even sons, when well taught, 
uncover their heads when speaking to their parents. 

A nd lo, the heavens were opened unto Him. 

That is, to Christ as is clear from these words, and S. 
Mark (i. 10). But we must believe that the heavens were 



CH. in. 16.] THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST. 99 

opened to all who stood by that is, they were seen by all 
to be, as it were, opened when they were opened in veri 
similitude, that all might understand that both the Holy 
Spirit and the Voice came down from heaven ; but they 
are said to be opened to Christ only, because they were 
opened on His account. Whether they were opened in very 
fact, or only in appearance, is of no great moment ; but as 
the question has been raised it should be decided. S. 
Chrysostom, thinking of the heavens no otherwise than as of 
all other corporeal substances, seems to say that they were 
opened in actual fact ; but The Author (Horn, iv.) and S. 
Jerome on this passage, and on Ezekiel i., think that they 
were not opened actually, but in appearance alone. Their 
opinion seems the more probable, both because it mattered 
nothing as to the result, whether they were so in reality or 
only in appearance, and because it is not credible that the 
solidity of the heavens should be broken up not of necessity, 
whilst in other passages they are said to have been opened 
when it is plain that in fact they were not (Gen. vii. n ; 
Acts vii. 57) ; where, if they had been really opened, not 
only S. Stephen, but all who stood by, must have seen it, 
whereas he alone is said to have done so. Again, they are 
said at times to have been shut when they were not actually 
.so ; for that is not really shut which was not opened before 
(Deut. ii. 17 ; I Kings viii. 25 ; 2 Paralip. vi. 26 ; vii. 13). 

And he said. 

Many refer this to John, from S. John i. 13. This seems 
rather forced, as, after the beginning (verse 14) John was 
not named, and all the preceding words were referred to 
Christ. S. Mark, the interpreter of S. Matthew, refers them 
to Christ (i. 10). The words of S. John (i. 13) are not 
contrary, because, as has been said before, not only Christ 
and John, but all those who were present, saw the heavens 
opened and the Spirit descending : Christ, because they 



IOO THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. in. 16. 

were opened for Him ; John, because this was given to 
him by God as a sign ; the others, that by it they might 
believe John. But all the Evangelists do not mean to say 
the same thing. SS. Matthew and Mark, because they 
spoke about Christ, said that He saw the Spirit descend. 
S. John, treating of the Baptist, said that he saw it. No 
one asserts that the multitude saw it, because no one wrote 
of them. 

As a dove. 

Tertullian (De Cam. Ckst.} thinks it to have been a true 
dove. So S. Augustin (L. de Ag. C/ist., chap. 22). Others 
think the same. I do not agree with them, because S. 
Augustin only proves that it was a true body, which is a 
very different thing to a true dove. In many other places 
he says that it was only the appearance of a dove, as do 
most others. This is the more probable because all the 
Evangelists, as if by concert, use a particle of comparison, 
and it was not necessary to the action that it should have 
been an actual dove. But whether it was a real body with 
the appearance of a dove, or whether it were not an actual 
body, but something with the appearance of such, so seen 
by the bystanders, is a different question. The opinion of 
S. Augustin seems tenable, that it was a true body, because, 
if not so, either it would not have been seen by all, or there 
must have been as many miracles as there were spectators 
as the miracle must have been wrought, not in the body 
of the dove, but in the eyes of the bystanders, which is not 
to be hastily granted. One thing we must guard against, 
as S. Augustin warns us the idea that the Holy Spirit 
is united hypostatically to the body of the dove, as the Son 
of God is to the human nature which Tertullian seems to 
think : but as we read that angels often took human bodies, 
that they might be seen by men. It has been asked by some, 
and not without reason, why the Holy Ghost descended 
here in the form of a dove, but on the day of Pentecost in 



CH. m. 16.] THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST. IOI 

the form of tongues of fire and of tongues (Acts ii. 3). The 
answer is easy : He now descended on Christ, not to ascend, 
because He was God Himself, and " God is a consuming 
fire " (Dent. iv. 24) not to teach Him to speak, " because 
grace is poured abroad in His lips " (Ps. xliv. 3), but to give 
a testimony of Him. It is required of one who gives 
testimony of another, to describe the nature and peculiarities 
of the person of whom he speaks. It was said of Christ, 
" The bruised reed He shall not break, aud the smoking 
flax He shall not quench " ; and it was said in the place in 
which the descent of the Holy Ghost was mentioned (Isa. 
xlii. I, 2, 3). Christ says of Himself, " Learn of Me, because 
I am meek and humble of heart" (S. Matt. xi. 29). The 
dove is the most gentle of animals, and, as S. Cyprian 
says, one bitter without gall, cruel without biting. Under 
the appearance of the dove, the nature and, if I may so say, 
the habit of the Holy Ghost is shown. He is the Giver of 
all graces, " dividing to every man according as He will " 
(i Cor. xii. 11). The dove signifies grace and meekness. 
The love of the Father to Christ also seems to be shown 
by it, as the appearance of the dove and the Voice that was 
heard agree. " This is My beloved Son." The dove is also 
a very amatory creature always murmuring a song of love. 
Therefore the most beloved Spouse of God is often called a 
dove, and beloved (Cant. ii. 10, 14 ; v. 2 ; vi. 8). Tlie Holy 
Ghost was given to the Apostles, because they needed Him 
to kindle them with love, and teach them to speak in 
different languages. He was therefore given under the 
form of fire and tongues. 

A nd coming upon Him. 

Upon Christ eV avrov for e< eavrov. For the Greeks 
occasionally, and the Greeks and LXX. and Latin version 
frequently, use the demonstrative for the reciprocal pronoun, 
because in Hebrew the word r?y means both (i Kings 
xvii. 39 ; xxiii. 6). Why the Holy Ghost descended upon 



IO2 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. in. 17. 

Christ when recently baptised is not difficult to be con 
jectured, and the ancient Fathers (S. Iren., iii. 19 ; S. Just., 
Cont. Tryph.; S. Amb., Pref. to lib. iii., De Sp. Sto.; S. 
Jerome, Quest. 2 to Algas) have told us (Isaiah xi. I, 2; 
xlii. I ; Ixi. i). The prophecies must be fulfilled. The 
Holy Spirit must come upon Christ, as S. John (i. 33) says, 
to " remain," that is, to rest upon Him ; and then especially 
when He was initiated by His baptism as His director 
(inagisterium) to announce (glad tidings) to the meek, to 
heal the broken in heart, to preach deliverance to the 
captives, and freedom to the prisoners, that all might under 
stand that He was the Christ of whom Isaiah had pro 
phesied so long before. When Christ, therefore, had read 
in the synagogue that passage of Isaiah, He added, " This 
day is fulfilled this scripture" (S. Luke iv. 21). 

Verse 17. This is My beloved Son. 

S. Mark (i. n), S. Luke (iii. 22), say, "Thou art". They 
are not contrary to S. Matthew, but one probably gives the 
words, the others the meaning. Which give the words is 
uncertain, probably SS. Mark and Luke because they are 
more in number, and because we should expect that the Voice 
would be addressed to Him on whom the Spirit descended ; 
as, in the Transfiguration, because the Voice was directed to 
the Apostles, it did not say, " Thou art," but, " This is My 
beloved Son" (S. Luke ix. 35). This is My Son, My most 
beloved. The double article, 6 vios 6 ayaTryTos, shows that 
God spoke not of any son, but of His one only Son by 
nature, from eternity, equal to Himself; for others are sons 
by adoption only. S. Athanasius (Orat. Cont. Arian : 
" Quod Deus ex Deo ") explains the only-begotten Son as 
the beloved or, what is more forcible, the most dear. For 
not Homer alone, but the sacred books as well, give this 
appellation to only-begotten sons (Gen. xxii. 2). On the 
other hand, again, S. John (iii. 16, and I Ep. iv. 9) puts 
" only begotten " for " most dear ". 



CH. m. 17.] THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST. IO3 

In whom I am well pleased. 

eV &> evSotcrjcra In quo placui. But our version, to fill up 
the sense, has added a dative case, mihi. The expression 
evSo/ceo) is very commonly used in Scripture, as is its deriva 
tive evSoKia. Our version generally renders ev&o/cLa by sibi 
complacet(S. Matt. xii. 18 ; xvii. 5 ; 5. Mark i. II ; S.Luke 
Hi. 22 ; xii. 32 ; Coloss. i. 19 ; 2 /^ter i. 17) ev&oicia is &*- 
placitum (as Ephes. i. 9) and sometimes &?# voluntas (as >S. 
&/ ii. 14). There has been much discussion on these 
two words, for, although they are true, they do not seem 
altogether to convey the full expression, and to fill up the 
meaning. The Greek word has been introduced from the 
LXX., who always render the Hebrew ("Tin by ev&oqelv, 
as in Psalm xxxix. 14 ; xliii. 4 ; nor is it rendered in any 
other way except in IsaiaJi xlii. I. So that from the 
Hebrew word PEn the force of the Greek one is to be 
understood. The former has many meanings : "to be 
appeased," "to be reconciled," "to restore to favour" (as 
Psalm Ixxxiv. i) mil* 1 IT!n. "Thou hast been appeased," 
reconciled to thy land, that is, to thy people, as the Hebrew 
reads, and the words that follow confirm it : rQX? IpV 1 
" Thou hast turned away the captivity of Jacob," 



In this place, therefore, to retain the words of our version, 
" In whom I am well pleased," does not mean only "Whom 
I have loved," nor "In whom I am greatly delighted," 
nor, " In whom I rest," as some moderns explain it, 
but "In whom," that is, "through whom I am ap 
peased and reconciled to the world ; that is, I have 
decreed and determined to be appeased and reconciled. 
When I look on Him I lay aside all My wrath and My 
displeasure." For the Father chose, by that Voice sent 
forth from heaven, to declare, not only that Christ was His 
Son, but that He had sent Him, that men might receive 
Him more willingly. He alludes to the Prophet Isaiah 



104 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. in. 17. 



(xlii. i) ^Q2 nn!n. Why this Voice was sent from heaven 
it is not difficult to conjecture. The dove is a silent bird, 
and might signify many things. The Voice was added to 
explain the symbol. "As," says S. Augustin, " the word 
came to the element and a sacrament was made ; " for that 
which was obscurely shown by the elements is declared 
openly by words. " The Son of God," says S. Hilary 
(Can. ii.), " is shown to the hearing and sight ; and to a 
people unbelieving and disobedient to the Prophets, a 
testimony is sent of their Lord both by sight and voice. 
He is worthy of belief who heard and saw." 

Something resembling this took place in the Trans 
figuration (S. Matt. xvii. 5 ; S. Luke ix. 35) ; but for another 
object : that the chiefs of the Apostles, who, as S. Paul says, 
were to be the pillars of the Church, might be strengthened. 
All the ancient Fathers, and especially those who contend 
against the Arians, have given another reason ; it is, that 
the mystery of the Trinity might be declared of the Father, 
who spoke ; of the Son, who received the testimony ; of the 
Holy Ghost, who descended in the form of the dove. What 
voice it was, or how formed, is not difficult to be imagined. 
God, who forms all human voices by the air in a human 
throat, was able to form a human voice in the same air 
without a human throat, as we see in Exodus iii. 4 ; 5. Mark 
ix. 6, 7 ; 5. John xii. 28 ; Acts x. 15. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER CHRIST STILLS THE 
TEMPEST AT SEA. 

Verse i. Then Jesus was led. 

THE Greek avfaQ^ subductus, abreptus ; S. Mark has 
K/3d\\ei, expellit, eum Spiritus. He was probably not carried 
through the air, as Habacuc (Daniel xiv. 35) and S. Philip 
(Acts viii. 19), or the Evangelist would not have been silent 
on it ; but He was led on foot, not by compulsion, but of 
His own free will. S. Matthew uses the word subductus, 
and S. Mark expulsus^ not as if by force, but to show the 
power and influence of the Holy Ghost, as S. Paul (Romans 
viii. 14) and as SS. Hilary, Jerome, and The Author say. 
It is not meant that He had never before been led by the 
Holy Ghost, but that the power of the latter was then 
shown most especially. 

Into the desert. 

Into a place fit for temptation and a personal conflict 
(Eccles. iv.). They who pass a life in solitude are not, 
therefore, to be blamed. This kind of life S. John the 
Baptist first, and after him many most holy men from his 
example, SS. Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory Nazienzen, Theo- 
doret, all men of experience, have described in many 
volumes as being in a manner divine. He is not alone 
who follows God as his leader, whose aid is so much the 
greater in solitude than in the city, as it is hindered less by 
men. By the desert we should understand that of Judaea, 
as (iii. i) the same as that in which S. John the Baptist 



IO6 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. iv. i. 

passed his life, both as it was near Jordan and because it 
is called absolutely " the desert ". He was led, therefore, 
by the Spirit into the innermost solitude where, as S. Mark 
(i. 13) tells us, He lived with the beasts. 

By the Spirit. 

In verses 5, 8, and in 5. Luke iv. 5, 9, He is said to have 
been led by the devil, who is also called a spirit (as viii. 16; 
x. i ; xii. 43) ; but in this passage the Holy Ghost is to be 
understood, because the Evangelist spoke of Him (chap, 
iii. 1 6), and because He is called the Spirit absolutely, and 
with the article, which is never used unless the Holy Spirit 
is intended, as Didymus and S. Jerome have observed. 

To be tempted. 

To tempt is to incite to sin (Acts v. 3 ; I Cor. vii. 5 ; i 
Thess. iii. 5 ; S. James i. 13 ; Apoc. iii. 10). In this sense the 
devil is said to tempt Hence his name, Satan ; in Hebrew 
" the adversary " ; in Greek &a/3oAo?, calumniator, plotter, 
ensnarer, who goeth about seeking whom he may devour. 
Men also, as agents of the devil, are accustomed in this 
way to tempt one another : God never ; for " God is not a 
tempter to evils" (S.James i. 13) ; although the heretical 
followers of Calvin say that even in this manner even God, 
and that at first, tempts ; thus giving the office of the devil 
to God. For to try, is to seek and inquire with the object 
of gaining knowledge, as both God, the devil, and men do. 
But God does so in one manner, the devil and men in 
another. The latter, to learn that of which they are igno 
rant ; the former that what He knows already, He may 
seem to know, by searching and exploring ; or, not that 
He Himself, but that they whom He tempts, may know 
themselves, as S. Augustin explains. So Genesis xxii. I ; 
Exodus xvi. 4 ; Deut. viii. 2 ; xiii. 3 ; Wisdom iii. 5 ; Hebrews 
iv. 15 ; xi. 17, 37 ; Apoc. ii. 2. For to tempt is to provoke to 
anger, as when we are said to tempt God because we wish 



CH. iv. i.] CHRIST S TEMPTATION. 107 

to try His power (v. 17 ; Exodus xv. 2, 7 ; Numbers xiv. 
22; Psalm Ixxvii. 18, 41 ; xciv. 9; chap. v. 14). Christ 
could not be tempted except in a second or third sense, 
yet it might be believed that He went into the wilderness 
to offer Himself to the devil to be tempted in every way 
possible, and that He might be solicited to commit sin, so 
as to be able to say, " The prince of this world in Me hath 
not anything " (S. John iv. 30). This is plain from the fact 
of the devil s having tempted Him to throw Himself down 
headlong, and to worship him, either of which acts would 
have been most deadly sin. Satan wished to test Him by 
these means whether He were the Son of God, as He said ; 
for he knew that if He could be tempted to sin, He could 
not be the Son of God. 

By the devil. 

A proper name, or rather surname (cognomen), of Lucifer 
the chief of the devils, derived from his great power of 
calumniating and ensnaring (as Mark xxv. 41 ; Apoc. 
xii. 9 ; xx. 2, 20). For Christ, the prince of men, wished 
to provoke the devil, the prince of the devils, to a single 
conflict, that He might both spare His own soldiers, and 
that the leader of the enemy might be vanquished at the 
first attack, and his whole army put to flight. This one 
reason is given by the Evangelists for Christ s having gone 
into the wilderness : " Because the enemy did not venture 
to attack Him, he met Him and provoked Him, as it were; 
knowing that He would not contend with him unless pro 
voked (S. Hilary, Can. 3 ; S. Ambrose, iv. on S. Luke ii. ; 
The Author, Horn. v.). 

We may believe that there were other reasons for Christ s 
having retired into the wilderness, though not mentioned 
by the Evangelists. Moses, the ancient law-giver, spent 
forty days alone in the mountain before he received the 
tablets of stone. John, before he went out to preach, 
passed his life in the same desert. From his having come 



IOS THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. iv. i. 

out from the wilderness, and not from among men, he was 
thought to have come out from God, and was received with 
the greater honour. 

Christ, therefore, pleased to bring out the Gospel from 
the wilderness. He desired to show that He it was of 
whom Moses was the figure ; whose forerunner was John, 
whose steps He followed through a desert. He desired to 
teach us by His example, that when we meditate upon our 
way of life or any grave matter, we should forsake the 
multitude and retire into the desert, and bring our thoughts 
before God, a course prevented by a concourse, but assisted 
by solitude. For even the comic writer could say, " You 
come from meditation in some solitary place ". Terence, 
Andria, act ii., sc. iv., line 3. 

Many reasons have been given for Christ s willing to be 
tempted. 

1. It became a young soldier to perfect himself in that 
school, that his more serious contests should be made 
stronger by lighter skirmishes. 

2. That having Himself been tempted in every way, as 
S. Paul says, He might help us in our temptations more 
effectually, and that we might have a High Priest (Heb. ii. 
18; iv. 15). 

3. To teach us by His own example, when we come to 
the service of God, to prepare our minds for temptation 
(Ecclus. ii. i); and as SS. Hilary and Chrysostom have 
shown. 

4. That when we have overcome our enemies, He 
might make us stronger (as S.John xvi. 33). For, as S. 
Ambrose says : " If He had not striven He had not con 
quered for me " (In Luc. ii., lib. iv.). 

5. That we also might conquer in His victory. So S. 
Augustin on Psalm Ix. : " Know thyself to have been tempted 
in Him, and see thyself to be victorious in Him. Christ 
was the Rock. That rock, therefore, on which we are built, 



CH. iv. 2.] CHRIST S TEMPTATION. 109 

was first struck by winds, by flames, by rain. When Christ 
was tempted by the devil, see in what firmness He wished 
to strengthen us " ; and on Psalm xc., part 2 : " Christ was 
tempted that Christians might not be overcome by the 
tempter ". 

Verse 2. And when He had fasted forty days and forty 

nights. 

That is, forty entire days, for so the Hebrews speak. 
The Evangelist therefore added forty nights to the 
days, to show that He did not fast after the manner of 
the Jews. By day they taste neither food nor drink, but 
they eat at night. Christ tasted nothing. Moses had done 
the same before (Exod. xxiv. 18-34), and Elias (3 Kings 
xix. 8). 

The Ancients observed that this was a mystical number 
(S. Basil, Horn, on the Forty Martyrs ; S. Ambrose, Serrn. 
xxxiv. on Lent, and iv. on S. Luke; S. Jerome, On 3 Jonah; 
S. Aug., On Genesis ; ad. Hit., chap. 169, De Consens. ii. 4). 
It is clear that this had not been invented by them, but 
had been taught by God in many passages of Holy Scrip 
ture. For not only did Christ, Moses, and Elias fast a full 
forty days (which alone would have sufficed to show us 
that there was some mystery in that number), but we see 
many other things done in this number which could not 
possibly have been done by chance. Forty days and nights 
when the earth was purified by the deluge (Gen. vii. 12). 
The dead were preserved forty days in spices before their 
burial (Gen. 1. 3). The men sent by Moses explored the 
Promised Land for forty days (Numb. xiii. 26). Goliath, 
the type of our adversary the devil, stood reviling the people 
of Israel forty days. The children of Israel wandered forty 
years in the wilderness (Exod. xvi. 35). Ezekiel was com 
manded to lie on his right side forty days, that he might 
bear the iniquities of the house of Judah (Ezek. iv. 6). 



110 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. iv. 2. 

Egypt was commanded to be deserted and repentant forty 
years (Ezek. xxxix. n, 12). Christ remained on earth forty 
days after His resurrection before ascending into heaven. 
It cannot have been by chance that this number so often 
recurs. The number forty, then, as S. Augustin says, signi 
fies the whole course of our lives the time destined to 
penance and the expiation of sins. Fasting is a part of 
penance. The followers of Calvin " devoutly wish either 
that Christ had not fasted forty days, or that the Evange 
lists had not related it, or that the Church had not turned 
the example of Christ and the use of penance to our good ". 
" It is a vain superstition," they say, u that, because Christ 
once fasted this number of days, we should fast as many 
days every year. It is presumption to imitate Christ. We 
do Him an intolerable injury which might be returned to 
us. The Gospel, whose sign was the fasting of Christ, 
should be rescinded." If what Christ did once is not to be 
repeated by us every year, let them not celebrate the Lord s 
resurrection every week; for Christ rose only once. If it be 
arrogance to imitate Christ, S. Paul was guilty of that sin ; 
for he calls himself a follower of Christ ; and especially in His 
most peculiar office; if he might die for the Church (Coloss. 
i. 24). We imitate, because we follow, though we do not 
attain. We follow as near as we can men to God. It is 
enough that we keep the same path. We do Christ no in 
jury, because we make Him not a companion, but a leader. 
But Christ did not command. Be it so. He did not 
command, but He certainly did acts ; and He did them 
in mystery. He fasted in mystery forty days, not more 
nor less, that by this number, as S. Jerome says, He might 
consecrate to us our forty days fast. And not S. Jerome 
alone, but all the most ancient learned and holy Doctors 
of the Church, hold that either Christ Himself or the 
Apostles, imitating His example, taught the forty days 
fast (S. Ambrose, Serms. o?i Lent, xxiii., xxv., xxvii., xxxvi., 



CH. iv. 3.] CHRIST S TEMPTATION. 1 1 1 

xxxviii. ; S. Leo, Serms. vi., ix.; S. Jerome, who terms it the 
heritage of Christ). 

After He was hungry. 

This shows that for forty days before He had not 
hungered. It is not said whether Moses and Elias hungered 
before, or after, or not at all. It is, therefore, to be believed 
that they did not. This is said as peculiar to Christ. For 
the power of God which preserved also satisfied. Why, 
then, did Christ hunger? That to a timid enemy, who 
feared to attack a quasi God, He might show Himself to be 
a man, and thereby encourage him to attack ; and because 
that enemy feared to approach an armed man, He laid 
aside, in a manner, the armour of His divinity, and, like a 
man naked and unarmed, and differently to the custom of 
combatants, He entered the arena hungry, and challenged 
His opponent ; not like others, by boasting of His strength, 
but by the display of His weakness (S. Iren., iii. 32 ; S. 
Chrys, Horn. xiii. on S. Matthew; The Author ; S. Jerome, in 
loc.; S. Amb., iv. 2 on S. Luke). S. Ambrose says well 
and cleverly : u The hunger of Christ was a pious fraud, 
that, wherein the devil was on his guard through fear of the 
result (inajora metuens), he might be induced by the ap 
pearance of hunger to tempt the man before him ". 

Verse 3. A nd coming to -Him. 

How, or with what form, the devil appeared, the Evan 
gelists do not state. He had the power either of appearing 
invisibly, as he does when he tempts us daily, or of assum 
ing some visible shape. All authors think that he came in 
a human, corporeal form ; which is very probable, because 
he spoke much with Christ : because he wanted Christ to 
worship him : and because, if he had appeared in any other 
shape, the Evangelists would have told us. For when he 
tempted Eve in the form of a serpent, because that was a 
rare shape, Scripture has related it. 



112 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. iv. 3. 

The Tempter. 

C O 7retpao>i>. The name of the office of all the devils, 
but here an attribute of the chief of them. For he who had 
lately been called the devil is now termed the tempter 
as if it had been said : The wrestler comes, the combatant is 
at hand as in I Thess. iii. 5 : " Lest, perhaps, he that 
tempteth should have tempted you ". It is a use of the 
Hebrew word ]l2t^ Satan, and of the Greek 8m/3oXo9 (as in 
verse 10 ; chap. xvi. 16, 23 ; S. Luke xxii. 3, 31 ; Acts v. 3 ; 
i Cor. vii. 5 ; Apoc. xii. 9 ; xx. 2, where the prince of the 
devils is called by his proper name Satan). I am not aware 
why, in the Old Testament, our version always calls him 
Satan, and in the New, by the addition of two letters, 
Satanas, unless, perhaps, the Old Testament renders the 
word from the original Hebrew, which is ]I2t> the New 
from the Greek, in which the translator preferred o-dravav 
after the LXX., rather than 2drav. Diabolus is the proper 
name of this great potentate, as appears from the following 
passages of Scripture : Ps. cviii. 6; Ephes. vi. n ; I Peter 
v. 8 ; Apoc. xii. 9 ; xx. 2. 

If Thou be the Son of God. 

Satan had perhaps heard the voice from heaven, or he 
knew the fact from the teaching of John, or from common 
report. It is to be believed that the devil said this, not as 
one who doubts, or denies, or derides, like his agents when 
they said, " If Thou be the Son of God, come down from the 
cross " (xxvi. 42) ; but as believing, and declaring, and wish 
ing to counsel Christ well. As if we should say, " As Thou 
art assuredly the Son of God, suffer not hunger, but, as Thou 
art able, and food is not to be procured otherwise, command 
that these stones be made bread ". It was more in keeping 
with the craft of that serpent so to tempt, as appearing not 
to tempt, but to advise Christ well and for His advantage. 



CH. iv. 4.] CHRIST S TEMPTATION. 113 

Command (die) . 

Speak (die) has more force than command (jube\ and 
therefore both the Hebrews and the Evangelists speak thus. 
For it is more that God should say, " Let there be light, and 
there was light " (Gen. i. 3), than if it had been said, "God 
commanded ". There is more meaning in the words, " By 
the word of the Lord the heavens were founded " (Psalm 
xxxii. 6), than if God had said, " I have commanded ". For 
it means that God merely opened His lips, and all things 
were made. In like manner, " speak " means more in this 
place than " command " ; for Satan speaks here as of that 
Word by which he knew that the world was made, Who, by 
the same Word by which He had made the heavens and 
the earth, could also make stones become bread. 
That these stones. 

Stones, rather than earth, air, or trees, both because 
stones were lying at Christ s feet, and because it was more 
difficult, and because a stone has no resemblance to bread, 
being most opposite to it. Hence the words of Christ 
(chap. vii. 9). 

Be made bread. 

Theophylact and others think that the devil, from 
curiosity, said panes, not panem. But the reason seems 
merely to be that stones is in the plural, especially as S. 
Luke uses the singular, panem. We cannot decide, there 
fore, which word Satan used, because one Evangelist gives 
the words and the other the meaning ; and which gives the 
one and which the other we cannot say. 
Verse 4. // is written. 

Because the devil seemed to allude to Genesis i. and 
Psalm xxxii. 6 ; Scripture confutes him, as it does in the 
other temptations also. 

Not by bread alone. 

Christ speaks of ordinary bread, but after the manner of 
the Hebrew all provision is intended. 

8 



114 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. iv. 5. 

Live. 
shall live ; that is, is able to live the potential 



mood, as grammarians say. In Hebrew rPlT as, " Man 
shall not see Me and live " (Exod. xxxiii. 20) ; that is, no 
one who sees Me will be able to live. 

But in every word tJiat proceedeth from the mouth of God. 

The Hebrew isTTTP ^ h$ N2W^2 (Deut. viii. 3) ; in 
every thing that cometh from the mouth of God, ad verbum. 
But the LXX. and Latin version give the meaning rather 
than the words, and add the word verbi. This, as has 
been observed, they do in many other places. The Evan 
gelists also do the same, whether in imitation of the LXX. 
or with their own design. 

The meaning is : God has no need of ordinary food to 
sustain His servants ; for He is able, by a single word, to 
create a new kind of food ; the same was said of the manna 
(Deut. viii. 3). Christ does not answer that He is or is not 
the Son of God, because, though Satan most especially 
desired to know this, he did not ask about it, but feigned to 
believe it. He appeared merely to give advice, " Command 
that these stones be made bread ". Christ therefore replied 
to what he had said : not to what he kept silence about 
the best method of deluding those who ask deceitfully. 

Verse 5. Then. 

That is, secondly. It does not mean that this was done 
immediately after the first temptation. It is probable that 
some time elapsed ; for when we call this the second tempta 
tion, there is no certain proof that it was such, for S. Luke 
(iv. 9) puts this temptation, not second, but last of all, and 
puts that second which S. Matthew puts last ; for the 
Evangelists, like the other authors of Scripture, do not keep 
to the order of time. It is probable that S. Luke com 
memorated the temptations in the order in which they 



CH. iv. so CHRIST S TEMPTATION. 115 

occurred to him, S. Matthew in that in which they 
happened. It seemed very probable that the devil departed 
in terror at the words, " Get thee behind Me, Satan," and 
overcome. These words were uttered by Chris.t only on the 
mountain, when the devil had said, " All these things will I 
give thee " ; for the Evangelist at once relates it, and the 
demand of Satan required that reply. 

Took. 

How the devil took Christ the Evangelists do not tell us, 
and there may be different opinions on the subject This 
is certain that he did not take Him against His will ; nor 
could he compel Christ, whom he could not have even 
approached, unless Christ were willing that he should do so, 
and had even put Himself forward to meet him. It is 
uncertain whether the devil carried Christ visibly or invisibly, 
and, if visibly, whether through the air or on His feet. S. 
Cyprian, in his Sermon on the Temptation and Fasting of Our 
Lord, whom others have followed, thinks that it was 
invisibly, like the journeys of the Prophets when Ezekiel 
was carried from Chaldaea to Jerusalem to measure the 
city (Esek. xl. i), and other like cases. These are great 
authorities, but they seem to be in error, because it would 
seem wholly out of place to suppose that the devil sent 
visions into the mind of Christ as God did into those of the 
Prophets. 

The Prophets also declare that what happened to them 
happened not in reality but in visions (Ezek. xlii.), although 
they do not say that the events could be understood be 
cause they were Prophets. 

But the Evangelists not only do not declare that Christ 
underwent His temptations in a vision, but they even 
indicate that they happened in reality. For how could 
Christ have thrown Himself down in a vision ? or how 
could the angels have borne Him up, if He had thrown 
Himself down, not in fact, but in an illusion ? (falsa opi- 



Il6 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. iv. 5. 

nione\ or how could such a " false opinion " of His having 
thrown Himself down have entered men s minds ? 

Some think that Christ was taken up and carried through 
the air, which the word TrapaXappdveiv would seem to 
warrant, as say S. Jerome, The Author, S. Gregory, and 
Strabus. Others, as Euthymius (On S. Luke iv.), think that 
He was led upon His feet. This seems the more probable 
because it appears very little likely that Christ would have 
permitted such contact of Himself by Satan as to carry Him 
from place to place. Besides, if the devil, by permission 
of Christ, had done this, he would have declared too plainly 
who he was, which, when he tempts men, he is not apt to 
do. He transfigures himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. xi. 
14). S. Luke does not say that the devil took, 7rdpe\a(3ev, 
but rjyayev, led Christ. Nor does the former always signify 
such a method of conveyance as carrying. It sometimes 
has the force of leading (as 5. Matt. i. 20, 24 ; ii. 14, 20). 

Into the holy city. 

Into Jerusalem, so called because God dwelt in it, be 
cause of the Ark and the Temple, which were there. So 
it was commonly called, and the Prophets had foretold 
that it should have this name (Isaiah Hi. I ; Ix. 14 ; ZacJiar. 
viii. 3). 

Upon the pinnacle of the Temple. 

Upon a wing or pinnacle of the Temple. Some say that 
this was a sloping and pointed turret on which was a metal 
weather-cock that turned with the wind, and which, from 
its resemblance to a wing, was called Trrepvytov ; such as 
we now see on our churches and palaces. But we find 
nothing of the kind on the Temple of Jerusalem. They 
are more correct who think that the pinnacle was a pari- 
bolus, fixed to the top of the house, that no one walking 
there might fall over. Such God commanded to be built 
(Deut. xxii. 8). The Latins, I believe, call it podium. It 



CH. iv. 5.] CHRIST S TEMPTATION. 117 

was so called because it was built out from the house, and 
seemed to hang in the air like a wing. It is easy to see 
why the devil brought Christ hither ; he wished to per 
suade Him to cast Himself down, and therefore brought 
Him to the most conspicuous spot. Jerusalem was built 
on a hill, and the Temple was on the most elevated place 
of the whole city on Mount Moriah, and the pinnacle was 
the highest point of the Temple. 

If Thou be the Son of God. 

The devil ardently desired to know whether Christ were 
the Son of God or not. It is credible, however, that he 
spoke as affirming Him to be so, as has been said on 
verse 3. 

In their hands shall they bear Thee up. 

Some have thought that Satan omitted of purpose that 
part of the testimony, " He shall keep thee in all Thy ways" 
(Psalm xc. n) ; because they would seem to be opposed to 
his nature. These understand by the word " ways " all such 
acts as are not undertaken in wicked rashness, such as that 
of casting ourselves down headlong, but with piety and 
prudence. This, if not true, is ingenious and like what 
might be expected from the subtlety of the devil. It is 
certain that he corrupted the meaning, at least, if not the 
words of the passage. Nor did the Holy Spirit intend to 
suggest that whatever a righteous man should attempt, 
whether right or wrong, should prosper ; but that in what 
ever he did as a righteous man, even though the whole 
world were opposed to him, he should find assistance so 
present from God, that he might appear to be borne up by 
the hands of angels. The words " in their hands " rather 
than on their shoulders, refers to the custom of carrying in 
our hands whatever we consider our most valuable property, 
lest we lose it or have it stolen from us. What is said in 
Psalm xc., the devil, arguing a minore ad majus, applied 



Il8 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. iv. 7-9. 

to Christ, who was not merely a man righteous in degree 
but also the Son of God. 

Verse 7. Into a high mountain. 

What mountain it was the Evangelists do not tell us, 
and therefore we can neither know nor inquire without the 
fault of curiosity. This we know, that Jerusalem was sur 
rounded by mountains (Psalm Ixxxvi. I ; cxxiv. 2) ; although 
we have no knowledge, it is very probable that the devil 
took Christ up into some mountain in the neighbourhood 
of Jerusalem. 

Verse 8. All the kingdoms of the world. 

How Satan could show Christ all the kingdoms of the 
world from one mountain has long been a question much 
agitated. Some, as before, think that it was only done in 
a vision. The Author and Euthymius think, with more 
reason, that it was done, not that Christ should see them, 
but so that he could point out with his finger the coast or 
boundary (plagd] of each kingdom. And it was necessary 
that he should show each single kingdom thoroughly, for 
Scripture often speaks as putting the whole for the greater 
part. 

A nd the glory of them. 

A Hebraism ; it means whatever each kingdom most 
excelled in, and which it is probable that the devil rather 
described by word than by pointing the hand. 

Verse 9. All these things will I give Thee. 
The devil added the words in 5. Luke iv. 6. Because he 
could not elicit from Christ whether He were the Son of 
God, he pretended to be such himself. The Son only could 
say, " All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth ". 
The devil is called the prince of this world (S. John xii. 3 1 ; 
xiv. 30; xvi. 11), not because he is the prince of it, but of 
the wickedness which is the peculiar property of it. He is, 



CH. iv. io.] CHRIST S TEMPTATION. 119 

therefore, able neither to give kingdoms nor to take them 
away ; for this is the prerogative of God alone (Proverbs 
viii. 15 ; Daniel ii. 21). It is out of his power to give or 
to take away, not kingdoms only, but any other good thing 
without the permission of God. Of this Job is a proof (i. 
n, 12). He cannot even give those very vices of which he 
is the lord, unless we ourselves permit him to do so (Pro 
verbs v. 22). 

Verse io. Begone, Satan. 

Many Greek and Latin copies read, Behind me post 
me retro me, OTTLCTW JLLOV (S. Matt. xvi. 23 ; 5. Mark viii. 
23). Christ here calls Satan by his own name, whom the 
Evangelist (verse 3) had called " The Tempter " to show 
that He knew that he was not the Son of God whom 
he was pretending to be, but the devil whom he pretended 
not to be. The words of Christ are the words of one 
commanding at once and rebuking. 

The Lord thy God shalt tJiou adore. 

Christ did not give the words, but the meaning ; for the 
Hebrew is not iTinnt^n " thou shalt worship," but N"Vn 
" thou shalt fear ". But with the Hebrews to fear God is 
to adore and worship Him ; and the fear of God implies all 
adoration and worship ; as good and devout men are 
everywhere said to fear God (Job i. I, 8, 9; ii. 3 ; Ps. xxi. 
24, 25, et al. pass). This is mostly said of those who are 
the people of God. "Only" is not found in the original, 
but was added by the LXX. and the Latin, to express the 
meaning. When God commands us to worship Him and 
serve Him, He forbids us to worship other gods and serve 
them. It is as if He had said, " The Lord thy God shalt 
thou adore, and Him only shalt thou serve". 

These are the only temptations which the three Evan 
gelists have related. But it is not to be supposed that He 
was tried only by these when He went into the desert that 



I2O THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. iv. 12. 

He might be tempted, and S. Mark speaks (1 13) as if He 
were tempted during the whole forty days. The Author 
and S. Augustin (De Consens., ii. 4), Bede and Remigius, 
hold this opinion. 

Verse 12. And when Jesus had heard. 
This did not happen immediately after the temptation ; 
for, some time before John was cast into prison, Christ 
baptised and preached the Gospel, and John also baptised 
and preached, whence arose a contention among their 
disciples, as described by S. John (iii. 22, 23 ; iv. i). 

He retired into Galilee. 

The reason of this is easily gathered from the words of 
the Evangelist, who signifies that Jesus went thither after 
John was cast into prison, lest He Himself should share 
the same fate. For John was delivered up in Lower Galilee, 
or Galilee of the Jews, of which Herod was tetrarch. He 
then went from Galilee of the Jews, which is called Lower 
Galilee, into Upper Galilee, which was beyond the jurisdic 
tion of Herod, and was called Galilee of the Gentiles ; 
because it was inhabited for the most part by Gentiles. 
Solomon gave Hiram, king of Tyre, twenty cities in it (3 
Kings ix. n). S. Matthew says in the thirteenth verse 
that Christ left Nazareth, which was in the Galilee of Herod, 
after the fasting and temptation, and came and dwelt in 
Capernaum, which was on the confines of the other Galilee 
(verses 13, 14, 15). It is clear from this that the accounts 
of S. Matthew here, and of S. Luke (in iv. 14), are not the 
same. S. Luke is speaking there of the return of Christ 
immediately after the fasting and temptation into the 
Galilee of Herod ; S. Matthew here of His going out of 
the Galilee of Herod into the Galilee of the Gentiles. This 
distinction not only some authors of less note, but even S. 
Augustin himself, appears to have overlooked (De Consens., 
ii. 1 8). 



CH. iv. 14, 15.] CHRIST IN GALILEE. 121 

Verse 14. That it might be fulfilled. 
Some refer this to the prophecy of Isaiah, which they 
explain of the liberation of the three tribes, Zabulon, 
Nephthalim, and Aser, who inhabited those parts. The 
Evangelist, according to custom, applies it to Christ, as he 
does others (ii. 15, 18 ; iii. 3). The passage in Isaiah is 
difficult, because the Hebrews not only adopt a different 
meaning but have a different reading and context, which 
both our version and the Evangelist follow. We do not 
read that the prophecy was properly fulfilled before the 
coming and preaching of Christ. 

Verse 15. Land of Zabulon and land of NepJitJialim, by way 

of the sea. 

This was the territory of the two tribes, Zabulon and 
Nephthalim, who had their lot in Upper Galilee, a maritime 
district (Joshua, xix. 10, 33). These three tribes were near 
the sea of Phoenicia, where Tyre held rule. The Greeks 
say oSov tfaXacro-???, the accusative being put adverbially 
that is, towards the sea following probably the LXX., who 
so render it, because the Hebrews say VH via, that is, 
versus, towards. 

Beyond the Jordan. 

We all know that the land of Zabulon and Nephthali 
was not beyond Jordan, but this side of it, as regards 
Jerusalem. The truth may be that the people, when 
coming from Egypt, were accustomed before they crossed 
the Jordan to call the land of Canaan, which was beyond 
Jordan, "Q3Q "pPTT Y"W that is, the country beyond 
Jordan (Numb, xxxii. 19 ; Deut. iii. 20, 26 ; xi. 30). They 
retained this custom even after they had passed the Jordan 
and entered Palestine, speaking as they did when beyond 
Jordan : as, on the other hand, before they had passed the 
Jordan, the country which was to them Cis Jordan they 
called trans speaking as if they were already in Canaan. 



122 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. iv. 17, 18. 

If this appear far-fetched, it may be said, more briefly 
and truly, that the Hebrew expression JTVil *Q}Q means 
both this side (citra) and beyond (ultra) (2 Paralip. xx. 2), 
from a land beyond the sea. 



Verse 17. The kingdom of heaven is at hand. 
( Vid. chap. iii. 2.) We need only observe here that both 
Christ and S. John began their preaching with the same 
words ; that we might understand John to have been the 
ambassador of Christ, and to have used, not his own words, 
but his Master s, by whom he was sent, and that the be 
ginning of the Gospel is repentance. 

Verse 18. By the sea of Galilee. 

This was not a sea, but a lake formed by the influx of 
the Jordan into a lower basin. It was called a sea from 
the Hebrew custom, as we learn from S. Jerome, of terming 
every collection of water such. It bears the title of Galilee, 
because it is situated on the confines of the two Galilees ; 
formerly, according to Pliny, it was called Tarichea. It 
had the name of Tiberias from a city which Herod had 
built on its coast not long before, and called Tiberias, from 
his desire to secure the favour of the Emperor Tiberius, as 
we learn from Josephus (Antiq., xviii. 3). It was called the 
Lake of Gennesareth, because, according to Hegesippus, 
the whole region was termed Gennesareth. Strabo, Pliny, 
and Hegesippus have given descriptions of it. 

Peter and Andrew. 

The different Evangelists relate the calling of SS. Peter 
and Andrew in different ways. S. Mark (iii. 13) and S. 
Luke (vi. 13) seem to speak as if all the Apostles had been 
called at once ; S. John (i. 40, 41) signifies that S. Andrew 
was called first, and then S. Peter ; S. Luke (v. 10) says 
that S. Peter was called in another manner ; for Christ 
when not passing by, but preaching from the ship of Peter, 



CH. iv. i8.] CHRIST IN GALILEE. 123 

and astonishing him by the miraculous draught of fishes, 
called Peter : no mention being made of S. Andrew. 

The first question is easily answered. SS. Mark (iii. 13) 
and Luke (vi. 13) do not speak of the call of the Apostles 
as to follow Christ, but that they might be made Apostles ; 
for they were first disciples, and then apostles, from the 
number of the disciples that is, they were chosen to be 
masters to teach others ; for they were chosen as bishops 
are now from the body of presbyters. 

The second question is more difficult. It is difficult to 
see how they who say that SS. Peter and Andrew were 
called only once can prove their point. It is easily ex 
plained if we say that there were two callings of SS. Peter 
and Andrew one in which they were admitted, not as 
disciples and companions, but as simple hearers, of which 
S. John speaks (i. 41) ; the other when they were so called 
that they left all things and followed Christ for good, as S. 
Augustin ( Tract, on S. John vii.), S. Chrysostom (Horn. xiv. 
on S. Matt\ Euthyrnius, and Theophylact explain it. Still 
more easy is it if we hold three callings the first that of S. 
John, the second of S. Luke, the third of S. Matthew. The 
first two were not to the office of Apostles, but of friendship ; 
the third was of Discipleship and Apostleship. N. de Lyra 
was of this opinion, of which I most thoroughly approve. 
Nor does it appear probable that any was called by Christ 
for any other purpose than that he might be made an 
Apostle, and leave all and follow Christ. If so, the two 
first should rather be termed admonitions than calls, and, 
as it were, preparations for the future call, lest the two 
greatest of the Apostles should appear to have been too 
little obedient to the call of Christ, when we read that the 
other Apostles at the first invitation left all and followed. 
In fact, none of the other Evangelists style the two first 
" calls ". In 5. John (i. 42) Christ only foretold to Peter 
what he should be, and S. Luke (v. n) does not say that 



124 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. iv. ig, 23. 

they were called by Christ, but that when they saw the 
miracle of the fishes, they brought their ships to land and 
left all and followed Christ. We may explain this, not as 
if these things were wholly left and abandoned then as 
when finally called they gave up and forsook everything, 
as S. Peter afterwards said (S. Matt xix. 27) but that 
they left their ships and nets, as the Samaritan woman left 
her waterpot, and came to the city, and said to the people, 
" Come, see a man who has told me all things whatsoever I 
have done " (S. John iv. 28, 29). S. Matthew says here 
that they were called, because he relates the actual calling 
in which they left all things and followed Christ. 

Verse 1 9. Come ye after Me. 
A Hebraism for "nUN 1D^ that is, follow Me. 

Fishers of men. 

The allusion is to their former employment (Ps. Ixxvii. 70, 
71). At the same time the work of the Apostles is described 
to be to fish for men and bring them to Christ, the chief 
Fisherman. For it is He who casts the nets into the sea, 
and gathers fish of every kind (xiii. 47) ; for by His 
word and power the fish are taken, and without Him they 
labour in vain throughout the whole night (S. Luke v. 5). 
Christians are the fish, for they are born in the waters of 
baptism. Christ was therefore called by the Ancients 6%#u?, 
a fish : whose anagram is "J^crou? Xplcrros Qeov utb? <rcoT?7p, 
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour, on which we 
have a poem of the Erythraean Sibyl (Tertullian, De 
Baptismo ; S. Augustin, xviii. 23 ; Prosper, De Promiss. et 
Freed, ii. 39). 

Verse 23. From Galilee. 

Galilee of the Gentiles, into which Christ had retired 
(verses 12, 15). 

In their synagogues. 

The Hebrews call them ITT^ congregationes, from their 



CH. iv. 25.] CHRIST IN GALILEE. 125 

place of meeting. The Greek term is crvvayooyrj, the 
peculiar expression of the LXX., from whom the Apostles 
borrowed the same. Christians, for the sake of distinction, 
substitute eK/cX^aia, church, meaning both the place of 
assembly and the assembly itself. The Jewish synagogues, 
like other churches, were places designed also for teaching. 

The Gospel of the kingdom. 

The good message in which Christ foretold that the 
kingdom of heaven was at hand. 

Verse 25. And beyond Jordan. 

We must repeat the preposition from : And from all the 
region which was beyond Jordan. What was taken dis- 
tributively before is now taken universally. Seneca uses a 
similar expression : " The enemy was assembled beyond the 
Alps " that is, from the region which was beyond the Alps. 



CHAPTER V. 

CHRIST S SERMON UPON THE MOUNT THE EIGHT 
BEATITUDES. 

Verse i. And seeing. 

THIS passage cannot be easily understood unless we first 
understand whether this sermon of S. Matthew and that of 
S. Luke (iv. 17) are the same or different, for they appear 
to differ in many respects. 

S. MATTHEW says that Christ ascended a mountain : S. 
LUKE, that He went up to pray. 

S. MATTHEW does not speak of His having prayed, but 
taught: S. LUKE says that He spent the whole night in 
prayer. 

S. MATTHEW does not say that after His prayer Christ 
called the disciples, and out of them chose the twelve 
Apostles ; but he relates their election as if made long after 
(x. 2) : S. LUKE does. 

S. MATTHEW says that the sermon was held on a 
mountain : S. LUKE, on a plain, when Christ had come 
down from the mountain. 

S. MATTHEW gives eight beatitudes, as they are called : 
S. LUKE, only four. 

Hence some great authorities think that this sermon of 
S. Matthew and the other of S. Luke are not the same ; 
but that Christ, according to His custom in different 
addresses, repeated the same things with only a few addi 
tions and alterations. S. Augustin was of this opinion 
(De Consens.,\\. 19), The Author (Horn, ix.), Chromatius (in 

^, and S. Gregory (Horn. ix. on Esekiel}. 



CH. v. i.J SERMON ON THE MOUNT. I2/ 

Others think that the two sermons were the same, as 
Tatian (Harm.}, S. Jerome (Comment^, S. Chrysostom 
(Horn, xv.), Origen (Tract, on S. Matt, xxiv.), Euthymius 
and Theophylact (Comment^. From their great authority 
I incline to think that these are correct; for each Evangelist 
relates the beatitudes, not as if they consisted of a few 
precepts repeated from some other sermon, but as if they 
contained the whole argument on which the sermon was 
constructed ; and each so relates it as making the com 
mencement from poverty. 

The objection that they differ on many points is not so 
difficult of explanation as may be thought. S. Luke says 
that Christ went up into the mountain to pray : S. Matthew 
does not say this, but he does not contradict it ; for he does 
not say why Christ went up, but what He did there ; nor 
does he tell us all that He did, but only as much as He 
intended to do this was to speak of Christ s doctrine. He 
is silent, therefore, about His praying, and enlarges upon 
the assembly. 

For the same reason he passed over the calling of the 
Apostles, of which he spoke afterwards (x. i) ; not keeping 
the order of events, as he often does, and as we have 
frequently explained to be his custom. 

The difficulty is greater when S. Matthew says that Christ 
was on the mountain, and S. Luke that he was on a plain. 
But this also is answered by S. Augustin (De Consensu, ii. 
19) in more ways than one. 

It may have been, as both Evangelists say, that Christ 
went up into a mountain, though S. Luke alone says that 
He did so, to pray, and there chose the Apostles, as the 
same Evangelist alone describes, and He may then have 
come down which S. Luke mentions, but S. Matthew 
omits and have held the assembly, as both agree ; except 
that S. Luke says that it was on a plain, and S. Matthew 
on a mountain. 



128 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. I. 

This explanation seems to me very little probable, but 
his other still less so. It is that Christ did not come down 
from the mountain at all, but spoke from the top of it, on 
some level part, which S. Matthew calls the mountain, and 
S. Luke a plain. For this sermon does not seem to have 
been addressed to the whole multitude, but to the disciples 
alone ; for (i) the subject-matter seems to imply^and require 
us to believe this to have been the case, for Christ did not 
propose evangelical perfection to all the multitude, but He 
said to these, " Do penance" (iv. 17, and 5. Luke xiii. 3, 5); 
but to those who desired to be perfect He offered perfection 
(xix. 21). 

(2) Both Evangelists show that He addressed the disciples 
alone : " And when He was set down the disciples came to 
Him " (v. i) ; S. Luke, " And He, lifting up His eyes on 
His disciples, said " (vi. 20, and 5. Matt. v. 13, 14). 

From this it is clear that the sermon was spoken, not on 
the plain, but on the mountain which the disciples ascended 
alone with Christ, leaving the multitude below. S. Matthew 
is not to be explained from S. Luke, but S. Luke from S. 
Matthew. S. Luke does not speak of the same ascent of 
the mountain as S. Matthew, but of another which He made 
that He might pray and choose the Apostles. What S. Luke 
adds of His having afterwards come down, that a great 
multitude followed Him ; and that He lifted up His eyes and 
said, " Blessed are ye poor " (vi. 20), is not to be understood 
as having taken place immediately, and on the plain, but 
long after, and in another place ; that is, on the mountain 
which He had ascended again, as S. Matthew says ; but 
about which S. Luke is silent, as he did not conjoin the 
time and place. 

That S. Matthew named eight beatitudes and S. Luke 
only four, is of slight consequence ; for the Evangelist did 
not take in hand to relate all the events, but only the chief 
of them, and, therefore, in this case, S. Matthew relates 



CH. v. i.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 129 

some things of which S. Luke makes no mention, and 
passes over others which S. Luke mentions ; as those con 
traries : " Woe to you that are rich " ; " Woe to you that 
laugh " ; " Woe to you that are filled " ; " Woe to you when 
men shall bless you ". 



And Jesus seeing. 

The word Jesus is not found in the Greek, nor in Theo- 
phylact or Euthymius, and the connection of this verse with 
the last of the fourth chapter seems to make it a needless 
addition. But S. Chrysostom, The Author, S. Augustin, 
and S. Bernard read it. 

The cause of Christ s having gone up into the mountain 
is not doubtful. He saw the multitude ; but the reason of 
His having done so, because of it, is uncertain. The Author 
suggests that He might have gone up to teach them from 
a higher position as better adapted for speaking from ; or He 
might have desired to escape the numbers, as S. Augustin 
(Horn. i. de Serm. Dom.}, S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, and 
others suppose. Remigius observes that Christ had three 
kinds of refuge from the multitude the desert (S. Matt. 
iv. i), the ship (S. Luke v. 3), the mountain (as here, and 
xiv. 23 ; xv. 29; xvii. i ; S. Mark iii. 13 ; vi. 46 ; ix. 2; 5. Luke 
vi. 12; ix. 28; xxi. 37; S.Joknvl 3, 15; viii. i). And this 
appears the true meaning, because, as has been said before, 
this address (concio) was not to the multitude, but to the 
Apostles ; and Christ was accustomed to go up into the 
mountain, not to seek, but to escape from, the multitude (as 
in S.John vi. 3, 15; viii. i). 

What mountain it was which Christ ascended we cannot 
now know. S. Jerome says that some simple-minded per 
sons in his day thought that it was the Mount of Olives ; 
not observing that Christ was then in Upper Galilee, and 
that the Mount of Olives was near Jerusalem. He thinks 
himself that it might have been Tabor. 

9 



130 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 2, 3. 

Verse 2. And opening His mouth. 

This is not a mere pleonasm, as some think, but some 
thing of a mystery. S. Augustin (De Serm. Dom., 1. i.), S. 
Gregory (On Job, iii. 5), think the meaning to be that Christ, 
who had before opened the mouths of the Prophets, now 
opened His own, as S. Paul says (Heb. i. i). To open the 
mouth is sometimes to speak freely, and with a clear voice 
(Ezek. xxix. 21 ; Ecclus. xv. 5). Christ opened His mouth 
thus. This is true, but not enough. Sometimes to open 
the mouth is to break out into speech after a prolonged 
silence (as/0 iii. i). 

Christ appears to have opened His mouth in this manner. 
Not that He had not spoken or addressed multitudes 
before, but that He had never before set forth His divine 
teaching on evangelical perfection. He now opened His 
mouth ; that is, says S. Hilary, He revealed those divine 
mysteries on which He had before kept silence. 

Verse 3. Blessed. 

Christ begins with that for which all seek, as David, or 
whoever put his Psalms into a volume (Ps. i. i). For not 
only is there no one who does not desire beatitude, but there 
is none who seeks anything but for it. Christ here calls those 
blessed who are so not in fact, but in hope, and who are as 
cending by the steps by which it is attained. For they are 
not called blessed as being certain of arriving at blessed 
ness, but because they are going the right way to it, and will 
attain to it, if nothing hinder them. In one word, the poor 
are called blessed because, as such (ex parte paupertatis\ 
they are light and unencumbered, as S. Gregory says, to 
run in the race for blessedness unless disease or some sin 
hinder them. 

Poor in spirit. 

That is, humble (1iumiles\ as most explain it they who, 
even if rich in goods, are still humble in mind. Others 



CH. v. 3.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 131 

apply the words to those who, whether poor or rich, have 
not given up their minds to wealth, nor their hearts to where 
their treasure is, as S. Augustin often sets it out. Others 
again think that the actually poor are intended, as Tertullian 
(iv., Against Marcion}, S. Cyprian, S. Jerome (Comment?). 
It would appear that this is the meaning (i) because the 
Greek word Trror^o? is used, which signifies not only poor 
men, but beggars, as Tertullian thought that it ought to be 
rendered ; (2) because, in verse 4, it is said : " Blessed are the 
meek " ; (3) because the kingdom of heaven is promised 
as riches to the poor ; and (4) because S. Luke opposes 
the actually rich (veros\ not the proud, to them : " Woe to 
you that are rich " (S. Luke vi. 24). 

Why Christ added " in spirit " has been a matter of ques 
tion. They who understand " the humble " think that it 
was not actual poverty, but lowliness of spirit, that was in 
tended ; for compulsory poverty is not a blessing, but a 
misery. This appears to be the true meaning, for spirit is 
often put for will (as 5. Matt. xxvi. 41 ; 5. Mark xiv. 3 ; 
Rom. i. 9 ; I Cor. vii. 34 ; Ephes. iv. 3). 

Nor is all voluntary poverty to be understood, but that 
which is endured for the kingdom of heaven, or which is 
undertaken voluntarily, or which is borne patiently. S. 
Basil, therefore, explains "in" by "on account of" spiritu, 
propter spiritum (Interrog. 205 in. Brev. Reg.}. A man 
poor in spirit is one who sells all he has, and gives to the 
poor, that, poor and naked himself, he might follow the 
poor and naked Christ. 

This is the first step in evangelical poverty. 

The second is that of those who have not indeed sold all 
their goods, but have given them up lest they lose Christ. 

The third is of those who have not wholly given them up, 
but have left them to follow Christ and the Church. 

The fourth is of those who, when they might be rich by 
unfair means, put the fear of God before perishable riches, 



132 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 4. 

and prefer to be poor, saying, with Tobias : "We lead, indeed, 
a poor life, but we shall have many good things, if we fear 
God, and depart from all sin, and do that which is good " 
(iv. 23). 

The fifth is of those who neither are, nor wish to be, rich, 
but seek their daily bread from God, and, having food and 
raiment, are therewith content 

The sixth is of those who wish, if they can without 
injustice, to be rich, but when they cannot, endure poverty 
with an even mind for Christ s sake. S. Ambrose (lib. vi., In 
S. Luc.) asks why Christ calls the poor blessed, when both 
riches and poverty are things indifferent, and, in themselves, 
neither good nor evil ? His answer is, that Christ does not 
speak of poverty in itself, but of lowliness of spirit. Why 
did Christ begin with this when it is not a virtue at all, or, 
at least, not the greatest virtue ? Christ wished to show 
the most direct and speedy way to heaven. But there is 
nothing which hinders this more than riches ; for it is 
impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, 
and Christ therefore puts poverty in the first place. 

For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 

They who take the kingdom of heaven here to mean the 
preaching of the Gospel, because this is most especially 
promised to the poor as in 5. Matthew xi. 5 ; Isaiah Ixi. I ; 
as the Hebrew reads it, " He hath sent me to preach the 
Gospel to the poor " do not observe that the kingdom of 
heaven is opposed, as riches to poverty ; as, in the words 
that follow, contraries are all opposed to contraries : 
" Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted ; 
blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice, for 
they shall have their fill ". 

Verse 4. Blessed are the meek. 

This is the fifth verse in the Greek, and the fourth here, 
the fourth of the former answering to the fifth of our 



CH. v. 4 .] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 133 

version. S. Leo, in his Horn, on all Saints, reads as the 
Greek, so that it would appear as if the verses had been 
transposed in the Latin copies by the transcriber. " The 
meek are they who are humble and mild, and resemble 
Christ, who says, Learn of Me, because I am meek and 
humble of heart (S. Matt. xi. 29), and who cannot be other 
wise than happy." S. Basil, in his Shorter Rides, Interrog. 
191, says : " These are they who do not return evil for evil, 
but good for evil " (Rom. xii. 17, 1 8). 

For they shall possess the land. 
It has been questioned what land is here meant. 

1. Some think it to be this earth on which we live as 
S. Chrysostom (Horn, in Matt, xv.), Euthymius, and 
Theophylact ; for Christ promises us not only heavenly 
and future, but also earthly and present goods (S. Matt. 
vi. 33 ; 5. Mark x. 29, 30). 

2. Some think it to be heaven which is called the land 
of the living as in Psalm xxvi. 13 ; cxli. 6 ; Origen, Horn. 
xxvi. on Numbers; S. Basil, On Psalm xxxiii. ; S. Cyril, On 
Isaiah Iviii. ; S. Greg. Nyss., On Beatitudes ; S. Jerome, 
in loc. This opinion seems the more reasonable, because 
(i) in so grave a meeting as this, it is not likely that Christ 
would have promised that land which He always taught 
men to despise ; (2) because, in the other beatitudes, He 
promises nothing of earth ; (3) because the promise is not 
true ; for the meek do not inherit this world, but are rather 
dispossessed of it ; nor do they possess houses and lands 
who have left them for the Gospel ; and Christ promises 
such to them even in this world (S. Mark x. 30) ; Christ, 
in truth, did not promise houses and lands, but spiritual 
gifts, which are better than these. 

Why, however, did He call them houses and lands ? He 
did it as in opposition to those which have been relinquished. 
But again, why does He not term them heaven rather than 
earth ? For the sake of variety, for He had before called 



134 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 5. 

them heaven (verse 3). He speaks thus to oppose to the 
earthly earth, if I may so speak, the heavenly, and to teach 
us that the meek, who are most excluded from the posses 
sion of this earth, shall have another and a better. S. Paul 
and S. John speak thus of the heavenly Jerusalem in 
opposition to the earthly, in the possession of which the 
Jews most especially delighted (Galat. iv. 16 ; Heb. xii. 22; 
Apoc. iii. 12 ; xxi. 2, 10). I know not whether Christ 
intended any allusion to the land of Canaan, which all the 
Israelites endeavoured to enter, but which only a few meek 
and patient did enter. 

Verse 5. Blessed are they that mourn. 
It is clear that not every mourner is blessed. We may 
rightly ask, therefore, to whom of them Christ gives this 
title ? Some say that it is given to those who mourn for 
their sins (S. Chrysostom, Horn. xv. ; S. Ambrose, iv., In 
Luc.; S. Cyril, v., On Isaiah ; S. Hilary, Can. iv.). Others, 
to those who mourn, not only for their own sins, but for the 
sins of others also ; as Christ mourned over Jerusalem (S. 
Luke xix. 41), and Samuel over Saul (i Kings xvi. I ; The 
Author, Horn. ix. ; S. Jerome, Comment. ; S. Leo, Serm. in 
Omn. Sanct^}. Others, again, suggest the mourners for 
the loss of property (S. Augustin, lib. i., Serm. in Mont. ; 
S. Greg. Nyss., De Beat. Potest.). It may be that Christ 
means such as mourn for being persecuted for the kingdom 
of heaven, as in verse 10; so 2 5. Tim. iii. 12; 5. John xvi. 
33 ; Rom. v. 3, 4. That this is the meaning may be con 
cluded from vS. Luke vi. 25, where Christ opposes those 
who laugh to those who mourn as oppressors to oppressed, 
conquerors to conquered. 

For they shall be comforted. 

They shall rejoice and laugh. The Greek is TrapatcXr)- 
OijffovTai,, " shall receive consolation," as S. Augustin 
renders it. Our version, to represent a single Greek word 



CH. v. 6.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 135 

by another Latin one, speaks not according to the usage 
of this language. The above is what Christ said at the 
Last Supper (S. John xvi. 20; Apoc. vii. 17). 

Verse 6. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice. 

S. Luke says, absolutely, " Blessed are ye that hunger 
now, for you shall be filled ". S. Matthew, by the addition 
of the word justice, has explained the passage, not as many 
think, but he has made it much more difficult For 
from this word many have thought that we should under 
stand a thirsting after, that is, an ardent desire of gaining 
righteousness, to be meant (S. Ambrose, On S. Luke vi. ; 
S. Jerome, Comment. ; S. Chrysostom, Horn. xv. ; The 
Author ; S. Augustin, Serm. in Mont., i. ; S. Hilary, Can. 
iv.; S. Leo, Serm. in Omn. Sanct.; S. Greg. Nyss., De 
Beat.; S. Bernard, Serm. i. Omn. Sanct.; Euthymius and 
Theophylact, Comment^. Scripture appears to favour this 
idea, for by the word thirst it always means an ardent 
desire of a thing (Ps. xli. I, 2, 3 ; xxvi. 2 ; Eccles. xxiv. 29 ; 
Isaiali Iv. i). 

It seems more probable, however, that Christ spoke of 
actual hunger and thirst ; for although vehement desire is 
often called thirst in Scripture, it is nowhere called hunger. 
But here not only they who thirst, but they also who 
hunger, are called blessed. Again, it appears to be so 
because Christ is speaking only of some sure and personal 
virtues which aid more than they appear to do to blessed 
ness. Such are poverty, humility, patience. But to desire 
and seek after righteousness is not a special but a general 
virtue, and Christ would appear to have said nothing new 
or great if He called those who sought to be righteous 
" blessed ". It is clear, too, that He desired throughout 
this whole sermon to oppose the opinion of the world in 
extolling those things which He held in especial contempt- 
He therefore praises poverty, humility, and patience. 



136 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 7, 8. 

The world, indeed, does not condemn, but approves the 
wish to be just, though itself unjust. But hunger and 
thirst it especially avoids, and thinks that the endurance of 
them is madness. Christ, therefore, speaks of these. 

For they shall have their fill. 

(Ps. xvi. 15 ; 5. Luke xiv. 15 ; xxii. 29, 30.) By these 
words, which are used to accord with the common opinion 
that food and drink are great sources of happiness, the life 
of blessedness and the kingdom of heaven are signified, 
which, S. Paul says, are not meat and drink. A like saying 
is found in ha. xlix. 10 ; Ixv. 13; Apoc. vii. 17; S.John 
iv. 13, 14. 

Verse 7. Blessed are the merciful. 

This may be understood of every kind of mercifulness, 
as S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, The Author, and Theophylact 
point out. The parable in ,S. Matthew (xviii. 28-33) is a 
proof of the same. S. Greg. Nyss., S. Augustin (Serm. 
in Mont?)) S. Leo (Horn, de Omn. Sanct), think that the 
words should properly be understood of almsgiving; for 
this makes men truly blessed (S. Matt. xxv. 34, 35 ; 5. Luke 
xvi. 9 ; Ps. xl. i ; cxi. 5 ; Prov. xiv. 21 ; xix. 17 ; Job iv. 7 ; 
vS. Matt. xii. 2; S. James ii. 13). As these words were said 
to the Apostles, it appears that they who are not merely 
liberal in almsgiving (which the Apostles, who had left all, 
could not be) are properly called merciful, but much more 
they who easily forgive injuries, such as the Apostles were 
frequently compelled to undergo, as shown by the above 
parable (S. Matt, xviii.). 

Verse 8. Blessed are the pure in heart. 

*Oi KaOdpoi rfj rcapBla or, as S. Augustin and other Latin 
writers express it, " mundicordes" or " puricordes" . Some 
think that they are meant whose consciences accuse them 
of no sin, and whom no consciousness of sin convicts (S. 



CH. v. g.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 137 

Hilary, Can. iv. ; S. Basil, Reg. Brev. 280 ; S. Greg. 
Nyss., De Beat.; S. Jerome, Comment.; The Author; S. 
Leo, De Omn. Sanct.; S. Bernard, Serm. de Convers., chap. 
25 ; and Serm. de Omn. Sanct.). 

This view, however great its supporters, has its difficulties, 
for there is no one whose conscience does not accuse him 
of sin (Prov. xx. 9). Again, the above is not a personal 
but a general virtue, and, as we have said, Christ is speaking 
here of the former. 

Some understand simplicity (S. Augustin, 1. i., De Serm. 
Dom.). This appears the more reasonable because this grace 
is very little found in the world ; as, in I John v. 19, "the 
whole world is seated in wickedness " ; and because it was 
especially necessary to the Apostles, who were to take the 
world, not. by cunning, but by simplicity. When Christ, 
therefore, sent them to preach, He inculcated upon them, 
first of all, simplicity (S. Matt. vi. 22; x. 16). God praised 
the simplicity of Job (i. 8). His wife, however, that is, the 
world and the wisdom of the flesh, derided him (ii. 9). Add 
that Christ promised the sight of God to the pure of heart, 
as promising sight to the blind : knowledge, and the most 
blessed knowledge, to the ignorant. For the world calls 
the simple blind and ignorant. The idea of S. Chrysostom, 
Euthymius, and Theophylact seems good. By purity of 
heart they understand chastity, for this grace also is 
scarcely known to the world (S. Matt. xix. 12), though 
Christ especially requires it of His disciples. 

For they shall see God. 

As they who have good sight discern colours best, so the 
pure of heart see God most perfectly. " Hence," says S. 
Augustin, " it follows that God is to be seen, not by the 
eyes of the body, but by the heart." 

Verse 9. Blessed are the peacemakers. 
By this expression many understand those who do not 



138 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. g. 

cause dissensions. Others, those who readily forgive in 
juries, as S. Hilary, in his Comment. ; S. Augustin, those 
who have peace in themselves, that is, who are agitated by 
no tempests of the conscience. Others still, which is akin to 
the former, those who are in no strife with God (S. Chry- 
sostom, Euthymius). The Author and Theophylact say 
that the reference is to those who are at once men of peace 
themselves, and who, as far as in them lies, reconcile such 
as are at variance who, in a word, study peace. This last 
explanation seems the best, because the Greek word 
elpyvoTTOLoi properly signifies those who reconcile enemies ; 
and because the others are too general. For to have peace 
in ourselves and with God is a common grace, and the world 
makes more account of those who carry on war with 
courage and prudence than of those who study peace ; and 
as this virtue was to be most especially inculcated upon 
the Apostles, who were to conquer the world, not by arms, 
but by peace. " Into whatsoever house you enter, first say, 
Peace be to this house " (S. Luke x. 5). It follows : " They 
shall be called the sons of God " that is, they shall be 
like God ; a double Hebraism : one in the word " sons," 
which means, in Hebrew, resemblance in form, conforma 
tion as below, verses 44, 45. The other is in the words 
"shall be called," that is, shall be : " In Isaac shall thy seed 
be called" (Gen. xxi. 12), which S. Paul explains by the 
verb substantive ; and Isaiah Ivi. 7 ; S. Luke xix. 46. 

" To be called " (vocari) seems to mean more than " to be " 
(esse) : for it signifies, so to be, as to be apparent, to be 
spoken of by all. The peacemakers therefore are blessed, 
because they will not only be the sons of God, but they will 
be sons in such a manner as that the world itself, which 
before held them fools, will be compelled to confess them 
to be the sons of God ( Wisdom v. 3, 4) ; for it is the preroga 
tive of God to make peace (i Cor. xiv. 33) ; He is therefore 
called, passim, the God of Peace (Rom. xv. 33 ; xvi. 20, &c.). 



CH.V. 10,13.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 139 

The explanation of S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and 
Theophylact is good : that the peacemakers are called the 
sons of God because they follow His Son Jesus Christ, 
whose office it is to reconcile men to God (Rom. v. 10 ; 
2 Cor. v. 1 8 ; Coloss. i. 20 ; Ephes. ii. 14, 27) ; and who has 
brought a peace to the world which the world was not able 
to give (S. Luke ii. 14 ; S. John xiv. 27). 

Verse 10. For justice 1 sake. 

They are just because they follow justice, and are 
Christians (Acts \. 41 ; I Peter iv. 15, 16; ii. 20, 21 ; 5. Matt. 
iii. 14). 

Theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 

To the patient as well as to the striving the kingdom is 
promised for their righteousness : a common consolation in 
Scripture (Jerem. xxxi. 16 ; 2 Tim. iv. 8 ; I Cor. xv.). 

Verse 13. You are the salt of the earth. 

There are two properties in salt : to give savour, and to 
preserve from corruption. What is termed savour in food 
(sapor) is wisdom in man, and expressed by the word salt. 
What is called in other things conservation (conservatio) is in 
men confirmation in good lives, and is termed in the inspired 
writings edification. The Apostles are called the salt of the 
earth, therefore, because they are men, and ought to teach 
by their wisdom, and edify by their lives. S. Augustin 
(i., De Serin. Dom.) shows why Christ spoke the above words. 
He had urged the Apostles before to the highest perfection 
of life : " Blessed are the poor in spirit " ; and He desired 
to show that they ought to aim at being such, because they 
were the salt of the earth. By the earth here, S. Augustin 
says, men are to be understood. This is also certain from 
the custom of Scripture. 

This is more necessary of observation because, as S. 
Chrysostom and Theophylact have said, the Apostles were 



I4O THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 13. 

called the salt of the earth, as about to be the masters, not 
of one man, or of a few men, but of the whole world (S. Matt. 
xiv. 15). 

S. Mark (ix. 50) and S. Luke (xiv. 34) relate that on 
another occasion Christ used the same comparison. But it 
is an easy and probable conclusion that He did this, not 
once only, but frequently as the case required, as we often 
do in our teaching. 

But if the salt have lost its savour. 

Mwpdvdrj Infatuatum fuerit : that is, loses its savour 
ancl sharpness. Doctors of the Church do this when they 
either teach wrongly or build up badly. 

Wherewith shall it be salted ? 

That is, the salt itself (S. Matt. ix. 50) ; for there is no 
salting of salt. If the teacher teach amiss, by whom shall 
he be taught ? If he live badly, by whom shall he be 
corrected ? for there is no doctor doctorum. Not that the 
teacher cannot be corrected, but it is not usual nor easy. 

But to be cast out. 

To be trodden under foot by the passers-by, as things 
thrown out into the streets. It is a Hebraism. The Hebrew 
says CW:N "man" (virum hominent}\ the LXX., 11P2N 
"each one"; the Latin, vulgo concultetur. The meaning is 
that other things, even if they have lost their natural virtue, 
are still useful for other purposes. Gold money is broken up 
it is no longer money, but it is still gold ; it will not serve 
for commerce, but it is useful to the goldsmith. Food is 
tainted it is not set before men, but it may be given to 
the dogs. A garment is worn out, it is thrown on to the 
dunghill it will no longer warm men, but it will enrich the 
ground. But salt, if it has lost its savour, is useless for 
the dunghill, and will not manure the ground nay, it 



CH. v. 14.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 14! 

makes it sterile (Ps. cvi. 34 ; 5. Luke xiv. 35). That 
which is of the most use, when decayed, becomes the most 
useless. The branch is most necessary for the production 
of fruit, but if it wither nothing is more valueless (Ezek. xv. 
2, 3, 4)- 

Verse 14. You are the light of the world. 

You who ought to enlighten the world by your doctrine 
and example ; the world has no teachers of goodness but 
you. Christ probably meant by the three words salt, 
light, and the city to signify one and the same thing. 
This, as we learn from S. Jerome, was the custom of the 
Syriac, which was the language He used. Not only here, 
but in many other passages, we see Christ using many 
similes, one upon another, to express the same thing. Of 
this S. Matthew (xiii.) gives many examples. One thing 
must be observed, that Christ was the one only true Light 
" which enlighteneth every man that cometh into the 
world" (S. John i. 9 ; iii. 19 ; viii. 12 ; ix. 5 ; xii. 35, 36). 

Christ is called the true Light because He is the supreme 
Light in Himself, with whom, if not the Apostles alone 
and other holy men and Doctors, yet S. John the Baptist, 
than whom there was none greater among those born of 
women, may compare. But the other John said truly, he 
was not that light ; yet of him the Evangelist writes : " He 
was a burning and a shining light" (v. 35). As in this 
passage of S. Matthew the Apostles are called the light, all 
Christians are called the same (Philipp. ii. 15; Ephes. v. 8 ; 
i TJiess. v. 5). Christ is the Light by His own nature : 
others by His grace and gift, because they are enlightened 
by Him : Christ, because He lightens every man that 
cometh into the world, not only extrinsically by His 
example and doctrine, but also by His intrinsic grace : 
the Apostles, as lighting others, not only by their example > 
but also by their doctrine ; Christians by their example. 



142 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 15. 

A city cannot be kid. 

The first part of the comparison is wanting. You are a 
city, or like a city, placed on a hill. S. Jerome shows that 
the Apostles and Prophets are the mountains, because, 
being on high places in the Church, they are seen by all. 
The Author also observes that they are described as towers 
(Ps. cxxi. 7), although the meaning here is a mystical 
one, the literal being different. In the same sense they are 
here compared to a state (civitati\ or rather to a city 
(urbi). 

" Cannot." That cannot, you ought not to, be hidden. 
Christ does not admonish them to live uprightly lest they 
give offence, because their example, like a city on a hill, 
cannot be hid ; but He warns them not to conceal them 
selves. 

Verse 1 5. Neither do men light a candle. 

The meaning of these words is clear. Their object is 
not so S. Jerome thinks that Christ uttered them to 
give the Apostles courage and confidence to preach the 
Gospel freely ; as if one should exhort a champion to fight 
strenuously and with courage, because the eyes of all were 
upon him. Others think that He intended to warn them 
to live circumspectly, lest they should give offence for a 
city set on a hill cannot possibly be hid. 

Nor were they to resemble a candle put under a bushel, 
but one placed in a candlestick, which cannot but be seen 
by all (S. Paul to the Philippians ii. 15, and I 5. Peter iii. 
1 6). S. Chrysostom and Theophylact explain it thus : 

Christ s meaning seems to be, to exhort the Apostles to 
shine brightly both by word and example, and not to 
spare their labour. Besides, He had kindled them as lights ; 
that is, He had made them Apostles, and had therefore 
placed them above others, as a city on a hill, that they 
might be conspicuous, and shine, and teach, and not be hid. 
For a city is not built upon a mountain that it may not be 



CH. v. 16.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 143 

seen, nor is a candle lighted that it may be hid under a 
bushel, but that it may be placed in a candlestick, and light 
all, and be seen by all. Christ says this in other words 
(S. Luke ii. 49), and S. Paul exhorts S. Timothy " to preach 
the Word " (2 Tim. iv. 2). The words that follow" So 
let your light shine " confirm this opinion. The words 
41 under a bushel " are put, probably, because a bushel was 
very fit for concealing the light. So 5". Luke viii. 16. 

Verse 16. So let your light shine. 

Christ elsewhere seems to teach the contrary (vi. I, 2, 5), 
and many things in that place to the same purport. The 
answer is easy. The word " that " in this instance does 
not show the cause, but the result, as in 5. John ix. 39 and 
I Cor. xi. 19. S. Chrysostom (Horn. x. on Romans ; xxvii. on 
i Cor. y and on S. Paul s words, " There must be heresies "), 
John Damascene, with other authorities of the Greek- 
Church, say that the word is not dinar IKOV but e7ri/3aTiKov ; 
not causative, but illative. For Christ did not command 
the Apostles to act rightly that they might be seen by 
men, which chapter vi. forbids ; but so to live that every 
one who saw their actions might glorify, not them, but their 
Father who is in heaven, and of whose grace it was that 
they did them. This is not forbidden in that 6th chapter 
of 5. Luke. 

Is it not lawful, then, ever to do good that we may be 
seen by men, when we should not otherwise do it ? It is 
lawful if only we do it not for our own sakes, but for the 
sake of God. It is lawful with that object, but not as the 
final object to do good. It is lawful to come thither, but 
not to remain there ; our minds must lead on to the glory 
of God. Before they came to God they stood still ; nay, 
they fell. He who wishes to be seen by men when well 
doing, wishes it not that he himself, but that his Father in 
heaven may be glorified he wishes, not himself, but God 



144 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 17. 

to be seen. For no one wishes to be seen by men that he 
may merely be seen, but that he may be given some glory 
by being seen. If he seek not glory, or if he seek it not 
for himself, but for God, even if he desire to be seen, he 
does not appear to desire it. In this sense S. Peter wishes 
Christians who live righteously to desire to be seen by the 
Gentiles (i Pet. ii. 12). In this sense Christ seems to have 
said : " Let your light so shine ". In this passage the word 
" that " signifies, not only the event and consequence, but 
the end and cause. He compared the Apostles to a 
candle ; but the candle is lighted that it may be seen, and, 
as we have said, Christ does not there proceed as by leaps, 
but gradually : " Glorify your Father who is in heaven ". 

Verse 1 7. Do not think. 

We must first see to what end Christ said this, and how 
far it agrees with His previous words. Many think that 
Christ said this because He had been already accused by 
the Jews of being about to destroy the Law, or because He 
certainly knew that he would be so accused, which we see 
to have subsequently happened (S. Matt. vii. 29 ; xv. 9 ; 
and S. John ix. 16). 

Some think that, because Christ had already made 
transition to a more perfect interpretation of the Law, He 
desired to advise them that they must understand even 
from this that He was not come to destroy the Law, but 
to fulfil it ; that is, to bind them more closely to it, and 
interpret it more perfectly to the mind of the Giver of it 
(verses 21, 22). So say S. Chrysostom and Theophylact. 
The Author, whoever he was, seems to have touched the 
true case (Horn. x.). Christ had said to the Apostles : 
" You are the light of the world," which should be ex 
plained, as we have said, at once of their life and doctrine. 
He teaches them now, by His own example, how they 
ought to live and teach ; that they ought to keep the Law 



CH. v. 17.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 145 

better than it had been kept heretofore, and explain it 
better than the Scribes and Pharisees, lest they should think 
that because they were the disciples of Christ, that is, of 
the Lawgiver Himself, they might break the Law ; as they 
who are of princes households are used to be free from 
almost every law. As if He had said : I Myself, who made 
the Law, am not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it ; 
and " unless your justice abound more than that of the 
Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the king 
dom of heaven " (verse 20). Thus precept follows precept. 

Now we will speak of the meaning of the words. How 
does Christ say that He is not come to destroy the Law, 
but to fulfil it, when, in fact, He did destroy and abrogate 
it ? For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until 
John (S. Matt. xi. 13 ; Heb. vii. 12), and therefore Christ 
is contrary to the Law, and cannot profit those who keep 
the Law (Gal. v. 2.). 

