in
ru
I
CATHOLIC STANDARD LIBRARY
JOHN MALDONATUS
ON THE HOLY GOSPELS
I
I
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 XV. TO THE END
SECOND EDITION
JOHN HODGES
HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, EONDON
1888
THE ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY PRESS:
JOHN THOMSON AND J. F. THOMSON, M.A.
MAR 2 3 1959
THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW.
CHAPTER XV.
CHRIST REPROVES THE SCRIBES HE CURES THE
DAUGHTER OF THE WOMAN OF CHANAAN AND MANY
OTHERS, AND FEEDS FOUR THOUSAND WITH SEVEN
LOAVES.
Verse i. Then.
WHEN He had done so many miracles (S. Chrysostom,
Horn. lii.). S. John (vii. i) seems to say that Christ had
returned to Galilee at this time.
From Jerusalem.
The Scribes and Pharisees, say S. Chrysostom, Euthy-
mius, and Leontius, were dispersed through all the tribes.
But those of Jerusalem were the most arrogant of any,
because they lived in the capital city, and were considered
the wisest of all. They should rather have said, through
all the cities, or all places, as says Theophylact ; because
after the return from Babylon, there were only two tribes.
On the Scribes and Pharisees see chap. ii. 4. The opinion of
some, that these were sent from a council of the Scribes and
Pharisees of Jerusalem to tempt Christ, appears credible,
and in accordance with their dispositions and habits. For
in chap. xxii. 1 6, they sent their disciples with the Hero-
dians to Christ with the same intent.
2 i
2 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xv. 2, 3, 4.
Verse 2. Why do Thy disciples.
S. Mark (vii. 2), says that they made this act of the
disciples the cause of an accusation.
Transgress the tradition of the elders.
They do not say, writes S. Chrysostom (Horn, lii.), that
they transgressed the Law, because the Law says nothing
on the subject ; but the tradition of the elders, which S.
Mark (vii. 3, 4) states at greater length. They do not call it
their own tradition, although it was such, but the tradition
of the elders, that by the authority of these and the anti
quity of the traditions they might load Christ and the
disciples with ill-will. Nor do they say, "Why dost not
thou wash ? " when Christ probably did not wash more
than the disciples, but, " Why do not Thy disciples ? " either
because they did not venture to accuse Him, or because by
accusing the disciples they might appear to attack Him
more bitterly : as in chap. ix. 14, they do not say " Thou,"
but, " Thy disciples ".
Verse 3. Why do you also.
He said nothing of the tradition of washing the hands,
lest, if He pressed it, He might seem to approve it ; or if
He blamed it, He might unnecessarily have incurred ill-
will as S. Chrysostom and Euthymius observe.
Verse 4. Honour thy father and mother.
The observation of S. Jerome on this passage, which
Bede has borrowed from him, is true, that honour in Holy
Scripture is not shown so much by salutations and per
formance of duties as in alms and the giving of gifts, as
in i Timothy v. 3 ; that is, in ecclesiastical alms. The
same thing is taught in this place ; for Christ opposed to
the honour of parents their saying to them : " The gift,
CH.XV. 5.] CHRIST REPROVES SCRIBES AND PHARISEES. 3
whatsoever proceedeth from Me, shall profit thee ; that is,
refusing them help. It appears much more clearly from
vS. Mark vii. 12. To do something, therefore, for father
and mother that is, to aid them is to honour them.
He that shall curse.
Christ did not cite the whole law, nor one precept only,
but two. For "Honour" is in Exodus xx. 12, the latter
part of which is omitted as not to the purpose. " He that
shall curse," is in chap. xxi. 16. Why Christ added this, when
the question was not one of words, but of deeds, is doubt
ful. S. Chrysostom thinks that it was to teach us the
value before God of honouring our parents, when one who
injures them only in words is punished by death. But
Bede thinks that, as in the former clause, the word
u honour " means that honour which consists not of words
but deeds, so the word " curses " means not the wrong done
in words, but in deeds, by refusing them their rightful aid.
But it is clear from the custom of the law that the word
should be taken in its proper sense. The opinion of S.
Chrysostom is therefore the more probable.
Verse 5. The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me shall
profit tJiee.
This is a difficult and much controverted passage. The
best way will, perhaps, be to give the views of the chief
authorities upon it.
1. Some think the passage complete and perfect.
2. Other take it as an elliptic or defective speech.
The former understand it thus : " Whoever says, that is,
is able to say, ; The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me
shall profit thee, means, * Whatever I give to God profits
you also, as if it had been given by you ." So says Hugo,
among other explanations that he offers.
Others, more modern, say that the Greek does not allow
4 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xv. 5.
this, because it is not eWo-ro?, " each one," but o? av, which
requires a correlative.
3. Those who read it as a deficient sentence say : (a)
Some, that it is so only in one respect (in uno loco}, that
the " whosoever " has nothing to answer to it, as its nature
requires.
(b) Others, that it is so in two respects. In the one just
stated, and also because with the word " gift " the verb
substantive is wanting to make the meaning. " It is a gift,
that is, a thing consecrated to God, whatsoever part of my
property might have benefited you." Thus, some of old
explain it as S. Chrysostom does : " I owe you nothing,
but if anything of mine can benefit you, it is a gift ; that is,
I give it you, not as a debt, but as a gift ".
(c) Others again take it interrogatively, " Is it a gift ?
or, with a note of admiration, as if they should say, " By no
means " (minime), as S. Thomas in the Catena.
4. Others again, Whoever says it (is) a gift, that is,
whatever of mine might have benefited you, has been
dedicated to God. In this way S. Chrysostom, Euthymius,
and Theophylact explain it ; only that Theophylact says
that it was the custom of the Scribes and Pharisees to per
suade children to offer all their goods to the Temple, that
if their parents asked them for anything afterwards they
might answer, that they could not give it, because all their
property had been consecrated to God. But this is not
credible, even of the Jews, the most avaricious of men.
Besides, in this way, they would not have been able to
make use even of what was their own. S. Chrysostom and
Euthymius think that the children used to utter untruths
when they said that they had given to God what their
parents asked them for, that they might avoid giving it
them ; and thus, by a double wickedness, they cheated both
God and their parents. We might believe that others did
this but we can hardly believe that such a thing was done
CH. xv. 5.] CHRIST REPROVES SCRIBES AND PHARISEES. 5
by the advice of the Scribes and Pharisees, because, as we
have said, they had no reason for such a thing ; and there
was a double wickedness in it. Christ blames what the
Scribes and Pharisees taught the people to do, and it is
very likely, per se, that they who wished to appear the
most religious of all men taught nothing except under the
show of religion.
S. Jerome gives two explanations, (i) He says: "You
say whoever wishes to give to God what he was about to
give to his parents, is free ". This does not agree closely
enough with the words of Christ. (2) " What I was going
to offer to God, I expend, my father, on your mainte
nance." But it can hardly be received as the teaching of the
Scribes and Pharisees. For this was not to dishonour
their parents, but to complain that by defrauding God they
honoured them ; while Christ accused the Scribes and
Pharisees that, under the pretence of honouring God, they
dishonoured their parents, as immediately follows : " And
he shall not honour his father or his mother ".
The explanation of Strabus, Hugo, and De Lyra is :
" The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me (that is, whatso
ever I offer to God), shall profit thee just as if I had given
it to thee. It is better, therefore, to offer it to God than
to give it to thee." The whole sentence, and all the
expressions in it, seem to agree with this and S. Mark vii.
n, 12 : "But you say, If a man shall say to his father or
mother, Corban (which is a gift), whatsoever is from me
shall profit thee. And, farther, " You suffer him not to do
anything for his father or mother," strongly confirms it.
When He says : " You suffer him not to do anything for
his father or his mother," he openly indicates by the words,
" It is a gift," &c., that he has done, or has promised to do,
something ; and he is far from swearing that he will not
benefit his father or his mother. The son, then, by the
tradition of the Scribes and Pharisees, commands his father
6 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xv. 6, 7.
to be content with his offering sacrifice for himself and his
father, and to require nothing more. But they for whom
the sacrifice was offered consumed it, unless it were a
holocaust. In this way the father was benefited ; less,
indeed, than he ought to have been ; but still he was
benefited in some degree. It remains to be seen how
Christ s words were fulfilled. There seems to be two
ellipses. (i) "Whosoever," which almost all the com
mentators rightly fill up by the words, " shall be free
from blame," " shall be innocent," " shall fulfil the in
junctions about parents ". (2) There is (i the gift, the Swpov,
whatsoever proceedeth from me," which our version fills up
sufficiently by the word " proceedeth". It would be more
clear if we said : " Whatever shall come, or has come from
me".
Verse 6. And he shall not honour his father or his mother.
Some think these not the words of the Scribes and
Pharisees, but of Christ, as S. Mark (vii. 12). As if the
meaning were : " So you forbid a man to honour his father
or mother ". But they are undoubtedly the words of the
former, and the meaning is, therefore : " Whosoever shall
say to his father or mother, The gift whatever proceedeth
of me shall profit thee/ shall be free from blame, and need
not honour his father or mother in one thing, even though
he has not honoured them in another ".
Verse 7. Hypocrites.
The Scribes and Pharisees no doubt were hypocrites,
but it is not plain why Christ called them such here, when
he was treating, not of hypocrisy, but of perverse doctrine.
Euthymius says that it was because, when they wished to
appear the most careful observers of the Law, they were
transgressors of it through their traditions.
CH. xv. 8, 9.] CHRIST REPROVES SCRIBES AND PHARISEES. 7
Well hath Isaias prophesied of you.
Isaiah did not speak of the Scribes and Pharisees only,
but of the whole people of the Jews; and not of that which
was to be, but of that which then was. The words, there
fore, are not so much those of prophecy as of accusation.
But Christ applies them to the Scribes and Pharisees,
meaning that the accusation of Isaiah of the Jews which
then were, apply to the Scribes and Pharisees ; so that He
may appear not so much to have accused the people of
that time, as to have prophesied of the Scribes and Phari
sees that were to be as in chap. xiii. 35.
Verse 8. This people.
The Greek reading is the same in all essential points as
that of the Septuagint (Isa. xxix. 13). To approach
God is to worship Him, as in Ps. cxlviii. 14. So, on the
other hand, to be far from God is not to worship Him.
The meaning, therefore, is : " This people worships Me with
their lips, with their hearts they worship Me not ". Our
version does not read the first part of the verse, nor do any
of the Greek or Latin authors, except Euthymius and
Theophylact, as far as I know ; and it is very likely that
Christ only cited the part of Isaiah which applied to the
subject of which He was speaking ; that is, of honouring
God.
Verse 9. And in vain.
The Hebrew of Isaiah is not "in vain," but Tim DnNT
nN " their face is toward Me " ; that is, they fear Me ;
for in Hebrew to fear God is to worship Him ; but he who
worships God not as God teaches, but according to his own
will, does so in vain and with no effect. The LXX.,
therefore, for explanation, added " in vain," unless we think
that they perhaps read mm for Tim or
8 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xv. 9.
" Their fear is towards Me ". They rendered it : " They
worshipped Me," which S. Matthew has followed.
Teaching doctrines and commandments of men.
Doctrines which are not the commandments of God, but
of men. Christ calls those traditions the traditions of men
which are opposed to the commandments of God, iTTOvft
D^^N niSft " the learned precepts of men " ; that is, such
as w r ere invented and handed down by men. The Septua-
gint and Latin both apparently read " doctrine " with
other points rTTft7fc and translated it " doctrines," adding
the word " and " in explanation, " teaching doctrines and
commandments of men ". The Evangelist transposed the
words, if (as is often the case with citations from the Old
and New Testaments) it were not the carelessness of the
transcriber. The followers of Calvin cry upon this that
Christ s words apply to us, who ascribe more to the
traditions of men than to the Word of God ; understanding
neither what is the Word of God nor what the traditions of
men.
As regards the meaning of this passage, traditions are of
three kinds :
1. Those which God Himself has given, which have
never been written, but which the Church has always
observed, and handed down to us viva voce ; such as the
baptism of infants. The followers of Calvin practise this,
although they can prove it by no testimony of the Word ;
although to us, properly speaking, because we can prove it,
it is not tradition. These are not only not termed human
traditions, but not even ecclesiastical traditions, because,
although handed down by the Church, they were not con
stituted by the Church, but by God Almighty. So no one
calls the Holy Scripture an ecclesiastical tradition, though
preserved and handed down by the Church.
2. Of those things which the Church has not only
CH. xv. g.] CHRIST REPROVES SCRIBES AND PHARISEES. 9
handed down, but even instituted, such as the observance
of the Lord s Day, the Lent fast, abstinence on certain
days from flesh : whoever calls these human traditions errs
grievously, and knows not what the Church is. For they
were not instituted by man, but had for their authority
the Holy Ghost, who rules and governs the Church. So
he would greatly err who called the apostolic decree of
Acts xv. 20, which commanded to abstain from blood and
things strangled, a human tradition. Yet that was not a
divine but an ecclesiastical precept, because all the
assembled Church decreed it. Therefore whatever the
Church, afterwards assembled in the same way, defined is
to be placed in the same class. For the Holy Ghost was
both promised and exhibited not less to the Church than
to the Apostles ; nay, even more : for He was given to the
Apostles not for themselves alone, but for the Church : to
the Church, not for the sake of the Apostles, but of herself,
to teach her all truth, and to remain with her even to the
end of the world. And that Spirit governs the Church
no less now than He governed her Apostles in those
days.
3. The third kind is of the things which are ordered
neither by God nor by the Church, but either by the State
or private persons. Of these there are two kinds : (a) Such
as are not contrary to the precepts or counsel of God ; (b)
such as are contrary to them.
Of the former Christ does not treat here ; but nearly all
Scripture teaches us to obey them, if ordered by those who
have authority ; for we owe them obedience. " Be subject
of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience
sake " (Rom. xiii. 5). Christ only speaks of those which
cannot be kept without violating the commandments of
God ; such as those of the Scribes and Pharisees, of which
He says : " You have made void the commandment of
God through your tradition ".
10 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xv. n.
Verse 1 1. Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man.
Christ, says S. Chrysostom, does not say that food does
not defile, though He means that, but what enters into the
mouth ; which may be understood of the defilement by
unwashed hands, of which He was speaking ; lest if He
directly mentioned food, they should be greatly offended.
For with such religious scruples was the choice of food
regarded, that even after the Resurrection Peter refused to
eat (Acts x. 14).
But what cometh out.
Not that everything which proceeds out of the mouth
of a man defiles him ; nor does everything which defiles
^roceed out of his mouth. For the praises of God proceed
out of his mouth and do not defile, but rather justify him.
And wicked and evil thoughts which the mind alone
employs itself upon, in themselves defile a man, but do not
proceed out of his mouth. But the meaning is : The
things which defile a man, and either enter into or pass out
through the mouth, do not defile because they enter, but
because they pass out And not because they merely pass
out, for food is sometimes returned per vomitum, but
because they proceed out of a heart defiled. This heart,
therefore, the food or drink which is either taken immoder
ately or against the law of the Church defiles, not by
entering, but by passing out. It proceeds out when the
intemperate or disobedient mind comes forth into action,
and not only wishes to take but actually takes and places
in the mouth food or drink in immoderate quantities, or
contrarily to the law of the Church. For the food in enter
ing goes out, and not because it enters, but because it goes
out, it defiles. Why did Christ add this so obscurely ?
I suppose that He wished to use the antithesis of entering
and passing out to mark the calumnious question of the
Scribes and Pharisees, that He might indirectly show that
CH. xv. 12, 13.] PARABLE OF THE BLIND LEADERS. I I
it was not His disciples by their unwashed hands, but the
Scribes and Pharisees themselves by their malignant and
calumnious words, that were defiled.
Verse 1 2. Were scandalised.
Because He appeared, as S. Chrysostom says, to speak
of the choice of meats as ordered by the Law, and thereby
to be destroying the Law itself.
Verse 13. Every plant.
Many authors of note understand doctrine by plant
(Theophylact Alexandria, Ep. Pasch., i. ; S. Hilary, Theo-
phylact, Euthymius). Others take it of those who have
good or bad wills (S. Athanasius, Ep. on Syn. of Arim. and
Seleuc. ; S. Jerome, in loc. ; Prosper, De vocat. Gent., i. 2 ;
S. Augustin, Ev. Quest., i. 17 ; Bede). Others, again, think
that it means both men and doctrines, as S. Chrysostom.
Christ no doubt calls the men themselves, the Scribes and
Pharisees, the plant, as in the verse following He calls them
blind and leaders of the blind. We are ourselves some
times good plants, sometimes bad. God makes us good :
we make ourselves evil (Jer. ii. 21). The meaning is,
therefore, that they whom God planted as a good vine a
vine elect turn into an evil one ; or that they who planted
themselves an evil vine in the beginning cannot flourish
and bear fruit long, and are, therefore, to be cut down and
cast into everlasting fire, as He said above of the evil tree
(iii. 10; vii. 19). In this sense, Origen (On Jerem., Horn, i.)
and S. Jerome explain it. Christ desired only to say that
these, as wicked and profligate, would be sent away by
Him, because they had not the Spirit of God, but followed
their own devices and tradition, and, therefore, could not
receive the words of Christ, which are full of the Spirit :
as He says immediately after (verse 14, and S. John vi. 44).
12 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xv. 14, 15.
Some modern interpreters explain the passage of pre
destination and reprobation, which S. Augustin certainly
did not do ; for Christ would excuse, rather than condemn
them, if He said that they were to be rejected because
they were reprobate, and could not do otherwise than they
did ; and perhaps not all of them were reprobate : perhaps
some of them afterwards believed. And as Christ did not
say that they were reprobate, it would be rash in us to say
so. He says that they would be rejected, not as being
reprobate, but as being blind. But they who are blind
may be enlightened. For many were blind and were after
wards enlightened ; and Christ does not use the words
" rooted out " absolutely, but only if they be not con
verted if they will not become good plants, as He said
before (xii. 33) ; and as the householder long expected the
tree which he had planted in his vineyard to bring forth
good fruit, that is, to be made good (S. Luke xiii. 7).
Verse 14. If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into
tJie ditch.
All heretic teachers are blind, and leaders of the blind.
Hence not only the masters, but those also who follow
them, fall into the ditch, and they cannot be excused from
ignorance.
Verse 15. And Peter answering.
" Answering " is a Hebraism for beginning to speak, as in
chap. xi. 25. "Peter," says S. Chrysostom, "as the most
ardent of all, usually anticipates all." S. Mark (vii. 17) does
not say that it was Peter, but that it was the disciples who
asked that question, when Christ had entered into the
house. Euthymius says that S. Peter began, and the rest
followed ; but it would rather seem to be a syllepsis, in
which what he alone asked all are said to have asked, or
that he asked in the name of all, which is very probable,
as he did not say expound " to me," but " to us," this
CH. xv. 17.] PARABLE OF THE BLIND LEADERS. 13
parable ; or because, if he asked for himself alone, Scrip
ture is accustomed to put by figure many for one, when
all, like these, are of the same class: as S. Matthew (xxvi. 8)
writes that when the ointment was poured out the disciples
were angered, when it is clear, from 5. John xii. 4, that
Judas only was so ; and (xxvii 44) the thieves who
were crucified with Christ are said to have blasphemed,
when S. Luke (xxiii. 39, 40) shows clearly that one only
blasphemed, and that he was rebuked by the other, who
not only did not do the same, but confessed Christ. It is
no objection that Christ, speaking not of one, but of the
whole, said immediately, "Are you also yet without
understanding?" For, when Judas alone murmured against
the woman who had poured out the ointment, Christ,
speaking of the whole, said, " Let ye her alone " (S. Matt.
xxvi. 10 ; 5. Mark xiv. 6).
Verse 17. Do you not understand.
S. Jerome says that some profane persons on this
accused Christ of ignorance of philosophy, because He
said, " Whatever is taken into the mouth passes out,"
whereas some remains for the nourishment of the body.
Christ, then, was ignorant of that which no one is ignorant
of. He spoke not philosophically, nor with subtlety, but
popularly ; for as but a small portion remains, He spoke as
if none did. But we may ask, What is the argument which
Christ used ? for it does not appear how the conclusion
follows from the premisses. The answer is that Christ laid
down this premiss as a thing known per se, that nothing
can defile but the heart, which is the fountain of the whole
man ; or that which is either in the heart or proceeds from
it, as in verses 18, 19. Because food, then, does not pro
ceed out of the heart, nor is in it, but proceeds into the
belly, and passes out, He rightly concludes that it cannot
defile the man.
14 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xv. 18, 21.
Verse 18. But the things which proceed out of the month.
Christ says that out of the mouth proceed not only
thoughts, though these do so most properly, but also deeds
and whatever results in deeds. For all deeds are first
conceived in the heart, where they are not seen unless they
come forth through the mouth, the only orifice of the
heart ; and it is most natural that what we are going to do
should be first conceived in our hearts, then spoken from
our mouth, and lastly carried out into action. Thus works
proceed through words from the heart. It sometimes
happens that we act without speaking ; but Christ regards
only what takes place most generally, and therefore He
says what follows.
Verse 2 1 . Into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
These were two Gentile maritime cities (as xi. 21). It is
not certain whether Christ came into the actual country of
the Gentiles, though almost all authors think so ; or
whether He only came to the confines of Galilee and
Phoenicia, in which Tyre and Sidon were situated. On the
one hand, it does not seem likely that Christ Himself did
what He forbade the Apostles to do : " Go ye not into the
way of the Gentiles" (x. 5), especially as He came to teach
the Jews only, the Gentiles being left for after time to the
Apostles. On the other hand, S. Mark, " And rising from
thence, He went into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon " (vii.
24), seems to signify that He did pass on into the country of
the Gentiles itself. But it cannot be conclusively decided
from that passage. For in the same chapter of S. Mark
(verse 31) the words, "He came by Sidon to the sea of
Galilee," are a corruption, as many have observed ; so that
it would rather appear that He did not come into the
country of the Gentiles. We may ask why He came
hither ? S. Mark (vii. 24) seems to imply that it was for
concealment. From this it is clear that He wished to be
CH. xv. 22.] CHRIST IN CHAN AAN. 15
concealed when He had come thither ; but whether He
came there for that purpose is not certain. S. Chrysostom
(Horn, liii.) thinks that He came thither because He had
just previously appeared to abrogate the ceremonies of the
Law and the observances of meats, and desired to show, by
coming to the Gentiles, that there was no longer Jew and
Greek ; as Peter, when he saw the sheet rilled with all
kinds of animals, and had learnt that there was no longer
to be any difference of meats, was commanded to go to
Cornelius, a Gentile (Acts x. 19, 20). Others think that
He went thither because the Jews would not receive His
doctrines, as S. Paul and Barnabas said (Acts xiii. 46). So
say S. Jerome, Bede, Theophylact, except that Theophy-
lact does not think that He came to teach but to be con
cealed. S. Epiphanius thinks that it was to rest.
Verse 22. And behold a woman of Chanaan.
S. Mark (vii. 26) calls her a woman of Syro-Phcenicia,
which in no way opposes S. Matthew. For the men of
Tyre and Sidon were Syro-Phcenicians, as Pliny and Strabo
say. They were called by a compound name, because the
Syrians had seized Phoenicia, as some think, like the Gallo-
graeci or Celtiberi ; or, as seems more probable, because
there were some Phoenicians who were not inhabitants of
Syria but of Africa, and who were called Libyo-Phoenicians,
that is, Phoenicians inhabitants of Lybia, as these were
called Syro-Phcenicians ; and the woman is said to have
come out of the coasts. Yet there is no probability in
favour of the common opinion that she was called a woman
of Chanaan, either because the Phoenicians were driven out
of the land of Chanaan by the Jews, or, as some would have
it, because they were the descendants of Cham, the son of
Noe, whose firstborn son was called Sidon (Gen. x. 15), and
whom they represented to be the founder of Sidon,
although profane writers mention another as such. S.
16 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xv. 23.
Chrysostom has observed that the Evangelist recorded her
to be a Chanaanite, to show that her faith was more wonder
ful ; for the Chanaanites were held by the Jews the most
wicked of all the Gentiles. S. Mark has said that she was
a Greek, that is, a Gentile, as our version renders it. For
all Gentiles in the Sacred Writings, and more especially in
the New Testament, are called Greeks and opposed to
Jews, though neither in language nor by descent actually
Greeks (Acts ix. 29; xviii. 4; Rom. i. 16; ii. 9; iii. 9;
i Cor. i. 22, 24 ; Gal. iii. 28).
Have mercy on me.
She says " on me " that she might move Christ more
than if she should say " my daughter " ; or, as S. Chrysos
tom, Theophylact, and Euthymius say, because her
daughter was lying without sense, and she felt the suffer
ings of both, her own and her daughter s.
Thoii Son of David.
I. Why Christ was so addressed most chiefly by those who
wanted some favour from Him has been explained chap. i.
2. We must believe that this woman, though not a Jewess,
had heard something, either from her vicinity to the Jews,
or from the prophets who spoke of Christ as the future Son
of David. She at least knew that He was so styled com
monly by the Jews who believed on Him.
Verse 23. WJw answered her not a word.
Lest, say S. Jerome and Bede, He should seem to con
tradict Himself, because (x. 5) He had said to His disciples,
Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles. So He answered
in the following verse : " I was not sent but to the sheep
that are lost of the house of Israel ".
Christ seems to have been silent for two reasons. To
prove the woman s faith and constancy ; or, rather as S.
CH. xv. 23.] THE WOMAN OF CHANAAN. I/
Chrysostom says, to show it to the others ; for it was great
and rare faith to persevere when apparently held in con
tempt, and not thought worthy of reply ; and that Christ
might show that it was not of His own will to grant to the
Gentiles the grace of miracles, when He was not sent but
to the lost sheep of the house of Israel ; but that He did so
as it were reluctantly, and as if compelled by the woman s
prayers.
Send her away.
By granting what she asked for. Euthymius says that
they asked for her ; and it is very likely that the woman
entreated them to plead for her as for themselves.
For she crieth after us.
This seems to mean : " Grant her what she asks, if only
because of her importunity, as Thou taughtest us in the
parable of the man who sought the loaves at an incon
venient hour of the night " (S. Luke xi. 8). The saying of
S. Jerome, that the Apostles entreated for her to be rid of
her clamour, seems somewhat harsh. S. Mark (vii. 25) says
that she entered the house where Christ was and fell at His
feet ; which seems opposed to this account, wherein it is
signified that she followed Him as He went along the way,
and cried behind Him. S. Augustin (De Cons., ii. 49)
answers that she first went into the house where Christ
was, and fell at His feet, and said, " Have mercy upon
me," as S. Mark says ; but that Christ made her no answer,
but went out of the house, and she followed and cried after
Him, as S. Matthew relates.
This is easily gathered from S. Mark, who says that
Christ, as soon as He came into the country, entered into a
house, and wished to be concealed, but could not be, for
the Syro-Phcenician immediately came and fell at His feet.
Therefore the idea of some, that she first followed Christ in
2 2
1 8 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xv. 24.
the way, and after cried out behind Him, and the disciples
said, "Send her away"; and that He went into a house that
He might grant her request in a private place, and that she
fell at His feet, seems in no degree probable.
Verse 24. / am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel.
It is the most ungrateful and wicked error of the fol
lowers of Calvin, that Christ came or died, not for the sake
of all men, but only for the predestinated. They cannot
make the heresy good from this passage ; for He says that
He came not for these, but that He was sent to the Jews
alone. Christ says then that He was sent to the Jews
alone. All of these were not predestinated, but the greater
part were reprobate. He was not sent, therefore, for the
predestinate alone. He says that He was not sent but to
the lost sheep of the house of Israel, either because He came
to them first, as S. Paul says (Acts xiii. 46 ; S. Ambrose,
On Ps. xliii., and Gaudentius, Tract, vii. on Exodus ; S.
Cyril Alexandria, On Isaiah, bk. v. ; and S. Jerome and
Bede, in Comments^ or that He was come to show His
presence, preaching, and miracles to the Jews alone ; for
He would not preach the Gospel or perform miracles to
the Gentiles, ipse per se, but by His Apostles ; and there
fore He is termed by S. Paul the Minister of the Circum
cision (Rom. xv. 8). As S. Hilary and S. Augustin
(Tract, xxxi., xlvii., in John] suppose. He calls the Jews
" sheep " (x. 6) ; the Gentiles " dogs " (26).
It is easy to understand why He would not show His
presence to other nations than the Jews, because, as S.
Augustin says in his Tract, xxxi. on S. John, the promise
of the coming Messiah was made to the Jews alone, on
account of the faith of Abraham, as said on chap. i. i.
He did not come, therefore, to Tyre and Sidon to preach
or work miracles, but rather that He might be concealed,
CH. xv. 26.] THE WOMAN OF CHANAAN. 19
if Re came thither, as discussed on verse 21 ; nor did He
perform this miracle by design and in a predetermined
place, but as if compelled, as it were, by the prayers and
importunities of the woman, as explained on verse 22.
And He did not give it as bread, to the dogs, but cast it
to them ; or (not this even, but) He broke it off for her
like a crumb from the table. (See on verse 27.)
Verse 26. It is not good.
Good, Kakov, honourable, becoming, appropriate.
The bread of the children.
The bread is the grace of miracles and of the Gospel
generally, which was in a sense confined to the Jews alone,
as by the covenant with Abraham, of whom He calls the
Jews the children, as (Exodus iv. 22) Israel my first-born.
A nd to cast it.
/SaXXew/, projicere. The word shows that it was not the
fine bread of the children to be disposed of so rudely ; as
if it were not distributed with care and design, but thrown
about at random. The dogs have a coarser bread than the
children. Natural objects the sun, moon, rain, and other
things of the same kind are the bread of the dogs, that is,
of the Gentiles, which are dispensed by the providence of
God, indeed, but by a providence general, less exact, and
given forth to all in common, as acorns are cast to swine.
The grace of the Gospel, which is above nature, is the
bread of the children, not to be cast forth at random, but
distributed with greater care and design.
To the dogs.
Christ opposes the dogs to the children because, although
the householder has the care of both, he has a prior and
much greater care of the children. The Jews were pro-
20 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xv. 26.
bably used to call all other nations dogs, as the Greeks
called them barbarians. It is certain that it was their
custom to call the vilest and most worthless of men by this
name by way of contempt, as we read in 2 Kings iii. 8 ;
xvi. 9 ; 4 Kings viii. 13. S. Mark (vii. 27) says that Christ
said : " Suffer first the children to be filled " ; by which
words He seemed to give her some hope that the time
would come when her request should be granted ; for He
knew that the children never would be filled, but would
reject with contempt the bread offered them from heaven.
But it is a mystery ; and He explained, not what happened
from the fault of the Jews, but what, both from the divine
counsels and from the covenant with Abraham, ought to
have been done.
Yea, Lord.
All authors nearly have observed that the word " Yea " is
not that of one contradicting, but of assenting. It is not
clear how the woman argued, or what force the causal term
carries. In the expression, " For the whelps also ". For if
she granted the truth of Christ s words, she could not con
clude that the whelps eat of the crumbs, though they
actually do so ; and, if she wished to say this, she should
rather have said " but " than " for " " but the whelps " ;
that is, although it is not good to take children s bread
and give it to them, yet the masters suffer them to eat of
the crumbs which fall from the tables.
It may be explained as follows. Christ had termed the
woman a dog, and she took up the word and, as S. Chrysos-
tom has observed, made an argument from it, and cleverly
proved her case. " Yea, Lord ; " that is, " I am indeed a
dog, for the dogs eat of the crumbs ; and thus, if I am a
dog, I ought at least to eat of the crumbs". Therefore,
this i/at, etiam, " Yea," means the same as what we com
monly say in an argument when our opponent says a thing
which he thinks greatly against us, but which we take as
CH. xv. 28.] THE WOMAN OF CHANAAN. 21
strongly on our side. " This is what I would have of you,
that I am a dog ; for even the dogs eat of the crumbs."
Of the crumbs.
Christ calls the lesser and the less frequent miracles
crumbs ; and Theophylact has observed that it is as if the
woman had said : I do not ask of Thee to work miracles
everywhere here, as among the Jews ; to cure the blind,
or raise the dead ; but one thing only, and that less difficult
in its nature, to cast out the devil from my daughter.
Which fall.
This word answers to that used by Christ, " cast," and is
opposed to it. As if she had said : I do not ask Thee to
work a miracle openly (ex professd), as among the Jews,
but by the way, as it were ; not as if Thou gavest it, or
threwest it down, but as if it fell from Thee, as crumbs do
from the tables of the rich.
From the table.
Christ calls that abundance, so to speak, of all graces
which was in Him the table, as the table of the rich is
loaded with every kind of food (Col. ii. 9 ; 6*. John i. 16).
Of their masters.
She, says S. Chrysostom, calls the Jews their masters,
whom Christ had called sons. He ascribes this to her
great humility. It may rather be that she called Christ
Himself Master, but that she used the plural, because of
the number of dogs, each of which had its own master.
Verse 28. O woman, great is thy faith.
The words of admiration. It is to be observed that
Christ never praised the faith of any but Gentiles, as this
woman and the centurion (viii. 10). For the faith of the
Gentiles was greater than that of the Jews. How Christ
could feel admiration has been explained on that verse.
22 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xv. 32.
Verse 32. Called together His disciples.
To communicate His designs to them, as S. Jerome says.
It may appear that Christ wished to try their faith, and to
take the occasion of the future miracle, that it might appear
by their confession that it was not bread with which so
great a multitude could be fed. For we find that Christ,
without a great and evident need, never performed miracles.
Wherefore He waited three days before He performed the
following miracle, that if they had brought any food with
them from another source it might be consumed, as S.
Chrysostom and Euthymius have observed. S. Chrysostom
and Theophylact afterwards add that the disciples did not
then suggest to Christ to send the multitudes away into the
villages to buy bread, as they had done (xiv. 1 5) ; because
they had now made some advance in faith, and because
they saw that all the people were eager, and, in their
desire to hear, forgot their hunger.
Because they continue with Me now three days.
Some think that for the whole three days all or the
greater number of the people fasted. This that greatjejeumi
magister, Calvin, ascribed not to their virtue, but to the
more subtle atmosphere, for that we in our denser climate
could not endure so long an abstinence, as if the more
subtle atmosphere did not make men more sharp of
appetite. He would not, we think, have the French fast
for this reason. We read, not only among the Easterns,
but also among the Europeans, of much longer fasts. But
it cannot be concluded from this passage that either all or
some fasted for three days. We can only know that they
were fasting when Christ spoke ; because He said : " I will
not send them away fasting ". For they had consumed,
as Euthymius says, what they brought with them.
What happened in the 3Oth verse has been explained
above (xiv. 15-21).
CH. xv. 39.] CHRIST AT MAGEDAN. 23
Verse 39. The coasts.
Some Greek copies read ra op??, " the mountains," for
ra opta, " the coasts," which does not seem an improve
ment.
Magedan.
S. Mark (viii. 10) says that He came into the parts of
Dalmanutha. This is probably a corrupt reading for
" Mageda," as here ; as S. Jerome (In lib. de loc. Heb.\ S.
Augustin (De Consens., ii. 51), and Bede (On S. Mark viii.)
testify, and as many copies in their time had it. It is some
proof that Dalmanutha is not mentioned anywhere else in
Scripture, or, as far as I know, in any profane author.
Magedan, however, or, as it is in the Greek, Magdala, is
found in I Kings xvii. 20, though it is uncertain whether it
is the same place. But even if we said Dalmanutha, there
is no contradiction. For either, as S. Augustin and Bede
say, the same place is meant under another name, or, as
others conjecture, one is the name of the country, and the
other of the city, or each was the name of the city. But
each city was near, so that whoever came into the neigh
bourhood of one came into that of the other ; as above
(verse 21) Christ is said to have come into the coasts of
Tyre and Sidon.
CHAPTER XVI.
CHRIST REFUSES TO SHOW THE PHARISEES A SIGN FROM
HEAVEN PETER S CONFESSION is REWARDED HE
IS REBUKED FOR OPPOSING CHRIST S PASSION ALL
HIS FOLLOWERS MUST DENY THEMSELVES.
THE first three verses, or even four, as S. Jerome says,
are not found in very many copies. But all the Greek
and Latin authors have them, and they are found in 5. Mark
(viii. 11) ; nor is it probable that they were added, in either
case. It may appear strange that the Evangelist has
related the same thing (xii. 38). But there is no reason why
the Scribes and Pharisees not the same persons, but
others in other places may not have put the same ques
tions. Besides, the Scribes and Pharisees are mentioned
as the questioners in the former place, and the Sadducees
here. In the former place they did not come to Christ for
the purpose of questioning Him, but in the course of a con
versation they answered : " We would see a sign of Thee ".
Here they are said to have come as if for the purpose of
questioning Him, and seeking a sign from Him.
Verse I. The Pharisees and Sadducees.
( Vide chap. iii. 7 on Pharisees and Sadducees.) We may
observe how the two most opposite sects of Jewish heretics
agree among themselves to oppose Christ. For the Phari
sees and Sadducees carried on an internecine war among
themselves, as we learn not only from Josephus, but also
from S. Luke (Acts xxiii. 6). So Pilate and Herod, when
they had previously been enemies, became friends and
CH. xvi. 2.] CHRIST REFUSES THE PHARISEES A SIGN. 25
united to persecute Christ (S. Litke xxiii. 12). So now the
followers of Luther and Calvin very widely differ among
themselves, but conspire against the Catholic Church ; that
is, the Body of Christ. Christ, as Tertullian says, is always
crucified between two thieves.
A sign.
(See chap. xii. 38.)
Verse 2. When it is evening.
Because they sought a sign from Him, Christ showed
them from the heavenly appearances that they ought not
to seek it thence. Long experience universally shows that
the red of evening is a sign of calm and fine weather, and
that that of the morning foreshows tempests.
The face of the sky.
The Greek has "you hypocrites," and so 6". Luke xii. 56.
He calls them hypocrites, says Euthymius, because they
wished to seem wise, when in truth they were most sense
less.
The whole difficulty in the passage is as to the manner
in which Christ concludes His conversation. Some read it
affirmatively as S. Chrysostom and Theophylact and
explain it thus : " You can discern the face of the heavens
indeed ; but the signs of the times, My arrival, you cannot
understand. For My first advent ought to be discerned,
not from the signs of the heavens, the sun and moon, but
from the prophecies and the miracles that I do " (S. Luke
xvii. 20, 21).
Others take it as an interrogation ; as S. Hilary, S.
Jerome, Bede, and Euthymius. " If you know the signs of
the heavens, of fair weather and storms, which are more
difficult and uncertain, how can you err as to the signs of
the times of My coming, which are countersigned by so
26 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvi. 5, 6.
many prophecies and proved by so many miracles on My
part?" S. Luke (xii. 56): "Ye hypocrites, you know
how to discern the face of the heaven and of the earth ; but
how is it that you do not discern this time? " confirms this
opinion. For, although He spoke there to the multitude,
and here to the Scribes and Pharisees, it is probable that
He used the same style of argument with both : a majore
ad minus, as some term it ; or, a minore ad majus, as others ;
but either is probable.
Verse 5 . A nd when His disciples were come.
When they loosed sail to come ; for it was when they were
setting forth that they forgot the bread. S. Jerome asks
how it was possible for them to have forgotten this, when
a little before (xv. 37) they collected the seven baskets full
of fragments. He answers, that they brought the loaves
with them, but when they were setting forth they forgot to
take them. It seems, perhaps, more likely that, either of
their own accord, or at the command of Christ, the disciples
distributed these fragments to the poor. And thus they
forgot to take, that is, to buy, bread. It cannot be granted
to S. Jerome that what followed happened on the voyage,
because S. Luke plainly says, that when there were so
great multitudes standing about Him, that they trod one
upon another, Christ began to say to the disciples, " Beware
ye of the leaven of the Pharisees ".
Over the water.
Into Bethsaida as 5. Mark viii. 22.
Verse 6. Who said to them.
In the Greek, " Jesus said to them ". Our version says
"Who," expressing the antecedent by the relative, as is
very often done in Scripture, especially in the Old Testa
ment.
CH. xvi. 6.] CHRIST S WARNING AGAINST THE PHARISEES. 27
Take heed (" intuemini").
To see (videre) is one thing. To take heed (intueri) is
another ; as in the Greek /SXeVo) differs from 6pda>. For
one often sees " who takes no heed " : in this sense the
Latins use video, and not intiteor^ which is " observe
mentally ". Our version uses a catachresis (pleonasm) :
" Take heed and beware " Intuemini et cavete ; as also
does the Greek: opare KOL Trpocre^ere; and S. Mark (viii. 15)
opdre /SXeVere.
Of the leaven.
S. Hilary and S. Jerome think that the observation of
the Law is called leaven. This does not agree with what
Christ said afterwards (xxiii. 2). For He commands the
Law of Moses to be observed. Rather, that teaching of
the Pharisees and Sadducees in which they were heretics,
and corrupted the Law, is alluded to, and which Christ
reprehends (xv. 3, 5, 6). For it is clear from verse 12 that
we must understand Him of doctrine ; though the words
of S. Luke (xii. i), " Beware ye of the leaven of the
Pharisees, which is hypocrisy," may appear contrary. It
may be answered, as Bede seems to say, that He called the
doctrine itself of the Pharisees and Sadducees, hypocrisy ;
because they taught one thing and practised another, or
because all their teaching tended to hypocrisy. It is a
more grave question how Christ here commands the
Apostles to beware of their doctrine, when (xxiii. 2) He
teaches them to do whatever they say. The answer, again,
may be, that He is there speaking of the Scribes and
Pharisees as sitting in Moses seat, that is, explaining the
Law of Moses ; as long as they do which, they are to be
followed ; but He does not speak here of the Law of Moses,
but of their own leaven, that is, of their heretical teaching,
of which He bids them beware.
28 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvi. 7,8.
Of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
S. Mark (viii. 15) adds, "and of Herod," or, as it is in
other copies, " of the Herodians . Hence, it is clear that
there was some sect of Herodians or of Herod. For Christ
was speaking of sects when He mentioned the Sadducees,
who were certainly heretics, or even more than heretics ;
and from verse 12 it would appear that the subject was of
false and corrupt doctrine. But which Herod was the
author of this sect is uncertain : whether Herod Antipater
the Great who reigned last, or Herod Antipas, his son, the
tetrarch of Galilee ; and what doctrine he introduced, there
is nothing, seemingly, to show either in sacred or profane
history; unless we may conjecture from what Josephus wrote
of Herod the king, who gave his mind entirely to Roman
fashions, that he was the author of that sect ; and from the
place given to him by the Evangelist, who places Herod in
the last rank of all (S. Mark viii. 15), that it consisted
merely of pretence, by which, for the sake of power, it
adapted itself to every sect, like those whom we now call
politicians : men either of no religion at all, or who pre
tend to be of everyone. The subject will be treated at
more length (xxii. 16).
Verse 7. But they thought within themselves.
They thought not only how the words of Christ were to
be understood, but also what they were to do, as they had
taken no bread. This was the cause of their solicitude.
Christ blamed them because they did not remember the
two great miracles by which, just before, He had fed so
many thousands with so little bread.
Verse 8. But Jesus knowing it.
Their thoughts, which, as S. Chrysostom says, showed
their forgetfulness of the miracle.
CH. xvi. 10, 13.] CHRIST AT C^SAREA PHILIPPI. 29
Verse 10. Nor the seven loaves among four thousand men.
The Greek has, " Of the four thousand ". Our version
keeps the meaning, but not the words.
Verse 13. Into the quarters of Ccesarea Philippi.
All know that there were two Caesareas. One, the
ancient, which was formerly called the Tower of Strato.
It was enlarged by King Herod, and adorned by him with
many noble works, and called Caesarea in honour of
Augustus Caesar, as we learn from Josephus (Antiq., xv. 13,
and De Bell. Jud., xvi.) and from S. Jerome on this passage.
It was situated on the coast of the Mediterranean, between
Dora and Joppa. There was another, more modern, in
Phoenicia, at the foot of Mount Libanus, where the Jordan
takes its rise, which had been previously called Paneas, and
which Philip, the son of Herod the Great, and tetrarch of
the region of Trachonitis (S. Luke iii. I, 2), adorned and
enlarged, and called Caesarea in honour of Tiberius. After
wards, King Agrippa, to flatter Nero, called it Neronias,
as Josephus says (Antiq., xx. 8). The assertion of S.
Jerome that it was then called Paneas does not seem to
have been said by a lapse of memory; but it was very
likely that in his time the adulatory name of Caesarea had
been lost, and the city had resumed its ancient name of
Paneas. It was called Caesarea Philippi ; Philip the tetrarch
having so named it to distinguish it from the other Caesarea
of Herod.
A nd He asked His disciples.
S. Mark (viii. 27) says that this happened on the way,
and S. Luke (ix. 18) when He was alone praying.
Euthymius answers that He took His journey and prayed
at the same time. This hardly seems probable. The
opinion of S. Augustin (De Consens., ii. 53) seems more
probable, that it happened by the way, before He reached
3O THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvi. 13.
the place to which He was going. He turned aside out of
the way to some solitary spot to pray, and, when He had
finished His prayer, He went on, and then asked the
disciples whom men said that He was. " As He was
praying" (S. Luke ix. 18) is a Hebraism for "When He
had finished," as Ps. cxxv. I : " When the Lord brought
back " ; that is, " When," or " after He had ".
Whom do men say.
Many Latin copies, and most Greek ones, have "Whom
do men say that I, the Son of man, am? " There is a three
fold version. I. " Whom do men say that the Son of man
is?" 2. "Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?"
3. "Whom do men say that I am?" In the first, almost all
the Latin copies and all authors agree. In the second, only
S. Epiphanius (In Anchor atus), Theophylact, and, as it
seems, S. Hilary. In the third, only S. Chrysostom
(Horn. lv.).
The first, which is the most usual one, and that in com
mon use, seems much the best, and the conjecture that it
was written at first (" Whom do men say that the Son of
man is ? ") seems very excellent. Then perhaps some
Greek, to show that Christ spoke of Himself, inserted //,e,
" that I am," into the margin ; another may have trans
ferred it to the text ; and thus it may have begun to be read,
" Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am ? " And,
lastly, that some transcriber, thinking that there was a
redundancy, removed the words, " the Son of man," which
were obscure, and left the " Me," " that I," which was
clearer. I know that many read it either way, and either
without an interrogation, and by apposition : " I, the Son
of man" ; or, with an interrogation : " Whom do men say
that I am ? the Son of man ? " Both readings seem
absurd; the second the more so of the two. For Christ
does not call Himself the Son of man honourably, but in
CH. xvi. 14, 15.] PETER S CONFESSION. 31
humility; nor does He speak in the third person of any but
Himself.
Observe the antithesis. Christ asks : " Whom do men
say that the Son of man is?" Peter answers: " Thou art the
Son of the living God ". Hence it seems that in the first
passage we ought to read the words, " the Son of man," for
the antithesis. For Christ seems designedly, and in the
most contemptuous terms, to have called Himself the Son
of man, to try their faith, and to give them an opportunity
of saying freely what their thoughts of Him were, even if
they held Him no more than a mere man.
Men.
A Hebraism, as in chap. v. 13, which S. Luke explains.
To S. Matthew s, "Whom do men say?" S. Luke (ix. 18),
adds, " Whom do the people say that I am ? " as in explana
tion. S. Matthew, as we have shown, keeps the words ; S.
Luke the meaning and explanation.
Verse 14. Some, John the Baptist.
Why some said John the Baptist, some Elias, some
Jeremias, vide chap. xi. 4 ; xiv. 2.
Verse 1 5. But whom do you say that I am ?
Here is a plain antithesis. S. Jerome thinks that Christ
opposed the Apostles to men, as being something more
than men. " Observe," he says, " that from what follows
and from the text of the discourse, the Apostles are not
called men, but gods. For when Christ had said : Whom
do men say that the Son of man is ? He added : But
whom do you say that I am ? " It may be believed that
Christ did not oppose them to men as gods, but He seems
to have opposed them to the vulgar, as not ordinary men,
which S. Chrysostom also thinks. " You who have been
with Me always, who have seen Me do many wonderful
32 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvi. 16.
things, who in My name have yourselves done many acts
of power, whom do you say that I am ? "
Verse 1 6. Simon Peter answered.
The Ancients give many reasons for Peter s having
answered before the rest. i. That Peter was thefrmcepsof
all, as S. Chrysostom (Horn. Iv.) says. 2. Because he was of
a more ardent temperament, as S. Hilary and S. Jerome on
chap. xiv. 28 say. 3. Because He was as the mouth of the
Apostles, and was accustomed to speak for all, as S.
Chrysostom (in loco) and S. Augustin say; for in S. John vi.
68, when Christ asked all the disciples if they also would go
away, Peter answered : " Lord, to whom shall we go ?
Thou hast the words of eternal life." Whether he answered
here for himself only, or for all, we will endeavour to show
on verse 18.
Thou art the Son of the living God.
Peter calls Christ the Son, by nature, not by adoption.
For all confessed Him to be the Son of God by adoption, as
being a just man and a prophet. The most certain proof
that Peter thought Christ the Son of the living God was his
opposing Him to John, Elias, Jeremiah, and the Prophets,
who, it is certain, were the sons of God by adoption. He
calls Christ, therefore, the Son of God, not by adoption,
but by nature. The Ancients rightly proved the Divinity
of Christ from this passage ; as S. Hilary (in his Comment.,
and De Trin., vi.), S. Athanasius (Serm. cont. Arian.>
Serm. iii.), and Dionysius Alexandria (Cont. Arian^}.
The living.
Peter calls Him the living God to distinguish Him from
idols, which are lifeless things, as S. Jerome, Bede, and
Euthymius have observed. S. Basil (De Pcenit.) terms
Him the Son of the Holy God. Rightly, then, Theophy-
CH. xvi. 17, is.] PETER S CONFESSION. 33
lact notes the addition of the Greek article to the word
Son, to show, not that He was an ordinary man, but that
He was the one only Son of God by nature. ( Vide chap.
X. 2.)
Verse 17. Simon Barjona.
So called by contraction for Bar-johanna, which in the
Chaldee means the son of John, as he is called (S. John
xxi. 15). S. Luke uses a like contraction (iii. 30).
Because flesJi and blood.
Man, that is, consisting of flesh and blood. The Evan
gelist opposes men to God. " My Father," He says, " who
is in heaven," and as Gal. i. 16; 5. John i. 13. Thus Scrip
ture opposes men who savour of carnal things to God, or to
those who savour of divine things (i Cor. xv. 50). So it is
called the wisdom of the flesh (Rom. viii. 6, 7).
Verse 18. And I.
A forcible antithesis; but the Greek is still more forcible :
Karya> Se, " and I assuredly ". As if Christ had said : You,
who are a man, have called me the Son of the living God ;
but I, who am the Son of the living God, say that thou
art Peter, that is, My vicar, whom thou hast confessed
to be the Son of God. For My Church which is built
upon Me I will build, as upon a second foundation, upon
thee also.
Thou art Peter.
Some think that he was not called Peter before, but that
the name was only promised him. S. John i. 42 : " Jesus,
looking upon him, said : Thou art Simon the son of Jonas.
Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter."
It is more probable, as S. Augustin says (De Cons., ii.),
that he was so called from the beginning of his vocation, as
S. Mark (iii. 16) and S. Luke (vi. 14) show. And, therefore,
23
34 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvi. 18.
when Christ said to him (S. John i. 42), " Thou art Simon
the son of Jona ; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is
interpreted Peter," He gave him a name ; as if He had
said : Henceforth thou shalt not be called Simon, but
Cephas, i.e. y Peter ; as God gave Abram the name of Abra
ham, speaking of the future (Gen. xvii. 5).
And upon this rock I will build My Church.
Some ancient authors take this rock to mean this faith,
or this confession of faith, by which Peter had called Him
the son of the living God. Such are S. Hilary (De Trin. t
vi.) ; S. Gregory of Nyssa (Cont. Jud.) ; S. Chrysostom
(Horn. Iv. in loc., and Orat.u. adv. Jud.}\ S. Cyril Alexandria
(Dial. iv. de Trm.} , and the author of the Commentaries on
the Epistles of S. Paul, which are ascribed to S. Ambrose
(On Gal. iv.).
But the interpretation of S. Augustin (On S. John xxvii.
and cxxiv. 4, and Serm. xiii. de verb. Dom. sec. S. Matt.} :
" Upon this rock, that is, upon Myself," because Christ was
the Rock (i Cor. x. 4, and iii. 11), is still further from
the meaning. Origen takes it of all who have the same
faith (Tract, in S. Matt.}.
Nothing could be more alien to the meaning of Christ
than to suppose Him to say that He built the Church upon
Himself, or upon any other foundation than S. Peter. For
(i) the demonstrative pronoun " this " is here evidently put
for the relative "which". As if Christ had said : "Thou
art a rock upon which I will build My Church," for Petrus
and Petra are the same word, only of different genders.
It may be doubted why, if not S. Matthew himself, yet the
Greek translator of S. Matthew, made that distinction of
word and gender. The answer is, that in the Greek TrtV/oo?
and irerpa are masculine and feminine. Peter, because he
was a man, could not be spoken of by the word Petra, but
must be described by his own proper masculine name
CH. xvi. i8.] PETER THE ROCK. 35
Petrus. (2) When Christ spoke of the foundation of the
building, He called him not Petrus but Petra, though both
words meant the same thing. And in buildings of this
kind, the feminine form of the word is more used than the
masculine the masculine being Attic and rare. Besides,
who doubts that by these words Christ meant to bestow
some great and singular gift upon Peter as a reward of his
confession of faith, or wished to promise such ? But
what would Christ have given to him if He had only given
him the name of Peter? Nay, He would not have given
him the name, for, as has been shown, he was already
called Peter ; but by the words, " upon this rock," He
signified that He would bestow upon him the great and
singular dignity of founding upon him His Church ; that
is, of making him the head of the Church, and His own
vicar in it. From the words that follow : " And I will give
to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," it is clear that
the words in question apply to Peter, for it is absurd that
a change either of things or persons could be made by so
few words. As, then, Christ said, " I will give unto thee
the keys," so He said, "Upon this rock," that is, upon
thee, " I will build My Church ".
He gave him the same thing in different words, and by
different metaphors, that he should be His vicar in the
Church. This dignity (prior to that of the foundation),
when He said, " Upon this rock I will build My Church,"
He afterwards confirmed by the metaphor of chief or head
of the Church, when He gave him the keys like those of a
city : Christ Himself being both head and foundation of
the Church ; by which two names and metaphors, not two,
but one and the same thing is signified.
It may be asked why Christ did not directly, and in one
word, say : " Upon thee will I build My Church " ? The
obvious reply is, that the grace and force of His words
would in that case have been lost These consisted in
36 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvi. 18.
Christ s using terms applicable to a building when speaking
of the Church as a building ; but it would not have been
consistent to say, " Upon thee," for buildings are not
founded upon men, but upon rocks, as S. Jerome says.
Besides, if the meaning were "upon this rock," that is, upon
this faith, or upon Myself, it would be very greatly in
favour of the opponent who thinks that Peter spoke not for
himself alone, but for all the Apostles ; which, it must be
confessed, some of the ancient Fathers thought as well (S.
Chrysostom, S. Jerome, in loc. ; S. Augustin, Serm. xiii. de
verb. Doin. ap. S. Matt.\ who shall shortly be com
mented on with due respect. We have now to refute the
errors of the followers of Calvin. If Peter spoke for all,
why did not Christ say to all, " Blessed are ye " ? Why
were not the names of all changed ? Why was it not said
to all, " To you I give the keys " ? Again, when Christ
asked all, why did not all reply ? Especially when a little
before, when He asked whom men said that He was, not
only Peter, but all, or as many as would, answered : " Some
say John the Baptist, others Elias, others Jeremias, or one
of the Prophets ". All other authors, then, have seen more
correctly that Peter answered for himself alone. Not that
the others did not believe the same thing, and would have
said it, had not Peter anticipated them ; but that Peter,
with a great faith, was the first to break out with a con
fession. These authors meant this alone, when they said
that he answered for all, and called him the mouth of the
Apostles. It is consonant with this, that as Christ chose
the twelve Apostles, after the form of the twelve Patriarchs,
so He should choose one like Abraham, who, because of
his great faith, was the head of all ; and that as Abraham
was the foundation of the Old Testament so Peter should
be of the Church of the Gospel. For all things are equal
in both. Abraham excelled in faith, so did Peter. Abram s
name was changed to Abraham, as he was to be the father
CH. xvi. 18.] PETER THE ROCK. 37
of many nations (Gen. xvii. 5) ; and so Peter s, who was to
be the father and head of all Christians. For the one sole
reason given by the heretics for denying that the Church
was founded upon Peter, that it could have no other
foundation but that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus (i
Cor. iii. n), is altogether false. For S. Paul (Eph. ii. 20)
calls the Apostles and Prophets the foundation of the
Church. The heretics interpretation of this, as meaning
the faith and doctrine, is wholly perverse. For the Apostle
adds : " Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone ".
In these words, he signifies that in the Church, as in the
foundations of other buildings, there are many stones, the
first and chief corner-stone being Christ, into whom all
others are united ; the second ones being the Apostles and
Prophets, who are themselves built upon the first, but who
were the foundation of other Christians ; as S. John says in
the Apocalypse (xxi. 14), in plain words, which have not yet
met with any heretical explanation.
Why, then, did S. Paul not say that we are built upon
Christ rather than upon the Apostles and Prophets ? The
answer is easy. We are placed further from Christ in the
building of the Church than from the Apostles and
Prophets. For Christ is in the first place. He is the
first and corner-stone. Upon Christ are the Apostles and
Prophets. Upon the Apostles and Prophets are built
ourselves.
Lastly, except these heretics, all ancient authors teach
that the Church was built upon Peter. So, then, S.
Clement Rome (Ep. to James), Hippolytus (De Consum.
Miindi), Dionysius (Ep. to Tim.), Tertullian (De Prcescript.
and De Pudicitia), S. Cyprian (Eps. to Jubaian. and Cornell),
Origen (Horn. v. on Exod.), S. Epiphanius (Anc/wrat.), S.
Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. de Moderat.), S. Basil (Horn, de
Pcenit., and ii., Against Eunom.), S. Ambrose (Serm. xlvii.
dc Fide Petri, and Ixviii. de Nat. Pet. et Paul.), and the
38 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. xvi. 18.
Hymn of the Church, which is said by S. Augustin to be
the composition of S. Ambrose :
" Hoc, ipsa petra Ecclesias
Canente, culpam diluit"
"And singing this the Church s rock itself,
His fault condoned ".
So, S. Jerome (Ep. to Marcella against Montanus, and bk. L,
Adv.Jovin^ the author of the Commentaries on the Epistles
of S. Paul which are commonly ascribed to S. Ambrose
(On Gal. ii.), Leo (Serm. ii. de Pet. et Paulo, Ep. to Pp. Vienna
and Ep. to Geminian),\he whole Council of Chalcedon, Juven-
cus (Psellus ap. T/ieod., and iii., In Cant.), and lastly, those
authors who are thought to have held the contrary. For
S. Hilary (De Trin., vi.), when he said that Christ founded
the Church upon the faith of Peter, uses these words : " After
his confession of this mystery, the blessed Simon, laying it
as the foundation in the edification of the Church, and re
ceiving the keys ". And (On Ps. cxxxi.) : " So great was
Christ s zeal of suffering for the salvation of the human
race, that He named Peter, with the railing of Satan "
(Satancz convicio), "the first confessor of God, the founda
tion of the Church, the door-keeper of the kingdom of
heaven, and in earthly judgment the judge of heaven ".
" O thou, happy in the naming of thy new name, blessed
foundation of the Church, and rock worthy of that
edification which shall destroy the laws of hell, the
gates of Tartarus, and all the bars of death " (Can. xvi.
on S. Matt.). And S. Chrysostom (Horn. ii. on Ps. 1.) :
" Hear what Christ said to Peter, the column and founda
tion of the faith, who, for the strength of his confession, was
called Peter : Thou art Peter ; and upon this rock I will
build My Church ". S. Cyril (ii., On S. John xii.) : " Thou
art Simon, the son of Jona ; thou shalt be called Cephas/
rightly showing, by the name itself, that on him, as on a
CH. xvi. 18.] PETER THE ROCK, 39
rock and most firm stone, He would build His Church ".
And S. Augustin (Serm. xlix. in verb. Dom. sec. Joann.} :
" He said to Peter, on whom He establishes His Church,
Peter, lovest thou Me? " And (lib. i. 21 of Retract^} the
opinion of those who should say that the Church was
built upon Peter he does not disapprove.
From this it appears that those authors who explain the
words " upon this rock " by " this faith " received it in a
different sense to these heretics. It would seem the best
explanation to say that they meant that the Church was
built upon the faith and confession of Peter ; that is, upon
Peter because of his faith and confession, as all other
authors say.
We use such expressions daily, as when we say that the
kingdom was built upon the faith of one man ; that is, on
one man because of his faith, as S. Ambrose (De Resurrect.
Fide) said : " It was not the body of Peter that walked upon
the waters, but his faith ; for it was not his body, but his faith
that made him do it ". It is clear from these words that
they do not deny, as the heretics do, that S. Peter is the
foundation of the Church.
It may be said : If all others, not only Apostles, but also
Prophets, as S. Paul says, are the foundation of the Church,
what in particular is given to S. Peter in those words? The
answer is, that among all the Prophets and Apostles, he,
after Christ, was the first foundation of the Church, and fills
Christ s place in His absence. But when others are a
foundation also, nothing less could be given to him than
that he should be the second foundation-stone after Christ,
and in the same way in which Christ is such ; that is, that
not only one part, but the whole Church, should rest on
him (niteretur}. There is this difference, that Christ is the
foundation by His own power, Peter by Christ s ; and
Christ rests on no other foundation, but Peter rests on
another, that is, Christ.
40 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvi. 18.
My Church.
Christ calls the Church His, to show that He was God,
and the Lord of the Church, as Theophylact has rightly
shown.
And the gates of hell.
That by the gates of hell all the powers of the devil is
meant is beyond question ; but it is doubtful why, by the
word " gates," powers is signified, and why Christ did not
call it by its proper name of power, but by a metaphorical
one of the gates. The reason may be easily conjectured.
Christ speaks of the Church as if it were some city. The
gates were the strongly fortified parts of the city (as in
Ps. cxlvii. 13) ; and because cities were most commonly
taken through the gates, as Gen. xxii. 17, xxiv. 60: " Thy
seed shall possess the gates of thine enemies " ; that is
shall possess the cities of their enemies ; and Judges v. 8 ;
3 Kings viii. 37.
For this reason, therefore, the power of the devil is not
called the power, but the gates of hell. But why is it called
hell, and not the devil, who is the enemy of the Church, as
Moses said? (Gen. xxii. 17). This also is easy. Because,
as Christ speaks of the Church, He speaks of hell, where
the devil rules, as if of some city, as Ps. cvi. 16 : " Because
he hath broken gates of brass, and burst iron bars ". For
these are two cities : one of God, the other of the devil, of
which S. Augustin wrote his books.
Shall not prevail.
Shall not overcome, or have the mastery. The meaning
of these words does not appear to be that which most
authors, except S. Hilary, seem to suppose. For they think
that the meaning is, that the power of the devil may try
The Church, but will never be able to overcome it, never to
CH. xvi. 18.] THE CHURCH. 41
oppress it. This meaning, though true, is poor, and does
not fill up the place and words of Christ. Christ seems to
have intended something better. For gates do not over
come, but resist ; so that it is not the power of offending,
but of defending, that must be meant by the gates. The
meaning, then, seems to be that there will be a time when
the Church, founded by Christ upon a rock, shall so take
by storm all the power of the devil that he will be able by
no power and no arts to resist. The Hebrew is PD 7O*n7
that is, will not be able to resist it. It is clear that S.
Hilary is of this opinion. The Church, he says, shall
break to pieces all the laws and gates of hell, and all the
bonds of death. By the gates of hell, that is, the power of
the devil, some of the Ancients understand heresies ; as S.
Epiphanius (In Anckorat.). Others, vices, as S. Ambrose
(De Bon. Mortis., chap, xii., and Comments, on S. Luke, ix.).
Others both, as Origen (Tract. \. on S. Matt.), S. Jerome,
and Bede. Others, the blasphemies of heretics and their
persecution of the Church, as Euthymius. Others, all
persecutors of the Church, as Theophylact. It is better
not to narrow the meaning, but to understand generally all
the power of the devil.
Against it.
Origen (Tract. i. on S. Matt.) and S. Chrysostom (Horn.
Iv.) think that the relative is to be referred either to the
rock or to the Church. Doubtless to the latter, which the
ancient authors think more probable, and the rest think
true ; although Christ said that the gates of hell should not
prevail against the Church, because it was founded upon a
rock (as above, vii. 24, 25) ; except that there it is said that
that house resisted the rains and waves and winds, and here
that the Church shall not only resist hell, but shall take it
by storm, because it is founded upon a strong rock. For
the Church and hell are spoken of, as we have said, as like
42 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvi. 19.
two cities or strong citadels, near to and at war with one
another ; of which the one that hath the better foundation,
and is the most strongly fortified, shall take the other.
Verse 19. And I will give to thee the keys.
The power of opening and shutting the kingdom of
heaven is called the keys by metaphor (S. Luke xi. 52).
The same power is immediately expressed by the other
metaphor of binding and loosing.
The question is, in what this power consists ? The
followers of Luther and Calvin say that it means (merely)
the teaching that their sins have already been forgiven, or
that they will be if we believe the Gospel. But if so, Christ,
in giving Peter the keys, gives him nothing more than that
which the Scribes and Pharisees had before (xxiii. 2, and
5. Luke xi. 52) : " Woe to you lawyers, for you have taken
away the key of knowledge ; you yourselves have not
entered in, and those that were entering in you have
hindered ". It has been proved, however, that Christ not
only gave more to Peter than to the Scribes and Pharisees,
but more even than to the other Apostles. Something,
then, is meant by the power of the keys more than the
power of teaching. Besides, Christ gave this power not
only to the twelve Apostles, but also to the seventy-two
disciples (S. Luke x. i). But the keys and the power of
binding and loosing He gave to the Apostles alone. Thus,
the power of binding and loosing and the power of teach
ing are not one and the same power. Besides, Christ had
already given the power of teaching to the Apostles (x. 7) ;
but that of the keys He had not given.
It has been shown that the Apostles had had given to
them a general power of teaching ; but the use of it was
restricted for a time, that they should not go among the
Gentiles, because it was not fitting that the Gospel should
be preached to the Gentiles before it had been preached to
CH. xvi. 19.] THE KEYS. 43
the Jews. Supposing a special power only to have been
given to them, what would it have to do with the present
question ? Certainly, if to teach and to remit sins be one
and the same thing, wherever they could teach they could
also forgive sins. But we see that the power of teaching
had been given them, but the power of the remission of
sins had not been given. Therefore they are not the same
power.
We see, also, that in this place where the keys are given,
and with them the power of binding and loosing, no men
tion is made of teaching. On the other hand (xxviii. 19,
and 5. Mark xvi. 15), where the Apostles are commanded
to preach the Gospel to every creature, no mention is made
of the keys, or of binding and loosing. For, from the
words of S. John (xx. 22, 23), we learn that Christ, when
He sent the Apostles, said : " Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them ; and
whose sins ye retain, they are retained." Though it was
said to be about the same time, it was not said to have
been actually the same. Besides, as in many other in
stances, S. John relates this as having been passed over by
the other Evangelists.
It is not the least argument that the power of remitting
sins was given to the Apostles with a different ceremony to
that of teaching. For, when He gave the former, He is
said to have breathed upon the Apostles, and said, "Receive
ye the Holy Ghost ". But when He gave the latter, He is
not said to have either breathed upon them nor given them
the Holy Spirit. The power of teaching, then, was different
to that of remitting sins. Add to this, that if men only
remit sins in this manner by teaching, whoever teaches
another, even if the teacher be a woman, will remit sins,
which is both unheard of and most senseless.
Again, if to teach is to loosen, that is, to remit sins, not
to teach is to bind, that is, to retain them. So that every-
44 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvi. ig.
one who does not teach has the power of binding, that is,
of retaining sins. Again, if to teach is to loosen, and not
to teach is to bind, Christ had not given the Apostles
power to bind when He commanded them to teach all
nations ; that is (if their opinion be true), to loosen all, and
to bind none. To what end was this power of binding, if
no one were to be bound ? It follows, from their own
opinion, that the saying of Christ was false. For if to
teach is to loosen, it is not the case that whatever the
Apostles loosed upon earth would be loosed in heaven ;
for how many have been taught well whose sins, for their
unbelief, have not been loosed in heaven ! Nay, how
many who have believed and been well taught, and have
believed rightly, will be lost !
Finally, those whom we read of as having been bound in
Scripture, were not bound either by teaching or not teach
ing. S. Paul bound the Corinthian (i Cor. v. 5). He
bound those heretics (i Tim. i. 20), not by teaching, but by
delivering them to Satan, when he had taught them well
before; as now the Catholic Church binds the heretics with
whom we are now at issue by excommunicating them, that
is, by delivering them over to Satan.
So far one of these heretics on this passage has been
answered. The second is their denial that anything was
given to S. Peter by these words, which was not given
equally to all the other Apostles.
This has to be answered, not by disputing the words,
" Upon this rock," of which enough has been said, and proof
shown that it was given to Peter alone, that the Church
should be built upon him. We are now to treat of the
words : " I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven ".
By these words, I maintain, against the opinion of the
followers of Calvin, and even of some Catholics, that the
primacy of the Church was given to Peter ; not that these
CH. xvi. 19.] THE KEYS. 45
Catholics deny it, but because they think it not to have
been given him but in the preceding words, " Upon this
rock I will build My Church " ; and that the keys were
not given to S. Peter alone, but to all the Apostles col
lectively. It appears that in both forms of words the
primacy of the Catholic Church was given to Peter.
The words mean this. For the keys of a house or
city are given into the keeping of the chief of the house or
city. Therefore, the primacy is signified in Scripture by
the keys, as in Isaiah xxii. 22 : "I will lay the key of the
house of David upon his shoulder"; that is, I will give to
him the supreme power in the kingdom of heaven. The
words, " Upon his shoulder," when keys are not laid upon
the shoulder but carried in the girdle, are used, as is
frequently the case in Scripture, by a confusion of two
metaphors, signifying one and the same thing ; one of the
keys, the other of the sceptre ; each of which terms ex
presses the supreme power ; and because the sceptre is laid
upon the shoulder, He says that He would place the keys
of the house of David on his shoulder, as in Isaiah ix. 6 :
" And the government is upon his shoulder ". In the same
sense Christ says (Apoc. i. 18) that He has the keys of death
and hell ; that is, that He is the Lord of life and death ;
and (iii. 7) that He has the keys of David : " He that hath
the key of David ; He that openeth and no man shutteth,
shutteth and no man openeth". In this sense, then, the
keys were given to Peter ; that is, the supreme power in
the Church, that he might shut and no man open, and that
he might open and no man shut ; that is, that no man
should loose what he has bound, and no man bind what he
has loosed. Hence, the power of the Roman Pontiff is
most effectually proved ad reservatos casus ; and hence
it is concluded that to Peter alone it was said in this place :
" I will give to thee the keys of heaven and hell " ; and so
said as if they were not to be given to any other, because
46 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvi. 19.
he alone answered : " Thou art Christ the Son of the living
God " ; as it was said to him alone : " On this rock I will
build My Church ". For by both metaphors, one of the
foundation, and the other of the keys, one and the same
primacy is signified, and the explanation of one is that of
the other.
2. It cannot be denied that the other Apostles had also
their own keys ; that is, the power of binding and loosing ;
as all ancient authors teach, saying that the keys were given
to all ; but I deny that they had the keys which are now in
question, and that those which all Catholics call keys, and
rightly so, but in a different sense, are ever called keys in
Scripture. It is a most unanswerable proof of the truth of
this, that when Christ gave the other Apostles (xviii. 18;
vS. John xx. 23) the power of binding and loosing, He made
no mention of the keys. Peter alone, therefore, had those
keys by which he so opened that no one could shut, and so
shut that no one could open. So, in a house, all or many
have their own keys, but the master alone has all the keys,
and the secret ones, by which, when he wills, he can so shut
that no one can open, and so open that no one can shut.
3. The third error of the followers of Calvin is that the
power which was given to S. Peter was not given also to
his successors ; and therefore, even if it be granted that
Peter had the primacy of the Church, it does not follow
that his successors had the same, but that this power was
given (to use his own words) to Peter personally. Tertul-
lian (De Pudicitia) seems to say the same, but he spoke not
as a Catholic, but as a heretic, when he deserted the camp
of the Church to join that of Montanus. S. Jerome (Lit.
de Script. Eccl.) says that that work of Tertullian was
written against the Church.
We have shown that the keys and the rock upon which
Christ built the Church mean the same thing. Who is
so senseless as to believe that Christ built an immortal
CH. xvi. ig.] THE KEYS. 4?
Church upon a mortal man, after whose death the Church
must necessarily fall into ruins ? Not upon Peter alone,
then, but upon him and his successors was the Church
founded ; and as these will never fail, the Church will
remain for ever. The same must be said of the keys
which, as we have said, mean the same thing. How, too,
did Christ give this power to Peter alone and to his suc
cessors ? For He instituted His Church ; He instituted
her officers ; and that not to the honour of persons, but to
the good of the Church. These were to endure as long as
the Church herself, especially that which, as it is the
greatest of all, so it was the most necessary of all : the head
of the Church, who was also to be its foundation. There
fore, as the other and lesser offices were not to be trans
ferred to later ages, it was yet necessary that this should be
so, as all ancient writers teach.
4. The fourth error of these men is the denial that the
Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter. They say that
Peter was either never at Rome at all, or if he were, it
cannot be shown that whoever was the Roman Pontiff
then was his immediate successor. This error shall be
confuted elsewhere. Here we simply bid the assertors
fight against the whole world. For there never was any
before them, Catholic or heretic, who did not affirm (i)
That Peter died at Rome ; (2) That the Roman Pontiffs
were his successors. As the Wise Man says therefore
(Wisdom v. 21): "The whole world shall fight with him
against the unwise ".
A nd whatsoever thou sJialt bind.
This is a metaphorical saying, by which the same thing
is signified as was contained in the two former verses, that
Peter had the supreme power of remitting or retaining
sins ; but I do not consider that it was said to Peter in the
same sense as that in which it was said to the other
48 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvi. ig-
Apostles, though all authors apparently, except Origen,
take it so ; but in the sense in which the Church was built
upon Peter alone, and in which to him alone were given the
keys, so to bind as no one should be able to loose, and in
so to loose as no one should be able to bind. This is to
be proved by the same arguments as we have used already
to prove his primacy.
It is asked in what the power of binding and loosing
consists ? S. Thomas, in his Commentaries, has noticed
three errors on the subject to be marked and avoided.
1. That of those who appear arrogantly to think that the
priesthood can arbitrarily bind or loose whomsoever they
please ; and that every act of theirs, whether right or
wrong, will be ratified in heaven. And if we look at the
mere words, they do seem to bear this meaning. For
" Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound
also in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it
shall be loosed also in heaven". But it is not so. For Christ
only intended to give to Peter first, and then to the other
Apostles, to perform His offices as if He were on earth :
binding those that were to be bound, and loosing those
who were to be loosed ; with this sole exception, that
Christ would bind or loose in His own power, the Apostles
in another s, that is, Christ s. From the fact, then, that He
gave over to them His own functions, we understand that
they should bind and loose, not according to their own
judgment, but according to His ; so that, as S. Cyprian
rightly says : " Let no one prejudge Christ the Judge ".
This is what theologians and Doctors of the Church call
" Clave non errante ".
2. The second error is, that to bind or to loose is nothing
else than the declaration that men are already bound or
loosed by God, as, in the Old Testament, the priest neither
made nor healed the leper, but merely declared that he
was actually a leper, or was truly healed of his leprosy.
CH. xvi. 19.] THE KEYS. 49
This error is confuted by the passage before us. For, if
this were so, and the priest could only loose and bind in this
manner, Christ would not have said, " Whatsoever thou
shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven,"
but, " What is bound in heaven you shall bind on earth ".
But, as He says, on the contrary, " Whatsoever you shall
bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven, and what
soever you shall loose on earth it shall be loosed also in
heaven," He signifies most clearly that it shall be loosed
by the Apostles on earth before it is loosed by God in
heaven. This was a gift befitting the Apostles, as repre
senting the Person of Christ, that, as when Christ Himself
was on earth, whatever He loosed on earth was loosed by
the Father in heaven, so, when He had returned to heaven,
whatever the Apostles loosed on earth should be loosed by
Him also in heaven. I do not think that the opinion of S.
Jerome was at all different, nor that he would have coun
tenanced the above error, but that he only desired to con
fute the former one.
3. The third error is that, " as in sin there are two
things the fault, and the penalty of eternal punishment
and a man is absolved from both by contrition, the
eternal punishment being commuted into a temporal one,
the priest can do no more by his absolution than diminish
some part of the temporal penalty ". This is easily
answered, for Christ said (S. John xx. 23) : " Whose sins
you shall forgive, they are forgiven them ; and whose sins
you shall retain, they are retained ". The priest, then,
remits not only the penalty but the fault. Nor ought
it to appear more wonderful, the priest doing this by the
sacrament of penitence than by that of baptism, as S.
Ambrose says against the Novatians (lib. i. 2, De Pcenit^].
It may be objected that, as the priest, when he binds, does
not make men sinners, but only declares them to be such,
so, when he absolves, he does not make men righteous, but
24
50 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvi. ig.
only declares that they are so, and absolved from their
sins. The answer may be that this is not a sequitur. For
the power of binding and loosing was given to the Apos
tles, not for the righteous, but for sinners. For those who
are righteous, that is, who are loosed, God will not have
bound. But those who are sinners, that is, who are bound,
He desires to have loosed, if they are worthy, and to be
bound, if they are unworthy. Besides, the priest is not
able to bind and to loose in the same way. He cannot
bind in the same manner as that in which he looses. He
looses by truly loosing ; he binds by not loosing, that is,
not by causing, but as S. John says, by retaining sins.
On earth.
Some conclude from this that the power of the Church
of binding and loosing does not apply to the dead, because
they are not upon earth, that is, under the jurisdiction of
the Church. So says Strabo, the author of what is termed
the ordinary gloss. Whether this be so or not, it can only
be said at present that this conclusion does not follow
from the words in question, for the words " on earth " are
to be referred, not to those who are bound or loosed, but
to those who bind or loose ; as if Christ had said, " What
ever you who are living on earth shall bind or loose shall
be bound or loosed by God, who dwells in heaven," or,
more briefly, " Whatever is loosed or bound by you men
shall be loosed or bound by God ". For men are signified
by "earth," and God by "heaven". It is an elegant
antithesis by which, from the great distance between hea
ven and earth, the power given to the Apostles is com
mended. As if a prince should say to some dependant :
" Whatever you do, even in the Indies, I shall value very
highly," to show how thoroughly he confided in him, and
how ample power he gave to him. For we are less used to
ratify what is done in our absence, in our name, by some
CH.XVI.IQ.] THE KEYS. 51
one else, than if we were present or at hand. Servants,
the longer their master is away, are the more apt to take
greater licence, as the parable shows (S. Matt. xxiv.
48, 49).
Two premisses ought to be fixed and certain :
1. That the Church has the power of excommunicating
even the dead that is, of depriving them of the prayers of
the Church, which seems to have been always practised by
SS. Cyprian and Augustin ; and,
2. That the Church has the power of freeing those who
are in purgatory by her prayers.
This passage is also one from which the practice of
ecclesiastical confession is most clearly proved. For this
power which was given to the Apostles could not have
been exercised without their knowledge of the sinners, nor
could the sins, which are for the most part secret, be known
without the explicit confession of the sinner. Thus all the
ancient Fathers have based on this passage the practice of
penance ; e.g., S. Cyprian (Serm. on "Lapsed"}, S. Athana-
sius (Horn, on the words, " Go into the village"}, S. Basil
(Ep. to Amp/iilock.). We may add that Christ, in these
words, not only gave the Apostles the power of absolving,
but He laid upon all Christians the obligation of confession.
The meaning, then, will be not only that whatever the
Apostles loosed on earth, He Himself would loose in
heaven : but also that He would neither loose nor bind
anything in heaven, except what His Apostles or their
successors had loosed or bound on earth. For He bestowed
on them His own power to govern the Church for Him.
So that He would have everyone who needed forgiveness
come to the Apostles or their successors as if to Him, if
He were on earth, and seek from them absolution when
they had made their confession, as, if He were living on
earth, He would absofve no one from his sins unless he had
first made confession of them.
52 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn.xvi.2o.
But He as God could do so without that sacrament, the
Apostles as men could only do so through the sacrament ;
as if that were the hand of Christ ; that is, as if a king
when sending some minister to a distant province to govern
for him, should say : " Whatever you do I approve," and
he should give orders to the people to refer any question
or difference to his substitute as to himself, and plead all
causes before him ; not that he deprived himself of his
power, so that he could not judge a cause if he pleased, but
that, by the transference of all ordinary power to his
substitute, he reserved the extraordinary to himself. This
is to be understood of Christ and the Apostles. The
ordinary remedies instituted in the Church for the remission
of sins are the sacraments, without which men cannot
remit them. Christ is able to do this, but He does it extra
ordinarily, and very much more rarely than through the
sacraments. For He would not have men trust to extra
ordinary means, which are both rare and uncertain, for the
remission of sins ; but He would have them seek the ordinary,
and, so to say, the visible aids of the sacraments. And He
has, therefore, given the precept, as of baptism and the
Eucharist, so of confession and penance.
Verse 20. That they should tell no man.
Why Christ so frequently forbade His acts, which clearly
discovered Him to be the Son of God, to be made public
has been explained (viii. 4 ; ix. 30). Why He forbade it
now, we learn from S. Mark (viii. 30), S. Luke (ix. 20), and
S. Matthew in verse following. For all these three Evan
gelists relate that Christ, immediately on Peter s confession
that He was the Son of God, began to explain to them
how He must suffer many things at Jerusalem, and be put
to death. From this, it is concluded that He would not
have the Apostles publish it, that He was the Son of God,
lest the hearers, if they should afterwards see Him dying,
CH.xvi.2o.] CHRIST FORETELLS HIS PASSION. 53
should be offended by that weakness of the flesh and lose
their faith. For, while He was hanging on the Cross, some
of those who had heard that He was the Son of God, said
(xxvii. 40) : " If Thou be the Son of God, come down from
the Cross ". Christ would not have that happen to all at
His death which did happen to some. This is the reason
that S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, and Bede give.
A double question here arises, i. Why (chap. x. 7) He
sent the Apostles to preach the kingdom of God, which was
nothing but the coming of the Son of God ? 2. Why He
so often called Himself the Son of God, or called God His
Father, if He would not have men know that He was the
Son of God ? The heretic who answers that that mission
was merely temporal, says nothing to the purpose. For,
what does it matter whether it were temporal or eternal,
if they preached the Advent of the Son of God ? Origen
(Tract, i. on S. Matt.} answers, that the Apostles
preached not Christ, but the kingdom of God. S. Jerome,
on the contrary, says that they preached Christ indeed, but
not Jesus ; that is, they taught that He was a righteous
man, a Prophet, the author of many extraordinary miracles,
the Messiah promised by God ; but not that He was the
Son of the living God : that is, the true essential God by
nature, which Peter now confessed Him to be ; for perhaps
even the Apostles themselves, at that time, did not under
stand this. And He now forbade them to say that He
was Jesus Christ, as is found in some copies. For Jesus is
the name of God, and means the Saviour ; Christ is the
name of the Man. The reason seems a good one, and is
approved by S. Ambrose (On S. Luke ix.) and Euthymius.
It is certain that before His passover, Christ never told
His disciples to preach that He was the Son of God, and
He never very openly said so ; because, while some were
offended at His calling God His Father, He derided their
halting opinion by the ambiguity of the term, as in S.Jokn
54 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvi. 21.
x - 34) 35 1 36 : " I s it not written in your law, I said you are
gods ? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God
was spoken, and the Scripture cannot be broken, do you
say of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into
the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son
of God?"
Verse 21. From that time.
It is plain that the Evangelist wished to show that Christ,
from the time when Peter confessed Him to be the Son of
God, began to speak of His coming death, and not once,
but very frequently, to admonish the Apostles as to what
was to happen ; as if the Evangelist had said, from that
time He did not keep the knowledge back as a secret that
He must suffer, but spoke of it openly and plainly. We
may ask why He did so at this time rather than before ?
The reason is obvious, as S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and
Theophylact show. It was because He had not been
sufficiently known by the Apostles, or declared by public
confession to be the Son of God by nature ; and it was to
be feared that if He had made mention of the shame of His
future death, they might be offended, or leave Him, or be
hindered in the course of their faith. But why afterwards ?
For the same reason clearly ; for when they had confessed
Him to be the Son of God, they seemed to be prepared for
having the mystery of His impending death explained to
them. It was very necessary that this should be done,
lest afterwards, if they had not been forewarned and had
seen Him suffer, they might have doubted of His Divinity,
as has been observed by Theophylact. He did the same
at another time, and for a similar cause (S. John xvi. i).
Some give another reason : that by His own example
Christ might strengthen His disciples, as is learnt from
verse 24 and I S. Peter ii. 21.
Must.
Not absolutely, but from His Father s will, by which He
CH. xvi. 22.] PETER S REBUKE. 55
must suffer and die for the salvation of men (S. Luke xxiv.
4 6).
Verse 22. And taking Him.
npocr\ap6/j.ei>os, separating or leading Him apart, as if
he did not venture to blame Him before the others. So
say S. Chrysostom and Jerome, Bede and Euthymius.
TIapd 7rpocr\aiJi(3dveiv in the Scriptures is often used to
express compassion, as Rom. xiv. I : " Now him that is
weak in faith, take unto you," that is, to take compassion ;
xv. 7 : " Wherefore receive one another," take him to you,
or practise mutual compassion one to another. This agrees
well with the context that Peter, when he heard of Christ s
approaching sufferings, moved with compassion, that is,
" receiving Him," began to dissuade Him. This meaning
is adopted by S. Jerome. " S. Peter," he says, " receiving
Christ into his sympathy."
Began to rebuke Him.
Not as blaming Him, but as a friend giving Him counsel,
as Bede and Euthymius think. SS. Chrysostom and Jerome
speak of the modesty of Peter on this occasion ; for, as
before (verse 16), in confessing Christ to be the Son of God,
he had shown greater faith than the rest of the Apostles,
so he now showed more love for Him.
Lord, be it far from Thee.
Our version could not have rendered better the Greek
tXeco? CTOL No doubt the Greek translator of 6". Matthew
borrowed the expression from the LXX. ; for these used it
in two places and senses (i) when it meant pax tibi, from
the Hebrew DJ? Dlvttf (as in Gen. xliii. 23) ; or (2) when
it meant JlT^n " prohibition," that is, absit (as in I Kings
xiv. 45 ; xx. 2, 9). It is, therefore, a word of aversion and
deprecation against what is threatened from happening.
56 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvi. 23.
Verse 23. Who turning.
That is, looking back (as 5. Mark viii. 33). It is perhaps
a Hebraism by which a contrary answer is given, as if the
Evangelist had said that Peter rebuked Christ because He
would suffer, but Christ on the other part rebuked Peter
because he would not have Him suffer (as Ps. Ixx. 2. ;
Ixxxiv. 7) : that is, as Thou first destroyedst us, so now on
the other hand Thou shalt bring us back again.
Go behind Me.
\1
a Hebrew expression, meaning properly
" Follow Me," as S. Hilary explains it ; as if Christ had
said : " Thou oughtest rather to follow Me and imitate My
suffering than call Me away from it". Origen (Tract, i. on
S. Matt.} and S. Jerome (in his Commentaries) so explain
it. So too S. Augustin (Serin, xiii. de verb. Dom. sec. Matt.} ;
for he renders it, " Retire behind Me ". It is certain that
they are the words of one commanding another to go back,
as Christ had said to Satan before (iv. 10).
Satan.
S. Hilary shrank from the idea of the name of Satan
having been given to S. Peter ; and he takes the passage as
if Christ had said to Peter " Vade retro and then turned, as
it were, to the devil who had put it into the mind of Peter
to dissuade Him from death, and said : " Satan, thou art
an offence unto Me . . This is the more to be wondered,
because in his Comments, on the Psalms (cxxxi.) he says
that Peter himself had been called Satan.
We may wonder with S. Augustin (Serm. xiii. de verb.
Dom. sec. S. Matt.} why Christ in so short a time called the
same Peter both blessed and Satan. S. Jerome says that
the Church was not yet built on him, and that he therefore
erred, and could be called Satan. S. Augustin and
Theophylact say that he was called " blessed " because not
CH. xvi. 24.] THE CROSS. 57
flesh and blood, but the Father in heaven had revealed it
to him, and " Satan " when he savoured not of the things of
God, but of the things of men.
Verse 24. Then.
That is, before He rebuked Peter, as would appear from
S. Luke, who has placed these words before the rebuke of
Peter (ix. 23), although S. Chrysostom and Theophylact
think otherwise.
To His disciples.
S. Luke (ix. 23) says He said to them all, and S. Mark
(viii. 34).
This divarication between the two Evangelists may be
explained in two ways. Either that Christ spoke to the
Apostles alone in the presence of the multitude, and before
witnesses, or that He wished what He said addressed to the
Apostles especially, but that the multitude thought that
what He said to His Apostles was said to themselves also.
If any man will.
S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact rightly
observe that our free-will is fully established by these
words.
Let him deny himself.
The meaning of these words has been variously ex
plained. S. Jerome and Bede (in loc.\ S. Gregory (Horn, x-
on Ezekiel\ think the meaning to be simply the putting off
of the old man, and the putting on of the new. " Then,"
says Bede, " do we deny ourselves when we avoid what we
were before, and strive for that to which we are called
anew." But it is clear that the present subject was not the
manner of our lives, but of our deaths, as is shown by verse
25. S. Chrysostom shows better what it is to deny our
selves from the denying of others. To deny others is to
58 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvi. 26, 27,
despise and forsake them, to take no account or care for
them, to think their lives of no consequence. This is the
same as to deny ourselves ; to hold ourselves of no value ;
to despise life for the sake of Christ when need be, as is
urged on us in verse 25. For Christ does not call the soul
self there, but the life of the body, which we ought to hold
in contempt that our souls may live. For he who will save
his life, that is, the life of his body, shall lose it, that is, the
life of his soul; as is explained in chap. x. 38, 39.
Verse 26. Suffer the loss of his own soul.
A metaphor from the courts. For if a man sue for any
property, however precious, and also for his life, it would
profit him little to gain the former but lose his life ; and
the question here is one of judgment, from what follows
in verse 27.
Or what exchange shall a man give.
A metaphor taken either from the courts or from war.
In the former a man may redeem his life for money ; but
for the life of the soul in the judgment of God no money
and no compensation can be received, nor can God the Judge
of all be corrupted by bribes. In war, too, the vanquished
often redeem their lives by ransom. But in the judgment
he cannot so buy himself off. For what exchange shall he
give for his soul ? Christ plays upon the double meaning
of the terms, and argues tacitly from the life of the body to
the life of the soul. For the word " life " (ammo) means
either, as in the preceding verse, and in chap. x. 38, 39 ; as
if it were said: As for the life of the body in war or in judg
ment, no one can make a really equivalent compensation,
much less can he make one for the life of his soul.
Verse 27. For the Son of man.
S. Jerome thinks that Christ said this to comfort His
disciples. It may rather be thought that He added it,
CH. xvi. 28.] CHRIST S SECOND COMING. 59
because He had spoken of an exchange of souls which had
been transferred from the judgment of the courts. He
proves by these words that no exchange can be given for
the soul, because it is no chance judge, but the Son of man
who will come to judgment ; nor will He come in any
chance manner, but in the glory of His Father and with
His holy angels, so that he cannot need any of our good
things. Why He is called the Son of man has been shown
(viii. 20).
In the glory of His Father.
" In " is a Hebraism for " with ". He calls the glory not
His own, but His Father s ; either because, though it was
His own, the Father had given it to Him, or, as S. Chrysos-
tom and Euthymius think, to show that that nature was
common to Him with the Father. For He calls the
angels not His own, but the Father s ; but He was the
Lord of the angels, was the true God, and had His glory
in common with the Father. It is said that He would
come in glory as if He were not in glory then because,
although He had the same glory then, it was hidden to be
revealed hereafter.
Verse 28. There are some of tJiem that stand here.
The word " stand," as has been said before, does not
always in Scripture refer to the posture of the body, but is
used for the personal presence.
That shall not taste death.
A Hebraism for " shall not die ". So 5. Luke ix. 27 ;
Heb. ii. 9. With the Hebrews, "to see" means "to ex
perience ". The Greeks more properly use the word
ryeveo-Oai, "to taste". So the ecclesiastical writers (S.
Ambrose, On S. Luke ix.) understand it of the death of the
soul ; as if Christ had said : " There are some here who
60 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvi. 28.
shall not be condemned when the Son of man comes" ; or,
" who shall not sin any more until they see the Son of man
come ". But this is somewhat forced.
In His kingdom.
There are many opinions as to the meaning of these
words. Some explain them of the last judgment, of which
Christ had spoken in the preceding verse. This seems
consistent with the context ; but how some of those who
stood there should not die till the day of judgment does not
seem so. Some think it spoken of S. John the Evangelist,
whom they believe not to have died, though I only find it
actually in Strabus ; and it is not in agreement with Scrip
ture, for S. John himself seems to have confuted the idea
(xxi. 23). Others explain it as referring to the period after
Christ s Resurrection. For He calls that the kingdom of
God because He then rose in glory (as in xxvi. 29 ; ,5*. Mark
xiv. 25 ; 5. Luke xxii. 29, 30). This meets the approba
tion of some of the Moderns, but seems scarcely probable ;
both because Christ calls it the kingdom of God, for the
devil was now conquered, but not His own kingdom, for
He had not yet come in His glory ; and because, if He had
said that, He would have said nothing. For what wonder
would it have been if some of the disciples were not to die
before they saw Him risen from the dead, when not only
some, but all saw Him ? For when He said, " there are
some," He showed clearly that not all the disciples, but
only a few, and those the elect, and those to whom were
granted that singular privilege, should see that kingdom of
which He spoke before they died. The opinion, therefore,
of all the Ancients was true (Origen, Tr. iii. in S. Matt. ;
S. Hilary, Can. xvi. , S. Chrysostom ; Bede ; Theophylact ;
Euthymius, In Comm. ; S. Ambrose, ix., On S. Luke; S.
Augustin, ii., On Gal. ; Remigius, In S. Thomas), that the
kingdom of God meant the Transfiguration, which not all,
CH. xvi. 28.] CHRIST S SECOND COMING. 6 1
but only Peter, James, and John merited to see before they
died. This may be shown from the fact that all theEvange-
lists immediately add, "after six days". Christ was trans
figured before these three Apostles. Besides which, if the
words cannot be understood of the day of judgment, or of
the time of the Resurrection, they must necessarily be
understood of the Transfiguration. For what Bede and
S. Gregory (Ap. S. Thomant] say of the propagation of the
Gospel and the Church seems foreign to the purpose.
Christ calls His Transfiguration His kingdom, not because
it was such properly, but because it was the image of it.
It may, however, be justly doubted why Christ said, as if it
were a matter of great moment, that some of those who
stood by should die before they saw His kingdom if He
meant His Transfiguration, which happened six days after,
when not only the three who saw it, but all the Apostles
were alive. The answer may be that the words may be
referred to that far distant kingdom of which He had said,
in the preceding verse : " The Son of man shall come in
His glory ". Not to die before the sight of this kingdom
was indeed a very great thing ; but that very kingdom
these three Apostles did see, not in itself, but in figure ; not
present, but in a glass darkly (per transennam).
CHAPTER XVII.
THE TRANSFIGURATION OF CHRIST HE CURES THE
LUNATIC CHILD, FORETELLS HIS PASSION, AND
PAYS THE DIDRACHMA.
Verse i. After six days.
REFERRING to the same period, S. Mark (ix. 2) and S.
Luke (ix. 28) say that these events took place after eight
days. The difficulty is answered by S. Jerome, S. Chry-
sostom, Bede, Theophylact, and Euthymius on the passage,
and by S. Augustin (De Consens., ii. 56) by the assertion
that S. Matthew and S. Mark have not counted the day on
which the events happened, but S. Luke has ; that S.
Matthew and S. Mark count the time exclusively and S.
Luke inclusively of the two days on which the events
happened ; or that possibly S. Luke only wrote generally,
and therefore said " about eight days ".
Taketh.
Many questions may here be asked.
I. Why Christ chose to be transfigured? To this
question S. Hilary, S. Chrysostom, and Euthymius reply
that it was to console the disciples when they should be
grieved at His death; Theophylact, that it was to preserve
the truth of His words (xxi. 27), that He would come in
the glory of His Father. Either of these opinions is more
probable than that of the heretics, that Christ wished to
show that His death would not be by compulsion, but of
His own free-will, as He was the Lord of so much glory.
CH. xvii. i.] THE TRANSFIGURATION. 63
2. The next question is, why He was not transfigured in
the sight of all the disciples ? The answer is easily seen in
verse 9, where He commanded those three Apostles,
who had seen His glory, not to inform any person of the
vision till the Son of man had risen from the dead ; for
Christ would not have His glory published for the reasons
there given.
3. The third question is, why was His glory shown to
three witnesses, and neither more nor fewer ? Probably
because He wished that there should be some witnesses of
His future glory ; for " in the mouth of two or three
witnesses every word shall stand " (Dent, xix. 15; 6".
Matt, xviii. 16). In addition, it may be said that He had
three disciples more especially capable of receiving His
secrets. These three He used to take with Him on His
more private occasions (as in 5. Matt. xxvi. 37).
4. The fourth question is, why He pleased to show this
spectacle to these rather than to the others ? One reason
has already been given ; another is that Peter was both
the first of the Apostles and loved Him most of all. He
Himself loved S. John the most. S. James was the next
after S. Peter, and the most ardent in faith. As such, he
was the first put to death by Herod (Acts xii. 2). This
reason is given by Origen (Tract, iii. on S. Matt.}, S.
Ambrose (On S. Luke ix.), S. Augustin (On Galat. ii.), S.
Jerome, Theophylact, and Euthymius (in their Com
mentaries). SS. Ambrose and Augustin are mistaken in
saying that this James was the brother of the Lord ; for
the Evangelist says that He was the brother of John, and
the son of Zebedee.
Into a high mountain.
The Evangelists do not say what mountain this was, nor
apparently does any ancient author of credit. It was long
the opinion that it was Mount Tabor, which S. Jerome
64 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvn. 2.
says, in his Loc. Hebr,, was in the midst of the plains of
Galilee, and was very lofty and round in shape. Whether
it were this or some other, we may ask why Christ went
up into a mountain to display His glory ? One reason is
found in 5. Luke ix. 28. He says that Christ went up to
pray. He was accustomed, for this purpose, to ascend
mountains, where the solitude was greater and more
complete, and there was a wider view of the heavens (S.
Mark vi. 46 ; 5. Liike vi. 12). The words of S. Luke, " He
went up to pray," are not perhaps to be taken as if He
went up with that intention, but because in all events of
great importance it was His custom to commence with
prayer ; and He probably did not inform the Apostles
when He went apart from them that He was going up the
mountain for His Transfiguration, but for prayer, lest He
might give occasion for envy to those who were left below.
The glory of God has most frequently been shown from
mountains, which are nearer to heaven and more remote
from men. So the majesty of God appeared to Moses on
Mount Sinai (Exod. xix. n), and was, as S. Hilary says, a
type of the Transfiguration.
Verse 2. And He was transfigured before them.
We should observe, as S. Jerome says, that Christ did
not change the nature of His body, but only the external
form and appearance.
As snow.
Almost all the Greek copies read, " as light," &&gt;? TO <&&gt;9
our version says, " as snow " as do some Greek copies.
This reading is probably the correct one, both because S.
Mark (ix. 3) has it, and S. Hilary and almost all ancient
writers concur, and because the comparison is more just
and more common. For we do not compare whiteness to
the sun, but to snow ; and what is bright to the sun. The
CH. xvii. 3.] THE TRANSFIGURATION. 65
glory of the blessed also is prefigured by white robes, as in
Apoc. i. 14; iii. 4, 5, 18 ; iv. 4 ; vi. 11 ; vii. 9, 13 ; xix. 14.
Verse 3. Moses and Elias.
We may reasonably enquire why Christ wished for the
presence of these witnesses from the other world. S.
Hilary says that it was to confirm the doctrine of the Re
surrection, by the restoration to life of Moses. But the
question here was not of the Resurrection, but of the future
kingdom of Christ. There appear to have been two
reasons : one, that the Apostles might not think the thing
a fiction ; the other, that the future kingdom of Christ
might be represented to the life, at the advent of which
two witnesses are mentioned by S. John (Apoc. xi. 3) as
about to be sent. The reason of these two having been
chosen rather than any others, is held by all ancient
authors to have been that the Law might be represented
by Moses, and the Prophets by Elias ; and that the Law
and the Prophets tend towards Christ, and have their ful
filment and termination in Him. So Tertullian, iv., ConL
Marcion. From this he refutes these heretics, showing
that Christ was not contrary to the Law and the Prophets.
S. Hilary, S. Jerome, Bede, Euthymius (in loc.\ S. Ambrose
(On S. Luke ix.), S. Augustin (De Quinq. Hceres., vii.), and
in another place S. Chrysostom and Euthymius, give as
reasons that both Moses and Elias worked many miracles,
and that, as some said that Christ was Elias, others one of
the ancient prophets, and Moses was the most ancient,
Christ, to show that He was the Lord of life, brought up
the still living Elias, and Moses, who was dead, as His
witnesses. It is probable, as S. Jerome says, that Christ
was willing to gratify the Scribes and Pharisees who had
demanded a sign from heaven, and He, therefore, called
Elias from heaven, and Moses from Hades (de Inferno].
Others, as Euthymius, say that the disciples might imi-
2 .?
66 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvn. 3.
tate the meekness of Moses and the zeal of Elias. Tertullian
(Adv. Prax^} thinks that the promise of God in Numbers
xii. 8, that He would speak with Moses face to face, was
fulfilled here.
The truest reason of the appearance of Moses and Elias
would, perhaps, appear to be that which a learned Doctor
of the Church of our own times has signified : that Christ
was to represent the image of His second coming. But
before this, Moses and Elias would come, as is clearly to
be gathered from Apoc. xi. 3 : " And I will give unto My
two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two
hundred and sixty days clothed in sackcloth. These are
the two olive trees and the two candlesticks that stand
before the Lord of the earth. And if any man will hurt
them, fire shall come out of their mouths, and shall
devour their enemies ; and if any man will hurt them, in
this manner must he be slain. These have power to shut
heaven that it rain not in the days of their prophecy, and
they have power over waters to turn them into blood, and
to strike the earth with all plagues as often as they will."
In these words Moses is openly described.
We may ask whether they truly appeared ? That they
did so is the opinion of all the authorities except Strabus
and S. Thomas. The former (On S. Luke ix.), thinks that
the appearance was not of themselves, but of their simili
tudes. The latter, in his comments on the passage, ima
gines that Elias, indeed, who was not dead, was truly
present ; but that Moses, who was dead, did not appear
truly and perfectly, but that his soul alone did so, taking
not his own but some other body. The opinion of all
others is more probable, that each was present truly and
each wholly. It was not fitting that the truth should be
proved by a falsehood ; and it is agreeable to reason that
as Christ showed not a false and shadowy, but His true
and express glory, so that it should be confirmed not by
CH. xvn. 4.] THE TRANSFIGURATION. 67
false and imaginary, but by true witnesses. It has been
asked how the Apostles could recognise Moses and Elias,
whom they had never seen ? Euthymius answers that
their forms had been well described in the ancient books of
the Hebrews, or were familiar from tradition. Theophylact
supposes that the Apostles might have known them from
the conversations they carried on. Moses might have
said : " Thou art He whose Passion I prefigured in the
Lamb which was slain, and in the Passover which I cele
brated ". And Elias, perhaps : " Thou art He whose
Resurrection I foreshadowed in the widow s son whom I
raised to life ". S. Luke (ix. 30, 31) relates that there were
conversations among them, but not on these subjects :
" And behold two men were talking with Him, and they
were Moses and Elias appearing in majesty, and they
spoke of His decease which He should accomplish in
Jerusalem ". They did this probably to confirm what
Christ had said just before of His coming death, and that
the Apostles might no longer be offended. Again, it may
have been, as many think, that the Apostles knew them by
inward inspiration. S. Luke says that Peter and they who
were with him were heavy with sleep, which S. Chrysostom
supposes to have been not true sleep, but a stupor closely
resembling sleep ; for how could they sleep in the midst of
so much glory ? Unless, perhaps, in the meantime they
began to sleep, whilst Christ was praying, as they did at
the Passover ; and by divine permission, that in the mean
while Moses and Elias might come. S. Luke appears to
point to this when he says : " And waking, they saw His
glory, and the two men that stood with Him ".
Verse 4. Answering, Let us make Jiere three tabernacles.