They who reply that " Christ said that He was not come 
to destroy the Law because, although He would destroy it, 
He would not do so per se, but by the Apostles after His 
return into heaven ; as He said that He came not but to 
the lost sheep of the house of Israel (S. Matt. xv. 24) not 
that He did not come to other sheep, but that He would 
bring in those sheep not per se but by the Apostles " ; do 
not appear to see to what end Christ said this. He 
wished, as before said, to urge the Apostles to keep the 
Law perfectly, inasmuch as He Himself had come not to 
destroy but to fulfil it. In the same way, then, in which 
He Himself had kept it, He wished the Apostles to keep 
it ; and in the way in which He abrogated it, He abrogated 
it not by the Apostles, but per se. The true meaning, then, 
is this. Christ came not to destroy the Law but to fulfil it : 

i. Because as long as the Law had need to flourish, He, 
though as God He was bound by no Law, both fulfilled it 
most strictly Himself, and took care that the Apostles 

10 



146 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 17. 

should do the same. Both He Himself and the Apostles 
were circumcised. They went up yearly to the feast and 
kept Paschal. As to the accusation that He did not keep 
the Sabbath because the disciples plucked the ears of corn 
{S. Matt. xiii. i, 2) and ate with unwashed hands (xv. 2), 
these were calumnies of the Pharisees, who interpreted the 
Law not according to the intention of the Giver, but accord 
ing to their own will and tradition, as Christ convicts them 
of doing in these passages. 

2. He is said not to have destroyed but fulfilled the 
Law, because He interpreted it by His righteous interpreta 
tions. For when He said, " I am not come to destroy," as 
if wishing to show how He fulfilled it, He added those 
more severe interpretations of it in verses 21, 22, 23, 24. 
So say S. Greg. Nyss. (Cont. Jud\ Euthymius, and 
Theophylact (in Comments?). 

3. Christ fulfilled the Law, because He gave us the 
grace by which it could be fulfilled. For previously, as S. 
Augustin says, " He commanded, but He did not assist " ; 
after His coming, He both commands and assists. Before 
this it was a heavy body, a weight without a soul. He 
infused into it the grace and spirit, like a soul by which it 
is moved and acts, as in 5. John i. 17; S. Augustin (Cont. 
Faust, xi. 5 ; xix. 7) ; S. Chrysostom (Horn. xvi.). 

4. He showed forth the promises of the Law, and 
represented what had been shadowed forth by the cere 
monies and types. So almost all the ancient authors 
interpret it S. Irenseus, iv. 27,67; Tertullian, De Patient.; 
S. Hilary, iv. ; S. Athanasius, Cont. Omn. Haeres. ; S. Cyril, 
De Adorat.; S. Augustin, Qucest. 69 in Nov. Test. In 
accordance with these are the words of Christ (S. Luke 
xxiv. 44). That is, as the Evangelists, and most especially 
S. Matthew, say, " That it might be fulfilled which was 
spoken by the Prophets ". 

5. Some add a fifth way in which Christ fulfilled the 



CH. v. 18.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 147 

Law that for its temporal rewards and punishments He 
substituted eternal ones. And thus, as there were in the 
Law and the Prophets four parts (i) Promises and 
Prophecies, (2) Precepts of the Decalogue, (3) Ceremonies, 
(4) Judgments Christ fulfilled all. The Promises and 
Prophecies, by showing what was promised and what fore 
told ; the Moral Precepts of the Decalogue, by a better 
interpretation ; the Ceremonies, by showing their significa 
tion : as, for Circumcision of the flesh, Baptism and Circum 
cision of the heart ; the Judicial, by the change of corporeal 
and temporal rewards and punishments into spiritual and 
eternal. 

This is how He abrogated the Law : not by destroying, 
but by fulfilling ; not by violating, but by perfecting : " As 
a painter," says Theophylact, "who puts the finishing 
touches, and adds the colour to a picture which he has 
begun, but only sketched in outline, destroys the first draft 
and produces a new one ". He destroys indeed, not by 
dissolving but by completing : not by blotting out 

In what sense the Law is said to have lasted only until 
the time of John the Baptist is another question, and one 
not to be explained here, but in Chap. xi. It is sufficient 
now to know that the Law lasted only to John Baptist, 
not because it was abrogated by him, nor immediately. 
When he began to preach it began to sicken, and it was to 
die not long after the death of Christ. The Law was abro 
gated because it was perfected by the Gospel. When the 
Gospel began to be preached, it began to be abrogated ; 
and the more the Gospel flourished, the more the Law 
declined ; and when the Gospel was fully preached, the 
Law was fully done away. 

Verse 18. Amen. 

pN in Hebrew signifies truth (Isa. Ixv. 16). Thus, 
" Amen, I say unto you " is the same as " I say to you in 



148 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 18. 

truth " (S. Luke iv. 25 ; 5. John xvi. 27). The word has 
a twofold meaning one of confirmation of what was said 
before, as Deut. xxvii. 26, I Cor. xiv. 16 ; the other, as 
an affirmation of what is about to be said, as in this place 
and in others innumerable. The former is more frequently 
found in the Old Testament, seldom in the New Testament. 
The latter is met with abundantly in the New Testament, 
seldom or never in the Old Testament. The reason seems 
to be, that the writers of the Old Testament used the 
Hebrew and not the Syriac language, and in Hebrew, ]EN 
" Amen," is rather a word of confirmation than of affirma 
tion. The Greek and Latin versions followed the Hebrew 
as from common use. 

Until pass. 

Until they perish (Ps. ci.), until they be dissolved 
(i Pet. iii. 10), until they be changed. A Hebraism 
*Q# often found in the New Testament ; Trape^eaOau is 
used in 5. Matthew (xxiv. 35 ; xxvi. 39, 42), vS. Mark (xiii. 
31), 5. Luke (xxi. 33) ; as is irapafyepeiv for Hithpael fol. 
"Viyn Hiphil 8vo, 5. Mark (xiv. 36), 5. Luke (xxii. 42), 
and peraTiOeo-Oai (Heb. vii. 12). 



Heaven and earth. 

The whole world, which is believed to stand on the 
firmest foundations. " Heaven and earth, the chiefest of 
the elements, as is supposed, are to pass away, but the 
least particle even of the commandments of the Law can 
not be annulled" (S. Hilary). Scripture elsewhere uses 
similar comparisons (Ps. li. 5, 7 ; Ixxxviii. 38 ; Jer. xxxiii. 
20,21). 

One jot or one tittle. 

Some explain it that Iota is the least of all the letters, 
and the top is the least part of it. As if we should say : 
" Not even the very least commandment of the Law, or the 



CH. v. ig.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 149 

least part of the least commandment, can be destroyed ". 
But this explanation has no place in the Greek or Hebrew 
in which this Gospel was written, nor in the Syriac in 
which Christ spoke ; because the Iota has no top. Christ, 
then, calls the apex or tittle the least part of the letter, as 
the head or tail of lod, a thing most minute ; for everyone 
is aware that there were no points in Hebrew in those 
times. The letter Iota from this passage, although the 
least of all the letters, caused the greatest of all the 
heresies (Irenaeus, i. 3). 

Verse 19. Of these least commandments. 

Some ancient authorities would have the cross and death 
of Christ to be intended, because, although they seem a 
small thing, no man has any safety who is ashamed of 
them. Thus S. Hilary, and others mentioned by Theo- 
phylact. But it is not clear that the cross is meant, and 
it is doubtful which may be termed the least of the com 
mandments of Christ. Some, like S. Augustin (Serm. i., 
Dom. in Monty, refer to the precontext, as if it had been 
said : "Whosoever shall break one of the least of these My 
commandments, which I have come not to destroy, but to 
fulfil ". The word " these " seems to support this view. 
Others think that the reference is to what follows, as S. 
Chrysostom, The Author, and Theophylact. It more pro 
bably means the least of the commandments of the Old 
Testament, which were ceremonial and judicial, and which 
Christ would not allow to be kept after the Gospel, but 
abolished, and because the text continues : " Unless your 
justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees," 
&c. (verse 20). The word " these," then, does not refer to 
the same things as Christ had spoken of, but to like ones 
like, because each appeared to be the least. 

Christ calls the commandments of which He was about 
to speak " the least," not because they were so in reality, 



1 50 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. ig. 

but only in the opinion of the Pharisees, who thought them 
the least, or rather nothing at all. These, as depending 
entirely on the judgment of men, thought murder, which 
is a visible act, a sin, but the desire to perpetrate it, which 
they could not see, they, perhaps, thought no sin. 

And shall so teach men. 

The word " so " is a single syllable, but it contains a great 
difficulty, and upon it turns the meaning of the whole 
sentence. S. Jerome and others think that it means " as I 
teach and command," as if Christ had said : " Whoever 
does not keep one of the least of these commandments, 
although he teach others that they are to be kept, shall be 
the least in the kingdom of heaven ". With this agree 
the words of Christ (xxiii. 2, 3). S. Jerome thought that 
the same Scribes and Pharisees were meant. But this 
explanation seems less applicable here, because Christ 
blames not only the life, but also the doctrine of the 
Pharisees (S. Matt. v. 21). The opinion of all the other 
authorities seems better " so," that is, as he who does not 
keep them himself, and teaches others that they need not 
S. Chrysostom (Horn, in Matt, xv.), The Author, S. Augus- 
tin (De Serm. Doni.^ i.), S. Gregory (bk. xix., On Job]. 

Shall be called the least. 

Some explain " the least " by " no one " minimum non- 
nulli nullum interpretantur as S. Chrysostom and Theo- 
phylact, because, probably, they thought it a senseless 
thing that he who does not keep the commandments of 
Christ may still have some place in the kingdom of 
heaven, because he has not broken the great command 
ments, but only the least, the infraction of which is venial. 

This explanation is answered by the fact that what 
Christ called, as in the opinion of the Pharisees, the least, 
were in truth the greatest. For he who does not commit 



CH. v. ig.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 151 

murder, but has the desire to do so, and he who does not 
commit adultery, but who looks upon a woman to lust 
after her, because his righteousness does not exceed that of 
the Scribes and Pharisees, shall not enter into the kingdom 
of heaven. The whole meaning of this passage depends 
on what is understood by "the kingdom of heaven, * 
which shall be explained hereafter. Meanwhile, the words 
"the least" may be taken as equivalent to "the last" i.e., 
someone. Lest the force of the words carefully used by 
Christ should be lost, He said that such an one should be 
the last the last, but still someone because he broke the 
least of the commandments, using a forcible paranomasia. 
He said " he shall be called because he shall be, as in verse 
9 unless we explain it by " shall be pronounced," shall be 
declared by the sentence of Christ the Judge, by which 
everyone shall appear what he is. 

In the kingdom of heaven. 

S. Augustin (De Serm. Dom., i.) and S. Gregory (Moral. 
xix. 5), and almost all others, say that in this place the 
Church is meant by the kingdom of heaven : lest, if the 
actual kingdom of heaven be understood, a contradiction 
follows that whoever breaks one of these commandments 
should have a place in the kingdom of heaven, when 
Christ almost immediately adds : " Unless your justice 
abound ". S. Chrysostom and Theophylact explain it 
apparently better, considering it to mean the time of the 
Resurrection, and the last day, and the day of Judgment. 
Then, whoever has not kept one of these least command 
ments shall be called : that is, declared by the sentence of 
the Judge, the least. Such an one will not be in no place, 
because he will rise again and be judged ; but he will be in 
the last place, for he will be cast out into outer darkness. 

Some ask why Christ makes no mention of those who 
neither do nor teach the great commandments ; and of those 



152 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 20. 

who teach, but do not ; and of those who do, but teach not ; 
and of those who teach the least, and do not ; or of those 
who do, and teach not. 

The sole question was of the Pharisees alone, who did 
not that which they thought the least, and who taught 
men not to do them. If, then, he who has not kept one of 
the least of these commandments shall be in the last place, 
that is, shall be called the least, where shall he be who has 
not kept the greater ? He also shall be in the last place. 
There they will, therefore, be equal and unequal equal, as 
each will be last, each in the last place, which is hell ; un 
equal, for in that last place, as in the first, which is the 
kingdom of heaven, there will be many mansions, and 
some will be tormented with a greater punishment than 
others. They who are in the first place, that is, the king 
dom of heaven, will also be equal as being all to receive 
the same power (S. Matt. xx. 10) ; and unequal, because 
" In my Father s house there are many mansions " (S.John 
xiv. 2), and because " Star differeth from star in glory " 
(i Cor. xv. 42). Equal in the kind of honour, unequal in 
the degree ; as all kings are equal in dignity, but unequal 
in wealth and power. 

Verse 20. For I tell you. 

Christ gives the reason why He said : " He that shall 
break one of these least commandments " as if to break 
these, and not to abound in righteousness more than the 
Scribes and Pharisees, were the same thing. 

Unless (your justice] abound. 

The Greek is eav /JLTJ TricrTevo-rja-r], the Hebrew DDJlpTJ* 
" Your justice," that is, your observation of the Law, which 
Christ Himself calls justice, because, by our observance of 
the commands of God, we are justified. 



CH. v. 2i.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 153 

Than that of the Scribes and Pharisees. 
These teach that these commandments are of the least 
consequence. Christ mentions the Scribes and Pharisees 
because they were Doctors of the Law, and accounted 
much more holy than other men. 

Verse 2 1 . You have heard. 

We cannot understand what follows hence and to the 
end of the chapter, unless we first understand that on which 
there have been many questions Whether Christ added 
anything to the ancient Law, or only to the interpretation of 
the Pharisees, when He said : " For I tell you " (v. 20). 

All the heretical teachers take it for granted the Holy 
Spirit, I suppose, revealed it to them that Christ was cor 
recting not the Law, but the Traditions and Interpretations 
of the Scribes and Pharisees, and they revile those Ancients 
who thought otherwise. The Pelagians did the same of 
old, as S. Jerome informs us in his Book I. against them. 

It cannot be denied that there are some plausible reasons 
to be alleged for this view. I. It may be observed that the 
word " It was said " is repeated at every fresh command, 
as if Christ had said it was " said " and not written, because 
He was speaking not of the Law but of the Traditions and 
Explanations of the Pharisees. 2. That Christ objects to 
them as perverse interpreters, though in no way intending 
to oppose a good lawgiver to the ancient one, whether He 
Himself or the Father gave the ancient Law to Moses. 
Besides, what Christ added in this place was contained in 
the ancient Law. For not only was Adultery but also 
Concupiscence forbidden by the old Law (Exod. xx. 17), 
as S. Paul is witness (Rom. vii. 7). Christ, therefore, did 
not add anything to the Law, but He added His own 
interpretation to that of the Pharisees. 

Again, the Law did not command them to hate their 
enemies, but rather to love them (Exod. xxiii. 4). Again, 



1 54 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 21. 

when the young man asked Christ " What shall I do? " (S. 
Luke xviii. 18), the answer merely was, "Keep the Com 
mandments ". Nothing, therefore, that Christ added was 
wanting in the Commandments of the Law. Lastly, no 
perfection in the Gospel is or can be greater than to love 
God with all our heart, with all our mind, with all our soul, 
and with all our strength, and this very thing is commanded 
in Deut. vi. 5. 

What Christ added, he added in verse 20 : " Unless 
your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and 
Pharisees " as if He had said : " I desire not to correct 
the Law, but the Interpretation of the Pharisees". For 
Christ declares that many things were said by them of old 
time which are not found in the Law, as in verse 21 :" He 
shall be in danger of the judgment," and verse 33 : " Thou 
shalt not forswear thyself," and verse 43 : " Thou shalt hate 
thine enemies ". 

The Ancients saw, and with incredible unanimity taught, 
that Christ corrected the ancient Law by adding what was 
wanting to all evangelical doctrine. Not that the Law 
was not perfect in its kind, but that it was less perfect than 
the Gospel ; for it had been a schoolmaster to the Jews, as 
to children who must be taught their elements until a 
better master, Christ Himself, proposed a better teacher to 
minds now, by time, more perfect. In this manner, besides 
others (of which see verse 18), Christ fulfilled the Law 
because He added what was wanting to it. So say S. 
Irenseus (iv. 27), Tertullian (De Patientid], S. Clement 
(Alex. Strom., vi.), S. Hilary (Can. vi. in Matt.}, S. Epi- 
phanius (Cont. Ptol. Her., xxxiii.), S. Basil (Horn. Ps. xiv.), 
S. Chrysostom (Horn. xvi. in Matt.}, The Author (Horn, xi.), 
S. Ambrose (Serm. v. on Ps. cxviii.), S. Jerome to Gerontius 
(De Monogam Chromatius), Theophylact (Comm., in loc.). 
Their conclusion appears sound, not only from their great 
authority, but from the force of their arguments. 



CH. v. 2i.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 155 

As the heretics rely upon the words " It was said," we 
may, on the other hand, rest upon what follows : " them of 
old," that is, those to whom Moses gave the Law ; Christ 
opposing to the followers of Moses and men under the 
Law, Christians and disciples of the Gospel : " But I say to 
you ". 

If Christ had only been alluding to the Traditions and 
Interpretations of the Pharisees, He would not have said 
" You have heard " as if they had not heard it from Him 
who spoke, but had received it from others who had heard 
it. But He said simply : " You have heard, Thou shalt 
not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the 
judgment ". Nor would He have spared the words " Scribes 
and Pharisees " if blaming them, but He would have said 
plainly : " You have heard from the Scribes and Pharisees ". 
For we always find Him practising this freedom, as " Beware 
of the leaven " (S. Matt. xvi. 6, 1 1, 12). Nor could He have 
called those who lived just before " them of old " ; and the 
Pharisees were not long before Christ, as we learn from 
Josephus. Again, Christ here corrected much which, as 
appears, was not introduced by the Pharisees, but expressed 
in the Law, such as the words (verse 31): "Whosoever 
shall put away his wife " (Dent. xxiv. i). What, then, had 
the Pharisees corrupted here ? Yet Christ corrected it 
(verse 49 and verse 33) : " Thou shalt not forswear thyself". 
For the Law said : " Thou shalt not swear falsely by My 
name ". The Pharisees did not corrupt this either. For, 
as to the saying that the Pharisees affirmed that there was 
no swearing by heaven or earth, we have answered that 
on verse 33. That Christ blamed the Pharisees for saying : 
" Whosoever shall swear by the Temple," &c. (S. Matt. 
xxiii. 1 6), is a different thing. Christ did not blame theirs 
as a false interpretation of the Law. If He had wished to 
do this, He would have done it in that place and not in 
this. For the Law did not forbid men to swear by the 



THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 21. 

Temple ; Christ first forbade it. But He blamed their 
covetousness, by which they absolved from their oath 
those who swore by the Temple, but condemned those who 
swore by the gold of it, as if they were influenced by the 
gold rather than by the honour of God. 

Where, again, does the Law say : " If one strike thee on 
the right cheek, turn to him also the other " ? or, what fault 
was it of the Pharisees, because, when the Law did not say 
this, they did not so explain it, when we ourselves can 
scarcely receive it even on the word of Christ Himself? 
Where is it written that " to him who would take away our 
coat, we should give our cloak also"? Christ, then, not only 
explains the Law, but makes a new one : introduces a new 
doctrine. Where, too, does the Law say : " Love your 
enemies " ? The words of Exod. xxiii. 4 are nothing to the 
purpose, for they speak of a Jew who was forbidden to 
have a suit against another Jew. He, therefore, who is there 
called an enemy is termed a brother in Deut. xxii. i. But 
when they speak of true enemies, they command us not 
only to hold them in detestation, but even to destroy them 
{Deut. xxv. 19). Under the Gospel it is forbidden to hate 
anyone, or to put anyone to death by private power. 
Lastly, we here see Christ enlarging the rewards and 
punishments of the Old Law. Why so, except that He 
increased the perfection of the Law ? 

Shall be in danger of the judgment. 

It has been observed from the Talmud that there were 
three Tribunals among the Jews. The first consisted of 
three judges, who took notice of lesser cases. The second 
of twenty-three, who decided greater, and even capital 
ones. The third, of seventy-one chosen men, who decided 
the most weighty questions, especially public ones, as those 
of peace or war, of false prophets, of the High Priest. The 
first was called I2DW the Judgment ; the second, l"*l the 



CH. v. 2i.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 157 

Sanhedrim (or "Concessus"), the term used by the Greeks ; 
the third, the great " Concessus ". The account of the 
triple tribunals is correct, but that of the titles and cog 
nisance of causes is not wholly so. For it is clear, from 
this passage, that the trial of questions of life or death 
pertained to the Judgment, as a murderer was called a 
criminal of the Judgment, so that either capital causes 
were settled in the first tribunal, or, as is more likely, both 
the first and second tribunals were called Sanhedrim. 
Christ s words seem to confirm this opinion, when He 
subsequently spoke of the Sanhedrim as if it were the 
highest court of all, and it were that to which all final 
appeals should be made, so that, having no other to name 
beside it, He could only proceed from it to speak of the 
fire of Gehenna. 

Authorities are not agreed as to the meaning of being in 
danger of the council (reus jiidicii}. Some say that the 
reference is to one who would claim to have his cause tried 
in the council, as S. Augustin (i., Serm. in Mont), S. Gregory 
(xii., On Job). Others more correctly, as Euthymius and the 
poet Juvencus, take it of those who were subject to capital 
punishment, passed upon them by the "Judgment". This 
view seems preferable, because the punishment for murder 
was not inflicted at the will of the judges, but was ap 
pointed by the Law, and the judges had no power to alter 
it (Levit. xxiv. 21 ; Numb. xxxv. 16, 17, 30) ; and because 
Christ appears to have designed to show that one who 
committed murder only in will was worthy, under the 
Gospel, of no less a punishment than an actual murderer 
under the Law ; so that the lightest punishment of the 
Gospel was equal to the heaviest of the Law : that is, a 
capital one. Where is it written in the Law : " He shall 
be in danger of the council " ? Christ did not cite the 
words of the Law, but the meaning, and it was written, as 
before observed, that a murderer should die. 



158 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 22. 

Verse 22. Whosoever is angry. 

Not all anger is sin, for not only other holy men, but 
S. Paul (Acts xxiii. 3), S. Peter (Acts viii. 20), and Christ 
Himself (S. Matt. xv. 7; xxii. 18 ; xxxiii. i, 13, 14, 15, 23, 
39) seem to have been angry. Some Greek copies read 
eiKi}, without a cause. This has caused it to be said that 
not all anger, but only that which is unjust, and without 
cause or reason, is sin ; and that Christ and the Apostles 
were angry indeed, but not without cause. This reading is 
adopted by S. Irenaeus (v. 27), S. Justin (Epistle to Zenas 
and Serenus de vit. Christ.}, S. Chrysostom (Horn, vii.), the 
Author (Horn, ii.), S. Augustin (Serm. Dom.\ Theophylact 
and Euthymius (In Comment}. But our version does not 
contain the words, and S. Jerome seems to reject it. 
I. Because it is not true. For as no one is permitted, even 
for a just reason, to put a man to death himself, so may no 
one, even justly, be angry. 2. Because, granting it to be 
true, Christ did not say so here. Nor was this a fit place 
to moderate, by such addition, the sentiment in question, 
when Christ especially intended to exaggerate the sin 
of anger. 3. If moderation were to be shown at all, 
it would rather have been shown on the words of the 
preceding verse : " Thou shalt not kill," than on those of 
being angry, because it is a heavier offence to kill than to 
be angry without a cause. It is said that to be angry 
with reason is nothing, to be so without it is venial. But 
Christ says that to be angry thus is to be " in danger 
of the judgment " ; that is, of capital punishment, which a 
venial sin certainly does not merit. 

The question may be settled thus : Christ speaks with 
accommodation as regards homicide, of which he is treat 
ing ; and he calls anger not every seeking for revenge, as 
defined by the philosophers, but that anger properly so-called, 
which tends to murder. He designed to say that not 
only he who had committed murder in fact, but also he 



CH. v. 22.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 159 

who had only committed it in will, was in danger of the 
judgment : as He says, in verses 27, 28, that not only he 
who has committed adultery in fact, but also he who has only 
done so in will, is guilty of the sin. He therefore calls the 
wish to kill, anger, which, whether with or without cause, 
can never be in any individual person without a most 
grievous sin. Nor were Christ or the Apostles ever angry 
in this sense. For when it is said that S. Peter killed 
Sapphira in anger (Acts v. 9), we believe that he acted not 
from anger, but from religion not as a private person, but 
as a minister of God. 

Shall be in danger of the judgment. 

Of eternal death, which Christ calls the judgment, that 
He may speak in accordance with the custom of the Jews, 
who called him who was worthy of death tDDt^ft 1TT or, 
" In danger of the judgment ". They speak of the death of 
the body, Christ of the death of the soul. Christ, indeed, 
augments the punishment of sinners, not by increasing, but 
by declaring it. Nor does he, therefore, make the yoke 
of the Gospel heavier than that of the Law. For He neither 
increases sins by this, though declaring them to be greater 
than was supposed by the Law, nor threatens greater 
punishments for lighter offences ; but, having shown the 
greatness of the sins, He showed that the punishments 
would be greater than they appeared. Nay, He deals much 
more lightly ; for, although He shows the sins more clearly, 
He cures them when shown. The Law showed them less ; 
it cured them in no manner (Rom. viii. 3). 

And whosoever shall say to his brother, " Raca ". 

Ignorance of the Hebrew has caused various explanations 

of this passage. Some authors of weight S. Chrysostom 

and Theophylact say that Raca in Syriac is the same as 

Tu in Latin, and that it means no more than a rude and 



160 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 22. 

disrespectful address as we say to our servant : " Get you 
gone ". Euthymius agrees, except that he makes it a 
Hebrew, not a Syriac word. This is not to be wondered 
at in Greek writers, who had no knowledge of Hebrew ; 
but it is not therefore to be hastily received, for we 
know that there is no such pronoun either in Hebrew or 
Syriac. 

S. Augustin was told by a Jew, whom he consulted on 
the subject, that the word was not a substantive, but an 
interjection of anger, like the Latin " Hem ". This may be 
so, but what others have said appears more probable, that 
Np*H is a Chaldaean or Syriac word, derived from the 
Hebrew p H. For p*H in Hebrew means a light and 
inconstant person (Judges xi. 3 ; 2 Kings vi. 20 ; 2 Paralip. 
xiii. 7). Hence, a man of very little judgment was called, 
as we have said, by the Talmudists Np*H raca which 
means properly one who is vain and empty : who, although 
in appearance closely resembling a fool, differs from him in 
being light, inconstant, and, in the Latin, levis. This 
meaning agrees well with the context. For Christ cer 
tainly intended to distinguish three degrees of sin and 
punishment, of which the second was greater than the first, 
and the third than the second. The first is anger, not 
breaking out into words ; the second the utterance of an 
insolent expression, in which the brother is called Np^l 
raca, levis ; the third still more insulting, in which he is 
termed " fool " (fatuus or stultiis). As to the translators 
not having rendered the word, this was probably not be 
cause it was an interjection, for even these are sometimes 
translated, as PCn UPM (Jer. i. 6; xiv. 13; Ezek. iv. 14, 
20 ; xx. 49 ; Joel i. 15) : but either because it was in such 
common use that to have translated it would have been to 
weaken its force and meaning: as if we rendered " Amen"; 
or, that not being sufficiently certain as to its meaning, 
they would not cause a difficulty to the reader. This, as 



CH. v. 22.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. l6l 

we have said, was a not uncommon practice with the LXX. 
and the Latins did the same. 

Shall be in danger of the council. 

The third tribunal the Council or Sanhedrim : this may 
be termed either a council (concilium) or a deliberation 
(consilium\ literally a session (concessus). By the council 
Christ means the capital sentence passed by it, as in verse 22, 
by which is to be further understood the everlasting death 
of the soul. But, as we said before, Christ spoke in 
accordance with the custom of the law. 

It may be asked how Christ understands capital punish 
ment by the "judgment" and council when He clearly 
designed to distinguish three degrees of punishment ? He 
designed the degrees and not the kinds. For either tribunal 
could pass a capital sentence, but the sentence of the Judg 
ment was generally lighter, that of the Council more heavy, 
as men of greater weight sat in the latter, and causes of 
greater weight were brought before it. 

It is well known that there were four methods of capital 
punishment among the Jews strangulation, the sword, 
stoning, and burning as is found in the Book D^T7pD. 
So Christ tells us that he who is angry and he who calls 
his brother raca (levis), and he who calls him a fool, is 
deserving of the same punishment of hell, but not of the 
same degree of punishment. 

Many, as S. Chrysostom says, wonder that one who calls 
his brother raca, or a fool, should be condemned to eternal 
death when men so often (tertio quoque verbo) use that ex 
pression one to another. But (i) the habit of sin ought not 
to cause wonder at its punishment, for we do not wonder 
that they who swear rashly are punished. Why is it so 
visited ? The habit ought to increase, not lessen, the 
punishment ; for it does not lessen, but increase, the fault. 

Again, not everyone who is angry and calls his brother 

ii 



l62 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. v. 22. 

raca, or a fool, is immediately damned ; but he who is angry 
and calls him by that name, in such a manner as by degrees 
to ascend to murder. For Christ speaks of them not as 
from their feeling and the force of their words, but as 
from the beginning of murder in their hearts. " You have 
heard that it was said to them of old, Thou shalt not kill. 
But I say to you" (Verses 21, 22). Not everyone, then, who 
calls his brother "fool" in sport or in sudden anger, without 
any thought of murder or wish to utter a severe contumely, 
is at once held guilty of eternal death. 

Shall be in danger of hell-fire. 

Gehennon, that is, the Valley of Gennon, as Ben Ennon 
is the son of Ennon. It was a pleasant place, and was 
watered by streams from the fountain of Siloe, near Jerusa 
lem, at the foot of Mount Moriah, according to the descrip 
tion of S. Jerome ; and as we learn from Joshua xv. 8 ; 
xviii. 1 6, it was also called D2JT3 the Valley of Hennon, 
from its owner. Here, either because it was a pleasant 
spot or because it had a wicked owner, the worship of 
Moloch took place, the chief idol of the Ammonites, whom 
some think to have been Saturn ; and here, by a cruel rite, 
infants were burnt (4 Kings xvi. 3; xvii. 17-31; xxiii. 
10 ; 2 Paralip. xxviii. 3 ; xxxiii. 6). It was afterwards called 
Tophet (4 Kings xxiii. 10 ; Isaiah xxx. 33 ; Jerem. vii. 31, 
32; xix. 6, n, 12, 13), from the rite, as some think, of 
sacrificing there, because while the infants were being burnt 
drums were beaten, that the parents might not hear their 
cries and be distracted with affliction; for a drum is called 
?)r\ (Gen. xxxi. 27) in Hebrew. Hence hell is called 
Gehenna, because the condemned are consumed in it by 
unquenchable fire. It was probably so called in the time 
of Christ ; for He uses the word as commonly known, 
although, as S. Jerome says on Matt, x., we do not find it 
in any of the sacred writers before Him. Christ adds the 



CH. v. 23.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 163 

word fire, both to show the nature of the punishment, and 
to make allusion to the most heavy of all the penalties 
among the Jews the burning to death, mentioned before 
when in other places He merely calls it Gehenna (verse 30, 
chap. x. 28; xxiii. 15, 33; 6". Mark ix. 43; 5. Luke xii. 5). 

Verse 23. If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar. 

Christ commands us, even if we have commenced any 
act very especially pleasing to God, to leave it and be 
reconciled to our brother ; for God would have mercy 
and not sacrifice (Osee vi. 6 ; 5. Matt. ix. 13), and He 
prefers in us the love of our neighbour to the love of 
ourselves. 

A nd there thou remember. 

The word " there " (ibi) has, in this instance, a peculiar 
force " there " at the very altar itself, standing before God. 

Not only by the Jews, but by other nations also, it was 
considered an act of great wickedness to leave a sacrifice 
uncompleted. Valerius (iii. 3) praised a youth because, 
when he was holding the censor to Alexander, who was 
offering sacrifice, he suffered his arm to be burnt off rather 
than be guilty of interrupting the sacrifice. 

Hath anything against thee. 

The sense seems to require " if thou remember that thou 
hast anything against thy brother ". If my brother have 
anything against me that is, if he hate me, not I him he 
must be reconciled to me, not I to him. Some e.g., 
Euthymius think that the words require a mutual action 
(victssitudinem}) as if Christ had said : "And thou remember 
there that thy brother hath anything against thee, and thou 
against him ". Others that a higher perfection is inculcated, 
and that Christ willed that not only when we harm others, but 
when we are harmed by them, we should leave the sacrifice 
and first seek reconciliation. But S. Chrysostom (Horn. 



164 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 25. 

xviii.). The Author, S. Augustin, and S. Jerome more rightly 
conceive that to have anything against us means to have 
any just cause of complaint, as having received some injury 
from us, as S. John in the Apocalypse (ii. 4). He commands 
us, therefore, first to satisfy for the injury, then to offer our 
sacrifice, and, when our brother is first appeased, to appease 
God afterwards. They refer the words to those which 
Christ had spoken before, "Raca," &c., as if He had said : "If 
you remember to have called your brother raca or fool, or 
to have done him any other injury, leave there your gift 
before the altar and go and be first reconciled to your 
brother ". " This, however," as S. Augustin says, " is not 
to be understood as if we ought always to be going to our 
brother " a holy counsel truly, and also, when love requires 
it, a necessary precept. But we ought more frequently to 
be guided by our feelings and acts (affectibus, effectibus) 
than our feet : by the former, if we have received any 
injury, in forgetting it ; by the latter, in giving satisfaction, 
if we ourselves have committed any wrong. The latter is 
a precept, the former a counsel. Christ speaks of the 
ancient sacrifices of the Jews, which were then in force ; 
but what is said of them applies much more to the sacrifice 
of the holy Eucharist ; which both shows union with our 
brethren and causes reconciliation with God ; " for we being 
many are one bread " (i Cor. x. 17). 

Verse 25. Be at agreement. 

The Greek is evvo&v. Tertullian and S. Hilary use the 
words benevolent and benevolence (De Patient, and Can. iv.). 

With thy adversary. 

Some think this adversary to be our evil angel ; for two 
angels are given to every man at his birth : a good angel 
who prompts us to good deeds, and an evil angel who 
tempts us to evil ones (Origen, Horn, on S. Luke xxxv.). 



CH. v. 25.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 165 

Others suppose it to be the flesh which makes war upon 
the spirit S. Athanasius (Qucest. 62) and the poet Juven- 
cus. S. Jerome seems of the same opinion. Others say 
that it is the conscience which accuses us like a bitter 
enemy (S. Athanasius, Eod. loc.). Others, again, that it 
is the devil (Tertullian, De Anim.}, or that it was God and 
His law which accuse us before God (S. Augustin, i., In 
Serm. Dom., and Qucest. Nov. Test. vii. ; Novatus, De 
Humil. et Patient?). S. Basil (Reg. Brev. cxxii.), that it is 
he who endeavours to take something from us, because the 
words, " Let go thy cloak also," follow. S. Hilary (Can. iv.), 
S. Augustin (On Levit. vii. 12), The Author, and S. Jerome 
suppose the reference to be to the words immediately 
preceding : " Go first to be reconciled ". And this appears 
to be the true meaning ; for the context requires that he 
who has anything against us (adversus) should be called 
the adversary (adversarius). He, then, is our adversary 
whom we have injured, whom we have called raca or fool, 
who has any action against us before God. "The way" 
is the season of this life. The judge is Christ (S. Matt. 
xxv. 40). The officer is the devil, who becomes the 
minister of God in tormenting the condemned. The prison 
is hell. The last farthing is the least fault. The farthing 
Xvas the smallest coin, containing two minuta, and there 
was a proverb, " To pay to the last farthing," as meaning 
to be punished to the utmost. 

It may be doubted how a brother who has been injured 
by us can bring us before a judge, as he himself must be 
judged in his turn. This question induced S. Augustin 
to refuse the above explanation, but apparently it ought 
not to have done so. For Christ speaks in accordance 
with the custom of men and the law, where he who receives 
an injury brings his adversary before the judge. Not that 
the injured brother will accuse us before Christ ; for he 
will deliver us to the judge, because we shall be tried in 



1 66 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 28-30. 

his cause. He will not deliver us up himself, but the devil 
will do so for him reviving the wrong which our brother 
had forgiven us. The words, " Thou shalt not go out from 
thence," &c., do not mean what S. Augustin says, that 
we shall go out afterwards, but that they who are in hell 
will never come out, for they are always paying the debt ; 
for they owe infinite punishment for each mortal sin, and 
will never pay it. The word "until," therefore, is to be 
taken in the same sense as chap. i. 25. 

S. Luke for " farthing" has mite, which, as has been said, 
is half a farthing ; but the result is the same both words 
mean the least debt. Some other matter is related by S. 
Luke in a different manner. The answer is easy. The 
two sermons are not the same. 

Verse 28. Whosoever shall look on. 

f O /3Xe7r&)z>. This does not refer to one who chances to 
glance at a woman, but to one who does so with a lustful 
mind. 

A woman. 

The wife of another, because the word is not fornication 
but adultery properly so-called, though by one species the 
whole genus is to be understood. 

Verses 29, 30. If thy right eye. 

If this were taken literally, it would be unreasonable and 
cruel, and therefore ancient writers take it in metaphor. 
But they differ as to what is meant by the right eye and 
the left, the right hand and the left. Some think the 
right eye to be the mind, the left bodily sense ; the right 
hand the will, the left fleshly appetite. " Not only, then, is 
bodily sense to be restrained, and the appetite to be bridled, 
but the higher parts of the soul also, the mind and will, if 
they be not upright (rectce) are to be cut off as well and 
cast from us." (The Author.) 



CH. v. 29, 30.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. l6/ 

S. Chrysostom, among others (Horn, xvii.), understood 
by the eye and the hand, kept women : because of the 
words, " whosoever shall look on a woman," &c. Some take 
the words to mean that even they who are most closely 
united to us by kindred or friendship are to be rejected if 
they alienate us from God (S. Hilary, Can. iv. ; S. Atha- 
nasius, Qucest. 76 ; Pacian, Ep. iii. against Novatus ; S. Cyril, 
xii., On Jo/in xxviii.; Anastasius, Qucest. 73 ; Salviani, De 
Prudent.^ iii. ; Theophylact, in loc. ; Pacian, On Dent. xiii. 
6-7). Others understood different passions of the mind to 
be intended, as in Coloss. iii. 5. Because they proceed 
from the body, Christ calls them members of the body 
(S. Jerome, Comment?). 

The sense and force of the passage will be apparently 
lost, if we refer it to anything but the actual eye and hand ; 
for it is a forcible exaggeration, taken from the art of the 
surgeon, who, when the whole frame is endangered by one 
member, removes it to preserve the life. Besides, the two 
parts of our body which are most precious and most 
necessary to us, the eye and the hand, and the right 
rather than the left, which we most value and most 
need, are those named by Christ. Nor are His words 
out of place ; for He does not desire us to cut off our 
hands or to pluck out our eyes ourselves, but, as in 
extreme cases, the exception is to be understood if it 
can be and may be done. As S. Paul says to the Gala- 
tians (iv. 15) To pluck out their eyes and give him was 
possible indeed, but it was not lawful. Christ, there 
fore, shows us that we ought to undergo any loss rather 
than do wrong, and that we ought even to cut off our 
right hand and pluck out our right eye if we cannot 
otherwise escape sin ; but as we always are able to do 
so, we are not to maim any part of our bodies. As for 
those who did so, like Origen, the Church, we know, con 
demns them. 



1 68 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 32. 

Whosoever shall put away. 

The question as to whether, under the Old Law, the 
putting away of a wife, who was not pleasing to her 
husband, were a precept or a privilege, can be settled by 
these few words. Christ does not say that a man may put 
away his wife ; but if he put her away, he is to give her a 
writing of divorcement that she do not appear to have left 
her husband for the sake of her freedom, and that she may 
marry another without disgrace. But whether the bill of 
divorcement were conceded as a less evil, or were permitted 
to avoid a greater, will be discussed in chap. xix. 8, as a 
more fitting place. 

Verse 32. Excepting the cause of fornication . 

Christ does not permit a bill of repudiation even for 
fornication, as both the words themselves and the universal 
custom of the Church show ; for He does not say, Let him 
give her who is put away for fornication a writing of 
divorcement, which He would have said in the first place, to 
restrain the license of repudiation, if He had willed it that 
a woman, put away for that reason, might be married to 
another, as the modern heretics say ; for the law, which 
was much more liberal in granting divorces in that very 
matter, put a curb on the license, as many authors of 
weight assert. The Church knows nothing of libels of 
divorce, as was said to the Jews " for the hardness of 
their hearts ". We will answer this heresy of the followers 
of Luther and Calvin on chap. xix. 19. We have only 
to inquire here whether it is lawful for Christians to put 
away their wives for the sake of fornication alone. Some 
think that it is lawful for every sin which is called for 
nication in Scripture. So Origen (Tract, vii. on S. 
Matthew], S. Augustin (i., De Serm. Dom.}, Strabus (in loc.}. 
But this is to enlarge unduly a question which we see 
Christ chose most especially to close, and to give to 



CH. v. 32.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 169 

Christians a greater license almost in putting away their 
wives than the Jews had. For almost all sins are called 
fornication, because by them we are turned away from the 
love of Christ to that of a creature. Hence, S. Augustin 
himself (Retract ., i. 19) seems to have retracted the above 
idea, or, at least, to have been in doubt about it. What 
then ? Are there not many reasons for which a wife may 
be put away for more justly than adultery? Clearly there 
are ; for it is worse to be a heretic or a parricide than an 
adulteress. S. Paul seems to say this, for he directs that an 
unbelieving wife, if she agree to live with a believing 
husband, shall be kept (i Cor. vii. 12) ; but he also decides 
that if she do not agree she shall be put away. But she 
does not consent who will not live with her husband (salva 
religione}. Then, indeed, is the right eye to be plucked out, 
and the right hand to be cut off, and thrown far away, as 
Pacian expresses it. That it may not be open to a man to 
feign excuses for putting away his wife, the Church has 
laid down three great reasons for so doing sodomy, heresy, 
tempting the husband to any great crime (Jur. Can., cap. de 
Adult., Marit., de Divort.). 

Why, then, did Christ except fornication alone ? Probably 
for three reasons, (i) Because for fornication alone a wife 
may be put away absolutely and for ever, so that even if 
she subsequently repent, the husband, unless he please, 
need not receive her again ; for she is not put away that she 
may not commit adultery, but because she has committed 
it, and that she may pay the penalty all the rest of her life. 
But when she is put away for other reasons, she is put 
away, not absolutely and for ever, but only for a time, 
until she reform and repent, so that she may return to her 
husband if she comes to her right mind again. (2) Because, 
if she wish to remain with her husband and to correct her 
life, the husband can still put her away, because, as we 
have said, she is put away for the punishment of her 



I/O THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 32. 

broken conjugal faith, not for her correction. If she be 
given to other vices, but wishes to reform, her husband 
cannot put her away, as Rupertus, an ancient author of 
much learning, proves. (3) Other reasons for separation 
are not peculiar to marriage, but common to every condi 
tion of life ; for whether wife, or friend, or relative, or sister, 
or mother, if she be the cause of sin to us, she must be put 
away. Adultery is the reason peculiar to marriage for 
putting away a wife, because she violates that conjugal 
fidelity which is the basis, as it were, of marriage, and, 
therefore, because it is a civil contract she dissolves the 
marriage. 

It is a most natural law that to him who does not keep 
the terms of a contract the contract itself is broken. It 
remains, therefore, as S. Augustin says, that the bond of the 
sacrament is too great to be cancelled by adultery. Death 
alone can do this. 

What then, it may be asked, did Christ add here to the 
Law ? Much every way. (i) Because in the Law the wife 
was not put away for adultery, but was either burned by 
ancient custom (Gen. xxxviii. 24), or stoned (Levit. xx. 10 ; 
6*. John viii. 5), or, at least, put to death (Dan. xiii. 41). 
This custom Christ abolished ; but, while doing away with 
the old Law, He did not command the adulteress to be put 
to death, but suffered her to be put away. (2) He also 
added that he would not that even for adultery a libel of 
divorce should be given, that husbands might be more 
slow in putting away their wives if they knew it to be 
unlawful either for themselves or for their wives to marry 
again ; but that they must pass the rest of their lives in 
singleness. (3) He removed the numberless reasons for 
which wives might be put away (for if a wife were not 
pleasing to her husband in any way whatever, he might put 
her away Dent. xxiv. i), and He only allowed the cause of 
fornication. (4) He added that although in the Law a 



CH. v. 33,34.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. I?! 

husband could not take back a wife whom he had once put 
away, under the Gospel He did not order her to be received 
again, but He desired it (i Cor. vii. 11). (5) Whilst in the 
Law the wife was allowed to put away the husband, not the 
husband the wife, in the Gospel the case of husband and 
wife should be equal. Although Christ has not said so 
here, S. Paul has said it for Him (i Cor. vii. 10, u). 

Verse 33. Thou shalt not forsivear thyself. 

It has been asked why Christ went back from the com 
mandments of the second table to those of the first ? He 
did not choose to keep the order of words, but to speak of 
subjects as they occurred. Christ here gives not the words, 
but the meaning of them. For to take the name of God 
in vain, which is forbidden in the verses following, is the 
same as to forswear, because WW in Hebrew, like in 
vanum in Latin, means both what is unnecessary and 
what is false. 

But thou shalt perform thy oaths to the Lord. 

Numbers xxx. 3 contains the same doctrine though at 
greater length, and Psalm xxiii. 4. " The innocent in 
hands and clean of heart, who hath not taken his soul in 
vain." His soul, that is, God s He who has not sworn 
falsely by the living God. But as there are two kinds of 
oaths, one of confirming the past, the other by which we 
promise for the future, Christ has here put one kind for 
both, as has been observed on verse 29. 

Verse 34. Not to swear at all. 

Some have understood these words wrongly, as if Christ 
had forbidden all oaths whatever, as the Baptists of these 
times hold, and the followers of Wicliff held in the times 
of our fathers. The heresy is an ancient one. S. Augustin 
(Epistle Ixxxix., Quczst. 5 to Hilary of Syracuse] shows 



172 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 34. 

that some Syracusans, a sort of Pelagians, held it, and 
Origen does not seem to have been far from it (Tract, on 
S. Matth. xxxv.). The cause of the error is their not 
having seen that the words "at all" (pmnino) means not the 
kind but the form (non genus sed formam). Christ does 
not forbid us to swear at any time or under any circum 
stances, but in any way or any form we please neither by 
God, nor by the heavens, nor by the earth, nor by the 
holy city, nor by our head ; and He immediately adds, in 
explanation, " at all". In the same way S. James (v. 12) 
sets it out at length. "At all" (omnino) has another mean 
ing, as shall shortly be explained. 

We are taught, both by the use of the Church and by 
the example of the saints, that it is lawful to swear, and 
where, when, and how we ought to swear. For S. Paul 
used an oath to the Romans (Rom. i. 9 ; 2 Cor. i. 23 ; 
Philipp. i. 8 ; i Thess. ii. 5, 10) and the angel in the Apoca 
lypse (x. 6). What then did Christ add to the Law ? He 
added merely what had been omitted by the Law. In the 
Law it was only said, " Thou shalt not take the name of 
the Lord thy God in vain ". Christ added not only the 
name of God, but that of the heavens and the earth, or 
any other creature. He added also that as, by these 
words, perjury alone was forbidden, He disallowed not only 
this, but every oath which even if true was not necessary. 

But why He forbade an unnecessary oath, but suffered 
men to swear truly, is a question worthy of consideration. 
Many ancient writers have thought that this was not 
expressly prohibited by Him, because to swear a true 
oath unnecessarily was sin ; but, lest by frequently swearing 
they might sometimes swear falsely (Wisdom xxiii. 9-12; 
Prov. x. 19). So S. Clement (Strom, vii.), S. Chrysostom 
(Horn. xvii. on Matt), The Author, S. Basil (Horn, on Psalm 
xiv.), S. Ambrose (Serm. xiv. on Psalm cxviii.), S. 
Augustin (i., De Serm., Dom., and Psalms Ixxxviii., cix.), 



CH. v. 34-] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 1/3 

S. Jerome (On Zach. viii.) ; and their opinion seems, from 
S. James v. 12, to be correct ; as if He had said, " Lest by 
frequent taking of oaths you sometimes commit perjury, 
and fall into a sin for which you will be condemned ". 

But the sense of the Church is different, and it is clear 
that Christ forbade unnecessary oaths, not for the avoidance 
of the great danger of sin, but because unnecessary swear 
ing is ipsum per se in itself, and of itself, a sin. For He 
gives the reason why He would have us swear neither by 
the heaven nor the earth not lest by frequent oath- 
taking we should commit perjury, but because the one is 
His throne and the other His footstool : and it is irreverent 
"to set their mouth against heaven, and their tongue 
through the earth " (Psalm Ixxii. 9). This, although said 
here in another sense, we may apply to this subject, and 
this seems the sense of the words "at all"; as if it were said : 
"You have heard that it has been said to them of old, Thou 
shalt not foreswear thyself, but thou shalt perform thy 
oaths unto the Lord. But I say to you not to swear at 
all : " that is, not to swear even truly ; though the words, 
" without necessity," are understood, because Christ alludes 
to the other sense of the word WW7 in vanum, that is, in 
vain, without cause, without necessity. 

Neither by heaven ; for it is the throne of God. 

From this reason we may conclude that even to crea 
tures, as far as they have reference to God, something of 
the honour, not only of urbanity, as modern heretics say, 
but also of religion, is due. For, as it is contrary to 
religion to swear by anyone when and how we ought 
not, so, to swear when and how we ought is an act of 
religion. God has also commanded us not to swear by the 
names of false gods, but by His own name (Deut. vi. 13, and 
Psalm Ixii. 12). If, then, it is in accordance with religion to 
swear by the heavens and the earth, because the one is 



174 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 35, 36. 

His throne and the other His footstool, how much more so 
is it to swear by Peter or Paul or others of the saints 
and blessed, who are the temple of God ? If this honour 
is due to them, other honours also of the same kind are 
due to them : that we should venerate them and worship 
them (veneremur et colemus), as being under God, as the 
servants of God, as the temples of God. For we give 
honour neither to heaven nor earth as they are God, but 
as they are some part of God. The error, then, of the 
followers of Luther and Calvin is impious, as giving 
nothing of the honour of religion to any but God. 

Verse 35. Nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great 

King. 

The great King that is, God who is the King of 
kings and the Lord of lords (S. Tim. vi. 14; Apoc. xix. 26). 
The Evangelist says King, rather than Lord or God, 
because he alludes to the king of Judah, who had his 
palace there. He adds the word "great" to distinguish 
God from the king, as the city was the " holy " city (chap, 
iv., verse 5). 

Verse 36. Neither by thy head. 

As Christ had said of heaven it is the throne, and of 
the earth it is the footstool, of God, so He says of Jerusa 
lem, " It is the city of the great King". Lest we should 
think that we may swear by our head, because it is our 
own, He added, Neither by thy head ; He also gives an 
additional and peculiar reason for this. For He forbade 
them to swear by the other objects, because they had some 
portion of the service of sanctity which they show to God. 
The head is ours, and not ours : ours, as we have received 
it from God to use and possess for a time ; not ours, 
because we not only did not make it, but we cannot make 
one hair of it white or black. 



CH. v. 37.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 175 

Verse 37. But let your speech be yea, yea; no, no. 

Christ is not speaking here of our truthfulness or faith 
in the performance of our promises, but of our abstinence 
from every species of oath, and therefore the words, " Yea, 
yea ; no, no," are necessarily opposed to oaths, not to false 
hood or want of faith. The meaning is that when we have 
to say a yea" (est\ that is, to affirm, we should not do so 
with an oath, but by a simple affirmation, " It is so," and 
when we deny a thing, we should not swear that it is not 
so, but simply say " Nay " (nori) (S. Chrysostom, in loc. ; 
S. Jerome, Ep. to Celantius ; Rabanus, In S. T/wmam). 

That which is over and above these is of evil. 
The meaning of these words has proved a great difficulty 
and different explanations have been offered. Some say 
that " of evil " means that it proceeds from the person who 
is evil in his not believing the one who simply affirms the 
thing, but compels him to add an oath ; and thus the 
wickedness of his unbelief extorts an oath from the speaker 
(S. Augustin, i., De Serm. Dom.\ Others say that the words 
allude to the infirmity of the Jews, to whom it was permitted 
to swear by the creature as they might not do so by God (S. 
Chrysostom). This has been answered on verse 34. Theophy- 
lact says that the reference is to the devil, who introduced the 
custom of swearing. This seems the true meaning ; both 
because Christ does not say e/c TOV icdrcov, but IK rov 
Trovrjpov, the malignant one, by which name the devil is 
called (vi. 13 ; xiii. 19); and also because of the addition of 
the article, as much as to say, It is of the evil one, and 
because Christ introduces a tacit antithesis between Him 
self and the devil. For He had said, " But I say to you 
not to swear at all," but simply to use the words, " Yea," 
"No," "for what is more," that is, the oath in addition to 
the simple affirmation or negation, I would not have you 



1/6 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 38. 

to add. It is the devil who teaches and instigates you to 
swear, for such frequent and rash oaths are his invention. 

Verse 38. An eye for an eye. 

These are the words of the Law (Exod. xxi. 24 ; Levit. 
xxiv. 20; Dent. xix. 21). Christ does not say more than 
the first words, the rest being well known. It was the 
lex talionis, a law, according to the philosophers and the 
opinion of all nations, very just and natural. It means that 
every man should receive according to his actions. In the 
twelve tables, which are, as it were, a natural code of laws, 
there was one very similar to this. Aristotle writes on it 
in the fifth book of the Ethics, and Aulus Gellius in his 
twentieth book gives a lengthy and subtle disputation on 
the subject between a philosopher and jurisconsult. 

This law was given, as a rule, not to private persons, but 
to magistrates, lest they should either exceed or fall short 
of the due degree of justice. To private individuals, on 
the contrary, it was said, " Seek not revenge " (Levit. xix. 
1 8). What then did Christ add to the Law ? This firstly : 
He did away the lex talionis^ which restrained a man from 
violence only from fear of the consequences, as SS. Hilary 
and Chrysostom (Horn, xviii.), The Author, Euthymius, 
and Theophylact have observed ; for He would have us act 
not from fear as slaves, but from love as sons (Rom. viii. 
15). "For the Law worketh wrath" (Rom. iv. 15); the 
Gospel, grace (S. John i. 27). In addition, He taught us 
not only not to seek revenge, but to endure injuries with 
patience ; and not only endure them, but even to wish for 
them to glory in them. Lastly, to one who strikes us 
on one cheek He bids us offer the other ; and to him who 
takes our coat to give our cloak also (as Rom. v. 3). S. 
Hilary says that whilst the Law only cut off the branches, 
Christ destroyed the root itself. " In the Law," says S. 
Jerome, " is retribution ; in the Gospel is grace." In the 



CH.V. 39.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 177 

one, faults are corrected ; in the other, the first principles 
of sin are rooted out. 



Verse 39. Not to resist evil. 

SS. Chrysostom (Horn, xviii.), Theophylact, and Euthy- 
mius understand the devil. I suppose because he is called 
Trd^po?, as before with the article. Does Christ then 
teach us not to resist the devil, whom vS. John iv. 7 and 
I 5. Peter v. 9 command us to resist manfully in the 
faith ? We must resist him, indeed, but not in this manner 
not by seeking revenge. For this is not to resist, but to 
hold out the hand to him. Fire is not extinguished by 
fire, but increased. Others understand the words of one 
who has done a wrong. Others, again, not of an evil person, 
but thing : others take evil (inalo) for the ablative case, as 
if he said, Give not evil for evil return not evil by evil 
but overcome evil by good (Rom. xii. 17 ; xvii. 21 ; I Peter 
iii. 29). 

Others consider it the dative, which seems to me more 
probable. For Christ calls the wrong done to us "evil"; 
and He commands us not to resist, but rather to show our 
selves prepared for it, and when we have received a blow 
upon one cheek to offer the other. 

S. Augustin (ii., De Serm. Dom.) asserts that neither 
Christ, nor the Apostles however perfect, observed this 
precept. For even Christ turned not His cheek to the 
man who smote Him before the judge, but He resisted, if 
not by hand, by word (S. JoJin xviii. 23) ; and when S. Paul 
was struck by order of the judge, he not only did not offer 
his other cheek, but, as far as he could he resisted, and 
even uttered some harsh words in return (Acts xxiii. 3) ; 
and when beaten and cast into prison, he followed up his 
rights with threats (Acts xvi. 37). 

From these examples we learn either that what Christ 

here teaches is not a precept, or that it is not to be under- 

12 



178 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 39. 

stood as the words seem to imply. For if it were a precept, 
or were to be understood literally, both Christ and S. Paul 
would have kept it so. It is partly a precept, therefore, 
and partly a counsel. The following are the parts of the 
precept: First, not -to seek for revenge. Secondly, to turn 
the other cheek ; that is, to receive an injury rather than 
seek to revenge one already received. Thirdly, to be ready 
to yield up somewhat of our right whenever charity and 
the love of God seem to require it. It is a counsel that, 
though neither charity nor the love of God absolutely 
require it of us, yet that we should do all, literally, for our 
own mortification. Not, indeed, provoking our enemy to 
do us wrong, but being ready to receive it. Thus, S. Law 
rence is reported to have said : " It is cooked, come, sit 
down and eat ". 

But if one strike tJiee on the right. 

The words right cheek, rather than the left, are used as 
a form of speech not with reference to the blow, for a 
buffet is apt to fall on the left side before the right, as the 
left is opposite the right hand of the striker, and it is apt 
to light upon the left cheek, as S. Augustin says. 

S. Luke says simply, " On the right cheek " (in). It is a 
forcible Christian antithesis, for to the lex talionis, an 
eye for an eye, Christ opposes, if we may so speak, the 
talio of patience that for one wrong received we should 
accept another. The Ethnics of old did not understand 
this when they said that this Law of Christ would destroy 
the state, for it gave impunity to crimes (Marcellus to 
S. Augnstin, Ep. iv.) ; as if states did not stand more 
firmly by patience than by force : by virtue than by law. 
Christ, too, does not bind the hands of the judge, nor pre 
vent him from judging murderers and other criminals ; 
nor so abrogate the law that the judge cannot enforce it. 
He only discountenances compulsion. For Christian judges 



CH. v. 4i, 42.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 

require eye for eye and tooth for tooth when they condemn 
a man to death for murder. But He puts, as it were, 
fetters on individual persons, lest, whilst they endeavour to 
correct their wrongs by their own hand, they double it. 
Christ does not take away the power of punishment, but 
He removes the occasion of sin. 

Verse 41. And whosoever will force thee one mile. 

Angariaverit, dyydpevaei. This is not a Greek or Latin 
word originally, but one in use among the Persians, by 
whom public messengers were called angarii. They had 
power to compel men to carry burthens, and they might 
take any man s horses or ships. Hence the Greeks and 
Latins use the word to signify those who are compelled for 
money to carry burthens or act as guides, as Simon the 
Cyrenian was "angariated" to bear the Cross (xxvii. 32).- 
Christ therefore justly numbers this either among the 
benefits we do to others, if done by our free will, or among 
the benefits we receive from them, if by compulsion. 

Go with him other two. 

The word " other " is perhaps an addition to the Latin 
version. It would apparently be better away, as it involves 
three miles, and Christ spoke only of the receipt of two 
injuries, as in the instance of the right and left cheeks. 

Verse 42. Give to him that asketh of thee. 
That is, whoever asks of thee, give to him, as we see in 
5. Luke vi. 30. We are not commanded here to have no 
respect of persons. They are to be aided first who are 
first in need. Nor are we to give recklessly to all who ask ; 
nor to take no account of our property ; nor to treat our 
friends as we should our enemies, our kindred as strangers. 
Charity demands that we should assist our parents before 
strangers ; our friends rather than those of whom we have 



180 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 43. 

no knowledge. This rule Christ assuredly desired to con 
firm, not to destroy. So entirely is that respect of persons 
which is opposed to justice, not charity, forbidden. My 
father and another meet me. Each is in need. I cannot 
give to both. I give to my father, and pass the other by. 
For charity requires this of me. 

We must have regard, as the Doctors of Church teach, 
to persons. When we do alms we must consider the 
quality of the person. He may be a person wholly unfit 
for charity ; as if I give to a man because he is rich, or 
because he can give to me again ; or he has no proper 
claim, as if I give to one because he is a Greek or a 
Latin by birth. Alms are to be given for poverty, not 
to one of this nation or that. 

Verse 43. You have heard. 

The question as to where this is found was discussed on 
verse 21. Your neighbour "pH "your friend," for that is the 
meaning of the Plebrew word. That is, one who is near to 
you in blood or friendship. Such an one is called our 
neighbour, not as some think in a foreign tongue, but in 
the Latin ; for so Cicero himself often speaks. The mean 
ing is found in the Law : " Thou shalt love thy friend as 
thyself" (Levit. xix. 18, proximuni}. That is, thy friend, 
as is shown by the force of the word " love " and the anti 
thesis which Christ uses. For he was called a " friend " 
in the Law who not only was but ought to be such. A 
Jew ought to be such. What some say, therefore, and 
especially heretics, that even the Jews had this command 
in the Law (as in Exod. xxiii. 4) is wholly foreign to the 
subject. For the very person who is here called an enemy 
(inimicus) was a friend as being a Jew : an enemy as 
entertaining a personal hatred to the other. The same 
person is therefore called a brother (Deut, xxii. i). This 
is the more difficult, because Christ, in 5. Luke x. 29, seems 



CH. v. 44-] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. l8l 

to teach us who is our neighbour otherwise ; but His ex 
planation is not of the Law but of the Gospel. Christ 
willed by it to destroy the difference of nations, the wall 
having been broken down, and there being in Him neither 
Jew nor Greek, but a new creature ; so that the Jews were 
no longer a peculiar people to Him, but there was to be 
one fold and one shepherd. 

It might be proved that the Pharisees did not err in 
their interpretation of the precept, but that they only who 
are friends and deserve well of us are to be called our 
neighbours. For that lawyer, or scribe, or Pharisee, or 
certain person learned in the Law, is said to have judged 
rightly, that neither the priest nor the Levite, but the 
Samaritan, who performed the part of a friend to the man 
who fell among the thieves, was his neighbour. But we 
know that Christ meant otherwise. We merely wish to 
show that it cannot be proved, from* the above passage, 
that every man, without distinction, is called our neighbour 
in that precept of the Law. 

Verse 44. Love your enemies. 

This, as all the Ancients say, and as has been proved on 
verses 21, 43, is a peculiar precept of the Gospel. In this, 
as in all else that Christ added, part is of precept, part of 
counsel. It is a precept that we are not to cherish hatred, 
not to return evil for evil, not to wish evil to others, but to 
hold them in love, and not to exclude them from the 
common prayers, alms, and benefits which we perform for 
others. It is a counsel that we be charitable even to such 
as are not in extreme need : salute them by name : 
hold familiar converse with them. The words, "Bless them 
that curse you," which are found in the Greek, our version 
omits. They are not necessary to the sense, but they 
agree with the context, and the more because S. Paul 
seems possibly to allude to them (i Cor. iv. 12). 



1 82 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 45, 46. 

Verse 45. That you may be the children, 

Most authors explain this : That you may be ; that is, 
that you may declare yourselves to be sons. This may be 
allowed, but it seems better to say that it is a Hebraism, 
by which one who resembles another is styled his son ; and 
it seems more appropriate, because it is mere tautology to 
call sons the sons of their fathers, but to say that they 
resemble their fathers is a common expression. 

This also states how they will be the sons of the Father 
that is, will resemble Him if they do good to all ; for 
" God maketh His sun to rise upon the good and bad, 
and raineth upon the just and the unjust" (verse 45) ; and 
it is said in verse 48 : " Be you therefore perfect, as also 
your Heavenly Father is perfect," where it is shown how 
we may, not indeed be, but be like, the sons of God. It 
is not to be denied that there is a power to be made the 
sons of God given to those who believe in the name of 
Christ, who are born, " not of the will of the flesh, nor of 
the will of man, but of God ". The meaning of the passage 
is what has to be explained. 

Verse 46. What reward shall you have ? 

Christ does not deny that they who love their friends 
shall have their reward, for it is of charity to do so. But 
He says that they will have none if they only love them 
like the publicans, that is, not for the sake of God, but 
either from a natural attraction to them, or because of the 
advantages they hope to gain from them. Whoever does 
not love his enemies shows plainly that he does not love 
his friends for the sake of God {propter Deum), but for his 
own sake. For if he loved them propter Deum^ he would 
love his enemies also, who, not less than his friends, are the 
image of God. He, therefore, who loves his friends but not 
his enemies, because he does not love them propter Deum, 



CH. v. 48.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 183 

but to gain some good to himself from his friendship, has 
no reward of love from God. But he who loves not only 
his friends but his enemies also, will have the reward, not 
only of his love of his enemies, but of his friends also, for 
God rewards not nature but grace. 

. Do not even the publicans this ? 

They were called publicans because they collected the 
revenues for the ruler. They were a covetous class, and 
were called reXwmt by the Greeks, D^MVS by the Hebrews. 
They were held in general detestation, especially when 
Christ said this ; when the Jews were compelled to pay 
tribute, not to a ruler of their own nation, but to the Roman 
emperor. Hence the question whether it were lawful to 
give tribute to Caesar (S. Mark xii. 14; 5. Luke xx. 2). 

Publicans were held as public and abandoned sinners (S. 
Matt. ix. 10, II ; xi. 19; xviii. 17; xxi. 31, 32 ; 5. Luke 
iii. 12, 13). Christ spoke in accordance with this opinion. 
S. Matthew was at one time a publican, and sat at receipt 
of custom (ix. 9) ; but from a publican the grace of God 
made him an Apostle and Evangelist. 

Verse 48. Be you therefore perfect as also your Heavenly 

Father. 

The word " as " contains the meaning, not of equality 
(aqualitatem), but of quality (gualitatem) and resemblance, 
that similitude which can exist between God and man, not 
that between man and man. Christ prays " that they all 
may be one" (S. John xvii. 21), as He was one with the 
Father. Not that we can attain to that natural oneness, 
which is between the Father and the Son, but we can 
imitate it. Christ proposes a mark to us for our perfection 
to which He knows that we cannot attain, that we may 
come as near to it as we can. He does not will us to 



THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. v. 48. 

advance so far, but that we should not stand still. He 
would have us in all things to be as like the Father as 
possible, especially in that which is His own chief pro 
pertymercy. When therefore S. Matthew says, "Be 
you perfect," S. Luke says, "Be you therefore merciful" 
(vi. 36). 



CHAPTER VI. 

A CONTINUATION OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 

Verse i. Take heed. 

MALDONATUS briefly raises the question whether this 
chapter is a continuation of the last, or whether it contains 
the account of another sermon in another place. He in 
clines to the latter opinion, from the fact that, as he thinks, 
the former chapter was apparently addressed to the 
Apostles alone, this to the people at large. He suggests 
that Christ had come down from the Mount, and delivered 
this on the plain. But he does not account for the words 
of S. Matthew (viii. i) : "When He was come down from 
the mountain ". 

That you do not your justice. 

The Greek reads eXe^/iocrvw?^ "alms," as does S. Chry- 
sostom (Horn, xix.), The Author (Horn, xiii.), Theophylact, 
and Euthymius. The Latins have "justice": SS. Hilary, 
Jerome, Augustin (Tract, vi. in Epistle of S. John, and 
Serm. lix. de Temp. ; lib. ii., De Serm. Dom\ Gregory (viii. 
30, On Job, and in Pastor. Part, iii., Admonit. 36), and the 
poet Juvencus. Among these, also, is Origen (Horn ii. / ;/ 
Exod^}. It is possible that some Greek, not understanding 
the meaning of "justice" here, and reading in the follow 
ing verses, " When thou dost an alms-deed " (verses 2, 3), 
thought it an error, and put alms for justice. Our version 
seems the better both because (i) our translator, and 



1 86 THE GOSPEL OE S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vi. 2. 

those ancient Latin authors, who did not use it, so read the 
passage ; and (2) there is no reason why justice should 
have been put for alms from the ignorance of the writer, 
but alms might have been put for justice for the reason 
above ; (3) because (a) the force of the passage requires 
that, firstly, justice in general, and then alms in particular, 
should be put ; and (fr) the word justice, in Hebrew 
np"!2 is often put for mercy and alms, as in Psalm cii. 18. 
It is clear that our Lord repeats His words, and that 
that which in the first clause is called " mercy," in the 
second is termed "justice," 1DH and np*T2 and in Psalm 
cxi. 9, where " distributed " and " given " mean alms, the 
Hebrew is HpTS a Hebraism followed by S. Paul (2 Cor. 
ix. 10), who there terms alms "the fruits of your justice". 
Hence the LXX., where the Hebrew word 1DH "justice," 
is found for alms, have not only rendered it justice, but 
they have often done so where it is 1DH " mercy," as if 
npT meant, in common use, both mercy and alms-giving, 
as Genesis xx. 13 ; xxi. 23 ; Deut. xxiv. 13. So here also 
justice is put for alms, as is immediately explained : " When 
thou dost an alms-deed ". How this agrees with the other 
passage, " So let your light" (verse 16), has been explained 
(chap, v., verse 16). 

Otherwise you shall not have a reward of your Father. 

As if Christ had said, "You shall have it indeed before 
men, for whose respect you do it " (as below, verses 2, 3). 
These have received their reward, which they sought ; that 
is, vainglory from men. But from your Father they shall 
not have it, for they do it not for His sake. It is right 
that for whom a man labours, from him he should receive 
his reward, and that there should be a single, not a double, 
reward for one work. 

Verse 2. Sound not a trumpet before thee. 
Euthymius says that some have affirmed, what Strabus 



CH. vr. 2.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. l8/ 

thinks probable and N. de Lyra certain, that it was the 
custom either of the Jews generally, or of the Pharisees in 
particular, when they gave alms, to call the poor together 
by the sound of a trumpet. But they offer no proof of 
their assertion. That they were vain enough to do this 
is certain ; whether they were so liberal may be a question. 
S. Chrysostom (Horn, xix.), The Author (Horn, xiii.), Theo- 
phylact (In Comment?), are of a different opinion. It is 
more probable that Christ alluded to the custom of assem 
bling the people, by sound of trumpet, when a thing was 
to be done publicly or any proclamation made (Joel ii. 15), 
or to that of actors, who used to give information, by 
the sound of trumpets, of the commencement of their 
exhibitions. For Christ here introduces a kind of tragedy 
or comedy of the Pharisees. The word "hypocrite" shows 
this. It was applied to the actor, who, when he was one 
person, pretended to be another. S. Augustin has observed 
this. Then the words, "to be seen by men" (verse i), 
belong to the drama. A theatre is so called, as being a 
place of spectacles, and it is a peculiarity of it to sound a 
trumpet. Christ signifies that there is no particle of truth 
and solid virtue in a hypocrite. Whatever he does bears 
the stamp of simulation, and he therefore desires to be 
seen. Christ teaches us that our guide should be virtue, 
and that we should desire no other spectator than God. 

In the synagogues. 

(See iv. 23.) The teachers of heresy, by a great exaggera 
tion of expression, almost universally render this passage 
" conventicles " or conciliabula. Christ desired to signify 
that the hypocrites loved to frequent crowded places, that 
they might be seen, such as the synagogues, in which, as 
in our temples now, the people met together. Whoever 
puts the above words for synagogue lowers the force of 
the word. The words themselves show that these places 
were of less account than the synagogue. 



1 88 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vi. 3. 

Verse 3. Let not thy left hand. 

The left hand can possess neither knowledge nor 
ignorance ; and therefore these words have been thought 
to express a metaphor, and in consequence much difference 
of opinion has arisen as to their exact meaning. S. Chrysos- 
tom (Horn, xix.) and Theophylact (in loc.} appear to under 
stand them correctly when they say that they are not a meta 
phor but merely a hyperbolical expression, like that in verses 
29, 30. The meaning, then, is that we ought to avoid wit 
nesses of our justice, so that if our left hand had eyes, it 
might not be able to see what our right hand was doing. 
The left hand being mentioned before the right contrarily 
to the custom mentioned in chap. v. 23, and the act of the 
right hand being subjected to the left, is caused by the fact 
that in doing alms we extend the right hand and not the 
left. In other things that we do by hand, the right hand 
does them and the left assists it ; so that if it had eyes it 
could not be ignorant of what the right was doing. Christ, 
then, orders us so to do our alms that the left hand should 
not possibly know what the right was doing. This rule is 
to be observed in all devout actions, and most especially 
in almsgiving ; for men seek more glory from nothing, and 
from nothing ought they to seek for less. An alms, even 
if small, is a great benefit to the poor ; a greater still if 
secret and no one know it but he only who receives. He 
who gives regarding the praise of men, has given to him 
self, not to the poor ; or if he have given anything he has 
sold, not given. The poor man is not able to pay the 
price, but others pay it for him when they praise the giver 
regarding him only. The payment to him is to be seen. 

Ecclus. xxix. 15 has a saying precisely similar. It is 
no sin to be seen giving alms, but to desire to be seen ; 
and not wholly this, but the wish to be seen to gain the 
praise of men. This alone Christ forbids. The wish to be 



CH. vi. 4, 5-] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 189 

seen for God s sake He does not forbid : He commands it 
(chap. v. 1 6). 

Verse 4. In secret. 
As known only to God and ourselves. 

Will repay thee. 

The Greek text reads " openly ". In the time of S. 
Augustin the Latin copies, on the contrary, read it and 
the Greek did not, as he says (ii., De Serm. Dom^}. It is 
probable, therefore, that the earliest Greek copies from 
which the Latin version was made, and which the Church 
used before S. Jerome, contained these words, and that 
they afterwards dropped out of the Greek from the careless 
ness of transcribers, but were retained in the Latin ; and 
that St. Jerome, as they were not read in the Greek in his 
time, and as he corrected, as he said, the Latin version to 
the Greek, expunged them from the Latin. The antithesis 
requires them to be read " in secret " and " openly ". S. 
Luke xiv. 4 for "openly" reads "in the Resurrection" 
that is, in the last judgment, before all men who are, and 
who have been, and who will be. 

For equity and the sentence require us to believe that 
Christ promised us much greater glory even among men 
if we do our alms secretly than they will have who do them 
only to receive glory from men : for these can only do 
them in the sight of a few, whose glory in the judgment 
before all men will be their greatest ignominy. They who, 
when they do alms, wish to be seen by none, will, although 
they wish it not, be then seen by all, and they will receive 
praise from all. S. Paul used thus to console himself 
and others (PJiilipp. ii. 16 ; 2 Tim. i. 12, 18 ; iv. 8). 

Verse 5. That love. 

The Greek reads on, $i\ova-iv y quia amant. Either, 
therefore, our translator read ol for on, or someone in- 



190 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vi. 5. 

serted qui for quid in his version. It was more easy to 
substitute qui for quid than 01 for on. Our version, there 
fore, seems to require correction rather than the Greek ; 
but following- <f>i\ovai, they render it solent, "are accustomed 
to". Our version is better, because Christ blames not only 
the custom, which might exist without the feeling, but 
much more the desire of glory, as in chap, xxiii. 6. 

In the synagogues. 
See verse 2. 

A nd corners. 

The word " corners " here does not carry its usual mean 
ing of a concealed and secret place (as Acts xxvi. 26), but 
one public and conspicuous and much frequented. This is 
shown by the adjunct "of streets". Christ calls the courts 
streets, and public roads "corners," i.e., the " Bivia " and 
" Trivia," the spots where two and three roads meet, as in 
the history of Thamar (Gen. xxxviii. 14). 

i 

To stand. 

Some think that it was the custom of the Jews to pray 
standing, because in many places those who were praying 
are said to have been standing (S. Mark xi. 25 ; 5. Luke 
xviii. 11). But it seems otherwise from other passages 
(Acts ix. 40 ; x. 36 ; xxi. 5 ; "and Christ kneeled," 5. Luke 
xxii. 41). Nature also teaches us to pray in that position, 
nor does it seem probable that the Pharisees, who desired 
to appear most especially holy, prayed otherwise. The 
word " stands," therefore, in this passage would appear to 
mean remaining fixed and immovable, as men with minds 
wrapt up in heaven, as in chap. xx. 3, 6 ; 5. Mark iii. 31 ; 
xi. 25 ; 5. Luke xviii. n. 

Their reward. 

Either that of which they were^worthy, or which they 
sought (SS. Jerome, Augustin). 



Cn.vi.6,7.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 191 

Verse 6. Enter into thy chamber. 

SS. Augustin, Jerome, and others have been of opinion 
that the word " chamber" here is used allegorically, but S. 
Chrysostom (Horn. viii. on I Tim.) and Theophylact (in 
loc.) take it to mean a literal bed-chamber. Christ does 
not command us literally to enter our chamber and shut 
the door, but to avoid the empty praise of men. He, there 
fore, who prays in public, wishing to be seen and heard by 
none but God, or, if seen and heard by men, to be seen and 
heard not for his own praise but for the praise of God, prays 
in his own chamber with the door shut. For he does not 
seek his own praise more than if he prayed alone in his 
chamber. On the other hand, they who pray alone with 
the door shut, wishing men, however, to know it, pray in 
the streets and sound a trumpet before them, and the more 
they conceal themselves the more they are discovered. 
Christ, therefore, does not do away with the custom con 
firmed by the laudable use of both Jews and Christians, of 
praying in public (3 Kings viii. 29 ; Acts i. 24; iii. I ; iv. 24 ; 
vi. 6 ; xii. 12). He only corrects our motives. S. Paul 
would have us lift up pure hearts in every place (i Tim. ii. 
8). It is our own fault that a prayer made in public can seek 
after human praise. If we prayed, all of us, everywhere, it 
would not be singular that one should pray in public, nor, 
from the fact of this being done by all would any praise be 
sought ; but the prayers would be unencumbered by the 
expectation of human praise, and have greater force, being 
assisted by those of others at the same time. " We pray," 
says Tertullian, " as if with our whole strength (quasi facta 
manu). This zeal is grateful to God" (Apolog.; Origen, 
Horn. vii. \v\ Josue ; Horn. iii. de Nat Dei). 

Verse 7. Speak not much. 

MV; /3aTTo\oyrjo-T]T. The word is derived either from an 
obscure poet named Battus, who is said to have stuttered 



Ip2 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vi. 7 

or used senseless repetitions, or from some other of the 
same name. Christ does not blame repetitions or rapidity 
in prayer, although these are justly subjects of blame ; but 
a senseless and superfluous number of affected expressions, 
as appears from the verse following, as S. Greg. Nyss. 
(Lib. de Orat^} has observed. 

Christ does not prohibit those prayers from being long 
which He said, in another place, should be unceasing (S. 
Luke xviii. I, as S. Paul, i Thess. v. 17 ; Coloss. iv. 2), nor 
that we should speak when praying, nor use repetitions ; 
for He Himself spoke and used the same words thrice 
(chap. xxvi. 44 ; 5. Mark xiv. 39) ; but He forbade us to 
speak with the intention that men should see that we pray 
well, and to think that God hears more readily if we use 
many words than if we use few; as He says immediately 
afterwards : " They think that in their much speaking they 
may be heard ". 

Nor are the Euchitse termed heretics by S. Epiphanius 
(Her. Ixxx.) and S. Augustin (Lib. ad Quod Vult., chap. Ivii.) 
for this reason, but because they thought that no one could 
be saved unless he literally prayed without ceasing ; not 
understanding that Christ said, " We ought always to pray " 
(S. Luke xviii. i), as not meaning that we should pray per 
petually and without intermission, which He knew that we 
could not do : but that when we ask a thing from God once, 
and do not obtain it, we ought not therefore to be weary 
or to cast away our faith, but to seek again and again 
without any definite limit as to number. Doing this, we 
shall at length obtain what we ask. The parable of the 
Unjust Judge shows this. 

The heathens. 

The error of the heathen was to suppose that the more 
they spoke, and the louder their voice, the more they would 
be heard by God (3 Kings xviii. 27). Elias alludes to this 
custom of theirs. The ten tribes followed it. 



CH. vi. g.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 193 

In tJieir much speaking. 

A Hebraism, putting "in " for "for," in for pro or propter, 
ev for Sid (S. Mark ix. 38). 

Verse 9. Thus, therefore, shall you pray. 
It is uncertain whether Christ taught this prayer twice 
or once only. The doubt has arisen from S. Luke (xi. 2) 
having said that when the disciples asked Him to pray, He 
replied: "When you pray say": S. Matthew, however, in 
this place, seems to imply that He gave them this prayer, 
not as having been asked, but of His own will. Rupertus 
thinks that Christ taught the same prayer twice on different 
occasions. The contrary would seem the more probable, 
for why should He do this, unless we say, which is not im 
probable, that in 5. Luke He taught only the disciples by 
whom He had been asked to do so ; and here the whole 
multitude, who had not heard the prayer before. If we 
say that it was only delivered once, we must say that S. 
Matthew does not describe one only assembly; but that 
what Christ had taught at different times and to many 
assemblies, he wished to cast into one, that he might bring 
nearly all Christ s teaching under one aspect. 

Thus, therefore, shall you. 

You who ought to seek praise from God, not from men, 
like the heathen : you who have been taught by Me that 
God regards not the multitude of words, but is prevailed 
upon by the earnest desire of him who prays and who asks 
nothing but what is right, and tends to the glory of God. 

Thus. 

Not that we must necessarily use these actual words, as 
S. Augustin and Bede say. For the Apostles used others, 
as in Acts i. 24. But while they did this to propagate 
the Gospel, and show forth the glory of God, if they do 

13 



194 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vi. 9. 

not use the exact words, they say the same thing in fact : 
" Hallowed be Thy name," and when they confess the 
will and election of God, what do they say but " Thy 
will be done"? Nor is Christ Himself said to have 
always prayed in these words, but He did pray to the 
same effect (S. Matt. xxvi. 39 ; 5. Luke xxii. 42) ; and He 
said in a few words all that He taught in that prayer, 
except what He could not say. He called God His Father 
as He taught us to do, and asked that His name might be 
sanctified when He sought His glory. " If it be possible," 
He said that is, if it can be done, saving Thy glory (salva 
tua gloria) He knew that it could be done absolutely, 
and the Father s glory preserved " but yet, not My 
will but Thine be done." He sought and asked for His 
daily bread when He sought and asked for His life. He 
only did not ask that His debts might be forgiven, for (i 
Pet. ii. 22) " He did no sin, neither was guile found in His 
mouth " ; nor that He might not be led into temptation,, 
for He could not fall ; nor that He might be delivered 
from evil, for He had just overcome evil in a personal con 
test (chap. iv. i). Nor did He will that when we pray we 
should ask for all that is contained in this prayer, but for 
all, or some of the things at least for nothing opposed to 
it. He prayed for those who crucified Him : not in one 
of these petitions, but as in their spirit, that the mind of 
God might be sanctified even in the salvation of His 
enemies. The Church, then, has rightly allowed it to this 
prayer alone to use not only the matter but the very words 
themselves of Christ. " It is," says S. Cyprian, " a friendly 
and familiar prayer that God asks of His own, and the 
words of Christ go up to His ears. The Father acknow 
ledges the prayer of His Son, for He who dwells in His 
bosom is also the same person in His voice" (Lib. de Orat.\ 
The Church has justly given to this the first place 
among all the prayers, private and public. Christ had said, 



CH. vi. g.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 195 

just before : " Speak not much " (verse 7). He now gives a 
very brief form of prayer. " Yet that brevity," says 
Tertullian (Lib. de Orat.}, " is supported by a body of most 
large and happy meaning. As much as it is bounded by 
words is it enlarged in application." " Such," says S. Cy 
prian, " are the mysteries of the Lord s Prayer, so many and 
so great, collected into one form, but so spiritually copious 
in power, that nothing whatever is passed over which may 
be comprehended in our prayers and supplications as a 
compendium of heavenly doctrine." Tertullian, therefore, 
rightly terms it " the Breviary of the Gospel " (breviariuni). 
S. Augustin (Serm. in Mont., ii.), says that this prayer 
contains SEVEN PETITIONS: i. Hallowed be Thy name. 
2. Thy kingdom come. 3. Thy will be done. 4. Give us this 
day our supersubstantial bread. 5. Forgive us our debts, as 
we also forgive our debtors. 6. Lead us not into temptation. 
7. Deliver us from evil. The seven were afterwards com 
pressed into six by putting the two last into one. It must 
be observed that (as had been previously pointed out) the 
first three petitions concern the honour of God, the rest 
our own advantage ; so the precepts of the Decalogue are 
divided into two tables, of which the first treats of that 
which pertains to God, the second of our duty to our 
neighbour. This is the meaning of the thirty-third verse: 
" Seek ye first the kingdom of God ". God would not 
have our good separated from His honour ; for that 
can never be good for us which is not honourable to Him. 
He, therefore, makes His honour the rule of our good. 
He who follows this can err no more than he who does not 
follow it can avoid so doing. 

Father. 

The commencing of the Prayer with the name of " Father " 
does not tend to produce undue boldness in our address to 
God, as Tertullian, S. Cyprian, and S. Chrysostom (Horn. 
xx.) have supposed. " It rather induces us to conciliate 



196 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. vi. g. 

the lovingkindness of God by a name of mildness, and to 
move Him to grant our requests by the appellation of 
Father " (S. Augustin, lib. ii., De Semi. Dom.\ The Lord s 
Prayer possesses its own rhetoric. Christ s words (chap, 
vii. 1 1) apply here. The name of " Father " itself prays for 
us ; for it is the duty of the father to make provision for 
his son, and to overlook his faults. The Prodigal Son, 
when he came to himself, used the same word (S. Luke 
xv.- 1 8). Tertullian (De Orat.} and S. Augustin (ii., De Serm. 
Dom.) have observed that God will not be called " Father " 
in the Old Testament, but " Lord ". " They were servants, 
we are sons" (Rom. viii. 15). 

We may enquire here whether (i) only the First Person 
of the Holy Trinity is addressed, or (2) whether the whole 
Three are called "Father". SS. Cyprian, Chrysostom, and 
Rupertus think that the Father alone is thus addressed. On 
their part, it may be said that Christ calls the same Person 
His Father and ours, though not in the same sense 
(S.John xx. 17). 

2. The opinion of those who say that the whole Trinity 
is here invoked by us as " Father " seems better. Why do 
we call God our Father? (i) Because He created us. 
But the Father did not create us alone : the whole of the 
Holy Trinity did so. (2) Because He preserves us. But 
the whole Trinity does the same. (3) Because He re 
deemed us. But the Father alone did not redeem us : all 
the Persons redeem us the whole Holy Three in act 
ing ; the Son alone in suffering. In respect, therefore, of 
our redemption, the Son alone might be called "Father," 
rather than the Father Himself only. (4) Because we are 
regenerated by grace. But the whole Trinity regenerated 
us. 

Our. 

Christ has laid His commands on us that we do not 
address God each as if He were his own Father alone. 



CH. vi. g.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 197 

To effect this He has given us not a private prayer, but the 
public one of the whole Church ; so that, when we pray, 
we pray to God as one member of the whole Church. 
Whoever does otherwise may indeed pray to God, but He 
will most assuredly not obtain his prayer (prare . . . 
exorare}. So say SS. Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustin, and 
others. 

It has been observed on the passage that the words 
show the difference between Christ and ourselves. We do 
not call God "my Father," but "our Father". Christ 
calls Him not "Our Father," but "My Father". For in 
the sense in which He is " our Father " He is the Father of 
all in common. For He created all, He preserves all, 
He supports all, and, as far as in Him lies, He has 
redeemed all. 

But in the sense in which He is the Father of Christ He 
is the Father of no other. For He is His Father, not as 
He created Him, but as He begot Him of His own 
essence, and, therefore, as S. Ambrose says (v. 4, De Sac.\ 
Christ calls Him, in a peculiar manner, His Father. We 
call Him our Father in a general sense : He begot Christ ; 
He created us. Another and more peculiar reason why 
we call God " Father " and " our Father " may be that 
through Christ we have been regenerated. For it is clear 
that they who have never been baptised and who do not 
believe in Christ cannot use this prayer ; and yet they 
have been created, supported, redeemed by God. We do not, 
then, call God " our Father " because He has only created, 
supported, and redeemed us, but also because He has re 
generated us through faith and the grace of baptism 
(S.John i. 12). " He has not imparted this gift to others, 
and, therefore, He cannot be called Father by them " 
(Tertullian, v. ; S. Cyprian, De Orat. Dom^ When, there 
fore, we call God " our Father," we are distinguished not 
only from Christ, but also from unbelievers. We call God 



198 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vi. g. 

our Father, as He is the Father of those who believe and 
not of those who believe not. Is He not, then, the Father 
of all ? Most assuredly He is so (EpJies. iv. 6) ; but He is 
the Father, in a peculiar manner, of those who, through 
faith in Christ, are made one body with Him. 

We are, therefore, a mean between Christ and unbelievers. 
Christ is the Son of God by essence ; unbelievers are so, as 
it were, spuriously, because, though created by Him, and 
made after His Image, they are sons by nature, and as if of 
the bond-woman ; they are not so by grace, and as if of the 
free-woman. They are like Ismael by natural strength, not 
like Isaac by supernatural grace. We are neither sons by 
nature like Christ, nor spurious sons like unbelievers, but 
sons adopted and legitimate ; otherwise we could not be 
the sons of God and joint-heirs of Christ (Rom. viii. 17). 

Who art in heaven. 

The reading of some heretics of " heavenly " for " in 
heaven " cannot be accepted. It corrupts the force of the 
text. The Greek eV ovpdvois is against it, as well as our 
own version. He is called "heavenly" who not only dwells 
in heaven but derives his origin or comes from heaven like 
Christ (i Cor. xv. 48-9). It is certain that the habitation 
of God is what is meant here, who is said to dwell in 
heaven because, although He is everywhere, yet His glory 
shines there in a most especial manner (Psalms xviii. 6 ; 
cxii. 5 ; cxxii. i). Aristotle says that it is the opinion of 
all nations, implanted in them by nature, that God dwells 
in the heavens (De Ccelo, i. 3). Hence the frequent allusions 
in the Greek poets to the gods who dwell in the realms 
above. 

Hallowed be Thy name. 

The name of God is here mentioned, but not His name 
of God alone by which we address Him, but as we estimate 
Him, and all that in any way belongs to Him, and which is 



CH. vi. io.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 199 

said to be sanctified when He is honoured, loved, worshipped, 
when His glory is magnified, and His goodness, holiness, 
and majesty are celebrated. The Jews used the word XIHp 
that is, celebrate, as sanctify the Sabbath (Ezek. xliv. 24) ; 
" Sanctify the fast " (Joel i. 14). Or the name of God is said 
to be sanctified when it is worshipped as holy and honoured, 
as, on the contrary, it is said to be blasphemed when it is 
treated without due reverence (ha. Hi. 5 ; Rom. ii. 24), 
and polluted when it is accounted vile and sordid (Gen. xx. 
30 ; xxii. 26 ; xxxvi. 20 ; xxxix. 7 ; xliii. 8 ; Jerem. vii. 
30). In this sense S. Jerome (in his Commentaries) and S. 
Augustin (lib. ii., De Serni. Dom.) explain it. S. Augustin 
says : " The name of God is not so prayed to in the words 
Hallowed be Thy name, as if it were not holy, but that it 
may always be considered so by men ; that is, God discovers 
it to them in such manner that they may not think that 
there is any holy thing which they should more fear to 
offend. To the same purport see S. Greg. Nyss. (De Orat. 
Dom.\ S. Chrysostom (Horn, xx.), The Author (Horn. 
xiv.), Theophylact, and Euthymius. S. Ambrose (v. 4, De 
Sac.} says : " Christ calls us sanctified in the name of the 
Lord Jesus Christ, and in the spirit of our God we pray 
that this sanctification may remain in us. When we do 
not specify any person by whom we wish the name of God 
to be sanctified, we signify that we wish it sanctified by all." 
Tertullian (De Orat., ii.) says : " When we do not narrow our 
meaning by saying, " Hallowed in ourselves," we say " Hal 
lowed in all ". 

Verse io. Thy kingdom come. 

There have been various opinions as to the meaning of 
the words " Thy kingdom " and " Come " in this passage. 
Some understand the kingdom of God as that kingdom by 
which God is said to reign in the hearts of the just, as, on 
the contrary, sin is said to reign in the bodies of the wicked 



200 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. vi. 10. 

(Rom. vi. 12), and by S. Luke (xvii. 21). In this sense 
S. Ambrose (De Sac., iv.), The Author (Horn, xiv.), S. 
Jerome (Comment, and Cont. Pelag.}, S. Greg. Nyss. (De 
Orat. Dom.\ and Euthymius. Others take it of that king 
dom where Christ reigns in the blessed, as if we prayed 
that that which has come to the other blessed might come 
to us, as S. Paul says (PJiilipp. i. 23 and 2 Tim. iv. 8 ; 
Titus ii. 13), and to the souls under the Altar (Apoc. vi. 9, 
10; Tertullian, S. Cyprian, The Author, Horn, xiv.; S. 
Augustin, Epistle cxxi. to Probd). Others again, as S. 
Augustin (ii., De Serm. Dom.\ paraphrase the words "Thy 
kingdom come," by " Thy glory be manifested to men ". 

The true meaning seems to be that which Theophylact and 
Rupertus suggest The kingdom of God is that in which, 
when He has put all enemies under His feet, He will reign 
universally, and, as S. Paul says, "Be all in all" (i Cor. xv. 
28). For, although He now reigns everywhere, yet, as He 
does not reign peacefully and without enemies or war, and 
as many like rebels resist Him, He is not said to reign. 
But when all His enemies are subdued, His friends libe 
rated, and His enemies condemned, He will be said to 
reign fully. This is clearly deduced from the above 
passages of S. Paul, from which it is plain that we here ask 
not for our own kingdom, but for God s ; for the first three 
petitions, as I have said, pertain to God, the others to our 
selves. The meaning, therefore, is, not that God may reign 
in our hearts, nor that we may reign with the blessed, for 
this applies most especially to ourselves, but that God may 
reign absolutely and without an enemy. For we say, " Thy 
kingdom come," as if we were sons praying for a peaceful 
kingdom and victory over his enemies for the king our 
father, not that we but he may reign. We wish the king 
dom of God to come as they wish it who are spoken of 
in 2 Tim. iv. 8 ; Tit. ii. 13 ; and in the souls in Apocalypse 
vi. 9. 



CH. vi. ii.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 2OI 

TJiy ivill be done. 

Some think that the meaning of these words is, that the 
will of God may be done on earth as in heaven that 
is, that men on earth may obey Him as the angels do in 
heaven (S. Jerome ; S. Chrysostom, Horn. xx. ; The Author, 
Horn. xiv. ; S. Augustin, ii., De Serm. Dom.; Theophylact ; 
Euthymius). 

Others understand it differently, that there may be peace 
on earth as there is in heaven. For as there was war in 
heaven between the good and bad angels (Apoc. xii. 7), and 
when the devil was cast out thence peace ensued, so there 
is now war on earth between the devil and man, and we 
ask that the devil may be conquered and cast down from 
earth to the abyss, as Christ says that he shall be (S. John 
xii. 31). Then will come that peace which the angels 
announced when Christ was born. So S. Ambrose (De Sac., 
v. 4). Tertullian, however, thinks that the meaning is, that 
we should have a prompt and ready mind to bear firmly 
whatever good or ill God may please to send us, as Job 
did (i. 21). But the general meaning ought not to be 
restricted as all these explanations restrict it. For it is 
too little to explain it of the observation of commandments 
alone, or of peace, or of patience alone. It will balance 
if all these things are brought into one. The will of God 
should be done then in all things, not only by us, but in us, 
as Christ said who could not sin (S. Luke xxii. 42) : " Not 
My will but Thine be done " (S. Luke xxii. 42) ; done not 
only by Him, but in Him. 

As in heaven. 

Heaven, where nothing resists God, and where is nothing 
that is not obedient to His will (Ps. cii. 20, 21). 

Verse ii. Our supersubstantial bread. 
A fruitful passage as treating of bread, but one rendered 
difficult by the obscurity of expression and the variety of 



2O2 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vi. n. 

interpretations. Many ancient authors have said piously, 
and religiously, and in accordance with the use of the 
Church, that the body of Christ is termed our daily bread. 
For it is the true bread " which cometh down from heaven," 
and it is taken daily either by individuals or by the whole 
Church (Tertullian, De Orat.; S. Cyprian, De Orat. Dom. ; 
S. Ambrose, De Sac., v. 4; S. Athanasius, De Incarn.; Juven- 
cus ; S. Jerome, In Comment. , and iii., Adv. Pelag^. It is 
not the least of the arguments in favour of this view that it 
appears probable that in so perfect and divine an address 
Christ would not have taught anything earthly, anything 
not divine. On the other hand, the words, " Give us this 
day," cause a difficulty, as if we were forbidden to ask for 
to-morrow, as in verse 34. Again, we seem to ask, as a 
thing necessary every day for each of us, for the Body of 
Christ ; which is indeed most beneficial to us every day, but 
not necessary, nor, as S. Augustin says, was it taken by the 
Eastern Christians of his time every day. This induced 
him (lib. ii., De Serm. Dom.) to say that our daily bread meant 
the will of God, as Christ said (5. John iv. 34 ; vi. 27). 
This view was held by Origen (Horn, in Ezek. xiv.) 
before him. But Christ taught us to seek that food not 
only for this day, but for every day of our lives, as the 
people said (S. John vi. 34), and the woman (iv. 15). It 
is more probable that, as said by S. Augustin (i., In Gen. 
xxxix., and To Proba, ccxxi. 12), S. Basil (In Reg. Brev.^ 
cclii.), S. Chrysostom (Horn, xx.), The Author (Horn, xiv.), 
S. Greg. Nyss. (De Orat.) y Theodoret (On Philipp., chap, iv.), 
all food necessary to life is here termed our daily bread, 
and that by the word " bread " everything requisite for the 
support of life ought to be understood. This is evident 
from all the "circumstances" of the text, (i) As it is 
ours, that is, necessary to us ; (2) as it is daily, that is, not 
superfluous ; (3) as it is for to-day, not for the future ; 
(4) as we are forbidden in verse 34, in the same sense, to 



CH. vi. ii.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 203 

be anxious for the morrow. All these circumstances show 
that the subject is the food of the body. " But it is not 
likely," some say, " that Christ taught us in so heavenly a 
discourse to seek for anything earthly." The answer is 
that it was not the will of Christ to direct us to seek bread 
and things necessary to life which are earthly, which 
Christ Himself (verse 25) forbids, and to which we are all 
sufficiently prone by nature but to teach us whence and 
how we should seek it, as not from the earth like cattle, 
but from God, as men ; and not for all time, but for the 
present day alone. For this is a heavenly precept, not an 
earthly one, and so heavenly that few obey it even with 
Christ as their teacher. The improbability that Christ 
should have preferred even moderate care of the body to 
that of the soul may add force to this argument. But He 
did this, if, among the things which we ask for ourselves, 
He put bread in the first place, the forgiveness of sins in 
the second, and freedom from temptation in the third. 
Christ did not see fit to follow so much the dignity of 
things, as that of nature and our weakness. Nature would 
first have us live, and then live well. Christ considered 
this ; and when He taught us to ask for bread, He thought 
not so much of the body as of the soul, for he cut off the 
greatest and strongest source of sin. In a word, by this 
petition He takes care, in the first place, that sins be not 
committed ; and, in the second, when committed, how they 
may best be put away. 

Our. 

They who understand by " bread " the Body of Christ, 
explain, like S. Cyprian, the word " our " as meaning the 
faithful, and not the unbelieving ; others understand "our" 
as " a thing given to us by God," as S. Gregory (Moral, 
xxxiii. 5) : " See we both call it ours, and pray that it may 
be given to us. It is ours indeed when*we have received 



204 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. vi. n. 

it, but God s when He gives it. It is therefore God s as by 
a gift, it is ours by reception. Others think it ours, as 
being the possession of us as men, and not cattle. Others, 
again, would have the actual object which we possess 
already to be called ours, but which we are not the less 
ordered to ask of God, because, as it is really God s rather 
than our own, we ought not to use it before we ask His 
permission to do so." Thus speaks The Author a true 
and pious thought indeed, but seemingly foreign to the 
argument. For Christ wished to correct the wickedness of 
those who set no bounds to their covetousness, as is clear 
from verse 19 and the following. For men, if wicked, do 
not seek what they have already by their own exertion 
(ex industrid), nor ask it of God, if good. 

As, then, we ask for the bread which we have not, why 
do the rich ask for it ? S. Augustin has both raised this 
question and answered it : " Poor men ask that they may 
receive, rich men that they may not lose. And what," he 
continues, " does the rich man want ? I dare to say that 
the rich man wants his daily bread. Why, then, do these 
abound in all things, except that God has given it to 
them ? What would they have if God were to withdraw 
His hand ? Have not many gone to sleep rich, and they 
wake up poor? " We may thus understand it, that the 
bread which is necessary to us may be called " ours ". 
This agrees well with the intention of Christ, who only 
pleased to give us the power of asking for the supply of 
our needs of the present day. 

Daily Folio, Quotidianum; Supersubstantialis 8vo, 
Supersitbstantial. 

The difference between the folio and 8vo in their com 
mentaries on the first part of this verse is so great, that the 
best plan appears to be to give a translation of each. 



CH. vi. ii.] 



SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 



205 



FOLIO. 
The Greek word eTriovcriov 



8vo. 
The Greek word 



has caused much difficulty, aiov, found in this place, as 

well as in .S. Luke xi. 2, 
here rendered " supersub- 
stantial," there "daily," we 
have in our corrected edi 
tion. It cannot be doubted 
that supersubstantial ought 
to be read here, yet 

the ancient translator rendered TOV eTriovaiov " daily," as is 
clear from S. Jerome ; and all the ancient Latin authors so 
read it. S. Jerome, however, substituted "supersubstantial," 
although in so doing he did not desire to correct the ancient 
version 



FOLIO. 

Some have therefore in 
cautiously, in our time, put 
"supersubstantial" for "daily," 
into our Vulgate Edition. 
This word ill agrees with 
that bodily food which, as 
we have proved, is asked by 
us. 

Others have rendered it 
" consubstantial," that is, of 
the same essence as our 
own that word about 
which there was so great 
a controversy, subsequently, 
with the Arians. S. Jerome 
says that he found IITE 
" to-morrow s," in the Gospel 
of the Hebrews, instead of 



8VO. 

The Church after wards fol 
lowed him in his correction. 
Although, as in 5. Luke, the 
word is rendered "daily," she 
here seems to confirm that 
ancient reading as well, or, 
at least, by no means to 
repudiate it. 



206 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vi. n. 



as if there were an antithesis between to 
morrow s needful bread. Such a verbal antithesis 
harmonises well, but the sense does not, for Christ 
does not teach, but forbid, us to take thought for the 
morrow. Others render eTnovviov, " of our substance," 
adapted to our support, that is, ordinary household bread 
(pants cibarius\ not delicate, nor superfluous. This, too, 
agrees not ill with the text. But nothing seems to me so 
appropriate as our word "daily," as read with what follows: 
" Give us this day ". For there is no verbal antithesis, 
which some seek where none is to be found, but a kinship 
and resemblance of statement ; as if Christ had said in 
conjoined words, " our daily bread " that is, Give us this 
day the bread that is necessary for us for this day s use. 
But Christ said " our daily " rather than " this day s " bread, 
that the meaning might be more general, and show that 
God is wont to give to His servants, each day, the bread 
which is necessary for them. The Latins term it diarium, 
a daily allowance of food. We ask, therefore, that our 
diariuw of to-day may not fail. We speak as young 
children who, when they go to their school in the morn 
ing, ask firstly for their appointed portion of bread for 
the day. The Syriac agrees with this. For "our daily 
bread " it reads pplDl NftrrS> N2P " Give us the bread 
of our necessity ". 

It may be said that one point still remains. The word 
eVtoucrto? is not derived from the participle ovcra, "being," but 
from the substantive ovcria, like O/ULOOIHTIOS and o/zotoucrio?. 
If so, it may still mean not the food of the present day, 
but substantial, or supersubstantial, or that which pertains 
to the substance, termed in Greek ovcna. I reply : The 
Evangelist or his translator was allowed to use a new word, 
or an old one with a new meaning, as the Apostles often 
do. Again, the expression seems to savour of a Hebraism ; 
for the Jews speak of nt)"T DVJl D2# "the substance of 



CH. vi. 12.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 2O/ 

this day," for the day itself, as in Gen. vii. 1 1 ; Levit. xxiii. 
14. Thus, then, the Evangelist could use the word eTnovcrto?, 
which pertains to the substance of the present day ; that is, 
to the portion of bread which answers to the present day. 
Let this suggestion, however, be subject to the approbation 
of the more learned. 

Verse 12. And forgive us our debts. 

We call our sins " debts " because we are bound by 
them to God as if by a debt. This is clear from 5. Luke 
xi. 4, which for debts has sins ; and from the parable which 
follows (xviii. 27) we have explained the meaning of " re 
mission of sins " on Rom. iv. 8. We will only say now that 
the words mean not that our sins are merely not imputed 
to us ; nor that they are only dissembled ; nor only con 
cealed ; nor only not punished, as modern heretics say, but 
that they are wholly taken away ; wholly blotted out and 
cast into the sea, as Scripture says (S. John i. 9 ; Isaiah 
xliii. 25 ; Mich. vii. 19). From this passage the ancient 
Catholics proved against the Pelagians that no one in this 
life is without sin, for we are all commanded to say, "For 
give us" (S. Jerome, iii., Adv. Pelag.; S. Augustin, ii., Cont. 
Epist. Farm. 10; iii., Cont. duas Epist. Pelag. 5; iii. 5, Cont. 
duas Epist. Pelag. ; iii., De Peccat. mer. 1 3 ; Epist. Ixxxix. ; 
Horn. xlii.). 

The Pelagians replied in two manners: (i) That the holy 
men who use these words pray, not for themselves, but for 
others (S. Augustin, ii. 10, De Peccat. merit.} ; (2) that they 
use them, not in truth, but in modesty and humility (S. 
Augustin, ii. 10, Cont. duas. Epist. Farm., in which he 
replies to the same passages). 

As we also forgive our debtors. 

Christ appears to give us a dangerous law, for we shall 
be in an evil plight if God do not forgive us our sins on 



208 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vi. 12. 

another scale to that on which we forgive our debtors. 
But this is not a law, but a condition. This is clear from 
the fact that God forgives us both far more and far greater 
sins, and more bountifully and freely, and that to us who 
deserve much less than we either do or can forgive our 
debtors. If, therefore, this were a law, we should pray to 
God, not for our salvation, but rather for our condemnation. 
We learn this from the parable (xviii. 24, 28) in which the 
Lord forgave the servant 10,000 talents, while the servant 
would not forgive his fellow-servant the 100 pence. The 
lord did not forgive it because the servant had first 
forgiven his fellow, as if he had been urged on by his 
example, but he forgave first, and the servant would 
not forgive afterwards. Lastly, a law is that which we 
follow ; but God does not follow us, but we follow Him 
in forgiving offences. We are not, therefore, a law to 
Him, but He is a law to us. We are a condition to 
Him, and if by this we do not forgive our debtors, neither 
will He forgive us. This is seen from chap. v. 23, 24 ; 
5. Mark xi. 25 ; and 5. Luke xi. 4. S. Luke does not say 
forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors, but 
because we also forgive. 

But why did Christ add this, not rule, but condition, 
when it might appear rather to hinder than assist the 
attainment of that faith for which we pray ? For two 
reasons : (i) For the correction of our prayers, lest we ask 
of God that which we are ourselves unwilling to grant to 
others ; and (2) for a warning to us, that what we ask of 
God we should be ready to grant in our turn. 

It remains to see how the rule is to be understood. 
Some heretics of old took it to mean that, however 
much men sinned, and in whatever manner they lived, 
if they only forgave the wrongs done to them, they might 
be sure that God would forgive them their sins. S. 
Augustin (De Civit., xxi. 22, 27) replies : " We say, 



CH. vi. 12.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 209 

Forgive us our sins, not that sins may be, but because 
they are, committed (non ut fiant sed quia fiunt\ as we also 
forgive our debtors". 

The meaning, then, is not that God will forgive us on 
the sole condition that we forgive others, but that unless 
we do this He will not forgive us, as is said in verse 15. 
Hence verse 14 is not to be understood, as S. Augustin 
has warned us, absolutely, but if other conditions are 
added : if we repent of past sins, if we resolve not to sin 
again, and if there is anything else required for the re 
mission of sins. For, to say it once for all, there is this 
difference between promises or conditions negative and 
affirmative, that the former deny absolutely and without 
any superadded conditions ; the latter are never under 
stood absolutely, but with an exception, unless some other 
cause prevent. S. Mark (xvi. 26) gives in one and the 
same passage a notable example of each rule : " He that 
believeth not shall be damned ". This promise, because 
it is negative, is to be understood absolutely and with 
out any qualification ; it will be that whoever does not 
believe, however well he lives, or whatever he does, will be 
damned. The words of the same verse : " He that believeth, 
and is baptised, shall be saved," because it is an affirma 
tion, is not to be understood absolutely and without quali 
fication, but with other necessary conditions. So, in this 
place, what is said in verse 1 5, because it is said negatively, 
is to be taken absolutely ; but verse 14, because it is 
affirmative, is to be understood, not absolutely, but with 
an exception. 

S. Augustin gives another but too confined an explana 
tion that we should forgive our debtors if they ask us, as 
we ask God to forgive us, and as the servant asked his 
fellow-servant : " Have patience with me ". This explana 
tion binds the meaning and loosens the conscience too 
much. For we are commanded to forgive, not only if we 



210 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. vi. 13. 

are asked, but of our own free-will, when we stand praying, 
if we have anything against any man (S. Mark xi. 25). S. 
Augustin himself seems to have understood it of all things, 
and generally and without restriction (Serm. in Mont. xi.). 
It is a more difficult question how far we ought to for 
give our debtors that God may forgive us, and one which 
has given rise to much discussion. Suffice it to say, briefly, 
what may seem necessary to the understanding of the 
words. The passage is not to be understood of all debts, 
but of private injuries alone. You owe me a thousand 
gold pieces ; if I do not forgive you, God will not forgive 
me my sins ? Not so by any means. If I forgive you, I 
do you a benefit. If I do not forgive you, I commit no 
sin. Nor does the parable of the king and his servants 
(S. Matt, xviii. 24) offer any difficulty. For by the debts 
are signified our sins. You have killed my father ; am I 
necessarily to do nothing if I wish that God may require 
nothing of me? By no means. You have dishonoured 
me by a false accusation ; is it not lawful for me to seek 
redress before the judge? It is lawful. What then ? We 
must forgive an injury, but not a loss, if we wish God to 
forgive our injuries done to Him. The Doctors of the 
Church raise a subtle distinction between an injury and a 
loss. When you killed my father, you both did me an 
injury and inflicted on me a loss : an injury because you 
offended and despised me ; a loss because you deprived me 
of him who supported, taught, protected me. I may seek 
redress for the loss ; I am bound to forgive the injury, so 
that afterwards I wish you no evil, entertain no enmity 
towards you, seek no revenge. The same is to be under 
stood in other cases. 

Verse 13. And lead us not into temptation. 

Two things must here be explained What temptation 
is, and what it is to be led into temptation. The Pelagians 



CH. vi. 13.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 211 

understood not that contention of sinners with us which 
Scripture calls temptation, but those human accidents 
which we cannot escape of ourselves (J>er nos) unless God 
keep them from us (S. Augustin, Ep. xciv.). Their error 
was to think that we could avoid all sin of our own 
strength, and though aided by no grace of God. They 
were urged by Catholics with this text, as showing that we 
ask God not to lead us into temptation, as we are not able, 
without His aid to overcome. So say S. Jerome (Hi., Adv. 
Pelag.) and S. Augustin (passim). The Pelagians sought 
this explanation as a loophole by which to escape. But 
they are easily answered by the next verse, " Deliver us from 
evil," where, as shall shortly be explained, we can only 
understand the devil : as also from xxvi. 41, where it is 
certain that Christ is speaking of the temptation of sinners. 
The opinion of all Catholics on sin has always been true 
and firm, that God tempts not by impelling, or inciting, 
but by permitting, as is taught by Tertullian and S. Cyprian 
(Lib. de Orat. Dom), S. Augustin (Serm. cxxiv. de Temp.), 
and elsewhere. This is plain. What it is, that God does 
not permit us to be led into temptation, is not so plain. 
Some take it to mean, not that we may not fall into temp 
tation, which, as long as we are in the body cannot be 
avoided, but that when we fall into it we may not be 
overcome by it, as S. Augustin (ii., De Serm. Dom., and Ep. 
cxxi.) and Theophylact (in loc.). It appears better, as S. 
Augustin (Lib. de Bon. Persev., vi.), Tertullian, S. Cyprian 
(De Orat. Dom.\ S. Chrysostom (Horn, xx.), The Author, 
and Euthymius think, that we ask not to fall into tempta 
tion, for, knowing our own infirmities, we not only do not 
ask to conquer, but not to come into the contest, lest we be 
overcome. This is certainly the meaning of the words of 
Christ (xxvi. 41). Let us therefore avoid the combat, like 
Christ but we contend with the devil ; He contended 
with death. 



212 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vi. 13. 

But deliver us from evil. 

S. Cyprian understood this of all evil generally, whether 
sin or anything whatever that causes us harm. Others 
refer it to temptation, as if the meaning were, "Lead us 
not into temptation, but deliver us from it," as said by S. 
Augustin (ii. 4, De merit. Peccat., and ii., Serm. in Mont.) and 
The Author (Horn, xiv.), which hardly seems to agree with 
the opinion of S. Augustin, mentioned on verse 9, that 
there were seven petitions contained in the Lord s Prayer ; 
for " Lead us not into temptation " and " Deliver us from 
evil " would then be the same, unless we ask in the former 
that we may not run into temptation, and in the latter that 
if we do we may be delivered from it. But this is a dis 
tinction over subtle. 

Tertullian seems more correct, that by evil we are to under 
stand the devil. " Whoever," he says, " is tempted by the 
devil has shown the author and contriver of temptation " 
(De Orat\ an opinion approved by S. Chrysostom (Horn. 
xx.) and his followers, Theophylact and Euthymius. In 
support of this view is also the word TTO^/OO?, as in v. 37, 
xiii. 19, with the article o, which clearly points to the evil 
one. 

S. Augustin (ii. 4, De Peccat.} shows, as Tertullian had 
done before him, that these petitions are classed in such 
order that in the first we ask that our past sins may be 
forgiven ; in the second, that we may not fall into danger 
for the future ; in the third, that we may be freed from 
present perils. " Christ," says Tertullian, " added, to com 
plete all, that we should pray not merely for the forgive 
ness of past faults, but also for their punishment being 
wholly averted from us for the future." 

For thine is the kingdom. 

The Greek adds : " For Thine is the kingdom, and the 
power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." 



CH. vi. 14, 15.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 213 

As we have not these words in our version, we do not 
use them in our prayers. For this we are accused partly 
of ignorance and partly of falsehood, as if we mutilated the 
Lord s Prayer. But as others had observed before, we have 
not taken from the prayer, but the Greeks have added to 
it. It is probable that they added these words to the con 
text, as they added to the Angelic Salutation, "For thou hast 
brought forth the Saviour," and as they added the Gloria 
to the Psalms. It is also quite in accordance with the 
custom of the Greeks, who used to close their assemblies 
with the words, " For Thine is the strength, and glory, and 
kingdom," or the like, as we read in S. Chrysostom and 
other Greeks. In confirmation of this conjecture is the 
fact that the words in question are not found in the most 
ancient authorities. Yet Tertullian and S. Cyprian used 
Greek copies in preference to Latin, especially when the 
two differed, and S. Jerome, who corrected the Latin ver 
sions to the Greek, neither translated these words, nor 
explained them in his Commentaries. Nor is it probable 
that Christ, in a prayer so short and precise, should have 
added anything not necessary. It must be admitted that 
the Greeks, S. Chrysostom, The Author, Theophylact, and 
Euthymius read the words, and that they are found in the 
Hebrew and Syriac. But the Greeks read from the use of 
their Church, as the Hebrew, because the Greek contains 
them. What authority the Hebrew Gospel has, we have 
stated in the Preface. It is probable that the Syriac is a 
translation of the Greek, unless the Syrians have added the 
words from a similar form. 

Verses 14, 15. For if you will forgive men. 

Whatever difficulty there may be in these two verses 
has been explained on verse 12. There is here an antithesis 
between man and God. "If," the Evangelist says, "you 
will forgive men," that is, your equals, your fellow-servants, 



214 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vi. 16. 

as in the parable of the debtors (xviii. 28, 29). For man 
ought to forgive man, a servant his fellow-servant, rather 
than God forgive man, the lord his servant. For as man 
is mortal, he ought not to cherish immortal hatred ; and 
as an offence to an equal is less than one to a superior, 
especially when the offence is to the highest from the 
lowest, we are commanded to do the less that we may gain 
the greater, and to forgive our fellow-servants a hundred 
pence, that the 10,000 talents may be forgiven us by God. 
This is the force, in the present passage, of the word " men ". 
So Ecclus. xxviii. 1-5. 

Verse 16. As the hypocrites sad. 

On hypocrites, see verse 2. Sad, a/cvdpcoTro^ sad-visaged 
not from true sorrow but, says S. Jerome, from their 
simulation of sorrow and sanctity. 

Disfigure. 

S. Jerome did not render it thus, but the ancient trans 
lator before him, as is clear from S. Hilary (Can. v.) and 
S. Augustin (ii., Serm. Dom.}. S. Jerome thinks that it 
ought to be rendered " demolish " (demoliuntur), and chides 
the ancient author for this even is hardly correct. S. 
Hilary reads more correctly " disguise," " make up " (con- 
ficiunf] ; S. Chrysostom, " corrupt," SiacfrOeipovo-t ; others 
more properly, "obscure," " darken". The meaning is that 
the hypocrites, that they may appear to fast, change their 
natural and ruddy complexion, either from pretence of 
sadness, or by means of chemical applications, into a pale 
and sullen hue, contrarily to the custom of women, to 
appear more attractive. 

Their reward. 
See what has been said on verses I, 2, 5. 



CH. vi. 17, 19, 21.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 21 5 

Verse 17. But thou. 

Here is a change of number and person as in verse 21. 
According to the Jewish custom (4 Kings xvii. 29), the 
inhabitants of Palestine, as S. Jerome says on this passage, 
anoint their heads on festival days. Nor these alone, but 
all Orientals, in token of joy and prosperity, do the same. 
From this we may understand Ruth iii. 3 ; 2 Kings xii. 
20; xiv. 2; 4 Kings iv. 2; Judiths. 3; xvi. 10; Esther \\. 12. 
Hovv we are to understand the order to us to anoint our 
heads when we fast, is correctly explained by S. Chrysos- 
tom (Horn, xxi.), The Author, S. Jerome, Theophylact, Eu- 
thymius, Rupertus. Christ would not have us literally 
anoint our heads, but, that we may escape the appearance 
of fasting, and rather assume joy and mirth like those who 
anoint their heads, than sadness, as above (verse 3) : 
" Let not thy left hand," and (verse 6) : " Enter into thy 
chamber ". 

Verse 19. Lay not up to yourselves treasures. 

It is the custom of the ancient translator, in commands 
of this class, which are negative, to add " Nolite," giving 
the sense but not the words, as below (verse 34, and vii. 

1, 2). What Christ meant by "treasure " is not very clear. 
S. Hilary takes it to mean praise of men, which, in verses 

2, 5, 1 6, He calls reward, that which they who pursue it 
lay up as treasure, not in heaven with God, but on earth 
among men. Others understand it better of earthly riches. 
This verse 24 confirms. 

Verse 21. TJiy treasure. 

The Greek is "your," as below, "your heart". Our version 
seems preferable ; for S. Chrysostom and The Author, both 
of them Greeks, so read it, and this change of number in 
an assembly has greater force, as in verse 17. It seems to 
have been a proverb, as taken from the mean (de media), 



2l6 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vi. 22, 23. 

like many other passages, both in this and in verse 24 : 
" You cannot serve God and mammon ". 

Verse 22. The light of thy body. 

The Greek does not read " thy ". This word, however, 
seems to have the greater force ; the more so as in the 
verse preceding Christ had begun to use the second person, 
and in that following He said : " If thine eye be single ". So 
SS. Hilary, Ambrose (De dig. Sacerd., vi.), Augustin (ii., De 
Serm. Dom.\ and, among the Greeks, The Author. But we 
may doubt how the words apply, and what is their con 
nection with what has gone before. S. Chrysostom and The 
Author unite them thus : " Christ had said before, Where 
thy treasure is . The heart is to the mind what the eye is 
to the body ; Christ says then, from the comparison of the 
eye of the body, that the mind cannot be right, when the 
heart is intent upon riches and blinded by avarice." 

If thy eye be single thy whole body shall be lightsome. 

Si ergo. The word ergo here is not, as some think, an 
illative conjunction, but inceptive, or continuative. If the 
eye be pure, clean, not affected by humours, the body will 
be as if all eye. For the eye, which is a very small member, 
gives the light which is so necessary to the body ; so that 
when the eye is pure, almost the whole body appears to 
be an eye, for all the members see how to perform their 
functions through the eye. 

Verse 23. But if thine eye be evil. 

Of evil affection, vicious, impure. It is opposed to singh 
(simplex}. 

The light that is in thee be darkness. 

Si ergo, ovv for <ydp, the reason being given How can 
light be darkness, or how, if darkness, can it be called 
light. Not because it is, but because it ought to be, such 



CH. vi. 24.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 2I/ 

as 5. Matthew viii. 12, that is, they who ought to be 
the sons of the kingdom ; and S. Luke vii. 35 : By those 
who ought to be her children. 

The darkness itself, how great shall it be ? 

The other members of the body, which, in their own 
nature, are darkness, because they have no light but from 
the eye. 

Verse 24. No man can serve two masters. 

Whither does this tend? S. Chrysostom (Horn, xxii.) 
and The Author (Horn, xvi.) answer: Christ had said in 
verse 19, "Lay not up," which, He shows, we cannot do, 
because we cannot serve God and mammon. S. Chrysos 
tom (Horn, xxii.) and Theophylact show how it is to be 
understood, and that no one can serve two masters who 
give contrary commands, as God and mammon. This is 
no doubt true, but Christ gives another reason : " He will 
hate," &c. The words show that no one can have two 
masters, issuing, not merely different, but even contra 
dictory orders. For nature herself forbids the love of a 
servant to be divided between two masters ; as if Christ 
had said, " No woman can have two husbands," not only 
because they would give contrary directions, but because 
conjugal love is of such a nature in itself as to be the 
possession of one husband alone. Thus one master can 
have many servants, but one servant cannot have many 
masters ; for the master does not love but direct the 
servant ; the servant does not direct but love his master ; 
and while command can be divided, love cannot. Christ 
therefore teaches us that riches, not only when wickedly 
gained and unjustly dispensed, but when both rightly 
gained and justly dispensed, if loved, call men off from the 
love of God. For no one is able to love two masters, or, 
as Christ said elsewhere, " It is impossible for a rich man 
to enter the kingdom of heaven " (xix. 26). The Author 



218 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vi. 25. 

(Horn, xvi.) says : " Christ did not say, No man can have 
two masters, but no man can serve two masters ". Every 
thing to which we are too much inclined, and to which we 
are in a manner servants, He calls our master (as S. Paul, 
Rom. vi. 1 6 ; 2 Pet. ii. 19), and whoever is overcome by it 
is its servant (S. Basil, Reg., ii. i). 

For either he will hate the one. 

"The one" is here taken for the first, "the other" for 
the second, a very common and well-known Hebraism. 
Specify therefore two masters, whom you will, Peter and 
Paul, either he will hate the one, that is, the first, Peter, and 
love the other, that is, the second, Paul ; or he will sustain 
the one, that is, Peter, and he will despise the other, that 
is, the second, Paul. In a word, Christ does not oppose 
the one person to the other, but the hatred of the one to 
the love of the other. There is a similar expression in 5. 
Luke xvi. 1 3. 

You cannot serve God and mammon. 

Riches are called tWlfttt Mammon in Chaldaic ; Mam- 
mona in Syriac ; and Elias in Theto says : " The Punic, 
which is akin to them, employs the same term"; as S. 
Augustin says (ii., De Serin. Dom., and Serin, xxxv. in 
verb. Dom. sec. Luc.}. 

Verse 25. For your life. 

" Life " (anima) is here put for one part of the man, as is 
clear from the other part being opposed to it : " Nor for 
your body what you shall put on " ; but because our life 
consists of that part, anima is put for it, according to the 
custom of the Hebrews, as S. Augustin says, and as will 
be seen on x. 39; xvi. 25 ; S. JoJm xiii. 37, 38; xv. 13 ; and 
other places innumerable. 

Nor for your body. 
Christ mentions the two things that are most especially 



CH. vi. 26.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 2 19 

valued by men, and about which they are apt to be the 
most anxious, because all life consists of them. He forbids 
us to be anxious about them. But He does not forbid 
every kind of anxiety : but that alone, in fact, which springs 
from want of trust in God (as in verses 26, 28, 30), and 
which takes men off from the service of God (as in verse 24). 
Lastly, He does not disapprove of all kinds of anxiety, but 
of that which the servant has towards his master. For He 
speaks in accordance with what He had said in verse 24. 

Is not the life more than the meat ? 

We may rightly question to what this tends. S. Jerome, 
S. Augustin (ii., De Serm. Dom.\ S. Chrysostom (Horn, xxii.), 
The Author (Horn, xvi.), Bede, Theophylact, Euthymius, 
Strabus, think that it has this following meaning : " Is not 
the life more than the food, and the body than the raiment? 
For who gives us our life and body but God ? He, there 
fore, who has given us the greater, will also give us the 
less." So I Peter v. 7. This is confirmed by verses 26-30. 

Verse 26. Behold the birds of the air. 
There seems to be three chief reasons why Christ named 
birds rather than other creatures. I . He wished to give us 
examples of Divine Providence, as it were, throughout the 
whole universe, and He therefore begins from heaven with 
birds, and ends with earth. 2. When the birds are flying 
above, they are at. a distance from all food, and yet God 
feeds them. 3. Terrestrial animals are more occupied in 
obtaining and storing up food ; and therefore Solomon, that 
we may learn to be provident and busy, sends us to the 
ant (Prov. vi. 6 ; xxx. 25). 

Of the air. 

These words have the same sense as the above. For 
there are domestic fowls which obtain their support from 
the care of man, but the fowls of the air are fed by God 



220 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vi. 27. 

alone. S. Luke (xii. 24) specifies the ravens because, as 
some think, the young of the raven, as soon as they are 
hatched, are deserted by the parent birds, that they may 
depend upon the providence of God alone. It is, therefore, 
said expressly of the ravens that God provides food for 
them (Job xxxviii. 1 1 ; Ps. cxlvi. 9). 

And your Heavenly Father feedeth them. 
Christ does not say "their Father," but "your Father". 
As if He had said : If God most carefully provides for 
these creatures, though they are of little account, and He 
is not their Father, how much more will He feed you, who 
are men, and His sons ? " Christ," says S. Chrysostom 
(Horn, xxii.), "might have brought examples of Divine 
Providence in Elias and John Baptist. Moses was supported 
forty days without food (Exod. xxiv. 1 8) ; Elias was fed by 
a raven, the most voracious of birds (3 Kings xvii. 46); John 
lived in the desert, without thought or care for his life and 
clothing (iii. 4). But Christ desired to show that Divine 
Providence extends even to the least and meanest of 
creatures, and that it is not true that the heavens are closed 
up, as the foolish companions of Job said (xxii. 14)." 

Verse 27. One cubit. 

The meaning of these words is plain from vS. Luke xii. 26, 
by which, if we would rightly understand the passage, we 
must interpret them. It is clear that Christ was proceed 
ing from the greater to the less. He calls the addition of 
the cubit, therefore, the least thing, not as in comparison 
with food, or drink, or clothing (for it is, undoubtedly, 
greater and more difficult to add, I do not say one cubit, 
but one hair to our bodies than to provide food and 
clothing), but in comparison with the whole body and life, 
as The Author well observes. Christ, therefore, by these 
words, proves the minor proposition of His former argu 
ment, which He had before suppressed. For He had said : 



CH. vi. 28, 29.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 221 

" The life is more than the meat, and the body than the 
clothing " but (understand) not you, but God makes the 
life and body. Not you, therefore, but God should provide 
food and raiment. He now goes on to prove that part of 
the minor proposition : You cannot make the life and body. 
You cannot make one cubit, much less the whole. 

Verse 28. The lilies of the field. 

As Christ had said before, not merely "the fowls," but "the 
fowls of the air," so He here says, not " the lilies," but " the 
lilies of the field," to distinguish them from the lilies of 
the garden, which are planted and cultivated by man. 
Christ by this example appears to teach that God pleases 
to take care, not only for the necessaries but also for the 
comforts and refinements of life, that we may not be 
anxious even for these : as fathers provide not only that 
their children should not want, not merely the means of life 
and education, but those of ordinary refinement and neces 
sary recreation as well. 

What Christ teaches in these words He had already 
taught in fact in clothing the Israelites for forty years in 
the desert (Dent. vii. 4). 

Verse 29. Not even Solomon. 

Christ named Solomon rather than any other king, 
because he excelled all who had gone before, and all who 
followed him, in riches, power, and glory (3 Kings iii. 13), 
by which all that pertains to the ornament of the person is 
studied and invented. 

In all his glory. 

Some read " with " for " in," but the alteration is not 
required, and it destroys the force of the sentence. The 
meaning is not, as these suppose, that Solomon, however 
great and glorious, could not be clothed in such splendour, 
but that not Solomon himself, even when so clothed, and 



THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vi. 30, 33. 

at the highest point of his grandeur, could be arrayed 
in such a manner. Our present version, therefore, is the 
better. 

Verse 30. And if the grass. 

Two opposite qualities of the lily are here dwelt upon 
their great beauty and their entire uselessness : their beauty 
as to be preferred to the glory of Solomon ; their useless- 
ness to show that there is nothing so mean and profitless 
but God takes the utmost care of it. When speaking of their 
beauty, Christ calls them " lilies " ; when of their useless- 
ness, " hay ". Scripture constantly compares what is most 
useless and of the shortest duration to hay (Ps. xxxvi. 2 ; 
Ixxi. 1 6 ; Ecclus. xiv. 8 ; Isaiah xxxvii. 27 ; xl. 6). 

Verse 33. Seek ye therefore. 

Be anxious for the kingdom of God ; so verses 25, 28, 31. 
Christ opposes one kind of solicitude to another the 
necessary to the useless, the good to the bad. The Greek 
Se refers not to the latter class, but to the former the 
kingdom of God. 

First. 

We must understand " first " as " only " ; for we are not 
to seek in the " second " place that which we are forbidden 
to seek at all. Christ did not wholly forbid us to seek 
other things, but so to seek them that our care for them 
should not take us from seeking the kingdom of God, or 
allow them to make us their slaves (verse 24). Christ has 
not forbidden : He has taught us to seek these things for 
the kingdom of God s sake ; for, in the Lord s Prayer, 
after the words, " Thy kingdom come," we are to say, 
" Give us this day," and, as if to show what the meaning 
is, " Seek ye first," &c. So say S. Chrysostom (Horn. 
xxiii.) and Euthymius. 

To the words that follow, " And all these things shall be 
added unto you," it has been objected, as if we were not to 



CH. vi. 33.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 223 

enquire, not to be anxious, not to seek. The addition is 
made because the things are not sought in the first place. 
But what is not sought in the first place, and for its own 
sake, but in the second place, and for the sake of God, does 
not seem to be sought at all, because the thing itself is not 
sought, but God is sought in it. Moreover, " these things " 
are often added by God, even when we do not seek them 
or think of them, as shall be shown hereafter. 

The kingdom of God. 

S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and others understand this 
as the kingdom spoken of in verse 10 ; which would agree 
well, were it not evident that the subject here is not what 
we ask for God s sake, but for ourselves, and did not the 
words, " His righteousness," immediately follow. It is 
certain that we should seek this, not for God, but for our 
selves. It has been explained of a life of happiness, as if 
Christ had said : " Study first to come to the kingdom of 
God " (The Author, Horn. xvi. ; Bede, Euthymius, Com 
ment?). We may receive the words, " The kingdom of 
God," as the grace of God, which we ought to seek in the 
first place as the life of our souls, as in 5. Luke xvii. 21. 

A nd his justice. 

God s justice is so called as that which God has com 
manded of us. As if it had been said : " Take heed, first to 
do the will of God, and observe His commandments," as 
Zacharias and Elizabeth are said to have walked in all the 
" justifications," that is, in the commandments of God (S. 
Luke i. 26). We must understand the " kingdom of God" 
by the explanation of S. Paul (Rom. iv. 17). 

All these things shall be added unto you. 
This seems to be a metaphor taken from things of little 
value, which, on the purchase of articles of price, are not 
reckoned, but given as make-weights. Solomon is an 



224 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vi. 34. 

example, when he asked not wealth, nor glory, nor power, 
but wisdom to govern the people of God ; that is, when he 
sought the kingdom of God alone, he had other things for 
which he had not asked given to him (3 Kings iii. 13). 
Similar expressions are often found in the Psalms (xxiii. 
II ; ex. 5). 

Verse 34. Be not therefore. 

The comparison of the fowls of heaven and the lilies of 
the field, which are not anxious, and yet God feeds and 
clothes them, has the same force. We then, His sons, 
should not be thus anxious ; as that for which we most 
take thought is added to all who dismiss such cares, and 
seek only the kingdom of God. Be not solicitous, torment 
not yourselves without cause, spare your anxiety, for, 
" Sufficient unto the day ". 

For the morrow. 

The words show that we may be allowed to have some 
care for to-day, but rather that of asking from God than 
of seeking by our own labour. The allusion seems to be 
to verse 1 1 (S. Luke xii. 29). Be not causelessly anxious 
for the distant future, do not discuss what is afar off ; as 
astronomers when they study the heavens, and as they 
who are described by S. James (iv. 13). To-morrow is 
put, according to Hebrew custom, for the future, as S. 
Hilary and S. Jerome have observed, and as is seen in 
Gen. xxx. 38. 

The morrow will be solicitous for itself. 

Solicitous for the things which pertain to it ; that is, it 
will cause sufficient anxiety in the search of that which, 
when it comes, will be necessary for it. Christ speaks, as 
S. Chrysostom says (Horn, xxiii.), of the day, a thing 
inanimate, by prosopopoeia, as if it could feel anxiety, or, 
as rather appears by the metonymy by which death is 



CH. vi. 34.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 22$ 

called " pale," because it makes men so. In this sense 
day is said to be anxious for its own things, because it 
makes us anxious for them. 

The evil thereof. 

The solicitude of which Christ speaks, and which He 
calls " evil," that is, affliction and vexation ; as Tertullian (ii., 
Against Marciori], S. Jerome (Comment.), S. Chrysostom 
(Horn, xxiii.), S. Augustin (ii., De Serm. Dom.), Euthymius, 
and Theophylact explain it. S. Jerome says that /oi/aa, 
" evil," is put for /caKcocr^, " a state of evil ". The question 
remains of the truth of the saying, how Christ forbids us to 
be anxious for the morrow, when He Himself had a purse 
(S. Jo/in xii. 6 ; xiii. 29) ; so that He seems to have been 
solicitous, not only for the morrow, but for more days to 
come. Joseph, too, a man of evangelical piety, was care 
ful for seven years to come, and was much praised for his 
foresight (Gen. xli. 39-48) ; and the Apostles were careful 
to prepare means for their future sustenance (Acts xi. 29) ; 
and Solomon, to teach us forethought and carefulness, 
refers us to the ant (Prov. vi. 6 ; xxx. 25). If we are not 
to have any kind of anxiety for the morrow, we must not 
plant or sow, for these cannot exist without it. S. Augustin 
replies that by " to-morrow " are meant those other temporal 
goods which we ought not to seek. That we can, and, at 
times, even ought to be anxious about temporal goods, has 
been proved before. The Author explains the being 
anxious for the morrow to mean " anxiety for what is not 
necessary ". But Christ speaks even of these ; even of the 
necessaries of life, of food and clothing (verses 26, 28, 31). 
Former examples have shown that every kind of solicitude 
for the future is not forbidden, but that which is forbidden 
is to be gathered out of the entire chapter. 

I. Whatever hinders us from seeking the kingdom of 
God is forbidden. 

15 



226 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [H. vi. 34. 

2. Whatever springs from distrust of God. 

3. Whatever does not follow but precedes anxiety for 
the kingdom of God ; which we ought to seek in the first 
place, and which is of so great consequence, that we ought 
to be its servants, we who cannot serve two masters (verse 
24). 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE THIRD PART OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 

Verse i. (Judge} not " Nolite ". 

WE must first enquire by what link this chapter is con 
nected with the last. S. Augustin (ii., De Serm. Dom.) 
thinks that Christ, having, in the former chapter, prohibited 
undue anxiety about temporal things, now cautions those 
who are not guilty of this fault not to judge harshly those 
who are so, as the things in question may be sought either 
from a good or a bad motive, and they should think kindly 
of persons. So S. Paul (i Cor. viii.) forbade Christian con 
verts to eat meat offered to idols, yet would not allow those 
who ate not to judge the others ; because they might do it 
in ignorance or with a good intention. So, again, Rom. 
xiv. 3. The Author would have this chapter united to the 
others; for Christ had said (vi. 12-14): "Forgive us our 
debts," &c. 

It has been said that we should not look critically for a 
connection in the sayings of the Evangelists, for they did 
not care to record events in the order in which they 
occurred or were spoken of by Christ. This must be 
especially observed in regard to those assemblies in which 
they do not relate all the sayings of Christ, nor the order 
in which He spoke them, but are content to give the heads 
of His teaching. If we may offer a conjecture from the 
resemblance of the argument, it is probable that the con 
tents of this chapter were not delivered in a general 



228 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vn. i. 

assembly of the people, but in the private address to the 
Apostles mentioned by S. Matthew (v.), and they are to be 
taken with verse 48 of that chapter. In this way verse 
agrees with verse, and word with word ; and, moreover, 
S. Luke (vi. 36, 37) so connects them. 

Judge. 

The meaning is, according to S. Hilary (Can. v.) and 
S. Ambrose (De Paradise, chap, v.) : " Judge not of the 
judgments and promises of God. lest you be judged by 
Him". So S. James iv. II. Others, as The Author (Horn. 
xvii.), would have us not to be severe against our neigh 
bours, and treasure up in our hearts any injuries they may 
have done us. Euthymius and Theophylact think that not 
only the condemnation of others is prohibited, but even the 
judging of them. (S. Augustin, Serin. Dom. ii., Serm. de 
Temp. cii. ; S. Basil, Reg. brev. clxiv. ; S. Jerome, Comm. ;. 
S. Chrysostom, Horn. xxiv. ; Anastasius, Qucest. 88 ; 
Bede ; Rupertus.) It appears probable that not only 
judgment, but all curious enquiry into the lives of others is 
forbidden ; because Christ thus places judgment before 
condemnation, as legal enquiry precedes sentence. For 
what follows, " Condemn not, and you shall not be con 
demned," is not an explanation of the same sentence, as 
many take it to be, but, as we shall shortly show, another 
sentence. 

S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, Anastasius, Augustin, Bede, 
Euthymius, ask " how Christ forbids us to judge others 
when their sins are so flagrant that we are unable not to 
judge badly of them?" We read that even S. Paul not 
only judged, but also condemned the Corinthians (i Cor. 
v. 3), and that he gave some others over to Satan, that 
they might learn not to blaspheme (i Tim. i. 20) ; and 
that S. Peter killed Annanias and Sapphira ; and that 
Christ gave the Apostles the power of judging of sins 



CH. vii. i.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 22p 

(xvi. 19 ; xviii. 1 8 ; S. John xx. 23). We know that we are 
commanded to have a right judgment in all things (S.John 
vii. 24). It is asked by S. Hilary, " how, if Christ forbade 
us to judge at all, He said, c With what judgment ? " 
S. Jerome rightly answers : " Christ did not forbid us to 
judge, but He taught us how to do so ". It is certain that 
He did not forbid those to judge who have not only the 
public power, but the public obligation to do so ; like 
judges and magistrates, of which class were the Apostles. 
And it is certain that He did not forbid open public trials, 
of which S. Paul speaks (i Tim. v. 24). Nor did He pro 
hibit us from judging of doubtful questions, so that we do 
not extend our decision beyond what the proofs warrant. 
All these questions have rightly been decided by the Doc 
tors of the Church. Of other matters, which may be 
judged either well or ill, He forbids us to judge ill, for charity 
requires this of us (i Cor. xiii. 5). So say S. Basil, S. 
Augustin, Bede (et al.\ on former passages, except that 
S. Augustin seems to narrow the meaning too much. " In 
this place," he says, " I do not see anything laid on us 
except to judge charitably those questions with regard to 
which it is doubtful with what animus they were done." 
We are forbidden to judge not only the intention of 
another, but even such acts themselves as are doubtful 
(Rom. xiv. 4-13 ; i Cor. iv. 5 ; S. James iv. 11, 12). Christ 
forbids this most especially, lest, when we ourselves are 
under the yoke of the same, or perhaps even greater sins, 
we judge unfeelingly of the lesser sins of others. This 
follows in verse 3 and Rom. ii. i. As say S. Basil, S. 
Chrysostom, The Author, and Euthymius : much more 
if we judge others detractingly, for we do him 
whom we wrong a twofold wrong: I. We have not, as 
charity requires, a good opinion of him ourselves. 2. 
W 7 e blacken that which others have of him (S. James 
iv. 11). 



230 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. vn. 2. 

That you may not be judged ^ judicabimini" Fol.). 
Judicabimini) Fol. : Iva //,?) KplO^re. Our translator seems 



to have read, Iva /XT) Kpidrjaea-Oe. The sense is the same, 
only the Hebrew " and " is used for " that," and the future 
indicative for the present conjunctive. Some refer the 
judgment to the person, as if it were written : " If you will 
that others should not judge you, judge not them," as in verse 
12 and xxvi. 52 ; Isaiah xxxiii. I. These words and those 
of S. Luke, used indefinitely, seem to confirm this view. 
Others, more correctly perhaps, refer them to God : S. 
Chrysostom (Horn, xiv.), The Author (xvii.), S. Augustin 
(ii., Serm. Dom.\ Bede, and Euthymius. Christ possibly 
meant that the judgment of God rather than of man should 
be threatened to those who judge uncharitably, for this is 
much more to be dreaded. The antithesis requires this : 
Judge not men, that you be not judged by God. Add, as 
has been said, that this agrees with the conclusion of chap. 
v. So in that chapter, verse 7, it was said : " Blessed are 
the merciful " blessed no doubt by God. 

Verse 2. For with what judgment you judge. 

A Hebraism ItODttfn "WN BBIPDl "With the judgment 
with which you judge others, you yourself shall be judged". 
S. Hilary asks how we shall be judged with the same 
judgment as that with which we judge others, if we are 
forbidden to judge at all? We are not forbidden to judge 
at all, but to judge wrongly ; if we do this we shall be 
judged in the same manner ourselves, that is, severely. 

That is a more difficult question which S. Augustin asks 
in many places, especially in ii., De Serm. Dom., Ep. xlix., 
quaest 4, Quczst. Evang., ii. quaest. 8, S. Chrysostom, Bede, 
and Euthymius. How we shall be judged by the judgment 
with which we judge others, or whether, if we judge others 
hastily and unjustly, God will judge us in the same 
manner. S. Augustin and Bede reply that not God, 



CH. vn. 6.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 231 

but our own rash and unjust judgment itself will judge us 
that is, will be the cause of our being judged. We may 
rather perhaps answer that all kinds of judgment are not 
intended, but only curious and severe ones ; for with what 
curiosity and seventy we judge others, with the same will 
God judge us. When I say "the same" I mean not the 
same in fact, but in degree (for the mercy and goodness of 
God are infinitely greater than ours), for in whatever 
degree we are severe to others, will God be so to us. 

And with what measure you mete. 

S. Luke (vi. 38) seems to say that we shall have meted 
to us, not the same measure as we have given to others, 
but a greater. Each statement is true. Both the same 
and a greater measure will be dealt to us : the same if we 
regard proportion ; a greater if we regard the thing given. 
How it will be meted in the same proportion has been 
explained ; how in the greater thing will be easily under 
stood. For whether we regard the future glory or punish 
ment which God will adjudge to us, it will be much greater 
than that of which, in our condemnation of others, we judge 
them worthy (Rom. viii. 18; 2 Cor. iv. 17). We may answer 
the objection of those Gentiles in the same way. They 
maligned this, saying that there would not be the same 
measure when one was eternal and the other temporal (S. 
Augustin, Ep. xlviii. 9; De Civitate, xxi. 11), although 
he also gives another reply. These and many sayings 
which follow were proverbs, as is clear from the text itself, 
and as many of the commentators have proved. 

Verse 6. Give not that which is holy to dogs. 

To what does this tend ? The Author (Horn, xvii.) 
refers to chap, v., verses 44, 45. Christ had there said : 
" Love your enemies ". He now shows the moderation of 
this feeling, and that we are not to love our enemies so 



232 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vu. 6. 

injudiciously and without discrimination as to give what 
is holy to dogs, and to cast our pearls before swine. Some 
think that because in verse 5 Christ had spoken of the 
correction of others, He now admonishes us not to give 
that which is holy to the dogs, and our pearls to the swine ; 
that is, where there is no hope of improvement, not to 
attempt correction. Others say that, as He had taught 
simplicity " If thine eye offend thee " He now teaches 
prudence ; as in x. 16 He says, " Behold I send you as 
sheep in the midst of wolves : Be ye therefore wise as 
serpents and simple as doves ". This is the opinion of S, 
Augustin (De Serm. Dom., ii.). Part of the sermon seems 
addressed, as has been said, to the Apostles on the mount, 
because it properly applies to those who were to teach 
others. But, as has been said before, the Evangelist 
records the sayings of Christ, not in the order in which 
they were spoken, but in that in which they occurred 
to his own mind. 

What Christ terms that which is holy (sanctum), what 
pearls, what dogs, and what swine, is not difficult to be 
understood, though all do not agree about it. Some think 
that Holy Baptism, the Eucharist, and other Sacraments 
are called pearls, the mysteries of evangelical doctrine. 
For the Sacraments of the Church are not to be given, nor 
the mysteries of our faith published to the unworthy. 
Hence it became the custom that they who had not been 
baptised were not properly allowed to see, or hear, the 
Body and Blood of Christ when they were named, as S. 
Chrysostom and S. Augustin in many passages signify. 

Many distinguish between the dogs and the swine. 
Some, as S. Jerome says on this passage, called unbelievers 
the swine, and the Christians who, after they had received 
the faith, went back to their vomit, the dogs. On the 
other hand, S. Chrysostom and Euthymius understand by 
the dogs unbelievers, and by the swine sensual Christians. 



CH. vn. 6.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 233 

For Christ calls unbelievers dogs (xv. 26). S. Augustin 
seems to hold rightly that the same thing is meant by 
"Holy things" and "pearls," "dogs" and "swine," as 2 
5. Peter ii. 22. The same thing is signified by the double 
metaphorical proverb of dogs and swine. Or if there be a 
difference, by the holy thing is meant every mystery, by 
the pearls whatever is most precious and costly among the 
mysteries. By dogs and swine two classes of men are 
denoted, whether believers or unbelievers, to whom the holy 
mysteries are not to be given : the profane, who hold sacred 
things in contempt ; as dogs, see no difference between a 
holy and a common object, and those who not only despise 
but are enraged by them, and rather do them harm, like 
swine. Why the former are described as dogs and the latter 
as swine shall be explained hereafter. 

S. Chrysostom (Horn, xxiv.) and S. Augustin (ii., De 
Serin. Dom.) ask how Christ forbids us to teach the 
unworthy divine mysteries, when He elsewhere commands 
that all be taught without distinction (x. 27 ; 5. Mark xvi. 
1 5). They answer that Christ there speaks of the Gospel 
per se, which, as it is necessary to the salvation of all, is 
to be preached to all without distinction of persons. But 
He speaks here of profitable hearers, and of the wisdom 
of communicating the Gospel to them ; which, if there were 
either no hope of goodness or even certain fear of harm, 
is not to be preached to them, since it is not only not worth 
while, but even the labour itself may be thrown away. 

Thus Christ speaks to the Apostles (S. John xvi. 12). 
And S. Paul to the Corinthians (i Cor. iii. I, 2) complains 
that he cannot speak to them as spiritual, but only as 
carnal ; and that he can only give them milk as babes in 
Christ, and not solid food. To the same effect he writes 
to the Hebrews (v. 12). And for the same reason SS. Paul 
and Timothy were forbidden by the Holy Ghost to teach 
the Word of God in Asia, because the people would not 



234 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vn. 6. 

receive it (Acts xvi. 6) ; and to the Jews at Antioch, because 
they not only did not receive it, but even trod it under foot, 
and threatened the lives of the two Apostles (Acts xiii. 46). 
So S. Paul gave Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan, 
that they might learn not to blaspheme (i Tim. i. 20). 
In the same way he teaches that they who resisted the 
truth, as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, are to be 
avoided and not taught (2 Tim. iii. 3). And he orders S. 
Timothy to avoid Alexander the coppersmith, who had 
greatly withstood his words (2 Tim. iv. 15). S. John 
treated Diotrephes on the same principle (3 John 9, 10). 
Lastly, Christ will not have His holy mysteries cast to dogs 
and swine animal and sensual men who understand not 
the things of the spirit (i Cor. ii. 14). 

Judas may be objected, to whom, although unworthy 
and a dog and a swine, Christ, as the greater number of 
authors think, gave His Body and Blood, the greatest of 
all mysteries. But (i) the designs of Christ, as we are 
often unable to discover their causes, are not always 
to be followed by us ; (2) Judas was a sinner, though a 
secret one, and was not to be pointed out by the sacrament 
being refused to him alone, lest the death of Christ, that 
chief of all mysteries, should be hindered. Why is it for 
bidden to give that which is holy to dogs, and not pearls ; 
and pearls, not that which is holy, to swine ? When Christ 
speaks of that which is holy, He may have had regard to 
sacrifices, the flesh of which was holy and was not to be 
given to dogs, nor applied to the use of any but God, the 
priests, and those who had offered them. Flesh is not 
commonly given to swine, but to dogs, which cannot discern 
between sacred and ordinary food. He said besides, " Give 
not your holy things to dogs ". With regard to swine and 
dogs there is a different modus or ratio of speech, for it is 
not said, " Cast not your pearls before swine," as being the 
custom, but because it was the contrary ; and nothing 



CH. vn. 7.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 235 

becomes swine, the most foul and filthy of all animals, less 
than pearls, which are the most costly and beautiful of 
jewels (Prov. xi. 22). 

There remains still another question. Why did Christ 
say of the swine, " Lest they turn upon you and tear you/ v 
and did not say it of dogs ? for swine are not accustomed 
to do this, and dogs are. He desires to point out the 
thankless stolidity of the swine, who often attack those who 
bring them food, and, unless resisted, tear them. Dogs are 
more faithful. They ask for their food, not by their teeth, 
but by movements of their tails. Senseless men, then, are 
like swine. They tread under foot the true doctrine, and 
support the false by force. 

Verse 7. Ask and it shall be given you. 

SS. Hilary, Chrysostom, and others think that Christ 
said this now, because, as He had before taught very 
different matter, He would now show how His words might 
be kept. Others think the meaning to be : " If you do what 
I have said, ask and you shall receive," as I S. John iii. 22. 
But S. Augustin (De Serm. Dom.} says : " If the listener, 
conscious of his own ignorance, should say, * Why dost 
thou forbid me to give what is holy to dogs, when I have 
it not to give ? Christ seasonably adds, Ask and it shall 
be given/ " &c. These words should apparently be added 
to the Lord s Prayer, both because Christ is speaking of 
prayer, and because it is probable that He said them when 
He taught the Apostles to pray, and as S. Luke (xi. 9) 
joins them to it. We have now to consider their meaning. 

S. Irenaeus (ii. 1 8, 26, 53) tells us how the early heretics 
wrested these words in support of what they called their 
mysteries (which, in truth, were insanities). S. Augustin 
(ii., De Serm. Dom.) thinks that the three words, " ask," 
" seek," " knock," do not mean the same thing, but he after 
wards changed his opinion. It is an exaggeration from an 



236 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vn. 7. 

accumulation of words. The chief question is how the 
words are true, when daily experience teaches us that we 
ask for many things which we do not receive. On vi. 12, 
it has been shown that these promises are not to be taken 
simply and without exception, and by this rule the passage 
must be explained. For not everyone who asks receives, 
but he who asks rightly. 

1. We do not receive when we ask for that which is evil ; 
that is, that for which we ought not to ask. For we do a 
wrong to God if we ask evil of Him, as if we thought Him 
the author of evil. 

2. We do not receive when we ask for that which, if not 
evil in itself, yet tends to evil (S. James iv. 3). 

3. We do not receive when we ourselves are evil and 
unworthy (S.John ix. 31). 

4. We do not receive when we ask with no faith, or with 
a weak and vacillating one (S.James i. 5-7). 

5. We do not receive when that for which we ask is not 
evil, or is even good, but which, as hindering good, cannot 
be granted : saving God s grace. 

6. W T e do not receive sometimes because God wills us to 
ask often ; as is shown by the two parables of the im 
portunate friend seeking bread, and the unjust judge and 
the widow (S. Luke xi. 8 ; xviii. 3). 

S. Augustin (Serm. v. de Verb. Dom. in S. Matth^) says : 
"When God gives slowly He commends, and does not 
refuse His gifts. What is long wished for is sweeter in 
possession ; what is given quickly is thought little of. Ask, 
seek, insist, increase in asking and seeking, that you may 
receive. God reserves what He does not please to give 
quickly, that we may learn to seek earnestly for greater 
things. 

7. We do not receive, sometimes, that we may gain gifts 
better than those we ask for. S. Augustin (De Serm. Dom. 
and Ep. xxxiv. to Paulinus) says : " The Lord is good, who 



CH. vn. g, ii.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 237 

often gives not what we wish for, that He may bestow on 
us what we would rather have". 

Verse 9. Or what man is there. 

" Or " (aut, rj) what man, that is not God, like your 
Heavenly Father? Christ opposes man to God, who is 
good ; and to "you," who are evil (verse 1 1). 

If his son shall ask. 

Christ says that no father would give his son a stone 
when he asked for bread. For there is nothing, on the one 
hand, more like, and, on the other, more unlike bread than 
a stone. Nothing more like in colour and form, nothing 
more unlike in nature and use (iv. 3). The serpent is 
opposed to a fish. We may ask why Christ spoke thus. 
For He seems to have answered more than necessary. It 
is so, in truth. But He shows not only that God will aid 
those who ask Him, but that He will give good things- 
bread, not a stone ; a fish, not a serpent. This is the saying 
of S. Chrysostom (Horn, xxiv.), The Author (Horn, xxviii.), 
and Theophylact. 

Verse 1 1 . If you then being evil. 

Not by nature, but by comparison with God (S. Jerome, 
S. Chrysostom, Euthymius), or by natural proclivity (Gen. 
viii. 21), as S. Jerome explains it ; or as seems more pro 
bable, not only in comparison with God, which is saying 
nothing, since even in the angels He finds imperfection, 
and the stars are not pure in His sight (Job iv. 17, 18; 
xxv. 5) : nor only by natural propensity, but by will and in 
life ; because He seems to have desired to correct them by 
the way. 

Know. 

That is, are accustomed to, as " the sun knoweth his 
going down " (Ps. ciii. 19). 



238 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vu. 12. 

How much more then will your Father. 

Christ compares Father to father, the heavenly to the 
earthly, God to man, goodness to evil. He argues from 
the less to the greater. So Isaiah xlix. 15. 

Verse 12. All things therefore. 

The same question occurs here which we have often 
met before. To what do the words tend ? S. Chrysostom 
{Horn, xxiv.), Euthymius, and Theophylact think it a com 
pendium and epilogue, as it were, of all the three chapters 
preceding. Others refer it, not without reason, to verse I 
44 Judge not " as if the following verses had been spoken in 
a parenthesis. Some connect it with verse 7 " Ask and 
you shall have " as if Christ would teach us how to obtain 
what we ask if we do to others as we would have them 
do to us (S. Augustin, ii., De Serm. Dom.). Others refer 
it to vi. 22 "The light of thy body is thy eye" as if Christ 
would teach us to practise the same simplicity to others as 
we would wish others to practise to us, as S. Augustin 
explains. 

It would appear as if Christ had spoken these words 
after those of verse 42 ; both because they agree with them 
well, and because S. Luke (vi. 31) joins the two together. 
S. Luke, therefore, has kept the order of Christ s words in 
this passage. S. Matthew has not ; and the text in S. 
Luke is coherent that of S. Matthew shows a dissonance. 

This is the Law and the Prophets. 

That is, in this are contained all the precepts of the Law 
.and the Prophets. Christ, by this name, understands the 
whole Old Testament : the Law, the five books of Moses, 
and the Prophets, with all the rest of the Canon. This 
was according to the custom of the Jews, who included all 
the other books Kings, Paralipomenon, and Psalms under 
the name of the Prophets, as xi. 13 ; xxii. 40; 5. Luke 



CH. vn. 13.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 239 

xvi. 16 ; Acts xxiv. 14 ; xxviii. 23. S. Augustin (De 
Serm. Dom. ; viii., De Trin.) and Euthymius (In Comment?) 
ask how this manner of action can be said to be the Law 
and the Prophets when, in xxii. 40, it is said to consist not 
of this one precept, but of two : " Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God with thy whole heart," and " Thou shalt love thy 
neighbour as thyself". S. Augustin (ii., De Serm. Dom.) 
answers that Christ does not speak of the whole Law in 
this passage, but that it consisted of this first principle. In 
chap. xxii. He spoke of the whole Law, as if He spoke here 
only of the love of our neighbour, and reserved for another 
place the other commandment of the love of God. S. 
Augustin says to better purpose (viii., De Trin.\ that even 
here, although not said in terms, the whole Law is to be 
understood. For he who loves his neighbour cannot but 
love Love itself, that is, God ; for God is love (i John iv. 
1 6). We should speak with more ease, not of the kind of 
love of our neighbour which is spoken of here, but of the 
love itself with which we love him, which is not for his 
sake, nor for our own, but for God s alone. For the law 
of the love of our neighbour is to be understood thus : Who 
ever loves his neighbour for the sake of God, loves God 
more. The rule of Aristotle subserves this. Hence, S. 
Paul says that, in the one precept of the love of our neigh 
bour, the whole Law is contained (Rom. xiii. 8-10 ; Galat. 
v. 14 ; vi. 2 ; Tobias iv. 16). Philosophers, then, have 
rightly taught that this is the first principle of Nature and 
of the moral law. The Emperor Severus, who was thought 
to have some inclination to the Christian faith, used to say 
that he liked the Christians, because what they would 
have to be done to themselves, that they did to others. 

Verse 13. Enter ye in at the narrow gate. 
The authors whom we have mentioned in the former 
verse connect these words variously with the preceding. 



240 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. vn. 14. 

They appear to have been spoken after what has been 
related in chap. v. of the Beatitudes, for that is the narrow 
gate: or certainly not in the assembly, but when Christ was 
asked by someone who wondered at the severity of His 
precepts if there were few who would be saved, as related 
by S. Luke (xiii. 23, 24). He observes more strictly the 
order of the sayings of Christ. S. Chrysostom and 
Euthymius ask how Christ calls His way narrow and 
strait, when He says that His yoke is easy and His 
burthen light (xi. 30). They reply that the yoke is hard 
to the carnal-minded and to those who seek earthly things, 
but light and easy to the spiritual and such as look on to 
things future (Rom. viii. 18 ; 2 Cor. iv. 17). Thus S. Paul 
says that the sufferings of the ancient saints by sword, 
fire, and other instruments of torture, although heavy in 
themselves, were light to him because he " esteemed the 
reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of the 
Egyptians " (Heb. xi. 26) ; and still, when he had laboured 
more than the other Apostles (2 Cor. xi. 23), he yet held 
all most light for the sake of Christ (Philipp. Hi. 7, 8). 
Christ calls the gate narrow and the way strait for two 
reasons : i. Partly because, by its nature, the way of virtue 
is more difficult than that of vice. The former is uphill, 
the latter is the contrary. The former is one, the latter 
manifold. The former is trodden by few notable footsteps, 
the latter by many, and those deeply-impressed, and as the 
Greek poet said : 

" The gods have put toil before virtue". 

2. Because our own slothfulness makes virtue more diffi 
cult. For there is nothing that is not easy to those who 
make the effort. 

Verse 14. How narrow. 

The Greek is OTL, quoniam, " since," " for ". It may be 
thought that we should adopt this reading. Some think that 



CH. vn. 15.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 241 

the translator may have read o>?, " how," instead of OTL He 
probably found neither word, but TL crreV??, as Euthymius 
and Theophylact read it, though they warn us that TL is 
put for &>?, quain^ as in our version. It is probably a 
Hebraism HD which means the same as TL, quid, and w?, 
quant as Psalm viii. I, 10 ; xxx. 20 ; Ixxxiii. I. 

It may be asked whether the same thing be meant by 
the narrow gate and strait way. S. Chrysostom thinks 
that it is, but it appears more likely that we should under 
stand by " the way," the precepts, and by " the gate," the 
end of the precepts : that is, the entrance into the kingdom 
of heaven, for the gate is the end of the way. 

Verse 15. Beware of false prophets . 

It has been thought that these words should be referred 
to vi. I, as if Christ called those hypocrites who do their 
justice before men " false prophets," to teach men to avoid 
them. S. Augustin (ii., De Serm. Dom^} more correctly 
connects these words with the former verse : " Christ had 
said that the way which leads to eternal life is strait. 
When our road is narrow and dark, we take a guide or 
follow some index to show it to us. Christ warns us not 
to trust to every guide or index ; for many false prophets 
are to be found who offer themselves as guides, and wear 
sheep s clothing like travellers." 

Of false prophets. 

Christ does not mean that all hypocrites are to be con 
sidered false prophets, as some think, but only the false 
teachers ; that is, all heretics whom Christ so terms. For 
it was the duty of prophets among the Jews, not only to 
foretell future events, but also to teach the people the Law, 
and to point out to them the way of salvation. The ques 
tion is of showing the strait way. We can understand that 

true prophets are included true, that is, because they 

16 



242 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vn. 16. 

foretell truly, as Balaam is said to have done. False 
prophets are so called, as not being sent by God, and 
because, when foretelling true things, they persuade to 
false ones. Verse 22 treats of these. They come of their 
own will, and are not sent by God, as we read in Jeremiah 
xxiii. 21. 

In the clothing of sheep. 

The meaning is obvious. " Clothing here means every 
thing outward words, works, alms, all acts of charity " 
(The Author, Horn. xix.). It is not certain why Christ 
uses the words " of sheep " ; whether He wishes to say 
that they come in the clothing of sheep, feigning themselves 
to be true sheep that they may be the less feared, like the 
wolf in the fable, or that they have the dress of shepherds. 
This seems the more probable of the two ; for Christ is 
speaking of the teaching of the people, which is the duty 
of the shepherd of the Church, and He calls those who 
do it "shepherds" (S.John x. 14; xxi. 17). He says, 
therefore, that they come in sheep s clothing, because they 
wear the skins of sheep. 