" Answering " is a Hebraism for " speaking ". S. Peter
said nothing of himself or the other Apostles, he only
spoke of Christ, Moses, and Elias. It has been doubted-
68 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvn. 5.
why he wished to make tabernacles there, and to remain
in the place. S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius
say that it was for fear of the Jews, lest Christ, as He had
said before, should fall into their hands, whilst they would
be safe on the top of the mountain, and, if needs were, be
defended by Moses and Elias, the former of whom destroyed
the Egyptians and Amalekites, and the latter two or three
centurions, with their soldiers, by calling down fire from
heaven. But this idea seems hardly worthy of S. Peter.
The true reason seems to have been that which S. Peter
himself gave : " It is good for us to be here ". Some
explain the word " good," as used here, as meaning not
useful and safe, but pleasant. The glorious company of
Christ, Moses, and Elias pleased S. Peter, and he supposed
that he himself and the other two would enjoy it, if they
remained on the mountain always. There seems another
reason. S. Luke (ix. 33) says that S. Peter said this when
he saw Moses and Elias departing, and he was grieved,
and wished to remain there always.
Verse 5. Behold a bright cloud.
The majesty of God is frequently revealed from clouds
(Exod. xvi. 10; xix. 9, et passim ; and David, Ps. cvii. 5).
To vindicate His majesty, Christ will come on the clouds
to judgment (sup., xxiv. 30 ; xxvi. 64).
It is easy to see why this should be so. A. cloud is of
heaven. The divine majesty was therefore declared by a
cloud, that so God who spoke, and who is the ruler of the
heavens, might be shown to be true, and not false nor
earthly. This is the reason why the cloud here descended,
that the voice which said from heaven, " This is My
beloved Son," might be believed to have been no other
than the voice of God, as Euthymius says. It might have
been, as S. Ambrose suggests, a cloud interposed between
the Apostles and heaven, to enable them to endure the
CH. xvii. 5.] THE TRANSFIGURATION. 69
majesty of God speaking to them, as was the case with
Moses when God spoke to him through a cloud. S.
Chrysostom and Theophylact have observed that this
cloud was bright, and not like that in the Old Testament,
dark and black, because God came down now, not to
terrify, but to teach. It may more probably have been
because the brightness might agree with the subject in
hand, the glory and transfiguration of Christ
And lo, a voice out of the cloud, saying.
S. Chrysostom rightly observes that this cloud was
sent after Moses and Elias had departed, that without
doubt it might be referred to no other than Christ.
This is My beloved Son.
SS. Ambrose and Jerome think that there should be an
emphasis on the word "This," as if the meaning were, "Not
Moses, and not Elias, but this is My beloved Son". There
seems indeed to be an emphasis on the word, but a diffe
rent one. For the Apostles did not doubt that not Moses,
nor Elias, but Christ, was the Son of the living God, when
a little before, when they had not yet beheld the glory of
Christ, Peter had confessed it. There was no need, there
fore, that Christ should be distinguished from Moses and
Elias by a voice from heaven.
The emphasis, then, is as follows. This that is, He
whom you have seen like the sun and full of glory is My
Son. For this voice was not sent to teach the disciples
that Christ was the Son of God, but to show them in what
likeness He would come again, and to confirm what Christ
had said (S. Matt. xvi. 27) : " The Son of man shall come
in the glory of His Father, with His angels " ; and to approve
the confession of S. Peter (v. 16) : "Thou art Christ, the
Son of the living God," that he might be a more sure
witness of the future kingdom of Christ; as he himself
70 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvn. 6, 9.
testifies (2 Pet. i. 18) : "This voice we heard brought from
heaven when we were with Him in the holy mount ".
Hear ye Him.
God appointed, or at least showed, that Christ was their
Lawgiver, and was to be obeyed. "To hear" means, in
Hebrew, " to obey " (Heb. i. 6). Tertullian (v., Marcion, lib.
iv.) explains it thus : " Hear Him, that is, not Moses nor Elias,
as if in this place the Law and the Prophets were done
away". The followers of Calvin would have us fix these
words in our minds as if we should listen to none besides,
but to Christ Himself only. It were to be wished that
their advice were followed more carefully, and that men
would listen to no heretics at all. We should never have
any such, then, for our guides, and they would have none
to listen to them.
Verse 6. Fell upon their face.
The followers of Calvin explain this wrongly. They say
that the Apostles fell on their faces to pay worship, for the
Hebrew words *OD7^ /D3 mean this. This is frequently
the case, but not always. For (i Kings xvii. 49) Goliath
fell on his face, but not to worship, but as dying ; and Daniel
(viii. 18; x. 9) did the same, but not to worship, but as
amazed and terrified by the vision.
In the present instance this meaning cannot be received ;
for the Evangelist (verse 7) has stated why they so fell.
Hence it is clear that they were as lifeless, or half-dead ;
and Christ is said to have touched them, as we touch those
who are in great prostration, to restore them to themselves.
They fell down, then, from fear, not veneration. But why
did they fear? Who that heard God speaking would not
fear? (Ps. xxviii. 4, 5, 6 ; Amos iii. 8).
Verse 9. Tell the vision to no man.
They were probably prohibited, as S. Jerome and Bede
CH. xvii. io.] THE TRANSFIGURATION. 71
think, from speaking of what had happened, that they
might not inform the people at large of it ; for no evil
could have happened from the other Apostles knowing of
it ; and there would have been this good, that they would
have been the more confirmed in faith, whilst if the multi
tude had been informed of it, the unhappy result might
have followed which has been mentioned before (xvi. 20).
For they who had heard of Christ s glory, if they had sub
sequently beheld His Crucifixion, might have thought
themselves deceived as it were by a false report of His
glory, and have fallen away from faith. So think S.
Chrysostom, Euthymius, S. Jerome, Bede, and Theophylact.
It appears more in accordance with the Gospel that Christ
did not desire even the other Apostles to know it. (Vide
S. Mark ix. io ; 5. Luke ix. 36.)
Till the Son of man be risen from the dead.
Why this was not to be revealed before has been ex
plained already. Why Christ wished it to be known
afterwards is clear. The evil that might have happened
before could not have happened subsequently, and the
Gospel was then to be published everywhere.
Verse io. Why, then, do the Scribes say ?
It is not easy to see why the Apostles asked this. The
followers of Calvin wickedly assert that the Apostles asked
the question because they did not believe that Christ was
the Messiah ; S. Jerome, because they thought that He
had come in glory when they saw Him transfigured, and
yet Elias had gone away. It would appear that their
question was to be understood from the words of Christ :
" Till the Son of man be risen from the dead ". But not
understanding the mystery of the Resurrection, they
thought that Christ would come before His death in the
glory of which He had spoken, to render to every man
72 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvn. n.
according to his works. For that He will come after His
Resurrection they could not yet understand ; because then
they thought that Christ s coming was at hand, and they
had not yet seen Elias come ; at least, in the manner in
which it was said that He would come, to turn the hearts
of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children
to the fathers, and to restore all things (for in the Trans
figuration He seemed not so much to have come as to have
appeared), they ask how the Scribes say that before His
advent Elias must come ?
That was not the private opinion of the Scribes alone,
but one shared in by the whole Jewish people. But as the
Scribes were the Doctors of the Law, and as they probably
used to explain that tradition to the people, it was ascribed
to them. So among ourselves the people say that the
preachers say this or that when not the preachers only,
but all Christians, and even Scripture itself, says it. For
the unlettered, arid they who do not read the Scriptures,
generally ascribe all things to their teaching and preaching.
Verse 1 1 . Elias is come.
The present is here put, in the usual manner, for the
future or indefinite, with a word signifying obligation, as
Elias ought to come, or should come (so infra, verse 23,
and 5. John xxi. 23). " Should not die ; " that is, would
not die, or ought not to die. Christ says that Elias will
come. The followers of Calvin say that what He said
about the future coming of Elias is to be referred to S. John
the Baptist, as Christ, indeed, seems to explain in the
verse following. But Christ does not say that Elias has
come already, but that he will come ; for His words in
the verse following are spoken not of Elias, who He here
says shall come, but of S. John the Baptist, who had come
in the spirit and power of Elias.
From the fact that He speaks of S. John in the past
CH. xvn. ii.] ELIAS. 73
tense, and of Elias in the future (or He speaks of an
appointed time in the present put for the future), they
ought to have concluded that He intended to teach that,
besides John, who had already come in the spirit of Elias,
the very true Elias himself would come hereafter : as also
from the words, "he will restore all things," which John did
not do. Their gloss on John s having restored all things,
because he preached Christ, who restored all things, is
nothing to the purpose. For in this case all who have
preached Christ have restored all things. But it is clear
that Christ opposed Elias to all others, as if he alone, after
Himself, should restore all things. The words appear to
be a kind of paraphrase of Malachi iv. 6 ; or it may be that
Elias is said to be about to restore all things, partly because
he did restore many for se; partly, and much more, because
he was to be the sign of the restitution of all things, that
is, of the consummation of the world, which could not be
in the case of John. The testimony of Malachi, too, is
clear (iv. 5). It is evident that the Prophet is speaking of
the great and terrible day of judgment, before which the
promised Elias was to come. This, therefore, is to be under
stood not of John, but of the true Elias. Again, the author
of Ecclesiasticus (xlviii. 10), speaking of Elias, and alluding
to the testimony of Malachi, says : " Who are registered in
the judgments of time to appease the wrath of the Lord, to
reconcile the heart of the father to the son, and to restore
the tribes of Jacob". But they say that this is not a
canonical book. Granting that it be so, yet a very ancient
tradition is certainly contained in it, which Christ confirmed
in the same words, that the true Elias would restore all things.
Again, S. John in the Apocalypse (xi. 3-6) writes so clearly
that Moses and Elias would come, that it cannot be denied
with any sense or modesty. " And I will give unto my two
witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred
and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two
74 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvn. u.
olive trees, and the two candlesticks that stand before the
Lord of the earth. And if any man will hurt them, fire
shall come out of their mouths, and shall devour their
enemies ; and if any man will hurt them, in this manner
must he be slain. These have power to shut heaven, that
it rain not in the days of their prophecy ; and they have
power over waters to turn them into blood, and to strike
the earth with all plagues as often as they will."
Who these were he immediately describes. " These have
power to shut heaven." Who does not see that this is
Elias ? And, " they have power over waters". Who does
not see that Moses is pointed out as by the finger ? This
was the reason why Moses and Elias, rather than any other
of the Prophets, should be present at the Transfiguration.
i. Christ pleased to show His future coming visibly to
these three Apostles. 2. Because, in His second advent,
Moses and Elias were to be sent before to prepare His
way, as John had done at His first coming. Lastly,
this was the opinion of all the Ancients ; of Elias it was
most constant, and without any dissentient voice ; of
Moses it was less constant, for some thought that he, and
others Enoch, would be the witness of the second advent
of the Lord.
The followers of Calvin object that in the following
(twelfth) verse Christ says : " I say unto you that Elias is
already come"; and (verse 13): "Then the disciples
understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist, and
that John came in the spirit and power of Elias, as the
angel testified" (S. Luke i. 17). But we maintain that
Christ did not, therefore, deny, but rather, in plain terms,
confirmed the fact that Elias also would come before His
second advent.
But when Christ said, " Elias has come already," He
wished only to signify that which pertains to the result,
that is, to the sign of the first advent, and to the preaching
CH. xvii. 14.] THE LUNATIC CHILD HEALED. 75
of repentance (both of which Elias was to do in the second
coming), to show that he had come already, because in the
first coming John had done both. For Malachi said of the
second coming : " Behold I will send you Elias " (iv. 5), as
of the first coming he had said of S. John the Baptist :
" Behold I send my angel, and he shall prepare the way
before my face " (iii. i).
Christ, therefore, desired to say that this was not the
cause of the unbelief of the Jews, but their perverseness
and obstinacy. For the Elias who had been promised
before His first coming, that is, John, had come as Christ
had declared (supra, xi. 14).
Verse 14. For he is a lunatic.
S. Mark (ix. 17) calls him dumb, and (verse 25) deaf.
S. Luke (ix. 39) says that he was possessed. Hence it
follows that he was not, as many think, the subject of
disease by nature, but that he was afflicted by a devil.
Why, then, is he termed a lunatic? Some think that
he was, both by nature and disease, a lunatic, and vexed
by a devil. But the opinion of S. Chrysostom (Horn.
Iviii.) is more probable : that he was not a lunatic either
by nature or disease, but by the craft and persecution of a
devil. For S. Mark calls him deaf and dumb ; S. Luke
says that he was a demoniac ; and S. Matthew that he was
a lunatic. Different authorities have given many different
reasons why the devil makes some men lunatics. Origen
(Tract, iv. on S. Matt.}, S. Chrysostom (Horn. Iviii.), S.
Jerome (Comment, on S. Matt. iv. 24), say that it is to dis
parage the moon as a creature of God, as if it were the
cause of diseases ; Bede and Euthymius, to bring ill-feel
ing and hatred on the Creator Himself, that men might
blaspheme Him. It is not improbable that the devil some
times does this for the love of dissimulation and conceal
ment. S. Luke seems to imply that the devil did not
76 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvn. 15.
dwell in the young man always, but sometimes went out
and sometimes came back. Christ also seemed to signify
the same thing when He said to the devil : " Deaf and
dumb spirit, I command thee go out of him, and enter not
any more into him " (S. Mark ix. 24).
Verse 15. And I brought him to Thy disciples, and
they could not cure him.
It is very likely that while Christ was with the three
disciples on the mount, the man brought his son to the
others, as S. Hilary observes. He says, somewhat too
hardly, that as the people formerly while Moses was in the
mount, so the Apostles now while Christ was in the mount,
lost their faith. For if they had less faith than they ought
to have had, as Christ (verse 20) seems to signify, yet they
assuredly did not lose it. S. Chrysostom appears to think
something of the same kind ; for he says that the Apostles
could not cast out the devil " because the (three) columns
of the Apostles were not present ". He does not say, how
ever, that they lost their faith. S. Mark (ix. 14) gives a
fuller and more copious account of the event. When Christ
had comedown from the mountain, He found the disciples and
Scribes disputing, with a great multitude around them, and
He asked them what they were disputing about. One of
the multitude answered : " My son is a lunatic and suf-
fereth much, for he falleth often into the fire and often
into the water, and 1 brought him to Thy disciples ; and
they could not cure him" (verses 17, 18).
From this account it is easy to see that the Scribes had
been disputing with the disciples of Christ, and upbraiding
them because they could not cast out the devil, and perhaps
calling the power which the Apostles had affirmed them
selves to have received from Christ for casting out devils
and performing other miracles a sham and a delusion. S.
Chrysostom, S. Jerome, Theophylact, and Bede think that
CH. xvir. 17.] THE LUNATIC CHILD HEALED. 77
the man silently accused the disciples to Christ. This can
easily be believed of a man who was a Jew, but we may
judge him more kindly : that it was not as if he would
accuse the disciples, but he might exaggerate the malice of
the devil and the gravity of the case, and thus have said
that they could not cast him out.
Verse 17. O unbelieving generation.
Almost all ancient writers (S. Hilary, S. Chrysostom
S. Jerome, Bede, Theophylact, and S. Thomas in his Com
mentaries) think that Christ said this, not of the disciples,
but of the father of the youth, and of the whole Jewish
nation. This is very probable, for S. Mark says : " He
(that is, Christ) answered the father of the youth : O
unbelieving generation," &c. Christ, therefore, called the
father of the youth and the other Jews a generation. Not
the weakest argument for this is found in the fact that the
father said to Christ : " If Thou canst do anything, help us,
having compassion on us " (verse 21), as if he doubted the
power of Christ, and that Christ answered : " If thou canst
believe, all things are possible to him that believeth," as S.
Chrysostom and Theophylact observe. Some think that
the words in question were addressed to the disciples alone,
as Origen (Tract, iv. on S. Matt.}. Others, again, that they
were spoken both to the disciples and to the people. S.
Jerome, Bede, N. de Lyra, S. Thomas, warn us that these
words of Christ are not words of anger, but of reprehension
merely.
How long shall I be with you.
S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact think, but
erroneously, as may be supposed, that Christ intended by
these words to show that He was possessed by the desire
of dying, and of being thus delivered from the wickedness
of the Jews. It would rather appear as if the words were
those of one who desired the salvation of the Jews, and of
78 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvn. 17, 19.
a Master who complained of the lives and the backwardness
of His disciples : as He said to the Apostles (S. John xiv. 9).
Verse 17. And Jesus rebuked him.
The Greek is eVer/^cre^, which means that Christ
commanded the unclean spirit, for the word means to
rebuke, to command, and to threaten ; as the Greek author,
Euthymius, with most careful attention to the exact
meaning of the word, has observed, both on this passage
and on chap. xvi. 22. The idea of commanding agrees
better with the context than that of rebuking, as S. Mark
explains, ",I command thee" (ix. 24).
Verse 19. Because of your imbelief.
Christ first blamed the unbelief of the father of the youth
and all the Jews publicly. He now blames that of the
Apostles, but in private, that He may have consideration
for their authority.
The unbelief with which He upbraids them does not
appear to have been any actual refusal to believe, nor can
we suppose that their faith was the least possible (for it
must be supposed that they had great faith), but their
faith appears to have been less than that which they ought
to have had after having lived with Christ so long, and
seen so many and great miracles. It is for this that Christ
reprehends them. We may also believe, as S. Chrysostom,
Jerome, Bede, Strabus, Theophylact, and S. Thomas say,
that it was not only through their own want of faith, but
also through that of the father of the youth, that they were
unable to cast out the devil. This may be concluded
from vS. Mark ix. 22, where Christ said to the father, "If
thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that
believeth," as if He meant that it was, in a measure, the
result of his unbelief that the Apostles were unable to cast
out the devil.
CH. xvn. ig.] THE LUNATIC CHILD HEALED. 79
If you have faith.
S. Chrysostom and Euthymius understand the faith of
miracles, not that by which we are Christians ; as also do
the heretics of our times. These fathers, however, are not
to be classed with the former, because they speak with as
good, as the others bad, intention. S. Chrysostom and
Theophylact desired to lessen the fault of the disciples,
that they might not appear not to have that faith by which
we are Christians. It may be said further
1. It is not doubtful that Christ, when He said this, did
blame the Apostles, and accuse them of want of faith (S.
Mark xvi. 14). He upbraided their unbelief. But no man
can be blamed for not having the faith of miracles. For
this is the gift of God, and in no degree depends upon the
will of man, but solely upon that of God. For it is given,
not to those who will it, like the faith by which we are
Christians, but to those to whom God pleases to give it.
It is sometimes given to those also who have not Christian
faith, like prophecy, and gift of other miracles, as we have
said before on chap. vii. 22. The Apostles, therefore, are
no more to blame for not having the faith of miracles,
granting that there is is a distinct fides miraculorum^ than
for not having the gift of prophecy.
2. Christ blames the unbelief of the father of the youth
in the same degree as that in which He blamed the
Apostles. The unbelief of the father was opposed, not to
the faith of miracles, but to faith in Christ, because he
doubted of the divinity and power of Christ. The blame
of the Apostles, therefore, was not for weakness of the
faith of miracles, but of faith in Christ.
3. Christ spoke not only in blame, but also in exhorta
tion, as He immediately added : " If you had faith as a
grain of mustard seed," &c. But no one exhorts another
to have the gift of miracles, or prophecy, or tongues, be
cause it is not in our own power to obtain these.
80 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvn. 19.
4. Lastly, it is clear that Christ speaks of the same faith
as S. Paul (i Cor. xiii. 2), who alludes to this passage.
It is clear, from verse 13 of that chapter, that S. Paul
speaks, not of the faith of miracles, but of faith in Christ,
which is one of the three theological virtues.
As a grain of mustard seed.
All authors almost, ancient and modern alike, as Origen
(Tract, iv. on S. Matt.), S. Jerome, Bede, Strabus, with
S. Augustin, agree on this comparison that faith is not
compared here with the grain of mustard seed in size, but
in efficacy and sharpness, as if Christ had said : " If you
have faith as ardent, vehement, and efficacious as a grain
of mustard seed, you should say to this mountain, Remove
from hence, hither, and it shall remove ". This view,
although approved by many of the highest authority,
has its difficulties.
1. We do not compare hot and pungent, but small
things, to mustard seed.
2. If this were the meaning, it would not have been
necessary to compare faith to the grain of mustard seed^
but to the seed itself, as the nature and effect, and not the
smallness of the size alone, was the point of comparison.
There is also an evident antithesis between a grain of
mustard seed and a mountain. The one is the smallest,
the other is the largest, of all objects. Christ meant that
the least faith, like a grain of mustard seed, could move
even the largest mountain. It is a question of the great
ness and littleness, not of the efficacy, of faith.
A strong argument for this opinion may be derived
from the mind and majesty of Christ. If He had intended
to say : " If you had faith as ardent as a grain of mustard
seed, you would say to this mountain," &c. It would have
been true, but the meaning would have been poor and low,
and not worthy of the greatness of His mind. For what
CH. xvn. 19.] FAITH. 8 1
grace or acuteness is there in saying : "If you have burning
faith you shall remove mountains ". For we know that
fire moves great weights. But that the least faith, that is,
faith like the grain of mustard seed, should be able to
move a vast mountain, shows grace from the antithesis, and
acuteness from the unexpected declaration. This opinion
of some of the Ancients, who, as S. Jerome says, thought
thus, confirms the present view of the case. Hence the
opinions of Origen and S. Jerome, Bede and Strabus, that
it is not the least, but rather the greatest, faith that is here
compared to the grain of mustard seed, and which S. Paul
calls "all faith," that is, whole, entire, and perfect faith,
appears contrary to the meaning of the passage. Against
this, however, it may be said that S. Paul certainly alludes
to this passage in I Cor. xiii. 2, and that he speaks not of
the least, but of the greatest, faith. The same faith, I reply,
is termed by Christ the least, and by S. Paul the greatest,
in different senses ; the least, by Christ, with regard to that
which the Apostles, while with Christ, ought to have had.
Christ does not mean that the Apostles had not even the
least faith, for they assuredly had great faith when they
confessed Him to be the Son of God ; but, as one blaming
them, He spoke in hyperbole and exaggeratedly, as if He
had said : If you had the least faith, that is, as much as you
ought to have, and not the greater, you would say to this
mountain, " Remove from hence," and it shall remove. As
we say to a person of good faculties, but who does not well
understand what we say : " If you had the least sense you
would understand ". We do not mean that he is wholly
devoid of all sense, but that he has too little to comprehend
this particular subject.
In this sense Christ speaks of the least faith. But S.
Paul, in comparison with that which either he himself or
others commonly possessed, calls it the greatest for no
one had yet arrived at the point of removing mountains.
26
82 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [H. xvn. 19.
Hence, we may understand that it is not necessary that
everyone who has the least faith, nor even that he who has
the greatest, should remove mountains.
For we may believe that the Apostles had, if not then,
at least afterwards, as great faith as Christ desired in them,
so as to be able to move mountains, but we do not find
that they ever did move them. What S. Chrysostom,
Euthymius, and Theophylact, however, declare to be pro
bable, is not to be denied, that they perhaps sometimes did
so, but it is not anywhere related in Holy Scripture ; for,
as S. John says, all the miracles of Christ are not recorded.
The same authors say, that if not Apostles, yet Apostolic
men did this : alluding probably to the well-known history
of S. Greg. Neocaes., who, according to Eusebius, when a
church was being built, removed a mountain which stood
in the way to another place (Hist., vii. 13). The same
authors tell us why the Apostles did not do the same. It
was not necessary. For the Apostles, like Christ Himself,
did not do all that they could have done, but only such
things as were either desirable or necessary. The law of
necessity is the glory of God ; when this requires them,
miracles are to be performed ; when it does not, they are
not to be looked for. S. Jerome, Bede (in his Commentary),
and S. Augustin (De Cons., i. 9) explain it allegorically :
understanding human pride, which the Apostles removed
and overcame, by the mountain.
But this kind.
S. Athanasius (De Virginit^, S. Chrysostom, Euthymius,
S. Thomas (Comment, in loc\ think that not merely some
one particular kind of evil spirit is here meant, but every
kind, because they are all of the same nature, so that they
cannot be cast out except by prayer and fasting. But the
Apostles cast out many, not by these means, but by calling
over them the name of Christ (S. Luke x. 17). Christ,
CH. xvn. 21.] OF CASTING OUT EVIL SPIRITS. 83
therefore, speaks of some particular kind of evil spirit, in
the casting out of which there Was more difficulty than in
others, so that there was need of even prayer and fasting.
What kind of evil spirit this was is wholly uncertain. S.
Jerome (on this passage) and S. Leo (Serm. ii. de Jejun.
Mens. Sept.} suppose it to have been some especially
wicked kind of spirit. Others, that it was a spirit which
had dwelt in the man a very long time, as if, like the cure
of lasting and inveterate diseases, it were more difficult to
drive out a spirit which had long had possession of a man
than one which had entered him lately. This these
authorities think the reason of Christ s having asked how
long it was since it had happened (S. Mark ix. 20).
The most obstinate and the fiercest kind of evil spirit may
be supposed to be here intended ; for Christ speaks of.it
as of some enemy who had possession, as it were, of the
citadel, and who would be driven out with the greater
difficulty as he was the more ferocious and obstinate, as in
the parable (S. Luke xi. 21). This seems -a conclusion
from the result : for the evil spirit had made the youth
lunatic, and deaf, and dumb, like some kinds of men who
are sullen and silent, and give no reply to questions, and
are deaf to prayers.
But by prayer and fasting.
It has been doubted whether he who drives out the devil
should fast, or he from whom it is driven out. Some think
that Christ intended the latter ; others, as S. Chrysostom,
Euthymius, and Theophylact, say that both should do so.
Doubtless the prayers and fasts both avail, but Christ
appears to speak here only of the exorcisor ; for He was
teaching the Apostles how to cast out this kind of devil.
Verse 21. And when tJiey abode together in Galilee.
AvacnpefyoiJievutv. The meaning of this is ambiguous.
The word signifies either " living with " or " returning"; our
84 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvn. 23.
version rightly renders it " abode together," because
Christ had now been living some time in Galilee, and the
Evangelist had not mentioned his departure from it. He
had come out of Phoenicia some time ago, as said by S.
Matthew (xv. 21), and the constant opinion is that He was
transfigured in Galilee before he went thence ; for they
afterwards came out to go into Judaea, and that Christ
might raise Lazarus.
Verse 23. They tJiat received the didrachma came to Peter.
S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, Bede, Theophylact, and
Euthymius think that, from the greatness of Christ s
miracles, they did not venture for reverence to come to
Him. This seems more likely than that, as some
think, they came to Peter from malice, rather than to
Christ, that they might elicit from him more easily whether
Christ paid tribute to Caesar or not, and, if He refused, that
they might take occasion to accuse Him. Why they came
to Peter rather than to any other of the disciples shall be
explained on verse 27. The didrachma was a silver coin
about equal to two Spanish reals, or equal to half a sicle,
or fifteenpence English money.
There is a doubt as to what this tribute was. S. Hilary
thinks that it was the tax which the Jews were ordered to
pay yearly to the temple (Exod. xxx. 13); S. Chrysostom,
Euthymius, and Theophylact think that it was the tribute
which the Jews were commanded to give to the Lord
(Numb. iii. 46, 47) for those first-born that exceeded the
number of the Levites. This does not seem probable, for
that tribute was only paid by two hundred and seventy-
three persons, this being the number of the other tribes in
excess of that of Levi.
The opinion of S. Jerome and Bede is more probable :
that this was a tax which Augustus imposed upon the
Jews, when he commanded the whole world to be enrolled
CH. xvn. 24.] THE TRIBUTE MONEY. 85
(S. Luke ii. i). Their conjecture is reasonable, that
Vespasian, when Jerusalem was taken by siege, imposed
upon the Jews the same amount of tribute as they had
before paid to the temple, as Josephus (De Bell. Jud., vii.
26) asserts. It is probable that Vespasian re-imposed
the same tribute as Augustus first laid upon them, in
whatever part of the world they were, and from which they
hoped to have freed themselves by their revolt. S. Hilary,
perhaps, meant that Christ paid the tribute which the
Jews paid to the temple, not as to Caesar, but as to His
Father.
Verse 24. Yes.
S. Peter replied affirmatively. We may suppose that he
either did so from fear, lest, if he refused or should appear
to doubt, he might offend the publicans, as if Christ were
among the number of those who refused to give tribute to
Caesar, as He was afterwards accused of being : or that he
had no doubt about Christ s intention : or that he knew that
He had paid it in former years, which is much more
likely. For when the publicans said, " Doth not your
Master pay the didrachma?" the meaning was, "Is He
not in the habit of doing so ? " The word signifies, not an
act, but a custom. There are many examples of this in
Scripture, as in 5. John iv. 9, which means that the Jews
were not in the habit of communicating with the Samari
tans. S. Peter, in confirmation of their opinion, answered,
" Yes ". The Evangelists mention this particular payment,
perhaps, because of the miracle which was to follow.
The kings of the earth.
Christ s anticipation of Peter, and His foreknowledge of
his thoughts, was in itself a great miracle. Christ may
seem to have asked Peter that question inaptly, because
He seems to indicate either that He was the Son of an
earthly king namely, Caesar if He thus desired to prove
86 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvn. 24.
that He did not owe tribute to Caesar : or that it was paid,
not to Caesar, but to God, whose Son He was. The
answer may be, as S. Chrysostom has observed, that the argu
ment of Christ is one a minore ad majus, as if He had
said, " If the sons of an earthly king owe no tribute, I,
who am the Son of God, the King of kings, owe it to no
king". He might allude to the origin of that tribute that
it should be paid to the temple, that is, to God. This is
the opinion of S. Hilary and Theophylact. Some have
raised the question whether Christ, as man, owed tribute ?
They answer that He did owe it, because S. Paul says that
He was like us in all things, sin only excepted, and that He
here affirms himself to be free from tribute, not as man,
but as God. It may be objected (i) that Christ seems
to speak not only of Himself, but of Peter also ; and (2)
that He spoke in the plural number " the children," and
added, " But that we may not scandalise them," &c. The
first reason does not seem of much weight, because it is
certain that Christ spoke of Himself as of the Son of God
by nature, which S. Peter was not, and he therefore could
not be included in the number of sons. But Christ spoke
in the plural, because He included all the sons of kings in
general. The second reason seems of more weight. Christ
appears to desire to prove that neither He Himself nor
His disciples owed tribute. He did not owe it Himself,
because He was the Son of God, nor did His disciples,
because they were of the number of His friends and com
panions. For not only the sons of kings, but also their
attendants, are exempt from tribute.
The idea of some, that all Christians, as being the sons of
God by adoption, or in some way the friends of Christ, are
free from tribute, seems to be a question of no difficulty
whatever. For although Christians are the sons of God by
adoption, and bear the name of Christ, they are not of His
household like the Apostles. And S. Paul (Rom. xiii. 7)
CH. xvn. 26.] MIRACLE OF THE TRIBUTE MONEY. 8/
commands Christians to render to each his own honour
to whom honour, tribute to whom tribute. S. Augustin is
also of this opinion (Quest. Evang., i. 33). S. Jerome might
have been brought forward in support of the above opinion
with more appearance of reason. He says, on this passage :
" He bore the cross for us, and paid our tribute ; we, in His
honour, pay no tribute, and, like the sons of a king, we are
free from impost ". But he either spoke allegorically, that
we do not any longer pay tribute to the devil as before, or
he alludes only to Ecclesiastics, who, under Christian
emperors, were freed from all tribute.
Verse 26. But that ive may not scandalise them.
The scandal of which the Doctors of the Church speak
would have been not given but received ; but Christ, as He
easily could do, wished to avoid even this. The glory of
God required Him, as He could easily pay this tribute, not
to offend the publicans, and give occasion for accusation to
the malevolent Jews. For even when He had always paid
the tribute, He was subsequently accused of forbidding to
pay tribute to Caesar (S. Luke xxiii. 2).
And thatfisJi which shall first come up,
It is certain that a great and notable miracle was here
performed, but S. Jerome doubts, with reason, in what it
consisted ; whether in Christ s knowledge of what the fish
would be which would have the coin in its mouth; or in His
knowing that it would come up the first of all, or in His
causing it to do so ; or that, in the fish which did come up
first, He should have created the stater. The last idea
seems the most probable, because fish, if they swallow a
coin or any piece of money, do not hold it in their mouths,
but in their bellies. The fish, therefore, if it had received
that coin, would have had it not in its mouth, but in its
belly. Some say, according to Theophylact, that the stater
was not a coin, but a pearl, such as fish do contain. This
88 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvn. 26.
is not likely, however, because even pearls are found, not in
the mouth, but in the belly ; nor are pearls found in fish
that are taken in a net, but only in shell-fish, which divers
separate from the rocks by their hands.
A stater.
A stater in Greek is the same as a sicle in Hebrew. It
is a word of both Greek and Hebrew origin. It was
equivalent to a tretradrachma, or two didrachmas. Christ
ordered it to be given for Himself and for Peter, because
each should pay a didrachma, that is, half a sicle.
For Me and thee.
Why for Peter rather than the other Apostles ?
This has been matter of much perplexity. S. Chrysos-
tom and Euthymius say that that tribute was only paid by
the first-born, and Peter was such. But beside the fact
that this opinion is refuted by the preceding verse, it may
also be so by the more than great probability that others
of the Apostles were the same. The above authors and
S. Jerome give a better reason that Christ paid for Him
self and Peter, because Peter was the head of the Apostles.
This does not meet the approbation of the heretics of our
own time, but it is better than their assertion that Christ
paid for Peter because He lived in Peter s house. For it
has been shown (viii. 14) that Peter had no house in
Capernaum. Some think that Peter was at that time alone
with Christ, as there is no mention of the other disciples,
and that Christ paid for him because the publicans came
to him only.
Another question has been raised by the ancient Fathers.
Why, when He had His own purse, and when the devout
women who had come with Him from Judaea supplied Him
with all things needful, Christ paid the tribute, not from
His own means, but from the fish ?
The reason given by S. Jerome, that Christ would not
CH. xvn. 26.] MIRACLE OF THE TRIBUTE MONEY. 89
have the goods of the poor converted into tribute, finds
favour with few. For the contents of the purse were
devoted to things needful ; and the payment of the tribute,
when Christ willed it, was one of them. S. Chrysostom
and Euthymius suppose that Christ desired to show that,
although He paid tribute, He was still the Lord of the
earth and the sea, because He took the tribute from the
latter. The same authorities give another and apparently
a better reason. That Christ would neither offend the
publicans, nor part with His own right, and, therefore, paid
the demand, not from His own purse, but from dis
covered money. Though the true reason may be that the
other disciples who bore the purse were not present, and,
as He would not offend the publicans, He performed a
miracle to pay the tribute.
CHAPTER XVIII.
CHRIST TEACHES HUMILITY, TO BEWARE OF SCANDAL,
AND TO FLEE THE OCCASIONS OF SIN TO DENOUNCE
TO THE CHURCH INCORRIGIBLE SINNERS, AND TO
LOOK UPON SUCH AS REFUSE TO HEAR THE CHURCH
AS HEATHENS HE PROMISES TO HIS DISCIPLES THE
POWER OF BINDING AND LOOSING, AND THAT HE
WILL BE IN THE MIDST OF THEIR ASSEMBLIES NO
FORGIVENESS FOR THEM THAT WILL NOT FORGIVE.
Verse i. At that hour.
" ABOUT that time," sub idem tempus ; a Hebraism. S.
Mark (ix. 33) says that Christ anticipated the Apostles and
asked what they disputed of in the way. They had dis
puted which of them should be the greatest. S. Luke (ix.
46) says that Jesus, knowing their thoughts, did not ask
them, but took a child, and said : "Whosoever shall receive
this child in My name receiveth Me, and whosoever re-
ceiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me. For he that is
the lesser among you all, he is the greater." Of this kind
of contention, S. Augustin, on the passage (De Consens., ii.
61), is silent. S. Chrysostom and Euthymius say that the
Apostles disputed, not once, but frequently, on the subject.
(i) In the way; (2) In the house, when they saw Peter
preferred to them in the payment of the tribute ; (3) When
Christ asked them what they disputed of in the way. (i)
Then Christ asked the Apostles what they treated of; (2)
Then the Apostles, seeing that their thoughts and conten
tion were known to Christ, asked Him what they had not
ventured to ask before Which of them was the greatest ?
CH. xvni. i.J DISPUTE WHICH SHALL BE GREATEST. gi
It has been doubted on what occasion they asked this. S.
Jerome, Bede, and Euthymius think that it was when they
saw Christ pay the tribute for Himself and Peter. Others
differ, because it appears from 5. Mark ix. 33 that they
had had their thoughts on the subject in the way before
they came to Capernaum and the tribute had been paid ;
but we have said from S. Chrysostom and Euthymius that
they had frequently and on different occasions discussed
the question. The payment of the tribute, therefore, did
not put the thought into their minds, but only strengthened
that which was in them already. For there had been
often occasions before. They had seen Peter, with two
others, go up the mountain with Christ, and the keys of
the kingdom of heaven given to him (xvi. 19), as again S.
Chrysostom and Euthymius say. Others give another and
not unacceptable reason that they had heard Christ often
speak of His death as being now very near at hand, and
wondered which of them would be, so to speak, His heir
that is, His vicar after His death. This is very agreeable
to human nature and custom, when men stand around
those who are at the point of death, with thoughts of their
succession. The Apostles seem to have done this on the
eve of Christ s Passion (5. Luke xxii. 24).
Who thinkest tJwu,
The comparative is put for the superlative, and the
present for the future, by a Greek idiom, as if it were
written, Which of us is to be the greatest in the kingdom
of heaven ?
In the kingdom of heaven.
Some, as SS. Chrysostom and Epiphanius, take these
words to mean the kingdom of heaven itself, and the
celestial glory, which from verse 3 seems probable. It is
credible that Christ answered the Apostles about the same
kingdom of heaven as they spoke of.
92 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvm. 2,3.
But it is more likely that in this instance the Church
is termed the kingdom of heaven (i) From the cause
of their asking the question when they saw Peter in
every respect preferred, and they thought that he would be
the head of all the Church ; (2) From their having been
blamed by Christ when He rebuked their ambition. To
wish to be the first in the kingdom of heaven is love, not
ambition ; but to wish to be first in the Church, and to be
placed over others, was to incur blame as being ambitious.
This may be proved from verse 3, where the contrary
opinion is approved. For Christ would say that he who is
least in the present kingdom of heaven that is, the
Church should be accounted greatest, and should, there
fore, be the greatest in heaven. So speaks S. Luke of the
present kingdom of the Church (ix. 48). Christ therefore
plays on the ambiguity of the words, when He says,
" Except ye be converted," as we have observed that He
has often done before.
Verse 2. And Jesus calling to Him a little child.
Some think that it was an infant, because S. Mark says
that Christ took him up in His arms (S. Mark ix. 35; x.
1 6). But they are in error. For a child larger than an
infant may be small enough to be taken up in arms, and
this child was able to walk. Christ then called, not an
infant, but a child, and an innocent one, and placed him in
the midst, that, as has been observed by S. Chrysostom, he
might teach humility, not in words, but by actual facts.
Verse 3. Unless you be converted.
It has been erroneously inferred from these words that
the Apostles were then in a state of mortal sin, because
Christ said " except," as if they were not able to enter the
kingdom of heaven at that time. Christ meant simply
that they could not enter it themselves unless they were
like children in simplicity and humility. This is not to be
CH. xvm. 5.] HUMILITY. 93
understood as if a humility and simplicity equal to that of
children were required in all men. For if so, who would
ever enter the kingdom of heaven ? But the greatest
example of humility is put forward, not that we may
wholly come up to it, but that we may approach as near to
it as we possibly can. So we are commanded to be
perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect (chap. v. 48). Nor
is it intended that the Apostles had not such humility as
would enable them to enter the kingdom of heaven ; but
they have what is required shown to them, that if they have
it not, they may gain it, and if they have it, they may keep
it. The expression, " unless you become," &c., does not
mean that they were not such then. It alludes to their
age, that as they are fully grown now, they should become
as little children, as Christ said to Nicodemus (S. John
iii. 3).
But Christ blamed the ambition of the Apostles.
Granted. It does not follow, however, that it was such as
to be a mortal sin, or to hinder them from entering the
kingdom of heaven ; for it might be venial, and it is right
that we should believe it to have been such. The Apostles,
therefore, are to be excused by this or some other better
reason, as S. Chrysostom excuses them, not blamed.
Christ commands us to be like children, not in all things,
but in simplicity, in humility, and in innocence, as S. Paul
(i Cor. xiv. 20), as say S. Clement of Alexandria (Pcedag.,
i. 5), S. Ambrose (Serm. x.).
Verse 5. And he that shall receive one such little child.
The reason of Christ s saying this may easily be gathered
from what has gone before and from what follows. He
would prove that he is the greatest who most resembles the
least, because a child is most like Himself and bears His
Person. He proves this by the fact that whoever receives
a child receives Him. But to receive does not only mean,
94 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvm. 6.
as some think, to receive Him into our houses, but to follow
this up by every kind of well-doing in our power : in a
word, to do good, as He will say in the judgment (xxv. 40).
S. Mark and S. Luke relate only this part of Christ s con
versation, omitting what S. Matthew has added. Probably
because in this lay the sum of the whole matter.
Verse 6. But he that shall scandalise.
The argument, as S. Chrysostom and Theophylact have
observed, is a contrario. To scandalise does not mean here,
as elsewhere, to set a bad example, but to injure another, as
Chrysostom, Euthymius, and S. Thomas have pointed out.
This is also clear from the antithesis, for receiving little
children is opposed to injuring them. To receive is to
benefit. To scandalise, therefore, is to do the contrary
(beneficere, maleficere). By little ones here is meant not
merely those who are of tender age, like this little child,
but those who are so in their lives. For Christ adds, " who
believe in Me ". For these are they to whom injustice is
most commonly done under the idea that they are simple
or of low degree.
A mill-stone.
Many think that the lower mill-stone was called the
mala asinaria, or in Greek 01/05, that is " asinus," the ass,
and that it was larger than the upper one. But Christ
clearly meant a huge stone merely. The common opinion
is not satisfactory, for Christ used the Syriac language, in
which this ambiguity is not found. S. Hilary (Can. xviii.)
and S. Ambrose (Serm. xviii.) seem correct that it was
called mola asinaria, because an ass was much used in grind
ing. It was called mola asinaria to distinguish it from mola
trusatilis, or hand-mill. Christ named the former because
it is much larger than the latter. The burial of an ass was
a common Jewish custom for criminals. Christ, perhaps,
alluded to pride, against which He was speaking (as in xi.
CH. xvin. 7.] THE WOE OF OFFENCE. 95
23). S. Augustin thinks, allegorically, that the mola asina
is intended to show the weight of men s sins.
Verse 7. Woe to the world because of sin.
By " the world " some understand the authors of sin ; as
if Christ lamented their condition. But it is not those who
suffer, but they who commit the offence, that are miserable.
The opinion of S. Hilary, S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and
Theophylact seems better that they are called the world
who are in the world, whom Christ had called the little ones
just before, and of whom He had said, "whoever shall
offend," &c. For as He had spoken of their offence done
to them, He adds that many other scandals threaten them.
I cannot agree with S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theo
phylact in saying that Christ said this in blame of those
who should be offended, as a little before He had blamed
those who should offend them. It is sin not only to offend,
but also to be offended, as this is a mark of infirmity. For
though to be offended is sometimes a sin, as when the
Pharisees were offended at the miracles of Christ, yet their
view is not apt ; for it has been shown on the preceding
verse that to offend in this passage does not mean to cause
scandal, but to do a wrong. But to suffer injury is not a
fault, but a great virtue. Christ, therefore, said not as
blaming but as pitying : " Woe to the world," Va mundo.
He says it must needs be not as of absolute necessity,
but as from human perversity, as S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome,
Bede, and Euthymius observe, that offences would come :
not because Christ foretold them, but that He foretold them
because they would come. It will, perhaps, be objected
that the particles, "but," "nevertheless" (verumtameri), show
the meaning to be that, however necessary it be that offences
should come, he who causes them will not, therefore, be
held free from blame. The answer again may be that this
is not the actual meaning, but one closely resembling it.
96 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvm. 8, 10.
Although offences might have come otherwise, he who
caused them will not on that account be blameless. Saul
was to die, but he who put him to death was not on that
account blameless.
But nevertheless, woe to that man.
Many of the Ancients were of opinion that Judas is here
meant, as Philastrius against those who justified his treachery
S. Jerome and Bede in their commentary on this passage,
and S. Ambrose, or, as I think, Remigius, in his Commentary
on xi. i of I Corinthians but the application is evidently
general.
Verse 8. And if thy hand.
This shows how careful men should be to avoid offences.
The hand is to be cut off ; the eye plucked out. On this
see verses 29, 30.
Verse 10. Their angels.
Christ shows that the little ones are not to be offended or
despised, because they are so dear in the sight of God that
they have their angels in His presence, by whom they are
guarded. From this and other passages has arisen the
common opinion of guardian angels.
i. It appears from Scripture that every kingdom and
province, even of unbelievers, has each its guardian angel
set 6ver it (Dan. x. 13-20). This all ancient writers, and
most especially Clement of Rome (Recog., ii.), Clement of
Alexandria (Strom., vi.), S. Chrysostom (Horn. Ixi. on S.
Matt.), and Theodoret (Orat. x. on Daniel), conclude from
Deut. xxxii. 8, following the LXX., who, for "sons of Israel,"
read "the angels of God" ; as if the meaning were that to
every province and people one angel was given as a pro
tector. It appears also from the Apocalypse (ii. 8, 12, 18 ;
iii. i, 7, 14) that to each church an angel is given, by whom
it is ruled ; according to S. Hilary (On Ps. cxxiv.), S. Gregory
CH. xvm. 10.] GUARDIAN ANGELS. 9/
Nazianzen (Orat. Episc}, S. Jerome (chap, i., Ecclesiast.}, and
the author of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Corin
thians, wrongly ascribed to S. Jerome (Ep. i. 11). This has
always been believed, not only from universal tradition, but
also from the more than probable testimony of the Holy
Scripture, that every single Christian has his own peculiar
angel, to whose care he is committed ; for Christ speaks
here of it as a known fact ; and as it is certain that every
man has his angel, He places those of the little ones, that is,
of the just, before the rest.
We conclude the same thing from Genesis xlviii. 16 and
Acts -x.il. 15, when Peter was delivered from prison by his
own angel ; and when he had knocked at the door in the
night they said, " It is not Peter but his angel ". So far all
ancient authors agree (S. Justin, Quast. 30; Lactantius, ii. 15 ;
S. Basil, On Ps. xxxvii.-lviii., De Spiritu Sancto, lib. iii. ; S.
Chrysostom, hoc loc. ; S. Jerome, On Isaiah Ixvi. ; Theo-
doret, De Div. decret., lib. v., Orat. x. on Daniel ; Isidore, lib.
xii., De Summ. Bon, ; Origen, passim}. Some teachers,
neither of bad repute nor mere moderns, have gone further
and thought that Christ Himself had an angel, of which S.
Luke speaks (xxii. 43) ; but this is a paradox hardly
worthy of Christ the true God. He had, indeed, angels
which ministered to Him, but not who preserved Him.
The followers of Calvin, indeed, say that all angels are the
guardians of all men, as in Heb. i. 14. Of one point at
least there has been raised a partial doubt whether angels
are given to all men, even to those who are not Christians.
Origen (Tract, vi. 011 S. Matt.} and The Author (Horn, v.)
seem to think that they are only given to the baptised ;
but the opinion of all other authorities is to the contrary
effect ; and the former is refuted both from Scripture and
reason. For, if an angel was set over Greece and the
kingdom of Persia, we may believe that Persians and
Greeks had each his own angel ; for God regards men
7
98 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvm. 10.
more than kingdoms, and He seeks the salvation of all
men, in securing which He uses the ministry of angels.
It is less certain whether every man has not only a good
angel on the one hand to defend him, but also an evil one
on the other which assails him. But this also is proved
both from the earliest tradition, not only of Christians, but
also of Jews ; and ancient writers produce in its favour the
example of Barnabas, which was formerly of great weight
in the Church, as Origen, Cassian, Bede (On Acts xii.), and
others show. S. Gregory of Nyssa (in his Life of Moses),
The Author (Horn. v. on S. Matt.\ and others confirm this
opinion. There is some trace of it also in Scripture ; for
S. Paul speaks of an angel of Satan sent to buffet him (2
Cor. xii. 7). However this may be understood, it is at least
credible that the devil, the prince of evil spirits, imitates
God in the administration of his kingdom ; and as God
has given to each man his own particular good angel to
have charge of him, so he would give evil ones in opposi
tion ; for Christ seems when He says, " Their angels in
heaven always see the face of My Father, which is in
heaven," to attribute something singular to the angels of
these little ones, as if the others were inferior, and these saw
the face of God which the others did not. Origen (Horn.
xxxv. on vS. Luke) confirms his error from this passage, as
if even the good angels through their negligence in protect
ing men sometimes lose their beatitude ; as if the meaning
were that the angels of other men sometimes see the face
of God and sometimes do not, because they sometimes
guard men well and sometimes ill, but that the angels of
the little ones always see it, because they keep them always
well. But as the little ones are kept by their angels more
carefully than other men, they are not to be offended or
despised.
S. Chrysostom thinks that a singular privilege was given
to the angels of the little ones, and that as not all angels,
CH. xvm. ii.] GUARDIAN ANGELS. 99
but only those of the highest order, were allowed to see the
face of God, it is signified here that the care of the little
ones was committed to the highest angels. There certainly
appears to be some difference between the angels of the
little ones and those of other men, but not what either
Origen or S. Chrysostom think ; but the angels of the
little ones are greater than of other men. Should anyone
wonder at this, he must remember that not boys, but just
men, are here called the little ones, and the Scripture
testifies that God has more care for these than for other
men. For that the angels of the little ones are greater
and more honourable than those of other men is proved
from the fact that they always see the face of God, not as
if the other angels did not, but that by that expression the
Hebrews meant one who was near to, and, as it were, a
familiar friend of God. It is a metaphor taken from the
palace, where the more honourable a man is, the nearer he
is placed to the king, and the more continually he is in his
sight. So the Queen of Sheba said of the servants of
Solomon : " Blessed are thy men, and blessed are thy ser
vants who stand before thee always and hear thy wisdom "
(3 Kings x. 8 ; S. Gregory, ii., Moral., ch. iii.). S. Bernard
(De ded. EccL, Serin, v.) says that we may conclude from
this passage, what, indeed, all subsequent divines have
thought, that the angels, wherever they go, always bear
with them their beatitudes, that is, they always behold the
face of God. Christ metaphorically calls the splendour of
the Divine Essence the face of God, as the face, or rather
the countenance, of a man is that part in which his whole
person shines forth.
Verse 1 1 . For the Son of man is come to save that which
was lost.
This is the second proof of Christ s that the little ones
are not to be despised, since the Son of man came for their
100 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvm. 12.
salvation. We find a like argument in S. Paul (i Cor. viii.
11). But Christ speaks according to the opinion of men,
who think those who are most especially just, because they
see them downcast and humble, to be sinners above
all men, as the Pharisees said to the blind man whom
Christ healed (S. John ix. 34) : " Thou wast wholly born in
sins". When Christ says this, He does not show that other
men have not perished, but only that He came for sinners,
so that if any man were not a sinner, He would not have
come for him.
Verse 12. If a man have an hundred sheep.
This is the third proof, from the simile of a shepherd,
which Christ gives that, as a Good Shepherd, He counts of
more value the salvation of the little ones that is, those
who are accounted sinners, than that of other men. It is
not meant that there are any men who have not sinned,
but that for those alone who have sinned Christ came.
There has been much question as to who the ninety-nine
are who have not sinned. The most ancient authors say
that they are the good angels. For the sheep are all the
rational creatures of God, of whom some that is, men
have gone astray (S. Irenaeus, iii. 21, 39; Origen, ii., In
Gen., and vii., On Joshua; S. Cyril Jerusalem, Cat. Lect.,
xv.; S. Hilary, in hoc loc.; S. Ambrose, ApoL David.,
chap. v. ; S. Gregory, Horn, xxxiv. in Evang. ; and
Theophylact). S. Jerome (in hoc loc.} mentions this
opinion, and S. Athanasius (q. 2). But it cannot be
doubted that Christ speaks only of men unless we say
most senselessly with Origen that He came for the
angels who have sinned. The meaning then is, not that
He left ninety-nine sheep which had not gone astray to
seek the only one which had, but He made the salvation of
even one man of so great account that if there had been
only a hundred men, and one of them only had sinned, He,
CH. xvin. 14, is-] SINS OF A BROTHER AGAINST US. IOI
like a good shepherd, would have left the ninety-nine and
sought the one. It is a great proof of His love to us, and
refutation of their opinion who say that even if men had
not sinned Christ would have come. Therefore (verse 14)
Christ does not conclude with saying that He had left the
ninety-nine which had not strayed to seek the one which
had, but He said, " It is not the will".
Verse 14. Even so, it is not the ^vill.
That is, as that shepherd does not suffer even the least
sheep of his flock to perish, but loves the safety of the one
that goes astray more than that of those who have not done
so, so it is not the will of His Father in heaven that even
the least of them should perish. The same thing is taught
in the parable of the lost son (S. Luke xv. 24, &c.).
The words (S. Matt, xviii. 14) ante patrem vestrum are a
Hebraism taken from the edicts of kings which are said to
proceed from his sight that they may be sure of being held
good. Christ spoke of the divine will as of a decree. He
said patrem vestrem, and not meum, probably to harmonise
with the subject of His words. This was the love and
mercy of God for men, both of which are the property of
the Father.
Verse 1 5. But if thy brother shall offend against thee.
Christ calls all Christians generally our brothers, for He
only speaks of these, as is seen by His own words.
He opposes a heathen and publican to brother (verse 17),
and the Church does not judge those who are without (i
Cor. v. 12). Christ now properly calls the one whom He
had termed a little one (verse 10) a brother; and teaches
that if he has done any wrong, he is not to be treated
severely and as an enemy, but with mercy and like a
brother, as the Son of man treats him, who came to save
that which was lost.
102 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvm. 15.
Against thee.
It may be rightly asked what kind of sins are here
meant, for some appear to be of such a nature as not to
allow one who commits them to be corrected privately.
Origen (Tract vi. on S. Matt.} explains it only of venial
sins, whether against God or ourselves. S. Hilary, S.
Chrysostom, S. Jerome, S. Ambrose (On S. Luke xvii.), S.
Augustin (Serm. xvi. de verb. Dom. sec. Matt.}, Theophy-
lact, and Euthymius take it of mortal sins, but of such as
are committed only against ourselves, and not against God,
for these are not to be dissembled. They would appear to
be every kind of sin, whether against ourselves or against
God. We must keep in view the design of Christ, that we
should not accuse a sinner with bitterness, but correct him
with gentleness. He said, " If he sin against thee," because
we are apt to be bitter, and sharp, and hard on those who
have sinned against us when we rebuke them ; and Christ
desired, most wisely, when the danger was greatest, to im
pose upon us some restraints against violence. Yet from
one kind of sin we may understand every kind, unless there
be any obstacle to brotherly correction.
We may doubt why Christ did not say, " If thy brother
sin against thee, forgive him" (as chap. v. 23, 24; vi. 14). The
answer may be that in the words, " Rebuke him between thee
and him alone," a tacit refusal is concealed. As if Christ
had said : If thy brother sin against thee, do not accuse him
at once before the Church, but first correct his fault.
Whether or not everyone who is sinned against, or who
knows of the sin of another, and in every kind of sin ought
to correct the offender, must be decided by the rule of the
Doctors of the Church, which is formed on the words of
Christ : "If he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother ".
When, then, there is hope of spiritual gain, the brother is
to be corrected. When there is none, he is either to be
CH. xvm. 16, 17.] SINS OF A BROTHER AGAINST US. IO3
accused before the Church if profit can be hoped, or other
wise to be left to God.
Verse 16. Take with thee one or two.
It seems uncertain why, after the first admonition, this is
necessary. Some say that it was that the rebuke might be
more severe, and that the offender might be ashamed from
the presence of the witnesses. Others, that it is to show
by the presence of the witnesses that the accuser had done
his duty ; as Euthymius and others. Some again, that if the
offender did not correct himself, the complainant might
have witnesses to accuse him before the Church. This is
the opinion of many moderns. Others, that the corrector
may more easily persuade the other when he does not stand
alone, but there are two or three to support him, as S.
Chrysostom, S. Augustin (Serm. xvi. de verb. Dom.\ and
Theophylact hold. This is the more probable, because
Christ says (from Deuteronomy xvii. 6), "In the mouth of
two or three witnesses," &c. There is, however, this dif
ference. In Deuteronomy God wished to terrify men from
the commission of crimes, but here Christ means that two
or three witnesses are sufficient to prove the truth.
Whether the witnesses are to be called in succession one
after another or all at once has been matter of doubt, and
the point is not settled. S. Jerome thinks that first one
should be called, and then the second, and then the third.
But from the result, and from the words of Deuteronomy^
which are cited by Christ, it is clear that they are not to be
called separately but all at once, and two or three in num
ber at least. For it is not in the mouth of one but of two
or three witnesses that every word shall stand.
Verse 17. And if he will not hear them, tell the Church.
If he will not believe them, that is, then it shall be lawful
for thee to bring thy brother to the judgment of the Church.
104 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvm. 18.
The word "hear" is here put for "obey" by a Hebraism.
Some heretics, without reason, understand by the Church
the Jewish synagogue. For nowhere in the New Testament
is the synagogue called the Church, as S. Augustin (Ep. to
Rom. and Ps. Ixxxi.) first remarked, and on the verse fol
lowing, speaking of the Church before which the offender
was to be brought, He adds "Whatever you bind," &c. The
power of binding and loosing was given not to the Jewish
synagogue but to the Christian Church ; and as Christ said
this not to the Jews but to the Apostles, we cannot doubt
that it was spoken of the Church and not of the synagogue.
It is clear, however, from this that the Church is a visible
thing, and not, as these would have it, invisible, or rather a
mere nullity. These men dread the judgment of the
Church, and therefore would not have it to be a visible
thing.
Let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Christ alludes to the custom of the Jews, who abstained
from the society of ethnics and publicans, esteeming them
as public sinners. The meaning, therefore, is that they
who will not obey the judgment of the Church are to be
avoided as if they were heathens. Christ orders this to
be done for two reasons :
1. That such men, when they see themselves separated
from the Church, may repent, as says S. Paul (i Cor. v. 5),
that their souls may be saved.
2. Lest they who are in good plight should incur the risk
of contagion by consorting with them, as above (i Cor. v.
II ; Titus iii. 10, II ; 2 John 10, 11).
Verse 18. Whatsoever you sliall bind.
Origen, Theophylact, Anastasius (Qucsst. 2 in Scrip.},
and, perhaps, S. Chrysostom (but he speaks with obscurity),
think that these words were addressed to all Christians
CH. xvm. 18.] THE KEYS. 1 05
deceived, as appears, by the context and order of words ;
for Christ said before (verses 15-18), " If thy brother shall
offend against thee," and then, " Whatsoever you shall bind
upon earth ". They think that these words apply only to
those against whom the sin was committed ; as if the mean
ing were : If you forgive the wrong, God will forgive it
also if you do not forgive it, God will not forgive it.
It is clear that Christ distinguished him against whom
the wrong is done the witnesses from the Church, and
says to the latter alone, " Whatsoever you bind ". It is clear
that the Church is distinguished from him who has brought
the sinner forward, and that the meaning is : If he does not
obey the Church which binds him, let him be to thee whom
he has wronged as a heathen and a publican ; for he who
receives the wrong is one, and he who binds and looses is
another. It is a more weighty question whether the subject
is only the external and, so to speak, political power of the
Church, as some have thought. There is no doubt that it
is both the external and internal power of the keys of which
Christ speaks when He says, " Whatsoever you shall bind
upon earth shall be bound also in heaven," that is, apud
Deum ; for whatever is bound and loosed, apud Deum, is
bound and loosed, not only extrinsically and in the opinion
of men, but also intrinsically and in truth.
Christ willed the Church to be the final tribunal before
which sinners, when there were no other means of cure,
should be brought ; and he, therefore, gave it the highest
power possible. But He would not have given this supreme
power if He had not given it a greater than every state has
by its own right, that of sending malefactors into banish
ment, which is, to excommunicate them in the Church.
It may be objected from this passage, either that it only
treats of the external power of excommunication and not
of the power of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance, or,
if this is treated of at all, it follows that no one who is not
106 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvm. 19.
a priest can excommunicate, which is contrary to the use
of the Church. The answer is, that Christ properly treats
of the Sacrament of Penance, and that the power of ex
communication is part of that power, through the Sacra
ment of Penance, of binding and loosing ; for whoever
does not absolve a penitent after he has heard his confes
sion privately, in a manner excommunicates him, because
he deprives him of sharing in the sacraments, although,
because the excommunication is secret, it is not called
excommunication ; but they who, when not priests, ex
communicate, do it in alia (another) ratione, that is, as
being superiors, and having ecclesiastical jurisdiction, they
deprive a public sinner of participating in the sacraments
and the prayers of the Church. This is, therefore, com
monly called excommunication.
Verse 19. Again I say unto you.
These words do not seem at first sight to agree well with
the preceding ones. S. Hilary, S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome,
Euthymius, and Theophylact think that they mean that
Christ the more commends the concord of which He began
to speak when He said, " If thy brother shall offend against
thee, go and rebuke him between thee and him alone,"
meaning that it was of so much value that if two men
agreed together to ask for a thing God would give it to
them. Then Christ perhaps argues a minore ad majus
If two men gained from God whatever they asked, how
much more shall the judgment of the Church be confirmed ?
as S. Gregory (Ep. ex.) seems to imply. And this is the
meaning of the words, " Again I say unto you," as if Christ
had said, " Not only whatever you shall bind upon earth
shall be bound also in heaven, but also, what is more, I
also promise you that whatever two of you ask by common
consent, you shall obtain it ".
It will be said that the subject was not of prayer, but of
CH. xvm. ig.] UNITED PRAYERS. IO7
the power of binding and loosing; to what end, then, was
the addition, " If two of you " ? It was to show that God
would never suffer them to err in their judgments, that is,
in binding and loosing, if they acted in His name, because
whatsoever they asked the Father in His name should be
done (S. John xiv. 13 ; xvi. 23). Some think that Christ
added this about prayer because He knew that the Apostles
and whoever had the power of binding and loosing would
never use it without prayer beforehand, in which they
would beg of God the grace of rightly and justly judging.
This seems reasonable.
If two of you.
These words have been differently explained. Origen
(Tract, vi. in S. Matt?) refers them to husband and wife,
who, as S. Paul (i Cor. vii. 5) says, if they abstain from
conjugal custom for the sake of prayer shall obtain what
they ask. Others refer them to the soul and body, as
Origen (eod. he.), S. Athanasius (Quasi. 61), S. Ambrose
(Instit. Virg. y chap, ii., and On S. Luke xiv.), S. Jerome
Bede, and Theophylact in his commentaries. Others refer
them only to the Apostles, as S. Chrysostom and Euthy-
mius. Others, as Anastasius (Quasi. 74), to him who is
blamed and to him who blames. Others to all Christians,
because it follows, " Where there are two or three gathered
together in My name there am I in the midst of them"
(verse 20), for the promise seems to be general.
On earth.
Earth is here opposed by Christ to heaven, to signify
that those who are on earth, though it. be so far distant from
heaven, will be heard there when they pray, as explained
on chap. xvi. 29.
Concerning any thing whatsoever.
Though Christ spoke generally and universally, His
words are not so to be understood as that we should think we
IO8 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvm. 20.
shall obtain whatever we ask, whether good or evil, honour
able or dishonourable. For Christ takes it as certain that
good men, as by some law of nature, will ask only what is
good. His words, "any thing whatsoever," are meant to
include not only good and evil, but also small and great,
easy and difficult things. Why we do not always gain
what we ask, and under what conditions these promises
are to be understood, has been stated (vii. 7).
Verse 20. Where there are two or three gathered together in
My name.
This is a confirmation of the former verse, and it gives
the reason why whatever two consent together to ask they
shall obtain. It is because He is in the midst of them, and
speaks, as it were, out of their own mouths for them ; or,
as in verse 18, that whatever they bind and loose shall be
bound and loosed, because He is in the midst of them
binding or loosing for them. The idea of S. Hilary,
S. Chrysostom, and Theophylact, that the being gathered
together means merely consent about a thing or union as
friends for Christ s sake, is forced. For when Christ says,
" I am in the midst of them/ He clearly means an assembly
and session in which He sits in the midst as a judge. He
alludes, perhaps, to the custom of the Jews, who exercise
judgment in their assemblies, that is, their synagogues.
It is more difficult to explain the assembling in Christ s
name. Some, like S. Chrysostom and Euthymius, take it
to mean a meeting on account of Christ ; that is, that they
who are met together seek for nothing else but only the
glory of Christ. Others say that it means the invoking of
the name of Christ, and this the rather because He was
speaking of prayer. The meaning seems to be that we
should come together by His authority, and bearing His
Person, as S. Paul says (i Cor. v. 4), that he, in the name
(that is, the authority and power of Christ, as he imme-
CH. xvm. 20.] UNITED WORSHIP. IO9
d lately declares) delivered over that Corinthian to Satan,
and as we read that the Apostles in the name of Christ
baptised and wrought miracles. When, therefore, they
who possess the power in the Church of judging come
together for judgment, they are therefore said to come
together in Christ s name. Nor is it necessary that they
should seek nothing else than Christ, for how many have
ever done this? Besides, it can never appear whether they
are assembled in the name of Christ or not. For who but
God knows the wills of men ?
When the heretics say that we must judge whether the
assemblies come together in the name of Christ, by whether
they decree nothing except from the Word of God, they
speak perversely. For it is not because they decree no
thing contrary to the Word of God that they come together
in the name of Christ, but because they come together in the
name of Christ they cannot decree anything except from
the Word of God. For they come together in the name of
Christ before they decree anything ; and they who do not
come together in that name can sometimes decree a thing ex
verbo Dei. They therefore give us an uncertain heresy and
a fallacious rule ; which, if it were true, could never decide
for us whether or not any council had ever met in the
name of Christ. For it would require another council to
decide whether anything had been ruled not ex verbo Dei ;
and to decide whether this Latin council had said anything
beside the Word of God, there \vould be need of another,
and so our faith would nowhere find a place for its foot.
There am I in tJie midst of them.
Origen, S. Chrysostom, and Euthymius observe that
Christ did not say, " there I shall be," but, " there I am ".
This is hardly certain perhaps. They should rather have
explained what Christ s being in the midst of them is. S.
Hilary speaks as if it meant simply His dwelling in them
I 10 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvm. 20.
by grace. But in this way He is in all just men, even if
not assembled together. But Christ s words mean that He
is in the midst of those who are assembled together in
another manner than in those who are not so. Some
explain " I am in medio eormn in the midst of them," by,
" I am there to ask for them, to pray for them ". The
words would appear to mean not only assistance, but also
authority, as if Christ had said : I sit in their midst as a
supreme judge, confirming their decisions which they pro
nounce in My name, as David says in Ps. Ixxxi. i.
This passage is brought forward to prove the authority
of councils, which not only heretics, but some Catholics,
say it cannot do, because it treats of prayer and not of
judgment ; and of the assembling of two or three, not of
a just council.
These do not appear to see the force of the argument :
that it is one a minore ad majus. For if, when two or
three judges of the Church come together in the name of
Christ to judge of some matter not of very great con
sequence, Christ declares that He is in the midst of them,
how will He not be so when not two or three, but all the
judges of the Church that is, the bishops come together
to judge, not some small matter, but the faith, the religion,
the salvation of men, the government of the whole
Church ?
It will be objected that by this same passage the autho
rity of Provincial Councils, as they are called, will also
be established. For in these also, not two or three, but
many, bishops are assembled. It may be granted that it
is so ; only Provincial Councils must be assembled in
Christ s name. They are so assembled when they meet in
His authority, and they meet in His authority when they
are assembled and confirmed by the authority of the
Roman Pontiff, His Vicar ; without which, as they cannot
be assembled at all, nor can meet in the name of Christ,
CH. xvm. 21, 22.] PETER S QUESTION. 1 1 1
we do not deny that when they do not meet in the name
of Christ, they can err.
Verse 21. Then came Peter.
It is not very clear what moved Peter to ask this ques
tion. S. Jerome thinks that it was the words of Christ
(verse 15) ; for Peter may have honestly doubted how often
he ought to forgive a brother who had offended him ; but
Christ had spoken, not of the forgiveness of wrongs but of
brotherly correction. S. Chrysostom and Euthymius think
that Peter was prompted by love of honour and the desire
of gaining praise for mercy, and that he supposed himself
to be the author of a great saying when he proposed for
giveness seven times. It would appear that he was urged
to ask the question by the words of Christ (S. Luke xvii. 4).
For although S. Matthew has passed over these words in
silence, it seems probable that Christ spoke them when He
said, " If thy brother shall offend against thee," for S. Luke
unites these words with them ; though S. Augustin thinks
that they were spoken at some other time and on some
other occasion (De Consent., ii. 61) ; but it appears more
reasonable to suppose that the Evangelist wrote at one
time and in one order what Christ s.poke in another.
" Till seven times : " what Christ said without limit, Peter
understood definitely, for Christ had signified that the
brother should be forgiven seven times ; that, is as often as
he had offended. For seven is put very commonly for an
infinite and unlimited number (as in Prov. xxiv. 16) ;
that is, as often as he falls he shall rise again, because the
Lord will not desert him.
Verse 22. / say not unto thee, &c.
An infinite number multiplied ten times and multiplied
by the same again makes the result still more infinite,
112 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvm. 22.
although, in fact, seven times and seventy times seven
amounts to the same result, as each amount signifies the
negation of number ; as if Christ had said, I say unto thee
not only that thou shalt forgive an innumerable number of
times, but an innumerably innumerable number. So say
S. Chrysostom and Euthymius, and so Genesis iv. 24 ; to
which passage S. Hilary thinks Christ here made allusion,
meaning that as punishment, so pardon should be extended
indefinitely ; because "where sin abounded, grace did more
abound " (Rom. v. 20). This, as S. Jerome and Bede have
observed, is to be understood of the brother who sins
against us seventy times seven in the same day. This is
plain from S. Luke.
The priest is not taught by this to give absolution heed
lessly to those who sin frequently, but he is taught, when
sinned against, to be always ready to receive the sinner to
forgiveness. It seems to be difficult how Christ, in 5. Luke,
said, " If he be converted unto thee, forgive him," as if the
meaning were that he ought not to remit the offender
unless he be first penitent ; to do which would be entirely
contrary to all Scripture, for it is the most certain rule :
" Forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors ; but
if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive
you your offences" (vi. 12-15). In two ways, then, we for
give an offence: (i) Either by bearing to the offender
no ill-will (and this we should always do), even if he do
not repent, that God may forgive us our trespasses ; or (2)
by not accusing him. For not to accuse, not to delate, and
not to punish, is to spare. In this way we are to under
stand that Christ would not have us forgive our brother
who has offended us, unless he first repent. His object
was to teach that a brother is not to be brought before the
Church unless he have first been privately admonished
before two or three witnesses and still remain obstinate in
his wickedness.
CH. xvni. 23.] SERVANT AND TEN THOUSAND TALENTS. 113
Verse 23. Therefore (" Ideo ").
We should rather have expected quid than ideo t but either
Sid or rov is put for em, that i^propterea for quia, as some
times the Hebrews put 1^7 " for," or we must understand
that this was said because the kingdom of heaven is like a
king, that is, a certain king a Hebraism which has been
found in many places. To say that the kingdom of heaven
is like a king is the same as saying that the same thing
takes place in the kingdom of heaven as if a king were
beginning to take account of his servants (as xi. 16) ; for
it is not the kingdom of heaven, that is, the Church, but
the Lord of the kingdom that is compared to the king.
The meaning of the whole parable is to be gathered from
verse 35, namely, that God will not forgive us our sins
unless we forgive the sins of our brother, as it is more right
that we should forgive him than that God should forgive
us ; for we men are like our brothers, but God is unlike us.
Our sins against God are without number, and infinitely
heavy ; the sins of our brother against us are both few and
for the most part light. There are in this parable as in all
the others, as has been said before, some things necessary
and properly parts of it ; others which are emblems, em
bellishments, and additions to complete the whole. The
necessary parts are the king and the two servants : the
one whose debt the lord forgave, the other whose debt his
fellow-servant would not forgive. Then there is the debt
of the ten thousand talents which one servant owed the
king, and that of the hundred pieces which the fellow-
servant owed the other. The emblems are (i) that in verse
25 the king is said to have commanded the wife and
children of the debtor to be sold for the ten thousand
talents ; for this is not to be applied to the subject as if it
signified that the wife would be condemned because of her
husband and the children because of their father ; for these
8
114 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xvm. 24-34.
are either ornaments or they mean that the most heavy
punishment is signified, such as that which, according to
civil law, was inflicted not only on him who had committed
the crime, but also on his wife and children, and which is
found in 4 Kings iv. I.
(2) It is also an emblem, as is shown in verse 31 ; for it
is not meant that the saints, that is, the servants of God,
accuse those who do not forgive their brothers trespasses,
but it is said because it is often the custom among men for
one servant to accuse another to his master.
Verse 24. Ten thousand talents.
There were various kinds of talents. It is probable that
Christ spoke of that which was most in use among the
Jews. A talent was in value about 243, 153. It does not
matter to estimate the amount precisely ; it is sufficient to
understand that the total amount was, at the lowest, very
considerable.
Verse 28. An hundred pence.
A Roman penny was in value about 7-Jd. Whatever the
exact amount, the debt was at most a very insignificant one.
Verse 34. Until he paid.
That is, always, as S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and
Theophylact suppose. It is not meant that they who are
condemned will ever pay their penalties and be freed as if
by the payment of their debt. This was the error of the
followers of Origen. But they never will be freed unless
they pay the penalty ; and as they can never do this they
never can be freed. Nor is the meaning that God calls
into question and punishes sins forgiven, because of the
commission of fresh sins, but that Christ urged upon us that
those who have not forgiven their brothers sins God in
turn will not forgive, although, as to what S. Thomas
himself said (part iii., q. 88, art. i. 3), that former sins
CH. xvni. 34.] SERVANT AND TEN THOUSAND TALENTS. 115
which have been forgiven, if new ones are added, are in a
manner punished, because of the ingratitude of the sinner.
It is true, not that sins that have been forgiven are
punished, but that if they were not so, a following sin
would be punished less heavily, because the offender would
be less ungrateful if he committed a fresh sin, as his former
sins had not been forgiven him.
CHAPTER XIX.
CHRIST DECLARES MATRIMONY TO BE INDISSOLUBLE-
HE RECOMMENDS THE MAKING ONESELF AN EUNUCH
FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, AND PARTING WITH
ALL THINGS FOR HIM HE SHOWS THE DANGER OF
RICHES AND THE REWARD OF LEAVING ALL TO
FOLLOW HIM.
Verse i. When Jesus had ended these words.
EITHER when He had finished the whole conversation, or
more probably, perhaps, the parable concluded in the last
chapter.
He departed from Galilee.
S. Hilary reads "into Galilee" with an opposite meaning.
It is certain that Christ was at this time in Galilee, and
therefore could not depart into it. Besides, S. Luke says
(ix. 51), that He departed thence that He might go to
Jerusalem. S. Hilary probably thinks that He came not
into Judaea but into its confines.
It has been questioned whether this is the history of the
same events as those in 5. Mark x. I ; 5. Luke ix. 51 ; 5.
John vii. 10. All agree that S. Matthew and S. Mark
speak of the same event. The doubt is of the other two ;
for each relates many things afterwards which could not
have happened subsequently to this arrival of Christ in
Judaea.
There seems no doubt that S. Luke relates the same
history :
CH. xix. i.] THE LAST JOURNEY INTO JUD^A. 1 1/
1. Because it appears that this was the last journey of
Christ into Judaea.
2. Because the Evangelists do not mention any journey
after this one.
3. Because Christ signified this, saying (xvi. 21, xvii. 22),
that He would go up to Jerusalem and there suffer, speaking
as if His death were near at hand. S. Luke also speaks of
it as the last journey. That he afterwards relates many
things which took place subsequently to this departure
need not seem extraordinary, as we continually see that
the Evangelists do not observe the order of events.
Many think that S. John also describes the same events.
This hardly seems credible because
1. Christ says (vii. 6) that His time had not yet come, but
in vS*. Matthew He twice declares the contrary : that the
time of His Passion was at hand.
2. He is said in S. John (vii. 9, 10) to have gone up to
Judaea alone ; while it is said here that not only the
disciples but also a great multitude followed Him.
3. Lastly, the departure of which S. John there speaks
was not the last : as he says afterwards (xi. 7) that Christ
came into Judaea again to raise Lazarus.
And came into the coasts of Judcea.
S. Hilary, as before said, thinks that Christ did not come
into Judaea, but only to the confines of that country and
Galilee ; and S. Chrysostom and Euthymius agree with him.
Some think, on the contrary, but apparently with no good
reason, that He came to Jerusalem first, and then returned
again to the regions of Judaea and Galilee. For the
Evangelist declares plainly that He came directly from
Galilee to the confines of Judaea, and that great multitudes
followed Him. He came then into the confines of Judaea
that He might come to Jerusalem. The Evangelist
mentioned that place to describe exactly the scene of the
IlS THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix. 2, 3.
miracle which he was about to relate : " And," he says, " He
healed them there ".
Beyond Jordan .
Both Judaea and Galilee were on this side, not beyond
Jordan, but the expression " beyond Jordan " is used as by
those who came up into the country from Egypt, as
explained on chap. iv. 15.
Verse 2. A nd He healed them there.
This does not mean that Christ healed all who followed
Him, but all who were sick, and perhaps not all these, but
only such as were worthy, as supra, xiv. 14. S. Mark (x. i)
writes that He taught those who followed Him, which S.
Matthew passes over. But even if S. Mark had not said
this, we might have inferred it from Christ s custom. He
rarely performed a miracle without teaching. For He
always united acts with His words ; as S. Chrysostom and
Euthymius have observed.
There.
That is, on the confines of Galilee and Judaea : for He
would not have the Galileans who had followed Him come
out of their own country ; or, as The Author supposed,
that the Jews, who were slanderers, might not say that He
led a great multitude after Him for the sake of His own
glory.
Verse 3. And there came to Him.
It is not said whether the Pharisees came to Christ in
the same place, but it is most likely that they did so, for
the order of the history both in S. Matthew and 5. Mark
seems to imply as much. And this is the opinion of S.
Chrysostom and Theophylact.
For every cause.
They do not say "for any cause," but "for every
cause". For they had no doubt about some causes, as
Origen ( Tract, vii. on S. Matt?), S. Jerome, and Bede say.
CH.XIX. 4 .] PHARISEES QUESTION OF DIVORCE. lip
There has been a doubt on what occasion the Pharisees
put this question. Some think that it was because of what
Christ had said : " All the Prophets and the Law prophesied
until John" (xi. 13), as if He meant that the Law was now
abrogated ; and the Pharisees wished to know whether He
would say this, in answering their question. But this
reason seems very remote and not very applicable to the
subject ; both because Christ had long since declared such
to be the case, and as they might have raised many other
questions with the same object. Theophylact thinks that
the question was caused by Christ s words (chap. v. 32).
The Author, that the Pharisees raised the question of mar
riage as being themselves carnal ; as they who are in ill-health
talk continually of medicines. It may have been, as has
been suggested, that the question was being agitated at the
time by the Jews, like that of paying tribute to Caesar
(xxii. 17). Men ask different questions at different times.
It is a conjecture worthy of the minds of the Pharisees
that they asked this question rather than any other, because,
as it concerned all men, it was full of invidiousness.
Verse 4. Have you not read.
Christ, in reply, exposed their ignorance of the Law, on
the knowledge of which they especially prided themselves.
Christ had done the same thing before (xii. 3-5), as
Euthymius observes. S. Mark says that Christ asked them
what Moses had commanded, which seems opposed to the
passage. S. Augustin (ii. 62, De Consens. Evang.) says
that S. Mark wished to express, not the words, but the will
of Christ. It is probable that Christ said what both S.
Matthew and S. Mark relate, but that He first asked the
Pharisees, " What did Moses command you ? " and they
answered, " Moses permitted us to write a bill of divorce
and put her away ". Then Christ replied, " Have you not
read that He who made them in the beginning?" &c.
120 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix. 4.
(verse 4). To this the Pharisees objected again, " Why
then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce and to
put her away?" (verse 7). Christ did not answer them
directly, but cited the testimony of Scripture, and caused
God, or Moses, of whose doctrine the Pharisees boasted
themselves followers, to answer tacitly for Him, as say S.
Chrysostom and Euthymius. These two authors observe
that Christ answered His opponents both by facts and by
words : by facts, when He said, " Have you not read that
He who made man from the beginning made them male
and female ? " and by words, when He said, " For this
cause shall a man leave father and mother," &c. (verses
4.5).
Male and female.
Questions have been raised as to where the force of these
words lies. Some think it to be in the sex, as if Christ
would teach that from the difference of sex one man ought
to have only one wife, that from each as from two imperfect
parts, as Plato says, one perfect man might be produced.
This seems the opinion of S. Augustin (De Civit.,
xiv. 22). All others put it, not in the sex, but in the
number : as if Christ had said, " If God had intended one
man to have more wives than one He would not have made
only one woman in the beginning, but more ". This is the
opinion of S. Chrysostom, Jerome, The Author, Bede,
Theophylact, Euthymius, and Strabus. To this it may be
objected that the same argument would avail to prove that
if the first wife died it would be unlawful to marry another.
The first and second are accounted to be one, because they
are both one flesh.
And He said.
He, that is, God, of whom Christ speaks. S. Hilary
doubts how Christ said that God said this, when it was not
God but Adam who said it (Gen. ii. 24 ; S. Augustin, De
CH.XIX. 5.] PHARISEES QUESTION OF DIVORCE. 121
Gen. ad Litt., ix. 19). Theophylact and Euthymius (in
Comment?] say that Adam spoke as a prophet by the Spirit
of God, and that God spoke through his lips.
Verse 5. For this cause shall a man leave father and mother.
The Latins here put hominem for virum, as the Greeks
read avOpwirov for avbpa ; so verse IO.
And will cleave to his wife.
S. Chrysostom tells us that there are three chief points
to be observed here. i. To leave his father and mother.
2. To cleave to his wife, that is, not in any chance manner,
but so as to be wholly conjoined, co-united, agglutinated.
The Greek is rco\\r]0ijvai,, the Hebrew pl"T* 3. To be
one flesh.
And they two shall be in one flesh.
Ek crap/ca piav, in carnem imam, "into one flesh ". The
Hebrew "THN "W17 ad carnem unarn, that is, that they
be one flesh, as explained in the verse following. (So Gen.
ii. 7.) Adam is said to have been created in animam
viventem, that is, " a living man ". " And the Lord God
built the rib which He took from Adam into a woman,
ntl^N / that is, that she should be a woman. But how man
and woman are said to be one flesh has been matter of
question. S. Jerome, Bede, and S. Thomas (in Catena and
Comment?) think that it refers to the children, which are
the one common flesh of the husband and wife. Others
explain like S. Paul (i Cor. i. 16). Others of mutual love,
as S. Paul in Ephes. v. 28 ; or of the power which the
husband has over the wife as over his own flesh, as i Cor.
vii. 4. Others, whose opinion seems preferable to that of
the rest, say that one flesh means one person (Jiomo) ;
for " flesh " is often used by the Hebrews for the whole
individual. Christ, then, means that man and wife are
not two homines, but one homo the wife being as the body,
122 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix. 6, 7.
the man as the spirit and soul. The man, therefore, ought
no more to be separated from the wife than the soul from
the body.
Verse 6. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no
man put asunder.
Christ does not say " whom," but " what," as speaking
not of two but one flesh, as a little before He had said,
" They are not two but one flesh ".
S. Chrysostom has observed that Christ proved the bond
of marriage both by natural and divine law : by the natural
in the fact that God has made one woman for one man ; by
the divine in the words, " A man shall leave father and
mother and cleave to his wife ". In these words God
seems to have inseparably united the wife to the husband,
as the Wise Man says (Prov. xix. 14).
Verse 7. Why then did Moses command.
S. Mark (x. 4) does not say that the Pharisees answered
that Moses " commanded," but Moses " permitted ". S.
Matthew, on the contrary, says that Christ said that Moses
did not command, but permitted ; but S. Mark writes that
Christ said, " What did Moses command you ? " This is
easily explained from what was said before. i. It is
probable that Christ had asked them what Moses had com
manded, and that they replied that Moses permitted them
to put away their wives. 2. That Christ explained the
origin of marriage, and brought forward the testimony of
Scripture to prove that the wife was not to be put away.
That the Pharisees further objected that Moses had com
manded, using the word "commanded," not "permitted," to
add force to their words. Christ again answered, not using
the word * commanding," but " permitting " : " Moses, by
reason of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you ".
In this way there is no divarication between the Evan
gelists.
CH. xix. s.] PHARISEES QUESTION OF DIVORCE. 123
Verse 8. Moses, by reason of the hardness of your hearts,
permitted you.
Christ corrects the expression of the Pharisees. They
had said " commanded " ; Christ said " permitted ". Why
did Christ say that Moses, rather than God, permitted this,
when in verse 5, on the contrary, He said that neither
Moses nor Adam, but God said, " For this cause," &c. ?
Christ desired to add force to His words, and therefore,
when asserting that it was not lawful to put away a wife,
He said, not that Adam or Moses, but God had said, " For
this cause shall a man leave," &c., though both Adam
spoke and Moses wrote those words. When Christ an
swered the Pharisees, He would not say that God but
Moses permitted, though God also permitted it This is
how these many authors are to be understood who explain
this passage as if Christ signified that it was not God, but
Moses, who permitted this divorcement ; as if Christ wished
to oppose God, whom He cited, to Moses, whom the Phari
sees cited. Such is the opinion of S. Jerome, Bede, Strabus,
S. Thomas, Hugo.
There are many questions on the passage.
i. For what reason was divorce permitted under the Old
Testament ? Tertullian (iv., Cont. Marc.) thinks that it was
only lawful then, as now, for fornication ; for he so explains
Deut. xxiv., but with the only difference that when a wife
was put away for that reason, it was allowed the husband
to marry another, and now it is not. Origen, S. Chrysos-
tom, and others think that divorce was lawful for many
other reasons than this, and this seems much more pro
bable ; because (i) If fornication were the only reason,
there would have been no room for the question of the
Pharisees. For it would have been great insolence in them
to ask if a man might put away his wife for every cause, if
it had only been permitted for fornication. But when they
ask whether it were lawful to put away a wife for every
124 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix. 8.
cause, we cannot doubt that they knew of many other
reasons. This is seen from Christ s reply. He desired to
narrow the licence given by Moses, and, as it had before
been lawful to put away a wife for many reasons, He now
permitted it for fornication alone. This is shown also
from the above words of Deut. xxiv. I, in which it is plain
that Moses did not speak of fornication : for which the wife
was not to be put away, but stoned. (2) It was signified
in the libel of divorcement that the woman had not com
mitted adultery, chiefly that her honour might be preserved,
and she herself be at liberty, if she wished, to be married to
another husband. She might be put away, then, for other
reasons than those of adultery.
What these were is not certain. De Lyra, in his Com
ment, on Dent, xxiv., gives two opinions : i. For contagious
disease or the like before the marriage. 2. Causes opposed to
marriage, even if supervening after it, as if the woman were
a witch or a child-murderer ; which Origen in his Tract.
vii. on S. Matt, seems to approve, though speaking rather
of the Evangelical than of the Mosaic Law.
2. The second question is : How the Jews were allowed
to put away their wives, so as in putting them away they
might not sin, or so as that they sinned indeed, but were
not punished by the Law. That great divine, S. Thomas,
has specified four ways in which a thing can be permitted :
(1) Because it is good, but not commanded ; as the selling
of all we have, and giving to the poor, which is not com
manded.
(2) Because it is a less good, when the greater good is not
commanded ; as marriage is allowed because virginity, which
is a greater good, is not commanded.
(3) As it is evil, but not forbidden ; as God is said to
permit all sins, because while He is able to prevent them,
He does not please to do so.
(4) Or because the thing is evil indeed, but is not pun-
CH. xix. 8.] PHARISEES QUESTION OF DIVORCE. 12$
ished by the Law ; as God permitted the Jews to practise
usury with Gentile nations, because He had not appointed
any punishment in the Law against those who did it. In
one other way a thing is said to be permitted : when it is
evil, if it is permitted by Him who has given the power of
dispensation, it ceases to be evil. So it was permitted the
Prophet Osee to have children of fornication (Osee i. 2).
Some think that either in this last manner, or as a less good,
it was permitted the Jews for certain reasons to put away
their wives ; others that it was not as a less good, but as a
less evil, so that they sinned indeed in putting them away,
but would not be punished. Either opinion is probable,
and each has good authorities in its support. The former,
The Author and S. Thomas ; the latter, Tertullian (De
Monog^}, Origen (On S. Matt), S. Jerome, and others. It
seems a hard saying that, after so ample a permission from
God, the Jews sinned in putting away their wives ; especi
ally as before the explanation by Christ it could not cer
tainly be discovered from the words of Deuteronomy
whether it were a precept or a permission ; and if a
permission, it did not appear to have been permitted
as an evil, which would seem sufficient to free those
who took advantage of the permission, from blame.
The words of Christ, that it was permitted from the
hardness of their hearts, can easily be explained. It
was permitted for this reason, that they might thus have
no sin.
3. The third question is : With what ceremonies and pre
cautions the bill of divorce was given. Ten are mentioned
by the Hebrews :
(1) That the wife shall not go away without the per
mission of the husband. This was explained in the bill of
divorcement.
(2) That the bill shall be given into the wife s own hand,,
as directed in Deuteronomy.
126 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix. g.
(3) That it should be executed under the hand and seal
of at least two witnesses.
(4) That there should be three generations of the hus
band.
(5) That it should be written legibly, clearly, and dis
tinctly ; and so that no error might be found in the text.
(6) That if any spot of ink fell upon the page, the
document should have no authority, but another copy
should be prepared-
(7) That there should be no vestige of erasure, to avoid
all possible suspicion as to its genuineness.
(8) That the document should be longer than broad.
(9) That all the witnesses present should seal with his
own seal.
(10) That the husband on giving it should say : " Re
ceive this bill of divorce from me, and be cast out from me,
and be given to some other man ". The form of the docu
ment was as follows :
" I, Rabbi N., son of Rabbi N., son of Rabbi N., on the
first day of the second month of the year N. from the
creation of the world, have, of my own free will, without
compulsion, repudiated N., the daughter of Rabbi N., the
son of Rabbi N., the son of Rabbi N., and have given her
a libel of Repudiation in her hand, a paper of cutting off,
and a sign of division, that she may be cut off from me
and go wherever she will, and that no one be able to
prohibit her, according to the constitutions of Moses and
Israel".
Verse 9. A nd I say to you.
S. Mark (x. 10) says that Christ spoke these words to
the disciples alone, when they had come into the house.
Euthymius observes that He probably said them twice.
First, to all in common, as S. Matthew states, then pri
vately to the disciples in the house ; and it is very probable
that, as he relates (verse 10), the disciples said to Christ: If
CH. xix. g.] MARRIAGE INDISSOLUBLE. \2J
the case of a man with his wife be such, it is not expedient
to marry ; not speaking publicly before all the people, but
privately and in some secret place, as they used to do when
they had any doubt about anything in His conversations.
Then, when asked by the disciples, Christ repeated the
same words, although S. Matthew does not relate it, and
He added what S. Matthew says about eunuchs and S.
Mark omits.
The sum of the question is, whether the words of Christ,
that it is lawful to put away a wife for fornication, are to be
so taken as to allow both the husband who puts away and
the wife who is put away to enter on a second marriage ?
There are apparently three opinions on the point :
1. That it is lawful, an opinion common to the followers
of Luther and Calvin, and which is also found even among
some Catholics.
2. The second opinion is that it is lawful for the inno
cent person, not for the guilty one. Some of the Ancients
we find held this opinion, as Tertullian (iv., Against
Marciori] and S. Ambrose, or Remigius (On I Cor. vii.).
Origen (in loc.) also says that some Catholic bishops
of his time permitted those husbands whose wives had
committed adultery to put them away and marry others.
This was allowed in the Council of Elvir.
3. The third is that which the Church has followed, and
which is so confirmed by the Council of Trent in our own
times, that it cannot be a matter of doubt to any Catholic :
that Christ so permitted the adulterous wife to be put
away, that it should be lawful neither for the adultress nor
the husband to marry as long as either lived. This
opinion seems so binding, both from the authority of the
Church, which alone ought to satisfy a Christian man,
and also from the weight of the arguments by which it is
supported, that the only wonder is that anyone can be
found to dispute it. It has, firstly, the best and most
128 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix. g.
ancient authorities in its support In xlviii. Can. Apost.,
whoever puts away his wife and marries another is abso
lutely, and in all cases without exception, if only he had
put her away for fornication, excommunicated. This
reason would certainly have been produced if it had
been lawful, when a wife was put away for this cause, to
marry another. So Evaristus (in his Epist. ii.) and Cle
ment (Alex. Strom., ii.) teach without any exception.
Origen (Tract, vii. on S. Matt.) blames those bishops who
allowed this in his time, as being ignorant of the custom of
the Church. So S. Chrysostom (Horn. xvii. on S. Matt.),
S. Jerome (in loc., and in his Epitap. Fabiolce], Innocent
I. (Ep. to Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, chap, iv.), S.
Augustin (To Polluentius), Isidore (De Officiis, ii. 19), and
Bede (Comm. on S. Mark x.). So the early councils ruled
Milevis (Can. xvii.), Africa (if it is a different one), and
others. The decrees of Elvir and Aries, therefore, cited
above, to the contrary effect, are either spurious or apocry
phal, or are to be so understood that it is not lawful for a
man who has put away his wife for adultery to marry
another in her lifetime, but only after her death. It may
be asked why this should be granted when no one doubts
that it was lawful ? The answer may be that it was
expressed to show the difference between the husband and
the adulterous wife, who, even after her husband s death,
was sometimes ordered for penance to abstain from
marriage. Lest, then, any should understand the
same of the husband, it allowed him to marry another
wife, but, by ordinary ecclesiastical law, only after her
death.
Besides, by this reason which Christ gives, either nothing
is proved or this is proved. He first declared that God in
the beginning created not more than one woman, but one
only for one man, and therefore that it was not lawful to
have more wives than one that is, to put away one and
CH. xix. 9.] MARRIAGE INDISSOLUBLE. 129
marry another. This also avails to prove that if a wife is
put away, even for fornication, it is not lawful to marry
another. For it does not matter why she was put away,
the same reason for not marrying another always re
maining namely, that one woman was made for one man.
Besides that Christ not only reduced all the many reasons
of the Jews for putting away their wives to one only
fornication, He also took away entirely the writing of
divorcement, which He said was only given them because
of the hardness of their hearts. After Christ, a writing of
divorcement was not heard of among Christians. But the
giving a writing of divorce, and a man s being able to marry
another wife, and a wife to marry another husband, was the
same thing ; and thus Christ took away the power of a
husband marrying another wife, and of a wife being married
to another husband, by taking away the writing of divorce
ment. This one reason alone, if there were no other,
would be enough and more than enough to confirm this
decision. Again, if a wife who had been put away for
fornication were allowed to be married to another husband,
it would follow that her condition would be better than
that of a woman who had been put away because of some
disease or something that was not her own fault ; for the
adul tress would be allowed to be married to another
husband, while her husband was yet alive, and he would
not be allowed to marry another wife.
It can hardly be doubted that Christ allowed the putting
away of an adulterous wife, that the husband might not be
compelled to pass a life of unhappiness, as the wife had
proved herself unworthy of her husband s living with her.
But this reason does not extend so far as to allow the
husband to marry another wife. It is sufficient for him to
be freed from the first.
The assertion of heretics, therefore, that Christ gave
nothing to the husband, if He only allowed him so to put
9
130 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix. 9.
away his adulterous wife, as to be obliged to live without a
wife all his life, is senseless, and shows that these valued
the body more than honour and tranquillity.
For good men count it a great gain to be free from a
wicked wife, although not allowed to marry another. Nay,
the wisest even consider this a benefit, as they who have
once suffered shipwreck think it wrong to tempt the sea a
second time. It is a greater good to miss finding a bad
wife, than to find a good one. But a man cannot miss a
bad wife unless he is unable to marry.
The reasoning of S. Jerome certainly has much weight.
That if husbands who have put away adulterous wives were
allowed to marry others, it would be a daily occurrence
that men who desired new wives would invent charges of
adultery against their present ones, that they might put
them away and take others. Christ, therefore, did not
increase the strictness of the old Law, but loosed it. For
not even in the old Law was there so much room for the
desire for putting away wives, since the adultress was not
to be put away but stoned. But, as these heretics falsify
the matter, Christ gave permission to husbands to change
their wives daily. For how easy is it to discover either
true or probable adultery in a wife ! How easy to invent
it ! They who explain the words of Christ thus do not
appear to understand His Spirit, or to see that when He
desired to restrain evangelical discipline, and to teach that
marriage was indissoluble, He ought not only not to have
given power to husbands when they had put away their adul
terous v/ives to marry others, but rather to have put the com
pulsion upon them, if they would not be without wives, of
enduring the adultress, and endeavouring to convert, and
not repudiate her. For it was the will of Christ that the
husband should not put away even the adulterous wife,
but, to console his suffering, He permitted, not commanded,
him to put her away.
Cn.xix.g.] MARRIAGE INDISSOLUBLE. 13!
S. Jerome greatly confirms this view, namely, that Christ
did not say that the woman who has been put away and is
married to another commits adultery, but he who takes her
does so. The only reason of this must be that Christ was
speaking of the wife who had, in fact, been put away for
adultery, of whom, because she had actually committed the
sin already, He would not say that she was guilty of it, for
this would have been to say nothing new, but He said that
the man who married her was guilty, to show that it was un
lawful either for a woman who had been put away to be mar
ried to another man or for another man to marry her. And
we should explain this passage of Scripture by others, in
which the same subject is treated of. In these it is always ab
solutely said that it is not lawful for a woman who has been
put away to be married to another man, as in 5. Matt. v.
32 : "I say to you that whosoever shall put away his wife,
except by the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit
adultery ; and he that shall marry her that is put away
committeth adultery " ; on which it has been shown that
the word " whosoever " is to be understood without limita
tion. Again, SS. Mark and Luke, when relating the same
history, said without any exception that whoever married
a woman who has been put away committeth adultery :
" Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another
committeth adultery against her" (S. Mark x. n). No
other reason can be given why S. Matthew excepted forni
cation and S. Mark did not, except that S. Mark wished to
explain that it was sometimes lawful for a man to put
away his wife ; that is, if she had committed adultery. But
S. Mark wished to teach that it was never lawful to marry
another wife even if the former had been put away on account
of adultery. In these words S. Mark uses the word super
earn, that is, by a Hebraism, contra, the word ;$ in Hebrew
meaning both super and contra. S. Mark means to show
that it was not more lawful for the husband of an adultress
132 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix. g.
to marry another woman than, when his wife had committed
adultery against him, he should do the same against her ;
for it is not lawful, in this kind facereparia. S. Luke (xvi.
8), however, says generally: "Everyone that putteth away
his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery, and he
that marrieth her that is put away from her husband com
mitteth adultery ". Supposing for a moment that S. Matthew
had not written his Gospel, we could have gathered no other
meaning from SS. Mark and Luke than that it was never
lawful for a husband who had put away his wife, for any
cause whatever, to marry another ; and that it was never
lawful for a wife, for whatever cause put away, to be married
to another man. There would have been no room for
doubt. Now S. Matthew has written but obscurely, so
that there has been a controversy about his meaning ;
and we should explain the difficult words of S. Matthew
by the clear and perspicuous ones of SS. Mark and
Luke. These, it is supposed, wrote after S. Matthew,
and it is probable that they would seek to say in
clear and lucid terms, and without ambiguity, what S.
Matthew had stated darkly. They said that it was never
lawful for a man who had put away his wife to marry
another woman. We must receive this, therefore, which was
spoken without ambiguity, and as by the way of explana
tion. Again, S. Paul wrote his Epistles to the Romans and
Corinthians after S. Matthew. In each of these he treats
of this question, and brings up no exception ; but (in Rom.
vii. 3) he says generally : " Whilst her husband liveth she
shall be called an adultress if she be with another man, but
if her husband be dead she is delivered from the law of her
husband ; so that she is not an adultress if she be with
another man " ; and (i Cor. vii. 10) S. Paul explains the
words of Christ on the subject. Who doubts that he would
have stated the exception, if there had been any, by which
a woman put away was allowed to be married to another
CH. xix. g.] MARRIAGE INDISSOLUBLE. 133
man ? As it is, he says generally, absolutely, and univer
sally that she should either remain unmarried or be recon
ciled to her husband. He speaks of a wife going away
from her husband, because of adultery, for which cause
alone she could do so ; otherwise he would not have left
it in her own power that she should either remain sepa
rated from her husband, but continue unmarried ; or be
reconciled to him ; but he would have directed her in other
terms to return to him, as it was not lawful for her for any
other cause than fornication to live separate from him. He
gives this direction, not of his own opinion, but from the
law of Christ, that she should either live unmarried or be
reconciled to her husband.
Again, if the meaning of the passage were what these
heretics think, as if S. Matthew s words (verse 9) meant
that whoever puts away his wife, except for fornication,
and marries another, commits adultery, but whoever puts her
away for that cause and marries another does not commit
it ; and whoever marries a woman put away for any other
reason commits adultery, but if she were put away for that
one cause, does not commit it if this were, indeed, the mean
ing, the sentence would be imperfect. Christ said simply :
" Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornica
tion, and shall marry another, committeth adultery, and he
that shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery".
This in the judgment of the heretics is understood to mean,
if he puts her away for any other cause than fornication
but does not marry another. But Christ did not explain
this, which should have been explained first of all.
In our explanation the sense is full and perfect. If a
man put away his wife for any other cause than fornica
tion, although he do not marry another, he commits adul
tery, because he causes his wife to commit it, as explained
on verse 32. But if he put her away for fornication and
marry another, he also commits it, not because he put
134 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix. 10.
away the adultress, but because he married another
woman.
The word adultery therefore applies here both to him who
puts away his wife for any other cause than adultery, and
to him who, when he has put her away for this reason,
marries another. That is, whoever puts away his wife,
except for fornication, commits adultery, that is, causes her
to do so ; and whoever marries another commits adultery,
for whatever reason the first was put away : commits adul
tery, that is, against his former wife, as S. Mark explains it.
It will be objected that if this is the meaning, the Evan
gelist ought to have said, Whoever puts away his wife
except for fornication, and he who marries another, com
mits adultery. But he does not say, " and who marries
another," but " and marries another ". From the Hebrew
custom the relative preceding is to be repeated ; all else
requisite to the understanding of the passage has been
explained on chap. v. 32.
Verse 10. If the case be so.
S. Ambrose (Exhort, ad Virg.\ S. Jerome, S. Chrysos-
tom, and Euthymius understand these words to mean : If
a man may not put away his wife except for the cause of
adultery ; but S. Gregory Nazianzen, in the Oration in
which he cites these words, thinks that they were those of
the Pharisees, either from lapse of memory, or, as is perhaps
more likely, signifying that they were those of the Apostles,
speaking from the custom and meaning of the Pharisees.
If it be so, the meaning apparently is : If it be not lawful
when a wife has been put away for adultery to marry another,
it is better not to marry. We can believe that what was
especially new and more than commonly difficult may have
the more moved the Apostles ; and not to be allowed to
marry another wife when the former had been put away for
adultery must have appeared much newer and more difficult
CH. xix. ii.] MARRIAGE INDISSOLUBLE. 135
than not being allowed to put a wife away for any other
cause than adultery, especially as there was the question
before them, whether she could be put away for any reason
but this.
The case.
( H atria, "the matter," or jus conjugate. The meaning is :
" If it be so between man and wife, or if a man marry
under this law and obligation, that if his wife be put away
for adultery, he may not marry another, it is better not to
marry. This is the view of Theophylact and others. The
Greek word atria means properly " guiltiness ".
Of a man.
Hominis in the Latin for viri y as the Greek has
av0pa>7rov for avSpa, as in verse 5, as the antithesis, " with
his wife," shows.
It is not expedient for a man to marry.
The Latin here reads nubere for uxorem ducere, contrarily
to the custom of the language, which uses uxorem ducere of
the man and nubere of the woman. It follows the Greek, in
which yafAijaai, is used of either the man or woman. In this
case there is no question as to the application, as the Apostles
spoke of the position of the man towards his wife.
Verse 1 1. All men take not this word.
They seem in error who affirm that Christ neither allows
nor disallows the assertion of the Apostles, that it is not
expedient to marry. He approves it ; and in the highest
degree desiring to bring them on to such a point of perfec
tion, that what they had spoken in words they should carry
out in deeds, He shows that, as we say, they had said
more than they were aware of. His words, " All men take
not this word," are very generally explained to mean :
" Not all are able to do what you say abstain from mar-
136 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix. u.
riage, for all have not the gift of abstinence, but only they
to whom it is given," as S. Paul would have the Corinthians
"enlarged," that they might be capable of still greater gifts
from God. The expression, then, here means that they are
not capable of so much virtue as to be able to live without
marriage. Origen (Tract vii. on S. Matt.), S. Gregory
Nazianzen (Orat. in hczc Verba\ S. Ambrose (Ad Virg^},
follow this meaning. But it seems an erroneous view of
the case, because when Christ said, " He that can take it,
let him take it" (verse 12), He clearly meant by "take"
" understand," as shall be shown on the passage.