Verse 16. By their fruits. 

As Christ had uttered a warning against false prophets, 
it was necessary to give some mark by which they might 
be known. He could not give any single certain one, as 
their disguises were many, and God alone is the examiner 
of the human heart, but He gave a probable one adapted 
to ordinary intelligence and most commonly true, " By 
their fruits " (S. Luke vi. 43). 

S. Luke (vi. 43) seems to imply that these words were 
spoken in another sense and in another place ; for he 
unites them to the injunction recorded by S. Matthew 
(v. 5) " Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of 
thy own eye " as if the meaning were : Thou hypocrite, 
why wilt thou pretend to be a good tree when thou 



CH. vn. 16.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 243 

bearest evil fruit ? for, however thou mayest wish to dis 
semble thy evil deeds, from thy fruits shalt thou be 
known ; for there is no good tree which brings forth evil 
fruit, and every tree shall be known by its fruits. In this 
sense S. Matthew says (xii. 33) that Christ used the same 
simile of the tree and its fruits, as if He had said : " If you 
would seem to be good, do not feign goodness, but practise 
it ". The leaves are pretence, the works are the fruit, and 
the tree is known not by its leaves, but by its fruit. Hence 
it is clear that Christ used the same comparison more than 
once ; either, therefore, S. Luke is not reciting the same as 
S. Matthew, or he is not keeping the order and connection 
of the words of Christ ; for in S. Matthew it harmonises so 
well with the preceding sentence that it cannot be separated 
from it without one or both being destroyed. 

We must see, therefore, what Christ calls the tree, and 
what the fruits. Tertullian (i., Cont. Marc.) thinks faith the 
tree. This agrees well with the text, which treats of the 
distinguishing between true and false faith. But S. Augustin 
(xv., Euchirid., and i. 3, Cont. Julian^) and Bede, on this pas 
sage, think that the man s will is the tree and the man 
himself the ground ; for as a good and evil tree can spring 
from the same ground, but good and bad fruit cannot come 
from the same tree, but good from good and evil from evil : 
so from the same man may proceed at one time a good 
will, at another a bad will, but from the same will both 
good and bad works cannot proceed. S. Augustin (De 
grat. Christ., i. 18, 19), The Author (Horn, xix.), S. Chry- 
sostom (Horn, xxiv.), Theophylact, and De Lyra call the 
man who has a good will a good tree, and the man who 
has an evil will an evil tree. This view would agree well 
per se with the context, if the latter were not concerned 
with the discerning of true faith, but of a good will ; but it 
is concerned with true faith : " Beware of false prophets ". 

Christ calls the man, then, who has faith, whether good 



244 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. VH. 18. 

or bad, " a tree " a good tree if his faith be good, an evil 
tree if it be bad. It may be answered that a man who 
has a good faith frequently brings forth evil fruit This 
cannot be denied ; but Christ does not speak of what is so 
occasionally, but of what is so for the most part not of 
what is used to happen from human perversity, but from 
the nature of faith ; for faith, by its own nature, if good, 
does not bring forth evil fruit, nor if evil, good fruit. 

Verse 18. Cannot. 

These words seem to be opposed to daily experience ; 
for we see many from evil become good, and from good 
become evil. Many explanations of them have, therefore, 
been offered. 

1. Many have taken them to mean that a good tree, 
while it is good, and an evil tree, while it is evil, cannot 
bring forth the one good and the other evil fruit (S. 
Augustin, The Author, S. Chrysostom, Bede). 

2. Others have seen that in this manner truth and 
experience are not satisfied. For, although a good tree, 
that is, a just man, continuing to be such, cannot bring 
forth evil fruit, yet an evil tree, remaining evil, can bring 
forth some good fruit. Nor is the opinion (lately con 
demned, with justice, by the Council of Trent) to be held, 
that all the works of sinners, or even of infidels, are sin, 
although S. Augustin himself (iv. 3, Cont. Julian., and iii. 5, 
Cont. Epist. duos Pelag^] and Prosper (Sentent. cvi.) seem to 
have held it, and some Catholic divines have defended it. 
They have, therefore, asserted that a good tree, in that it is 
good, cannot bring forth evil fruit, nor an evil tree, as it is 
evil, bring forth good fruit. But we cannot by this means 
distinguish a good from a bad tree, which is the question 
at issue. 

It is not asserted, therefore, that a good tree cannot 
bring forth evil fruit, nor an evil tree good fruit ; for this 



CH. vn. 18.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 245 

cannot possibly be, for assuredly an evil tree can bring 
forth some good, and a good tree some evil fruit ; but that 
of their own nature they cannot ; and a good tree does not 
habitually bring forth evil fruit, nor an evil tree good fruit 
For, each of its own nature, " out of the abundance of the 
heart the mouth speaketh" ; and "a good man out of a 
good treasure bringeth forth good things, and an evil man 
out of an evil treasure bringeth forth evil things ". And 
when Christ had previously said, " Either make the tree 
good and its fruit good, or make the tree evil and its fruit 
evil" (S. Matt. xii. 33-35), He added, "How can ye, 
being evil, speak good things ? " but not as meaning that 
it could not be. For the Scribes and Pharisees of whom 
He spoke (xxiii. 2, 3) were certainly evil, because their 
lives were evil ; and yet they uttered good words, because 
what they said was to be done. This only shows, however, 
that in this they acted against their nature, and were not 
accustomed to do so. 

It will be objected : " If a good tree can bring forth evil 
fruit, and an evil tree good fruit, how are we taught to 
know them by their fruit ? " It may be objected, again : 
" If the Pharisees, when they brought forth evil fruit, were 
yet the good tree, that is, were not false prophets, but true 
Doctors of the Law, how could they be known by their 
fruits ? For if the hearers had followed this rule of Christ, 
and judged of their doctrine by their lives, they would 
have rejected the former as false." Christ did not will to 
give a certain text, but only a probable sign ; and to teach 
that false prophets, who proved their doctrine to be false 
by their pretence of holiness, would not be able to conceal 
themselves long under the sheep s clothing, but that the 
wolf which underlay it would, some time or other, appear. 
For pretence cannot long pass for truth. 

It is wonderful how many errors have sprung from this 
good and evil tree, (i) First of all there came the Mani- 



246 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn.vii. 21. 

cheans, who said that some men were good by nature and 
never evil ; and (2) that there were others evil by nature, 
who never could be good. S. Jerome (in loc.), and S. Augus- 
tin (i. 3, Cont. Julian. Disput. ; ii., Cent. Fortunat^} have 
refuted them out of Scripture. (3) The Pelagians denied 
original sin, because marriage, they said, was a good tree, 
and could not bring forth evil fruit, that is, generate original 
sin. S. Augustin (ii. 26, De Nupt. et Concupis.} has answered 
this. Again, they said that free-will was inherent in us, 
like a kind of root, and could, of itself and by itself (ipsa 
per se), produce either a good tree, that is, a good will, or 
an evil tree, that is, an evil will (S. Augustin, i. 18, De Graf. 
Christ^. 

Verse 21. Not everyone that saitJi to Me. 

All the Ancients explain these words of the life of beati 
fication. For, although the Church is sometimes called 
the kingdom of heaven, the words " Enter into the kingdom 
of heaven " never signify the Church, but always the life of 
everlasting beatification. It is clear that Christ, in this 
passage, is speaking of the reward which is given, not in 
the Church, but in the kingdom of heaven. As if He had 
said, " The way to heaven is not by words but by actions," 
and, from the following verse, it is clear that the allusion is 
to the last judgment, when some will be admitted into 
heaven, and others will be shut out. 

But he that doeth the will of My Father. 

It seems as if Christ should have said, " He that doeth 
My will," for the people called Him " Lord," and not the 
Father, and they ought to do the will of Him whom they 
confess as their Lord. " Why call ye Me Lord, and do not 
the things which I say? " S. Chrysostom and Theophylact 
reply, on the passage, that we may see that the will of the 
Father and of the Son are the same, as the Son, when He 



CH. vii. 22.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 247 

ought to have named His own will, named His Father s 
instead. 

But if the will of each be the same, why did He speak 
of His Father s rather than His own ? They answer that 
He did so, as it would be more acceptable to His hearers, 
and would cause less invidiousness to Himself. Another 
reason may be suggested. Christ everywhere ascribes to 
the Father the " person " of a lawgiver, and He comports 
Himself as His legate numbering Himself among those 
who do the will of the Father, as in xxvi. 42 ; 5. John iv. 
34 ; v. 30 ; vi. 38 ; and He always speaks of " the will of 
My Father," not of " My will," as in xii. 50. 

Verse 22. In that day. 

In that terrible and most notable day. For the word 
" that " has here this force. As if Christ spoke of a day 
not like others, but sure, and peculiar, and to be filled with 
the fear and the fame of the future judge (xxiv. 36 ; 5. 
Mark xiii. 32 ; S. Luke xxi. 34 ; I Thess. v. 4 ; 2 Tim. i. 
12, 18 ; iv. 8 ; I Cor. iii. 13 ; iv. 5). 

Many miracles. 

Miracles are of many kinds, at least frequently. For 
what Christ had before said per partes and distributively, 
He now concludes in genere. As if He then said, " Have 
we not prophesied and cast out devils, and done many 
other miracles in Thy name ? " 

This passage has given rise to the question whether 
miracles can be wrought, even by the wicked. This, at 
least, is certain. As there are two kinds of miracles, the 
true and the false, the false can be wrought even by the 
wicked. For S. Paul declares (2 Thess. ii. 9) that Anti 
christ will work false miracles ; and although it may be 
doubted whether the magicians of Pharaoh worked true 
miracles or not, yet, at least, it is certain that they did 



248 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vn. 22. 

work false ones. The question is, therefore, of true 
miracles : Whether they can be wrought by the wicked ? 

Here a distinction is to be made. For true miracles can 
be wrought by the wicked, either while they are wicked or 
before they began, or after they had ceased to be such. It 
is not doubtful as regards the two last classes. For Saul, 
before he became wicked, when he was a " child of one 
year" (i Kings xiii. i), prophesied, as we read in I Kings 
x. 10-12 ; and S. Matthew the publican, after he had 
ceased to be a publican, that is, a public sinner, wrought 
many miracles like the other Apostles. It is more doubt 
ful as to those who are wicked as long as they remain so. 

There is yet another distinction to be observed. For a 
question may be raised as to the wicked who have faith, 
or of the same who have none. Of the former, Scripture 
has taught us that they can work true miracles ; for Caia- 
phas was wicked, but he prophesied because he was high 
priest that year ; Judas wrought miracles while he believed 
in Christ, for he received power with the other Apostles (S. 
Matt. x. i) ; and he gloried with the others, because the 
devils were subject to him (S. Luke x. 17) ; and yet he was 
a thief, and bore the purse (S. John xii. 6). Saul, after the 
Lord had departed from him, stood in the midst of a 
company of prophets and prophesied like the rest (i Kings 
xix. 20-24). As miracles are done most chiefly by faith, 
we may doubt of those who have not faith ; not whether 
they do work miracles, for Scripture declares that they do : 
but whether they work true miracles. 

S. Chrysostom (Horn, xxv.), S. Jerome, Euthymius, and 
Theophylact prove by many examples that, even by men 
who do not believe, true miracles have been wrought. For 
Balaam, a false and unbelieving prophet, prophesied truly 
(Nzimb. xxiv. 17). From this passage we may easily con 
clude that the false prophets of whom Christ spoke as 
hereafter to do true miracles, prophesied truly truly cast 



CH. vii. 22.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 249 

out devils ; and Christ did not say that they were liars, but 
that, though they had done these things, He did not know 
them. The sense of the passage requires it that Christ 
signified their miracles to be true. For it would have been 
no matter of wonder if, to those who had done false 
miracles, He should have answered that He did not know 
them. But it would have been strange indeed if He had 
made this reply to those who had done true miracles. It 
would not have been a great matter if He had warned us 
against believing those who did false miracles. But it is 
wonderful that He puts us on our guard against believing 
false prophets, even if they do true miracles. We are not 
to discern between true and false prophets by their miracles 
alone, but also by their fruits, that is, by their lives. 

It will be said : " No conclusion in proof of the truth of 
the doctrine can be drawn from true miracles. It does not 
follow that no proof at all can be drawn, but none wholly 
conclusive. We know that Christ gave the Apostles power 
to work miracles, for the confirmation of the faith. We 
know that the whole world was drawn to the faith by the 
power of miracles. They who deny this, as S. Augustin 
says, against the Gentiles, work, themselves, a greater 
miracle by taking away miracles. For it is a more in 
credible miracle that the whole orb of the world that is, 
that so many philosophers and wise men should have 
believed the Apostles, who were so few in number and 
without learning, when teaching things so incredible to 
human reason, without any miracles, than were the miracles 
themselves which are declared to have been done by them. 
It is, therefore, a probable argument for the faith that is 
drawn from miracles, for they are often done by faith, very 
seldom indeed without it. When they are done they are 
done, not to prove the faith of those who do them, but to 
confirm the truth of the faith of those who have faith. For 
Balaam did not confirm his own faith by his prophecies, 



250 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vn. 23. 

but rather the faith of the people of God against whom he 
had been brought to bear testimony ; and almost all the 
miracles which were done by heretics (and they were, 
indeed, few) appear to be of this kind, and such as we read 
of in Scripture. 

For the argument derived from miracles is necessary, 
if not from every point of view, yet at least from one or 
even two. For although it does not follow of necessity 
that whoever works miracles should have true faith, it 
does follow that that in which frequent and, as it were, 
ordinary miracles are wrought, must be the true Church ; 
because, although God sometimes permits miracles to be 
wrought by particular individual creatures, out of His 
Church, as He did by Balaam s ass, which was certainly 
not in the Church, yet to no society of men in general has 
He given the ordinary power of miracles but to His 
Church. 

The negative argument on the other side has, in fact, 
more force that that in which no miracle is wrought can 
not be the true Church of God, because we know that He 
has given to this the power of working miracles. SS. 
Jerome and Augustin object, on this passage, "that no 
one can say Jesus but by the Holy Ghost (i Cor. xii. 3). 
How, then, can they who have not the Spirit of God, not 
only say Lord, Lord, but even work miracles in the name 
of Christ ? " They answer : " To say Jesus does not there 
mean to utter the name in words, but in deeds ". That is, 
not only to confess Christ by faith, but to show Him in our 
lives, which no one, it is plain, can do without the Holy 
Ghost. 

Verse 23. And then. 

In that day (of which Christ has spoken in the preceding 
verse), before all men, when the hidden things of darkness 
will be revealed : " As if He had said, I will bear with you, 
and dissemble with you, even to that day, and leave you 



CH.VII. 2 4 .] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 251 

like chaff mixed with the grain on the threshing floor ; but 
then I will search you, then I will sift you " (S. Jerome, 
The Author, and Bede). 

/ will profess. 

The Author read oyaooo-w, " I will swear," for 6^0X07^0-0), " I 
will confess," which agrees well with the text. For by 
"swear" he understands Christ to say, " Amen, amen, I 
say unto you I know you not" (xxv. 12). S. Jerome and 
others explain the words, " I will profess," to mean, " I will 
publicly profess that I know them not ". Christ appears 
to oppose His own true to their false confession, as if He 
had said : They have confessed Me falsely before men ; I 
will confess them truly before My Father, but that I know 
them not. As He says on the contrary of those who have 
truly and sincerely confessed Him : " Everyone that shall 
confess Me before men, I will also confess Him before My 
Father who is in heaven " (x. 32). 

/ never knew you. 

Theophylact says : " Not even then when you did miracles ". 
All ancient authors, and Origen first (On Rom. viii.), have 
observed that the word " know," in this and other like 
passages, does not mean knowledge, but feeling, approba 
tion, as S.John x. 14; 2 Tim. ii. 19; 5. Matt. xxv. 12 ; 
S. Luke xiii. 25. For God knows all men, but He does 
not approve all men for His own. The true meaning of 
the passage is manifold. It may mean (i) either " I never 
knew you, that is, I never held you as my own, I never 
placed you in the number of the predestinated " ; or (2) " I 
never held you for true prophets, such as you feigned to 
be ". This agrees apparently with the text, of which the 
subject is the discerning of false prophets. 

Verse 24. Everyone, therefore. 

Having spoken of false prophets generally, Christ now 
concludes generally of all mankind. 



252 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vn. 25. 

Who heareth these My words. 

Some refer these words to the contents of the three 
chapters preceding. But it seems more safe to refer them 
to all the sayings of Christ, and to explain " these words " 
to mean words of this kind, " these words and others like 
them," or " these, my present words ". For those which 
Christ had spoken before were His own words, and the 
whole genus is frequently signified by some one individual. 

That built. 

To build is to believe in Christ (i Cor. iii. 10). Of this 
building Christ says that the foundation may be twofold 
the sand or the rock. He calls faith without works sand 
(verse 26), and He calls good works the rock (verse 24). 
Hence are derived arguments against two errors of the 
followers of Calvin, (i) That faith alone is not sufficient 
for salvation. (2) That good works, which are adjuncts of 
faith, not only justify and avail very greatly to, but are also 
a most firm foundation of, our salvation ; nor is it contrary 
to S. Paul (i Cor. iii. n). There are many stones in the 
same foundation, of which Christ is the first and chief, and 
beside this foundation none other can be laid by any man ; 
but upon Him all other things are built which rest upon 
this foundation. For both Apostles and Prophets are 
called a foundation (Eph. ii. 20 ; Apoc. xxi. 14). Faith and 
works, therefore, are two foundations, each resting upon 
Christ, the first and firmest of all. But faith alone is sand 
strewn upon a rock, which, however firm and strong the 
rock itself, is easily scattered, and then it brings down 
whatever is built upon it. Works are a rock upon a rock, 
which no rain, no wind, no rushing torrent can destroy. 

Verse 25. The rain fell. 

Some distinguish the three words, " rain," " wind," and 
" flood," as meaning three different things. It is more pro- 



CH. vii. 25.] SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 253 

bable that Christ, by these three words, by which buildings 
are most frequently ruined, meant to describe the same day 
of judgment as a terrible tempest, as in Ps. xlix. 3. Christ, 
therefore, teaches us that those who have good works will 
stand firmly in the judgment, and that all others, whatever 
their faith, will perish utterly. " For the wicked shall not 
rise in judgment " (Ps. i. 5). 



CHAPTER VIII. 

CHRIST CLEANSES THE LEPER, HEALS THE CENTURION S 
SERVANT, PETER S MOTHER-IN-LAW AND MANY 

OTHERS : HE STILLS THE STORM AT SEA, DRIVES 
THE DEVILS OUT OF THE MAN POSSESSED, AND 
SUFFERS THEM TO GO INTO THE SWINE. 

Verse I . And when He was come down. 

S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom (Horn, xxvi.), The Author 
(Horn, xxi.), take this to mean that all that is contained 
in the three previous chapters was spoken by Christ on the 
Mount. That this was not so has been proved in verse I. 
S. Matthew says, " When He was come down from the 
Mount," not because He had spoken all His sermon on 
the Mount, but because when he said (verse i) that Christ 
had gone up into the Mount to escape the multitude and 
there held a conversation with the Apostles ; and when he 
had taken occasion from this to relate other conversations, 
wishing now to relate what Christ did for the crowd that 
afterwards followed Him, he must of necessity say that He 
came down from the mountain ; for the people could not 
follow Him unless on the plain. 

It may be asked why S. Matthew, when he related the 
words of Christ to the same multitude (vi., vii.), did not say 
that He came down from the mountain and the multitudes 
followed Him. It was not necessary that he should say 
that Christ came down, unless to give the reason of the 
multitude having followed Him ; nor to say that they did 
.so after His sermon, because it was of no moment what 



CH. vni. 2.] CLEANSING OF THE LEPER. 255 

listeners or witnesses of His doctrine He had while He was 
speaking ; but it was of moment to know how many witnesses 
there were of His miracles, that no one might endeavour to 
suppress or undervalue them. Besides, S. Matthew, after he 
had set forth Christ s doctrine, desired, as S. Jerome says, to 
relate His acts, and he said, " Great multitudes followed Him ". 
In this S. Matthew follows another order than that of the 
other Evangelists ; for they describe the miracles before the 
doctrine, as if the former should give assurance of the latter. 

Verse 2. And behold a leper. 

S. Mark (i. 40) and S. Luke (v. 12) relate some other 
miracles first. It is uncertain, therefore, whether this hap 
pened after those, or those after this, only that S. Matthew 
saying, "And behold a leper," seems to imply that this took 
place immediately on Christ s descent from the mountain ; 
for this is the force of the word "behold," as has been shown 
on chap. ii. i. Leontius well observes that the sick were not 
brought to Him, lest they should interrupt His teaching. 

And adored Him. 

Trpoo-e/cvve, "bent the knee," "threw Himself at the feet of 
Christ" (S. Mark i. 30; S.Luke v. 12). The Hebrew is 
VOD7 T>D2 which many explain to mean respect shown to 
Christ as to some prophet or holy person. It would, 
however, appear to have been an act of worship ; and all 
the Evangelists appear to have described it so carefully to 
show the faith of the leper, which would, however, have been 
very slight indeed, if he had thought Christ nothing more 
than a prophet or holy person. He believed Him, how 
ever, to be God ; for he could not have said to any but God 
" If Thou wilt ". He did not say, " If Thou wilt pray to 
the Father," but " If Thou wilt," as showing that His power 
was equal to the Father s. So say S. Chrysostom (Horn. 
xxvi.), Theophylact, and Euthymius. Great, indeed, is 



256 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. vm. 3. 

the faith and singular the manner of prayer of one who 
asks nothing but shows his need and offers his faith. 

Verse 3. And Jesus stretching forth His hand. 

What need was there that Christ should stretch out His 
hand, and, especially, should touch a leper, whose contact 
under the Old Law was reckoned unclean ? From this, 
and similar passages, some ancient authors, and among 
them S. Cyril of Alexandria, think (i) that Christ pleased 
to heal some sick by the touch of His Person, to show that 
even His flesh itself, by the union with the Godhead, had a 
life-bearing and a life-giving power; (2) S. Ambrose (v., On 
S. Luke] gives another reason, that Christ did it to prove 
the truth of His human nature which He had taken ; (3) 
others say that He was not subject to the Old Law, which 
forbade the Israelites to touch a leper (Levit. xiii. 46), but 
that as the giver of the Law, He was above the Law: so S. 
Chrysostom (Hom. xxvi. on S. Matt., and xvii. on various 
passages of S. Matt.\ The Author (Hom. xxi.), S. Ambrose, 
Euthymius, Theophylact ; (4) others, again, hold that 
Christ did it to show that it was He Himself and not 
another who healed the leper, because it was He Himself 
and not another who touched (S. Chrysostom cited by S. 
Thomas) ; (5) it may have been done by Christ to show 
that the Law, which forbade the touch of a leper, lest he who 
touched him should be defiled, had no place in Him, who 
could not be defiled, and who touched, not to be contami 
nated, but to heal (Tertullian, iv., Cont. Marc.). 

I will y be thou clean. 

Christ answered by the same words as were used by the 
leper, to confirm his faith by the result (S. Ambrose, v., On 
S. Luke ; S. Chrysostom, Hom. vii. on various passages of 
S. Matthew). 

Made clean. 

Mundare. This is not the infinitive mood, but the 



CH. vm. 4.] THE CLEANSING OF THE LEPER. 257 

imperative. Ancient authors have rightly concluded of 
the Godhead of Christ from this passage. He healed the 
leper not as by the power of another, but by His own will 
and command (S. Justin, Exposit. Fid. ; Tertullian, iv. 
Cont. Marc. ; S. Athanasius, De Ess. Comm. P.F.S.S. ; S 
Ambrose, v., On S. Luke ; S. Chrysostom, Horn. xxvi.). 
Some have proved from this passage both the Divinity and 
the Humanity, as Tertullian, S. Cyril, S. Ambrose, whose 
words are : u He said * I will because of Photinus. He 
commanded because of Arius. He touched because of 
Manichaeus." 

Verse 4. Thou tell no man. 

It is a fit question why Christ forbade the leper to speak 
of so great a benefit, and why He commanded him who 
had received to return no thanks. S. Hilary answers (Can. 
vii.) that this kind of healing will not be offered, but must 
be sought ; that is, the miracle should not seem to be 
boasted of, as if by the command of Christ, lest others also 
who were sick should come and seek for a similar cure, and 
lose the merit of their faith if they came not of their own 
will, but as urged by the miracle. S. Ambrose concurs. 

2. S. Jerome thinks it was unnecessary to boast in words 
of that cure which the leper bore on his whole person. 

3. Others thought it a caution to the leper not to appear to 
seek his own glory (S. Ambrose, v., On S. Luke ; S. 
Chrysostom, Honi. xxvi. ; Bede, Euthymius, Theophylact). 
The opinion of The Author seems excellent ; not that the 
leper was forbidden to speak at all, but only not until he 
had shown himself to the priest, lest, if they should hear of 
what had been done by common report, they might 
falsely declare that the man was not cleansed at all, his 
cleansing having to be declared by them as the Law com 
manded (Lev it. xiv. 46). 

Christ, moreover, said to him immediately : " Show thy 
self to the priest ". Why he said this has been much dis- 

17 



258 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vm. 4. 

cussed. Many say that it was to show that He kept the 
Law (Tertullian, iv., Cont. Marc. ; S. Chrysostom, Horn. 
xxvi. ; S. Jerome, Euthymius). Others say, if he did not 
show himself to the priest, he would be compelled to re 
main without the city, and have no benefit of his cure ; 
because it was not lawful for one who had been healed of 
this disease to return into the city before the high priest 
had decided on his cure (Theophylact). S. Jerome gives 
two other reasons : one to show the man s humility ; an 
other, which Bede approves, and which seems the best 
of all, that the priests would be without excuse if they 
refused to believe on one whose miracles they had proved. 
This is the meaning of the words that follow : " For a testi 
mony unto them ". They refer not only to the offering of 
the gift, as shall shortly be shown, but also to the showing 
of the leper himself. 

For a testimony unto them. 

Some refer this direction to the word " commanded " 
just before. Thus the meaning may be : " Offer the gift 
which Moses commanded, that it may be for a testimony 
to them that thy cure was not of the priests, nor of man at 
all in any way, but of God" (S. Hilary). Others refer it to the 
word " offer," as The Author (Horn, xxi.) and Theophylact, 
as if Christ had said : " Offer to the priest thy gift, lest, if 
thou offer it not, he speak ill of thy cure, and that the 
acceptance of it may be a perpetual testimony against 
them of thy true cure ; for they will not be able to say 
that thou wert not truly healed, for whose cure, both 
known and approved, they have received thy gift ". Others, 
Tertullian, S. Chrysostom, and S. Ambrose among them, 
refer it to both words " show " and " offer ". Their idea 
seems very admirable, that Christ not only gives the reason 
of His having commanded the leper to offer his gift, but 
also of His having sent him to the priest, and of His 
having forbidden him to speak to anyone before he had 



CH. vin. 5.] HEALING OF THE CENTURION S SERVANT. 259 

seen the priest. The meaning is, then : " Tell no man ; that 
those very men who are My chief enemies may be the first 
witnesses of My miracles, and their unbelief be made plain 
by their own testimony ". The nature of the gifts to be 
offered has been described on Levit. xiv. 4. 

Verse 5. There came to Him a centurion. 

It is clear even from his title that he was a Gentile ; nor 
is it credible, as SS. Chrysostom and Augustin have 
pointed out, that when the Jews were under the Roman 
yoke centurions should have been made of their nation. 

It has been doubted whether this were the same cen 
turion as he of whom S. Luke (chap, vii.) writes. The 
cause of the doubt is the fact that there appears to be a 
great difference between the narratives of the two Evan 
gelists. S. Matthew says that the centurion came to 
Christ ; S. Luke that he sent to Him, first the elders of the 
Jews and then his own friends, excusing himself for not 
having come in person, for he thought himself unworthy to 
do so. S. Matthew says that the centurion asked Christ 
not to come into his house, for he did not think himself 
worthy. S. Luke says that he asked Him to come. From 
these reasons, some have been led to think the two histories 
accounts of different events, as S. Chrysostom (Horn, xxvii.) 
and Euthymius say. But all the Ancients think otherwise ; 
and, indeed, who can believe that two miracles so like each 
other could have happened ? Each took place in Caper 
naum ; each at the same time ; each to the servant of a 
centurion ; each to a paralytic servant ; and each centurion 
said, " I am not worthy," &c. Those who would make 
them two events act without consideration, dwelling on the 
points of difference and not on those of resemblance. 

As to the words of S. Matthew, that the centurion him 
self came, and of S. Luke, that he sent the elders of the 
Jews, some have replied that he did both. He first sent 



260 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vm. 5. 

the Jewish elders, and, when he heard that Christ was 
coming, his friends, as S. Luke relates ; and, at last, when 
the disease grew more severe, he came himself, as S. 
Matthew says. So S. Chrysostom (Horn, xxvii.), Euthy- 
mius, and Theophylact. Others think that he came per 
altos, notfler se, for he is said to come, not only who comes 
per se, but who comes per alios, as a suitor is said to appear 
before a judge, who appears not in his own person, but by 
his counsel (S. Augustin, in loc., and De Consens., ii. 20, and 
Cont. Faust, xxxiii. 7, 8 ; Bede ; Leontius, in /<?<:.). The 
words of S. Matthew (verses 8, 9) do not affect the question. 
For as one who comes per alium is still said to come, so he 
who speaks by another is said to speak. The argument is 
of more force that it does not appear probable that the 
Jewish elders, who, in S. Luke, ask Christ to come, here 
ask Him not to come. But the answer is easy : the Jewish 
elders spoke the words in S. Luke of their own minds. 
For it is plain, from his account (verses 6, 7), that the 
centurion did not tell them to ask Christ to come to him, 
and, therefore, having less faith than the centurion, but 
more vanity, they did not deliver their message faithfully ; 
but, partly from not believing that Christ could cure the 
paralytic by a word when absent, and partly wishing, as 
S. Chrysostom says, to show that they had influence 
enough to bring Christ, they asked Him, contrarily to their 
commission, to come. Thus they also added of their own 
minds, " He is worthy," &c. (verse 4). The centurion had 
not charged them to say this, but the contrary. One 
Evangelist, therefore, has related what the centurion di 
rected, the other what the Jews said. It would appear, 
therefore, that the words in S. Luke (verses 8, 9) were not 
spoken by the Jews, for they had not faith enough to use 
expressions so full of belief, especially when, as appears 
from S. Luke, they had asked Christ to come ; but they 
were spoken by the friends of the centurion, whom, as 



CH. vni. 6, 8.] HEALING OF THE CENTURION S SERVANT. 26l 

S. Luke tells us, he sent to Christ when he heard that He 
was coming, and who were probably Gentiles, because the 
Evangelist does not call them Jews, as the others, but " his 
friends ". These, then, as his more intimate friends, seeing 
that the others had not performed his commission faith 
fully, he instructed better, to say that he was a man under 
authority, who said to this soldier, " Go," and he went, and 
to that one, " Come," and he came, and to another, " Do 
this," and he did it. As they were more trustworthy, they 
delivered this message in the words in which they had 
received it. Some have thought that this centurion was 
the ruler mentioned by S. John (iv. 46), and that this 
miracle is the same as the one there described. Leontius, 
on this passage and on 5. John ; S. Chrysostom, Theophy- 
lact, and Euthymius, also on 5. John, refer to this opinion, 
and refute it, as I have done. 

Verse 6. My servant. 
Puer as 5. MattJiew reads ; servus as 5. Luke (vii. 2). 

Verse 8. / am not worthy. 

faavos, "sufficient," that is, worthy, as in chap. iii. II ; 
I Cor. xv. 9 ; Coloss. i. 12. 

That Thou shouldest enter under my roof. 

They seem to be in error who suppose the centurion to 
have said this because he was a Gentile, and it was not 
lawful for Jews to enter the houses of Gentiles. For he 
could have said this not less properly if he had been a Jew ; 
and he not only said that he was unworthy that Christ 
should enter his house, but even that he himself should 
come to Him (S. Luke vii. 7). "Not, therefore, because he 
was a Gentile, but because he knew himself to be a sinner ; 
not from superstition, but from faith, he said that he was 
unworthy that Christ should enter his house, as S. Peter 



262 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vm. g. 

said, Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord 
(S. Luke v. 8 ; Bede). 

But only say the word. 

A Hebraism : die, " say," that is, command, by a word 
verbo, "by one only word ". The centurion not only opposes 
a word to a deed, but to a long discourse, as when it is said, 
" By the Word of the Lord," that is, by one only and most 
brief word (Ps. xxxii. 6). It is possible that the centurion 
had heard how Christ had healed the leper not long before, 
by a single word Mundare^ " Be thou clean " and had 
thence conceived so great faith that he did not doubt the 
power of Christ to do the same to his own servant. Leontius 
says that some held that the centurion did not bring his 
servant to Christ because he was at the point of death, and 
he feared that the agitation of the journey might be fatal. 
Leontius rejects the idea as unworthy of the centurion s 
faith. For he who believed that by one word Christ could 
heal a dying man, must surely have thought that He could 
have prevented him from dying. 

Verse 9. For 1 also am a man. 

The centurion argues not from equal terms, but from 
the greater to the less. If I, who am under the power of 
another, the chiliarch and the emperor, yet, having soldiers 
under me, say to this one "Go," and he goes, and to another 
" Come," and he comes, how much more canst Thou, who 
art under no one, by Thine own power alone, heal my 
servant ? that is, Thou art able to do per alios what Thou 
art able to do per te. Thus have all Catholics authors ex 
plained it (S. Augustin, Serm. de Verb. Dom. ; S. Chrysos- 
tom, Horn, xxvii. ; Bede ; Strabus, In Comment?). 

Leontius explains the words " under authority " best of 
all VTTO egova-iav, sub rege, "under the king". If we had no 
other proof of what I say, than that it makes the meaning 



CH. vin. 10.] HEALING OF THE CENTURION S SERVANT. 263 

fuller and more worthy of the so great faith of the cen 
turion, this one argument alone should be sufficient. For 
who does not see that it was not in accordance with faith 
so great as that of the centurion to make himself equal in 
any way to Christ ; even if we could imagine him to have 
done this with truth, he would not have done it in fact. 
For it would be the act of a very bad petitioner to make 
himself equal to him of whom he asked a favour ; although 
he thought himself even the superior, he would speak as 
the contrary. The Greek means : " Even I, who am not 
God, as Thou art, but a man like those whom I command, 
yet, because I have soldiers under me, I say to this one," 
&c. The centurion s assertion that he had soldiers under 
him was not to show that he was placed in authority, but 
to give his reason for saying to this one " Go," and to that 
one " Come," &c. 

Verse 10. Marvelled. 

No one is ignorant that wonder proceeds from knowledge 
following previous ignorance. We wonder at what we see, 
or hear, or come to know in any other way, when we were 
not only in ignorance before, but had not even thought of 
the subject in question. That Christ, therefore, wondered 
at this, when He was ignorant of nothing, and much less of 
that faith of the centurion at which He wondered, when, 
as S. Augustin says, He had Himself created it, we may 
justly wonder. Some say that He wondered as man, but 
even as man He was not ignorant of that faith ; nor is it 
more probable that, as others think, He wondered, not from 
new knowledge, but from new experience. The Doctors 
of the Church make a kind of knowledge in Christ, which 
they call knowledge experimental (scientia experiment alis\ 
and which they say that Christ was able to acquire from 
new events, according to S. Paul (Heb. v. 8). But ex 
perience cannot cause wonder in those whose minds antici- 



264 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vm. 10. 

pated what they perceive, and it is certain that Christ was 
such as these. 

Much more probable is the opinion of S. Augustin, that 
Christ did not really wonder, but that we might wonder, 
as if He had said with wonder : " I have not found so great 
faith," &c. ; he says (i. 7, Cont. Advers. Leg. et Prophet^) : 
" Whoever wonders, as men ordinarily use the word, shows 
that that at which he wonders is unexpected and unfore 
seen by him. But Jesus foreknew all things, and what He 
commended to the wonder of men He praised by wonder 
ing at it." And again (i. 8, On Genes, cont. Manich^} : 
" Who made that faith in them but He who wondered at 
it ? Even if another had made it, why should He wonder 
who foreknew it ? What the Lord wondered at He sig 
nified was matter of wonder to us to whom it is natural 
to be so affected. All such emotions in Him are not 
signs of a mind disturbed, but of a master who is teaching 
us." 

Christ then is said to have wondered, as God is said 
to be angry. Not that He is really angry, but that He 
punishes the sins of those who are angry, Christ is said to 
have wondered in this manner. Not that He wondered, 
but that He spoke like a man who does so : " O woman, 
great is thy faith " (xv. 28). 

/ have not found so great faith in Israel. 

The Greek is ovSe eV rcS Io-pdrj\, " No, not in Israel ". 
Some have concluded, as S. Chrysostom (Horn, xxviii., in 
loc. y and On S. Luke vii. 5, " He hath built us a synagogue "), 
that the centurion was an Israelite, and not a Gentile. 
From each of these passages they should have drawn a 
contrary conclusion. For when Christ says here that 
He has not found so great faith, even in Israel, where 
there ought to be more faith, because he was a son of 
Abraham, the father of all the faithful, He shows clearly 



CH. viii. 10.] HEALING OF THE CENTURION S SERVANT. 265 

that the centurion was a Gentile. In 5. Luke the Jewish 
elders praise him because, though he was not a Jew, he 
was so friendly to their nation that he built them a syna 
gogue. We may rightly inquire how Christ said that He had 
not found so great faith, &c., when we must believe that in 
the Apostles and Prophets, and certainly in the Blessed 
Virgin, there was greater. Some, as S. Jerome and Bede, 
exclude the Patriarchs and Prophets, because Christ does 
not say, " There is not," but " I have not found " 
that is, " In Israel, from whom I was made man ". But 
what shall we say of the Apostles and the Blessed Virgin ? 
S. Jerome thinks that the faith of the one centurion was 
not compared with that of single Jews, but that the faith 
of the Church of the Gentiles (which was signified by the 
centurion) was compared to that of the whole Church of 
the Jews, and was preferred to it. But this meaning is by 
anagoge : it is not the literal one, for Christ wondered, also, 
at the faith of the centurion Himself. The Author (Horn. 
xxii.) gives two not inapplicable explanations: I. That the 
centurion had greater faith even than the Apostles. Nor 
is this so extraordinary, when Christ praises the faith of 
the centurion so highly, and so frequently blames the 
Apostles for their want of it, as in verse 26 ; xiv. 31 ; xvi. 
8 ; xvii. 20 ; and 5. Mark xvi. 14. 2. That the faith of the 
centurion was greater than that of the Apostles, not simply, 
but in proportion to the person. For the Apostles were 
Jews, and the centurion was a Gentile. A little faith in 
the latter was therefore greater than, the very greatest in 
the former. 

The whole passage is apparently capable of two explana 
tions : i. Christ does not compare the faith of the centurion 
with that of each of the Apostles, but with that of the 
people, for we are accustomed at times to speak generally, 
excluding those of whom there is no question. We some 
times say before a man of learning : " Such an one, this or 



266 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vin. n. 

that, is the most learned man we ever knew," he with 
whom we are conversing being excepted, with whom it 
would be invidious and impolite to compare another. A 
king says that this person or that is the most powerful of 
all his subjects, leaving himself unmentioned, whom he 
knows to be much more powerful than any. Christ said : 
" There hath not risen among men that are born of women 
a greater than John the Baptist" (xi. 11) ; not as including 
Himself, who was born of woman, and was far greater. So 
in this place, when He says that He has not found so 
great faith, He does not include His own family, the 
Blessed Virgin, and the Apostles. 

2. The other explanation is that Christ spoke, not of 
faith itself, but of the external signs of faith. He had said : 
I have not found any who has so replied to me who has 
made such a profession of faith. The former seems the 
better of the two. 

Verse 1 1 . From the East and from the West. 

From the whole world beyond Judaea, putting the two 
most remote points for the whole. S. Augustin (Serm. vi. 
de verb. Dom. sec. Matt.) says : " They will come when 
called ". Christ speaks of the calling of the Gentiles, 
which was foretold by Isaiah (xliii. ; xliv. 5-7), and of 
which the entire Epistle to the Romans, especially chapter 
ix., treats at large. 

And shall sit down. 

Shall sit down at- table a figure taken from banquets. 
The kingdom of heaven is often compared to a feast, 
because " We shall be satisfied when the glory of it shall 
appear" (Psalm xvi. 15; S. Luke xiv. 15; xxii. 29, 30; 
Apoc. xix. 9). This is shown by the parable of the wed 
ding, and the guests invited to it (S. Matt. xxii. 2 ; S. Luke 
xiv. 1 6). It was not the custom of the Gentiles, nor were 
they allowed, to sit with the Jews, but Christ teaches us 



CH. vin. 12.] HEALING OF THE CENTURION S SERVANT. 267 

that in the kindom of heaven they shall sit down with 
the Patriarchs of the Jews Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob 
and be preferred to the Jews themselves. 

With A braham, and Isaac, and Jacob. 

Many suggestions have been offered as to the reason of 
these three Patriarchs being especially mentioned : 

1. God is called their God (Exod. iii. 6, 15, 16 ; S. 
Jerome). 

2. They were promised the land of Canaan, which sig 
nified the kingdom of heaven (Gen. xii. 7 ; xiii. 15 ; Theo- 
phylact). 

3. Their faith shone most brightly, by following which 
the Gentiles were grafted into the good olive. 

These three Patriarchs would appear to be named as the 
founders of the kingdom of the Jews, who would sit, as it 
were, at the head of the table, to show that the Gentiles 
would sit with them that is, most closely to them and 
be preferred before the Jews : as the faith of the centurion, 
which was the cause of this declaration, came nearer to 
that of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, than the faith of the Jews : 
at that assembly, as it were, where Abraham, in foretaste of 
the happiness of heaven, enjoyed the expectation of Christ, 
and which is called Abraham s bosom (S. Luke xvi. 22). 

Verse 1 2. But the children of the kingdom. 

Some take this (i) to mean the sons of God, and, there 
fore, the heirs of His kingdom. But why not then call 
them at once sons of the King ? 

(2) Others think them to be those in whom God had 
reigned before, as Psalm Ixxv. I : " In Judaea is God known " 
(S. Jerome and Bede). 

(3) Others, again, whose opinion seems better, think 
them those to whom the kingdom of heaven had been 
promised, and who were in some sense in possession of it. 



268 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vin. 12. 

And it is said that they will be cast out, as if they had 
been in the kingdom before, like the guest without the 
wedding garment (xxii. 12); so thinks Theophylact. 

They are called the sons of the kingdom by a Hebraism, 
nrn^rV!3D, because they were born to it and intended for 
it, as he is termed " the son of death " who is born to die, 
or the son of those who, as our version renders it, " have 
been put to death" mortificatorum (Ps. Ixxviii. n). What 
some others say must be considered : namely 

(4) That they were called the children of the kingdom, 
because they were born in the kingdom of Judaea, which 
was a kind of shadow or commencement of the kingdom of 
heaven, that the Jews may be opposed to the Gentiles, as 
natives to foreigners. 

(5) That they were called the sons of the kingdom, not 
as being such, nor because they had been such but had 
been cast out, but because they ought to have been such, 
and were not such, by their own fault, as men are called 
the sons of wisdom, not because they were, but because 
they, above all others, ought to have been, wise ; for 
" wisdom is justified by all her children " (S. Luke vii. 35). 

Into the exterior darkness. 

It is not doubtful that hell is here meant, although 
Origen (On S. Matt, xxiii.) thinks it purgatory, which is 
external to hell. It is uncertain why the place was called 
darkness, and why exterior darkness, as there is fire there 
and the darkness itself is most especially internal and 
concealed. 

It is certain that Christ always spoke of hell as a prison 
of which, although dark, the darkness is inward and not 
external, but is so much greater as it is more internal. 
Many have explained the reason of its being called 
"darkness" ; very few have offered any suggestion as to why 
it is termed exterior. S. Jerome (Comment^), S. Augus- 



Cn. vin. 12.] HEALING OF THE CENTURION S SERVANT. 269 

tin (Ep. to Honor, cxx. 22), S. Ambrose (vii., On 5. Luke], 
say that it is from the condemned being sent into darkness, 
because they go away from God, who is the true light 
This, however, even if true, appears to be allegorical, as is 
the explanation mentioned by S. Augustin in his Com 
mentary on Ps. vi. : " The external darkness is so called 
as being that blindness which is extreme and cannot 
possibly be cured, and into which all the condemned are 
dismissed, because in hell they can bring forth no re 
pentance". 

Others hold that it derives this appellation from the place 
of hell being void of light (S. Jude, verse 6) ; for although 
there is true fire in hell, yet, as SS. Basil and John Dama 
scene say, it has heat, but not light, afflicting the wicked not 
only with fire, but also with darkness. All the darkness of 
hell is not called outer, but that into which (as it is said) 
the Jews are to be cast. According to Theophylact, there 
are many degrees of punishment there, and the heaviest of 
all is called the exterior darkness. 

This appears to agree with the context, as it makes the 
antithesis between the Jews and the Gentiles more com 
plete ; for as Christ had said that the Gentiles should sit 
down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that is, in the first 
place in heaven so He now says that the Jews shall be 
in the last place in hell. But this may be understood 
otherwise ; for when the subject is the kingdom of heaven, 
from which all who are shut out are said to be cast into 
the exterior darkness, reason demands that we enquire why 
the place into which they are sent is called darkness and 
exterior darkness. But in this instance, as in many others, 
the kingdom of heaven is introduced under the likeness of 
a feast, not of a dinner, but of a supper, because it was the 
ancient custom to hold festivity rather at supper than at 
dinner, because the cares of the day were then laid aside 
and the feast could be extended to a greater length than in 



2/0 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vin. 12. 

the daytime. Hence S. Paul rightly says : " They that are 
drunk are drunk in the night" (i Thess. v. 7). We see, 
therefore, that the kingdom is always called a supper, 
never a dinner (xxii. 2 ; 6". Luke xiv. 16 ; Apoc. xix. 9). 
The guest-suppers, because they were always held at night, 
were set off by a great light of torches, which were used 
not only as necessaries, but also for pride and display. The 
guests were, therefore, in a strong light ; the rest, who were 
outside, were involved in thick darkness. 

Thus they who are cast out of the kingdom of heaven 
are said to be cast into exterior darkness, because what 
ever was outside that kingdom was said to be, in com 
parison, " darkness ". They who are in it " shall not need 
the light of the sun, because the Lord God shall enlighten 
them " (Apoc. xxii. 5). 

There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 

Some distinguish these two signs of suffering as two 
different kinds of punishment the one of fire, the other 
of cold, as in Job xxiv. 19 ; Bede (in loc.} ; S. Jerome, or 
whoever was the author of the commentary on that chapter 
of Job. But Christ, in this passage and others, did not 
speak of weeping and gnashing of teeth to show two kinds 
of punishment, the weeping being that of heat, and the 
gnashing of teeth that of cold ; He meant to describe one 
and the same thing, that is, the greatest degree of torture ; 
for they who suffer extreme agony do both they weep and 
they gnash their teeth. 

Whether the weeping and gnashing of teeth are literal 
and actual, or are to be taken as a metaphor, is another 
question. It must be left open, although it would appear 
more right to think them literal, both because S. Jerome 
-does so, and from hence proves the doctrine of the Resur 
rection, and because to explain that by metaphor or figure 
which can be taken literally is the mark of incredulity, or 
of one seeking an excuse for his faith. 



CH. vin. 13, 14.] HEALING OF PETER S WIFE S MOTHER. 271 

Verse 13. Go. 

A Hebrew expression for granting a request, as in 
Judges xi. 38 ; I Kings xvii. 37 ; 2 Kings xiv. 8 ; 5. Mark 
v. 34 ; 5. Luke vii. 50 ; viii. 48 ; 5. John iv. 50. The 
Ancients learnt, from this and other similar passages (as 
ix. 2 ; 5. Mark ii. 5 ; 5. Luke v. 20), that the faith of one 
man can profit another. The servant of the centurion 
either had not faith, or if he had it, for it is not stated, he 
was healed, not for his own, but for the centurion s faith. 
This is the opinion of S. Cyril (Jerus. Cat. Lect., v.), 
S. Chrysostom (Horn, xxviii.), S. Ambrose (v., On S. Luke). 

Verse 14. When Jesus had come. 

We learn from S. Mark (i. 29) and S. Luke (iv. 38) that 
this happened as soon as Jesus had given that sermon in 
the synagogue at Capernaum at which the people wondered 
(vii. 28), and after He had cast out the unclean spirit 
(S. Mark \. 24 ; vS. Luke iv. 34), of which S. Matthew has 
made no mention. S. Mark (i. 29) has described the whole 
event with greater fulness than any other of the Evangelists, 
as S. Chrysostom (Horn, xxviii.) and S. Augustin (ii., De 
Consens^] have observed. For he relates that only four of 
the Apostles SS. Peter, Andrew, James, and John were 
with Christ when he entered Peter s house, and that it was 
they who mentioned to Him the sickness of Peter s wife s 
mother, and that, when asked, He healed her. 

Into Peter s house. 

A twofold question has here arisen out of a single word : 
i. How S. Peter had a house when he left all things (xix. 
27). Heretical teachers have said that the Apostles had 
not absolutely given up everything, but only the care and 
management of their affairs, which their following Christ 
and serving the Gospel did not allow them to superintend, 
and that they were accustomed to return to their homes 



2/2 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [H. vin. 14 

when the preaching of the Gospel allowed. Some Catholics, 
from incautious perusal of their writings, have fallen into 
the same error. 

Peter had not a house, and he did not speak untruly 
when he said (xix. 27) : " We have left all things and have 
followed Thee ". Nor can it be admitted that they had 
left the superintendence only, for it is beyond question 
that S. Peter said that he and the other Apostles had given 
up all in the same sense as that in which Christ said to the 
young man : " Go, sell what thou hast and give to the 
poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come 
follow me" (xix. 21). It was called Peter s house, not 
because it was such, then, but because it had been such. 
We may believe that he had left it, as they were poor, to 
his wife and his mother-in-law, unless, perhaps, it was 
theirs, and was called Peter s because he had lived in it 
before he was made an Apostle. As it is called the house 
of Simon and Andrew (S. Mark i. 29), it was probably not 
that of either, but of their father, as the houses of parents 
are called their children s houses as well. 

2. The second question is, how Peter lived in Caper 
naum when he was a native of Bethsaida (S. John i. 44). 
For this was done in Capernaum, as is clear from 5. Mark 
i. 21 and 5. Luke iv. 31. The above heretics say that he 
had two houses, one at Bethsaida, where he was born, the 
other at Capernaum, where he lived on account of the 
fishing. For Capernaum was on the margin of the lake of 
Genneseret, a notable sea for fish. Or, as Christ used to 
live at Capernaum, it may have been that Peter had moved 
thither. Learned and Catholic Doctors of the Church have 
answered the question very differently, and much better : 
that this house of Peter was not at Capernaum, but Beth 
saida, which was very near Capernaum, so that when Christ 
went out of the synagogue at Capernaum, He could easily 
go to dine or sup at Bethsaida. 



CH. vin. 15, 17, 18.] CHRIST HEALS THE SICK. 273 

Verse 15. And He touched, 

To take her by the hand and raise her up, as 6\ Mark 
\. 31. 

Verse 17. That it migJit be fulfilled. 

Vid. ii. 15. 

He took our infirmities. 

ave\a/3e, " He took," for fyeyice, " He bore," "He carried," 
tulit,portavit, as in Isaiah liii. 4. So S. Jerome renders it, 
ad verbum. " He carried," portavit, ^^^ WH 1^7H " our 
infirmities ". The LXX. gives the meaning, but not the 
words. " He carries," <e/oet, " our infirmities," portat. They 
use \apf3dveLv, " to take according to their custom," for 
$4pew t portare, "to carry," as in Levit. xvii. 16 ; xxii. 9, and 
elsewhere. What the Prophet says of sins, the Evangelist 
applies to diseases of the body : either (i) because Christ 
did not cure diseases of the body, except on account of the 
sins of the soul ; or (2) because, as S. Chrysostom says 
(Horn, xxviii.), diseases of the body are the punishment of 
sin, and very frequently arise from diseases of the soul ; 
or (3) because S. Matthew is accustomed to apply the pro 
phecies not in the same, but in a similar sense, as in ii. 15, 
18. 

Verse 18. And seeing- great multitudes. 

S. Matthew gives tacitly the reason of Christ having 
crossed the lake. It was to escape the multitude, as chap. v. 
i ; 5. Mark i. 35. S. Luke (iv. 42) says : Die facta, "And 
when it was day". Each Evangelist shows that Christ 
retired privately to avoid the throng of the multitude. S. 
Augustin (De Cons., ii.) thinks that this did not take place 
the day after Christ held that assembly and healed Peter s 
wife s mother, but SS. Mark and Luke say that He then 
went into the desert. He went into the desert after He 
had crossed the lake, for the mountains and desert were 
beyond the lake. 

IS 



274 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vm. 20. 

Verse 20. And Jesus said to him. 

It may seem surprising that Jesus rejected so roughly 
the scribe who offered himself as His disciple. But from 
the circumstance of the person and Christ s answer, it is 
not difficult to conjecture that Christ knew him to have 
come, not so much from the desire of perfection, as from 
the hope of gain or renown ; and when the prospect of 
poverty was held out to him he was terrified : as the shame 
of the Cross deterred the sons of Zebedee when they wished 
to follow Christ for honour (xx. 22), and the young man 
who seemed good enough to himself, until the perfection 
of poverty was set before him (S. Chrysostom, Horn, xxviii. ; 
S. Hilary ; S. Jerome, In Comment. ; S. Augustin, De verb. 
Dom. sec. Matt. Serm. vii. ; Theophylact ; and Euthymius, 

in /<?.). 

The Son of man. 

Some Ethnics have endeavoured to prove from these 
words that Christ was the son of a human father, because 
the Greek is not rr)s avOpwirov, which would mean the son 
of a human female, but rou, which implies the son of a 
male (S. Justin, Qucest. 66 ad Ortkod.}. S. Justin does 
not so much answer these questions as show from other 
places of Scripture that Christ was not the son of a human 
father. The answer is easy. " The son of man " is a mere 
Hebraism for a man. For Scripture calls all generally the 
sons of men, including even Adam, the first man, who was 
the son of no human parent, male or female : but because 
he was a man he is called the son of man ; unless it be 
said that Christ is called in Scripture the Son of man in 
the same sense as that in which He is called the Son of 
Abraham and the Son of David. It is a deeper and more 
difficult question why Christ alone in the New Testament, 
and Ezekiel alone in the Old Testament are so called. For 
I do not remember any but these two to whom this appel 
lation is given ; at least, not so frequently and so properly, 



CH. vin. 20.] CHRIST THE SON OF MAN. 275 

although commonly, and in general, all men are called 
" the sons of man " ; for all explain the words of Daniel 
vii. 13 of Christ, and there is no question that they ought 
to be so explained. Why Ezekiel was so called has been 
explained in the comment on chap. ii. i. Why Christ 
was so called must be explained here. 

1. Some say that He was so called to show that it was 
He whom the Prophets foretold as about to take human 
nature, and whom they also call the Son of man (Dan. vii. 
13). This is the opinion of S. Epiphanius, against the 
Noetians (H<zr. Ivii.), and of Theodoret in his Commentary 
on Daniel M\\. 12. 

2. S. Gregory Naz. (Orat. iv. de Tkeolog.) thinks that 
Christ was called the Son of Adam to show that He had 
no human father, but derived His human nature from Adam, 
through a Virgin. 

3. S. Augustin (De Cons., ii. i) thinks that Christ took 
the name to show the good of His Incarnation to us : 
" Commending to us what He mercifully designed to be 
come for us ". 

4. S. Augustin suggests still another reason : That, being 
also the Son of God, He desired by this appellation to dis 
tinguish His divine from His human nature (Ep. clxxiv. ; 
Tract, xxv. on S. John). 

5. Others, as Tertullian (De Cam. Cksti.), simply say 
that Christ wished to show Himself to be true man. The 
right explanation why He so called Himself is apparently 
to be sought for from two circumstances : (i) Because He 
Himself and Ezekiel alone are so called, as S. Irenseus 
observes (iii. 18); and (2) that He alone so calls Himself; 
for others in the New Testament never address Him by 
that title. The former circumstance suggests that Christ 
was so called from the same or some similar reason as 
Ezekiel was. Many causes have been suggested of Ezekiel 
having been called " the son of man ". The best appears 



276 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [H. vm. 21. 

to be that of R. Abraham, that it arose from his having 
been used to hold frequent conversations with angels, and 
they, to distinguish him from themselves, who were not 
men, though appearing to be such, termed him " son of 
man ". Ezekiel did not call himself this, but the angels 
did. 

For a like reason, perhaps, Christ, as He was God, and 
the Son of God, when He spoke of Himself as man, 
called Himself the Son of man by a kind of antithesis. 
Not that He was another person, but in another manner 
non quod alius sed quod aliter, " the Son of God because 
He was God, and the Son of man because He was man," 
as S. Augustin says. 

From the latter reason, we may draw the probable con 
clusion that Christ so termed Himself not for honour, but 
humility, as He is termed by the Prophets " a worm " and 
" the reproach of men " (Ps. xxi. 7). For, unless it had 
been a term of humility, others would surely, at times, have 
called Him by it as well. S. Stephen, indeed, who calls 
Him the Son of man, does so not as a sign of humility, 
but, we must suppose, of honour (Acts vii. 55). 

We observe that Ezekiel is never styled " the son of 
man " by himself, but by others ; Christ never by others, 
but by Himself. He calls Himself the Son of man, there 
fore, to show that, when He was in the form of God, He 
thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but " emptied 
Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the 
likeness of men, and in habit being found as a man " 
(Philipp. ii. 6, 7). 

Verse 21. And another. 

Christ had said to him first, " Follow Me ". S. Matthew 
does not relate this, but we find it in ,S. Luke ix. 59, who 
adds that he said : " Lord, suffer me first to go and bury 
my father," seeking permission from Christ to do so. 



CH. vin. 22.] LET THE DEAD. 277 

Suffer me first to go and bury my father. 

Some think that the father was not yet dead, but that 
the meaning of the passage is, Suffer me to go and be with 
my father, who is now an aged man, until his death, and, 
after he is dead and buried, I will follow Thee. De Lyra 
explains it thus, but the opinion of the Ancients S. Chrysos- 
tom (Horn, xxviii.), S. Basil (De Constitut. Monast.^ xxi.), 
Theophylact, and Euthymius appears better. The word 
" bury " shows that the father was actually dead. That he 
was not so is not stated, and it is not likely that one whom 
Christ knew and called would have sought such a long and 
uncertain delay. Nor is it wonderful that Christ answered, 
" Let the dead bury their dead ". The man so invited 
justly deserved blame for wishing to be so long absent 
from Christ. We may wonder that Christ did not suffer 
him to go and bury a dead father. It is clear that when 
Christ so answered, He pleased to say a thing very wonder 
ful and beyond human expectation. They, therefore, who 
so speak to prove that the father was not yet dead, because 
they think it unlikely that Christ would have been so cruel 
as to refuse so short a space of time for such an act, appear 
not to have thoroughly understood His design. He no 
doubt desired to teach us that, when called by Him, we are 
not to lose a single day or hour even for piety, though it 
were to attend the burial of a dead father, but to follow 
Him at once, than doing which there can be no greater 

piety. 

Verse 22. Let the dead bury their dead. 

It is clear that Christ here pleased to practise an am 
biguity of speech. When He twice used the word " dead," 
it is clear that the same meaning is not to be attached to 
it in each case ; for the subjects of His words were either 
actually dead in both cases, or they were actually alive in 
both cases, and were only termed " dead " by metaphor. 
It could not have been so, for the dead can neither bury 



278 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vm. 24. 

the dead, nor the living bury the living. S. Hilary, 
S. Chrysostom (Horn, xxviii.), S. Jerome, S. Ambrose (On 
Ps. xlviii.), thought that the " dead " in the first case meant 
the unfaithful ; others more correctly understand all who 
think not of Christ, but of this world (S. Augustin, iv. 3, 
De Trin. ; xxv. 6, De Civitate. ; Quczst. 6 de S. Matt. ; 
and see Ephes. ii. I ; v. 14 ; I Tim. v. 6). 

Their dead. 

Christ here describes as dead those who were actually so. 
S. Hilary, S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, conclude that the 
father of the man whom Christ called was a Gentile, and 
that He used the word " their " as meaning, Suffer the 
Gentiles to bury their own Gentiles. But it is not to be 
supposed that Christ would have called a man who was not 
a Jew to preach the Gospel, when He called Paul, who was 
not a Gentile, but a Jew, even to preach to the Gentiles. 
He, therefore, calls those " their " who are dead like them, 
that is, who resemble them ; for each is dead, though not 
in the same way. Or Christ calls them " their " as meaning, 
Let each bury his own father, his own son, his own wife, as 
Abraham said (Gen. xxiii. 4, 13). 

Verse 24. And behold a great tempest arose in the sea. 

The lake of Gennesaret. S. Luke (viii. 22) calls it a 
lake. No one is ignorant that this and the lake Asphal- 
tites are called seas from their great size. 

There appear to have been three other acts of Christ 
done here, not by accident, but by design, and by His 
Providence. 

1. He entered a ship alone with His disciples, as S. 
Luke (viii. 22) says, that He might the more freely 
censure their want of faith (S. Matt. viii. 26). 

2. A storm arose ; for God often raises storms to try us, 
as He did with Job. 



CH. vin. 26, 27, 28.] CHRIST STILLS THE TEMPEST. 279 

3. Christ slept ; for it is to be thought a true and natural 
sleep, and not, as some have thought, simulated. We may, 
indeed, believe that it was voluntary and procured, that 
the storm might appear to have arisen while He was asleep, 
and, as it were, without His intention. 

Verse 26. He commanded. 

S. Mark iv. 39; 5. Luke viii. 24, et #/., we read eVeri/z^o-ei/, 
" He rebuked ". We find the same in other places, and it 
seems less remote from the Greek ; but our reading of 
" commanded " will stand well, for eTrer/^crei/ means both 
" commanded " and " rebuked " : Christ spoke to the winds, 
tempests, diseases, and the like as if they were evil spirits. 
For we blame rational, not mere material things, as infra 
xvii. 18 ; 6*. Luke iv. 35, 41 ; ix. 42. The reason, perhaps, 
is that diseases and tempests are often sent by evil spirits, 
as David says (Ps. Ixxvii. 49 \ and as Satan sent the great 
wind on the four corners of the house in which the sons 
and daughters of Job were feasting, and overthrew it (Job 
i. 19). 

Verse 27. But the men ^wondered. 

What men were these ? S. Jerome understands the 
Apostles : Bede the others who were in the ship. But it 
was not likely that the Apostles, who had seen so many 
miracles of Christ performing, would wonder ; and it has 
been shown, on verse 24, that there are none in the ship 
but Christ and the Apostles. It remains that we under 
stand others who were in other ships. For Christ could 
not have departed so privately but that many would have 
followed Him in other ships, as S. Mark (iv. 36) relates. 
The expression seems to be a simple Hebraism, meaning 
the multitude, as chap. v. 13, and infra xvi. 13. 

Verse 28. Two that were possessed with devils. 
S. Mark (v. 2) and S. Luke (viii. 27) mention only one, 



280 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vm. 28. 

yet it is the same history. S. Matthew mentions two, be 
cause there were two ; SS. Mark and Luke one only : 
whether, as S. Augustin thinks (De Cons Evang., xxiv.; 
Bede ; and Strabus in his Comment.), theirs was of higher 
rank, or, as seems more probable, the other was fiercer and 
much more heavily tormented, being possessed by a whole 
legion of devils (S. Mark v. 9 ; 5. Luke viii. 30), as is 
supposed by S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact. 
For SS. Mark and Luke, because the miracle of possession 
by an entire legion was singular, treat it as a singular case, 
and, therefore, being wholly occupied by this one, they 
pass over the other in silence ; but they relate many things 
of the latter which S. Matthew omits. 

Coming out of the sepulchres. 

Because they lived in them (S. Mark v. 3 ; .S. Luke viii. 
27). How they could do this is easily understood from the 
nature of the ancient tombs. They were either hewn out 
of the rock, or built of stone and arched over with brick, 
like modern wine-cellars. This is seen in Christ s tomb, 
which was hewn out of the rock (xxvii. 60), into which 
SS. John and Peter entered (S. John xx. 6), and the three 
women with spices (S. Luke xxiv. 3). It has been asked 
why these demoniacs lived in the tombs ? S. Chrysostom 
(Horn, xxviii.), Euthymius, and Theophylact say that it 
was the \vork of the devils, to lead men into the error which 
was in full force in the times of S. Chrysostom, as he tells 
us that the souls of the dead were changed into devils. 
S. Augustin mentions this as the opinion of some of the 
Platonists and certain followers of Tertullian (De Civit.> ix. ; 
ad Quodvult., Ixxxvi.). Others suppose that the devils did 
this the more to torment the souls over whom they had 
power. We learn, from 5. Jude 9, that Michael the arch 
angel contended with the devil for the body of Moses. 
Hence probably arose the laudable custom of the Church 



CH. vin. 29.] CHRIST CASTS OUT DEVILS. 28 1 

of placing crosses in tombs, and sprinkling them with holy 
water. S. Luke seems to imply the true reason (viii. 27). 
He says : " He wore no clothes, neither did he abide in a 
house, but in the sepulchres ". This is said to show the 
extreme fierceness of the demoniacs. They probably did 
not live in houses, no one being able to receive them on 
account of their ferocity. They therefore betook them 
selves to the tombs. 



Verse 29. What have we to do ^cuitk Thee ? 

These words do not seem to mean what most suppose. 
This is rather to fix a wrong on Christ than to entreat 
Him for themselves, as if they denied that they were 
servants and He their Lord, like the Israelites when they 
separated themselves from the kingdom of David (3 Kings 
xii. 1 6): "What portion have we in David?" That is, 
What harm do we to Thee that Thou shouldst cast us 
out ? We harm others who pass by ; we touch not Thee, 
we attack Thee not we worship Thee, we adore Thee, we 
confess Thee to be the Lord. It has been questioned 
whether or not these and other evil spirits knew Christ. 
S. Jerome, S. Augustin (De Civit,, ix. 21), Remigius (Ap.) 
S. Thom.\ and many later authors say that they knew 
Him ; not, indeed, with any certain knowledge, but from 
probable conjecture and suspicion. For if they had cer 
tainly known Him, they would have endeavoured to prevent 
His death. They did not do this, but, on the contrary, 
they brought it about, for they put it into the mind of 
Judas to deliver Him up (S. John xiii. 2). Soon after, 
when they knew Him, they endeavoured, through the wife 
of Pilate, to effect His deliverance (xxvii. 19). 

At first, before He began to preach, the devils did not 
know whether He were the Son of God and the true 
Messiah or not. If they had known this they would not 
have tempted Him. They tempted Him for this very 



282 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vm. 29. 

purpose, to know the truth by experiment (iv. 3, 6). After 
His Temptation they certainly knew that He was the true 
Son of God and the true Messiah, as we may see from 
this passage and others like it (S. Mark i. 34 ; 5. Luke iv. 
41). The mystery of His death, and the redemption of 
man from their power by it, we may suppose that they did 
not know ; otherwise they would never have stirred up the 
Jews to His betrayal. It is uncertain whether the dream 
of Pilate s wife proceeded from the devils or the angels, or 
was natural ; but we must believe, as S. Thomas has 
warned us, that the devil was prevented by God from 
knowing much of Christ, which, if not prevented, he would 
have known of his own nature. 

Art Thou, come hither to torment us before the time ? 

The conjunction of words in this passage is doubtful. 
Some unite the expression "before the time" to "art 
Thou come," as if the evil spirits complained that Christ 
had come into the world before the time. This idea seems 
wholly untenable. For the devils could not have been 
ignorant that the time of Christ s coming, as foretold by 
the Prophets, was now fulfilled ; for men of very little 
learning knew this, and the word " hither " may appear to 
mean, not this world, but this country of the Gerasenes, 
into which Christ had now come, and in which the devils 
had previously worked their will with impunity. The 
words " before the time " should be taken, not with those 
preceding them, " art thou come," but with what follows, 
" to torment us before the time has arrived when we must 
be tormented ". 

It is a more important question why they said that they 
were tormented before the time. It is wonderful with 
what unanimity the greater number of the Ancients, relying 
on 2 Peter ii. 4 and S. Jude 6, teach that the devils are not 
tormented before the Day of Judgment. They explain the 



CH. vin. so.] CHRIST CASTS OUT DEVILS. 283 

meaning of S. Matthew to be, that the devils complain that 
they are tormented before that period ; as S. Hilary (Can. 
viii.) explains it. 

But we may believe, with the confirmed opinion of the 
Church, that the devils are tormented even now, and that, 
wherever they go, they carry about with them, as Strabus 
says in his Commentary on Philippians iii., their own punish 
ment ; but that they are punished in a lighter degree now 
because they have the power of wandering through the 
world and of harming men, which they will not have after 
the Day of Judgment. It is certain that the meaning of the 
words " before the time " is before the Judgment, because 
S. Luke says that they asked Christ not to send them into 
the abyss (viii. 31); as if they were thus to be tormented in 
the same way before their time of torment as they would 
be after the Judgment. 

From this question springs another : Did the evil spirits 
know of the Day of Judgment ? S. Augustin thinks that the 
devils supposed, when they saw Christ, that the Day of 
Judgment, which they did not look for yet, was at hand : 
" before the time," meaning with them, before we thought. 

This opinion has had many followers ; but that the devils 
do not know the Day of Judgment we cannot doubt, for 
the angels in heaven do not know it (xxiv. 36). They 
know, however, that it had not come yet, and, therefore, 
they complain that they were tormented before the time. 
But how ? By being driven, against their will, out of those 
of whom they were in possession. And it is probable that 
Christ may have added some torments to them that they 
might go out. 

Verse 30. And there was not far from them. 

The Greek reads %v Se pdicpav, " And there was far from 
them," in a contrary sense. Some, in other respects no 
undue supporters of the Greek, prefer this reading, and 



284 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vin. 30. 

correct the Latin by it. Nor are they without arguments 
in their support. These are chiefly : 

1. All the Greek copies contain an affirmation and not a 
negation. 

2. It is probable that Christ would drive the evil spirits 
as far off as possible from the place which they in 
fested. 

But the Latin version still seems the less corrupt of the 
two. (i) Because all the copies, ancient and modern, and 
all the early commentators except Euthymius read it so. 
(2) Because S. Mark (v. n) and S. Luke (viii. 32) say, 
" There were there," that is, the place spoken of by S. 
Matthew as "not far off". (3) Because S. Luke says 
(viii. 32) on the mountains, and S. Mark (v. 11) near the 
mountains which are near the sea. (4) Because Christ, as 
we shall shortly prove, suffered them to go into the swine, 
that they who were present and had the care of them might 
know from the destruction of the swine the number and 
ferocity of the devils ; which they would not have known 
if they had not seen the swine, nor have seen if they had 
been at a distance. 

It has been asked, how swine could be there when it was 
unlawful for the Jews to keep them. Some suppose that 
the Jews of that country kept them against the law, and 
that, as Rupertus says, Christ willed to punish them by the 
very instruments of their sin. It seems more probable 
that Gadara and the neighbouring cities were of the Greek 
religion, as Josephus says (Antiq., xvii. 13), and, therefore, 
had swine. But, then, why did Christ go there when He 
had not come but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel 
(xv. 24) ? The answer may be, that not only in the Greek 
but also in the Latin cities were many Jews, for whose 
sake Christ went thither ; for Gadara belonged properly to 
the kingdom of Judaea, but Josephus says Caesar had given 
it to the Greeks as a habitation. 



CH. vin. 31.] CHRIST CASTS OUT DEVILS. 285 

Verse 31. And the devils besought Him saying. 

The devils asked two things of Christ one that He 
would not send them into the abyss (S. Luke viii. 31) ; the 
other that they might be sent into the sea. We have 
shown why they asked not to be sent into the abyss. 
Many reasons are given by the Ancients for their asking to 
be sent into the swine S. Chrysostom (Horn, xxix.), Euthy- 
mius, and Theophylact say that it was that the men of the 
country, being enraged by the loss of the swine, might not 
permit Him to enter their cities. The result appears to 
confirm this idea, for (verse 34) " they besought Him that 
He would depart from their coasts ". Others think that 
they did it from envy of the inhabitants, wishing, if they 
could not harm them in their persons, to do so in their 
property. This reason was given by the great Hilarion, as 
S. Jerome writes in his life, when he had cast out a devil 
from a monster camel. S. Jerome supports it by this 
passage and by the case of Job. It is rather to be 
wondered at why Christ permitted it. S. Jerome says 
that it was to bring the men of the city to repentance ; 
but Rupertus, as we have said, thought that it was to 
punish the Jews by the loss of the swine for keeping them 
against the law. S. Hilary suggests that it was done 
because of the Sadducees, who denied that there were spirits, 
to show them their error by the testimony of their senses. 

S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius give three 
reasons for the act. I. That the possessed might acknow 
ledge the greatness of the benefit done them, by seeing from 
how great a number of devils they had been delivered. 2. 
That we might know that the devils had no power even 
over swine without the permission of God. 3. That they 
might understand what they would have suffered if they 
had not been delivered by God, when they saw the swine, 
the instant the devils entered into them, cast themselves 
headlong into the sea. S. Hilarion, in S. Jerome, says that 



286 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. vin. 34. 

it was to show what a multitude of devils were cast out of 
one man when they filled a whole herd of swine. What 
S. Chrysostom and S. Augustin (Tractat. on S.John) say, 
that Christ desired to show that devils willingly enter into 
men, who live like swine, is true but mystical. 

Some ask why Christ, who was so mild that He would 
not break a bruised reed nor quench the smoking flax, 
caused so great a loss to these people ? The answer may 
be that Christ wished even the swine to be subservient to 
the glory of God, and the salvation of men. They served 
the glory of God because, by their rushing headlong into 
the sea, they declared the power of Christ : they would 
have served the good of men if the people of the city, after 
having witnessed so great a miracle, had turned to Christ. 
But human malice thwarted the designs of God. 

Verse 34. They besought Him that He would depart from 
their coasts. 

It is uncertain why those Gadarenes would not receive 
Christ. S. Jerome and Bede think that it was from 
humility, as S. Peter said to Christ, " Depart from me, for I 
am a sinful man, O Lord " (S. Luke v. 8). Others, that it 
was from fear ; lest He should cast out other devils from 
men, and send them into their cattle. This is confirmed by 
S. Mark (v. 15), S. Luke (viii. 35-37), who say that they 
were exceeding afraid. This can be believed without 
difficulty of the Gadarenes, who were men of little culture. 
For there are many even now, who, under pretence of human 
prudence, would rather drive Christ out of the country that 
is, those who follow Christ than swine, atheists, heretics, 
and men defiled with every kind of iniquity. 



CHAPTER IX. 

CHRIST HEALS ONE SICK OF THE PALSY : CALLS 
MATTHEW : CURES THE ISSUE OF BLOOD : RAISES 
TO LIFE THE DAUGHTER OF JAIRUS : GIVES SIGHT 
TO TWO BLIND MEN : AND HEALS A DUMB MAN 
POSSESSED BY THE DEVIL. 

Verse i. And entering. 

S. MARK (ii. 3), S. Luke (v. 18), relate the following events 
before those in the former chapter of S. Matthew. From 
the events themselves it is clear that they have not pre 
served the order of time. 

He came into His own city. 

Some think that Nazareth was called the city of Christ 
(as vS. Luke ii. 39). S. Jerome, in his Commentary, which 
S. Augustin does not disapprove (De Cons., ii. 25), cautions 
us that if we follow this opinion, we must say that Christ 
first went up to Nazareth, His own city, and then returned 
from Nazareth to Capernaum, where the events that follow 
took place. Others understand Bethlehem, which is much 
further from the truth, as Sedulius says (lib. iii.) : 

" Intravit natale solum quo corpore nasci 
Se voluit, patriamque sibi, pater ipse, dicavit ". 

" He comes into His native soil, wherein 
It pleased Him in His Body to be born; 
Himself the Father ; He, unto Himself, 
To dedicate a country, thought not scorn." 

And there, the poet thinks, He healed the paralytic. A 



288 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. ix. 2. 

better idea of the meaning is proposed by S. Augustin, S. 
Chrysostom, Bede, Strabus, Hugo, and N. de Lyra, that 
the city which is called Christ s was Capernaum. For all 
three Evangelists show that Christ went directly to it, and 
they relate immediately what was done to the paralytic. 
But all do not agree as to why Capernaum was called the 
city of Christ. The Fathers mentioned above think that it 
was because it was the metropolis of Galilee, to which 
Nazareth, the city of Christ, was subject ; as men were 
called Romans, not only if born in Rome itself, but even if 
natives or inhabitants of towns subject to it. S. Chry 
sostom, however, with Theophylact and Euthymius, say 
that it was so called because Christ frequently lived in it. 
They say that He had three cities : Bethlehem, in which He 
was born ; Nazareth, in which He grew up ; Capernaum, 
in which He frequently lived. This is more probable. 

Verse 2. And behold they brought to Him. 

S. Matthew is silent on one circumstance, necessary to 
the understanding of the passage, which S. Mark (ii. 3) and 
S. Luke (v. 19) have related that so great a multitude 
flocked into the house where Christ was, that no one could 
enter it ; and that the men who brought the paralytic 
ascended the roof, and having made an opening in it, let 
the sick man down to Christ. Seeing their faith, He said : 
" Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee ". 

Their fait JL 

Some think that this faith is to be referred both to the 
paralytic and to those who brought him. They say that 
if the paralytic had not had faith he would not have 
suffered himself to be brought to Christ, and Christ would 
not have forgiven his sins. But this I can in no way 
approve. For although I doubt not that the paralytic had 
great faith, yet all the Evangelists so speak as to show 



CH. ix. 2.] CURE OF THE PALSIED. 289 

beyond doubt that Christ would only speak of the faith of 
those who bore him, as all say that for the faith of the 
centurion his servant was healed (viii. 10, 13; 5. Luke vii. 
9). So all good authorities explain it (S. Cyril of Jerusalem, 
Cat. Lect., v. ; S. Ambrose, v., On S. Luke; S. Jerome; S. 
Chrysostom, Horn. xxx.). 

Be of good heart, son. 

Be of good heart, for thou shalt obtain more than thou 
askest. Thou askest health of thy body : thou shalt have 
the salvation of thy soul. S. Matthew and S. Mark say 
that Christ called the man "son": S. Luke (v. 20) that He 
called him " man ". This is of no moment. For, as we 
have said, some of the Evangelists relate the words, others 
give the meaning. But it agrees better with the mildness 
of Christ to have called him " son " than " man," as He said 
afterwards to the woman with the issue of blood "daughter" 

(V. 22). 

Thy sins are forgiven thee. 

It may be justly asked why Christ forgave the paralytic 
his sins, when he sought not this, but the cure of his body ? 
S. Jerome, Euthymius, and Theophylact reply that Christ 
wished both to indicate the origin of the disease and to 
remove it before He removed the disease itself. For 
diseases are often at once the effect and the punishment of 
sin. S. Chrysostom (Horn, xxx.) thinks, with probability, 
that Christ wished to give the Scribes occasion of calum 
niating Him, that from their so doing He might take the 
opportunity of defending His Divinity. It may be thought 
that He desired to teach, in this way, what the paralytic 
ought to have sought before all things else. For He had 
said (vi. 33) : " Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God 
and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto 
you ". 

From this the followers of Calvin teach that sins are for- 

19 



290 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. ix. 2. 

given by faith alone. They tell us that Christ did not say 
to the paralytic that his sins were forgiven from seeing 
the acts of those who brought him, or from considering 
their labour in lifting him up to the top of the house, taking 
off the roof, and letting him down, but " seeing their faith ". 
They confirm this as below : verse 22 ; S. Mark v. 34 ; 
vS. Luke vii. 50; viii. 48, 50; xvii. 19; xviii. 42. Christ 
therefore required of those whom He would heal, faith as 
infra, verses 28, 29, with many other passages of the like 
nature. 

To save useless repetitions, we will answer them once for 
all. But we must do so, not as if treating of the whole 
question of faith and justification, but of the meaning of 
this and similar passages. I might say what all Catholics 
have hitherto agreed to, that we do not deny, but teach, that 
the first justification, which is the one treated of in all these 
passages, is not of works. But the former do not directly 
prove that it is of faith alone, for charity intervenes between 
faith and works, which S. Peter says " covereth a multitude 
of sins " (i Peter iv. 8), and Christ said, "Many sins are for 
given, because she hath loved much " (S. Luke vii. 47). For 
when sins are said to be forgiven by faith, without mention 
of charity, we understand charity, from other passages, to be 
included. Where they are said to be remitted by charity, 
without faith, faith is included. For, as we cannot conclude 
from those passages in which faith is not named that sins 
are remitted by charity alone without faith, so in those in 
which charity is not named, it would be wrongly concluded 
that they are remitted by faith alone without charity. 
Especially as these say that, as charity cannot exist alone 
without faith, so faith cannot exist alone without charity. 
Thus one error confutes another. Faith is named rather 
than charity in justification, not because it is greater than 
charity, but because it is prior to it in the order of nature. 
We might answer thus, as all Catholics do ; and enough, 



CH. ix. 2.] CHRIST S FORGIVENESS OF SINS. 291 

and more than enough, would have been done. But this 
is not enough. These great theologians make a threefold 
faith : (i) A historical faith, by which we believe all that 
God has spoken to be true ; (2) the faith of miracles, by 
which we believe that there is nothing impossible to God ; 
(3) justifying and Christian faith, by which we believe that 
our sins are forgiven for the merits of Christ. These three 
kinds of faith in us for they make their faith like the 
strings of a lyre, not like the faith of Religion answer to 
the three properties in God : the historical to His truth, 
the faith in miracles to His power, the justifying faith to 
His goodness. And not to every kind of goodness, but 
to that properly by which, when as yet we were sinners, 
as S. Paul says (Rom. v. 8), Christ died for us. We are 
justified, not by the first, nor by the second, but only by 
the third. 

In all the passages which they have heaped together so 
diligently there is no mention of their justifying faith. 
"Jesus seeing their faith." What faith? That certainly 
of the miracles by which they believed that the paralytic 
could be healed by Christ : not their justifying faith, of 
which they did not even think, as they had never heard 
of it, nor Christ either when He said that He was about to 
die for the sins of men ; nor can they say that the men 
believed implicitly, for they had no implicit faith, nor 
explicit either. Christ said of the centurion : " Amen, I 
say to you, I have not found so great faith in Israel. Go, 
and as thou hast believed so be it done to thee " (S. Matt. 
viii. 10, 13). What faith was this? Not justifying faith 
assuredly, of which the centurion could not have had any 
possible idea, but the faith of miracles by which he had 
said : " Lord, I am not worthy ". Christ said to the 
woman with the issue of blood : " Be of good heart, 
daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole " (ix. 22). What 
faith? That of miracles, by which she had said within 



292 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. ix. 2. 

herself, " If I shall touch only His garment, I shall be 
healed ". It is clear, from these and other examples 
brought up by them, that Christ required that faith from 
those whom He healed, as in verse 28 : " Do you believe 
that I can do this unto you ? " In the greater number of 
these passages it is not a question of the faith of the sick 
persons themselves, but of that of others. Here it is that 
of the persons who let the paralytic down from the roof. 
In chap. viii. 8, not of the sick servant, but of the centurion 
who entreated for him. In 5. Luke viii. 50, not of the daugh 
ter who was dead, but of the ruler of the synagogue. In 
vS. Mark ix. 23, not of the faith of the son who had a dumb 
devil, but of the father who prayed for him and to whom 
Christ said : " If thou canst believe, all things are possible 
to him that believeth ". But, in the opinion of these men, 
persons grown cannot be justified by the faith of another, 
but only by their own faith. " We are saved," they say, 
" by apprehending the righteousness of Christ, and, by 
apprehending it, making it our own ; by our own act we 
are justified, that is, being covered and clothed by the 
righteousness of Christ, we appear before God, and are 
accounted, righteous." We deceive God then, not appease 
Him. If so, it necessarily follows that each is justified by 
his own faith, and not by another s, and one can no more 
be justified by the faith by which another believes for him, 
than he can be adorned or warmed by a garment which 
another puts on for him. For by faith they say we put on 
the righteousness of Christ, by the adornment of which we 
are not righteous, but we appear to be so. There was 
Malchus whose ear Peter cut off, and whom Christ healed 
(S.Jo/tn xviii. 10). We do not believe that he was justi 
fied, for he was healed not for his own faith, but from the 
loving-kindness of Christ, who would not break a bruised 
reed. We believe that the others who were cured by faith, 
were cured in their souls not by faith alone, but by the 



CH. ix. 3 .] CHRIST S FORGIVENESS OF SINS. 293 

same faith as that by which their bodies were healed. Not 
by that faith which they call the only justifying and Chris 
tian faith, and by which they pretend to apprehend Christ, 
but by that which is contained in the Apostles Creed, and 
which is the same as historical faith, and the faith in 
miracles, and justifying faith. If these men had the one 
faith, they would have every faith. Because they have a 
threefold faith, they have no faith at all. 

How, then, were the sins of the paralytic forgiven because 
of the faith of those who bore him ? The ancient Fathers, 
as we have said in chap, xiii., have all affirmed absolutely 
that the sins of one can be forgiven for the faith of another, 
and they bring this passage as a most powerful proof. 
This is indeed true, but it must be understood as if their sins 
were forgiven not only by the faith of others but by their 
own faith as well, whilst the latter is aided by the former. 

We must not believe that the sins of those who have no 
faith are forgiven by the faith of others, but that they may 
be forgiven whose faith is so weak that if God did not 
regard the faith of those who pray for them He would not 
forgive them. Although it may be probable that this 
paralytic had not less faith than that of those who bore 
him that is, he had faith sufficiently great yet Christ is 
said to have forgiven his sins for their sake, because He so 
valued it that, even if the paralytic himself had had less 
than was necessary, yet, moved by their faith, He would 
have forgiven him. There is another way in which sins are 
forgiven for the faith of others : when the prayers of others 
obtain faith for those who either do nothing or do wickedly, 
or who certainly have no faith ; as S. Augustin says more 
than once that S. Stephen obtained faith for S. Paul. 

Verse 3. Certain of tJie Scribes said within themselves. 

9 Ev 6airrofc. Some have thought from the Greek eV that 
they murmured one with another ; but it is plain from verse 



294 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. ix. 4. 

4 that the meaning is not among themselves, but inwardly ; 
that is, they thought that Christ was blaspheming ; for the 
Evangelist does not say, " When Christ heard," or " When 
He knew their words," but " Seeing their thoughts " ; and 
He did not say, " Why do you murmur ? " but " Why do 
you think evil within your hearts ? " The expression, " said 
within themselves," is a Hebraism for " to think," as iii. 9 
and ix. 21 ; vS. Luke vii. 39, 49; xvi. 3 ; xviii. 4; so Psalms iv. 
5, 10; xi. 13, according to the Hebrew, and in numberless 
other places, as S. Augustin has observed (De Trin., xv. 10). 

He blasphemeth. 

They brought this accusation against Christ, because He 
assumed a property of God the power to forgive sins ; for 
they had read the words of Isaiah (xliii. 25), but they had 
not read, or had not understood, what the Prophet says 
(liii. 6), nor remembered the words of S. John Baptist (S. 
John i. 29) : " Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him who 
taketh away the sin of the world ". The other Evangelists 
state the reason of the Pharisees having brought this charge 
against Him (S. Mark\\. 7 ; 5. Luke v. 21). 

Verse 4. And Jesus seeing their thoughts. 
The Evangelist has recorded each event with profound 
design. i. The Pharisees not having spoken out, but only 
thought within themselves. 2. Christ s knowledge of their 
thoughts, not by mere conjecture, but as if He had seen 
them with His eyes, to show His Divinity. S. Mark relates 
it more at length (ii. 8). Holy Scripture everywhere shows 
that God alone knows the hearts and thoughts of men. 
Hence, from this passage, the ancient Fathers have rightly 
concluded the Godhead of Christ 

Whether is easier to say. 

" To say " is put here not for spoken words alone, nor 
things alone. If we only regard the words, it is as easy to 



CH. ix. 4 .] CHRIST S FORGIVENESS OF SINS. 295 

say, " Thy sins are forgiven thee/ as " Arise, take up thy 
bed," &c. If things, it is much more difficult to forgive 
sins than to cure the relaxed limbs of a paralytic ; for what 
some say that it is equally difficult to cure the body by 
our own power and to forgive sins is not to be listened to. 
The saying of S. Augustin (Tract, on S. John xxvii.) is true : 
that it is more difficult to make a man righteous than to 
create a heavens and an earth. But the word (dicere, to say) 
is put for words joined with the outward proof of the result. 
In this way it is more difficult to say, " Arise and walk," 
than " Thy sins are forgiven thee," because the hearers can 
not see whether the sins are truly forgiven or not, but they 
cannot help seeing whether the paralytic arises and walks. 
So that in the former case the authority of the speaker, as 
it cannot be convicted of falsehood, cannot be endangered ; 
in the latter, because there can be ocular proof, the speaker 
is brought under danger. In this sense S. Jerome, S. 
Chrysostom, Bede, and Theophylact explain it. And not 
only they who seek another meaning, but they who find 
one, seem to me to lose their labour. 

It may be doubted how Christ concluded that which 
should have been proved ; for if it were indeed more 
difficult to forgive sins, whilst the evidence of the restored 
paralytic shows that Christ could do that which was more 
easy in itself, it does not thoroughly prove that He could 
also remit sins, which is more difficult. The answer may 
be that Christ only desired to show that they ought to 
believe in Him. This He well proves by an act, the proof 
of which was more difficult. As if He had said, " If I do 
not deceive you when I say to the paralytic, * Arise and 
walk, where the proof that I am speaking the truth is more 
difficult, why do you think that I am deceiving you when 
I say, * Thy sins are forgiven thee ? " Thus, from a fact 
which can be proved by the result ; in another which cannot, 
He causes faith in Himself. 



296 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. ix. 6. 

Verse 6. But that you may know. 

Some have thought these the words of the Evangelist. 
This is not probable, both because the sense requires that 
Christ should have said this Himself to show the Scribes 
that He had power to forgive sins ; and, besides, all the 
Evangelists (S. Mark ii. 10 ; 5. Luke v. 24) give the same 
words, which they would not have done if they had been 
their own and not Christ s. Many have supposed that 
Christ desired to prove that He was God, and therefore 
that He did not blaspheme when He said, " Thy sins are 
forgiven thee ". But the meaning of the whole seems to 
be that Christ appears to prove that God alone has not the 
power to forgive sins. It is probable that He desired to 
prove the contrary of what the Scribes thought. They 
thought that God alone has power to forgive sins, and that 
Christ was not God. Christ proves both that He was God, 
and that, even as man, He could forgive sins. Not as any 
man whatever, but as man who was God. He did not so 
much prove that He was God by argument, as demonstrate 
it by fact, when He showed them what they had in their 
thoughts. He proves that, as man, He could forgive sins 
by the argument in verse 5 ; and the words, " the Son of 
man," and "on earth," seem to have this force. For He 
did not say, " That you may know that the Son of God has 
power," but "the Son of man," and He did not say, "in 
heaven," but " upon earth " to show that, even as man, He 
could forgive sins. The Novatians perverted this passage 
to prove that the priesthood could not forgive sins, and the 
heirs of their doctrine, the disciples of Calvin, follow their 
example in the present day. S. Ambrose, in his two books 
De Panit., has given a full reply ; and from what has been 
already said, the task is easy. As the power of the re 
mission of sins was communicated to Christ, even in His 
human nature, by the Godhead, so it was shared by Christ 
as the head with whatever members He chose, that is, with 



CH. ix. s. 9.] CHRIST S FORGIVENESS OF SINS. 297 

the priesthood. We see this even in His power of working 
miracles, which, as a property of God, was shared by the 
Godhead of Christ with the Humanity, and was communi 
cated by Him to the Apostles, except that Christ acted by 
His own power, and the others did both actions by His. 

Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy hoiise. 

Christ added these words as a clear proof of the cure ; nor 
can it be considered a simulated or imperfect cure, when a 
paralytic, deprived of the use of his limbs, rose up, placed 
the bed on which he had been lying on his shoulders, and 
carried it to his house, as S. Chrysostom has observed. 

Verse 8. Feared, 

The Greek reads eOav^acrav " wondered ". Although the 
Greek properly means wondered, it is here used for feared. 
For there is a wonder which comes from joy, and there is a 
wonder which springs from fear. S. Luke (v. 26) calls that 
etcarao-iv, stuporem, which S. Matthew here calls Oavpacnov, 
and explains to mean violent terror. Fear is, beyond 
doubt, to be understood here. Not that which is derived 
from hatred, but that which comes of a high opinion of and 
reverence for another. There is a remarkable example of 
this in 3 Kings iii. 28. When the people saw the wisdom 
of Solomon in his judgment between the two harlots, it is 
said that they feared him. As fear is put there for admira 
tion, so admiration is put in this place for fear. 

Verse 9. And when Jesus passed on from thence, 

Returning to the sea, as S. Mark explains it (ii. 13), we 
have referred to this calling of the Apostles (v. i). 

In the custom-house. 

At the table of the publicans, at which the public taxes 
of Caesar were collected. From reXo?, which signifies a 



298 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. ix. 10, 13. 

tax, is derived reXcowoz/. The telonium was the place in 
which the taxes were collected. As the revenue was mostly 
paid in money which was told out upon a table, the table 
was also so called, and S. Matthew is, therefore, said to 
have sat at the telonium, that is, at the table. The tribute 
does not appear to have been originally collected from 
house to house, but to have been brought to some parti 
cular spot. It is probable that the table at which S. 
Matthew sat was not in his own house, but in some public 
place near the shore, for the more easy collection of the 
tax upon goods that were brought to the sea. For S. 
Mark (ii. 15) and S. Luke (v. 29) signify that Christ went 
thence into the house of Matthew, who made a great feast 
for him. 

Named Matthew. 

S. Mark (ii. 14) and S. Luke (v. 27-29) mention him as 
Matthew by name, and Levi by surname. The latter 
appears to have been the more honourable of the two 
names, for we observe that he never calls himself Levi but 
always Matthew, for modesty ; but others call him Levi, as 
well as Matthew, for honour, as S. Jerome has observed. 

Verse 10. In the house. 
Of the same Matthew (S. Mark ii. 15; vS. Luke v. 29). 

Verse 13. Go. 
In Hebrew IIENI "D 1 ?. $& Judges x. 14. 

Learn. 

Christ sends these doctors of the law to school to show 
their ignorance of that in the knowledge of which they 
chiefly prided themselves, as Euthymius has observed. 
Christ did the same in other places (xii. 3-5 ; xix. 4 ; xxi. 
1 6, 42 ; xxii. 31 ; 5. Mark xii. 10, 26). We have said (ii. 
4) that the Pharisees were teachers of the law. 



CH. ix. 13.] CHRIST AND THE PHARISEES. 299 

/ will have mercy. 

We must first ask to what end Christ said this. For He 
was not now speaking of sacrifice or mercy. The answer 
is that His mercy in calling sinners to repentance was great, 
as He said soon after, and which, as He proves from the 
greater to the less, is to be preferred to all things. If, as the 
Prophet said, it is to be preferred to the Sacrifice which was 
offered to God, to what is it not to be preferred ? as Christ 
said above (v. 24, 25). Euthymius explains it in this sense. 

A nd not sacrifice. 

Christ does not deny that He desires sacrifice, since He 
instituted it Himself, and commanded it to be offered to 
Himself; but He says that He would rather have mercy, 
that is, an inward rather than an outward sacrifice. If 
either must be wanting, He would rather that it were the 
outward, which consisted of victims offered to God, than 
the inward one in the heart. It is a Hebrew idiom by 
which they are accustomed, when they prefer one thing to 
another, not to speak more highly of the thing preferred, 
and more slightingly of the other, but to speak of the 
former exclusively and to ignore the other altogether, as : 
" My doctrine is not Mine," that is, as it is the Father s 
who gave it to Me and from whom I received it (S. John 
vii. 16; infra t x. 20; Rom. ix. 16). It is not so much^ 
that is, of man that willeth, as of God that has mercy. So 
S. Chrysostom (Horn, xxxi.) ; and therefore S. Ambrose (ii.> 
De Pcenitentia) reads : " I will rather have mercy than 
sacrifice". S. Augustin (xx. 1 6, Cont. Faust., and ii. 27, De 
Consens.} : " I would rather (void] have mercy than (q2tam) 
sacrifice". It was a form of speech frequently used to the 
time of S. Gregory, derived probably from the version in 
use in the Latin Church before S. Jerome, The Author having 
possibly followed the Hebraism. 

t " and said I would rather (void] have 



300 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. ix. 13. 

this than (quam) that," that is, I prefer (inalo} this. S. 
Augustin (De Civit., x. 5) and Csesarius (Horn, xxxvi.) read: 
" I would rather have mercy than sacrifice " (inagis volo 
quant), regarding perhaps rather the meaning of the passage 
than the words. That this is the meaning of the Prophet 
(Qsee vi. 6) is clear, from whom the words are taken ; for 
there follows the sentence : " The knowledge of God is 
more than holocausts ". By sacrifice, which was an out 
ward worship, all outward worship : and by mercy, which 
is an inward one, all works of charity are to be under 
stood. 

/ am not come to call thejnst but sinners. 

There are two questions on these words : 

1. Whether when He came Christ found any just ? 

2. Whether He came for these also, if there were any ? 
The heretics of this age, the followers of Luther and 

Calvin, deny that there were any really just, not only w r hen 
Christ came but also afterwards. But surely Zacharias 
and Elizabeth were just, however they define the word. 
Besides, they deny not only that there were, but that 
there could possibly be, any just ; for no man, they say, is 
able to fulfil the whole law. But S. Luke (i. 6) says of 
Zachary and Elizabeth : " They were both just before God, 
walking in all the commandments and justifications of the 
Lord, without blame ". They were just, not as reputed so, 
but they were so ; and not before men alone but also 
before God, and not because sin was not imputed to them, 
but because they had no sin ; that is, because they kept 
the law which these persons declare it to be impossible 
to keep, so that nothing could possibly be wanting in them. 
If then Elizabeth were such as Mary, of whom she said, 
" Whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should 
come to me ? " we may believe that others, not mentioned 
in Scripture, were also just, because it is clear from these 
that they could be so. Christ called Nathaniel a true 



CH. ix. 13.] CHRIST S CALL OF SINNERS. 301 

Israelite, indeed, in whom there is no guile (i S. John 1.47). 
By this expression Scripture commonly describes a man 
perfectly just, as in Ps. xiv. 3 ; xxxi. 2. Lastly, it was 
said, to His great praise, of Christ Himself, that " He did 
no iniquity, neither was there deceit in His mouth " (ha. 
liii. 9). 

On the other hand, Scripture teaches that all men are 
sinners (Rom. iii. 22, 23 ; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15). So all the 
ancient Fathers say that when Christ came He found no 
man just : for He said, " I am not come to call the just but 
sinners " ; not that some were just, but that some thought 
themselves so, like the Pharisees to whom He said this. 
He did not come to these, not because He did not come to 
all, but because they who thought themselves just, like a 
sick man who fancies that nothing ails him will not consult 
the physician. Christ therefore said to them : " If you 
were blind you should not have sin, but now you say, We 
see, your sin remaineth ". 

S. Hilary, S. Chrysostom (Horn, xxxi.), S. Jerome, Bede, 
Theophylact, and Euthymius think that they are called just, 
as in irony. Scripture, however, which seems in this to be 
opposed to itself, is to be thus harmonised with itself; 
Christ when He came found, as has been proved, some 
just, and yet other Scriptures teach that He would find 
none such ; some there were truly just, none who were so 
per se, that is, without Christ Himself. For they who were 
just before Christ s advent were only so through His grace 
and faith, and by the power of His future coming, as S. 
Peter testifies (Acts xv. n). Even she herself, the most 
just of all the just, whom we believe to have been preserved 
from the taint of original sin, is to be numbered among 
those who have need of God s grace, and for whom also 
Christ came. For if He had not come she could not have 
been preserved by His grace. 

The second question remains : 



302 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. ix. 13. 

How did Christ say that He had not come to call the 
just, when no one, without His preventing grace, ever could 
be just? He did not come to call the just, that is, those 
who thought themselves so. Not that He would not call 
them, but that even if He did call them they would not 
come. This explanation may be accepted ; but, for my own 
part, I understand the words to mean that Christ did not 
come to call the just, but sinners, as the ninety-nine sheep 
which had not strayed were left in the wilderness that He 
might seek the one which had strayed (xviii. 12). This does 
not mean, as some explain it, that He left the angels 
to seek men, nor the ninety-nine men who had not erred to 
seek the one who had, as if everyone except the ninety- 
ninth had been a sinner, for " All have turned aside into 
their own way" (Isa. Ivi. n), and "They are all gone 
aside, they are become unprofitable together ; there is none 
that doeth good, no, not one " (Ps. xiii. 3 and Ps. Hi. 4) ; 
but it means that Christ was so good and merciful that if 
there had been only one hundred men, and ninety-nine 
were just and one was unjust, He would have left the 
ninety-nine just to seek the one unjust ; and for his sake 
alone He would have come into the world and endured 
death. 

In like manner, He does not signify here that some, 
without the grace of His coming, would have been just : 
to call whom He did not come : but that He so seeks 
sinners that if there had been any just He would not have 
come for them, but for sinners. This appears to be the 
meaning of the passage ; and, therefore, the opinion of 
those who think that, even if man had not sinned, Christ 
would still have come, seems opposed, not only to 
it, but to Scripture, and, while it makes the benefit 
of Christ uncertain, it appears to weaken the certainty 
of our redemption, than which nothing can be more 
certain. 



CH. ix. 14.] THE DISCIPLES OF S. JOHN BAPTIST. 303 

Verse 14. Then came to Him the disciples of John. 

When the others had been answered. S. Luke (v. 33) says 
that the Pharisees themselves came. S. Augustin (De Con- 
sens.y ii. 27) harmonises this by saying that both came, but 
that S. Luke mentioned only the Pharisees, S. Matthew only 
the disciples of John. But S. Matthew seems to speak as 
if he wished to signify that the Pharisees did not venture to 
come to Christ ; for they had said a little before (verse 1 1), 
not to Christ, but to His disciples, "Why doth your Master 
eat with publicans and sinners ? " 

It would seem more likely that the disciples of John were 
sent by the Pharisees secretly. They would do this perhaps 
the more readily because there would appear to have been 
some little emulation between the disciples of John and 
those of Christ (S. John iii. 26). Besides, S. Luke says 
that the Pharisees came because, at their instigation, the 
disciples of John came. 

But Thy disciples do not fast. 

(S. Luke v. 33). As if they wished to mark an immoderate 
use of food and drink. This is very probable, and is more 
in accordance with the spirit of the Pharisees ; for, by the 
words "eat" and "drink," they wished to notify the 
intemperance of the disciples, and through them to brand 
the Master Himself. Christ alludes to this (xi. 18, 19). 
They were blown up in their opinion and praised themselves : 
" Why do we fast ? " Lest they should appear to praise 
themselves, they take the disciples of John as their fellow- 
partners in the praise. They accuse Christ and His 
disciples, not only of the want of religion, but also of being 
intemperate and drunken. By their words, " Why do we 
and the Pharisees fast often ? " (verse 14), they hint at more 
than they say. Wherefore we and not Thou ? unless that 
we are holy and just and are of God, Thou a sinner and of 
men. When we fast, you meanwhile sit at table and 



304 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. ix. 15. 

banquet and take your pleasure with men that are 
sinners. 

Verse 15. Can the cJiildren of the bridegroom ? 

ol V LOL rov vv^wvos, or, as our version reads in vS. 
Mark ii. 19, the children of the marriage. It is plain who 
are meant by the children of the bridegroom or of the 
marriage, for Christ speaks of His disciples, of whom the 
question was proposed. But why they were so called has 
been matter of doubt. S. Ambrose (v., On S. Luke), S. 
Jerome, Bede (in his Comment.), think that they were so 
called because they were spiritually born of Christ. They 
seem more correct who say that it is a Hebraism, by 
which the friends of the bridegroom are called the sons of 
the bridegroom, or of the marriage. They keep his marriage 
with various signs of joy, such as are celebrated in our 
corrupt times by feasts, dances, games ; but then by feasts 
like that of the marriage of Cana of Galilee. Christ there 
fore said that they could not fast, because it was opposed 
to the celebration of marriage ; for, as they who are of 
the kingdom are called the children of the kingdom, so 
they who celebrate the marriage are called the sons of the 
marriage, or friends of the bridegroom, as S. John Baptist 
calls himself (iii. 29) ; but Christ is the bridegroom, as is 
shown in the parable of the marriage (xxii. 2 ; xxv. I, 5, 6, 
10 ; Apoc. xix. 7, 9). His espousals, if we may so speak, 
are celebrated here (S. Matt. xxii. 2 ; xxv. i), but the 
marriage in heaven, where He in a manner consummates it 
with the Church, His bride (Apoc. xix. 7, 9), because He 
will then introduce her into His chamber, that is, into 
heaven, where she enjoys His perpetual embraces. 

Mourn. 

Why did Christ not say fast, because there was no 
question of mourning, but of fasting only ? This compre- 



CH. ix. 15.] DISCIPLES OF S. JOHN BAPTIST. 305 

hends all other kinds of grief, and Christ answers more 
than His adversaries asked so that from denial of the 
genus He might go on to that of the species with more 
force. For if one cannot be an animal, how can he be a 
man? If the sons of the bridegroom cannot mourn, how 
can they fast? To mourn here does not mean to shed 
tears or to lament, but to be sad, and, as the Latins say, 
to be in grief and disorder : as the dead are said to be 
mourned for a time, not because the living lament them 
continually, but because they wear a mourning garment for 
them. 

It may be asked why S. John Baptist and his disciples 
fasted, if the sons of the bride-chamber cannot fast. For 
he also was a son, that is, a friend of the Bridegroom, who 
heard his voice and was glad (S. John iii. 29). The answer 
may be that this was done necessarily that all men might 
by all means be enticed into salvation, and that, both by a 
singular mode of life, like S. John s, and a general one, like 
Christ s as Christ Himself signifies (xi. 18, 19). Besides, 
though S. John was a friend of the Bridegroom, he was not 
properly a son, that is, a disciple. He prepared the way 
for others to come to the marriage, but he did not come 
himself. They who came would have to come by a rough 
way ; when they had come they would have, not a rough, 
but a joyful and pleasant life, as long as they were with the 
bridegroom, as a festive celebration required. But why did 
not Christ Himself, if not His disciples, fast? For the 
same reason. He was the Bridegroom, and was celebrating 
His own marriage, but He Himself gives another reason 
(verse 16). 

But the days will come. 

Christ says "days" by a Hebraism for time. They 
would have plenty of time to fast when the Bridegroom 
was taken from them. Christ does not say when He 

shall have departed from them, nor when He is dead, but 

20 



306 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. ix. 16. 

" when He shall be taken from them," signifying that He 
would be miserably taken away by those very Pharisees 
with whom He was now speaking. "Then," He said, 
" they shall fast." That is, then they shall mourn. For, 
as He previously said mourn for fast, the genus for the 
species, so He now says fast for mourn, the species for the 
genus, as if He had said : " As they are now celebrating My 
marriage, and therefore do not fast, so then they shall mourn 
My death, and therefore they shall fast ". Christ alludes 
to the custom of mourning for the dead with fasting ; for 
they who mourn generally abstain from food. The event 
not only proved this saying, but also made it clear. For 
we know how continual the Apostles were after the Ascen 
sion of Christ in fasting and prayers (Acts xiii. 3 ; 2 Cor. 
vi. 5), in stripes, in imprisonment, in seditions, in labours, 
in watchings many, in hunger, in thirst, in fastings many. 

Verse 16. And nobody putteth. 

Christ said this to show that He did wisely in not com 
pelling His disciples to fast, as S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom 
(Horn, xxxi.), and Remigius have taught. Christ proves 
this by two examples : the one of the piece of new cloth in 
the old garment, and the other of the new wine in the old 
bottles things which have no especial mutual agreement. 

The meaning is easy ; the adaptation of words and 
examples is difficult. Christ, no doubt, willed to show that 
their mode of life should be adapted to the catching of dis 
ciples and their manner of life, lest, if they had been com 
pelled to fast in the beginning, they might have been deterred 
from continuing what they had begun. It is therefore 
certain that the disciples are compared to a garment and 
to old bottles, and an austere and rough kind of life to a 
patch of cloth, new as yet, and to new wine. The meaning 
is that, as a patch of new cloth is not added to an old 
garment because it tears it worse, and new wine is not put 



CH. ix. 16.] DISCIPLES OF S. JOHN BAPTIST. 307 

into old bottles because it would burst them, when 
weakened by age, through the fermentation of the wine, so 
it is not fit that a life of greater hardship, and altogether 
unlike their former one, should be prescribed to disciples 
accustomed to ease, lest they should go back from the 
new course which they had entered upon hopefully. So 
Euthymius and Theophylact understand it, nor, apparently, 
can a better explanation be desired. Tertullian (iii., iv., 
Cent. Marc?) says that the old garment and the old bottles 
are the ancient Law, and the new cloth and the new wine 
are the Gospel ; or, at least, he does not oppose them when 
they say so. S. Ambrose, however (viii., On S. Luke], says 
that the old garment and the old bottles are the fast ; S. 
Hilary, S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, and Bede, that they are 
the Pharisees ; S. Augustin (Serm. clxxxvi. de Temp?}, that 
they are all carnal men. " The carnal man," he says, " does 
not receive spiritual things ; the carnal is the ancient, grace 
is the new." The first opinion seems the best. 

It may be objected that John s disciples were the old 
garment and the old bottles, and that he proposed fasts 
and a very hard life to them. It has been answered, on 
verse 15, that he did this of necessity, because he was pre 
paring the way to Christ, which must needs be one of 
hardship and difficulty ; that is, a life full of tears, fasts, 
and every kind of penitence. But it was necessary that 
the Lord should be more kind and mild than the servant, 
and should anoint those whom the servant had wounded. 

Again, it may be objected that the disciples of Christ 
were new, and could not be compared to old garments and 
old bottles. In reply, either through infirmity, as Euthy 
mius thinks, or, as seems more probable, through their 
former wholly dissimilar modes of life, they are called 
" old ". For as yet, not having laid aside their original 
habits, like a garment worn out or old bottles, they were 
feeble and unable to contain new wine. " I have yet 



308 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. ix. 16. 

many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them 
now" (S.John xvi. 12). 

It may also be said that fasting was an ancient and 
approved custom, and that the Pharisees objected to 
Christ that neither He nor His disciples fasted, as if they 
were careless about keeping ancient customs. There were 
certain fasts enjoined by the old Law of which S. Luke 
speaks (Acts xxvii. 9), but the Pharisees did not allude to 
these, which were of ancient date and universal observance, 
like the fasts of the Church now, but to their own and to 
those of John s disciples, which were not commanded nor 
common, but voluntary and peculiar to themselves, and by 
keeping which they boasted themselves to be Pharisees ; 
that is, singular persons, more holy than the rest, as the 
Pharisee, in 5\ Luke xviii. n, 12, who, when praying in the 
Temple, said : " O God, I give Thee thanks that I am not 
as the rest of men," &c. As to the opinion of Marcion, 
derived from this passage, that there was so great a differ 
ence between the Old Testament and the New, that there 
could not have been one and the same author of both, 
Tertullian (iii., iv., Cont. Marc?}, and S. Epiphanius (Her. 
xlii.) have sufficiently refuted it, and it is not worth further 
consideration. S. Augustin (viii., Cont. Faust.) has replied 
to a similar heresy of the Manicheans. 

A piece. 

E7Tij3 \rjfjia. An additament^ as some render it, or 
rather, if the Latin would allow it, an addition (adjecta- 
mentuni). 

It taketh away the fulness thereof. 

This is an ambiguous sentence, because the Greek TO 
7r\^pa)fjua may be either the nominative case or the accusa 
tive. If the nominative, the meaning will be that the 
fulness of it, that is, the patch, which was added to the old 
garment to fill up whatever was wanting, will take some- 



CH. ix. 16.] DISCIPLES OF S. JOHN BAPTIST. 309 

thing from it ; that is, will wear it away and tear it. This 
sense, Theodore, the Interpreter of the heretics, has 
followed both in his rendering and explaining of the 
passage, and, as it appears, with very little judgment. If 
an accusative, the meaning may be twofold (i) The sub 
ject of the word tollit is repeated from the word immittit, 
as if Christ had said : " Otherwise whoever does this takes 
away fulness from the garment ". This is the explanation 
of Erasmus, and is better than Beza s, because, although 
Beza makes TO TrX^/Dw/^a not the nominative case, but the 
accusative, he does so erroneously, referring the word 
" tollit " to the person who added the patch. 

Nothing can be better than our own version, because the 
Evangelist calls that part of the garment which, when 
the patch was put in, was entire, TrX^pwyLta, " the fulness " 
and which, not he who added the cloth, but the cloth itself, 
takes away by its stiffness. Christ, according to the 
Hebrew custom, calls N7to which means whole and entire, 
" fulness " ; as in the example which follows, not he who 
put the new wine into the old bottles, but the new wine 
itself, because it was too strong for the old bottles to bear, 
burst them ; that is, took away their fulness. The 
meaning is, that if a new patch is inserted into an old 
garment, or if new wine is put into old bottles, that which 
ought to preserve the garment destroys it, and the wine, 
which is put into the bottles to preserve it, by bursting the 
bottles, renders its preservation impossible. So, if too 
hard a mode of life be prescribed for disciples, who were 
previously weak and accustomed to old habits, for their 
improvement ; the very thing which ought to make them 
better, by deterring, repelling, and driving them away, 
makes them worse ; and that which was committed to 
them, like the new wine in the old bottles, to preserve and 
perfect them, as they are unable to bear it, destroys them 
by a kind of despair, and the wine perishes. Judas affords 



3IO THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn.ix.i8. 

a living proof of this. The office of an Apostle was com 
mitted to him when he was not fit for it, and, like the new 
wine in the old bottles, not only in his life but in his very 
person, like a bottle too much blown up, he burst asunder 
and the wine was lost ; that is, the apostolic office was in 
some measure affected with dishonour. 

Verse 18. A certain ruler. 

By name Jairus (S. Mark v. 22 ; >. Luke viii. 41). He 
who presided over a synagogue was called the ruler of the 
synagogue, as in our schools we have the title of " dean of 
the faculty ". 

Is even now dead. 

There appears to be a great divarication between S. 
Matthew and the other Evangelists. For S. Mark (v. 23) 
says not that the young girl was dead, but that she was at 
the point of death. S. Luke (viii. 42), that she was dying. 
Bede, Euthymius, Theophylact, reconcile them by the 
suggestion that the ruler did not say that his daughter was 
actually dead ; but that either she was so grievously sick, 
when he left his house, as to make him think her to be now 
dead, or that his grief had exaggerated his prayer. S. 
Augustin (ii., De Consens.} says that S. Matthew did not 
relate what the ruler said, but what he thought. It is more 
likely that he said both that she was at the point of death 
and that she was now dead. At first he said that she was 
at the point of death, and afterwards his attendants came 
and told him of her death, as S. Mark (v. 35), S. Luke (viii. 
49), have said. And then the ruler said to Christ what S. 
Matthew has related that his daughter was dead. 

It seems as if the ruler had not said at once what S. 
Matthew says he did (verse 18), "My daughter is even now 
dead ; but come, lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live," 
but only the words " come, lay thy hand," &c., before he 
knew that she was dead. But when he heard of this he 



CH. ix. 20.] CURE OF THE ISSUE OF BLOOD. 3 1 1 

rather asked, or thought to ask Him, not to come because 
she was dead. For (i) SS. Mark and Luke thus relate it ; 
and (2) when the messenger had brought the information 
of the death, Christ said to him, " Fear not," &c. (S. Mark 
v. 36) : as if he had begun to fear lest Christ, who was 
able to heal the dying, could not raise the dead, and it 
did not seem credible that a Jew, and he a ruler of the 
synagogue, should have had so much faith as to believe 
that Christ, by the touch of His hand, could recall to 
life a young girl already dead. 

Verse 20. And behold a woman. 

She was an inhabitant of Caesarea Philippi. She erected 
a statue of Christ before her house in remembrance of the 
benefit He had conferred upon her, as Eusebius (vii. 28) 
and Sozomen (v. 21) relate. Theophylact also mentions it 
on this place. The assertion of S. Ambrose (lib. v.), in his 
work on Solomon, that she was Martha, the sister of 
Lazarus, seems scarcely probable. 

Twelve years. 

The length of time, and the woman s having spent all 
that she had, and being nothing better but rather worse, 
show that the disease was not only inveterate but also in 
curable, so that the miracle of its being healed appears the 
greater. 

Came behind Him. 

There was no reason for this, except, as some think, her 
humility, as both S. Mark (v. 33) and S. Luke (viii. 47) 
say, or, as is suggested by Optatus (v., Cont. Parmen.) and 
S. Ambrose (De Solom., chap, v.), her shame ; because she 
was afflicted with a loathsome disease ; or, as others say, 
she was compelled by the law (Levit. xv. 25) to keep her 
self separate from the society of men. 



312 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. ix. 22. 

Verse 22. But Jesus , turning and seeing her. 
He turned as if He did not know, and would ask who 
had touched Him, as the other Evangelists say. He did 
this that the woman, seeing that she could not be hid, 
might come forward and show herself, and confess the 
miracle by the lips, not of Him who had performed it, but 
of herself who was the object of it. S. Luke (viii. 46) says, 
" And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched Me ". He spoke 
as man, as if virtue had gone out of Him, as blood issues 
from the body when a vessel has been divided. S. Luke 
states that the disciples said to Christ : " Master, the multi 
tudes throng and press Thee, and dost Thou say, Who 
touched Me ? " (viii. 45). On these words S. Augustin has 
more than once observed that not all who follow Christ 
and touch Him, touch Him truly, but rather press Him. 
They who come to Him in faith, and so gain a blessing, 
touch Him truly. " By faith," says S. Ambrose, " Christ is 
touched " (lib. vi., in Luc.). 

Be of good cheer, daughter. 

It seems that the woman, when she saw that Christ asked 
who had touched Him, feared greatly, as if she had com 
mitted a sacrilege, and stolen her cure in a surreptitious 
manner, as S. Chrysostom says, and was to pay the penalty 
of her rashness, as S. Mark (v. 33) and S. Luke (viii. 47) 
say. She is therefore bid to be of good heart, that is, not 
to fear, but to have confidence. It is of little moment that 
S. Mark says that Christ called her "woman," and S. Matthew 
" daughter " ; one gives the words, the other the meaning. 
Which gives the word ? S. Matthew, probably because it 
was more in accordance with the loving - kindness and 
custom of Christ to call her "daughter" than "woman," 
especially as He sought to allay her fears and trembling by 
gentle words, like those in verse 2, " Be of good heart, son, 
thy sins be forgiven thee ". 



CH. ix. 23, 24.] RAISING OF JAIRUS DAUGHTER. 313 

Some have asked why Christ wished that the miracle 
should not be concealed ? S. Chrysostom and Theophylact 
answer, "that the glory of God might appear the more 
clearly, and the faith of the ruler of the synagogue be con 
firmed ". 

Verse 23. The minstrels. 

It is the opinion of Theophylact that because the 
damsel was unmarried and, as SS. Mark and Luke say, 
about twelve years of age, the minstrels which were pre 
sent at marriages should be also at the funeral, according 
to the custom of the Gentiles. But that this was the cus 
tom we have no authority but his for believing. S. Am 
brose (On S. Luke, lib. viii.) is more probably correct. He 
says that it was the custom of the Gentiles to summon 
female mourners and minstrels, who might excite the tears 
of the spectators by their mournful songs, and that the 
custom had now reached the Jews. Of these " mourning 
women" Jeremiah makes mention (ix. 17). We have no 
other example in Scripture, but a profane poet has said : 

" Cantabit masstis tibia funeribus." Ovid, Fast. iv. 
(The pipe shall sound at the sad funeral.) 

The Evangelist relates these details to increase the miracle, 
proving that the damsel was really dead, as the minstrels 
had been summoned to afflict the whole house by their 
death songs. With the same view SS. Mark and Luke 
have said that the messenger came to the ruler and told 
him that his daughter was dead, and that there was no 
need to trouble Christ further. 

Verse 24. Give place. 

Various authors have given various reasons for this. S. 
Chrysostom (Horn, xxiii.), S. Hilary, and Theophylact think 
that it was because the people were in a tumult : because 
they had not faith ; because they mocked and derided 
Christ when He said, " She is not dead, but sleepeth ". 



3 14 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. ix. 24. 

The truth may be gathered without difficulty from SS. 
Mark (v. 43) and Luke (viii. 56). For each relates that 
Christ urgently commanded the parents not to let any 
know of it. Hence He excluded the multitude, which 
cannot retain a secret. He also said, " The girl is not 
dead but sleepeth," that when they should see her walk, 
they might think that she had not been raised from the 
dead, but awaked from sleep. 

The girl is not dead, but sleepeth. 

It has been asked in what sense Christ said, " She is not 
dead, but sleepeth " ? Many think that He spoke accord 
ing to the Scriptures, which call the dead sleeping because 
all things live to God (S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, Theo- 
phylact, in loc^}. But Christ not only says that she sleeps, 
but declares that she was not dead ; while Scripture, 
though it calls the dead sleeping because they will rise 
again, does not deny that they are dead. Christ, as we 
have said, held the multitude in suspense by an ambiguity 
of speech, and desired to persuade them that she was not 
dead. Nor did He say, as others think, that she slept, and 
was not dead, to show that she should be raised again by 
Him, as He said of Lazarus: "Lazarus our friend sleepeth" 
(S. John xi. 11-12). He did not deny that Lazarus was 
dead, but rather affirmed it when He said, " he sleeps," 
because when the disciples did not understand, He said 
plainly, " Lazarus is dead " (verse 14). But here He says, 
and wishes it to be believed, that the girl was not dead, 
and when they did not understand but derided Him, He 
would not explain how she was sleeping. He wished, 
then, to signify that she was not truly dead, but sleeping, 
that, as was said on the preceding verse, the multitude 
might thus think that she was wakened from sleep, and 
not raised from the dead, and not publish as a miracle 
that which they held to be no miracle at all. He said that 



CH.IX. 2 5 .] RAISING OF JAIRUS DAUGHTER. 315 

she was not dead, indeed ; not that she was not so, but not 
in the way they thought, so as that she could not be 
recalled to life. For if the multitude had known that she 
would shortly rise again, when she actually did so, they 
would have thought that she was not dead, but sleeping. 
Christ therefore speaks from their opinion ; not from that 
which they actually had, for they believed that she was 
truly dead ; but from that which He knew that they would 
have, if they had known that she would shortly rise again. 

Verse 25. He took her by the hand. 

He could have raised her by a word alone, but He took 
her by the hand, because the father had asked Him to lay 
His hands upon her (verse 18), and to show that He would 
raise her (who was no otherwise dead than sleeping, as He 
had said before), by taking her hand. For when we wish 
to rouse or relieve those who are asleep, or in pain, we 
take them by the hand, as Christ raised up Peter s wife s 
mother by touching her hand (vii. 15). We have given 
other reasons why Christ used to touch the sick or the dead 
with His hand, on viii. 3-15. 

A nd He said. 

He commanded the soul to return because He had the 
keys of death and hell (Apoc. i. 18 ; I Kings ii. 6 ; 5. Luke 
viii. 54). He cried out also, as on the resurrection of 
Lazarus (S. John xi. 43), not that He had need of any 
voice loud or soft, but that He might speak after the 
manner of men, who call those who are at a great distance 
with a loud voice ; as if He wished to show not only that 
the damsel was dead, but that her soul was a long way off. 
Where was it? We know not. But if anything can be 
known, we may more properly look for it in 5. Luke xvi. 
22, a description which will supply us both with an oppor 
tunity of discussion and with arguments. 



3l6 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. ix. 26. 

SS. Mark and Luke say that Christ strictly charged 
both the father and mother to tell no man of what had 
happened. Why He did so we know not, but we know 
that He acted with the highest reason and wisdom ; pro 
bably with the design of avoiding the ill-will of the 
Pharisees and Scribes ; for if they could not endure the 
lesser miracles, what would they have done if they had 
heard of a resurrection from the dead ? We observe that 
Christ only enjoined silence in cases of resurrection from 
the dead, and of restoration of sight to the blind. We find 
the latter in verse 30, because other diseases might appear 
to be curable ; but everyone knows that if life or sight are 
lost, no art can ever restore them. Christ did not say 
absolutely to the leper when he was cleansed (viii. 4), " tell 
no man/ but "not before you have shown yourself to the 
priests ". He knew that, whatever His commands, the 
miracle could not be concealed ; but that that would take 
place which the evangelist has described (verse 26). 

Why, then, did He give this command ? That He might 
do what in Him lay (qtwdin se eraf). He knew that Judas 
would betray Him ; why did He choose him ? He knew 
that men would not keep His commandments ; why did 
He institute them ? He knew that Adam would fall; why 
did He create him ? There are questions without number 
of the like kind. But if it were not expedient that the 
miracle should be divulged, and He yet knew that it would 
be, why did He perform it ? Because the ill-will of the 
Pharisees ought not to defraud the ruler of his daughter s 
resurrection. 

Verse 26. And the fame thereof went abroad. 

The Evangelist says that this was for the proof of 

the miracle, that no one might pretend that Christ had 

feigned it. The whole region was a witness of it ; for this 

is the meaning of the Greek 0X97 7?) eiceivrj the whole region, 



CH. ix. 28, so.] CURE OF TWO BLIND MEN. 317 

the entire province. S. Mark (v. 42) says, with the same 
design, that all the people were " astonished with a great 
astonishment " ; and both S. Mark and S. Luke relate that 
Christ said, " Give her to eat," to show that she was not a 
phantom, but truly raised ; as Christ Himself, to show that 
He had truly risen, ate and drank with the disciples (5. 
Luke xxiv. 41 ; S. John xxi. 5 ; Acts x. 41). 

Verse 28. And when He was come to the house. 

Why did not Christ heal these blind men by the way ? 
S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact answer, That 
He might heal them more secretly and teach them that He 
did not look for glory. Others, more rightly, as it may be 
thought, say it was that He might prove their faith ; for it 
is probable that Christ, in the beginning, knew that their 
faith was not sufficiently perfect, and wished, with time and 
patience, to mature it. Nor is this to be wondered at ; for 
they were blind, and the miracles which Christ did they 
could only hear and not see. But this is the true faith, 
as SS. Gregory and Augustin say, " to believe what we 
do not see," for " blessed are they that have not seen and 
yet have believed " (S. John xx. 29). They who would 
be believers must be blind before they believe, believing 
they will see. 

Verse 30. TJieir eyes were opened. 

That is, they saw ; for their eyes had been opened before, 
but they were said to be shut as regards the result, because 
they saw no more than if they had been wholly closed. The 
Hebrews are accustomed to speak thus (Isa. xxxv. 5 ; 
xlii. 6, 7 ; so infra, xx. 33 ; 5. Luke xxiv. 31 ; S. John ix. 
10, 14, 21, 26, 30, 32 ; x. 21). The eyes are sometimes said 
to be opened when they were not only not shut before, but 
were not blind, but they did not see what they saw after 
wards ; as the eyes of our first parents are said to have been. 



3l8 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. ix. 31, 32. 

opened when they ate the forbidden fruit : for they saw then 
that they were naked, which they did not see before (Gen. 
iii. 4). In the same sense ears are said to be opened (S. 
Mark vii. 35). Why Christ so commanded these blind men 
has been said on verse 25. S. Jerome, Bede, S. Gregory (lib. 
xix., Moral, chap. 14), ascribe it to Christ s humility and 
modesty. S. Hilary says that it was the duty of the 
Apostles to relate the miracles of Christ, which other men 
ought not to take it upon themselves to do. 

Verse 31. But they going out spread His fame. 

They published the fame of Christ and of the miracles 
He had performed, in the true sense of the word, and the 
corresponding Greek one $i<l>ijjj,ij(rev ; although among 
Latin authors, perhaps from the paucity of their numbers, 
the word diffamo is very rarely found but as used in a bad 
sense. Our version evidently employs it in a good one. 

Some have asked whether the blind men sinned who 
published their cure against the command of Christ. The 
Ancients justly excuse them, because they acted not so 
much from disobedience as from gratitude (S. Chrysostom, 
Horn, xxxiii. ; S. Jerome, Bede, Theophylact). They also 
probably thought that Christ enjoined silence on them from 
modesty, and not seriously ; and this is not to be wondered 
at, as so many learned men (S. Jerome, S. Gregory, Bede) 
thought the same. 

Verse 32. Behold they brought Him. 

It may appear doubtful whether this is the same his 
tory as that related by S. Luke (xi. 14). Some think it 
a different one, because it seems put by S. Luke (xi.) in 
another place ; but it is much more likely that both 
Evangelists describe one and the same event. In each 
the devil is dumb. In each when he was cast out the 
multitudes wondered. In each the Pharisees said, " He 



CH. ix. 3 2.] CURE OF A DUMB MAN. 319 

casts out devils by the prince of the devils". All these 
things could hardly happen and come together in different 
miracles. But S. Luke does not preserve the order of 
events, for S. Matthew says plainly that this miracle 
happened immediately after the healing of the two blind 
men. S. Luke does not assert this, but he does not deny it. 

A dumb man. 

The word /cwfos, as S. Jerome says, more frequently 
signifies deaf than dumb, as in .S. Mark vii. 32. But it 
also sometimes means dumb, as in this instance ; for we 
find, in verse 33, "the dumb spoke" (tfa)(/>o?), as in xii. 22 and 
5. Luke xi. 14. Some have said that the word dumb can 
here be applied either to the devil or to the man ; but there 
is no ambiguity in the Greek, which allows the application 
only to the man. In S. Luke xi. 14, they brought to Him 
a dumb devil. This has given occasion to discussions as 
to what devils were dumb. For some are called dumb, as 
above, and others fjio>yi\d\oi, that is, speaking with diffi 
culty (S. Mark viii. 32), and lunatics (S. Matt. xvii. 15). 
The question is, in what sense some devils are called dumb, 
and whether all are so, and whether all are so when they 
choose. Some say that they are called dumb as being so 
by nature ; others, because they inhabit in many men 
who are dumb ; others, again and this seems more likely 
because they make men dumb. I believe that not all 
the devils are sometimes dumb ; but as some delight in 
lust, others in avarice, others in other ways of tormenting 
men, so there are some who love to make the men in 
whom they dwell dumb. Others, says S. Jerome, observe 
the changes of the moon, to vex and dishonour God s 
creatures. I conclude this from xvii. 19 and .S. Mark ix. 
28. This kind, says Christ, " is not cast out but by prayer 
and fasting," as if He attributed this tenacity to their 
nature. 



320 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. ix. 33, 34, 37. 

Verse 33. And after the devil ivas cast out. 
Christ did not require a confession of faith from the 
possessed, as from the blind, because he was dumb. Deaf 
men are often apt to be without speech, so as to be unable 
to hear or to speak. 

Verse 34. But tJie PJiarisees. 

Christ opposes the Pharisees who did not believe, but 
murmured and blasphemed, to the believing and wondering 
multitude (S. Chrysostom, Horn, xxiii.). 

By the prince of devils. 

As if Christ were one of the devils, and the minister of 
the devil, and were actuated by demoniacal power. They 
called Him so from an infamous idol (S. Luke xi. 15), as 
shall be explained on that passage. It was, as S. Chrysos 
tom says, the most utter blindness. " For invidiousness 
makes men so blind that they perceive not what they say." 
How was Satan able to cast out Satan? as Christ urges 
upon the Pharisees (xii. 26 ; 5. Mark iii. 23 ; 5. Luke xi. 
1 8). 

Verse 37. The harvest indeed is great. 

This, in many ancient copies, even in Strabo, Hugo, and 
N. de Lyra, is the beginning of the tenth chapter, and not 
without reason, for the sense of what follows depends upon 
this. 

The cause of the mission of the Apostles treated of in 
chap. x. is given here. They were sent because the 
harvest was great and the labourers were few. Christ calls 
the multitude who came to hear the Word of God the 
harvest. The Sower that is, Christ went out to sow His 
own seed. The seed had increased abundantly, the crop 
was ripe for the harvest, and He does not speak of the 
seed or the corn, but of the harvest (S. Luke x. 2 ; 5. 
John iv. 35 ; S. Chrysostom ; Euthymius). 



CH. ix. 38.] THE HARVEST AND THE LABOURERS. 321 

Verse 38. The Lord of tJie harvest. 

By the Lord of the harvest S. Chrysostom and Euthy- 
mius understand Christ Himself. He is, indeed, truly the 
Lord ; but it is more probable that He called His Father 
such, as He says (S. John xv. i) : "I am the True Vine, 
My Father is the Husbandman ". He makes His Father 
also, and not Himself, the Lord of the Vineyard (xxi. 33, 
38 ; 5. Luke xx. 9). He signifies that He is the Son of 
the Father of the house who sows and reaps for His 
Father, and whom the Father, when He had sent many 
servants to receive the fruits from the husbandmen, and 
they had dismissed some with contumely, and had stoned 
others, sent last of all, saying : " It may be they will reve 
rence My Son ". 



21 



CHAPTER X. 

CHRIST SENDS OUT HIS TWELVE APOSTLES WITH THE 
POWER OF MIRACLES. THE LESSONS HE GIVES THEM. 

Verse i. And having called His twelve disciples together. 

BEFORE this time they were called disciples, not Apostles. 
Although Christ had many more, these were called the 
disciples, and the Twelve, both because they were united 
in closer union with Christ, and because they were marked 
out for the office of Apostles. Christ now makes them 
Apostles, that is, the sent, by sending them : as if from 
disciples He made them masters. He sent also seventy-two 
others (S. Luke x. i), because they were to be sent after 
wards throughout the entire world (xxviii. 19; 5. Mark xvi. 
1 5). Although the ancient Fathers, from the force of the 
word, sometimes called the seventy-two Apostles (S. Ire- 
nseus, ii. 37 ; Tertullian, v. ; Marcion, iv.). He had said : 
" The harvest indeed is great " ; and He now sends forth 
labourers into it, prepared as it had been by His teaching, 
and, as it were, made ripe (S. John iv. 35). For by His 
preaching and miracles He had moved the minds of all men 
to be turned to Him as in a moment. This is His meaning 
in 5. John iv. 38. 

Christ s having sent neither more nor fewer than twelve 
was certainly not by chance, but by design and mystery 
(Acts i. 1 6). It was, as it were, necessary that the number 
twelve should be kept complete, so S. Matthias was chosen 
into the place of the traitor Judas. From Apoc. iv. 4 it is 
clear that by the twenty-four Elders, the twelve Apostles 



CH. x. i.] FIRST MISSION OF APOSTLES. 323 

and the twelve Patriarchs are to be understood. Christ 
ordered it that the Apostles should be in number twelve 
to fill up the room of the Patriarchs. As the whole Jewish 
nation was descended from the twelve Patriarchs according 
to the flesh, so the whole people of Christ came spiritually 
of the twelve Apostles; for Christ had come to change flesh 
into Spirit. That the Apostles were the fathers of those 
who believed through them, we have the testimony of S. 
Paul (/ Cor. iv. 15 ; Philemon x.). 

All ancient authorities acknowledge the mystery of 
numbers (S. Irenseus, iv. 38). Many authors have enu 
merated other instances of the number twelve (S. Justin, 
De Veritat. Christ.; Tertullian, \v.,Cont.Marcion; S. Jerome, 
Comment. ; on this passage, and many others, Theodoret, 
Quest. I on Joshua ; Theophylact, in loc.}. I will only pro 
duce the words of Tertullian : " Why," he says, " did Christ 
choose twelve Apostles, and no more or no less ? I might 
show, even from this, that He is to be interpreted, not 
only by the voices of the prophets, but by the proof of 
facts. For I find the figures of this number with the 
Creator. There were twelve wells in Elim, and twelve 
stones set up by Joshua at Jordan, and preserved in the 
Ark of the Covenant. Twelve Apostles were sent, like 
fountains, to water the whole world, that was dry and 
parched, and devoid of knowledge." Others elegantly 
compare the twelve Apostles to the twelve months of the 
year, and the four Evangelists to the four seasons (S. 
Jerome, On Ezek. i., and the poet Sedulius). 

" Quatuor hi proceres una te voce canentes, 
Tempora ceu totidem latum sparguntur in orbem. 
Sic et Apostolici semper duodenus honoris, 
Fulget apex numero, menses imitatus et horas, 
Omnibus ut rebus, semper tibi militet annus." 

Like the seasons four that gladden 

All the wide world by their rays, 
Four Evangelists are singing 

With one voice, O Lord, Thy praise. 



324 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. x. 2. 

And, like months and hours in number, 

Lo the twelve who reach d the height 
Of the Apostolic honour 

Sending through the earth Thy light. 

They the hours, and months, and seasons 

Imitating in their flight, 
Thus fulfil the year, and always, 

And in all things, for Thee fight. 

S. Jerome on this passage, and S. Augustine (i. 4, De 
Felice Manich.}, say that Christ chose the Apostles with this 
certain and notable number that no one might surrep 
titiously creep into the apostolic band. 

And He gave them power over unclean spirits. 

Some Greek copies have the words /cara TCOV irvevfjLarwv 
d/caOdpTwv contra immundos spiritus. It may be sus 
pected that the words were originally a marginal addition, 
and have thence crept into the text. Our version certainly 
does not contain them. The Evangelist calls them " un 
clean," not that they are so per se, but that they delight in 
things unclean, and most especially incite men to such (xii. 
43 ; 5. Mark i. 23, 26, 27 ; iii. 11, 30 ; v. 2, 8, 13 ; vi. 7 ; 
vii. 25 ; ix. 25), and almost everywhere else where mention 
is made of them. 

Christ instructed the Apostles in doctrine (v., vii., viii.). 
He instructs them now, when they are to be sent out with 
power. This power was above all things necessary to 
them. For how could men without culture convince others 
on subjects so great and almost beyond belief, without 
miracles ? It was right that as Moses, the first teacher of 
the old Law, had been endowed with extensive powers of 
working miracles, so the Apostles, as teaching an evan 
gelical, that is, a better Law, should be gifted with others 
equal or still greater. 

Verse 2. And the names of the twelve Apostles are these. 
The Evangelist recounted the names of the Apostles, that 



CH. x. 2.] FIRST MISSION OF APOSTLES. 325 

no one might pass himself off as one, as S. Jerome, 
S. Augustin (i. 4, Cont. Felix], and Euthymius say ; nor was 
it fitting that Christians should be ignorant of the names 
of those through whom they were begotten. 

The first Peter. 

What is the meaning of the word " first " in this passage, 
that all the Evangelists S. Matthew, S. Mark (iii. 16), S. 
Luke (vi. 14) put S. Peter in the first place ? If it mean 
that he was the first called, why do none of them rank his 
brother Andrew before him ? for Andrew brought him to 
Christ, and was the first of the two to follow Christ (S.Jokn 
i. 40, 41). Why do all name Judas the traitor last, but 
because he was the most worthless of all ? Why should 
we say that the Evangelists observed this order in the last, 
whom they yet do not call the last, and deny that they 
keep it with regard to Peter, whom they both number first 
and style the first ? Again, as they name Peter first, why 
do they not name the others as second, third, fourth, and 
so on, except that they call him first, not because it 
occurred to them to mention him as such, but because he 
was first in dignity and authority, and the word signified 
not his number but his primacy? For if this were a 
numeral noun, all the other numerals which follow would 
have been given. Why, in naming the other Apostles, do 
all the Evangelists preserve the same order, except on a 
few points, on which, as will shortly be shown, they vary from 
necessity ? a very strong argument that the Evangelists, 
as far as possible, wished to keep the order of rank. It is 
objected 

i. That when SS. Matthew and Luke place Andrew 
after Peter, S. Mark puts John and James before Andrew. 
S. Mark did this from necessity, as wishing to mention 
those on whom Christ bestowed a change of name. He 
placed, therefore, SS. James and John between SS. Peter 



326 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. x. 2. 

and Andrew by parenthesis. Thus he joined Andrew 
with Peter, showing that, although he was in the fourth 
place, he came next to Peter. It is clear that it was 
so, because, when S. Mark and the other Evangelists 
named all the Apostles as they were sent, they mentioned 
them two by two ; and unless Andrew had been men 
tioned with Peter, one of the two would have had no 
companion. 

2. It is next objected, that S. Matthew puts Philip and 
Bartholomew before James and John, the other Evangelists 
after them. Even in S. Matthew, not only in all Greek 
copies, but also in all ancient and corrected Latin ones, 
they are put after, as in S. Jerome and Bede. 

3. The third objection is, that the other Evangelists 
put Matthew before Thomas, but Matthew puts himself 
after him. This, however, very strongly confirms the 
supposition that the Evangelists took account of the rank 
of each Apostle. For why does S. Matthew put himself 
after, while the others put him before, Thomas, except that 
S. Matthew would not put himself first from modesty ? If 
they were not enumerated from rank, it would have made 
no difference in what place anyone were named, and it 
would neither have been any modesty in S. Matthew to put 
himself after S. Thomas, nor immodesty if he had ranked 
himself before him. 

It is urged that S. Paul (Galat. ii. 9) puts James before 
Peter. S. Paul was taking account, not of rank, but of 
age, in placing James before Peter. It was S. Paul s 
object in that Epistle to prove himself the equal of the 
other Apostles, and it was not opportune to speak of the 
prerogatives of each. Hence, S. Paul did not say James, 
and Cephas, and John, who were pillars, when he might 
have done so, for we see that Christ always preferred these 
three Apostles to the rest, but he said " who seemed to be 
pillars ". 



CH. x. 3, 4.] FIRST MISSION OF APOSTLES. 327 

WJio is called Peter. 

Simon, surnamed Peter, for Christ had given him that 
name (xvi. 18 ; 5. John i. 42). It is added here to dis 
tinguish him from Simon the Canaanite (verse 4). 

Verse 3. James the son of Zebedee. 

He was called "the Less" (5. Mark xv. 40), because he 
was younger; and the brother of the Lord (Galat. \. 19), 
because he was the son of Mary, the sister of Mary, the 
mother of the Lord, as S. Jerome in his Life thinks ; and 
" the Just," because of his singular holiness. He was the 
author of the Catholic Epistle (S. James i. i), and first 
Bishop of Jerusalem (S. Jerome, De Scriptor.}. 

Thomas. 

He who did not believe in Christ s Resurrection, and 
who is called Didymus (S. John xx. 24). 

And Thaddceus. 

S. Jerome says that he had three names. For he is 
called Thaddaeus here, and Judas, the brother of James 
(Jude i.), and Labbseus, that is, corculum, " litttle heart," a 
term of affection, or, as some say, he had the letters of the 
name of God, rmrP in his own name. It is described 
as a Jewish custom, that, whoever had in his name the four 
letters of the name of God, rmrP should be called by 
another name, as rmrP Judas, but that they who were 
named Judas should be called Lions, because Judah, the 
first of the Patriarchs, was so called (Gen. xlix. 9). 

Verse 4. Simon the Cananean. 

He was, says S. Jerome, of Cana of Galilee. Some 
think that He should rather be called Canaean, for the 
town of Galilee was called Cana, and not Canaan. This 
name Cansean would not be derived from the town but from 



328 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. x. 5. 

his zeal; that is, he was called Zelotes, as in S. Luke vi. 15 ; 
Acts i. 13. JlNjp in Hebrew signifies zeal ; so that for the 
Greek Kavavir^ we should read KaviTj]^. On the other 
hand, if the word is zeal, and not the town, it would not 
have the form of Gentile names in Greek. It may rather 
be supposed therefore that because he was of the town of 
Cana or Canaan he was called either Canean or Cananean, 
and from his fervency and zeal Zelotes, in allusion to the 
meaning of the name of the place. 

Judas Iscariot. 

Many follow S. Jerome, and say that his name was 
derived from the tribe of Isachar, as if he were called 
Isachariot. Against this is the fact that he would then 
have been called, not Iscariot, but Isachariot. Others read 
his name m*Hp IZ^N the man of Carioth, a town in the 
tribe of Judah {Joshua xv. 25). 

Verse 5. Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles. 

" To the Gentiles " is a Hebrew expression D^H "["H^ 
(Jer. ii. 18) ; that is, Why goest thou so frequently into 
Egypt ? It is a common question why Christ did not send 
the Apostles to the Gentiles now as He did so soon after 
wards (xxviii. 19; 5. Mark xvi. 15). The ordinary and 
true reply is that the Jews were the sons of the kingdom 
(viii. 12), and to them was given the promise of the 
kingdom (Gen. xvii. i, 2 ; Rom. xv. 8) ; and Christ had not 
come but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, that is, to 
them firstly (xv. 24). It was fit therefore that the Word of 
God should be preached to them first (Acts xiii. 46). Other 
authors give other reasons : " that the Jews might not have 
any excuse if they rejected Christ in saying that He had 
sent His Apostles to the Gentiles and their enemies". S. 
Jerome, S. Augustin (Quest. 77 on Old and New Tests.}, Bede, 
Strabus, Theophylact, S. Chrysostom (Horn, xxxiii.), and 



CH. x. 6, 7, 8.] FIRST MISSION OF APOSTLES. 329 

Euthymius say that Christ did this to show that He had 
forgotten the wrongs suffered by Him at the hands of the 
Jews. 

A nd into the cities. 

Christ distinguishes the Samaritans both from Jews and 
Gentiles, because they were properly neither Jews nor 
Gentiles ; for the twelve tribes which were led away into 
Chaldaea did not return, but only two, Judah and Benjamin 
(i Esdras i. 5), to whom alone a promise had been made of 
a return (Jer. xxv. 12). But in place of the Samaritans, 
that is, of the ten tribes, the king of Assyria sent colonies 
of Chaldeans to inhabit all the deserted land ; and, when 
lions devoured the inhabitants, the king commanded a 
Hebrew priest to be sent to teach them to worship God 
according to the rites of the Jews, and to avert the wrath of 
the lions. When this was done they worshipped both their 
own idols in their own manner, and the God of Israel from 
fear of the lions (4 Kings xvii. 24). They were therefore 
neither Jews nor Gentiles ; but they wished to be thought 
Jews (S. John iv. 9), and therefore Christ forbade the 
Apostles to go to them. 

Verse 6. But go ye rather to the lost sheep. 
Christ calls them sheep, because they were the peculiar 
people of God, and, as it were, His flock, which, both by 
Himself and by His kings and prophets, He was said to 
feed (Psalms Ixxiii. i ; Ixxvi. 21 ; Ixxvii. 52, 70, 71 ; Ixxviii. 
31 ; Ixxix. i). 

Lost. 
(Psalms xiii. 3, Hi. 4 ; Isaiah liii. 6 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 5.) 

Verse 7. Is at hand. 
( Vid. chap. iii. 2.) 

Verse 8. Heal the sick. 
He teaches them that as they had had the power of 



330 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. x. g. 

miracles given to them so lately, they should use it freely 
and liberally, for He knew, as S. Jerome says, that country 
men would gain more faith from miracles than mere words ; 
as if He had said, " Spare not your miracles ; do them as 
often as you think necessary or useful for the persuasion of 
the people ". 

Freely have you received, freely give. 

Christ appears in these words to remove, not only all 
occasions of boasting, as S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and 
Theophylact think, and of simony and avarice, as others 
say, but also to prove what He had taught in His last words, 
that the Apostles ought to use freely their gift of miracles ; 
for what we receive freely, and what we give freely, we give 
largely and plentifully. 

Verse 9. Do not possess gold. 

I cannot agree with those who say that this prohibition 
was not universal, but applied only to this first mission of 
the Apostles, as if Christ wished by this prelude, as it were, 
to make trial of their patience, and that they might gain 
experience of Divine Providence. All ancient and trust 
worthy authors hold this to have been a command of per 
petual obligation, and that it applies not only to this 
mission but to all missions, and, in a word, to the entire 
Apostolic office (S. Hilary ; S. Chrysostom, Horn, xxxiii. ; 
S. Ambrose, ix., On S. Luke ; S. Jerome ; S. Augustin, ii. 
30, De Consens.}. 

Who does not see that Christ allowed the Apostles to 
have no money, lest anxiety for that, and for the other 
necessaries of life, should be a hindrance to their Apostolic 
office ? for it was not good for them to leave the Word of 
God and to serve tables (Acts vi. 2), and how much less to 
give anxious thought to their food and clothing. This 
prohibition has a force, not less in the second mission than 



CH. x. g.] FIRST MISSION OF APOSTLES. 331 

in the first ; nay, rather a much greater one. For this first 
mission was only, as it were, a kind of skirmish and excur 
sion into Judaea alone ; the second was, as it were, a formal 
combat in which all their forces must be got together for 
the conquest of the whole world, and in which the soldiers 
must be especially free from all incumbrance. 

Who does not see that Christ designed in this first mis 
sion to train the Apostles for their second ? If, in a mock 
fight, He would have them abstain from gold, how much 
more in serious war ? " When I sent you without purse, 
and scrip, and shoes, did you want anything?" (S. Luke 
xxii. 36). The same is to be understood by what has gone 
before and by what follows. " Freely have you received," 
that is, do not sell your gift under pretence of seeking food 
and clothing; for I will that you have neither gold nor 
silver. These words apply not only to this first mission, 
but much more to the second. For in this more miracles 
were to be done, and they would have more occasion and 
need to sell their gifts than among the Jews. Besides the 
reason given in verse 10 why they ought to have neither 
gold nor silver, nor any other thing viz., the workman is 
worthy of his meat applies not less to the second mission 
than to the first ; and, therefore, so does that which follows 
from it, that they may have neither silver nor gold. Nay, 
the words of verse 16 are spoken either exclusively or most 
especially of the second mission. For in the first they had 
experience of no wolves, but returned glorifying God that 
the devils were subject to them through the name of Christ 
(S. Luke x. 17). 

Nor money. 

ov$e xaXKov, nee <zs ; that is, nor any other kind of 
money, for all money is made of gold, silver, or brass. 

In your purses, 
In their purses, which they carried in their girdles. 



33 2 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. x. 10. 

Verse I o. Nor scrip. 

For carrying bread and other food. S. Jerome calls it 
citarchium or cistartum (i Kings ix. 7). The Latins 
call it sportula, of which Tertullian makes mention. By 
scrip is understood what is carried in it by continens is 
understood contentum. 

Nor t2vo coats. 

Christ did not forbid two garments at once if cold or 
need required them, but the possession of more than is 
required for present use, as they who are wealthy have, and 
such as take care for such things. These have one garment 
for present wear, and another for the future, as S. Jerome 
has observed ; as is referred to by S. Luke (iii. n). It is 
clear that Christ Himself wore two coats at once (S.John 
xix. 23). In the same way the words of S. Mark (vi. 9) 
are to be understood that they should not have two coats, 
which they could put on at different times. 

Nor shoes. 

Did Christ then wish the Apostles to go wholly unshod ? 
Some think that He did not forbid every kind of shoe, but 
only such as covered the whole foot, and which are 
properly termed vTroSifaaTa, calcei ; and S. Mark (vi. 9) 
says, " To be shod with sandals"; as if sandals covered only 
the sole of the foot, and were allowed, but shoes were for 
bidden. S. Jerome (in loc.) and S. Augustin (De Consens., 
ii. 30) so explain it. They seem to be supported by S. 
Luke (xxii. 35). But it can scarcely be thought that Christ 
distinguished so nicely between shoes and sandals. For as 
S. Matthew says that Christ forbade even a staff, and S. 
Mark says that He allowed it, so when he says that 
Christ allowed sandals, he meant what S. Matthew calls 
shoes, and it appears from Acts xii. 8 that shoes and 
sandals were the same things. 

.* 



CH. x. ii.] FIRST MISSION OF APOSTLES. 333 

In what sense, then, does S. Matthew say that Christ for 
bade them, and S. Mark say that He allowed them ? Some 
say that S. Matthew s prohibition referred to the pos 
session of two pairs at once, as He said two coats, and as 
the poet Juvencus formerly explained it : 

" Nee plantis tegmina bina" 
" Nor for the foot two coverings ". 

S. Matthew and S. Mark use apparently contradictory 
terms. S. Matthew signifies that Christ forbade the 
Apostles, as if anxious for the future, to take two or more 
pairs of shoes, and S. Mark that He commanded them to 
take the shoes they then had on, and no more. 

There is a similar question as regards the staff. S. 
Matthew says that Christ forbade the staff ; S. Mark that 
He allowed it. They use different words to express with 
elegance the same meaning. For each, expressing not the 
words, but the meaning, of Christ, intended to teach us 
that He forbade the Apostles to have anything beyond 
what was required for present use. S. Matthew signifies 
this by saying, " Nor staff," for even the very poorest man 
has his staff. S. Mark signifies it by the words, " A staff 
only ". For whoever has only a staff has nothing super 
fluous, as Jacob said (Gen. xxxii. 10) : " With my staff I 
passed over this Jordan," that is, " I was poor and had 
nothing but my staff in my hand ". 

Verse n. Enquire who in it is worthy. 

S. Jerome explains these words to mean : " Who is 
worthy of receiving benefits from you, that you may take 
up your abode with him " ; as if in this the Apostles were 
the givers of the gift, and not the receivers. Others, Who 
is most fit to have the Gospel preached to him ; others, 
Who is of good life and hospitable: all come to the same 
point. 



334 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. x. 12, 13. 

And there abide till you go thence. 

Do not change your lodging, or, as S. Luke puts it more 
clearly, " Remove not from house to house ". Why Christ 
gave this direction has been a much ventilated question. 

Three reasons have been given for it : 

1. That the Apostles might not appear light and change 
able. 

2. That they should not be fastidious and discontented 
with what was set before them in their first lodging, and 
seek better accommodation (S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, 
Theophylact). 

3. That they might not offend their former host, by 
leaving him as if he were unworthy or grudging. 

Verse 1 2. Saying, Peace be to this house. 

These words are not read in the Greek, but they ought 
to be, as is clear from verse 13. They are read in 5. Luke 
x. 5, and by SS. Hilary, Chrysostom, Jerome (in Com- 
ment.\ and Theophylact. They are not found in the text 
through the unpardonable negligence, apparently, of the 
typographers. Euthymius, however, does not read the 
words. It is the usual salutation of the Hebrews, as S. 
Jerome says. 

\2 DI/11^ pax Ucum. The words show the peaceful 
visit of the person saluting as Gen. xliii. 23 ; Judges vi. 23. 
They sometimes invoked all good things on those whom 
they saluted, as in I Paralip. xii. 18. It is probable that 
Christ desired the Apostles to do both, to signify that 
wherever they came they brought peace, and not strife, and 
that they prayed for every kind of good thing on those 
who received them. This we gather from verse 13. 

Verse 13. And if the house be worthy. 

To receive your peace. S. Luke (x. 6) speaks of " the 
Son of peace," that is, if your host be a lover of peace or 



CH. x. 14. J FIRST MISSION OF APOSTLES. 335 

worthy of peace : as one worthy of death is called a son of 
death. 

Your peace shall come upon it. 

All the good things you have prayed for in the name of 
peace shall come upon it. 

But if it be not worthy your peace .shall return unto you. 

The Greek reads the verb in the passive, " shall be re 
turned ". Euthymius and some others understand that Christ 
commanded them to recall, as far as they could, the peace 
they had offered and go elsewhere ; but it does not seem in 
harmony with the lovingkindness of Christ to command 
the Apostles to take back a peace they had given : for this 
would be equivalent to their praying a second time that the 
good things for which they had prayed might not be sent 
Those Fathers appear to explain it better who say that the 
imperative mood is put, by a Hebrew idiom, for the future, 
as appears from S. Luke (x. 6), who uses this tense. Hence 
our version, careless of the word, follows the meaning. 

The sense of the passage, however, may be double : 

1. Either it shall be returned to you, that is, that for 
which you have prayed, as in Ps. xxxiv. 13, that is, " I wish 
that to come to myself which I have entreated for my 
enemies " ; or, 

2. The future, on the other hand, is put for the impera 
tive ; or, as is perhaps more probable, Christ did not mean 
that what the Apostles had prayed for should come upon 
themselves, but that it should not come to those for whom 
they prayed. So spoke the Hebrews : " My word shall 
not return to me void" (Isa. Iv. 11). "Shall return" is, 
therefore, not to take effect. 

Verse 14. Shake off the dust. 

Why did Christ command what appears a sign of 
impatience and anger ? Many reasons have been given by 



336 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. x. 15. 

the Ancients. S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, Theophylact, 
S. Augustin (Qiiest. 7 on S. Matthew), say that it was to 
show that the Apostles would have nothing in common 
with them, since they left even their very dust. The same 
authors and Bede say that this was done to show that the 
Apostles had taken so long a journey for them to no pur 
pose. For dust on the feet means a long journey. S. Am 
brose (ix., On S. Luke] and Euthymius (on this passage) say 
that it was to show that even their dust was wicked, and that 
they would therefore have none of it. S. Hilary suggests 
that the Apostles were ordered to do this as a sign of an 
anathema. The true reason probably is one given by him 
and Origen (Horn, on Gen. xviii.). It was to show that the 
very dust itself which they had collected in their journey 
should rise up as a testimony against them, as a testimony in 
the day of judgment, because they would not receive them. 
For it was the custom of .the Jews to make a memorial in 
commemoration of a great and notable action. Whether 
it were to erect a heap of stones (as Gen. xxxi. 46), or an 
altar (as Josh. xxii. 26), or to rend their clothes (as in 
S. Matt. xxvi. 65). So the Romans, in ratifying a treaty, 
sacrificed a pig (feriebanf], whence they call to make and 
conclude a treaty "to slay and strike" (ferire) a treaty. 

Verse 15. It shall be more tolerable. 

Not, perhaps, that the men of Sodom and Gomorrha had 
not greater sins, nor that the only question here was of the 
sin of inhospitality alone, as Remigius and De Lyra 
think, nor that they had now expiated some part of their 
sin by burning, as Anastasius (Quest. 8 on Script^) sup 
poses, but because the Gospel had not been preached to 
them, as SS. Hilary and Jerome, Bede, and Theophylact 
conclude, and as may be inferred from chap. xi. 23, 24. 
Two doctrines have been deduced from this passage. I. 
By S. Jerome : That the punishments of all the condemned 



CH. x. 16.] FIRST MISSION OF APOSTLES. 337 

are not equal. 2. By Anastasius : That some are punished, 
not only in this life, but also in the life to come. For the 
men of Sodom were punished by the burning of their city, 
and Christ still signifies that they will be further punished 
at the day of judgment. 

Verse 1 6. Behold I send you. 

Christ here fortifies the Apostles against future perils. 
They who think that these words were not spoken to the 
Apostles in their first mission are in error (S. Liike x. 3) : 
where the same words are related to have been spoken to 
the seventy-two in their first mission, as has been remarked 
by S. Chrysostom, and observed on verse 9 above. 
Although all these things were not necessary for the first 
mission, yet they were all spoken at that time, because the 
Apostles were taught, not for that occasion alone, but for 
all future ones. When Christ said, " Behold, I send you," 
&c., He added strength to His words, and courage to the 
disciples, as The Author (Horn, xxiv.), S. Chrysostom, and 
Euthymius have observed. It is as if He had said : " Be 
hold, I send you who am able to deliver you from all 
dangers ". Christ appears to allude to the ancient mission 
of the Prophets : " I who sent them send you also, I who 
delivered them when need was will deliver you also ". 

As sheep. 

Christ seems to call them sheep, not only because they 
were innocent, and were the servants of God, as many 
explain it, but most especially because they were defence 
less and deprived of all human safeguards. He appears to 
allude to His command (verse 9) not to take a scrip with 
them, as in Ps. xxxiii. 13 ; that is, they were so weak and 
so exposed to injury that whoever wished might slay them. 

In the midst. 

In medio, ev for et?, as in the Hebrew, 1 for G^lNf ""JirQ 
in medio, that is, among wolves. By these words Christ 

22 



338 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. x. 17. 

means that the wolves were many in number and the 
sheep few. One wolf among many sheep works great 
destruction. What, then, when the wolves are more in 
number than the sheep? (S. Chrysostom, Horn, xxxiv.). 
Christ calls all men who refuse the Gospel " wolves " ; as 
in the verse following, " Beware of men," He means not 
only the Scribes and Pharisees, as S. Jerome explains it in 
too restricted a sense. 

Be you therefore wise. 

To guard against treacherous designs, as He explains on 
verse 23. 

A nd simple as doves. 

Harmless, sincere, giving no occasion of harming you, 
and not even avenging your wrongs. S. Chrysostom (Horn. 
xxxiv.) and The Author (Horn, xlii.) so explain it. So, 
too, S. Paul (i Cor. xiv. 20; Ephes. v. 15, 16 ; Coloss. iv. 5). 

Verse 17. But beware of men. 

Christ means those who had before been called wolves. 
For man is a wolf to man. He does not call all men 
wolves, but only those who are of this world. 

For they will deliver you up in councils. 

Some understand by councils, Gentile tribunals, and by 
synagogues, the assemblies of Jews. Other suppose both 
to refer to the Gentiles, the synagogues being panegyres or 
popular assemblies. It might be better to refer both to the 
Jews, who had both their synagogues, or public assemblies 
of the whole people, where they who had deserved it were 
scourged, and their Sanhedrim, or council, where graver 
causes were decided (verse 22). For Christ speaks in the 
following verse of Gentile tribunals. (Euthymius ; and see 
Acts iv. 6; v. 27 ; vi. 12 ; 2 Cor. xi. 24.) 



CH. x. 18, 19.] FIRST MISSION OF APOSTLES. 339 

Verse 1 8. For a testimony. 

Some understand by this that the Apostles should bear 
testimony to Christ by constant and patient suffering ; for 
the heathen would then see that that for which they were 
prepared to die was not a vain thing. Hence, they who 
die for Christ and His Faith are called martyrs, that is, 
witnesses of Christ (Acts xxii. 20 ; Apoc. xvii. 6). Others 
think it is as if Christ had said that " You " (the Apostles) 
" may have a testimony against those who rejected them 
at the day of judgment ; for that which would excuse you 
will accuse them". So S. Luke (xxi. 13), S. Hilary, The 
Author, Bede, Euthymius. 

And to the Gentiles. 

To the Jews and Gentiles. Christ spoke of the Jews 
when He said, " They shall deliver you up in councils, and 
they will scourge you in synagogues " ; and of the Gentiles 
when He said, " You shall be brought before governors and 
before kings " brought, that is, by the Jews. Their 
patience was to be a testimony against both. This is the 
true meaning of the passage which Theophylact and Euthy 
mius alone seem to have understood. 

Verse 19. Take no thought. 