The meaning, therefore, clearly is, that not all under
stand it ; not all receive it into their minds. The word
verbum, although it sometimes signifies the whole matter,
yet is naturally taken only for a discourse, nor should it be
understood otherwise unless some reason compel us.
Nothing in this passage does so, but it here means simply
" to understand," as S. Epiphanius says, whom I have fol
lowed : " Not all understand my saying ". Christ was ac
customed to speak in this manner, as in 6". John viii. 3 :
" You seek to kill Me, because My word (sermo meus)
hath no place in you ".
It may be objected that from what follows, " But they to
whom it is given," is to be understood not of comprehend
ing, but of the gift of purity. Even to understand is a gift
of God ; as Christ Himself declares : " No man can come
to Me except the Father, who hath sent Me, draw him "
(S. John vi. 44). For He was speaking against those who
did not believe what He said, because they did not under
stand.
For there are eunucJis.
Christ, as S. Hilary says, describes three classes of
eunuchs : those by nature ; who are made such by men ;
who are self-made. The first class has neither merit nor
CH. xix. 13.] CHRIST AND THE LITTLE CHILDREN. 137
blame ; the second has blame, if by their own consent; the
third has merit.
Who have made themselves.
There is a twofold force in these words : (i) They show,
as S. Chrysostom has observed, freedom of will in the act ;
(2) That it was not done without repugnance of the flesh.
For the kingdom of heaven.
That is, that they may merit the kingdom of heaven, as
Origen, S. Hilary, S. Chrysostom, The Author, and Euthy-
mius agree in explaining it.
He that can take let him take it.
Christ did not mean by these words that all can take it
He alludes to the stadium, whence the metaphor is derived,
in which all indeed run, but only one receives the prize.
We have before observed that " take " means here " under
stand ". Christ desired to say nothing else than what He
said in other places, when treating of a subject of import
ance : "He that hath ears to hear let him hear" (xi. 15 ;
xiii. 9, 43, &c.).
Verse 13. Then.
After this, but it does not appear whether immediately
after, for S. Luke relates many things in the meantime,
and we should not narrow the history too much.
Were little children presented to Him.
It is clear from vS. Luke xviii. 15 that there were not
only young children, but even infants. For, when they
saw the adult men and women who came to Christ loaded
with benefits of different kinds, they began to bring their
infants also, that, as far as their age allowed, they also
might share in His gifts. They were not sent to be
healed, like the men and women, but to receive some
spiritual grace, as the Evangelist immediately explains.
138 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix. 14.
TJiat He sJiould impose hands upon them and pray.
It was a custom of the Hebrews, for the elders and those
who were especially gifted with divine grace, to bless the
youngers, by the laying on of their hands upon them, as in
Gen. xlviii. 14, 15. For these reasons parents brought
their children to Christ Hence the custom arose of the
laity, and especially children, being blessed by the priests
and bishops, even outside the Church a custom which The
Author praises.
And the disciples rebuked them.
That is, as Euthymius says, prohibited them. The
Greek word ^TTITI^CLV also bears this meaning, as has been
said before. It seems doubtful why the disciples should
have rebuked these parents. S. Chrysostom, The Author,
Euthymius, and Theophylact say that they thought them
of an unbefitting age to be brought to Christ, and that His
dignity would suffer if He were occupied in blessing chil
dren ; and, therefore, like servants who were jealous of the
rank of their master, they sent them away. This is more
probable than the opinion of S. Jerome and Bede ; not that
they were unwilling that the children should be blessed by
the hand and voice of the Saviour, but that, not yet having
the fullest faith, they thought that He would be wearied
by their importunities. The words of Christ, " Suffer
the little children to come unto Me, for the kingdom of
heaven is of such," seem to confirm the opinion of S.
Chrysostom.
Verse 14. Suffer the little children to come to Me.
Christ calls infants in age and simplicity children, as He
immediately explains. For the kingdom of heaven is of
such. He did not say " of these/ but "of such," to
include not only children in age, but such as resembled
them in disposition, as Origen, S. Jerome, S. Augustin
CH. xix. 16.] CHRIST AND THE LITTLE CHILDREN. 139
(i. 19, De Peccat. Merit.\ Bede, Theophylact, and Eusta-
thius have observed. S. Luke has expressed it more
fully (xviii. 17) : "Amen, I say unto you, whosoever shall
not receive the kingdom of God as a child, he shall not
enter into it ". The followers of Calvin have no other
testimony in proof of the baptism of infants than this :
" Suffer little children ". For they apply those most clear
and powerful words (S. John iii. 3), which the Church has
always produced as authority for the baptism of infants,
not to baptism, but to doctrine ; and thus they are unable
to oppose the Anabaptists, who deny that infants should be
baptised at all. For although some argument may be
built upon this passage, as S. Bernard has shown in his
Epistle ccxl. it is not strong enough to form the foundation
of a doctrine so necessary to salvation.
A nd zvhen He had imposed hands iipon them.
The Evangelist said (verse 13), they brought children to
Christ that He might lay hands upon them and pray. He
now says that He laid His hands upon them, but does not
say that He prayed. The reason of this Origen thinks to
have been that the infants were capable of the imposition
of hands, but not of prayers, for from their tender age they
could not understand them. But there was no need that
the children should understand the prayers to be made
partakers of them, as there is no need now that they should
understand the words of baptism to gain the effects of it.
Prayer is continued in the laying on of hands ; and there
is no laying on of hands alone without prayer and benedic
tion. S.Mark (x. 16), has said this plainly: "And em
bracing them and laying His hands upon them, He blessed
them ".
Verse 16. And behold one.
S. Luke (xviii. 18) says that he was a ruler, that is, a
chief man ; because, as S. Matthew (v. 22) says, he was
140 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix. 16.
very rich. Many of the Ancients seem to confuse him with
the lawyer of whom S. Luke (x. 25) makes mention ; for
they say that this man was also a lawyer, as S. Jerome,
S. Ambrose (On S. Luke xviii.), and S. Cyril Alexand.
(TJiesaur., ii. i). More correctly S. Basil (Homil. cont.
Divit. Avarit.) not only does not think him the lawyer,
but opposes him to the lawyer of whom S. Luke wrote ;
for the lawyer came to Christ to tempt Him : this man
came to learn of Him. And if he had been a lawyer the
Evangelists would rather have stated this than the other
circumstances they mention so carefully ; namely, that he
was a ruler, that he was rich, that he was young. The
same author, as well as S. Epiphanius (Ancorat. and Her.,
Ixix.), says that this young man came to Christ, not with a
guileless and honourable intention, but for the purpose of
tempting Him, an opinion which S. Basil, as above, and S.
Chrysostom and Euthymius in their commentaries on this
passage, seem completely to refute.
First, S. Mark (x. 17) says that he came very reverently,
humbly kneeling, which the haughty, pride-inflated Scribes
and Pharisees who came to tempt Christ were not used
to do.
Secondly, whenever anyone came to tempt Christ, the
Evangelists always say so ; but they have not mentioned
such a thing of this young man.
Thirdly, he asked what he wanted yet, to obtain eternal
life.
Fourthly, when Christ said to him, " Go sell what thou
hast and give to the poor," he departed sorrowfully, which
he would not have done had he only come to Christ with
a wicked and dissembling mind. S. Chrysostom appears
therefore to argue much better for his opinion than S.
Jerome. It may be added that they who came to tempt
Christ were not accustomed to ask about themselves and
their salvation, but about the law and controverted ques-
CH. xix. ly.] THE RICH YOUNG MAN. 141
tions, such as whether it were lawful to give tribute to
Caesar, to put away a wife for any reason, which was the
greatest commandment, whose wife the woman would be
in the resurrection, when the seven brothers had had her.
But this young man asked no such questions, but only those
which were necessary for himself : " What good shall I do
that I may have eternal life ? "
Good Master.
The young man addresses Christ thus to gain His good
will ; others called Him Rabbi, when about to ask anything
of Him. This man, to show a greater attraction of mind
to Him, calls Him Good Master.
Verse 17. Why askest thou Me concerning good.
The Greek in almost every copy has, " Why callest thou
Me good, there is none good but only God?" and so Origen
(Tract. Sept^ S. Matthew, with SS. Hilary, Chrysostom, and
others. Our version reads : "Why askest thou Me?" as do
some Greek copies, and S. Jerome (in loc.} and S. Augustin
(De Trinit., i. 13). Origen adopts both readings. Their
opinion, however, can hardly be admitted, as making Christ
speak in a double manner. I . " Why callest thou Me good ? "
Because he had said : " Good Master ". 2. " Why askest
thou," &c. If we read it thus, the meaning is not, Why dost
thou ask Me what good thou shouldst do, but Why dost
thou ask Me, calling Me good.
One is good God.
The Arians objected this text to the Catholics, as prov
ing that Christ was not God, because He appears by it to
shut Himself out from goodness and divinity by these
words : as say S. Epiphanius (Her., Ixix.) ; S. Cyril Alex
andria (lib. ii., Thess. i.) ; S. Basil (Ep. ad Ampkilock., Com
ment, on S. Luke xviii.) ; S. Ambrose ; S. Augustin (iii. 23,
Cont. Maxim. Episc. Arian), and others passim. They all
142 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix. 17.
answer that Christ does not deny Himself to be good, and
to be God. For men, and angels, and many other things
than God, each in his own way, are evidently good, as S.
Epiphanius proves at length from Scripture ; but He says
that none is good but God, in the way in which God is
good, that is,flerse, and in His own nature. So, too, says
S. Paul (i Tim. vi. 16), that God alone has immortality,
though it is certain that both the angels and our souls are
immortal. But God alone is immortal in His own nature;
that is, not by participation with another, as S. Justin has
shown in his questions to the Christians. Even if Christ,
therefore, had not been God, He would have been good ;
and as He does not shut Himself out from goodness, by
saying, " There is one good," so does He not shut Himself
out from divinity, nay, He rather shows by these words,
as shall shortly be explained, that He is God.
But why did Christ so answer the young man ? The
reason would appear to be, as The Author (Horn, xxx.),
S. Jerome (Comment^, S. Augustin (De Trinit., xiii.J,
Bede, Theophylact, Euthymius (in foe.), and others have
said, that the young man, though he had a good faith in
Christ, had not a sufficiently firm and perfect opinion of
Him. It is clear that he endeavoured to honour Christ
with the highest titles he knew of, to obtain His favour ;
and yet we see that he called Him nothing more than
" Good Master," as if he could think nothing greater of
Him. For if He had believed Him to be God, he would
have addressed Him either as his God, or most certainly
Lord ; but Christ, knowing that he was honestly consulting
Him about his salvation, wished to assist and perfect his
faith, and by questioning to lead him on to the belief that
He was not merely a " good master," but that He was the
good God, and he therefore took his own words out of his
mouth, to teach him that he needed to understand well
what he had said. He had called Christ " Good Master".
CH. xix. 18.] THE RICH YOUNG MAN. 143
Christ teaches him that no one is good but God, to show that
He was God Himself if He were good, as the young man,
not knowing what He said, had called Him. There may
be some ambiguity in the words, for in one sense He is
called "Good Master," and in another "Good God"; but this
very ambiguity adds force to the argument, for Christ
speaks as if He did not know the difference between " Good
Master" and "Good God". He has used a like ambiguity
in other places (chap. viii. 22).
It may be asked why Christ did not answer others in
the same manner who may reasonably be supposed to have
addressed Him either in the same or in similar terms ?
The reason may be that this young man called Him " Good
Master," as if he thought himself to be giving Him some
singular title, such as others were not accustomed to give
Him. Christ wished to correct this opinion, and to teach
him that he had given Him a title not sufficiently noble
and great ; for He was not only a " Good Master " but also
the " Good God ".
But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
As here, when to keep the commandments is said to be
the only cause of our salvation, faith is not excluded ; but
the meaning is that, as among the things that are to be
done^ it is enough to keep the commandments, so when
faith only is named among the causes of justification and
salvation, works are not excluded ; but again, the meaning
is that (among the things that are not to be done but are
to be known), it is enough to believe ; and that faith
although dark, and knowledge although in some degree
obscure, should be to us equal to all sciences and all
doctrines.
Verse 18. Which?
S. Jerome, as above, thinks that the young man came to
Christ to tempt Him. But it is clear from the context
144 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix. 18.
that he asked the above question because he had come to
Christ as to some supremely great teacher, to learn some
thing above the Law ; but, as will be proved on verse 20,
he not only knew but had lived in the practice of the Law.
He, therefore, asked " which," as thinking that perhaps
Christ would give him some precepts beyond the Law.
Thou shalt do no murder.
Christ sets forth the precepts of the Decalogue, not all,
but only those of the second table nor these in their
order, but as they suggested themselves ; for it was not
His object to recite the whole memoriter, and to the letter,
but to state what they contained. We may ask why He
did not mention the commandments of the first table
only ? Euthymius says that it was because the observance
of these is a secret one, i.e., it lies hidden in the soul ; but
the works of the second are manifest : not to kill, not to
commit adultery, &c. This does not appear to be a good
reason. For Christ did not desire, as some think, to con
vict the young man, but to teach him, and not to teach
him how he might appear to be good, but how he might be
both good and just ; for Christ desired to make him not a
hypocrite but a Christian., The true reason seems to be
that whoever keeps the second table keeps also the first,
as S. Paul says (Rom. xiii. 9-10). Besides, Christ here, and
S. Paul there, desiring the observance of the command
ments, sets forth only the second table.
It may be objected that by this reasoning S. Paul ought
much more to have set forth the first table, for he who
keeps the first table keeps the second also ; for he who
loves God does all things that He commands ; and the
first table is much shorter than the second, and ought to
be set forth as a kind of summary of all the command
ments. The answer may be : " It is so ; yet it is more
easy to love our neighbour than God," as S. John says (i
Ep. iv. 20). It is the custom of Holy Scripture to lead us
CH. xix. 19-21.] THE RICH YOUNG MAN. 145
to the observation of the commandments of God through
the second table, as by a more easy, full, and familiar way.
Verse 19. Thou sJialt love thy neighbour as thyself,
This is in a manner a brief compendium comprehending
in one word all the teaching of Christ, like that of S. Paul
(Rom. xiii. 9, 10 ; Galat. v. 14). It is not one single precept,
but the sum of all those in Levit. xix. 18.
Verse 20. All these have I kept from my youth.
S. Hilary, S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, and others on this
passage, think that the young man was speaking untruly ;
but the opinion of S. Basil (Horn. cont. Divit. Avar.), S.
Chrysostom, and Euthymius seems more probable, that he
spoke the truth, and that when Christ heard it He loved
him (S. Mark x. 21). This would not have been the case
otherwise ; for no pretence could have deceived Christ,
who knew all things. Christ, it is clear, had a singular love
for the young man, because of his observance of the com
mandments such a love as He not only had not for others
who were sinners, but not even for this young man before.
He heard his words, not that Christ was ignorant before
or that He did not love the young man before, but that He
might show Himself, after the manner of men, to have learnt
by the answer what He did not know before, and to have
begun to love him whom He had not loved before. Christ
loved him, not only for his natural goodness, as He loves
all men in common, but in a peculiar way, because of his
having kept the commandments, to do which is not of
nature.
Verse 2.\. If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast, and
give to the poor.
That Christ in these words is giving, not a precept, but
a counsel, is clearer than the sun at mid-day ; for who is so
2 10
146 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix. 21.
blind as not to see in what chosen words He carefully
distinguishes between precepts and counsels. When He
gives a precept He does not say, " If thou wilt be perfect,"
but " If thou wilt enter into eternal life ". When He gives
a counsel He does not say, " If thou wilt enter into life,"
but " If thou wilt be perfect ". He gives eternal life as a
reward for keeping the commandments ; but to the obser
vance of counsels, not life eternal, but " treasure in heaven " :
that is, He promises the greater riches of eternal life ; and
not only the being blessed, but the being chief of the blessed,
and their judge "You shall sit upon twelve thrones judg
ing the twelve tribes of Israel ".
No better words can be used than those of S. Augustin
(Serm. Ixi. de Temp?) either to prove or explain evangelical
counsels. " Counsel," he says, " is one thing ; precept
another. Counsel is given that virginity may be preserved,
and that we may abstain from wine and flesh, and sell all
things and give to the poor ; but precepts are given that
justice may be preserved, and that men may turn from evil,
and do good." It is said of chastity, " He that can take it,
let him take it " ; but not of justice, " He who is able to do
it," but " Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit ".
" He who hears counsel willingly and obeys it, will have the
greater glory ; he who does not fulfil a precept, unless he
afterwards repent, will not escape punishment." Again to
the same purpose in many other of his writings.
And thou shalt have treasure in heaven.
Christ alludes to the custom of merchants who give a
less sum in present money, in the hope of receiving more in
future. He calls eternal life a treasure because goods are
laid up here that they may be found there with increase ;
as treasure is apt to increase daily when it is put out (5.
Matt. vi. 20).
CH. xix. 2i.] THE RICH YOUNG MAN. 147
Christ also alluded to alms-giving, signifying that he who
gives alms lays up, as it were, treasure in heaven, as
Solomon says in Proverbs (xix. 27). Christ wished to
meet the young man who was wealthy, and probably given
to making money, on his own ground ; by the hope of still
greater wealth, to entice him to the kingdom of heaven, as
men of that stamp are apt to be led. He said, in a manner,
" Even if you have great riches here, you shall have much
greater if you will sell these and give them to the poor ".
It was so far from the will of Christ to make allusion to
the wealth which the young man thought himself to possess,
that He rather wished to signify that he had nothing, if it
were compared to the riches of the kingdom of heaven.
For though wealthy, he had no riches at all if compared to
such as kings, and not all of them, possess, but he should
have a treasure in heaven. Christ therefore does not
balance the riches of the kingdom of heaven with the
wealth of the young man, but opposes the former to the
latter, as if one should compare the vast wealth of the
entire world to a very small property. Besides, Christ
meant that he should have greater glory in heaven if he
followed evangelical counsels, than if he only obeyed mere
precepts. For they who follow the precepts receive each
his penny, as shall be explained in the following chapter
(verse 19). But he who adds besides counsels, as by giving
all his goods to the poor, will receive not merely a penny
but a greater treasure. From this it is clear that men, by
alms-giving and all other good works, do merit the kingdom
of heaven. The same meaning is found here as in 5.
Luke xvi. 9 ; nay, even a greater. For there also Christ
treats of alms, and "to make themselves friends" is nothing
else than to merit their friendship and favour. And in
this sense all the ancient authorities explain it (S. Cyprian,
Lib. de Op. et Eleemos. ; S. Hilary ; S. Chrysostom, Horn. Ixiv.
on S. Matthew; and others).
148 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix. 22, 23.
A nd come folloiv Me.
There are three counsels that Christ gave the young
man : I . To sell all his goods ; 2. To give the money to the
poor ; 3. To follow Him. This was the last of all. For
Socrates and many other philosophers, as S. Jerome says, held
their wealth in contempt ; but because they did not follow
Christ, this was of no advantage to them. It is less certain
what Christ meant by " follow Me " than is commonly sup
posed. S. Clement Alexandria (Strom, iv.), S. Jerome (in
/<?.), and some others understand it of the imitation of
Christ. S. Matthew seems to confirm this (x. 38), where
some Greek copies read : " Take up thy cross ". But the
word " come " shows that Christ spoke not of imitating
Him alone, but of a bodily presence with Him, and of His
inviting him to follow Him like the Apostles and disciples.
But the words of S. Mark, if we admit them, are not
opposed to this explanation. For the Apostles and dis
ciples most especially carried the cross, following Christ
not only with their hearts but also with their persons.
Verse 22. And he went away sad.
He went away sad, not because, as some have heretically
said, his conscience convicted him of not having kept the
commandments as he boasted to have done (vide verse 20) ;
but because he did not think that there could be anything
so difficult as that which Christ had counselled him to do,
in selling his goods and giving to the poor. The Evan
gelist tells us why he was sad : " for he had great posses
sions ". It is easier to part with a few things than with
many.
Verse 23. A rich man.
S. Mark (x. 23) and S. Luke (xviii. 24) term rich men
those who have, not unlimited wealth, as it were, but con
siderable property. Christ spoke, as S. Matthew explains
it, of men with great possessions.
CH. xix. 24.] RICHES AND THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. 149
Shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
S. Mark says that Christ looked round Him and said :
" How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the
kingdom of God ". This action applies both to the " com
mendation " and emphasis of the words. Christ seems to
have looked round Him to demand attention when about
to say a thing very important, and for the same reason to
have used an expression of admiration.
We may question how far Christ said this of the rich
young man, and how far to the Apostles, when his riches
kept the former, not from observance of the Law, nor from
entering the kingdom of heaven, but only from the attain
ment of evangelical perfection. We may reply that Christ
took occasion, from the young man who was deterred by
his wealth from evangelical counsels, to speak of riches at
large, and how men are kept back by them from eternal
life.
Verse 24. And again I say to you.
S. Mark (x. 24) says that the Apostles, before Christ
spoke these words, wondered at the meaning because of
their hardness and severity. Christ answered with still
greater severity ; for the above words, " Again, I say," are
not a mere repetition, but an enlargement of the former as
well. " It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of
a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of
heaven."
It is easier for a camel.
The inexplicability, or, rather, the wonderfulness, of this
saying, has caused some to think that the word " camel "
(tftt/aeXo?) should have been rendered "ship cable," as if it
were against reason that such a huge and ill-shapen beast
as a camel should go through the eye of a needle, whilst a
cable has some affinity with a needle ; and Suidas tells us
that fcdfjieXos carries both meanings. Theophylact under-
1 50 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix. 24.
stands it thus, and some others, probably Greek authors,
as we learn from Euthymius.
The reference has been thought, with less reason, to be
to a certain gate in Jerusalem, which was so small that a
camel, unless unloaded, could not pass through it. The
supporters of this opinion do not observe that the more
extraordinary the saying appears, the more likely it is to
be true. Christ said that it was no more difficult for a
camel to pass through a needle s eye than for a rich man
to enter the kingdom of heaven, because this was in the
highest degree unreasonable and even impossible. Christ
desired to show that it would be as much so for a rich man
to enter heaven, as He added in verse 26. The reason,
therefore, that induced these persons not to understand the
passage of a camel should rather have influenced them to
the contrary conclusion, as it did Origen, SS. Hilary, Chry
sostom, and Jerome, The Author, Juvencus (Hist. Evangel.,
lib. iii.), and Sedulius (Carm., iv.). The Syriac has fc^ft lT
which can only be explained of the animal. It was, in
fact, a proverb, and it meant when a thing was pronounced
impossible that a camel could more easily pass through the
eye of a needle than such a thing be done. The Tal-
mudists frequently use the expression, as many of the
learned have observed.
It would appear to be o r more importance to enquire why
Christ said this of riches rather than of other things, so
many of which hinder a man still more in this course ; such
as ambition, lust, anger. The reason may be that other
things, although they hinder some more, yet retard the
greater number less ; but riches commonly hinder almost
all men, because almost all give their minds up to avarice
from the greater to the less (Isa. Ivi. 1 1 ; Jerem. vi. 1 3 ; viii.
10). S. Paul himself, speaking of the preachers of the Gos
pel themselves, says : " All seek the things that are their
own, not the things that are Jesus Christ s" (Philipp. ii. 21).
CH.XIX. 25-27.] RICHES AND THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. 151
Verse 25. WJw, then, can be saved?
It is as if they had said : " As all men so study wealth, and
a rich man cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, who
can be saved ? " S. Mark says (x. 26) that the Apostles
said this among themselves, that is, silently, so that they
themselves alone might hear. This is to be understood
through verse 26.
Verse 26. Beholding.
Christ, it may be supposed, looked upon the disciples to
show that He knew their thoughts and understood their
words, though secret. S. Mark says that the Apostles
murmured these things among themselves.
With men this is impossible.
All the Evangelists agree in teaching that (i) Christ
taught that it was difficult for a rich man to enter the
kingdom of heaven ; (2) that it was impossible, which is a
great proof that they have given us not merely the meaning
but the actual words of Christ, and that He desired to
confirm His doctrine more by strengthening it ; for (i) He
simply said that it is difficult for a rich man to enter into
the kingdom of heaven ; and (2) that it was easier for a
camel to pass through the eye of a needle ; (3) that it was
wholly impossible, but with men, not with God.
Verse 27. Then Peter answering.
That is, began to speak ; a Hebraism, as before observed,
when a person does not necessarily reply to a former
speaker or answer a question. But S. Peter may appear
in this place to have replied to the words of Christ.
Behold we have left all things.
Some think the reason of Peter s having asked this ques
tion was the words of Christ to the young man, " Go, sell all
152 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix.2 7 .
thou hast " ; but Peter doubted, for himself and the other
Apostles, what reward they should have. For, although
they had left all things, they had not sold their goods,
and given to the poor, so that they might not appear to
have satisfied Christ s counsel, nor to be worthy of obtain
ing the treasure promised to the young man in heaven.
Or it may be that Peter wished to signify that he and the
other Apostles had already done what Christ required of
the young man, as Origen, S. Jerome, and S. Chrysostom
say, or why did he say doubtfully, "What shall we have?"
Why did he not believe that he and the other Apostles
would have that treasure in heaven, because Christ pro
mised treasure to the young man if he would leave his great
possessions ? But the Apostles had left little, or almost
nothing, and therefore did not venture to hope for a
treasure in heaven. But as they hoped for some position
there, they asked what it should be ? It cannot be
thought, as some say, that the Apostles had not sold their
goods and given to the poor ; for although it is not ex
pressly said in Scripture, yet this is credible, and it would
have been in accordance with their virtue and perfection,
that either all, or at least some of them, should have sold
what they had, and given to the poor ; whilst they who had
not sold it, no doubt gave it to their kindred who were
poor. This is easily concluded from S. Peter s question ;
for when he said, " We have left all things," although he
did not say, " We have sold all things and given to the
poor," he would have this understood, because he signified
that he had done all that Christ commanded, as in the
verse following Christ answered, " Amen, I say to you who
have followed Me," although He did not say that they had
left all things, this may surely be understood. It may
be asked how S. Peter and the other Apostles had done
what Christ required of the young man, for they had only
left a few things of small value, but he was commanded to
CH. xix. 28.] REWARDS FOR RESIGNING THIS WORLD. 153
leave many possessions. S. Gregory (Horn, in Evangel?)
shall answer this, and S. Bernard on his words on this
passage. He leaves much who leaves the wish of having.
Such things were left by His followers as would be desired
by those who did not follow Him.
Verse 28. You who have followed Me.
Christ did not say, "You have left all things," but in
saying the greater, He understood the less, as S. Jerome
has shown.
In the regeneration.
S. Hilary and The Author think that this refers to our
baptisms. But it is clear that the judgment of the last day
is here called regeneration, whether because the whole
world was then to be renewed, and in some degree re
generated, as say S. John (Apoc. xxi. i, 5), S. Peter (2 Ep.
iii. 13) ; Isaiah (Ixv. 17 and Ixvi. 22), and S. Paul (Rom.
viii. 21); or because men, having then put off mortality,
and put on immortality, will be in some way regenerated,
as S. Paul declares (2 Cor. v. 4; Philipp. iii. 21) ; so too
S. Augustin (Cont. Pelag., iii. 3 ; iv. II ; and Cont. Jul., ii.),
S. Gregory (Moral., iv. 23), Theophylact and Euthymius (In
Comment^}) and S. Bernard (in loc.).
When the Son of man shall sit.
S. Hilary and The Author, who explain regeneration, as
above, of our baptisms, take the sitting to be, not that of
the Son of man on His tribunal in judgment, but the
session at the right hand of the Father which He began to
occupy shortly after His Resurrection and Ascension. But
S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact, although
they explain this of the judgment, do not take it to mean
any session either of Christ or the Apostles, but only His
glory and majesty, in which Christ and the Apostles will
appear.
154 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix. 28.
It is clear that the allusion here is not to the session of
Christ at the right hand of the Father ; and all the Fathers
of the Church except S. Hilary and The Author say that
when Christ speaks of the judgment, He says, "You shall
sit ". What the seats of Christ and the Apostles will be
is not certain, and it is perhaps curious to enquire, and
rash to give any kind of definition. But it is not so to
follow conjecture wherever it may probably lead us.
It seems probable, then, that the clouds will be the seat
of Christ and the Apostles, because Scripture everywhere
says that Christ will come on a cloud (as xxiv. 30 ; xxvi.
64 ; Apoc. i. 7), and it is very probable that He will sit
on the same cloud as that on which He will come. This
may be gathered from another passage of the Apocalypse
(xiv. 14). For S. John speaks of Christ when he calls Him
" the Son of man," and of the judgment as a sickle in His
hand. Christ signifies in this place that the seats of the
Apostles will be like His own : " You also shall sit on the
twelve seats ". As if He had said : " As I shall sit, so also
shall you ".
It may be a question how there will be twelve seats, when
it is plain that Judas, one of the twelve, will not sit with the
rest. If, therefore, there were only eleven to sit there, there
would only be eleven seats ; and if S. Paul and Barnabas,
who were afterwards extraordinarily called to be Apostles,
are added, there would not be twelve, but thirteen. S.
Augustin (De Civit, xx. 5) and Bede (in his commentary on
this passage) say that a certain and definite number is put
for an indefinite and uncertain one, as if it were said, "You
shall sit each upon his own seat ". But because there were
twelve Apostles, with whom He spoke, He said twelve
seats, as if Judas also were to sit. Not that Christ
thought that he would sit, but because if he had remained
in his office like the others, he would have done so, as has
been observed by S. Chrysostom. For Christ speaks, as
CH. xix. 28.] APOSTLES IN THE FUTURE JUDGMENT. 155
theologians say, according to present justice, and not so
much of persons as of the status of the persons. As
if He said, " It is the officium of Apostles to have this
reward proposed to them, that he who has rightly dis
charged it shall sit upon his seat in judgment and judge
the rest".
Judging.
It is the opinion of S. Jerome that "to judge" means
here to condemn. There have been different opinions on the
subject.
1. The common opinion is that the Apostles will only
judge by comparison ; because, while they themselves
believed, the other Jews did not ; as "the men of Nineveh
shall rise in judgment with this generation and shall con
demn it, because they did penance at the preaching of
Jonas, and behold a greater than Jonas is here". But this
generation at the preaching of Christ Himself will not
repent. The Queen of the South will condemn the Jews,
" because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the
wisdom of Solomon, and a greater than Solomon is here ".
This is the opinion of S. Jerome, The Author, and many
others.
2. Others say that as Christ promised more to the
Apostles in this place than to the men of Nineveh or the
Queen of the South, the Apostles would judge not by com
parison merely but as the ministers and, as it were, heralds
of Christ to proclaim His sentence.
3. Others, again, are of opinion that they will be as
assessors of Christ ; as they who sit with the judge are said
to judge with him. This seems less probable, because the
heretics put it prominently forward, referring to Rom. xi.
34 : "Who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath
been His counsellor?"
It may appear certain that the Apostles will not judge by
156 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix. 28.
comparison merely, but in some more honourable manner ;
because, by comparison, not only all the just but many
sinners also and unjust will judge those who are more
unjust than themselves, as the men of Nineveh will judge
the Jews ; and it is clear that something is here ascribed
to the Apostles which is not only not given to the unjust,
but not even to all the just. This may be that they will
judge as Doctors of the Church and witnesses, to accuse
those who would not receive their testimony and teaching.
They will condemn these men, convincing them of unbelief,
and showing that they did all they could that they might
not believe and be saved. As Christ says of Moses (S. John
v. 45) : " Think not that I will accuse you to the Father,
there is one that accuseth you, Moses ".
Christ says that Moses will accuse them, not that he will
do so in v/ords, but because they would not believe in him,
nor keep his Law. He says the same of the Apostles,
because, as Moses was the Lawgiver and Doctor of the Old
Testament, so were the Apostles of the New. As Christ
then said in the former case, that Moses would condemn
them, so He here uses the word "judge".
But it \vill be asked, Will Moses sit upon his seat and
judge the twelve tribes ? Possibly so ; and why not? But
it is not a necessary consequence, because Christ does not
give this honour to every teacher, but only to those who
have left all things for the sake of the Gospel, and followed
Him as poor men. Shall the Apostles, then, alone sit ?
The opinion of Origen (Tract viii. on S. Matthew], S.
Augustin (De Civitate, xx. 5), S. Cyril Alexandria (Com
ment, on Isaiah lx.), seems probable that all who have
done the same thing, that is, have sold their goods for the
Gospel, and given to the poor, will have the same honour.
But this honour may appear to have been promised, not
merely because they were teachers of the Gospel, but
because they were the first by whom it was published ; as
CH. xix. 28.] APOSTLES IN THE FUTURE JUDGMENT. 157
not all shall possess it who taught the old Law, but he
alone who taught it first.
The twelve tribes of Israel.
A similar question rises here : Why are the Apostles
said to be about to judge the twelve tribes only, if there
were thirteen, as is the case if Levi be included, which is,
without doubt, to be judged ? and the Gospel was preached
not to the Jews only, but to the Gentiles also, of whom
many were obstinate and would not believe. S. Augustin
and Bede again reply that a certain number is put for an
uncertain. This is probable ; but not so their reasoning,
which is that the number twelve signifies perfection and
universality, as if the meaning were that all men shall be
judged. For why did they use the number twelve rather
than seventeen or ten, which are also used to express
universality ? The reason may be that Christ spoke to
accommodate Himself to those to whom and to those of
whom He spoke.
He spoke to the Apostles who were twelve. He spoke
of the Jews among whom He was, to whom He had first
come, and with whom He desired to compare the Apostles.
For, if He placed the latter before the Jews, He placed
them before all men. But although there were in fact
thirteen tribes of the Jews, yet, because Levi was exempt
from the number, and was given by God in the place of
the first-born, they were not numbered : as if they belonged
no more to men but to God, and there were always said to
be only twelve tribes. Christ, therefore, knew that not
only twelve Apostles, but even thirteen, Paul and Barnabas
being added, and Judas shut out, would judge not only the
twelve tribes, but all the nations as well to whom the
Gospel had been preached.
There is another reason why twelve tribes are named.
The Gentiles who believed the Gospel were, as it were,
158 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix. 29.
inserted among the Jews and gifted in a manner with
citizenship so that that they were no longer Gentiles, but
Jews ; that is, as believing and confessing, they were enrolled
among the chosen people into the twelve tribes ; as S.
Paul says to the Romans (xi. 17, 19, 24): "Thou wert a
wild olive," that is, a Gentile grafted into the people of the
Jews ; and again : " The branches were broken off," that
is, the Jews who did not believe were accounted as Gentiles ;
I, when a Gentile, was made a Jew by believing. This is
why S. John in the Apocalypse (vii. 5) reduces the number
of all the predestined to the twelve tribes of Israel ; and
(xxi. 12) says that he saw the names of the twelve tribes of
Israel written in the gates of the Heavenly Jerusalem. The
opinion of Theophylact and Euthymius, therefore, that the
Apostles would judge the Jews alone, seems one that cannot
be received.
Verse 29. And everyone that hath left.
S. Chrysostom, The Author, and Theophylact think the
meaning to be, that everyone who has done the same thing
shall receive the same reward. But Origen, whose opinion
seems preferable, thinks that Christ spoke of another and
inferior grade of men. He had spoken before of those
who had sold all their goods, and given to the poor, and
followed Him. He speaks now of those who have not
sold all their goods, or given to the poor, or followed Him
in the likeness of Apostles, but who have still left something
for Him, either father or mother, brothers, sisters, wives,
children, houses or land. To these no so great honour is
promised as to the Apostles, but they would have a great
reward, receiving a hundredfold and life eternal.
It has been asked how a wife can be left for Christ,
because marriage cannot be dissolved. S. Chrysostom
and Euthymius reply that Christ spoke here of marriage as
He said of life (x. 39) : " He that findeth his life, shall lose
CH. xix. 29.] REWARDS FOR LEAVING THIS WORLD. 159
it, and he that shall lose his life for Me shall find it," and
vid. xvi. 25. Christ would not, therefore, have the marriage
dissolved, but He would be preferred to the wife, and if
the wife hinder her husband from following Him, she
should be left, not by the marriage being dissolved, but
by a divorce. He wills that the husband should lose his
wife, rather than Christ : that spiritual be preferred to
carnal things ; as explained by Fulgentius (Ep. ii. de Stat.
Viduali). With regard to the marriage of Gentiles : if one
have been made a Christian, and the other not, and this one
cannot live with a Christian without injury to religion, the
Christian can leave the non-Christian, dissoluto matrimonio,
as S. Paul has laid it down in I Cor. vii. 15. But a general
sentence ought not to be confined to one kind of case.
He shall receive an hundredfold.
That is, more things, and better in an infinite degree.
So says S. Paul (Rom. viii. 18). A finite number is here
again put for an infinite, as in .S. Luke xviii. 30. He says
not a hundredfold, but "much more". S. Luke and S. Mark
(x. 30) add, "In this present time". The words, as we learn
from S. Jerome, gave occasion to the Millenarians to
support their heresy. They say that after the Resurrec
tion there will be a thousand years in which the just, for
everything they have left in this world, will receive a
hundredfold. S. Jerome replies to them thus : " They do
not understand that if in the other things there was a
fitting promise of payment, in the case of a wife it would
have been wickedness, that he who had put away one wife
for his Lord should receive a hundredfold in the future ".
Bede, who follows S. Jerome, and several other Moderns,
think the meaning to be, to use the words of S. Jerome,,
that " they who have put away carnal things for the
Saviour shall receive spiritual ones, which will be in worth
and comparison as if they received a hundred for one".
l6o THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xix. 30.
But this is opposed to what S. Mark says. He says, not
only that they shall receive a hundredfold in this life, but
he explains in what these things will be received : " Houses,
and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and
lands ". Hence Origen, The Author, Theophylact, and
Euthymius explain a hundredfold as meaning that love, in
some measure, makes all things among Christians common.
All men will be brothers, all women sisters ; all goods will
be in common, as among the primitive Christians (Acts
iv. 34). But how will wives be in common, who among
Christians are most especially proper? It may be said
that they will be so, as that they will love all Christian
men in the Lord as their own husbands.
There seems another way of explaining these words :
houses, brothers, mothers, children not that they will
receive these things, but that they will receive Christ, who
is in the place of all things, and who ought to be to us
father and mother, brother and sister, wife and children,
house and lands, as Christ Himself has said (xii. 49, 50).
S. Bernard, on this place, has observed that Christ did
not say this to the Apostles, because they had not left
house and land, which they did not possess. But they
certainly left fathers and nets, which they had, and followed
Christ at His first word of invitation (iv. 22). He did not
promise these things to them therefore, but because they
had done greater things than these, He promised them
greater rewards : " You shall sit upon twelve seats," &c.
Verse 30. And many that are first shall be last.
It hardly appears with what object Christ added these
words. S. Chrysostom and Euthymius think that He did
it to incite men to the closer following of evangelical per
fection, by offering them more valuable rewards. There
may have been still another reason that the Apostles
might not rest in too great security because they were
CH. xix. 30.] THE LAST FIRST. l6l
called the first of all, but should run not as in uncertainty
(i Cor. ix. 26, 27).
When Christ said, " Many first shall be last," it is clear
that He did not call those first who are so, either in their
own opinion, and dignity, and merits, or who think them
selves so, but those who were called first, and came to the
vineyard of the Lord, as the following parable declares
(xx. 1 6). He does not say "all," but "many," showing
that some who were first will, when their penny is paid, be
first still. Lastly, Christ says (not) that many first shall
be nothing (nullos) in the kingdom of heaven that is, will
be shut out of it, but should be last that is, less than
many who came after them. He speaks of those who
received every man a penny, but they who came last
were in the first place, as the following parable explains.
2 ii
CHAPTER XX.
THE PARABLE OF THE LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD
THE AMBITION OF THE TWO SONS OF ZEBEDEE
CHRIST GIVES SIGHT TO TWO BLIND MEN.
Verse i. The kingdom of God is like to an householder.
THAT is, the kingdom of heaven is as if a householder
went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his
vineyard. The Evangelist does not compare the kingdom
of heaven to a man, but to a householder. He declares
the men to resemble labourers, and the work in one to
resemble that in the other ; that is, what happens in the
kingdom of heaven is compared to what happens in the
vineyard ofthe householder. We have shown this from
Bishop Hugo, who was the best, and perhaps the first, to
explain the parable thus.
The kingdom of heaven means here either the Church
militant only, as many think, or the Church both militant
and triumphant, as others explain it. For in the militant
Church the labourers are hired, and in the triumphant the
penny is paid. The whole parable to verse 16 is easy
there being only two points in it which have any difficulty :
one, What is the object ofthe whole parable? that is, to what
end it was given ; the other, What are its necessary and, as
it were, peculiar parts, which add to the meaning, and how
they are to be understood ?
Some Catholics even think that Christ in the parable
only intends to show that God, contrarily to all opinion,
will give to some more and to others less than they ex-
CH. xx. i.] PARABLE OF LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD. 163
pected. But there seems no need of any other explanation
than that of the Evangelist himself. He had said in the
former chapter : " Many that are first shall be last, and the
last shall be first ". He added immediately a parable, and
this is what it means : that many who had been first
should be last, and many that had been last should be first.
This is clear from the last verse of the parable, in which
Christ repeats the same words : " So shall the last be first,
and the first last " (verse 16). It confirms this opinion that
in the Greek and in many MS. Latin copies the causal
particle " for " (enim, yap) is placed at the beginning of the
first verse : " For the kingdom of heaven is like," so that
this chapter ought not to be distinguished from the pre
ceding, lest the subject contained therein should be broken
off; but rather from the following verse (17), where Christ
begins a new subject. Whoever first divided the chapters
did not see this.
It was so far from the intention of Christ to teach that
the glory of all the blessed would be equal because it is
bestowed, not according to merits, but freely, that, in fact,
He showed the entire contrary, that the glory of all would
not be equal, because it is not bestowed freely but accord
ing to merits ; and that which is given according to merits
is not given equally to all, but more is given to some and
less to others, according to the merits of each. This is
plainly shown, first, by the proposition, to prove which the
whole parable is introduced. The proposition is : " Many
that are first shall be last, and the last first ". The subject
of merits and reward gave occasion to the parable. For
Christ had said to the young man : " If thou wilt be per
fect, go, sell all thou hast " (this is to merit), " and thou
shalt have treasure in heaven " (this is reward). S.Peter
had said : " We have left all things and have followed
Thee " ; that is, he sought a reward for his merits. Christ
answered, " Amen, I say to you ". He promised that re-
164 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xx. i.
ward. He added a general saying : " Whoever hath left
house or brethren," and this is also merit ; " one hundred
fold ". This, again, is reward. He added immediately :
" And many that are first ". He signifies, therefore, that
many who are first shall be last, because although they
came first to the vineyard they laboured less, and therefore
merited a less reward. Again, the beginning of the parable
refutes those mentioned above. " He went out early in the
morning to hire labourers." A labourer is one who works
for the reward which he has merited by his labour ; and
"to hire " is a word of justice, that is, of merit and reward.
For we hire on a compact, according to desert ; and verse 2 :
" Having agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he
sent them into his vineyard ". To make agreement for a
penny is justice and not grace only. Besides, the house
holder said in verse 4 : " Go into my vineyard, and I will give
you what shall be just ". He could not more clearly state
the justice of merit and reward. But here, as afterwards,
we will say that he promised less than to the first labourers,
with whom he made agreement for a penny a day. But he
promised to those, not a penny, but whatever was just. To
this the steward (verses 13, 14) answered the labourer who
complained : " Friend, I do thee no wrong ; didst thou not
agree with me for a penny ? Take what is thine, and go
thy way." What is this " I do thee no wrong " but " I have
given thee what is just " ? What is " Take what is thine "
but " Take what is just ; take what is owed thee ; take
what thou hast merited, and go " ? As the labourers in
the vineyard merit properly and truly their day s penny, so
they who labour in the Church of God truly merit eternal
life. The end of the parable is that the reward of eternal
life answers not to the time each has laboured, but to his
labour and work performed.
For it often happens that one man may only labour for
a single hour, and do as much as another in a whole day,
CH. xx. i.] PARABLE OF LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD. 165
and will therefore receive an equal reward, that is, the same
penny, in the same sense clearly as the Wise Man ( Wisdom
iv. 13) : " Being made perfect in a short space, he fulfilled a
long time " ; and thus no one should boast of the length of
his service, for " many that are first shall be last ".
It may, however, be asked why the same penny is given
to all ? for this appears to show an equality in glory-
Christ only desired to teach us that some can do more in a
short than others in a long time.
But why, then, did the householder not give more than a
penny to those who came at the eleventh hour, if the last
were to be the first ? These were preferred to the others,
in that when they had come the last, they received their
penny first of all. They received the same penny, then,
because they had laboured as much in one hour as the
others had done through the whole day. They received it
first, because this was a part of their great praise by which
they gained the first place ; because they had worked in
in one hour as much as the rest in many. For equal work
deserves equal payment ; greater diligence and shorter
time merit the first place.
It may be objected that this is said in verse 14 : "I will
give to this last even as to thee," and in verse 15 : " Is it
not lawful for me to do what I will ? "
It appears from these words as if the penny were given,
not of merit and justice, but only at the will of the house
holder. This was not the reason of his reply, but he wished
to maintain the dignity of his position. It-did not become
the person of a householder to inform a simple labourer
why he should give the same to the last as to the first, but
to speak as his master: Sic volo sic jubeo. For wise masters,
if their servants ask them why they order this or that
though they may have the best reason for what they do,
are not used to give account of their actions, but simply to
state their will. " Why dost thou direct this to be done ? *
1 66 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xx. i.
" Because I please." And this wise householder did not
wish to put the man who complained to shame, by explain
ing why he gave as much to the last as to the first, namely,
because they had done as much as the others. This, as S.
Chrysostom has said, would have been to take an indirect
notice of the negligence of himself, and those others who
came first. Pertinently to this place Theophylact, in his
Commentary on the Romans (ix. 19), has observed that God,
when dealing with men who are not evil and unteachable,
does give account of His actions, but when dealing with
the evil and ill-disposed only declares His will, such men
not being worthy of His giving them any kind of account.
Of this there are innumerable examples in Scripture, some
of which Theophylact produces, and this one among them ;
for because this labourer complained unreasonably, and
with malice, the master answered as he did : " Take what
is thine ". But in the preceding chapter, when Christ was
conversing with the Apostles and others more teachable,
He explained why a less reward should be given to some
and a greater to others. For to those who only kept the
commandments He promised eternal life (verse 17), but to
those who sold all they had and gave to the poor and
followed Him, like the Apostles, He promised treasure in
heaven, that is, a greater and more excellent glory (xix. 21) ;
and a greater still to the Apostles, who had not only left
all things, but were to be the first preachers of the Gospel
(verse 28), with a less glory to those who had given up less
house or brother (verse 29).
So far we have explained the object of this parable to
which all its particular sayings tend. The other difficulty
is, What are its proper and necessary parts ? and what is
the meaning of each ?
For, as has often been said, and as S. Chrysostom
teaches, in every parable there are some parts peculiar to
it, and, in a sense, necessary, without which the conclusion
CH. xx. i.] PARABLE OF LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD. 167
cannot stand. Others, as it were adjuncts and, as they
may be termed, ornaments (emblematd), either for the ex
planation or the ornamentation of the whole.
In this parable there are apparently eight necessary
parts, i. The householder who hired the labourers into
his vineyard. Most authorities suppose that he was God,
whose is the vineyard, and of whom Christ says : " My
Father is the husbandman " (S. John xv. i) ; and as
another parable says in the following chapter (verses 28,
33) ; vS. Mark xii. i ; vS. Luke xiii. 6 ; and as in the
Prophets, God everywhere calls His people a vineyard as
Isa. iii. 14; v. I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6", 7; xxvii. 2; xxxii. 12; Jer.
ii. 21 ; xii. 10; Ezek. xvii. 6, 7, 8 ; Joel i. 7, 12. So S.
Irenaeus (iv. 70), S. Athanasius, or whoever was the author
of The Questions (lib. ii.), S. Gregory (Horn, xix. in Evangel.\
Bede (Comment, in loc.}.
Others think Him to be Christ, who is always going out
into this world as into a market-place, to hire labourers
into His vineyard for it was He who formerly appeared
to the Patriarchs and spoke to the Prophets. So say S.
Hilary (Can. xx. on S. Matt.}, The Author (Horn, xxxiv.),
Theophylact (in loc.). Either opinion is probable.
2. The second part of the parable is the day, in the
morning of which the householder went into the market
place, and in the evening of which he paid the labourers.
Many think that this day includes all the time from the
beginning to the end of the world, as S. Irenaeus (iv. 70),
Origen (Tract, x. on S. Matt.\ S. Hilary (Can. xx.), S.
Gregory (Horn. xix. in Evangel^], Bede (in loc.\ and others.
This opinion receives confirmation from the certain fact
that the evening signifies the day of the last judgment,
when to each will be given his penny, that is, his reward
according to his works ; and as the evening is the last day of
judgment, the morning will be the beginning of the world,
and the day whatever time may intervene between the two.
168 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xx. i.
Some think the day to be not the whole of this time,
but the period from the first to the second Advent, as S.
Athanasius (Quast. 52). Others, again, take it for the entire
life of each man, as Christ signified when He said, " Walk
while you have the light" (S. John xii. 35 and ix. 4),
meaning that death was our night. So S. Jerome and S.
Chrysostom understand it ; and Origen seems to prefer this
meaning to any other. Certainly the words do not apply to
the age of the world in which each man was called, but to
that part of his own life in which he was called.
3. The third part is the vineyard, which some explain of
the justice and commandments of God, to observe which is
the object of our calling, as S. Irenaeus, S. Chrysostom, and
others. S. Athanasius (Quast. 52) and Theophylact hold
it to be our souls, which every man is ordered to cultivate.
Some understand the Church, as Origen and S. Gregory
(Horn. xix. in Evangel.}, which appears to be the most likely
idea of any.
4. The fourth is what is the meaning of each of the
hours. They who take the day for the whole age of the
world explain the first hour to be the time from Adam to
Noah : the third that from Noah to Abraham : the sixth
that from Abraham to Moses : the ninth that from Moses
to Christ : the eleventh that from Christ to the end of the
world. S. John appears to allude to this when he says that
"this is the last hour" (Ep. i. n, 18) ; so S. Hilary, The
Author, S. Gregory, Theophylact, and others. S. Jerome
refers to, but does not approve, this opinion. Some under
stand the different hours to signify the different stages of
each man s life the first hour, infancy : the third, puberty :
the sixth, manhood : the ninth, the decline to old age : the
eleventh decrepitude. For some are called from their first
infancy and their very birth, as Samuel, Jeremiah, John the
Baptist ; others at other ages. So say S. Basil (Regul.
brev. Interrog., ccxxiv.). S. Jerome, Bede, Euthymius,
CH. xx. i.] PARABLE OF LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD. 169
Fulgentius, Theophylact, and others accept this view. The
different hours do undoubtedly signify, not the different
periods of the world, but those of each man s life, because
the meaning of the whole parable is that some accomplish
more in a short time than others do in a longer. To prove
this the question is not at what age of the world each man
was called, but at what period of his life.
What the particular hours signify should not, perhaps, be
enquired into too closely, lest we narrow the meaning too
much ; for this necessarily belongs to the meaning of the
parable, as explained above. That Christ named these
five was not of necessity, but of custom, and to adorn the
parable.
For the Jews, like many other nations, divided the day,
from the rising to the setting of the sun, into twelve equal
parts, or hours, as Christ said (S. John xi. 9) ; so that the
first hour was at the rising sun and the beginning of the
day, the third half-way to noon, the sixth noon, and
the ninth half-way between noon and sunset, the eleventh
one hour before sunset. The whole day again was sub
divided into four parts, of three hours each, as the night
into four watches, each of which consisted of three hours ;
and this is why in Scripture the first, third, sixth, and ninth
hours are mentioned more frequently than the others, as
they contained the chief portions of the day. Christ also
mentioned them here, not to signify any new mystery, but,
as before said, to show that some were called by God
earlier and others later.
It will be asked, why Christ did not then name four but
five hours. The answer is obvious. He pleased by men
tion of the first quarter of the day and of the last to show
that some were called at the beginning and some at the
close of their lives.
5. The fifth part is the market-place into which the
householder is said to have one out to hire the labourers.
I/O THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xx. i.
Origen and S. Augustin rightly understand the whole
world which is outside the Church, in which men are either
wholly idle or are absorbed in secular business, and are
called thence into the Church as into the vineyard.
6. The sixth part is the penny, which signifies beyond
doubt salvation and eternal life. S. Irenaeus says that a
penny was given because it had the image of the king on
it, and they who are saved (Rom. viii. 29) are to be made
conformable to the image of His Son (Philipp. iii. 21).
This seems allegorical. The reason why a penny was given
rather than any other coin may probably have been that a
penny was perhaps the usual payment for a day s labour,
as is stated (xviii. 28).
S. Chrysostom asks why the householder made agree
ment for the penny with those only whom he hired in the
morning, but simply said to the others, " What shall be just
I will give you ". Christ spoke probably according to the
general custom ; for we do not fix a price to any labourers
but to those whom we hire in the morning to do a full day s
labour ; and if any come later in the day we make no
certain promise, but merely assure them of some payment.
S. Chrysostom, also, and Euthymius ask why God did
not call them all in the morning. They reply that all
were called, but all, as Origen says, were not willing to
come ; but it is shown that all who came the householder
hired. God therefore calls all in the early morning, as
He has said by the Prophet Jeremiah (vii. 13 ; xi. 7, 8 ;
xxxv. 15).
S. Chrysostom thinks that their excuse, " No man hath
hired us," was said to justify themselves, and not as being
true, which appears to be very probable. For Christ in
His parables describes men as they are, and the slothful
and the idle always excuse themselves in this manner, when
the truth is, that they do not seek employment, because they
are not willing to work. Thus, if we ask a robust young
CH. xx. i.] PARABLE OF LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD. I /I
mendicant why he does not seek for work rather than beg,
he will reply that he wishes for nothing else, but he can
find no master. He does not find a master because he
does not seek one, and he does not seek one because he
will not work. S. Chrysostom thinks that the householder
did not blame these men for their falsehood, because he
would not accuse them, and make them sad, that he might
the more easily induce them to work for him. The more
obvious answer might be that the householder, though
representing God, was not God, but man, and therefore
could not know whether the men were speaking truly or
not. Christ said what was probable, and the labourers
excused themselves, and the householder answered them.
7. The seventh part is the evening, when the penny was
paid. No one doubts that this signifies the end of the
world, and the time of the final judgment. But this, it
may be said, does not appear to agree with what was said
above, that the day does not mean all this world, but the
life of each man in it. If this be so, the evening is not the
end of the world, but the close of each man s life. Though
there appear to be this difference, it comes to the same
thing, because there will be men even to the end of the
world, and the day is the life of each, and the evening is
the death of each. The last evening will be the end of the
world, when all who are then living will die together, or
be caught up into the heavens, as S. Paul tells us in
I T/tess. iv. 17.
8. The eighth part is, that the householder commanded,
when the payment was made, that those who came last
should be paid first. This is of especial consequence to
the understanding of the parable. The meaning plainly
is, that they who came at the eleventh hour were preferred
to the others, and made first, because they had laboured as
much in one hour as the rest in the whole day. The
payment was not made, as S. Chrysostom thinks, from the
172 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xx. i.
generosity of the householder, and not from the deserts of
the labourers, as the words show : " I will give you what
shall be just ". He said this, not only to those who were
hired at the third hour (verse 4), but also to those hired
at the eleventh, as the Greek version (verse 7) shows, and
as the sense requires, and as is to be understood from
verse 4.
These are the points of the parable which have a neces
sary meaning. The others are of less consequence. Such
are, why five hours of the day are mentioned? Why the
men were found idle in the market-place? Why they
were not hired ? Why the householder is said to have had
a steward ? For we should hardly seek in the kingdom of
heaven, of which the parable is a kind of description, who
the steward was, though Christ may seem to be such, who
will render to every man his reward, as Isaiah says (xl. 10 ;
Ixii. 10; Apoc. xxii. 12). Though S. Irenaeus (iv. 70) says
that the Spirit is He, for, as S. Paul writes (i Cor. xii. n),
" All these things one and the same Spirit worketh, divid
ing to every man severally, as He will ". Of the same
kind are the questions why a penny and no other coin was
given ? why they who came first murmured ? For it is not
meant that any who received eternal life would murmur,
because others would receive glory, for there is no murmur
ing in heaven. But either nothing is meant, and this is
related only in pursuance of the general custom in such
cases, and to preserve the consistency of the narrative : or to
show, as S. Chrysostom thinks, that the meaning might be,
that they who came last would receive a reward so great
that, if it were possible for the blessed to murmur, they
would murmur at it, as in verses 14, 1 5. " Is it not lawful for
me to do what I will with mine own ? " as the Greek reads,
and as probably the Latin ought to read.
These words, as has been said before, are not
intended to show that God, of His mere will, and with
CH. xx. 16.] PARABLE OF LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD. 173
no regard to justice, will give us eternal life ; but they are
said because it is credible that the householder would
answer thus if any labourer complained without reason ; or
they may mean simply that God is not to account to us
for giving more to some and less to others. If we enquire
into these and other points of the same kind too closely, we
shall not only lose our labour, but we shall incur the danger
of following what is void of truth, or is without meaning, or
at least is nothing to the purpose. For whoever seeks for
that which does not exist, sometimes imagines what he is
looking for, and will believe what is false rather than
nothing. The human mind must be held in check or it
will be led astray by its own subtlety, beyond all reason,
and on matters of no consequence.
Verse 16. For many are called, but fezu chosen.
It may appear strange why Christ added these words,
for they hardly appear to be in harmony with what has
gone before. In the early part of the parable He spoke
only of those who would be saved, for all had received the
penny, that is, eternal life ; but He speaks here of those
who when called were not all saved, but most of whom were
lost. Christ appears, from some special case, to have urged
a general conclusion. He had shown by the parable that
all would not receive an equal reward, but many of the last
would be first and the first last, because not all who were
called and came to the vineyard laboured with the same
diligence. He concludes now that not all who were called
will receive the same reward, because many would not come,
as has been shown from Origen, S. Chrysostom, and Euthy-
mius ; so in the previous chapters from the case of the rich
young man who was hindered by his riches, and would not
follow evangelical counsels, He concluded generally of, all
rich men, and, from the observance, not of counsels, but of
precepts, declared that it is difficult for a rich man to enter
174 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xx. 17.
heaven. It is not meant that all are not called, for He
calls all, who came into the world to call sinners to repent
ance (ix. 13). For all were sinners, and He calls all who
died for all. Why, then, did Christ not say " all " but
" many " ? Because the all are many, and He desired to
oppose many to a few, not all to none, as S. Paul said to the
Romans (v. 19). For through the disobedience of one man
not only many but all were made sinners, as he had said be
fore (verses 12, 18). He said soon after, " Through the dis
obedience of one man many were made sinners," to oppose
many to one, and to add force not only to the assertion, but
to his own period. In the same manner Christ here uses
the words "many" and "few"; by "many" meaning "all".
This is shown by the subsequent parable of the marriage
(chap. xxii.). Not only were all called to the marriage,
the lame, the blind, and those in the highways, but
they were even compelled to come in, and yet Christ
concludes the parable in the same words, a many," "few,"
where it is certain that He opposes "many" not to all, but
to a few : "For all were called ".
Verse 17. And going up.
" Going up " does not mean here, as man)/ even of the
Jewish Rabbis think, that Jerusalem was the highest spot
in the whole earth ; but it means in Syriac and Chaldee,
the language used by Christ, simply " to go ". S. Mark
relates it as follows : " And they were in the way going up
to Jerusalem, and Jesus went before them ; and they were
astonished, and following, were afraid ".
The readiness of Christ to go to His death, and the
wonder of the Apostles, and their fear for themselves,
are signified. They marvel at His going to Jerusalem with
so much courage and firmness, when He had often warned
them that He should undergo many sufferings (xvi. 21 ;
xvii. 12). They feared for Him and for themselves.
CH. xx. 18, 19.] CHRIST FORETELLS HIS DEATH. 175
Christ went before to show the Apostles the way to the
cross, and to teach them how readily, when the need arose,
they should endure death ; as S. Paul, a true disciple of
His, says (Acts xxi. 13), and as Origen observed.
Took.
" Separated ;" as chap. xvi. 22. Christ would not inform
the disciples before the people, lest the matter should be
known publicly, and either His death be hindered, or it
should appear to be brought about by Himself. We may
translate the Greek word Trape\ape by aggressus : He ap
proached them to speak to them, as has been said before,
and as is in accordance with this passage.
Verse 18. Behold.
This word appears here to be a particle indicative of a
time near at hand.
Verse 19. And they shall deliver Him to the Gentiles.
To Pilate and the Romans. There is an antithesis here
between Jews and Gentiles, as if between friends and
enemies. As if it were said : " The Jews will not be con
tent to punish the Son of man ipsi per se, but they will
give Him over to His enemies that He may be punished
the more severely and be put to death ". For it was not
lawful for them to put anyone to death (S. John xviii. 3 1 ;
5. Luke xviii. 34). It is not to be supposed from this that
they did not understand the words of Christ that He was
going to His death, but that they did not comprehend the
mystery of His death, and our redemption by it. For if
they had literally not understood His words, they would
not have been astonished at His going nor have dreaded
His death, as S. Mark says (x. 32). We may enquire why
Christ said these words to the Apostles as He approached
Jerusalem. S. Chrysostom says that it was to strengthen
them, and to teach them patience and constancy.
176 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xx. 20.
Verse 20. Then.
Then, that is, when she saw that His death was at
hand, she sought about, like the friends of a dying man,
for a share of His inheritance. This was the cause of her
desiring them to be near Christ, and to obtain the first
place for them in His kingdom : namely, what He had said
of His closely impending death, as S. Jerome, Euthymius,
and Bede have observed.
The mother of the sons of Zebedee.
Salome, as The Author observes, and as is found by a
comparison of SS. Matthew and Mark ; for her whom S.
Matthew calls the mother of the sons of Zebedee, S. Mark
calls Salome (vid. S. Matt, xxvii. 56; 5. Mark xv. 40).
Who they were is stated by S. Matthew (x. 2). S. Mark
(x. 35) says that "James and John, the sons of Zebedee,
came to Him saying, Master, we desire that whatsoever
we shall ask, Thou wouldst do it for us ". This seems
opposed to S. Matthew, but it is not really so, for their
having asked it through their mother is not contrary to
their being said to have asked it themselves ; as S.
Augustin (De Consens., ii. 64), S. Chrysostom (Horn. Ivi.)
reply. There is a similar example in chap. viii. 5, where
S. Matthew says that a centurion came to Christ and asked
Him to heal his servant, whilst S. Luke (vii. 3) says that
he did not come himself in person, but that he came
through his friends.
It is uncertain whether the Apostles persuaded their
mother to seek this honour from Christ ; as if a woman,
and, as many think, a relative of Christ for Salome is sup
posed to have been a sister of the Virgin Mary would
more easily obtain such a request, and her sons would
escape the charge of immodesty and the ill-will of the other
Apostles, if what they asked were not asked by them for
CH. xx. 20.] REQUEST OF MOTHER OF SONS OF ZEBEDEE. I//
themselves, but by their mother for them. So think many
of the early Fathers S. Augustin (De Consens., ii. 64), S.
Chrysostom, The Author, Theophylact, Euthymius, S.
Gregory (Horn, xxvii. in Evangel.}, and others. Some
think, with great probability, that Salome, as their mother,
asked it of her own motherly impulse, and without any
concert on their part (S. Hilary, Can. xx. on S. Matt. ; S.
Ambrose, De Fide, v. 3).
The argument of some, that the mother of these Apostles
was secretly instigated by them because Christ answered
them and not her, is easily answered. " You know not
what you ask." " Can you drink the chalice I shall drink "
(verse 22). S. Ambrose and S. Jerome offer with pleasing
piety to excuse Salome. The former says : "Consider what
she asked with her sons, and for them. She was their
mother indeed, and in her anxiety for the advancement of
her sons, she showed a degree of importunity somewhat
immoderate no doubt, but quite to be pardoned. And she
was a mother advanced in years, of a devout disposition,
deprived of her comfort, who at a time when she might
have been aided or maintained by the exertions of her
sons, suffered them to go from her, and preferred to her
own pleasure the reward of their following Christ. Again,
although it were an error it was a pious error. For a
mother s longings know not patience. Although desirous
of obtaining her wish, she was urged by a venerable
cupidity which was not of gold, but of grace ; nor was her
petition an unbecoming one, for it was not for herself, but
for her children. Consider the mother, think of the
mother." S. Jerome adds : " The mother of the sons of
Zebedee erred by a womanly error, and from piety ; not
knowing what she asked ". The Author excuses them
because they asked for nothing temporal, or carnal, or of
worldly ambition, but only for spiritual perfection. S.
Ambrose says the same of their mother.
2 12
1 78 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xx. 21.
Adoring.
npocrfcvvovcra. Bowing herself, or bending her knee, to
gain the favour and good-will of Christ.
And asking something.
The word " something " would seem to imply that the
request was not a slight one, but was for something of
consequence. So the Greeks say, rl elvai, " it is something" ;
that is, something of value. It was for this reason, pro
bably, that the Evangelist says that she came kneeling, to
show that her request was an unusual one. Why did she
not say what she desired at once ? Because she wished to
explain herself first, and therefore she did not state at
once what she sought for, but asked Christ in general
terms to grant it, as we find in 5. Mark x. 35. This was
not said by the sons, but by their mother, as shown before.
The mother came suppliantly and said, " I would that
Thou wouldst give me whatever I ask ". For they who
desire a thing, but are in doubt whether they will obtain it,
do not speak out at once, lest they should be refused. So
the mother of Solomon asked her son not to put her to
confusion (3 Kings ii. 20).
Verse 21. What wilt thou.
" The mother asks," says S. Jerome, " and the Lord
speaks to the disciples, understanding that their request
came from her sons. But " (as said before) " Christ
answered the sons, not the mother, because, if not at their
suggestion, yet for their good, the request was made."
Say.
A Hebraism for command, order, direct. So (chap. viii.
8) " only say the word ".
That they may sit.
Some, among whom is Euthymius, think that Salome
was moved to ask this by the words of Christ (chap. xix.
CH. xx. 22.] REQUEST OF MOTHER OF SONS OF ZEBEDEE. 179
28) : " You shall sit on twelve seats ". For when she knew
that all the Apostles would sit around Christ in the
kingdom of God, she wished her two sons to sit, the one on
the right hand and the other on the left. Euthymius
thinks that she feared Peter, whom she saw preferred to
the other Apostles in everything.
Verse 22. You know not what you ask.
Many thought that Christ said this, because they sought
carnal and not spiritual things ; as if Christ were to hold a
temporal rule like the kings of this world who have princes
at their side, of whom he is held the most honourable who
sits nearest to him (the king) ; and others, as S. Chrysos-
tom, Euthymius, and Theophylact, take it, that they sought
for spiritual not carnal gifts, and that Christ said : " You
know not what you ask," because they asked for something
greater and better than they knew. Others, again, say
that they asked for spiritual gifts, that they might excel
the other Apostles in goodness and desert, but not in their
proper order ; " looking for the triumph before the victory,"
as The Author says. The words, " are you able," would
rather seem to confirm this, as if to show them by what
means they might be placed at Christ s right hand and left.
" You know not what you ask " is as if what they asked
were good indeed, but not properly understood by them ;
the places they sought for being to be earned, not by
prayers, but by desert. All these suggestions have reason :
the last, perhaps, the most.
Can you drink the chalice that I shall drink.
It is clear that Christ refers to His passion and death
which He calls a "chalice," as in chap. xxvi. 39 ; 5. Mark xiv.
36 ; 5. Luke xxii. 42 ; 5. John xviii. 1 1 ; but why He calls
them a chalice is not evident. S. Chrysostom, Euthymius,
and Theophylact think that it was because He underwent
death as willingly as one would drink a cup of wine. The
ISO THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xx. 22.
word " chalice " is probably derived from the custom of a
criminal having to drink a cup of poison, as in the case of
Socrates. So Ps. cxv. 13: "I will take the chalice of
salvation, and I will call upon the name of the Lord," that
is, I will endure death willingly, and call upon the name of
the Lord. So it is understood by Origen and S. Jerome.
There is also another metaphor of the chalice in Scripture
from the ancient custom of the Jews, by which the father
of the family, or his most honoured guest, mixed the wine,
according to his pleasure, and gave to some more and to
others less. Thus a better portion fell to some and a worse
to others. In this sense, the lot of each man as sent by
God, good or bad, is called in Scripture a chalice, as in
Ps. xv. 5 ; xxii. 5, which speak of good : Ps. x. 7 ; Ixxiv.
8; li. 17, of evil; and in many other places of Scrip
ture. The same thing is signified by another metaphor.
For baptism is also put for suffering and death, as Christ
speaks in 5. Luke xii. 50. Hence martyrdom is also
called baptism, a metaphor taken probably from those who
are sunk into the sea to destroy them ; for, in the Greek,
baptism means submerging.
Christ did not put this question to the Apostles from
ignorance, but according to the custom of men who ask a
general who is looking on to a triumph whether he can
defeat the enemy. Ke shows by what means they can
arrive at the way to such honour, both by His words and
by His example. By His words, as when He said, "Are
you able ? " and by His example, as when He said, " The
chalice that I shall drink ". He acted as a good leader,
encouraging His followers to fight. So S. Paul (Rom. viii.
17 ; Philipp. ii. 5, 6, 7, 8 ; 2 Tim, ii. 5).
We can.
Some, as S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius,
think that as the disciples made their petitions rashly and
CH.XX. 23.] THE SONS OF ZEBEDEE. l8l
ambitiously, so they answered in the same manner. Others
say, that as they asked for they knew not what before, so
now they promised what they did not understand ; not
that they did not understand that Christ spoke of His
death, but that they did not know what it was to die. Per
haps they answered, neither rashly nor ignorantly, but
with love and truth, that they were prepared to die for
Christ, as the result proved. Their subsequent flight with
the other Apostles can very easily be explained. They
were unable to assist Christ in any way, and we read that
S. John, one of the two sons of Zebedee, followed Him
even to the cross.
Verse 23. My chalice , indeed, you shall drink.
It is questioned by Origen, S. Jerome, and S. Chrysos-
tom, how the two sons of Zebedee drank the chalice of
Christ ? S. James, we know, was put to death by Herod
(Acts xii. 2), but we do not find that S. John was martyred,
and he has been supposed to be alive even now. They
answer that the exile of John was in the place of martyr
dom, and that he was thrown into boiling oil at Rome.
Thus, his will was not wanting for martyrdom, but martyr
dom for his will. But when Christ said, " My chalice you
shall drink," He did not necessarily foretell that they should
meet death for Him, but only that He would give them
permission to drink of His chalice, but that to sit on His
right hand and on His left could only be given to those
for whom it was prepared by His Father. He appears by
these words to oppose these two things to each other : to
grant them to drink of His chalice ; and to permit them to
sit on His right hand and on His left.
But to sit on My right or left hand is not Mine to give to you ,
but to them for w/iom it is prepared.
The Arians frequently apply this text to prove that the
power of Christ is less than that of the Father. They
1 82 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xx. 23.
were answered, among others, by S. Epiphanius (Her., Ixix.),
S. Ambrose (De Fide, v. 3), S. Augustin (De Trinitat.,\. 12),
and S. Cyril (Thesaurus, TL. 5). They answer the Arians in
three ways. Some say that Christ spoke these words, not
as God, but as man, as He spoke many others; e.g., S.John
xiv. 28 : " The Father is greater than I ". S. Augustin
says that the word " Mine " does not mean power, but
office, and that Christ did not mean that it was not in His
power to do this but in His office, as He had not come upon
earth to give away crowns but to incite to conflict. This
may be so, but it does not appear to be the true meaning
of the words. The true meaning of them is that expressed
by S. Ambrose, S. Epiphanius, and S. Cyril, as above ; by
S.Chrysostom (Horn. Ixvi.), and by S.Jerome in his Commen
tary (in loc). They say that Christ does not deny that it is
His power and office to give this, but that He will give it
only to those for whom it is prepared by the Father. The
sum is that there is no comparison between Christ and the
Father, as the Arians suppose, as if the Father had power
but the Son had not, but a comparison only between the
persons to whom such honour should be given ; which
cannot be given to all, but only to those for whom it is
prepared by the Father. This is the force of the word
" you," as if Christ had said, " It is not Mine to give to you
because you ask it, or because you are My kindred, and
who have not yet merited it, but it will be given to those for
whom it is prepared by My Father," that is, to those who
have merited it, and, as explained by Remigius (In S.
Thomas), " it will not be given to the proud and ambitious,
which you are, but to the humble, for whom it is prepared
by My Father ".
" If a king," say the above Fathers, " gave a crown to the
victor in the stadium, and held it in his hand, but one who
had not only not conquered, but had not even run in the
race for it, should ask it of him, the king would rightly
CH. xx. 23.] THE SONS OF ZEBEDEE. 183
reply, You could have run, but the crown is not mine to
give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared, that is, for
those who have conquered ." The king would not say
that he could not give it, as it was his, but .that he ought
not to give it except to the victorious, for whom he intended
it. S. Cyril supposes another case. " If a man should ask
something unjust of a just judge, the latter would rightly
answer that he could not do it ; not that he had not the
power, but that he ought not to do it." Hence follows the
great necessity of the word vobis, " to give to you," though
it is not read in most Greek copies, nor is found in any
ancient Greek author that I know of, nor is cited by S.
Augustin (De Trin., i. 12). It is enough that the ancient
version has it, that S. Jerome and S. Ambrose read it, and
that the sense requires it ; but even if it were not found, the
meaning would not be changed, for S. Chrysostom, S.
Cyril, Theophylact, and Euthymius, who do not read it,
agree in the same opinion.
Christ was so far, indeed, from meaning that it was not
His office to distribute the rewards, that He rather declares
that to do this was part of it ; for when He said that it
was not His to give to all, but to those who merited and
were worthy of it, He showed that He would be the judge
and the distributor of rewards, as in 5. John v. 22 ; 5. Luke
xxii. 29, 30 ; and 5. Matt. xix. 28. He promised the
Apostles that they should sit with Him upon twelve seats
as if He were about to grant them this. " Why, then," it
will be said, " did He add, but for whom it is prepared by
My Father/ as if He opposed Himself to the Father ? " He
did not say without reason, " It is not Mine to give, but My
Father s " ; but He said, " For whom it is prepared by My
Father," not that He might have it supposed that He was
not able to give it, but His Father was, but that He was not
able to give it to others than those for whom it was pre
pared by His Father, as S. Chrysostom has rightly ob-
1 84 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xx. 24.
served. But why, then, did He say, " For whom it is
prepared by My Father," rather than " by Me," as if He
ascribed more power to His Father than to Himself? The
answer is obvious. It was said by an attribution common
in Scripture, in which, although all opera externa, as
theologians say, are common to the Three Persons, yet
some are attributed to one Person and some to another, as
if proper and peculiar to them. Thus power and provi
dence are ascribed to the Father, wisdom to the Son, grace
and its gifts to the Holy Ghost ; because, therefore, esse is
prepared, esse was predestinated. But predestination is a
kind of providence which is ascribed to the Father rather
than to the Son ; for we do not find in Scripture that the
Son, or Holy Spirit, but that the Father alone, predestinates.
For whom it is prepared.
The explanation of S. Chrysostom, which Theophylact
also approves, is wonderful that this is given to none, man
nor angel ; for no one can possibly come to sit on the right
or left hand of Christ, who, as S. Paul says to the Ephesians
(i. 20, 21), was placed at the right hand of the Father in the
heavenly places, above all principality and power, and
virtue and dominion, and every name that is named, not
only in this world, but also in that which is to come (Ephes.
i. 20, 21). Wonderful also is the opinion of S. Hilary, who
explains the passage of Moses and Elias, the one of whom
will sit on the right, the other on the left. Wonderful
that of Euthymius, " For whom it is prepared," that is,
for SS. Peter and Paul, who laboured more than all. It is
evident that Christ described no particular individuals, and
regarded not persons, but merits.
Verse 24. A nd the ten hearing it were moved with indigna
tion against the two brethren.
The Author and Euthymius think that the ten were not
less ambitious than the others, because they were indignant
CH.xx.25.] THE SONS OF ZEBEDEE. 185
at the request. But S. Chrysostom piously excused them,
because the Holy Ghost had not yet been poured into
them, by whom all human vices of this kind are purged
away.
Verse 25. But Jesus called them to Him.
It would appear that the two sons of Zebedee, with their
mother, had come to Christ apart and secretly, that the
other disciples might not know it, and asked the first
place of honour, but the other Apostles either overheard
their words, or conjectured from the answer of Christ what
the two had asked, and were indignant, and began to
murmur. Christ therefore called them, and taught them
that He knew their thoughts and words, though unex
pressed, and He corrected their indignation, as He had
corrected the petitions of the others.
You know.
The meaning of Christ seems to be : " Do you not know
that what you do is the act of ambitious rulers ? and not
of all these, but of those of the Gentiles, among whom not
virtue, nor justice, nor dignity, but ambition, violence,
tyranny, obtain kingdoms and principalities ; and where the
rulers seek what is useful and honourable, not for their
people, but for themselves ? " Such appears to be the
opinion of Euthymius. Christ does not abrogate the
authority of kings and princes, for S. Paul (Rom. xiii. I ;
Titus iii. i) and S. Peter (i, iii. 13, 14) teach that all power
is of God, and that even a bad ruler is to be obeyed for
His sake.
Much less does He take away the ecclesiastical autho
rity by which S. Peter (Acts v. 5, 10) punished Ananias
and Sapphira, and S. Paul (i Cor. v. 5 ; i Tim. i. 20) gave
over wicked men to Satan, and which He commended to
S. Timothy (i, iv. 12). He only signifies that the Apostles,
who are called to govern the Church, ought not to follow
1 86 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [On. xx. 28.
the ambition and tyranny of the rulers of the Gentiles.
Christ does not speak of any rulers whatever, but only of
the Gentile princes, who were more cruel and ambitious
than those of the Jews who were given by God and were
restrained by His fear and worship. So S. Peter (i, v. 3)
warns those who are over the Church not to oppress the
clergy. Lastly, He would have the Apostles to be such as
S. Paul describes himself (2 Cor. xii. 14, 15).
Exercise power upon them.
" Exercise power." Dominantur eorum. In eos. A
Grecism and Hebraism. Our version follows both the
former in reading eorum for eos, and the latter in adopting }
not the grammatical, but the natural gender.
Verse 28. And to give His life a redemption for many.
Christ states here what good pastors of the Church
ought to do ; for " the good shepherd layeth down his life
for the sheep " (S. John x. 1 1).
There were, in S. Augustin s time, a body of heretics,
then called Predestinatians, who, like Calvin and his
followers, held that Christ was not born and did not die
for all men, but only for those who were to be saved, or
the predestined. Godeschalcus, in the time of Lothario, in
France, held this error, He was opposed by Hincmar,
Bishop of Rheims. They founded their opinion on 5.
Matt. xxvi. 28 : "This is My blood of the New Testament,
which shall be shed for many, unto remission of sins," and
Heb. ix. 28 : "Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins
of many ".
But what can be plainer than the words of S. Paul
(i Tim. ii. 6 ; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15). But why did Christ here,
and in S. Mark x. 45, not say that He came to give
His life for the redemption of all, but for many ? Why
did He say that He shed His blood for many, and why did
CH. xx. 30.] UNIVERSALITY OF CHRIST S REDEMPTION. 187
S. Paul say Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of
many ? The reasons may be :
1. Either "many" is here used for "all," the part for the
whole, as the Greeks use the word vroXXot to express an infinite
number, and the Latins multitude to express all omnes.
2. Or, more probably, Christ regarded, not His own
will, but the fruit of His suffering. For, if we regard His
will, He died for all men, without any single exception,
as the Scriptures cited above demonstrate. But, if we
consider the fruit of His death, He did not come for all,
because all were not willing to share in it. So we see that
Christ sometimes prayed for all, even for the reprobate and
for those who crucified Him (S. Luke xxiii. 34), to show
that He wished and would have all men to be saved. At
other times He prayed only for the elect (S. John xvii. 9).
This is how the question is answered by S. Jerome.
Verse 30. And behold two blind men.
It is doubtful whether S. Matthew describes the same
events as that in 5. Mark x. 46 and 5. Luke xviii. 35.
They relate the cure of three blind men by Christ near
Jericho. Some, as Eustathius, think the history that of
three different events, because S. Matthew speaks of two
blind men, S. Mark and S. Luke of one ; and S. Mark says
that he cast off his garments, and leaped up and came to
Christ, of which the other Evangelists make no mention.
Others think the accounts histories of two events (S.
Augustin, De Consens., ii. 65, and Quasi. Evangelic. , ii. 48 ;
Bede, Strabus, and De Lyra, in loc.~). For what S. Matthew
and S. Mark describe as one history, S. Luke describes as
if it were a different one. The former two Evangelists say
that the cure took place when Christ had gone out from
Jericho ; but S. Luke says that Christ was drawing near
that city. These accounts seem to the above authorities
so diverse that they think it impossible that they can apply
1 88 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xx. 30.
to the same event. Theophylact seems to consider more
rightly that the three accounts form one history. For all
the events were so similar that it cannot be thought that
they could have been different miracles. All the Evange
lists say that it happened in the last journey from Galilee
to Jerusalem ; all put it in the same place, the neighbour
hood of Jericho ; all say that the blind man or men sat by
the wayside by which Christ passed, and that all the men
cried out in the same words, " Thou Son of David, have
mercy on us " ; all were ordered by the crowd to hold their
peace ; all cried out the more vehemently ; all say that
Christ stood and called the blind men to Him, and that He
asked them all the same question, "What will ye that I do
to you?" There could not possibly have been so many
similar circumstances in two or three different histories.
As to what S. Matthew says, that there were two blind
men, and S. Mark and S. Luke only one, S. Augustin pro
perly says that there were two, as S. Matthew says, but
one was of higher rank than the other and better known,
and therefore S. Mark and S. Luke mentioned him only.
This conjecture is strengthened by the fact that S. Mark
gives his name and that of his father, as if he were a man
well known to all, calling him Bar, the son of Timseus. We
have a similar expression in chap. viii. 28, where S. Matthew
says that the two demoniacs were healed by Christ, in the
region of the Gerasines, when S. Mark (v. 2) and S. Luke
(viii. 27) speak only of one.
It is a more difficult question how S. Matthew (here) and
S. Mark (x. 46) say that this happened when Christ was
going out of Jericho, but S. Luke (xviii. 35) says that it
was when He was approaching the city. The Greek will
not admit the explanation of those who say that the words
mean when He was going out thence, but was still near it,
for the Greek is ev rco eyyl&iv avrov els Jept^o), when He
was drawing nigh to Jericho to enter it.
CH. xx. 31. 34-] TWO BLIND MEN HEALED. 189
Their conjecture appears much more probable, that the
blind man of higher rank, of whom S. Mark and S. Luke
make mention, when Christ was drawing near the city, sat
down by the wayside and cried out to Christ as He passed
by, "Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me"; but
Christ would not heal him then, that He might heal the
other two afterwards at the same time. That the blind
man again sat by the wayside, because he knew that
Christ would go out that way, and he cried out again with
the other in the same words, and that they were then
called by Christ and healed. Nor is there any difficulty in
the fact that S. Matthew and S. Mark say that the miracle
was performed when Christ went out, and S. Luke when
He drew near ; nor in S. Mark s account of the blind
man s casting away his garment, and in S. Matthew s
relating that Christ touched his eyes, which the other
Evangelists do not mention : for one Evangelist often
relates a circumstance which the others pass over.
Thou Son of David.
Why Christ was so addressed, especially by those who
sought some benefit from Him, has been explained in the
Preface.
Verse 31. And the multitude rebuked them that they should
hold their peace.
Not, we must believe, in any bad spirit, but in love, and
with the desire that the men should not be troublesome
to Christ by their clamour. So say The Author and
Euthymius.
Verse 34. Touched their eyes.
Why Christ did this has been explained on chap. viii. 3.
S. Mark, however, and S. Luke add that Christ said, " Thy
faith hath made thee whole ". How this is to be under
stood has been fully explained on chap. ix. 2.
CHAPTER XXI.
CHRIST RIDES INTO JERUSALEM UPON AN ASS HE CASTS
THE BUYERS AND SELLERS OUT OF THE TEMPLE-
CURSES THE FIG-TREE AND PUTS TO SILENCE THE
PRIESTS AND SCRIBES.
Verse I. And when they drew nigh to Jerusalem and were
come to Bethphage.
BETHPHAGE was situated at the foot of the Mount of
Olives, close to Jerusalem (S. Luke xxi. 37). S. Mark (xi.
i) says : " When they were drawing near to Jerusalem and
Bethania, at the Mount of Olives," &c. ; S. Luke (xix. 29) :
" It came to pass when He was come -nigh to Bethphage
and Bethania, unto the mount called Olivet, He sent two
of His disciples ". Bethphage and Bethany were about
equidistant from Jerusalem, for S. Matthew says : " When
they drew nigh to Jerusalem and were come to Beth
phage " ; and S. Mark : " When they were drawing near to
Jerusalem and to Bethany ". Bethphage was about a
Sabbath day s journey from Jerusalem (Acts i. 12), which
Origen states to have been one mile. Others think that it
was two miles. S. John (xi. 18) says that it was fifteen
furlongs distant. Christ most probably, when at Jeru
salem, went at night to the Mount of Olives, as S. Luke
says (xxi. 37) ; and He may have frequented the house of
Mary the sister of Lazarus, which, as S. John (xii. i) tells
us, was in Bethany.
.CH. xxi. 2, 4.] ENTRY OF CHRIST INTO JERUSALEM. 191
Verse 2. An ass and a colt.
S. Mark and S. John speak of the colt alone ; S. Matthew
describes it as a she-ass, to state the whole event as it
happened, and to show that the words of Zacharias (ix. 9)
were fulfilled, who seems to speak not only of the colt but
also of the ass ; the latter being perhaps mentioned to
show that the colt was so young as not yet to have
carried a rider, as described by S. Mark (xi. 2) and S. Luke
(xix. 30) ; for colts are not separated from their dams until
they can carry. The other Evangelists only mention the
foal, because on this alone Christ sat.
Verse 4. This was done.
The meaning is twofold. It may be intended either :
1. To signify, not the cause, but the effect, as explained
on chap. ii. 15, as if it were said that Christ did so that
the prophecy of Zacharias might be fulfilled ; or,
2. To show the final cause, as if the Evangelist meant
that Christ "desired to enter Jerusalem on an ass, to show
that the prophecy of Zacharias applied to Him. This
appears more likely ; for S. Chrysostom and The Author
say on this passage, " that it is not to be supposed that
Christ chose to enter Jerusalem on an ass without a reason,
or any signification of mystery, when He had never entered
it so before ". His chief reason may have been, perhaps,
to compel the Jews to acknowledge Him as the King and
Messiah from that prophecy. For, as S. Chrysostom
argues, what other king of the Jews ever entered Jerusalem
on an ass of whom this prophecy could possibly be under
stood ? S. Chrysostom gives another reason : He did it to
show the Apostles and all men an example of humility.
The Author offers a third : that Christ wished by this act
to cause enmity in the minds of the Jews against Him,
that, now the time of His death was come, He might irri
tate them against Him and cause them to give Him over
THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. xxi. 5.
to death ; as at other times, when His death was not near,
He had been accustomed to deliver Himself out of their
hands, as related by S. Luke (iv. 30). He also appears to
have wished to place before the eyes of the Apostles the
nature of His kingdom, which consisted of humanity.
Verse 5. Tell ye the daughter of Z ion.
These words are not in Zacharias, but either the Evan
gelist added them in explanation, or he put into one the
words of Zacharias and Isaiah (Ixii. 1 1). The latter says :
" Tell the daughter of Zion her Saviour cometh " ; Zacha
rias says : " Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion ; shout for
joy, O daughter of Jerusalem. Behold, thy King will come
to thee : the just and Saviour ; He is poor, and riding
upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass " (ix. 9).
S. Matthew did not cite all the words of the prophecy
because, as shall be explained hereafter, they were not
necessary ; nor did he follow the Hebrew version, but, as in
many other places, that of the LXX.
Daughters of Sion.
This is a Hebraism, and a Synecdoche; a Hebraism, as
the city is termed " a daughter," an expression often found
in the Sacred Writings and among the Greek poets. The
Latins followed them, and frequently called their cities by
the names of women. And a Synecdoche, as taking a part for
the whole ; for Sion was a mountain on which only part of
the city was built. The city was called Sion because the
palace was on it. S. John cites the prophecy in other
words (xii. 15), following the meaning rather than the
words. For the Prophet says " Rejoice," and the Evan
gelist " Fear not " ; for he who rejoices does not fear.
Behold thy king.
The Prophet seems to point, as it were with his finger, to
the long-expected Messiah, as now at hand, and before
CH. xxi. 5.] ENTRY OF CHRIST INTO JERUSALEM. 193
their eyes. Although Zacharias used the future, it was no
doubt according to the Hebrew idiom that he put that
tense for the present. The LXX., knowing this, rendered
the passage by the present, as S. Matthew has done :
Cometh to thee.
These words are to be taken together, as is clear from
the Hebrew context: w N*)^ veniet tibi. The Prophet
signifies to the daughter of Zion that her King is come to
her that is, He whom she has expected for so many ages.
For he says that He was sent properly to the daughter of
Zion that is, the Jewish people ; for Christ had not come
but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, as He had said
(xv. 24). They, therefore, who join the words "to thee"
to that which follows " meek," as if He were meek to thee
not angry, not elated, not cruel although they shoot
well, shoot beyond the mark.
Meek.
The Hebrew is ^V "pauper"; but the LXX. converted
it into *W " meek," because they probably read "^ and
the Evangelist followed them, though with no prejudice to
the meaning of the Prophet ; for the poor are mostly
humble and meek, and the two words in Hebrew are
derived from the same root.
Sitting upon an ass, and a colt.
A question arises here as to how Christ could sit both
upon an ass and a colt. Some, as S. Jerome and Bede,
think that the words must be understood allegorically ;
others, that Christ not only sat upon both, but that
He sat upon the ass first and the colt afterwards.
This they regard as a mystery. They think the ass
to have represented the Jews, on which Christ sat
first, and the colt the Gentiles, to which He passed on
when He had left the Jews ; so Theophylact, Strabus, and
213
194 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxi. 5.
others. But it is clear from the other Evangelists that
Christ sat only on the colt ; both because they make no
mention of the ass, and because SS. Mark and Luke show
that mysterii causa, He would not sit on a female or even
on a male ass, but only on a colt on which no man had
ever sat. Whether this was because He desired to fore
show the Gentiles as being yet rude and unbroken, or that
it did not become Him to sit on an ass on which other
men had sat, or, as some think, that He might show His
power in making an unbroken colt submit to Him.
There is another question, how S. Matthew seems not
merely to intimate that Christ sat both on the ass and the
colt, and not on one alone, but to state plainly that He did
so. Some say that the Greek word 6W?, although meaning
both a male and female ass, should be rendered asimim
and not asinam ; as if, by a repetition common among the
Hebrews, who often express the same thing by different
words, to show that there was only one animal, and not
two, as if the Evangelist had said sitting upon an ass and
a colt the foal of an ass, which had been broken to the
yoke. The Hebrew word ^VtoH chamor, used here by the
Prophets, almost always means the male animal ; very
seldom the female.
Euthymius is of this opinion, and it seems very probable ;
but we should observe that S. Matthew speaks so as to
leave no doubt that he meant to say that Christ sat upon a
female ass, and a colt ; nor was it without reason that the
word which in the Prophet is doubtful, and may be taken
to mean either a male or female animal, is rendered by
him without ambiguity by the latter ; especially as neither
Jonathas the Chaldean Paraphrast nor the LXX. had so
rendered it. Our version appears quite correct in using the
word asina (female ass) ; for Christ, in verse 2, spoke of an
ass and her colt where the Greek participle SeSe/ze^r,
" bound/ being in the feminine, removes all ambiguity.
CH. xxi. 7.] ENTRY OF CHRIST INTO JERUSALEM. 195
I approve, therefore, the opinion of those who say that
the Evangelist spoke by Synecdoche or Syllepsis, as we
speak of one thing by the expression of more than one ; as
when it is said that the Apostles murmured about the
ointment, when it is clear that Judas alone did so ; and as
we are told that the thieves at the Crucifixion railed, when
another Evangelist says that only one did so. I think
that the Evangelist said designedly asinam^ and not asiniim,
and so spoke as to show that Christ seemed to have sat
upon each, so that if a person should understand the
Prophet in this sense, namely, that the coming King would
sit on an ass and a colt both, he could not blame the
Prophet as if the prophecy were not fulfilled in Christ.
Why, then, did the Apostles spread their garments, not
only upon the colt, but also upon the ass ? as is said in
verse 7. Euthymius answers that it was because they did
not know which of the two Christ would prefer the ass
or the colt. This is not probable, however, because when
S. Mark and S. Luke say that Christ said to those whom
He sent to loose the colt, " You shall find the colt of an
ass tied, on which no man hath ever sitten " (S. Luke xix.
30), they could not be ignorant that Christ would choose
to ride, not upon the ass, but upon the colt. We shall,
therefore, answer the question better by saying that the
Evangelist spoke, as in other cases, by Syllepsis.
Verse 7. And made Him sit thereon.
The word " thereon," eVa^w avrwv, may apply either to
the ass, or to the garments, as is observed by Euthymius
and Theophylact.
Verse 8. And a very great multitude.
This multitude was composed of those who had followed
Christ to Jerusalem for the sake of the miracles, as is clear
from 5. John xii. 12. The Apostles appear to have begun
the rejoicing (S. Luke xix. 37).
196 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxi. g.
Verse 9. Hosanna to the Son of David.
Many different meanings of these words have been
given ; some have taken them to be a mere exclamation
of rejoicing or entreaty. S. Jerome to Damasus objects to
S. Hilary s assertion that it means " Redemption of the
house of David " ; an idea which S. Ambrose (On S. Liike
xix.) may be thought to have borrowed from him ; each,
as shall be shown by and by, was unjustly blamed. Others,
as Euthymius, think that the words were a hymn, meaning
" Praise to God ". Others, again, understand by them, the
boughs which the Jews used to carry on the feast of
Tabernacles, crying, "Hosanna, Hosanna"; they who carried
them being accustomed to cry " Hosanna," and the boughs
themselves having gained the title of " Hosanna" from being
thus carried. The Jews in memory of this custom are
supposed to have now broken off the branches, and cried,
" Hosanna," as if they had said, " Cut them off and give
them to the Son of David ".
But this seems questionable. Because it does not seem,
probable that the multitude would have been induced by
the custom of tabernacles to carry branches before Christ,
because He had no part in them ; they being only carried
to commemorate the time during which the Jews were
dwelling in tents, and it is not to be supposed that the
multitude, more especially when under the guidance of the
Apostles, would have cut down branches from the trees
without reason.
The opinion of S. Jerome, then, both on this passage
and in his Epistle to Damasus, seems most probable,
that Hosanna means only NSn^t^in " Preserve, I pray
Thee " salvum fac obsecro and is taken from Ps.
cxvii. 25.
But it is doubtful to whom, as the agent (personam
agenteni), and to whom as the object (pattens ), the words
apply. All ancient commentators seem to refer them to
CH. xxi. 9.] ENTRY OF CHRIST INTO JERUSALEM. 1 97
Christ as the former, and to the multitude as the latter ; as
if they said : " Save us, O Son of David ". S. Irenaeus (iv.
24), Origen (Tract, xv. on S. Matt.}, S. Hilary (Can. xxi.),
S. Ambrose (On S. Luke xix.), S. Jerome and Bede
(in loc.\ S. Hilary, and S. Ambrose had this meaning
when they said that "Hosanna" meant "Redemption of
the house of David," as if the multitude which cried
"Hosanna," that is, "Save, I beseech Thee," had professed
by that word that Christ was come, as the Redeemer of
the house of David.
But there is much to be urged against this view.
1. The multitude does not seem to have thought of Christ
as the true God and Redeemer; as, on the other hand, they
were not ignorant that the hymn of "Hosanna" was not
sung but to the true God alone.
2. Because the words which immediately followed,
" Blessed is He who cometh in the name of the Lord,"
are referred to Christ, not as the agent (persona agens\ but
as the one blessed, for they did not pray Christ to bless
Himself, but that God would bless Him.
3. In the Psalm from which the words are taken,
"Hosanna" is referred, not to Him "who cometh in the
name of the Lord," but to God, and it is not to be supposed
that the multitude, much less the Apostles, who went before,
spoke the words in any other sense than that in which they
were uttered by David.
4. The meaning does not agree, for what sense is there
in saying, " Save us to the Son of David " (Salva nos filio
David] ; and although some authorities, and S. Irenaeus
among them, read " O Son " (fili notfilio), yet the texts of
both the Greek and Latin versions unite in reading the
dative and not the vocative.
5. If we follow this explanation, the question will arise,
How we are to understand what immediately follows :
" Hosanna in the highest " ? For, what meaning is there
198 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. XXL g.
in " Save us, O Son of David, in the highest " ? I entirely
accept the opinion of the moderns, who say that the words
should be referred to God as the agent, arid to Christ as
the object. For the people prayed to God to keep and
prosper the new king so long wished for, as in Psalm xliv.
4, 5. David speaks of Christ : " Gird Thy sword upon Thy
thigh, O Thou most mighty ; with Thy comeliness and Thy
beauty set out, proceed prosperously, and reign " ; and as
we are accustomed to pray for the prosperity of new kings,
and to cry " Vivat Rex" and as the Jews of old did ; as I
Kings x. 24; 3 Kings i. 25, 39, 40, and many other like
passages of Scripture show.
This " Hosanna," then, has the same meaning as Vivat
Rex ; and the people s carrying palm branches resembled
the custom of their own and other nations, of carrying
boughs of trees to celebrate victories and triumphs (i
Machab. xiii. 51).
The idea, therefore, of those who would refer the whole
ceremony to the festival of Tabernacles, cannot be received.
For in that feast the people carried branches, not in token
of joy, but in commemoration. But this multitude carried
them like those who are triumphant and rejoicing. It is
clear, besides, that all who take this view must wholly do
away with the mystery of this remarkable act. Nor can we
doubt that the multitude acted by no blind and unreasoning
impulse, but by deliberate design or, more probably, divine
impulse, that all might understand that what David said of
the future Messiah was fulfilled in Christ. A strong argu
ment for this opinion is seen in verse 15, when even infants
are said to have cried out in the same words. They could
only have done this by divine influence ; not by custom or
any human design, so that they did not now cry out
Vivat Rex, but, in its place, " Hosanna ".
But it will be objected that this explanation is at vari
ance with the Greek and Latin construction ; for when the
CH. xxi. 9.] ENTRY OF CHRIST INTO JERUSALEM. 199
multitude prayed God to keep Christ, it did not say,
11 Hosanna to the Son " (Filio\ but " Hosanna the Son "
(Filium) of David. The reply is that this is a Hebraism
which both the Greek and Latin follow. For the Hebrew
word yftF is found not only with the accusative, but also
with the dative case, as in Dent. xxii. 27 ; Joshua x. 4 ;
Judges vii. 2 ; I Kings xxv. 26 ; Ps. xliii. 4 ; Ixxxv. 16.
Blessed is He that conieth.
That is, May His coming be blessed, as cited before
from Ps. xliv. 5.
In tJie name of the Lord.
These words mean not only one who was sent by God,
but also one who bore the person of God, who through
him visited His people. S. Mark adds (xi. 10) : " Blessed
be the kingdom of our father David that cometh, Hosanna
in the highest". The repetition of the word " Hosanna " is
the result of strong feeling. One of the best explanations
of " Hosanna in the highest " seems to be that the Greek
pronoun 6 should be understood after " Hosanna qui es in
altissimis? an example of which ellipsis is found in Ps.
cxlviii. I. But this seems a hard and unusual explanation.
A still better may be that the word ev is put for e/c, as in
Hebrew 1 for }ft (Exod. xii. 43 ; Levit. viii. 32 ; 2 Paralip.
xvi. 6; and in Ps. cxlviii. cited by others). " Praise the
Lord, praise Him, de coelis in excelsis" as if it had been said
de excelsis. It is clearly a repetition and a Hebraism. The
LXX. and S. Jerome follow it and read "in" for "de"
altissimis, for they ask God to keep the new king de coelo
that is, from heaven, divinely, wonderfully. Hence we see
how S. Luke s saying (xix. 38) that the multitude cried
out, " Pax in Coelo et gloria in excelsis " (" Peace in heaven
and glory in the highest "), is not opposed to his words (chap,
ii. 14). For there the angels announced, Glory to God,
peace to men : here the multitude pray for glory and peace
200 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxr. 10.
to Christ, in excelsis, that is, ab excelsis, and from God.
For S. Luke puts eV for etc, and in for de.
Verse 10. The whole city was moved.
It is not to be believed to the letter that every individual
person in the city was moved, but at least the greater part
of the city was so ; e.g., the Scribes, Pharisees and priests,
who were the chief people in authority. In like manner,
the Evangelist says (chap. ii. 3), that the whole city was
moved by the arrival of the Magi. But the city was not
moved now by joy, or wonder, or fear, but by envy and
malignity, at seeing Christ received with such honour ; as
the following words seem to signify.
Who is this ?
They were not ignorant who Christ was, for they had
known Him now three years. They meant, Who is He
that He should receive so much honour ? So the men of
Nazareth had said : " Is not this the carpenter s son
(chap. xiii. 55).
A nd the people.
That is, the multitude which followed Him, not the
people of Jerusalem. S. Matthew opposes the multitude
who followed Christ to the citizens of Jerusalem. The latter
asked in contempt and envy, " Who is this ? " the former
answered in faith. "This is Jesus the Prophet from Nazareth".
The word "prophet" here does not include any prophet
whatever, but that Messiah promised of old, and long ex
pected. This is clear from the preceding acclamation,
" Hosanna," and " Blessed is He," &c. For the Messiah
had been promised, not only under the name of a King,
but also of a Prophet (as in Deut. xviii. 15), which S. Peter
(Acts iii.) and S. Stephen (vii. 37) explain of Christ.
Of Nazareth.
Christ had three places of abode Bethlehem, in which He
was born ; Nazareth, in which He was brought up ; and
CH. xxi. 12.] CHRIST IN THE TEMPLE. 2OI
Capernaum, in which He mostly lived as has been ex
plained on chap. ix. i.
Verse 12. And Jesus went into the Temple of God.
It is not quite clear when Christ entered the Temple.
Some say that He rode through the city on the ass and
went directly into the Temple. Others say that it was not
on the same day as that on which He entered the city, but
the day after, as S. Mark seems to imply (chap. xi. 15),
and that S. Matthew mentioned the entrance by anticipa
tion. Others think that He entered the Temple on the
same day as that on which He entered the city, and that
S. Mark has not kept the order of events, but, as a recapi
tulation, relates on the following day what happened on the
day previous. This is the opinion of S. Augustin (ii. 67, De
Consens.\ and he supports it from verse 17 : " And leaving
them He went out of the city into Bethania and remained
there ". In these words the Evangelist indicates that
Christ, before He went out of the city to go to Bethany,
held the disputation related by S. Matthew and S. Mark
with the priests ; though S. Mark mentions it as having
taken place on the second day, when Christ had returned
from Bethany to Jerusalem again.
Others, to harmonise SS. Matthew and Mark, say that
Christ entered the Temple on both days. This is very
probable, because whenever Christ was in Jerusalem He
went into the Temple ; but it is not to the purpose (abs re}*
because the Evangelists designed to speak not of every
entrance of Christ into the Temple, but only of the
particular one in which the events related by them took
place, when the children who were in the Temple cried out
" Hosanna," and the priests asked Christ if He heard what
they said. It is probable that this was done, not on the
second day, but on the first ; and, therefore, the opinion of
S. Augustin appears to be much more likely, for S. John
202 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxi. 12.
has given a similar account (xii. 14, 15). And it is very
probable, as S. Chrysostom, S. Augustin, and Euthymius
think, that this is a similar account, but not the same, and
that Christ twice cast out the buyers and sellers from the
Temple.
When Christ is said to have entered the Temple, the
first part of it must be understood, which is called " The
Hall " and " Solomon s Porch ". Here Christ used to teach
and to walk (S. JoJin x. 23) ; for this part was common to
all (Acts iii. 1 1 ; verses 1 1, 12). For into the other two parts
the priests alone entered, as S. Paul says (Heb. ix. 6, 7).
It was in the hall of the Temple that the buyers and sellers
took their stations.
That sold.
This passage cannot be better explained than by the
words of S. Jerome. " We must remember," he says, " in
the first place, that according to the commands of the law
in the Temple of the Lord, the most august in the world,
an innumerable number of victims was offered up by the
Jewish people who flocked into it from almost all parts of
the world, and most epecially on the Jewish festivals
bulls, rams, goats the poorer classes offering the young of
doves and turtles that they might not be without sacrifices.
For it very frequently happened that such as came from a
distance had no victims to offer. The priests then con
sidered how they could make a profit out of the people,
and sell all the animals required for sacrifice in such a
manner as both to dispose of them to those who had none,
and, when sold, to get possession of them again themselves.
This artifice, however, was often defeated by the poverty of
the strangers, who were of the indigent classes, and not only
had no sacrificial victims, but were even in want of the
means of purchasing birds and the more humble kinds
of offerings. Accordingly they placed money-changers to
lend money under security ; but, because it was forbidden
CH. xxi. 12.] CHRIST IN THE TEMPLE. 2O3
by the law to take usury, and money lent which had no
percentage of interest brought no profit, and they some
times lost their capital, they thought of another plan, and
made Colybistae instead of money-changers. The mean
ing of this word is not expressed in Latin, but it has the
same meaning as the Greek word tragemata, offerings of no
value. Such are parched peas, dried grapes, and apples of
different kinds. The Colybistae, therefore, who were not
allowed usury, and who lent money at interest, received
different kinds of articles in return in the place of usury, so
that what they could not gain in money they gained by
such things as are procured by money." The only doubt
about this account of S. Jerome is whether the custom was
really originated by the priests.
A nd overthrew the chairs of them that sold doves.
It may be asked why the Evangelist did not say that
Christ overthrew the seats of the money-changers rather
than of those who sold doves, as the former would be more
likely to use seats than the latter. The answer may be,
that the Evangelist desired to describe the greater and to
pass over the less ; and, as with regard to the money
changers, it was a greater thing to overturn their tables
with their money than their seats. S. Matthew, therefore,
mentioned the former and not the latter.
Many have wondered why the money-changers, and
that class of avaricious men, offered no resistance to Christ.
S. Jerome well says : "Many have thought that the greatest
miracles were the raising of Lazarus from the dead ; the
making a man, blind from His birth, to see ; the
voice of the Father being heard at the Jordan ; Christ s
showing His pride and glory in His Transfiguration on the
mount. To me, among all the others, it seems more
wonderful that, as one Man, and He at the time con
temptible and so vile as to be subsequently crucified, with
204 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxi. 13, 16.
the Scribes and Pharisees raging against Him, and seeing
their gains destroyed, He could by the stripes of His single
scourge cast out so great a multitude, overthrow the tables,
break the seats, and do other things, which a whole army
could not have done. For something of fire and of the
sidereal flashed from His eyes, and the majesty of His
Divinity shone in His face."
Verse 13. It is written.
{Jeremiah vii. n.) What Jeremiah said of the men of
his own time, Christ applied to these money-changers and
sellers of doves, as (xv. 8) the prophecy is not interpreted,
but applied to individual persons.
Verse 16. Out of the mouths of infants.
It is doubtful whether the children who so cried were
actually infants or children of a somewhat more advanced
age, who heard the multitude cry, " Hosanna to the Son of
David," and imitated them. S. Hilary, The Author, and
Strabus think that they were children and not infants. S.
Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact, that they were
really and strictly infants. This seems more probable,
both because this would greatly augment the glory of
Christ, and because the words have this meaning. Christ
also seems to speak in this sense when He says, " If these
shall hold their peace the very stones will cry out" (5.
Luke xix. 40).
Thou hast perfected praise.
KarijpTLo-cD aivov. Thou hast attained to perfect praise.
In the same sense, David says, "Thou hast perfected
praise " (Ps. viii. 3) that is, Thou hast made it firm, per
petual, immortal, as there explained. David from humble
ness called himself a babe and suckling, out of whose
mouth, as it gave thanks for the victory over Goliath, God
CH. xxi. 17, 18.] CHRIST TO CHIEF PRIESTS AND SCRIBES. 2O5
gained great praise, as the words immediately following
show : " That thou mayest destroy the enemy and the
avenger " that is, " Because thou hast destroyed him," this
being the meaning of the Hebrew. It should be observed
that by this application of the words to Himself, Christ
declares His Divinity. For what David said to God, He
explains as said to Himself.
Verse 17. And leaving them.
" Them " that is, the chief priests and Scribes who are
spoken of in verse 15. There are various opinions as to the
reason of Christ having left them. The Evangelist seems
to signify that there was on His part some fixed and not
slight reason for what He did, or S. Matthew would not
have said, " He left them and went out," but it would have
been sufficient merely to say that He returned to Bethany,
for He had His dwelling there. The words " leaving
them " seem to show that He left them for their own good.
S. Chrysostom, The Author, and Euthymius say that He
left them that they might not seize Him before His time.
Theophylact, because they were not worthy of His pre
sence. Either reason is more probable than that of S.
Jerome, Bede, and Strabus, that because He was poor, He
could find no hospitality in the city. It is incredible that
no one would have received Him into his house, when so
many believed in Him.
Verse 18. He was hungry.
Some think that Christ was not really hungry, as it was
morning, but that He pretended to be so to work a miracle,
as Euthymius (and perhaps S. Augustin) thinks. This is
very probable. For, as will be shown, He feigned to look
for figs on the fig-tree, when He knew that it had none.
Certainly, if He had been really hungry, S. Chrysostom
seems to judge rightly that it was not with a natural
206 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxi. 19.
hunger, but with one assumed voluntarily, to give cause for
the miracle, as (in chap. viii. 24) the storm on the lake was
not a natural storm, but one caused by His will, that He
might have occasion to put forth His power of ruling the
winds and the sea, and so to show His Divinity.
Verse 19. And found nothing on it.
It is not wonderful that Christ found no fruit, for, as S.
Mark says (xi. 13), the time of figs was not yet. It was the
eleventh day of March, as the Evangelists clearly show.
Calvin says preposterously that Christ looked for fruit, as
not knowing what the tree was, and thinking at a distance
that it was some other kind of tree, such as might have had
ripe fruit. Christ could not have been ignorant what kind
of tree it was, and that no tree could give ripe fruit at that
time of year. To use the language of Calvin for a moment
that Christ did not know the tree why did He curse it
when He saw that it was a fig-tree, which could not then
have ripe fruit? Christ, therefore, spoke as He did, de
signedly, knowing both that it was a fig-tree and that it
had no fruit, but pretending, more hominum, that He was
looking for fruit which He knew that He should not find
acting thus either to give occasion for the miracle, as S.
Augustin (Qucest. Evang., ii. 5), and S. Chrysostom and
Euthymius (in loc.) suppose, or perhaps to set forth the
mystery which shall shortly be explained.
There is another question. Why did Christ curse the fig-
tree, and make it wither away, as if in punishment because
it had no fruit at a time when it could not have had any ?
as S. Mark says, as if to excuse the tree. For it was not
the time for figs (xi. 13). He acted, then, not in a fit of
anger, which could not affect Him, nor to bring punishment
on a tree which could not have deserved such, nor have felt
it if it had ; but only to declare a mystery, as Origen, in his
Tract, on S. Matt, xvii., and SS. Hilary and Jerome suppose.
CH. xxi. 19.] THE BARREN FIG-TREE. 2O/
The mystery is that the Synagogue was the tree planted by
God in His own vineyard, from which He had often sought
fruit, but on which He had never found any, as is said Isaiah
v. 2, and by the parable of the other fig-tree in 6*. Luke xiii.
6, 7. As that one, therefore, was cut down, so now Christ
withered up this one ; that is, He did away with the Law
and the Synagogue, because they bore the fruits of no good
works; as Christ teaches in the other parable of the vineyard
soon after, in verse 33 the conclusion, in verse 43, being :
" The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given
to a nation yielding the fruits thereof". Christ shows that
it should be given to the Gentiles because they would bring
forth the fruits of it, and taken away from the Jews because
they had brought forth none ; rather, they had slain the
only son and heir of the lord of it.
It will be said that it was shown by the tree that the
time was not come when the Synagogue should bring forth
fruit. " For it was not the time of figs." The fig-tree was
not withered away for this reason, but because Christ only
desired by that act without words to show that He could
wither up the Synagogue because it did not bear fruit, as
the Synagogue had borne none. In that point only, there
fore, which Christ desired to teach, ought the fig-tree to be
compared to the Synagogue neither of them had any fruit.
But no comparison should be instituted on those points on
which Christ did not raise a comparison between them ; as
that because it was not the time when the fig-tree should
have had fruit, therefore it was not yet the time for the
Synagogue to bring forth good works. For there is this
difference between trees and men that trees by their
nature can only give fruit at a certain time of the year, but
men ought to do good works all through their lives.
Our whole life is a summer ; it ought all to be full
of fruit, nor does anything but our own will make it
sterile.
208 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. XXL 20-28.
Verse 20. And the disciples seeing it.
On the following day, which was the third from that on
which He entered Jerusalem, and when He was going up
to Jerusalem from Bethany ; as is plain from 5. Mark
xi. 20.
Verse 21. And stagger not.
Mr) KaraKpiO^re. Do not dispute like those who are in
doubt about a point (Acts x. 17 ; Rom. iv. 20).
Verse 24. / also will ask you.
Christ did not answer the question of the priests, lest He
should excite them more against Him by the truth ; but
He proposed another question for them to answer. For
they could not answer that the baptism of John was from
heaven, because they would have been compelled to admit
by the testimony of all men that Christ performed all His
acts, not by human, but by divine, authority ; for John had
said of Him, " Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him who
taketh away the sins of the world " (i. 29). By the baptism
of John, Christ means not his mere baptism alone of men
by water, but his whole profession, teaching, preaching, and
doctrine, as the whole Law of Moses is expressed by the
word " circumcision " (Gal. v. 3).
Verse 27. Neither do I tell you.
He does not answer as they did, " I know not," for He
could not with truth. He said, "but neither," and there
fore the particle nee, which usually expresses similitude,
does do so here, not to that which was said, namely,
nescimus, but to that which was understood or which
follows ; that is, because they did not answer Christ as to
whence was the baptism of John, so neither did Christ tell
them by what authority He performed His works.
Verse 28. A certain man had two sons.
The priests would not answer Christ lest they should
CH. xxi. 28.] PARABLE OF THE TWO SONS. 2O9
be compelled to admit the authority of Christ ; for they
knew that the baptism of John was from God, not men.
What Christ would not reply to them then, He now puts
into a parable : showing that John s baptism was from
heaven, and that they were without excuse, because when
the publicans and harlots believed on John, and listened to
his preaching, and brought forth penance, they would do
neither. The parable to the end of the 32nd verse is easy.
The father of the two sons was undoubtedly God ; who the
sons were is more of a question. The Ancients agree with
wonderful unanimity that they were the Gentiles and the
Jews. The former, when commanded by God to labour in
the vineyard, by the natural law, replied that he would
not; for he would not observe that law. But he afterwards
repented and went into the vineyard ; that is, he received
not only the natural law, but also the evangelical law, and
kept them. The Jew, on the other hand, when ordered by
God to go into the vineyard, that is, to keep the Law,
answered that he would go, as in Exodus xix. 8, but
afterwards he went not, that is, he did not obey the Law.
So say Origen {Tract, xviii. on S. Matt.), S. Athanasius
(Quasi. 39), S. Chrysostom, The Author, S. Jerome, Bede,
and Euthymius (in loc). But the parable, which ends at
verse 31, probably shows two kinds of men of the Jews.
The first : the people and publicans, harlots and sinners, who
were commanded by God to labour in His vineyard, that
is, to observe the Law, answered, not in words but in deeds,
that they would not, because they did not do so. After
wards, moved by the example and preaching of John, they
repented, and not only observed the ancient law, but also
received the new evangelical one.
The second class was the priests and Pharisees, who,
when ordered to labour in the vineyard, answered that
they would go, that is, they professed obedience to the
Law, and a close and perfect one ; but, in fact, they went
214
2IO THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxi. 31, 32.
not, because they in no way kept the Law, nor believed
in John, of whom, as Christ Himself declares (verses 31, 32),
the Prophets had spoken. It is credible, at the same time,
that Christ also obscurely and indirectly pointed at the
people of Jews and Gentiles. For the publicans and
harlots seem to form an exact image of the Gentiles, and
the priests, Scribes, and Pharisees of the Jews ; and we see
in another place that Christ, by another parable of two sons,
showed the people of Gentiles and Jews (5. Luke xv. 20).
Verse 31. The publicans and the harlots shall go into the
kingdom of God before you.
Christ, by these words, seems to show that even the
priests with whom He was speaking should go into the
kingdom of God, as Origen explains it. It is as if Christ
meant, not, indeed, these very men with whom He was
conversing, but other priests to the end of the world ; for,
as S. Paul says, "the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in,
and they (the Jews) shall be converted and enter into the
kingdom of God" (Rom. xi. 25, 26). But this does not
appear to have been the meaning of Christ, but rather the
contrary, that the priests were not to enter into that
kingdom. He says that the publicans and harlots go
before, not that the priests follow, but that as they were
teachers of the Law, and ought to go before, they not only
do not this but will not even follow, as He said (viii. 1 1, 12).
What appears to be the meaning of the passage is :
" They go before you into the kingdom of heaven " that
is, they show you the way, they give you an example ; as
explained in the following verse : " I say unto you, that
many shall come from the east and the west, and shall
sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom
of heaven ; but the children of the kingdom shall be cast
out into the exterior darkness ".
Verse 32. But you also see it.
That is, when you saw the example of the publicans and
CH. xxi. 33.] REBUKE TO PRIESTS AND PHARISEES. 21 1
harlots who believed in John, and brought forth penitence,
you were not aroused, even by their example, either to
believe or to repent ; and thus, probably, it is written, not
in regno, eV, but in regnum, eZ?. rrjv fiaaiXeiav rov Oeov.
For John came to you.
Christ now answers what the priests had refused to
answer, and declares that John was sent from God, and
that his baptism was from God, not from man.
In the way of justice.
This is a Hebraism, that is, per modum justifies, bearing
justice per se : having the life of a just man. Christ ap
pears not to speak so much of true and inward righteous
ness (though this of John s was most true), as of that which
alone seemed such to the priests, and which consisted of
outward things alone : dress, fasts, and other like things,
which were in John in a remarkable degree as said in chap,
xi. 1 8 : "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and
they say, He hath a devil ". When, then, John especially
displayed this righteousness, which the priests thought the
sole or chief righteousness, they had no excuse for their
unbelief.
Did not even afterwards repent, that you might believe him.
Christ reprehends the priests for two things : (i) Un
belief: from which they did not believe John as His
messenger; and (2) Stubbornness and obstinacy: from which,
when they had seen the publicans and harlots believe, they
would not believe themselves. This is the meaning of the
words, " did not even afterwards repent," that is, not even
after you had seen their example would you change your
opinion.
Verse 33. Hear ye another parable.
S. Matthew says that Christ proposed this parable to the
same priests ; S. Luke (xx. 9), to the people. It has been
212 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxi. 33.
explained that Christ puts it forth first to the priests with
whom He was conversing, but because the people came
round Him in numbers to listen, S. Luke says that He
addressed it to the people. It must be borne in mind,
that, as in all the parables, the necessary and peculiar
parts must be carefully distinguished from the adjuncts,
and what may be termed the accidental parts. In this
parable, to verse 46, there appear to be six peculiar and
necessary parts.
1. The man who planted a vineyard, who was, beyond
doubt, God.
2. The vineyard itself which he planted. S. Athanasius
(Qucest. 49) explains it of the world which God has created ;
S. Irenseus (iv. 70), of the whole race of man ; but if so,
who were the husbandmen to whom it was let out ? Others,
more correctly, assert it to have been the Church in which
God would have men labour. The metaphor is a common
one in Scripture ; as in Ps. Ixxix. 6 ; Isa. v. 2 ; Jer. ii. 2 1 ;
xii. 10 ; Joel i. 7. God is said to have planted the vineyard
when He gave the Law, because He in a manner planted
the knowledge of Himself in men s minds through the Law ;
as S. Augustin says (Serm. lix. de Verb. Dom.).
3. He made a hedge round it, and put a wine-press in it,
and built a tower, which three things appear to form a
part of one whole ; and they mean merely that God did for
His Church all that was necessary, that it might be well
protected and cultivated, as is said by Isaiah (v. 4). For
Christ described only what the owners of vineyards do
that the labourers may want nothing for good cultivation
of them and for rendering the fruits when due. For
they who plant vineyards first hedge it round, that wild
animals and thieves may not break into it ; then they
make a wine-press, to collect and press out the vintage ;
lastly, they build a tower, partly for ornament, and partly
that the vine-dresser may see that no one breaks in.
CH. xxi. 33-] PARABLE OF THE VINEYARD. 213
Ancient authors, indeed, assert that the three requisites
have each its own meaning. Many explain the hedge
to mean the protection of God and the angels, as Origen
(Tract, on S. Matt, xix.), S. Ambrose (On S. Luke xx.),
The Author, S. Jerome (in loc.) ; so too in Ps. Ixxix.
13 : "Why hast thou broken down the hedge thereof, so that
all they that pass by the way do pluck it ? ; God is said
to have destroyed the hedge, because He had taken away
the help by which He used to protect and defend it, and,
as it were, had deserted it, as in verse 15. Others say that
the hedge is the names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by
which the Jews were distinguished from the Gentiles (S.
Hilary, Can. xxii.). Others think it the Law and precepts
by which the Jews were hedged in as within certain limits ;
so S. Irenaeus (iv. 70) and The Author (Horn. xl.). The
press is by some said to be the altar which overflowed
with the blood of the victims, like must (Origen, S. Jerome,
Bede, Euthymius, and Theophylact). By others it is
thought to be the spirit of the Prophets, which was
agitated like must (SS. Irenaeus, Hilary, Ambrose, and
Jerome). The Author says that it is the Church ; S.
Athanasius (Qu&st. 49) that it is baptism, which seems the
least probable of all, as Christ was speaking, not of the
Church of the Gospel, but of the Synagogue of the Jews, in
which there was either no baptism at all or it could not have
been figured by the wine-press. Very many, as Origen, S.
Jerome, Bede, and Theophylact, explain the tower, of the
Temple of Jerusalem ; some, as S. Irenaeus, of the city, which
was built on one side on a mountain ; a few, as S. Ambrose,
S. Luke (xx.), The Author, S. Jerome (in loc.*), say that it
is the breadth of the Law.
4. The husbandmen. Many think these the priests
alone with the Scribes and Pharisees, by whom the vineyard
was to be cultivated, that is, the people were to be instructed;
so Origen, S. Hilary, The Author, Euthymius, and Theo-
214 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxi. 33.
phylact. In confirmation of this opinion Christ disputed
with the priests alone, and directed the parable against
them ; while the rest of the people of the Jews would
appear to have been not so much the husbandmen as the
vineyard. From the conclusion of the parable, we see that
not only the priests but the whole nation of the Jews were
meant by the husbandmen, because Christ concluded that
the vineyard should be taken from the Jews and given to
other husbandmen, that is, to the Gentiles. Such is the
explanation of S. Ambrose. God is said to have given the
vineyard to the husbandmen, because to those who laboured
in it He had promised the certain reward of eternal life, as
in the similar parable in the preceding chapter. Thus even
from the mere locatio verborum, rage the heretics as they
will, the merits of good works is proved.
5. The fifth point is the servants whom the Lord of the
vineyard sent at different times to collect the fruits. All
authorities are agreed that these, as is evident from the
words of Christ Himself, were the ancient Prophets. How
some of these were slain and others stoned may be read in
Heb. xi. and S. Jerome s Comment, (in loc.).
6. The sixth is the son. That he was Christ even the
priests themselves, against whom the parable was directed,
could not be ignorant of.
These things have a peculiar and necessary meaning ;
the other points are accidental, and should not be made
any part of the essence of the parable. Such as these are
the hedge, the press, the tower, the departure of the lord
of the vineyard for the strange country, which is thought
by S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius to signify
the long-enduring patience of God towards the Jews. S.
Jerome and Bede, however, think that they still had their
free-will left to labour or not as they chose, as men of that
class in the absence of their master usually have. This
part of the parable may not appear to have any fixed and
CH. xxr. 4i.] PARABLE OF THE VINEYARD. 215
necessary application, but it may have been added to fill
up and set off the parable. Otherwise, the opinion of
Origen (Tract, on S. Matt, xix.) and Theophylact seem
the best. They say that the lord of the vineyard, that is,
God, went away into a strange country because, when He
appeared to the Jews at Sinai to plant His vineyard among
them, that is, to appoint the Law, and make a covenant
with them to keep it, He afterwards ceased to appear, as if
He had gone to a far country. The adjective part is, that
it is said in the parable that the time of the fruits drew
near : as if it were not always the time of fruits, or as if
God did not always require the fruit of good works from
the Jews.
Again, what is said, " They will reverence my son," is
said, not as being necessary to the meaning of the parable,
but because it was probable that the lord of the vineyard,
when he sent his son, would say so. S. Chrysostom, Eu-
thymius, and Theophylact read : " It may be that they
will reverence my son," as .S. Luke xx. 13. They think
that this was said that the lord of the vineyard might show
the husbandmen what they ought to do, and not as if he
were ignorant that they would not reverence his son ; and
that they might not say that they were compelled by the
divine prophecy. But, doubtless, all these things were
said as if of man, not as if of God. For the man could not
know that the husbandmen would kill his son. He ought
rather to have believed that they would reverence him.
Verse 41. They say to Him, He will bring these evil men to
an evil e.nd.
S. Mark (xii. 9) and S. Luke (xx. 16) say that these
words were spoken, not by the priests, but by Christ. On
the contrary, S. Luke says that the priests answered, "God
forbid," as if they denied and detested what Christ said.
S. Augustin (De Cons., ii. 70) answers that these words were
2l6 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn, xxi. 42.
spoken by the priests, as S. Matthew says, but because
they were true, and what was and is true comes from the
truth, and Christ was the Truth, the other two Evangelists
ascribe these words to Christ. This may appear forced.
What S. Chrysostom and Euthymius say seems, therefore,
more probable : that these words, as S. Matthew writes
them, were first said by the priests ; but that Christ con
firmed and explained them, so that the priests might see
and understand that He was speaking against them, and
desired to signify that God would destroy them as evil
husbandmen, and give their vineyard to other husbandmen.
Moreover, S. Mark and S. Luke ascribe these words to
Christ, and that the priests then answered in the words of
S. Luke, " God forbid," Absit (xx. 16).
Verse 42. Have you never read.
Christ upbraids the priests who professed the knowledge
of the Law with their ignorance of it, as He had done before
(verse 16 ; xii. 3-5 ; xix. 4). He proves by another meta
phor, and by the testimony of Scripture, that what the
priests hated, saying, "Absit" would come to pass. Thus
if S. Luke had not written that word, this passage would
not have seemed to harmonise well with the preceding text ;
but now, as S. Augustin (De Cons., ii. 70) has observed, it
does so well. For because the priests had said, " God
forbid" (Absif), denying that what Christ had said would
come to pass, He proves the contrary : because the stone
which they, the builders, had refused was made the head of
the corner, and whosoever fell upon it would be broken,
but upon whom it falls it shall grind him to powder.
Christ, as in other places, suddenly changes His metaphor ;
for the Church which He had before compared to a vine
He now compares to a building which God has built, as
does S. Paul (i Cor. iii. 9 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 10 ; and Ephes. ii. 21 ;
iv. 12), and those whom He had before called husbandmen.
CH. xxi. 42.] HEAD STONE OF THE CORNER.
He now calls builders ; Him whom He had before called
the Son He now calls a Stone, as S. Jerome and Euthymius
have observed. It is a customary metaphor in Scripture to
call Christ a Stone (Isa. xxviii. 16 ; Dan. ii. 34; Zach. iii.
9). Christ is the Stone hewed out of the mountain without
hands. Christ is called a Stone, in respect of the Church,
as having a firm foundation, as S. Paul says (i Cor. iii. n ;
Eph. ii. 20). Nor is it doubtful that David (Ps. cxvii. 22,
whence this text is taken) spoke of Christ and called Him
the Stone, which not even these priests themselves, the
enemies of Christ, could deny.
The stone.
The stone, lapidem, is put by a Hebraism, which the
Septuagint (Ps. cxvii. 22), and the Greek interpreter of S.
Matthew, and the Latin have followed : for \i6os and lapis
in quern is read for lapis quern.
WJiicJi the builders rejected.
This is also a Hebraism in which the participle 04*080-
fjiovvres, cedificantes, is put for the substantive cedificantes
for cedificatores . It has been a question as to who are the
men called builders by Christ, and by David before Christ
S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact think that it
meant the priests alone, because they were in a manner the
architects of the ancient Synagogue, and built it ; that is,
they taught : for to build is to teach, as Jer. i. 10, and as S.
Paul speaks (Rout. xv. 20 ; i Cor. iii. 10; Gal. ii. 18 ; EpJies.
ii. 20), who calls himself an architect of the Gospel (i Cor.
iii. 10). S. Peter seems to allude to this passage (Acts iv. 1 1) :
" This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders ".
Others think that all the Jews together are meant ; because
all, though not each one in particular, " rejected " Christ ;
that is, threw aside, as useless and without value for the
building, as the wicked say in Wisdom ii. 12 : " Let us
therefore lie in wait "
2l8 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxi. 42.
The same is become the head of tlie corner.
Christ is called the head of the corner for three reasons :
1. First, because it is the strongest stone of the whole
building, and that which holds together and supports all the
others, as S. Peter says (Acts iv. 11) where he opposes the
head of the corner to reprobation, and as Isaiah (xxviii. 16)
calls the precious stone, honorem injuries ; that is, the stone
which is placed in the most honourable position. In the
same sense S. Paul says to the Ephesians (ii. 20) : " You
are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets,
Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone," explain
ing the highest and first on which all the others depend to
be the chief corner-stone.
2. Because it is a stone of offence to many. For corner
stones often stand out from the building, so that careless
passengers are apt to strike against them in passing, as the
Jews did against Christ. So S. Peter (/ Epist. ii. 7, 8). In
the same sense S. Paul wrote to the Romans (ix. 32, 33).
3. Because He unites the Jews and Gentiles into one
among themselves, as S. Paul says (Eph. ii. 14). This explana
tion is followed by almost all the Ancients : Origen (Tract,
in Matt. xix.J ; S. Hilary (Can. xxii.) ; S. Augustin (On Ps.
Ixxxviii. and cxix., and Tract, in Johan., and Serm. xviii.,
xlix., de Verb. Dem.) ; S. Jerome, Theophylact, Bede, and
Euthymius (in loc.\
Christ seems to have united all these senses in Himself:
1. Because He signifies that though rejected by the Jews
He would be held in the greater honour by the Gentiles.
2. Because He foretold that the Jews would dash against
Him and be broken : as He said, Qui ceciderit, " Whoever
shall fall ".
3. He showed that He would make this a gain, for from
being rejected by one people He would have two instead
of onej that is, as the corner-stone unites and connects two
walls of a house.
CH. xxi. 430 HEAD STONE OF THE CORNER. 219
By the Lord this has been done.
It is said to have been done by the Lord, because it was
done by the Lord alone, not by human design ; that when
the Jews did not believe, the Gentiles should do so ; as is
shown by the grafting of the wild into the good olive-tree,
as described at length and with great skill by S. Paul (Rom.
xl).
And it is wonderful in our eyes.
It justly seemed wonderful to the Jews, in whose person
this was said by David, that the grace of Christ should be
given not only to the Jews, but, when they had wickedly
rejected it, much more abundantly to the Gentiles. For
even S. Peter himself, now made to be the chief of the
Apostles, did not understand it (Acts x. 14), nor possibly
could have understood it, except the sheet had been let
down from heaven, filled with all kind of animals, to teach
him.
Verse 43. The kingdom of God shall be taken from you.
This is the conclusion of the parable, by which is signified
the abolition of the Synagogue and the transference of the
Church of God, which is here called the kingdom of God,
and is described above as the vineyard, to the Gentiles, as
SS. Paul and Barnabas said to the Jews.
Yielding the fruits thereof.
To advance which the vine was planted, and to collect
which the servants were sent by the Lord. When it is
said, " Shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof,"
it is not that merit is meant, but the cause of its being
given to the Gentiles, that they would yield the fruits of it,
that is, would cultivate it well and render the fruits to the
owner. Indirectly, the sin of the Jews is noted for which
it was taken from them, namely, that they did not render
the fruits of it. S. Paul uses similar language to the
Romans (xi. 19, 20).
220 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxi. 44.
Verse 44. A nd whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be
broken.
It is clear that Christ here means to show a twofold kind
of punishment a lesser and a greater ; as one who falls
upon a great stone hurts himself and often breaks a bone,
but is injured much less than if a stone had fallen from
some high place upon him, for this would destroy him
utterly.
The question is what is meant by falling upon the stone
and the stone falling upon the person. It cannot be
doubted that the metaphor is taken de medio ; for when a
man falls upon a stone he does not fall with such violence
as to suffer any injury or fracture of limb. And who can
doubt that to fall upon a stone is to stumble at Christ as at
a stone ? for He is termed a stone of stumbling and a rock
of offence by Isaiah (viii. 14), and in I Peter ii. 8.
The Author, S. Jerome, and Bede think that they who
believe in Christ, but commit sin and offend Him, fall upon
the stone, because they are punished, indeed, but more
lightly ; but upon those who do not believe in Him the
stone falls, that is, they are punished more heavily. S.
Chrysostom, S. Augustin (Serm. xl. de Verb. Dom^ Euthy-
mius, and Theophylact seem to think that to fall upon the
stone is not to believe in Christ ; which would appear to be
the true sense, because the falling upon Christ is spoken of
in the same sentence as that in which Christ is called the
Stone of Offence. He is, therefore, called such, because
many who saw His miracles, and ought to have been
brought by them to believe in Him, were so far from doing
so that they rather made them a reason for calumniating
Him. This is to fall upon the stone ; and S. Paul to the
Romans (ix. 33) and S. Peter (Ep. I, ii. 7, 8) seem to have
spoken to this effect : " To you, therefore, that believe ".
Not to believe, then, is to fall upon the stone ; but what it
is for the particular stone to fall upon a particular person is
CH. xxi. 44-] HEAD STONE OF THE CORNER. 221
more doubtful. S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophy-
lact say that it is nothing more than that Christ was
angry ; but this will hardly seem to be probable. S.
Augustin seems to speak to better purpose {Serm. xl. de
Verb. Dom. ) that the stone falling upon anyone is Christ
coming from heaven to judge and condemn. It is the
same, therefore, as if Christ had said that whoever does
not believe in Him is miserable even in this life, that is,
he falls upon the stone, but that he will be far more
miserable in the next life when He condemns him, that is,
when that stone had fallen upon him. In the same way S.
John in the Apocalypse (ii. 1 1 ; xx. 14 ; xxi. 8) speaks of the
first and second death as if to distinguish between two
punishments the one greater, the other less.
CHAPTER XXII.
THE PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE FEAST CHRIST ORDERS
TRIBUTE TO BE PAID TO C^SAR HE CONFUTES THE
SADDUCEES SHOWS WHICH IS THE FIRST COMMAND
MENT IN THE LAW AND PUZZLES THE PHARISEES.
Verse i. And Jesus answering.
" ANSWERING " is put for " speaking " by a Hebraism, as fre
quently before.
Verse 2. Is likened.
Authorities differ as to whether or not this is the same
parable as that of S. Luke (xiv. 16).
Some, for many reasons, think it a different one.
1. The giver of the feast in this is a king. In 5. Luke
he is not.
2. Here the feast is a dinner (prandiuin). There it is a
supper (ccena).
3. Here are many servants, and they were sent fre
quently to call those who were invited. There there is only
one, and he was only sent once.
4. In this the invited guests do not excuse themselves,
but merely neglect to come. In that they excuse them
selves, each in his own manner.
5. In this the servants are ill-treated or killed. In that
they are not.
6. In this an army is sent by the lord of the vineyard
(sic in the text, but read " the king ") to slay the " husband
men ". In that there is none.
CH. xxn. 2.] PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE FEAST. 223
7. In this the king enters the guest-chamber and finds a
man not having on a wedding-garment, whom he com
mands to be bound and cast into outer darkness. In that
nothing of the kind takes place.
This is the opinion of S. Augustin (De Consens., ii. 70),
S. Gregory (Horn, xxxviii. in Evangel^ Strabus, and S.
Thomas.
^Others think the two parables the same because they
have each a marriage, the feast of which is called a dinner
by S. Matthew and a supper by S. Luke.
This is the opinion of S. Irenaeus (iv. 70, 76) and Theo-
phylact (in loc.). Even S. Gregory thinks it probable. It
appears to be the more so because the other facts recorded
here by S. Matthew, and elsewhere by S. Luke, are very
similar ; while the differences are too slight to cause them
to be regarded as different parables. For there being
mention of a king in one and not in another, and S. Mat
thew s speaking of a dinner, and S. Luke of a supper, is
without weight. S. Gregory himself says that the Ancients
did not dine before the ninth hour, and they called supper
(ccenam) prandium. This may not be certain. All the
arguments on the other side of the question, however, can
be answered with one word. The Evangelists, when de
scribing the same parable, or even the same history, do not
relate all the facts, nor use the same words, but give the
same meaning. This is the case here.
What may appear to be of greater weight is that S. Luke
relates this parable as having been given at a different time
and place, namely, when Christ was supping at the house
of one of the chief Pharisees, and a guest said : " Blessed is
he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God " (xiv. 15).
This objection can be answered without difficulty. Either
S. Matthew or S. Luke did not observe the ordo temporis,
as is often the case with them. It is more probable that
S. Luke followed time and place, while S. Matthew related
224 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxn. 2.
the parable here, because it resembled the preceding one,
and he was not solicitous to construct a history of the events
as they happened, but to relate the teaching of Christ. He
therefore referred all His discourses of the same significa
tion, and containing the same doctrine, to the same place.
To a king.
That is, the same thing happens in the kingdom of
heaven, as if a king had made a marriage for his son, as
explained on chap. xxi. 16 ; for the kingdom of heaven
that is, the Church is not compared to the king,
but to the guest-chamber where the supper was held. We
must first see to what the parable tends, and then, as we
have said before, what are the peculiar and necessary parts
that contain the meaning.
Christ seems to have intended to teach two things :
First, That many are called to the kingdom of heaven,
that is, the Church, but few come. With this He con
cludes at verse 14.
Secondly, That not all who come when they are called
to the Church will be saved, that is, are worthy of the
heavenly banquet, because some have not on the wed
ding-garment (as in verse n). The parable is directed
against the Jews, who, when invited, would not come, and
the Gentiles were therefore put into their place.
The necessary portions of the parable appear to be seven.
1. The first is the king, who is undoubtedly God. That
He is not called " a man," but " a king," may be partly to
show His Divine Majesty, and partly to account for the
splendour of the feast.
2. The second part is the marriage that is, the feast
for the Evangelist all through the chapter calls the marriage
a feast. Some say that the feast, signifies the glory of
heaven and the life of beatification, under which similitude
they are often described in Scripture (as in Ps. xvi. 15 ;
Apoc. xix. 9 ; 5. Luke xiv. 15 ; xxii. 29, 30). So says S.
CH. xxii. 2.] PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE FEAST. 225
Hilary (Can. xxii. on S. Matt.). Others think the feast to
have been the outpouring of divine grace, given to those
who come into the Church, or the Word of God, by which
they are fed ; for the Word of God is often compared to
food, as by S. Paul (i Cor. iii. 2; Heb. v. 12). In Amos
(viii. 11), in like manner, God threatens to send a famine
into the land : not, indeed, a famine of bread, but of the
W T ord of God. So Origen (Tract, xx. on S. Matt), The
Author, and Euthymius.
3. The third part is the son of the king, whose marriage
is celebrated. He is clearly Christ, who is often called the
bridegroom (as ix. 15; xxv. I ; *S. John iii. 29 ; Apoc. xix.
7-9). It is not so clear who the bride is. Some think that
she is each man s soul ; as Theophylact, The Author (Horn.
xli.). Others say that she is the Church ; as Origen ( Tract.
xx. in S. Matt.), S. Hilary (Can. xxii.), S. Jerome (in
Comment), S. Gregory (Horn, xxxviii. in Evangel). This
would appear more probable, because S. John (Apoc. xxi.
2) calls the Church "the spouse of Christ". S. Paul
(Ephes. v. 25) exhorts husbands to love their wives as
Christ loved the Church : signifying that the Church was
His bride ; and in verses 31, 32.
Authorities vary as to when this marriage between
Christ and the Church is celebrated. Some say that it
was to be after the Resurrection, but that the guests were
invited to a future marriage. So Origen and S. Hilary.
And it is hardly to be doubted from the parable (xxv. i)
of the bridegroom coming in the middle of the night that the
time of the Resurrection and the last advent of Christ are
signified. S. John also (Apoc. xix. 9) speaks of this mar
riage, which is to be celebrated, not on earth, but in heaven,
after the time of the Resurrection. Others say that the
marriage was celebrated when the Son of God was made
the Son of man, for He then united the Church to Himself
as to a bridegroom. So says S. Gregory (Horn, xxxviii. in
215
226 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxn. 2.
Evangel?). Each opinion is true ; for, as has been said
elsewhere, the marriage of Christ has been celebrated
often : (i) When He was made man, His Incarnation
being as a spousal rite. (2) It will be celebrated when He
shall have formed for Himself a glorious Church not
having spot or wrinkle. This will be when He shall unite
it to Himself in heaven freed from every stain. Men are
invited to both these marriages to the first, that they may
come to the Church of God and be fed by the Word of
God ; to the second, that they may be saved, and may eat
and drink at the table of Christ in the kingdom of God.
4. They who are invited. These are said by S. Ambrose
(Comment, on S. Luke xiv.) to be Gentiles, Jews, and here
tics. All other authorities explain it only of the Jews. It
is very plain that Christ propounded the parable most
especially against them, to show that the Jews who were
invited would not come, but that the Gentiles did.
It may be a question whether this is to be understood of
all Jews, or only of those who lived after the Incarnation
of Christ. S. Hilary says that those alone are invited
whom Christ Himself, as man, or the Apostles and their
successors, called. Origen, however (Tract, xx. on S. Matt.\
S. Athanasius (Quest. 45), S. Jerome, Bede, Euthymius,
Theophylact (in his Comment.), and S. Gregory (Horn.
xxxviii.) think that it should be understood of all Jews,
even of those who lived before the Incarnation of Christ.
This is the more likely because they were, without doubt,
the men who ill-treated and killed the servants that were
sent by the king, that is, the ancient prophets.
But how could they who are so far remote from the
coming of Christ be invited to His marriage ? They were
invited to His future marriage that they might believe in
the Christ who was to come, and be fed in the meantime
by the word of the Law and the Prophets. If they kept
their Law and precepts, they would be invited to that final,
CH. xxn. 2.] PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE FEAST. 227
that is, to that heavenly marriage, to which we also who
are now guests at the first are bidden.
As S. Gregory says, " God invites both those who
were before the Incarnation of Christ and those who
were after it " because " He announced by the Prophets
that the Incarnation of the Only-begotten Son should
be brought to pass, and by the Apostles that it should
be accomplished ".
5. The fifth part is the servants. S. Jerome says that in
many copies the word is found in the singular, as in 5. Luke;
but our version reads it in the plural, and the sense of the
passage seems to require this, as being more expressive.
Who the servants were whom the king sent first to invite
the Jews is obvious, yet all the authorities do not agree on
the point. S. Hilary says that it was the Apostles alone ;
all others Origen, S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, S. Gregory,
and Bede say that they were the Prophets and Apostles.
For the Prophets were sent first, and were treated with
contumely, and put to death. Afterwards the Apostles
were sent into the streets and highways, to bring in all
not the Jews only, but also the Gentiles.
Theophylact and The Author ask how they were called
who had before been invited ; or how they were invited
before they were called ; since the same persons seem to
have been both invited and called. Theophylact answers
that they were probably invited by the natural law to live
rightly and holily, and were afterwards called by the
Prophets, to come. It would have been better to have said
that they were invited through the Law of Moses. For
not only the Jews, but all men, were invited by the natural
law, and there is no distinction in the parable to signify
that men were first invited and afterwards called ; but
Christ spoke as from custom, and described not what God
did to the Jews, but what men did usually to each other.
Thus it often happens that men are first invited and
228 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxn. 2.
bidden to a feast, and afterwards, when the time is come,
are called to it.
6. The sixth part is the entrance of the king into the guest-
chamber, while the feast was in progress. The Author ex
plains this to mean God s proving men, to see their value
and fitness for their place in the Church. S. Jerome and
Bede say better that it means the coming of God to judg
ment ; to retain those who have the wedding-garment, and
to reject those who are without it. That the Day of
Judgment is intended is clear from the fact that the man
who had no wedding-garment was to be bound hand and
foot and cast into outer darkness, where was the weeping and
gnashing of teeth. We see the same thing in this parable
and the previous one of the cockles (xiii. 24), and of the net.
The reader will ask how it can be said that the king would
come into the guest-chamber, when it is not the king him
self, but the king s son that is, Christ who would come
to judgment. The king will come because his son will
come for him (S. John v. 22).
7. The seventh part is that of the man who had not on
a wedding-garment. There have been different opinions
as to what the wedding-garment is. S. Irenseus (iv. 70)
and S. Hilary (in loc.} explain it to mean the Holy Spirit,
as Christ says in 5. Luke xxiv. 49. But S. Augustin
(Cont. Faust., xxii. 19) says that it is the glory of Christ, and
that whoever seeks this is endued with the marriage-gar
ment ; whilst all who seek not this but their own glory
have it not, because they bear not His " insignia," but their
own. S. Augustin seems to think that the marriage-gar
ment was some well-known and remarkable dress, such as
the bridegroom himself wore, and such as we see the
children of kings wear, of some marked and notable colour,
called the royal colour, to distinguish them from the
children of other men. But there is no account in the
history of the Jews, or any other people, of such a thing.
CH. xxn. 2.] PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE FEAST. 22Q
It would seem, rather, to have been not any certain and
peculiar attire, which all such guests wore, but some habili
ment more costly and splendid than that of ordinary life ;
such as was worn by those who were invited to do honour
to a bridegroom, and to adorn his feast ; and that the man
who was cast out had none such, and was sent away for his
shamelessness in entering in his ordinary sordid and ragged
attire, where all the rest wore garments of cost.
But the question is, what is signified by that garment ?
The followers of Calvin say that it is faith for everything
is faith with them when they themselves have no faith ;
nor, acute as they think themselves, do they consider that
that guest came only by faith, without which he could not
have entered the guest-chamber that is, the Church. For
to come is to have faith. They who are invited and do not
come are said not to come because they have no faith.
This man had faith, indeed, but he had no marriage-
garment. The marriage -garment, therefore, is not faith.
The opinion, then, of Tertullian (De Resurrect. Carn^
Origen, S. Chrysostom, The Author, S. Ambrose (Serm.
xiv. de Natal. Doming, S. Jerome, S. Gregory, Theophy-
lact, and Euthymius is true, that the marriage-garment is
chanty, good works, and a life answering to the faith of
Christ. The whole history agrees with this view most
perfectly and aptly. For as they who are invited to a
wedding ought to have clothing proper to the occasion, so
they who are invited and come to the Church through
faith, ought to lead a life worthy of faith, and of a follower
of Christ. We see that a good life is figured in Scripture
by a garment, as in Apoc. iii. 17, 18 ; EpJies. iv. 24 ; Coloss.
iii. 9, 10. Let these men pardon us, then, if we show from
this passage that faith alone is not sufficient for salvation ;
for the guest at this feast had faith, but because he had no
marriage-garment that is, good works he was cast into
outer darkness.
230 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxn. 2.
It will be asked how, if he had faith, he was cast out of
the guest-chamber, that is, the Church? as if the king
preferred not to have his faith, to having it without
his works. The answer is easy. The whole question is
to be referred to the Day of Judgment, when God will cast
those who have faith without its good works out of the
feast, that is, out of heaven not that they were in
heaven before, but that when they were in the Church
they appeared to be in heaven.^If to their faith they had
added good works, they would have been transferred to
heaven.
The rest of the parable consists of accretions, which were
uttered to complete and beautify the narrative ; such as
verse 4 : "I have prepared my dinner, my beeves and
fatlings," &c., which means that all was prepared, that God
is waiting for men, that His grace is at hand for all, and
that it does not remain with Him that men are not con
verted from their sins. He named beeves and fatlings,
because these formed the provisions at costly banquets.
Bulls or young bullocks are such as have never been sub
jected to the knife or yoke, and which are often mentioned
in Scripture as peculiar delicacies (Gen, xviii. 7 ; I Kings
xxviii. 24). The man whose prodigal son returned to him
(S. Luke xv. 23) slew the fatted calf.
Such is the true meaning of these words, though many
ancient Fathers thought this a necessary and peculiar part
of the parable, with its own proper and distinctive meaning.
S. Gregory thinks that the bulls signify the Fathers of the
Old Testament, and the fatlings those of the New, who
have received a higher grace, and are mentioned in a
spiritual sense. Theophylact takes the bulls to be the Old
Testament itself, and the fatlings to be the New. S. Jerome
and Euthymius more correctly take them for nothing more
than the liberal furniture of the feast. What is said in
verse 5, and S. Luke s words, " I have bought five yoke of
CH. xxii. 2.] PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE FEAST. 231
oxen (xiv. 19), and another, I have married a wife," means
nothing more than that the invited guests went each to his
own occupation, his farm, or his merchandise, preferring their
temporal to their spiritual interests.
The more abstruse meaning may be found in Origen (in
loc^} and S. Ambrose (Comment, in Luc. xiv.). The king
sending forth his army to destroy those murderers shows
that the wrath of God will descend upon all who refuse His
invitation. There may, however, be something in the sug
gestion of S. Chrysostom, The Author, and Euthymius,
that the Roman armies of Titus and Vespasian may be
foreshown, as about to take the most utter vengeance on
the Jews ; though the opinion of S. Jerome and S. Gregory
is more probable that the army was the evil angels whom
God sometimes uses to punish men ; as Ps. Ixxvii. 49. So
by the servants who are sent a second time into the high
ways and hedges to call, or, as S. Luke says, to compel all
to enter, nothing else is meant than that there is no dis
tinction of countries, but the Gospel is to be preached
throughout the whole world to every creature, as Christ
afterwards declared (xxviii. 19; 5. Mark xvi. 15). So
again the words of S. Luke (xiv. 21), that they should
bring in the poor, weak, blind, lame, means only that there
should be no distinction of nation or persons, but that all
should equally be invited to the Gospel ; and Christ names
the poor, the weak, the blind, the lame, rather than any
other class of persons, because such are not usually invited,
and we are to understand that from the banquets of the
Gospel no one whatever is to be excluded.
The words " compel them to come in " do not mean that
men will be literally forced into the Gospel, but that they
should be so entreated and urged as almost to appear to
be, in a manner, compelled. Lastly, the binding of the
man who had not on the wedding-garment shows only
that they who will be condemned will be no more able to
232 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxn. 13, 14.
resist the execution of their sentence than if they were
literally confined by manacles and fetters.
Verse 1 3. Into the exterior darkness.
On this see chap. viii. 12.
Verse 14. Many are called^ but feiu are chosen.
This is the conclusion of the parable, and it appears to
contain a difficulty. For while one only of all the guests
was rejected, Christ says, " Many are called, but few are
chosen " ; whereas not a few only, but, with one exception,
all were chosen. S. Augustin (Lib. Cont. Donat.) says that
the one who was cast out represents in his own person all
the reprobate, who are many more in number than the
elect, and that Christ, therefore, concluded with the words,
" Many are called, but few are chosen ". These words
would seem to apply not so much to those immediately
preceding as to the whole of the earlier part of the parable,
in which we see that many were called but few, in fact,
came, while of these not all were chosen.
Why was one only cast out, when the greater number
are to be finally cast out that is, condemned as Christ
signifies in chap. vii. 13, 14, and I Pet. iv. 18? It is easy
to answer that Christ spoke the parable, not against the
Gentiles, but against the Jews, who, when invited in the
first place, not only refused to come, but treated the ser
vants of the king who were sent to call them with outrages
and death. Of them, therefore, Christ concluded, " Many
are called ". He would also have them know, by the way,
that they who had come, whether Jews or Gentiles, ought
not to trust in themselves, merely because they were per
mitted to enter the guest-chamber ; for they would be cast
out if they had not on the wedding-garment. To show this,
it was enough that one of those who were present was cast
out, as not having on that garment. But if a greater number
CH. xxn. 16.] THE HERODIANS. 233
were to be cast out than retained, why did not Christ say :
"The many shall be cast out, the few only shall be retained " ?
Because this was not done in fact. Christ only said what
He did to show that many were called, few chosen.
Verse 16. And they send their disciples with the Herodians.
For the Herodians, see chap. xii. 14.
Maldonatus goes into the question of who they probably
were at length. He shows :
1. That they were not Gentiles under the rule of Herod.
2. Nor the followers of Herod Antipas, who was taken
by them for the Messiah.
3. Nor the soldiers of Herod the Great ; for he was dead,
and his sons ruled in Galilee, not Judaea.
4. Nor those Jews who denied the payment of tribute to
Caesar (Acts v. 37).
Two opinions remain which have some show of pro
bability. I. That of those (Origen, Tract, on S. Matt.
xxi. ; S. Jerome, Comment. ; and, apparently, S. Cyril of
Alexandria) who think that they who allowed the payment
of tribute to Caesar were called Herodians, because Herod
was a thorough follower of Caesar, and, as Josephus says,
had been overseer of the tribute in Judaea. S. Cyril says
that the Herodians were publicans and collectors of the
tribute. This is the more likely because the Pharisees, who
were the chief supporters of Jewish liberty, and were op
posed to Herod, as Josephus says, pretended to constitute
Christ judge of the question, the better to conceal their
own hatred, and to show that they referred to Him for the
purpose, not of trying Him, but of putting an end to the
question ; whereas their real object was to excite ill-will
against Him.
For if He had answered that the tribute was not to be
paid, they would have accused Him of lese-majesty, as
they afterwards did (S. Liike xxiii. 2). If He had said
234 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxn. 19.
that it ought to be paid, He would not have been thought
to be Christ, and the promised king of the Jews ; for, so far
from freeing them, as they hoped, from the foreign rule,
He would rather have brought them under the Gentile
power. This opinion is strengthened at once by S. Luke,
who calls the false accusers simulatores, and by Christ
Himself, in verse 18 : "Why do you tempt Me, ye
hypocrites ? "
2. The other opinion is that of those who think that the
Herodians were some domestic sect, who followed Herod,
to whom, so that he could keep his crown, every religion
was good. But this is less likely to be true than the former,
because there is neither authority nor probability for it in
history ; although, on the other hand, it may be so far
possibly true, that there is nothing against it, and the
Evangelists seem to describe the Herodians as some sort
of a religious sect like the Pharisees and Sadducees, for
they mention them in conjunction with these.
Verse 19. Show me the coin of the tribute.
A coin of the kind in which the tribute was paid.
And they offered Him a penny.
This is to be understood of the Roman penny, which
had Caesar s image and superscription on it; things
which, as most especially hateful, the Jews would by no
means permit on their coins. The penny seems to have
been equal to an Attic drachma in value. A question has
arisen as to how a Roman penny could be called the tri
bute-money, as if each person paid a penny, when Christ
paid a stater for Himself and Peter (S. Matt. xvii. 26) ;
that is, four silver drachmas, or fourpence. It has been
suggested that this was a different tribute ; but the Romans
exacted no other tribute from the Jews than the poll-tax,
which they had previously paid to the Temple : that is, half
CH. xxn. 21-29.] THE TRIBUTE MONEY. 235
a side, equal to two Roman denarii. Pliny (xxxiii. 13)
says that the Romans required from conquered nations
only silver money. It is more probable, as others say,
that each Jew paid two denarii, and that the money was
divided into two parts for the sake of convenience.
Verse 21. The things that are God s.
These words do not refer merely to the tribute paid for
the Temple, but they are spoken generally. The things
that are God s are faith, hope, charity, obedience.
Verse 23. That day.
It is not quite certain whether this happened on the
same day as that on which Christ was tempted by the
Pharisees and Herodians ; for it may be a Hebraism and
mean " about that time ". But it is more probable, as
Origen and The Author think, that it was the same day,
because S. Matthew here, S. Mark (xii. 18), and S. Luke
(xx. 27) so unite this with the preceding events, that the
conversation would appear to have taken place on the
same day.
TJtere came to Him the Sadducees.
For the Sadducees, see chap. iii. 7. They would
believe nothing above or beyond nature, and therefore they
would not believe the resurrection of the dead. Hence
their senseless question to Christ.
Verse 24. Moses said, If a man die.
For an explanation of these words, see chap. i. 16.
Verse 29. Ye err, not knowing tJie Scriptures.
Because the Sadducees had appealed to the Scriptures,
Christ answers that they did not understand the Scriptures,
as S. Chrysostom says. Christ shows two sources of error
in them ; one, that they did not understand the Scriptures :
236 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxn. 30.
the other, that they did not allow for the goodness and
power of God, as S. Mark (xii. 24) describes more plainly.
Verse 30. In the resurrection.
" In " is used by a Hebraism for " after," as in Ps. cxxv. i :
" When the Lord turned back," in convertendo. The time
which will ensue after the Resurrection is called the Resur
rection ; as in verse 28 the whole time during which the
law of circumcision was in force is called " the Circum
cision " (Rom. iv. 10).
They shall neither marry, nor be married.
A Hebraism and a Graecism at once. A Hebraism
because the third person plural is put for the passive verb
impersonal, as in some Latin works dicunt is put for dicitur,
nubent for nubetur. It is a Graecism, which the Latin
translator would not render perhaps, for some reason,
idiomatically. For as the Greek word yafielv was applied
to the marriage of either man or woman, and nubere was
used in Latin of the woman, and uxorem ducere of the man,
and the Greek expresses both in one word, the Latin
author chose to follow the Greek, because it was not in
that age considered barbarous. This is the opinion of
Tertullian (De Resurrect^ and Ruffinus (In. Exposit.
Symb.}. S. Jerome says himself that he would not have
so rendered it, though he would not correct it. The mean
ing appears to be that after the Resurrection men will not
marry women, nor will women be married to men. In a
word, there will then be no marriages.
But shall be as tJie angels of God.
Christ does not compare the blessed to the angels in
everything, but only in the point on which He was speak
ing marriage; as S. Jerome has observed. For the
angels are immortal, and therefore have no need of
CH. xxii. 30.] THE SADDUCEES CONFUTED. 237
marriage, the object of which is the continuance of the
human race, as explained by S. Luke (xx. 35,36). It may
be observed that all the three Evangelists S. Matthew,
S. Mark, and S. Luke here use the present tense, " are
equal to the angels," when they had before used the future,
nubent nubentur. Christ probably desired to place the
future state of beatitude before the sight, and spoke of it as
a thing present. The Author, not without reason, asks
why, when Christ spoke of fasting, alms, and other spiri
tual virtues, He did not institute any comparison of men
with angels, but only did so when His subject was chastity.
His answer, which is a true one, is that there is no virtue
so angelical as this one.
/ am t/te God of Abraham.
There is a double difficulty in this passage. First, it
does not appear how it can rightly be concluded from the
words, " I am the God of Abraham," &c. } that Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob were still living ; for God might be called
their God, not because He was so then, but because He
had been so before : as James and John are called the sons
of Zebedee when Zebedee was now dead, and no one is the
son of a dead man, but of a living one. The meaning is,
that they had been his sons.
Secondly, that even if it could be proved that the souls
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive, it is not therefore
proved thereby that they will rise again.
To the first question, it has been replied that the force
of the argument consists in this : that God did not say, " I
was " (fui out eranij, but " I am " their God. So say S.
Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact. But it may be
objected that the passage should be understood, " I am
that God who was the God of Abraham while Abraham
was alive". Or, according to others, God is called the
God of those of whom He receives acknowledgment and
238 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxn. 30.
worship, as He is called the God of Elias and Daniel^
because Elias and Daniel worshipped Him. Hence Abra
ham, Isaac, and Jacob are not wholly dead, because God
was called their God that is, He was worshipped by them.
Others suppose that the force of the words lies in this, that
although in that sense God can be called the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because He was once their
God, yet it is not to be thought that God would deign to
be called the God of those who were now dead. But this
is not of much weight. There appears to be a higher than
common meaning in the words. S. Chrysostom, Theophy-
lact, and Euthymius have said what seems true, but is not
sufficient. For the force of the whole undoubtedly lies in
God not having said, " I was," but " I am " ; not fui or
erani, but sum ; and the meaning may be : "I am the
God who made a covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob to perpetuate their seed, and I therefore wish to
keep it, because they still live and urge Me daily by their
prayers to deliver their children from the captivity of
Egypt ". For we keep covenant, not with the dead, but
with the living.
And Christ pleased to bring, not an unanswerable argu
ment, but one so far convincing as to be sufficient for the
conviction of the Sadducees. For He by these means re
pressed their arrogance and shamelessness ; so that when
they proposed, in derision, a Scripture, as if Christ could
not escape from it, He showed them that they were so dull
and ignorant that they could not reply to even the very
lightest argument of Moses in proof of the Resurrection.
The explanation of the second question is less difficult.
The Sadducees, as Origen and S. Jerome and The Author
have observed, denied the Resurrection, because they did
not believe in the immortality of the soul, as is clear from
Acts xxiii. 8. And, therefore, if the immortality of the soul
were proved by an admitted testimony, the Resurrection
CH. xxii. 30.] THE SADDUCEES CONFUTED. 239
would be also proved. Formerly, too, not only among the
Jews, but also almost all the schools of philosophy, the two
questions of the Immortality of the Soul and the Resurrec
tion were so united together as to be taken for one and the
same thing. Thus, we see, the author of the second Book of
Machabees (xii. 43) from the Immortality of the Soul proves
the Resurrection. The same is also done by S. Paul (i
Cor. xv.), where all the arguments for the resurrection of
the body only avail to prove the immortality of the soul ;
but as no one denied the Resurrection who did not believe
that the soul died, the same arguments prove the Resurrec
tion.
He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were now dead. But Christ
denied that they were dead in the sense supposed by the
Sadducees ; that is, that their souls were dead. For, in the
sense in which we call men dead whose souls are separated
from their bodies, God is called the Lord, not only of the
living, but also of the dead (Rom. xiv. 8), as S. Chrysostom
has observed. S. Luke (xx. 38) adds what seems rather to
weaken than add force to the argument ; for he says, " all
live " ; for if all the former live to God, even those who are
dead, these live also ; and then it does not follow that Abra
ham, Isaaac, and Jacob are not dead, as Christ would have
proved. The answer may be that when Christ added these
words, He only gave a reason for calling Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob living who had died ; for all, not only those who
are alive in the body, but also those who are dead, are alive
to God : not only because their souls are alive, but also
because God wills to bring it to pass that they should re
turn to their bodies, and live in the same way as they had
lived before ; as Christ said (ix. 24), " The girl is not dead,
but sleepeth ". Or they are dead to us, but live to God,
because we only see their bodies, and their bodies are
dead : God sees their souls, and these are truly alive.
240 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxii. 35.37.
Many ask why, as there are so many and plain testi
monies in Holy Scripture to the Resurrection, Christ Him
self did not most especially bring them forward. Origen
(On S. Matt, xxi.), S. Jerome, and Bede reply that the
Sadducees only received as Scripture the five books of
Moses, and that in consequence Christ must necessarily
answer them out of these.
Verse 35. And one of them, a doctor of the law.
S. Luke (xx. 39, 40) says that one of the Scribes, when
the Sadducees had been answered, said to Him, " Master,
Thou has well said ; and after that they durst not ask Him
any more questions ". This appears to apply, not to the
Scribes and Pharisees (who take this opportunity, as S.
Matthew says, of tempting Christ again, to show that they
were more learned than the Sadducees), but to the Saddu
cees themselves. For the man whom S. Matthew calls a
doctor of the law, S. Mark (xii. 28) calls a Scribe. Hence
we see that although the duties of the Pharisees and Scribes
were different, the same person was at times both a Phari
see and a Scribe. For it is clear from verse 34 that
this doctor of the law of whom S. Matthew speaks was a
Pharisee.
Verse 36. Which is the great commandment in the Law ?
The positive is here by a Hebraism put for the superla
tive ; as in 5. Mark xii. 28, 29.
Verse 37. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.
S. Mark (xii. 29) begins with, " Hear, O Israel ". S. Mat
thew only gives the first words, because in Moses both
commandments are in the same place and refer to the same
thing (Deut. vi. 4, 5). The first is, Thou shalt believe in
one God. The second, Thou shalt love Him with thy
whole heart, and with thy whole soul ; because he that
believes in more than one divides his love, and does not
CH. xxn. 39-] LOVE OF GOD AND OUR NEIGHBOUR. 241
love one with his whole heart ; as in chap. vi. 24 : " No man
can serve two masters," &c.
With thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul.
Some raise on these words a distinction apparently too
subtle. The meaning simply appears to be that we should
love God with all our strength, and look to Him for every
thing. S. Augustin has expressed this in the following
words : " When God said, with the whole heart, the whole
soul, the whole mind, He left no part of our life from
which He would be absent, and which should yield, as it
were, to the fruition of some other object. But whatever
else enters the mind as an object of love, it should be
carried off at once whither the impulse of entire love hurries
it." Lastly, what is read in Dent. vi. 5, in other words, is
compressed by S. Luke into one word (x. 27) : " Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy strength ".
Verse 39. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Christ says that these are the two great precepts of the
Law. They are not distinct from the others, but a com
pendium of them. Of the first table, " Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart," &c. Of the second,
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself".
It will be asked how Christ says that this is the greatest
of all the commandments, if they are not different com
mandments? It would seem to be as if He had said all
the commandments are the greatest. In answer Christ
meant only that all the commandments tend to the result
that we should love God with our whole hearts, and our
neighbours as ourselves ; as S. Paul said to the Romans :
"Love is the fulfilling of the Law" (xiii. 10) ; and as
Christ Himself said (verse 40) : " On these two command
ments dependeth the whole Law and the Prophets ".
How we are to understand the words, " Thou shalt love
our neighbour," depends on two things : (i) on our know-
2 16
242 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxn. 39.
ing who is called our neighbour ; (2) the meaning of the
word " as," sicut.
Christ has explained who our neighbour is by an entire
parable (S. Luke x. 30). He says that every man is our
neighbour.
The meaning of the word " as " is not so obvious. Some
take it materially, as if we were ordered to wish for our
neighbour all that we wish for ourselves. Others regard
the quality and manner, and that we must love our neigh
bour in the degree in which we love ourselves. Others
regard the result, that we should love our neighbour with
such effort and feeling (conatu et effectii) as those with which
we love ourselves.
All these meanings seem contained in the word " as ".
For there can be no question but that God willed us to
desire for our neighbour all that we desire for ourselves,
and, for the sake of God, to love him as we love ourselves.
But the question is, as S. Augustin has said, how we are
commanded to wish for our neighbour what we wish for
ourselves, when we often wish for evils riches, honours,
pleasures ; or how we are to love him as ourselves, when
we often love ourselves wrongly or more than we ought.
It is certain that we ought to wish for ourselves only what
is good, and to love ourselves only propter Deum. If we do
this, we cannot love ourselves otherwise than as we ought ;
and we are therefore commanded to love our neighbour in
the same way.
It will be objected that even from the first command
ment of loving God with our heart, the second of loving
our neighbour will follow ; and there was no need in conse
quence to command us to love our neighbour as ourselves.
The obvious reply is, that it is less natural to us to love our
neighbour than it is to love ourselves ; that everyone loves
himself most ; and that the law in question was given us
for this especial reason.
CH. xxn. 41-44.] THE PHARISEES ANSWERED. 243
Verse 41. And the Pharisees being gathered together.
S. Mark (xii. 35) says that Christ proposed this question
while He was teaching in the Temple ; but the explana
tion is more obvious, that the Pharisees were assembled in
the Temple.
SS. Mark and Luke do not say that Christ asked the
Pharisees, but said to them, when He was teaching, " How
do the Scribes say ? " but, as S. Augustin (De Consensu, ii.
74) says, it is a matter of no moment S. Matthew has
given both the question and the objection, " What think
you ? " He said, " How then doth David in spirit call him
Lord ? "
The other two Evangelists have not given the question,
but only the objection. And because they had not said
that Christ asked the Scribes and Pharisees, they do not
say " as you say," but " as the Scribes say ". Their saying
" as the Scribes say " when it was not the Scribes, but
Scripture, has been explained on chap. xvii. 10; for Scripture
is said to say what is not found in it, because the interpre
ters of Scripture said it.
Verse 43. How then dotJi David in spirit.
That is, when he was full of the Spirit of God, not of his
own, which might be deceived and lie, but of the Spirit of
God, which can do neither. It is a Hebraism, as in Ps.
xxx. 23 and cxv. 2.
Verse 44. The Lord said to my Lord.
(See Ps. cix. 6.) The objections of the Jews were chiefly
two :
i. That the psalm was not written by David, but either
by Melchisedech, as Rabbi Abraham says in his commen
taries, or by Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, or by some
one who wrote psalms in the time of David, as Aben Ezra
supposes.
244 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxii. 45.
2. The second objection is that the words are not to be
understood of Christ, but either of Abraham as is the
present opinion of the Jews or of David, as Aben Ezra
and Rabbi David think ; or of Ezechia, king of the Jews,
as we learn from S. Justin Martyr (In Tryph^} and Tertul-
lian (Cent. Marcion., v.) that the Jews used to explain them
after the time of Christ. This has been refuted on the
Psalm cix. For if it had not been certain in the time of
Christ that the Psalms were both written by David, and
must be understood of Christ, it would have been obvious
for the Scribes and Pharisees, who were much more learned
than the Jews of later ages, to have replied to it. Now,
however, the modern Jews are clearly confuted by the
silence of their forefathers.
Verse 45. If David then call Him Lord, how is He his son ?
Christ speaks from the opinion of the Pharisees, who
thought that Christ would be a mere man, although Scrip
ture declared that He would be not only man, but also
God. The words of Christ, then, do not prove that He
was not the son of David, but that He was more than the
son of David : that is, the son of God, and true God ; and,
therefore, David called Him Lord.
CHAPTER XXIII.
CHRIST ADMONISHES THE PEOPLE TO FOLLOW THE GOOD
DOCTRINE, NOT THE BAD EXAMPLE OF THE SCRIBES
AND PHARISEES HE WARNS HIS DISCIPLES NOT TO
IMITATE THEIR AMBITION, AND DENOUNCES DIVERS
WOES AGAINST THEM FOR THEIR HYPOCRISY AND
BLINDNESS.
Verse i. Then.
WHEN He saw that the Scribes and Pharisees were past
being influenced (S. Chrysostom, The Author, Euthymius).
Spoke to the multitudes and His disciples.
Probably not to all the disciples, but to those of them
who were less familiar with Him and not so deeply
instructed. For it would hardly have seemed necessary to
give these admonitions to the Apostles and to those who
were always with Him (Origen, Tract, on S. Matt. xiv.).
Verse 2. On the chair of Moses.
Some think that the chair of Moses was a platform from
which the Scribes and Pharisees read the Law in the hear
ing of the people, as Esdras did (2 Esdras viii. 4). This is
the opinion of Euthymius, though confuted by others,
because (S. Luke iv. 16 ; Acts xiii. 16) we learn that it was
not the custom of the Jews that they who read or explained
the Scriptures should mount a platform, but should speak
standing ; as is the custom among the Jews still, and was
246 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxm. 3.
formerly among Christians, and as S. Paul wished to be
done (i Cor. xiv. 30). By the seat of Moses, S. Jerome
and Bede understand the doctrine of Moses. Whoever
taught this, used to sit on a seat, though such is not the
custom now.
Scribes and Pharisees.
On these and their duties, see chap. ii. 4.
Verse 3. All things, therefore, whatsoever they shall say
to you, observe and do.
It will occur to the reader to ask how Christ could teach
that all things which the Scribes and Pharisees ordered
should be done, when He so frequently blamed their doctrine
and warned them (xvi. 12) to beware of their leaven, and
accused the disciples (verses 16, 17) of their false doctrine.
S. Augustin (De Doctrina CJiristi, lib. iv. 27 ; Cont. Faust.,
xvi. 29) answers, that Christ spoke only of the Pharisees as
sitting in the seat of Moses, for then the very seat itself
compelled them to speak the truth. But who can doubt
that they would have taught their false doctrines in that
seat if they had sat on it, or in the synagogue and school
of Moses? S. Chrysostom and Euthymius think that Christ
could not have meant all their Law, but only those things
which were necessary to salvation, such as the precepts of
the Decalogue ; for He was so far from commanding the
observance of ceremonies and the other precepts, which
were only given for a time, that He rather did them away.
This is more likely, but it is not certain, because not only
here but everywhere else He commanded them to keep the
Law and its ordinances, and He Himself kept them till His
death, because they were not then done away. He does
not speak of the doctrine of the Scribes and Pharisees, but
of the Law and Moses ; as if He had said, All things which
the Law and Moses say, when the Scribes and Pharisees
read them to you, observe and do ; but according to their
CH. xxm. 4, 5.] THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES. 247
works do ye not. So S. Hilary and S. Jerome think. It
will be asked why He did not say, " Whatever Moses says,"
but instead, " Whatever the Scribes and Pharisees say,
observe and do " ? Two reasons can be given for this : (i)
He desired to expose the hypocrisy of the Scribes and
Pharisees, which He would not have done if He had not
said that they taught in one manner and lived in another ;
and (2) He was about to censure them very heavily, and it
seemed more befitting to praise them first, that He might
not appear to disapprove everything with passion and
without judgment.
Verse 4. For they bind heavy burdens.
The meaning is not, as S. Chrysostom thinks, of cere
monial burdens ; because, as said before, Christ had not yet
done away the Law of which S. Peter spoke in Acts xv. 10,
but of those traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees which
were either wholly contrary to Scripture, or certainly not
necessary to salvation ; such as are mentioned with disap
probation in verses 5, 16, 17, as Origen and Theophylact
explain.
But with a finger.
Christ opposes the finger to the shoulders. The Scribes
and Pharisees would not help the unhappy persons whom
they had burthened with their senseless laws even by their
little finger ; they would neither encourage them by their
example to bear their burthens, nor act as stewards in their
own traditions, when they would often do so in the law of
God ; that is, they would not move them with a finger.
Verse 5 . For they make broad.
Christ proves the truth of the words immediately preced
ing by two of the most trivial things their phylacteries
and fringes. For how could they who placed their pride in
such matters care for greater ones ?
248 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxm. 8.
Their phylacteries.
Phylacteries, as Origen, S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, and
Euthymius say, were parchments on which precepts of the
Law were written, and which the Pharisees and Scribes
bound round their heads and arms to keep the law of God
continually before their eyes, as ordered in Deut. vi. 8. S.
Jerome says that the Indians, Persians, and Babylonians
did the same in his time ; and they were called phylacteries
by the Greeks because they were instituted to preserve the
memory of the Law.
Certain unwoven fringes ri!T2 hung down from the
bottom of the dress, and were called fimbricz, or fringes,
by the Hebrews. .TlT^ tsitsith (Numb. xv. 28), as Rabbi
David explains it, and D^Tl (Deut. xxii. 12).
The Jews were commanded by God to make fringes of
blue in the two passages cited above, to keep them in re
membrance of the Law. The Scribes and Pharisees in
creased their size more than the other Jews. S. Jerome
says that they even used to fasten them with very sharp
thorns, which pricked them when they walked or sat
down, and by the pain reminded them of the Law. It may
be asked why the Scribes and Pharisees made their hems
and fringes broad from ambition. It has been answered
that the mere precepts of the Law could be written on
their phylacteries, but it cannot be said of the fringes, on
which no precepts could be written. It is. more likely, as
Theophylact thinks, that they did it to make themselves
more conspicuous as they walked about, and that they
might be seen to be observers of the Law ; or, as is the
opinion of S. Chrysostom, that they might show that they
kept the Law more carefully than the other Jews.
Verse 8. But be not ye called Rabbi.
From these words to verse 13 the whole is a warning of
CH. xxni. 13.] THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES. 249
the disciples not to follow the example of the Pharisees.
God does not forbid father or master to call or be called this,
absolutely, but only in comparison with Himself ; and the
Pharisees of whom He was speaking. That, in comparison
with God, we should think that there could be neither
father nor master ; nor prefer either these titles of honour
and love, to the honour and love of Him. In comparison
with the Pharisees ; that we do not call them father, or
master, in the same sense as they do that is, ambitiously
and in vain-glory like those who said, " I am of Paul,"
and another, "I am of Apollo" (i Cor. iii. 4), glorying
each in his own master. In any other sense we may,
beyond doubt, both call ourselves and be called father or
master.
Verse 1 3. But woe to yon.
This verse is put as the I4th by S. Chrysostcm, Euthy-
mius, Theophylact, and The Author, and the I4th is put
here. Christ speaks with great anger of the Scribes and
Pharisees to the end of the chapter, especially accusing them
of hypocrisy : not in any sudden outbreak of powerless
anger or slander, but with the fixed plan and determination
of warning the unhappy people before His approaching
death not to be deluded by the false pretences of these
men. It is matter of doubt whether all that Christ says
against the Scribes and Pharisees in this chapter was said
at the same time and place. For S. Luke (xi. 39, 42-52)
relates much of it as if spoken at a different time ; and S.
Augustin (De Consent., ii. 75) thinks that there were two con
versations, one given by S. Matthew, the other by S. Luke,
and that Christ said the same things twice. But it would
appear more probable that He said all once, and at the
same time, as appears from S. Luke, but that S. Matthew
brought all into one in this place because the argument
was the same, and that He acted thus, not to frame the
250 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH.xxm. 13.
history in the exact order of time, but to set forth the
doctrine of Christ, as in the preceding chapter (verse 2)
under similar circumstances.
Because you sJmt the kingdom of heaven.
S. Luke says a little otherwise (xi. 52) : You have taken
away the key of knowledge. These words have more force,
for they signify that the Scribes and Pharisees had so
usurped to themselves the knowledge of the Law that they
thought that no one, unless they themselves showed them
the way, could enter into the kingdom of heaven. The
metaphor is taken from the master of the house, who keeps
the key of it if he does not wish persons to enter or leave
it without his consent. The Scribes and Pharisees are said
to shut the kingdom of heaven because they taught men
that no one could enter unless they themselves opened,
that is, taught them how to enter ; under which idea they
placed upon the people all the traditions they pleased, like
heavy burthens. The words " Before men " is a Hebraism
O~IN ^Q7 " the opening of the door before the eyes of
men," by which is meant that they prevented many who
were at the threshold of the gate of heaven ; and who,
unless they prevented them, would enter in, as S. Chrysos-
tom perceived and as is indicated in the next words, Vos
non, " You yourselves do not enter in, and those that are
going in you suffer not to enter ".
The meaning of the words, " You yourselves do not enter
in," &c., has been explained in two ways. Origen, Hilary,
The Author, S. Jerome, and Bede think that they them
selves did not believe in Christ and hindered others from
doing so ; but, as was said on verse 3, Christ is speaking
here of the observance of the Law. S. Chrysostom s
opinion seems better : that the Scribes and Pharisees had
not entered into the kingdom of heaven, because they did
not keep the ordinances of God ; and they prevented others
CH. xxin. 14.] THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES. 251
from doing so, because they loaded them with useless and
intolerable traditions ; and when the people could not
keep them they could not, at least in the opinion of the
Pharisees, enter into the kingdom of heaven ; but it did not
hinder their salvation that they had not kept the traditions
of the Pharisees. Christ, however, speaks from the opinion
of the Pharisees. This meaning is easily gathered from
verse 16, &c.
Verse 14. Because yon devour the houses of widows.
Some think that Origen and S. Jerome did not read this
verse, as they did not explain it, and it is not in the eighth
Canon of the Gospels, in which only SS. Mark and Luke
are contained. This would go rather against the Canon
than the Gospels, for all versions, Latin, Greek, and Syriac,
have it. This and the former verse, as said before, have
been transposed by the Greeks.
The Scribes and Pharisees are said to devour widows
houses, that is, their property ; but the manner of their
doing so is not certain. Some think that they visited the
houses of widows to give them consolation as such, and
being entertained liberally for their office and dignity, they
thus devoured their substance. Others suppose that
widows sought them as men of holiness, and purchased
their prayers. This is more likely, as the words that
follow immediately, " Praying long prayers," show : giving
the probable reason of their devouring their houses, that
they sold these prayers. Christ seems to have mentioned
widows rather than other women for two especial reasons :
(i) because such are thought to be more especially religious,
and are much more easily imposed upon by the appearance
of holiness ; and (2) because it was a much greater wicked
ness in the Scribes and Pharisees to devour the substance
of widows, who should rather have received comfort and
support, than to consume the property of other less un-
25? THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxm. 15.
happy persons. This is the view taken by S. Chrysostom
and Euthymius.
Praying long prayers.
The Greek adds KOLI irpofydcrei /j,aKpa TTpoo-ev^o^evoi^ "and
for a pretence, or, for an occasion, making long prayers " ;
our version does not contain the words KCLI or Trpofydcrei.
The former seems, indeed, not to be required by, but to be
at variance with, the text. The other word, " for an
occasion " (TT ponder ei), seems to be tenable and agreeable
to the meaning of the passage. Our interpreter probably
read them, but gave the meaning rather than the words.
The word " occasion," if it remain, may mean the bait
which the priests and Pharisees used with their long
prayers to take the means of the women ; as it is used by
S. Paul : " What then ? So that by all means, whether by
occasion or by truth, Christ be preached ; in this also I
rejoice, yea, and will rejoice" (Phil. i. 18).
For this you shall receive the greater judgment .
That is, double the judgment of the rest, as the next
verse describes, because they sinned twofold : (i) by con
suming the means of the widows ; and (2) by doing it
under the pretence of holiness ; as S. Chrysostom and The
Author have observed. "Judgment" is put by a Hebraism,
and according to Scripture, for condemnation. "Receive"
signifies in Hebrew both to receive and to bear (ferre).
Verse 1 5. You go about the sea and the land ("aridam"}.
That is, you leave nothing undone to make one proselyte.
This seems a kind of proverb like leaving no stone un
turned among the Latins, and "to move every rope"
among the Greeks. The land is called aridam (dry) in
agreement with the Hebrew, as in Gen. i. 10, and as the
Greeks often called it. S. Chrysostom and Euthymius on
CH. xxni. 15.] THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES. 253
the passage say that the words describe not the diligence
of the Scribes and Pharisees, but the difficulty of the
matter, as if the meaning were : " Woe to you, Scribes and
Pharisees, who by your wickedness so turn away strangers
from all desire of the divine Law, that it is so difficult to
make even one proselyte to the true religion, that you are
compelled to go round about sea and land for him". But
it is clearly not the difficulty that is meant, but the zeal
and ambition of the Scribes and Pharisees, who endea
voured most anxiously to draw the Gentiles to the Jewish
religion, either from ambition that they might increase
the number of the people of God, and have the government
of them from their holiness and doctrine, as some say ; or,
as The Author and others think, that by augmenting the
number of the Jews, they might increase the number of
sacrifices, and thus get greater profit for themselves.
Either is credible of the Pharisees. The Greeks called
those who turned from Gentile superstitions to the religion
of the Jews, proselytes, the Hebrews D*H3 and Christians,
neophytes (i Tim. iii. 6).
A nd ivhen lie is made, you make him tlie child of JielL
This is a Hebraism, by which he is called a child of hell
who has merited hell, as he is called a child of death who
is in time to die.
more than yourselves.
AiT7\oTepov VJAWV, "Twofold more than yourselves"; that
is, you merit a twofold condemnation and punishment, but
you make him merit a more than twofold. It was shown
in the preceding verse how the Scribes and Pharisees were
deserving of a twofold punishment. Their sin was twofold :
avarice and the simulation of holiness. How they could
make their proselytes worse than themselves may be a
question, for it seems scarcely possible. The Author
254 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxm. 16.
thinks that the proselytes deserved a heavier punishment
than the Pharisees, because they sinned more heavily in
not believing Christ when they had forsaken their idolatry,
than if they had never left it. S. Chrysostom says that the
Pharisees deliberately endeavoured to make their converts
from idolatry worse than themselves. The Author and
Euthymius say, with more reason, that they were more
inclined by nature to copy vice than virtue, and that thus
the masters were easily surpassed in wickedness by their
disciples.
Verse 16. Blind guides.
They are called guides, not as being true guides, but
either from their office of teachers, or from the opinion of
those who set themselves up as the leaders of the rest : as
the idols of the Gentiles are called gods, because the
Gentiles thought them such, and the false prophets are
often called Prophets.
Whosoever swears by the Temple.
Ev TO) va, by a Hebraism for per, " by," as in the
following verses 1 is put both for in and per.
It is nothing.
That is, the person owes nothing, is not a debtor. Some
say that this is not to be taken absolutely, but compara
tively ; for it is not likely that the Pharisees were so
shameless as to teach that it was no sin to swear by the
Temple : but that it was a less sin than to swear by the
gold of the Temple, though many of the Ancients thought
this. S. Jerome, Theophylact, and S. Thomas explain it
thus. If any man, in any suit or doubtful question, swore
by the Temple, and was afterwards convicted of falsehood,
he was not held guilty ; but if he swore by the gold and
money which were offered to the priests in the Temple, he
was at once compelled to make good that which he had
CH. xxni. 17-23.] THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES. 255
sworn to do. Again, if a man swore by the altar, no one
thought him guilty of perjury ; but if he swore by the
oblations that is, the victims or sacrifices, or other offerings
to God on the altar the vow was required to be most
strictly performed. The above authors think that avarice
was the original cause of this tradition. It is a question
what was meant by the gold of the Temple. Theophylact
thinks it meant all the gold with which the interior of the
Temple was adorned ; Euthymius, the vessels, candle
sticks, and other gold furniture of the Temple ; S. Jerome
and Bede, all the money of the Temple, which is more
likely.
Verse 17. For whether.
Christ gives as His reason for calling the Pharisees blind
that they do not see that the Temple is greater than the
gold. Christ argues from the natural axiom which is
found in Aristotle, " That, because of which a thing is such
as it is, is greater than the thing" (lib. i., poster. 2). For the
gold in the Temple would not be holy unless the Temple
were holy. The Temple, therefore, is more holy.
Verse 22. And he that swear etJi by heaven.
Chap. v. 34 explains this.
Verse 23. And you have left.
The time past is meant here, when the Scribes and
Pharisees had consigned the most weighty precepts of God
to oblivion, as completely as if they had been abrogated.
Judgment.
Christ explains the more weighty precepts of the Law,,
which they had long ago forsaken : judgment, by which
his right is rendered to every man for the Scribes and
Pharisees were often judges, as in chap. v. 22 and Scrip-
256 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxm. 24, 25.
ture hates nothing more than corrupt or perverse judgment
(Deut. xvi. 19 ; Isa. i. 25 ; Mich. iii. n ; vii. 3).
Mercy.
Love of our neighbour, which God prefers before all
things (Osee vi. 6 ; Apoc. ix. 13 ; Mich. vi. 8 ; Zach. vii. 9).
Faith.
Not divine faith, by which we believe in God, but the
human faith, by which we keep our mutual compacts. It
is defined to be " trustworthiness in speech and act " (Lib.
de Offic., i.). God would have it carefully kept (Levit.
vi. 2, 4, 5).
Verse 24. Who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.
In hot climates gnats are apt to get into the wine, so
that it is often necessary to strain it before drinking. A
camel is named, after the custom of the country, as the
greatest object opposed to the least (ix. 27). It appears to
have been a proverb like the other, " It is easier for a
camel to go through the eye of a needle".
Verse 2 5 . The outside of the cup and the dish.
TO effcoOev rov irorrjpiov. The outside of the cup and of
the dish, or, what would be nearer the Greek idiom, quod
extra calicem et paropsidcm est. S. Matthew calls the cup
calicem, and the dish from which the food was taken
paropsidem. S. Luke calls the latter catinum, which is a
similar thing or the same.
But within.
That is, the contents, for rd is understood. The cup and
the dish are the man himself. The outside is the defile
ments of the body, the inside those of the soul. The appli
cation is to those who gave too much care to the removal
of bodily stains, and too little to remedy the faults of the
CH. xxin. 26, 29.] THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES. 257
soul. This also appears to have been a proverb, by which
is meant a man who regards too much the things that are
less essential, and neglects what is of real importance ; as
if he should clean the outside of a vessel which contains
meat or drink, and leave the inside unclean.
Verse 26. That the outside may become clean.
It has been asked how, the inside being cleansed, that
which is without should be cleansed ; for there appears to
be no obstacle to a man having a clean mind but a soiled
body. That which is from without is ordered to be made
clean after the inside has been so ; whereas the outside does
not more defile than if it were not unclean, as is said
in chap. xv. 1 1 : " Not that which goeth into the mouth
defileth a man, but what cometh out of the mouth, this de-
fileth a man " ; and Titus i. 15: " All things are clean to
the clean ; but to them that are defiled and to unbelievers
nothing is clean ; but both their mind and their conscience
are defiled ".
Verse 29. That build the sepulchres of the Prophets and
adorn the monuments of the just.
Christ seems to call the same persons Prophets and
just men, as in other places, and .S. John ix. 17 : as the
tombs and monuments are the same. The Hebrew often
expresses the same idea in different words. They built the
tombs of the Prophets, as S. Hilary says, when decayed by
time. It appears from this passage that these tombs were
held in honour by the Jews, and it was not blameable, but
praiseworthy, in the Scribes and Pharisees to take care of
them, as Origen (Tract, in Matt, xxvi.), S. Chrysostom, and
Euthymius point out. Christ does not blame them for
this ; but because, when they had built these up, they
committed worse murders than they who killed the Pro
phets, whose sepulchres they built.
217
258 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxm. 31,32.
Verse 31. Wherefore you are ivitnesses against yourselves,
that you are the sons of them that killed the Prophets.
Christ convicts the Scribes and Pharisees out of their
own lips of being the sons of those who slew the Prophets :
" If we had been in the days of our fathers we would not
have been partakers with them in the blood of the Pro
phets" that they bear witness against themselves that
they are the sons of those who killed the Prophets ; but S.
Luke states the case a little differently (xi. 48) : " Truly
you bear witness that you consent to the doings of your
fathers : for they indeed killed them, and you build their
sepulchres ". It is probable that Christ said both what S.
Matthew and what S. Luke ascribe to Him, and that S.
Matthew recorded one of the sayings and S. Luke the
other. It remains to be seen how, in 5. Luke> Christ con
cludes that they bear witness that they consented to the
deeds of their fathers. Christ does not appear to conclude
this ex animi sententia, but only to turn the argument which
the Scribes and Pharisees used to prove their holiness
against them, and to prove their wickedness. For they
who built the tombs of the Prophets might appear either
to have done so in their honour, or to kill them a second
time that is, to bury their memories with their bodies ;
like robbers, who bury their victims, not from humanity,
but to prevent their being discovered. The Scribes and
Pharisees use the argument in the former sense ; Christ in
the latter ; not to show that they built the tombs of the
Prophets with the design of consenting to the murders of
their fathers, but that the fact itself might be taken in this
sense, as well as in the contrary one.
Verse 32. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
That is, "Kill those Prophets whom, as they were not yet
in existence, your fathers could not kill ". Christ means
Himself and those whom He said (verse 34) that He would
CH. xxm. 33, 34-] THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES. 259
send. S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius have
observed that, although Christ appears to command, He
does not really do so, but foretells what would happen, as
He did when He said to Judas Iscariot (S. John xiii. 27),
" That which thou doest, do quickly ". It might rather be
said that He made a concession to them.
Verse 33. You serpents, generation of vipers.
( Vide chap. iii. 7.) The meaning is, as they were the sons
of vipers, what could they be but vipers themselves? for the
offspring cannot be better than their parents, though they
are often worse.
How will yon flee from the judgment of hell ?
That is, how can you be saved, being, as you are, vipers?
This is not said as a thing impossible, for they might brmg
forth penitence and be saved : but that those who have
persisted long and obstinately in wickedness rarely repent;
or they might have been so hardened as to appear beyond
the hope of amendment.
Verse 34. Therefore.
Christ does not say why He would send Prophets, and
wise men, and Scribes, for He was not about to send them
on account of the wickedness of the Scribes and Pharisees ;
but He gives the reason for which the Scribes and Pharisees
would put them to death. They were serpents and genera
tions of vipers, which are hostile to the life of man. S. Luke
(xi. 49) speaks otherwise : " For this cause also the wisdom of
God said, I will send to them Prophets and Apostles, and
some of them they will kill and persecute ". Christ seems to
bring up the testimony of some Prophet, when none such
is in Scripture. It is credible that Christ said what is
related by S. Luke, and did not say, " Behold, I send," as S.
Matthew says, but " The wisdom of God said, I will send,"
lest if He had said, " I send," He should appear to make
260 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxm. 35.
Himself God, whose prerogative it is to send the Prophets.
S. Matthew gives the meaning, but not the words. For it
is the same thing in Him to say, "The wisdom of God
sends," and " I send," because He is the wisdom of God,
and by the ambiguity of His words He escaped ill-will.
He would not therefore cite the words of any of the Pro
phets, but spoke as Himself interpreting the will of God
and announcing the future. As the Prophets used to say,
" Thus saith the Lord," so He said, " The wisdom of God
saith " that is, " decreed " a Hebraism.
Prophets and wise men and Scribes.
S. Luke says Prophets and Apostles ; hence it appears
that Christ called His Apostles Scribes and Prophets, as in
accordance with the ordinary language of the Jews, by
whom the Scribes were called Doctors of the Law (xiii. 52 ;
i Cor. i. 20). Where is the wise ? Where is the Scribe ?
Where is the disputer of this world ?
Verse 35. That upon you may come.
Euthymius rightly observes that in this passage " that "
signifies not the cause but the effect. It is a Hebrew
expression signifying that the blood of one may come
upon another, or upon his head ; that is, that he may suffer
the punishment of murder, as chap, xxvii. 25 : "His blood
be upon us and upon our children" that is, "we and our
children will answer for it, and if there be any sin, we will
suffer the penalty ". A similar expression is found in other
places : Levit. xx. 9-13 ; Joshua xi. 19 ; 2 Kings i. 16. As
the Latins say, " If any evil happen, on me and my head
be it " (Seneca, De Beneficiis^ xxxi.).
That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been
shed upon the earth, from the blood of A bel the just even
to the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom
you killed between the Temple and the Altar.
Christ evidently intended to say that they should suffer
CH. xxiu. 35.] THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES. 26l
punishment for the death of all the Prophets who had been
slain by the Jews. Abel is numbered among the Prophets,
because he seemed to foreshow the sacrifice of Christ by
his own, as S. Paul says (Heb. xi. 4). Christ enumerates
Abel amongst those who were slain by the Jews, when he
was not so, because Cain, by whom he was slain, was the
head of all murderers, and although he was not by nature
the father of the Jews, he was so by imitation. The Jews
are said to be his sons, therefore, in the sense in which they
are said to be the sons of the devil (S. John viii. 44 ; S.
Jude u). So says The Author. There is a question here
as to who was the Zacharias of whom Christ speaks, as
there were many of that name. Some think that Christ
speaks of Zacharias the father of John the Baptist. These
mention an ancient apocryphal tradition that when, after
the birth of Christ, His mother went as before to sit among
the virgins, the priests prevented her, as she had borne a
son ; and slew Zacharias, her defender, who knew that she
was a virgin, and that for this reason he was slain by the
other priests between the Temple and the Altar. So say
Origen (Tract, in S. Matt, xvi.), S. Basil (Horn, de Human.
Generat. Christ?), Theophylact and Euthymius (in loc.}, Epi-
phanius (Hceres. Gnost). This would agree well with the
text if there were any support for it from history. For
Zacharias, the father of John, was the last of the Prophets;
and it is clear that Christ intended to say that the Scribes
and Pharisees should suffer punishment for the blood of all
the Prophets who had been slain from the first to the last.
But the name Barachias does not agree, for there is nothing
to show that the father of Zacharias was Barachias.
Others think that Christ spoke of that Zacharias who
was one of the Prophets, for (Zac/i. i. i) he is called the
son of Barachias. Origen, S. Chrysostom, and S. Jerome
think this. Others, again, suppose him to have been the
Zacharias the son of Jehoida the priest, who (2 Paral.
262 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxm. 35.
xxiv. 21) is said to have been slain between the Temple
and the Altar. This is the opinion of S. Jerome, Bede,
and all the later authorities. It is more likely than the
others, as this is the only Zacharias mentioned in Scripture
as having been slain between the Temple and the Altar ;
and it is very probable that Christ would have alluded to
a fact that was well known and which is related in Scrip
ture. There is one objection, however, to this. The
Zacharias of Scripture is called the son, not of Barachias,
but Jehoida. Two answers have been given to the objec
tion. I. As S. Jerome says, Christ regarded not the sound
of the name (vox nominis), but the meaning. Barachias
means in Hebrew, " Blessed of the Lord " ; that is, a just
man, one abounding in divine grace, such as all Scripture
states Jehoida to have been. 2. Jehoida had two names,
and was called Jehoida by name and Barachias by sur
name. This conjecture is probable, and in confirmation of
it S. Jerome says that he read in the Gospel of the
Nazarenes, for " the son of Barachias," " the son of
Jehoida".
Another objection may occur, that this Zacharias was
not the last of the Prophets, as Christ appears to signify ;
for there were many after him, and John Baptist was the
last who was slain. The answer is easy. Christ only
speaks of those Prophets who are mentioned as having
been slain in Holy Scripture, that the Scribes and Pharisees
might not be able to deny that these were put to death by
their fathers. Among those of whom we read in Scripture
as having been put to death, that Zacharias, the son of
Jehoida, was the last.
Another question may here arise how Christ could
threaten that all the blood of the ancient Prophets should
come upon the Scribes and Pharisees, when they had not
killed them themselves, and the son ought not to bear the
iniquity of his father (Ezek. xviii. 19).
CH. xxiii. 35.] THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES. 263
It has been answered that all the Jews were as one con
gregation and nation. In nations, the deeds of the fathers
are accounted as those of their descendants. Thus the
Amalekites, because they refused a passage through their
country to the children of Israel when coming out of
Egypt, are ordered to be wholly cut off (Exod. xvii. 8-14).
This was not done till more than four hundred years after,
when none of those who refused the Israelites were alive
(i Kings xv. 6, 7). On the same principle, the Scribes and
Pharisees were made accountable for the blood of the
Prophets ; not that they killed them themselves, but as
their state and forefathers did so, they themselves are said
to have done it. So say S. Jerome and Bede. Others say
that the sons often share the punishment of their fathers
when they follow their sins, as God has threatened (Exod.
xx. 5). Others, again, that the children are not punished
for the sins of their fathers, even when they follow their sins :
but are said to be so, because, when they did not reject
their example, they suffered heavier punishments. So
say S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius. It
does not seem necessary to speak here as to whether
children are punished for the sins of their fathers, because
the question has been discussed at length on Exod. xx.
5. It would appear that in this instance Christ spoke
in the ordinary human manner, and meant only that the
Scribes and Pharisees would suffer such heavy punishments
for their murders that they might seem to bear the weight
even of those of their fathers, as well as their own : not
that they had to bear them both, but that they would be
punished more heavily, and they merited no mercy. We
say of an assassin who has committed many murders with
impunity, if he perpetrates a fresh one and is convicted and
executed, that he has paid all at once. Not that he has
done so literally, one by one : not that he suffered greater
punishment than he deserved for his last crime ; but he is
264 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxm. 36, 37-
punished without mercy, and has undergone the very
greatest penalty possible.
The event, as found in verse 38, " Behold your house
shall be left to you desolate," and the whole chapter fol
lowing, shows that this was the meaning of Christ. In
that destruction it was scarcely possible that the Scribes
and Pharisees could have undergone greater punishments
than they did, as Josephus has related in full. But if they
had put no other prophet or disciple of Christ to death,
they would have merited punishments far more heavy for
having crucified Christ Himself. Thus they were so far
from having expiated the guilt of their forefathers, that
they did not suffer the full penalty even for their own
offences ; but they are said to have paid the penalty of the
blood of all the Prophets, because they suffered the most
they could.
Verse 36. Amen, I say unto you, all these things shall come
upon this generation.
The exclamation, " Amen," and its repetition show that,
as was said before, the threat is not to be considered an
empty one. Christ means the whole race of Jews by the
words "this generation". It is a Hebraism, and the word
means genus.
Verse 37. How often would I have gathered together thy
children, as the hen doth gather the chickens under her
wings, and thou wouldest not.
All ancient authorities agree that the meaning is, that
God called the Jews to a better mind, and they would not
come, as is shown in the parable in the preceding chapter
(verse 3) ; and in Prov. i. 24 : " Because I called, and you
refused ; I stretched out My hand, and there was none that
regarded"; and ha. Ixv. 12, and Ixvi. 4: "Because I
called, and ye did not answer ; I spoke, and you did not
CH. xxiii. 38, 39.] THE COMING DESOLATION. 265
hear"; and Jer. vii. 13 : "I have spoken to you, rising up
early and speaking, and you have not heard ; and I have
called you, and you have not answered ". To call, and to
wish to gather together, is the same thing ; and not to
answer, and to refuse to be gathered together, is the same
thing.
Verse 38. Behold, your house shall be left unto you desolate.
The word " Behold" seems to indicate the near approach
of the event, as observed (ii. i) in many other passages.
By "your house" Christ either meant the city, as Bede
supposes : that being their city which was speedily to be
laid waste, as God had before threatened " And now I
will show you what I will do to My vineyard. I will take
away the hedge thereof, and it shall be wasted ; and I will
break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down ;
and I will make it desolate" (Isa. v. 5) or, as is more
probable, the Temple, as S. Jerome and Theophylact say ;
because, as of old, so in these days, the Jews so trusted to
their Temple that they thought themselves to possess a
most certain protection in it, as we find from Jer. vii. 4 :
" Trust not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord,
the temple of the Lord, it is the temple of the Lord ". For
in the time of Jeremiah, before the Jews were taken cap
tive, God had uttered a like threat against them, as recorded
by Jeremiah (xii. 7) : "I have forsaken My house, I have
left My inheritance ; I have given My dear soul into the
hand of her enemies ".
Verse 39. For I say unto you.
Christ tells them the reason of this coming desolation.
He Himself, by whom, as by the truth, the figure was
fulfilled, was after a little while to leave the world ; and as
a house, when its owners have left it, will fall into ruins,
266 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxm. 39.
so the Temple, after His departure, would be utterly
destroyed.
Till you say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the
Lord.
All ancient Fathers agree that this refers to the second
coming of Christ ; but all do not agree as to how the Jews
will say, " Blessed is He that cometh," &c., of Him. Some
of the most early think that many of the Jews will believe
in Him at the end of the world, and will speak these words.
S. Jerome says that the meaning is: "You shall not see Me
again until you confess Me to be Him who cometh in
the name of the Lord ". Euthymius, Theophylact, and
apparently S, Chrysostom, think that the Jews will then
make that confession, not willingly, but by compulsion.
They may probably then say many things unwillingly ;
but from their minds, and not from their lips alone. For
Christ appears to speak as if a king should say to some
one who would not acknowledge him as such, " I will put
thee to death, and then thou wilt confess me to be a king,"
as meaning, not that the man would confess it in words,
but that he would discover it to be so in fact. So Zach.
xii. 10 and 5. John xix. 37, where the words, " They shall
look," have the same meaning as " You say " in the text.
Christ probably alludes to what had happened shortly
before (xxi. 16). When the children cried out " Hosanna,"
the Scribes said with indignation, " Hearest thou?" as if
they thought the children guilty of blasphemy because they
sang to Christ, " Hosanna to the Son of David ". Christ
therefore tells them that the time would come when they
themselves would be compelled to say the same. S. Chry
sostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius have observed that
the word "henceforth," amodo, an apri, marks, not a
point of time, but the time of the Passion ; after which,
although the Apostles and some of the disciples saw Him
when risen, the Jews of whom He spoke did not see Him.
CHAPTER XXIV.
CHRIST FORETELLS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE :
WITH THE SIGNS THAT SHALL COME BEFORE IT,
AND BEFORE THE LAST JUDGMENT WE MUST
ALWAYS WATCH.
Verse i. And Jesus being come out of the Temple, went away.
Kal efeX#o>z>, et egressus. Our translation seems to have
read Kal with a better meaning. For " Jesus being come
out, went from the Temple," appears tautological. Some
Greek copies also have the reading of our version.
A nd His disciples came.
S. Mark (xiii. i) says that one of His disciples only
came, but Eustathius thinks that all the disciples spoke
first among themselves about the beauty of the Temple,
and then that they came to Christ, as S. Matthew says ;
and that one of them said for the rest, " Master," &c., as
related by S. Mark : or that S. Matthew may have spoken
by syllepsis, saying that they came to Him, because one
did (as in chap. xxvi. 8) : whilst from 5. John xii. 4 it is clear
that only one murmured; and we read in chap, xxvii. 44 that
the " thieves cast the same in His teeth," when from 5. Liike
xxiii. 30 we know that only one of the thieves blasphemed.
To show Him the buildings.
Origen, S. Hilary, S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and
Euthymius think, what was very probable, that they were
moved by the words (xxiii. 38), " Behold, your house shall
be left to you desolate," to show Christ the Temple ; or, as
268 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxiv. 2.
some others suggest, by admiration : for it did not seem
possible that a temple so vast and splendid should be
demolished ; or, as others say more probably, from pity at
the intolerable thought that an edifice so splendid and
wonderful should be laid in ruins. They appear, as Origen
says, to have wished to arouse in Christ feelings of com
miseration for it, so as to induce Him to recall His
sentence against it.
It was built by Herod from the foundation with incredible
labour. It is described by Josephus in his Antiquities (xv.
14) as having been one hundred cubits in length and one
hundred and twenty in height ; built of very massive
stones of twenty-five cubits in length, twelve in breadth,
eight in height. It was this which induced the disciples
to say to Christ (S. Mark xiii. i) : "Master, behold what
manner of stones, and what buildings are here ".
Verse 2 . Do you see all these tilings ?
Ov /SXeTreTe, nonne videtis. Our version does not seem
to give it as a negation, and the meaning is thus more em
phatic ; for Christ signifies that they should contemplate
the Temple again and again, that they might be the more
impressed by its destruction. The words used by Christ
describe a total destruction such as Josephus describes
(Antiq., xv. 14, and De Bell. Jud., vii. 9, 10) ; though none
may think for a moment that He used any exaggeration
or hyperbole. S. Chrysostom (Cont. Jud. Orat., ii. 3), S.
Gregory Nazianzen (Cont. Julianum Apostatam\ Theo-
doret (Hist., iii. 20), tell us that Julian the Apostate per
mitted the Jews to rebuild the Temple, which they set
about with the utmost alacrity. But when they had dug
out the old foundations of the Temple to lay a new one,
flames burst forth from the foundation and killed many of
those who were engaged in the work. Thus the Jews
fulfilled the prophecy of Christ with their own hands
CH. xxiv. 3.] CHRIST ON MOUNT OLIVET. 269
destroying the former Temple so completely, if anything
remained of it, that there was left no stone upon another,
while they were forbidden by divine interposition from
building a new one.
Verse 3. And when He was sitting.
It is easily seen from a comparison of the Evangelists
that this was on the fourth day after Christ s entrance into
the city with the palm branches and Hosannahs. For that
same day he entered Bethany. On the second, returning
from Bethany, he cursed the fig-tree. On the third, when
He returned again from Bethany, the disciples saw the fig-
tree withered away (S. Mark xi. 13, 14, 21). On the same
that is, the third day He returned, according to His
custom, from Jerusalem to Bethany, that He might pass
the night there (S. Luke xxi. 37). Thus on the fourth day
He was at Bethany, both because no Evangelist says that
He returned to Jerusalem on the fifth day before He
celebrated the Passover, and because S. Matthew (xxvi. 6)
says that He was in the house of Simon the leper two
days before it. Bethany, as has been said, was at the foot
of the Mount of Olives (xxi. i). It is therefore probable
that Christ, when He had gone up into the mount, which
is little more than a mile from the city, contemplated the
city and Temple from it, and uttered that prophecy of its
impending destruction which prompted the disciples to say :
" Lord, tell us when shall these things be ? " This may be
gathered from 5. Mark xiii. 3 : " And as He sat on the
Mount Olivet over against the Temple," showing that He
looked upon the Temple and spoke of it.
The disciples came to Him.
S. Mark says that only four came Peter, James, John,
and Andrew ; and we may doubt whether the word
" privately " is to be understood that those four came apart
2/0 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [H. xxiv. 5.
from the rest ; or, as Euthymius thinks, that all came, but
apart from the multitude. The former seems the more
probable. For S. Mark appears to have stated their names ;
and it is likely that those four, who were the most intimate
with Christ of any, and who were used to be with Him in
His most secret actions, wished to ask Him by themselves
of a matter of such great consequence, thinking that He
would be more likely to tell them by themselves, then, than
to all the others in common. For it was hazardous to
speak of the Temple. The Jews object against S. Stephen
(Acts vi. 14) : " For we have heard him say that this Jesus
of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the
traditions which Moses delivered unto us". The Author
thinks that they put this question to Christ from their
desire of enjoying the reign of Christ in heaven : as if He
seemed to delay it too long.
When shall these things be, and what shall be the sign of
Thy coming, and of the consummation of the world?
The Apostles ask three things, i. When the ills Christ
had foretold to the city and Temple would come to pass ?
2. What sign would precede His coming ? 3. What
would precede the end of the world? As S. Hilary, S.