Christ does not teach the Apostles to be negligent and 
heartless, nor would He have them too timid and anxious. 
But He forbids them to be so. The Greek word /jbepifjivij- 
o-T/re explains this as supra, vi. 25, 28, 31, 34. In the 
same sense we understand S. Matt. xiii. 1 1 and 6". Luke 
xxi. 14. He does not prohibit all previous carefulness on 
the subject, but only that which has its root in distrust in 
Divine Providence, and which impedes the free preaching 
of the Gospel by too great fear and anxiety. 

For it shall be given you. 
So 5. Luke xxi. 15. 



340 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. x. 20, 23. 

Verse 20. For it is not you. 

It is not so much you as the spirit of your Father. You 
shall speak not in your own wisdom and design, but His, 
as chap. ix. 13 : "I will have mercy and not sacrifice ". That 
is, not so much sacrifice as mercy. The meaning is : " It is 
not so much your cause as Mine and My Father s who is 
in heaven ; and therefore the Comforter that is, My 
Advocate and My Father s, even if you be silent, will 
answer. So say The Author and S. Jerome. 

Verse 23. And when they shall persecute you. 

Christ had said, verse 10, " Be ye wise ". He now teaches 
one part of wisdom by which the Apostles may escape the 
snares of their enemies and be on their guard against men, 
as He had warned them in verse 17. He would not have 
His soldiers fight, but fly. 

Two questions have been raised on this passage : 

1. Whether the above words were spoken on the first 
mission. 

2. How Christ commands the Apostles to fly, when He 
says the contrary in S. John x. II, 12. 

Many great authorities think that the words apply to the 
first mission alone. Among these are Tertullian (De Fug. 
Persecut^}, S. Jerome and S. Chrysostom (Horn, xxxv.), 
Euthymius and Theophylact. Others refer them generally 
to every mission and to the whole Apostolic office, like 
the words in verse 9 (Origen, Horn. ix. on Judges ; S. 
Athanasius, Ad Orthod. and Ep. to Pope Marcus; S. 
Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. i. cont. Julian). This appears 
much more probable. For in their first mission the 
Apostles experienced nothing to cause them to fly from 
one city to another ; but all things succeeded well with 
them, and they returned rejoicing that the devils were sub 
ject to them (S. Luke x. 17). Christ could not be ignorant 
of this before it was done. It is therefore a general saying 



CH. x. 23.] FIRST MISSION OF APOSTLES. 341 

spoken by Him on the occasion, but not from the needs, of 
the first mission. The former of the above - mentioned 
authors have given their attention, not to the result from 
which the warning of Christ was most especially to be under 
stood, but only to the words that follow : " You shall not 
finish all the cities in Israel till the Son of man come ". 

The second question, how Christ taught the Apostles to 
flee, cannot be treated of more copiously or more lucidly 
than it has been by S. Augustin (Ep. clxxx. to Honor atus). 
But he has not decided whether Christ s words contain a 
precept or a counsel. S. Athanasius and S. Gregory Na- 
zianzen think the words a precept, but they speak perhaps 
popularly. The words appear to be either a precept or 
a counsel, according to the different circumstances of place, 
time, persons, and events ; but they were properly given by 
Christ most chiefly, for the first mission and great part of 
the second, as a precept, that the Apostles might reserve 
themselves for spreading the Gospel more widely ; lest they 
should be exposed to death in their first contest. For it 
was not yet the time for them to die. They must first 
carry on a long warfare, and extend the boundaries of the 
kingdom of God far and wide. " The soldier who flies," 
says the Greek proverb, " will fight again." In this sense 
Christ Himself fled more than once. First, as an Infant 
into Egygt fii. 14) ; then when the men of Nazareth 
endeavoured to throw Him down the rock (S. Luke iv. 30 ; 
5. John vii. 30). In like manner not only upon those who 
were Apostles then, but upon those who come after them, 
and upon all men in all circumstances, is this precept laid. 
For when the Gospel itself, for which we are not to fly, 
requires us to fly, we must fly. To fly then is not cowardice 
but duty : not to fly is not courage but obstinacy. For 
this reason S. Paul fled (Acts ix. 25 ; 2 Cor. xi. 33). The 
greater glory of God and good of the Church ought to be our 
rule : when either or both require us to fly, not to do so is 



342 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. x. 23. 

sin. In other circumstances we ought not to fly. Whether 
we may be able or not is another question, which alone S. 
Augustin has explained. 

This is the sum of his teaching. I. For a priest to fly 
when he is sought for individually by his enemies, and there 
are others who can give the sacraments, is lawful. 2. The 
same when all his sheep have been scattered and put to 
flight. 3. When he can do more good by flight than by 
remaining at his post. S. Chrysostom adds that it is law 
ful, and perhaps it is his duty, to fly, when, if he remain, 
his own faith may be endangered. " He does not deny 
Christ by flying," he says, "who flies that he may not 
deny " otherwise it is not lawful but he must remain and 
lay down his life for his sheep, which a hireling will not do 
(S. John x. 12, 13). The opinion of Tertullian, who thought 
it unlawful for any Christian ever to fly, has been justly 
condemned ; and S. Jerome, in his Life> does not hesitate to 
say that his work on flight in persecution was written 
against the Church. 

You shall not finis J i. 

This cannot be understood unless we first understand to 
what Christ is directing His words. They seem to have 
been spoken to show that there would not be wanting cities 
in Israel in which the Gospel had not been heard, and in 
which, if not received in others, the Apostles could take 
refuge, and labour with greater results. But all do not 
understand the words, " You shall not finish," in the same 
sense. S. Hilary explains it to mean, " To bring men to the 
perfection of the faith and of Gospel virtue ". S. Chrysostom 
{Horn, xxxv.), Euthymius, and Theophylact, of passing 
through all the cities in their preaching. The opinion of S. 
Hilary seems the best from what follows. Christ desired to 
signify not only the multitude of cities, but also, by the way, 
the unbelief of the Jews, which would be so great that the 



CH. x. 23.] FIRST MISSION OF APOSTLES. 343 

Apostles would be fully occupied in converting them until 
the Son of man should come. 

Till the Son of man come. 

Many think that by the coming of the Son of man in this 
passage is meant His help and comfort ; for God is said to 
come to us when He enriches us. S. Chrysostom, Theo- 
phylact, and Euthymius were the authors of this opinion. 
They confirm it from 5. Luke x. I, as if Christ had said : 
" I will be with you, and help you before you shall have 
preached the Gospel in all the cities of Judaea". Others, 
as Bede : " You will not finish the Resurrection before the 
Son of man shall rise again ".* For Christ is said to come 
when, the enemy being overthrown, He begins to reign 
(xxvi. 29, and vS. John xiv. 28). Others take it of the day 
of His coming to judgment, and think that all the Gentile 
cities as well are called the cities of Israel, which are to be 
converted before the day of judgment. So think Rupertus 
and De Lyra, and perhaps also S. Augustin. But this 
cannot be held in any sense ; for it is not doubtful but that 
Christ spoke of those cities to which He was then sending 
the Apostles ; but He did not send them except to the 
cities of Judaea (verses 5, 6). Some imagine the unbelief 
of the Jews to be remarked upon, and that it is meant that 
the Gentiles would come into the faith before the Jews, as 
S. Paul says (Rom. xi.). So S. Hilary, whose opinion 
seems the more admissible, because there is nothing forced 
in it, and because there is no mention of any other coming 
of the Son of man, as it seems, than the supreme one in 
which He will come to judgment ; although the explana 
tion of Bede is not to be despised. What follows (verses 
24, 25) has been understood in three ways : 

i. That the words apply to all disciples and all servants ; 

* So the Fol. : the 8vo reads : " You will not bring all the Jews to belief 
by your preaching before the Son of man rise again ". 



344 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. x. 25. 

but not as what always, but only as what most commonly, 
is the case : for most commonly the master is greater than 
the disciple, the lord than the servant ; although the con 
trary is the case sometimes. So S. Chrysostom, The Author, 
and Euthymius. 

2. That it is to be taken of all, but is to be understood 
to be true only as long as the disciple is the disciple, and 
the servant the servant ; for then the disciple cannot be 
greater than the master, nor the servant than the lord. 
So say the same authors, and Theophylact, Theodore 
of Mopsuestia, and Leontius. 

3. That it is spoken of the disciples of Christ alone, 
who never can equal their Master : men and God ; and 
who, even when made masters and teachers of the Gospel* 
were both called and were, in fact, still the disciples of 
Christ, because whatever they taught they received from 
Him, as the same Leontius says. But Christ does not 
seem so much to teach what disciples and servants 
generally are, as how they ought to conduct themselves to 
their master and lord ; namely, so as not to think them 
selves better than he. For thus it best applies to the 
matter in hand, and thus S. Hilary seems to take it. 

Verse 25. If the good man of the house. 
That is, I, who am the ruler of the Church and its Lord. 

Beelzebub. 

Beelzebub was the notable idol of the Akronites (4 Kings 
i. 2, 3, 6- 1 6). Beelzebub that is, the lord of flies is so called, 
either, as most think, because he was covered with flies 
from the blood of his victims, or, as seems more probable, 
because he was most chiefly invoked against the plague 
of flies. Pliny (x. 28) says : " The Egyptians invoke their 
Ibis against the invasion of serpents, and the Elaeans the 
god Myagrus against the multitude of flies, which bring a 



CH. x. 26, 27, 32.] FIRST MISSION OF APOSTLES. 345 

pestilence ". Hence, from the horror and abomination of 
the thing, the devil is called Beelzebub by the Jews ; as 
hell is called Gehenna from the place where they sacrificed 
infants to Moloch, as verse 28. 

Verse 26. Nothing is covered which shall not be revealed. 

When ? SS. Hilary, Jerome, and Bede say in the day 
of judgment (i Cor. iv. 5). Others, in the course of time, 
and even in this life, as Chrysostom (Horn, xxxv.), The 
Author (Horn, xxv.), Theophylact, Euthymius, which 
appears to be the true meaning. Because Christ wished, 
as He had foretold many dreadful things, to add also some 
comfort " Fear not ; " that is, although men persecute you 
at first, and all call you Beelzebub and seducers, your 
virtue shall be known, and they who a little before injured 
you shall honour you. 

Verse 27. That which I tell yon in darkness. 
In private. 

Speak ye in the light. 

In public. The Latins have a like idiom : " Versari in 
oculis et luce hominum ". 

And that which you Jiear in the ear. 
Secretly, in the dark, is privately, and so in the ear. 

Preach ye. 

On the house-tops, with a clear voice, that all may hear 
(iv. 5). Christ therefore exhorts the disciples to preach the 
Gospel freely, confidently, boldly, and with a clear voice 
(Isa. xl. 9). 

Verse 32. Everyone therefore that shall confess Me. 

In Me. "In" is for the Hebrew article of the accusative, 
used in imitation by the LXX., as has been before 



346 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. x. 34. 

observed. Unless, perhaps, it be another Hebraism, and the 
word " confess " is put for the Hebrew Hithpael, HTinn 
which properly means, not merely to confess, but also to con 
fess openly and, in a manner, with pride ; as if Christ should 
say, in Latin, " Whoever glories in Me before men, I will 
glory in him before My Father". He equals Himself to 
men. He opposes men to God. He says, " Before My 
Father " ; but it is the Father s prerogative to give to each 
his own, and the place of honour (xx. 23). Although the 
future Judge, He makes Himself, as it were, a witness who 
without His Father s will and foreknowledge will not give 
sentence. 

Verse 34. Do not think. 

These words agree with the preceding thus. Christ had 
foretold many calamities as about to happen to the 
preachers of the Gospel ; and He now teaches that He 
had, in a manner, come that they might happen ; that is, 
that they would not happen without His foreknowledge ; 
so that when they did take place the disciples ought not to 
be dismayed (as S. John xvi. 4). 

Two things are to be observed to the actual under 
standing of the passage : I. That Christ speaks of peace 
and war, not of His own opinion, but from that of men who 
consider peace to be concord in misfortune. To be able to 
buy and sell freely, to consort together, to serve all vices 
freely, is the peace of the world. Such was the peace by 
which proud men consorted to build the Tower of 
Babel (Gen. xi. 4). Such was the peace by which Herod 
and Pilate, who had previously been enemies, became 
friends, and united to persecute Christ (Luke xxiii. 12). 
Such was the peace of the wicked described in Ps. ii. I. 
This peace was not that which Christ came to send into 
the world, but the peace of God which passeth under 
standing (Phil. iv. 7). This peace the Prophets had fore- 



CH. x. 35, 36.] FIRST MISSION OF APOSTLES. 347 

told that Christ should bring (ha. ix. 6, 7 ; xi. 6 ; Ixv. 25). 
This peace when Christ was born was announced by the 
angels to men (S. Luke ii. 14). This, and not the former, 
was the peace which Christ said that He came to give (S. 
John xiv. 27). This peace He taught the Apostles to pray 
for wherever they went (supra, verse 12 ; S. Jerome ; Chry- 
sostom, Horn, xxxvi. ; The Author, Horn. xxvi. ; S. Gregory, 
Pastor., iii. 23 ; Bede ; and Theophylact, in hoc. loc.). 

2. The other is that Christ did not say that He was come 
to raise this war and other calamities between parents and 
children ; but that these would so follow from His coming, 
as if He had come to cause them, as in S. John ix. 39, and 
as it was said by Simeon that He is set (S. Luke ii. 34). 

But the sword. 

Many explain this of the Word of God (Eph. vi. 17 ; 
Heb. iv. 12). So, too, S. Hilary, The Author (Horn, xxvi), 
S. Augustin (Qucest. 3 in Matt.), and Theophylact. Others, 
as Euthymius, say that the love of God is meant, for which 
children are separated from their parents. The former 
is certainly the true view. The Evangelist says " the 
sword " rather than " war," as S. Chrysostom has observed, 
to add force to his words ; for the head is severed from the 
body by a sword. S. Luke (xii. 51), for a sword, has separa 
tion ; and xii. 49-51. 

Verse 35. A man at variance against his father. 

Christ speaks of the most intimate relationship, to show 
that there is no tie, however close, which the Gospel does 
not break. 

Verse 36. And a mans enemies. 

This verse is continued from verse 34. It fulfils the pro 
phecy of Micheas (vii. 6), though spoken by him in a differ 
ent sense. 



348 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. x. 38, 39, 40. 

Verse 38. And he that taketh not up. 
He that taketh not the cross on his shoulders and carries 
it. The Evangelist puts Xa/z/Sam, " takes," for alpei, 
" lifts," as the Hebrews say, Hp7 " to take," instead of 
NtW tollere, "carry" (viii. 17). Christ alludes probably 
to the Cross which He Himself was to carry on His 
shoulders (S. John xix. 17). Christ says the same thing 
(xvi. 24), and S. Mark (viii. 34) on the same subject, and 
S. Luke (ix. 23) on a different one. Hence we see clearly 
how often Christ lays this on us. For to take up our) 
cross is nothing else than to be ready to die for Christ, not ( 
only in any manner, but even on the cross ; as Peter said 
(S. Luke xxii. 33), S. Chrysostom (Horn. xxxvi.),The Author 
(Plom. xxvi.), Theophylact. The explanation of S. Hilary 
and Euthymius, who think that to be called the cross of 
Christ, by which we ought to be dead to the world, as S. 
Paul said (Gal. vi. 14 and v. 24), is rather moral than 
literal. 

Verse 39. He that findeth his life. 

Christ speaks not of truth, but of the common opinion of 
men, who think themselves to have found their lives when 
they have saved them from any certain and present danger 
of death. Christ uses the word " life " in a double sense, as 
He does other ambiguous words, and not only without any 
fault, but with elegance and force as chap. viii. 22. In the 
first clause He uses " life " for life from the Hebrew 
idiom ; and in the second He uses " life " for the soul, 
which is either to be received into everlasting life or to be 
cast into everlasting fire. 

Verse 40. He that receiveth you. 

There is no difficulty in this place but that of under 
standing how Christ applies the words. S. Jerome 
and Euthymius think it to be the consolation which is 



CH. x. 41.] FIRST MISSION OF APOSTLES. 349 

referred to in verse 9. For, because He had there said : 
" Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses," 
that they might not be anxious how they were to live 
among those unknown to them, He opens to them the 
houses of all, says Euthymius, saying that they should be 
received not less freely by all than if He Himself were pre 
sent ; for " Whoever receiveth you receiveth Me ". This 
opinion would be correct if it had been said, not to the 
Apostles, but to those who were to receive them. But it 
was said to the Apostles. 

Christ, then, appears to have said it for no other reason 
than to show the Apostles how great care He would have 
of them, since they represented His own Person. 

Verse 41. In the name of a prophet. 

Because he is a prophet that is, one sent by Me not 
because he is of My kindred ; not because he is a Jew, or 
has any other name (The Author, S. Jerome, Chrysostom, 
Bede, Theophylact). He calls a teacher of the Law a 
prophet, for He was speaking of these. 

The reward of a prophet. 

Some take this of the reward which a prophet shall give 
to him who would teach him the Gospel ; and the reward 
of a just man, that which the just man shall obtain by his 
prayers for him to God, or because for his sake God will 
give him to him as S. Luke xvi. 9. 

Others, but with a forced sense : The reward which I, who 
am a prophet and a righteous man, will give him. Others 
again : The reward of a prophet and just man that is, 
that which is allotted to these by God, who receives 
prophets and righteous men. This is a probable explana 
tion ; but, doubtless, the meaning is : The reward of a 
prophet is that which the prophet himself shall receive,, 
because while he receives a prophet, as such, it is with God 



350 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. x. 42. 

as if he discharged the duty of a prophet ; as David said, 
I Kings xxx. 24. And as, on the other hand, S. Augustin 
used to say frequently that S. Paul, while he kept the 
clothes of those who stoned Stephen, stoned him by the 
hands of all ; and as kings often punish equally both rebels 
and those who receive them into their houses or conceal 
them. S. Clement certainly takes it in this sense when, 
in his Strom, iv., he proves, from this passage, that the 
rewards of all the blessed will not be equal. 

Verse 42. To one of these little ones a cup of cold water only. 

Christ puts forth the most humble persons, and a thing 
of the very lowest value a cup of water ; and not of warm 
water, which could not be heated without the cost of fire, 
but of cold water, such as nature herself produces from the 
fountain. 

His reward. 

Wherever the modern heretics find this word, they 
endeavour in a wonderful manner to show that it does not 
mean reward, lest anyone should infer merits from reward. 
They say that eternal life is called reward, not because it 
is given because of our works, but because it is given after 
them (non propter sed post), as a reward is given after desert 
and labour. They seem to themselves completely to prove 
this when they say that the same thing cannot be both a 
reward and a heritage ; for heritage is given, not to labour, 
but to birth, and eternal life is everywhere called a heritage. 
If we show that it is given us not only after (post} our 
works, but because of them (propter), their error will 
assuredly fall and perish from the foundation. But this is 
clear even from this very passage to go no further. For, 
as S. Clement of Alexandria proves, Christ shows clearly 
that not he who receives a prophet and he who receives 
any just man shall receive the same reward, as neither 
shall the prophet and righteous man themselves. The 



CH. x. 42.] FIRST MISSION OF APOSTLES. 351 

greater merit, therefore, answers to the greater, and the 
lesser to the less. What is the meaning of being given 
on account of merit if that is not? For if only the 
sequence (consequentia) of the latter and former is meant 
by the word reward, neither would the greater be paid to 
the greater labour, nor the less to the less ; but only the 
earlier to the first in order, and the latter to the later. This 
is wholly at variance with the words of S. Paul (i Cor. iii. 8). 
For what is the meaning of " according to his own labour," 
but that he who has laboured the more will receive the 
more, and he who has laboured the less will receive the 
less ? S. Paul says the same in another place (2 Cor. ix. 6 ; 
Gal vi. 7). 

As to their objection, that that which is called a heritage 
cannot be a reward, they show that they act foolishly in 
judging no otherwise of the divine than of the human 
heritage. For a heritage often falls to the son without 
thought or judgment, and against the will of the parents. 
But God does not dispense His heritage so rashly. By a 
sure judgment He gives it to us, both as we are sons, and 
as we have merited it. He gives, because it is to sons. 
Because it is to merits, He gives the greater reward to 
those who have merited the greater, and the less to those 
who have merited the less. Because it is given to sons it 
is called a heritage ; and because it is given to sons who 
have merited, it is called a reward. 



CHAPTER XL 

JOHN SENDS HIS DISCIPLES TO CHRIST, WHO UPBRAIDS 
THE JEWS WITH THEIR INCREDULITY, AND CALLS 
TO HIM SUCH AS ARE SENSIBLE OF THEIR BURDENS. 

Verse i. And it came to pass. 



THE Hebrew is Wl ; the Greek, as translated by the 
LXX., KOI eyevero it "has been," or "has been done," or 
" has happened " ; but the last meaning does not suit the 
passage so well, because it might seem to imply that the 
events described took place by accident, whereas they were 
done with deep design. The Evangelists copy the LXX. 
S. Matthew has passed over the Acts of the Apostles in their 
mission, S. Mark (vi. 12, 13) and S. Luke (ix. 6) relating 
them briefly. 

When Jesus liad made an end of commanding (" consum- 

masset pr&cipiens "). 

Prczcipere, the particle put for the infinitive by Greek 
idiom. The Latins would have said: Cum prcecipiendi 
finem fecisset. Those commands which divines distinguish 
from counsels are not necessarily understood here, but that 
instruction which consists partly of commands and partly 
of counsels, which Christ gave the Apostles. This is the 
meaning of SiaraTTeiv, " to set in order," " to dispose " (i Cor. 
xi. 34). 

He passed from thence. 

Lest, whilst the Apostles were employed in their mission, 
His presence might take from their authority and obscure 



CH. xi. 3.] DISCIPLES OF S. JOHN BAPTIST. 353 

the brightness of their miracles. Hence Theophylact 
thinks that Christ did no miracles in the meanwhile, and 
therefore that the Evangelist did not say that He worked 
no miracles, but only taught: a slender conjecture. 

In their cities. 

Many think that the cities of the disciples are meant : 
but why are they called " theirs " ? Some suppose that the 
cities of Galilee are referred to. For the Apostles were all 
or most of them of Galilee (Acts ii. 7). So Euthymius and 
Hugo. Others, the cities in which the Apostles had 
preached, as in ,S. Luke x. i. But this view is not accept 
able, both because it has no trustworthy authority to 
support it, and because they only are called the cities of 
the Apostles in which they preached, or which they passed 
through ; and the Evangelist says that Christ, immediately 
on sending away the Apostles, went into another place. 
This seems, therefore, difficult of acceptation. Christ sent 
them, then, as S. Luke says (x. i), into every city and place 
into which, not immediately, but after a long time, He 
would come Himself. He also relates, not that Christ 
came to them, but that they returned to Him (verse 17). 
The explanation of Euthymius and Bede seems better: that 
the cities of Judah are meant, the relative either being put 
without an antecedent, or being referred to the remote one 
of chap. x. 6 ; " Go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of 
Israel" ; or to verse 23 :" When they shall persecute you in 
this city, flee ye to another ". Either manner of speech is 
very common with the Hebrews (4 Kings xvii. 29 ; 3 Kings 
v- 3)- 

Verse 3. Art Thou He that art to come ? 

The passage is difficult, because a doubt is apt to arise 
as to how John, who had confessed Christ to be the Lamb 
of God before He had done any miracles, could appear 
really to doubt after so many. S. Justin Martyr, indeed 

23 



354 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xi. 3. 

(or whoever is the author), in the 38th question to the 
Orthodox, and Tertullian (iv., Against Marciori], do not 
hesitate to say that John did really doubt. Tertullian adds 
what is worse, that he doubted because the spirit of pro 
phecy had passed from him to Christ. Some, as this was 
most senseless, have sought another explanation : that 
John did not doubt whether Christ were the Lamb of God 
and the true Messiah, such as he had before testified him 
to be, but whether He would die and descend into hell. 
To this opinion, for want of a better, the greatest number of 
the Ancients incline (S. Ambrose, vii., On S. Luke ; Euse- 
bius, Emissa Horn.; Jul. Pomerius, book iii., Cont. Jud.; 
Venantius, On the Apostles Creed; S. Gregory, Horn. i. 
on Ezekiel). S. Chrysostom {Horn, xxxvii.), also, and 
Theophylact (Comment., in loc.) speak of it, but they both 
rightly refute it For how could John be ignorant of the 
death of Christ, and His descent into hell, of which no 
prophet, and no man of learning who had studied the 
works of the prophets, was ignorant? 

The opinion therefore of S. Hilary, S. Chrysostom, The 
Author, S. Cyril of Alexandria (2 Thesauri., iv.), Euthy- 
mius, Theophylact, Rupertus, that John himself had no 
doubts, but that his disciples had some, is true. For they 
so loved their own master, that though he preferred Christ 
far before himself, and declared that he was not worthy to 
loose His shoestrings, they would not believe him. They 
thought, perhaps, that John spoke from modesty, not 
truth, and, as much less as he made himself than Christ, so 
much the greater they believed him to be. Hence came 
their jealousy of Christ (S. John iii. 26). When, then, John 
saw his death to be at hand, and he heard of these miracles 
which must have caused even the hardest to believe, he 
sent his disciples to Him, that, as they had not believed 
himself, they might believe Christ s miracles. He sent 
them, therefore, as if he himself doubted, because they 



CH. xi. 4.] DISCIPLES OF S. JOHN BAPTIST. 355 

would never have ventured to ask Christ in their own 
names. So the most skilful physician feigns himself sick 
to cure those that are sick (2 Cor. xi. 29). " Who is weak, 
and I am not weak ? " It is clear that this is the true mean 
ing from the reason given in verse 2. " When John had 
heard in the prison the works of Christ." What works? 
His miracles. Did the miracles of Christ cause doubt in him 
who not only believed in Him, but also proclaimed Him 
before any of them were done? He sent his disciples, there 
fore, that they might see them and cease to doubt. 

S. Jerome and Bede add something further : that the 
disciples of John did not doubt whether Christ was the true 
Redeemer, but whether He would undergo death and 
descend into hell ; and they were sent to Him to learn 
this. But the idea does not agree with the context. For 
how would they learn from the miracles whether Christ 
would die and go down into hell ? 

Verse 4. Relate to John. 

Christ knew that they came to ask for themselves, not for 
John ; but He would not show this, lest He should seem to 
accuse them of unbelief and simulation. He said, there 
fore, " Go and relate to John what you have heard and 
seen ". Or perhaps they thought that John doubted truly, 
and not merely in pretence. For it is not to be believed 
that he said this to the disciples that they might question 
Christ the more freely, and that, the master believing 
afterwards the more easily, and, as it were, changing his 
opinion, they also must change theirs. When we descend 
to vice we are willing to be leaders. We are ashamed to 
turn to virtue without a leader. 

WJiat you have heard and seen. 

" You have heard of some of my miracles from those who 
saw them, and some you have seen yourself." For S. 
Luke (vii. 21) writes that Christ healed many blind before 



356 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xi. 5, 6. 

them, and cured many that were afflicted with various 
diseases, and cast out many devils. But why did not 
Christ answer plainly that He was the Christ, when He 
said so to the woman of Samaria though she did not ask 
Him? (S.John iv. 26). S. Chrysostom and Rupertus reply 
that He would convince unbelievers by deeds, not words 
(as S. John v. 33-36, and x. 37, 38, and xv. 24). Why, 
then, did He say that He was Christ to the Samarian 
woman ? Because He knew, as the result proved, that she 
would easily believe His words ? 

Verse 5. The poor have the Gospel preached to them. 
Theophylact and Euthymius take the verb actively, as if 
they said : The poor preach the Gospel ; for they say that 
the Apostles are called the poor, because they were in a 
humble and poor condition ; and the verb evay<ye\io/jiai is 
not always used in a passive sense, as has been said in the 
Preface. But sometimes it is so (as Heb. iv. 2 ; I Pet. i. 
25 ; iv. 6) ; and this is the only meaning to be given to it 
here. For while the Gospel should be preached to all 
alike, Christ mentions only the poor : firstly, because this 
was to be numbered among the miracles ; for what is more 
wonderful than that a poor man should be made a King ? 
and secondly, that He might make allusion to the Pro 
phet (Isa. Ixi. i), and show that He was the Christ of whom 
the Prophet spoke. 

Verse 6. That should not be scandalised in Me. 
Whoever did not derive death from the source whence 
he ought to have gained life, and whoever was moved to 
belief by the miracles, would not have been moved to 
accuse Him, like the Scribes and Pharisees, who said that 
He cast out devils by the prince of the devils. For He 
was a rock of offence and a stone of stumbling (Isa. viii. 14 ; 
Rom. ix. 33), and placed for the ruin of many (S. Luke ii. 



CH. xi. 7, 10.] DISCIPLES OF S. JOHN BAPTIST. 357 

34), but not for those who believe. To these He was the 
chief corner-stone elect as I Pet. ii. 6, 7. S. Jerome and 
Bede think that by these words Christ meant to mark the 
disciples of John who did not believe. 

Verse 7. And when they went their way. 

Why not before ? S. Chrysostom and Euthymius 
answer that Christ would not appear to praise and flatter 
John before His disciples. 

Jesus began to say. 

Why ? Lest they who were present and had heard of 
the message of John should think that he had changed his 
former opinion of Christ from which he had borne such 
exalted testimony to Him, or had really begun to doubt, 
and they also should waver in faith as S. Jerome, S. 
Chrysostom, Cyril (lib. ii., cap. 4), Bede, The Author, 
Theophylact, and Euthymius have observed, and which the 
following comparison of the " reed " confirms. As if He 
had said : " John was not a man of light mind, and apt to 
change his opinion like a reed ". 

What went ye out for to see ? 

Why did not Christ say rather : " What manner of man 
do you think John ? " in allusion to what had been said (iii. 
5, and 5. Luke iii. 7) ; as if He should say : " There is no 
reason why you should regret having gone out to see a 
man of singular character, as if he had changed for the 
worse ; for he is greater than you thought him when you 
went out to see him ". 

Verse 10. For this is he. 

He proves what He had said before, that John was 
greater than a prophet ; for He was in a manner an angel, 
and not an ordinary angel, but that most noble one of 



358 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. xi. 10. 

which God had said through Malachi : " Behold, I send My 
angel, and he shall prepare the way before My face " (iii. 
i). Other prophets and priests are called angels and pro 
phets by the same Prophet (ii. 7, and Acts vii. 53), but in 
another sense than John. They because they were sent 
to men ; John because He was sent to Christ, that is, to 
God Himself. And even before His face ; that is, to go 
most immediately before Him, which is the privilege of the 
most honoured friend ; other servants following and not 
going before the Master, as has been observed by S. Chry- 
sostom and The Author. 

In this sense is to be understood John s denial that he 
was a prophet (S. John i. 21) ; for he was not one like the 
rest, who foretold the coming long after of Christ. He was 
not a prophet, because he did not foretell Christ as about 
to come, but he pointed Him out with his finger as present. 
He was a prophet, as having recognised Christ by the 
Holy Spirit, when no one had pointed Him out ; although 
Christ denied him to be a prophet in one sense, and he 
denied himself to be one in another, Christ to show that 
he was greater, he himself to show that he was less, but 
each with the same end ; because he was not a prophet 
like the rest. 

Why he should be more than a prophet is not difficult to be 
understood. For his life was most notable ; and though he 
did no miracle, he was himself a perpetual miracle. Con 
ceived by miracle, recognising his coming Lord while yet 
in the womb, and pointing Him to his mother ; by miracle 
loosing his father s tongue when circumcised ; living by 
miracle among the wild beasts ; and, as The Author writes, 
not only equalling angels, but even surpassing them ; who 
when he was a man and not an angel led an angelic and 
not a human life, so that even Jews, and not wholly without 
reason, thought that he was a true angel, as Eusebius (De 
Demons, ix. 8) says. 



CH. xi. ii.] CHRIST ON S. JOHN BAPTIST. 359 

Before T/ty face. 

In Malachi iii. I it is not read " before Thy face," but 
" before My face ". But the meaning is the same. For 
there Christ spoke of Himself ; here the Father speaks of 
the Son. Hence, too, the divinity of Christ can be proved. 
For it is certain that it is God who is speaking by the 
Prophet ; from the same place, however, it is plain that it 
was Christ. 

Verse 11. There hath not risen. 

The Hebrew has Dy tih. The Latins say "has been," 
extitit ; but "risen" seems to have a deeper meaning, for 
it signifies not only that He was, but also that He was 
eminent. 

There hath not risen among them that are born of women a 
greater than John tJie Baptist. 

A difficult passage, for it does not appear how the say 
ing, which so exalts John, not only above all other men, 
but even seems to lower Christ Himself, can be true. The 
modern heretics have found an easy way of solving the 
difficulty. They say that the office and dignity of John 
are compared with those of the older prophets ; not his 
holiness with theirs. They prove this from S. Luke, who 
does not say absolutely that no one is greater than John, 
but that there was no greater prophet. Then, that even 
from this passage it might be proved that John was more 
than a prophet. But this path, which seems to them 
plain, leads to a dangerous error, and is wholly divergent 
from the meaning of Christ and piety. All ancient authors, 
without, I believe, one single exception, have explained 
this passage of the holiness, and not of the office, of John 
Tertullian (De Baptismd), S. Cyril Jerus. (Catech. iii.), S. 
Cyril Alex. (ii. 4, Thesaur., and lib. ii., On S. John xxxiv.), 
Ambrose (ii., On S. Luke), S. Chrysostom (Horn, xxviii. in 

.), The Author (Horn, xxvii.), S. Jerome, S. Augustin 



360 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xi. n. 

(Tract, xiii. on S. John, and Cont. Advers. Leg. et Proph., 
ii. 5), S. Hilary (Can. xi.), Maximus (Horn, on S. John} ; 
and, as I think, there is no other opinion. And if we con 
sider the object of Christ, we shall see that the idea of the 
above heretics is repugnant to it. Christ did not desire to 
prove that John was adorned with the gift of prophecy, 
and therefore excelled the rest. For He had said this in 
verse 9, and the words, " more than a prophet " and " there 
hath not risen a greater prophet," would have accorded 
badly. For, if he were more than a prophet, who could 
doubt that there would never have been a greater prophet 
than he ? Christ wished to declare to His hearers John s 
singular sanctity, lest from his mission, " Art Thou He ? " 
they should doubt of his constancy and virtue. What has 
this to do with office, when the question is of the manner of 
life? Surely, when Christ said, "What went ye out to 
see ? " He spoke, not of John s office, but of his manner of 
life. What man went you out to see? how devout an one, 
how religious, how holy ? For His addition, the reed, and 
soft clothing, are opposed, not to office, but to manner of 
life ; the reed to constancy, the soft clothing to rigour and 
hardness. 

Then, when He adds, " He that is the lesser in the kingdom 
of heaven," it is not doubtful that these are compared with 
him in the same manner as that in which he is compared 
with those who had been under the Law. But the others 
are compared with him, not in excellence of office, but in 
holiness of life. For it is not sense to say that the least 
prophet in the kingdom of heaven is a greater prophet than 
he ; but that any man is, or if he will, can be, more blessed 
than he, as shall be explained hereafter. 

John, therefore, is not compared to those who were under 
the Law in office, but in holiness. This is seen in verse 12 : 
" From the days of John the Baptist until now, the king 
dom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it 



CH. xi. ii.] CHRIST ON S. JOHN BAPTIST. 361 

away ". That is, it is open to all ; to whoever will try for 
it. Whoever will contend for it will be greater than John 
the Baptist ; not in the office of prophet (which is given 
freely, and is not the reward of labour), but in holiness, 
which the more any man tries after it, the more he will 
obtain. Lastly, the words of Christ, " There hath not 
risen among men that are born of women a greater 
than John the Baptist," had been foretold by the Angel 
(S. Luke i. 15). "He shall be great before the Lord." 
But the Angel spoke of his life, not of his office. This is 
the meaning of " before the Lord ". For no man is great 
before God, unless he be just and holy. What they object 
to from another passage (S. Luke vii. 28), other Catholics 
before us have explained. 

I. Euthymius says that the name prophet itself, in 5- 
Luke, means, not the office, but holiness, because the 
prophets both were, and were held to be, holy men. Holy 
men, though not prophets, used to be called prophets. In 
this sense, we see that Christ was universally so called by 
the Jews, not because He foretold the future, but because 
His miracles showed His holiness (S. Matthew xxi. 1 1 ; S. 
Mark vi. 15 ; 5. Luke vii. 16 ; xxiv. 19 ; 5. John iv. 19 ; vi. 
14 ; vii. 40, 52 ; ix. 17). But even were it the name of an 
office in S. Luke, they would gain nothing from the above 
passage. For we grant that John was compared to the 
prophets of the Old Testament alone. This is to be 
gathered from S. Luke, and The Author (Horn, xxvii.) and 
S. Augustin (ii., Cont. Advers. Leg. et PropJi) freely admit 
it. But does it therefore follow that he is compared with 
the prophets only in his office of prophet? The above 
authors admit the former ; but the latter they deny. For, 
because the prophets were held the most holy of all men, 
when John is compared with them, he is compared in holi 
ness ; and when he is preferred to them, he is preferred to 
all other holy men, though they are not named. 



362 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xi. n. 

2. But there remains a greater question : How among 
those born of women is no one greater, that is, more holy, 
than John ? Was not Christ so ? Many, by various means, 
exclude Christ from this comparison. Many explain it by 
the word " woman," which seems to mean corruptas, whilst 
Christ was born of a most pure Virgin as say S. Ambrose 
(v., On S. Luke), Jerome, Bede, Theophylact. " He," says 
S. Ambrose, "was, I affirm, greater than all, but among 
those born of a woman, not of a pure Virgin. For he was 
greater than those to whom he could be equal in the 
manner of his birth." 

Others say, because He did not say born of women as 
Christ is said to have been made of a woman (Gal. iv. 4), 
but amongst those born mulierum. For Christ was not 
born mulieris, but de muliere. So The Author (Horn. 
xxvii.) : "It is one thing," he says, "to be born mulieris, 
and another to be born de muliere. He who is born 
mulieris is born in muliere, and has his origin de 
muliere, and before the woman he was not. But he who 
is born de muliere is not born in muliere. But Christ was 
born de muliere Others think that the word " born," 
<yevvY)Tois, means those only who are born of man and 
woman ; for this is to be, properly speaking, born <yevvav. 
This may be true, but it is not necessary. Others are said 
to be born mulierum, who are not born e Deo, but of the 
will of man and the flesh, to whom are opposed those who 
are born e Deo, that is to those who are re-born e Divino 
Spiritu, among whom he that is the least is greater than 
John Baptist. So S. Cyril of Alexandria, On Thess. iv., 
lib. ii. 

Others would have Christ excluded from the words that 
follow : " He that is least in the kingdom of heaven " as 
S. Chrysostom and Euthymius. It may be so, but it does 
not solve the question. For, granting that Christ is ex 
cluded, what are we to say of His most holy Mother, whom 



CH. xi. ii.] CHRIST ON S. JOHN BAPTIST. 363 

none can deny to have been more holy than John by as 
much nearer as His Mother came to touch Christ than His 
forerunner? The brief and easy answer to this is, that 
John, as S. Jerome says, is compared, not with all saints, 
but only with those of the Old Testament. But Christ, 
His Mother, and all the Apostles belong to the New 
Testament. Nor is there in the words " born mulierum " 
any great mystery : that it is a Hebraism, which by peri 
phrasis calls all men born of women, nati mulierum. 

He that is lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 

S. Augustin (Cont. Advers. Leg. est Proph., ii. 5) says 
heaven is the kingdom of heaven, and he explains those 
who are in the kingdom of heaven to be the angels who 
are in heaven. But how did Christ say that the angels 
were greater than John the Baptist? for the subject was 
not angels, but men. S. Jerome and Bede also think that 
heaven is the kingdom of heaven, and that those who are 
in it are happy in heaven, among whom he that is least is 
greater than John, because, says S. Jerome, it is one thing 
to possess the crown of victory, another to be yet in the 
thick of the fight. Many think that this was said of Christ, 
but all do not understand it in the same sense. Some 
explain it that he who was lesser in the kingdom of heaven, 
that is, the Church : " I who am the -most lowly of the 
lowly am greater than he ". So Rupertus. Others that " I, 
who am both later in time and, in the opinion of others, 
less than John, am greater than he," as John himself said : 
"He that cometh after me"(iii. ii). So S. Chrysostom, 
The Author, Euthymius, and Theophylact. S. Augustin 
approves this view (Tract, xiii. on S. John, and ii., Leg. et 
Proph., chap. v.). There is a view : " Whoever is less " i.e., 
more humble " than John is greater than he, because he 
that humbles himself shall be exalted ". 

It seems difficult to think that the kingdom of heaven 



364 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xi. n. 

is put for heaven, because it is clear that Christ used an 
antithesis between the Old and New Testament ; this is 
evident from verses 12, 13. Or, that Christ is compared with 
John, firstly, because such comparison is not to the point 
when the Gospel is compared with the Old Testament ; 
secondly, and especially, because Christ said openly of 
Himself that He was greater than Jonas or Solomon (xii. 
41, 42) ; and lastly, because the force is lost unless the saying 
is general, and not limited to John, who is lesser ; that is, 
whosoever is less, or whosoever is least in the kingdom of 
heaven is greater than he. Such seems to be the meaning 
of the passage, and thus the antithesis between the Gospel 
and the Law which Christ used is clear, and very aptly 
agrees with the persons of the Law, as if it were said : " He 
who is least in the Gospel is greater than he who is the 
greatest in the Law". It is a known axiom of philosophy : 
the least thing of the greatest is greater than the greatest of 
the least. 

There remains, however, as appears, a great difficulty : 
How he who is the least in the Gospel is greater, that is, 
holier, than John. It may be answered in two ways : 

i. That Christ spoke precisely of John and of those who 
received the Gospel, as far as he pertains to the Law and 
they to the Gospel. For although it is no way doubtful 
that John far excelled not only many, but the greater 
number, of those who are in the Gospel, in righteousness, 
yet whatever holiness he and the other holy men under 
the Law possessed, they possessed not of the Law, but of 
the Gospel ; the future virtue of which was extended even 
to them, however far remote from it ; and therefore he who 
is least in the Gospel is shown to have been greater than 
he who is greatest in the Law, because the latter was, as it 
were, his heritage and home production ; the former was 
alien to him, and thus he is made greater, as it were, by a 
virtue borrowed and received (mutuo accepta). 



CH. xi. 12.] CHRIST ON S. JOHN BAPTIST. 365 

For S. Paul so speaks of the Law and the Gospel, as 
teaching that the Law was not of faith, but appropriates 
the faith of the Gospel (Rom. iii. 27, 28-31; Gal. iii. 12). 
For Abraham, who is the Father of all the faithful, was not 
in the Gospel but in the Law, but rather he was before the 
Law. But S. Paul denies that the Law had faith and 
justified, because it justified not of itself, but of the future 
Gospel, as if it had an anticipative faith, and justified by 
grace borrowed from the Gospel. 

2. He, therefore, who is least in the Gospel is called 
greater than he who is under the Law, not because he is 
immediately and at once greater, but because, from the 
nature of the Gospel, he is able to be. What is under the 
Law ? Cannot everyone who wishes be greater than 
John ? He is able to be so, perhaps, but not from the 
nature of the Law, which was shut by certain barriers. 
When these are torn away, " from the days of John the 
Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, 
and the violent bear it away" (verse 12). Thus everyone 
who uses greater strength is more holy in proportion. Pre 
viously, to the prophets or other holy men, as their office or 
ministry (whether of foretelling or prefiguring the coming 
Christ) required, greater or lesser grace was given, and 
the greatest to John, because he had the duty not only of 
foreshowing Christ, but even of pointing Him out with 
his finger. This grace was afterwards poured out, and, 
when in their midst, every man received as much of it as he 
in strength and heart contended for. This is the meaning 
of "the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence,"* &c. (verse 12). 

Verse 12. The kingdom of heaven. 

Some think that Christ Himself was called the Kingdom 
of Heaven, as S. Ambrose (Serm. xv. de Nat. 



* The 8vo omits the greater part of the Commentary on these and the 
preceding words of the eleventh verse. 



366 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xi. 12. 

Others think it life eternal or heaven, as Gregory (Horn. xx. 
in Evangel?} ; Bede (in loc.). Others faith, as S. Chrysostom, 
Euthymius, and Theophylact Others the Church or 
Gospel, as in many other passages, which opinion of these 
alone seems tenable ; for, as has been said, there is an 
antithesis in the former verse between the Law and the 
Gospel. 

Suffereth violence. 

Many explain it by saying that the kingdom is gained 
by mortification, penitence, ignominy, poverty, and the way 
to it is that pointed out by John both by word and deed 
(S. Basil, Orat. de Abdicat. Rerum ; S. Chrysostom ; S. 
Jerome ; S. Augustin, ii. 99, Evangel., Qucest. 37 ; S. Gre 
gory, Horn. xx. in Evangel. ; Theophylact ; Euthymius ; 
Bede, In Comment. ; S. Bernard, In Sent., cap. v.). The 
opinion of S. Hilary (Can. xi.), Ambrose (Lib. in Luc., vi., 
and Semi. xv. de Nat. Dom.\ seems especially good. That 
it is said to suffer violence because it is not confined to one 
people, as in the old Law, and kept within certain bounds, 
but is open to all, and is offered to all, that everyone who 
wills may hasten into it ; and it is not given to inheritance 
as to the Jews, but to virtue (S. Matt. viii. 11, 12). For we 
are said to bear a thing away when we take it out of the 
hands of another person ; as many will come from the east 
and west, and snatch it out of the hands of the Jews who 
were in possession of it. The centurion snatched it out of 
the hand of the Jews, of whom Christ said : " Not in Israel," 
and who believed when they did not. The woman of 
Canaan did the same who showed by her words to Christ 
that she had more faith than the Jews, and so gained the 
cure of her daughter (xv. 28). This will carry the greater 
conviction if we see that the verses are transposed, and that 
the above words ought to come in the place of verse 13, 
and that that verse should come here, as the coherence and 
consequence of the sentence requires. For Christ proves 



CH. xi. 13.] CHRIST ON S. JOHN BAPTIST. 367 

that he who is least in the kingdom of heaven can be greater 
than John, because he is bound by no ties of the Law. 
For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John ; 
and S. Luke (xvi. 16) says : " The Law and the Prophets 
were until John ; from that time the kingdom of God is 
preached, and everyone useth violence towards it ". But 
S. Matthew here, as in other places, has not observed the 
order of the history. 

Verse 13. For all. 

If, as has been said, this verse were united to verse 

11, everyone would see why they are given. For S. 
Matthew said there : " Among them that are born of 
women there hath not risen a greater than John the 
Baptist ; notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom 
of heaven is greater than he ". The reason is given by 
him : " For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until 
John " ; that is, endured, lasted. As if he had said : 
" Before, men were bound, as it were, by the chain of the 
Law, nor was it lawful for anyone who pleased to break 
into the kingdom of heaven," but " from the days of John 
the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence ". Therefore, 
there is no one who, if he wills to make the attempt, may 
not be greater than John. The causal u for " \enim~\ in this 
place (verse 13), and the appositive "but" \autevi\, in verse 

12, have this force. 

The Propliets and the Law prophesied until John. 
All the Ancients, almost, explain this passage to mean, 
that the brightness and light of the Gospel are here 
opposed to the shadow of the Law. For they do not 
suppose the allusion to be to all the prophets, but to those 
only who foretold the coming of Christ. For these all, 
and in the spirit alone, darkly foresaw Him as being yet 
distant, and afar off ; and foreshadowed Him in words still 
darker. John both saw Him present with his eyes, and 



368 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xi. 13. 

pointed Him out with his finger. So say S. Chrysostom, 
S. Jerome, Bede, Euthymius. 

This seems a true explanation, but not sufficiently to 
the point, for John was not mentioned by Christ among the 
prophets and saints of the New Testament, but of the Old. 
He is compared to the latter : "There hath not risen among 
them that are born of women a greater than John the 
Baptist ". He is opposed to the former : " Yet he that is 
lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he". The 
meaning, then, seems to be that the Law and the Prophets 
prophesied unto John ; that is, flourished, were in force, dis 
charged their office. He calls the whole Old Testament 
the Law and the Prophets, as in vii. 12, xxii. 40; and to 
prophesy means to discharge the whole duty of a prophet, 
as, in I Esdras v. I, Haggai and Zacharias are said to have 
done. Christ, therefore, only willed to say that the Law 
and the Prophets lasted until John, as is easily seen from 
the antithesis. " From the days of John the Baptist, the 
kingdom of heaven suffereth violence" (verse 12). For 
the Evangelist opposes the kingdom of heaven to the 
Law and the Prophets : that is, the New Testament to the 
Old ; and the word prophesying to that of seizing and 
suffering violence ; as if he had said, " The Law flourished 
even till John, which was given only to the Jews, and did 
not aid men, but oppressed them ; and, therefore, no one 
in it rose to be greater than John the Baptist ; but hence 
forth the hindrances of the Law are removed, and the 
kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and he who is the least 
in it is greater than John ". 

But it may be asked how the Law can be said to have 
remained until John, when it was not abrogated imme 
diately on his coming, but lasted a long while ? The 
answer may be (i) The meaning is not that the Law 
lasted even till John, that is, to his nativity, but that it 
flourished till his preaching. (2) Nor does it mean that it 



CH. xi. 14.] CHRIST ON S. JOHN BAPTIST. 369 

was extinguished then, at once, in a moment of time ; but 
when the Gospel began to be, then it began to die, as has 
been explained (chap, v., verse 17). 

Verse 14. And if you will receive it. 

S. Chrysostom brings two reasons why Christ does not 
say absolutely he (John) is Elias. 

1. No one ought to be compelled to believe ; for it is 
not faith, unless it is free and voluntary. 

2. The other, which Theophylact also adopts, was to 
signify that John was Elias, if they would consider the 
object of each with attention, and consider their mutual 
resemblance. 

It may rather be that Christ spoke thus to show that 
John was not actually Elias, but in office and effect for that 
which Elias was to perform at the second coming of Christ, 
John performed at the first coming. But he could not 
do this except to those who were willing and who received 
him. Therefore, Christ said : " If you will receive it " ; as 
if He had said : " If you are willing to receive it, this shall 
be to you Elias, for he shall turn you to God ; and if you 
will not receive it, he shall not be such ". 

He is Elias. 

God had promised that He would send Elias (Mai. iv. 
5, 6). This is clearly said of the second coming of the 
Lord. It has therefore been the unvarying opinion of the 
Church that Elias would verily come before what is there 
called the great and dreadful day. So Hippolytus (De 
Consummate] , Tertullian (De Anim.\ Origen (Tract, iii. 
on S. Matt.\ S. Ambrose (On Rom. iv., or whoever was the 
author), S. Chrysostom (Horn. iv. on 2 Tkess.), S. Augustin 
(Bk. Ixxxiii. qq., q. 58 ; Tract, iv. on S. John), S. Jerome 
(on Matt, xvii.), Theodoret (Counn. on Mai. iv.), S. 

Gregory (ix., On Job iv. ; xi. 9 ; xx. 25 ; xxxv. 10) ; and 

24 



37O THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xi. 15, 16. 

which is proved not only from that chapter of MalacJii, but 
from other places of Scripture as well (S. Matt. xvii. 10, 1 1 ; 
S.Mark ix. n, 12). 

The same was the opinion of the Jews, though perhaps 
they did not know the time of His coming. This is shown 
from 5. Matt. xvi. 14, and 5. Mark vi. 15. But Christ 
said that John was Elias : not that he was Elias in person, 
for this John denied (S. John i. 21), but that he had come 
in the spirit and power of Elias, as the Angel had foretold 
(S. Luke i. 17). There is no contradiction, therefore, be 
tween the words of Christ and of John (S. Augustin, Tract. 
iv. on S. John ; S. Gregory, Horn. vii. in Evang.). 

Verse 15. He that hath ears TO hear, let him hear. 

To hear, in this place, means to understand and obey 
as 5. Luke x. 16; 5. Matt, xviii. 15 ; S. Mark viii. 18. 
He shows, therefore, that not all who have ears have ears 
to hear; that is, ears teachable and obedient (xiii. 16 ; Is. 
vi. 9). Christ uses this expression when He speaks of 
matters that are of great gravity, and which affect the 
hearers very nearly, to arouse their interest and attention 
(xiii. 9, 43 ; 5". Mark iv. 9, 23 ; 5. Luke viii. 8). He spoke 
so here, as there were many listeners to understand what 
He said, that the Law and the Prophets flourished only 
until John. Afterwards, that the kingdom of heaven 
suffered violence ; that is, that no way of salvation re 
mained to them if they trusted in the Law, and did not 
receive John, and Christ, whom John pointed out. In this 
sense S. Chrysostom and Euthymius explain it. 

Verse 16. But whereunto shall I esteem this generation to be 

like ? 



" This generation " is a Hebraism Jlti! "YHn. From 5. 
Luke vii. 29, 30, we see whom and why Christ upbraids in 
these words. He speaks of the Scribes and Pharisees. 



CH. xi. 16.] PARABLE OF CHLDREN IN THE MARKET PLACE. 371 

// is like to children. 

We are told that there was a game among the Jewish 
boys in which they divided into two bands, and one wept 
while the other piped, but both sang : the one, " We have 
lamented and you have not mourned " ; and the other, 
" We have piped to you and you have not danced ". But 
although this is stated on the authority of Theophylact (On 
S. Luke vii.) and De Lyra (on this place), perhaps because 
they have no Jewish authority, or no more ancient one, it 
does not seem probable ; nor is it requisite that Christ 
should have taken a similitude from an ordinary custom. 
It is enough if He did so from a thing that happened com 
monly, or that might have happened. For we do not 
always copy ; we sometimes invent comparisons. As if 
we should say : " The Scribes and Pharisees act like boys 
playing in the market - place, and saying, We have 
lamented/ " &c. There is a much greater difficulty in the 
application of the comparison. For Christ seems to have 
compared the Scribes and Pharisees to boys who lamented 
and sang, and who said to their comrades : " We have 
piped to you," when it would appear as if He ought rather 
to have compared them with those who, when some who 
were of their party piped, would not dance, and with others 
who, when they lamented, would not mourn. Euthymius 
thinks that Christ and John were called the boys from 
their innocence, to whom the Jews said, "We have piped 
to you," &c. a meaning wholly foreign to the mind of 
Christ. S. Jerome and all other authorities think Christ 
and John the boys who piped and lamented ; for Christ, 
not turning from pleasantness and the ordinary rule of life, 
seemed to sing, and John, clothed in sackcloth and living 
a life of the utmost austerity, to lament. Cardinal Hugo 
seems to have apprehended the meaning much more cor 
rectly ; for he says that persons are not compared to per 
sons, but the thing to the thing ; not parts to parts, but the 



3/2 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xi. 18, ig. 

whole to the whole ; as if Christ had said : " The Pharisees 
are like boys saying to their comrades, We have sung to 
you, &c. John has lamented to you, and you have not 
mourned ; the Son of man has sung to you and you have 
not danced." That this is the true sense shall be shown on 
verse 19. It is sufficient at present to observe that it is 
very common in parables not to compare persons to per 
sons, nor parts to parts, but the whole to the whole, as in 
xiii. 24. For the kingdom of heaven is not like the man, 
but rather the seed or the field. The meaning is, the same 
thing happens in the kingdom of heaven as would in a 
field if a man sowed good seed in his field. And again in 
the same sense in verse 45. For it is not like the man, but 
rather the pearl ; and the same thing happens in the king 
dom of heaven as if a man should seek good pearls, and 
when he had found one of great price, should sell all that 
he has and buy it. There are numberless examples of the 
same kind ; so that they lose their labour who endeavour 
to show how persons answer to persons, and parts to parts. 
We must look at the whole body of the sentence and 
extract the whole result from the whole parable, lest by 
division into parts it come to nothing and lose all its force. 

Verse 18. Neither eating. 

He is said not to have eaten, either because no one saw 
him eat, or because he ate sparingly and slightly, or 
because he did not eat like men, but rather subsisted on 
the food of wild animals. 

He hath a devil. 

We do not find anything said elsewhere against John by 
the Jews ; but from this place it is plain that he was con 
sidered by some as one possessed by a devil. 

Verse 19. The Son of man came. 

Why Christ was called the Son of man has been ex 
plained on chap. viii. 20. 



CH.XI. 19.] PARABLE OF CHILDREN IN THE MARKET PLACE. 373 

And wisdom is justified by her children. 

A difficult passage. The difficulty consists in three 
points, i . What it is that is called wisdom. 2. Who they 
are who are called the children of wisdom. 3. What it is 
to be justified. 

Some think that Christ Himself is called Wisdom ; others 
that it is Divine Providence. 

The children of wisdom some think Christ, others John. 
Others, the Jews who received them. Others, those who 
did not do so. Others, again, deny that they are called the 
children of wisdom at all. These say that the relative pro 
noun " her " refers, not to wisdom, but to generation ; as if 
it had been said : Wisdom is justified by the children of 
this generation. These appear to have known Greek, but 
not Hebrew, or they would have known that it is an idiom 
of that language to call wise men the children of wisdom. 

" Justified " is taken by some to mean " to be praised " ; by 
others " to be freed". Others think that it is put for "to appear 
righteous " ; and some explain it thus : " Wisdom, that is, 
Divine Providence, has been justified, that is, freed from 
all calumny and just cause of blame by her children, that 
is, by John and Me, who are the Sons of Wisdom, that is, 
who are wise. She has been freed, because we have done 
what we could in different ways I by singing, John by 
lamenting, to bring men to salvation, so that no one can 
want Divine Providence towards men." 

Others think that "justified " means that the Divine Wis 
dom is known, praised, and held as just towards men by 
her sons ; that is, by those who are truly wise and embrace 
her. So S. Jerome, Bede, and Euthymius. Others take 
justified as " freed," as he who is dead is justified, that is, 
freed, from sin ; so that he cannot sin any more (Rom. 
vi. 7). Wisdom is, with them, Divine Providence, and her 
sons are the Scribes and Pharisees, who are called the sons 
of wisdom, not because they are, but because they seem so 



374 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. XL 19. 

to themselves ; or because they ought to be so, as in verse 
25 ; so that they have not anything of which to accuse 
Divine Providence. So S. Chrysostom. 

With S. Chrysostom, Jerome, Bede, and Euthymius, I 
think that Wisdom is Divine Providence, and the sons of 
wisdom all the Jews with those who received her, and those 
who did not reject her : not that they were wise, or ought 
to be, or appeared so to themselves, but because they were 
as children and disciples of Divine Providence, which 
governed the Jews in a peculiar manner, as if they were 
her own sons. Hence she proposed an example in children, 
not men. But she was justified, that is, declared, by both 
classes, good and bad ; for whilst Christ piped and John 
lamented, some danced, that is, followed Christ, others 
mourned, that is, followed John. Others neither mourned 
nor danced : for they who followed Christ s example and 
danced, could say to the Scribes and Pharisees, " We have 
piped to you and you have not danced " ; for they are said 
to pipe because they followed Christ s action, and gave the 
other Jews an example of dancing. 

They who followed John lamented with him, and pro 
voked the Scribes and Pharisees to do the same, but these 
would not mourn. Christ and John alone are mentioned, 
because both were leaders : one, of those that danced ; the 
other, of those who mourned. Both classes, therefore 
they who believed, and they who believed not justified 
the Divine Wisdom : the former, by embracing her ; the 
latter, because they reject her when those embraced her ; 
for, while they believed neither the piping of Christ nor the 
lamenting of John, they showed plainly that they would 
not believe, and that they stood by themselves (per se), not 
by the Divine Wisdom, and would not be converted. The 
first opinion seems to me the better one, for it seems more 
full, more grand, and more worthy of the majesty of Christ, 
that the sons of wisdom themselves should justify her, 



CH. xi. 20, 21.] WOE ON THE CITIES OF GALILEE. 375 

whether they do or do not receive her. I therefore think, 
against the opinion of many, that the preposition "by" 
(ttTTo, aU) refers to a person or an agent, not to matter 
(or a material thing). Everyone, even moderately acquainted 
with the Greek language, knows that airo is often put for 
VTTO. And the word "and " "and wisdom is justified " 
seems to mean that the sons of wisdom, some by learning, 
others by not learning, have justified their mistress. 
Certainly that word forbids the explanation of those who 
say that wisdom is justified by her children, as by those only 
who receive her ; or Christ would not have said " and " 
(teal) but, "but" (a\\a, veruntameri). For although after 
the Hebrew " and " is sometimes put for " but," it would in 
this place seem to offer violence to the taste, in which every 
word leads us to the natural signification. 

Verse 20. Then. 

This was when He had sent His disciples to preach the 
Gospel, as appears from S. Liike x. 13. For He appears 
from hence to have taken the occasion of saying what 
follows ; because he had sent the Apostles to remote 
places, as Corozain, Bethsaida, and Capharnaum (in which 
the disciples did not stay long, but in which Christ Himself 
had preached), which would not receive the Gospel. 

Verse 21. Woe to t/iee, Corozain. 

Corozain, Bethsaida, and Capharnaum were cities of 
Galilee, near the Lake of Genesareth, where Christ very 
frequently stayed with His disciples, preaching the Gospel 
and working miracles. He therefore upbraids them with 
their unbelief. 

If in Tyre and Sidon. 

Christ opposes these two cities to them for three reasons 
(i) Because they were Gentiles ; (2) because they were 
near ; (3) because they were full of idolatry, sensuality, 



376 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xi. 21. 

avarice, and every kind of wickedness, as the Prophets 
Isaiah (xxiii. i), Ezekiel (xxvi. 2 ; xxvii. 3 ; xxviii. 2, 12), 
Amos (i. 9) bear witness. 

Long ago. 

They would not have waited as long as you. They 
would not have wanted so many exhortations, or so many 
miracles. 

In sackcloth and ashes. 

That is, they would have brought forth extreme peni 
tence, for this was the garb of the deepest penitence 
(Isaiah Iviii. 5 ; Jeremiah vi. 26 ; xxv. 34 ; Lamenta 
tions ii. 10 ; Daniel ix. 3). The Gentiles seem to have 
imitated it {Jonah iii. 6, 8). 

And thou, Capernaum. 

Christ names Capernaum separately, and finally, and by 
apostrophe, because He visited it more frequently, so that 
jt was even called His country, as in ix. i ; and because, 
being larger and a seaport, it most probably abounded in 
vice, as is generally the case with seaports and large 
cities. 

Shalt thou be exalted up to heaven. 

"H eo>9 rov ovpdvov vtycoOeia-a, " Which art exalted unto 
heaven," as S. Luke (x. 15), and as S. Chrysostom, Euthy- 
mius, and Theophylact read, who, as they inform us, found 
in many copies. The meaning is not different, but more 
plain. Our translator seems to have read m/rw #770-77, 
" who shall be exalted," for 77 vtywOelo-a, " shalt thou be 
exalted ". 

TJiou sJialt go down even imto hell. 

Kara/3i,(3acr0?lcni, " Thou shalt be thrust down, not de 
scend of thy own free will" (chap, xxiii. 12 ; Abdias i. 4). 
Christ does not speak of the destruction of the city, but of 
the eternal condemnation of the people. It is to be under- 



CH. xi. 25.] CHRIST S THANKSGIVING TO THE FATHER. 377 

stood, not of all, but only of the greater number, or of the 
chief men, such as the Scribes and Pharisees. 

Perhaps. 

This word is not one expressive here of doubt. It is 
affirmative with the Greek av, as in verse 21. 

Verse 25. At that time. 

This was after the disciples had returned from the 
mission, as appears from 5. Luke x. 17. From their joy at 
finding even the devils subject to them in the name of 
Christ, and the good success of their mission, Christ took 
occasion to say what follows, as is observed by The Author 
(Horn, xxviii.). 

Answered. 

Orsus, a Hebraism rW. Among them the word answer" 
not only means a reply to a question, or to something said 
by another, but it is frequently used to express the begin 
ning of a sentence, as Euthymius, an author by no means 
conversant with Hebrew, has observed. Some think that 
it has its usual meaning here, and signifies the answer given 
by Christ to the Apostles. But S. Luke puts it after this, 
and clearly distinguishes it from it (x. 21). 

/ confess. 

Another Hebraism HTUl meaning, "I thank thee," "I 
praise thee," " I confess thee". So in Ps. vi. 6 ; vii. 18 ; ix. 
2 ; Ixx. 8, as S. Jerome, Chrysostom (Horn, xxxix.), S. 
Augustin (Quest, ix. on S. Matthew}, Bede, Theophylact, 
and others without number have observed. 

To Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth. 

S. Athanasius (To Mark, Rom. Pont.), S. Cyril (v. 5, 
Thesauri}, have observed, against the Arians, that a pause 
between the words Father and Lord of heaven and earth was 



3/8 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xi. 25. 

made by Christ carefully and of design, to show that God 
was not only His Father, but also His Lord, for He calls 
the Father not only the Lord of heaven and earth, but 
His own Lord ; and not only His own Lord, but also the 
Lord of heaven and earth. 

Because Thou hast hid these things. 

These mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. The infants 
received the preaching and miracles of Himself and the 
Apostles, but the wise rejected them. 

From the wise and prudent, and hast revealed tJiem to 

little ones. 

Some, as The Author and Theophylact, understand by 
the wise, the Jews, who were accomplished in the know 
ledge of the Law ; and by the " little ones," the Gentiles, 
who had not the knowledge of God and the Law ; but the 
Gospel was not yet preached to the Gentiles. The opinion 
of S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, Euthymius, and Bede, that 
the wise and prudent were the Scribes and Pharisees, and 
the little ones the Apostles, is better. Though it may be 
that the little ones were not so much the Apostles, as they 
who believed their preaching and Christ s ; for, as appears 
from 5. Luke, the subject was the fruit of their preaching. 
Christ called them wise, not because they were so, but 
because they ought to have been so ; or because they 
seemed to themselves to be so, as S. Hilary says ; or be 
cause they really were wise, not according to the spirit, 
indeed, but according to the flesh, as is the opinion of S. 
Chrysostom. For that wisdom is foolishness with God. 
i Cor. iii. 19: "The wisdom of the flesh is an enemy to 
God, for it is not subject to the law of God " ; and Rom. viii. 
7. The wise men of this class did not believe (i Cor. i. 26 ; 
iii. 1 8). Those who did believe, Christ calls the little 
ones, who are babes in malice, as S. Paul says (i Cor. xiv. 
20, and i 5. Peter ii. 2). 



CH. xi. 26.] CHRIST S THANKSGIVING TO THE FATHER. 379 

It may seem wonderful why Christ gave thanks to the 
Father because He hid the Gospel from the wise, as if He 
rejoiced over their condemnation. S. Chrysostom answers 
that Christ did not give thanks because He hid it from the 
wise, but because, when He had hidden it from them, He 
revealed it to the little ones. But He certainly hid it. He 
is not properly said to have hidden it ; for He did not 
hide a thing, properly, who sent His Son to reveal the 
Gospel to them and to all the other Jews ; but He is said 
to have hidden it because He withdrew it from those who 
would not receive it. For He would not intrude it by force, 
nor give it to those who were not worthy, as S. Chrysos 
tom and Theophylact say. 

Lastly, the Father so hid the Gospel from them, as the 
Son blinded their eyes. 5. John ix. 39 : " For judgment 
am I come into the world, that they who see not may see, 
and they who see may become blind ". 

Verse 26. Yea, Father. 

Nal 6 Trdrrjp, Ncz pater. S. Jerome explains this, as if 
Christ wished to say, " Holy Father, go on to do as Thou 
hast begun ". Others, " It has been so done, because it so 
seemed good before Thee " ; as if no other cause of the 
reprobation could be given, but only the will of God. This 
error all the heretics of our own time hold most pertina 
ciously. But how and why God had withheld it from the 
former was explained in the preceding verse. It may, in 
fact, be explained thus : 

" Even so, Father," supply " I confess " from the pre 
ceding words ; as if He said : " I thank Thee, Father, again 
and again, because Thou hast willed so to act, as that 
when the wi5e would not receive the Gospel, Thou didst 
not disdain to reveal it to the little ones ". For Christ is 
accustomed to repeat this expression, which He had used 
before, to strengthen His words more and more ; as the 



380 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xi. 27. 

Latins say : Etiam atque etiam, or enimvero (S. Luke 
xii. 5). 

For so it hat] i seemed good in TJiy sight. 
A Hebraism for " so it seemed good to Thee ". 

Verse 27. All things are delivered to Me. 

It does not easily appear how these words agree with the 
preceding ones. Most ancient authors think that Christ 
said them, lest He should have appeared before to give 
thanks to the Father as an inferior, as S. Hilary, S. 
Athanasius (Orat. de Etern. subst. Fill, et Spir. Sana, cum 
Deo\ against the followers of Sabellius, S. Chrysostom, 
Euthymius, Theophylact (in loci). It may rather be 
thought that He said it to give a reason for His words 
following, " Come unto Me," verses 28, 29, 30. They are 
not to be joined to the preceding, but to the following 
words. 

All things. 

S. Jerome and Bede explain this of all who come to the 
Father, as 5. John vi. 39, and xviii. 9 ; but S. Hilary and 
Euthymius, of those things which are known to the Father 
alone, and which belong to the Divine nature, as 5. John 
xyi. 15. But S. Irenaeus (lib. iv. 37) and Tertullian (iv., 
Cont. Marc?} say that it means all things that were made 
by Him ; The Author, all the kingdoms of heaven, and of 
earth, and of hell ; S. Chrysostom, all the power of work 
ing miracles. 

All these are true, but they do not appear to be in har 
mony with the text. By " all things " it were better to 
understand, all power of governing and preserving men ; as 
below, xxviii. 18. For He invites men to come to Him, 
because He is able to save them. It may be asked how 
Christ speaks ? as God, or as man ? Theophylact, S. 
Hilary, and Euthymius think, as God, but that He only 
means that He, with the Divine nature, received all this 



CH. xi. 28.] CHRIST S INVITATION TO THE AFFLICTED. 381 

from the Father ; as if a beautiful son of a beautiful father 
should say that he owed all his beauty to his father ; nor 
would he signify by these words that he was therefore 
inferior to his father. The Arians, therefore, can find no 
arguments from this passage against the Divinity of Christ. 
S. Cyril says, that they used to cite it in their support. 
The Author says, that He spoke as man, which rather 
agrees with what we have said before. For, as man, He is 
the head of men. 

And no one knowetJi the Son but the Father. 
S. Chrysostom rightly thinks that these words should be 
taken with xvi. 17, "or he to whom it shall please the 
Father to reveal Him," and S. John vi. 44, " No man can 
come to Me, except the Father, who hath sent Me, draw 
him," or they seem to be without force. But now they are 
added to show that we should not wonder if the Scribes 
and Pharisees do not believe the Gospel, for they cannot 
know the Son unless the Father, who alone knows Him, 
reveal Him ; nor can they come to Him unless the Father 
draw them. But He draws those who will to come, not 
those who do not will. His words, " No one knows the 
Son but the Father, and no one knows the Father but the 
Son," are seemingly to be understood, not of the Divine 
nature alone, but also of the counsels of the Father, and 
of the offices of the Son. For no one knows the counsels of 
the Father, and how He wills men to be saved, but the 
Son ; and no one knows the office of the Son, for the sake 
of which He came into the world, but the Father. This 
meaning seems to suit the subject better. 

Come to Me all you that labour and are a burthen, and I will 
refresh you. 

Verse 28. Who labour. 

Who are wearied and fatigued, weighed down by sin, says 
S. Chrysostom and others : " We wearied ourselves," he 



382 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xi. 29, 30. 

says, "in the way of iniquity" (Wisd. v. 7 ; Ps. xxxvii. 5). 
Some, among whom are S. Hilary and Theophylact, think 
that Christ alludes to the heavy yoke of the Law as opposed 
to that of the Gospel. This seems correct ; only sin should 
not be excluded, which the Law rather made more oppres 
sive than lightened. 

Verse 29. Learn of Me, because I am meek and humble 
of heart. 

Almost all ancient authors explain these words to mean, 
" Learn, by my example, to be meek and humble " (as S. 
Chrysostom, Horn, xxxix. ; and S. Augustin, Serm. x. de 
verb. Dom. sec. S. Matt). These words are paraphrased by 
preachers to mean, " Learn of me not to work miracles, 
not to create all things visible and invisible but to be 
meek and humble of heart ". The saying itself is good, but 
the explanation is not. Christ wishes to prove that His 
yoke is pleasant and His burden light The true meaning, 
therefore, seems to be that of The Author. " Learn of Me, 
that is, take My yoke upon you, and try and learn that I 
am meek and lowly of heart." He invites men to come to 
Him, because He is not a tyrant, but a kind and mild 
master. He would not have us trust Himself, but rather 
take His yoke and try it. 



Verse 30. For my yoke is sive 

Christ calls His yoke sweet ; using a word in accordance 
with the manner of life. The Greek ^p?;Vro? is "good," " up 
right," "benign," "sweet"; and applies not so much to things 
as to persons and manners of life (mores}, as if He had 
said, " My yoke is not the yoke of a cruel master, such as 
the kings of this world lay upon their people, but of a kind, 
sweet, and gentle friend ". S. Jerome, commenting on this 
passage, raises the question how Christ can call the Gospel a 
sweet yoke and a light burden, when it appears to be much 



CH. XL 30.] CHRIST S INVITATION TO THE AFFLICTED. 383 

more heavy than the Law ? In the Law, homicide : in the 
Gospel, the word Raca : in the Law, adultery : in the 
Gospel, looking on a woman to lust after her condemns a 
man (v. 28). The answer is : The Gospel is said to be 
lighter for four reasons. 

1. In the Gospel there are only given us those commands 
which are necessary to our salvation, which nature herself 
teaches, and which are contained in one word : "All things 
therefore whatsoever you would that men should do to you, 
do you also to them" (vii. 12), as S. Hilary says (in loc.). 
In the Law of Moses, an infinite number of laws is given, 
which are not given as necessary by nature to our salva 
tion, but to practise a rude people by a moral discipline. 
S. Peter alludes to this (Acts xv. 10). 

2. The Gospel removes the more heavy penalties which 
were threatened by the Law : eye for eye (Exod. xxi. 24). 
The spirit of the Law was the spirit of fear and servitude 
(Rom, viii. 15). The spirit of the Gospel is the spirit of 
love, kindness, gentleness. When the disciples wanted to 
bring down fire from heaven to consume those Samaritans 
who would not receive Christ, He rebuked them and said, 
" You know not of what spirit you are ". 

3. In the Law all was done by force, which made the 
lightest matters most grave. In the Gospel all is done by 
love and goodwill, and nothing is grave or difficult to one 
who wills (i S. John v. 3). S. Jerome gives this reason. 

4. The Law burthened, but did not assist. But in the 
Gospel, the Spirit is given with the burthen, and It helps 
our infirmities, as S. Augustin replies (Serm. ix. Verb. Dom. 
sec. S. Matt.). 



CHAPTER XII. 

CHRIST REPROVES THE BLINDNESS OF THE PHARISEES, 
AND CONFUTES THEIR ATTRIBUTING HIS MIRACLES 
TO SATAN. 

Verse i. Jesus ivent through the corn on the Sabbath. 

THERE would have been no difficulty if S. Matthew alone 
had related the history. But now S. Luke (vi. i) has added 
to the words SevTepoTrpcorw, the " second-first Sabbath," and 
to understand the whole completely, we must know what 
the meaning of these words is. Many think that the 
" second-first Sabbath " was the eighth day of those feasts 
which were kept for eight continuous days : such as the 
feasts of unleavened bread, and of tabernacles ; for the 
eighth day was kept with the same rites and observances 
as the first (Levit. xxiii. 36-39; Numbers xxix. 35); and 
that it was called the second-first, because it was equal to 
the first in celebration, though second in place ; and that 
the day mentioned by SS. Matthew and Luke was the 
eighth day of unleavened bread. So says S. Epiphanius 
(Hcer. li.) and most others. 

More modern authorities think that the first day of Azy- 
mes was so called, as being the second from the Pasch ; 
as Euthymius and others. 

Others, again, that it was the Sabbath which was the 
nearest to some feast which fell on the sixth day of the 
week; as Theophylact and S. Chrysostom (Horn. xl.). 
Others, that it was some second, that is, lesser festival, like 
the new moons. Others, that there was a double Sabbath : 
the ordinary one on the seventh day, and some festival 



CH. xir. i.] THE SECOND-FIRST SABBATH. 385 

which had fallen on the same Sabbath. For every Sabbath 
was called a festival. 

It would appear that there are certain first principles 
from which the explanation of the passage would naturally 
follow. 

1. S. Luke, when he called the Sabbath the second- 
first, did not mean some one of many which were called 
second feasts, but some one fixed (certain) Sabbath, which 
alone of all would be called the second-first. For S. Luke 
wished to name a particular day, that the occasion of the 
slander of the Pharisees might be the better understood. 
By this view all those explanations which would make it 
one of many are confuted ; as those of Euthymius, Isidore, 
S. Chrysostom, and Theophylact 

2. That Sabbath happened when the corn was ripe, but 
tender, and not yet reaped, or the disciples would not have 
plucked the ears and rubbed them between their hands. 
This overthrows the idea of S. Epiphanius and all who 
think the second-first Sabbath one of the days of Azymes, 
for neither on the I5th nor on the 2Oth of March are the 
ears sufficiently ripe. S. John shows that at the time of 
Christ s Passion it was cold, and that they warmed them 
selves at the fire ; and the feast of weeks was kept fifty 
days after Pasch, and began from when the first sickle was 
put to the corn (Dent. xvi. 9). It could not have happened, 
then, on the feast of Azymes, that is, fifty days before ; and 
we know from experience that not only in Palestine, but 
in the much hotter climate of Africa, the corn is not ripe so 
early. It follows from the same reasoning that it could not 
have been (as some have supposed) at the feast of Taber 
nacles, because this did not take place till the seventh 
month (Lev. xxiii. 34), when all the harvest was gathered in. 

3. We have it from Hebrew tradition that after the 
Babylonish exile the Jews never kept one feast the day 
after another, lest the people should be compelled to be 

25 



386 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. XH. i. 

idle two days running. Hence the opinion that the second- 
first Sabbath was the day immediately after some other feast 
is erroneous. It follows, therefore, the "second-first Sabbath " 
could only be the feast of Pentecost, or, what is the same 
thing, of first fruits, because it was the only one, as we 
have said, which S. Luke described by its proper name, 
and it happened when the corn was ripe, but not cut, the 
festival being kept to signify this. 

It remains to be asked, Why was it called second-first ? 
I have found no sufficient reason for this ; but the opinion 
of those seems the best who say that as there were three 
first or chief festivals besides the Sabbath Azymes, Weeks, 
and Tabernacles (for all the others, as the new moons, 
were of far lower rank) the feast of Weeks, both in locality 
and celebrity, was the second from the first. 

Some object that it was lawful to prepare food on the 
feasts except the Sabbath (Exod. xii. 16), and, therefore, 
that the Pharisees could not accuse the disciples because 
they rubbed the ears of corn between their hands. They 
did not accuse them because they prepared food, but 
because they plucked the ears of corn, as if they were in a 
sense reaping, which was lawful on no festival. And S. 
Irenaeus (iv. 20) says that it was not forbidden on the 
Sabbath day and on festivals to pluck ears, but only to 
reap. But the answer of Christ shows that the disciples 
did that which otherwise it was not lawful to do had not 
necessity compelled them, like David, and the presence of 
the Lord, who was greater than the Temple, excused them 
as priests. 

It may be objected that in the Greek the word is used in 
the plural, Sabbaths ev rot? a-aj3/3d(ri which has given 
some reason for thinking that not one festival only, but 
two or more, were meant, which were either celebrated on 
the same day or on the day after the other. The answer is 
easy. It is a Hebraism, and the plural is put for the 



CH. xn. 2, 3.] THE SECOND-FIRST SABBATH. 387 

singular to show that not many Sabbaths, but one of many, 
was intended, as in verses 5, 10. 

Verse 2. And the Pharisees seeing them, said to Him. 

S. Luke (vi. 2) says that the Pharisees said, not to Christ 
but to the disciples, " Why do you do that which is not 
lawful ? " &c. It may be answered that they either spoke to 
both, first to the disciples and then to Christ, or to Christ 
only, who answered ; but that S. Luke says that they 
spoke to the disciples, because what they said to the Master 
they might seem to have said not only about the disciples, 
but even to the disciples themselves. S. Thomas observes 
that the Pharisees did not accuse the disciples of having 
gathered the ears of corn from the field of another, because 
that was permitted by the Law (Dent, xxiii. 25). 

Verse 3. Have you not read. 

Christ objects their ignorance of the Law to those who 
thought themselves strong in it (Euthymius). 

A nd they that were with Him. 

In i Kings xxi. I we find that David was alone, and 
these words, therefore, do not seem to agree with the 
history. Some say that David was indeed alone when he 
entered the house of the high priest, but that he had 
companions who were waiting for him in another place, as 
David said to the priest (verse 2) ; others that he had com 
panions with him, but that the priest, as N. de Lyra says 
on the passage, asked him why he was alone, not that he 
was alone, but because when he used to travel in the 
company of many soldiers he was then attended only by a 
few : as we say the king travels alone when only a few 
follow him ; others reject both views, because Scripture 
says plainly that he was alone, and that he afterwards 
came alone to Achis, and that when he said, " I have 



388 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xn. 4- 

appointed my servants to such and such a place " (verse 
2), he spoke falsely to conceal his flight, and that Christ 
there spoke, not of the truth and of His own opinion, but 
He merely used the words of David. Neither of these 
opinions seems to be tenable, because they seem to convict, 
not only David, but even Christ Himself, almost of a false 
hood, and because Christ (S. Mark ii. 26 and 5. Luke vi. 4) 
says that David ate of the show-bread himself and gave 
to those who were with him ; which I do not see how they 
could explain if he had no one at all with him. Their 
opinion seems the best who say that no one was with him 
when he took the loaves, but that he had some companions 
in another place to whom he gave of them. 