Jerome, and Strabus say, what should prevent the
Apostles from being clearly taught that the coming of
Christ and the end of the world would take place at the
same time ? They thought, indeed, that the destruction of
the Temple would happen at the same time, as shall
shortly be explained. It is plain to all that questions on
the destruction of the Temple and on the coming of Christ
are different ones.
Verse 5. For many will come in My name.
The Apostles undoubtedly thought that the advent of
Christ and the end of the world would come soon after the
destruction of Jerusalem ; but it is doubtful whether He here
CH. xxiv. 5.] SIGNS OF DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. 2/1
answered about His coming and the end of the world, or
not. All the most ancient authors refer His words to the
end of the world : as S. Irenaeus (v. 25), S. Hilary (in
loc.} and S. Gregory (Horn. i. in Evangel?). The others, as
S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, understand them
of the end of the world only as far as verse 23. A middle
view seems the best, and such as S. Augustin also embraced
(Ep. Ixxx. ; S. Jerome and Bede, in /<?<:.), namely, that Christ
answered both questions without order, and without regard to
their sequence, as the Apostles had so asked them. He pro
bably did this by a fixed and divine decree, that no one
might know of the end of the world. For the Apostles
thought that the end of the Temple and the end of the
world would happen together, and Christ would not
disabuse them of this mistake, that they might not grow
secure by long waiting after the destruction of the Temple.
Due discrimination will enable us in some degree to dis
tinguish between what is said of the destruction of
Jerusalem and of the end of the world. What Christ now
said appears to apply to either. For before the destruc
tion of Jerusalem many false Christs arose, and before the
end of the world many others will do so, as S. John says
in the Apocalypse. Whilst, therefore, we may understand
His words in a general sense, we must not limit them, lest
we appear to put bounds to the Holy Spirit by which
Christ spoke. S. Luke tells us of Theudas (Acts v. 36) ; and
Josephus (Antiq., xx. 4, and De Bell. Jud., ii. 12) also
mentions him and other seducers of the people. S. Jerome
speaks of the Simon Magus of Acts viii. 10, who came
under the false name of Christ, being called "the great
power of God ". A multitude of others followed, clearly
by the divine judgment, that they who would not believe
in Christ as the very Son of God might believe in these
seducers, as Christ Himself foretold (S. John v. 43, and
2 Thess. ii. 10, n).
272 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxiv. 6.
Verse 6. You shall hear.
MeXX^crere Se aicoveiv, audituri enim estis, but e, " but,"
is put for yap, " for ". Our version, therefore, has rendered
the passage better than some more recent ones ; for Christ
gives the reason of what follows, "See that ye be not
troubled " : as if He had said, " I warn you not to be
troubled when you hear of wars and rumours of wars ". It
is a Hebraism nyiftltf " the hearing "; that is, " rumour ".
Some appear to distinguish between " wars " and " rumours
of wars " with too much subtlety. Origen and Euthymius are
among them. The former thinks allegorically that " the wars "
were those carried on in Jerusalem ; and " the rumours " are
of such as would arise in other cities of Judsea. If there be
any real difference, it may be thought that " wars " refers
to the present and " rumours " to the future ; the meaning
being that they should see with their own eyes many present
wars, and hear with their own ears of many that were yet
in the distance : war thus arising from war, and evil from evil.
For these things must come to pass , but the end is not yet.
This is not the case absolutely : it means the wickedness
of men being supposed, and the decree of God that He would
punish them (as in chap, xviii. 7 ; I Cor. xi. 19). Many
e.g., S. Chrysostom and S. Hilary, The Author, Euthymius,
Theophylact, and Bede understand it of the wars which
preceded the destruction of Jerusalem, which Josephus has
described in his Antiq., xx., and his seven books, De Bell.Jud.
Others, as S. Jerome, take it of the wars of Antichrist, which
shall be before the end of the world. Either is possible : as
the former can be established by the facts of history, and
the latter from the Apocalypse; and, as said before, when the
words can be taken in a general sense, they are not to be
narrowed in meaning.
But the end is not yet.
S. Jerome and Theophylact think that this " end " is the
CH. xxiv. 7-12.] THE BEGINNINGS OF SORROWS. 273
end of the world. Euthymius and others, that it refers to
the destruction of Jerusalem.
Verse 7. For nation shall rise against nation.
S. Augustin (Ep. Ixxx.j refers this both to the destruc
tion of Jerusalem and to the times of Antichrist. His
opinion seems preferable to that of those who refer it only
to the destruction of Jerusalem, as S. Chrysostom, Euthy
mius, and Theophylact. Many other examples to the
same effect may be found in Josephus (Antiq., lib. xx.,
caps, vii., viii., xv. ; and De Bell. Jud., xi., xii., xiv., xix.,
xx., xxi., xxv.), and in Hegesippus (lib. ii., caps, xi., xiv.,
xvi., xvii.).
And tJiere shall be pestilences and famines.
From the Acts (xi. 28) and Josephus (Antiq., xx. 2)
we learn that there were famines before the taking of
o
Jerusalem.
Verse 8. Now all these are the beginnings of sorrows.
That is, they are light compared with those which were
to follow. It is a metaphor from the travail of women,
such as is often found in Scripture (Ps. xlvii. 7 ; Isa.
xiii. 7, 8 ; Jer. iv. 31 ; Ezek. xxx. 16 ; Osee xiii. 13; Mich.
iv. 9, 10 ; and the Prophets, passim}.
Verse 12. And because iniquity hath abounded the charity
of many shall grow cold.
Even those who had been used to receive the Apostles
and disciples of Christ with charity, and assist them, would
be terrified by the cruelties and persecutions practised
generally against them, and their hearts would grow cold.
This is the iniquity here spoken of as abounding ; for scarce
anyone would be found, even among Christians, to give
them aid or protection, lest he should be suspected himself
of being a Christian. An example in proof of this is found
2 18
274 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxiv. 14.
in the history of S. Paul in his second Epistle to Timothy
(iv. 1 6).
Verse 14. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached
in the whole world.
S. Jerome and Bede conclude from these words that the
subject is not the destruction of the city and Temple, but
the end of the world ; because it is said the Gospel should
be first preached in the whole world ; which evidently
neither was done, nor could have been done, before the
taking of Jerusalem. S. Chrysostom and Theophylact,
however, persist in their opinion that the reference is only
and wholly to the taking of Jerusalem ; and many of the
moderns have followed them. They say, in support of their
opinion, that the Gospel had been preached to the whole
world before Jerusalem was taken : as S. Paul bears wit
ness (Rom. i. 8). But the Gospel had certainly not been
preached in many parts of the world; for even in our
fathers time there had been no knowledge of it in more
than a quarter of the globe ; and S. Augustin testifies in his
eightieth Epistle that in his day many natives of Africa
had neither received nor heard of it. This is true ; but the
answer is that the words of S. Paul, and Christ Himself,
are somewhat hyperbolical, and that the Gospel in truth
had only been preached in most places. For when Jeru
salem was taken there was scarcely a region of the then
known world where the Gospel had not been heard.
A nd shall be preached.
Some think that the word " and " here has a disjunctive
force, as is frequently the case with the Hebrew, and that
the meaning is : " Although all these things shall come to
pass, yet this shall be no obstacle to the Gospel being
preached ; for it shall make its own way through all hin
drances ". So say Theophylact and Euthymius. It would
CH. xxiv. 14.] DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. 275
appear to mean that although all the calamities which
Christ had foretold should happen at the destruction of
Jerusalem, yet it must not be supposed that the end of the
world has therefore arrived ; for the Gospel must first be
preached throughout it, as S. Mark more clearly states
(xiii. 10) : "Unto all nations the Gospel must first be
preached " ; that is, before the end of the world. It is
called the Gospel of the Kingdom, because the kingdom
of heaven is said to be at hand, as in chaps, iii. 2, iv. 17, x.
7, as there explained.
For a testimony to all nations.
Christ here signifies that the Gospel is to be preached to
all nations, that no one may have any plea of ignorance to
urge against his being condemned, and that this might be
a testimony at the last judgment against those who have
either not received or who have not kept it ; as S. Chrysos-
tom and others explain, and chaps, viii. 4 and x. 18 state.
And then shall the consummation come.
S. Chrysostom and Theophylact think that the reference
is to the taking and destruction of Jerusalem. S. Jerome,
Bede, and all the more ancient authorities take it of the
end of the world, which appears more probable ; for we
can easily believe that Christ answered the question of the
Apostles. This was : " What should be the sign of the end
of the world ? " (verse 3).
Christ answered that the Gospel should be preached to
all parts of the world, and then should come the end. S.
Jerome understands, therefore, the end of the world, of
which the Apostles had asked Him. But the meaning does
not appear to be that which S. Jerome thinks : that the
preaching of the Gospel throughout the world was to be a
certain sign of the end of the world being at hand ; for we
have no sure sign, and to take this were to narrow Christ s
meaning too much.
276 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxiv. 15.
The meaning appears to be, that the end of the world
would not be before the Gospel had been preached
throughout all parts of the world. It is certain that the
Gospel will be preached to all nations. It is not certain
that when it has been preached, the end will immediately
come.
Verse 15. When you see the abomination.
S. Irenaeus (v. 25), S. Hilary, and The Author (in loc.)
refer this also to the end of the world. S. Jerome and
Bede cannot oppose this opinion, although they do not
wholly approve it ; and some of it may apply to the times
of Antichrist, as in Dan. xii. II, and as S. Paul signifies to
the Thessalonians (2 Thess. ii. 4). But although Christ
here looked on perhaps to the time of Antichrist, we cannot
doubt that He spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem ; and
none but Calvin and his followers have ever doubted it.
It is of consequence to the understanding of the passage
to know whence this testimony was taken ; for Daniel
speaks in two places of the future abomination (ix. 27 and
xii. n). Calvin says that they who think it taken from
the former passage are in error, but the error is his who
thinks it taken from the latter ; for, as we have shown on
that passage, Daniel does not speak of Antiochus and Titus
and Vespasian, but of Antichrist, and in chap. ix. he so
unites the abomination in the Temple with the death of
Christ that it cannot be doubted that he speaks of the
destruction of the Temple, which followed so very shortly
after the death of Christ.
It is a graver question, What is that abomination of
which Christ speaks ? The authorities who have been
cited as referring the prophecy to the time of Antichrist
think that it was Antichrist himself who, as S. Paul says,
would sit in the Temple and profane it (2 T/tess. ii. 4).
S. Jerome gives two other opinions as well, both of
which he thinks equally probable : one, that the statue
CH. xxiv. 15.] THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION. 277
of Caesar, which Pilate had placed in the Temple, was so
called ; the other, that it was the statue of Adrian, which
was placed there afterwards. Neither opinion seems
probable ; for Pilate did not place the statue of Caesar in
the Temple, but brought it into the city alone, and that
secretly, in the dead of night, and with a military force, and
it only remained a few days ; for Pilate, overcome by the
prayers of the Jews, removed the soldiers (Josephus, Antiq.,
xviii. 5 ; De Bell. Jud., ii. 8). When Christ said these words,
too, the deed had been done some time. This could not
possibly, therefore, have been the abomination. Still less
could it have been the statue of Adrian, for he lived long
after the taking of Jerusalem ; and Christ spoke of the
abomination as the sign of a coming destruction.
Some think that the term abomination was applied to
the Roman army which besieged Jerusalem. Origen says
this (Tract, xxix.) ; and many moderns, apparently with
some reason, have adopted his opinion from what Christ
said in this place : " When, therefore, you shall see the
abomination " ; and S. Luke (xxi. 20) : " When you see
Jerusalem compassed about with an army, then know that
the desolation thereof is at hand ".
But it does not seem probable that the Roman army is
called the abomination here, because Christ added, " Stand
ing in the holy place," and S. Mark (xiii. 14), " Standing
where it ought not " (by which description I doubt not that
the Temple is intended, as Daniel says, in express terms) ;
for the Roman army never stood in the Temple until after
the city had been taken and plundered by Titus, when, as
Josephus says, the Temple itself was burnt. The army,
therefore, could not be the sign of the destruction of the
Temple and the city ; and when Christ said, " Standing in
the holy place," and " Standing where it ought not," He
seemed to allude to a statue.
It seems probable that Christ uttered the words both of
2/8 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. xxiv. 15.
S. Matthew and of S. Luke, and that S. Matthew gave some
and S. Luke the others. S. Augustin (De Cons., ii. 77)
appears to be of this opinion. Euthymius certainly is so.
Others think that the reference is to the sedition among
the Jews, which took place under Florus, and of which the
Zelotae, as they were called, were the authors, when they
betook themselves to the Temple and profaned it
(Josephus, De Bell. Jud., vi. i). This sedition took place
before the destruction of Jerusalem ; but it can hardly be
what Christ meant.
S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact say that
the statue of the Emperor Titus was placed in the Temple*
and that this was the abomination. But there is no author
of credit to be vouched for the assertion ; for Josephus,
who was living at the time, says nothing of it.
In a matter of such uncertainty the most probable ex
planation seems to be that the abomination of desolation
meant the desolation itself, and that it is a Hebrew
expression to express a dreadful and terrible desolation,
as S. Paul (2 Thess. ii. 10) speaks of " the operation of
error," that is, that working and operative error which
draws men into destruction.
There is one thing against this view that Christ speaks
of a sign of a future desolation of which the desolation
itself cannot be a sign. The answer may be that it was
not Christ s intention to teach by these words when the
Temple was to be destroyed. He said this in other words
(S. L2ike xxi. 20) ; but He would have them admonished
that when they saw that abomination and desolation of the
city and Temple they should understand that the prophecy
of Daniel was fulfilled, that the sacrifice was taken away,
and the ruin of the Jewish people completed, and that the
city and Temple should never be built again as they were
after the captivity of Babylon, and the sacrifices should be
no more renewed, but the Law should be utterly done
CH. xxiv. 16.] DISCIPLES WARNED TO FLIGHT. 279
away, as Daniel had foretold. Thus the two verses, i$th
and 1 6th, are not to be joined as some join them, but the
whole sentence ends with verse 15, nor depends at all upon
the one that follows, " When you see," &c., as even Euthy-
mius thinks. It does not seem correct to take these, as so
many do, as the words of the Evangelist, and to include
them in a parenthesis.
Verse 16. Then.
All the authorities understand this word " and," as ap
plying to those, " When you see the abomination of deso
lation ". It may be referable not merely to the words of
the verse immediately preceding, but to the entire preced
ing text from the sixth verse, as if Christ had said, " When
you hear of wars and rumours of wars, and see all the
other signs of the coming destruction that I have described,
then let those that are in Judaea flee to the mountains ".
In these words Christ foretells the destruction of the Jews,
and He speaks of their fleeing to the mountains as people
do when there is any terror upon them, and they betake
themselves to the mountains and inaccessible places, as in
Gen. xix. 17. The angels said to Lot when they com
manded him to flee from the city of Sodom, " Save thyself
in the mountain ". Christ perhaps alluded to this, for He
spoke with His disciples and good men, whom He wished
to escape the destruction of Jerusalem, as Lot from Sodom.
Eusebius says (Hist., iii. 5) that the Christians who were in
the city then received divine warning to escape. But the
other Jews, who not only did not believe in Christ, but even
persecuted Him, not only received no such warning, but
came into the city from all parts of Judaea, partly for
fear, and partly for the sake of the Paschal Feast, and
were shut up in it and slaughtered like victims, as Euse
bius says again.
The rest to verse 19 means simply that a great and
sudden evil would overtake them, and that the fugitives
280 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxiv. ig.
should make no delay, even in taking away what they
valued most, and that which was necessary for their flight ;
that is (verse 17), he that is on the housetop, let him not
come down. The roofs of the houses in Palestine are
flat (x. 20), and as the Jews used to sup and walk on them,
Christ warns them that if any, at the time of this visitation,
be upon the housetop, they should not come down to take
money or any other necessary for their flight, but, by leaping
or climbing or flying, escape the quickest way they could ;
as Lot when fleeing from Sodom was commanded not to
look back, that is, to get away without delay. God often
speaks thus by His Prophets, as in Jer. xlvi. 5 ; xlviii. 6;
xlix. 8.
Verse 19. And woe to them who are with child, and that
give suck in those days.
Origen thinks the meaning of this woe upon these
women was that the cruelty of the enemy would be so
great that they would have no regard even for pregnant
and suckling women. We find the like aggravated inhu
manity of enemies in other places ; as in 4 Kings viii. 12,
which was fulfilled (xv. 16), and Amos i. 13. Theophylact
thinks that this, which is described by Josephus (vii. 8, De
Bell. Jnd.) as having happened at the siege of Jerusalem, was
said to foreshow .that nursing mothers would be compelled
to eat their children. But S. Hilary, Chrysostom, Jerome,
The Author, Bede, and Theophylact himself, elsewhere,
that it was said because such women would not be able to
fly ; as it immediately follows (verse 20) : " Pray that your
flight be not in winter, nor on the Sabbath day ".
Christ might have named the lame, the halt, the impo
tent, and others, who were little prepared for flight ; but
the mention of these women would seem rather to show
that He mentioned, not only those who were hindered
from flying, but also those who were living apparently in
the utmost enjoyment and security.
CH. xxiv. 20, 23.] THE END OF THE WORLD. 28l
Verse 20. But pray tJiat your fligJit be not in winter or on
the Sabbath.
Christ said this for the same reason as He said above to
the women, " Woe to them " ; for the winter and the
Sabbath were as little favourable to flight as women in the
above condition the winter, from its inclemency, and the
Sabbath, because the Jews were forbidden to travel on that
day more than a mile, or, at the most, two. So say S.
Augustin (Quest. Ev., i. 37), S. Jerome, The Author, S.
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, Bede, S. Gregory
(In Evangel, Horn. xii.). But S. Chrysostom, Euthymius,
and Theophylact object that by this Christ appears to
approve the observance of the Sabbath, which He had
either wholly done away, or at the time of the destruction
of Jerusalem intended to do away. They reply that Christ
spoke according to the custom and feeling of the Jews,
who would still observe the Sabbath, though after the
preaching of the Gospel they ought not to have done so.
They were worthy of double blame : first, as being still
held by superstition ; and secondly, because it hindered
them from attempting their flight.
Verse 23. TJien.
This word " then " has not the same meaning as in verse
1 6, for it does not signify the immediate time, but that
which would pass between the taking of Jerusalem and the
end of the world, as S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, The Author,
Theophylact, and Euthymius have observed. So S.
Matthew (iii. i), "In those days cometh John the Baptist,
preaching in the desert of Judaea," when he came thirty
years after.
Christ therefore passes from the end and destruction of
Jerusalem to the end of the world. For the destruction of
Jerusalem was a figure and type of the destruction and
end of the world ; according to the saying : Quod fit in
circulo fit in ccelo.
282 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxiv. 24.
Christ here appears to intend to teach that He only
was the promised Messenger, and that if any man should
say, "Lo, here is Christ, or lo, there," he is not be believed;
for there is only one Christ, who has already come, nor is
any other to be looked for, and whoever says hereafter that
he is Christ is a liar. Eusebius (Hist.> iv. 6) says that
many such had come, and S. John, again, foretells that
many would come ; and many do come, to our cost, every
day, for all heretics are such. Christ says of these, in
warning, "Believe them not". For whoever should pre
tend to be Christ after Him would not be Christ, but Anti
christ. So every mystical body, except the Body of Christ
Himself, which is the Church, however it may feign itself
to be the Church, is not the Church, but the synagogue of
Satan ; that is, it is not the Body of Christ, but of Anti
christ.
Verse 24. A nd shall sliow great signs and ivonders.
On these miracles of the false prophets, see chap. vii. 22.
Christ does not say that all who should work miracles
were false prophets, but that they were not necessarily to be
taken therefore for true, and that they who preach another
Christ, although they work great miracles, are not to be
believed. For they do not preach the same Christ who
do not preach the same Church. For the Church is the
Body of Christ. Christ warns us in no way to believe in
heretics, even if they do work miracles.
Insomuch as to deceive if possible even tJie elect.
Christ, when He said " if possible/ showed that it was,
in fact, impossible. But, granted the doctrine of divine
predestination, we cannot conclude its immovableness and
certainty from these words.
Christ speaks, not of every kind of error, but, so to
speak, of final error. For the elect may often be led into
error, but they cannot die in it, as in Prov. xxiv. 16; and S.
CH. xxiv. 26-28.] CHRIST S SECOND COMING. 283
Luke (xvii. 20, 21), says that Christ, when asked by the
Pharisees, replied, "The kingdom of heaven cometh, not
with observation," &c. He means to teach them that His
coming would be so sudden that it could not be foreknown
by celestial signs, as the rain and other phenomena are
foreseen ; and that men therefore ought not to observe the
heavens, but to practise their minds in holiness and virtue :
" For behold the kingdom of heaven is within you ". He
here mentioned those outward signs, because they might,
unless warned beforehand, perplex the minds even of the
elect.
Verse 26. If, therefore, they shall say to you : Behold, he is
in the desert, go not out. BeJiold, he is in the closet,
believe it not.
Christ speaks of two opposite places, the desert and the
closet, the most secret and private part of the house, to
show that in whatever manner, in whatever garb, in what
ever place, another Christ may come, they are not to
believe him.
Verse 27. For as the lightning cometh out of the East.
Christ compares His second coming to lightning, because
as lightning bursts out suddenly and unexpectedly, and no
one can foretell by observation at what moment it will break
out of the clouds, so He will come suddenly and when we
least expect Him ; and as lightning in one moment shines
forth from the East to the West, so will He come, so
splendid and glorious, that no one but must see Him. So
SS. Hilary, Jerome, Chrysostom, The Author, and Euthy-
mius explain it.
Verse 28. Wheresoever the body shall be.
The Greek is TO Trrw^a, "the carcase," a word better suited
to the metaphor used by Christ. S. Ambrose, in his com
mentary on Ps. xlviii., renders the word by niina, and it
284 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxiv. 29.
is so used, as observed, on Ps. cix. 6. For eagles and
vultures fly to carcases. It is a Hebrew proverb apparently,
as may be concluded from/^ xxxix. 30. Christ therefore
compares Himself to the carcase, as He had previously
done to the lightning ; and says, when He appears, He
cannot be hid, as the carcase cannot escape the eagle, but
wherever it is the eagles find it, as by some natural instinct.
Who they are whom Christ compares to the eagle is not
certain. S. Irenaeus (iv. 28) and Bede (in loc.) think that
the allusion is to the blessed who enjoy Christ now, and
who will enjoy Him before the Judgment, because they fly
very high, and follow Christ wherever He goes, and will
come with Him to the judgment. S. Hilary and The
Author understand the saints, who, when Christ comes, will
be found alive, and who, as S. Paul says (i TJiess. iv. 16),
will be taken up to meet Christ in the air. S. Chrysostom
and Euthymius understand the angels and holy martyrs,
with whom Christ will come. Others, as Theophylact and
Bede, take them to be all men. This seems more likely ;
for Christ signifies that all men will fly together to where
He is, to be judged : like eagles to the carcase, and, velint
nolint, they will see Him.
Verse 29. The sun shall be darkened.
Whether the sun will be actually darkened is not quite
sure ; most likely it will be, as Origen and S. Hilary seem
to conclude. How it will be darkened is a further question.
Origen thinks that the world will be burnt up, and that
the smoke of its conflagration will be so great as to obscure
the sun.
Others think that it will be darkened by the surpassing
glory and brightness of Christ s appearance, like the stars
when the sun rises. So say S. Hilary, S. Chrysostom,
S. Jerome, Theophylact, and Euthymius ; as Isa. xxiv. 23.
Some say that clouds will intervene. Some heretical
CH. xxiv. 29.] CHRIST S SECOND COMING. 285
teachers say that the sun will not be actually darkened,
but that men will be so astonished that they will not be
able to see the sun ; for the Prophets in similar visitations
say that the sun will be darkened (Isa. xiii. 9, 10 ; xxxiv.
4 ; Jer. xv. 9 ; Amos viii. 9 ; Ezek. xxxii. 7, 8 ; Joel ii. 10,
30, 31 ; iii. 14, 15.)
My own belief, like that of the Author, is that it will be
darkened, neither in man s opinion, nor by the interposition
of any object, but that it will be darkened :
1. Because we believe that it was to be darkened in the
same way at His Advent as at His Death. We read that
at the latter it was truly darkened.
2. Because to be darkened in any other way seems too
little ; for it is plain that Christ said that a great thing,
such as had never been seen before, would happen when, on
His coming to judgment, the sun himself and all the stars
should quake, and, as if struck with fear, withdraw their
light, as men turn pale from fright. In this way the sun
was darkened at the Passion of Christ, as if it trembled at
the sight of the death of God.
And the stars shall fall from heaven.
There is the same question about the falling of the stars
from heaven : whether they will really fall or not. Origen
{Tract, xxx. on S. Matt.} says that they will not actually
fall from heaven, but that they will lose their light, and
what is earthly in them will fall to earth. This savours of
Platonism. S. Jerome and Bede think that they will fall
in the same manner as that in which the sun will be
darkened, because they will not shine in the brightness of
Christ. Some of the Ancients think that it will not be the
actual stars, but evil angels, of which the air is full, and
who are described by the name of stars, and who will fall.
Others, more modern, take them not for real stars, but for
what are called comets. It is the opinion of many that
286 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxiv. 30.
they will not fall in fact, but, from not shining, will appear
to fall. This seems no way credible, because Christ said,
as of the sun and moon, that they should not give their
light, and now when He says that they shall fall He seems
undoubtedly to mean something greater ; and so say
S. Chrysostom and Euthymius, who therefore appear to be
correct when they affirm that the stars will truly fall.
A nd the powers of heaven shall be moved.
The moderns almost universally explain the powers of
heaven to be the stars, the host of heaven, as they are
called. But Christ declared that the stars should fall,
which is more than being moved, so that He can hardly be
thought to have spoken in this passage of the stars.
The Ancients Origen, S. Chrysostom, Bede, Euthymius,
Theophylact say that the angels are called the powers of
heaven, as in the annual Church hymn they are called " the
powers of heaven and the heavens " ; so that the meaning
will be, the angels themselves will be astonished, and, as it
were, will be shaken with amazement. It always seemed
to me that the powers of heaven here spoken of were those
whom Job by figure calls " the poles of heaven " (xxii. 14) ;
Moses (Dent. xxx. 4, and I Kings ii. 8), " poles of the
earth ". By another metaphor they are termed " the poles
of the world" (Prov. viii. 26) and "the ends of the sea" (Job
xxxvi. 30), by which he meant only the firmament and its
strength, as the word " powers " itself expresses. Christ,
therefore, teaches that those poles and, as it were, the
foundations of heaven shall be shaken for fear, as S. Peter
says (2 Ep. iii. 10).
Verse 30. Then shall appear the sign of the Son of man.
Authorities differ as to what this sign was. Origen
thinks that it means the power and glory which Christ
gained for Himself on the Cross, which he thinks is meant
CH. xxiv. 30.] CHRIST S SECOND COMING. 287
by the " sign of the Son of man " ; so that the meaning is
that all shall see Christ coming with so great glory and
majesty as to render it impossible to doubt that He was
the true Judge. In the same manner S. Jerome and Bede
understand the banner of the victory of Christ. But The
Author understands the signs of the Passion, as the marks
of the stripes, the cicatrices, wounds of the nails, which he
says are to be called the sign of the Son of man. It has
been the common opinion that the Cross was called the
sign of the Son of man, and that that should appear at
His coming, in heaven or in the air, as His standard. So
say S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, Bede, Euthymius, and
Theophylact, and it seems very probable. For Christ
spoke of the sign of the Son of man as some certain and
well-known sign, which the Cross alone can be.
Then.
When they shall see the sign of the Son of man : as if
He had said all the tribes of the earth should mourn, for
they shall see the sign of the Son of man and be terrified.
Shall mourn.
That is, they shall beat their breasts for grief and
repentance, but too late.
All tribes of the earth.
Some individuals from all : for the good will not mourn,
but rather rejoice, because "they love His coming," as
S. Paul says (2 Tim. iv. 8).
They shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven.
That is, of the air. Christ describes Himself as God,
whose prerogative it is to come with glory and majesty and
terror, as in Ps. xlix. 3 ; ciii. 3. Christ was taken up in a
cloud into heaven (Acts i. 9), and in the same way, as the
angels said to the Apostles (verse n), He will come again.
288 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxiv. 31.
Verse 31. And He shall send His angels.
When Christ says that He will send His angels and
calls them " His," He shows himself to be God ; for this is
the prerogative of God (Ps. ciii. 4).
With a trumpet and a great voice.
Christ is always said to be about to come with a trumpet
(as in I Cor. xv. 52; I Thess. iv. 15): not only because men
are to be summoned to judgment by a trumpet, but because
a trumpet is the sign of kingly majesty ; for a trumpet is
sounded before kings when they come to a place.
Of what nature the trumpet was to be whether an
actual or figurative trumpet neither can nor need be
known ; but it is probable that it will be but the latter,
and that a voice, loud, deep, far-sounding, dreadful, and
like a trumpet in sound, is here called a trumpet ; as S.
John in the Apocalypse (i. 10 ; iv. I ; xix. 6) says that he heard
in that vision of the last judgment which he saw. When
Christ says, therefore, " with a trumpet and a great voice,"
it is the same as if He had said, " with a trumpet," that is,
" a great voice," the word " and " being here, as in many
other places, exegetical.
In confirmation of this, many Greek copies have pera
ad\7rL<yyo^ ^>co^r}? fjLeyd\.rjs, cum tuba vocis magnce, as Eusta-
thius reads it, or cum tuba magna, as S. Chrysostom ; for
Christ describes not two things, but only one. So Isa. Iviii.
I : " Cry aloud, cease not ; lift up thy voice like a trumpet ".
It is matter of doubt whose that voice is or what it
signifies. S. John (v. 25) says that it will be the voice of
Christ Himself, as also Joel had said (ii. 11). But S. John
(in Rev.\\\\. 6, ix. i, 13, and xi. 15) mentions angels as
using the trumpet at the judgment ; and S. Paul (i Thess.
iv. 15) says that it will be the voice of an archangel. It is
very likely, therefore, that both Christ will speak with a
loud voice to send His angels, and that the angels and
CH. xxiv. 32, 34.] THE END OF THE WORLD. 289
archangels and the other heavenly powers will utter a
sound like the sound of a trumpet. It is not to be thought
that the voice of Christ Himself is called a trumpet, because
He spoke, without doubt, after the manner and custom of
men. Kings do not ordinarily sound the trumpet, but
their attendants.
Some think the figure taken from the assemblies of the
Jews, who used to be called together by the sound of a
trumpet, as in Numb. x. 2 ; Isa. xviii. 3 ; and supra, chap. vi. 2.
It may be so, but it was probably a similitude derived from
war ; for the trumpet is not only used for peaceful as
semblies, but also for martial ones, to terrify the enemy, as
in Isa. xviii. 3 ; Sophonias i. 16, 17 ; Zach. ix. 14.
Verse 32. And from the fig-tree learn a parable,
So 5. Luke xxi. 29, 30 : (( And He spake to them a
similitude : See the fig-tree and all the trees ; when they
now shoot forth their fruit, you know that summer is nigh ".
It is probable that Christ used the words of both Evange
lists.
Verse 34. This generation.
Many Catholics, as well as teachers of heresy, and some
of the highest antiquity, have explained this of an age, as
if the meaning were, that before the age of men then living
should be ended Jerusalem would be destroyed. Origen
calls them simple. S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthy-
mius, and The Author explain it of the generation of
faithful men, as if Christ had said, " Although calamities, so
many and so great, are about to happen, yet the Church
shall not perish to the end of the world ". S. Jerome, how
ever, understood the whole human race as if the meaning
were, " Before the human race is ended, all these things
which Christ has foretold shall come to pass ". But the
whole world would seem to be called a generation, as it is
elsewhere called a creature, as being wholly created and
219
290 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxiv. 35, 36.
generated. And thus the meaning of the verse would
seem to be, that what Christ foretold was so certain to
come to pass, that the world will not be ended before it has
been fulfilled. This is clearly to be concluded from the
words that follow : " Heaven and earth shall pass, but My
words shall not pass ". They, therefore, who have taken
an age to be the meaning of generation have marred the
whole text.
Verse 35. Heaven and earth shall pass.
This is a Hebraism, meaning that they should pass
away as to their present state, "but My words shall not
pass " shall not fail nor prove false.
Verse 36. But of the day and hour no one knoweth, no, not
the angels in heaven, but the Fattier alone.
It cannot be doubted that the Son of man is also ex
cluded from this knowledge, as S. Mark (xiii. 32) says, in
plain words, "Of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither
the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father ". This
passage, therefore, proved a great battle-field in the contest
between the Catholics and Arians the latter taking it as
a great authority for the denial of the Divinity of our Lord.
Some of their opponents were content to say that the
passage was corrupt. Among these were S. Jerome (in
loc.) and S. Ambrose (De Fide, v. 8). Others said that
Christ did not indeed know the day of judgment as long
as He was in this life, but that He would know it as soon
as He had ascended to the Father. So Origen (Tract, xxx.
on S. Matt) said that, when Christ said this, it meant that
He did not know the day then, but that after the Pentecost
He would know it, because He then would have been
made a King or Judge by the Father. There were certain
heretics known as Agnoetae, because they held that Christ
knew not the day of judgment, as S. John Damascus in-
CH. xxiv. 37.] CHRIST IGNORANT OF DAY OF JUDGMENT. 291
forms us. But, as he says further, they attributed ignor
ance both to the divine and human natures of Christ,
simply and without any distinction, because they believed
that the Divinity would be changed into the humanity.
Most of the ancient Fathers held that Christ did not know
the day of judgment, not as being really ignorant of it, but
because He would not have us know what He did not
please to reveal to us, what His Body that is, the Church
did not know, and what He dissembled His knowledge
of. These opinions all come to the same thing, and the
Ancients sometimes speak one way and sometimes another
(Origen, Tract, xxx. on S. Matt. ; S. Chrysostom, Horn.
Ixxviii. on S. Matt, and xiv. on S. Mark ; S. Augustin,
Lib. Quast., Ixxxiii., q. 61, De Trin. y lib. i. 12, and De
Genes, cont. Munich. t xxiii. ; S. Gregory, lib. viii., cap. xlii. ;
S. Jerome, Bede, Theophylact, In Comm., in loc.).
Others say that He was ignorant of that day that is,
He had not yet found it. Origen (as above), Epiphanius
(Hcer.y Ixix.), S. Chrysostom (Horn, de Trin?), Euthymius,
and others say that the Son does not know unless the
Father knows ; but because the Father knows, therefore
the Son knows.
But all these opinions appear inharmonious. For they
who ascribe ignorance to Christ, either always or for a
time, are to be rejected at once, being refuted by the whole
of the Holy Scriptures, and by S. Paul most especially, as
in Col. ii. 3.
As to the common idea of Christ not knowing it,
because He has not revealed it to us, it seems to be
supported by no basis of probability, because in that way
the Father also must be ignorant, because He did not
reveal it to us ; and, by the same argument, the opinion of
Origen and Epiphanius would be disproved, that Christ
did not know the day of judgment, because He had not
proved it. For the Father had not done so.
292 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxiv. 36.
Many ancient authors S. Athanasius (Cont. Arian.,
Serm. iv.), S. Ambrose (De Fide, v. 8), S. Gregory
Nazianzen (Orat. iv. de Theolog.), Theodoret, and The
Author openly taught that Christ as man did not know
the day of judgment, and meant to say so in this place.
This seems at first sight detestable, but if understood
rightly, it may bear a true meaning. But it must first
be remembered that Christ, as God, can be ignorant of
nothing, and, moreover, as man, He could be ignorant
neither of the day of judgment, nor of anything else ;
but the difficulty is, that when we say that Christ, as
He is man, is ignorant of the day of judgment, the word
" as " must be taken as having either a specific or a
causal meaning. If the former, the sense will be that
Christ, in His human intellect, does not know the day
of judgment : which is in no sense the truth, for not
only His divine, but also His human nature knows it ;
for in Him, as S. Paul says, are hid all the treasures of
wisdom and knowledge (Col. ii. 3). If taken in the latter
sense, the meaning will be that Christ does not know
the day of judgment, as He is man, but because God is
man ; for if He had been man only, however perfect and
however pleasing to God, He would not have known it.
For the angels do not know it, who are most perfect and
most pleasing to God. Christ, therefore, does not deny
that, even as man, He knows that day : but that He knows
it eo titulo, that He is man. It is certain that, not only the
Son of man denies that He knows the day of judgment,
but He also affirms that the Father alone knows it, by
which, not only is the Son excluded, but the Holy Ghost
also.
Christ seems to speak in the same manner as that in
which He said (xx. 23), " To sit on My right hand is not
Mine to give to you, but to them for whom it is prepared by
My Father ". He thus shows that, not only as man, but
CH. xxiv. 37-43.] COMING OF THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. 293
also as God, He is in some way ignorant of the day of
judgment : not that He does not know it, but that it is not
His office to know it ; as He did not say, " for whom it is
prepared by Me" but " by My Father ". Not that it was
not prepared by Him, but because to prepare the kingdom
that is, to predestinate was not His office, but the
Father s. So it is the office of the Father also to deter
mine when the world shall be dissolved, and when the day
of judgment is to be, as He said to the Apostles (Acts i. 7) :
"It is not for you to know the times or moments which the
Father hath put in His own power". For the Father alone
is said to know. And this appears to be the true meaning.
Verse 37. As in the days of Noe.
That is, "What happened in the time of Noe will happen
at My coming," as explained in the verses following.
Verse 40. One shall be taken, and one shall be left.
That is, one shall be chosen out and saved, and the
other reprobated and lost. So S. Jerome and Theophylact
explain it.
S. Luke relates the same conversation, but appears to
place it at a different time, and on a different occasion ; but,
as Euthymius thinks, Christ may have said the same thing
twice, at different times.
Verse 43. A t zvhat hour the thief would come.
Tloia (f>v\afcf} 6 rc\e7TTr)s ep^erat, qua vigilia fur venit, "at
what watch". Our version has expressed the sense, though
I think that Christ, without a reason, said, " in what
watch," for He had said just before, "Watch" that is,
keep guard like soldiers. The allusion is to the military
custom of keeping watch throughout the night, to guard
against any surprise of the enemy. On the four night
watches, vid. chap. xiv. 15.
294 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxiv. 45, 51.
Verse 45. To give them meat in due season.
That is, to give to each servant his due allowance. S.
Luke said, To give them their measure of wheat in due
season (xii. 42). The allusion is to the custom of servants,
over whom the most trustworthy one was placed to govern
them, and give them their meat according to their desert ;
money payments being rare, they received portions of corn
in proportion to their work done.
Verse 51. And shall separate him.
These words have been taken to allude to a supposed
Jewish custom of cutting criminals in half, as in Dan. xiii.
55, 59, and I Kings xv. 33. This was a manner of punish
ment among the Romans, as we learn from A. Gellius
(xx. i), but not among the Jews, who, as has been said on
verses 22, 23, had but four kinds of punishment, of which this
was not one, and it does not agree with the meaning of the
present passage. Some have taken the meaning to be,
that he shall be deprived of his promised good and reward.
So S. Hilary (/;/ loc.\ Origen, and Theophylact say that it
was the loss of his original grace and favour. The true
meaning is that which is given by S. Jerome, Euthymius,
and The Author. He shall cast him out of his family ;
cut him off from the society of his fellow-servants ; as
before (xxii. 12, 13), the king commanded the man who
had not on a wedding-garment to be cast out of the
banqueting-room, and thrust into outer darkness. Two
punishments are therefore mentioned : (i) deprivation of
the office which had been abused ; (2) the being cast into
the place of torment where wicked servants are sent.
And appoint his portion.
Christ, after the manner of the Hebrews, calls the man s
unhappy condition a portion. Sojod xx. 29 ; xxvii. 13 ; Ps.
x. 7. The word is used in a good sense (Ps. xv. 5 ;
Ixxii. 26).
CH. xxiv. si.] THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. 295
With the hypocrites.
Christ calls the slothful and negligent servants hypo
crites (yid. chap. xxv. 26, 30). He gives them this name,
because such servants work only in the presence of the
master, and are, as S. Paul says to the Ephesians, "eye-
servers " (vi. 6), caring less to be good servants than to
appear such. Of such sort are they who are sent to the
place of torture. Christ in these words alludes to hell,
which is the place of the slothful, as appears from the
words that follow : " There shall be weeping and gnashing
of teeth ". On this, see chap. xiii. 42.
CHAPTER XXV.
THE PARABLE OF THE TEN VIRGINS, AND OF THE
TALENTS THE DESCRIPTION OF THE LAST JUDG
MENT.
Verse i. Then.
" THEN," when the Lord shall appear suddenly. The mean
ing depends on the former chapter. He teaches the same
thing in the two parables of the Ten Virgins and the
Talents ; the same thing in the parable of the Servant
(xxiv. 45), &c.
Shall be like.
That is, what does not appear now, while the good are
joined with the evil in the Church, will appear then. The
same thing takes place in the kingdom of heaven, that is,
the Church ; as if the ten virgins received the lamps to go out
to meet the bridegroom, as explained chap. xv. 16. To what
the whole parable tends is clear from the conclusion (verse
1 3), that we ought always to watch, always to be ready, as
the Lord will come in an hour we know not of; and always
to prepare by good works for His presence. The argu
ment of the last chapter is followed up in this.
The parable consists of fifteen portions :
i. The Bridegroom, who, beyond doubt, is Christ,
as has been explained chaps, ix. 15; xxii. 2. The
words, "and the bride," are not found in the Greek,
nor do S. Basil, S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, or Euthy-
CH. xxv. i.] PARABLE OF THE TEN VIRGINS. 297
mius read them, but they are found in Origen, S.
Hilary, S. Augustin, and the Syriac. They should, there
fore, be read : if not of necessity, yet on account of their
antiquity, and the authority of the above early Fathers. S.
John (Apoc. xxi. 2) shows that the Church triumphant, like
a bride, will come forth with Christ to judgment.
2. The second part of the parable is the Ten Virgins, on
which there is a threefold question : (i) Why they were
virgins ; (2) Why the kingdom of heaven is compared to
ten / (3) What the virgins signify.
Origen and others think that the kingdom of heaven
is compared to virgins rather than to others, to signify the
integrity of faith, which has its parallel in purity of the
body. S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius say,
that as virginity is the highest point of perfection, so Christ
declares that no one ought to trust to his own good, because
not all virgins, though of the most spotless purity, entered
into the marriage, that is, the kingdom of heaven. Others,
more modern, whose opinion seems preferable, say that the
kingdom of heaven is specially compared to virgins only,
because it was the custom of virgins before others to carry
torches and to conduct the bride and bridegroom to their
house.
As to the number ten, S. Jerome, S. Augustin, and others
say that it shows the five senses ; they who rule them well
being wise, and they who do otherwise foolish. So say S.
Jerome and Bede (in /oc.), S. Augustin (Ep. cxx. 33), S.
Gregory (Horn, xii. in Evang.). Thus there are ten. It
would rather appear that this number was chosen to show
a great number of persons, and that universality was meant.
So Gen. xxxi. 7, 41 ; Levit. xxvi. 26 ; Numb. xiv. 22. Thus
the kingdom of heaven is said to be like ten, that is, to
many. By ten virgins, S. Chrysostom, Theophylact,
Euthymius, S. Augustin, S. Gregory, as cited above, think
that all who were truly virgins are meant, but this is too
298 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxv. i.
forced a sense, perhaps. S. Hilary and The Author, on the
contrary, hold that all mankind are intended, the faithful
and unbelieving alike, with a meaning perhaps too ex
tended ; Origen and S. Jerome (in loc.}, and, as appears, S.
Ambrose (Serm. xiv. on Ps. cxviii.), neither of all men, nor
of virgins alone, but of all the faithful, and of these alone.
Their opinion seems good first, because it is plain that
Christ speaks only of those who had received lamps, which
only the faithful have : for the lamp is faith (Ps. cxviii. 105) ;
secondly, because Christ teaches that faith without good
works does not satisfy for salvation.
Another part of the question is the meaning of the five
wise and the five foolish. S. Hilary says that the five wise
include all the faithful, and the five foolish all the contrary.
The Author makes the wise all spiritual men, and the
unwise all carnal ; or, by the former, all who are, as S.
Paul says (i Cor. vii. 34), virgins both in body and spirit ;
by the latter, those that are virgins in body but corrupt in
soul. S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, and, per
haps, S. Ambrose (Serm. xiv. on Ps. cxviii.), by the wise, all
who, besides the true virginity of mind and person, have
also mercy and charity, and show them in giving of alms
largely ; by the foolish, all who, though virgins, are not
merciful, that is, have no oil in their vessels, and, therefore,
clo not works of almsgiving. S. Augustin (Ep. cxx.), S.
Gregory (Horn. xii. on Gospels], and Bede (in loc.} make the
five wise all virgins who have, as is said, a good intention
and seek praise for their virtue, not from men, but from
God ; the others are such as seek after human praise and
flattery. Origen, S. Jerome, and S. John Damascus, or
whoever is the author of his history, say that the wise
virgins are all men who have good works with Jaith, and
that the foolish are such as have faith indeed, but not works.
This seems not merely the best, but the only good ex
planation, because the great subject of the parable is that
CH. xxv. i.] PARABLE OF THE TEN VIRGINS. 299
faith without works is of no avail for salvation. Again,
because the same is taught both by previous parables (xxiv.
45) and subsequent ones (verse 14), that it is not enough to
believe unless we also watch to good works, because we
know not at what hour the Lord will come. The same is
again inculcated in another parable (xxii. 12), in which, as
here are the virgins, so there is the guest who entered in at
the wedding feast by faith, but who, because he had no
wedding-garment, that is, works, was cast out.
3. The third point of the parable is the lamps which all
the virgins received, and by which S. Hilary understands
our human bodies, in which the divine light of the soul
shines. S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, Bede, S.
Augustin, and S. Gregory, in the works cited above, think
that bodily virginity is intended. S. Jerome, of the bodily
senses, and with S. Hilary, Origen, and The Author he
explains it of faith. This agrees well with the sense of the
parable ; for all take that to be faith from which they went
out to meet Christ, but all did not go in with Him to the
marriage, because all had not good works.
4. The fourth point is the oil which the wise virgins had
and the foolish ones had not, and which S. Chrysostom,
Euthymius, Theophylact, and S. Ambrose explain to be
alms and mercy, as these are compared in Scripture to oil.
But S. Augustin, S. Gregory, and Bede think it the good
will which, as said before, seeks praise, not of men, but of
God. The opinion of Origen, S. Hilary, The Author, and
S. John Damascus is the only true and probable one. They
understand by the oil good works, without which faith does
not shine, that is, is dead (S. James ii. 26), and by which, if
present, faith is kindled, shines, is made to appear, to
show (S. James ii. 17). The foolish virgins say (verse 8),
Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out ". Not
that without works faith is at once extinguished, but that
when it does not shine through works, it appears to be so,
300 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxv. i.
and avails no more to salvation than if it were wholly
extinct ; or, as The Author says, because it is so ordered
by nature that whereas faith is cherished and kept alive by
good works, so without them it languishes, and by degrees
becomes dead. To take oil then in the lamps is to lay up
a plenty and, as it were, a treasure of good works against
the future coming of Christ, as in chap. vi. 20.
5. The fifth part is the vessels which, S. Hilary says, are
our human bodies, as S. Paul wrote (2 Cor. iv. 7). It would
be better understood as the soul or conscience, which is the
seat and receptacle of good works.
6. The sixth part is the bridegroom being said to have
tarried. It cannot be doubted that by this Christ meant to
teach us that the time of His second coming would be long,
that He might disabuse the disciples of the false idea that
He would come immediately after His Resurrection, as S.
Chrysostom has observed. To the same purpose, S. Jerome
and S. Hilary say that the delay of the bridegroom is a
time of penance. But Christ speaks accommodatingly to
the virgins, to whom, because He did not come immediately,
as they expected, He appeared to delay too long ; for, to
those who are waiting, all time naturally seems long.
Otherwise Christ did not desire to signify of His own
intention that His absence should be greatly prolonged ;
for, as S. John says (i Ep. ii. 18), "It is the last hour" ; and
it was not in harmony with the parable to teach that His
absence would be long, lest men whom He desired to teach
to be diligent, watching, and always ready, should become
negligent, slothful, and secure.
7. The seventh part is all the virgins being said to have
slumbered and slept, which S. Hilary and S. Chrysostom
(in /<?.), S. Augustin (Ep. cxx., chap, xxxii.), S. Basil (In
Moral., chap, v.), explain by saying that all the virgins
were dead before Christ came. The Author says that they
were negligent. This would seem very good were it not
CH. xxv. i.] PARABLE OF THE TEN VIRGINS. 3OI
said that both the wise and the foolish slept. It should
therefore, perhaps, be understood that they had ceased to
think of the bridegroom coming, and did not expect him
when he came. This would happen both to the good and
the bad. For they who wait long for a person often cease
to expect him, and when they are not looking for or
thinking of him, that is, when they are sleeping, he sud
denly comes. This is shown further by the time at which
the bridegroom came : midnight.
8. The time at which the bridegroom came that is,
midnight is the eighth part of the parable. They who
think from this, as some do, that the usual hour of
the bridegroom s coming to the house of the bride was
midnight, seem not only to miss the point of the parable,
but to pervert it, and to seek to reconcile things contra
dictory. For if midnight, and not earlier, were the time
of the coming of the bridegroom, how did he delay when
that period had not yet arrived ? how did he seem to
the virgins to tarry overlong, when they knew that
he would not come before it ? Some ancient Fathers be
lieved that Christ would come at midnight, and so the
Church Hymn seems to imply. S. Jerome says that it was
an apostolic tradition that, at the Passover, it was not
lawful to dismiss the people before midnight, because it
was thought that He would come at that hour, as in Egypt
of old. The Jews also expected their Messiah at midnight.
But we must keep to the words, " You know not the day
nor the hour ". The meaning, therefore, is that He will
come when He is least expected. For who could believe
that He would come in the middle of the night, when men
are buried in repose? So say, with justice, S. Gregory, S.
Hilary, S. Jerome, S. Augustin, Theophylact, and Bede.
9. The ninth point is the cry " Behold ". This doubtless
is the great voice mentioned in chap. xxiv. 31, and the
trumpet ; as Origin, S. Chrysostom, The Author, Euthy-
302 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxv. i.
mius, Theophylact, S. Jerome, S. Augustin (Ep. cxx., chap,
iii.), have explained.
ic. The tenth point is contained in verse 7 : "Then all
those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps," which is ex
plained by S. Hilary of the resurrection of the body, and
the restoration of all things. S. Augustin (in the above
Epistle), The Author, and Bede (in loc) explain it better,
that a rumour will be heard of the coming of Christ ; all
men who, as if oppressed with sleep, had not thought of
Him would arise, as S. Paul says (Rom. xiii. 11). To trim
the lamps is to call to mind the works which .everyone has
done, to give account of them in the judgment.
1 1. The eleventh point is the saying of the foolish virgins
to the wise : " Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone
out ". It is clear that the meaning is that men who have
no good works of their own, when it is too late, and they
are called to judgment, will implore the help of the saints,
as The Author explains it ; as if they wished to cover them
selves under the good works of others.
12. The twelfth point is the answer of the wise virgins :
" Lest, perhaps, there be not enough for us and for you, go
ye rather to them that sell and buy for yourselves ". In
this two things seem remarkable : (a) That the wise virgins
refuse their help to the foolish, not because they would not
give it if they could, but because at so late an hour they
were not able. So say S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and
Theophylact. Or, as is more probable (as The Author
says), because in that dreadful judgment no one will have
sufficient confidence in himself, or appear to have enough
of good works ; for the words, " lest, perhaps, there be not
enough for us and for you," evidently point to this. In
these words, neither the treasure of the Church, which
consists of the merits of the saints, nor their suffrages for
others, are destroyed, as if the good works of one could not
profit another. By the same reasoning, it would be proved
CH. xxv. i.] PARABLE OF THE TEN VIRGINS. 303
that the saints, even while alive, could not help other living
persons by their prayers, which is contrary to all Scripture,
from which we learn that by the merits of the saints the
dead are aided. We find this in 5. Luke xvi. 9 : " Make
unto you friends of the mammon of iniquity, that when you
shall fail they may receive you into everlasting dwellings,"
where Christ says that the faith and labour of some can
profit others. Many Ancients have rightly concluded the
same from chap. ix. 2 : "And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to
the man sick with the palsy, Be of good heart, son, thy sins
be forgiven thee," as has there been explained. What, then,
is the meaning of the passage ? This, that everyone in
that last great final judgment will be judged by his own
works, and not by those of others, as S. Paul said (2 Cor.
v. 10), and should bear his own burden (Gal. vi. 5). S.
Augustin, in his oft-cited Ep. cxxix., S. Hilary, and S.
Chrysostom are to be understood in this sense when they
say that this passage shows that no one is aided by the
works of another.
(b) The second point is the foolish virgins being sent to
those who sold, to buy oil for themselves. Origen and The
Author explain this to mean the teachers of the Church,
who sell the Word of God, not for a price, but for salvation
and by the confession of faith, as is said by S. Paul (2 Cor.
xii. 14), and as he calls those whom he brought to the
Gospel his joy and crown (Phil. iv. i). S. Augustin, S.
Gregory, and Bede, by the sellers understand flatterers, who
sell the fumes of false praise ; as if it were said in irony,
" Go to those flatterers in whose praises you take delight,
and see what good they can do you ". S. Jerome thinks
that the foolish virgins that is, those who have no good
works are sent into the world to gain with much labour
the oil of good works. This would appear to be no part
of the parable, but an offshoot of what either might have
been or was very probable, and added to complete the
304 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxv. i.
narrative, as were the words of the wise virgins, " lest,
perhaps, there be not enough for us and for you ". Both
may have been added, not to carry any meaning, but as it
was very probable that the virgins would have spoken in
this manner. The words cannot mean that those who had
no good works should be sent into the world to buy, that
is, procure them. It was said because it was very probable
that the foolish virgins would go to buy oil when they
could obtain none from the others, and Christ must form a
truth-like narrative. Or, if this part have any meaning at
all, it may only be that the foolish and improvident would
desire to do good works, and to be diligent in them, when
the time is past and it is too late.
1 3. The thirteenth point is the coming of the bridegroom,
which means, as no one doubts, the coming of Christ to
judgment.
14. The fourteenth is the entering in of those who were
prepared with the bridegroom into the marriage and the
supper, by which the beatific life is described, as Rev.
xix. 7.
15. The fifteenth is the door being shut when the foolish
virgins returned ; which only means that they wished to do
good works when it was too late, and when it was no longer
a time to work, as Christ said (S. John ix. 4), " The night
cometh when no man can work ". Nor needs there further
discussion of how, when the final judgment was ended, the
foolish virgins returned to heaven, and beat the door, and
entreated Christ with prayers to open to them. All this,
as has been said, was added, not for a meaning, but to
amplify and adorn the parable; nor that it would happen
in heaven, but that it was very likely to happen among
men ; and, as S. Gregory said (Horn, xii.) on these words,
this only was intended, that he cannot possibly merit to
obtain from God what he asks there, who would not listen
to what He commands here.
CH. xxv. 12, 14.] PARABLE OF THE TEN TALENTS. 305
Verse 12. I know you not.
All authorities, ancient and modern, agree that the word
" know" here and in other places does not mean recogni
tion, but feeling, and, as they say, scientia approbationis ;
as if Christ said, " I do not approve you ; I do not acknow
ledge you as My children"; or, as the Author says, " I do
not see in you the marks of My spirit," of which S. Paul
speaks (2 Cor. i. 22 ; and Eph. i. 3 ; iv. 30).
Verse 14. For even as a man going into a far country.
This is imperfect, and a pendens oratio. For there
is nothing to which the words " even as " can refer to com
plete the sentence, as Origen has observed (Tract, xxxiii.
in S. Matt.}. We must therefore understand some such
words as "Such is the kingdom of God," as Christ said,
" The kingdom of God is like ten virgins ". A similar form
of speech is found in 5. Mark xiii. 34.
It is doubtful whether the parable is the same as that of
S. Luke (xix. n) ; for there are many points of difference
between the two. S. Luke mentions his as given at another
time and place, when Christ had dined at the house of
Zaccheus on His way to Jerusalem, before He entered the
city on the ass : S. Matthew, when He was sitting on the
Mount of Olives on the third day after His entry, as shown
on chap. xxiv. 3. S. Luke says that the master gave to each
of ten servants a pound : S. Matthew, that he distributed
his goods to three servants, giving to one five talents, to
another two, to a third one. S. Luke says that the first
servant gained ten pounds, the second five ; S. Matthew
says that the first gained five, the second gained two. S.
Luke, that the slothful servant bound his pound in a nap
kin : S. Matthew, that he hid it in the earth.
These differences induced S. Chrysostom to consider them
different parables. S. Jerome, however, and S. Ambrose,
in his Commentary on S. Luc., xix., think them the same.
2 20
3O6 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxv. 14.
This opinion appears more probable, both as being that of
all the more modern authors, from whom we should not
differ without great reason ; and because it seems scarcely
probable that Christ would have spoken the same parable
twice in so short a time in different words. S. Luke s
indication, that it was spoken at a different time and place
to S. Matthew, is no novelty, as the Evangelists appear to
differ in the details of time and place: whilst they take
account of the thing done, not of the order and time of the
events described by them.
Christ probably spoke this parable before He entered
Jerusalem, because S. Luke said so, and S. Matthew,
though silent, does not contradict him. In the other points
on which they appear to differ, they give not the exact
words of Christ ; but the sense of the whole parable is the
same both in S. Luke and S. Matthew, though their ac
counts vary. S. Matthew probably retained the words of
Christ rather than S. Luke ; both because he was present,
and because he appears to relate the whole parable more
distinctly. S. Luke, perhaps because Christ in the pre
ceding parable had compared the kingdom of heaven to
the ten virgins, introduced the same number here. But
this does not affect the meaning. It is to be wished that
S. Augustin, in his De Consensu, had given his opinion,
but he does not raise the question.
We have now to see to what the parable tends. Euthy-
mius says that its meaning is the same as that of the former
parable of the faithful servant whom his lord, when going on
a far journey, set over his household (xxiv. 45) ; and as that
of the preceding one of the ten virgins, that the grace and
faith given by God are to be cultivated and increased by dili
gence and good works, as S. Paul says of himself (i Cor.
xv. 10). Then also each will be judged according to his
own works. Lastly, through our acceptance of the grace
of God given to us, we merit addition of the same grace.
CH. xxv. 14.] PARABLE OF THE TEN TALENTS. 307
The parts of the parable seem to be twelve.
1. The departure of the man into the far country, whom
no one can doubt to be Christ. S. Luke says, more
plainly : " A certain nobleman went into a far country to
receive a kingdom" (xix. 12). He calls him a nobleman,
but not a king, because he had not yet received possession
of the kingdom. When he had, he called him a king.
So S. Matthew styles him first a man (verse 14), and then a
king (verse 34).
2. The second is the departure of the nobleman, that is,
Christ, into the far country. S. Chrysostom and Theophy-
lact explain this of the Incarnation, because He departed
for a far country when He came down from heaven to
earth, and He again departed for a far country when He
returned from earth to heaven. Not that heaven is far
from the earth, but that the heavenly status of Christ, by
which, before the Incarnation, He was in the form of God,
and by which, after the Ascension, He sits at the right
hand of the Father, was very far distant from that habit
(habitus) in which He dwelt among us {PJiil. ii. 7) : " But
emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made
in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man " ; or
rather (Ps. xxi. 7) : " But I am a worm and no man, the
reproach of men and the outcast of the people ". Some
think the journey to have been His ascent into heaven, which
is far distant from earth (Origen, S. Augustin, S. Jerome,
Bede). Others that He would not return for a long time,
as if He had taken a journey of many years duration.
This is the opinion of S. Chrysostom, and seems the best
of any. For the distance of place has nothing to do with
the question ; the length of time has much. For the
lord wished to try the faith and diligence of his servants by
a long absence, as in chaps xxi. 33 ; xxiv. 48 ; and supra,
verse 5.
3. The third part is the servants, whom the greater number
308 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxv. 14.
of authorities regard as the Doctors of the Church, because
Christ has seemingly given to them different talents ; that
is, to some greater grace, and to some less, to preach the
Gospel and explain the Holy Scriptures. So Origen
(Tract, xxxiii. on S. Matty, S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, Bede,
Euthymius, Theophylact (Comment^ S. Ambrose (On S.
Luke xix.), S. Justin (In TrypJid}. Others, by the servants,
understand all men, at least all Christians ; for to all God
has given some talent, that is, some grace by which to
trade, that by the addition of their own diligence they
might merit increase of grace and eternal life. So say
Anastasius (Quest. 84) and Theophylact of Antioch (Alleg.,
lib. i.). This seems better than the former, because, as
S. Luke says, Christ proposed this parable not only to the
Apostles, who are Doctors of the Gospel, but to all His
hearers ; and also because, as has been said more than once,
the meaning of Scripture is not to be narrowed without
very good reasons.
4. The fourth part is that he who is called a man gave
his servants goods ; that is, as afterwards explained,
talents (verse 15 and following). S. Ambrose (Comment,
on S. Luke xix.) says that these talents are our natural
reason, which whoever cultivates is thereby rendered
worthy to receive the addition of grace, that more talents
may be committed to him.
Maldonatus then gives the opinion of different Fathers
and others as to what the talents are intended to signify.
S. Ambrose thinks that they are our natural reason, which
must be improved by grace. S. Jerome and others,
that they show different offices in the Church bishops,
priests, deacons. S. Justin Martyr, Origen, and others,
that they are the Gospel, which has to be taught and
explained by the Doctors of the Church. Others, that they
signify the different kinds of grace that are given to us
gratis.
CH. xxv. 14.] PARABLE OF THE TEN TALENTS. 309
Having expressed his disagreement with these opinions,
as restricting the meaning of Christ too much, he gives his
own : that they are generally all the gifts of God to us,
among which the grace (grattim faciens], as the Schoolmen
say, is the first and foremost. This being given to us by
God, to multiply it and increase it, and not to bury it in
the earth ; that is, suffer it to become unproductive, as
Paul says of himself (i Cor. xv. 10), and as he warns the
Corinthians that they receive not the grace of God in vain
(2 Cor. vi.).
5. The fifth part of the parable maybe the number of
talents, because to one was given five, to another two, and
to another only one.
Maldonatus gives many mystical explanations of the
number of the talents from different Fathers and others ;
but he concludes that the numbers have no real bearing on
the meaning of the parable, because S. Luke (xix. 13) does
not speak of five, two, and one, but says that each servant
received one mina. S. Luke would not have written this
if the numbers had any real significance, for he would then
have altered the meaning of Christ. But because the chief
meaning of the parable is to teach that some work more
diligently with the grace of God, and some less, S. Luke
only meant this when he said that one of these servants
gained ten and another five. If the number had had any
mystical meaning with S. Matthew, it had only this : to
show generally that neither are all gifts given equally to all
men, nor do all men co-operate equally with those they
have. But his mentioning five rather than six, and two
rather than three, seems to have no mystery in it. But the
words of Christ, " to everyone according to his proper
ability," are not so easily understood. S. Hilary, The
Author, and Theophylact take Him to mean the peculiar
virtue of each, which, as each receives from God in a
greater or less degree, he receives a greater or less grace :
310 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxv. 14.
a dangerous idea if they understand us to have faith of
ourselves, as each one s virtue may be said to be his
own. For, as S. Paul says, " It is the gift of God" (Eph. ii.
8). Origen held this error, as appears from his Commen
taries on this passage and S. Augustin once did the same,
as he often blames himself for having done in his writings
against the Pelagians.
S. Hilary, S. Jerome, and Bede thought that the words,
" God gives His grace to each according to his proper
ability," mean that He does so as each disposes himself
to receive it ; for this is a truth of the Church, though the
heretics oppose it, and it is wholly true, though we may
hardly venture to assert that Christ intended to assert it
here. It is either the true explanation, or it is very like
the truth. I should not think it senseless to say that nature
was the peculiar virtue of each, which, although we have it
of God and not of ourselves, yet can be said more truly
than anything else to be our own. It is very probable, too,
that in giving us His gifts God regards the nature of each,
according to which He appears to act ; as when He gave
to Moses a greater faculty and grace for ruling, because he
was very prudent by nature, and, as Scripture says, the
meekest of all men. Or He may work exceptionally, as in
the case of Balaam s ass.
It may be, however, that the words have no meaning as
to the parable, but are introduced to explain it, and that
Christ used them ex consuetudine hominum, as we have
seen before: e.g., verses 10, 11, 12. Because men then en
trust their servants with their property, not at random, and
equally one with another, but according to each one s
worth and faithfulness, Christ said that this man, when
going a long journey, gave to one five, to another two, and
to a third one, "to everyone according to his proper
ability": not that God gives His grace according to the
peculiar virtue of each ; for on this the parable is not to be
CH. xxv. 14.] PARABLE OF THE TEN TALENTS. 311
adapted to the thing signified : but that men, of whom
Christ speaks, do so, and He, in His parables, as we have
often said, speaks what is truth-like and customary among
men ; though what He says has no immediate bearing on
the point of the parable.
6. The sixth part is the words of the servant (verse 20) :
" Lord, thou didst give to me five talents ; behold I have
gained other five over and above ". The same language is
used by him who received two talents and gained other two.
But the meaning of gaining others over and above has been
questioned.
Some of the authorities mentioned above take the in
creasing of the talents to mean the bringing of more men
to Christ, as S. Paul says (i Cor. ix. 19, 20). Others, as
S. Jerome in his Commentary, say that it is the gaining of
more knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and divine sub
jects. Others, that it is the addition of works to faith (S.
Hilary, Can. xxvii.).
All these views narrow the meaning of Christ too much ;
and thus the opinion of The Author seems better, that the
good use of grace received, merits additions of the same.
This the Catholic Church teaches, and it agrees well with
this text, where Christ tells us that they who use their
talents with diligence are worthy of receiving more, as in
verses 28, 29. Unless we say that to gain more talents is
through grace received to perform other good works, from
which results, as has been said, that by how much we do
more good works, by so much we deserve greater accession
of grace ; as the one talent of the unprofitable servant was
given to him who had gained the five.
7. The seventh part is from verse 18: "digged in the
earth ". We must see what it is to bury a talent in the
earth. There appear to be two things intended here. Too
great neglect in business, to which are opposed the words
of the lord to the servant (verse 27). We give the bankers
312 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxv. 14.
the money with which we wish to traffic, and lay by what
we have superfluous. To hide the talent in the earth, then,
means to have received the grace of God in vain, as S. Paul
says (2 Cor. vi. i). The excessive fear of losing the talent
is also shown. Each of these faults happens to those who.
through too great fear of breaking either their vows or
evangelical counsels, are content with the mere observance
of precepts, lest, while they wish to add that of counsels,
they do not even observe the precepts. That is, while they
give a talent for traffic, they not only make no profit from
it, but they lose their capital : like the negligent servant,
who complained of his master being hard, reaping where he
had not sown, and gathering where he had not strewed. By
hiding his talent in the earth, he not only gained no profit,
but he lost the talent which he desired by so doing to keep
in safety.
The words of S. Matthew (that the slothful servant buried
his talent) and of S. Luke (that he laid it up in a napkin)
come to the same thing. The meaning is that while we
seek to keep our grace too timidly, it may be rendered
useless, and at last lost entirely. Some doubt why Christ
said that the servant who received the one talent hid it in
the earth rather than the others who had received more.
There is no mystery in this, as S. Luke says that each
servant received a pound ; or, if there is, it is probable that
he exaggerated the fault and negligence of that servant
who, when he had received less, could have kept it, or
traded with it, with less trouble. As he did not do this, he
deservedly had his talent taken from him. But it is not to
be concluded from the parable, that they who have received
fewer graces from God are always less careful to cultivate
them. For this is not the case ; but they are rather to be
blamed, who, when they have received a less responsibility,
bear it with less diligence and courage, and they who, when
they have received less grace, give a less good account of
CH. xxv. 14.] PARABLE OF THE TEN TALENTS. 313
it ; because it is more easy to give account of a small trust
than of a great one.
8. The eighth is in verse 19 : " But after a long time the
lord of those servants came " ; from which it is not doubt
ful that the second coming of Christ is meant, which was
to take place a long time after.
9. The ninth part is in the words that immediately
follow: "And reckoned with them"; the meaning of which
is that Christ will require in the judgment an account from
everyone who calls himself His servant, of the grace given
to him.
10. The tenth is in verse 21 : " His lord said unto him,
Well done, good and faithful servant; because thou hast
been faithful over a few things I will place thee over many
things : enter thou into the joy of thy lord " ; in which the
same thing is said as is said to the other servant who had
increased the two talents (verse 23). By this Christ
teaches us that He will give His good servants rewards
greater than their merits {Rom. viii. 18 ; Isa* Ixiv. 4 ; I Cor.
ii. 9), as S. Jerome says. Are we then to receive a reward
which we have not merited ? By no means ; for every
reward which we shall receive we shall have merited,
or it would be no reward ; but because we must look not to
the equality of justice, but to the analogy of the giver and
receiver, the reward is said to be greater than the merit.
There is a well-known anecdote of Alexander the Great.
He commanded a large sum of money to be given to a
certain poet. The poet answered, " This is too much for a
poet ". " But," replied Alexander, " it is not too much for
Alexander."
" Enter thou into the joy of thy lord," is not a part of
the parable, but an explanation of the former words, " I
will place thee over many things " ; that is, " I will make
thee a sharer of the same kingdom, the same glory, and,
what follows, of the same joy," as is said of Christ Himself
3H THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxv. 14.
(Phil. ii. 7, 8, 9), and as S. Paul says of the Corinthians
(2 Cor. i. 7, and 2 Tim. ii. 12; 5. Luke xix. 17), because
one pound had gained ten, and again of the other servant
whose one pound had gained five (verse 19). This is to be
taken generally, not specifically, and not as if the meaning
were that in heaven men will be put over cities, or in such
positions : but that according to their merits they will
receive rewards, some greater and other less ; either
Christ or the Evangelist expressed, ex consuetudine, the
meaning of the former, not the words, when He said, " Be
thou over ten cities," because He spoke of a kingdom ; and
it is the custom of kings to place deserving persons to
govern cities.
ii. The eleventh part is in verse 24: " But he that had
received the one talent came and said : Lord, I know that
thou art a hard man ; thou reapest where thou hast not
sown, and gatheredst where thou hast not strewed ".
Some have thought this an essential and peculiar part of
the parable, and (verse 26) Christ seems to make it so.
Some have thought the words " reaping where thou hast
not strewed " to mean that God requires righteousness
from those Gentiles in whose minds He had not sown the
seed of a Law. S. Hilary is the author of this view; but S.
Jerome understands that God requires good works, not only
from those to whom He has given either the Mosaic or the
Evangelical Law, but also from the philosophers who lived
without law.
It does not appear to be any part of the parable, but an
addition or supplement added for explanation. Nor is it
likely that anyone finally condemned by Christ would
so reply to Him ; but it is probable that the slothful
servant would so answer his master when requiring an
account of his truth, and when he was rebutting the charge
of negligence from himself, and excusing his own slothful-
ness by the severity of his master. Verse 26 therefore is
CH. xxv. 14.] PARABLE OF THE TEN TALENTS. 315
not to be understood as if what the slothful servant said
the good master acknowledged to be the truth, but because
the servant said it not as from the truth, but as from his
own opinion ; for the master wished to confute him from
his own words, as S. Luke (xix. 22) has expressed.
12. The twelfth part is verse 27 : " Thou oughtest, there
fore, to have committed my money to the bankers, and at
my coming I should have received my own with usury ".
Maldonatus gives us different explanations of the verse.
Some think that the slothful servant was a priest or
teacher who had not duly executed his office. Others,
that the people are termed bankers, who desire to hear
the Word of God, which increases to them as money at
usury. But he rejects them all, as though, perhaps, partly
true, yet not sufficiently full and perfect. He himself
thinks that the words are no essential part of the parable,
and that their meaning is, as before, that we should simply
seek to increase the grace given to us, by every means in
our power, Christ having given us an example from things
in most ordinary use, and which are known to all. God
does not require us to increase our grace by wicked means,
nor does He approve of usury. He only requires dili
gence. As when He praised the wicked steward who said
to the debtor who owed a hundred barrels of oil : " Take
thy bill and sit down quickly and write fifty " (S. Luke xvi.
6); and when He commands us to make friends of the Mam
mon of iniquity, He does not approve of the fraud of the
man, but his diligence and prudence, which He would have
us practise also. Some distinguish between wickedness
and sloth the former meaning unbelief, the latter negli
gence.
13. The thirteenth is from the rest of verse 27 : "That
at my coming I should receive my own with usury ".
Usury there meaning every good thing, either to the re
ceiver of grace, or to those to whom he ministers it
316 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxv. 29.
14. The fourteenth is verse 28: " Take ye away, there
fore, the talent from him ". The meaning generally is
that the gifts of God are often taken away from those who
do not use them well. This is true for the most part ; and
always in the sense gratum faciens, in the other graces
often.
15. The fifteenth is from the words: " And give it to
him that hath ten talents ". This does not seem to be
properly a part of the parable ; for the grace that is taken
from one is not given to another ; but it would be said,
either because it happens among men that money taken
from a slothful or untrustworthy servant is given to a
faithful and diligent one, or because it was very likely
that the master would do so, though God does not. It
does not mean, therefore, what God does, but what the
negligent and diligent servants merit. It will be asked
how, after the judgment, account is to be rendered, and
grace taken from one and given to another ; not indeed
the same grace (as has been shown before), but different in
different cases. The answer is, that this either does not
apply to the object of the parable : or if it do, it is to be
understood, not of the Last Judgment, but of every day,
and particular ones ; although the parable properly points
to the Last Judgment. For God daily judges men, and
takes His grace from the unworthy and gives it to the
deserving.
The parable has so far been explained ; the conclusion
follows with a general application.
Verse 29. For to everyone that hath shall be given, and he
shall abound.
Origen explains these words thus : To him who has ex
se faith and good-will towards God, grace shall be given
which he has not ex se. A caution against this error has
been given above. The Author, S. Jerome, and Bede speak
CH. xxv. 29.] PARABLE OF THE TEN TALENTS. 317
to the same effect, except that they do not speak of any
one having faith ex se. S. Jerome says : To him who has
faith and good-will towards God, even if in some degree
deficient in good works, it will be given by the good Judge
to have the want supplied. But he who has not faith will
lose the other virtues which he appears to have. S. Hilary
says : To everyone who has the Gospel, the Law also will
be added ; but from he who receives not the Gospel, the
Law also will be taken away. Either must be understood
according to the subject-matter of the parable. This was
the question of two servants, one of whom rendered more
than he had received, the other the same amount. " Be
hold," he said, " here thou hast that which is thine : " the
meaning being, not that generally to everyone who has it is
given, and from everyone who has not it is taken away ; but
to everyone who has more grace than he received, because
he increased it by his diligence, still more is given ; and
from everyone who has not increased the grace he received,
but keeps it unprofitable and useless, even that which he
has, because he has shown himself unworthy of it, is taken
away.
It has been asked why it was not said, " That which he
hath," but " That which he seems to have " ? The reason
may be that the servant who hid the money in the earth
had it as if he had it not, because it was idle and useless.
This is meant to show that they treat the grace of God in
like manner, so that they attempt no good from it ; do not
so much possess the grace, as seem to possess it. It may
be said, if he has grace truly who has it thus, how did
Christ say just after, " from him that hath not " ? These
words are not to be referred to the grace received, but to
the increase of grace which, when he ought to have it, he
has it not ; for the servant had the talent, but had not the
profit from it ; and it was of this that Christ said, " from
him that hath not " ; but it was of the talent which the
318 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxv. 30, 31.
servant possessed indeed, but uselessly, and not otherwise
than as if he had not possessed it at all, that Christ said
afterwards, "what he seemed to have shall be taken away".
Verse 30. Into tJie exterior darkness.
This has been explained on chap. viii. 12.
Verse 31. When the Son of man shall come in His majesty.
Such seems to be the explanation of the foregoing
parable. Christ says that in the judgment He will take
account of His servants (verse 19). Why Christ is called
the Son of man has been explained (viii. 20).
In His majesty.
That is, to show His majesty, which, when He spoke
these words, He had not shown. Christ here contrasts the
present with the future, and His second coming with His
first. What SS. Chrysostom and Jerome say is very
probable, that Christ spoke of His future majesty and
glory because He was to come long after His death, so as
that these might compensate for His present weakness,
and that He might elevate the minds of His disciples, lest
they should fail in faith, which, as has before been
observed, they had done.
A nd all the angels with Him.
Christ says this both to show that all the angels were
His, and to place the majesty of His future coming before
the eyes of the disciples. For as all the ministers precede
the king when he is going on a procession of state, so all
the angels will accompany Christ when He comes to
judgment. They will all come, as S. Chrysostom thinks,
as witnessing the actions of those who are to be called to
judgment ; as S. Paul says (Heb. i. 14).
CH. xxv. 32.] DESCRIPTION OF THE LAST JUDGMENT. 319
Then shall He sit.
This does not mean that He will not so sit before : for
He is sitting even now at the right hand of the Father,
which is the seat of majesty ; but it is an antithesis
between the time of the second advent and the first, when
these words were spoken. For He had not then sat on
the seat of His majesty. He spoke not of truth, but of the
future demonstration! of His majesty ; but He is truly
sitting now. Men do not see Him sitting ; but they shall
see Him then, and thus it is that He says, " Then shall He
sit ".
Upon the seat of His majesty.
Jo?7? avrov " of His glory ": a Hebraism for His glorious
seat. Origen (Tract xxxiv. on S. Matt.) takes the seat
to be either the perfection and virtues of the saints, because
Christ will come accompanied by them, an opinion which
is approved by The Author ; or the angels, who are,
therefore, called Thrones (Col. i. 16 ; Ps. xcviii. I ; Ixxix.
2 ; xvii. 11). Bede thinks it the Church as being Christ s
tribunal. These views have an air of probability, but they
are rather allegorical than literal.
The meaning may be that Christ will sit upon some
bright cloud, because (ist) He was so taken up into heaven
(Acts i. 9), and it was said that He would so come
again ; though this may possibly refer not so much to the
manner of His return as to its truth ; (2ndly) because it is
everywhere said that He would come on the clouds of
heaven (xxiv. 30 ; xxvi. 64) ; and (3rdly) because the Divine
Majesty seems always to have been shown through a cloud ;
as chap. xvii. 5 ; Exod. xvi. 10.
Verse 32. And all nations shall be gathered together before
Him.
Origen raised the question whether all nations will be
gathered together, or only those who were then among the
320 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxv. 32.
living, or only Christians ; and, if these, whether all or only
those then living ? He and Euthymius think that it will
be only Christians, because the rest have already been
judged ; as S. John (iii. 18), " He that doth not believe is
already judged," says. Bede thinks that there are four
classes of men. I. Some who will not be judged, but will
judge, as the Apostles, to whom it was said (xix. 28) : " I
say to you that you, who have followed Me, in the regene
ration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of His
majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats, judging the
twelve tribes of Israel"; and S. Paul says (i Cor. vi. 3),
" Know ye not that the saints shall judge the world ? "
2. Others who will be judged, but will not judge, yet
they will be saved ; as those to whom it was said, " Come,
ye blessed of My Father, possess you the kingdom prepared
for you from the foundation of the world ".
3. Those who will neither judge, nor be judged, but will
perish ; of whom it was said (Ps. i. 5), " Therefore the
wicked shall not rise again in judgment, nor sinners in the
council of the just ".
4. Those who will not judge but will be judged, and
being condemned in the judgment, will perish, of whom
will be said (verses 41, 42): "Depart from me, ye cursed,
into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and
his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave Me not to
eat : I was thirsty, and you gave Me not to drink."
Scripture says everywhere that all men shall appear
before the judgment-seat of Christ (Rom. xiv. 10 ; 2 Cor.
v. 10). The words of S. John, " He that believeth not is
condemned already" (iii. 1 8), signify merely that his case
is so clear that there is no need for his being brought to
judgment at all : for in not believing he condemns himself;
as in Titus iii. n. It has been objected that such sayings
as (xxv. 35) " For I was hungry, and you gave Me to eat ;
I was thirsty, and you gave Me to drink ; I was a stranger,
CH. xxv. 33-] THE LAST JUDGMENT. 321
and you took Me in," and the opposite (verses 42, 43)
cannot apply to all men : for many will be condemned
who never saw Christ hungry, and who never knew Him,
and were ignorant that the poor represented Him ; and
again, that infants who must either be saved or not, and
who will not be saved because they fed Christ when He
was hungry, nor be condemned for not having done so, will
not therefore be brought into judgment. There is one
easy and obvious answer to this and all such questions.
Christ here puts one class for the whole race, as we often
do ; and thus He will not say to all who will be saved, " I
was hungry, and you gave Me to eat," nor to all who will
be condemned the contrary, but only to some ; for by this
example He intended to teach simply that He will neither
save nor condemn men rashly, nor without most just
reasons, declared openly and publicly, and before all men.
Infants, therefore, and all men, believers or not, will be
judged, and the reason of the salvation or condemnation of
each will be given. If it is asked why Christ said " all
nations," rather than all men, the reason may be that " all
nations " may have been used to give weight to the asser
tion, and to show not only numbers but varieties, as in
tending to increase the majesty of the Judge when it will
be seen that He comes as the Judge of all the different
nations.
Verse 33. And He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but
the goats on His left.
Beyond question, the sheep are the good, and the goats
the wicked ; but why they should be so seems doubtful.
Origen, Euthymius, and Theophylact think the sheep are
the good, as being gentle ; and the goats the wicked because
they are rough, and climb precipitous places, that is, do
not walk in the straight paths. SS. Hilary and Chrysos-
tom, Euthymius and Theophylact, think that the sheep are
2 21
322 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. xxv. 34.
the good, because they are profitable, and the goats are the
contrary. It may be because Christ had before used the
figure of sheep and goats, as He had in the preceding
verse, " All nations shall be gathered together before Him,
and He shall separate them one from another, as the shep
herd separateth the sheep from the goats " : understanding
the good by the sheep, and the evil by the goats, because
sheep are better than goats. For the same reason He says
that He will place the sheep on the right hand, as the place
of honour, and the goats on the left ; as S. Hilary says, whose
opinion seems preferable to that of Origen, S. Jerome, Bede,
and The Author, who think that the good are placed on the
right hand and the evil on the left, because, in Holy Scrip
tures, the good is signified by the right, and the evil by the
left ; as in Eccles. x. 2 : " The heart of a wise man is in his
right hand, and the heart of a fool in his left hand ".
The question is often asked where those infants will be
who die unbaptised, and who would be condemned, not for
any works of their own, but from their sinful origin. They
will assuredly be placed on the left hand, as the others,
who will be placed on the right, will be saved, not for their
own good works, but because of the grace of their baptism.
But in the judgment, as appears ex sententia, the question
will be only of good and evil works. This I firmly deny,
for the merits of each will be weighed, and these do not
always consist of acts done, but sometimes in intention
alone, or in grace alone. But, as has been said, it was not
the intention of Christ to explain all the reasons of the
salvation of some and the condemnation of others, but to
give an example only of one kind from which the rest may
be concluded.
Verse 34. Then shall the king say,
Christ has not called Himself a king before, but a man,
or the Son of man ; and, in S. Luke xiv. 12, a nobleman,
CH. xxv. 34.] THE LAST JUDGMENT. 323
who was going to a far country to obtain a kingdom. But
He now calls Himself a king, because He is speaking of
the time when He will have received the kingdom and
come back again ; and, again, because He had not spoken
of royal dignity before ; now that He has done so, He
rightly styles Himself a king.
To them that shall be at His right hand.
Christ begins from the more honourable, as observing the
custom of men : or, as The Author says, He begins with
those who are on the right hand, that is, with the good,
because He is more ready to save than to condemn.
Come.
Christ calls them to Him, because He wishes to make
them partakers of His kingdom ; as in 5. John xii. 26.
Because then He had received possession of His Father s
kingdom, He calls His servants to the same; for He speaks
as if immediately about to return to Him, and He desires
His servants to follow Him.
Ye blessed of My Father.
Some explain this to mean those on whom the Father
has heaped many blessings, because " to bless " most
frequently means in Scripture to confer blessings on. But
this does not seem satisfactory, because it does not seem
possible to understand the words of past blessings, which
may perhaps have been given in greater abundance to
many of the condemned ; but they apparently refer to the
future glory to which Christ invites them. It is the same,
then, as if Christ had said, " Blessed of My Father," and as
such to have the gift of eternal life ; as chap. xxi. 9. When
the people said to Christ, "Blessed is He that cometh in the
name of the Lord," they did not speak of grace received,
but they prayed for that which was to be given to them by
324 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. xxv. 34.
God. Nor does their opinion seem sound who refer the
words to predestination, as if the reason of their salvation
were tacitly implied, that they are blessed of the Father
because they were predestinated by Him.
Possess you the kingdom prepared for you.
K\7]povo^elre ; that is, possess you your inheritance. The
followers of Calvin speak as if these words destroyed all
idea of merit. For they say, if it is heirship, it is not
reward (merces), and is not given to labour or merit, but to
birth (origini\ as we are the sons of God, and if sons, then
heirs (Rom. viii. 17). We are sons by faith, but with them
heresy is faith, and thus everything falls in nihilum.
But these cannot deny that eternal life is called in
Scripture reward ; so chaps, v. 12 ; vi. I ; x. 41, 42 ; xx.
8 ; I Cor. iii. 8, 14 ; ix. 18; Apoc. xi. 18 ; xxii. 12. They
answer that it is called reward not because it is such, but
because it is given like a reward after labour ; but given
post laborem, non propter laborem, after labour, not because
of labour.
If there were no other passage but this, it would be clear
that eternal life is given not QU\y post opera, \s\tf. propter opera^
and is therefore truly and properly a reward. In the same
manner, in the same context, in the same words, in the
same sense, it is said to the good, " Come, ye blessed of My
Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from
the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and ye
gave Me to eat," &c. And to the wicked, " Go, ye cursed,
into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his
angels : for I was hungry, and ye gave Me not to eat," &c.
It is clear that not merely the consequence, as the above
heretics say, but the true cause is shown. They are con
demned because they truly and properly deserved it ; for
when Christ was hungry they fed Him not. When, there
fore, it is said to the good, " Come, ye blessed of the
Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you : for I was
CH. xxv. 34.] THE LAST JUDGMENT. 325
hungry, and ye gave Me to eat," not only the con
sequence, but the cause and merit are given, as may
indeed be proved more clearly from some other passages.
For that it is properly a reward the heretics themselves are
forced to confess, and given not only post but propter
laborem. That it is so given we know from the fact that
to the greater labour is given the greater reward, and to
the less labour the less reward. S. Paul testifies that in
this way life eternal is given (i Cor. iii. 8) : " Everyone
shall receive his own reward according to his own labour ".
What is this but to say that he who has laboured more
shall receive a greater, and he who has laboured less shall
receive a less, reward? Besides, when Christ said (x. 41),
" He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet
shall receive the reward of a prophet," who in his senses
can doubt that He distinguished between a greater and a
less reward in the reception of a prophet and a righteous
man, as it is an act of greater merit to receive a prophet
than a righteous man? These persons, then, should have no
difficulty in understanding why eternal life is called both a
reward and an heirship reward, because given to desert :
heirship, because given to sons. But they are deceived by
thinking God to be like men, among whom heirships are
often given rashly, and without judgment, to good sons and
to bad sons. But God does not act thus. He gives the
kingdom of heaven only to His sons, because His sons
only have merited it ; and not only as they are sons, but as
they are worthy. He, therefore, does not give an equal
part to all ; but the better part to the more deserving, as a
wise father does. S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthy-
mius have observed that the word KX^povofjieiv has the
force, not of the receipt of a thing in any manner whatever,
but as an heirship, as a proprium, as a debitum, because
they assert the freedom of the will and the merits of good
works. Calvin often calls them philosophers.
326 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxv. 35.
The kingdom prepared for you.
That is, predestinated, as in chap. xx. 23, where the pro
nouns vobis, " to you," and quidas, " for whom," have the
same force as vobis, " for you," here ; so that the meaning
is " for you merit it," as there, " for whom it is prepared,"
that is, for those who merit it ; for the causal particle " for "
in the next verse is to be referred, as is thought, here,
" For I was hungry " : the meaning being, " Possess ye the
kingdom which the Father hath prepared for you, because
I was hungry, and you gave Me to eat," as S. Chrysostom
and S. Jerome explain. But the subject of Christ s words
is rather the cause of the glorification of the saved than
of their predestination, as the antithesis shows : " Depart
from Me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was pre
pared for the devil and his angels ". But Christ does not
say here why fire was prepared for these from eternity, but
why they were sent into it. In fact He says that the fire
was prepared for the devil and his angels. In the same
manner are to be understood the words following : " Come,
possess ye the kingdom, for I was hungry ".
Verse 35. For I was hungry.
It has been made a question whether Christ will speak
these actual words when He comes to judgment. We may
think that He will say not only these, but others not
uttered by Him, or recorded by the Evangelists ; for, as
beforesaid, not all who will receive the kingdom will receive
it as having fed Christ when He was hungry. And we
may believe that the reason will be given to each why he
is admitted to the kingdom of heaven ; for to do so would
pertain both to the dignity of the judge and the glory of
the blessed. Why, then, did He speak only of those who
gave Him meat when He was hungry ? It has been shown
above that He gave one case as an example of the whole ;
and He gave this rather than any other, because nothing is
CH. xxv. 37-41.] THE LAST JUDGMENT. 327
so praiseworthy in us than that charity to our neighbours
which, though it takes many forms, appears in none to
more advantage than in the feeding of the hungry poor,
as Euthymius has observed.
Verse 37. Then shall the just answer Him, Lord, when did
we see Thee hungry ?
Origen and The Author think that the just said this, not
from forgetfulness, but from humility, as if not admitting
that they had that grace of charity for which Christ praised
them. It may be rather that they answer thus because
they did not understand the words of Christ, for they
could not be ignorant that they had at times fed the poor
of Christ, but because He will not say, " The poor were
hungry, and you fed them," but " I was hungry, and you fed
Me," and they will know that they had never fed Christ
Himself, therefore they will ask, " When saw we Thee
hungry ? " It seems to be thus from Christ s explanation,
verse 40.
Verse 40. As long as.
E(/> ocrov, As far as you did it to one of these, My least
brethren, you did it to Me : that is, what you did to them,
you did to Me ; as verse 45.
Verse 41. You cursed.
Origen and S. Chrysostom observe that Christ did not
say, " Cursed of My Father," as He had said to the just,
" Blessed of My Father " (verse 34), because God is the
author, not of cursing, but of blessing : not of punishment,
but of reward. Not that He is not also the author of
punishment, but He has prepared rewards freely, and out
of the inclination of His own mind. He prepared punish
ments unwillingly, as it were, and to satisfy His justice.
Into everlasting fire.
These words confute the opinion of the followers of
Origen, who denied the eternity of the punishment of hell,
328 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxv. 41.
against whom Bede and Theophylact argue on this passage.
Origen himself, in his Tractat. xxxiv., speaks very soundly
on it.
It has been doubted whether it will be a true and literal
fire. Two things are certain on the subject :
1. That the Faith teaches us that the punishment will
be a true one, felt not in thought only, but in sense and
contact.
2. There is another less certain, not taught by the Faith,
but held by almost all ancient authorities, that the fire
would not be of the same nature as ours. So say Origen
(Horn, ad Diversos., and Tract, xxxiv. on S. Matt.}, S.
Ambrose (Comment, on S. Luke xiv.), S. Jerome (On Isa.
Ixv., Ixvi.), Damascene (De Fid., iv., last chapter, ad fin}.
But it does not follow from this that it is not true fire ;
and we cannot safely deny that it is, because Scripture
everywhere calls the pains of hell, fire. If this were a
metaphor and not the literal truth, they would sometimes
be described otherwise, and not so frequently termed fire.
Which was prepared for the devil and his angels.
Christ does not say, " Which was prepared for you," as
of the kingdom of heaven (verse 34, and I Tim. ii. 4 ;
Wisd. i. 13 ; Eccles. vii. 30). God prepared the kingdom of
heaven for all men, if they will be saved from all eternity :
but eternal fire only by necessity and a kind of compulsion
to punish the wickedness of the angels. So say Origen, S.
Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius. For the same
reason, perhaps, He did not say, " Which is prepared from
the foundation of the world," as He had said of the kingdom
of heaven (verse 34) : because He had prepared the king
dom of heaven, which He made of His own will, for men
from the beginning of the world, that is, before He created
men themselves. He prepared the fire only from compul
sion, and, therefore, not from the foundation of the world,
but after this, and after sin.
CHAPTER XXVI.
THE JEWS CONSPIRE AGAINST CHRIST HE IS ANOINTED
BY MARY THE TREASON OF JUDAS THE LAST
SUPPER THE PRAYER IN THE GARDEN THE AP
PREHENSION OF OUR LORD HIS TREATMENT IN
THE HOUSE OF CAIAPHAS.
Verse I. And it came to pass.
S. CliRYSOSTOM and Theophylact think this a continua
tion of the preceding ; the Evangelist uniting the Passion
of Christ to the kingdom described in the last chapter.
But it would rather appear to be a transition, by which the
office of a teacher having been explained, that of the
Redeemer is set forth.
All these words.
S. Hilary and others understand the discourses of the
last chapter on the future judgment ; others refer them not
only to the last chapter, but to the 24th chapter as well,
where Christ speaks of the end of the world ; others, again,
think that the words refer to everything which S. Matthew
has written from the beginning of the Gospel to this time,
that the discourses may contain not words only, but deeds
as well ; as if Christ said to His disciples, when He had
said and done all that has been described : " You know
that after two days," &c. This is the opinion of Bede, and
Strabus after him. These opinions are probable ; but the
explanation of S. Thomas in his Commentaries on the
Passover seems better : that the Evangelist wished to com-
33O THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 2.
prehend the whole doctrine of Christ, which he had set
forth in the whole Gospel ; as if he would say : " When
Christ had fulfilled the office of a teacher, He began to
prepare Himself for that of a Redeemer, and to admonish
His disciples of it ". For although with the Hebrews
words mean things as well, it seems in this passage too
stringent to understand by "words" both words and deeds.
Origen has observed that the Evangelist wrote the words
" all these," not to exclude those discourses which Christ
held both before His Passion and after His Resurrection.
Verse 2. You know that after two days.
This is a difficult passage, and it is complicated by many
questions :
I. (On which all the rest depend) On what day Christ
said the above words. For from this we may see on what
day the Passover fell.
II. On what day Christ celebrated the Passover.
III. On what day the Jews kept the Passover, as S. John
signifies that they did not keep it on the same day as Christ.
IV. If they did not keep it on the same day, which of
the two Christ and His disciples, or the Jews kept it on
the lawful and appointed day.
I. On the FIRST QUESTION almost all ancient writers
agree that Christ said this on the I2th day of the 1st month
of the Hebrews (Nisan), which is our March, because the
Passover was celebrated at the end of the I4th and begin-
of the 1 5th day (Exod. xii. 6-iS), and Christ speaks of the
Passover as ordered by the Law, ex legis prescripto. Thus,
even if the opinion of the Greeks, which is entirely erro
neous (as shall be shown in the second question), that Christ
anticipated the Passover by one day, were true, it would
make no difference ; for He spoke of that Passover which
the disciples knew would be, by the Law, after two days.
But if Christ anticipated His own Passover two days, the
CH. xxvi. 2.] QUESTION ON VERSE 2. 331
disciples, when He was about to celebrate it, did not
know it. But he said, You know that after two days is the
feast of the Passover. It is clear, from two circumstances,
on what day of the week Christ said this. First, from the
day of His Passion for it is certain that Christ suffered
on the sixth day ; because S. Luke (xxiii. 56) and S. John
(xix. 31) testify that the day after was the Sabbath ; and all
the use of the Catholic Church teaches the same. If so, it
is certain that Christ spoke those words on the third day.
For, on the same day as that on which He ate the lamb
that is, celebrated the Passover He died. But He ate the
lamb at the first hour of the night that is, on the begin
ning of the 1 5th day. He died on the sixth hour of the
following day (the dies usualis, as it is termed, but of the
same natural day) ; and between the third and sixth days
was an interval of two days ; that is, after two days was
the feast of the Passover.
Then, from the extraordinary entrance into Jerusalem,
the same result follows. For that took place on the first
day of the week, which we now call the Lord s day ; as the
Church teaches, and as we learn from S. John (xii. i). He
says that Christ came to Bethany, where Lazarus had died,
six days before the Passover ; and he says afterwards (in
verse 12) that Christ made the great entry into Jerusalem.
It is probable that He did not enter the city on the pre
ceding day, but remained at Bethany, because it was the
Sabbath, on which it was not lawful for the people to cut down
branches from the trees. If, then, the Sabbath was the sixth
day before the Passover, as S. John says, the Passover was
on the sixth day of the week following. For the Sabbath
was the sixth day from the following sixth day. When Christ
said, then, "After two days," it follows that He said it on the
third day, which the Latins called dies Martis (Tuesday).
The order, then, of the Acts of Christ from the Sabbath
day on which He was at Bethany to the day of the Pass-
332 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 2.
over, on which He died, as collected from the Evangelists,
is as follows :
He supped at Bethany on the Sabbath (S. John xii. 2).
He entered Jerusalem on the first day of the week (5.
John xii. 12).
He returned to Bethany, where He had His dwelling,
the same day (5. Matt. xxi. 17).
He returned again to Jerusalem the second day (S. Matt.
xxi. 1 8 ; 5. Mark xi. 13), and then on the way cursed the
fig-tree.
He returned to Bethany the same day (S. Mark xi. 19),
and the disciples could not see the fig-tree, because it was
perhaps drawing towards night.
He returned to Jerusalem on the third day, and then
Peter saw the fig-tree withered away, because it was clear
day (S. Mark xi. 20-27), and He returned to Bethany the
same day ; as it was His custom (S. Luke xxi. 37) to pass
the nights away from Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives, at
the foot of which Bethany was situated.
The Evangelists do not say that He returned to Jerusa
lem until the fifth day at evening, when He celebrated the
Passover.
Christ said these words, then, either on the third day in
the evening, or on the fourth at the beginning of the night,
which, with the Hebrews, is the beginning of the day. If
the former, He spoke exclusively ; if the latter, inclusively.
II. On this SECOND QUESTION some say that Christ did
not keep the Passover at all that year, as we learn from
Euthymius and Theophylact (v. 20). But the other Greeks
wholly differ from the Latins.
The opinion of the ancient Greeks seems to have been
that Christ celebrated the Passover on the thirteenth day of
the first month Nisan, which is our March ; that is, one day
before the time ordered by the Law of Moses (Exod. xii. 6),
that His death might fall upon the actual day of the Pass-
CH. XXVT. 2.] THE DAY OF THE LAST SUPPER. 333
over, that is, on the fourteenth day of the first month; that
the truth might answer to the figure, and the true Lamb be
slaughtered on the same day as the typical one. For
Christ died on the day after that on which He ate the
lamb with the disciples. This is the opinion of Origen
(Tract, xxxv. on Matt^), S. Chrysostom, Theophylact (In
S. Jokn xviii. 28), Euthymius (in loc.}.
Hence arose the error of the more modern Greeks, that
in that Last Supper Christ used not unleavened but leavened
bread, because it was not yet the day of the former, that is,
the fifteenth day of the first month, the day after that on
which the lamb was slain (Exod. xii. 18). Their argu
ments are as follows :
(1) S. John says that Christ made that supper before the
day of the Pasch (xiii. i).
(2) That it is clear from S. John (xiii. 29) that, when
Christ was condemned, the Jews had not celebrated the
Passover.
(3) S. John (xix. 14, 31) says that Christ suffered in the
parasceue of the Pasch ; that is, the day before the Pasch.
For the day of the Pasch was the first day of the Azymes
(Exod. xii. 1 8 ; Levit. xxiii. 6), and as Christ made that
supper the day before the first day of Azymes He could
not use Azymes at it.
This will be refuted in the reply to the fourth question.
It need only be said at present that to accuse Christ, who
obeyed most perfectly every law as long as He was among
men, and taught others to do the same, of having anticipated
the day of Pasch is most senseless. It was unheard of that
anyone celebrated the feast before the day appointed by
the Law, as S. Thomas, in his Commentary on S. John xviii.,
has observed.
The Latins agree that Christ ate the Passover on the
fourteenth day of the first month at even, as the Law
commanded ; but this seems to have escaped the Greeks
334 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 2.
and some of the Latins, because they have missed the sense
of the Law. The Jews began their day from sunset, as the
Greeks and Latins began it from midnight, and others from
sunrise. The Law commanded (Exod. xii. 6; Levit. xxiii. 5)
that the lamb should be eaten on the fifteenth day of the first
month at even ; as the Hebrew expresses it D^^ifi"! ]*Q
" between the two evenings," that is, on the confine of each
day, the fourteenth and the fifteenth ; for the setting of the
sun formed the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of
the fifteenth. The same evening was said to be the evening
of each day : of the fourteenth, because it was the end of
that day ; of the fifteenth, because it was the beginning of
that night. And this is the meaning of the expression
" between the two evenings," not, as some say, that these are
the beginning the one of the preceding and the other of
the following night which was clearly contrary to the
Law, which carefully provided that the lamb should be
eaten at that precise point of time, and that nothing of it
should be left till morning (Exod. xii. 10 ; Levit. xxii. 30) ;
nor, as a follower of Calvin said, that one evening is to be
understood of the end of the fourteenth day and the other
as the whole night of the following day. Hence Christ is.
sometimes said to have celebrated the Pasch on the four
teenth day and sometimes on the fifteenth, as in verse 17,.
and vS. Mark xiv. 12, and 6". Luke xxii. 7, in all which places
it is said that on the fifteenth day of the first month the
Pasch, that is, the Paschal lamb, was to be slain ; while Exod.
xii. 6 and Levit. xxiii. 5 commanded it to be slain on the
fourteenth day. Because it was slain on the confines of
each day, it is said at one time to be slain on the fourteenth
day, and at another on the fifteenth, when even to the
eighth day it was not lawful to use leavened bread (Exod.
xii. 15 ; Levit. xxiii. 6). Thus the error of the Greeks is
most clearly refuted ; for S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke
write in plain words that the day on which Christ ate the
CH.xxvi.2.] THE DAY OF THE LAST SUPPER. 335.
lamb was the first day of Azymes, so that He could not,
contrarily to the Law, use leavened bread. How S. John
calls that day the day of the Passover, and why the Jews
did not, on the same night, eat the lamb, shall be ex
plained, as has been said, in the fourth question.
But from what has been said it appears why S. John
(xiii. i) says that Christ took the supper before the day of
the Passover ; we also see that he speaks not of the Pass
over of the Jews but of Christ, of which we will speak here
after. It is the same as if he said at the fourteenth day at
evening He did that, when it was only lawful to use un
leavened bread.
What, therefore, the other three Evangelists relate as
having been done on the fifteenth day that is, the first day
of Azymes S. John describes as having taken place before
the day of the Pasch that is, on the fourteenth day with
no contradiction, but in harmony with the usual custom of
Scripture in which the lamb is said to have been slain,
now on the fourteenth, now on the fifteenth, day, because it
was slain, as it were, at the junction of the two days. It is
clear, then, that Christ ate the lamb at the end of the
fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth day, both
from this comparison of S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke
with S. John, and from the explanation of the former ques
tion. For if, as has been proved, Christ said these words,
" after two days," on the fourteenth day of the first month,,
and He spoke without doubt of His own Pasch, it follows
that He celebrated the Pasch on the fifteenth day, at the
end of the fourteenth.
III. The THIRD QUESTION is much more difficult. There
are three different opinions of great authority on it, which
are defended with much persistency.
1. That of those who maintain that Christ and the Jews
ate the lamb, and kept the Passover on the same day. S.
Thomas says that Alcuin is the author of this opinion, and
336 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [H. xxvi. 2.
many have adopted it. The following arguments may be
added in its favour :
(1) S. Matthew (verse 17), S. Mark (xiv. 12), and S.
Luke (xxii. 7) say that it was the first day of Azymes,
when the disciples asked Christ, " Where wilt Thou that we
prepare ? " and the Law ordered that the lamb should be
killed and eaten, and the feast kept on the first day of the
Azymes ; the Jews and Christ, therefore, did both on that
day.
(2) The disciples, following the custom of all the Jews
who kept the feast on that day, asked Christ, " Where wilt
Thou that we prepare ? "
(3) S. Mark (xiv. 12) says that it was the first day of the
Azymes, and S. Luke (xxii. 7). All the Jews, therefore,
offered the sacrifice on the same day.
(4) Christ (verse 18) and S. Mark (xiv. 14) directed the
disciples to say to a certain man, " Where is my refectory,
that I may eat the Pasch with my disciples ? " He said
this, as the man would know for a certainty that the Jews
would all eat the Paschal lamb that night, and, therefore,
that he would not refuse to prepare that place for Him in
his house.
(5) Because the chief priests and elders of the people
said (verse 5 ; S. Mark xiv. 2) : " Not on the feast day, lest
there should be a tumult among the people". So that
when they said this, it either was the feast day, or a day so
near it that they could not put Christ to death before it.
They took this counsel, as will be said on verse 3, on the
beginning of the fourth day. Either that fourth day, then,
or at least the fifth on which Christ ate the lamb, was the
feast day of the Jews. On the same day, therefore, both
Christ and the Jews ate the lamb, and celebrated the
Passover.