Verse 4. How he entered into the house of God, 

Everyone knows that there was no Temple then, nor 
was the ark there, which was in Silo all that time (i Kings 
i. 24 ; iii. 21 ; iv. 3), which was called the house of the Lord ; 
but it is very likely, or rather wholly necessary, that there 
should have been a tabernacle, where the show-bread was 
placed, for it was at Nobe, a city of the priests, that 
Achimelech gave David the loaves (i Kings xxii. 9). 
What S. Mark (ii. 26) relates as having happened in the 
time of Abiathar can be more properly discussed in that 
place. 

A nd did eat the loaves of proposition. 

The Hebrews express the loaves of proposition in two 
ways : D^DH DH 7 " the bread of faces," as may be said, 
because in the tabernacle where the Lord dwelt, 
the loaves were placed six on one side and six on 
the other, as if before His two faces (for the Hebrews 
make two faces of a man as we make two cheeks) ; and 
" the bread of Ordination or Disposition," rGl^On DH h 
because they were set forth in order and at a certain time. 
But they are so styled only in P aralipomenon and Esdras, 



CH. xii. 5.] THE SECOND-FIRST SABBATH. 389 

which were written after the captivity (i Paral. ix. 32 ; 
xxiii. 29 ; and 2 Esdras x. 33). The LXX. render them in 
three ways : sometimes as the bread of the faces (as in 
Exod. xxv. 30), apTovs evwTrlovs, sometimes as aprovs- 
Trpoaunrov (2 Esdras x. 33), most commonly as the bread 
of proposition, apirovs -nj? 7rpo#e<re<w9 (Exod. xxxiv. 13; 
i Kings xxi. 6, &c.). The Latin always calls them the 
bread of proposition. 

Verse 5. Or have ye not read in the Law that on the Sabbath 
days the priests break the Sabbath and are without blame? 

(Levit. xxiv. 8, 9 ; Num. xxviii. 9.) Every word, as S. 
Chrysostom and Euthymius say, has force. In a few 
words, Christ expressed all that can increase the weight of 
His example. The Law which orders the persons of the 
priests, who ought especially to observe the Sabbath. The 
place in the Temple, where they ought to worship. The 
time of the Sabbath, which ought most carefully to be 
observed, for the words, " Break the Sabbath," mean more 
than merely, Do not observe it. Christ said " break," not 
that the priests really broke it, but that they did things 
which, except that the worship of God excused them, it 
would have been unlawful to do. They slew the victims ; 
they took off their skins ; they washed their intestines ; 
they cleaned the wood ; they kindled the fire ; they circum 
cised children as S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, and Euthy 
mius state. 

The opinion of our Doctors is confirmed from this 
passage, that in the celebration of festivals the festival is 
not violated when those things are done which are neces 
sary to its due celebration, and which could not be done at 
any other time as when bells are rung, crosses carried, 
temples purified, and the like much less when that is 
done which is necessary for the salvation of souls, which 
was properly the present subject. This chiefly excused 



390 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xn. 6, 7, 8. 

the Apostles, who in preaching and working miracles were 
so occupied that, as S. Mark says, they could not even 
prepare food or eat it. This is : " I will have mercy and 
not sacrifice ". In this sense, Christ, as it were, says that 
it was better for the Apostles to save the souls of men than 
to keep the Sabbath. 

Verse 6. There is here a greater than the Temple. 

There have been different opinions as to what Christ 
spoke of. But no doubt He called Himself the Temple, 
because, " In Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead 
corporeally " (Coloss. ii. 9) ; and as in verses 41, 42, He 
speaks of Himself: "The men of Ninive shall rise in judg 
ment with this generation, and shall condemn it, because 
they did penance at the preaching of Jonas, and behold a 
greater than Jonas is here. The queen of the South shall 
rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it, 
because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the 
wisdom of Solomon, and behold a greater than Solomon is 
here ; " and infra, verse 8 : " The Son of man is Lord even 
of the Sabbath " ; and as Euthymius and Theophylact say. 

Verse 7. If you knew what this meanetJi, 

We have shown, on verse 5, why Christ introduced the 
testimony of this prophecy. The prophecy itself is given 
(ix. 13). 

Verse 8. The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath. 

Christ proves that He was both greater than the Temple 
and could dispense with the observance of the Sabbath, 
for He is Lord " even of the Sabbath," and everyone does 
as he will with his own. He said to them : " The Sabbath 
was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath " (S. Mark 
ii. 27). He said, therefore, both what S. Matthew relates to 
prove that He was greater than the Temple, because the 



CH. xn. 9, 10.] HEALING OF THE WITHERED HAND. 391 

Temple served the Sabbath, and He was Lord even of the 
Sabbath ; and also what S. Mark writes, that the salvation 
of men was to be preferred to the observance of the 
Sabbath. 

Verse 9. And when He had passed from thence. 

S. Luke (vi. 6) says that this happened on another 
Sabbath. This is plain from the above. For Christ came 
into their synagogue ; but the synagogues were held on 
the Sabbath ; and they asked Him whether it were lawful 
to heal on the Sabbath day, because that was the Sabbath 
(S. Augustin, De Consens., ii. 35 ; Euthymius). 

Into their synagogues. 

Theirs theirs who the Sabbath before had accused the 
disciples of plucking the ears of corn. For Christ did not 
less seek occasion of being accused by them unjustly than 
they did of accusing Him, that He might make their 
accusation a means of teaching and blaming them. 

Verse 10. And they asked Him. 

S. Mark (iii. 4) and S. Luke (vi. 9) say that Christ asked 
the Pharisees. S. Augustin (ii. 35, De Consens.} and 
Theophylact, on this passage, say that the Pharisees first 
asked Christ, and that Christ then asked the Pharisees. 
But it is a more easy answer that S. Mark and S. Luke do 
not say that Christ asked the Pharisees whether it were 
lawful to heal on the Sabbath day, but whether it were 
lawful to do good or evil ? It was not, therefore, the same 
question which Christ asked the Pharisees as that which 
they asked Him. But the Pharisees first asked Christ 
whether it were lawful to heal on the Sabbath day ; and 
Christ, to show their maliciousness, changed the question, 
and asked them whether it were lawful to do good on the 
Sabbath or evil, that He might shame them by the very 
words of His question. 



392 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xn. 12, 15. 

Verse 12. How much better ^ magis melior"}. 

An expression not found among Latin authors, though 
some ecclesiastical writers used it a thousand years ago. 
The Greeks speak so, as chap vi. 26, which our version, 
following the Greek, translates : Nonne vos magis pluris, 
" Are not you of much more value than they?" a redundant 
comparative. It may be thought that the Latin translator, 
for the 7ro(7G) ovv Suafyepei of the Greek, read TTOCTCO ovv fjid\- 
\ov Sia^epei, " Therefore it is lawful to do a good deed ". 
Christ does not conclude that it is lawful to do a good deed 
as the Pharisees had asked Him (S. Mark iii. 4 ; 5. Luke 
vi. 9). A general saying, and the word of the Benefactor 
Himself, accompanied by an act of healing, has greater 
force, because to heal is to do good. 

Verse 15. But Jesus knowing it. 

No one discovered it to Him, so He had seen their 
thoughts (verse 25 and ix. 4; 5. Luke v. 22 ; vi. 8 ; ix. 47 ; 
xi. 17). 

Retired from thence. 

To the sea, as we learn from 5. Mark iii. 7. He fled, as 
He had taught the Apostles to do (x. 23). He fled, not 
from fear or inability to defend Himself, but because His 
hour had not yet come, as S. John says in similar circum 
stances (vii. 30; viii. 20; xiii. I ; xvi. 21). But He would 
not resist them, though able to do so ; because, as He 
could avoid them by flight, it was not necessary to do so, 
and He would not break a bruised reed, as infra, verse 
20. 

And He healed them all. 

He healed them not all who followed Him, but all who 
were sick and wished to be healed. For the Evangelist 
only desired to show that Christ, not malignantly and 
grudgingly, but lavishly and abundantly, conferred the 



CH.XH. 16, 17, is.] CHRIST S COMMAND TO SILENCE. 393 

benefit of healing on all who had faith and were sick, with 
out distinction of persons. 

Verse 16. And He charged them. 

S. Mark (iii. 12) says that He commanded the devils not 
to declare Him, because they cried out, Thou art the Son 
of God. Because the devils were in the men, S. Matthew 
said that He commanded the men. We have shown why 
He did so (ix. 30). 

Verse 17. That it might be fulfilled. 

Why the Evangelist brought forward this testimony of 
Isaiah (xlii. i), or how he says it was fulfilled, does not 
appear. Some think that Christ would not have His 
miracles published, lest the hatred of the Pharisees should 
be made more bitter ; for He would not break a bruised 
reed. Others refer it to His flight, and say that He fled 
because by resisting He might break a bruised reed ; that 
is, show less meekness than the Prophet had foretold of 
Him (S. Chrysostom, Horn. xli.). Either opinion is pro 
bable, but it seems better to refer it to verse 15. For He 
gave the reasons why He healed all, because, as the Prophet 
had foretold, He was so meek and gentle that no one in 
the streets should hear His voice, and so merciful that He 
would heal all, hurt none, and not even break a bruised 
reed, nor extinguish the smoking flax. 

Verse 18. Behold. 

Isaiah shows in his prophetic spirit Him whom John 
afterwards pointed out with his finger (i. 29), and whom 
the Father showed by His voice from heaven after His 
baptism (S. Matt. iii. 17). 

My servant. 

He calls Christ a " servant," *Hiy as man (Philipp. ii. 7 ; 
ha. xliii. 10 ; Zech. iii. 8). But he does not call the man 



394 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xn. 18. 

Christ a servant in the same way as others, but per excel- 
lentiam, and for His own honour, as if God would boast 
that He had such a servant among men, that His soul 
could please itself in Him, and could commit to Him that 
work which is the peculiar one of God the ruling of the 
whole Church, and which is the greatest of all the re 
covery of His lost kingdom, as S. Paul says (i Cor. xv. 24). 
So, if we may compare less things to greater, God is ac 
customed to call Moses His servant (Numb. xii. 7. 8 ; Job 
i. 8 ; ii. 3). The LXX. in Isaiah have substituted Jacob, 
either lest God should seem to call Christ His servant, or 
because they read it so in other places (xli. 8, 9 ; xliv. i, 2). 
We have observed that the LXX., when a passage seems 
to contain anything absurd, are accustomed to add, omit, 
or change, to make it sense. 

Whom I have chosen. 

As man for among all men He took Him, speaking 
after the manner of the primitive teachers of the Church, 
and made Him God (Ps. xliv. 3, 8 ; ii. 6). He chose Him 
to be a King and to preach His Word who Himself was 

His W T ord. 

My beloved. 

The LXX. added Israel, as they added Jacob (ha. xli. 8), 
because they had so read it. 

/ will put My Spirit. 

Modern heretics explain this of Christ s baptism, because 
the Spirit then descended upon Him (iii. 16). Others say 
that its meaning is that He advanced in wisdom and age, 
and therefore the Spirit was laid upon Him (S. Luke ii. 52). 
It more certainly refers to His conception, when He was 
filled with the Spirit (Isa. xi. 2), for He was not less than 
John the Baptist, of whom the angel had said (S. Luke i. 
15): " He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from 
His mother s womb ". 



CH. xii. ig, 20.] PROPHECY OF ISAIAS XLII. I. 395 

He shall shoiv judgment to the Gentiles. 
ppTO Proferet ; that is, He shall be the lawgiver. But 
He should give the Law of the Gospel to all nations (Ps. ix. 
21), and not be like Moses, who gave his own Law to the 
Jews alone ; or, He shall judge all nations, because the 
Father hath given all judgment to the Son (S. John v. 22). 

Verse 19. He shall not contend. 

These words are not found either in the Hebrew or in 
the LXX. of Isaiah, but it is very likely that the Evange 
list added them for explanation. The meaning of the 
Prophet is, that Christ should judge without the strife and 
clamour of the Forum, calmly and with placidity. This is 
what Christ Himself said (xi. 29) : " Take My yoke and 
learn of Me, because I am meek and humble of heart, and 
you shall find rest to your souls ". 

The meekness of Christ alone is the sole subject of this 
testimony of Isaiah, as also Zech. ix. 9 ; 5. Matt. xxi. 5 ; 
S. John xii. 15. 

Nor cry out. 

The Hebrew adds fcW ^ " He shall not take away " ; 
but it may be understood, as S. Jerome says, i"TW " thou 
shalt do" ; that is, in His judgment He shall have no re 
spect of persons ; or it may mean V?pl " His voice," as 
R. Salom explains it ; that is, He shall not cry out. 

Verse 20. Till He send forth judgment unto victory. 

This passage is perhaps more difficult than has been 
thought, i. In Isaiah we read: "The bruised reed He 
shall not break, and the smoking flax He shall not quench. 
He shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not 
be sad nor troublesome till He set judgment in the earth, 
and the islands shall wait for His law": 



396 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xn. 20. 

vh nro nnt^Di *mt^ vh ytn pop 
y YYV bta nro* 1 *& : toEKPE NTP 
,^rr> D^M irmrta BEWE 

That is, " He shall walk so quietly and carefully that even 
if He put His foot upon a bruised reed (than which nothing 
can be more fragile), He shall not break it, and if upon flax 
not actually in flames, but only yet smoking, He shall not 
quench it ". It appears that this was a Hebrew proverb to 
describe the greatest possible softness of tread. By going 
and walking, the Hebrews understand every action of life. 
The meaning therefore is, that Christ would in all things 
show an incredible mildness and gentleness. The Evange 
list has passed over the previous words of the Prophet, and 
only cited these : " Until He shall bring forth judgment 
unto truth ". These words seem in some respects similar 
to those of the Prophet, yet are not the same. S. Jerome, 
on this passage of Isaiah and in his Epistle ad Algasiam 
(q. 2), thinks that this was caused by the carelessness of the 
transcriber an idea which seems hardly probable. All but 
S. Jerome think that the words of the Evangelist, " Till He 
send forth judgment unto victory," answer to those of 
Isaiah, "He shall bring forth judgment unto truth"; that 
is, when He judges He shall examine all things with truth, 
and He shall pronounce a true judgment. Why the Evan 
gelist has put e/c/3aXX?7, " He shall send forth," ejiciet, for 
proferet, " He shall bring forth," whilst the LXX. reads 
eloroLcroi, " He shall bring in," is of no great moment. 

S. Matthew may have said proferet, as in the Prophet, 
and the Greek translators may have turned it into eK/BdXkew, 
because the Hebrew means this as well. Nor can they be 
followed who say that the Evangelist did this deliberately 
and with determination, to add force to the expression, 
and as if he wished to say that Christ would compel men, 
even by force, to undergo true judgment. The subject is 
not the severity but the mildness of Christ. 



CH. xn. 2i.] PROPHECY OF ISAIAS XLII. I. 397 

It is far more difficult to say why the Evangelist said 
"unto victory" for "unto truth". The opinion that he did 
not regard the words but the meaning of the Prophet 
seems by no means sufficient. For the meaning is not 
the same, and, if it were, the Evangelist is certainly more 
difficult to be understood than the Prophet. And it is not 
probable that the former would have explained the dark 
words of the latter by others of his own still darker. We 
suspect that S. Matthew could not use the pure and ancient 
language of the Hebrews, but the corrupt form of it derived 
from the Chaldaic and Syriac, which was in use in the time 
of Christ ; and that for TON he said JTIT or NrPlT which 
means both truth, purity, innocence, and victory ; but that 
the Greek translator did not write " truth," as it is in Isaiah, 
but " victory," following another signification of the word 
and changing it. I consulted the Syriac Gospel when I 
wrote this, and found that I was correct, for the word is 
Nnilt h which may mean " to innocence," " to truth," 
" to victory ". 

Verse 21. And in His name shall the Gentiles hope. 

S. Matthew seems here to differ from the Prophet in two 
words, i. For irmn "in His law," he has put "in His 
name ". All say that the sense is the same. Even if so, 
I only say what I have noticed on the readings of the Old 
and New Testaments, that I greatly suspect the Septuagint 
to be corrupt in this passage. For I do not believe that for 
irmra "His law/ they substituted "in His name," as 
we now read, but that they put in lege, as it is in the 
Hebrew. The similarity of the words may have caused the 
mistake, and the copyists have written ovofia for VO/JLW. I 
have observed a like error as to these two words in other 
places also. The Greek translation of S. Matthew therefore 
followed the Septuagint, and put " name" for "law". 

2. Again he differs, because for D^N "islands" he reads 



398 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [0^x11.22,23,24,27. 

"nations". But this is of little consequence. For the 
Prophet called all very distant nations islands, because 
islands are distant from the continent, as the poet says, 
Et toto divisos orbe Brittannos, and as in the same Prophet 
(xlix. I ; li. 5 ; Ix. 9 ; Ixvi. 19). 

Verse 22. Then. 

" When he had gone out of the synagogue," say The 
Author and Remigius; or no certain fixed time is meant, as 
Euthymius thinks, although S. Mark (iii. 20) seems to signify 
that it happened as soon as Christ came out of the syna 
gogue into the house. It must be observed that this is not 
the same history as the one related by S. Luke (xi. 14), as 
many have supposed ; for S. Matthew wrote of that de 
moniac, as we have there shown. 

Blind and dumb. 

It is doubtful whether the man was blind and dumb by 
nature or disease, as S. Jerome seems to think ; or by the 
malice of the devil, as S. Chrysostom and Theophylact 
hold. But it is more probable that the devil so bound 
those senses that he could neither see nor hear ; for the 
Evangelist signifies that by the mere casting out of the 
devil the man recovered his hearing and sight, whereas 
before there was no cause but the devil to prevent him 
from hearing and seeing. 

Verse 23. Is not this the son of David ? 
Is not this the Messenger so often promised, so long 
expected, who is believed to be about to come, of the seed 
of David? (See ix. I, 2.) 

Verse 24. By Beelzebub. 
As the minister of the devil, by magic art (ix. 34 ; x. 25). 

Verse 27. Your children. 
Many Moderns think that these exorcists were those 



CH.xii.2 7 .] CHRIST S MIRACLES ASCRIBED TO BEELZEBUB. 399 

Jews who had some kind of magic art, handed down by 
King Solomon, as Josephus writes (Antiq., viii. 2), and of 
whom S. Luke makes mention (Acts xix. 13). They are 
called sons of the Pharisees, because they were Jews, and 
some of them were their sons. Why do you say that I, 
rather than your sons, cast out devils by Beelzebub, since 
we both cast them out ? Why do you judge badly of Me 
and well of them, when we both perform the same act ? 
The Ancients think that their speech was directed against 
the Apostles (S. Hilary ; S. Chrysostom, Horn. xlii. ; The 
Author, Horn. xxix. ; S. Jerome ; Theophylact ; Euthy- 
mius). I should very willingly concur, did I not think 
that Christ intended to convey more than they say ; for 
the Apostles cast out devils in the name of Christ (5. 
Luke x. 17). Our Lord s argument then is, "Your sons" ; 
that is, the Apostles who are of your nation, in whom do 
they cast them out ? Is it not in My name ? If, then, they 
cast out devils, not in the name of Beelzebub, but in Mine, 
how do you say that I cast them out in the name of 
Beelzebub ? For, if they cast them out in My name, I am 
greater than the devils ; for they are cast out in My name 
and by My power. I do not cast them out, therefore, in 
the name of Beelzebub ; for, if the Apostles cast them out 
by My power, which you cannot deny, much more so do I 
whose the power is. 

Therefore, they shall be your judges, because they shall 
sit upon twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel 
(xix. 28 ; S. Jerome). I, however, think the subject to be 
of another judgment, which divines call the judgment of 
comparison ; for the Apostles would be the judges of the 
Pharisees, because it will be seen in that last judgment 
that the Apostles cast out devils in the name of Christ, 
which, when the Pharisees had seen and believed, yet 
they said that Christ Himself (whom they ought much 
more to have believed to have cast them out by His 



4OO THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. XII. 28,29,30. 

own power) cast them out by Beelzebub, as He said 
(verses 41, 42). 

Verse 2,8. Is the kingdom of God come upon you. 

Christ terms Himself and His advent the kingdom of 
God, because it was the beginning of it and it opened our 
way to it (S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, Theophylact). 
Christ s meaning is : " If I, by the Spirit of God, as I have 
before shown, cast out devils, then is that true which I 
Myself, My Apostles, and you have preached, that the 
kingdom of God is come unto you ; for the Holy Ghost, 
who works miracles by us, bears witness that our testimony 

is true ". 

Verse 29. Or how can anyone. 

The meaning is easy. How can I dispossess the devil 
from his possession, that is, cast him out of men, unless I 
am stronger than he ? We call that strong which the 
Hebrew TO3 terms a giant ; and the house of the strong 
is the citadel which is kept by the giant. " The strong " is 
the devil (Job. xli. 24 ; S. Paul, EpJies. vi. 12) ; the house 
is the world, in which, before Christ came, the devil ruled, 
and, as S. Paul signified in the above passage, by his own 
will. His goods are not, as many think, -arms, but spoils 
and household goods ; for he first binds us and then rifles 
our goods, that is, our household property ; and S. Luke 
(xi. 22) distinguishes between arms and goods. His goods 
he calls those unhappy souls whom he kept under captivity 
and whom Christ rescued from him (Ps. Ixvii. 19 ; EpJies. 
iv. 8). 

Verse 30. He that is not with Me is against Me. 

We must first ask of whom Christ speaks. S. Hilary 
(xii.), S. Chrysostom (Horn, xlii.), S. Jerome, The Author, 
Bede, Euthymius, and Theophylact think that He speaks 
of the devil, as if the meaning were : So far is the devil 



CH. xn. 30.] PHARISEES ENEMIES OF CHRIST. 401 

from being My friend, and am I from casting out devils in 
his name, that he is My chief adversary. But the explana 
tion of S. Chrysostom and Theophylact seems preferable, 
that Christ spoke of the Pharisees. But how much Christ 
spoke of them is an unsettled question. It would seem that 
He wished to blame the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who 
when they pretended that they did not oppose Christ, but 
only sought the glory of God and the observance of the 
law, most stubbornly opposed Him. This appears so from 
verse 33. The Pharisees wished to be judges in the cause 
of Christ, because the judgment of religion and mercy 
appertained to them ; and they wished to appear indifferent 
as if they were neither for Christ nor against Him : yet 
all the time they were His most especial enemies ; that so 
they might veil their hatred of Him under the pretence of 
being good judges. This mask Christ stripped from them ; 
for " he who is not with Me is against Me". What, then, is 
the good of dissimulation ? The fault will be less if you 
openly profess yourselves My enemies. " Either make the 
tree good," &c. How are the words true : " He that is not 
with Me is against Me," and " He that gathereth not with 
Me scattereth " ? or how do they agree with those of S. 
Luke (ix. 50) : " He that is not against you is for you " ? 
Some refer this solely to the Pharisees, as if it were not 
true universally but only of them, but yet has room in 
others, as S. Luke says in the words spoken above. This 
does not seem good ; for even if these words of Christ were 
said only of the Pharisees, it is not true only of them, but 
of all in whom the same thing is found. 

The Pharisees, as professing the knowledge of the Law, 
ought to have been the first to acknowledge Christ, and to 
have been with Him ; but he who ought to have been for 
Him, but was not, was against Him. A king cannot say of 
those who are not of his kingdom, " He that is not with 
me is against me," but of his own subjects he can. For 

26 



402 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. xn. 31. 

not only he who decries his own king, but he also who 
does not fight for him when he ought, is guilty of lese 
majesty. All, therefore, who ought to receive Christ, but 
do not, whether Pharisees or not, are against Him. All 
ought to do so, and the Jews first. For the Gentiles, who 
had never seen nor heard of Him, if they were not against 
Him, were for Him. This is the simple meaning of S. 
Luke namely, that those who ought not to be for Him, if 
they are not against Him, are for Him. For whoever does 
not persecute Christ, although he have not yet come to 
Him, yet is not far from the kingdom of heaven, and even 
seems to have made some steps towards it. Although he of 
whom Christ speaks in this place was really for Him, be 
cause he cast out devils in His name (S. Luke ix. 50), yet 
Christ speaks from the opinion of His disciples, who did 
not think that he was with them unless he were with them, 
not only in doctrine, but in bodily presence (S. Luke ix. 50). 
That is, whoever teaches and does the same as you, even 
though he seem not to be for you, because he does not 
follow you, is for you, because he confirms your doctrine 
and your deeds. 

Verse 31. Therefore I say unto you. 

These causal words are not referred to what has gone 
immediately before, " This man casteth not out devils but 
by Beelzebub, the chief of the devils," but to verse 24, as is 
seen from 5. Mark iii. 30 : " Because they said He hath an 
unclean spirit ". 

But the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 

That is, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, as it is ex 
plained in the following verse, and in 6". Mark iii. 29 and S. 
Luke xii. 10. There arises a great question from these words ; 
so great an one that S. Augustin (Serm. xi. de verb. Dom.} 
thinks that there is no greater in Scripture. There are 



CH. xn. 31.] THE UNFORGIVEN SIN. 403 

two parts to the question : (i) What sin against the Holy 
Ghost is ; (2) How it will never be forgiven, neither in this 
world nor in the next. 

It is certain that it is not called sin against the Holy 
Ghost because committed against the person of the Holy 
Ghost, as S. Augustin lays down clearly. For there 
could be no greater sin against the Holy Ghost than that 
of the Eunomians, who denied His Divinity. Yet this 
was not numbered among the sins against the Holy Ghost, 
for the Eunomians are received every day when they re 
turn to the Church, as S. Chrysostom says ; and that for 
which Christ spoke His sentence of condemnation was 
spoken, not against the Person of the Holy Ghost, but 
against that of Christ Himself; for they said that He had 
an unclean spirit and cast out devils through Beelzebub, 
the prince of the devils. This at least is certain, that sin 
against the Holy Ghost is not always the heaviest of all 
sins, nor is unforgiven either in this world or the next 
because it is greater than the others. For the Sadducees, 
who denied that there was any Holy Ghost at all, and the 
Atheists, of whom the world is full to this day, do not sin 
much more heavily than they who doubted whether the 
devils are cast out by a good spirit or an evil one. The 
observation of S. Augustin is also certain, that Christ does 
not speak here of every sin against the Holy Ghost, but of 
that only which consists in contumelious words, which, 
indeed, is the meaning of the word blasphemy. This is 
explained in verse 32. However, in different places he 
follows five different opinions. 

In one place, he says that sin against the Holy Ghost is 
what is termed final impenitence, as in lib. ad Petrum iii., 
De vera et falsa pcenitentie, chap. xlv. ; Serm. xi. de verb. 
Dom. 

In another, that they sin against the Holy Ghost who 
do not believe that sins are forgiven in the Church, but 



404 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xn. 31. 

despise the largeness of the divine bounty, and die in this 
obstinacy (Enchirid., chap. Ixxxiii.). 

In a third, whoever through malice and envy oppose 
brotherly love after receipt of the grace of the Holy Ghost 
(i., Serm. in Mont?). 

In another, that it is despair of the mercy of God (Com 
ment, on Epistle to Romans]. 

In another, and one more near the truth, that it is to 
attribute the works of the Holy Ghost, knowingly, to the 
devil (Quasi. 102 on Vet. and Nov. Test.). Hence has 
arisen the common opinion of those divines who make six 
kinds of sins against the Holy Ghost : (i) Final impeni 
tence; (2) Despair; (3) Obstinacy in evil; (4) Knowingly 
to impugn the truth; (5) Presumption; and (6) Hatred 
(invidiam) of brotherly love. The Novatians make this 
sin denial of Christ ; and, to confirm their error, they do 
not allow those who deny Christ to be received to repent 
ance, as the author of Quest. 102 on Old and New Testa 
ments tells us. Other Novatians seem to hold all great 
sin after baptism, such as murder or adultery, to be sin 
against the Holy Ghost, as S. Augustin (De Serm. Dom.") 
relates. This was also the opinion of Origen and Theog- 
nostus before, as S. Athanasius says in his homily on this 
passage. Others, that it is to deny the Divinity of Christ, 
as the Pharisees did (S. Hilary, Can. xii. ; S. Ambrose, vii., 
On S. Luke]. Others, that it is to deny that in Baptism, 
the Eucharist, and other Sacraments of the Church, sins 
are forgiven by grace of the Holy Ghost, as Bede says on 
this passage. Others, more generally, that heresy is this sin, 
as Philaster, on the Heresy of Rethorius. It may be tire 
some to recount so many opinions, but in such questions it is 
perhaps well to know something of what good authorities 
hold. The true meaning of the words is only to be gained 
from the passage itself. We see on what occasion Christ 
said this to the Pharisees. They said that He cast out 



CH. xn. 31.] THE UNFORGIVEN SIN. 405 

devils by Beelzebub, clearly ascribing the manifest works 
of the Holy Ghost to the devil. This is therefore to sin 
against the Holy Ghost. We may also observe that Christ 
does not say, whoever speaks a word against the Father or 
against the Son, but against the Son of man. From this, 
we see that He spoke of Himself, not as God, but as man ; 
and that he speaks against the Son of man, who, deceived 
by His human appearance, offended by His infirmity, 
thinks and speaks of Him in a manner unworthy of His 
dignity: such an one deserves pardon, as having some 
excuse for his sin ; but he who ascribes the plain works of 
the Holy Ghost to the devil does not deserve forgiveness, 
as having no possible excuse for his sin. 

2. From this, the other division of the subject, why sin 
against the Holy Ghost is never forgiven, is easily compre 
hended. It is not that it never can be forgiven, for the 
rule of faith must be kept, that there is no sin which God 
cannot forgive, nor, therefore, that it never is forgiven ; 
for we may believe that some of those who said that Christ 
cast out devils by Beelzebub afterwards repented : but 
that they who sin against the Holy Ghost can have no 
excuse for their sin, and, therefore, by the nature of the 
case, cannot merit forgiveness. In most other cases, either 
ignorance or weakness excuses the fault, if not wholly, at 
least in some degree (i Tim. i. 13 ; Ps. cii. 14 ; Ixxvii. 39). 
But in sin against the Holy Ghost nothing of this kind is 
found to excuse the sin. This is the true explanation 
(Pacian, Ep. i. ; S. Athanasius, Horn, on this passage ; S. 
Anastasius, Quasi. 68; S. Basil, Interr. 273 Reg. Brev.; S. 
Ambrose, De Pcenit., ii. 4 ; S. Jerome, In Comment?). Though 
some of these give different reasons why sin against the 
Holy Ghost is never forgiven, yet they agree that the sin 
itself is what we have described. It results, perhaps, in 
what S. Chrysostom says, that it is said never to be for 
given, because it is very difficult to be forgiven. But their 



406 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xn. 31. 

opinion is better, as said above, that " from the nature of 
the case it has no excuse, and therefore cannot receive for 
giveness". So, in another place, Christ said that it was 
impossible for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of 
heaven, not that it was impossible to God, but it was so 
from the nature of the case. But it will be said that " all 
mortal sin is such as by its own nature it can merit no 
forgiveness. Why are sins, then, that are not mortal called 
venial, except that they merit forgiveness ? If these are 
venial because they merit forgiveness, those which are not 
venial do not merit it." The answer is : " No mortal sin of 
its own nature merits forgiveness, but others, compared 
with these, because they have some excuse, are thought 
worthy of it". This sin alone is specified, because, of its own 
nature, it never can be forgiven : as there are many others, 
besides rich men, who by their own strength cannot enter 
into the kingdom of heaven : but the words above were said 
of them alone, because they who are loaded and weighed 
down by riches have so many more hindrances. Hence it 
follows, that although Christ speaks only of blasphemy, 
that is, contumelious words, against the Holy Ghost, yet 
:His words hold good not only of blasphemy, but of all 
other sins whatever, of the same nature ; such as if one 
should ascribe, not in word, but in deed or thought, the 
miracles of the Holy Ghost to Satan. Many heretics are 
thus refuted : the Eunomians, who denied the Divinity of 
the Holy Ghost, whom S. Ambrose (De Spir. Sanct. y i. 3) 
answers, " All blasphemy," &c. : the Sabellians, who con- 
fused the three Persons in the Godhead ; whilst in this 
passage the Persons of the Son and Holy Ghost are so 
distinguished that whoever sins against the former shall be 
forgiven, but whoever sins against the latter shall not. 
S. Augustin (De Civitate, xxi. 24 ; Cont. Jul., vi. 5), 
S. Gregory (lib. iv., Dialog. 39), Bede on this place, S. 
Bernard (Canticles, Sermon Ixvi.), have proved Purgatory 



CH. xii. 33.] THE UNFORGIVEN SIN. 407 

from verse 32, concluding that some sins would be remitted 
in the future world. 



Verse 33. Either make. 

These words are referred to different things and diffe 
rent persons by different authors. 

S. Hilary, S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact 
refer them to Christ so as to make them mean : " Why do 
you think otherwise of Me and of My works ? How, if, as 
you think, I am a sinner and have an unclean spirit, can I 
do good works, such as casting out devils, restoring the blind, 
the deaf and the dumb, raising the dead ? Either therefore 
make Me evil and My works evil, or make Me good and 
My works good." S. Jerome thinks that they bear refer 
ence to the devil, as if Christ should say : "You say that I 
cast out devils by Beelzebub. How can the devil, an evil 
tree, bring forth good fruit, such as the casting out of 
devils ? Either therefore," &c. Bede refers them to both : 
the good tree to Christ, the evil one to the devil, as if 
it meant : " How can I who am the good tree bring forth 
evil fruit, that is the works of the devil, who is an evil tree ? 
Either say that I am good and My works good, or that I 
am evil and My works evil." S. Ambrose (De Pcen., ii. 4) 
understands by the good tree the Church : by the evil one 
the synagogue. The evil fruit he considers the Pharisees 
themselves, as if it were : The evil mother, the synagogue, 
cannot bring forth good sons. The true sense would 
appear to be that which S. Augustin has put forth and in 
more places than one (De Serm. Dom., ii ; De actis cum Felice 
Mamick., chap. 4 ; Cont. litt. PetiL, ii. 6 ; Serm. xii. de verb. 
Dom. in Mont.}. He says that the Pharisees are called 
both the good and the evil tree ; for Christ blames their 
hypocrisy, when they wished to appear the good tree, but 
brought forth evil fruit ; or when they were evil trees, and 



408 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xn. 34, 36. 

wished to bring forth good fruit ; and He orders them to 
be either openly good or openly evil. 

This opinion may seem contrary to that in the next 
verse : " How can you speak good things whereas you are 
evil?" and also to that in chap. vii. 18 ; but it is not so if 
properly understood. For the evil Pharisees are not said 
here to do good works, or the good ones to do evil works. 
This is said to be impossible, as above, and in chap. vii. 18 : 
" A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an 
evil tree bring forth good fruit," but they are pointed out, 
because when they are evil they wish both to seem good, 
and that their works should be approved, as if they were 
holy and good. 

Verse 34. O generation of vipers. 

(See iii. 7.) Christ does not deny absolutely and entirely 
that they can do so ; for many, though they be evil, speak 
good words. But He says what is natural, customary, 
lasting. For it is natural and consistent with the lives of 
men, that the bad should speak wickedly and the good 
religiously (S. Matt. xii. 34) ; but if it ever happen other 
wise, it happens contrarily to nature and custom, and cannot 
be enduring. 

Verse 36. Every idle word. 

A Hebrew construction in which the nominative is re 
dundant. Two questions may here be raised: (i) To 
what end Christ said this ? (2) What He means by an idle 
word? It is most generally thought to be an argument 
a minore ad majus, as if Christ had said : If for every, the 
least, idle word, how much more shall you give account in 
the day of judgment for the blasphemy with which you 
have said that I cast out devils by Beelzebub? That may 
be called an idle word which brings no profit or edification 
to the hearer or speaker (S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, Horn. 
xliii. ; S. Basil, Reg. Brev. y xxiii. ; S. Ambrose, Ps. xxxviii ; 



CH. xii. 37.] THE JUDGMENT BY WORDS. 

Gregory, Horn. vi. in Evangel; Bede, Comment?}. Theo- 
phylact and Euthymius alone explain it of calumnious 
and false words, as some more ancient authors did, 
according to S. Chrysostom. The Hebrews perhaps had 
NW which may be taken to mean either a vain, or false, 
or calumnious saying, as Exod. xx. 7, but the Greek 
translation rendered it " idle," that is, spoken to no pur 
pose, which seems rather to agree with the context ; for 
the Pharisees spoke not only idly, but also calumniously 
and falsely of Christ. He seems to have said that 
for calumnious and false accusations account would be 
given in the day of judgment. 

Verse 37. For by thy words. 

This seems to have been a proverb. Theophylact says that 
it was a Scripture saying, perhaps that in Job xv. 6. But 
the words, "By thy words thou shalt be condemned," are 
not to be taken as if our words alone would justify or con 
demn us; for we shall be either justified or condemned by 
many other things besides these; but that their words alone 
will suffice to justify many who have spoken well or ill : as 
the high priest, who spoke the words against Christ re 
corded in chap. xxvi. 65. For as he condemned Christ for 
the one word by which He signified that He was the Son 
of God without any other testimony, so he himself might be 
condemned for that one word in which he said that Christ 
blasphemed, although he had had no other sin at all. No 
one objects, that infants often die before they can speak, for 
here the subject is those who could speak well or ill, and 
who did so accordingly. The meaning is that so exact an 
account of everything will have to be rendered in the day 
of judgment, that God will find sufficient cause even in the 
lightest word to justify or condemn. When, therefore, we 
are condemned by our words, we are declared by the 
words we have spoken amiss to be made unrighteous. 



410 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xn. 39. 

For the Pharisees who said that Christ had an unclean 
spirit, although previously most righteous, were then by 
that one word alone most unrighteous. When, then, we 
are justified by our words, we are declared by those words 
which we have spoken well and holily to have been made 
righteous (Rom. x. 10). Nor does anything but righteous 
ness alone avail to salvation. 

Verse 39. An evil and adulterous generation. 

By a Hebraism a generation here means the race of 
men ; an adulterous generation one which has degenerated 
from its forefathers. 

A nd a sign shall not be given it. 

It has been asked, by all, how Christ says that a sign 
should not be given, when He afterwards wrought so many 
miracles. S. Chrysostom and Euthymius answer: They 
were not done for those who were obstinate, but for those 
who would gain food by them. Some say that signs were 
given, but not such as they required ; for they sought a sign 
from heaven (5. Mark viii. 1 1 ; 5. Luke xi. 16). That is, 
as S. Jerome says, they required that fire should come down 
from heaven, as in the time of Elias ; or, as in the days of 
Samuel, when in summer it thundered, against the nature 
of the place. Others say, with more propriety, that a sign 
was not to be given to them, that is, as they asked for and 
demanded it : for they did it with an evil disposition and 
with the intention of tempting. This is the reason why God 
often gave signs at the request of some men to Ezekiah 
(Isa. xxxviii. 22), to Gedeon {Judges vi. 17, 36) whilst 
He refused them to others, because the former asked for 
them from a good motive ; the latter from a bad. This is 
clear, as S. Chrysostom says, even from their very words; 
for they do not ask, but in a manner require and demand 
it. "We would see a sign from Thee" ( Volumus a te}. 



CH. xii. 39-] JONAS. 411 

But the sign of the Prophet Jonas. 

S. Hilary alone seems to have understood the true 
meaning of this passage. I do not think, as the commen 
tators say, that Christ would give no other sign of His 
Divinity than that, as Jonas, He would rise again the third 
day. For they who explain it thus are unable to give any 
reason why, when there were so many signs, Christ should 
have given that of Jonas rather than any other. He might 
promise the sign of Elias, who was taken up to heaven in a 
chariot of fire ; for He would have proved His Divinity not 
less by His own ascent into heaven than by His Resurrec 
tion. None of the commentators have touched upon this 
point, and yet it is so necessary, that the passage cannot be 
understood unless it is explained. 

Christ then does not speak of the sign, to persuade as 
the Pharisees required, but to condemn, and He uses an 
ambiguity of terms, as we have before observed (x. 39 ; 
viii. 22). So He here deludes the Pharisees in the same 
manner. For, when they sought a sign, to belief, He 
answered that He would not give them a sign such as they 
asked, to belief; but He would give them such as they did 
not ask, to condemnation. This sign was that although the 
men of Nineveh, who were Gentiles, and barbarous, and 
with no knowledge of the Law, at one word of Jonas, whilst 
strangers, and unknown to him, believed and brought forth 
notable penance : yet the Pharisees, after they had heard so 
many exhortations, and had seen so many miracles of 
Christ, not only did not believe, but said that He had a 
devil. This is the meaning of verse 41. It may seem 
contrary to this explanation that He immediately added, 
as if to make what He had said plainer : " As Jonas was 
three days and three nights in .the whale s belly ; so shall 
the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart 
of the earth ". By these words Christ wished only to teach 
that what Jonas was to the Ninevites, He Himself was to 



412 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xn. 40. 

the Jews ; but that He was so much greater than Jonas, as 
it was greater to be raised from the dead, than to be cast 
up again after having been swallowed by the whale ; and 
yet the men of Nineveh believed Jonas, though the Jews 
did not believe Him. 

Verse 40. In the heart of the earth. 

Bede and Euthymius understand the tomb, and the 
followers of Calvin do the same ; but with the difference, 
that the former understand in it a good sense as meaning 
death ; the latter in a bad one, as supporting their denial of 
the descent of Christ into hell. We hold the words to 
mean not only the tomb but also hell ; whither, as the 
Church has always taught, Christ went down. We will 
prove this (i) from the words: for 1^1 " in the heart " is used 
by the Hebrews for "in the midst" ; because the heart is in 
the middle of the body (Ps. xlv. 3). But hell, not the 
tomb, is in the middle of the earth. Then why were the 
words " in the heart of the earth " used of no one but 
Christ, when so many are laid in the grave, if the grave 
means this? Why is no one but Christ said to have de 
scended, not only into the tomb, but also into the lower (that 
is the lowest) parts of the earth? (Eph. iv. 9). Except that 
He descended not only into the tomb in His body, but 
also into hell in His soul ? Lastly, He preached to 
the spirits in prison ; that is, in the middle of the earth 
(i Pet. iii. 19), which He certainly did not do in the 
tomb, but in hell. 

Three days and tliree nights. 

This appears to some much more difficult than it really 
is. For we believe that Christ passed not three, but one, 
or at most two, nights in the grave ; for He was buried on 
the sixth day, and He rose again before the Lord s day, 
which is called the first day of the week (xxviii. I ; 5. 
Mark xvi. 2 ; 5. John xx. i). The universal voice of 



CH. xii. 4L] JONAS. 413 

antiquity does not satisfy these Moderns. S. Jerome (on 
this place and in his Commentary], S. Augustin (Ep. xlix., 
q. 6), Bede, and Theophylact say that it is by synecdoche, 
in which a part is put for the whole ; for Christ did not lie 
in the tomb three whole nights nor a part of three whole 
nights. These Moderns separate the nights from the days, 
when they should rather unite them. When Christ said 
days and nights distinctly, He did not do so, as these seem 
to think, meaning three whole days and three whole nights, 
but signifying three natural days, and to distinguish them 
from what they call " usual " days ; for the Hebrews by 
this expression describe the natural day and night, which 
consist of twenty-four hours (Gen. vii. 4, 12 ; E.rod. xxiv. 
18; xxxiv. 28; Deut. ix. 9, 1 1, 1 8, 25 ; x. 10; I Kings 
xxx. 12 ; 3 Kings xix. 8). Let us suppose, then, that He 
said three natural days no one doubts that this is to be 
understood by synecdoche, because He was there for some 
part of three days i.e., part of the sixth day, all the 
Sabbath, and part of the first day. As the Jews, therefore, 
began the day from the evening, the night of the Sabbath 
is counted into the Lord s day, which is the third day. 
These three days and three nights, then, mean only three 
natural days. 

Verse 41. The men of Nineveh. 

Some of the heretics say that because Christ made men 
tion of the sign of Jonas, it came into His mind to speak 
of the men of Nineveh. How, then, did the Queen of 
Saba come into His mind, when He had not spoken of 
Solomon ? This is the explanation of the sign of the 
Prophet Jonas, and because the case of the Queen of Saba 
resembled it Christ united the two. 

Shall rise. 

This does not mean, as most, especially Moderns, think, 
that they should rise to judge. For it is not the office of a 



4H THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xn. 42. 

judge to rise, but to sit (xix. 28). But they shall rise to 
accuse, for accusers do rise. In the same sense we must 
understand what immediately follows : " and shall condemn 
it ". For they will condemn them, not by judging, but by 
accusing them. For the accuser is said to condemn the 
criminal when he has shown his guilt on trial, and the other 
in consequence is condemned. The Ninevites will accuse 
and condemn the Jews, not by their words, but by their 
example ; because, when they believed Jonas, the Jews did 
not believe Christ. They will not rise, therefore, but stand 
like the rest ; for Christ speaks according to the custom of 
the forum. The Hebrews use the expression "to rise in 
judgment " in another sense, that is, to stand boldly up in 
defence of our own cause, as in Ps. i. 5, which the Latins 
call, in one word, "to stand," as Cicero says in his first 
book of Epistles : " Since we stand most honourably in the 
senate ". 

Verse 42. The Queen of the South. 

This is a periphrasis for the Queen of Saba (3 Kings 
x. I, 4, 10, 13 ; 2 Paralip. ix. I, 9). Hence it appears that 
she had a very extensive territory. She was so called, not 
from the entire extent of the South, but, after the manner 
of Scripture, from the city in which she had her palace. 
Christ designed, it would appear, to show the greatness 
and majesty of this queen. It was also to the point that 
the power of the Queen of Saba should be plainly de 
scribed, that so great a potentate might receive the more 
praise for coming so far to hear the wisdom of Solomon. 
We may observe the force of the words, and the tacit 
antithesis between Christ and Solomon : the Jews and 
the queen. The queen a woman, a barbarian, but very 
powerful came from the ends of the world to hear the 
Adsdom of Solomon of one who was a mere man, like 
other men ; to hear a merely human and not a divine 
wisdom, and not to see any miracles, for we do not find 



CH. xii. 43-1 THE QUEEN OF SABA. 415 

that Solomon performed any. The Jewish Pharisees 
men not only learned, but doctors of the law despised 
their Lord, the Son of God, when He came to them, and 
not only poured from His lips the treasures of divine 
wisdom, but performed before them miracles hitherto 
unheard of. It is unnecessary to inform the reader that the 
Saba of which this lady was the queen was not the Saba 
of which the kings brought gifts of frankincense, but 
another Saba, in ^Ethiopia, which Cambyses afterwards 
called Meroe, from his sister (Josephus, Antiq., ii. 2; 
Strabo, xvi.). 

Verse 43. But when an unclean spirit. 

S. Luke (xi. 24) relates this earlier than S. Matthew, but 
the latter seems to have kept the true order of events. 
Christ said this, as it appears, to show that the Jews were 
worse than if they had never received the Law and know 
ledge of God ; for when the devil had in some measure 
been cast out of them, and they had been taught by the 
Law to serve the one true God, and not idols nor the 
devil, they despised the grace of God, and merited that 
seven unclean spirits should enter into them instead of 
one only. The whole parable tends to this, as S. Hilary, 
S. Jerome, and Bede explain it. 

He ivalketh througJi dry places. 

Many think this an allegory : as if the dry places were 
the Gentiles, and all those who had not the knowledge of 
God, in whom the unclean spirit was not content to dwell, 
because he had them in bondage already, and therefore 
sought those who had the knowledge of God, but held it in 
contempt ; preferring to pervert one of these, to ruling as he 
pleased in the many others. Christ seems to speak of the 
devil as if he were a man ; for men, when driven from their 
homes, wander hither and thither through lonely and 



41 6 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xn. 46. 

desert places, seeking rest for themselves, and when they 
find none convenient, return to their former abodes. These 
being empty, and prepared and garnished by the new 
inhabitants, they dwell in them much more commodiously 
than before they were driven out. This is said in verse 45, 
which only means that they who were the best, if they 
are ever corrupted, become, by contempt of divine grace, 
the worst of all ; as if, for one unclean spirit that was in 
them before they were made good, seven enter into them. 
Christ said seven after the manner of the Hebrews, who 
use that number for many a certain number for an 
uncertain. In what Christ says of the unclean spirits, He 
speaks as if they were men, saying that one invites another 
to a convenient habitation. The devil does not invite the 
others, to defend himself by their help from being cast out 
again, as S. Chrysostom and many others think. The 
result is, that the devil dwells more freely and com 
modiously in those who were once good and have become 
evil, because the ornaments of their house that is, the 
acknowledgment of the mysteries their minds cultivated 
by the knowledge of divine subjects and the like, which had 
been made ready for God, become subservient to him. 
Thus the last case is worse than the first. We see this 
every day. There are no worse heretics than they who, 
when they were once good Catholics, despised divine grace 
and the simplicity of the Catholic faith, and, loathing the 
most pleasant food, sate themselves down by the flesh- 
pots ; that is, losing their faith, they returned into that 
Egypt whence, through faith, they had gone out, and 
became heretics, as described in Psalm Ixxvii. 57. 

Verse 46. Behold His Mother and His brethren. 

Some think the brothers of Christ to have been the sons 
of Joseph and Mary born after the birth of Christ. This 
was the heresy of Helvidius, and it was thoroughly confuted 



CH. xn. 46.] CHRIST S BRETHREN. 417 

by S. Jerome in a book against it. Others think them the 
sons of Joseph by a former marriage. Most of the Greeks 
held this opinion. But it is an idea that should be guarded 
against Of the same opinion were S. Hilary and S. Am 
brose, who followed Greek authority on many points. The 
true opinion is that which S. Jerome has most effectually 
established. The cousins and kindred of Christ were 
called His brothers, such as James the Less, Joses, Jude, 
and Simon, as is explained chap. xiii. 55. It appears that 
James and Joses were the sons of the sister of Mary the 
Virgin, who was also herself called Mary. For S. John calls 
Mary the daughter of Cleophas, and wife of Alphaeus, the 
sister of the Mother of the Lord (xix. 25). But S. Matthew 
(xxvii. 56) and S. Mark (xv. 40) call the same Mary the 
mother of James the Less and Joses. Cousins and kindred 
were often called brothers, as can be proved by many 
examples. For Lot, whom Scripture states to have been 
the son of Aram, the brother of Abraham, was called the 
brother of Abraham (Gen. xiii. 8) ; and Laban, though he 
was the brother of the mother of Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 2), is 
called the brother of Jacob (Gen. xxix. 15). In this way 
those named above are called the brothers of the Lord. 

It is a much greater and more difficult question why 
they came thither, and, at a time by no means opportune, 
wished to speak to Him when He was addressing the 
people, and did not hesitate even to send a messenger to 
call Him out, as S. Mark says (iii. 31). The same Evan 
gelist hints at the reason of their summons ; but, so far 
from answering this question, it raises another and a far 
more important one. " For they said, He is become mad " 
(verse 21). The Evangelist does not say that Christ was 
beside Himself, but only that His brethren said that He 
was. They did not probably say this of their own minds, 
but that they might deliver Him from the hands of the 
Pharisees, of whose plots for His destruction they probably 

27 



4l8 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH.xii. 4 7, 4 8. 

had a suspicion, as S. Matthew says above (verse 14). For 
we can easily believe that His kindred were anxious about 
His safety. For this they came ; for this they brought His 
Mother with them, that they might move Him the more ; 
and they were importunate, fearing that it might be danger 
ous to wait, lest the Pharisees might lay hands upon Him 
even in that assembly. Therefore, Tertullian (De Carne. 
Christi), S. Chrysostom, and Theophylact are to be wholly 
rejected when they say that the relations were moved by 
some kind of ambition to show that they were His kindred^ 
and had some sort of authority over Him. It was not to 
be borne that they should involve the Mother of Him who 
was free from all fault in the same blame. 

Stood without. 

Some modern heretics unjustly ascribe this to pride, as 
if they would not deign to enter the house and hear the 
Word of God with the rest, when S. Luke plainly says they 
could not enter for the multitude. It is intolerable audacity 
to judge evilly of the Apostles, not only without Scripture, 
but contrarily to its express words. 

Verse 47. And one said unto Him. 

S. Mark (iii. 31) says: "They sent unto Him, calling 
Him ". It is, therefore, to be believed that the Apostles 
sent the person to Christ who told Him that His Mother 
and brethren were there, when they themselves could not 
enter. What S. Matthew says, that there was one, and 
S. Mark and S. Luke, that there were more than one, is 
easily explained. At first there was only one ; then there 
were many, as usually happens, when they saw that He did 
not go out to them. 

Verse 48. Who is My Mother ? 

We must first hold what S. Epiphanius (Hcer. xlii.), S. 
Chrysostom, and S. Hilary have noted on the passage : 



CH.XH. 4 8.] CHRIST S MOTHER. 419 

that Christ did not say this to deny His Mother ; and, 
according to Marcion, as S. Jerome says, and Manichaeus, 
who misused it, to have it thought that He was born of a 
phantasma. Why Christ answered so roughly has been 
asked by many, and all have not given the same answer. 
S. Jerome thinks that he who brought the message did it 
with an evil intention, to try whether Christ could be 
moved by feeling for His Mother and relations, and that 
He answered him roughly as a spy. But we have proved 
from Mark iii. 30 that the messenger informed Christ of 
their arrival, not as tempting Him, but in obedience to 
their commands. S. Epiphanius (Hcer. xlii.) and S. 
Chrysostom say that the messenger addressed Christ 
inopportunely. S. Ambrose (On S. Luke> viii.) says better: 
" Parents are not treated with contumely, but the bonds of 
the union of minds are taught to be closer than these 
bodies ". S. Hilary writes to the same purpose : " Making 
Himself the model of acting and feeling to all ; the law and 
the name of all relationships is now to be retained, not 
from the condition of birth, but from the communion of 
the Church ". S. Ambrose, again, on the same place : 
" The moral Master who shows Himself the example and 
the preceptor is Himself the performer of His own com 
mands. For being about to lay it down as a precept that 
whoever does not forsake father or mother is not worthy of 
the Son of God, He first submitted Himself to this law: 
not to overthrow the duty of obedience to maternal holiness 
(for it was His own law that everyone who honours not 
his father and mother should die the death), but as He 
knew that more was due to the mystery of His Father 
than to the feelings of His Mother." 

He wished, therefore, to teach men that each and every 
one could be both His brother and His mother. He does 
not deny parents of the flesh ; but He prefers spiritual ones ; 
as 5. Luke xi. 27, 28, to the woman who said : " Blessed 



420 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. xn. 48. 

is the womb that bare Thee and the paps which gave Thee 
suck," He said : "Yea, blessed are they who hear the 
Word of God and keep it " ; not denying that that womb 
was blessed, but saying that the mind which heard the 
Word of God and kept it was more blessed ; and not pre 
ferring others to His Mother, but mother to mother the 
mother who heard the Word of God and kept it, to the 
Mother who bore Him in her womb and gave Him suck ; 
and the Mother of God was therefore blessed above all 
women, because, more than all men, she heard the Word of 
God and believed (S. Luke i. 45). In like manner, He 
here denies neither mother nor brother, nor does He prefer 
any others to them but mother to mother and brother to 
brother. For although His Mother was truly a Virgin in 
body, and James, Joses, Judas, and Simon were truly His 
brothers in kinship, yet much more perfectly and with 
greater merit was she His Mother, and were they His 
brothers, in mind, because they did the will of His Father 
who was in heaven. 



CHAPTER XIII. i 

THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER OF THE COCKLE OF THE 
MUSTARD SEED, ETC. 

Verse i. The same day. 

So great multitudes came to Christ in the house that it 
could not contain them all, and therefore the brethren 
stood without (xii. 46 ; 5. Luke viii. 19). He therefore 
went to the sea, that He might bring the greatest possible 
number to Him, as Euthymius says. 

Verse 2. And great multitudes were gathered together. 

The Evangelist relates this to show the reason of the 
assembly, and of the parables which Christ was about to 
put forth. Christ put forth these parables, especially that 
of the Sower, because he saw a great multitude of listeners, 
among whom, as He knew, and as was probable in itself, 
were some like the wayside, some like the stony places, 
some like the thorns, some like the good ground. 

So that He went up into a boat and sate. 

He went up into a boat, either that He might not be 

overwhelmed by the multitude and be unable to be heard, 

or, as S. Chrysostom and Theophylact think, that He 

might have all His hearers in sight, and attentive to Him. 

Verse 3. In parables. 

" In " (in parabolis] is put for " per," according to the 
Hebrew custom, for in Hebrew " in " means through 1 as 



422 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH.xm.4, 9, n. 

in Aggai i. 3 ; ii. 2. They are called parables in Greek, 
similitudes in Latin, rfiTn (enigmata) in Hebrew. They 
are a kind of sermon, in which one thing is said and 
another meant, and are wrapped up in obscure comparisons. 
The word is so common among ecclesiastical writers that 
(as in some of the earlier ages) they call every word a 
parable. Why Christ pleased to speak not explicitly and 
openly, but in parable, He will Himself explain in verse 13. 

Verse 4. A nd while he sowed. 
The rest, to verse 9, will be explained on verse 19. 

Verse 9. He that hath ears. 

(Chap. xi. 15.) An address to the listeners to seek with 
diligence into the meaning of the parable. 

Verse 1 1 . Because to you it is given. 

The difficult question of Predestination is here raised, on 
which, at present, only so much shall be said as seems 
necessary to the understanding of the passages of which we 
are treating. Two questions may here be asked : i. Why 
it was given to the Apostles ? 2. Why it was not given to 
the others ? Catholics who follow the teaching of S. 
Augustin on Predestination say that it was given to the 
Apostles because they were predestinated, and that it was 
not given to the others because they were reprobate. For 
S. Augustin has employed this passage (De Prczdest., chaps, 
viii., xvi.; De Bon. Perseverant., chaps, viii., ix., xi.; De grat. 
et Lib. arbit., chaps, iv., xliii.; De corrept. et grat., chaps, iv., 
vi., vii., viii.). I dispute not, as I have said, the opinion of 
S. Augustin, but his interpretation of this passage I do 
dispute ; and, relying on many grave and learned authors of 
old, I affirm that the reason of its having been given to the 
Apostles to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven 
was, not that they were predestined, nor was the reason 



Cn. XIH. 12.] PARABLE OF THE SOWER. 423 

of the same being withheld from others that they were re 
probate, but the Apostles were worthy, and the others 
were unworthy as S. Hilary, S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, The 
Author, Bede, Theophylact, and Euthymius think. 

Finally, not all the Apostles were predestinated. Cer 
tainly Judas was not ; and yet it was given to all to know 
these things, for Christ explained the parable to all. All, 
then, had it not given to them because they were pre 
destinated, as all without the number of the Apostles were 
not reprobate. Who could believe this ? Yet it was denied 
to all ; but it was not denied to them because they were 
not predestinated. Besides, although it has not been 
openly explained why it was given to the Apostles, yet it 
has been explained why it was withheld from the rest : 
" That seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not ". 
That is, because they would not believe and understand, 
and were, therefore, unworthy of having these mysteries 
revealed to them (verse 13). It was given to the Apostles, 
on the other hand, because they were worthy ; for they 
wished both to understand and believe, for they asked the 
meaning of them (S. Mark iv. 10). Why must we believe 
that Christ gave it to the one, and withheld it from the 
others, but that the Apostles subsequently followed His 
will and example, and gave it to the Gentiles and refused it 
to the Jews ? (Acts xiii. 46). Why do we believe that 
Christ gave it to the one and denied it to the other, except 
that He said in another place : "The kingdom of God shall 
be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation yielding 
the fruits thereof"? (S. Matt. xxi. 43). Why was it taken 
from those, except that they did not bring forth the fruits 
of it ? Why was it given to these, except that it was 
known that they would bring forth the fruits? 

Verse 1 2. For he that hath, to him shall be given. 
This was very probably a proverbial expression, because 
Christ repeats it, in effect, in other places, as in chap. 



424 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH.xin.i2. 

xxv. 29. The meaning is, that, as most commonly hap 
pens, to him who has, more is given, because he is deserving 
of more ; from him who has nothing, even if anything be 
left to him, it is taken away, because he is not worthy to 
have it. This is most aptly explained in the parable of 
the Talents (xxv. 28), where to him who had five talents 
another five were added, because he employed the first 
well. By his profit on the five he had deserved the 
addition ; whilst from the other the one talent was taken 
away, because he had wrapped it in a napkin, and, whilst 
he derived no gain from it, he showed himself unworthy of 
having it. This is seen even in our own lives. (Conf. xxv. 
29, 5. Luke viii. 18.) 

It is not said, " Even that which he hath shall be taken 
from him," but that which he seemeth to have, or thinks 
that he has. This has given occasion to the assertion that 
that which the Jews really had was not taken from them, 
but only that which they seemed to themselves to have. 
If this were true, nothing at all would have been taken 
from them. For that is not really taken away which was 
never really possessed. But Christ signifies that some 
thing was really taken away, or there would have been no 
punishment. But we see that Christ threatened this to 
the Jews as a punishment ; and the talent which the 
slothful servant not only seemed to have, but actually 
had, He commanded to be taken from him and given to 
another. 

Why, then, did Christ say, " What he seemeth to have " ? 
Either because He had said, " From him that hath not 
shall be taken ". And as we might doubt how a thing 
can be taken from one who has it not, He said not 
" what he hath," but " what he seemeth to have " ; or, as 
S. Augustin says, because he has it as if he had it not : 
for, as he does not use it, he is said not to have it, but to 
seem to have it 



CH. xin. 13.] PARABLE OF THE SOWER. 425 

What, then, was taken away from the Jews which they 
had, because they would not accept the Gospel which was 
freely offered to them ? S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, and 
The Author answer that nature itself was in a manner taken 
from them, that is, the natural knowledge of things, because 
they were blinded so that they could not understand even 
what Nature herself teaches. For which of the philosophers, 
if he had seen the numberless miracles of Christ, would not 
have believed that there was something of the Godhead in 
Him ? To the Apostles, therefore, who already had grace 
to understand the divine mysteries, and who used it well, 
more grace, to comprehend mysteries still greater, was 
given. From those who neither had it, nor would accept 
it when offered, nature itself was in some manner taken 
away. From this passage the above opinion on merits can, 
apparently, be very properly explained. For he who has 
not the grace of God can merit nothing whatever, except 
that even some of the natural things themselves should be 
taken from him. But he who has it, and puts it to good 
use, the more he has, and the better he uses it, the more he 
merits and the more he receives ; and the more he receives, 
he is still more worthy of receiving even yet more. Thus 
the saying of Christ is always true : " Whosoever hath, to 
him shall be given, and he shall abound ; but he that hath 
not, from him shall be taken away that also which he 
hath ". 

Verse 13. Therefore do I speak to them in parables, because 
seeing they see not. 

That is, They see with their eyes My miracles, the most 
sure proofs of what I say, and they hear with their ears, and 
they will neither see nor believe. In punishment, then, of 
their unbelief, Christ speaks to them darkly, because while 
they would not understand what was said to them clearly 
and plainly, they deserved that Christ should so speak to 



426 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. xm. 13. 

them that even if they wished they could not understand. 
Thus does God, by His most just judgment, take away 
entirely from those who refused His offered Word. He, 
before all other things, keeps His own Word (vii. 6). So 
He threatened those who refused to believe so many 
prophets (Amos viii. 11). Why, however, did Christ put 
forth so many parables to them when He would not have 
the people understand them ? S. Chrysostom (Horn, xlvi.) 
most correctly replies that " He would not have them 
understand that they might understand ". For the interest 
of the listeners is roused, and they diligently enquire when 
they hear what they do not understand, yet see that it is 
of great moment and significance. Thus their punishment 
might have turned out their improvement unless they had 
abused the punishment itself. 

Another question arises from 5. Mark iv. 12: " That 
seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may 
hear and not understand, lest at any time they should be 
converted and their sins should be forgiven them ". The 
words " Seeing they may see and not perceive " have been 
explained by S. Chrysostom. What follows, " Lest at any 
time their sins should be forgiven them/ seems to be ex 
plained only by supposing Christ to have been unwilling 
that they should be converted and saved. In the same 
manner S. Chrysostom replies : " Christ so wished the Jews 
not to be converted nor their sins remitted, as He wished 
them not to understand what He said ". He shut the door 
of salvation against them, not for ever, but for a time, that 
they might knock. When, however, it was opened, they 
would not enter. We strive for that which is forbidden. 
Christ would not have them converted in some evil manner 
then, that when they found themselves deserted, they 
might be converted in a better manner. He would not 
have their sins remitted to them, then, that oppressed with 
ills they might acknowledge their debt, and that their sins 



CH. xm. 14.] OF PARABLES GENERALLY. 427 

might be remitted at a time more profitable for themselves, 
and with better fruit. 

Euthymius speaks on these words of S. Mark in another 
manner. He does not join the words, " lest they be con 
verted," &c., to those, " I speak to them in parables," as if 
Christ spoke in parables, lest, when their sins were re 
mitted they should be converted, but he refers them to 
those others, "that seeing," &c. that the meaning may 
be that He wished them not to see and understand, lest 
they should be converted and their sins be forgiven, as 
David said of the wicked man (Ps. xxxv. 4) ; that is, 
lest he should act righteously. The meaning of Isaiah, 
to whom Christ alludes in these words, shall be explained 
on verse 15. 

However the passage be understood, it is certainly not 
to be taken to mean that Christ would not have them 
be converted and their sins forgiven. For those sayings 
which to us are not ambiguous, but plain ; not obscure, 
but as clear as the day ought to remain fixed, that God 
wills all men to be saved, and no man to perish ; that He 
wills not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may be 
converted and live ; that the death of the wicked is not of 
His will ; and other sayings of the same kind, almost with 
out number, of which Scripture is full. 

Verse 14. And is fulfilled in them. 

In them is fulfilled what was spoken of the ancient 
people. " By hearing you shall hear and shall not under 
stand," but in Me, what was spoken of God, " Lord, blind 
Thou the heart of this people ". 

By hearing you shall hear and shall not imderstand. 

What is here said in the future tense is put in the im 
perative mood in the Hebrew. The LXX., however, 
thinking that, as is often the case, the Hebrew puts the 



428 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xm. 15. 

imperative for the future, so translate it here. The Greek 
and Latin versions of S. Matthew follow their example. 
Either agrees well with the context, for (i) if we read the 
future, it is not what God wills them to do, but what they 
are going to do themselves ; (2) if we read the imperative, 
the meaning is true and forcible, but more difficult. For 
it appears as if God commanded them to hear and not to 
understand. Yet, although in this sense God seems to 
speak imperatively, He still does not command, nor state 
what He wills Himself, but what the people, on their part, 
are determined to do. Christ speaks in the same manner 
(xxiii. 32). He appears to command what He does not 
command, but declares that they will do. 

Verse 15. Is grown gross. 

What is here put in the perfect was spoken by Isaiah in 
the imperative (vi. 9). So with what follows. The Hebrew 
says, " Make their ears dull of hearing and cover their eyes 
with darkness," ]ftX^n that is, as S. Jerome renders it, blind 
their eyes. The LXX., who read the same three words 
with different points, give the same words as those used 
here by the Evangelist. 

The LXX., which either the Evangelist or his translator 
has here followed, conveys a much better meaning than 
the Hebrew, because in this God Himself speaks, and not 
the Prophet. God had not said, " Make fat the heart of 
this people, and make their ears heavy," for to whom could 
He have said it? No one but Himself could blind their 
hearts, or enlighten them. Then, because the heart of the 
people was now made fat, and their ears heavy, and their 
eyes were darkened, He had said, " Hearing hear and 
understand not," because He knew that they were so 
blinded that even if they did hear they would not under 
stand. Thus God does not command, nor the Prophet 
pray, that they may be blinded, for they were blind 



CH. xin. 16.] THE APOSTLES ABOVE THE PROPHETS. 429 

already, but He gives the reason of their not understanding : 
they were blind. It is needless to enquire here how God is 
said to blind and harden them. This will be treated of, 
Deo adjuvante, on Rom. ix. 

Verse 16. But blessed are your eyes . 

It may be thought that these words are opposed to 5. 
John xx. 29. For the Prophets and just men, to whom 
Christ prefers the Apostles, seem to have been more 
blessed than they, in that, not seeing, they believed. The 
answer will be easy if we consider what Christ intends by 
each example. He says here that the Apostles are more 
blessed than the Prophets, because, whilst both believed, 
yet what they believed and wished to see, the Apostles did 
see, and the Prophets did not ; and it was rightly to be 
placed among their blessings, that it was given to them to 
see the Son of God, so long expected, and so necessary to 
the deliverance of men from the tyranny of the devil. For 
in this sense, Simeon, who was looking for the redemption 
of Israel, when he took Christ into his arms, said his Nunc 
dimittis (S. Luke ii. 29). He prefers those who have not 
seen, and yet have believed, to others who, measuring their 
faith by their sight, believe only that which they see. 

Some, to harmonise these sayings, explain this passage, 
not of the eyes of the body but of the mind, as SS. Jerome 
and Chrysostom ; but this is not necessary. Moreover, it 
cannot be explained only of the eyes of the mind, by 
which the Prophets and righteous men saw the coming 
Christ (S. John viii. 56), and it is not doubtful that Christ 
pleased to prefer the Apostles to the Prophets, because 
what the Prophets had seen afar off, the Apostles saw near ; 
what the Prophets saw obscurely, the Apostles saw clearly ; 
what the Prophets saw by the spirit, the Apostles saw with 
their eyes, and handled with their hands, as S. John says 
(i John i. i, and 2 5. Peter i. 18, 19). In this sense, Theo- 
phylact and Euthymius explain it. 



430 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xm. 17, 18. 

Verse 17. Many prophets and just men. 

Christ names the most exalted persons of every class. 
The above seemed worthy to see Christ, and yet they did 
not see Him. He thus the more commended the grace 
and felicity bestowed upon the Apostles. To the same 
end is S. Luke (x. 24). He, however, to the Apostles adds, 
not just men, but " kings ". Christ, we may believe, speci 
fied these three classes of most exalted persons prophets, 
just men, and kings, but S. Matthew passed over the kings, 
and S. Luke the just men. The observation of Hiero and 
Euthymius, that Christ did not say " all the Prophets," but 
" many," because some of them saw Him, like Abraham, 
who rejoiced to see Him and was glad, does not seem much 
worth ; for Christ put " many " for " all " that He might 
oppose them to the Apostles, who were few (Rom. v. 19), 
and as we see that He did in many other places. For not 
even Abraham himself saw Christ as the Apostles saw 
Him. 

Verse 18. You therefore. 

You who have seen what many prophets and just men 
have wished to see and have not seen, and to hear and 
have not heard ; you to whom it has been given to know 
the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven when to others it 
was not given. 

Hear you. 

Understand now the meaning of the parable as you have 
now heard the parable itself. S. Mark (iv. 13) signifies 
that the Apostles had some slight blame from Christ 
because they had not understood the parable when they 
first heard it. " Are you ignorant of this parable, and how 
shall you know all parables ? " (S. Mark iv. 13) ; as if He 
had said : If you do not understand this parable which is 
the easiest of all parables, how will you understand the 
others which are more difficult ? So in chap. xv. 16. Christ 



CH. xm. ig.] EXPLANATION OF PARABLE OF SOWER. 43 I 

blames them, therefore, not because it was a matter easy 
to be understood : for which of us, if he had heard it with no 
one to explain it, would have understood it ? but because 
when they had been so long with Him, and ought to have 
been masters through the time spent by them in His com 
pany, they need a master in the things which they ought 
to have explained to others. So .S. John xiv. 9. 

Verse 19. When anyone (" omnis"} hearetJi the Word of tJie 
Kingdom and understandeth it not. 

Does not conceal it deeply in his mind : does not cherish 
it : does not meditate upon it ; but buries it, as it were, in 
the soil of his heart. For it is not always a fault not to 
understand, although it is spoken of here as such. We 
should, therefore, understand it here as in Ps. xl. I : 
" Blessed is he that understandeth concerning the needy 
and the poor" that is, who has a care of him, who 
cherishes him, protects, nourishes him. Omnis is here a 
nominativus redundans, according to the Hebrew idiom. 

There cometh the wicked one. 
f O Troupe?, "the devil," as in chap. vi. 13 and elsewhere. 

This is he that receiveth seed by the wayside. 
These words have given rise to the question as to how 
one who hears but does not understand can be said to be 
sowed by the wayside, for it is not he, but the seed, that is 
sown. For " while he sowed, some fell by the wayside, 
and some on stony ground " (verse 4). But the question 
does not appear unusually difficult. Both the seed that is 
scattered and the field upon which it is scattered, are said 
to be sown, and hence the fields themselves which are sown 
are called the seed sown. So that he who hears the Word 
of the Kingdom and does not understand it is said to be 
sown by the wayside, not as the seed, but as the field and 
the ground by the wayside, which are hard and trodden by 



432 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xm. 20, 21. 

the feet of the passers-by. In the same sense verses 20, 
22, 23, are to be understood. Christ terms Himself the 
Sower : the seed the Word of the Gospel : the field the world : 
the various soils in the same field some by the wayside, 
some stony, some covered with thorns, some good the 
different manners of men ; the devils are birds, who en 
deavour to prevent the good seed from being cherished in 
our hearts. They who hear and do not understand He 
compares to the trodden way, because as the seed which 
falls by the wayside is covered by no earth, but lies exposed 
to the birds, so the Word of God, which falls on the ears 
of the body, but does not sink down into the mind, as if 
covered by no soil, is easily carried off by the devil. 

Verse 20. Immediately receiveth it with joy. 
Such an one receives the seed, understands, lays it up, 
covers it with the soil of his heart. This man is opposed 
to him who, when he hears, does not understand (verse 19). 
The words " with joy " are used to show the levity of the 
recipient. For no hearers have less constancy than they 
who are ardent in the beginning. This class of feeling 
often comes by practice. They who come quickly, quickly 
go away, as is said in the verse following. 

Verse 21. Yet hath he not root in himself. 
He has no constancy. He has no deep impression of the 
Word of God in his mind, because he has not much earth ; 
that is, a strong and, so to say, a deep will. The seeds 
which have fallen upon him spring up, therefore, at once, 
because they have not much earth, as in verse 5. For seed 
which is only covered by the surface of the earth quickly 
springs up, but also, when the sun grows warm and the 
root is parched, withers away. That which sinks deeply 
into the ground grows up late, but lasts long. The cause 
of both is the same : because it has much earth, which 



CH. xm. 22.] EXPLANATION OF PARABLE OF SOWER. 433 

hinders it from appearing quickly ; when it has sprung up, 
the moisture from beneath supports it. 

He is presently scandalised. 

That is, he falls, he deserts the faith. There are three 
kinds of earth mentioned, i. That which is quite untilled, 
like the road, and has, so to speak, no soil. 2. That which 
has a little soil. 3. That which has much and, perhaps, 
good soil, but is covered with thorns. If it had not these, 
it would bring forth good fruit. 

Verse 22. He that received the seed. 
(See verse 19.) 

A mong thorns. 

He who receives the seed into a plentiful and rich soil, 
but one which is full of thorns. 

Is he that heareth the Word of God. 

Christ meant more than He said. We must understand 
one who hears and receives, as Christ said before of him 
who receives the Word with joy. Christ prefers the latter 
to the former, as if he belonged more nearly to those who 
bear fruit many fold. The Word springs up in him, but 
the care of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke 
it up, and cause it to bear no fruit. Christ called the care 
of this world everything that men seek besides the king 
dom of God : honour, ambition, business, lawsuits ; in a 
word, whatever impedes men in seeking the kingdom of 
God. Among these are included riches, and Christ names 
them expressly because most men pursue them with open 
zeal. He calls them deceitful, both because they are 
fugitive and unstable, and because they deceive men. The 
deceitfulness of riches is a Hebrew expression for deceitful 
riches, as the body of this death for this mortal body 

(Rom. vii. 24). 

28 



434 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xm. 23. 

Verse 23. But he that received the seed upon good ground. 

As Christ made a threefold division of those who 
brought forth no fruit, so, as S. Jerome observes, He dis 
tinguishes between the three classes who bring forth fruit, 
in which are comprehended all men of either class. He 
calls the good ground that which is not only so by its own 
nature, but that which is well tilled, well prepared, well 
dressed. That which fell by the wayside was good, but 
not cultivated ; and that which was choked by thorns was 
perhaps good, but not dressed. That is called absolutely 
good which is rich by nature, and well cultivated by 
diligence. Thus the example fits men better. The nature 
of men is the same, that is, good per se, and their will is 
good ; but some, either by not cultivating it, like that by 
the wayside, or by not ploughing deeply the rocky soil, or 
by not dressing it, make it thorny. 

And yieldeth the one an hundredfold. 

6 pev e/carbv, 6 Be e^rjKovra, 6 Be rpid/covTa. The Greek 
ordinal nouns, as grammarians call them, are put for dis 
tributives, as the sense shows, for Christ desired to say 
that they brought forth each his own measure, some a 
hundred each, some fifty, some thirty. The Latin version, 
for centenis, sexagenis, tricenis, has centesimum, sexagesimum, 
trigesimum, a form of word not in common use, though 
some authors, not otherwise inelegant, use them. Christ 
calls either good works, which are the product of faith and 
of the Word of God, " fruits " (xxi. 43), or more probably, 
perhaps, eternal life (2 Cor. ix. 6, 10 ; Galat. vi. 7, 8 ; 
James iii. 18). Two errors of Luther and Calvin are over 
thrown by these words. I. They deny that we can merit 
eternal life ; for the fruit answers not only to the quality of 
the soil, but to the diligence of the cultivator. Nay, each 
one of us, as S. Augustin says, can make himself a good or 
a bad soil. 2. They say that the reward of all the blessed 



CH. xin. 24.] EXPLANATION OF PARABLE OF SOWER. 435 

will be equal, when we see some bring forth fruit a hundred 
fold, some sixty, some thirty, as each cultivates his ground. 
S. Luke (viii. 15) adds : "But that on the good ground are 
they who, in a good and very good heart, hearing the 
Word, keep it and bring forth fruit in patience ". 

Christ did not say that whosover lived holily to Him 
should therefore suffer persecution (2 Tim. iii. 12), as some 
of these heretics declare ; but that " you shall be hated for 
My name s sake, but he that shall persevere unto the end, he 
shall be saved " (sup., x. 22). For Christ, speaking of the 
tree and its fruits, alludes to the patience of the husband 
man (i Cor. ix. 10). He then wished to contrast the latter 
with the former, who sprang up immediately, because they 
had not much earth (verse 5). For the former do not bear 
fruit ; but the latter bear it patiently and long, but at 
length bear it the more richly on that account. 

Some of the Ancients refer the hundredfold to virgins, 
sixtyfold to widows, thirtyfold to the married, as S. 
Jerome (in loc. t and i., Against Jomnian, and Apology to 
Pammachius) and S. Athanasius (Epistle to Ammus). 

Others refer the hundredfold to the martyrs, the sixty- 
fold to virgins, the thirtyfold to the married, as S. 
Augustin (i., Quests. Evang., q. 9). 

Others, the hundredfold to the martyrs, the sixtyfold 
to those who have sold their goods for the sake of Christ 
and given them to the poor, the thirtyfold to those who 
are constant in the observance of the Commandments, as 
The Author (Horn. xxxi.). 

Others refer the hundredfold to the anchorites, the 
sixtyfold to the csenobites, the thirtyfold to the married, 
as Theophylact (in loc.}. 

Verse 24. The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man. 
Christ desires to show that He Himself has the Gospel, 
and that one sowed good seed in His field, but some 
enemy oversowed bad seed. 



436 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. XHI. 25, 26. 

Verse 25. But while men were asleep. 
Men that is, all men by a Hebraism remarked upon 
before. Christ sought to teach three things especially in 
this parable : 

1. That there is in the Church not only good seed- 
that is, good men ; but also bad seed that is, bad men. 

2. That He Himself was not the Author of the bad 
seed, but of the good ; that the bad was sowed by the 
devil. 

3. That He would endure the bad seed sowed by the 
devil with patience even to the harvest, and that it should 
not be rooted out before. 

Verse 26. And had brought forth fruit. 

It put forth ears it brought out grains. By this the 

good and bad corn is distinguished, for the harvest had not 

yet come. Christ Himself explained this parable in verse 

37. He Himself is the Sower ; the world is the field. 

The good seed is the sons of the kingdom that is, either 

the good who are heirs of the kingdom of heaven, or the 

evangelical doctrine which makes them good ; the tares 

are the sons of the wicked one that is, roO Trovrjpov, the 

devil (vide verse 19). They are called the sons of the 

devil, because they follow his works (S. John viii. 44, and 

I S.John iii. 8). The rest is sufficiently clear. Who they 

were that slept while the devil sowed the tares, and who 

were the servants who came and told their lord, and asked 

if he would have them pull up the tares, Christ does not 

tell us, probably because they had nothing to do with the 

meaning of the parable. 

There are many additions in the parables, not for the 
meaning, but for the filling up, of the narrative. These 
are not any part of the parable itself, but additions, not 
necessary, but customary. All the early expositors explain 
the sleepers to be the bishops and those who have the 



CH. xni. 31.] PARABLE OF THE GRAIN OF MUSTARD SEED. 437 

charge of ruling the Church. Christ, however, no doubt, only 
intended to show the devil, secretly and when men were off 
their guard, sowing cockles. The servants who told their 
lord, and asked him if they should pull up the cockles, 
were, perhaps, ardent ministers of the Church, who, from 
their love of Religion, would root out heretics and wicked 
Catholics from their midst. 