(6) S. John (xiii. i) plainly says that Christ ate the lamb
before the festival day of the Pasch, that is, the day before
CH. xxvi. 2.] THE DAY OF THE LAST SUPPER. 337
the Pasch. The following day, therefore, was the Pasch to
the Jews ; therefore, they ate the Pasch and kept the feast
on the same day as Christ.
(7) S. John (xiii. 29) says : " For some thought, because
Judas had the purse, that Jesus had said to him, Buy those
things which we have need of for the festival day ". The
feast of the Jews, therefore, was either the same or the
following day.
(8) S. Matthew (xxvii. 15), S. Mark (xv. 6), S. Luke
(xxiii. 17), and S. John (xviii. 39) say that on the same
day as that on which Christ was crucified, Barabbas was
loosed, as it was usual on the day of the Passover to release
any prisoner they would. That day, therefore, was the day
of the Jewish Passover.
(9) It is not credible that Christ would have celebrated
Pasch at any other time than the Jews. Had He done so
He would have been accused before the governor as a
criminal against religion, as the priests were seeking causes
of accusation against Him from every quarter.
(10) If he had celebrated Pasch contrarily to the custom
of the Jews and before the usual day, He would have
greatly offended both the man, His host, with whom He
supped, and all who knew what He had done ; as now, if
anyone whatever, bishop or private person, should keep
Pasch before or after the rest of Christendom, he would
give offence to all.
(n) If the Jews did not keep the Passover on the same
day as Christ, either Christ would have anticipated the
day or the Jews deferred it : the Law allowed neither
(S. Thomas, Comm. on S. John xix.).
(12) If Christ had celebrated the Pasch on another day
than the Jews, and been put to death, the truth would not
have answered to the figure ; for the true Lamb would not
have been slain on the same day as the typical one.
2. THE SECOND opinion is that Christ did not celebrate
2 22
THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 2.
the Passover on the same day as the Jews, but one day
earlier. Of this opinion were Origen (Tract, xxxv. on S.
Matt^), S. Chrysostom and Theophylact (On S. John xviii.),
Euthymius (hoc loc.\ Nicephorus (i. 28). These think that
Christ anticipated the true day. Of this on the fourth
question.
The following arguments may be brought in favour of
this opinion :
(a) S. John (xviii. 28) says that the Jews, when they
accused Christ to the governor, did not go into the
Pretorium, lest by entering a profane place they should be
defiled, and unable to eat the Passover ; for they had not
eaten it yet : but Christ had eaten it the night before. The
Jews, therefore, did not eat the lamb and celebrate the
Passover on the same day as Christ, but the day after.
This argument is forcible and plain, and has justly drawn
many great authorities into its support. Some moderns
reply, as we find from S. Thomas that Alcuin did, that the
Pasch in that place does not mean the lamb, but the
Azymes. This would be credible if it were supported by
any example or authority. But now they do not prove,
nor is it, on the other hand, collected from the Law, that it
was necessary that they must be clean to eat the Azymes.
There is no command to this effect either in the Law or in
their traditions ; and it would have been intolerable to
them if they were defiled by things of such slight con
sequence, and so constantly recurring, that they would
hardly have been able to keep themselves undefiled for
one day ; and the days of the Azymes were seven,
during which whoever ate leavened bread was guilty of
death (Exod. xii. 15). If this were so, if the defiled could
not eat the Azymes, and they were defiled so frequently,
and by such slight causes, how many would there have
been to be condemned daily even at the festivals ?
Others say that the lamb in that place signifies the
CH. xxvi. 2.] THE DAY OF THE LAST SUPPER. 339
Pasch ; but that the meaning is that they might eat the
Pasch on the same night before light, because the night
on which the lamb ought to be killed and eaten had
not passed. For the Evangelist says, " It was morning,
and they went not into the hall, that they might not be
defiled, but that they might eat the Pasch" (S. John
xviii. 28). The above authors are all refuted by the word
by which they seek to make their opinion good. I mean
" In the morning". For the Law forbade not only that the
whole lamb, but that any part of it, should remain till the
morning (Exod. xii. 10). How, then, if it were morning, could
they have both killed and eaten the whole lamb? It was,
besides, not so much morning as that it was not yet bright
day ; and it is not probable that the Jews, in their rage,
brought Christ to the governor before it was light, and
before he had risen, lest they should offend him by their
untimely intrusion, when it was necessary for them to gain
his favour for the condemnation of Christ.
But why then, it may be asked, did S. John so carefully,
and of design, add the word mane to show that the
following day had begun to dawn, and thus there did not
remain an entire day to that on which the Jews were to
celebrate the Pasch, and, therefore, if they had been defiled
then, they would not have had time to purify themselves,
to do which they required at least one day ? The argument,
therefore, is firmly established that the Jews celebrated the
Pasch the day after Christ.
() These are the words of S. John (xix. 14) : " And it
was the parasceue of the Pasch about the sixth hour ". S.
John speaks of the time when Christ was condemned and
crucified, and he calls the day the parasceue of the Pasch,
that is, the day before the Pasch. The Jews, therefore, had
not yet celebrated the Pasch.
It has been answered that the meaning is not that it
was the parasceue of the Pasch, that is, the day before the
340 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. xxvi. 2.
Pasch, but that it was the parasceue of the Sabbath which
had fallen on the day of the Pasch, as if the Evangelist had
said, " The parasceue was on the day of Pasch ". This is
proved :
a. By our nowhere reading that the Pasch had a para
sceue; nor was there need of one, as the parasceue was only
the day before a feast on which it was not lawful to pre
pare what was necessary for subsistence. Hence it was
called by the Greeks Trapaatcevrf, and by the Hebrews 1TQ3D
" preparation," because on that day whatever was necessary
for the day following was prepared ; but on the day of the
Pasch the Law did not forbid, it rather allowed what was
required to be prepared (Exod. xii. 16).
/9. Again, we never read of a parasceue, but of the Sabbath,
as S. Matt, xxvii. 62 ; ,S. Luke xxiii. 54 ; and more clearly
5. Mark xv. 42. As if explaining what parasceue meant,
he calls it TrpotrdpjSaTov, " the day before the Sabbath ".
All this is true, and may be granted ; but it cannot be
granted that S. John by the parasceue of the Pasch meant
the same as if he had said the parasceue of the Sabbath,
which was the day of the Pasch. This expression is not
less hard and senseless than if one should say that when the
feast of S. John the Baptist is kept on the day before the feast
of Corpus Christi, anyone speaking of that day should call it
the Vigil of S. John the Baptist : not because it was the
Vigil of S. John the Baptist, but because it was the Vigil of
Corpus Christi, which had fallen upon the feast of S. John
the Baptist ; which would be matter of ridicule. S. John,
therefore, called it the parasceue of Pasch ; although
Pasch had no parasceue suo institute ; because, as will be
explained on the fourth question, the Pasch that year had
fallen upon the Sabbath ; and because the Sabbath has a
parasceue, and it (the Sabbath) fell that year upon the
Pasch. S. John rightly called the day preceding, on which
Christ was crucified, the Preparation of Pasch : that by
CH. xxvi. 2.] THE DAY OF THE LAST SUPPER. 34!
one word the reader might understand that the day follow
ing was both the Sabbath, because it had a parasceue ;
and the Pasch, because he called that day the parasceue
of the Pasch, which no one could have understood had he
called it the parasceue.
(c) The third argument is what S.John says (xix. 31),
that that was a great Sabbath ; as if it were not any ordi
nary one, but more holy and noble that year than any other
year. But it could not be so unless the Pasch were cele
brated that same day. In this sense it was a great day,
because it was both the Sabbath and the Pasch.
The answer of some who hold the former opinion is,
that "S. John did not call that Sabbath great because
the Jews celebrated Pasch on it, but because it was
one of the days of Azymes". But this has nothing to
do with S. John s subject. He gave the reason of the
Jews asking Pilate to break the legs of Christ and the
thieves, both that they could not be taken down from
the cross on the Sabbath, and that it was unbecoming
that they should remain on it, especially as that was a great
day. To this the Azymes were no impediment, as it was
lawful to work on any day but the first and the last (Exod.
xti. 1 6). So that no greatness or sanctity attached to that
Sabbath. The meaning is, that it was the great day of the
Sabbath, because it was both Sabbath and Pasch, on
neither of which it was lawful to take down the bodies and
bury them, or to leave them on the cross, that the holiness
of the day might not be defiled by the presence of the
dead bodies.
(d) The fourth reason is taken from 5. Matt, (verse 5) and
S. Mark (xiv. 2) : " Not on the feast day, lest there should
be a tumult among the people ". In these words the
Council did not mean that the death of Christ should be
put off till after the feast, as they think who say that
Christ kept the Pasch on the same day as the Jews ; but
342 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [H. xxvi. 2.
they the rather wished to hasten His death before the day
of Pasch arrived, which would be two days hence. This
was more in accordance with their hatred and cruelty.
a. Some take the meaning to be, that they should en
deavour to put Christ to death that same night, before dawn,
and before the day of the Pasch broke, which was to be cele
brated both by Christ and themselves the day after ; but
the Jews had not discovered any means of seizing Christ
0. Others think that they wished to defer the day ; but
the opportunity of the traitor Judas having offered, who
could betray Christ with a kiss and deliver Him up to them
without any disturbance, they changed their design ; and
on the same day as that on which they celebrated the
Pasch, they seized and condemned Him.
But these, again, forget the words of the Jews : " Lest,
perhaps, there should be a tumult ". This might have
been caused, not so much by Christ s seizure, as by His
death. For the treachery of Judas could not prevent this,
and their discovery of his willingness to betray Christ
could not have caused them to change their intention.
Nor do they so much seize the opportunity of Judas, as he
seized theirs ; for, when he understood that they were con
sulting about the seizure of Christ, he, covetous and per
fidious as he was, and desiring of finding purchasers, would
not lose the opportunity of selling his Master.
(e) The fifth is S. John xiii. I : " Before the festival day
of the Pasch, Jesus knowing His hour was come that He
should pass out of this world to His Father ". It is not
doubtful that S. John, by the words, " before the feast of
Pasch," did not mean any day preceding Pasch, but the
nearest : the one immediately before it. But it is in ques
tion whether S. John is to be understood of the Pasch
which Christ celebrated, or that of the Jews ; but it is
much more likely, as said above, that S. John spoke of
the Pasch of the Jews when he mentioned the Supper of
CH. xxvi. 2.] THE DAY OF THE LAST SUPPER. 343
Christ, and His washing their feet, which was done at the
beginning of the day on which He celebrated the Pasch.
S. John, therefore, would not have said, " before the
festival day of the Pasch," but on the festival day, if he
had been speaking of the Pasch of Christ ; as S. Matthew
(verse 17) and S. Mark (xiv. 12) said, "on the first day
of Azymes," when they spoke not of the Supper itself, that
is, the celebration of the Pasch, but of its preparation, which
ought to take place the day before the Pasch. As, then,
because S. John wished to make known by what acts Christ
showed that singular love of His disciples, of which he said,
" He loved them unto the end " (in fineni], He showed it
not by eating the Paschal lamb which He had done every
year, but by washing their feet, and by the showing forth
of His Body and Blood, which He had not done before.
These two acts were done, as S. John shows, when the
typical supper of the lamb was over ; and that could not
have been until much of the night, that is, the day of the
Pasch, had passed, so that he could not truly say that
they were done " before the festival day of the Pasch ".
For, what some say, that the feast day ought to be
understood for the conventional day, from the rising to
the setting of the sun, which had not yet arrived, because
it was not used, cannot easily be admitted. It remains,
therefore, that S. John spoke of the Pasch of the Jews,
which was common and known to all, and of which alone
the reader could understand what was said.
(/) The sixth is from the same chapter (xiii. 29), when
Christ said to Judas, " That which thou dost, do quickly".
The disciples thought He meant that he should " buy those
things which we have need of for the festival day " ; which
agrees better if that Pasch of which Christ spoke had not
yet come, but was close at hand. For that which Christ
Himself kept had come; for when He spoke He had eaten
the lamb.
344 TH E GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cii. xxvi. 2.
(g) If on the day on which Christ died and had celebrated
the Pasch, there had been the Pasch of the Jews as well,
it would not have been lawful for Joseph, a just man,
and those who assisted him, to take down the body of
Christ from the cross and bury it, since the holy women
themselves would not go into the tomb when they wished
to anoint Christ, because of the Sabbath (S. Luke xxiii.
56).
(/i) The eighth reason. It is scarcely to be believed
that the chief priests and elders of the people, who
professed to be the guardians of religion, and chiefly
accused Christ, because He appeared to be a violator of it,
would seek to violate it themselves by His accusation : as
they would have done if on the very day of the Pasch, of
all days the most holy and the most noted, they had
brought a capital accusation against Christ, when it was
not lawful for them to bring forward any cause, even the
lightest, on any feast day. They did, indeed, some things
on that Sabbath which they had no right to do, but which
seemed of much less consequence ; namely, they went to
Pilate, and asked to have charge of the tomb, lest the
disciples of Christ should steal Him away. They came to
the tomb, and placed guards and sealed it. But all this, as
before said, was of less consequence than carrying a man
off to judgment even from the midst of the people,
accusing him, condemning him, and nailing him to the
cross, on the very feast day of the Pasch. Lastly, it may
be believed that if they did not fear God, they may have
feared the people : lest they should be aroused by seeing a
man dragged away to death on the very day of the
Pasch, and he one whom the greater number of them
believed to be a most holy prophet ; and should rise and
put themselves to death. It was from this fear that they
said, " Not on the festival day, lest there should be a
tumult amon^ the people ".
CH. xxvi. 2.] THE DAY OF THE LAST SUPPER. 345
This opinion appears more probable, because if it have
fewer, it most certainly has stronger, arguments in its
favour, and which can be answered with much less ease
than those which are brought in support of the other
opinion. For, in the first place, S. Matthew (verse 17), S.
Mark (xiv. 12), and S. Luke (xxii. 7) call the day on
which Christ ate the lamb the first day of the Azymes ;
and that the Pasch was the first day of Azymes is easily
solved. The Evangelists spoke not from the tradition of
the Jews (on which, see question four), but from the Law.
But, according to the Law, the day on which Christ ate
the lamb was the true Pasch. They wished, perhaps, when
they marked the time so accurately, and said that it was
the first day of Azymes, silently to signify this : that it was
not the Jews, but Christ, who celebrated Pasch at the
proper time. And when the disciples asked Christ where
He wished them to prepare the Pasch, it was not the first
day of Azymes even by the Law ; for it cannot be doubted
that they asked this on the fourteenth day of the first
month, before the setting of the sun. For after this, they
would have asked it too late, for at that period of time they
had not to prepare, but to eat, the Pasch. For the four
teenth day was not the first day of the Azymes ; but they
said the first day of Azymes, because that day was at
hand : as if they said, " the first day of Azymes being at
hand ". As then, when the first day of Azymes was not
yet come, that is, the Pasch, they said, " the first day of the
Azymes," that is, the Pasch of the Jews ; so, when it was
not yet the first day of the Azymes, because it was very
near, they could say that it was the first day of Azymes ;
for the Evangelists do not always keep to the exact point
of time, but sometimes in the ordinary manner say what is
certain truth ; as when one says that Christ was crucified
at the third hour, and another at the sixth, because He was
crucified between the two.
346 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 2.
This is not said because it is supposed to be true, for the
Evangelists appear in this place to have spoken of the day
of Azymes and the Pasch of Christ, but to show that, if the
argument can be refuted in no other way, it can be in this.
(2) The second can be answered thus. The disciples
were told by Christ that He would celebrate the Pasch
before the other Jews, on the day ordered by the Law.
For He had already said to them, "You know that after
two days shall be the Pasch ". S. Luke (xxii. 7, 8, 9)
shows the same thing more clearly. From this it is plain
that Christ had indicated to the Apostles that He wished
to keep the Pasch on the day following, before they asked
where He wished them to prepare it ; but the other
Evangelists have passed this over. S. Luke has stated it.
(3) The third may be answered as follows. The Evan
gelists spoke, not of the Passover of the Jews, but of that
of Christ, that is, the lawful Pasch ; and in the words, " On
which it was necessary that the Pasch should be killed,"
S. Luke wished, perhaps, to show, that although Christ
kept it before the other Jews, yet that He kept it at the
proper time at which, by the Law, the lamb ought to be
killed. As for S. Mark s words, " the first day of the
unleavened bread," we must understand them not of the
Jews then living, but either of the Ancients who followed
the Law, and not their traditions, or of Christ and His
disciples ; the meaning being that it was the first day of
the Azymes on which the Jews of old celebrated Pasch, or
that on which Christ and His disciples would celebrate it.
(4) To the fourth the answer is, that although the Jews
that year put off the feast one day, as shall be afterwards
shown, everyone knows that it ought to be kept, according
to the Law, on the day on which Christ was about to keep
it, and, therefore, that host could not have been surprised
if Christ celebrated it on that day, as all knew that He kept
the Law of God, and not the traditions of the Pharisees.
CH. xxvi. 2.] THE DAY OF THE LAST SUPPER. 347
(5) The fifth is answered more easily. The words, " Not
on the festival day, lest there should be a tumult among
the people," do not prove that it was now the day of the
feast ; for, as will be shown on verse 3, these words were
spoken by them on the twelfth or thirteenth day of the
month, and some think even six days before the Pasch, so
that it cannot be concluded from them that the Jews kept
Pasch on the same day as Christ. For although the Pasch
both of Christ and the Jews was at hand, that of neither
had actually arrived. As, then, the Jews could have said
this if they had celebrated Pasch on the same day as
Christ, so they could say it if they kept it one day later.
They only meant that they ought to be diligent and alert
in performing the deed before the feast day came, which, if
distant two days, or three, or even six, as some think, was
still at hand.
(6) The sixth may be answered thus. When S. John
said, " Before the day of Pasch," he spoke of the Pasch of
the Jews, the day before which, when He had eaten the
lamb and kept His own Pasch, Christ showed those proofs
of the singular love of which S. John speaks, as has been
mentioned above.
(7) The seventh is of slight consequence, and a great
argument has been urged by us before from the same
proof to show the contrary opinion.
(8) The eighth may be answered thus : (i.) The governor
used to release the prisoner whom the Jews demanded, either
not on the feast day, but on the day before a thing not
without example, and very likely to have been done then ;
or (ii.) he may have released Barabbas not on the day on
which Christ was crucified, but on the following one, which
the Jews kept that year as Pasch, but the Evangelists said
that it was done on the day before because the promise was
given on that day to the Jews, to be carried into effect on
the day following.
348 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 2.
(9) The ninth may be answered thus. The priests who
accused Christ either did not know that He had eaten the
lamb that night, or they did not venture to bring it up
against Him as an offence, as they knew that He kept His
own Pasch by the Law.
(10) The tenth has already been answered. No one
could have been offended, because all knew that, by the
Law, the Pasch should be kept on the day on which Christ
kept it.
(11) To this question it may be answered that neither
did Christ anticipate, nor the Jews defer, the time. Christ
kept the feast according to the Law ; and the Jews accord
ing to their traditions.
(12) And thus the last argument is disposed of; for as
Christ kept the Pasch on the day ordered by the Law, and
on the same day was put to death, the truth rightly
answered to the figure.
It has been said that there are three opinions on this
question. There is therefore one left, of which only one
authority seems to speak. Rupertus thinks that the Jews
kept the Pasch, partly on the same day as that on which
Christ suffered, and partly on the following day. On the same
day, because they sacrificed and ate the lamb on the same
night as Christ : the day after, because they kept not that
day ; but the day following was kept by them as a feast,
that they might not be compelled to rest and be idle on
two consecutive days the following being the Sabbath.
This appears to be credible : especially as we learn from
S. John that the Jews had not yet eaten the Passover on
the day of Christ s death. It might be more correct, there
fore, to say, as some others have done, that the Jews kept
the feast on the same day as Christ, but that they ate the
Paschal lamb on the day following.
4. The fourth question now remains to be answered.
This, although the most difficult, has been fully answered
CH. xxvi. 2.] QUESTION ON THE DAY OF PASCH. 349
in the third. It has been asked which of the two, Christ or
the Jews, kept Pasch at the right time, if they did not keep
it at the same time? Origen (Tract, xxxv. on S, Matt.},
S. Chrysostom, Theophylact (On S. John xviii.), and Euthy-
mius (in loc.\ think that Christ anticipated by one day the
time of celebrating Pasch as ordered by the Law. S.
Chrysostom and Theophylact give as the reason of this,
that He might delay His death to the following day, which
was that of the Pasch. But the reasons they give appear
to refute them. For if Christ pleased to die on the day of
Pasch, that the true Lamb might fulfil the typical one,
since He kept the Passover on the night preceding, that is,
on the same natural day according to the Jews, it follows
that He did not anticipate the time, but celebrated the
Pasch on the appointed day. Nor is it any way credible,
as before said, that Christ kept Pasch before the lawful
day, as in all things to the end of His life, as S. Chrysostom
says, He kept the Law ad perfectum, and never anticipated
the time appointed by the Law. This opinion, with the
arguments in support of it, has been sufficiently answered
under the first question.
Some think that Christ kept the Pasch indeed on the
appointed day, but that the Jews deferred it to the follow
ing one, only that they might not be prevented by the feast
from putting Christ to death. SS. Augustin and Jerome
think this ; but they are fully refuted by S. Thomas (Comm.
on S, John xviii.), because both the Law and custom
directed that one who might be unclean, or otherwise pre
vented from keeping Pasch on the day appointed, should
keep it on the fourteenth of the following month (Numb.
ix. 10, n).
It seems to be concluded that neither did Christ antici
pate Pasch, nor did the Jews defer it ; and yet that they did
not keep it on the same day. Christ followed the prescript
of the Law ; and the Jews, the tradition of the fathers.
350 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 2.
Rupertus (in /#<:.), and Paul Bergensis after him, show most
fully and carefully that, after the return from Babylon, the
Jews made a law that when the Pasch fell on the sixth day
of the week, it should be deferred to the day following, that
there might not be two feast days running, which would have
been a burden to the people ; as they could not bury their
dead, nor perform any other works of piety not especially
laborious on festivals. They have proved this tradition by
many testimonies from the Rabbis. But Paul Bergensis, a
man of great diligence and probity, says that he found, with
a learned Jew, from the Hebrew Calendar, that on the year
in which Christ was crucified the Pasch fell on the sixth
day of the week. Christ, therefore, both kept the Passover,
as ordered by the Law, and was crucified on that day.
But the Jews celebrated the feast on the following day, as
directed by their ancestors. Rabbi Abraham, in his Com
mentary on Levit. xxiii., says that it was found in the
Mishna and Thalmud that the Pasch fell sometimes on the
second day and sometimes on the fourth and sixth ; but I
know not whether he denies, on that account, that when it
fell on the sixth it was transferred to the Sabbath, or
whether he is of sufficient authority to induce us, for his
sake, to abandon the opinion of others.
Shall be the Pasch.
The feast of Pasch shall be celebrated, or the lamb slain.
The word Pasch means both.
A nd the Son of man.
Christ speaks of Himself as usual in the third person.
Why he is called the Son of man has been explained on
chap. viii. 20.
Shall be delivered up.
IlapaSiSoTai, " is," for " shall be," as before. By whom
delivered up, the Evangelist does not say. Origen, and S.
Thomas in his Commentary, have observed :
CH. xxvi. 2.] BY WHOM CHRIST WAS DELIVERED UP. 351
(a) That He was delivered up by the Father (Rom. viii.
32).
() That Pie was delivered up by Himself (Gal. ii. 20 ;
Eph. v. 2, 25).
(c] By the devil (S. John xiii. 2).
(a?) By Judas (S. Matt. x. 4 ; xxvi. 15, 16).
(e) By the Jews (xxvii. 2 ; 5. Mark xv. I ; 5. /0//T2 xviii.
35).
(/) By Pilate to the soldiers (S. Matt, xxvii. 26).
He was delivered with a different animus by different
agents.
(a and $) By Himself and by His Father to redeem
men.
(c) By the devil to prevent the Redemption and to incite
sinners to that wickedness.
(d) By Judas from avarice.
(e) By the Jews from hatred.
(/) By Pilate from fear, lest he should not appear suffi
ciently the friend of Caesar.
This is correct ; but it is not so to say, as the same
authorities do, that Christ spoke generally and without
limit, not saying by whom He should be delivered up ;
that He might include all who would betray Him. For
He did not speak of all, but either of the priests, scribes,
and elders alone, or of Judas with them ; as in chaps, xvi.
21 ; xx. 1 8, 19.
In the words " delivered up," He appears to point to
some fault or blame. These in Judas and the priests were
the greatest possible.
It may be a matter of doubt why Christ said this to His
disciples. His object appears to have been to show His
Divinity ; for He knows the future, when they who were
to deliver Him did not even know at what time they would
put Him to death, and disputed among themselves about
it : " Not on the festival day ".
352 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 3.
To be crucified.
A manner of punishment then in common use. It had
been introduced by the Romans, as shall be explained on
chap, xxvii. 35. Christ says that He shall be delivered up
to be crucified, because He was given up to Pilate by the
Jews to that end, when they cried, " Crucify Him, crucify
Him " (S. Luke xxiii. 21). Christ, as has been said, spoke
most especially of them.
Verse 3. Then.
It is doubtful what exact time is meant. Some think
that it was six days before the Passover, when S. John says
that the chiefs of the priests assembled to deliberate about
putting Christ to death. If so, the word does not mean
the time of which the Evangelist spoke, but one that was
not far off ; as if he had said, " about that time ". It is
more probable, as is the general belief of the Church, that
this assembly was held two days before the Pasch ; that is,
at that time when Christ said to the disciples, " after two
days ". For the Evangelist in using the word " then "
seems to signify the same time as that when the
priests said that Christ should not be put to death on the
feast day ; Christ Himself had said that He should be slain
then, to show that the divine decree and the prediction
of Christ were of more avail than the counsels of the
Jews.
Were gathered together the chief priests.
S. Matthew implies, in the same place, that there was
both one chief priest, and that there were many ; as
explained on chap. ii. 4. The Greek reads " Scribes," which
the Latin does not. It is very likely that Christ joined
these to the chief priests and elders, as related in 5. Mark
xiv. I ; 5. Luke xxii. 2 ; and above, chap. ii. 4. These consti
tuted the Jewish council viz., the chief priests, that is, the
heads of the priestly families ; with the chief priest, who was
CH. xxvi. 3.] CONSPIRACY OF JEWS AGAINST CHRIST. 353
merely called princeps sacerdotum ; the Scribes, who were
doctors of the Law, the elders of the people ; like the three
estates of a republic (vid. chap. ii. 4).
Into the court.
Els TTJV av\tfv, In aulam. In one word, in the
hall. Some take this to mean the palace of the high
priest. It does not appear probable that a clandestine
assembly, about putting to death a man of the greatest
holiness, would have been held in the court, that is, the
actual entrance of the house, and in the place of open
judgment. Athenseus (lib. v.) says that av\ij among the
Greeks meant the palace of the king ; as aula in Latin is
synonymous with regia (the palace) ; as they who frequented
it were called auliei, our version always renders it atrium
(court), as here and infra t verses 58, 69 ; vS. Mark xiv. 54, 66 ;
5. Luke xi. 21 ; xxii. 55 ; 5. John xviii. 15 ; Apoc. xi. 2 ;
and perhaps more correctly than if it read " palace ". For,
from verse 58, it is clear that the place of which the Evan
gelist speaks, and which he calls av\rj, was not so much the
house, or some large hall of the house, but an open space
before the house, which the Latins call cors or chors, the
French cour, Italians and Spaniards corte. For S. Matthew
says that S. Peter followed Him "afar off" (verse 58, and
more clearly verse 69). The atrium, therefore, was with
out, and so says S. Mark (xiv. 68 ; xv. 16); that is, where
they led Him from the interior of the house where the
governor was, into the outer court where the soldiers and
people were assembled together to mock Christ, when they
had put on Him the purple robe.
Who was called Caiaphas.
A very avaricious and abandoned man, for an account of
whom vide Josephus (Antiq., xviii. 3, 6).
223
354 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 5.
And they consulted together.
Kal o-vve/3ov\evcravTo, " They took counsel unanimously ".
That by subtlety they might apprehend Jesus.
Secretly and by fraud, not by open violence ; for they
feared the people, as S. Luke says (xxii. 2).
And put Him to death.
All their designs tended to this result, for they had often
endeavoured to kill Him before. How they conducted their
deliberations is related by S. John at full length (xi. 47, 50).
This council, however, was apparently a different one
to that of which S. Matthew speaks. For the former was
held six days before Pasch, as appears from the beginning
of chap, xii., and the latter only two days before it, as has
been said before.
Verse 5. But they said, Not on the feast day.
It is not certain whether it was the intention of the Jews
to execute the crime before the day of the feast, or to post
pone it till afterwards. They who think that the Jews
kept the feast on the same day as Christ suppose that they
meant to postpone it until the next day, but that they
afterwards found Judas ready to betray Christ, and so they
altered their intention. This has been answered on verse
2. They who think that the Jews celebrated the feast a
day after Christ suppose that they would have had Him
put to death before the feast day. Some, again, take the
festival day to mean all the seven days of Azyme, because
all those days were called festival days, each in its own
manner. Others, again, apparently with more reason,
would take the meaning to include only the festival day of
Pasch and the Sabbath, on which days it was not lawful to
accuse, condemn, or crucify anyone ; and they would there
fore justly fear that the people would be excited to a
CH. xxvi. 6.] CONSPIRACY OF JEWS AGAINST CHRIST. 355
tumult if they pursued a design so audacious and nefarious
on those days. This reason, however, would not apply to
the other days of the Azymes.
Lest perhaps there should be a tumult.
Tevrjrai. First, it may be asked why they feared the
people ? We may safely say, salva pietate, that they did
not fear lest any of the people should perish in a sedition,
or religion be overthrown, but lest, when an infinite con
course of people came together to the festival, Christ might
be rescued out of their hands, as S. Jerome, Bede, and
Euthymius say. Besides, in so great a multitude there
might be some who believed in Christ, and who would
endeavour to deliver Him from the power of the priests.
We may suppose, too, that they feared for themselves, lest
the excited populace might make an attack upon them,
and put them to death : because, as S. Chrysostom and
Theophylact say, they would not have endured that on the
day of Pasch, when those who were condemned to death
were set free, Christ, a man most innocent, should be
dragged off to His destruction. The same fear had often
on previous occasions tied their hands (S. Mark xi. 18 ;
xii. 12 ; S. Luke xx. 19 ; xxii. 2).
Verse 6. And when Jesus zvas in Bethania.
There is here a narration much discussed and of much
interest First, whether there was one woman, or, secondly,
whether there were more, who anointed Christ, as related
in this place, and in 5. Mark xiv. 3 ; 5. Luke vii. 38 ; and
5. John xii. 3.
The question will be more easy if divided into parts.
On the first question there are three parts :
I. Is the Simon at whose house Christ dined or supped,
as S. Luke says the same as the Simon whom S. Matthew
and S. Mark call Simon the leper, but whom S. John does
not mention ?
356 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 6.
2. Is the same woman mentioned by the four Evangelists
as the one who anointed Christ ?
3. If the same, did she anoint Christ once or more than
once ?
I. As regards Simon with whom Christ supped, S.
Augustin (De Cons., ii. 69), Bede (Comm. on S. Luke vii.),
and Euthymius (in loc.) think that there were two Simons,
one the Pharisee of S. Luke, the other the leper of S.
Matthew, whom S. Mark and S. John do not mention.
The reasons are 1st, that what S. Luke relates, happened
in Galilee, but this of S. Matthew in Bethania, i.e., near
Jerusalem ; and, 2nd, that the former was a Pharisee, the
latter a leper. Another reason might be added. It is not
probable that this Simon of S. Matthew was a Pharisee, as
the above event took place when the Passion of Christ was
at hand, when the whole sect of Pharisees was utterly
opposed to Him, and no Pharisee would have been likely
to receive Him as his guest. S. Chrysostom, however
(Horn. Ixxxi. on S. Matt.}, and S. Ambrose (Ivi. on S. Luke
vii.) think that they were the same Simon. This view seems
the more probable of the two, for the following reasons :
(1) Both were called Simon ; and although this was a
common name, the identity of the names may have some
weight.
(2) Because it was the same woman, as shall be proved
by and by, who is said by S. Luke and S. Matthew to
have anointed Christ, and who, as she came so freely and
so often to Simon s house to anoint Christ, was probably
an intimate acquaintance of his; and as he lived in Bethania,
it follows that he was the same Simon. For S. Luke does
not say where the event took place, and, like S. Matthew,
he calls Simon the host of Christ. S. Matthew tells us
that it happened in Bethania. We must believe that it
also happened in the same place. It is probable, too, that
the Simon of whom S. Luke writes, when he first received
CH. xxvi. 6.] ANOINTING OF CHRIST S HEAD. 357
Christ into his house as his guest, had been taught by Him,
so as afterwards to be His intimate, and to receive Him
often as his guest, when He came to Bethania.
2. On the second question there is much difference of
opinion. Origen (7^ract. xxxvi. on S. Matt.) thinks it pro
bable that there were four different women mentioned by
the four Evangelists, who all anointed Christ. But this
does not appear to be a matter open to discussion. Be
cause it seems very plain that S. Matthew, at least,
and S. Mark, as his abbreviator, relate the same event as
having happened in the same place, and at the same time,
and that they speak of the same woman ; so that if there
had been more than one, there must have been no more
than three women : one, of whom S. Luke speaks ; an
other, of whom S. Matthew and S. Mark speak ; and a
third, of whom S. John speaks. This opinion is received,
in fact, by Origen, Theophylact (Comment, in loc.\ and
Euthymius. They suggest, also, and with some proba
bility, that the woman of whom S. Luke speaks was called
a sinner ; but she of whom S. Matthew and S. Mark make
mention was not a sinner, but, rather, was gifted with
something of prophecy (verses 10, 12). Besides, the woman
in vS. Luke anointed Christ a long time before His pass-
over, as we see from his account ; the woman of S. Matthew
and S. Mark only two days before His death, as in verse 2 ;
the woman of whom S. John writes did so six days before
(xii. i).
Others think that there were two, but they differ as to
who they were. S. Jerome (in loc) and S. Bernard (Serin,
de Mar. Magd.} think that there was one, of whom S. Luke
writes, and another, a second, of whom we read in S. Mat
thew, S. Mark, and S. John ; the one of S. Luke being
different to this one of S. Matthew, because the former
anointed Christ long before Pasch and the death of Christ,
the latter on the eve of it. The former anointed His feet
THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 6.
only, the latter His feet and head, as will be explained
hereafter. The latter, of whom SS. Matthew, Mark, and
John write, they hold to be one and the same, because she
anointed Christ at the same time and in the same place.
S. Chrysostom (On S. Matt,, Ixxxi. ; and On S.Jo/in, Ixi.)
Leontius, and Theophylact (On S. John, xi. i) take the
woman of whom SS. Luke, Matthew, and Mark write
to have been the same ; but the one spoken of by S. John
to have been a different one, because SS. Luke, Matthew,
and Mark say that she anointed Christ in the house of
Simon ; but S. John says not in the house of Simon, but
rather in that of Lazarus or his sisters ; for he says that
Martha served at the tables.
Some think that there was only one, as S. Augustin
(De Cons., ii. 69), S. Gregory (Horn. xxxv. in Evang.\ Bede
(in loc. ; and 5. Luke, vii.). This seems much the more
probable, because :
(1) The unspoken voice of the Church points to this
conclusion.
(2) S. John, wishing to mention Mary, the sister of
Lazarus and Martha, said (xi. 2) : " And Mary was she
that anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet
with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick ". He
would scarcely have said this if there had been more
women than one who anointed Christ s feet ; for the reader
could not have understood which one he meant of the
many. All the arguments and they are many which go
to show that there were more than one have less weight
than this one.
(3) S. Luke s statement that the anointing was a long
time before is of no weight to prove that the woman was
different, but only that the act itself was so ; which is freely
allowed, and will shortly be proved.
(4) That the fact that the former anointed the feet and
the latter the head proves nothing ; or, the same thing,
CH. xxvi. 6.] OF THE WOMAN WHO ANOINTED. 359
that there was not one single anointing, but a second one.
And although S. Luke does not expressly say so, it is pro
bable that the woman mentioned by him anointed the head
of Christ ; for, as we shall show, it was the custom of the
country to anoint not only the feet, but also the head, at
feasts, and it is not to be supposed that a holy woman
would pass over the head, from which the anointing began,
and anoint only the feet. There is a similar explanation
in vS. John. For whilst we find, from S. Matthew and
S. Mark, that the same woman, a second time, on the eve
of the passover of Christ, anointed His head, S. John men
tions only His feet, because he probably thought that no
one would suppose the feet to have been anointed and not
the head. S. Luke, therefore, and S. John mentioned that
part of the person which was not generally anointed, to show
thereby that the part which it was the custom to anoint was
so anointed now, and to set forth the woman s extraordinary
love and zeal to Christ ; for she wiped His feet with the
hairs of her head a thing singular and not usual. This
Christ spoke of to Simon (S. Luke vii. 44-6) : " I entered
into thy house, thou gavest Me no water for My feet ; but
she with tears hath washed My feet, and with her hair hath
wiped them. . . . My head with oil thou didst not anoint ;
but she with ointment hath anointed My feet." As if to
say : " Thou didst not anoint My head as is customary ;
she has anointed not only My head, but also My feet,
which it is not". That S. Luke calls the former a sinner,
while the latter, of whom the other Evangelists speak, was
not a sinner, but a holy woman, is no argument that it was
a different person, but that she who anointed Christ was at
different times of a different disposition, as S. Augustin
and Bede rightly observe.
The other arguments, if there are any, shall be answered
under the third question.
3. It was asked before whether there was one act of
360 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 6.
anointing, or more than one ? They who maintain that
there were more women than one must necessarily say that
there were more acts than one. They who say that there
was only one woman are not compelled to say that there
was only one act, though many do say so. Some say that
there was one woman, who anointed Christ three times, as
related :
1. By S. Luke, long before the Passion.
2. By S. John, six days before Pasch.
3. By SS. Matthew and Mark, two days before the
Passion. Others say there was one woman who anointed
twice :
1. Long before the Passion S. Luke.
2. When the Passion was imminent SS. Matthew,
Luke, and John ; S. Ambrose (vii. 5. Luke) ; S. Augustin
(De Consens., ii. 69) ; and Bede (in loc.). This opinion seems
the most probable of any.
It was shown in the former question that there was one
woman. It has now to be shown that she anointed twice.
This may be proved by almost the same arguments as
have been used to prove that there were different women,
viz., that there was at first a sinner, then a holy woman ;
that one anointed long before the Passion, the other
when it was close at hand. Some have added that
then she anointed the feet only, now the head, as if, being
a sinner, she were unworthy to touch the head of Christ, as
S. Augustin and Bede say. This has been answered before.
It has now to be proved that she anointed Christ not
oftener than twice, as some say. It is proved thus. If she
anointed thrice, the act related by SS. Matthew and Mark
is one ; that related by S. John is another, for it is plain
that that related by SS. Matthew and Mark is the same
and not different. It is shown by many circumstances that
S. John relates the same act and not a different one. It
was done in the same place Bethania ; by the same kind
CH. XXYI. 6.] OF THE WOMAN WHO ANOINTED. 361
of ointment spikenard, very precious ; there was the same
murmuring of the Jews, the same defence by Christ ; for
how can it be thought that, if Christ only four days before
had rebuked the same murmurer, he would complain again
of an act every way so similar, if not the same, and so soon
after ?
There are two things only which seem to be in some
measure at variance with this view.
1. S. John said that the act was done six days before
Pasch ; SS. Matthew and Mark only two. But S. Augustin
and Bede rightly reply that SS. Matthew and Mark spoke
by an dvatcecfraXaLcoo-is : for, not keeping the exact order,
when they had said, " after two days," &c., they resumed
the account of what had been done six days before the
Pasch, which they had not related before, as not being
required ; but which they related now because it was now
necessary to declare the treachery of Judas in lying in
wait to sell Christ ; he being a very avaricious man, and
taking it amiss, not that the ointment was poured out of
the vessel, but that the price of it escaped his hands, as
S. John explains fully (xii. 6) : " Now he said this, not
because he cared for the poor ; but because he was a thief,
and, having the purse, carried the things which were put
therein ".
2. The second question has been already explained ;
that in 6\ Matthew and vS. Mark the woman appears to
have anointed only the head, and in 5. John only the feet
of Christ ; but, as S. Augustin says, it is often found that
S. Matthew describes one part of an act and S. John
another. A probable reason may be given for this. S.
John set forth not merely the Passion of Christ, but His
entire history, keeping the order of time, and desired to
explain the singular love of the woman for Christ. He,
therefore, ornits the anointing of the head, which was
usual ; and mentions that of the feet, which was uncommon.
362 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 6.
But the object of SS. Matthew and Mark was not to
commend the singular feeling of the woman, but to show
the avariciousness of Judas, which impelled him to sell
Christ ; they, therefore, describe the whole treacherous
transaction, and the order of the Passion ; in which it was
nothing to the purpose to say whether the woman washed
the head or the feet. Thus they have only related what
was ordinarily done ; that she anointed the head. What
most especially bore upon their design they have most
carefully described that the ointment was of great price.
This inflamed the avarice and cupidity of Judas, which they
designed to publish.
The sum of the whole is therefore
1. That it was the same Simon who received Christ as
his guest, and whom many believe to have been healed
with others by Christ of his leprosy ; though Theophylact
says that some think him to have been the same as he
with whom Christ, with His disciples, took the Last
Supper ; but this will be refuted at verse 18.
2. That there was one woman, and that she was the
sister of Lazarus and Martha, who was called Magdalena
as appears from S. John (xi. 2), and out of whom Christ
cast seven devils (S. Mark xvi. 9).
In the house of Simon the leper.
S. Jerome and Bede rightly say that Simon was not
then a leper, for Christ would not have gone to his house
had he been one ; and assuredly he could not have lived
in the city, for lepers were set apart from other men. But
he might have been a leper at some past time, and have
been cured, but have kept the name. We have just said
that it is the opinion of some that he had been healed by
Christ. This is the more likely, as he showed extra
ordinary love for Him, as if grateful for some benefit.
The idea does not appear a necessary one. He must
CH. xxvi. 7.] OF THE WOMAN WHO ANOINTED. 363
have been called a leper, though not such, from some
disease resembling leprosy, or because one of his fore
fathers, who was a leper, bore that name ; as we see men
called red, or bearded, or shaven, though not literally such.
It may be asked why SS. Matthew and Mark do not call
him a Pharisee, nor S. Luke a leper. The enquiry is
hardly worth raising, but we may conjecture that when S.
Luke was relating the commencement of Christ s preaching,
he wished to show the quality of the person by whom He
was entertained, that it might be known that some even of
the Pharisees received Him. As SS. Matthew and Mark-
had not this object in view, they would not term him a
Pharisee, because it was not his cognomen, but the ordinary
name of a sect ; while they did style him a leper, because it
was such.
Verse 7. Having an alabaster box of ointment.
Many say that alabaster boxes were made from a stone
(alabaster), in which ointments were kept, because the
material preserved the odour for a long time. They cite
Pliny (xiii. 2 ; xxiv. 8). The account of S. Mark (xiv. 3) is
opposed to this. For how could the box have been so
easily broken if made of this material ?
Some say that she poured out the ointment first, and
then broke the vessel when there was no more ointment
left in it. This hardly seems probable, for S. Mark signifies,
not obscurely, that she first broke the vessel and then
poured out the ointment, breaking it to do this more effec
tually KOL GVVT piracy a TO a\d(3a<j r rpov tcare^eev avrov Kara
Again, reason itself teaches us that she broke the vessel
to pour out the ointment more freely, so that none of it
should remain in the vessel. In this manner the holy
woman showed abundant love, that in anointing Christ she
set so little store by the ointment that she even broke the
364 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 7.
vessel lest it should retain the least portion of it. For if
she had poured out all the ointment, why should she have
broken the vessel ? She would rather have preserved it,
to put fresh ointment into it.
It appears more probable that the vessel was made of
some other fragile material called alabaster, either because
vessels that held ointment were made of alabaster, or, if of
some other material, they bore that name ; or they may
have been made without handles, such as the dealers in
ointments and drugs use ; for this is the meaning of the
word alabaster, as Suidas tells us.
Of precious.
BapvrifjLov, " of heavy value," gravis pretii, as the Latins
sometimes say, or 7ro\vTijj,ov, as some copies read, and
as we find it in ^S. John xii. 3. The word probably applies
not only to the quality of the ointment, but also to the
quantity, meaning that not only was the ointment so
good that a little of it was worth a great deal, but also
that it was poured out so copiously that the value of it was
great, as Judas said (verse 9): "This might have been sold
for much and given to the poor " ; and as S. John explained
when he said that the woman had a pound of it. S. Mark
and S. John seem to warrant this idea. They say that the
ointment was both precious and pisticum that is, if we may
so explain it, genuine. We will speak of this by and by.
That this epithet is applied to the nard and not the oint
ment is of little consequence. S. Mark and S. John both
describe it as unguenti nardi pistici, or, as the Greek is,
vdpbov TricrTiKrjs. As these passages are joined with the one
now under discussion of S. Matthew, we may explain it here
by the way. What nard is we learn from the philosophers
and physicians. Pliny and Dioscorides inform us about it.
We also learn from Holy Scripture that it is a shrub of
wondrous fragrance (Cant. i. 1 1 ; iv. 13, 14). From the
word ma TiKi] some, as S. Augustin (Tract, iv. on S. John),
CH. xxvi. 7 .J THE SPIKENARD. 365
have thought that the pistaccio was the nardus ; but there
is no authority for this among cosmographers. The ordi
nary and more generally received explanation, as we have
hinted before, is that nardus is called pisticus from the
Greek word Trto-Ttxro?, meaning genuine, approved, not
tampered with or adulterated. This is the opinion of
Euthymius and Theophylact on 5. Mark xiv. This may
be so ; but there are the following objections :
1. The nard is not called TTJOTA/W? but TTLCTTTJ, as meaning
true, tested.
2. The word Trumj so used is rare and novel. It is not
used of inanimate objects. Besides, it is not the nard but
the ointment that should be called pisticum. For it was
not the nard but the ointment that could be adulterated
by the artifices and greed of the vendors ; and the Evan
gelist calls the ointment pretiosus and the nard pisticus.
Lastly, if the ointment were pisticum because tested, and
of the best quality, it would be pretiosum. But the Evan
gelists distinguish, and call one pisticum and the other
pretiosum.
An author tells us from Athenaeus (lib. xvi.) and Pliny
(xv. i) that there were formerly two kinds of ointment in
use : one thick and solid, which could not easily be poured,
and such as is applied to wounds ; the other liquid, and, as
it were, potable, and which is easily poured out. This
seems nearer the truth, and it was such as that the Evan
gelists describe. If so, it is called Trio-Ti/ctf, from Trielv, " to
drink ". It may be brought against this view that in this
sense it is not the nard but the ointment that should be
called pisticum, for it is the latter that is liquid. The
answer is obvious. The word nard is used of an ointment
made of nard ; as if it had been written an ointment of
n ard {pistici pretiosi) .
It was the custom with the Jews and other ancient
nations to have their guests at their entertainments
366 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. xxvi. 8, g.
anointed. Hence the allusion of Christ when He said :
" But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head " ; that is
to say, Pretend to thyself that thou art to be splendidly
entertained. Hence the woman, when she anointed Christ
twice, did so only at a feast. So in Ps. xxii. 5 ; cxl. 5 :
" Thou hast anointed my head with oil" ; " Let not the oil of
the sinner fatten my head " ; that is, I would suffer injury
at the hands of the just rather than be treated well by the
wicked.
Verse 8. And the disciples seeing it.
So S. Mark (xiv. 4) : " Now there were some that had
indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this
waste ? " These two Evangelists seem, therefore, to signify
that either all or the greater number of the Apostles made
this murmuring, and S. Augustin (De Consens., ii. 69)
thinks it possible that, whilst Judas was the author and
leader, the other Apostles may have either given their
assent, or even themselves murmured, though in a different
spirit, to Judas ; they from love of the poor, he from avari-
ciousness. It is clear from S. John (xii. 4), however, that
Judas alone murmured, as S. Chrysostom, Euthymius,
Theophylact, S. Jerome, S. Augustin, and Bede have ob
served. The other Evangelists speak by syllepsis, as is
their frequent custom, as when (S. Matt. xiv. 15) the dis
ciples asked Christ whence they could buy bread to feed
the five thousand, whilst S. John explains that only Philip
did so. But the most notable example of this is the case
of the thieves on the cross ; for S. Matthew (xxvii. 44) says
that they both reviled Christ, whilst it is beyond doubt,
from S. Luke (xxiii. 39), that only one did so.
Verse 9. And given to the poor.
S. John informs us of the spirit in which Judas said this
(xii. 6).
CH. xxvi. 10, 12.] CHRIST S REBUKE OF JUDAS. 367
Verse 10. And Jesus knowing it.
Understanding the words and thoughts of Judas, though
he spoke apart and silently. The Evangelist wished to
show the divinity of Christ, as chaps, ix. 4, xii. 25. In this
manner, S. Mark says (xiv. 4, 5), the disciples took it amiss,
and murmured among themselves, as if speaking, not in
words, but in their hearts. The Greek is TT/DO? eaurou?,
apud se ; that is, among themselves, one with another, in
their own minds, Judas being the only exception, which
could not escape the knowledge of Christ. This is the
meaning of the words, " But Jesus knowing it ".
Verse 12. She hath done it for My burial.
The Jews used to anoint the bodies of the dead, before
burial, with ointments and spices, as we find in Gen. 1. 2-26 ;
vS. Mark xvi. I ; 5. Luke xxiii. 56; xxiv. I ; S. John
xix. 40. Christ, therefore, signifies that His death was so
near that the woman, as if divining it, anointed Him for it.
Not that she thought, perhaps, on the subject, but that she
anointed Him thus opportunely that she may appear to
have done it to this end. Trie meaning, perhaps, is that
she anointed Him now because after His death she would
not be able to do so ; as S. Mark signified : " What she
could she hath done ; she is come aforehand to anoint My
body for the burial " (xiv. 8). S. John should be received in
this or some similar sense : " Let her alone, that she may
keep it against the day of My burial " (xii. 7), as meaning :
At My burial they would have no ointment ; for they
brought spices afterwards ; suffer her now to keep this
ointment for that time ; for she keeps it by anointing Me
now, as she was about to do. The Greek expresses it
more clearly : TerijpTjKev avro, " she has kept it " ; that
is, she has so placed it out by anointing Me that she
cannot lose it ; as we say of one who has bought an estate
that he cannot lose his money, as he might do if he carried
368 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 12.
it on his person, or shut it up in a box ; by spending it he
preserves it. Christ desired to excuse the act of the
woman, which otherwise might have appeared unneces
sary, by the use and custom of anointing the dead,
and by her piety to Himself; and at the same time to
set her above Judas the murmurer, when he thought of
himself in selling, and she thought of Him in anoint
ing, and, in some way burying, Him. Not, perhaps, that
she understood what she did, but that she was moved
by some silent impulse of the Holy Spirit ; so that her act
was not to be blamed, for it was pious in itself, and
necessary for the dead, and it proceeded from the promptings
of the Holy Spirit.
Some have asked how it was that Christ allowed such
luxuries, when His whole life and doctrine were so entirely
opposed to such. S. Chrysostom (Horn. Ixxxi. in /<?.) says
that if Christ had been consulted beforehand He would not
have permitted and approved it, but when done He
excused it. But it would appear as if Christ so defended
it as, even if He had been consulted beforehand, He would
have approved the act ; and it was also impossible that
Christ could have been ignorant of the act before it was
done, and still He did not prevent it. For He had suffered
Himself to be anointed by the same woman at another
time and place (S. Luke vii. 38), and He not only did not
rebuke her, but even gave her praise, and sent her away
with her sins forgiven. Christ, therefore, accepted luxuries,
not as such, but as the offerings of love. Nor is it a
singular fact ; for within the space of three years the act
was repeated twice by the same woman ; and an act which
was one of love and pity, and which always met with much
praise from Christ, should not be without its imitators.
We should learn two lessons from this :
i. That although what is done to the poor Christ con
siders as done to Himself, as He said (xxv. 40), yet that
CH. xxvi. 13, 14.] CHRIST ANOINTED BY MARY. 369
there is a great difference between the person of Christ and
of the poor, and that it is a greater merit and piety to
clothe or support Christ Himself than the poor, as has been
observed by Theophylact (in loc.*).
2. That many things which heretics and profane persons
think absurd and useless are regarded by Christ as pious
and full of charity; such as are ornaments of churches insti
tuted in honour of Christ, but regarded by heretics, like the
ancient Gentiles, with derision, as Theophylact says.
Verse 13. Amen, I say unto you wheresoever this Gospel
sJiall be preached.
This and 5. Mark xiv. 9 are the only places, as we
have observed in the Preface, where the word Rvangelium
is used for Ev angelica Historia.
In the whole world, that also which she hath done shall be
told for a memory of her.
The memory and praise of this woman shall be cele
brated wheresoever the Gospel is preached ; for all men
shall unite in praising her remarkable act. Christ appears
to oppose His own judgment and praise of the anointing
to the murmurs of Judas and the blame of the whole
world ; as if He had said : What you wickedly and
malignantly blame, men of all ages shall celebrate with
endless praise. This, in truth, was foretold (Ps. cxi. 7 and
Prov. x. 7).
Verse 14. Then went out.
S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, and others refer
the word " then " to the six days before Pasch, when the
woman anointed Christ, as in 5. John xii. 3. Others refer
them to the two days referred to in verse 3, when the chief
priests and elders met in council to debate on the destruc
tion of Christ. This is the opinion of Bede, and seems to
be the more common opinion in the Church. The argu-
224
370 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 14.
ment of some, to prove that the Church used to fast on the
fourth day, because on that day Judas sold Christ, seems
of no weight, because, as S. Augustin and Theophylact
say, the Church fasted not for this reason, but because of
the council which the chief priests assembled on that day
to put Christ to death. The words of S. Matthew (verse
16) seem to be of more weight. For it appears from these
that some days before the Pasch Judas had had meetings
with the Jews on the subject of the betrayal of Christ.
This reason alone may cause doubt as to whether the
betrayal happened on the night of the supper or shortly
before it : because Christ was not in Jerusalem previously,
but at Bethania, and it does not seem probable that Judas
would have left the Apostles and come from Bethania to
Jerusalem to treat of the betrayal, lest while he was
plotting to deliver up Christ he should betray his intention.
Yet, as SS. Matthew and Mark say plainly that, from the
day on which Judas agreed with the Jews for the price, he
sought opportunity to betray Christ, we must believe that
this had been agreed upon some days before Pasch, on all
which he was seeking his opportunity.
That this was done two days before, and not six, as is
the more commonly received opinion, so it is in itself more
probable ; because, as aforesaid, there were two assemblies
of the Jews that of which S. John speaks (xi. 47, 48 ; xii.
19), and this of S. Matthew (v. 3) and S. Mark (xiv. i). In
the assembly of S. John, they determined that it was
expedient to put Christ to death, Caiaphas the high priest
being the chief author of it. In that of SS. Matthew and
Mark they consulted, not whether He should be put to
death, but how it should be done ; and it is therefore
certain that Judas had not yet said : " What will you give
me, and I will deliver Him to you" (S. Matt., verse 15).
For, if so, they would not have discussed the manner of
Christ s capture, but have gladly accepted the conditions of
CH. xxvi. 14.] JUDAS ISCARIOT. 371
Judas, as described by S. Mark (xiv. n) and S. Luke (xxii.
5). It is probable, therefore, that on the same day as that
on which the chief priests assembled the second council to
deliberate the manner of Christ s capture, Judas came to
them and promised his assistance.
One of the twelve.
The Evangelist seems to use this expression to show the
magnitude of the offence ; that one of Christ s own twelve
Apostles and His familiar friend should have sold Him,
while a woman, a stranger, and not long since a sinner, did
for Him a singular office of love and piety.
Who iv as called Judas Iscariot.
The two names of Judas are mentioned, that no injustice
might be done to the other Apostles. For the reader
might otherwise have been left in doubt about the others,
who were without blame, and he might have suspected
some of them ; but the word Iscariot distinguishes him from
the other Jude, who is called by S. Luke (vi. 16) the brother
of James. This is the opinion of S. Chrysostom, Euthymius,
and Theophylact. Why he was called Iscariot has been
stated (x. 4).
S. Luke (xxii. 3) says that Satan entered into Judas.
This is not to be understood as meaning that he got pos
session of his body, as with Energumens, but that he
inspired him with the most wicked thought of selling
Christ; as Euthymius (in loc.} and Didymus (De Spiritu
Sancto, iii.) have explained, and as appears from 6". John
xiii. 2. That Satan, therefore, entered into Judas means
simply, as is said by S. Luke, that he put it into his mind
to betray Christ, as S. John says.
But did not this mean, perhaps, that the devil put it into
his heart to steal the contents of the purse and commit other
like crimes ? Undoubtedly so ; but why is Satan not said
372 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 14.
to have entered into him then ? It seems that S. Luke
wished to convey the idea of the foulness and profanity of
the deed, as if he had said more plainly, It was so wicked
an act that only by Satan s entering into him could he
possibly have done it ; and thus Satan is not said to have
entered into him when he was guilty of only lighter
offences, although he committed them at the instigation of
the same prompter.
Thus we often say, w r hen we see a man committing some
more common and less heinous offence, " The devil has
deluded him " ; but when he perpetrates some unheard of
and enormous wickedness, we say that he is a devil
incarnate, because but for the suggestions of the devil he
could not have committed it. Thus is answered the
question, Why, when S. Luke says that " Satan now
entered into Judas," S. John (xiii. 27) says that he did
not enter into him until the Last Supper, when Judas had
received the sop from Christ ? For, in fact, Satan did not
enter him either now or then ; but by inspiring him and
inciting him to the final iniquity he entered into him when
he persuaded him to sell Christ, and when he incited him
to deliver Him up when sold ; for S. Luke says that Satan
entered at the selling, and S. John when he betrayed
Christ ; because it was a greater sin to betray Him than
to sell Him. This is certain, as Bede and Euthymius
have shown that one Evangelist could not contradict the
other. Thus God was in no sense the author of the
treachery of Judas, as some modern heretics have said.
We, indeed, allow that God permitted Judas to sell, but not
that He was the author, suggester, or inciter of the act.
For there remain the words of S. James (i. 13), which can
not be false.
To the chief priests.
S. Luke (xxii. 4) adds <rrpaTijyoi$, " captains," whom he
distinguishes from the chief priests and elders (v. 52), and
CH. xxvi. 15.] THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER. 373
calls o-TpaTrjyoK " magistrates of the Temple " ; that is,
officers who were over, or in charge of, the Temple, who
were possibly soldiers whom some of the priests had under
them for the safe custody of the Temple, and who were,
therefore, called duces. For the Jews were not allowed by
the arbitrary power of the Romans to have any other
military force.
Verse 15. But they appointed him thirty pieces of silver.
Vide chap, xviii. 8, for a discussion of Jewish silver
money, and the various kinds of silver coins used by them ;
and especially the denarius and siclus (side). The
siclus, like all other money valued by weight, was two
fold the profane, which was less ; the sacred, which was
greater, as Scripture everywhere signifies. There was also
among the Romans, under whom the Jews then were, a
silver coinage ; but it is probable that S. Matthew, a
Hebrew, and the author of a Hebrew Gospel, would speak
of Hebrew money, and that he said F]D3 D r ? l 7l^ but the
Hebrews call silver, unstamped or coined, and all money,
of whatever metal composed, silver. The French do
the same, both of silver and other money, because
the greatest part is composed of silver. But when
a numeral is added, some kind of silver money alone is
meant. This is of two kinds the denarius, which the
Hebrews, borrowing from the Latin, call "HI and the side,
which, perhaps, as being of greater weight, was called 7pt^
that is, pondus (weight). But when the word F|DD argentei
(of silver), is put for silver money, unless the kind of coin is
specified, it rarely means anything but side ; and the
Chaldee paraphrast, when the Hebrew is ]DD with a
numeral, renders it side, as in Gen. xxxvii. 28 ; xlv. 22 ;
Judges xvi. 5; xvii. 2, 4, 10 ; 2 Kings xviii. u, 12;
4 Kings vi. 25; ha. vii. 23. In other passages, like the
Evangelist, he renders it ap<yvpeov$, argenteas, as in Judges
374 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 17, 18.
xvii. 4-10 ; ZacJi. xi. 12. So Josephus (Antiq., iii. 9 ; ix. 2)
renders the word argenteis (pieces of silver) of 4 Kings
vi. 25, which the authors of the books Misnaioth have
cited, by sides.
It appears, then, from the custom of the Hebrews, that
the argenteos, the pieces of silver of which S. Matthew
speaks, as no other kind of money is specified, were sides ;
but a silver side, as shown above, was equal to one French
franc ; that is, twenty silver solidi. An obolus was equal
to a French sou, and it is clear, from Scripture (Rxod.
xxx. 13; Levit. xxvii. 25; Numb, iii. 47; xviii. 16 ;
Ezek. xlv. 12), that a siclus had twenty oboli. A siclus
was four drachmas, and one didrachma was equal to five
French sous, or one Spanish real. Four drachmas, there
fore, held twenty sous, a French franc, or Tours pound.
If this be so, Christ was sold for thirty French francs. If
it be objected that the potter s field could not have been
bought at the price named (S. Matt, xxvii. 7), the answer
may be that it could not, perhaps, be done now, when
things fetch much higher prices ; but this was possible
then, for Jeremiah (xxxii. 9) bought a field for seven
staters and ten pieces of silver, which was a much less
price.
Verse 17. And the first day of the Azymes.
On the Azymes, vide verse 2 and following.
Verse 18. Go ye into the city.
Two things may here be inferred :
1. That Christ when He said this was not at Jerusalem,
but either at Bethania, where He had passed the two pre
ceding days, or on the way thither ; for it is beyond doubt
that the city of Jerusalem is intended, at which, when
Christ sent the disciples, He Himself had not arrived.
2. The words of the preceding verse (17), "On the first
day of the Azymes," are not to be understood as if the day
CH. xxvi. 18.] PREPARATIONS FOR THE PASSOVER. 375
had arrived, but that it was at hand. For if the Azymes
had begun it would have been too late to send the disciples
to make preparations for the Pasch ; and the Evangelist
implies (verse 20) that the evening had not come when
Christ sent the disciples. S. Luke, also (xx. 14), says :
" When the hour was come He sat down and the twelve
Apostles with Him," as if it had not arrived when He sent
them into the city. We are informed by S. Luke (xxii.
8) who the disciples were that were sent.
To a certain man.
Upo? TOV Selva, to a particular person, but one who is not
named. As S. Jerome has observed, the Hebrews express
it thus : ^1D^D7.
It has been doubted whether these are the words of
Christ or the Evangelist. They appear to be those of the
latter, for Christ would scarcely have used an expression
which is not found in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. But
whether Christ mentioned the man by name, or, as we shall
shortly prove, He did not do this, but pointed him out by
certain signs, the Evangelist would not name him ; though
he wished it to be known that Christ sent His disciples,
not to a stranger, but to a particular person whom He
described to them. If, as is more likely, Christ did not
name the man, the Evangelist intended to show this when
he wrote that Christ said ; " Go ye to a certain man ". We
may conclude that Christ did not name him from the
description He gave of him (S. Mark xiv. 13 ; 5. Luke
xxii. 10). For if Christ had named the man, what need
would there have been of any description ? He would
have said in one word, Go to Peter or Paul.
S. Jerome and Bede offer as the reason why Christ did
not name the man that we may understand by His silence
that all men are invited to celebrate with Him the New
Pasch. S. Ambrose (On S. Luke xxii.) says that "he was
3/6 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 18.
described without a name that, as a poor and unknown
man, he might be held in esteem " ; as Christ chooses, not
the rich and noble, but the poor, and men of no regard,
with whom to share His mysteries. But this is opposed
to 5. Mark xiv. 15 and 5. Luke xxii. 12, where Christ
says : " He will show you a large upper room," such as a
poor man could not possibly possess. Christ said "fur
nished " not paved with stones of tiles, but adorned with
tapestry and with tables prepared for a supper, as S. Mark
describes it.
Some Greek copies of this Gospel have earpco/jLevov
eToipov, "ready furnished," as if the second word were
added to explain the first. Euthymius says that Christ did
not mention him that Judas might not know with whom
He was going to keep Pasch, and lay snares for Him. S.
Chrysostom s opinion seems a better one (Horn. IxxxiL),
that Christ did not name him because he was unknown, as
I Kings x. 3.
But this is not sufficient, because it appears from the
words that follow that the man was not only known, but
was also a disciple, and in some degree an intimate of
Christ. "The Master saith, My time is near at hand, with
thee I make My pasch with My disciples" (verse 18). This
shows that the other was in some sense His disciple, and by
the words, " My time is near at hand," that he was in a
degree an intimate. It seems more likely, therefore, either
that Christ did not mention the man by name, that He
might describe him in a better manner, and thus more
clearly show His Divinity : or that the man was really
unknown. For if He had said, " Go to Peter," or " to Paul,"
there would have been nothing to distinguish him from
other men ; but when He said, " Behold, as you go into the
city, there shall meet you a man carrying a pitcher of
water" (S. Luke xxii. 19), He showed that He foreknew
the future, and that all things were prepared by divine
CH. xxvi. 18.] PREPARATIONS FOR THE PASSOVER. 377
counsel for His death. So that God would appear to have
led the man to the fountain to draw water that he might
meet the disciples, and bring them to the house in which
all things were prepared for celebrating the Pasch ; so that
nothing might retard the celebration of the Pasch, nor
hinder the divine decree.
Maldonatus then enters at much length into what he
admits to be a fruitless inquiry as to who the man may
possibly have been. and he gives the opinions of several
early authors on the subject ; but he confesses at the same
time that nothing is or can be known as to who he actually
was. He considers that most probably he was some
wealthy Jew, who was a friend of Christ, and a believer in
Him, but secretly, like Joseph of Arimathea and Nico-
demus ; and he concludes by repeating that the large and
well-furnished room shows him to have been no poor man
nor plebeian, and that Christ calling Himself " Master " to
him would signify that he was a disciple, and His saying,
" My time is near at hand," that he was an intimate.
The Master saith.
Christ appears in this word to assert that authority which
no one can resist, as if He had said, " God says " ; but
He calls Himself the Master rather than God or Lord,
as a man speaks to another man. He used the same
authority when He sent His disciples to loose the foal
(xxi. 3), and in this case the result showed the weight
that the word " Lord " carried ; for as soon as the dis
ciples used it the owners of the colt let it go (S. Mark
xi. 6 ; 5. Luke xix. 35).
My time is near at hand.
Some think that Christ in these words alludes to His
intention, as said before, of keeping the Pasch before the
Jews, because of the near approach of His death. This is
THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 20.
probable, and it confirms our idea of Christ having cele
brated Pasch before the other Jews. But it is more likely
that He wished to show His friendship for the man, because
when about to depart from the world He desired to keep
his last supper with him, and that not by invitation, but of
His own mind, like one who is a most intimate friend.
That He did not say, " My death," but " My time," seems
to show that He was to die at that time, not without reason
or by chance, nor by the force or contrivance of the Jews,
but because the time of His death appointed by His Father
was come : that is, " My time," " the time appointed by
Me," or " that on which I have decreed to die ".
With thee I make the PascJi.
That is, "I have decreed to make it". It is a Hebrew ex
pression like that in 5. John (xxi. 3), " I go a fishing," that
is, "I have resolved to go". The others answer in the same
way, " We also come with thee ". The Latins sometimes
used the same (Seneca to Serenus, De Tranquilit. Vii., ii.).
With My disciples.
Christ seems to have added this to warn His host to
prepare for the reception of thirteen persons. From this
we may suppose that the man had some acquaintance with
Christ, and knew that He had His disciples with Him.
Verse 20. When it was evening.
S. Mark says the same. They mention the evening to
show that Christ celebrated the Pasch at the time appointed
by the Law, which commanded that the lamb should be
slaughtered between the two evenings : that is, between the
sunset of the I4th and the night of the i5th, as explained
on verse 2. S. Luke said to the same effect (xxii. 14),
" When the hour was come," that is, when the sun had set.
They who say that Christ ate the lamb before the setting
CH. XXYI. 20.] THE PASSOVER. 379
of the sun appear to commit a double error : both as they
speak contrarily to the Law, which commanded the lamb
to be eaten with unleavened bread between the two even
ings. It was not eaten before the setting of the sun when
the fifteenth day was begun, that is, the first day of Azymes.
Secondly, when they make in this manner Christ to have
been put to death at the same time as that at which the
lamb was eaten, that is, between midday and sunset, they
cause Him to have died not only not at the same hour, but
not even on the same day ; for if they say that the lamb
was eaten on the fourteenth day between noon and sunset,
as Christ died on the fifteenth day, He did not die on the
same day.
He sat down.
Ave/ceLTo, discumbebat, properly recumbebat. Some have
thought, from the strict meaning of the word, that it refers,
not to the eating of the lamb, but of the supper, of which
Christ partook afterwards ; because, although the Law did
not order the Jews, in plain words, to eat it standing, as
Euthymius says, yet they concluded this from the Law
(Exod. xii. n) : "And thus shall ye eat it: you shall
gird your loins, and you shall have shoes on your feet,
holding staves in your hands, and you shall eat in haste,
for it is the Passover of the Lord ". This description
allows no doubt that it could not have been eaten otherwise
than standing ; or why were they to gird their loins ? why
to have their shoes on their feet ? why to hold their staves
in their hands ? how were they to show the haste of their
departure if they were not standing ? This posture alone
speaks much more clearly than all the other things to
gether. For nothing shows more haste in a man than his
not sitting even to take his necessary food. The connection
of words, too, does not permit us to allow this of any other
supper than that at which the lamb was eaten (verses 19, 20 ;
S. John xiii. 12). S. Matthew, too, as if speaking of another
380 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 20.
supper than that in which the lamb was eaten, says
(verse 26) : " And whilst they were at supper " ; and
S. Luke (xxii. 14) : " And when the hour was come, He
sat down, and the twelve Apostles with Him " ; where it is
certain that he spoke of the eating of the lamb, stating the
time, because the lamb was eaten at a certain fixed time.
He says, therefore, of the supper of the lamb, aveTreae, as
S. Matthew here has ave/celro.
The idea of some others, of which we are informed by
Theophylact and Euthymius, is still more senseless : that
Christ did not eat the lamb that year, when all the Evan
gelists bear such open witness to the contrary. It deserves
no answer.
When, therefore, the Evangelists say that Christ re-
cubuisse to eat the Passover, it must not be understood that
He actually either sat or reclined ; for we must believe, as
S. Chrysostom says, that He kept all the ceremonies of the
Law most perfectly, and, above all, that of eating the Pasch
standing, as the Jews of old ate it ; because it was the
Passover of the Lord, as He was about to pass from this
world. At all dinners and suppers the ancient Jews used
to recline : in the time of Christ they were most probably
accustomed to sit, and though the attitude was changed,
the term was still preserved. For to this day we say, in
Latin, accumbere, at table, although we sit. The Evangelists,
therefore, though they used the ordinary word, recumbo,
would not signify that Christ really reclined, but came to
the table and supped.
Wit I i His twelve disciples.
It may be thought that, in mentioning the number of the
disciples with whom Christ ate the Paschal lamb, the
Evangelist meant to show that Christ on this point also
observed the Law. For the Law commanded the master
of the house to eat the lamb with his whole family (Exod.
CH. xxvi. 20.] THE PASSOVER. 381
xii. 3, 4). But the disciples were the family of Christ.
S. Chrysostom thinks the Evangelists said this to show
that Judas also sat down with the twelve Apostles, and
proclaimed his insolence and ingratitude. The ancient
authorities differ on this. Some think that Judas was not
present, either at the partaking of the New Sacrament of
the Body and Blood of Christ, or even at the eating of the
Paschal lamb ; as S. Hilary (On S, Matt., Can. xxx.), who
thinks that Judas went out while Christ was eating the
lamb, to treat with the chief priests about His seizure and
delivery.
Others think that he was present at the supper of the
lamb, but not at the reception of the Sacrament. This is
constantly affirmed by S. Clement Alexandria (Constit.
Apost., v. 16). Of this opinion also, as it seems, was
S. Innocent (lib. iv. 13, De Myster.). The arguments are
as follows :
1. S. John (xiii. 30) says that Judas, as soon as he had
received the sop from Christ, went out. We must suppose
that the sop was given to him by Christ before the dis
tribution of the Sacrament ; for, as S. Luke says (xxii. 20),
Christ gave His Body and Blood after He had supped, and,
as S. John says (xiii. 2), "when supper was done ". Judas,
therefore, did not receive it.
2. Christ, speaking apparently of the Sacrament of His
Blood, used the words : " I will not drink from henceforth
of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink
it with you new in the kingdom of My Father " (verse 29).
As Judas, therefore, will not drink it hereafter in the king
dom of the Father, he had not drunk it previously.
3. It is not to be supposed that Christ did what He has
forbidden us to do ; namely, to give His Body and Blood
to a most wicked man who had shown no sign of repent
ance. As to what some say, that Judas was indeed a
sinner, but not a public one, and to men of this class the
382 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 20.
Sacrament ought not to be refused, it is a question of doubt.
For Christ now discovered him, both by giving the sop, and
by the words, "Thou hast said". When the Body and
Blood was given, then, all the Apostles knew that Judas
was the betrayer.
These arguments would be of convincing weight, had not
the opposite ones defenders still more in number, and were
they not more capable of proof. Some said that Judas was
present both at the Paschal supper and the ordinary one,
and at the reception of the Body and Blood of Christ ; and
that He drank the Blood, but kept the Body to show to
the chief priests in derision what Christ called His Body
and had given to His disciples as a great mystery. Theo-
phylact relates this, but as it is wholly devoid of proof it
needs no answer.
The ancient authors generally say that Judas was present
at the whole ceremony, and took of the Body and Blood
of the Lord (S. Cyprian, Lib. de Cccn. Doin. ; S. Chrysostom,
Horn, in S. Matt. Ixxxii., and Horn, de prod. Judce ; S.
Jerome, in loc. ; S. Augustin, Ep. Ixiii. and Tractat. in
Joann. ; Theodosius, On I Cor. xi. ; Leo, De Pass. Dom.,
Serin, vii.).
This opinion can be proved, because it is not credible
that before all was finished Judas rose from the table to go
to the chief priests ; for he would thus have betrayed his
treachery, which he greatly wished to conceal. Again,
after the Eucharist had been given by Christ, S. Luke
speaks of Christ as addressing Judas, who was still present
(xxii. 20, 21). The words of S. John, therefore, that Judas
when he had received the sop went out, must be under
stood to mean either that Christ immediately after the
Eucharist gave the sop to point out the traitor, or the word
"immediately" as used by S. John means not that very
moment of time, but as short a space afterwards as possible.
The former seems the more likely, because S. John appears
CH. xxvi. 21.] THE PASSOVER. 383
to speak as if to show that the receipt of the sop was the
reason of Judas going out : as if he were enraged at being
pointed out as the betrayer. It is less likely that when he
had received the sop he should have waited, however short
a time, and received the Holy Sacrament. The words of
Christ " I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of
the vine until the day when I shall drink it new with you
in the kingdom of My Father" do not necessarily imply
that Judas was not then present, because, although Christ
does not drink with him hereafter, He does so with others ;
and this is sufficient for Him to say, " until I drink it new
with you," the words " with you " referring to the Apostles
as a whole.
Maldonatus then discusses the opinion of Euthymius and
some others, that there were more than the Apostles present.
Maldonatus decides the question in the negative first,
because the Evangelists have given the names in full, and
with exactness, and secondly, because the Law commanded
that the Pasch should be eaten by the members of each
household, except there were not enough in number to
consume the lamb, when strangers might be added. This
was not the case here.
Verse 21. One of you.
Christ discovers the traitor sine injuria, by showing that
He knew him, but not naming him. Many have inquired
why Christ said this. According to S. Chrysostom, S.
Jerome, Bede, Theophylact, and Euthymius, He did it to
give Judas an opportunity of repenting, and to urge him to
a change of purpose, when he saw that his designs could
not be concealed. Christ also may be thought to have
said it to show that He died, not against His will, nor as
circumvented by craft, nor without His expectation : but
knowingly, willingly, resolutely, and when, from His know
ledge of the design of the traitor, He might have defeated
384 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [H. xxvi. 22, 23.
it, and yet would not do so. But why did Christ not name
him ? We may reply that it was in accordance with the
loving-kindness of Christ to spare the name and reputation
even of His own betrayer, and to be content with showing
that He was not ignorant of His betrayer ; but would not
name him, because it was not necessary to His object,
which was to show that He died of His own knowledge
and free-will. S. Jerome answers a little otherwise, that
Christ did not name Judas that He might not anger him.
Origen adds that Christ spoke generally, and not particu
larly, that the others, struck by His words, might show
themselves by their countenances to be innocent, while
Judas discovered himself as the traitor.
Verse 22. And they, being very much trembled.
It seems strange why the Apostles who were innocent
should have been troubled, as if each thought the above
words spoken of himself. Nor were they only so much
grieved at the great wickedness that Christ should be
betrayed by His own follower, whoever he were though
no doubt this did afflict them greatly but, as S. Matthew
shows, they were sorry because each thought the saying
possibly spoken of himself, and was anxious, and said,
" Is it I ? " Origen, S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theo-
phylact give as the cause, that even if they knew them
selves innocent, yet they put more faith in the words of
Christ than in their own consciences.
Verse 23. He that dippeth.
S. John (xiii. 24) says that it was S. Peter who suggested
to him to ask Christ who the betrayer was. We must,
therefore, believe that both events took place, and that the
Apostles first asked, one after another, "Is it I?" and
when Christ would not name the traitor, that S. Peter, who
resented the insults on Christ with more vehemence than
CH. xxvi. 23.] JUDAS ISCARIOT. 385
the rest, asked S. John to enquire of Christ who it was that
should betray Him. From this it follows that Christ, in
these words, " He that dippeth his hand with Me in the
dish, he shall betray Me," did not fully describe the traitor,
but first spoke generally : "One of you " ; and then when each
had asked, " Lord, is it I ? " He answered somewhat more
explicitly, " He that dippeth," that is, one of those who dip
bread in the same dish " with Me ". For it is possible that,
on a large table where thirteen sat at meat, there were
different plates and dishes into which either three or four
dipped their bread ; so that Christ showed that one of
these three or four, or as many as were accustomed to dip
their bread in the same dish with Him, would betray Him.
Lastly, when the Apostles, even by this indication, could
not discover who it was, John, at the request of Peter,
again asked who it was, and Christ replied (S. JoJm xiii. 16):
" He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped " ; but
because it was spoken by Christ in the ear of John, so that
the others could not understand it, Judas himself at
last, lest his silence should appear to convict him, asked,
like the others had done : " Rabbi, is it I ? " and Christ
answered : "Thou hast said" (verse 25).
When this was said, neither Judas himself nor the rest
could have been ignorant as to the traitor, and probably
Judas, when he saw that he was discovered, went out ; for
before he was discovered by his name he could dissemble,
but afterwards he could not; and because it is likely that
this took place as soon as he received the sop, S. John
may have said that he went out " immediately ". The
accounts of the Evangelists seem to be thus reconciled.
Origen, indeed, S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, Euthymius, and
Theophylact think that by the words, " He that dippeth
with Me," Judas was personally described, and only not
pointed out with the finger ; for they say that he had
arrived at such a pitch of shamelessness, that when the
225
386 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [H. xxvi. 23.
other Apostles modestly and reverently abstained from
the Master s dish, Judas alone put his hand into it.
S. Chrysostom alone thinks that Judas did it not from
shamelessness, but at Christ s request, that the others
might know who was the traitor. This idea, however,
seems untenable, because it renders it impossible to
harmonise S. John with S. Matthew. For if Judas had
been certainly pointed out by these words, what need was
there for Peter, through John, to ask who would be the
betrayer ? What need that Christ should point him out by
other means, when He said, " It is he to whom I shall
reach bread dipped " ? (S. John xiii. 26). For all the
Apostles had heard Him say, " He that dippeth his hand
with Me in the dish, he shall betray Me" (S. Matt.
xxvi. 23) ; and this, as all authorities agree, was done
before that was said by Christ and Judas had dipped into
the dish. Thus they all knew that Judas would be the
traitor if he alone dipped with Christ into the dish.
Others, on the other hand, say that these words no more
than before pointed out the traitor ; for they only meant,
" He that dippeth with Me into the dish " ; that is, one of
those who sit with Me at a common table and share a com
mon dish. All the Apostles sat together, and all dipped
into the same dish, and, therefore, nothing more is meant
than the saying of S. Mark : " One of you that eateth with
Me shall betray Me" (xiv. 18) ; and S. Luke: "Behold,
the hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me on the
table" (xxii. 21). Christ did not wish, therefore, to point
out the betrayer, but to exaggerate the wickedness by
which, when he had taken food at the same table and from
the same dish, he would betray Him ; as David says
(Ps. xl. 10) : "Even he in whom I trusted, who ate my
bread, hath greatly supplanted me ". But this does not
seem to harmonise well with the words of the Evangelist,
for Christ, in this case, would rather have said, " One of
CH. xxvi. 24.] JUDAS ISCARIOT. 387
these who dip their hand with Me in the dish," as He had
said, " One of you is about to betray Me" ; and it is not
probable that, when asked by each of the disciples who it
should be that would betray, He would have given no
other indication of the traitor than He had already given.
Some have asked how it happened that the liquid or
condiment came to be in the dish when the Law had
commanded that the lamb should be eaten roasted and not
boiled (Exod. xii. 8). This is one of their arguments who say
that Christ did not eat the lamb that year : as Theophylact
and Euthymius say. But it is of very little weight. For
this is to be understood, not of the supper in which Christ
ate the lamb, but of that which was spread after the lamb
had been eaten, as will be explained on verse 26. In this
roasted, boiled, and all kinds of meat and condiments
might be used : leavened bread alone being forbidden,
because it was the first day of the Azymes.
Verse 24. The Son of man indeed go eth.
Christ compares His own position to that of Judas, and
prefers it. At this time Judas appeared to be in a better
position than Christ. Christ was the sold : he was the
seller. Christ was going to death : Judas to reward. Christ
was about to be deserted even by all His disciples : Judas
was to be united to the chief priests, the Scribes and elders,
in favour and friendship ; and might therefore appear much
more happy than Christ in the judgment of men. Christ
Himself refutes this opinion, and declares that in a short
time He should be in a better state than Judas. That He
was to suffer and die seemed to Him neither an affliction
nor a calamity, nor a thing unexpected or compulsory; but
on the contrary, one that was pleasant, laudable, duteous,
voluntary : a thing undertaken with the intention of obey
ing the will of His Father, and fulfilling His decree and
the prophecies of Himself; as He said, "The Son of man
goeth indeed as it is written of Him " (Dan. ix. 26).
388 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 24.
The word " goeth " has the force of Christ s showing
that He was not driven out of the world by force, but left
of His own free will ; for it was not so much death as a
migration, as is rightly said by Theophylact. The words :
" As it is written," show that the need of His death pro
ceeded not from man, but from the divine decree and
forewarning. He compares His own end, therefore, with
that of Judas, because although He appeared to be dragged
to death, He was not so in reality, but He went to it. He
went, indeed, less to death than to glory ; for it was from
this " cause God also hath exalted Him " (Phil. ii. 9).
Judas, on the other hand, who appeared to go to profit and
the favour of men, would go to the noose ; and to eternal
punishment so severe that it would have been better for
him if he had not been born.
Maldonatus then enters into some abstract questions of
Predestination and others depending on it. The Svo omits
the whole. It may, however, be thus stated in summary.
Objection : That Judas in betraying Christ fulfilled the
divine decree equally with Christ Himself, and therefore
that Judas was not more guilty than Christ.
S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, Theophylact, and all Catholic
teachers say in reply that it was not decreed or predes
tinated by God that Judas should sell Christ, but that it
was foreknown and foreseen by Him that Judas would do
so, and that Christ should be put to death in consequence.
God did not predestinate it, but He foresaw it. He did not
do it, but he permitted it. Calvin makes the necessity of
things to be the divine will, and says that God not only
foresaw that Judas would betray Christ, but predestinated
him by this necessity to do it. If so, says Maldonatus,
Judas could not commit sin.
The answer is, that God and Judas did the same act, but
God did not sin, and Judas did ; because God did it with
the good intention of man s recovery, and Judas from a
CH. xxvi. 25.] JUDAS ISCARIOT. 389
mind full of avarice and wickedness. But according to
Calvin, God alone was the author of the act.
Or it may be said that God generated an evil mind in
Judas. The mind of God that Christ should die was
necessarily good ; He had no need of Judas evil one, for
He might have caused Judas to sell Christ^with a good
intention, as, to obey God ; or Christ might have been sold
and have died with an intention neither good nor bad.
The mind of Judas was of God ; the evil of it was of
himself.
Another question has been asked. If it would have been
better for Judas never to have been born, why did God
create him ?
S. Chrysostom and Eustathius reply that Judas was not
created by God such as he became afterwards. God made
him good, but he afterwards made himself a traitor. So
says Solomon (Eccl. vii. 30).
It has been asked again why, being such as he was,
Christ chose him as disciple. On this see chap. x. 4. In
one word, when Judas was chosen by Christ, he was not
what he became afterwards ; but God in His choice of
men often has regard not to their future, but to their
present merits. We see this in the case of Saul. God
chose him when he was yet good. He was made evil per
se. The same may be said of Solomon.
Verse 25. Is it /, Rabbi?
Judas did not put this question to Christ as one ignorant,
that he might learn what in his own conscience he could
not but know ; but as a crafty speculator, to try whether
Christ knew him to be the future traitor, and like a shame
less dissembler, that whilst the others were asking each of
himself whether he were the one, he also should enquire
about himself, that he might pretend that he was not. He
did not do so, as it appears, of his own choice, but as com-
39O THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvr. 26.
pelled by the example of the rest Hence he asked last of
all, and perhaps after Christ had in some way pointed him
out by the words, " He that dippeth with Me in the dish,
he shall betray Me " ; for the Evangelist relates the former
before the latter. Such, at least, is the opinion of Origen,
S. Chrysostom, and Bede. These observe that Judas did
not say like the rest, " Is it I, Lord ? " but " Is it I, Rabbi ? "
as if, even when he most especially wished to dissemble his
treachery, he was compelled by his pride to betray himself by
addressing Christ with a less honourable title than the rest.
TJwu hast said it.
This mode of answering was honourable, and with the
least possible offence to him addressed ; nor had it any
thing of the petulance \vhich we are apt to show when
questioned. But S. Augustin s idea that Christ s words
conveyed neither assent nor denial cannot be reconciled
with the ordinary forms of speech. It is supposed that
Christ said this to Judas after He had given him the sop
as mentioned by S. John.
Verse 26. And ivhilst they were at supper.
eaOiovrcov Se avrwi*, vescentibus aiitem illis. Our version
renders the meaning, not the words. They were at supper,
because it was evening, and the food taken then is called
supper. S. Mark uses the word eaQwvrwv, " eating," and
our version has "eating" and not " supping " as here. The
different rendering of the same word was made, doubt
less, for some good reason. S. Luke (xxii. 20) and S.
Paul (i Cor. xi. 25) say that this was done after supper.
Hence the words of S. Matthew and S. Mark, eaOiovrcov Se
avrwv, ccenantibus, aut manducantibus illis, are riot be under
stood as if Christ had done it during the supper, but imme
diately on its being ended, before they rose from the table,
and the fragments were removed.
CH. xxvi. 26.] THE LAST SUPPER. 391
Three acts were therefore performed at this time, which
three are generally called suppers :
1. The eating of the lamb, which some call the cere
monial supper.
2. The common and customary one ; for whilst the eating
of the lamb was a matter of religion, when the people had
eaten it they were not satisfied, and therefore another
supper was spread that each might take sufficient.
3. That in which Christ gave them Bread and Wine,
consecrated to be His Body and Blood.
It is not certain whether the first is ever called a supper.
The second is called so by S. Luke, S. John, and S. Paul. The
third is nowhere called a supper in Scripture ; for S. Paul
speaks of the Lord s Supper, not the Eucharist, but either a
supper or dinner which wealthy Christians, either before, as
some think, or after taking the Eucharist, used to give to the
poor, in imitation of Christ, who, before He gave His disciples
His Body and Blood, took His last supper with them, as
men do when they are on the eve of going away from their
friends, and showed His singular love to them, as we read
in 5. Luke xxii. 15 : "With desire have I desired to eat
this Pasch with you before I suffer". S. Paul blames them
because the wealthy took the supper which they called the
Lord s Supper, and which Christians took in imitation of
Christ to practise charity among themselves, with fastidious
ness and without waiting for the poor, who, when they
came found nothing for them, and some were hungry and
others were drunken. Hence it is plain that S. Paul speaks
of this supper at which some were hungry and others
drunken ; for who can believe that any man was ever
made drunk by the taking of the Sacrament ? When he
says, therefore, " Have you not houses to eat and to drink
in ? " he clearly shows that he does not call the supper
" Eucharist," which none are allowed to take at their houses
in private. Lastly, when he says, " Putting to shame those
392 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 26.
who have not " (verse 22), he shows clearly that he speaks
of that supper which the poor were not able to prepare for
themselves. But no one was unable to prepare the
Eucharist, for which only a morsel of bread and a draught
of wine were necessary. The meaning of S. Paul, there
fore, is that if the wealthy are so hungry that they cannot
wait for the hour of dinner or supper, they should eat at
their own houses ; lest, if they eat in the church, not waiting
for the poor, they either anticipate the supper, or appear to
despise the poor, and to break the chain of love which is
seen in that feast This is not to eat the Supper of the
Lord at least, not after the manner of Christ, who, though
He was Lord, yet sat not alone, but with His twelve
disciples. In the same sense, the Ancients do not call the
Eucharist the Lord s Supper, but that supper which Christ
took with the disciples before He gave them His Body and
Blood ; as S. Cyprian and S. Bernard, who call their own
condones held on that day, from the Supper of the Lord,
but who would hold it impious to call their supper the
Eucharist, like the heretics.
We, therefore, in agreement with the Scripture and
ancient authors, properly call it the Eucharist, because
Christ consummated it, and, as the Evangelists say, eir^a-
pLcrTrjo-ai, gave thanks, or blessed it. Thus we follow not
only the authority of Scripture and the example of our
fathers, but also common sense, in calling this Sacrament
the Eucharist, for the term ev^apiarla and ev\oyla, which
are the same thing, peculiarly belong to this Sacrament, as
being performed with thanksgiving, or at least not without
it, as we are taught by the example of Christ : the whole
receiving its name from the part.
The act of Christ before the supper He performed, not as
an example to us, but of necessity, because He must first
fulfil the ancient Sacrament before instituting the new ;
that is, He must eat the Paschal lamb before He gave His
CH. xxvi. 26.] THE LAST SUPPER. 393
Body and Blood ; and the lamb could be eaten at no time
but at supper. Then when the lamb was eaten, the ordinary
supper was set, both for the sake of keeping up the custom,
and also that when about to depart this life, He might take a
supper with His Apostles, and thus love them to the end.
The Church, therefore, is not to be blamed, but rather praised,
for not following the example of Christ in that which was
not done by Him for our imitation. The Church only
gives the Body and Blood of the Lord to those who are
abstaining from food, because in this there is much more
reverence ; as Ep. cxviii. of S. Augustin describes, and as
he thought it an apostolic tradition.
And blessed.
(On these words we have followed the Folio and inserted
much that the Svo omits.)
Kal evXoyrjo-as, " when He had blessed". There are at
least three heretical opinions on these words :
1. That of those who read "give thanks" instead of
" blessed ".
2. That Christ gave thanks, not to the bread as blessing
it, but to the wine as giving it thanks (quasi illi gratias
egerit}.
3. That the blessing, or, as they say, the thanksgiving,
was not a singular one peculiar to this Sacrament, but one
in common use among the Jews, and as such adopted by
Christ. This tends to show that the practice of blessing in
this Sacrament is wrong.
They are to be answered in order.
i. EvXoyelv, used here by S. Matthew and by S. Mark
(xiv. 22) of the bread, has the same meaning as ev^apio-^elv
that is, "to give thanks"; for S. Matthew (here) and
S. Mark (xiv. 22) say evXoytjcras here of the bread, and in
the verse following use the word eu^aptcrr^cra? of the cup ;
and S. Matthew and S. Mark say ev\oy>jo-as of the
394 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 26.
bread, S. Luke (xxii. 19), S. Paul (i Cor. xi. 24) say
v^apLo-T7J(7a^. S. Matthew (xv. 36) uses ev-^apLa-T^aa^ of
the seven loaves and two fishes. S. Mark (viii. 6) says
ei>)(apt<mjcras of the loaves and evXoyij&as of the fishes. S.
Matthew (xiv. 19), S. Mark (xvi. 42), and S. Luke (vi. 11)
say evxapia-Trjcras of the five loaves; S. John (vi. 11)
ev~%api(TTi]cras. S. Paul uses the two words as meaning the
same thing (i Cor. xiv. 16). This may have been caused
by following the Hebrew, in which the same word TO
is used both for giving of thanks and blessing, as in
Paralip. xxix. 20, and thus each word may be used for
the other.
2. The second error is clearly refuted by S. Paul (i Cor.
x. 1 6) : "The cup of blessing which we bless" that is,
consecrate by blessing. By these words it is clear that the
blessing was bestowed on the subject-matter ; that is, the
Bread and Wine, as shown in i Cor. x. 16 ; 5. Luke ix. 16 ;
and that Christ bestowed a blessing on these loaves. And
as He blessed the bread and the cup in the same manner
in the Eucharist, the blessing is to be referred, not to God,
but to the bread and wine. Again, in i Tim. iv. 4, 5, he
says : " For every creature of God is good, and nothing to
be rejected that is received with thanksgiving ; for it is
sanctified by the Word of God and prayer". The Word of
God, therefore, the prayer, and the giving of thanks refer
to the food. Again, the context of the Evangelists does
not suffer us to understand it otherwise than that the bread
and wine were blessed by Christ. " He took the bread, and
having given thanks," &c. He took the bread, then broke
it, and blessed it. S. Justin Martyr, in his Second Apologia,
calls the Eucharist " food blessed by thanksgiving " that
is, consecrated; and S. Irenseus (iv. 34, 35) says the same;
and S. Cyprian (De Cam. Dom.} says : " The substantial
bread and the cup consecrated by solemn benediction avail
to the life and salvation of the whole man ". So S. Ambrose
CH. xxvi. 26.] THE LAST SUPPER. 395
and the poet Juvencus say " sanctumque precatus " that
is, sanctifying by prayer.
3. The followers of Calvin err in thinking that the bless
ing which Christ used here was not proper and peculiar to
this Sacrament, but one in common use among the Jews.
They are answered thus : Whenever Christ took food
He blessed it and gave thanks. What is this but that by
His blessing He caused some singular and wonderful
results ? Christ is only mentioned three times as having
blessed food: (i) S. Matt, (xiv. 19), S.Mark (vi. 41), S.
Luke (ix. 1 6), when He multiplied the five loaves ; (2) S.
Matt. (xv. 36), S. Mark (viii. 6), when He multiplied the
seven loaves ; (3) in this place, when He changed the Bread
into His Body, and the Wine into His Blood. For His
blessing the bread at Emmaus, as related by S. Luke (xxiv.
30), and breaking it and giving it to the two disciples, was
an act of the same kind, because, as will be shown here
after, He even then gave His Body.
Again, as these three are commonly thought to have
been suppers, why did not the Evangelist say that at the
supper of the lamb, and at the ordinary one which followed
it, Christ either blessed or gave thanks, and at a time when
the Jews most especially did so ? But when they speak of
the Eucharist, they do say that Christ blessed it.
4. \Vhy do they all relate the whole act so elaborately,
as if it were a thing of the very greatest importance ?
Lastly. Why do they say that He blessed both the bread
and the cup separately, as S. Matthew and S. Mark do?
or why do they describe the whole so exactly that we may
see that Christ blessed both the bread and the cup, as S.
Luke says (xxii. 20) : " In like manner the chalice also,"
showing that Christ took the cup and blessed it in the
same manner as that in which He had blessed the bread ?
A nd broke.
It was an ancient custom among the Jews for the father
396 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 26.
of the family, at the beginning of the supper in which the
lamb was eaten, to take a loaf of the Azymes, and divide
it into two parts ; one of which he concealed in a napkin,
and the other He blessed thus : " Blessed art Thou, O
Lord our God, King of the Universe, who bringest bread
out of the earth," or thus : " Blessed art Thou, O Lord our
God, King of the Universe, in the eating of unleavened
bread," as some have informed us from the book of the
Hebreivs entitled 1- TQ But we cannot believe that when
Christ broke or blessed the bread He meant to do nothing
more than merely observe the Jewish rite, for this was to
be done in the eating of the lamb according to the rites of
the Jews. Christ is said to have done* His work, not in
the eating of the lamb, but in the institution of the new
Sacrament ; or, if He did it in the eating of the lamb, as is
indeed probable, the Evangelist passed it over as being
nothing to the purpose. But they have all carefully related
that He did it (fecerit) in the New Testament. It cannot
be denied, indeed, that because Christ designed to change
the eating of the lamb into the eating of His own Body,
that is, the figure into the verity, He might have designed
to use a similar, but not the same form of blessing. This
would be more probable if the rite of breaking the un
leavened bread had been introduced, not by the tradition
of the Jews, but by a precept of the Law. It certainly
seems that Christ did not break this bread in the same
manner as they did, because all the Evangelists say that
He broke it as if He had not been accustomed to break it
at other times or in the same manner ; and as S. Luke
says (xxiv. 35), that the two disciples recognised Him in the
breaking of bread, which they could not have done if He
had broken it in the same manner and with the same form as
the other Jewish fathers of households did. For it is plain
* Fccisse-facio = Troieco ; to sacrifice, facio or sacri-facio.
CH. xxvi. 26.] BREAKING OF THE BREAD. 397
that S. Luke states the breaking of the bread to have been
the cause of the recognition. It may be said that these
two disciples recognised Christ by the virtue of the recep
tion of His Body, as if the Eucharist had opened their eyes.
It may be so, but in this case it is an admitted miracle
which, moreover, confirms the opinion that Christ when He
gave His Body broke the bread in some peculiar manner,
as it is so carefully described by the Evangelists. Some
think that the bread was such as could have been easily
broken by the hand. But this idea can hardly hold, be
cause the bread was unleavened, which is much more
tenacious, and the most difficult of all kinds of bread to be
broken. It need not, therefore, have been broken by the
hand, but may have been divided by a knife. It was a
custom of the Jews to say that the bread was broken, not
only when it was broken by the hand, but when it was cut
by the knife ; this, even when it was not divided, but only
given, for it was seldom given unless it was either broken
or divided first. " Deal thy bread to the hungry " (Isa.
Iviii. 7), that is, " Divide what thou hast with the poor " ;
and Lam. (iv. 4) : " The little ones have asked for bread,
and there was none to break it unto them ". Hence the
entire performance and distribution of this Sacrament is
called " the breaking of bread " (Acts ii. 42).
Christ, therefore, made twelve portions of the bread, and
gave a portion to each ; not, as some say, to the one
nearest to Him, and he to the next (vide verse 27).
It is uncertain whether Christ gave it into their hands or
put it into their mouths most probably the former.
1. Because Christ said, "Take ye," which would apply
rather to the hand than to the mouth.
2. Because, as we shall show, He gave the cup into their
hands (verse 27), and He probably gave His Body in the
same manner.
3. If, in dividing the bread, He had regard to the
398 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 26.
ancient Jewish custom, it is not likely that He would put
the divided bread into their mouths.
Lastly, because it was long the custom in the Church to
give the Holy Body into the hands of the faithful, as we
find from Tertullian (Lib. de Spectac. C/t. de Munere),
S. Cyril Jerusalem (Cat. v., Myst.), S. Augustin (Serm.
ccxxiv.), S. Chrysostom (De Sacerdos, iii.), Counc. i. Toledo.
The Church, with a better intention, afterwards began to
give it, not into the hands, but to put it into the mouth,
because there was less danger and more reverence in so
doing ; as, although Christ gave His Body and Blood to
those who had supped, S. Augustin praises the intention of
the Church because she has abandoned that custom, and
gives it only to the fasting (Ep. cxviii.). The heretics
assail us heavily, as they think, on account of the word
" breaking," and say that we do not administer the Sacra
ment rightly unless there are many present among whom
to have it distributed, because it is called in Holy Scripture
" breaking of bread " from this reason. This is an objection
of pure ignorance. For, as has been before said, it was
called the breaking of bread, not because it was actually
broken, but because it was given ; for, in Hebrew, whoever
gave bread to a poor man was said to have broken it,
although only given to and received by one. If Christ had
had only one disciple, He would assuredly have given His
Body to him, and have been said to have broken, that is,
to have given it, though He had not actually done so.
This is My Body.
Nothing in the Holy Scripture was ever more plainly
stated than this, until heresy sought to obscure it. There
are many mysteries in Holy Scripture more difficult
and further removed from our understanding, which yet
all men, heretics or Catholics, receive, such as those of
the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, the resurrection of
CH. xxvi. 26.] u THIS IS MY BODY." 399
the flesh : none of these is taught in words so plain,
so perspicuous, so eloquent. For where does Scripture say
openly that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three
Persons and one Essence, as Christ here says, " This is My
Body " ? Where does it so distinctly and clearly say that
in Christ are two natures and one only Person, as He here
teaches us that He gives us His Body and Blood ? Where
does He so explicitly declare that we shall rise again with
the same body, and not another, not a spiritual, not a
similar one, as He here says that He gives us not a figure,
not a spirit, not bread, not wine, not anything else than
His own Body and Blood ? This is more easy to be
believed than the other doctrines. They are proved by
fewer and less notable testimonies of Scripture than this.
Why are those believed, and these rejected ? Why do
these heretics find figures of speech where the Arians,
Marcionists, Manichseans, found none? Why do they find
them here, where those found them not ? When we argue
upon the Trinity, the whole debate turns upon the inter
pretation of three words : " I and the Father are one "
(S. John x. 30), and : "These three are one " (i John v. 7).
When on the Incarnation, we rest on the explanation of
three other words : " The Word was made flesh " (S. John
i. 14). When on the Resurrection, on these : " The dead
shall rise again incorruptible" (i Cor. xv. 52). Now, when
the question is of the Eucharist, we rest on those words :
" This is My Body ". These four mysteries should, as it
seems, always be united together in our arguments with
the followers of Calvin. The objection of these modern
heretics to us on the Eucharist \ve retort upon them on the
Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection of the dead, that
so they may either cease their attacks upon the mystery of
the Eucharist, or that their arguments may cease to be
urged. The Arians, Marcionists, Manichseans, Origenists,
have invented many explanations against the words cited
400 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 26.
above to escape the true one of the Church. The followers
of Luther and Calvin, as they were less able to resist that
truth, have issued many perverted opinions against those
three words : " This is My Body ". The followers of
Calvin and Zwinglius all agree that they are not a literal,
but figurative expression. Some find the figure in the
word " bread," some in the word " is," others in the word
"Body". Thus each word separately is to be expunged.
This. All the followers of Luther and Calvin say that
this word <- this " is put for the word " bread " ; for Christ
took the bread into His hands and immediately said, " This "
(that is, this bread) " is My Body ". Hence the former say
both that the bread remains in the Sacrament, because
Christ said, " This " (that is, the bread) " is My Body," and
that His Body is there, because He said, "This is My
Body ". The followers of Calvin, on the other hand, say
that the bread remains, but that the Body of Christ is not
in it, because He did not say, " This is My Body," but
"This" (that is, the bread) " is My Body". Hence, as
the bread cannot possibly be verily the Body of Christ and
remain in its true nature, it follows that it cannot possibly
be the Body of Christ except figuratively ; that is, it signi
fies the Body of Christ. Each is refuted by that one word,
" this ". The disciples of Luther, because if hoc, " this," is
taken of the bread ; as Christ does not say Hie est, but hoc,
it follows of necessity either that the bread does not
remain if it be the Body of Christ, but is transmuted into
it, or the Body of Christ is not in the Sacrament if the
bread remains. Such was the opinion of Berengarius, or
some of his followers.
The followers of Calvin will be answered if it be shown
that the word hoc cannot be taken of the bread. This can
be shown by most plain arguments.
I. If Christ intended to say hoc, that is, " The bread is
My Body," why did He not more clearly, in one word, say
CH. xxvi. 26.] "THIS IS MY BODY". 401
plainly, " This bread is My Body " ? for the continuity of
the sentence would have required this.
2. Why, when the three Evangelists, S. Matthew, S.
Mark, S. Luke, and S. Paul (i Cor. xi. 24), have all given
us an account of the institution of this Sacrament, and on
other points frequently differ from each other in words, and
when one describes the same thing more obscurely and
another more clearly, why do they all on this point use the
same word, Hoc est ? Why has none of them ever, by
chance or design, to explain the opinion of Calvin more
clearly, said, Hie est, or Hie panis est corpus meum ? It will,
perhaps, be objected that S. John has explained this in his
sixth chapter, verse 52 : "If any man eat of this bread, he
shall live for ever ; and the bread that I will give is My
flesh for the life of the world " ; and that S. Paul (i Cor. x.