Verse 31. Is like. 

Christ puts out a third parable of the same kind ; for as 
yet He has spoken of the sowing that is, of the beginning 
of the Church. 

By the first, He spoke of the different effects of the. 
Gospel, as it fell upon a good or a bad soil, when first 
sown. By the second, how it was vitiated by evil seed 
sown by the devil. By this third, how great virtue the 
good seed of the Gospel possesses, from how small a 
beginning it springs, and to what an admirable size it 
grows. The kingdom of heaven in this parable, as in the 
two preceding, signifies beyond doubt the Gospel, or, what 
is the same thing, faith, evangelical doctrine, the Word of 
God as S. Ambrose (On S. Zz^xiii.),S. Chrysostom (Horn. 
xxxvii.), Bede, S. Augustin (Serin, xxxi., xxxiii., de Sanct.) 
all agree. S. Hilary also thinks that Christ Himself is the 
kingdom of heaven, and the grain of mustard seed. Others, 
however, think this the Church. They all arrive at the 
same end. For Christ, the stone cut out without hands, is 
said to have been made a great mountain (Dan. ii. 35), and 
the Gospel (verse 33) is compared to leaven, because it has 
a hidden power of increasing ; and the Church is often 
called the moon in Scripture, because in the beginning it is 
small and thin, and increases day by day till it is full. So 
the Church in the beginning was small and obscure, 
beginning at Jerusalem (S. Luke xxiv. 47) and always in 
creasing until it filled the whole world. This can truly be 



438 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cir. xm. 32. 

said of Christ, who was to rule (Ps. Ixxi. 8). S. Augustin 
refuted the Donatists by no other argument than this. 
They shut up the whole Church Catholic in one corner of 
Africa, as the followers of Calvin do now in Geneva. S. 
Augustin said that it was impossible that, after so many 
years, the Church could be confined within limits so 
narrow. " The Church," he said, " is like the moon. If a 
man do not see the new moon on the first or second day, 
he may be excused ; but he who does not see it when it is 
full must be blind." This appeals much more to the 
followers of Calvin now, as I think, than it did to the 
Donatists of those times. For if the Donatists were called 
blind by S. Augustin because they could not see the Church 
four hundred years after Christ, what would he have called 
the followers of Calvin, who, one thousand five hundred and 
eighty years afterwards, not only cannot see it, but deny 
that it can be seen any where at all. 

To a grain of mustard seed. 

The kingdom of heaven is, no doubt, likened to the 
mustard seed because, as is said in the following verses, 
although small in the beginning, it grows to a great size. 

Verse 32. Which is the least, indeed, of all seeds (" Quod 
minimum quidem est omnibus seminibus"). 

S. Jerome, or whoever was the translator, made use, not 
from ignorance, but from certain design, of a solecism. 
The LXX., as we have said, in their idioms, often did the 
same, for the Greek words, /juKporepov Trdvrwv TWV airep- 
fjLCLTwv, in the comparative degree, have the force of the 
superlative. The Greeks often use the comparative for the 
superlative, as when the Apostles disputed among them 
selves which was the greater, that is, the greatest. The 
translator, therefore, renders the comparative by a super 
lative to express the true meaning, and yet keeps the 



Cn. xin. 32.] PARABLE OF THE MUSTARD SEED. 439 

construction of the comparative, to show that the Greek 
has the comparative, and not the superlative. How the 
grain of mustard seed is said to be the smallest of all seeds, 
when, among others, the seed of the poppy is still smaller, 
some commentators, apparently to little purpose, have 
laboured to explain. For it is not said to be the least of all 
because it is really the smallest, but because it is one of the 
least of all. In proverbial sayings, such as this most pro 
bably was with the Hebrews, when anything very small is 
spoken of, it is customary to compare it to a grain of 
mustard seed. Christ uses this comparison not once only, 
but often, as chap. xvii. 20, as in such cases we speak not 
philosophically and with exactness, but in a popular and 
general sense. For the people think the mustard seed to 
be the smallest, or, at any rate, one of the smallest of 
ordinary seeds, as Matthew (v. 26) puts a farthing for the 
least of all coins. Not that it is actually the least, but one 
of the least, for a mite is certainly smaller. Therefore, 
S. Luke, meaning the same thing, did not say farthing, but 
mite (xii. 59). The birds greatly prefer the seeds, and, in 
summer, when they are ripe, they come and perch upon 
the branches to feed upon them. This is the meaning of 
the words : " The birds come and dwell in the branches 
thereof". The word dwell is used for perch, or settle 
(sedere), as, on the other hand, settle is often used for 
" dwell," the Hebrew word 3.^ meaning both. 

The expression may apply to kings and princes, and all 
who, as S. Paul says (i Tim. ii. 2), are in high places; to 
signify those who are sustained by the Gospel and the 
Church, and, as S. Chrysostom says, bear the sign of the 
cross on their foreheads. For, in Dan. iv. 9, the birds 
which were in that great tree, what were they but the kings 
and princes who lived, as it were, under the shadow of 
Nebuchadnezzar? The Church was formerly in the State. 
The State is now in the Church. 



44 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xin. 33. 

Verse 33. Another parable. 

Christ sets forth another parable, and of a different kind, 
but having the same signification the very great increase, 
that is, from a small beginning, of the kingdom of heaven. 
Leaven has many different properties. It is the corruption 
of a mass too much heated, and, as it has heat in itself, it 
has the power of increasing that with which it is mixed. 
Because of the first-named property it is commonly used in 
a bad sense, as in chap. xvi. 6, and I Cor. v. 6, 7. 

From the second property it is used for good, and the 
kingdom of heaven is compared to it. As leaven, when 
small in quantity, if mixed with a mass pervades the whole, 
and makes it much greater than it was, so the Word of 
God, sown in one place, pervaded the whole world. So the 
Church, in the beginning the least of all things, was in a 
short space of time propagated in all parts of the earth 
(Ps. Ixxix. n). 

Which a woman took. 

Our Lord s having mentioned a woman rather than a 
man was only, in all probability, because it was more a 
woman s work to grind than a man s, though some explain 
the woman of divine wisdom. The woman, therefore, is 
either no part of the parable, but is put because women 
mostly did that particular work, or, if a part, it signifies an 
Evangelical Doctor, who pours the Word of God into the 
minds of his hearers, like leaven poured into the mass. 
We should look, not at the sex, but at the performance. 

Hid in three measures of meal. 

The Hebrews call a particular liquid measure HND 
(satum\ which, according to Josephus (Antiq., ix. 2) and S. 
Jerome, held an Italian medium and half. S. Epiphanius 
tells us that there were three sata. The Hebrews say that 
in the book the measure was increased after the Baby 
lonian captivity 



Cn. xin. 34, 35.] CHRIST TAUGHT ONLY BY PARABLES. 441 

Verse 34. And ^vithout parables He did not speak to them. 

That is, there, in that assembly ; for both before and 
after He put forth many other parables (as xx.-xxii., xxv. 
as S. Chrysostom, Horn, xlviii. ; Euthymius and Theophy- 
lact say vide verse n). S. Mark (iv. 33) adds "according 
as they were able to bear". Some explain this, adapting 
themselves to catch the minds of their hearers, in a sense 
wholly contrary to the intention of Christ, for He spoke to 
them in parables, not that they might understand better, 
but that they might not understand at all ; as explained on 
verses 13 and 14. S. Mark s words, "according as they 
were able to bear," mean only that Christ spoke obscurely, 
to take whom He could, as He explained Himself in 
another place when He had put forth a similar parable 
(xix. 12). Or they may mean what Euthymius says, "as 
they were worthy ; for they were not worthy that Christ 
should speak to them openly and without parables " : as 
He Himself said (verse 13). 

Verse 35. That it might be fulfilled. 

The word " that " does not signify here the cause of 
Christ s speaking to them in parables. He did not do so 
to fulfil the words of David, but because His hearers were 
unworthy of being spoken to by Him openly ; as explained 
on verses n, 12, 13. Nor did the Evangelist wish to teach 
that the prophecy of David was properly fulfilled by Christ; 
for it was not a prophecy, but a history of past events, of 
which David spoke. 

Nor does the word filTH which David used there 
signify the kind of parable which Christ put forth here, 
although the Hebrews call both kinds mTH " parables ". 
The Evangelist here calls expressions which are obscure 
and shadowed out by similitudes, "parables ". When David 
said (in Ps. Ixxvii. 2), " I will open my mouth in par- 



442 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cii.xiii. 41,42,43. 

ables," he called fTTH brief and pointed sentences "par 
ables," such as the Greeks call " apothegms ". 

The Evangelist applied what David said in another 
sense to a meaning not the same as his, but similar to it ; 
as his custom was (ii. 15-17). 

Verse 41. All scandals. 

Christ calls those through whom offences come scandals, 
that is, " tares," and " the sons of the devil ". 

Them that work iniqidty. 

A Hebraism ]"YTPn all who live in the practice of 
iniquity, and, so to say, make a business of the art of 
wickedness. The Hebrew expression regards the habit 
rather than the act. 

Verse 42. Into the furnace of fire. 

The Gehenna of fire (supra, verses 22, 29, 30 ; x. 28 ; 
infra, xviii. 9). 

There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 
(Supra, viii. 12.) 

Verse 43. Then. 

When scandals are destroyed, when the cockles are 
separated which hinder the wheat from appearing, when 
the chaff which hid the wheat and prevented it from being 
seen in its splendour has been separated by the fan, as 
declared in the parable of the threshing-floor (iii. 12; 5. 
Luke iii. 17). Splendour here means being glorious as 
Christ in His Transfiguration (xvii. 2). The blessed, there 
fore, are compared to the sun, the moon, and the stars 
(xvii. 2; Dan. xii. 3). "They that are learned," that is, 
those who ruled their lives well and wisely, for Scripture 
calls these D^TOt^ft " having understanding ". " These, 
then," says Daniel, "shall shine as the brightness of the 
firmament, and they that instruct many to justice as stars 
for all eternity." So S. Paul (i Cor. xv. 41, 42). 



CH. xin. 44.] THE TREASURE IN A FIELD. 443 

Verse 44. Is like. 

Some think that this parable was not spoken to all the 
listeners, but was put forth to the Apostles alone, in the 
house ; this is concluded from verse 36 (Euthymius, in 
loc.}. It would appear more probable that it was spoken 
with the others above. But as the Apostles asked for an 
explanation, not of all the others, but only of that of the 
cockles, after they had returned to the house, it seems 
probable that the Evangelist, after this one, related how 
Christ returned to the house, and the Apostles asked for 
an explanation of it. The same may be said of all the 
events which follow in this chapter. 

So far, in the four parables of the sower, the grain of 
mustard seed, the good and bad seed, and the leaven, Christ 
described two peculiarities of the kingdom of heaven how 
it takes a different effect upon different persons, and how 
from a small beginning it gains a great increase. Christ 
now puts forth its value, to show of how great worth men 
ought to think it, and with what diligence they should 
seek it. 

The kingdom of heaven in this passage ought to be 
understood in the same sense as in the preceding parables ; 
that is, as the faith, the Gospel, and the evangelical 
doctrine as S. Ambrose (Serm. ii. on Ps. cxviii.), Euthy 
mius, Theophylact although some think that Christ is the 
kingdom of heaven, as S. Irenseus (iv. 43), S. Hilary, S. 
Athanasius (Quest, xliv., if he be the author), S. Jerome (In 
Comment, and Vigil, iii. de Incarn.}. Others, again, say that 
this kingdom is the Old and New Testaments, as S. 
Augustin (lib. i., Quest. Evangel., quest. 13), Bede. S. 
Jerome also approves this opinion. 

Unto a treasure. 

A thing which cannot be estimated. Of those whose 
wealth is so great that it cannot be told, we say, "They 
have a treasure". So S. Paul (i Cor. ii. 9). 



444 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xiu. 44. 

Hidden. 

Because it was not heard of by the world (ha. Ixiv. 4 ; 
I Cor. ii. 7). 

Which a man, having found, hid it. 

It is not necessary to adapt this to the thing signified by 
the parable, for, as has been said before, it is not a part of 
the parable, but an addition ; nor is it said to teach 
anything but to fill up the parable and describe what is 
done when we find a treasure and cannot immediately 
remove it ; we conceal it lest, before we can procure 
implements for digging, another come and carry it off. S. 
Jerome and Bede, however, say that he who finds the 
kingdom of heaven hides it in his heart ; that is, cherishes 
and preserves it, that it may not escape him. If this mean 
anything, it only seems to mean that he who finds the 
kingdom of heaven that is, the Gospel ought to be 
careful that it do not slip from his grasp, and to take all 
pains to secure it. This is to hide it, not that another may 
not find it, but that he himself may not lose it. For, 
although he who finds a treasure hides it, lest another should 
find it, because if so, he himself would lose it, the parable 
in that respect is not like the kingdom of heaven, for one 
does not lose it because another finds it, for it can be 
equally found and equally possessed by all ; although 
Scripture does sometimes speak as if one could not find it 
unless another lose it (Rom. xi. 19; Apoc. iii. 11). This, 
however, was said in reference to the branches of trees and 
the crown of kings ; for a fresh shoot cannot be grafted 
into a tree unless the old branch be broken off, nor can 
anyone seize a crown unless another has lost it. 

For joy thereof selleth all that he hath. 

This does not mean that the Gospel is to be bought, for 
Christ says, " Freely have you received, freely give " (x. 8), 



CH. xiii. 45.] THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE. 445 

but that it is to be estimated so highly, that there is 
nothing which the man who has found it ought not to do 
to obtain it, even though all his goods be sold and lost, or 
infamy endured, or even life itself sacrificed. Christ named 
goods rather than life, and honour, and anything else, if the 
man have anything, that He might speak in accordance 
with the custom of men, who, to gain a treasure, will sell 
all that they have. In a word, this parable signifies only 
what is said in another place in other words. In chap. x. 37, 
Christ names all the most precious things which whoever, 
when the need arises, does not part from for the kingdom 
of heaven, is not worthy to gain it. 

Verse 45. The kingdom of heaven is like to a merchant. 

The kingdom of heaven is not like the man, but the 
pearl ; as, in the former parable, it was compared not to the 
man who found it, but to the treasure that was found. The 
meaning, however, is that the same thing happens in the 
finding and in the gaining of the kingdom of heaven. If 
any merchant seeking for pearls find one good one, he goes 
and sells all that he has, that he may buy it, as explained 
on chap. xi. 16, 17. We ought to resemble the merchant, 
and, when we have found the kingdom of heaven, we ought 
to spare no pains, no expense, nothing whatever, that we 
may possess it. This parable has the same meaning as the 
former, the matter only is different. " Good" in the Greek is 
ACttXou? fjiapyapiras (pulchras margaritas], " beautiful," but in 
this kind of merchandise whatever is beautiful is good (qua 
pulchra> snnt ecedem bonce}. 

Pearls. 

This is an instance of the species being put for the genus ; 
that is, a pearl is put for every kind of precious stone. 
The word margarita, or margaritum, means only that kind 
of single pearl which is found in shell-fish, and which bears 
the name of pearl in almost all the languages of Europe. 



446 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xni. 4 7, 52. 

Verse 47. Is like. 

The parable seems to be a kind of postil of the former 
ones of the good seed and the tares. But the Evangelist 
does not appear to have kept the order of events, because 
it has the same meaning ; and we see that the others 
which resemble it in this respect are put together, as the 
parable of the mustard seed and the leaven (verses 31, 33), 
and the hidden treasure with the pearl. By the kingdom 
of heaven we may here understand either the Gospel, as in 
the former parables, or, what amounts to the same thing, 
the Church. Whichever we understand, we have a strong 
argument against modern heretics. For, if we understand 
the Gospel, Christ signifies that not all who receive the 
Gospel, that is, the faith, will be saved, but they only who are 
the good fishes, that is, they who have not only faith, but 
also good works; for all are fishes, that is, all are Christians, 
all are faithful, but those are evil, these good. Against 
this, the heresy of the above teaches that all who have faith 
will be saved. 

If by the kingdom of heaven we understand the Church, 
we will not argue for ourselves, but S. Augustin shall do so 
for us. He refuted the Donatists by no argument more 
frequently or more effectually than by that derived from 
this parable, in which the Church is compared to a net let 
down into the sea, and filled by every kind of fish flocking 
into it. It may well be said that, although S. Augustin re 
futed no class of heretics so completely as the Donatists, 
yet that he wrote his many works against them, not so 
much against them as against the followers of Luther and 
Calvin long after. This is so great a matter, that whoever 
reads them may substitute for the word Donatists those of 
the followers of Luther and Calvin. 

Verse 52. Therefore. 

It is not easy to say what was the inference of Christ in 
the word " therefore ". Some explain it thus : " Therefore 



CH. xni. 52.] THE SCRIBES. 447 

(supply) because you have understood, I say to you every 
scribe," &c. For He had asked the disciples whether they 
understood all these things, and they had answered " Yes". 
" Because, therefore, you have understood, I add, every 
scribe," &c. Others read it thus : " Therefore supply 
rogavi I have asked, because every scribe," &c. Euthy- 
mius thinks the word "therefore" not causal, but affirmative, 
as if Christ had said : " So that every scribe instructed in 
the kingdom of heaven is like," &c. The opinion of S. 
August in (Quests, on S. Matt., q. 96) seems the best 
of all. Christ had compared the kingdom of heaven to 
a treasure hidden in a field. He had asked the disciples 
whether they understood. They replied, " Yes ". He 
added " therefore," that is, since the kingdom of heaven is 
like this treasure, every scribe instructed in it ought to 
bring out of it things both new and old. 

Scribe. 

A Doctor instructed in the Law, as explained on chap, 
ii. 4. Christ calls the Doctor of the Gospel by his legal 
name, " Scribe ". Euthymius says that Christ means Him 
self, but it is more probably a general expression, by which 
He describes to the Apostles the duties of a teacher of the 
Gospel. 

Instructed in tJie kingdom of heaven. 

et? rrjv jBacri\eiav. Some think that et? is here put for 
eV, but although these two words are sometimes used for 
one another, it does not seem so here. It seems more 
suitable that we should render it " Into the kingdom of 
heaven " that is, " ad regnum " than " in it " when we are 
speaking of those who are instructed in preaching it. Our 
translator seems to have read ev ry /3acrl\ei,a, unless we say 
that, in the Latin version, " In regno " is wrongly read for 
"In regnum" but it would then be necessary to prove the 
fault by the authority of some ancient codex. 



448 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xin. 52. 

Is like to a man that is an householder. 

For as it is the duty of every householder to provide his 
household with food for the body, so it is that of the Doctor 
of the Gospel to nourish the people of Christ with spiritual 
food (i Cor. iii. 2). 

Out of his treasure. 

That is, out of his stores. Christ used the word " trea 
sure " to signify whatever was set aside and concealed. 

New things and old. 

All kinds of food for the support of his own family, or his 
invited guests, by one who not niggardly, or sparingly, but 
liberally, supplies his family with every variety of food, 
according to their standing and quality. 

" To bring out things new and old," though apparently 
there is no other instance in which the expression is used 
in Scripture, appears to have been a Hebrew proverb. By 
this part of the parable, we are taught that a Doctor of the 
Gospel ought to be furnished with every kind of divine 
knowledge, every species of example, every manner of 
similitude, that he may be able to instruct every man ac 
cording to his capacity. By " new things and old," almost 
all the ancient Fathers understood the Old Testament and 
the New (S. Hilary, S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, Bede, 
Theophylact, Euthymius, in loc. ; and S. Augustin, Quests, 
on S. Matt., 17), whom the modern heretics wrongly reject. 
For as they acknowledge that a teacher of the Gospel 
ought to be furnished with every kind of learning, whence 
can they procure it better than from the New and Old 
Testaments ? For these great authorities would not say 
that Christ desired to point to the Old and New Testa 
ments, of which the latter was not yet in existence ; but 
what Christ had said, generally, of all stores of knowledge, 
they fitly and prudently applied to the Old and New Tes 
taments. 



Cir. xm. 54.] CHRIST AT NAZARETH. 449 

Verse 54. And coming into His own country. 
Christ is said to have had three countries (ix. i) Bethle 
hem, in which He was born ; Nazareth, in which He was edu 
cated ; Capernaum, in which He frequently lived. In this 
passage the Ancients, S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, 
Theophylact, all recognise Nazareth. This can also be 
proved from S. Luke (iv. 16). It seems beyond doubt that 
the same account is given here by S. Matthew, and there 
by S. Luke. This may be inferred (i) from the fact that 
the " brothers " of Christ were known to the people of this 
city by name, as verses 55, 56, show, but they were not 
so either in Bethlehem, where He was only born, or in 
Capernaum, where He only stayed for a time ; it was at 
Nazareth that the relatives of the Blessed Virgin and 
Joseph lived. (2) Because, as S. Chrysostom says, Christ 
did many miracles in Capernaum (xi. 23). In Bethlehem 
we find that He did none; in Nazareth, which is here called 
" His country," He did neither many nor none, but only a 
few, as appears from verse 58, and 5. Mark vi. 5. It was 
therefore Nazareth. 

A nd taught in their synagogues. 

In their synagogues. The plural is here put for the 
singular. For it is not probable that in a small town there 
were many synagogues. Unless the plural here means 
that Christ taught in them on successive Sabbaths, so that 
the word synagogue may have the signification, not of the 
place of meeting but of the assembly, as 6/c/c\7]cria in Greek, 
and Concio in Latin (S. Mark vi. 2 ; S. Luke iv. 16). The 
whole history is related more fully and distinctly by S. 
Luke. " He rose up to read," which was the action of one 
who sought to teach in the synagogue. The book of the 
Prophet Isaiah was given to Him, in which, when opened, 
He found the passage Ixi. When He had read, He rolled 

up the book again, and sat down and said, "This day," &c. ; 

29 



450 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xin. 55. 

and when He convicted them of unbelief for not receiving 
Him who was their fellow-citizen and a prophet, they were 
filled with anger, and thrust Him out of the city, that they 
might cast Him down from the hill on which the city was 
built 

How came this man by tJiis wisdom ? 

They knew that He had not learnt letters (as in 5. John 
vii. 15), and it is therefore probable that they ascribed His 
wisdom and miracles to evil arts. For whilst all the 
Evangelists say that they wondered at His wisdom and 
miracles, they add that they were scandalised. But they 
could not have been so unless they believed that what He 
said and did He said and did by the aid of the devil, like 
those who said : " By the prince of devils He casteth out 
devils " (ix. 34), and : " This man casteth not out devils 
but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils " (xii. 24). 

And these mighty works. 

These miracles, that is, for Christ did some miracles 
before them, as S. Mark relates (vi. 5), and S. Matthew 
(infra, verse 58). 

Verse 55. Is not this the carpenter s son ? 

That Joseph was a carpenter is clear from this passage, 
for Christ was reputed to be his son (S. Luke iii. 23). But 
what kind of carpenter (faber) he was is not known, and is 
not necessary. Some, as SS. Hilary, Ambrose (On iii. S. 
Luke}> Bede (On iii. 5. Mark}, think that he was a black 
smith. Hugo says a goldsmith. Others that he was a 
worker in masonry. This opinion Hugo appears to approve. 
Some say that he was a wood carpenter, as S. Chrysostom, 
cited by S. Thomas (On S. Mark i.), and S. Thomas 
himself in his Comment, on S. Matt. i. This is 
now the general opinion, and is shown to be the most 
ancient from the book on the Infancy of Christ, which, 



CH. xin. 57, 58.] CHRIST THE CARPENTER S SON. 451 

though apocryphal, related a miracle wrought by Christ in 
the wood-carpenter s shop of Joseph, and from Sozomen (vi. 
2), who relates how a Christian, when asked derisively by a 
Gentile what the Son of the carpenter was making, replied : 
"A bier for the Emperor Julian". The Author (Horn- 
xxxii.) and S. Mark (vi. 3) say that Christ Himself was 
called the carpenter, whether because the people of 
Nazareth called both father and son by this name, or that, 
from the usual form of speech, the son of a carpenter was 
also called a carpenter ; so that the assertion of some 
authors of credit, that Christ before He began to preach 
practised the trade of a carpenter, seems very probable to 
myself, as it did to De Lyra. For what did He do all those 
thirty years at Nazareth? although S. Augustin (De Consent., 
ii. 42) says that He was called a carpenter because, as He 
was reputed to be the son of a carpenter, He was thought 
to have been one Himself. 

And His brethren. 
This has been explained, supra, chap. xii. 46. 

Verse 57. And they were scandalised in His regard. 
They struck against Him as against a rock, and fell. 
For this is the proper meaning of scandalised. He was 
11 set for the fall and for the resurrection of many in Israel, 
and for a sign which shall be contradicted " (S. Luke ii. 34 ; 
and see I Pet. ii. 8, and supra, verse 54). How they were 
scandalised has been explained on verse 54. 

Verse 58. And He Brought not many miracles there. 
When it is said that He did not many, it implies 
that He did some, as stated by S. Mark (vi. 5). It says 
that He could not, not as being unable, but unwilling, as 
we often say when we do not choose to do a thing, and as 
was said of the sons of Jacob (Gen. xxxvii. 4), that is, 
nolebant, " they would not," and as S. Gregory Nazianzen 
has rightly observed (Orat. iv. de T/ieol.}. 



452 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xin. 58. 

Christ would not work miracles among them because 
of their unbelief. Whether because He knew that they 
would not believe even if they saw the miracles, like the 
Pharaos, or that they were unworthy of more, when they 
understood so wickedly those which they had seen, ascrib 
ing them to Beelzebub. We see that Christ, when about 
to work a miracle, first required faith in those for whom He 
was about to work it (as in ix. 28 ; S. Mark v. 36 ; ix. 23 ; 
5. Luke viii. 50). For the faith which follows miracles has 
less merit than the faith which goes before them ; and he 
who sees miracles is unworthy if he only believe from 
seeing them. Besides, Christ does not work miracles 
before the unbelieving. The same is the reason why, even 
in these days, they who most wish to see miracles see them 
least ; because they desire to see them, not believing, but 
doubting of the faith. 

Thus Herod, who, as S. Luke relates (xxiii. 8), wished for 
a long time to see some miracle from Christ, was not able 
to see one, as S. Gregory (floral., x. 17) has observed. So, 
when the Pharisees demanded to see a sign from Christ, 
He answered them : " An evil and adulterous genera 
tion seeketh a sign, and a sign shall not be given it, 
but the sign of Jonas the Prophet " (supra, chap. xii. 39). 
Let those, then, who require miracles, and who wonder if 
they are not done, take heed lest this be their own fault, 
and if they wish to see miracles, let them believe without 
miracles. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

HEROD PUTS JOHN TO DEATH CHRIST FEEDS FIVE 
THOUSAND IN THE DESERT HE WALKS UPON THE 
SEA, AND HEALS ALL THE DISEASED WITH THE 
TOUCH OF HIS GARMENT. 

Verse i. At that time. 

SOME think that this refers to the time when the 
Apostles were employed on their mission, because S. Mark 
(vi. 14) and S. Luke (ix. 7) put the whole history imme 
diately after their mission. Against this view is the fact, 
that when these events happened, the Apostles were with 
Christ, as we see in verse 15. As S. Augustin (De Consens., 
ii. 45) thinks, therefore, the Apostles had now returned to 

Christ 

Heard. 

Many ask how it happened that Herod had not heard of 
that before ? S. Chrysostom and Theophylact answer that 
what is holy and good is long in reaching the ears of 
princes. This, indeed, is true ; but if there were any 
appearance of strangeness, or any danger of causing 
tumults, such as might have been the case with Christ s 
miracles, curiosity, surely, and ambition, if not religion, 
would soon bring them to notice. There seems, indeed, 
another reason why Herod had not yet heard of them, viz., 
the death of John, which happened not long after Christ 
began to preach. For when he was cast into prison, not 
even his disciples appear to have seen or even heard of the 
miracles of Christ ; and, therefore, when Christ worked 
some miracles in their presence, He said to them : " Go 
and relate to John what you have heard and seen " (xi. 4). 



454 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xiv. 2. 

Herod. 

Antipas, the son of Herod the Great, in whose reign 
Christ was born, and who slew the infants (vid. ii. 22). 

TJie tetrarcJi. 

Of Galilee (S. Luke iii. i). When the kingdom was 
divided into four parts, and a ruler was placed over each 
part, the four portions were called tetrarchies, and the 
rulers were styled by the Greeks " tetrarchs ". It 
happened, afterwards, that although there might be more 
or fewer parts, they were called by the same name of 
tetrarchies, as we may learn from Strabo (bk. xii.) and Pliny 
(v. 1 8, 21). How the kingdom of the Jews was divided into 
tetrarchies, and into how many, and what tetrarch was placed 
over each, has been explained on 5. Mark vi. 14. S. Mark 
calls Herod a king, as below, verse 9 ; not that he was 
really such, but because the tetrarchs practised a regal, or 
all but regal sway. Cicero and Pliny call the tetrarchies 
kingdoms, as S. Matthew calls Archelaus a king, though 
he never really was one. 

Verse 2. And he said to his servants. 

Herod s servants ; for although the Greek word Trat? 
may mean both a son or a servant, we do not read that 
Herod had sons. S. Luke (ix. 7, 8, 9) says that it was not 
Herod who said this, but others said it to him. There are, 
therefore, two points here on which S. Luke seems to differ 
from S. Matthew, i. He says that it was not Herod, but 
others, who said that John had risen from the dead. 2. He 
seems to signify that Herod did not believe that it was 
John, as he had beheaded him, but here (verse 2) Herod 
says, " This is John ". S. Chrysostom and Euthymius, to 
solve the apparent difficulty, consider that it was not 
Herod, but people generally, who said that John had risen, 
and that Herod did not believe, but hesitated, and said, as 



CH. xiv. 2.] S. JOHN BAPTIST. 455 

S. Luke relates, "Who is this?" Quis est? (ix. 9). But 
that afterwards he did believe, and said, as if in assent to 
the rest, " This is John the Baptist ; he is risen from the 
dead, and therefore mighty works show forth themselves 
in him," as Theophylact seems to hint, and S. Augustin 
proves (De Consens.^ ii. 43). 

An argument for this view may be deduced from the 
fact that, as Euthymius says, he did not venture to say 
this openly and before others, although he believed that 
John had risen from the dead. For it might be that, 
although he believed, he would feign not to do so, lest he 
should appear to assent to the popular mind, and confirm 
the zeal towards John. S. Augustin says that the words 
of S. Matthew may be taken as a question. If so, they 
would have the same meaning as those of S. Luke. 

He is risen from the dead. 

Some think that Herod meant not the true resurrection, 
when the soul returns to the same body, but that of the 
Pharisees, in which the soul, having gone out of one 
body, passes into another. These think that this was a 
heresy of the Pharisees, and that they believed the Pytha 
gorean doctrine of metempsychosis. They support the idea 
by Josephus (De Bell. Jud., ii. 7) ; and S. Jerome says that 
some support the Pythagoraean doctrine by this passage. 

But it does not seem probable that this kind of resurrec 
tion was intended. Nor does Josephus appear to ascribe 
this doctrine to the Pharisees, but that which almost all the 
Jews held : that the souls, not of all men, but only of the 
good, would return in the resurrection to their own bodies, 
indeed, but to bodies made better, and, therefore, in some 
respects different ones. 

The Jews easily believed that John had risen, because he 
was a holy man, and had been unjustly put to death, that 
he might reverse the wickedness of Herod. 



45^ THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xiv. 2. 

They mentioned Elias, according to ancient opinion, 
which Christ seems in some measure to have approved 
(xi. 14), and with which they seem to have been rilled from 
Malachi (iv. 5). Because Elias did not die, but was taken 
up, they say that he was not dead, but had appeared (xvi. 
14). The same thing is said of Christ 

Jeremiah is also named (xvi. 14), perhaps because of the 
resemblance in spirit between him and Christ in denuncia 
tions, which they saw practised in a singular degree by 
Christ, but very moderately by other teachers (vii. 29). 

Therefore. 

It is doubtful what reason Herod could give why John, 
when risen from the dead, should be believed to have 
worked miracles, when in his life, as S. John says (x. 41), he 
did no sign. Perhaps it was because they thought that men 
rose more holy than they died, or because he was sent by 
God, with greater power to punish Herod ; for the wars, 
exile, and other calamities which Herod afterwards under 
went were thought by the Jews to have happened because 
of John s death, as Josephus affirms (Antiq., xviii. 10). 

Show forth themselves in him. 

Eveprydvcri. Some think that evep^elv is used in a passive 
sense, as ao-iceiv for acnceio-Oai, and lavarefor lavari in Latin ; 
that the meaning may be that powers were done in him in 
illo y that is, by Hebrew idiom, through him. Others take it 
actively, but would have virtutes, " mighty acts/ to mean 
not actual miracles, but the faculty of working miracles ; 
as if it had been said : " The gift of working miracles works 
miracles in him ". 

Others, in a far-fetched manner, say that the virtutes^ 
" mighty acts," are angels who worked miracles in John. 

The matter does not seem to be one of much difficulty. 
evepyeiv does not appear to be used here either as a passive 
or transitive but as a neutral verb, and means the same as 



CH. xiv. 3.] HERODIAS. 457 

vigere among the Latins, which the philosophers call to 
be active (in actu esse), and as Aristotle uses it, TO evepyelv 
being opposed to ro> eV Swdpei elvau, meaning that John 
being raised from the dead, miracles therefore flourished, 
appeared, showed themselves in him. 

Verse 3. Because of Herodias, his brother Philip s wife. 
There is a great difference of statement between the 
Evangelists here and Josephus (Antiq., xviii. 6, 7, 9), which 
S. Jerome and other ancient interpreters have passed by, 
and which few of the Moderns, even though citing Jose 
phus, have touched upon. 

i. The Evangelists say that Herodias was the wife of 
Philip. 2. Josephus that she was the wife of another 
Herod, brother of this one. 

Some answer that Philip was also called Herod by sur 
name ; the Evangelists calling him by his name, Josephus 
by his surname. If they could prove this, the answer 
would be very easy. 

Others say that Josephus erred through ignorance or 
forgetfulness, as they say he often did. The reader can 
choose which of these solutions he prefers. But Josephus 
should be corrected from the events, not they from him. 
For supposing for a moment that the Evangelists composed 
their histories not from a divine but a human source, yet, as 
they are more in number, and they describe what happened 
in their own times, they deserve belief much more than 
Josephus. 

There is another disagreement between the authorities 
about Herodias. Josephus makes her the daughter of 
Herod Aristobulus, the brother of Philip, son of Herod the 
Great. S. Jerome, on this place, and Ruffinus, in his 
version of Eusebius (i. 23), Bede, and Strabus, say that she 
was the daughter of King Aretas. There is no doubt that 
Ruffinus originated this statement. Then S. Jerome fol- 



45$ THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xiv. 4. 

lowed Ruffinus : Bede and Strabus followed S. Jerome, and 
so erred. For when Eusebius, following Josephus, said 
that Herod s first wife was the daughter of King Aretas, 
Ruffinus, thinking that he was speaking of Herod s second 
wife Herodias, and not consulting Josephus and Hegesip- 
pus, added the name of Herodias in his version in explana 
tion, and, while endeavouring to explain the history, falsified 
it. S. Jerome, trusting to the Latin of Ruffinus, drew his 
statement from a corrupt source, and others followed him. 

S. Jerome, Bede, and Strabus are by no means to be 
followed when they say that Herod himself did not seize 
his brother s wife, but that Aretas, the King of Arabia, on 
account of the enmity he bore King Philip, took away 
Herodias, whom he had given to him in marriage, and gave 
her to his brother and rival. Josephus (xviii. 9), Hegesip- 
pus (ii. 12), relate the history thus: When Herod went to 
Rome, he was received as a guest by his brother Herod 
(Philip, according to the Evangelists), and while staying 
there he suborned Herodias to leave his brother when he 
should have returned from Rome, and be married to him, 
and that the marriage was then agreed to between them. 

It is not really doubtful, therefore (though many have 
treated it as if it were), that, while Philip was still alive, 
Herod took his wife. 

The Ancients, however, disagree among themselves on 
the subject. For S. Jerome, Bede, and Strabus think that 
Philip was yet alive. But Tertullian (lib. iv., Against Mar- 
cion\ S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Enthymius, on this 
passage, think that he was dead ; and S. Augustin (xix., De 
Fid.} and Optatus consider it doubtful. But they had not, 
perhaps, read Josephus. 

Verse 4. P" or John said to him. 

Josephus gives another reason (Antiq. y xviii. 10) why 
Herod put John to death. He was in great fear lest, as 



CH. xiv. 5, 6.] MARTYRDOM OF S. JOHN BAPTIST. 459 

John was in high favour with the people, he might raise a 
sedition against him. It is probable that both reasons 
were true, (i) That Herod killed him, through the 
treachery of Herodias, and at her desire, as the Evange 
lists write. And (2) that to appease the people, he dis 
seminated a rumour that John had endeavoured to raise an 
insurrection against him ; this was followed by Josephus. 

Verse 5. And having a mind to put him to death. 
S. Mark (vi. 19, 20) seems to signify quite the contrary, 
that Herodias laid snares against the life of John ; but 
Herod, because he feared John, thwarted them (S. Mark, as 
above). It is conjectured from this that Herod did not 
cast John into prison to put him to death, but rather to 
protect him against the attempts of Herodias, thus ap 
peasing the rage of an impotent woman, and deluding her 
with the hope of the death of the victim. Euthymius says 
that it is credible that in the beginning Herodias alone 
plotted against John ; that either through her husband, or 
by some other means, she meant to have him put to death ; 
that, as S. Mark signifies, Herod opposed her, but that, 
overcome by her prayers, he subsequently assented to his 
destruction ; but that he feared the people who considered 
him a prophet, as S. Matthew says. 

Verse 6. But on Herod s birthday. 

Origen (Horn. xiv. on S. Matt.}, S. Jerome, and Bede have 
observed that the birthday of no good man is mentioned in 
Scripture, and only those of the two wicked ones, Herod 

and Pharao. 

The daughter danced. 

Salome, the daughter of Philip, her former husband, and 
therefore not called the daughter of Herod, but of Herodias. 
Herodias seems to have celebrated this as the birthday of 
Herod, and therefore to have introduced her daughter to 
dance. 



460 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xiv. 8,9. 

Verse 8. Being instructed. 

Induced, instigated, impelled, not by admonition alone, 
as the Greek word 7rpo(3i/3acr0eicra means persuasion, in 
citement, even some amount of compulsion. Strabus 
thinks that this was a scene got up by Herod that he 
might appear to have put John to death, not of his own 
will, but under the sacred obligation of an oath. Although 
Herod was perverse and crafty, this hardly seems probable, 
for such a man might have devised much better schemes ; 
and, as the following verse shows, he seems to have truly 
grieved at the request of the damsel for the head of John. 
It was most shameful to put a holy man to death to please 
a dancing girl ; nor is it likely that he, who was cautious 
and feared the people, and who was seeking means to 
lessen his crimes, would willingly have increased them by 
a fresh piece of wickedness. 

Give me. 

S. Mark (vi. 24, 25) adds : " Who, when she was gone 
out, said to her mother, What shall I ask ? But she said, 
The head of John the Baptist. And when she was come 
in immediately with haste to the king, she asked, saying, I 
will that forthwith thou give me in a dish the head of John 
the Baptist." 

Verse 9. ^And the king was struck sad. 

S. Hilary, S. Jerome, and Strabus think that Herod s 
was not a true but only a simulated sorrow, because 
(verse 5) the Evangelist said that he had a mind to put 
him to- death, but feared the people. How, then, could he 
have been truly sorry if he wished for his death ? The 
opinion of S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact 
seems better, who think that his grief was real ; for, 
although he wished to put John to death, he could see, 
blind as he was, that it would be a shame and disgrace to 



CH. xiv. 10.] MARTYRDOM OF S. JOHN BAPTIST. 461 

him in the eyes of the people to take the life of a man so 
great and so holy, and of a prophet so revered, to please a 
meretricious dancing girl. And as the Evangelist says 

Jthat Herod was grieved, we ought not, without proof, to 
think his grief assumed. He grieved, not in pretence, but 
truly ; not that John was killed, for he desired his death, 
but that he had put him to death in a manner that did not 
suit his designs. 

Yet because of his oath. 

And this, too, was probably not pretence ; for the Jews 
had such a respect for an oath that not to keep one, even 
though it were against the right, they thought wicked, as 
in the case of Joshua and the Gibeonites (Josh. ix. 15, 18, 
19) and of Jephte (Judges xi. 35). The ancient Fathers 
have rightly held that such oaths as these ought not to be 
kept (Origen, Horn, on S. Matt, xiv ; S. Chrysostom, hoc. 
loc.; S. Ambrose, i. $O,De Officiis ; S. Jerome, /;/ Comment^)- 
Euthymius proves this by the example of David (i Kings 
xxv. 22), who, after he had sworn that he would not leave 
one man of the house of Nabal till morning, when ad 
monished of his oath being unjust, and entreated by 
Abigail not to keep it, not only listened to her, but also 
returned thanks to God he had been persuaded to disre 
gard it (verses 32, 33). 

Verse 10. And lie sent. 

An executioner (ii. 16). S. Mark (vi. 27) said in explana- 
nation : " But sending an executioner, he commanded that 
his head should be brought in a dish ". It is concluded 
from this passage that this feast was held in the citadel of 
Macheruntia, which was on the confines of Galilee and 
Arabia, and in which Josephus says that John was bound 
(Antiq.y xviii. 10). It appears, however, from this place, 
and much more from S. Mark, that the festival was cele 
brated in the place in which John had been imprisoned. 



462 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xiv.i2, 13. 

Verse 12. And his disciples came. 

We may ask how the disciples of John were able to gain 
entrance into the prison. Some think that his body was 
cast out with ignominy, but this can by no means be 
proved. Others, that they had leave of entrance to the 
prison ; for it is plain, from chap. xi. 2, that while he was 
yet alive they visited him. This is more probable, for it may 
be easily supposed that the body would readily be given 
up to the disciples at their request, from some pretended 
regard to humanity ; for Herod wished thus to conciliate 
the feelings of the people, whom, as the Evangelist says, he 
feared. 

Verse 1 3 . WJiich when Jesus had heard. 

Authorities are not agreed what it was that Jesus heard, 
from which He went thither. S. Augustin (De Consens., \\. 
45), Euthymius, and Theophylact refer it to the death of 
John. But S. Chrysostom (Horn. 1.), which Euthymius 
adopts, takes it to apply to the words of Herod in 5. Luke 
ix. 9 : " This is John the Baptist," when he sought to see 
Christ. The opinion of S. Augustin appears more pro 
bable, for in this passage the relative " which " cannot 
possibly apply to anything but the death of John, of which 
his disciples had informed Christ (verse 12). For John 
had now been a long time in prison, but had not been put 
to death. 

He retired from thence. 

Why? This is certain at least, as SS. Jerome and 
Chrysostom observe, that it was not from fear, but from 
plan and design. But with what design we do not know. 
S. Jerome and Bede think that He did it that the tyrant 
might not add murder to murder ; as if he would kill 
Christ also, if he could lay hands on Him. Christ would 
not supply Herod with the means of sinning, and therefore 
went away, doing what He had commanded His disciples 



CH. xiv. 13.] CHRIST IN A DESERT PLACE. 463 

to do (x. 23). But S. Chrysostom and Euthymius offer 
another reason, lest if (as He was able to do) He super- 
naturally escaped the hands of Herod, He should show 
Himself to be God, which He would not have to be known 
as yet. Theophylact suggests another still, that by flying 
He might show Himself not to be a phantasm, as the 
Marcionists and Manichaeans supposed, but very man, who 
might be seized and put to death. The true reason may 
have been that which S. John gives in a similar case (vii. 6) : 
" My time is not yet come ". 

S. Mark gives still another reason (vi. 31), " Come apart 
into a desert place, and rest a little. For there were many 
coming and going, and they had not so much as time to 
eat," that the disciples had returned wearied from their 
mission, and needed rest, which they could not have in this 
place, where they had no time, on account of the multitude, 
even to eat. 

By a boat. 

Why not on foot ? Lest, says S. Chrysostom, the multi 
tudes whom He wished to escape should follow Him. 
Others say, because the lake was to be passed to the further 
side. This seems in no degree probable, because S. Luke 
(ix. 10) says in plain terms that He went aside into a 
desert place which belonged to Bethsaida. Bethsaida was 
on this side of the lake, not the other ; that is, in Galilee, 
the tetrarchy of Herod, where Christ was then living. 
For Peter also, who was of the city of Bethsaida (S. John 
i. 44), was a Galilean (S. Matt. xxvi. 71, 73). Christ, 
therefore, did not cross the lake, but only some gulf, or, 
rather, sailed round some promontory of it, that He might 
seek some remote place. Beside the above passage of S. 
Luke, a certain proof of this suggestion is found in the 
words of S. Matthew, that the multitudes followed Him on 
foot. Christ only passed over a part of the lake, or round 
some promontory, and the people followed on foot, 



464 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xiv. 14, 15. 

and got there before Him (S. Mark vi. 33). They got 
there first, because, although a journey by the sea would 
ordinarily be quicker, Christ had to go round the pro 
montory, whilst, as S. Matthew says, the multitude took 
the direct course. 

Verse 14. And He, corning fort] i, saiv a great multitude. 

Coming forth out of the ship, because, as S. Mark says, 
the multitude had got there before Him. S. Jerome, 
Euthymius, and many Moderns say that He went out from 
the desert, because S. Luke (ix. n) says, "He received 
them," as if He went out to meet them ; and S. John (vi. 3) : 
" Jesus, therefore, went up into a mountain, and there He sat 
with His disciples " ; His going out to them does not seem 
probable, as S. Mark (vi. 33) plainly says that the multitude 
"were there before Him". For the words of S. Luke (ix. 1 1), 
" He received them," do not mean that He went to meet 
them. This S. Mark has explained on verse 34 and fol 
lowing. 

Verse 1 5 . His disciples came to Him. 

Leontius refers the word " his " to John s disciples, who 
had recently come to Christ from John, as if it were they 
who asked Christ to send the multitudes away. " It is 
clear from this," he says, " that the disciples of John now, 
after his martyrdom, joined themselves to Christ." But S. 
Luke (ix. 12) shows plainly that the speakers were the 
twelve Apostles. S. John (vi. 5) seems to give another 
relation of the matter, for he says that " Christ said to 
Philip : Whence shall we buy bread that these may 
eat ? " 

It is easy to suppose that the disciples first suggested to 
Christ to send the multitudes away, as S. Matthew says ; 
and then that Christ, as S. John relates, asked Philip, "to 
try him," " whence shall we buy bread, that these may 



CH. xiv. 15.] CHRIST FEEDS FIVE THOUSAND. 465 

eat ? " as S. Chrysostom, Leontius, and Theophylact ex 
plain it. 

But there are two questions in the words of S. John : (i) 
Why Christ asked the question, and (2) why He asked 
Philip rather than any of the others. 

To the first S. John himself seems to give the answer. 
He did not ask to learn, " for He Himself knew what he 
would do," but " to try him ". But it is asked : Why He 
should wish to try him ? Amphilochius thinks that though 
in no way ignorant Himself, Christ asked in the manner of 
one who was so, to accommodate Himself to the opinions 
and infirmities of His hearers. S. Augustin, Bede, and 
Rupertus, not that He Himself might learn the faith of 
His disciple, of which He could not be ignorant, but that 
He might show him his own unbelief. S. Cyril thinks that 
He did it the more to show the greatness of the miracle 
He was about to perform. For from his question followed 
Philip s answer : that two hundred pennyworth of bread was 
not sufficient that everyone may take a little; and Andrew s, 
of the five loaves and two fishes ; for, as many more loaves 
as Philip and Andrew declared to be required, so much the 
greater would the miracle appear afterwards. S. Chrysos 
tom, Theophylact, Ammonius, Theodore Heracleotes, and 
Theodore of Mopsuestia say that Christ wished, by asking 
and answering alternately, to arouse the faith of the dis 
ciples, and make them more attentive to observe the great 
ness of the coming miracle. For if, without such a dis 
cussion with the disciples, He had suddenly worked the 
miracle, it would have been less noted ; as both the 
number of persons, the hunger, and the paucity of the 
loaves would have been observed less than it was by the 
discussion. 

2. To the latter question S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Leontius answer that Christ 
asked Philip rather than any of the others because he most of 

30 



466 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xiv. 16. 

all wanted faith ; for it was he who said : " Show us the Father, 
and it is enough for us " (S. John xiv. 8). S. John adds that 
" Andrew the brother of Peter said : There is a boy here 
that hath five barley loaves and two fishes ; but what are 
these among so many ? " This, in the opinion of Theodore 
of Mopsuestia, Leontius, and Ammonius, was said that An 
drew might not seem to wish to reserve anything for 
himself; but S. Chrysostom, S. Cyril, Theodore Heracleotes, 
Leontius, and Theophylact say that Andrew showed some 
what more faith than Philip ; for he spoke this, it appears, 
with some hope of a future miracle, knowing that Eliseus 
had multiplied bread ; but that he had not perfect faith 
when he said : " But what are these ? " as if he believed 
that Christ could indeed multiply the loaves, but could only 
make more of more, and fewer of fewer. 

It may appear more likely that Andrew, when he said 
this, had no thought of a miracle. 

Christ teaches us by this example, as Leontius and 
Theodore of Mopsuestia say, never to despair in difficulties, 
but always to trust in Him who is able to increase our 
bread, if we have any, and, if we have none, to create it out 
of nothing. But S. Chrysostom and Theophylact refute 
the Manichaeans from this passage, who senselessly assert 
that bread is created by some evil deity. For Christ could 
not have multiplied the loaves had they been created by 
any other than His Father or Himself. Euthymius has 
observed that Christ prolonged this discourse to a late 
hour of the day, that the need of the miracle_which He was 
about to perform might be known. 

Verse 16. Give you them to eat. 

S. John (vi. 7) says that Philip replied : "Two hundred 
pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every 
one may take a little ". 

From this some of the heretical commentators conclude 



CH. xiv. 17.] CHRIST FEEDS FIVE THOUSAND. 467 

that Christ and the Apostles, having two hundred pence, 
had almost twenty gold crowns. Who does not see that 
Philip said two hundred pennyworth, because he neither 
had them, nor could possibly obtain them ? He argues 
that he could not feed such a multitude for whom even two 
hundred pence would not suffice, when he perhaps did not 
possess a single penny. For if they had had them Christ 
might have commanded that they should be expended in 
purchasing bread, and then the miracle would not have 
been needed. How much better Theodore Heracleotes 
proves from this passage the voluntary poverty of Christ 
and His disciples, who had not enough even to purchase 
the food required for their subsistence. His words are as 
follows : " His followers display indifference to wealth and 
voluntary poverty, not having sufficient to purchase even 
necessary provisions ". 

Leontius observes that Christ did not say, " I will give 
them food," but " Give you them to eat," lest He should 
speak proudly of Himself and appear to boast of the 
miracle. 

Verse 1 7. We have nothing here but five loaves. 

S. John (vi. 8, 9) says : " One of His disciples, Andrew, the 
brother of Peter, saith to Him, There is a boy here that 
hath five barley loaves and two fishes ; but what are these 
among so many?" 

The commentators doubt whether the loaves were the 
property of the Apostles, carried for them by the boy, or 
whether he brought them for sale. S. Chrysostom (Horn. 
1.), Leontius, S. Cyril, and Theophylact think that they were 
the Apostles . Euthymius and, it seems, S. Cyril, whose 
opinions seem more trustworthy, that they were for sale. 
For the words of the Apostles do not imply that they were 
their own, but that the whole number of people, more or 
less, had only five loaves and two fishes. 



468 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xiv. 18, 19. 

Verse 18. He said to them, Bring them hither to Me. 
Christ said this, say S. Chrysostom and Leontius, to 
show that it was He who fed the whole world ; that He did 
not depend on any hour or season, but that at any time 
and from any material He could make as many loaves as 
He pleased. The Evangelist does not say that the 
Apostles obeyed Him, but it is understood from what 
follows. Hence S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, 
S. Cyril, and Leontius say that a great lesson is here taught 
us to give freely to guests, and also to the poor, of the 
things that are necessary for us, for in this manner it will 
happen that our bread shall increase. 

Verse 19. And when He had commanded the multitude 
to sit down. 

(S. Mark vi. 39.) For there was plenty of grass, because, 
as Leontius and Theophylact have observed, it was early 
spring, when the Passover was near, as S. John says (vi. 4 ; 
vid. S. Luke ix. 14). Christ probably did this for many 
reasons, i. That the number of people might be seen, 
and the greatness of the miracle appear more clearly. 2. 
That the Apostles might give of the loaves and fishes with 
out confusion. 3. That no one might be passed over, but 
that all might receive their portion, each in his order. 

Looking up to heaven. 

To show that He had received from His Father with His 
Divinity the power of working miracles (S. Hilary, S. 
Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact). To teach us to 
do the same thing ; as the same authorities and Leontius 
and Ammonius say. To show us to whom we should look 
for help in all difficulties (S. Jerome and Bede). To show 
that He is not opposed to God (Ammonius and Leontius). 
That even to His Passion, as man praying to God, He 
might conceal that He was the Prince of this world. This 



CH. xiv. 19.] CHRIST FEEDS FIVE THOUSAND. 4^9 

reason is given by Ammonius alone. Leontius gives 
another reason. That He might not appear to make Him 
self greater than His Father, of whom the Jews said in the 
wilderness (Ps. Ixxvii. 19): "Can God furnish a table in 
the wilderness?" 

It has been shown, however, by S. Chrysostom, Leontius, 
and Euthymius that Christ did not look up to heaven 
every time He worked a miracle, but sometimes, as here, 
and at the resurrection of Lazarus (S. Jo/in xi. 41), and in 
His prayer to His Father (xvii. i) ; lest, if He always did 
so, He might appear to work them not by His own autho 
rity, but by some other ; if He never did so, He might seem 
not to acknowledge His Father s authority. 

He blessed. 

The followers of Calvin explain this to mean He gave 
thanks ; because, like S. Matthew, S. Mark (vi. 41) and S. 
Luke (ix. 16) say euXt^o-e?/, S. John (vi. Ii) eu^ap/o-r^o-a?, 
and S. Matthew here, and S. Mark evXoyrjo-ev ; but S, 
Matthew (xv. 36) and S. Mark (viii. 6), relating the other 
miracle of the seven loaves, say ev^apio-rrjcra^. Again, S. 
Matthew (xxvi. 26), S. Mark (xiv. 22), speaking of the 
Sacrament of Christ s Body, say evXoyrjcras. S. Luke (xxii. 
19), S. Paul (i Cor. xi. 24), ev^apLa-r^a^. From all 
these passages it is clear that ev\oyeiv and ev^apLo-relv 
were the same. But they must prove that v\oyelv, bene- 
dicere, is used for evyapivrzlv, gratias agere^ and not rather 
the contrary, ev^apiarelv for ev\oyeiv, which they have 
neither tried to prove, nor could have proved if they had. 
We can easily prove on the contrary that ev-^apidreiv is 
put for evXoyeiv. 

i. Because the giving of thanks here is nothing, the 
benediction everything ; for Christ wished to multiply the 
loaves ; He had not multiplied them yet. He did not, 
therefore, give thanks to the Father because He had 



4/0 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xiv. 19. 

multiplied it, but He blessed the bread that He might 
multiply it. 

2. If He had given thanks, He would have given them 
to the Father, not to the bread ; and He is said to have 
blessed the bread (S. Luke ix. 16) ; evXoyew, therefore, is 
not taken for ev-^apio-relv^ but, on the contrary, ev^apio-relv 
for ev\oyeiv. 

They say that evXdyrjcrev avrovs means, " He gave thanks 
for" (super illos] : a conclusion which they can by no means 
prove, but which can be refuted by the simple laws of 
grammar. For if the Evangelist had meant this, he would 
not have said, ai5rou?, but ev or eVi avrovs (in or super} ; 
but S. Luke says, ev\6yj]crev avrovs, and S. Paul (i Cor. x. 
1 6), " for we blesseth cup itself". So, again, I Tim. iv. 4, S , 
so that something is added to the food by its being blessed. 

The blessing, then, is directed both to God, as the 
Author from whom it is sought, and to the bread, as 
matter subjected to the blessing, which would not be the 
case if the benediction were taken for the giving of thanks. 
Besides, why do we read that Christ did not bless bread 
except when He wished to change it into something better 
or to multiply it, when He took it daily, unless He im 
pressed some virtue upon it, that through that blessing it 
might increase and multiply, as when He blessed our first 
parents He said (Gen. i. 28), " Increase and multiply, and 
fill the earth " ? 

When Christ, therefore, looked up to heaven and blessed 
the loaves, He prayed the Father to pour out His blessing 
on them, that by it they might be multiplied ; and when it 
is said, by S. John, ev^aplarrja-ev, the meaning is not that 
He gave thanks, but that He called down the grace of the 
Father upon the loaves. The proof is that the ancient 
Greek writers used the word transitively ; for they call 
bread of the Eucharist aprov evxapiarrjOevra (as S. Justin, 
Apol. y ii. ; and S. Irenaeus, iv. 34). 



CH. xiv. 19.] CHRIST FEEDS FIVE THOUSAND. 471 

And He gave to His disciples. 

That the miracle might be done by them, in a manner, 
as His ministers, to show, as S. Jerome and Bede say, 
either that .the people of Christ are to be fed per the 
Apostles ; or that they might be sure witnesses of the 
miracle which they had, as it were, touched with their own 
hands, as Leontius and Euthymius say ; or that, according 
to Theophylact, they might fix more deeply in their 
memories that which they had handled themselves with 
their own hands. Christ seems to have wished to transfer 
in some way the glory of the miracles from Himself to the 
Apostles. 

S. Hilary doubts whether the loaves were multiplied in 
the hands of Christ, or of the Apostles, or in the hands and 
mouths of those who received them. It seems certain that 
it was not in the hands or mouths of the recipients, as the 
modern heretics say, who maintain that the Eucharist is 
not the body of Christ except in the mouths of the com 
municants. If so, the men, when satisfied, might have 
ascribed the miracle to themselves. 

S. Jerome thinks that they were multiplied in the hands 
of Christ; S. Chrysostom, Leontius, and Euthymius, in 
those of the Apostles. 

Either opinion is probable ; but the more probable one of 
the two, perhaps, is that the multiplication took place first 
in the hands of Christ, who was the original Author of the 
miracle. Then we may believe that the loaves were multi 
plied in the breaking, and filled the twelve baskets which 
the twelve Apostles carried each to his own rank, as in the 
case of the widow of Sarepta (3 Kings xvii. 14, 15, 16), and 
the other woman of the wives of the prophets (4 Kings iv. 
5, 6), when in drawing off the oil it multiplied. Thus, either 
in the hands of the Apostles or in the baskets, it increased, 
so that so much as they drew from the baskets to give the 
people so much was divinely multiplied: as in the oil cruise 



472 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cii. xiv. 20. 

of the widow, as much as she drew out so much flowed 
back again, so that the cruise, as Scripture says, was not 
diminished ; that is, as much as they received from Christ, 
so much they collected. 

Verse 20. And they did all eat. 

There are three points to be noted here : (i) All eat ; (2) 
they were filled. Leontius, S. Chrysostom, and Theophy- 
lact think that the Evangelist said this to show that the 
truth of the miracle was proved by those who ate, when, 
having previously been hungry, not in thought only but 
actually, they were filled. (3) Twelve baskets remained. 
S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius 
think that this was because there were twelve Apostles, 
that even Judas, as S. Chrysostom says, might bear his 
basket. The reason probably was that alleged in the 
former verse : that because the Apostles first received 
from Christ twelve full baskets, they ought, as good 
stewards of the blessings of God, to give back as much 
as they received. S. Chrysostom thinks that Christ willed 
the baskets to be filled with fragments and not whole 
loaves, for the same reason. For if they had been 
whole loaves, the miracle might have appeared an 
imaginary one ; but when there were only fragments 
remaining, it was clear that the multitude had really eaten 
of the loaves. 

S. Chrysostom asks why nothing remained of the fishes 
when we read that after the Resurrection Christ so multi 
plied the fishes that many remained over and above (S. 
John xxi. n). He merely answers that Christ wished to 
show that He now multiplied the fish from subject matter ; 
and that this was not done from any want of power, since 
He afterwards created so many without any subject matter 
at all, that numbers of them remained after the Apostles 
were satisfied. This would have been correct, if He had 



CH. xiv. 21.] CHRIST FEEDS FIVE THOUSAND. 4/3 

done the former before the latter. It may be said more 
simply: I. It does not appear whether or not anything 
remained of the fishes. It may be that, although the 
Evangelist does not mention it, much of them did remain, 
but that Christ did not order their fragments to be col 
lected : the fragments of the loaves being enough to prove 
the truth of the miracle. 

2. If nothing remained of the fishes, it may have been, 
perhaps, because it was enough to prove the miracle that 
either the loaves or the fishes should be left over. Christ 
willed the loaves rather than the fish to remain, because 
bread is the most common of all food, and from that it 
most clearly appeared what Christ could do in that way. 
This has a moral force. God pleases to give us bread 
that is, the chief necessary of life in abundance, but not 
so fish that is, superfluities. 

Verse 21. Five thousand men. 



The Greek has wo-et, " about," as also in 6". Mark vi. 44, 
5. John vi. 10. Our version does not read it so here or 
in 5. Mark, but it does in 5. fo/in. As to the amount, it is 
of no consequence. For the Sacred Writers give an exact 
number, though they were more or less. There are two 
circumstances here related by the Evangelist to show the 
greatness of the miracle : (i) That there were five thousand 
men ; and (2) that he did not enumerate the women and 
children. Of these there would not be so great a number, 
because they had come a long journey ; but we may still 
think that there was a considerable number, because women 
are mostly more curious than men. Leontius, S. Cyril, 
and Ammonius, cited in the Greek Catena on S. John, 
observe that the Evangelists record only men, not women, 
to preserve the Jewish custom, which only numbered men, 
as Moses did. Morally, the meaning might be that nothing 
Is accounted of by God but what is manly and perfect. 



474 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xiv. 22. 

Verse 22. And.fortkwith Jesus obliged. 

On the contrary, S. John (vi. 16) seems to say that the 
disciples, not by the command of Christ, who had with 
drawn Himself from them, but of their own minds, when 
they had waited for Him in the same place till evening, and 
seen that He had not come, went into the boat to sail to 
Capernaum, and seek Him there. Either may have been 
done. Christ, before He withdrew, may have Himself 
charged them to sail to Capernaum, and they may have 
waited till midnight, expecting Him to return. Or, on the 
other hand, He may first have made them embark in the 
ship, and then have gone before as if to dismiss the multi 
tude ; and when they were gone have returned to the moun 
tain to pray. S. John may have related the latter and 
passed over the former. 

Two reasons may be gathered from the events for His 
having compelled them to sail on before Him. i. From 
S. Matthew, in the following verse, that He wished to pray 
alone, and, therefore, when He had sent His disciples on 
before, and dismissed the multitude, He went up into the 
mountain alone. 2. The other is from S. John (vi. 15), 
who says that He knew that the multitude would come and 
make Him a king by force. For He wished to be speedy, 
and go away from the whole multitude and the Apostles, 
that when the danger threatened, in a moment, as it may 
be believed that He afterwards did, He might pass through 
the air, and come to His disciples. It thus appears to have 
given occasion for the miracle that followed ; for unless He 
had sent the Apostles on before they would not have laboured 
in rowing, and He would neither have walked upon the 
sea, nor have commanded Peter to do the same ; both 
which miracles He did at the same time. 

S. Chrysostom and Theophylact give another reason : 
they wished to carry with them the fragments of the loaves 
which remained, and by themselves alone consider the late 



CH. xiv. 22.] APOSTLES CROSS THE LAKE. 475 

miracle. The Evangelist says that He obliged them to go 
up into the boat ; and this is probable, for, as S. Jerome, 
S. Chrysostom, and Theophylact say, they would be re 
luctant to leave Him. And it seems repugnant, not only 
to the love of Christ, but also to common human nature, 
for disciples to leave their master among unknown men, and 
on the other side of a sea ; but they obeyed Him because 
they knew that there was nothing that Christ could not do. 

And to go before Him over the water. 

Into the country of the Gerasenes, which was on the 
other side of the lake (verse 34). They did not, therefore, 
now sail only on some part of, or promontory of, the lake, 
but they crossed it almost entirely. For Christ wished to 
fly from Galilee and come into the opposite country of the 
Gerasenes: (i) that He might escape the snares of Herod, 
and (2) that He might escape from those who wished to 
make Him a king. This may appear opposed to 5. John 
vi. 17, that the disciples came beyond the sea to Caper 
naum. From the former chapter, viii. 28, and ix. i, we 
conclude this, if the passages are compared. 

It seems from S. John that both the disciples and Christ 
came to Capernaum, and that there was held the notable 
discourse about the Body and Blood, which is related in 
S.Jo/m vi. It appears that the miracle of the walking on 
the water was done when the disciples had come from the 
spot where Christ had multiplied the loaves, and were 
sailing by night to Capernaum. Then they sailed from 
Capernaum to the country of the Gerasenes, on the other 
side of the lake. S. John then, because he wished to record 
the conversation about the Flesh and Blood, omitted the 
visit to the Gerasenes. But S. Matthew and S. Mark, when 
they only wished to describe the miracle on the sea, and 
how Christ passed again into the country of the Gerasenes, 
pass over what took place in Capernaum, and so relate the 



476 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xiv. 23, 25. 

history as to appear to signify that the miracle of the sea 
happened when they were sailing to the country of the 
Gerasenes. The voyage was the same, except that they 
stayed a short time in Capernaum while the conversation on 
the Flesh and Blood took place. 

Verse 23. He went into a mountain alone to pray. 

He went up into a mountain twice, as appears from 5. 
John vi. 3. First, when He came into the desert place ; 
secondly, when He had done the miracle, and dismissed 
the Apostles (verse 15). The first time He fled from them 
that He might be concealed : the second time to pray. 



Verse 25. And in the fourth ^cvatch of the night. 

The last, which is also called the morning watch (Exodus 
xiv. 24 ; i Kings xi. n). The night was divided into four 
watches, as is often described in Scripture (Judges vii. 19 ; 
Lam. ii. 19 ; 5. Luke ii. 8 ; xii. 38). Christ, therefore, 
awaited a threefold opportunity for working this miracle. 
I. That the disciples might be in the middle of the sea, 
where they could look for no human aid. 2. That the 
wind might be contrary, and the ship tossed about by huge 
waves. 3. That the last watch of the night might arrive 
to try the faith and patience of the disciples, and that they 
might see the need of the miracle ; for Christ did not work 
miracles without some known and acknowledged necessity. 
These circumstances have been observed by Leontius, and 
are, as he says, a very useful proof to us, not to wonder if, 
when opposed by adverse circumstances, divine help does 
not seem to be at hand at once. God wills first to try our 
patience, and, like a spectator, to observe our conflict in the 
last watch, that is, when we are brought into the last and 
greatest danger. S. Cyril Alexandria, on 6". John vi. 17, 
says the same. 



CH. xiv. 28.] CHRIST WALKS UPON THE WATER. 477 

Walking upon the sea. 

Leontius says on this passage : " The sea was subject to 
Him as its God, and He walked upon the waters ". This 
was the miracle, and in this sense is it understood by the 
Ancients (S. Justin, Quczst. 117; S. Augustin, Serin, de 
Temp. clix. ; S. Ambrose, De Interpret. Job, i. 5). 

// is an apparition. 

That is, something that appears in a bodily form, but is 
not a body, whether it be angel or devil, or some other kind 
of spirit. It was a common opinion that spirits of this 
kind can at times be seen, as we find in vS. Luke xxiv. 37 
and Acts xii. 15, and because they are believed either to 
have done, or to be able to do, harm, the Apostles feared. 

Verse 28. If it be Thou. 

Many heretics blame Peter as if in saying, " If it be 
Thou," he had shown want of faith ; and because he sought 
to come to Christ alone and without the others, they accuse 
him of senseless heat and arrogance. The words of S. 
Hilary may be cited in contrast. 

This, he says, should be considered in S. Peter, that he 
surpassed the others in faith. He ascribes to S. Peter sin 
gular and excellent faith ; they accuse him of unbelieving 
folly and arrogance. S. Jerome, again, says : " In all places 
the most ardent faith is seen in Peter " ; and when he had 
proved this by many examples, he added : " By the same 
ardour of faith which he always showed, he now, when the 
rest were silent, believed that he could do that by his 
Master s will which that Master Himself could do by 
nature. It is enough for us that we can oppose SS. Hilary 
and Jerome to the followers of Calvin ; but let us hear our 
Master, Christ Himself. He assuredly did not blame the 
desire and request of Peter, but by granting them rather 
proved that He would not have done so if they had been 



478 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xiv. 29, 30. 

preferred arrogantly and without faith ; for He required 
faith from all to whom He was going to work a miracle. 
Nor would He have withheld blame if He had thought 
that Peter deserved such. For He blamed him soon after 
for his fearfulness. When, then, S. Peter said, " If it be 
Thou," he did not doubt as to faith (de fide], but as to fact 
(de facto]. For he believed that Christ could enable him 
to walk upon the water (which the followers of Calvin do 
not believe), but he doubted whether it were Christ who 
spoke, or some spirit who pretended to be Christ ; because 
he knew that Satan can transform himself into an angel of 
light, and he wished to prove the spirits whether they were 
of God. For if, as Theophylact says, he had doubts de fide, 
he would not have said, " Bid me come to Thee upon the 
waters," wishing to prove his words by his actions. For he 
knew that an angel, bad or good, could take a human form, 
and walk upon the waters, and imitate the voice of Christ, 
but that it could not give others the power of doing so. 

Verse 29. Come. 

Christ gave Peter permission, to show that He was Him 
self (which Peter wished to discover). S. Jerome, on this 
passage, refutes the Marcionists and the Manichaeans, who 
said on this that Christ had not a true body, but one only 
in appearance. "There are some," as Tertullian says (Lib. de 
Bapt^), " who maintain that the Apostles never had any other 
baptism than the aspersion of the waves in the tempest." He 
replies : " It is one thing to be sprinkled or opposed by the 
violence of the sea, another to be sprinkled by the disci 
pline of religion ". 

Verse 30. But seeing the wind grew strong, Jie zuas after 
wards afraid. 

It is, says S. Chrysostom, in excuse of Peter, " the con 
dition of human nature, when great difficulties have been 



CH. xiv. 31, 32.] CHRIST AND PETER ON THE WATER. 479 

overcome, sometimes to yield to lesser ones. This was the 
case of Elias under Jezebel, and of Moses in Egypt." 
Theophylact excuses him still further. He did not doubt 
at all when he cried, " Lord, save me ". 

Verse 31. O tJiou of little faith. 

The faith of Peter was great and singular, for he thought 
that with the help of Christ he could do what Christ Him 
self did, and he cast himself into the waters to walk upon 
them, but was seized with present human fear. " If," says S. 
Jerome, " it was said to the Apostle Peter, of whose faith and 
ardour we have spoken above, when he confidently said : 
Lord, bid me come to Thee upon the waters, but then 
felt some little fear : O thou of little faith, why didst thou 
doubt ? what is to be said to us who of this little faith 
have not even the smallest particle ? " We may doubt why 
Christ suffered him either to sink or to fear. S. Chry- 
sostom and Theophylact reply, lest from so great a miracle 
he might grow proud. S. Jerome, however, says : " The 
faith of his soul was warm, but human weakness drew him 
down into the sea. He was left a little while to tempta 
tion, that his faith might be increased, and that he might 
understand that it was not by readiness of entreaty, but by 
the power of God, that he was preserved." 

Verse 32. And when they were come up into the boat. 

S. John (vi. 22) seems to signify that Christ did not go up 
into the ship. S. Chrysostom and Theophylact reply that 
the Apostles wished to receive Christ into the ship, but 
that He would not, but walked upon the waters for some 
distance with S. Peter, to confirm his faith ; but when they 
were near the shore He went up into the ship. S. John 
does not seem to mean that Christ did not go up into the 
ship, but that there was no need that He should do so, 
because in a moment the ship was at the shore. Five 



480 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [dr. xiv. 33 

miracles were wrought at this time : Christ was carried 
through the air when He followed the Apostles ; He 
walked upon the water that Peter might walk ; He caused 
the wind ; He stilled the tempest ; He brought the ship to 
land the moment He entered it. 

Verse 33. And they that were in the boat. 

S. Chrysostom and others understand the Apostles by 
"they". Some think that, as is probable, they were the 
sailors and crew. This seems the more probable because 
the words, " They came and adored Him," apply but 
slightly to the disciples, who believed already that He was 
the Son of God. The words of S. John, therefore (vi. 22), 
that Christ had not entered into the ship with them, but 
that the disciples had departed alone, are not to be under 
stood that only the disciples departed, so that there was no 
one in the ship with them, but that they departed without 
Christ. 

*V/ 

J. /ley came. 

After they had come to land (S. Mark vi. 54). 
Indeed Thou art the Son of God. 

They confessed this, not as if Christ were the Son of God 
by adoption, but by nature : not as a righteous man, but as 
very God. In the same way as the Pharisees denied Him 
to be such, taking the Son of God and God for the same 
thing (S. John x. 33) ; when He had called Himself not 
God but the Son of God (S. John xix. 7 and 5. Matt, xxvii. 
40). All these passages are to be understood, not of adop 
tion, of which there was no doubt, but of nature ; for that 
Christ was the Son of God that is, a righteous man no 
one doubts ; nor if a man said that he was the son of God 
in that sense, could he be punished by the Law. Thus this 
passage is strong against the Arians. And S. Chrysostom 
has observed that Christ did not reprove those who called 



CH. xiv. 35, 36.] CHRIST AT GENESAR. 481 

Him the Son of God, but rather confirmed the opinion by 
many miracles performed in their sight. 

Verse 35. When they had knoiv ledge of Him. 

By report, says S. Jerome, not by personal knowledge. 
But it is credible that many knew Him personally as well, 
because He had been there before, and had healed two 
demoniacs (viii. 28). These events, as some say, happened 
not on the same day as that on which Christ came there, 
but after the report of His arrival had spread. It is not 
improbable that the Evangelists may have united the actions 
of different days into one. It does seem wonderful that 
the Genesarenes should now have received Christ so eagerly, 
when but a short time before they had cast them out of 
their coasts (viii. 34). The answer is easy : " The fame of 
His miracles had increased : their faith had increased," says 
S. Chrysostom. Christ knew this. Knowing, therefore, 
that they were not fitted to receive the Gospel before, He 
departed thence. Now, knowing .at they were ripe, He 
returned, as it were, to the harvest. 

Verse 36. And they besought Him that they might touch but 
the hem of His garment. 

The Evangelist praises their faith, declaring it to be very 
great. It is not meant that the men of Genesar confined 
the grace of Christ to the hem of His garment; but that so 
great was their faith that they believed that by that touch 
alone all manner of diseases would be healed. In this sense 
they preferred their request. Whether this were true and 
notable faith, or mere superstition, Christ shall decide : 
" And as many as touched were made whole," says the 
Evangelist. Miracles are apt to be worked for faith, not 
superstition. Here, as many as touched were healed ; and 
(ix. 20) the woman with the issue touched ; and was healed : 
" Behold a woman who had an issue of blood twelve years 



4^2 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. xiv. 36. 

came behind Him and touched the hem of His garment For 

o 

she said within herself: If I shall touch only His garment 
I shall be healed." S. Chrysostom says on the passage, 
that in the Eucharist we have not only the hem of Christ s 
garment, but His whole Body. If they who touched the 
hem were healed, how much more we who touch the whole 
Body of Christ ? S. Gregory Nazianzen relates in his funeral 
oration for his sister Gorgonia, that she was healed of a very 
severe disease by touching the Eucharist 



END OF VOL. I. 



Printed at the Aberdeen University Press. 



A Welcome Present to the Clergy, Religious Communities, Newly-ordained 
Priests, Deacons, and theological Students. 



A TRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH OF THE 

Great Commentary upon the Holy Scriptures 

OF CORNELIUS A LAPIDE. 

BY THE REV. T. W. MOSSMAX, B.A. OXON. 

Vols. I., II., III. Demy 8vo, each 123., completing SS. Matthew 

and Mark s Gospels. 

St. John s Gospel and Three Epistles. 2 Vols., 245. 
St. Luke s Gospel, i Vol., i2s. Completing the Gospels. 



" Really the Editor has succeeded in presenting the public with a charming book. When 
we open his pages we find ourselves listening to voices from all ages of the Church s history, 
from the pulpits where St. Athanasius and St. Augustin defended the faith against its earliest 
traducers, from the lecture-halls where St. Thomas and Suarez cast the self-same doctrine into 
the most rigid scientific form, from the cloister where St. Bernard sweetly nourished the devo 
tion of his monks, and we see how they derive their inspiration from the same Divine source, 
the Holy Scriptures. We have been accustomed to regard a Lapide for consultation rather 
than to be read. But in the compressed form, clear and easy style, and excellent type in which 
it now appears, it is a book we can sit down and enjoy." The Month. 

" It is the most erudite, the richest, and altogether the completes! Commentary on the Holy 
Scriptures that has ever been written, and our best thanks are due to Mr. MOSSMAN for having 
given us in clear, terse, and vigorous English the invaluable work of the Prince of Scripture 
Commentators." Diiblin Review. 

11 We set a high store upon this Commentary. There is about it a clearness of thought, a 
many-sided method of looking at truth, an insight into the deeper meaning, and a fearless 
devotion to what appears to him to be truth, which lend a peculiar charm to all that he 
writes. The chief value which his commentaries have for Bible students is in the fact that no 
where else can they find so great a store of patristic and scholastic exegesis. These handsome 
volumes are sure to find a place on the shelf beside the commentaries of Meyer, Godet, 
Luthardt, and Westcott." Literary World. 

" It is one of those few books which are books, an unfailing magazine of instruction and 
devotion of the profoundest views of Holy Scripture and Theology in general, and one of the 
most valuable and important recently issued from the press." Church Review. 

" The translation is good ; the sense is rendered truthfully and in good English ; the sen 
tences are terse and vigorous." Tablet. 

" Mr. MOSSMAN has done his work well, and we wish his enterprise the success it deserves." 
Guardian. 

" We have no hesitation in saying that this is the best and most able Commentary in the 
English language." Revisionist. 

" To say one word in recommendation of the great work of a Lapide is superfluous, but it 
is our simple duty to call attention to the great work now being done by Mr. MOSSMAN for 
English readers." Literary Churchman. 

" Mr. MOSSMAN has done his part well, as an able and sympathetic scholar might be ex 
pected to do, and the book, both in execution and translation, is worthy of its author." 
Saturday Review. 

" It would be indeed gilding the finest gold to bestow praise on the great Commentary of 
a Lapide. It is a work of unequalled, we should say unapproached, value. We especially 
entreat the Clergy on no account to neglect obtaining so vast a treasure of saintly wisdom, 
even if in so doing they are obliged to sacrifice many volumes far inferior to it in real helpful 
ness." -John Bull. 



JOHN HODGES, 25 HENRIETTA STREET, LONDON,W.C. 



COMPLETION OF BURKE S TUDOR PORTRAITS. 



Vols. I., II., and IV., demy 8vo, 552 pp., 155. each ; Vol. JII., 125. 



OF 

THE TUDOR DYNASTY 

AND 

THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 

BY S. HUBERT BURKE. 

Complete in 4 Vols. Price 2 173. Vol. I. not sold separately. 

" Time u?tveils all truth. " 1 
Extract from a Letter to the Author by the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P. 

" I have read every page of the work with great interest, and I subscribe with 
out hesitation to the eulogy passed on it by the Daily Chronicle, as making, as*far 
as I know, a distinct and valuable addition, to our knowledge of a remarkable period. 

" They are full-length portraits, often so life-like, that when placed beside each 
other we feel no difficulty in realising the relations which Mr. Burke aims at estab 
lishing between them." Annual Register. 

The greatest charm of these fascinating volumes is in the brightness of the 
style, for it reads more like a romance than a history." Land and Water. 

" We do not hesitate to avow that, in his estimate of character and events, Mr. 
Burke is seldom wrong. . . . We heartily wish it a large sale and an extensive cir 
culation." The Academy. Signed, NICHOLAS POCOCK. 

"The author of this noble volume writes history as it should be written. The 
men and women that pass before us in these portraits are no hard, lifeless out 
lines, but beings of flesh and blood, in whom, and in whose fate, we feel a keen 
and absorbing interest." Tablet. 

" The best chapters in the volume concern the marvellous career of Anna 
Boleyn. Her contradictory character is described with vigour and unbiassed 
clearness." Morning Post. 

" This work will excite much interest, obtain many readers, and much extend 
the acquaintance with the period the author illustrates." Westminster Review. 

" We attach great importance to Mr. Burke s work, as it is, we believe, the 
first attempt on any considerable scale to collect and arrange in a living picture 
the men and women who made the England of to-day. . . . This effort, 
seriously and conscientiously undertaken, and aided by a graphic and attractive 
style, must do immense good." Dublin Review. 

Few will be disposed to question the earnestness of spirit and the industrious 
research with which Mr. Burke has pursued a task demanding the highest 
qualities of thought and judgment." Daily Telegraph. 

No honest student of a most memorable period can afford to neglect the aid 
of Mr. Burke s long and laborious researches, while the general public will find in 
his pages all the interest of a romance, and all the charm of novelty, a%)ut events 
more than three centuries old. He is also what is rare an historian of absolute 
impartiality." Life. 



JOHN HODGES, 25 HENRIETTA STREET, LONDON, W.C. 



tfALDOKADO, Juan, 
Commentary on 



the Holy Gospels 



2575 
,A2M3- 

v.l