16, and xi. 26, 28) and S. Luke (Acts ii. 42) call this Sacra
ment the breaking of bread. It may be answered, as has
often been done, that it is called bread, not because it is,
but either because it was such, like the serpent into which
Moses rod was changed is called a rod (Exod. vii. 12). On
because it bears the form of bread as before, as they were
called tongues that sat upon the Apostles (Acts ii. 3) ; not
that they were actually tongues, but that they had the
appearance of such. This reply might be sufficient, though
we do not seem compelled to offer any explanation at all.
It must be denied again and again that, in the places cited,
the word " bread " is to be taken either for bread or for the
figure (figurd) of bread, for it is called, not bread, but the
Body of Christ, as is clear from S. John vi. 52 : "The bread
that I shall give is My flesh". From these words the
others are to be explained. The words " which I shall
give " show most plainly that Christ did not speak of bread,
but of His flesh, which is called, in some more excellent
sense, bread. Christ opposes Himself to Moses, and His
flesh to the manna.
226
402 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. .26.
He also opposes His flesh which He was about to give
us to eat to the five loaves with which He satisfied five
thousand men, twelve baskets of fragments remaining over
and above (S. John vi. 12, 13). When the Jews followed
Christ that He might give them this bread, as He bears
witness Himself (verse 26), He opposed this bread, that
is, His flesh, to those loaves, but He does not call the true
bread "bread," but "His Body," which the Bread was, in
some better and more excellent sense. As He said to the
Samaritan woman (S. John iv. 13, 14): "Whosoever
drinketh of this water shall thirst again, but he that shall
drink of the water that I will give him shall not thirst for
ever ; but the water that I will give him shall become in
him a fountain of living water springing up unto life ever
lasting". In the words " which I will give him," and in
His opposing that water to the true water, He shows most
plainly that He is speaking, not of actual water, but of His
Grace, which the water is called in some better sense.
So far, then, from the followers of Luther and Calvin
being able to derive any argument against us from these
words of S. John, we may rather take them as confirming
our doctrine of Transubstantiation, for Christ not only
signifies that He would give better bread that is, His
Body but that He would not give it as He had given it
to those whom He had lately fed, for He opposes this
bread to that. He did not give that bread ; He does give
this. That is not in the Eucharist. This that is, His
Flesh is in it.
Those passages of S. Paul and S. Luke are to be under
stood in the same manner, as is plain both from the above
words of S. John, and from the authors themselves ; for
when S. Paul says, " The bread which we break," he shows
that he is not speaking of bread, but of the Body of Christ,
which, like Christ Himself, he calls bread. For the words
"which we break" are added (i Cor. x. 16) to distinguish
CH. xxvi. 26.] THE BODY OF CHRIST. 403
it from true, natural bread, as the words in S. John, " which
I will give," quein ego dabo ; and when S. Paul says (i Cor.
xi. 26, 28) the words " this " and " that," they show that he
is speaking, not of the actual bread, but of the Body of
Christ, which he calls bread, as did Christ when He said,
" He that shall drink of the water that I shall give Him,"
the word " which " distinguishes the grace of Christ from
actual water ; and S. Luke, when he says that the bread
was broken, means the same thing as S. Paul did.
It may be objected that the Body of Christ was not
broken, but the bread was. The Body of Christ is said
to be broken when it is given, because it was called by the
name of bread, and it was so foreshown by the Prophets.
It is the property of bread to be broken, although the body
itself is not broken literally : as the grace of Christ is not
drunk, and yet Christ calls it water, and water is drunk.
3. The third argument to prove that hoc is not taken for,
or applied to, flams, is drawn from the difference of genders,
both in the Latin and Greek. The words hoc and rovro are
in the neuter gender, and bread in both is masculine, and
therefore they cannot refer to bread.
The followers of Calvin say what some Catholics agree
with, that the pronouns rovro and hoc are not adjectives
but substantives, and that there is no need, therefore, that
they should agree in gender with pauis, and that the mean
ing of the words is, What I give to you is My Body. But
what He gave was bread. In answer :
i. The pronoun hoc is distinctly not to be taken of bread :
but granting it to be so, still, if it were a substantive, why
should we not follow the interpretation of Christ? " This
which I give to you is My Body," rather than the dreams
of the followers of Calvin, " This which I give you is
bread ". Again, granting that it is a substantive, why
should we not follow the ordinary interpretation of Catholics,
which is much more in agreement with a pronoun, that the
404 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 26.
pronoun hoc may be taken neither for the bread nor the
Body, but may only signify that which Christ was about to
give, and that it may be what they call individuum vagum.
Though I contend, omnibus viribus, that it is an adjective,
and can in no way be a substantive, or be taken for any
thing but the Body of Christ, it is beyond a doubt that
the pronoun is to be taken in the same way when Christ
says of the bread, " This is, My Body," and when He says
of the Blood, "This is, My Blood ". But when He says of
the Blood, " This is, My Blood," the pronoun is referred not
to the wine, but to the Blood, as is clear from S. Luke and
S. Paul, who join the pronoun to the following, not to the
preceding word, and say roOro TO 7rortjpLoi>. Ergo, when
Christ says " Hoc est corpus meum" the hoc does not go
with the preceding panis, but with the corpus following;
and it is not a substantive but an adjective ; for as the
former goes with the cup that follows, so does the latter
with the corpus that follows ; and the adjective is united with
the substantive, and therefore cannot express bread, but the
Body of Christ.
S. Jerome, or whoever was the author of our version,
very rightly observes this ; for, when speaking of the Blood,
he does not say, Hoc, " This is My Blood," as he would
have done if he had thought the word " this " was put
substantively, but hie, rendering it as an adjective. This
S. Thomas, a holy, learned, and subtle doctor and wise
commentator, does not observe. He is the author of the
common opinion that the pronoun hoc is here used as a
substantive and individuum vagum.
This, it may be said, is tautology. For if hoc is taken
for Body, it is the same as if Christ had said, " This Body
is My Body ". This argument, though false, has been held >
to one s wonder, by some learned men. It is not a new
saying, but a well-known and even necessary one, as
dialecticians teach, that in every true proposition the subject
CH. xxvi. 26.] THE BODY OF CHRIST. 405
and predicate are taken for the same thing ; yet not every
proposition is tautology proper, for tautology consists not
in the "Acceptio " of a proposition, which they call " The
Suppositio " : but in the signification when the subject and
predicate are taken, not only for the same thing, but also
signify the same thing ; and not signify it only, but signify it
in the same manner. For example, to say that man is a
rational animal is not tautology, but a true, correct, and
well-enunciated proposition ; although subject and predi
cate are both taken for the same thing and have the same
meaning : for they signify the same thing indeed, but not
in the same manner : for man expresses the whole nature ;
and rational animal the same nature, but with a distinction
and per partes.
Should it be said that man is man, and a rational animal
is a rational animal, this is senseless tautology.
In the same manner, if Christ had said, " This Body is
My Body," He would have uttered tautology ; but when
He said, " This is My Body," although the word " this " be
taken for that Body of Christ and means the same thing, it
is not tautology, but a most correct and well-known expres
sion ; because it means the same thing, but not in the same
manner. " My Body " signifies the Body distinctly and by
name. " This," not by name, nor distinctly, but, so to say,
mutely. As the French say, when a person so speaks of
another as not to give him an appellation, but to describe
him ; he has not named him, but pointed him out by his
finger, which is the same thing as if he had named him.
So \ve commonly say, "This is my brother"; when the
word "this" is taken of nothing but my brother, nor has
in that place any other meaning, although not in the same
manner ; for, when I call him my brother, I name him.
When I say, "This is my brother," I do not name him, but
(what comes to the same thing) I point him out as such.
But if anyone should say, Hoc est f rater metis, he would
406 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 26.
offend against the laws of the Latin language, and deserve
a boy s flagellation. Christ would have spoken with as little
reason if He had said, Hoc est corpus meam ; hoc being
used as a substantive. The solecism does not indeed ap
pear with corpus, because both words are neuter ; but it
would in sanguis, for no one would say, Hoc est meus sanguis.
S. Cyprian, indeed, has so rendered it, but the passage is
thought corrupt. So Scripture commonly speaks Hie est
Filius meus. Hie sanguis novi Testamenti i". Matt. (iii.
17) ; Heb. (ix. 20), and in many other like passages.
It may be affirmed that when the Father said, Hie est
Filius meus, the hie is to be taken for homo ; as if He had
said, " This man is My Son ". It may be. But what
would one in his senses say of this proposition, Hie est
Jiomo, when I point out a man ? For what could the word
hie be put, but for homo ? It could not be put for animal,
as if I said, " This animal is a man " (Hoc animal est
homo}, for the genders do not agree. How certain and
clear, then, it is in this proposition, Hie est homo, or Hie est
panis, that the pronoun hie cannot possibly be taken for
anything but for homo and panis, which is put for the pre
dicate ; and any tyro in the Greek language would know
that rovro can be referred to nothing but the Body of
Christ, for it is written thus, Aaftutv 6 I^crou? rov aprov xal
ev\o<yr)cras e/cA,acre teal eBtBov ro? /j,a6rjTal$ Kal elvre, Xa/Sere,
(f)dj67 TOVTO ecrri TO aco/Aa jjiov (Accipiens Jesus panem, et
cum benedixisset fregit et dabat discipulis, et dixit Accipite
manducate hoc est corpus meum}.
All other explanations, then, of the application of the
pronoun " this," whether of heretics or Catholics, are to be
wholly rejected. This one alone is to be held most firmly,
confirmed as it is by most certain arguments from S. Luke
and S. Paul ; it is also the only one which agrees with the
Greek context of S. Matthew and S. Mark ; is adopted by
our version ; and most unanswerably corroborates the
CH. xxvi. 26.] THE BODY OF CHRIST. 407
Catholic doctrine of the presence of Christ in the
Eucharist.
It has been objected in the Schools that when Christ
said those words, His Body was not yet in the Sacrament,
and therefore could not have been referred to by the above
pronoun. But the same schools give the answer. In pro
positions practical and efficacious, demonstrative pronouns
often describe what is not yet, but what is caused to be by
the word itself, and it is finite.
When God made man of the dust, He could rightly and
truly say of it, taking the dust into His hand, "This is
man ". So Christ said, Hoc est corpus meum ; and when
from a rib God made woman, He took the rib and could
say, " This is woman," though when He spoke the word
" this," woman was not yet in existence. Nor would He
have meant if He had so spoken that the dust was man
and the rib was woman, but that the dust was changed
into man and the rib into woman. So when Christ took
bread and said, " This is My Body," although His Body
was not yet there, yet because it was to be so in a moment,
He shows it by the pronoun. Nor did He signify that the
bread was His Body, but that it was changed into it.
So again, at the marriage at Cana of Galilee, where He
changed the water into wine, He said, Hoc est mnum. The
hoc showed not the water, but the wine. The meaning was
net that the water was wine or signified wine, but that it
was changed by that word into wine. This example is the
more to our purpose because the Ancients have used it to
prove and explain the faith of this Sacrament e.g.* S.
Cyril of Jerusalem (CatecJi. Mystag., iv.).
Is. It is easy from what has been now said about the
word " is " to show the error of those who think that it is
taken for " signifies ". The verb substantive does not mean
" signifies," either in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, either in
sacred or profane literature, nor is it, nor can it be, taken
408 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn.xxvi. 26
so to mean. If there is any figure at all when the word is
used, it lies either in the subject or predicate, not in the
word " is ". When we say that the lamb is the Pasch, the
figure is in the word " Pasch," not in the " is," for the Pasch
is not taken properly for the Passover, but for the lamb
which signifies the Pasch. When, on seeing a figure of
Hercules, we say, " This is Hercules," the figure is not in
the word " is," but in the word " Hercules," which, as it
signifies the true and living Hercules, is here put for the
figure of Hercules. The word " is " always involves sub
stance, or, as Aristotle says, the union alone of extremes,
and they who give a figurative meaning to it may rightly
come under the rod of the Grammarians. The Gram
marians say, indeed, that there are many classes of words,
simple and compound ; but none of them has ever said
that a figure can be found in the verb substantive, but
either in the subject or predicate, or in verbs not substan
tive, as, the field smiles, the land luxuriates. We must
look, therefore, whether the figure be in the word corpus,
for in the other two it certainly is not.
My Body, Everyone who is not blind must see that
there is no figure in this word ; for if there be, it is not
taken for the very Body of Christ. That it is so taken is
clear from the context (5. Luke xxii. 19) Hoc est corpus
meum.
i. Christ did not say, " which is given to you," as He must
have done if He had given them a figurative Body ; but,
"which is given for you". He gave them something which
could be offered in expiation of sin, which assuredly a
figurative body could not ; for only the true Body of Christ
is given for us.
A follower of Calvin might answer that the meaning is
hoc est : that is, it is the figure of " My Body which is given
for you ". Against this is the fact that no Evangelist, when
speaking either of the Body or the Blood, uses the future
CH. xxvi. 26.] THE BODY OF CHRIST. 409
tense ; but all the three, and especially S. Paul, use the
present, " which is given " ; " which is poured out ". If the
present had been put for the future, some of them at least
would have used the future ; nor can it be thought that
they all used the same figure by chance.
They may say again, as some of them have said, that
either the present should be taken for the futi re, or if it is
to remain as the present, the meaning of quod pro vobis
datur and/r0 vobis funditur, is, that it begins to be given,
and begins to be poured out, because it was now the
beginning of the Passion. The words of S. Paul answer
this, "My Body which is broken for you"; which could
not be said of the Body of Christ on the Cross, because it
s evidently a sacramental expression. The Body of
Christ is said to be broken as it is in the form of bread.
Out of the Sacrament it is not said to be broken. Not
even on the Cross, where S. John has recorded it as a
mystery that the legs of the thieves were broken but those
of Christ were not (xix. 36), and it was foretold in Exod.
xii. 46. Again, when S. Luke (xxii. 20) and S. Paul
(i Cor. xi. 25) speak of the chalice, they say, rovro TO Trorrj-
pi,ov TI Kaivr) SiaQijier) ev TCO aifiari fiov virep V/JLMV etc^vvofjievov.
Hoc est poculum novum testamentum in meo sanguine^ quod
pro vobis effunditur. I have preferred to render it thus,
to prevent the ambiguity which exists in our version, in
which it is not clear whether the words, qui pro vobis effun
ditur, are to be referred to the cup or the Blood. In the
Greek there is no possible doubt that it is to the cup,
because " the Blood " is in the dative case, eV rc3 at/tart, or
if expressed by a passive participle, fusus, in the nomina
tive, as if our version read, "This is the cupfusus, poured
out for you". The pouring out is evidently to be referred
not to the word " Blood," but to the word " cup ". The cup
is not said to be poured out, but the contents of it. This
matters nothing however. It is enough for us that it is
410 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 26.
proved most clearly that the pouring out is to be referred
not to that of the Blood on the Cross, but to that in the
Sacrament, for the cup is said to be poured out for us,
which was not done on the Cross but in the Sacrament.
The sense in which the cup, or the Blood of Christ, is said
to be poured out, shall be explained hereafter.
They who refer this to the Cross miss the force and
meaning of the words of Christ. Christ had taken the
bread and blessed it, broken it, given it to the Apostles,
saying, " This is My Body ". He added, "Which is given
for you ". Who does not see that He commended in these
words the force, value, and price of that which He gave ?
For He gave His own Body ; not openly, but concealed in
the Sacrament. The Apostles might think that they only
received bread which would profit the body, and thus hold
it in less value than was right. Christ declares that He
was giving, not bread but His Body: and His Body because
it was given by Him for a remission of their sins. He
does not praise the fruit of the Cross, as that was not His
subject, but the fruit of the Sacrament, which was.
It would perhaps be objected that SS. Matthew and
Mark, when they speak of the cup, do not say, " Which
shall be poured out for you," but " for many," as if Christ
addressed His words not to the Apostles alone, but either
to all or to many others, so that He could not be speaking
of the fruit of the Eucharist alone, but rather made allusion
to the Cross. The objection will be answered when it is
shown that the words, " for many," have the same meaning
as " for you," as S. Luke and S. Paul have said. For the
Apostles themselves who were present were many, but
because Judas was present, and the Body and Blood would
profit him nothing, Christ Himself, or more probably the
Evangelists SS. Matthew and Mark, to show this, did
not say " for you," lest they should include all, but " for
many," that an exception might be understood.
CH. xxvi. 26.] THE BODY OF CHRIST. 411
Again, as all the Evangelists say of the Body, " This is
My Body," so S. Luke and S. Paul say of the chalice,
"This is the chalice". These two cannot be thought to
speak figuratively in the use of the word chalice, and, there
fore, in the Evangelists and S. Paul the word " Body " cannot
be so received. And that the word " chalice " cannot be
understood figuratively is most clear from what has been
said before. For it is said to be poured out, so that it is a
true chalice, but as Christ says, Hie est calix in meo san
guine, which is the same as if He had said, Hie est calix
sanguinis mei, " This the chalice of My Blood," it is the
same as S. Luke and S. Paul say, Hie est calix in sanguine
meo, and as SS. Matthew and Mark, Hie est sangnis meus.
The followers of Calvin insist that as the word calix here
used is figurative, so the words hoc est corpus meum are
figurative also. But the contrary is the truth. The word
calix is not figurative, and therefore the words hoc est corpus
meum are not figurative. Let them show where the figure
is. Is it in the word est ? The figure, as has been proved,
cannot be in that word, and therefore it must be in the
word calix. Calix, therefore, is not put for a true chalice,
but for the figure of a chalice ; as, they say, corpus is not
taken for a true body, but for the figure of a body. This
is senseless Christ gave a true chalice. They reply that
calix is to be taken figuratively because it was put for
sanguis this is still more senseless.
1. Because it would be the same as if Christ had said, " This
chalice," that is, "My blood" as they explain it, "is My Tes
tament in My Blood " what could be more senseless ?
2. Again, if there is any figure in the word calix, it
would be the same as that which, they say, is in the word
corpus. But in corpus they say that the figure is that the
word corpus is put for the figure of corpus ; ergo, if there is
any figure in calix ^ it is that the word calix is put for the
figure of the calix.
412 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 26.
Finally, if there is a figure in the calix, there is certainly
none in the sanguis ; for what could be more senseless than
to say, " This is the chalice of My Blood " ? that is, " the
figure of the chalice which is the figure of My Blood ". To
this result, however, in their opinion, the words of our Lord
must necessarily be reduced. Again, if there were a figure,
it would be that which they assert to be in the words on
which they lay so much stress : Petra erat Christus. Here
there is no figure at all, or it is not in the Christus^ but in
the word petra ; for the meaning is not that the rock is a
figure of Christ, but that it is Christ ; for the words are
transposed " the rock is Christ " being put for " Christ is
the rock " (petra erat Christus, for CJiristus erat petra] and
thus/^ra is not the subject but the predicate, as is clear
from the context (i Cor. x. 4) ; for it was not the actual
rock that followed them, but Christ ; the rock remained
immovable. Christ went before them and gave them food
and drink : that is, " They drank of the rock," i.e., Christ
was the rock of which they drank and which followed them.
The reason of the transposition of words is that the He
brews repeat the last word at the beginning of the next; as,
" In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,
and the earth," &c. (Gen. i. i) ; and, " In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word," &c. So, because he had said,
"They drank of the rock," S. Paul repeated the word "rock,"
" And the rock was Christ ".
If there is any figure, therefore, it is not in the word
" Christ," which is put for the true Christ, and not for His
figure ; but in the word " rock," because Christ is not
literally a rock, as He is not literally a vine, or a lion ; but
by comparison, because he is the foundation of the Church.
The followers of Calvin say that the words Hoc est mean
that it is a figure of the Body. If so, Christ would be the
figure of the rock which is senseless.
It cannot be doubted that the word " Body " is to be
CH. xxvi. 26.] THE BODY OF CHRIST. 413
taken here in the same sense as the word " Flesh " in 5.
John (vi. 51). Pauls . . . caro mea, for that which He
promised there, He gives here ; as the word panis shows ;
for it is not taken for the Body of Christ, unless as far as it
is given under the form of bread. Their denial that that
chapter of 5. John refers to the Sacrament, refuted as it
has been by so many men of learning, needs no answer here ;
and they object themselves to us that Christ said, " The
flesh profiteth nothing " (verse 64), as if He were speak
ing of the Sacrament. The word " flesh" cannot be taken
there except for the true flesh ; for the figure is not in the
word caro, but panis ^ for Christ does not call His flesh
bread, but bread His flesh ; as if He had said, :( That
bread is My flesh which I shall give you ". For He op
poses that bread to the true natural bread ; and when He
said, Hoc est corpus meum, there was no figure in the word
Body, but it showed the true Body of Christ.
And even if Christ had said, "My Body is this bread," as
these think, in meaning at least, if not in words, we could
not explain it as they do. "This bread is the figure of My
Body," but " This bread is My true Body " ; not, however,
that it is true bread, for it is true flesh, but not true bread.
If these words were spoken by Christ in figure, it is very
wonderful that none of the Evangelists, nor S. Paul, who
all describe the same institution of this Sacrament, explain
it to be a figure ; most especially as they knew that, just
before, the people of Capernaum had been offended by a
like expression (S. Jo/in vi. 60), and the Evangelists take
pains to explain even in matters of much less importance
than this, whatever is said in figure, or obscurely, by them
selves or others. Thus Christ had said, " Destroy this
Temple," &c. He called His Body the Temple, by figure,
but yet S. John explained : " He spoke of the Temple of
His Body" (ii. 21). He had said, "If I be lifted up from
the earth, I will draw all things to Myself" (xii. 32;. There
4H THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. xxvi. 26.
is no figure here, but only obscurity. He explains it (verse
33) : "Now this He said signifying what death He should
die ". He said (S. Matt. xvi. 6) : " Beware of the leaven
of the Pharisees," which was spoken obscurely and in
figure, Christ Himself explained it (verses 1 1, 12). He had
said (S. John xv. i) : "I am the true vine" ; He explained
His words immediately after (verse 4). S. Paul had called
the Church " the Body of Christ" (Coloss. i. 24). The
figure is in the word " Body," for it was not taken for the
actual and natural Body of Christ, for He immediately
added, "which is the Church". Who can believe that, if
there had been a like figure in the word " Body," none of
the Evangelists, or S. Paul alone, either by chance or
design, would have explained it ?
Especially when Christ said that He would give the
Apostles His Body, and they used to doubt in matters
much more plain, whether He spoke obscurely or in figure
why, then, did none of them doubt about this saying ?
and if in figure, why did none of them ask Him what was
His meaning? They doubted about the parable of the Sower
and the Seed, and Christ explained it to them (S. Matt.
xiii. 3) even when they did not ask Him (verse 18). They
doubted about the parable of the Tares. They asked and
received an explanation. Surely, if Christ had spoken
obscurely and had not explained His words, He would
have left the Apostles doubtful and exposed to many
errors, especially as these were His last words, which, as
such, should have been as clear as possible ; for what wise
testator declares his last will in doubtful or figurative
terms? S. Paul also is most clear in his account (i Cor.
xi. 27) : " Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the
chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body
and Blood of the Lord ". Why would they have been
guilty if they had not received the true Body and the true
Blood ? The followers of Calvin reply that they would
CH. xxvi. 26.] THE BODY OF CHRIST. 415
have been guilty because, though they did not receive it in
reality, they did receive it in figure, and they dishonoured
this ; or, in the figure of the Body and Blood of Christ
they dishonour the Body and Blood, and treat it without
reverence and respect.
We may, perhaps, say what they cannot, as they think
that no reverence is to be paid to Sacraments, and deride
us for saying that the same honour is to be paid to images
and to the things signified by them. Their example, too,
is not to the point. If anyone, they say, throw the royal
signet upon the ground or break it, he is guilty of lese-
majesty. They take for granted what they ought to prove
that the Sacraments are signs. This has been answered
again and again. Let them take an example in the image
of the king. If a man misconduct himself to it is he guilty
of lese-majesty? Surely not, or they must grant what they
deny so obstinately, that honour is due even to the images of
the things signified. S. Paul gives the reason why they who
eat and drink unworthily are guilty of the Body and Blood
of the Lord (i Cor. xi. 29). They receive it with no other
respect than ordinary bread : he spoke, therefore, of the
true Body and Blood of Christ.
Moreover, we find in Scripture that the Body of Christ
is spoken of in three ways only :
1. Properly, for the natural and true Body.
2. Metaphorically, for the Church (Coloss. i. 24).
3. For the Gospel, or the truth answering to the ancient
figures (Coloss. \\. 16, 17).
More senses in which to receive it we do not find. And
as in this passage it is taken neither for the Church nor for
the Gospel, the use of Scripture shows us that it is to be
taken here for the true and natural Body of Christ. In
short, if Christ had intended to say that He gave His true
Body and Blood, could He have spoken more clearly, more
explicitly, more distinctly than He did? "This is My
416 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 26.
Body," " This is My Blood " why, then, should we seek to
obscure by figures what is said most plainly, that so we may
not be compelled to believe ? Calvin argues against other
heretics like himself who said that Christ gave only a figure :
" If a person could neither deceive nor lie, it would follow
that whatever he signifies he will in fact fulfil and make
good. It is the necessary result, therefore, that in the
Supper of the Lord we truly receive the Body and Blood
of Christ" (Institutes, iv. 17). And in his Commentary-.
" The Lord would command us to eat bread, declaring it
to be His Body, to no purpose, unless the result truly fol
lowed the figure. For although we there discern nothing
but bread, He does not deceive or delude us in giving our
souls the nourishment of His flesh ; not, therefore, in sign
alone is shown the partaking of the flesh of Christ, but in
actual fact." Calvin, I say, argues against the followers of
Zwinglius that, because Christ cannot lie or deceive or
delude, He gives us not merely a figure, but His very Body
and Blood. From this argument of his we reply against
him : " Christ cannot lie nor deceive nor delude. There
fore, when He said, Take ye and eat, this is My Body
(verse 26), He gave not only a Sacrament, but also His
very, true Body; and as He did not say, This will be
My Body when you eat it, but This is, it follows that
under the Sacrament which He gave, He gave His own
Body."
We have said that this mystery is not be separated from
those others of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Resur
rection. It shall now be shown that we believe these bv
the same right, or, if possible, a still better one, than the
followers of Calvin believe the above; and we explain them
without any figure. In this present point, as has been
said, they can find no figures. In those other mysteries
the ancient heretics found them, and sought to prove them
from Scripture. "I and the Father are one" (S. Jo/in &. 30)
CH.XXVI. 26.] PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. 417
the followers of Arius explained to mean one, not in nature
and essence, but in concord and consent of will, and they set
about to prove it by Scripture e.g., Acts iv. 32.; 5. John xvii.
2 1 . What could the followers of Calvin produce with so much
semblance of truth from Scripture in support of their doctrine
of a figurative presence? The followers of Marcion and Manes
explained the words, "The Word was made flesh" (S.John i.
14), by a figure that is, Christ took the similitude of flesh
and they even seemed to prove it byRom.vm. 3 ; PJdlipp. ii. 6,7.
What triumphs would not the Calvinists have boasted against
us, what clamour would they not have raised, if they had
found any passage in Holy Scripture in which Christ is said
to have given the form and similitude of His Body for us !
The followers of Origen, again, understood that the dead
would rise in figure : not in the same flesh, but they would
put on other flesh, not true flesh, not corporeal flesh, but
heavenly and spiritual. I Cor. xv. 44 forms their ground
of proof. The words of Job (xiv. 12) seem expressly to
deny any future resurrection, and Psalms Ixxvii. 39 and
xlviii. 13 were alleged by them to the same end. What
would the followers of Calvin do if they could produce any
testimony from Scripture in which the Body of Christ was
said not to be given to us, as it appears to be said in the
above passages that the dead do not rise ? To the asser
tions of those ancient heretics the Catholics of their day
rightly replied. Rightly indeed, but we confute more
rightly and easily all the testimonies which the followers
of Calvin may bring to prove their doctrine of a figure.
Lastly, it is unaccountable that this idea never occurred
to any one after the Apostles, except to Berengarius and,
perhaps, Bertram, and that it was received by none, but at
once condemned by the whole Church.
We follow the testimony of the ancient Fathers, from
whom we will produce a few of their innumerable passages
in our support
227
418 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 26.
Maldonatus gives some pages of citations from the
primitive Fathers. He names S. Justin Martyr (Apol. ii.) as
teaching that the bread and wine are changed into our
body and blood when we eat and drink them.
S. Cyprian (De Coena Dom., lib. ii.) teaches that the bread
was changed not in effigie but in nature, and made by
Omnipotent power " the flesh of the Word ".
S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. Mystag., iv.).
Eusebius of Emissa (Horn. v. de Pascli}.
S. Hilary (De Trinit., viii.).
S. Chrysostom (Horn. Ixxxiii. in loc.\ " His words," he
says, " are so clear that they can be obscured by no
explanation," yet some of the heretics have produced the
following words of his on this passage of S. Matthew as if
he could be claimed as of their opinion. "Christ," he says,
" gave us nothing as an object of sense, but by means
which were such ; all the things which He gave us are in
fact insensate." Hence they infer that, in the opinion of S.
Chrysostom, the Body of Christ is taken by us only
spiritually. But they should have observed what follows.
" As, then, Christ says, This is My Body/ we need be
under no doubt, but may believe and see with the eyes of
our mind ; for nothing that is the object of sense has been
given to us by Christ ; that is, nothing that is to be judged
of by sense, but all is to be comprehended by the eyes of
the mind and by faith." S. Chrysostom, therefore, holds
that the Body of Christ is not to be judged of by sense.
S. Ambrose (De Myst. Init., 9, and De Sact., iv. 5).
S. Gregory Naz. (Orat. ii. in PascJi).
S. Gregory Nyss. (Orat. Catech., chap, xxxvii.).
S. Leo (Serin, vi. de Jejun. Sept. Mens^].
S. Cyril Alexand. (Comment, on S. John x. 13).
There is no need of lengthy extracts, but the reader may
see that we neither believe nor explain Scripture otherwise
than all the most ancient authors.
CH. xxvi. 26.] PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. 419
The followers of Calvin object the words of S. John (vi. 64),
" It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing"
(vid. loc.).
2. They argue from the passages in which the Sacra
ment, even after consecration, is called bread ; but they
have been answered by us above.
3. They derive another argument from the word "chalice".
This has also been answered, and shall be more fully here
after. Christ plainly and explicitly said, " This is My Blood ".
One passage yet remains (i Cor. x. 3, 4) : " And did all
eat the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual
drink". From this they infer that we eat the flesh of
Christ and drink His Blood only in a spiritual sense. But
it is evident that in these words S. Paul means that the
ancient Hebrews did not eat the same spiritual food as we,
but the same ipsos inter se. He does not compare them with
us. This is plain from the end of the preceding chapter (ix.
26, 29), and the beginning of the one following (x. 1-5). " I
so fight not as one beating the air." This is the proposition
which he confirms in chap. x. I : "I would not have you
ignorant that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all
passed through the sea. And all in Moses were baptised
in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same
spiritual meat, and all drank the same spiritual drink ;
and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them :
and the rock was Christ. But with the most of them God
was not well pleased : for they were overthrown in the
desert." His meaning was: "As our fathers, although
they had the same Sacraments and were partakers of the
same blessings from God, were not all saved, but many
perished in the desert : so I, although I have the same
Sacraments as you, ought not to be secure, but fearful,
as the Wise Man said (Prov. xxviii. 14) : lest, perhaps,
when I have preached to others I myself should become a
castaway ".
420 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cu. xxvi. 26.
This is clear from the beginning of the chapter (i Cor.
x. i). When S. Paul wrote this, he did not compare
them to us, who were never under the cloud, but under
the sun of justice, but he compares them to one another.
When he said, therefore, "They did all eat the same
spiritual meat, and all drank the same spiritual drink," and
especially when he added, " but with the most of them God
was not well pleased," he shows plainly that he had previ
ously compared them, not to us, but to one another. His
argument would otherwise have been without point, for he
could not have said, " They ate the same spiritual meat as
we, and yet with most of them God was not well pleas-ed ".
It is, therefore, possible that we too may not please God.
Nor does S. Paul argue against Christ. Christ com
pared the bread, that is, His flesh, with the manna which
the ancient Jews ate ; and He said, " Your fathers did eat
manna in the desert and are dead. This is the bread which
cometh down from heaven, that if any man eat of it he
may not die." S. Paul adds, " Now these things were done
in a figure of us, that we should not covet evil things as
they also coveted " (i Cor. x. 6). He applies to us what
he had said before of the Jews. He was speaking, there
fore, of the Jews alone.
In return, I reply Scripture calls the food which the
Hebrews ate spiritual food, and the drink which they drank
spiritual drink, to distinguish them from ours. He no
where calls our food and our drink spiritual. Theirs, there
fore, was taken only spiritually, ours truly and in fact.
These are all the Scripture passages which the heretics
abuse, or which have any appearance of probability. Every
ordinary reader can judge of their value. They offer many
other reasons which should rather be answered, if at all, in
the schools than in a commentary, which should savour of
nothing but Scripture. It should be enough for us to answer,
in one word, that we are Christians, not philosophers. The
CH. xxvi. 26.] PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. 421
Word of God is our stay ; and while we have this clear and
plain, we lay little stress on the dictates of mere natural reason.
One argument more of theirs, which they think most espe
cially theological, shall alone be noticed. They say that
the words, "This is My Body," are clearly sacramental, and
are, therefore, to be understood sacramentally. It may be
answered (i) If the words sacramentalis locutio mean that
the Body and Blood of Christ were given to us, not really,
not truly, not substantially, as Calvin says, but only in mys
tery, according to Zwinglius : then, to speak briefly, they are
ignorant of the meaning of these terms. They take them to
mean that by which an outward sign is asserted, and the thing
signified is excluded. This is their first principle. If it is a
Sacrament of the Body of Christ, the Body itself is not
present ; for they think that the presence of the thing signi
fied is opposed to the sign. But Scripture shows otherwise.
The Ark of the Old Testament was a sign, and, as it were, a
Sacrament, by which the Divine Majesty was signified; but
even in their opinion the Divine Majesty was present. The
dove in which the Holy Ghost descended on Christ was
undoubtedly a sign of the same Holy Ghost, and, as it
were, a Sacrament : none deny that the Holy Ghost was
present.
The tongues of fire which descended on the Apostles
(Acts ii. 3) were a sign of the Holy Ghost, and they signi
fied that the Holy Ghost, through the Apostles, would
speak in various languages ; and the Holy Ghost was not
absent from them. Let them learn, then, that the words,
" This is My Body," although concerned with the Sacra
ment, are not a sacramental expression. They err greatly
in thinking that whatever is said of a Sacrament is said
sacramentaliter. For when we say of the Water of Baptism,
" This is water," we do not speak sacramentally, but truly and
properly. In the same way, when Christ said, "This is My
Body," it would be a sacramental expression, if the water
422 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 27.
were termed Regeneration, and the Body of Christ were
termed " bread," and were said to be broken and torn by
the teeth, as S. Chrysostom says. For these cannot be
understood but sacramentally (sacramento tenus\ because
the Body of Christ is not properly broken, but the Sacra
ment.
Verse 27. And taking tJie chaiice, He gave thanks.
On the giving of thanks ev^apLana vide the preceding
verse. It need only be observed here that Christ blessed
the chalice and the bread separately ; for all the Evangelists
especially say so, or at least indicate it, as when S. Luke
(xxii. 20) or S. Paul (i Cor. xi. 25) say : " In like manner
also the chalice after He had supped, saying, This chalice
is the New Testament in My Blood : this do ye as often as
ye shall drink for the commemoration of Me ". When S.
Paul says, " In like manner," it is the same as if he had
said, " In like manner He took" and " In like manner He
blessed ".
Drink ye all of this.
Our enemies charge us with breaking the express com
mandment of God in defrauding the people of one kind of
the Sacrament, for Christ intentionally, as if foreseeing our
error, said of the Blood what He had not said of his Body,
" Drink ye all of this ". Why, then, do they not give the
Blood of Christ to infants, especially when they baptise them,
and as they think this Sacrament more necessary than bap
tism, saying that the only proof of the necessity of baptism
is in S. John iii. 5, and this they deny to apply to baptism ?
Why do they not give the Blood of Christ to the excom
municated, if Christ willed all to receive it ? In fact, Christ
did not say, " Drink ye all," when He gave the chalice, as
He had not done it when He gave His Body, as if He
wished to commend His Blood to them rather than His
CH. xxvi. 28.] PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. 423
Body ; but because He gave His Body to each singly, one
after another, but the chalice not to each, but to the one
nearest to Him, who again gave it to the next to him, and
so on. Because, therefore, He gave the cup to one only, that
He might not appear to desire that that one alone should
drink it, He said, " Drink ye all," or, as S. Luke explains
it (xxii. 17) more clearly, "Divide it among you"; though
this has not been previously observed, especially in our
time, when this saying has brought incredible troubles to
many. S. Luke mentions the chalice twice. First, he says
Christ took the chalice and gave thanks and said, "Take and
divide " ; but he does not say that Christ said, " This is the
chalice in My Blood". Again, in verse 20: "In like manner
the chalice too after He had supped, saying, This is the
chalice, the New Testament in My Blood ". Thus S. Jerome,
whom most Moderns follow, thinks that there were two
chalices. I rather agree with S. Augustin (De Consens., iii.
i) and Euthymius (in loc.\ that there was only one, which
S. Luke, not keeping to the order of events, has mentioned
twice (ist) by anticipation, and (2ndly) in its proper place.
Verse 28. This is My Blood.
For information on this subject, see verse 27.
Of the New Testament.
To T?}? KCLivr)^ BiaOijicr)?, Sanguis Novi Testamenti. AiaO^KT]
properly means a disposal of property. It applies therefore
to every fcedus (treaty), one kind of which is the attestation
of the last will ; but it is most commonly used of the
testament in which the will itself is stated, as the word
dispono is found in our version (Isa. xxxviii. i) : Dis-
pone domui tiuz, "Take order with thy house". The
Hebrew is TTni which carries the same meaning. S.
Paul (Heb. ix. 16, 17) uses SiaOtjrcri for a will as applied
to both Old and New Testaments. The followers of
424 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 28.
Luther and Calvin therefore err in calling the Old and
New Testament fcedus and not Testamentum. S. Mark
uses the same word as S. Matthew : Hie is sanguis
meus Novi Testamenti; S. Luke, however, says, roOro TO
TTorrjpiov r) Kaivrj SiaOiJKrj ev TO) alfuiTi JAOV, Htc est calix
Novum Testamentum in meo sanguine (xxii. 20) ; S. Paul,
Hie calix Novum Testamentum est in meo sanguine (i Cor.
xi. 25). From this difference the heretics have inferred that
as Christ said both Hie est calix and Hie calix est Novum
Testamentum, each must be taken figuratively. Enough has
been said on verse 26 about the figurativeness of the chalice.
We will now speak of the meaning of the other figure and of
the whole passage. This need not take many words. Nego,
I deny that Christ said these words. For, as S. Matthew
who was present, and S. Mark who learned from him, say
that Christ gave His Blood with the words, " This is My
Blood of the New Testament": and as He could not say
both " This is My Blood of the New Testament," as S.
Matthew and S. Mark say, and "This is the chalice the
New Testament in My Blood," as S. Luke and S. Paul say,
it may be thought that He used the words of S. Matthew
and S. Mark, rather than those of S. Luke and S. Paul.
Again, the words of S. Matthew and S. Mark better
express what Christ did the giving of His Body and
Blood. The words Novum Teslamentum would appear to
have been added in passing and by way of explanation, as
appears from S. Matthew and S. Mark. S. Luke and S.
Paul would appear to speak as if the first object of S. Paul
had been to declare that He gave the New Testament
rather than His Blood. It may be thought, therefore, that
He used the words of S. Matthew and S. Mark rather than
those of S. Luke and S. Paul. Still, the meaning would
not be what these make it, nor would it lend any support
to their view. For if Christ said, " This is the chalice the
New Testament in My Blood," as the words of S. Luke
CH. xxvi. 28.] PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. 425
are to be rendered, He simply used a Hebraism for " in my
blood " has the same meaning in Hebrew as "of my blood"
as S. Matthew and S. Mark have expressed without a He
braism. As, then, calix in meo sanguine and sanguinis mei
bear the same meaning, let us suppose that Christ said the
latter. The meaning is simply : This is the chalice of my
blood ; and there is no more of a figure than if we should
say, "This is a cask of wine" or "a vessel of water". Let us
see if there is any figure in the word Testamentum. They
who reduce everything to figure say that there is, because the
New Testament is called a chalice. I, who seek not figure
but truth, find none here. We see that in all languages the
\vordfcedus has many significations both the subject-matter
and the symbol by which it is ratified, as the slaughter of a
pig among the ancient Romans was a fcedus, and it was so
called by them without any figure. Thus the Old Testament
was so called without figure, because God performed it on the
one part and the Hebrews on the other ; and the divine
promise itself was frequently spoken of as & pactum or cove
nant, as 4 Kings xiii. 23 ; and the blood by which, as an
external symbol of ratification, it was entered upon and
without any figure, for the word signifies all these things. In
5. Luke the sentence is without a verb, and it is doubtful
where it should be supplied. " The chalice," Christ says,
" the New Testament in My Blood." The verb " is " could
be inserted in two places : either after the word " This "
" This is the chalice " so that the chalice by apposition
might be termed the New Testament, or it may be read after
" chalice " " This chalice is the New Testament in My
Blood ". It ought to be placed immediately after " This,"
for as S. Matthew and S. Mark, as has been said, give not only
the meaning, but the actual words of Christ, from them the
text of S. Luke and S. Paul is not only to be understood, but
even constructed. Besides, as has been said, it was not the
intention of Christ to give the New Testament, but His Blood.
426 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 28.
We cannot think, therefore, that He meant "This chalice
is the New Testament," but "This is the chalice of My
Blood," which chalice is the New Testament. Hence the
words of S. Paul, although transposed, are to be reduced to
this model : " This chalice the New Testament " that is,
" This chalice is the New Testament ".
In brief, it may be doubted why S. Luke and S. Paul
did not say, " This chalice is the New Testament of My
Blood," or, more clearly, " This is the chalice of My Blood,
the New Testament ". The reply may be, that it is a
Hebraism : In meo sanguine meaning per meum sanguinem.
They used this expression because they called the New
Testament a chalice, and it is better called the New Tes
tament, per sanguinem, or, what is the same thing, in san
guine, than sanguinis. The meaning is the same as that
expressed in the plainest terms by S. Matthew and S. Mark,
" This is My Blood of the New Testament ".
It is worth enquiring why Christ called it His Blood of
the New Testament. It was the custom of almost all
nations to ratify treaties by the blood of victims. Some
times, when about to enter upon an unusually sacred and
inviolable engagement, they mutually drank blood drawn
from their own veins (Sallust, Bell. Catil.). The same thing
has been done in our own times. Christ did this when He
gave the Apostles His own Blood to drink that is, He
ratified a treaty ; for the twelve Apostles who were present
represented the whole Church with which He made it. He,
therefore, desired to express this in words.
Christ alludes also to the institution of the Old Testa
ment, which was dedicated by the blood of a heifer (Exod.
xxiv. 8). He seems to allude to the words of Moses when
he took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people and
said, " This is the blood of the Covenant which the Lord
hath made with you ". Christ opposes Himself to Moses :
His own Blood to the blood of the heifer : the Apostles to
CH.XXVI. 28.] PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. 427
the people of the Jews: sprinking to sprinkling: and testa
ment to testament. Moses sprinkled the people outwardly
by the blood of the heifer: Christ sprinkled the Apostles in
wardly by His own Blood. Hence, perhaps, the force of the
word eKxyvo/juevov, which is poured out, that is, "sprinkled".
Christ calls the new pactnm the New Testament, which He
confirmed not with the Jewish people alone, as before, but
with all the nations which received the Gospel, "that who
soever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life
everlasting ". Christ alludes, therefore, to that new treaty
which God had often promised through His prophets ;
and herein, perhaps, lies the force of the Greek article in
S. Mattheiv and 6". Mark, TO al^a ; that is, the Blood of
that New Testament which has been often promised, and
of which you have often heard. Hence we see why, when
Christ spoke of His body, He made no mention of the
New Testament, but when He spoke of His Blood He did
make it. Because treaties are ratified by blood : not, as
Origen thinks, that we are redeemed by His Blood, but by
His Flesh.
From this it is seen that Christ made the Testamentum
there and not on the Cross, as modern heretics contend ;
for the meaning is not, " This is the Blood by which the
New Testament will be ratified " : but " by which it is
ratified now ". When a treaty is entered upon, the parties
must be present to exchange words and give symbols.
Nothing of this kind was done on the Cross. Christ had
been deserted and, as it were, put to death when He spoke
with His Mother and S. John and no other; and He spoke
of personal subjects alone and not of any public treaty.
He did all that was necessary for the performance of a treaty
when He met the Apostles, that is, the whole Church, at a
feast, at which treaties are celebrated, and gave them His
own Blood, by which, as by a symbol, treaties are ratified, and
He declared that He entered upon a treaty with the Church.
428 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 28.
" This is My Blood of the New Testament." Here, then,
was instituted the New Testament. Here, too, Christ
offered that sacrifice without which there can be no
treaties. When, therefore, He gave His Blood to the
Apostles and said, " This is My Blood of the New Testa
ment," He put them in possession of a New Covenant.
The conclusion is, that Christ gave His very Blood. For
He opposes His own Blood to the blood of the heifer,
as the truth is opposed to the figure.
Which for many.
S. Mark uses the same words ; but S. Luke and S. Paul
say, " for you ". It is not probable that Christ used both
expressions, as His words were directed to those who
were present, but which of the two He did use does not
appear. If guided by conjecture, we might rather think
that He said, " for you," than " for many ".
1. Because He was speaking to the Apostles alone.
2. Because, as said above, He was commending a duty
to them, and He desired to explain to them the good which
His Blood-shedding would do them. Hence the words of
S. Luke and S. Paul are to be explained by those of S.
Matthew and S. Mark, that the meaning of both may
be the same ; not as Euthymius and Theophylact think,
that " for many " is the same as " for all ". Calvin follows
these, if, indeed, he knew them, but perverse animo ; for
he says that Christ did not die for all men, but only for
the predestinate. The meaning of "for many" is not
" for the predestinate," as many, even Catholics, assert ;
nay, Christ signifies that His Blood was not shed even
for all who were present, for the words pro multis are of
less extent than pro vobis ; for it is the same as if He had
said, " This is shed for you " : that is, for the most of you,
and He, therefore, opposes " many " to " all " who were
present. When Christ said those words, therefore, it is
CH. xxvi. 28.] PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. 429
certain that He did not include Judas, for whom His Blood,
as to its effects and fruit, was not shed. S. Matthew and
S. Mark, to explain this, relate, with great wisdom, not the
words but the meaning, Qui pro multis effundetur.
The objection may be raised that the Church thinks
that Christ said both pro vobis and pro multis. In reply,
the Church defines nothing ; but when some Evangelists
have said, " for many," and others, pro vobis, to avoid error
on a matter of doubt she unites the two.
Shall be shed.
Which is shed. We have spoken of the force of the
present tense on verse 26, showing that it cannot apply to
the Cross. We must see here in what sense Christ says
that His Blood would then be poured out. We may take
the meaning to be that it was poured out to be drunk ; for
we say at table to the attendant, when we wish for wine,
funde vinum, "pour out the wine". Christ may have alluded
to the words of Moses (Exod. xxiv. 8), " He took the Blood
and sprinkled it upon the people, and he said, This is the
blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you
concerning all these words ". The word " chalice " would
support this view, a chalice being a vessel most especially
used for drinking from. We cannot think of any other
reason why S. Luke and S. Paul use the word " chalice,"
which, as said before, Christ did not use, unless to signify
to what end His Blood was poured out, namely, that the
Apostles might drink it : for we drink from a chalice.
Their opinion is better who explain it to mean, " It is
shed," that is, " sacrificed ".
I. Because Christ does not say, " It is shed to you "
(vobis}, as He would have done had it been poured out
for them to drink ; but He said, " which is poured out
for you " (pro vobis}. This agrees with a sacrifice, for
sacrifices are not offered to men, but for them.
430 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvr. 29.
2. Christ when offering His Body said, " This is," &c.,
and no other reason can be imagined why S. Matthew
and S. Mark said that of the Blood alone, except they
thought that it would be sufficient to show the nature of a
sacrifice, if they spoke only of the Blood, in which the virtue
of a sacrifice chiefly consists.
3. Christ spoke in the same sense of His Body, " which
is given for you," and of the Blood, " which is shed for
you ". But when He spoke of His Body, the meaning
could not have been, " which is given to you to eat," but
" which is sacrificed for you ". " The same of the Blood,
" which is shed for you ". It will be said that the word
" chalice," which S. Luke and S. Paul use, is adverse to
this idea, for they say that the chalice and not the Blood is
poured out, and a chalice is not poured out for sacrifice
but for drinking from. Other nations sacrificed the blood
of their victims when they had collected it into cups. Virgil
describes this (/Eneid, vi., line 248) ; and Moses himself,
whose figure Christ here fulfils, received the blood of the
heifers doubtless in a cup and sprinkled the people with it.
Verse 29. / will not drink from henceforth.
Ov fjir) Trio) an* aprt e /c rovrov TOV <yevvij/jLaTos r?}? a/ji7re\ov,
de Jiac generatione aut de Jioc fructu vitis. The ancient
translator, to express the sense of the Greek, used a word
not commonly employed by the Latins. Without doubt,
the expression genimen vitis is a periphrasis for the vine
itself, though rarely found in Scripture. Its use by Christ
in Scripture shall be explained hereafter.
Scripture uses another periphrasis in the same sense,
calling wine "the blood of the vine" (Gen. xlix. n ; Deut.
xxxii. 14). The intention of Christ in using the expression
generatio vitis is not obvious. The followers of Calvin do
not doubt that Christ termed what He gave the Apostles
" the fruit of the vine " that is, wine thus to maintain that
CH. xxvi. 29.] PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. 431
it is simply bread and wine, and to exclude the Body and
Blood of Christ. The early Fathers (Origen, Tract, on S.
Matt. xxx. ; S. Cyprian, Ep. Ixviii. to Ccecilian ; S. Chrysos-
tom, Horn, in loc., Ixxxiii. ; S. Epiphanius, Hcer. xlvii. ; S.
Jerome, Comment. ; S. Augustin, Qu<zst. Evangel., i. 42 ;
Bede, Euthymius, Theophylact, inloc.} refer it to the Blood
of Christ, but in another sense than that of the followers of
Calvin.
These persons say that Christ called what He gave to
the Apostles wine, because it was wine ; but the Fathers
above mentioned say that He called the wine His Blood
(as in vS. John He had called the bread His Body) ; and
He called it generatio vitis, by a periphrasis, because He
Himself was the true vine. They say that this opinion is
apparently confirmed by the narration and context of S.
Matthew and S. Mark, who, when they had said that Christ
took the chalice and gave it to the disciples, and said,
" This is My Blood," added the words, " I will not drink
from henceforth of this fruit (genimine] of the vine ".
But these words can hardly be received as applicable to
the Blood of Christ :
1. Because what S. Matthew and S. Mark relate here
that Christ said of the chalice, S. Luke says that He also
said of the Pasch that is, the lamb : " With desire I have
desired to eat this Pasch with you before I suffer. For I
say to you that from this time I will not eat it till it be
fulfilled in the kingdom of God" (xxii. 15, 16). These
words, therefore, which both S. Matthew and S. Mark relate
as spoken by Christ of the chalice, were not spoken of that
in which He gave His Blood, but of that which, as has
been said, the master of the house was accustomed at the
Paschal feast to give to those who sat at meat.
2. Christ did not give that desire as the reason of His
giving His Blood, but when He had given it He gave
another, " which shall be shed for you ". But He gave as
432 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH.xxvi. 29.
the reason of His wish to eat this supper with them that it
was the last, as explained by S. Luke.
Besides, it cannot be doubted that Christ spoke in the
usual manner of men, who, when about to leave their
friends, say, " We shall not drink together again ". But
Christ would not have said this of His Blood, which,
although it was true blood, was given under a ceremony
and Sacrament ; but He said it of the true and right
supper, to which also His words apply better.
3. The words which follow, " when I shall drink it," can
only be understood, as will be shortly shown, of heaven ;
for in heaven He will not drink His Blood : neither literally
nor in metaphor. But He will drink wine in metaphor, for
He said : " I dispose to you, as My Father hath disposed
to Me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at My
table in My kingdom ". He did not speak, therefore, of
His Blood, but of wine, when He said, "I will not drink
from henceforth of this fruit of the vine ". This would
tend to support our previous opinion, which is also that of
S. Augustin and Euthymius, that there were not two cups,
but one only. I only differ from them in that they suppose
Christ to have said of this cup : (i) " I will not drink from
henceforth of this fruit of the vine," but not to have said,
" This is My Blood " ; (2) and afterwards to have added,
" This is My Blood," but not to have said, " I will not drink
from henceforth," &c. I think, on the contrary, not only
that S. Luke mentioned the chalice by anticipation, but
also that he related in that anticipation in that place what
Christ had said before of another chalice : " I will not
drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine ".
Unless we say, perhaps, that there was one and the same
chalice from which Christ drank at the Paschal and ordi
nary supper, and in which He afterwards gave His Blood ;
and that when He had first drunk at the Paschal supper,
He added, " I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit
CH. xxvi. 29.] THE LAST SUPPER. 433
of the vine," and did not empty the chalice, but left some wine
in it which He afterwards consecrated to be His Blood and
gave to the Apostles ; and that the Evangelists SQ mixed
up these words with that chalice that, unless read with
attention, they might appear to have been spoken of the
one in which He gave His Blood. It appears certain that
the words were not spoken of the Blood of Christ. S.
Matthew and S. Mark, therefore, without keeping the order
of time, related the words which Christ spoke before the
consecration of the chalice after it.
Until that day when I shall drink it new.
Some explain the word " new," that is, in a new manner,
to refer not to the wine but to Christ ; as if He had said,
" Until I drink it when I am renewed, that is, glorified ".
This is the opinion of S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and
Theophylact, whom many Moderns follow. But the word
" new," if so explained, seems too forced as meaning " in a
new manner," if referred, as these do, to different circum
stances ; and because the word " it " (illud) does not
appear to allow the idea, for it must necessarily refer to
the wine (vinum). The wine itself, therefore, is called
" new," not because it was to be drunk in some new
manner, but to show that it would be of another quality
and more excellent and pleasant, such as that by which
all the blessed in heaven will be inebriated, as described
in Ps. xxxv. 9. The Hebrews, whose language Christ
adopted, call whatever is unusually excellent and sweet
" new," as in Ps. xcv. I ; xcvii. I ; cxlix. I.
In the kingdom of My Father.
Some think that these words refer to the beginning of
the New Testament, which dates from the Supper at which
Christ gave His Body and Blood of the New Testament.
They do this that that fruit of the vine which Christ had
228
434 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 29.
drunk before might be understood ; but the new fruit, that
is, the new wine, is Christ s Blood. The design is good,
but in no sense necessary. For the words of S. Matthew
and S. Mark, " Until that day when I shall drink it new with
you in the kingdom of My Father," make it clear that the
kingdom of the Father cannot be understood of the insti
tution of the New Testament, for the same night could
not be " that day," much less the same hour, in which
Christ was to institute the New Testament. Again, they
do not appear to observe the design of Christ in saying
this. He wished to support the spirits of the disciples,
and reassure their minds, which had been cast down by
His previous words : " I will not drink from henceforth of
this fruit of the vine," and to fortify them by His words
that follow : " Until that day when I shall drink it new
with you in the kingdom of My Father". With this
design, S. Luke relates the words of Christ after He had
given them His Body and Blood : " I dispose to you as
My Father hath disposed to Me a kingdom " (S. Luke
xxii. 29). He consoled the Apostles as a dying father
might console a son, by saying that he had left him an
ample heritage, and there was no reason why he should
weep. This could not have been said of the institution of
the New Testament, but it might of the life eternal.
Others, as S. Jerome and Bede, think that the Church
is called the kingdom of the Father. Others, again, take
the words of the forty days, during which Christ often ate
and drank with the Apostles after His Resurrection. This
is the opinion of S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthy-
mius. These explanations, however, are to be answered
by the same arguments as the first. For " that day " can
only refer to the most distant and last day, as the Day of
Judgment is commonly called the Last Day, Dies ilia.
Besides, it may be observed that although the kingdom of
God is sometimes put for the Church, and sometimes for
CH. xxvi. 29.] THE LAST SUPPER. 435
the Gospel, yet " the kingdom of the Father " is never
spoken of but as heaven ; because, probably, the Father
alone has never been seen to come down from heaven.
Again, it may be observed that when Scripture speaks
of eating or drinking in the kingdom of heaven, the
kingdom is taken neither for the Church nor for the
Gospel, but only for the life of the beatified (Ps. xvi. 1 5 ;
5. Matt. viii. 1 1 ; 5. Luke xiv. 1 5 ; xxii. 29, 30 ; Apoc.
xix. 9). All which passages are without doubt to be
understood of the celestial life of beatitude, as here the
words of Christ, " In the kingdom of My Father," when
He speaks of drinking.
Lastly, if the kingdom of heaven is taken for anything
but the state of beatitude, the question is, how the term
" new wine " is to be understood ? For if taken of the
Blood of Christ, it is not certain that Christ drank after
the Resurrection ; or if He did, it does not apply to so
brief a portion of time. If taken for true wine after the
Resurrection, He did not drkik the new but the old. But
the new wine agrees well with the life of beatitude, because,
as said before, the Hebrews called everything sweet and
pleasant " new," as the ancients fabled of nectar and am
brosia. In this sense, Origen (Tract, xxxv. in /#<:.), S.
Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. ii. in Sanct. Pasc/i.}, and Bede
receive the words. One who prefers the first explanation of
the words may object that this one does not satisfy, because
it is not credible that Christ in such a short time would have
changed the meaning of His words, so as to call the fruit
of the vine at one moment true wine, and at another,
metaphorically, the sweetness of eternal life a slight
objection. If Christ called His Blood the new wine, He
changed the meaning of His words. For the Blood of
Christ is not literal, but metaphorical, wine, and we must
remember what has been said before, that Christ often
in the same sentence uses the same word in a double sense,
436 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 29.
and that, not only without any fault, but very elegantly,
forcibly, and pointedly. " Let the dead bury their dead."
In the first clause, He uses the word metaphorically ; in
the second, literally. So in 5. John iv. 13, 14, which
very closely resembles the passage of which we are speak
ing- : " Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst
o
again, but he that shall drink of the water that I will give
him, shall not thirst for ever. But the water that I will
give him shall become in him a fountain of water, springing
up into life everlasting." In the first clause, Christ speaks
of water properly ; in the second, metaphorically.
It may be objected, with more appearance of truth, that
Christ said, " I will not drink of this fruit of the vine " (ex
hoc] "until I drink it" (illud). For when He said ex hoc,
with a periphrasis, He described the true wine, and when
He said illud, He meant the same actual wine, because
" that " (illud) refers to " this " (hoc).
These words, in this place, show neither the individual
nor the species, but the whole genus, and whatever is con
tained, whether literally or metaphorically, under the name
of wine ; but in the text " this " (hoc) is taken for literal,
" it " (illud) for metaphorical, wine ; as if it had been said,
" I will not drink wine hereafter until I drink that (illud)
new with you in the kingdom of My Father ".
Others object that Christ, after the Resurrection and
before He ascended into heaven, often ate and drank with
the Apostles, as S. Peter testifies (Acts x. 41).
We might, in the first place, deny that Christ drank wine,
because Scripture does not say that He did ; but granting
as probable that He did so, if not always, yet occasionally,
His words are to be understood in a human and ordinary
sense ; and when He said, " I will not drink henceforth of
this fruit of the vine," He only meant that He would not
eat and drink with them as before. He did eat and drink
with them, indeed, after the Resurrection, but not in His
CH. xxvi. 30.] THE LAST SUPPER. 437
usual manner, and as if to satisfy the requirements of
nature, but occasionally, by the way, as by stealth, and
only to show that He had risen from the dead. He was
accustomed to speak of the actions which He did in another
manner after His Resurrection to that before, as if He had
not done them. " These are the words which I spoke to
you while I was yet with you " (5. Luke xxiv. 44), as if He
were not with them then ; for He was so with them as to
appear to them only occasionally. He was invisible, and
not as before so as to be always with them, always be seen
by them, always eating and drinking with them. In the
same manner, though He sometimes ate and drank with
the Apostles after the Resurrection, yet, as He only did so
as through a glass, He does not make account of it.
Hence the reason of Christ s having used a periphrasis.
Some say that He alluded to the usual form of thanks
giving among the Jews, which was in these words : " Blessed
art Thou, Lord, King of the World, who givest us the fruit
of the vine ". It may be so, but it appears more probable
that Christ spoke as He did for the sake of emphasis ; for
it is more, and of greater force, to say, with exaggeration,
" I will not drink of the fruit of the vine," than to say, " I
will not drink wine," as he speaks with more exaggeration
who says that he will not eat anything that the earth pro
duces, than one who says that he will not take any food,
although there is none which the earth does not produce ;
for the periphrasis and manner of speech adds force to the
words.
Verse 30. And a hymn being said,
Kal vfj,vtjcravT6s. These words show that not only Christ,
but also the Apostles, sang the hymn, as Origen and S.
Hilary say : though Bede, not regarding the Greek, thinks
that Christ sang it alone. It is not clear whether they
actually sang it, but from the words it is probable that
they did. It may be an example of ecclesiastical hymno-
438 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 30.
logy. S. Chrysostom accommodates it to the sacrifice of
the Mass, concluding that no one should depart from
church before the final thanksgiving. Some think that
Christ sang some usual form of Jewish hymn ; for the
Evangelists say, as of some ordinary hymn, "The hymn
being sung" (hymno dictd). Paul Bergensis says that the
Jews, as a thanksgiving, used to sing seven psalms, from
the cxii., the beginning of which is, " Praise the Lord, ye
children" (Laudate pueri), to cxviii. Others think that
Christ composed some new hymn. Neither is certain.
The former opinion is the more probable, for the Jews used
some fixed thanksgiving, and it must be believed, therefore,
not only as their authorities teach, but also as we see it
prescribed by God (Deiit. viii. 10).
They went out.
They went out, either from the house where they had
supped, or from the city. This will be treated of on 5.
John xiv. 31 ; xviii. i. S. John relates many and most
weighty words of Christ between the giving of the Sacra
ment, from chap. xiii. 30 to chap, xviii., to their going
out. S. Luke also records some which are omitted by S.
John the contention between the Apostles as to which
should be the greatest, and the other things explained in
chap. xx. 25, and the words in S. Luke xxii. 28: "You
are they who have continued with Me in My temptations,
and I dispose to you as My Father hath disposed to Me a
kingdom, that you may eat and drink with Me at My table
in My kingdom, and may sit upon thrones judging the
twelve tribes of Israel ". Hence it may be concluded that
Judas had gone out before Christ, because of the words,
"You are they that have continued with Me 5 : as if He op
posed to the eleven Apostles Judas, who had not continued
with Him, but rather, as Ps. xl. 10, "The man in whom I
trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly supplanted me".
CH. xxvi. 31.] THE LAST SUPPER. 439
Unto Mount Olivet.
This mount was distant from Jerusalem a Sabbath day s
journey that is, one mile, or, as some say, two miles (Acts
i. 12). It was certainly very near, as Christ used to go to
it after He had supped. The Garden of Gethsemane was
probably not on the mountain itself, but at the foot of it, as
the Hebrew word, meaning a rich valley, indicates.
Verse 31. All you shall be scandalised.
This does not mean, as some have erroneously supposed,
that the Apostles would lose their faith, nor, as others say,
that they would waver or deny Christ, but that they would
forsake Him. This is seen from the answer of S. Peter :
" And Peter answering said, Although all shall be scandal
ised in Thee, I will never be scandalised " that is, "Though
all forsake Thee, I will not ". None of them lost their faith,
not even Peter himself, who denied Him. Some ancient
authors, indeed, speak as if he had lost his faith, not dis
tinguishing between the confession of faith from faith, and
the denial of Christ from the loss of faith, which are very
different things. S. Luke says that Christ said to Peter
alone : " Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have
you that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for
thee that thy faith fail not" (xxii. 31). Then S. Matthew
and S. Mark describe the events as if Christ had said the
words after He had gone out of the house. S. Augustin
(De Consens., iii. 2) thinks that Christ first spoke what is
related by S. John (xiii. 33), and that on this occasion S.
Peter asked what is recorded by S. John (verse 36) : " Lord,
whither goest Thou ? " and that Christ answered : " Whither
I go thou canst not follow Me now, but thou shalt follow
hereafter" ; and that Peter replied : "Why cannot I follow
Thee now ? I will lay down my life for Thee." Then that
Christ, seeing the confidence of Peter and his boastful
promise, used the words related by S. Luke: "Simon,
440 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 31.
Simon, Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift
you as wheat" (xxii. 31). As to the words of S. Matthew
(xxv. 31) and S. Mark (xiv. 27), "All you shall be scanda
lised in Me this night," either Christ, when He had
spoken what S. Luke reports to Peter by himself, turned
to the others and addressed them all, or, as what was said
to Peter was said to all, S. Matthew and S. Mark have
given not the words of Christ but His meaning.
In Me.
A Hebraism for " because of Me," when you see Me
suffering unworthy treatment, you will take the occasion to
forsake Me ; that is, you will be scandalised in Me.
For it is written.
Christ applies the words of Zacharias (xiii. 7) to Himself;
for although they were written of the priests of old, they
were properly spoken of Him, as is plain from the verses
preceding and following. Christ applied them not to
teach the Apostles that they must necessarily forsake
Him, and the necessity of the result acquit them of
blame, but to show that their acting thus would be no
thing strange to Him, for He knew it already, and it
had been assuredly foretold by the Prophet : " I will
strike the shepherd ". In Zacharias the Hebrew is ^H*
The LXX. read Trardijov. We might easily conclude,
even from this passage, that for Trard^co we should sub
stitute Trdra^ov, percute, " strike," that the words of the
Evangelist may not appear to differ from those of the
Prophet, did we not see that this is sometimes the case.
It is better, therefore, to say that the Evangelist follows
the meaning, and not the words. In this sense, " strike "
and " I will strike " have the same force. For it is God
who commanded that the shepherd should be struck, and
he who does a thing per alium does it per se. It shows,
CH. xxvi. 32, 34.] THE LAST SUPPER. 44!
therefore, that it was God who struck His own Son, ,as in
Rom. viii. 32.
Verse 32. But after 1 shall be risen again I will go before
yon into Galilee.
Christ, by these few words, restored the spirits of the
Apostles, saying that He would rise again from the dead,
and that He would appear to them in Galilee.
Verse 34. Amen, I say to tJiee that in this night, before tJie
cock croiv, thou shalt deny Me thrice.
S. Mark says (xiv. 30) : " Before the cock crow twice
thou shalt deny Me thrice ". Hence it has been asked how
we are to understand this latter passage by the side of S.
Matthew here. S. Luke (xxii. 34) and S. John (xiii. 38)
say that the words were, " The cock shall not crow till thou
deny Me thrice ". A further question has been raised as to
whether the word " thrice " applies to the crowing of the
cock or to the denial of S. Peter. S. Augustin (De Consens.,
iii. 2) thinks that the meaning is, " Before the cock crow,
thou shalt begin to deny Me thrice " ; as if Peter should
have begun three denials before the cock crew, but not
have finished them. It is plain from the above, and 5. Luke
xxii. 34, and S. John xiii. 38, that Christ meant to say that
before the cock crew Peter should thrice deny Him. S.
Augustin loses all the grace of the promise of Christ. The
meaning is that in the briefest possible point of time he
should not only once, or twice, but three times, deny Him.
The result proves this, for S. Matthew (verses 74, 75), S.
Luke (xxii. 60, 61), and S. John (xviii. 27), when they had
related the three repeated denials of S. Peter, added, " And
immediately the cock crew". It has been rightly observed
that S. Matthew, S. Luke, and S. John mean by this crow
ing of the cock, not the sound which the bird utters in the
middle of the night, but that before the dawn ; for the
442 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. xxvi. 36.
former is properly called the gallicinium, or "cock-crowing,"
galli cantus, because the first crowing is called by another
name, " the midnight " (media nox). The time, therefore,
which precedes the dawn, when the cock crows, if it were
not called the " cock-crow " (galli cantus), could not be
called by any other name. Scripture speaks thus : " And
it came to pass about the cock-crowing, Raguel ordered his
two servants to be called for," &c. (Tobias viii. 11), and so
5. Mark xiii. 35. Before the dawn, therefore, which is
properly called the time of cock - crowing, Peter thrice
denied Christ, as S. Matthew, S. Luke, and S. John de
scribe. This is the same thing as, " before the cock crow
twice " that is, once in the middle of the night and again
before the dawn Peter denied Christ thrice, as related by
S. Mark.
It will be asked why S. Mark gave another description
of this event than that of the other Evangelists. It appears
probable that S. Mark learned from S. Peter, whose disciple
he was, not only with what meaning, but even in what
words, Christ foretold that Peter should deny Him three
times that night, and that He used these same words. It
seems most likely that Christ used the words of S. Mark, be
cause they have greater force. For Christ opposes number
to number, as if He had said, " Thou wilt be more active in
denying Me than the cock in crowing ; for before he crows
twice thou shalt deny Me thrice ". We see that the whole
speech of Christ is emphatic : " Amen, I say to thee," and
" in this night " ; as if He had said : " In this very night in
which thou boastest that even if thou shouldest die for Me
thou wilt not deny Me, before the cock crow twice, thou
shalt deny Me thrice ".
Verse 36. Into a country place.
JEt? xwpiov. The same word is used by S. Mark. It
was a garden, as we learn from S. John xviii. I, 26, which
CH. xxvi. 37.] IN THE GARDEN. 443
was frequently visited by Christ for prayer (S. John xviii. 2).
Judas knew that Christ often went thither, and S. Luke
(xxii. 39) says: " He went out, according to His custom, to
the Mount of Olives ". Christ, therefore, did not go thither
to conceal Himself, but rather that He might be more
easily found by Judas and the band of soldiers, as those
words of S. John denote.
Which is called Gethsemani.
It should rather have been called Gechemani, or Gese-
mani that is, "the eighth" valley or garden ; or "the fruit
ful," because it was fertile; and "the eighth" because, as some
are of opinion, that, as there were many pleasant country-
houses and gardens around Jerusalem, they took their
names from their relative distances from the city. Thus
one was called the first garden, and another the second ; as
among the Romans there was the first, second, third from
the central milestone. S. Cyril (Comment, on 5. John
xviii.) thinks that there was a mystery in Christ s seeking
to be taken in a garden, and that the garden itself was a
symbol of paradise ; for when in paradise we were taken
captive by the devil, and were delivered in a like paradise :
the taking of Christ being the beginning of our freedom.
Verse 37. Peter and tlie two sons of Zebedee.
James and John. The reason of Christ s having taken
some of the Apostles is obvious. He wished to have wit
nesses of His Prayer, His Pain, and His Death-sweat.
As to His having chosen these three, the opinion of S.
Chrysostom and Theophylact is, that they had seen His
glory and majesty in the Transfiguration, and it was to be
feared lest the others, who had not done so, should be
offended by His suffering. It may be more simply sup
posed that He took these three rather than the others
because He trusted them more, and was therefore more
44/1 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 37.
accustomed to admit them to all His more secret actions,
as in the Transfiguration.
He began to grow sorrowful and to be sad.
"Hpj-aro \v7T6LcrOa(, teal a^r^jiovelv, Tristari et anxio esse
animo. aSrjfioveiv describes one who is struck by a fear so
intense as to render him as it were half dead and thunder
struck. But the Evangelists S. Matthew and S. Mark use
the word to describe only the greatness of the sorrow of
Christ. Some formerly denied that there was any true
sorrowfulness in Christ, as we learn from S. Chrysostom
(in loc.\ S. Ambrose (Comm. on S. Luke xxii.), and S. John
Damascus (De Hceres, Ixxxiv.). S. Hilary says, perhaps
incongruously, that Christ felt no pain. Evagrius (On
Ps. Ixviii.) asserts the same error as that of the Emperor
Justinian, who thought Christ impassible. We can have no
better witness than Christ Himself. He said that His soul
was troubled even unto death.
2. Others, on the contrary, have said, as we are told by
S. Thomas in his Commentary, that even in His Godhead
Christ felt suffering and sorrow, thinking too meanly of the
Godhead.
3. Others, again, say that the sorrowfulness of Christ was
not suffering passio, irdQos but propassio> TrpoTradeia : the
former disturbing the soul in some degree, and extorting
some consent of the will, however imperfect; the latter
causing some feeling of either pain or pleasure, but not
disturbing the soul from its calmness. Origen, S. Jerome,
and Bede think that Christ was affected by sorrow, and
they explain the word r^p^aro to mean that the sorrow was
begun indeed, but not ended ; for propassio had not ex
tended on to passio. The words may rather be thought to
have the force of Christ s, not being compelled when danger
was at hand to be sorrowful, but being so of His own
choice ; when He would, as far as He would, and where and
CH. xxvi. 37.] IN THE GARDEN. 445
in what manner He would, as is seen from other circum
stances. A short time before, when He was with the eleven
disciples, He was not sorrowful, because He did not please
that His sorrow should be known to them ; but when He had
gone from them, and was with those three alone, He imme
diately began to be sorrowful, as the Evangelists have de
scribed it ; showing that when He pleased, and in the
manner in which He pleased, He was sorrowful. S. Augus-
tin (On Ps, Ixxxvii.) says, to the same effect: "The Lord
Jesus underwent these results of human infirmity as He
underwent the flesh of human infirmity, and the death of
His human flesh ; not from the necessity of His condition,
but from His will of sympathy ; that He might transfigure
into Himself His Body, which is the Church, He having de
signed to be the Head that is, His members among His
saints and the faithful : that if it should happen to any of
them among their human temptations to be sorrowful and
to grieve, he should not therefore think himself an alien
to His grace, and that his sufferings were sins, but merely
proofs of human infirmities, as it were a kind of key
note ; and that His Body itself might learn from Him,
its Head".
S. John Damascus rightly says (De Fid. Orthodox., iii. 20):
"Between our sufferings and Christ s there is this difference :
ours precede, and Christ s follow, the act of the will ; that
is, we, even against our will, have suffering : Christ has it
only with His will. Ours, again, arise from natural neces
sity and original sin : Christ s spring neither from sin nor
necessity, but from His pity for us. He hungered for us,
He thirsted for us, He grieved for us." Hence the assertion
of some learned men and Catholic doctors that Christ, by
the condition of human nature, feared death, may be rather
explained than refuted. It may be taken to mean that
Christ grieved, not from the condition and necessity of
nature, but that by His own will He so relinquished His
446 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 37.
nature in its own natural condition, that He grieved as
much as He would have done if His nature had been
merely human.
It has been disputed with much subtlety in the schools
how it was that Christ, when He was in happiness, had
sorrow. Some have answered that He had happiness only
in the higher part of His soul, but His body had it not
yet, that He might suffer. Beatitude had not yet effused
itself into it, but sorrow was in His lower part, which is in
the body. But Christ affirmed that His soul was sorrow
ful even unto death, by which He showed that sorrow
possessed His entire soul ; and soon after He said : " Not
as I will, but as Thou wilt " ; and more plainly in 5.
Luke : " Not My will, but Thine be done ". By this He
shows that even in His will, which is the higher point of
His soul, He was sorrowful, and shrank from death; and, in
fact, from that passage, the Sixth CEcumenical Council and
other ancient authorities proved that there were two wills in
Christ, a divine and a human. They, therefore, who ex
plain " will " to mean here the appetite of the sentient part
are not to be approved. It is better defined that, even
when in happiness, it was ordered by some dispensation
that Christ should admit sorrow even into the higher part
of His soul ; for as He could restrain His beatitude from
flowing down into His body, that He might be able to
suffer; so He could press it down, and, in a manner, con
ceal it, that He might yield for a time to sorrow, which
was one future part of His Passion.
Again, it has been asked why Christ was sorrowful.
S. Hilary, S. Jerome, and Bede say that it was not from
fear of death, but from pity for the disciples, because they
would suffer offence, and that this is the meaning of His
subsequent words, "My soul is sorrowful "; as if He had
said: "When the hour of death shall Actually come it
will not be sorrowful, because the scandal will then have
CH. xxvi. 37-] IN THE GARDEN. 447
passed . S. Hilary thinks that the grief was especially for
Judas, because Christ knew that he would be lost. These
writers have been careful not to appear to make Christ
appear more fearful than some of His own martyrs. But
if the above be admitted as truth, this will not be necessary.
Christ feared, indeed, but freely and of His own will.
Hence it happened that, although He may appear to have
feared death more than some of His own martyrs, He
cannot be called more fearful than they. For he is not
fearful, but most valiant, who does not suffer fear but
when He wills to do so ; and they all teach that Christ
so feared death, that if it be denied the authority of
Scripture cannot stand.
But if He feared death of His own will, why did He
will to fear it ?
The answer may be given in one word. If He died of
His own will, why did He will to die? Assuredly He
willed it for us ; and for us He felt sorrow ; for His
pain, His sorrow, His bloody sweat, were all preludes
of His death ; and it was a great and an additional
benefit that He pleased to undergo no sudden death,
like those who are doomed to be executed unexpectedly
and when not expecting to die, but one with all its
attendant circumstances the sorrow, the scourging, the
insults, the ignominy, and other things that do not
usually attend death, as the bloody sweat so that we
may truly say, with Ps. cxiv. 3, " The sorrows of death
compassed me, and the perils of hell have found me".
Another reason is given by S. Jerome, Bede, Euthymius,
and Theophylact in his Commentary, and S. Augustin (On
Ps. Ixxxvii.) : That Christ feared and was sorrowful that
He might show Himself to be true man, that his Members,
that is, the faithful, if they were sorrowful might not
think it sin to be so. But why did He appear to have
been oppressed with a greater dread of death than other
44$ THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 37.
men, so that, as S. Luke relates (xxii. 44), great drops, or,
as in the Greek, Opo/i/Boi, " gouts," flowed down from His
body to the earth ? S. Hilary, indeed (De Trin., x.), and
S. Jerome, against the Pelagians of his time (ii.), say that
the account of this sweat and the angel that strengthened
Him are omitted in many copies of both Greek and Latin ;
but it is more probable that there was an omission of these
particulars than that anyone would have added them.
Others do not deny the words, but destroy their force ; as
if Christ did not actually sweat blood, but was only said to
do so by a proverbial expression, meaning that He was
seized by a violent terror : as we say of those who are under
some great anxiety and mental pressure, " They sweat
drops of blood". This is held by Theophylact and Euthy-
mius ; but when the Evangelist says that His sweat flowed
down to the ground, he cannot be understood otherwise
than as meaning that Christ sweated actual blood. As
regards this act, although some think it to have been
against nature, it may rather appear, on the other hand, to
have been a natural sweat, that by some mystery His
whole Body, which is the Church, might be seen to be
suffused with His blood ; but because it was unusual it
seemed to be a miracle, as all rare events are apt to be
considered. Aristotle says that this phenomenon may be
natural, and that it has happened at times (Hist. Anim.,
vii. 16 ; De Part. Anim., iii. 5). Natural reason teaches us
that it might happen, especially in men of rare texture and
delicate constitution. For as the sweat is nothing but the
watery part of the blood which is in the veins, as that part
passes off in all of us in sweat, why may not, in very rare
cases, and in individuals of a delicate frame and unusually
subtle blood, that finer blood itself flow off in the form of
sweat? And as we see men sweat when seized by
sudden fear, so Christ, who was of a most delicate nature,
when under apprehension of a most ignominious death,
CH. xxvi. 38.] THE FIRST PRAYER IN THE GARDEN. 449
may have naturally sweated blood. It is rather to be
wondered at that He should have been so apprehensive of
death as to sweat blood. It is said by S. Thomas that it
was not merely death, but the cause of it that most deeply
agitated His mind ; namely, the sins of mankind. S. Am
brose has spoken well and devoutly of this in his Com
mentary on S. Luke xxii. : " It had benefited me less if
Christ had not taken my passions. He grieved, therefore,
for me, who had no cause of grief for Himself, and laying
aside the delights of His Eternal Divinity, He is affected
by the weariness of my infirmity. He took my sorrow,
that He might share His joy with me, and, in our footsteps,
He descended even to the anguish of death, to recall us to
life. I speak of grief, therefore, with confidence, because I
preach the Cross ; for Christ took not the appearance, but
the truth of Incarnation. He ought, therefore, to take
grief also, that He might conquer, not exclude, sorrow.
For they who endure the stupor rather than have the pain
of wounds, have no praise for fortitude."
Verse 38. My soul is sorrowful even unto death.
ITepiXuTTo?, " My soul is besieged on every side with
sorrow". In the same sense in all respects as that in
which David said, in the person of Christ, " The sorrows of
death have compassed me, and the pains of hell have found
me" (Ps. cxiv. 3).
On the words, " even unto death," Origen, S. Hilary, and
S. Jerome say that the meaning is as if Christ had said,
" My soul is sorrowful ; but the sorrow will endure only
until death ". The explanation, however, seems foreign to
the text ; for Christ did not desire to diminish the amount
of His sorrow, but rather to increase it. He would have
diminished it if He had said that it would endure only until
His death. Thers is another more modern opinion : " My
soul is so sorrowful that the sorrow itself seems to bring
2 29
450 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 39.
Me death ". As we say, " I am dying of grief," " I am
dying of hunger ". The true meaning is that of Euthy-
mius : " My soul is as sorrowful as if I were already dying ".
David said in the above psalm : " The pains of hell have
found me" ; that is, they are as heavy as those that are felt
in death.
Stay you here.
Meivare, sustinete. S. Mark uses the same word (xiv. 34).
Christ had lately told the other disciples not to remain, but
to sit (verse 36). He commanded these to remain and
watch because they were nearer to His danger, and He
wished them to witness it : as He directed them, a little
after, not only to remain and watch, but also to pray
(verse 41).
Verse 39. And going.
S. Luke (xxii. 41) says : " He was withdrawn away from
them ". Some think that He went away from those three
most beloved disciples unwillingly.
A little farther.
S. Luke has described the distance (xxii. 41) : "He was
withdrawn away from them a stone s cast ". It may be
asked why Christ went from the disciples to pray ? He
followed His own precept, as S. Thomas (Comment, in loc)
says : " When thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber and
shut the door". He probably followed an ordinary and
reverent custom. For although we pray without shame
before others, there are many things in our prayers, many
outward marks of our zeal and warmth, which we are
ashamed to show before others, but not when alone.
He fell upon His face.
S. Mark (xiv. 35) says: " He fell flat on the ground" ;
and S. Luke : " Kneeling down, He prayed ". Hence it is
CH. xxvi. 39. THE FIRST PRAYER IN THE GARDEN. 451
not to be understood that He fell wholly prostrate on the
earth, but that He knelt down. S. Mark says that He fell,
because one who bends his knee on the earth falls upon it.
My Father, if it be possible.
Christ knew that absolutely this was possible to God, as
He said (S. Mark xiv. 36) : " Abba, Father, all things are
possible to Thee " ; but as there had been a divine decree
that He should die for us, He knew that it was impossible
that that chalice should pass from Him. Why, then, did He
ask that if possible it should do so ? He left His human
nature to perform its own part, as He would have done
if it had never been united to His Divinity, and He
had known nothing of the divine decree. From a com
parison of S. Matthew and S. Mark, we see that S. Augustin
(De Consens., iii. 4) is correct in saying that the words "If
it be possible" and " If Thou wilt" have the same meaning ;
for, with regard to what is called " absolute power," Christ
did not deny it, nor call it into question, but, as if for
caution, He added the words of S. Mark : " All things are
possible to Thee " ; but when He added, " But not what I
will," He showed that by the words, " If it be possible," He
meant only, " If Thou wilt" (si vis), or, "things remaining
unaffected," or " If, Thy glory safe, Thou wilt" (velle potes).
The words, " Father," &c., are the beginning of a prayer
well fitted for gaining favour, as S. Jerome says. S. Mark
united the Chaldaic and Greek words, "Abba, Jlare/o," ex
plaining the former by the latter. S. Paul does the same
in two places Rom. viii. 15 ; Galat. iv. 6. S. Augustin
thinks this a mystery, to show that God is the Father of
both Jews and Gentiles.
Pass.
a-w e/u,oi), prcetereat a me\ or, as the Latins say,
pratereat me.
452 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 39.
This chalice.
Christ s Passion that terrible death. Why it is called a
" chalice " has been explained on chap. xx. 22.
Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.
It is seen from these words that there were two wills in
Christ a divine and a human, as the Sixth General Council
proved from this passage. This was not ruled in opposition
to S. Paul, who says that " Christ was heard for His rever
ence" (Heb. v. 7). Although the chalice did not pass from
Him, His prayer was not unheard ; for He prayed under a
condition : " If it be possible," that is, " If Thou wilt" ; but
the Father would not.
It may be asked, why Christ, of His human nature, shrank
from death, when God willed that He should die? For He
seems to have had a will contrary to that of God, which He
could not have had without sin. For sin, as S. Augustin
(Cont. Faust., xxii. 27) defines it, is "every word, act, or desire
that is contrary to the Law of God and the divine will ".
Christ, as has been said before, spoke in this prayer as if
He were merely a man to whom the divine will was un
known, and who had not strength to overcome death. He
left His human nature as if it were His only one, His divine
being kept back that He might discharge His office more
fully among men. Not everyone who wishes anything
contrarily to the divine will at once commits sin, but he
who wishes, speaks, or does anything against it when known
to him and seen by him. We do not sin when we ask of
God long life and good health for our parents ; we should
rather sin if we did not, though it may be God s will that
they should shortly die : because that will was not known
to us, and the other was : that we should honour our parents,
and wish them all good. We may, again, sometimes wish
for a thing that is contrary to the divine will, though known
CH. xxvi. 40.] IN THE GARDEN. 453
to us to be so, and not sin : so that the will be not made
known to us by precept. My father is dead. I cannot
doubt that he died by the divine will ; yet I might wish
that he had not died, and commit no sin. Add that this will
of Christ by which He refused (recusavit) death, was not
full and absolute, but what is termed by divines condi
tional. For He did not say to Himself, " I will not die,"
but, " I would not die, if it might be so ". The wish was
not sin, as there was a guiltless condition annexed.
Verse 40. A nd He cometh to His disciples.
He came to His disciples because He had finished His
prayer ; and He wished, after some interval, to pray three
times; or He came, as the result proved, to arouse and warn
them.
A nd He findetJi tJiem asleep.
Grief causes tears and vapours in the brain, from which
arises sleep. We see that infants, after they have wept
much, sleep deeply ; and that men, when in trouble, are
oppressed with sleep.
What, could you not watch one hour ivitJi Me ?
These words, as Euthymius observes, are to be read as a
double question. The first interrogation is to be put after
the word " what," and the second after the words that
follow. For the word " what " is not to be referred to
" could you," but to what Peter in the first place, and then
all the others in like manner, had said before : " Though I
should die with Thee," &c. Christ then said, in a manner,
" Are you so ready to die with Me, and yet you could not
watch one hour with Me?" Christ said this to Peter alone,
because he had made the promise first, and most eagerly
of all. So S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, Bede, Theophylact,
and Euthymius. S. Mark says that Christ addressed Peter
alone "Could you not," &c., and it probably was so ; but
454 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 40.
because what Christ said to Peter as the chief, He said to
all. S. Matthew gives the sense and not the words, saying
that Christ spoke to all. The words "with Me" were cal
culated to prick the hearts of the disciples deeply. "While
I was praying, toiling, and struggling with death, you, who
ought to fight while I am sleeping, could not watch for
even the briefest period of time possible."
That ye enter not into temptation.
Not to enter into temptation, in the language of Bede,
Euthymius, Theophylact, and others later, does not mean,
not to fall into, but to overcome it. The words may more
probably mean, not to run into it ; for we are commanded
to ask of God, as conscious of our own weakness, not to
overcome temptation only, but not even to come into the
danger of it. It is safer not to fight than to conquer. In
this sense, we pray God not to lead us into temptation, as
explained on chap. vi. 13.
The spirit indeed is ^v tiling, but the flesh is weak.
This is the reason why they ought to pray ; although
their minds and will do not fail, their strength does, unless
they gain grace from God through prayer.
The spirit here meant is not the Holy Ghost, not the
Spirit of Christ Himself, but the will of the disciples. So
S. Paul (i Cor. vii. 34) : " That she " (the virgin) " may be
holy both in body and spirit," pure not only in person, but
also in will. Christ appears to allude to the former boast
of the Apostles. They showed great zeal and great
courage when they said one after another, " Though I
should die with Thee, I will not deny Thee," repeating the
words of S. Peter. Christ did not wish to show disappro
bation of their zeal, He rather praised it in fact ; He
admonished them, however, of the infirmity of their flesh,
and taught them that, although strong and prompt in His
CH. xxvi. 43, 44.] THE THIRD PRAYER IN THE GARDEN. 455
service, they must still pray, because their flesh was
weak. In the words of S. Paul, " we have this treasure
in earthen vessels " (2 Cor. iv. 7).
Again the second time.
Unless we understand the Hebrew, this will seem
tautological. The Hebrews had said ITOltfrPm and He
returned a second time and prayed, as if, Tu conversus
vivificabis me, that is, " Thou shalt make live again ". We
have explained the idiom more than once before. The
meaning is the same, therefore, as if it had been said in
other words, " He returned and prayed a second time ".
Verse 43. For their eyes were heavy.
Either from sleep, as the night was now advanced, or, as
S. Luke says, from sorrow (xxii. 45).
Verse 44. A nd He prayed the third time.
The question at once occurs, why Christ prayed three
times, and neither more often nor less. It is the opinion of
S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact that this
number shows truth, perfection, and constancy. This may
be understood from many passages of Scripture. The
vessel full of all kinds of animals which S. Peter saw was
thrice let down from heaven (Acts x. 16). S. Paul says
that he thrice asked God to remove the angel of Satan
(2 Cor. xii. 8). S. Peter thrice denied Christ. Christ thrice
asked S. Peter, " Lovest thou Me more than these?" (S.
John xxi. 15). In the same manner, Christ prayed thrice ;
so that that which is done three times seems to be done
wholly and for ever, and Christ Himself taught us to pray
always.
Saying the self-same word.
It is not necessary, Euthymius says, that Christ should
have used the same words precisely, but rather that He
456 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 44.
prayed to the same effect But it would appear that S.
Matthew said what he did with care, to show that Christ
always held the same feeling and uttered the same prayer
as before : " Not as I will, but as Thou wilt," to show that
although He prayed thrice he never forgot His modera
tion, in which the praise of His whole prayer consists.
This is the meaning of the words, "saying the self-same
word ". S. Luke has mentioned only one prayer, with
the object, probably, of showing that, although Christ
prayed thrice, yet, as S. Matthew says, His words and
His prayer were the same ; and he immediately adds
that the angel appeared to Him. It is not certain, there
fore, at which of the prayers the angel appeared. It is
not probable, as some have thought, that he appeared
at each.
We must believe that he was sent to answer Christ s
prayer and to convey the feeling of the Father to Him ;
and if so, he would not come before the end of the
third prayer, for if he had come sooner it is hardly
probable that Christ would have repeated the same
prayer. When S. Luke says, therefore, that Christ came
to the disciples and found them sleeping, after he had
described the appearance of the angel, we must under
stand him to speak by hysteron proteron. For he had
begun to speak of the prayer before. Hence he wished
to relate all the attending events, such as the descent of
the angel, in one account.
And, therefore, when he says that the multitude and
Judas came while Christ was yet speaking to the disciples,
this is not to be referred to the words immediately pre
ceding, " Why sleep ye ? Arise, pray lest you enter
into temptation ; " for when Christ uttered these words
Judas had not come. For, as is clear from S. Matthew
and S. Mark, after Christ had said those words, He retired
to pray twice, and when He returned to the disciples the
CH. xxvi. 450 THE BETRAYAL. 457
third time He did not say " Watch," &c., but " Sleep ye
now and take your rest" (verse 45), and then Judas ap
peared.
We must understand S. Luke s words, therefore,
" While He was yet speaking," not of what He had
said, but of what He had not said (non ea quce
dixerat sed ea quce tacueraf] ; that is, the words, " When
He was yet speaking to the disciples," do not apply then,
but afterwards.
But, as from the three prayers S. Luke makes one, so he
makes one discourse with the Apostles out of the three,
uniting the events of the third to the first.
Verse 45. Sleep ye now and take your rest.
S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 4) and Bede think that
Christ said this not ironically, but with a serious meaning,
because S. Mark says (xiv. 41), "It is enough," as if He
had said : " It is enough that you have watched hitherto ;
now take your rest". S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and
Theophylact, however, take the words as ironical, as if
Christ had directed them to sleep and take their rest when
they ought least to do so, the enemy being at hand up
braiding them, as it were, because, when He had previously
ordered them to watch, they slept.
Into the i hands of sinners.
The Gentiles. The Hebrews called all Gentiles, ab
solutely, sinners, as we find in 6". Luke xxiv. 7 and Gal.
ii. 15. The greater number of those who came to seize
Christ were Roman soldiers ; because, as S. John says
(xviii. 3): "Judas having received a band of soldiers and
servants from the chief priests and the Pharisees, cometh
hither with lanterns and torches and weapons ". Judas
received a band of soldiers.
458 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 47, 48.
Verse 47. As He yet spoke.
The three Evangelists S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke
have said that Judas came while Christ was speaking, with
the design, probably, of showing that the words uttered by
Him just before (verse 46) were true : u Rise, let us go ;
behold he is at hand that will betray Me". The same
thing is said by S. John in other words (xviii. 4).
And behold Judas.
S. Matthew names Judas as first, as does S. Mark also.
S. Luke, however, mentions the multitude first, and then
Judas, because perhaps the multitude came first.
A great multitude.
S. Mark and S. Luke say the same. S. John (xviii. 3)
says, " Judas having received a band of soldiers and
servants ". Hence it follows that men of all ranks came to
take Christ. One of the twelve who betrayed Him, and
who brought the servants of the priests, scribes, and elders
of the people, for all the Evangelists say that he whose
ear Peter cut off was a servant of the high priest, and the
soldiers who were Gentiles, and who came with arms, as if
against some great criminal, or, perhaps, as fearing His
disciples ; and with torches, for it was dark.
Verse 48. Gave them a sign.
Judas had given one before. Christ was so well known to
all that we may wonder why there was any need of a sign.
Origen (in loc.} says that it was a tradition of his time that
Christ had two faces : one a natural and ordinary one in
which all men knew Him, the other assumed by Him at
times, as in the Transfiguration. Theophylact, with more
reason, says that the greater number of those who came to
seize Christ were soldiers ; that is, Gentiles who were not
used to hear Him, as being men who had no part in the
religion of the Jews.
CH. xxvi. 48.] THE BETRAYAL. 459
Leontius, in his Commentary on S, John xviii. 5, thinks
that by His own power Christ caused not only the soldiers
but even Judas himself, who had been so long with Him,
not to know Him. The same is the opinion of S. Chry-
sostom, Theodore Heracleota (in the Catena Grceca], S.
Cyril and Theophylact (On S. John xviii. 5). Nor, was the
darkness the reason ; for the Evangelist had said before
that the soldiers came with lanterns and torches ; and,
again, the same Evangelist (S. Jo/in xviii. 5) added, "And
Judas also who betrayed Him stood with them " ; as
meaning, that although Judas, who had come to point out
Christ, was with them they did not know Him. Theodore
of Mopsuestia thinks that the Evangelist said that Judas
was with them, to show his want of shame and probity ;
for even when he had seen so great a miracle he did not
cease from his wicked design.
But why did he give them this particular sign rather
than any other ? Probably because he desired to give
them a sign by which he might at once betray Christ to
the soldiers and conceal his treachery from Him. He
would not have succeeded if he had given them some
unusual sign. It was the custom of the Jews to greet each
other with a kiss, especially the inferior the superior ; and
of all, indeed, who desired to show extraordinary love to
those whom they so saluted. So Gen. xxix. 11, 13;
xxxiii. 4; xlv. 15; Exod. iv. 27; xviii. 7. The same
custom was in use among Christians (Acts xx. 37 ; Rom.
xvi. 1 6 ; I Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12 ; I Thess. v. 26;
i Peter v. 14) ; and long after these times, as Tertullian
says in his De Oratione, " This is what Christ complained
of to the Pharisee ". 5. Luke vii. 45 : " Thou gavest Me
no kiss, but she since she came in hath not ceased to kiss
My feet". The unhappy Judas thought to conceal his
wickedness from Christ, for he had never really believed in
Him ; but, as S. Jerome and Bede say, he thought that
460 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. xxvi. 49.
His miracles were done by magical arts, as Christ Himself
signifies (S. John vi. 65) : " There are some of you that
believe not ". He said this in conversation with the
Apostles. The Evangelist tells us that Christ said this
because of Judas : " For Jesus knew from the beginning
who they were that did not believe, and who he was that
would betray Him " (5. John ut sup^}. Origen refers to
two opinions as to why Judas betrayed Christ by this sign
rather than any other :
1. He felt some respect for Christ, and he had not yet
lost all shame ; so that although he kissed Christ, on the
one hand, he wished that kiss at the same time to be a
sign to the soldiers. Leontius mentions this opinion with
approbation.
2. If he had used any uncommon sign, Christ would have
understood his design, and, as He had done on other
occasions, would have conveyed Himself away.
Hold Him fast.
S. Mark (xiv. 44) says that Judas added, " Lead Him
away carefully ". He feared lest Christ should escape, and
he himself lose both his promised reward and his Master ;
for he knew that when the Jews wished to hold Christ He
had often escaped them (S. Lrike iv. 30 ; 5. John viii. 59).
This is the opinion of S. Chrysostom and S. Jerome.
S. John says that Jesus, knowing all things, went forth
and said, Whom seek ye? " These are not the words of a
man in fear, who would deny that he was he whom they
had come to seek, but, as Leontius says, of one undismayed,
and who challenged them.
Verse 49. Hail, Rabbi.
Judas endeavoured, by his words and kiss, to conceal his
wickedness. On the other hand, Christ shows that He was
not ignorant with what intention Judas came, as He asked
CH. xxvi. so.] THE BETRAYAL. 461
him (verse 50), " Friend, whereto art thou come ? " and,
" Dost thou betray the Son of man with a kiss ? " (S. Luke
xxii. 48). On the other hand, they to whom he gave the
sign did not know Christ even after it was given, for it is
probable that Judas gave the kiss before Christ asked the
soldiers, " Whom seek ye ?" as S. John says (xviii. 4). It
appears from this that they did not yet know Christ. This
idea is confirmed by their answer, for they did not say, " We
seek Thee," but " Jesus of Nazareth," and it was necessary
for Christ to ask them twice before they knew Him. If
Christ had asked them this before Judas gave them the
sign there would have been no need of the sign ; for Christ
had already said twice to them, "I am He". Of this
opinion is S. Augustin (De Consens., v. 3).
Verse 50. Friend, whereto art thou come ?
Christ appears, by these words, to declare, not only that
He knew why Judas came, but even to excite His shame
faced and lingering betrayer to give Him up boldly, as He
had said after supper, " That thou doest, do quickly "
(S. John xiii. 27), and as the victim is apt to say to the
executioner, " Do thine office ".
We must think, too, that Christ first said what is found in
5. Luke xxii. 48 : " Betrayest thou the Son of man with a
kiss ? " then what S. Matthew and S. Mark record :
"Friend, whereto art thou come?" and, last of all, what
S. John says : " Whom seek ye ? " This is the opinion of
S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 5). But Leontius thinks
otherwise.
Then.
This is not to be referred to the words immediately
preceding, " Friend, whereto art thou come ? " as if, as soon
as Christ had said these words, the soldiers laid their hands
upon Him, but to those of S. John (xviii. 6, 8), when
Christ said twice, " I am He ". By these words He gave
462 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 51.
them power to seize Him, and without them their hands
would have been tied.
Verse 51. And behold one of them tJiat were with Jesus.
Either one of the three whom Christ took with Him
when He went apart to pray ; for S. Peter was one of the
three, or one of the eleven who were with Christ The
former is the more probable, because when Judas came
with the soldiers Christ was speaking with those three
alone, as S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke plainly signify.
S. John says that that one was Simon Peter (xviii. 10).
S. Luke implies that all the disciples who were present
were prepared to resist and to fight ; for they all asked
Christ if they should strike with the sword (S. Luke xxii. 49).
They had not, perhaps, understood what Christ had said a
little before (verse 38) : " It is enough". He had answered
the Apostles when they said, " Lord, behold here are two
swords," with the above words. When He said (verse 36),
" He that hath not, let him sell his coat and buy a sword,"
He signified that He had no need of arms for Himself or
His disciples, but only that a great danger, such as men
ward off by arms, was impending. He did not mean, when
He said, " It is enough," that the enemy was to be resisted
by those swords, nor that they needed more ; but He
spoke those words because He had need neither of these
nor of any other swords.
When they all asked Christ if they should strike with the
sword, Peter, before Christ answered, struck the servant of
the high priest. It is likely that the man, as being the
servant, was more forward than the rest, as trusting in his
master s authority, and following his malignity and hatred
of Christ, in his endeavour to be the first to lay hands upon
Him. Peter did not wait for Christ s answer ; but he en
deavoured to repel an audacious man, who was attacking
his Master, with an audacity greater than his own.
CH. xxvi. 52.] THE BETRAYAL. 463
Cut off his ear.
S. Luke and S. John say that it was the right ear. In
this many think that there lies a mystery. It may be so
or not. We are seeking, not for allegories, but for the
literal and true meaning of Scripture. It is not clear
whether S. Peter so cut off the ear that it fell to the
ground. More probably it was cut quite off, as the ex
pression of the Evangelist evidently implies. S. Luke
speaks as if it had not been wholly severed, as he does
not say that Christ replaced it, but "When He had
touched his ear He healed him" (xxii. 51).
Verse 52. All that take the sword shall perish with
the sword.
Origen explains these words as follows : " All who are
the authors of wars or sedition shall be destroyed in the
war which they have raised". S. Jerome and Bede say
that such shall perish, not by the material sword, but by
the spiritual ; that is, by divine vengeance, which shall
overtake them either in this world or the next. Euthy-
mius thinks that Christ spoke of the Jews alone, who, He
signifies, in punishment of His death, shall perish by the
swords of the Romans. But what has this to do with S.
Peter, who took the sword ? Christ, therefore, does not say
that all who take the sword shall of necessity perish by the
sword, for the contrary is the fact. He only cites the law
which orders the homicide to be put to death (Gen. ix. 6).
He does not say what punishment they shall of necessity
undergo, but what they merit. So say S. Augustin (Qucest.
104 in Vet. et Nov. Test.} and Theophylact (in loc).
They who conclude from these words, as many do, that
even the judge must not use the sword, are void of reason,
and may be easily answered from S. Paul (Rom. xiii. 4).
He there affirms that the judge has his power from God,
464 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 52.
and bears not the sword in vain, having received the
weapon itself, as it were, from God. He shall not perish,
therefore, by the sword if he do use it ; for he does not
abuse it ; that is, he does not assume and usurp it by
private authority, but he has it as given by God.
It has been asked why Christ blamed S. Peter for repel
ling force by force, and that in defence of his Master, an
act which every natural law, divine or human, permitted.
S. Augustin thinks that S. Peter was not blamed for cutting
off the ear of the servant of the high priest, for it was
done by permission of Christ, and that this is the meaning
of ,S. Luke xxii. 51 " Suffer ye thus far". S. John xviii.
1 1, put by the side of the words of S. Matthew, here show,
in his opinion, that S. Peter was only admonished not to
fight again (Qucest. 104 in Vet. et Nov. Test.}.
But it is clear that S. Peter was blamed by Christ ; and
why?
1. Because his act was not one of defence. For what
could one man have done against a band, except to irritate
and provoke them to treat Christ with greater cruelty ?
2. Because he did not wait for Christ s permission, but
struck at once.
3. Because he ought not to have hindered Christ s death
even if he had had the power ; for Christ Himself could
have asked for twelve legions of angels from the Father to
defend Him ; but He would rather obey the will of that
Father and fulfil the words of the Prophets, as He said
Himself (verses 53, 54; .S. John xviii. u). Christ had
rebuked Peter before for a similar offence (S. Matt. xvi.
23), because he tried to persuade Him to avoid death.
But why, then, did Christ cite a general law ? Because,
wherever the exception does not exist the law holds, and
in S. Peter s case the exception had no place. He, indeed,
drew his sword with a good intent, but at a time and in a
place where he ought not.
CH. xxvi. 53.] THE BETRAYAL. 465
Verse 53. Thinkest thou that I cannot ask My Father.
It may be asked how Christ could say that His Father
would give Him twelve legions of angels if He asked Him,
when He had just before prayed that the cup should pass
from Him, and had been refused? Christ spoke from the
nature of the case, and not in consideration of the circum
stances, as if He had said : " Do you not think that, if I
had not known that it was determined by My Father
that I should die, I could have asked for twelve legions
of angels, and that He would have given them to
Me?"
Twelve legions of angels.
Both the word and the thing is of Rome. The Evan
gelists, though speaking Greek, use it as they use many
other Latin words. No nation but the Romans had legions.
S. Matthew used the language of the Roman people who had
now conquered Judaea. Among the Romans, as Vegetius
(De re Milit., ii. 2) and S. Jerome say, a legion consisted of
6000 men, or, as Polybius informs us (lib. vi.), ordinary
legions contained 4200 foot and 300 horse. In wars of
importance, the former numbered 5000 and the latter 300.
However this may be, it is certain that Christ intended to
describe a vast number of angels. Christ here places
angels in opposition to men : the many to the few, the
strong to the weak ; of whom one in a single night slew
185,000 men of the army of Sennacherib. Christ seems to
oppose angels, not to the soldiers, but to the disciples, who,
with Judas, were twelve in number, and to have named
twelve legions of angels, not more and not less, to show
that for twelve individual men He could have had twelve
legions of angels, each of which contained 6000 angels, if
the statement of Vegetius be correct. Unless we say that
the number twelve is here put for a full and perfect number
as in chap. xix. 28, and as S. Augustin and Bede think. It is
230
466 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. xxvi. 54.
explained on that passage. Origen concluded from this
that the good angels were carrying on perpetual war
against the evil ones, and that this is the meaning of the
frequent expression in Scripture of " war in heaven ". It
is clear that angels are frequently sent by God to defend
men, not only from evil angels, but from other men, as in
4 Kings xvii., where so vast a number was sent to the
assistance of Eliseus, that they filled the whole mountain.
This is the meaning of Ps. xxxiii. 8 : " The angel of the
Lord shall encamp round about them that fear Him, and
shall deliver them". The Hebrew is POn castrametabitur j
that is, He will pitch the camp of the angels round about
them that none may harm them. So Ps. xc. 1 1. We know
from Daniel (x. 13, 20, 21 ; xii. i), that they are sometimes
sent to fight for us in war. Christ alluded to this custom.
Verse 54. How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that
(" quia ") so it must be ?
This expression is incomplete, and it contains a Hebraism.
The meaning is: How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled,
that so it must be ? The word quia is used in the Hebrew
sense for the infinitive mood "So it ought to be done,"
fieri oportuit ; as 6". Luke xxiv. 25. The Scriptures and
the Prophets to whom Christ alluded are Isaiah (liii. 10) and
Daniel (ix. 26). Christ said this to show that He was not
dragged to His death by violence, but that He went of
His own free-will, to satisfy the decree of the Father,
as declared by the Prophets. S. John (xviii. n) says
that Christ answered Peter otherwise: "The chalice which
My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it ? " The
opinion of S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 5) is probable
that Christ said both. First, "The chalice" (S.fo&nxvin.
n), and second, " How then" (S. Matt. xxvi. 54).
It would appear that Christ here used the word "chalice"
in a double sense. He had said a little before, " If it be
CH. xxvi. 55.] THE BETRAYAL. 467
possible," &c., referring to a thing bitter and full of suffer
ing. In the words (S. Jo/in xviii. n), "The chalice which
My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?" He seems
to speak of it as pleasant and sweet ; for His words have
this force, as if He had said, " Given by My Father most
beloved, it cannot be otherwise than pleasant " ; for the
word itself is used in both senses, because a sweet and
bitter draught is given in the same cup : " My chalice
which inebriateth me, how goodly is it!" (Ps. xxii. 5).
For Christ speaks of His death in both senses, and He calls
it a chalice in both. In His prayer, before He had heard
His Father s voice, He calls it a chalice that is, a thing
hard and bitter ; but now, when His Father s will was
known, He calls the same death a chalice that is, a thing
most pleasant ; for no obedience but is sweet, none but is
most pleasant. S. Luke alone (xxii. 51) writes, " Suffer ye
thus far," for pains far more heavy have to be endured by
Me. From this it is plain that all the disciples were willing
to fight for Christ, and He answered them all ; but He
rebuked Peter by name, because, without waiting for His
answer, he wounded the servant of the high priest.
S. Luke alone mentions that He touched the servant s ear
and healed it. For Christ desired to correct the error of
Peter, and at the same time to show those who seized Him
that He had power to defend Himelf from them, who by
His mere touch could heal that wounded member ; for it
was He who " killeth and maketh alive ; He bringet h
down to hell and bringeth back again" (i Kings ii. 6).
S. John alone tells us that the man s name was Malchus
(xviii. 10).
Verse 55. Daily.
S. Mark (xiv. 49) says : " I was daily with you in the
Temple teaching, and you did not lay hands on Me. But
that the Scriptures may be fulfilled." By these words
468 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 56, 57.
Christ showed His captors that it was not by their will or
strength that He was taken, but that it was by the will of
His Father and the decree of Scripture. For if it had been
by their strength and design, they would often have seized
Him before, when He sat daily in the Temple teaching.
But when they endeavoured to do this they were not
able (S. Luke iv. 30 ; 5. John viii. 59). This is the ex
planation of 5. Luke xxii. 53: "This is your hour";
that is, " Now you are able to do to Me whatever you
will : not that you are stronger than I, but because the
hour has come when it was determined by the Father that
I should die".
Verse 56. Then the disciples , all leaving Him, fled.
Peter, however, followed Him, though afar off (verse 58).
So did S. John, as he himself testifies (xviii. 15). Thus the
words of S. Matthew, ".all," must either be understood of
the greater number, as Theophylact says, or we must
suppose that all fled at first, and that Peter and John
returned soon afterwards and followed Him.
Verse 57. To CaiapJias.
See, on Caiaphas, verse 3. S. John (xviii. 13) says that
Christ was first led to Annas, and he writes as if he in
tended it to be understood that much of what he relates
afterwards took place in the house of Annas ; e.g., the first
denial of Peter, the first examination of Christ about His
disciples and doctrine, and the buffets of one of the by
standers. Hence many of the learned, even S. Augustin
himself, say that all that has been described happened at
the house of Annas. But this opinion is clearly confuted
by the accounts of the other Evangelists, who with one
consent relate that the three denials of S. Peter took place
in the house of Caiaphas the high priest. This is clear
from S. John himself. For the first denial is said by him
CH. xxvi. 57.] CHRIST BEFORE CAIAPHAS. 469
to have been uttered in the house of the high priest, when
he himself, who was known to the high priest, introduced
Peter (xviii. 16). Annas was not high priest, but the
father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was the high priest that
year, as S. John says. For the words of S. Luke (iii. 2),
that John the Baptist began to preach repentance under
the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, are not to be under
stood as if both Annas and Caiaphas were high priests in
the same year, for there was but one high priest : but that
Annas had been high priest the year before, as Josephus
informs us ; and as John preached both years, he is said to
have preached during the high priesthood of Annas and
Caiaphas.
This has escaped S. Augustin and others, from their not
having observed the silent and obscure change of scene
signified by S. John. For he signifies that Christ was
brought from Annas to Caiaphas in such a manner as
would be noticed only by an attentive reader. " And they
led Him," he says (verses 13, 15), "away to Annas first, for
he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was the high priest
of that year. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did
another disciple, and that disciple was known to the high
priest, and went in with Jesus into the court of the high
priest." S. John does not say plainly that Christ was led
from Annas to Caiaphas, but he gives a sufficient, and more
than sufficient, hint of it when he says that Christ was led
to Annas first for he shows that Christ was led thence to
Caiaphas, when saying that the disciple who was known to
the high priest entered with Christ into the court of the
high priest ; for he had said just before that Caiaphas was
the high priest. When, therefore, he adds that he himself
brought Peter into the court of the high priest, and that
Peter was asked by the portress if he were not one of
Christ s disciples, and he denied that he was, S. John leaves
it beyond doubt that the denials of S. Peter, and the other
470 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 59, 60.
events described afterwards, took place in the house of
Caiaphas.
What chiefly led these Fathers into this error are the words
of S. John (verse 24), " And Annas sent Him bound to
Caiaphas the high priest " as if, after the first denial of
S. Peter and the other events related by him as having
now happened, Annas sent Christ bound to Caiaphas.
Some think that these words are put out of their proper
place, and that they ought to stand after verse 13 :" And
they led Him away to Annas first, for he was father-in-law
to Caiaphas who was the high priest of that year," that it
may follow immediately: "And Annas sent Him bound to
Caiaphas the high priest ". The whole sentence thus read
coheres well, and S.Cyril reads it thus. If this correction does
not seem good, it must be said that S. John, when he had
related the first denial of Peter, and before he had plainly
said that Christ was sent by Annas to Caiaphas, resumed
by epanalepsis what he had at first omitted, cnreaTetkev
ovv avrov 6 "Awas BeSefjuevov TT/DO? Kcud<f)av, that it might be
rendered, "Annas had sent Him bound to Caiaphas". But
the former seems preferable. But why did they bring Christ
to Annas first if he were not the high priest ? S John gives
a tacit reason he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who
probably acted much by his advice, and possibly the house
of Annas was on the way to that of Caiaphas.
Verse 59. A nd the chief priests.
The Greek adds, " and the elders ".
Verse 60. And they found not.
Kal oi/x evpov, teal 7ro\\cov tyevBo^apTvpcov TrpocrekOovTwv
OL>X evpov, Et non invenerunt, et quidem vndtis accedentibns
falsis testibus non invenerunt. Our translator had not seen
the repetition of words, or did not think it worth expressing.
Yet it has its force. What need was there of witnesses
CH. xxvi. 6i.] CHRIST BEFORE CAIAPHAS. 471
when they had determined, justly or unjustly, to put Christ
to death ? They wished, however, by their iniquitous con
duct, to make some show of justice.
Verse 61. / am able to destroy the Temple of God.
Why were these called false witnesses when they only
seem to have said the truth? for Christ had said, "Destroy
this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up " (S. John
ii. 19). Origen, S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, Bede, Theo-
phylact, and Euthymius rightly reply that they are called
false witnesses because they repeated with a wicked inten
tion and in a perverted sense, and in other words, what
Christ had said. He did not speak of that second Temple
of Solomon, but of His own body, as S. John has explained.
Nor did He say, " I am able to destroy " though He was
so but " Destroy this Temple ". These witnesses change
His words still more in 6". Mark xiv. 58. We find, from
S. Matthew, that these false witnesses were two in number.
The other Evangelists do not give the number. They
were undoubtedly two in number, because they had been
prepared and suborned by the chief priests and elders.
They chose two because the Law ordered it thus (Dent.
xvii. 6 ; xix. 15). So in like manner they sent two other
false witnesses against S. Stephen (Acts vi. 13). S. Mark-
adds : " And their evidences were not agreeing " KOI ouSe
ovrws To-?; fy TI /jLaprupla avrcov, Ac nee sic quidem eorum
testimonium cequum erat aut equale. Some have thought
that the witnesses themselves did not agree among them
selves. Our version appears to adopt this view, but the
Greek bears another meaning : " And not even thus was
their testimony equal " ; that is, sufficient for the con
demnation of Christ. For this is the force of the words,
"Their evidences were not agreeing"; that is, although
they declared that they heard Christ say, " I will destroy
this Temple that is made with hands, and in three days
472 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. xxvi. 62, 63.
I will build another not made with hands," the chief
priests did not think this evidence sufficient for the con
demnation of Jesus to death. Witnesses agree among them
selves when they use the same words in the same sense.
Why, then, it will be asked, was S. Stephen stoned for
an offence not dissimilar ? For two false witnesses said,
"We heard him say that Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy
this place ". There was much in the words which the two
false witnesses pretended to have heard Stephen say. He
confessed that Jesus was God, which among the Jews was
blasphemy, and, as such, punished by death (Levit. xxiv. 16).
The witnesses added, besides, " and shall change the tradi
tions which Moses delivered unto us ".
Verse 62. And the high priest, rising up.
The judge ought not to rise up, but to sit. The high
priest did not speak as a judge sitting on the judgment-
seat, but as a priest in the synagogue, where everyone who
spoke or read was accustomed to rise, as in S. Luke iv. 16.
A nswerest Thou nothing ?
What need was there for Christ to answer, when the
accusations brought against Him were not sufficient even
in the judgment of the priests, as S. Mark (xiv. 55) signifies?
The wicked judge spoke from passion, and perverted the
silence of Christ, which he ought to have taken as a proof of
the worthlessness of the accusation, to mean guilt ; as if He
kept silence because He was conscious of being guilty. Evi
dence which appeared, even to him, frivolous, he, by unjust
questioning, exaggerated : as if to say, " Answerest Thou
nothing, when charges so heavy are brought against Thee ? "
Verse 63. I adjure Thee by the living God.
*Ef;opKi%G) ere Kara TOV Seov, TOV oWo?. This properly
signifies, " In the name of God," and is intended, as by a
CH. xxvi. 63.] CHRIST BEFORE CAIAPHAS. 473
command, to bind one to speak or to act. It was in
common use among the Jews, as we learn from the
Holy Scriptures.
If Thou be the Clirist, the Son of God.
"As Thou commonly teachest that Thou art, and as
Thou callest Thyself." For this reason the Jews on other
occasions had endeavoured to stone Jesus Christ. This was
not the present subject, but the high priest asked Christ
the question, because he was then seeking every means of
condemning Him, and Christ used to confess that He was
such. He thought that when asked the question under
trial Christ would not deny it, and that he could not find
a better reason for condemning Him to death than His
being convicted of blasphemy.
For it was blasphemy among them for any man to call
himself the Son of God ; for he could not be such by
nature, unless he were God Himself. Thus the heresy of
Arius was confuted even in the opinion of the Jews. It is
said by S. Luke (xxii. 66) that these events took place " as
soon as it was day ". Hence some have considered this a
different account, and that Christ was twice questioned.
First, by the high priest, before midnight, when He was
first brought before him. Secondly, by the whole council,
when it was day. For He does not appear to have
answered at first with sufficient plainness, but only to have
said, " Thou hast said ". The opinion of S. Augustin
(De Consens., iii. 7) seems better. He thinks it the same
history. For it can hardly be supposed that Christ would
have been asked a second time about the same thing when
He had answered so emphatically before, " Tu dixisti "
(verse 64), or, as S. Mark states more clearly (xiv. 62),
" I am " ; and the high priest understood His meaning so
well that he rent his clothes, and said (verse 65), "What
further need have we of witnesses?" We may believe, there-
474 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 64.
fore, that as S. Matthew has not mentioned the time, S.
Luke has done so in the words, " As soon as it was day "
(xxii. 66), and that he has anticipated events. And not
without reason, for he had begun to relate the examination
of Christ in the assembly of the Jews (and that questioning
was one examination) that he might continue, in the same
narration, the denials of S. Peter.
As to the objection that S. Matthew says that the chief
priest asked what S. Luke says all asked (xxii. 66), " If
Thou be the Christ, tell us," and that S. Matthew re
corded the adjuration, which S. Luke did not, it is of little
moment, for either the chief priest asked Christ first, and
then all in the assembly repeated the question, or the chief
priest asked Him in the name of the rest. S. Luke says
that Christ was interrogated by the whole assembly, but
he makes no mention of the adjuration ; for the Evangelists
pass over many things.
Verse 64. Thou hast said it.
On this expression see verse 25 and chap, xxvii. II.
Christ used the same words to Pontius Pilate. S. Mark
relates (xiv. 62) that Christ answered, Ego sum, u I am,"
the meaning being the same. Hence we see that the words
tn dixisti do not mean what S. Augustin thinks " I do
not deny," as if He did not assert that He was the Christ.
S. Luke (xxii. 67), that Christ said : "If I shall tell you, you
will not believe Me ". It is probable that Christ was asked
the same question twice. The first time simply, and without
the adjuration, and that He then answered, in the words of
S. Luke, " If I shall tell you," and that the high priest then
adjured Him, and He answered what S. Matthew and S.
Mark relate : " Thou hast said," or " I am " a Hebraism.
It is probable that He said both.
Christ answered, not merely as much as He was asked,
but even more than He was asked ; for the question was
CH. xxvi. 64.] CHRIST BEFORE CAIAPHAS. 4/5
one of life or death to Him whether He were the Christ
the Son of God, a question which, in that place, it no way
became Him either to deny or to dissemble, but rather to
confess openly : as He had come into the world for this
reason, that, as the Son of God, He might die for the sons
of Adam. He added, therefore : " Nevertheless, I say to
you that hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on
the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the
clouds of heaven". The word "Nevertheless" has no
term correlative to it, being what is known as particula
adversativa. It appears to be opposed to words which the
Evangelist has not expressed, but left to be understood,
and which are found in 5. Luke : " If I shall tell you, you
will not believe Me " (xxii. 67) ; " nevertheless, I say to
you " (S. Matt. xxvi. 64), the full meaning of which words
is given by S. Luke (xxii. 67, 68, 69). As if Christ had
said : " What need is there for Me to answer you, since you
will not believe. It is better to cause you to believe by facts
than words. The time will come hereafter when you shall
see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power
of God and coming on the clouds of heaven, and, whether
you will or not, you will be compelled to believe " (S. John
xiv. 10, 11). For it was the custom of Christ to refer the
unbelieving Jews to His own Resurrection and the Day of
Judgment, as chap. xii. 39 ; xvi. 4 ; Apoc. i. 7.
The word amodo, "hereafter," in Greek, air apri, does
not mean that they would see the Son of man sitting on
the right hand of God immediately after the time when He
was speaking. He was speaking of the Day of Judgment,
when He would come in the clouds of heaven (xix. 28 ;
xxiv. 3). He here signifies that the Jews shall not see
Him from that time : that is, from the time of His death,
until they see Him sitting on the right hand of the power
of God, and coming on the clouds of heaven : as if He
said, per negationem, " You shall not see Me as now in the
THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [H. xxvi. 65.
guise of a criminal, but in that of the Son sitting on the
right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds
of heaven ". He therefore tacitly opposes His second
coming to His first. But how would they see Him sitting
on the right hand of the power of God, as they were not
able to see God Himself? They were to see Christ come
with so great majesty, that they might easily understand
Him to be placed in what may be termed the better part
of the Divinity ; that is, sitting on the right hand of God
and showing most especially His Divinity. " The right
hand of the power of God " is a Hebraism for " the power
ful right hand of God ". How He would come on the
clouds has been explained on chaps, xix. 28 ; xxiv. 30.
Verse 65. Rent his garments.
It was the custom of many nations to rend their garments
as a sign of grief or indignation, as we find from Homer
(//., xxii. 405), and Virgil (ALn., v. 685 ; xii. 609). The Jews
did so for two reasons above others : (i) in token of grief;
as Gen. xxxvii. 29, 34; xliv. 13; Numb. xiv. 6 ; Judges
xi. 35 ; i Kings iv. 12 ; 2 Kings i. 1 1 ; xiii. 19) ; and (2) as
a witness against blasphemy, as Ezechias, when he heard
the blasphemies of the messenger of Sennacherib. The
Thalmudists say, as some have observed, that it was a
tradition of the Jews to do this on such occasions. They
thought it great blasphemy that Christ should call Himself
the Son of God, and the high priest therefore cried out
that He had blasphemed }TO for this is the proper meaning
of the Hebrew word ^D and of the Greek fB\aa^r]^elv.
The high priest, against all the requirements of justice when
he was the judge, acted the part of an advocate, and made
the accusers the judges.
He is guilty of death.
The Law commanded the blasphemer to be stoned
(Levit. xxiv. 16). They say here that Christ was guilty of
CH. xxvi. 67, 68.] CHRIST BEFORE CAIAPHAS. 477
death for calling Himself the Son of God, and in 5. John
x. 31 they endeavoured to stone Him.
Verse 67. Then they did spit in His face.
The word " then " does not mean the precise time when
Christ confessed Himself to be the Son of God, and the
Jews cried out that He was guilty of death, but rather that
before, or, without distinction, the whole night. For it is
clear from 5. Luke xxii. 66 that the question of the high
priest and Christ s reply happened when the day was
beginning to dawn, and the events now related by S.
Matthew took place at night, while Christ was kept bound
in the house of the chief priest, and Peter denied Him.
And oilier s struck His face zuith the palms of their Jiands.
O l Be eppaTTLaav, struck Him with cudgels or staves, or
perhaps with their slippers, which were much used by the
Jews for this purpose ; for the word pair us, whence the verb
paTTL&tv, means a twig, or club, or slipper. It is probable
that, for insult, they smote the face of Christ with the
last-named. S. Mark and S. Luke say that they had first
blindfolded Him. S. John (xviii. 22) says that one of the
bystanders first gave Him a blow, because He had answered
the high priest, as in verses 20, 21, as if with too little
respect. Christ, however, replied as in verse 23.
Verse 68. Prophesy unto us.
Christ was generally considered to be a great Prophet
(xxi. 11, 46), and He had confessed that He was the Son
of God (verse 64). Then they blinded Him, and asked
Him in mockery, "Who is he that struck Thee?" (verse
68). So when He was hanging on the cross, they said :
" IT He be the King of Israel, let Him now come down
from the cross, and we will believe Him " (xxvii. 42).
THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 69.
Verse 69. But Peter sat ivitliout in the court.
S. John (xviii. 16) explains how Peter entered into the
court : " But Peter stood at the door without. The other
disciple, therefore, who was known to the high priest, went
out and spoke to the portress and brought in Peter." S.
Matthew only says that " he followed afar off, even to the
court" (verse 58). How he now says that Peter "sat with
out in the court " is not difficult to be understood. When
Peter was in the court he was both within and without :
within, because he was in the ambit of the house, and
beyond the first door ; without, because he was not in the
interior of the house, but in the court and open air, where
the soldiers were with the servants of the high priest, the
priests, and elders.
And there came to him a servant maid.
S. John (xviii. 17) says that she was the portress who
opened the door to him. But S. Luke (xxii. 55) and S.
Mark (xiv. 67) say that he was warming himself by the
fire. Thus, by comparison of the Evangelists, we may
conclude that Peter was brought by John into the court of
the high priest, and was recognised by the maid servant
who had opened the door as he stood with others by the
fire. She was silent at first, perhaps, because she was not
certain about him, whether he were Peter ; but when she
looked at him more attentively and knew him better, she
came to him as he sat by the fire and said, " Thou also
wast with Jesus the Galilean " (verse 69). She called Him
Jesus the Galilean as an insult to Him, as His enemies did ;
and because as He lived much in Galilee He was perhaps
thought to be a Galilean ; and because almost all His
disciples were of Galilee (S. John vii. 41). So Julian the
Apostate called Christ and all Christians Galileans (So
crates, Hist., iii. 12). It is not said by S. John (xviii. 17)
that the maid said to Peter, " Thou also," but that she asked
CH. xxvi. 70,71.] THE DENIAL OF PETER. 479
him," Art not thou also one ? " But S. Luke (xxii. 56) says,
" When a certain servant maid had seen him sitting at the
light, and had earnestly beheld him, she said, This man also
\vas with Him ". We must believe, therefore, that she said
all these words. First, as doubtful, " Art not thou also one
of this man s disciples ? " as S. John says. Then she spoke
positively, " Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean " (S.
Matt. v. 69) ; and lastly, she turned to the bystanders and
said, " This man also was with Him" (S. Luke xxii. 56).
Verse 70. But he denied before them all, saying, I know
not what thou sayest.
S. Matthew says that the denial was made before all the
people present, either as a fact that increased the gravity
of the offence, or to show the truth of his account, that he
might not be suspected of having accused the chief of the
Apostles falsely, adducing all who were present as wit
nesses. The words of S. Peter, " I know not what thou
sayest," have a force of certain denial, as if he had said,
" I am not only not what thou sayest, but so far from it
that I do not know of what thou art speaking" ; as is our
own custom in such cases. S. John says that Peter
answered, "I am not"; S. Luke, "I know Him not"; S.
Mark, " I neither know nor understand what thou sayest".
It may be believed that this was said by Peter, exag-
gerandi causa. i. Simply " I am not," as related by
S. John when the maid servant asked him doubtingly,
" Art not thou also one of this man s disciples ? " 2. When
she persisted and stated with an affirmation what S.
Matthew relates, and Peter answered, " I neither know
nor understand what thou sayest," as S. Matthew, S. Mark,
and S. Luke say.
Verse 71. And as he went out of the gate.
^E^e\6ovra 8e avrov et? TOV 7rv\wva, egressum autem eum
in vestibulum. S. Mark says, * He went forth before the
480 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn.xxvi.yi.
court, and the cock crew " (xiv. 68), which has the same
meaning. S. Peter then went into the vestibule which
was before the court, as is usually the case in houses of
note, and S. Mark says that immediately the cock crew.
For he alone says, " Before the cock crow twice " (xiv. 30).
From this it would seem to have been about the middle
of the night, for it is then that cocks crow for the first time.
But S. John says, that this second denial of Peter was
made when he was warming himself at the fire. So that,
probably, as soon as he had denied the first time perhaps
because he was vexed by the bystanders at being taken
for the disciple of Christ, or for some other reason he went
from the court to the vestibule ; and then, to dissemble,
and that his departure might not bring confirmation of
the truth of the charge, he returned to the fire, and, as
related by S. Luke, " After a little while he denied again "
(xxii. 58). These words of S. Luke must, necessarily,
contain at least three hours, because he says that between
the second and third denial there was the space of one
hour (xxii. 59), and all the Evangelists say that imme
diately after the third denial the cock crew. Hence this
third denial probably took place about the fourth hour of
the morning, that is, a little before dawn when the cocks
crow. For it was the equinox, so that from the middle of
the night, the time of the first denial, to sunrise, would be
six hours. It is probable, therefore, that the second crow
ing happened at the fourth hour of the morning, and as
there was one hour between the second and third denial
it follows that the second happened about the third hour,
and that about three hours intervened between the first and
second denial.
From S. John we learn how the words of S. Matthew,
" As he went out," egeXOovra, are to be taken ; that is,
" After he had gone out " (that the words of S. John may
be understood) and returned to the fire ; for when he had
CH. xxvi. 7 i.] PETER S DENIALS. 481
gone into the vestibule the other maid-servant saw and
recognised him, as when he came into the court the
portress had done. The servant, therefore, who had seen
Peter when he went out, came when he had returned to the
fire and said to those who were present, " This man also
was with Jesus of Nazareth " (S. Matt. xxvi. 71). S. Luke
does not say that it was a maid-servant His words rather
seem to imply that it was a man (xxii. 58). S. Mark
speaks as if it were the same maid-servant as had ques
tioned S. Peter before /cal rj ira&ia-KTi IBovaa avrbv Trd\iv
TJp^aro \eyeiv rot? irapeGTrjicocnv, rursum autem, cum vidisset
eum ancilla ccepit dicer e circumstantibus. S. John says that
many questioned S. Peter at this second denial (xviii. 25).
Some, unable to harmonise these sayings with one
another, have been led, audaciously as may be said, to
assert erroneously that S. Peter denied Christ more than
three times. Some even say that he did so seven. Christ
forewarned him that he should deny Him, not four times,
nor five, nor seven, but three only. Christ would have
said that he would do so more often if it had been the
truth, since, as has been shown, Christ desired to dwell
with emphasis on Peter s fears and inconsistency. Hence,
according to S. Mark, He said, " Amen, I say to thee to
day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou
shalt deny Me thrice " (xiv. 30). All the Evangelists have
mentioned three denials, none any more. This would*
indeed, have been wonderful if he had uttered more denials
than three. Again, all have observed that after the third
the cock crew, as if to make an end of them. Peter,
warned by the sound, remembered the words of the Lord,
and redeemed his fault by his bitter weeping. We are not
to exaggerate S. Peter s fault, though, from their hatred of
the Apostle, it is the custom of the heretics to do so.
The wonder rather is that these persons, on such slight
grounds, and in a question of grave significance, have
231
482 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 71.
both set themselves in opposition to the testimony at
once of the Evangelists and of Christ, and gone away
from the tradition of the whole Church of all ages. Their
opinion is :
1. That S. John says that the first denial took place in
the house of Annas. The other Evangelists say that the
three denials were made in that of Caiaphas. We have said
that that first denial described by S. John and the others,
which he relates in the same place, were uttered, not in
the house of Annas, but of Caiaphas.
2. S. Mark seems to say that S. Peter, when questioned
by the same maid-servant, denied again, as said before. If
so, as S. Matthew says clearly that it was another servant,
the denials are different ones. But S. Mark neither states
nor implies that it was the same, for, when he says, 77 irai-
Sia-Krj, the article is not to be taken relatively as referring
to the portress whom he had mentioned before ; and when
he says, TTCL\IV, " again," he does not imply that S. Peter
was asked a second time by the same maid-servant, but by
some one; that is, by some other, as he had been pre
viously by the portress. This is stated in plain terms by
S. Matthew.
3. The third conjecture carries no more weight. That
S. Luke seems to say that S. Peter denied when asked, not
by the maid-servant, but by some man. For when he
said (verse 58), "Another, seeing him, said, Thou also art
one of them, Peter answered : O man, I am not ". As S.
Luke, therefore, did not know, or would not say whether
it were a man or woman who asked Peter the second time,
he said generally " some one " ; that is, avOpwjros, homo,
which may express an individual of either sex. Which of
the two it was must be ascertained from S. Matthew and S.
Mark. They distinctly say that it was a woman.
4. The fourth conjecture is that S. John, as said before,
describing the two denials, says that Peter was asked by
CH. xxvi. 7 i.] PETER S DENIALS. 483
many whether he were not also one of the disciples.
When, therefore, besides the three denials mentioned by
S. Matthew, they seem to find four other denials (i) men
tioned by S. John, in the house of Annas ; (2) also
mentioned by S. John, when Peter was questioned by
many ; (3) by S. Mark, when Peter was questioned by the
maid-servant ; (4) by S. Luke, when he was questioned by
some man they conclude that there were seven denials.
We have answered the other three : there remains one to
be answered. They conclude this from the second passage
of S. John, but it can be answered with much less pains,
(i) S. John does not say that many questioned S. Peter, he
only says, eiTrov ovv avrai, " they said to him " ; that is, it
was said to him. This is a Hebraism. It expresses the
verb impersonal by the third person plural without a sub
ject, as " they love," amant ; that is, amatur. This is true
although done only by one, as they say in Latin, perJiibent^
ferunt, dicunt, for perhibetiir, fertnr, dicitur. Although,
therefore, only one maid-servant said to S. Peter, " Art
not thou also one of His disciples?" S. John could truly
say, "They said, then, to him ". Hence it is credible that
(i) the maid-servant said, "Art not thou also one of this
man s disciples ? " and, (2) that they who were present
took up the question. But it must not be supposed that
these were, therefore, different denials.
Tlii s man also was with Jesus of Nazareth.
S. Mark says that the maid-servant said to the bystanders,
"This is one of them"; S. Luke, "Thou also art one of
them"; S. John, " Art not thou also one of His disciples?"
We must believe that the maid-servant said all these words.
First, " Art not thou also one of His disciples ? " as S. John
says, and when Peter denied it, she said with an affirma
tion, " Thou also art one of them," as S. Luke says ; then
that she turned to the bystanders and said, " This is one of
484 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. xxvi. 72,73.
them," as S. Mark says; and "This man also was with
Jesus of Nazareth," as S. Matthew says.
Verse 72. And again he denied, with an oath.
Peter increased his offence. The first time he did not
swear, but only denied ; now he both denies and swears.
S. Luke writes that he said, " O man, I am not " ; S. John,
" I am not ". It is credible that at first he merely said, " I
am not," as S. John says. Then, when either the maid
servant or they who were present pressed him, he added, as
in S. Luke, "O man, I am not"; and lastly, when they
urged him again, he exclaimed : " I know not the Man," as
S. Matthew says.
Verse 73. And after a little while.
S. Luke (xxii. 59) says that it was " after the space, as it
were, of one hour ".
While they came that stood by.
S. Mark says the same ; but S. Luke, "Another seeing
him said, Thou also art one of them ". S. John says that
this was a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, and who
affirmed that he had seen Peter in the garden with Christ.
The servant of the high priest probably commenced the
enquiry and the others followed.
For even thy speech doth discover thee.
S. Mark and S. Luke say, " For he is also a Galilean ".
How a Galilean, when using the Hebrew language, could
be recognised to be such has been explained by S. Jerome:
" Each province and country has its own peculiarities, and
among them a vernacular style of speech, which it cannot
escape. As we see that the men of Ephraim were unable
to pronounce the word " Schibboleth " like the rest of the
CH. xxvi. 74, 75 .J PETER S DENIAL AND OATH. 485
Jews, but said " Sibboleth " instead, which caused the
destruction of many (Judges xii. 6).
Verse 74. Then began he to curse.
KaTavaQe/jLarl^eiv, Execrari. This may refer either to
Christ or to Peter, and may mean that he either cursed
Christ or himself. As there is no certainty it will be right
to take the words in the better sense, and to believe that
Peter cursed himself that is, devoted himself to the
Furies, dirts, as the Latins say, which was an execrable
oath.
And to swear that he knew not the Man.
The fault still increased with the temptation. Peter said,
in his first denial, "I am not"; in his second, "I know
not the Man " ; and in his third " I know not what
thou sayest". In the second he uttered an oath, in
the third an execration, which he probably uttered more
than once, as the expression, " he began to curse and to
swear," would seem to imply. S. Matthew says that Peter
began to curse and to swear (verse 74). S. Luke and S.
John merely say that he denied, omitting this circumstance.
A nd immediately the cock crew.
S. Luke says, " immediately, as he was yet speaking ".
This minute account, so carefully expressed, shows that
Christ s words (verse 34) were true. All the Evangelists
have related the same circumstance with the same design,
but S. Luke the most fully.
Verse 75. And Peter remembered the words of Jesus.
It is strange that Peter did not remember them sooner,
for previously, at midnight, before his first denial, the cock
had crowed. Perhaps Peter had not heard it ; or, because
it only crowed once, he may have hoped that he might not
486 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 75.
deny a second time ; or, most probably of all, he was
moved by Christ s look, as S. Luke (xxii. 61) signifies. So
say S. Chrysostom (in loc.}, S. Ambrose (lib. x., Comment, in
S. Luke), S. Leo (Serin, iii. de Pass. Dom.). In these denials
of S. Peter there are three things to be observed.
1. The events described by S. Matthew did not all
happen after, nor all before, the time at which he places
them; for one part which he put before happened when the
day had dawned : as the question put to Christ by the high
priest, whether He were the Christ or not (S. Luke xxii. 66);
for it is very clear that the three denials were uttered at
different times of the night.
S. Matthew and S. Mark, therefore, because they had
begun to relate what had been done to Christ that night,
desired to conclude all that history before they began to
relate the denials of Peter. They therefore place these
together at the end of their account.
S. Luke, on the other hand, had begun with describing
the denials. He therefore related these before describing
what was done to Christ. S. John alone unites into one
the denials of Peter and the history of Christ.
2. We must beware of the error of those who think that
S. Peter lost his faith. He did not lose it, but he did deny,
as Prudentius says in his Cathemerin (hymn i.) :
" Flevit negator denique,
Ex ore prolapsum nefas,
Cum mens maneret innocens,
Animusque servaret fidem ".
Though the denier s conscience slept
Awhile, yet now at length he wept
The wickedness from him which scap d,
And mourn d the sin his lips had shap d ;
For innocent his mind remain d,
And still his soul its faith retain d.
3. The opposite error must also be avoided. That, when
he denied Christ, Peter either did not sin, or at least did not
CH. xxvi. 75 .] PETER S TEARS. 487
utter a falsehood, but, keeping the truth, spoke ambiguously.
S. Hilary and S. Ambrose say this. They say that Peter
did not lie when he said that He knew not Christ as man,
whom he did know as God. S. Jerome, perhaps, alludes to
them when he says : " I know that some, from their love for
the Apostle Peter, explain this passage to mean that Peter
did not deny God, but man, and that his meaning was, I
know not Him as man whom I know as God ". Everyone
of any sense can see at once how frivolous this is. To
defend the Apostle thus is to make God the author of lies.
For, if Peter did not deny Christ, the Lord spoke falsely
when He said, " Amen, I say to thee that in this night,
before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice". Observe
what Christ said: "Thou shalt deny Me"; not, "Thou
shalt deny a man ". We may, however, acquit S. Hilary
and S. Ambrose of error by a charitable explanation, that
they do not deny that Peter denied and sinned ; they only
say that he spoke so that a true meaning can be elicited
from his words, " I know not the man," which we may
explain to mean, " I do not know Christ only as man, but
also as God ".
And going forth) lie wept bitterly.
Peter, as S. Jerome and Bede say, was not able to do
penance in the court of the house of the high priest, but he
must go out. He would, indeed, have acted with more
constancy and courage if he had performed it in the same
place as that in which he committed the offence ; and if he
had confessed Christ before those to whom he had denied
Him, and had thus repaired the mischief of that denial.
But we are so constituted by nature, that we are ashamed
to do penance, where we are not ashamed to commit the
offence. Though Peter went out of the house not so much
perhaps from infirmity, as from reverence for Christ, being
unable to bear the look of Him whom he had denied.
488 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvi. 75.
However this may be, he showed a great example of
penitence. S. Ambrose well says in his Commentary on
S. Luke, " Even the fall of the saint is useful. Peter s
denial does me no harm ; his self-correction profits me.
I have learnt to mistrust the promises of the faithless.
Peter denied among the Jews. Solomon erred among
Gentile associates. Peter wept bitterly that he might wash
out his fault by his tears " ; and as we read in S. Clement
of Rome, " The pain of his fault was so deeply rooted in
his mind, that all his life, whenever he heard a cock crow,
he fell on his knees, and sought pardon for his offence with
tears ".
CHAPTER XXVII.
THE CONTINUATION OF THE HISTORY OF THE PASSION
OF CHRIST HIS DEATH AND BURIAL.
Verse i. And when morning was come.
S. Mark says, " Straightway in the morning " ; S. Luke,
" As soon as it was day ".
Took counsel.
S. Luke says, " Came together," convenerunt (xxii. 66).
It is probable that the first council was dissolved ; for it is
not likely that the priests, scribes, and elders, however
great their rage against Christ, would have remained in
assembly without any repose through the whole night.
The events related by S. Matthew (verses 62, 67, of the
last chapter) took place in this morning s council. This
is clear from S. Luke also, whose account has been shown
to be the same as that of S. Matthew.
All the chief priests and ancients of the people.
S. Mark and S. Luke add "Scribes"; these three classes,
as has been said more than once, forming a Jewish council.
On the number of chief priests, see chap. ii. 4.
That they might put Him to death.
Had they not just said, " He is guilty of death"? (xxvi.
66). We have said that these words were spoken in this
place and in this council ; but S. Matthew said as a sum
mary, " They took counsel," because, having interposed
the account of Peter s denials, he had broken off the thread
4QO THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvu. 2.
of the history. The false testimony did not seem to them
sufficient for Christ s condemnation to death, as S. Mark
implies (xiv. 56) ; and, therefore, when the day began to
dawn, and they had no sufficient reason for bringing Him
before Pilate, they assembled the council again to deli
berate as to what they could accuse Him of to the governor
that would be thought to deserve death. They, therefore,
asked Him whether He were the Christ, as S. Matthew
says (xxvi. 63) ; for they knew that He would not deny
this, and it might seem a capital offence to the governor ;
because it was the opinion of all Jews that Christ would
be a king and deliver them from the Roman yoke, and
whoever called himself Christ professed to be a king of
all things the most criminal in the eyes of the usurping
Romans.
Verse 2. And they brought Him bound.
Kal Brjo-avres avrov, Et cum eum vinxisset, as S. Mark
says (xv. i). S. John (xviii. 12) says that Christ had been
bound before when He was seized: but He had either been
loosed in the house of the chief priest, whence they thought
that He could not escape, or His hands were not manacled.
When they brought Him from the house of Caiaphas to
that of Pilate, they bound Him again.
A nd delivered Him to Pontius Pilate, tJie governor.
It may be asked why they gave Him over to the governor,
and did not kill Him themselves, sive jure sive rabie.
S. Chrysostom thinks that they delivered Him to Pilate
because it was a feast day, on which it was not law
ful to put anyone to death. But (xxvi. 2) it has been
shown that it was not such. Theophylact thinks that they
delivered Him up to Pilate because they accused Him of
laying claim to the kingdom, which would greatly concern
Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor. S. John states the
CH. xxvn. 2.] PONTIUS PILATE. 4QI
true reason. It was not lawful for them to put any man to
death (xviii. 31); whether this were absolutely forbidden
by the Romans, as almost all ancient writers think : or, as
some say, it was not lawful for them to crucify, but they
must either stone, strangle, burn, or slay with the sword
(as described in chap. v. 22) : the cross was a punishment
introduced into Judaea by the Romans, and the Jews
desired to crucify Christ, this being of all deaths the most
ignominious.
It will be urged in objection that Stephen (Acts vii. 58)
was stoned, and, therefore, that all capital punishment was
not taken from the Jews. The obvious answer is that that
manner of death was not forbidden them, because they
endeavoured to stone Christ Himself on other occasions, as
related by S. John (x. 31). But if, as is most likely, all
capital punishment was taken from them, it must be re
peated that they stoned Stephen, and endeavoured to stone
Christ, not according to law, but by impulse.
How Pontius Pilate was made governor has been related
by Josephus. We have said (xiv. i) that the kingdom of
Herod the Great was divided, after his death, into tetrar-
chies, as S. Luke says (iii. i). Judaea was one of these.
Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great, ruled over it for ten
years, partly as a tetrarch and partly as a king. At the end
of that time he was accused, before the Emperor Augustus,
of having slaughtered 3000 Jews who had fled into the
Temple on the day of Pasch, and of having practised
tryanny against the Jews and disposed of the priesthood,
setting up some and depriving others as he pleased. He
was banished to Vienne in Gaul, as Josephus informs us
(Antiq., xvii. 19 ; xviii. i). Judaea was then reduced to a
Roman province, governed by procurators like other pro
vinces. Pontius Pilate was the sixth procurator (Josephus,
Antiq., xviii. 4). Theophylact thinks that he was called
Pontius as having been a native of Pontus. But this does
49 2 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cu. xxvu. 3.
not seem a reason of much weight, as there were others of
the name at Rome.
Verse 3. Then Judas, who betrayed Him, seeing that He
was condemned.
The meaning of this passage is no doubt that Judas,
seeing Christ condemned by the Jews, who all cried out
with one voice, " He is guilty of death," and dragged
before Pilate an act which they would not have committed
had they not resolved to persevere until He was con
demned to the cross brought back the thirty pieces of
silver. The chief priests are said to have delivered Christ
to death, because it was they who gave Him over to Pilate
with that intent (S. Luke xxiv. 20).
From this it has been concluded that Judas, when he
betrayed Christ, did not do so with the object of His being
put to death, nor with any expectation that such would be
the result. This is the opinion of Theophylact and others.
In this he was in some slight degree better than the
priests, scribes, and elders, because, although he sold his
Master from avarice and unbelief, he had no thought of
His being put to death.
Repenting himself.
Origen and S. Jerome speak of the repentance of Judas
in such a manner as to appear even to praise him. They
refute the error of the Manichaeans, who say that we have
two natures a good and a bad. They do not understand,
I think, that that of Judas was not wholly good (bonam
omnino, folio and 8vo, but query malam\ but had some
particle of good in it, for, although he did not amend
the sin, yet he felt it, confessed it, and grieved for having
committed it. The Greek word S. Matthew uses, ^era-
/ze\?70e/9, means to grieve for sin, and to be troubled at it.
It differs from fjieravoelv, as it means to acknowledge a sin
CH. xxvn. 4.] REMORSE OF JUDAS. 493
and to grieve for it. Meravoelv means this, and also to atone
for it. S. Peter did the latter and Judas the former. He
is not described, therefore, as ^eravorjdei^ or ^eTavowv y but
fjLeTafj,e\r)9efc. S. Leo (Serin, v. de Pass. Dom.~) says,
" Justly, and as the Prophet had foretold, His prayer was
turned to sin (Ps. cviii. 7) ; for, when he had consummated
his crime, the conversion of the wicked man was so per
verse that even in his repentance he committed sin ". And
S. Ambrose, in his Comment, on S. Luke, bk. x. : "Although
the repentance of the traitor was vain, because he sinned
against the Holy Ghost, he had still some shame in acknow
ledging his deed. Although he is not absolved, the malice
of the Jews is confuted, for when the confession of the traitor
had convicted them, they still claimed the right of the wicked
contract, and considered themselves free from blame by
saying, What is that to us? see thou to it . They were
plainly senseless to suppose that they were absolved from
the wickedness of Judas rather than bound by it."
Origen and Theophylact say that it was the wish of
Judas, when he could not prevent the death of Christ, to
die, himself, before Him that he might meet Him in the
other life, and there seek forgiveness for his iniquity. This
partakes much of the nature of fable, but it has at least
the good of proving that, in the time of Origen, the doc
trine of purgatory and of the remission of sins after this life
was well known.
Verse 4. / have sinned in betraying innocent blood.
Innocent blood ; that is, a just man to death. Judas
did not believe Christ to be God, but he confessed Him
to be a just man, and innocent. God chose that Christ
should have the testimony of every class against the
wickedness of the priests and elders ; even that of His
judge Pilate, of Pilate s wife, and of His betrayer who had
sold Him.
494 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvn. 5.
What is that to us ?
These, as S. Ambrose says, are the words of men blinded
and " who thought that they were absolved by the wicked
ness of the agent, rather than bound by it. In pecuniary
affairs," he continues, " if the price is refused the obligation
is at an end. These priests accept the terms, and follow
up their sacrilege, pertinaciously claiming for themselves
the mortal sin of bloodshed, when the trafficker would have
refunded the price of his crime."
Verse 5. And cast down the pieces of silver in the Temple.
Judas by this act appeared to himself to give it to the
priests, and so to rescind his bargain with them.
He departed, and went and hanged himself with a halter.
AirriygaTo, Laqueo prczfocatus est. S. Peter says (Acts i.
1 8) : " being hanged, he burst asunder in the midst, and all
his bowels gushed out," KOL 717377^779 lyevo/jbevos eXa/c^cre /LteVo?,
et prceceps factus crepuit medius. This does not appear to
agree with S. Matthew. Some say that Judas first hanged
himself, as S. Matthew says, but that the tree bent, and he
thus survived ; but afterwards died of a dropsy and burst
asunder in the midst, as S. Peter says. This is the opinion
of Theophylact. Others (e.g., Euthymius) say, that while
he was hanging he was recognised by the passers-by and
cut down, and lived some time after in secrecy, falling at
last from that lofty spot, and, being swollen, burst asunder.
Others say that the halter broke and he fell, and so burst
asunder. GEcumenius says this (Comment. Acts Apost., i.)
from Papias a very ancient authority.
More probably, as some others think, he first threw him
self down from some lofty spot to die the more quickly,
and afterwards, either from the breaking of the rope, he
fell down and his bowels gushed out, or he became so
swollen that after a time he burst in two ; for all who are
hanged swell much. It is doubtful whether he hanged
CH. xxvn. 6.] THE DEATH OF JUDAS. 495
himself immediately on returning the money. Some say
that he did not do so until after the Resurrection of Christ,
and that when he heard of this he lost all hope of salvation,
because he had sold the Saviour of the world ; and he then
went out and hanged himself. But this is uncertain and
has no proof. The Evangelist says that he threw down
the pieces of silver, and immediately went out and hanged
himself. This seems more probable.
Maldonatus enters into the curious and confessedly use
less question as to what tree, if any, Judas hanged himself
from. He thinks, from tradition, that it was most probably
a fig-tree, this having been the tree from which Adam and
Eve ate the forbidden fruit. He cites the lines of Juvencus
to this effect :
" Exorsusque, suas laqueo sibi sumere pcenas,
Informem rapuit ficus de vertice mortem ".
He having by the noose begun
Himself a punishment to give,
A shameful death he did not shun,
But from the fig-tree s top he ceased to live.
Verse 6. But the chief priests having taken the pieces of
silver.
Why did the chief priests accept this money now, which
they had such a short time before refused ? Because Judas
then gave it back as if he would have undone his own act.
They would not receive it, therefore, lest they should appear
to annul their compact, and be compelled to give up Christ
to him, as he had given back the money. They took it
now because he cast it into the Temple, and what was cast
into the Temple was considered to be offered to the Temple
and to God. As the priests used to accept these offerings,
they now took the thirty pieces of silver also.
It is not lawful to put them into the Corbona.
ITHpn in Hebrew is "to offer". Hence the word p""1p
which properly means an oblation, and is frequently found
496 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvu. 7.
in Scripture (Levit. i. 2, 3; ii. 5, 7; vi. 20 ; Numb. vii. 13;
xxviii. 2). It is sometimes used for an oath," which was
made by p^p that is, the offerings of the Temple by which
the Jews sometimes swore : as in 6". Matt, xxiii. 16,
1 8. Josephus (i., Cont. Apion.) is our authority. This is
perhaps the meaning of S. Mark vii. n. The word was
then made to apply to the place where the treasures of the
Temple were kept, that is, the sacred treasury (Josephus,
Bell. Jud., ii. 8). The Greeks use the word <ya%o$v\aKiov
(4 Kings xii. 9, 10; 6". Mark xii. 41, 43; S. Luke xxii. I ; 5.
John viii. 20). Some understand mittere to mean remittere,
" to put back," thinking that the thirty pieces of silver were
taken out of the treasury by the priests to buy Christ.
Juvencus was of this opinion, and it has much probability.
For public costs, pertaining to the Temple and religion,
were defrayed from the sacred funds. The priests thought
the murder of Christ, who called Himself the Son of God,
a case of this kind.
Because it is the price of blood.
Blood is here used by a Hebraism for death. They
ought to have added " of a just man," as even Judas
had done, but men who are blinded by error know not
how either to think or speak the truth. The Jews
were forbidden to offer any wicked gain in the Temple
(Deut. xxiii. 18). Hence they decided by analogy not to
offer the price of blood to God (verse 6) ; nor, which was
greater foolishness still, to put it into the treasury. When
they took the silver pieces, they accepted them as an obla
tion made to God, thus, like madmen, judging that more
reverence was to be paid to the treasury than to God.
Verse /. And after they had consulted together.
It is not probable that this took place immediately, but
after Christ was crucified, and perhaps after the day of
CH. xxvii. 7.] THE POTTER S FIELD. 497
Pasch. For they were occupied all that day in His accusation
and crucifixion, and on the day following in the Passover,
when it was not lawful to engage in any business. But S.
Matthew, having begun to describe Judas restoration of
the thirty pieces, concluded the entire history and showed
what was done about them. His account of the consul
tation and purchase of the field must be looked upon as
related by anticipation.
Tliey bought with them the potter s field.
It is uncertain why S. Matthew calls it the potter s field.
It might be because it belonged to some particular potter:
or because potters dug earth from it to make their vessels :
or that they threw the broken fragments upon it so as to
make it useless for cultivation, and fit only for a burial-
place. However this be, it is certain that the field was
commonly known by this name, both because the Evan
gelists speak of it as a spot well known, and because the
Greek describes it with the article TOV dypov, which shows
that it was well known.
To be a burying-place for strangers.
The inhabitants of Jerusalem were accustomed to bury
their dead either in some public place, or each on his own
land, where he had a burying-place, in which all of the
same family were interred. They thought it a great con
solation in death to be buried in the tombs of their fathers,
as is clear from many passages in the Books of Kings.
But strangers, having no burial-place in the city, found
sepulture a matter of difficulty. On this public good those
holy chiefs of the priests expended the money brought to
the Temple : for an offering could not be thought sacred
to God unless expended on some pious work. This is the
interpretation of Origen. Others think that the strangers
here referred to were the Gentiles, who sometimes took up
232
498 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvn. 8, g.
their abode in the city, or frequently visited it, but who, if
they died in it, had no burying place ; for all consorting of
Jews with Gentiles was unlawful, not only in life but even
after death.
Verse 8. For this cause the field was called Aceldama, that is,
the field of blood, even to this day.
It was surely of the divine counsel that the means used
by them to cover and, as it were, bury their wickedness,
carried it down, by an enduring monument, to all posterity.
So that whenever Aceldama, that field of blood, was men
tioned, their wickedness, as S. Chrysostom and Euthymius
have observed, should be called to mind. Aceldama is a
Syriac word. The Jews then used this language. It
means the " field of blood," so called as having been
bought by the price of blood. The word is not used by
S. Matthew, but its Greek equivalent, the " field of blood ".
Nor does S. Chrysostom (in loci], or Eusebius (Demons., x.
4), when referring to this passage, make use of it. It
has been thought, with some probability, that the word has
crept into this text from Acts i. 19, where it is used by S.
Peter.
Verse 9. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by
Jeremias the Prophet
It is an ancient and weighty question, how S. Matthew
cites these as the words of Jeremias, when they are not such,
but are those of Zacharias (xi. 13). Much labour has been
bestowed upon the point.
i. Some think that they are really Jeremias , but taken
by S. Matthew from some lost work of his. For it is plain
from the Books of Kings and Paralipomenon that other
Prophets, and Jeremias most especially by name, wrote
other books than those we have. We read this in 2 Mac-
chab. ii. I.
CH. xxvii. g.] PROPHETS JEREMIAS AND ZACHARIAS. 499
2. It has been thought these words were written by
Jeremias, and in the book which we have of his, but that
they were subsequently removed from the text by the
malevolence of the Jews. Eusebius holds this opinion
(Demons., x. 4).
3. Another opinion is that they are taken from some
apocryphal writings of Jeremias, for even the Apostles
themselves sometimes make citations from such works, as
S. Paul (2 Tim. iii. 8) speaks of Jannes and Jambres, from,
probably, some apocryphal work. Origen thought this,
and S. Jerome seems to confirm it, by saying that a certain
Jew once gave him an apocryphal book of Jeremias, in
which this citation was found to the letter.
4. Others suppose it to have been a lapse of memory in
the Evangelist, and that when the name of Jeremias oc
curred to him, instead of Zacharias, he wrote it : but that
he either discovered the mistake himself subsequently, or
some reader of his gospel pointed it out to him, and he
would not correct it because he believed it to be the work
of the Holy Spirit, who spoke the same things by the
mouths of all the Prophets ; and that it could not matter
what was said by which Prophet, for the words of all
were common, so that what is spoken by one may be
considered to have been spoken by all. This is the
opinion of S. Augustin and Bede, but it is wholly un
tenable.
For although some learned men and Catholic authors
have said that the Evangelists sometimes commit errors of
memory, and that the authority of Scripture is nowise
lessened thereby, it cannot be seen how, with the dictation
of the Holy Ghost, and the maintenance of the faith of the
Scriptures which ought always to be the highest and
firmest possible this could have happened. To say that
Jeremias could have been cited for Zacharias because the
same Holy Spirit says the same thing by all the Prophets,
5OO THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvn. 9.
appears to me to do violence to the inspiration of the
sacred text.
5. Origen and Eusebius say, and without disapprobation,
that Jeremias was inserted into the text by mistake from its
resemblance to the word Zacharias. But there is no such
resemblance. Some are of opinion that Zacharias had two
names, and was sometimes called Jeremias; but this requires
proof. Others, with the approbation of S. Augustin,
suppose that Jeremias was really intended, and that the
reference is to chap, xxxii. 9 and his purchase of the
field. But there is nothing in common between this
and the citation from Jeremias except the allusion to
the field nothing of the " potter " or of the " price " of
him that was prized, whom they prized of the children
of Israel. Nor did Jeremias buy a field for thirty pieces
of silver, but for seventeen ten pieces of silver and
seven staters.
Some say that a prophecy of Jeremias was intended
not one in his written works, but one received from tradi
tion, as the passage in .S. Luke, where Christ spoke of
the tower of Siloe (xiii. 4). This, if nothing better could
be offered, might be received as possible.
6. The best opinion seems to be that of those who say
that the Evangelist mentioned the name of no Prophet at
all, but merely said, "Then was fulfilled that which was
spoken by the Prophet," as in many other instances (i. 22 ;
ii. 5, 15, 23 ; xiii. 35 ; xxi. 4 ; 35 of this chapter), and that
some transcriber, thinking the words to be those of Jere
mias, inserted his name in the margin, and some one else
placed it in the text. In confirmation of this (i) the
Syriac version of this Gospel does not contain the name of
Jeremias at all, and (2) S. Augustin (De Cons., iii. 7) says
that in his time the word was not found in several Latin
copies. Against this opinion, S. Augustin argues that
there was no reason why the name of Jeremias should be
CH. xxvii. g.] PROPHETS JEREMIAS AND ZACHARIAS. 50 1
added : but there was this one why it should rather have
been erased, that Jeremias might be thought to be cited
wrongly. It is strange, as he says in the same place that
there was sufficient reason for giving this prophecy to
Jeremias, because he bought a field (xxxii. 9), that he now
denies that that reason was sufficient for one who thought
that the Evangelist alluded to Jeremias, to have inserted
his name in the margin, and another to have transferred it
to the text.
There may be another reason for ascribing the passage
to Jeremias. The words of Zacharias in the LXX. differ
so widely from the truth of the Hebrew as to have no
resemblance whatever to it ; so that they could not be
recognised by the Greek readers, who, in all probability,
added the name of Jeremias. As regards the meaning of
the passage, the Evangelist, in accordance with his frequent
practice, describes neither word nor person, being content
to give the meaning and, as he desired, to show the fulfil
ment of the prophecy.
And they took the thirty pieces of silver.
*jMn an^ttr nnpNl, "And I took" (accept). The
Prophet spoke in the first person to show that he
had performed what the Lord commanded. The Evan
gelist, with the same meaning, has rendered the words in
the third person, to show that the whole was fulfilled by
the priests, whom in this the Prophet represented ; although
e\a{3ov in Greek may be the first person singular.
The price of him that was prized.
Trjv Ttfj,rjv rov Ter^iT^ej/ou "^p* 1 !"! "Y1N This was called
a little before by the Prophet in other words, "Ip* 1 !! decus
pretii o* pretium cestimationis . The Evangelist appears not
to have read THp^ pretii or astimationis, but "*^ cestimati,
which the Latin renders appretiati.
502 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvu. 10.
W/iom they prized of the children of Israel.
*Ov en^o-avro arro viwv "Iaparj\, OPP^^E *FT\p "Y^N
" by which I was prized by them ". The Evangelist has
changed the first person singular into the third person
plural, and the passive into the active voice, but has
kept the same meaning. Whom they prized a filiis
Israel, that is, qui ex filiis. The relative ot is to be
understood like the Hebrew *WN as I have shown in
my work, Idiom. Hebrce. A similar example is found in
Judith viii. 17.
Verse 10. And they gave them unto the potter s field, as the
Lord appointed me.
Kal eSw/fav aura et? rov dypov rov tee p ape cos, *"p /tt^Wl
WN ITa Him h& 12Vn "And I cast them (the
silver or the price) into the house of the Lord to the
statuary". That is, that from them a field might be
bought, a figulo, as the Evangelist (pptimus interpret) has
expressed it.
Thus, Rabbi David Kimshi and other expositors of this
passage of Zacharias are not to be trusted, who think that
"I^V figulam, "potter," was written for *^N by the change
of the letter N thesaurus, "treasure," that the meaning may
be, " I cast it into the house of the Lord," to the treasure,
or to the treasury ; that is, that it might be laid up among
the sacred treasures. If in the Greek of the Evangelist
we read eSco/ca, dedi (I gave), for e&cotcav, dederunt (they
gave), the Greek will agree with the Hebrew. There is
no mention of the word agri (field) in the Prophet, but
as it is contained in a manner in the word figuli, " potter "
(the meaning as we have said, being " I cast it to the
potter," that is, that the field might be bought by the
potter), the Evangelist, as explaining the Prophet, ex
pressed it, et? rov dypbv rov Kepa/jieoos, in agrum figuli,
unto the potter s field.
GH. xxvn. ii.] THE POTTER S FIELD. 503
As the Lord appointed me.
These words are not found in the Prophet, but the sense
and the fact are. It was said by the Prophet that the Lord
commanded him to cast the thirty pieces of silver to
the statuary, that is, the potter. He subsequently says
that he did so, and thus fulfilled the command of the
Lord. The Prophet himself did not say this in words,
but he said it in fact, by doing it. S. Matthew ex
plained the whole to teach us that it was done, not
by accident, nor by the will of man, but by the com
mand of God. Hence the priests bought the potter s
field for the thirty pieces of silver by the providence
and impulse of God.
Verse 1 1. And Jesus stood before the governor.
S. John (xviii. 28) says that Christ was brought to the
governor s hall. But the Jews themselves did not venture
to enter, lest they should be defiled, and that they might
be able to eat the Pasch. Pilate went out to them,
therefore, and asked them : " What accusation bring
you against this man ? " These words were spoken as
if intended to show that Pilate himself thought Jesus
innocent. As if he had said : " What offence can be
brought against this just man ? " The Jews, as if the
question had done them some injustice, replied (verse
30) : "If He were not a malefactor we would not have
delivered Him up to thee ". After these words should be
placed those of S. Luke (xxiii. 2) : " And they began to
accuse Him, saying, We found this man perverting our
nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying
that He is Christ the King ". Then follows S. John (xviii.
31): "Pilate therefore said to them, Take Him you, and
judge Him according to your law". It appears that the
governor tried every means possible to avoid judging Christ
504 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvn. n.
The Jews, therefore, said to him : " It is not lawful for us
to put any man to death". S. John adds: "That the
word of Jesus might be fulfilled which He said signifying
what death He should die " referring to 5. Matthew xx.
1 8, 19. S. John intimates that the Jews would not use the
power given to them by the governor (xviii. 31): "Take
Him you and judge Him according to your law," because
it was not lawful for them to crucify anyone. And this
was the death they especially designed for Christ, and that
by which Christ had foretold that He should die. Or
they may have supposed that Pilate spoke ironically.
S. John signifies that it was not from the virtue of
the Jews, but rather from their cruelty, and from the
divine counsel by which it was decreed that Christ should
be crucified, that the Jews would not judge Him by their
law.
After these things, as S. John says, the governor entered
into the hall, and while the Jews stood without, called
Christ to him, and asked Him, in the words of S. Matthew
and S. John, "Art Thou the king of the Jews?" The
governor asked, then, only of the kingship and tribute, the
latter being contained in the former. If Christ were a
king, He would undoubtedly refuse tribute to Caesar.
For the Jews raised these two objections amongst others,
which they thought likely to influence Pilate : (i) That
He made Himself a king ; and (2) that He taught
that it was unlawful to give tribute to Caesar. These
accusations could be answered even by their own evidence ;
for when they asked Him whether it were lawful to give
tribute to Caesar, He answered : " Render to Caesar the
things that are Caesar s, and to God the things that are
God s" (xxii. 21). There were also Roman witnesses, and
Jewish publicans, who could testify that Christ not only
taught them to pay tribute to Caesar, but even paid it Him
self. They object nevertheless, against their own con-
CH. xxvii. ii.] CHRIST BEFORE PILATE. 505
sciences, an odious offence, and one that they knew would
appear the more probable to Pilate, because the sect of the
Herodians was then flourishing, who are believed to have
held it unlawful for Jews to pay tribute to a foreign king,
as has been explained (xxii. 16).
Thou sayest it.
The words of S. John (xviii. 33, 34), "Art Thou the
king of the Jews ? Jesus answered, Sayest thou this thing
of thyself, or have others told it thee of Me ? " are to be
placed before these. Christ would appear by these words
to have pricked the conscience of Pilate, as if He had said,
" Thou knowest that I am not the king of the Jews, but
thou askest this at their demand ". Pilate answered, " Am
I a Jew? Thy own nation and the chief priests have
delivered Thee up to me; what hast Thou done?" He
saw that he was constrained by Christ, and he therefore
appears to have answered with anger that he had not
asked this of his own will : for he was not a Jew ; but he
performed the duties of a judge, and he was compelled as
such to examine Christ on the points that were brought
against Him by the Jews who had delivered Him up to
him. Jesus answered : " My kingdom is not of this world"
that is, it is not mundane, not of the earth, not temporal,
but heavenly and spiritual. It is not only the society of
the blessed, but the congregation of the faithful, even upon
earth. It is in the world, yet it is not of the world. It
has its beginning not from the earth, but from heaven, as
Christ is its head. By Him it .is assembled and formed.
It descends from heaven ; for faith, which is its form, and
chanty, which is its bond and hope, which promises its
rewards, are sent from heaven, as Christ said (S. John viii.
23 ; xv. 19). The whole question may be answered thus :
Christ, as He is God, is not only the spiritual, but also the
temporal King of the whole world, both of the higher and
506 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvn. n.
of the lower. Hence (Apoc. xix. 16), " He hath on His
garment and on His thigh written, King of kings and
Lord of lords": to show that He is not King by force, nor
by oppression, nor by election, nor by adoption, but by
nature: for this is the meaning of "His thigh"; and because
by nature being in the form of a servant, He thought it
" not robbery to be equal with God " (Philip, ii. 6). Abra
ham commanded his steward to put his hand under his
(Abraham s) thigh, and swear by the God of heaven and
earth, because Christ would be born of his thigh (Gen. xxiv.
2). Christ assuredly, as He is man, is the Spiritual King
of the whole Church. This is the kingdom which He
bought for the Father with His blood, and which He will
give back to Him at the end of the world (i Cor. xv. 24).
This is the kingdom of which David says, in Ps. ii. 6-8,
" I am appointed king by Him " ; he immediately goes on
to describe it as a spiritual and not a temporal kingdom,
"preaching His commandment" upon His holy mountain,
because that Sion is to be understood in a spiritual
sense, as S. Augustin says (Tract, cxv. on S. John}. To
teach the precepts of God is the work not of a temporal,
but of a spiritual King. This is the kingdom of which
David says in the same second Psalm : " I will give thee
the Gentiles for thy inheritance" ; because the Church was
to be spread throughout the w r hole earth, and carried from
sea to sea. This is the kingdom of which Christ spoke
after His Resurrection (S. Matt, xxviii. 18, 19). He de
scribes the nature of its power in the verse following :
" Going, teach ye all nations, baptising them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". These
are not the acts of a temporal, but of a spiritual King. And
as in a temporal kingdom the king alone has power to make
the laws, so Christ alone in the Church has power to
institute the Sacraments, which are the remedy for sin in
His spiritual kingdom, like the laws in a republic. But as
CH. xxvn. 12.] CHRIST S KINGSHIP. 507
far as Christ is man, He is not the temporal king of the
whole world. So says S. Augustin in the passage just
cited, and all good teachers agree in the same view.
For if so He must be king : (i) By a natural, (2) by
a divine, or (3) by a human law. He was not king
by a natural law, because He was not the son of a king,
which is to be a king by nature. He was not a king
by divine right, because all the Scriptures which speak
of His kingdom are to be understood, as S. Augustin says,
of a spiritual kingdom. He was not king by a human law,
because He was not chosen to be such by the consent of
the whole world ; and when the Jews wanted to take Him
by force and make Him a king, He escaped from them (S.
John vi. 15). Christ shows (S. John xviii. 36) that His king
dom was not of the world, for if it had been, He would have
had servants of this world to fight for Him. But He was
so far from having, or desiring to have, an earthly kingdom,
that He rebuked Peter severely for wounding the servant of
the high priest in self-defence, and commanded him to put
up his sword again into the sheath, signifying that his ser
vants were not of earth but heaven : that is, they were the
angels (xxvi. 53). Pilate now asked Him if He were a
king, and He answered, as here related by S. Matthew
(verse u), "Thou sayest". By this expresssion He
answered, not ambiguously, as S. Augustin and some
others think, but firmly, that He was a king, using the
same words as supra, chap. xxvi. 25-64.
Verse 12. And when He was accused by the chief priests and
ancients^ He answered nothing.
S. Luke xxiii. 4 should come before this, for, as S. John
says (xviii. 38), Pilate, after he had questioned Christ
as to whether He were a king, went out to the Jews who
were outside the praetorium, and said, " I find no cause,"
that is, no fault, "in Him ".
508 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvn. 13, 14-
Verse 13. Then Pilate said to Him, Dost Thou not hear how
great testimonies they allege against Thee ?
S. Matthew does not mention these testimonies, but S.
Luke (xxiii. 5, 6) does. Herod was glad when he saw
Christ, because he had heard much about Him before, and
he desired to see some sign from Him. He questioned
Christ much, but He did not answer. The chief priests
and scribes vehemently accused Him to Herod. Herod,
when Christ answered nothing, held Him in contempt,
and put a white robe upon Him as an opprobrium, and
sent Him back to Pilate ; and Pilate and Herod were
made friends from that day, when they had before been
at variance.
When Christ was sent back to Pilate, Pilate called the
chief priests and said to them, the officers, and the people
(S. Luke xxiii. 14-16): " You have presented unto me this
man as one that perverteth the people, and behold I, having
examined Him before you, find no cause in this man in
those things wherein you accuse Him ; no, nor Herod
neither. For I sent you to him, and behold, nothing
worthy of death is done to Him. I will chastise Him,
therefore, and release Him." This may be understood
either of stripes or of words. At these words of Pilate
the Jews probably began to insist and be urgent, and to
accuse Christ, although the Evangelists do not mention it.
Pilate may then have said what S. Matthew has related :
"Dost Thou not hear how great testimonies they allege
against Thee ? " (v. 14).
Verse 14. And He answered him to never a word, so that
the governor wondered exceedingly.
It may appear strange that Christ kept such a resolute
silence now, especially as He previously answered so freely.
The reason of His having answered before was clearly that
CH. xxvii. 15.] SILENCE OF CHRIST BEFORE PILATE. 509
He was then examined as to whether He were a king ;
that is, whether He were the Christ : a fact which He
could not deny, as He had come into this world to teach
that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Many reasons may be given for His present silence :
1. (which is deduced per contrarium). He was not now
asked about the chief question, but about the commotion of
the people, His doctrine, and other similar subjects of which,
as open and notorious, they could not be ignorant ; and
there was therefore no need for Him to answer about them,
as He had before answered the chief priest (S. John xviii.
20).
2. The reason given by S. Ambrose (Comm. on S. Luke\
S. Chrysostom, and Euthymius (in /<?<:.), is that Christ knew
that if He did answer, the Jews would not believe Him, as
He had said (S. Luke xxii. 67).
3. Theophylact says that if He had answered, the anger
of the Jews would have been excited, and their offence
made greater.
4. S. Jerome and Bede say that if He had answered and
confuted the accusation, He would have been acquitted,
and the fruit of the Cross, our salvation, would have
perished.
5. S. Ambrose said that He was silent because He
needed no defence : " The Lord is accused and He holds
His peace. He is rightly silent who needs no defence.
They take pains to defend themselves who fear to be con
victed. Christ did not confirm the accusation by His
silence : He despised it by not replying to it."
6. The prophecy was fulfilled by this very silence (Isa.
liii. 7).
Verse 1 5 . Now upon the solemn day.
The day of Pasch, which was especially called the
solemn day (S. John xviii. 39;. Whether the Jews ob-
5IO THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvu. 16, 17.
tained this as a new boon from the Romans when these
took possession of Judaea, or it was an ancient custom con
tinued to them by the Romans, is uncertain. It was most
probably an ancient Jewish tradition to set at liberty a
prisoner on this day, in remembrance of their delivery out
of Egypt.
Verse 16. And he had then a notorious prisoner that was
called Barabbas.
Notorious eV/o-^/zoi , " remarkable," " notorious," but
in a bad sense. He was in prison, not for virtue, but
for his crimes. S. Mark (xv. 7), S. Luke (xxiii. 19), and
S. John (xviii. 40) call him X^O-T^I/, the equivalent of
the Latin word latro, one who robs and murders on the
highway ; a robber on a large scale, not a petty thief
Verse 17. Whom will you that I release to you, Barabbas, or
Jesus that is called Christ ?
It is clear from many circumstances that Pilate sought
by every means in his power to release Christ. I. As soon
as Christ was brought before him, he asked the Jews what
accusation they brought against Him (S. John xviii. 29).
This was equivalent, as before said, to his asking them
what accusation they brought against one who was both
just and innocent. 2. When he had questioned Christ
within the praetorium, he went out to the Jews, and said,
" I find no cause in this man " (S. Luke xxiii. 4 ; 5. John
xviii. 38) ; and when he heard that Christ had taught
throughout all Galilee, he gladly seized the occasion of
sending Him as a Galilean to Herod (S. Luke xxiii. 7).
When He was sent back by Herod, he again endeavoured
to set Him free, saying that neither he himself nor Herod
found any fault in Him. When this did not mitigate the
rage of the Jews, he would have chastised Him, whether
CH. xxvn. 17.] BARABBAS. 5 1 I
with blows or words, and let Him go (S. Luke xxiii. 16).
Pilate now brings their religion before the Jews, that, at
least from respect to the solemn feast, when criminals were
released, Christ, against whom no fault could be proved,
might be set free. He used still other means. He does
not name Christ singly, nor with a number of others, but
with Barabbas, the most wicked of men, that the Jews,
unless they were wholly blind, or beyond measure lost,
might be compelled to choose Christ. Who could have
supposed that Barabbas a homicide, a seditious man,
and a public robber would have been preferred to
Christ, against whom nothing could be objected, or at
least substantiated ? But the hatred of the Jews and
the unjust conduct of Pilate prevailed. But Pilate still
endeavoured to release Christ, for when the Jews in
sisted, " Away with Him, crucify Him " (S. John xix.
15), he exclaimed: "Shall I crucify your king?" as
if it were against their honour to do this deed, however
bad His conduct for kings are beheaded, not crucified.
The chief thing was the sending of the messenger by
Pilate s wife to warn him to have nothing to do with that
just man, who, she had heard from the Jews, declared Him
self to be the Son of God. Thus, as Pilate had previously
endeavoured, from justice and religion, to set Christ free, he
now attempted the same thing from fear. These events
are all related by the Evangelists, no doubt to show us how
unjustly Christ was condemned (i) when a wicked and
unjust judge sought again and again, from mere motives of
religion and justice, to set Him free ; (2) from a com
parison of Pilate and the Jews to show the incredible
iniquity and injustice of both ; (3) that from the manner of
His condemnation, extorted as it was by importunity from
an unjust judge, who was wholly averse to the act, it might
be seen that Christ was given over to the cross, not so much
by man, as by the will of the Father.
512 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvu. ig.
Verse 19. And as he was sitting in the place of judgment.
That is, this happened very opportunely, as Pilate was
now ready to give sentence, that the whole act might seem
not to have been brought about by chance, but ordered by
the Divine Will. S. Matthew, who is the only narrator of
the event, has implied this.
His wife sent to him, saying, Have tlwu nothing to do with
that just man.
That is, do not be concerned in His condemnation.
Pilate s wife called Christ a just man both from common
report and from her dream. She used the word "just" to
persuade Pilate the more easily either by fear or religion.
She was no doubt a pious woman, and either previously,
or now from her dream, believed in Christ. At the same
time she may have had some good womanly feeling, and
feared lest any evil should befal her husband if he con
demned a just man.
For I have suffered many things this day in a dream because
of Him.
The Evangelist has not told us what it was, but we may
easily believe that she was taught at once that Christ was
innocent and that He was the Son of God, and that she
foresaw the evils that would happen to Jerusalem from His
death, and feared lest Pilate, as the author of it, might be
involved in them.
It has been asked of what nature the dream was.
Writers on the subject have described four kinds of
dreams : i. The natural dream, such as those of bile, san-
guineousness, and melancholy. 2. The moral dreams, aris
ing from our desires, actions, thoughts, and manner of life.
In these we dream of what we do, or think strongly
about, or desire. Hence Plato justly thought that the
dreams of a philosopher and a wise man were different to
CH. xxvn. ig.] DREAM OF PILATE S WIFE. 513
those of ordinary persons (In Theceteto], 3. The divine
dream, which is frequently sent by God either with or
without the agency of angels. Of these there are many
notable examples in Scripture, as we have shown (ii. 13).
4. The diabolical dream, which comes from the devils ;
such are impure dreams.
That the dream of Pilate s wife was a natural dream, no
one can say with any appearance of probability. Some
think, or do not deny, that it was a moral dream, she
having dreamed of Christ that night because she knew that
He was accused by the Jews. There was not only a
common, but a very ancient opinion, as we learn from S.
Ignatius (Ep. v. to Philip^) and from Bede (in loc.*), that it
was a diabolical dream. For the devil had begun to per
ceive the Divinity of Christ, and to understand the mystery
of His death, by which the world would be freed ; and that
he thus endeavoured to prevent His death. This opinion,
however supported, appears quite untenable. For we have
shown that Satan had already discovered the Divinity of
Christ (iv.), and if he wished to hinder His death, why
did he not rather act upon the minds of the Jews, who
were the authors of the entire tragedy, than terrify by
dreams a stranger woman, in whose sex even true divina
tions are considered mere illusive dreams ?
The dream, therefore, was sent by God. This is the
opinion of Origen, S. Hilary, S. Leo (Serm. xi. de Pass.),
5. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, Euthymius, and Theophylact
(in /<?<:.).
It has been asked why the dream was not sent by God
to Pilate rather than to his wife. S. Chrysostom, Theo
phylact, and Euthymius give two reasons : either Pilate
was unworthy of a revelation from God ; or he would have
been suspected by the Jews of having invented the account,
the better to procure the acquittal of Christ. God, if we
may form a conjecture on the subject, may have chosen
233
514 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cu. xxvn. 23.
that Christ s condemnation should have been so conducted
that His innocence should be shown by every means, by
the opinion of men of all classes, and, as it were, even by
the consent of the elements themselves.
Not only the Jews, then, many of whom believed in
Him : not only the judge who had to give sentence in His
cause : not only the judge s wife, a woman previously un
godly, and, as a witness, capable of no suspicion of double-
dealing : not only the centurion and the soldiers, who had
a little before heaped revilings upon Him ; but the dark
ened sun, the rent rocks, the divided veil, the earthquake,
all gave evidence of the innocence and the Divinity of
Christ.
Origen, S. Chrysostom, and Theophylact think it pro
bable that the wife of Pilate was saved through that
dream of Christ.
Verse 23. What evil hatJi He done ?
S. Mark (xv. 14) says the same thing and in the same
words. S. Luke says, ri yap KCLKOV eVo^o-e. The causal
particle yap, " for," renders the meaning difficult, for it
does not seem clear what is its force. The Jews cried out,
" Crucify Him ". Pilate answered, " Why, what evil hath
He done ? " We may suppose, therefore, that yap is put
for ovv, the meaning being, " If you wish me to crucify
Him, what evil has He done that I should do so ? " that is,
" Give me a reason for such an act ". Pilate appears to have
answered, not to what was said, but to what was understood.
For the Evangelists do not recount all the events ; but S.
John says, that when the Jews raised the cry, " Crucify
Him," Pilate answered, " Shall I crucify your king ? " as
meaning, " I will not do so, for what evil has He done ? "
S. Luke adds that Pilate said, " I will chastise Him and
release Him ". TraiSevaas ovv, " either by words or by
scourges". It appears from S. John, as we shall shortly
CH. xxvn. 24.] PILATE S EFFORTS TO RELEASE CHRIST. 5 1 5
show, that He was scourged. After this, which is described
in the same manner by S. Matthew and S. Mark, He was
beaten with rods, crowned with thorns, robed in purple,
and led forth to the Jews, Pilate saying his Rcce homo :
that by this unhappy spectacle the ferocious minds of the
Jews might be pacified. But S. Matthew and S. Mark,
because they had begun to describe the condemnation of
Christ, and to avoid breaking the thread of the history,
put these things first. Such is the opinion of S. Augustin
(De Consens., iii. 9). S. Hilary, however, thinks that they
have kept the order of events. Some say that Christ was
scourged twice. Firstly, now at this time to mitigate the
rage of the Jews, that, being contented with this punishment,
they might release Him, as S. John says ; and a second time
when He had been condemned. For S. Jerome says that
it was the custom of the Romans to crucify no man until
he had been scourged. This can easily be believed of the
cruelty of the Jews, though there is no proof of it in the
Gospels. Bede, however, approved it.
Verse 24. And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but
that ratJier a tumult was made.
This does not excuse Pilate but Christ, while it shows
that the governor, without any fitting testimony or any
proof of crime, but only from fear of a popular tumult, con
demned Christ, and in such a manner that his condemna
tion was, in truth, His acquittal.
Taking water, washed his hands before the people.
Some think that it was not the custom of the Jews
alone that the judges of life and death should wash their
hands, as in Dent. xxi. 6, but that heathen nations did the
same, as they find in Sophocles and Virgil (ALn., ii. 717).
It may have been the custom of other nations, but it was
not that of the Romans, as Origen has observed, and as
516 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvn. 25, 26.
we learn from their historians. Pilate, though a Roman,
in the cause of a Jew and before Jewish judges, wished by
this means to testify his innocence. The Jews he knew
practised the washing of hands as a proof of innocence,
as shown by the passage of Deuteronomy cited above, and
by Psalm xxv. 6 : "I will wash my hands among the
innocent " ; but an offence of such gravity is not washed
away by water, and S. Leo has well said, " The washing of
his hands did not cleanse the defilement of Pilate s mind,
nor did the sprinkling of water upon them expiate the
wickedness of his soul. The wickedness of the Jews
surpassed the offence of Pilate. They compelled him from
fear of Caesar, and by their voices, to the committal of this
crime ; but he did not escape the guiltiness of the act by
resigning his proper office of judge, when, in co-operation
with these seditious men, he fell into the commission of a
heinous crime " (Serm. viii. de Pass.}.
I am innocent of the blood of this just man.
Pilate expressed in words what he signified by the act of
washing ; and before he condemned Christ he acquitted
Him, calling Him " that just man ". At the same time he,
by these same words, condemned himself, by sentencing
one whom he had so called. He spoke falsely, therefore,
when he said, " I am innocent " ; for he could not be so,
having condemned the innocent.
Verse 25. His blood be upon us and upon our children.
This is a Hebraism for "We will bear the penalty"
(Levit. xx. 9, 12, 16 ; Josh. ii. 19; 2 Kings i. 16 ; Ezek.
xxxiii. 4 ; Osea xii. 14).
Verse 26. Having scourged.
(See verse 23.) What kind of scourge it was is unknown,
and it is useless to enquire. It is commonly supposed to
CH. xxvn. 27,28.] THE SCOURGE CROWN REED. 517
have been made of thorns. Euthymius conjectures that it
may have been of cords, or thongs of leather. It was more
probably of twigs, such as the Romans used, and such as
were carried by the lictors before the consuls.
Then tJie soldiers of the governor.
The word " then " in this instance does not mean con-
secutiveness of the events related, but the whole period of
Christ s Passion. For we have shown from .5". John (on
verse 23) that the things which S. Matthew describes
as having been done then, had been done before. The
word " then " means here sub idem tempus, " about the
time " ; that is, a little before.
Verse 27. Taking Jesus into the hall.
That is, into the place where the tribunal of the praetor
was, which was called the praetorium. S. Mark explains it
(chap. xv. 16). It was in the hall, or somewhere near it ;
where they who had causes for trial might assemble. Why
the soldiers led Christ into that place may be conjectured
from the event. They wished to place Him in the
tribunal, as a king in mockery. We see this from the
crown which they placed on His head, and the purple robe
which they put upon Him, and the reed which they gave
Him for a sceptre. Finally, they placed Him on the
tribunal as on a throne. We conclude, from 5. John
xix. i, 2, that all that the soldiers did they did, by com
mand of Pilate.
Gathered togetJier unto Him the whole band.
As if to a king, to render their mockery more complete.
Verse 28. And, stripping Him, they put a scarlet cloak
about Him.
S. Mark (xv. 17) and S. John (xix. 2) explain the word
" scarlet " by purple. Everyone knows that purple was
5l8 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn.xxvii. 29,32.
the proper colour of kings, not only among the Romans,
but other nations as well. Kings allowed some favourites
to wear purple as a peculiar privilege (3 Esdras iii. 6 ;
I Macchab. x. 20 ; xi. 58 ; xiv. 43, 44).
Verse 29. A nd platting a crown of thorns.
It was platted in the shape of a crown, as for a king: and
of thorns, to show that He was not a true king, but outcast
and miserable. With the same object they put a reed into
His right hand.
Verse 32. And going out.
As they were going out of the city or at the gate. The
Greek does not use the aorist, egeXOovres, " when they went
out," but the present, efep%o/zez>ot, which has the meaning
of their having met the man of Cyrene actually at the gate
of the city.
They found a man of Cyrene.
He was so called, either as having been born at Cyrene,
or as being a native of the country, for the word included
both the capital city and an entire region of Decapolis in
Syria, which took its name from the city (Pliny, v. 5 ;
Strabo, xvii. ; Melas, i. ; A. Marcellinus, xxii.). In this
city and region were formerly Jews, as we find from
Acts ii. 10. It is uncertain whether Simon were a Jew or
Gentile. S. Hilary, S. Ambrose, Bede, and S. Leo (Serm.
viii. de Pass.) think that he was a Gentile, and they suppose
that there was a mystery in the case showing that when
the Jews did not believe, the Gentiles carried the cross.
But as S. Mark (xv. 27) says that he was the father of
Alexander and Rufus, he was most probably a Jew, for
he names those men as well known, or, as some think, even
disciples of Christ.
CH. xxvu. 32.] SIMON OF CYRENE. 519
Him they forced.
Angariaverunt. On the meaning of this word, vide chap,
v. 41. S. John (xix. 17) says that Christ bore His own
cross. This can be easily be harmonised with S. Matthew
and S. Mark if we say that at first the soldiers placed the
cross on Christ, and that He carried it through the whole
length of the city ; but at the gate Simon the Cyrenian
was met, and was compelled to carry it to the place of
crucifixion. So think Origen (Tract, xxxv. on S. Matt.\
S. Athanasius (De Pass, et Cruc. Dom^ S. Augustin
(De Consens., iii. 10), S. Jerome, Bede, Euthymius, and
Theophylact.
It appears to have been the custom of those who were
to be crucified to carry their own cross. And it was there
fore laid at first upon Christ. Why Simon was compelled
to bear it afterwards the Evangelists do not say, but it has
been conjectured that Christ may have been so wearied by
His watching and the scourging that He could carry it no
farther. For although as God " He upholds all things by
the word of His power " (Heb. i. 3), He allowed His human
nature to suffer, as if He had not been God. Some think
that this was done by the design of the Jews, who so
wished to accelerate His death ; that, as He was hindered
by the weight of the cross from moving as quickly as they
wished, they caused a strong man whom they happened to
meet to carry it.
Perhaps, too, it was in mystery, that He might fulfil the
type of Isaac, who bore on his shoulders the wood by which
he was to be sacrificed (Gen. xxii. 6), and as S. Chrysostom
(Horn. Ixxxiv. on S. John], S. Augustin (Tract, cxvii. on
S. John), and Theodoret (In Impatib.) explain it ; but that
it was afterwards carried by Simon, that Christ might
teach by facts what He had taught before in words (xvi.
24) : " If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself,
and take up his cross, and follow Me ". S. Ambrose (lib.
520 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvn. 32.
x., On S. Luke} says : " It is a fitting order of events, that
He should first erect the trophy of His cross, and then pass
it on to His martyrs to erect it ".
It is related by S. Luke (xxiii. 27) that some women
followed Him, and a great multitude of people weeping
and lamenting. S. Matthew tells us who these women
were : " Among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the
mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons
of Zebedee " (verse 56), and that the rest of the multitude
flocked together to Him. The chief priests may have
alluded to these (S. John vii. 49), who probably alone
believed in Christ. It is also related by S. Luke (xxiii.
28, 29) that Christ turned to the women, and said :
" Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not over Me, but weep for
yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days
shall come." The word " behold " shows that Christ
alluded to some time near at hand. It cannot be doubted
that He meant the coming destruction of Jerusalem
that by Titus and Vespasian, when all the Jews, and
especially the women, underwent sufferings so dreadful
that, as related by Josephus, some were compelled to eat
even their own infants.
Christ spoke to the women rather than to the men : (i)
Because it is to be thought that, according to their nature,
the women lamented more than the men ; and (2) because
in the slaughter at the taking of the city, they would suffer
more misery than the men. Christ forbids them to weep
for Him, showing that it was not ill with Him, for He
was not dragged by force to obey His Father s will and
free man from the tyranny of the devil ; but that He was
going to death voluntarily, and would soon be exalted
to the right hand of the Father, and receive a name above
every name. He bids them weep for themselves, because
they would soon have to pay the penalty of His death
the destruction of Jerusalem, its result, being imminent.
CH. xxvii. 32.] CHRIST S WORDS TO THE WOMEN. 521
Not that these women would witness that catastrophe
themselves, for all of them would probably die before it ;
but that the women then living would suffer such and
so great miseries, that He could say : " Blessed are the
barren, and the wombs that have not borne, and the paps
that have not given suck " (S. Luke xxiii. 29). For, al
though He spoke to those persons, He did not speak of
them, but of the whole body of women ; as in chap. iii. 1 1,
S. John Baptist did not mean that those particular in
dividuals with whom he was speaking would be baptised
by Christ, and who perhaps never were so, but that the
Jews, quales illi erant, would be baptised by the Holy
Ghost and by fire. The Evangelist describes the lamen
tations of the women, which, in their self-forgetfulness,
are apt to be raised for their children rather than them
selves. David (in Ps. Ixvii. 63) describes in other terms
the last extremity of distress. S. Matthew uses a
different but similar figure to the same result (xxiv.
19): "Woe to them that are with child and that give
suck in those days," because such women would be
impeded in their flight, and undergo double suffering,
for themselves and for their infants. "Then shall they
begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us, and to the
hills, Cover us." These are the words of men suffering
the last extremity of ill, who wish to die but cannot, and
who, overwhelmed by the greatness of their sufferings,
cry to the mountains to fall upon and deliver them.
The same expression is found in Isa. ii. 19 ; Osee x. 8 ;
Apoc. vi. 1 6. " For if in the green wood they do these
things, what shall be done in the dry ? " Christ compares
Himself to the green tree and the Jews to the dry, because
as a green tree is ill adapted for burning and the dry is
very fit for it, so He is very little fit for that is, is no way
worthy of punishment, but the Jews are most fit that is,
most worthy if for no other reason, at least for this, that
522 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvu. 33.
they delivered Christ to death, whom they ought to have
received as their Saviour.
What Christ here calls " the green tree," S. Paul, by
another metaphor, calls " vessels of wrath fitted for destruc
tion " (Rom. ix. 22), that is, vessels so frail as to be broken
by the slightest touch. S. Paul desires to point out those
who, by adding sin to sin, are so ripe for punishment that,
unless the infinite mercy of God sustained them, the earth
would open and swallow them. The Prophets compare
such men to stubble, and the wrath of God to the flames
(ha. v. 24; xxxiii. n; xlvii. 14; Abdias i. 18 ; Malachi
iv. i). Christ argues, therefore, from the less to the greater:
If God have not spared Me who am innocent, but have
commanded Me to undergo such heavy punishment for
others, how will He spare those who have brought Me to
the cross? S. Peter uses a similar argument (i Epist. iv.
17, 1 8).
Verse 33. And they come to the place that is called Golgotha,
which is the place of Calvary.
The Hebrews call it ("TOTO "a head," because it is round,
The Syriac and Chaldean, by the addition of one letter,
&rh?hx " Golgotha ". For so it should be read. By the
fault, probably of the transcriber, that letter has dropped
out, and length of time has confirmed the error. Why the
place was so called is not known. The ancient opinion,
which has the support of many early authors, is that it was
called Golgotha that is, Calvary, or a skull because the
head of Adam, the first man, was found there ; for there
was a strong tradition that Adam was buried in that place.
Of this opinion were Origen (Tract, xxxiii. in S. Matt?),
S. Cyprian (Serm. de Resurrect?), S. Athanasius (Serm. de
Passione et Cruce], who cites the authority of ancient
Hebrew Doctors. S. Ambrose (Comment, on S. Luke) does
the same.
CH. xxvn. 34.] TRADITION OF CALVARY. 523
So also thought S. Basil (Comment, on Isaiah v.), S.
Epiphanius (Hcer. xlvi., and Anchoratus], S. Chrysostom
(Horn. Ixxxiv. on S. John], S. Augustin (Serm. Ixxiv.
de Temp.; De Civitat., vi. 32), and Paula and Eustochium,
two learned women, in a letter to Marcella, in the works of
S. Jerome. S. Jerome himself refutes this opinion, rightly
perhaps, but by an argument of no great force. " Scripture,"
he says, " teaches us that Adam was not buried near Mount
Sion and Jerusalem, formerly called Jebus, but in Hebron."
The name Hebron, we are told by Joshua (xiv. 15), was
formerly Cariath Arbe. " The name of Hebron before was
called Cariath Arbe. Adam, the greatest among the
Enacims, was laid there." The word " Adam " here is not
a proper name, but an appellative, which it is not strange
that S. Jerome, learned father as he was, but occupied with
other subjects, did not see. Some thought, as S. Cyril of
Jerusalem says in his Thirteenth Catechetical Lecture, that
the mountain was called Calvary from its resemblance to
a human head, but he rejects the opinion for topographical
reasons : " There is no mountain," he says, " on that spot
called Calvary ". He thinks that the place was so called
prophetically, because Christ, our Head, was to suffer there.
The opinion of S. Jerome and Bede seems better. They
say that the name Calvary was given to the place because
criminals were decapitated there, and the place was full of
skulls. They who were crucified there were taken away
and buried, but such as were beheaded were left, as S.
Jerome tells us, without burial.
Verse 34. And they gave Him wine to drink mingled
with gall.
S. Mark (xv. 23) says that they gave Him wine mingled
with myrrh. The Ancients explain the apparent contra
diction in different manners. S. Augustin (De Consens., iii.
n) thinks that S. Mark s " wine mingled with myrrh " was
524 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvu. 34.
not infected by the gall, but S. Matthew says that it was
mixed with gall. Gall is bitter ; as we say of a thing that
is bitter, " It is gall," or " mixed with gall ". He also
thinks, and Bede and Strabus follow him, that the wine,
myrrh, and gall were mixed together, and that S. Matthew
speaks of the gall and not of the myrrh ; S. Mark of the
myrrh and not of the gall.
Euthymius thinks that two draughts were offered by two
different persons, one mixed with myrrh, the other with
gall.
Some suppose that the devout women who followed
Christ lamenting first gave Him wine mingled with myrrh
to remove or deaden the pain, as was usually done to those
who were crucified. They suppose that this draught, and
the one mentioned by S. Luke (xxiii. 36) and S. John (xix.
29) as given to Christ on the cross when He was at the
point of death, were one and the same. S. Chrysostom
originated this opinion, and Euthymius adopted it ; but
from the different accounts of the Evangelists, it is evident
that they were different draughts. S. Matthew and S.
Mark imply that the wine mingled with myrrh was given
before He was crucified to deaden the pain. But S. Luke
and S. John say that the other draught was given, not only
when He was on the cross, but when He was on the point
of resigning His breath, and had undergone all the full
tortures of the cross. Again, S. Matthew and S. Mark
speak of wine ; S. Luke and S. John of vinegar. For
although the Greek here reads of 09, "vinegar," and Origen,
S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and S. Jerome, and still more,
the Syriac, so read it, yet it is clear from S. Mark that it
is a wrong reading, in whom, as he relates the same event,
no one ever read anything but "wine". It is most certain
that S. Mark, speaking a little after of the drink which S.
Luke and S. John state to have been given to Christ when
dying, says : " And immediately one of them, running, took
CH. xxvii. 34-] THE WINE AND VINEGAR. 525
a sponge and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed,
and gave Him to drink" (verse 48), distinguishing that
draught beyond question from the one spoken of here.
The one speaks of wine, the other of vinegar ; one as given
before Christ was nailed to the cross, the other when He
was hanging on it ; the one was given probably in a vessel,
the other in a sponge on a reed ; the one when He did not
ask for it, the other when He said, " I thirst ". Our version
certainly here reads "wine," not "vinegar". So do S.
Hilary, S. Ambrose (Comment, on S. Luke], S. Augustin (De
Cons. Evang., iii. 11), Juvencus (Hist. Evang., iv.), Sedulius
(Carm., v.), and probably S. Jerome, for he speaks, in his
commentary, not of vinegar, but wine. But some unskilful
hand erased the word " wine " from a corrupt copy, and
substituted " vinegar," transferring it into the text of S.
Matthew found in the commentaries of S. Jerome. Cer
tainly, S. Hilary and S. Ambrose think the former offer
ing mentioned by S. Matthew (verse 34) and the latter in
verse 48, of which S. Luke and S. John also speak, to be
different. That this is so must appear to every careful
student of the Gospels beyond dispute.
A nd when He had tasted He would not drink.
S. Mark says that He received it not. The two passages
seem to be at variance, but they do not really differ. S.
Matthew says that He received it that is, He tasted it ;
S. Mark that He did not receive it that is, He did not
drink it, as S. Augustin explains it in the passage cited
above. Why Christ would not drink the wine when He
had tasted it may be a question. Possibly He tasted it that
He might not appear to despise wine offered according to
custom ; but He would not drink it, to show that He had
no need of medicaments to help Him in bearing the
agonies of the cross.
Thus we ourselves, if invited to drink when we do not
526 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvn. 35.
thirst, taste wine offered to us, in acknowledgment of the
courtesy, but, for temperance, we do not drink deeply. This
double draught fulfilled the words of David (Ps. Ixviii. 22) :
4i They gave me gall for my food, and in my thirst they
gave me vinegar to drink ". Wine was given first to Christ
mixed with gall, or with myrrh, which from its bitterness
was called gall, and then vinegar. But the gall, according
to the Prophet, was given to Him not to drink, but to eat.
And rightly so ; for as David spoke of gall only, which, if
not diluted with some other fluid, has more of the nature
of food than drink, he called it food, and not drink. S.
Matthew, with this view, perhaps, though he knew that
that wine was not mixed with real gall, but was only said
to be so by metaphor (that is, it was diluted with bitter
myrrh), yet said that it was mixed with gall, to show by a
word in passing that the prophecy was fulfilled.
It has been asked why Christ chose this kind of death.
S. Gregory of Nyssa (Orat. de Resurrect. C/iti.) and S.
Thomas, in his commentary on this passage of 5. Matthew,
have given reasons for this. That of S. Paul to the Philip-
pians would have been sufficient Christ desired to undergo
the most shameful death for us, that He might thus humble
Himself and show His great love for man, and afford an
example of humility (Philip, ii. 8 ; I Pet. ii. 21).
Verse 35. And after they had crucified Him they divided
His garments.
S. Luke says that Christ even on the cross prayed for
His murderers : " Father forgive them, for they know-
not what they do " (xxiii. 34). Christ showed clearly
by these words that He underwent death even for the
very men who crucified Him ; thus confuting the ancient
heresy of the Predestinatians and their successors, the
followers of Calvin, who assert that He died only for the
predestinate.
CH. xxvn. 35.] THE SEAMLESS COAT. 527
Casting lots.
S. Mark (xv. 24) says : " They divided His garments,
casting lots upon them, what every man should take ". S.
Luke (xxiii. 34) : " They, dividing His garments, cast lots".
These three Evangelists, and especially S. Mark, write as
if all the clothing of Christ was distributed by lot, nor
could we have understood them in any other sense, unless
S. John had related it more distinctly (xix. 23, 24). From
this it appears that not all Christ s garments, but only the
coat, was so disposed of, as has been observed by Euthy-
mius. Some conclude from S. Luke that Christ had five
coats, but it is clear from S. John that He had only one.
For he says that the soldiers divided His garments, and
also His coat, opposing this to the others. This Euthy-
mius has clearly perceived. What the coat and the other
garments were is not known with certainty. We may con
jecture that the coat was that which came next to the
under-garment, if Christ used one, and covered the whole
person. There is no kind of garment more probably with
out a seam. By the other garments, the upper one in
place of which the soldiers put on the purple robe, the
shoes, and the other clothing such as even poor men wear
may be understood.
There was a tradition, not devoid of probability, that
the seamless coat had been woven for Christ by His
Mother when He was a child. This, as very ancient,
is mentioned with approbation by Euthymius. The
reader will question whether the garments of the rob
bers were also divided by the soldiers, for the Evange
lists are silent on the point. It was probably the
custom of the Romans, as of other nations, to leave the
clothing of those who had been put to death to the execu
tioner. The garments of the robbers, therefore, may have
been distributed among the soldiers, but the Evangelists,
because they were writing the history of Christ and not of
528 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvii. 37.
the thieves, and as they knew that in the division of their
clothing there was no mystery, whereas that of Christ was
not only by custom, but there was mystery in it, that the
words of David might be fulfilled (Ps. xxi. 19), made no
mention of the robbers , but only of Christ s.
Hence S. Matthew immediately adds, " that it might be
fulfilled," &c. (verse 35). Although these words are not
found in some Greek copies, and Origen and Euthymius
do not read them, yet our Latin version has them, as has
also the Syriac ; and it can easily be believed that S.
Matthew wrote them, as, of all the Evangelists, he is the
most careful always to point out the prophecies that were
fulfilled by Christ
Verse 37. And they put over His head His cause written.
That is, they affixed to the part of the cross which was
over the head of Christ. It is not certain whether there
was a scroll fastened to the wood of the cross, or whether
it was written on the cross itself ; the former is the most
generally believed, and is the most probable. For (i) there
would hardly have been room on the cross itself for so
many words in three languages, and of a size to be read
by passers-by. (2) One who was about to place such an
inscription on the cross of a man crucified would naturally
write it on a tablet. (3) The Empress Helena, the mother
of Constantine, is said to have found such a tablet apart
from the cross (Ruffinus, Hist. Eccles. y i. 7).
It has not been a question, though it might have been,
whether the robbers also had titles. It would appear
probable that they had ; for it was the custom that his
offence should be stated on the cross of everyone who
suffered death upon it. It was under this law that Christ s
title was imposed.
S. Ambrose (Orat. de obitu et vita Theodosii] and other
ancient authors relate that when Helena found the crosses,
CH. xxvn. 37.] THE TITLE ON THE CROSS. 529
that of Christ was distinguished from the rest by its title.
This is very probable. It might have been identified, not
as having had a title while the others had none, but as
the title of Christ s had been, " This is Jesus of Nazareth
the King of the Jews ". From these words it would be
clear that it was the cross of Christ.
This is Jesus the King of the Jews.
S. Mark (xv. 26) only gives, " The King of the Jews ".
S. Luke (xxiii. 38), " This is the King of the Jews ". S.
John (xix. 19), "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the
Jews ". All the Evangelists, therefore, seem to have
given the meaning of the title, but none of them all the
words of it. From the whole we may conclude the
words to have been, " This is Jesus of Nazareth the
King of the Jews".
S. John says that the title was placed by the command
of Pilate, whether according to custom, because it was the
duty of the judge to state the offence of a condemned crimi
nal, or that that was done by private design in the case of
Christ alone which was not done to others ; that as the
cause of Christ was most just, and He Himself was un
justly condemned, Pilate might clear himself by this public
eulogy ; pretending that Christ was justly condemned for
asserting that He was a king against the faith due to
Caesar. It is clear from S. John that, whatever his inten
tion, it was overruled by divine counsel ; so that even the
judge himself who had condemned Christ, really proved
by the very title by which he sought to show that he
condemned Christ justly, that he had done so unjustly,
thus bearing witness that Christ was the true King of the
Jews, that is, the Messiah. For, when the Jews asked
Pilate, on reading the inscription, not to put "The King
of the Jews," but " He said," &c., Pilate answered, " What
I have written, I have written". "I cannot alter it, because
234
530 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvu. 38.
it was held, as it were in the divine hand, that I should be
be impelled to write these words."
It cannot be doubted that Pilate, in the words, " This is
Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews," meant nothing
but that which the Jews required of him : " This is Jesus of
Nazareth who made Himself the King of the Jews"; but it
was of Divine Providence that he used words which showed
Christ to be truly such. God thus extorted the truth from
the unjust judge.
Verse 38. Then were crucified with Him two thieves , one on
the right hand and one on tJie left.
S. Mark (xv. 28) gives one reason why Christ was cruci
fied with the thieves, that the prophecy of Isaiah (liii. 12)
might be fulfilled. But Pilate, who was a profane man and
thought nothing of the fulfilment of prophecy, may have
supposed that if he crucified Christ by Himself, he might
appear to do so at the wicked entreaties of the Jews, and
not from justice ; but when He crucified Him with men of
this class, whom no one could doubt to be justly con
demned, the similarity of the deaths might go some way
to prove a similarity in their crimes ; it is not impro
bable that the Jews even solicited Pilate to crucify
Christ with the thieves, that His death might be more
ignominious.
That Christ was placed between the two thieves may be
thought the result at once of the human design of the Jews
and of the divine counsel of God. Of the Jews, to show-
that Christ was the head and chief of wicked men, and
therefore should be crucified in the midst of such, that by
this kind of contumelious distinction His disgrace might
be the more augmented ; for the leaders of robbers, when
taken with their followers, are hung in the midst of them,
and in some conspicuous place. Of the counsel of God, to
show that Christ laid down His life for sinners, that who-
CH. xxvii. 38.] CHRIST BETWEEN THE TWO THIEVES. 531
ever would have life might receive life. The event proved
the mystery, for one of the two robbers believed, the other
blasphemed.
He who was crucified calls all sinners to Himself. So
says S. John (xii. 32). He draws all things to Himself,
not in effect, but in will. He would have drawn both the
thieves to Him if they would. He wished to draw
both seizing one, as it were, by the right hand and the
other by the left. He drew one, the other He did not
draw. The one suffered himself to be drawn, the other
did not. Tertullian finds another mystery in this. " Christ,"
he says, " is always crucified between two thieves." He
calls the Church and the doctrine Christ, as Christ Him
self did when He said, " Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou
Me?" and that, when Saul was persecuting, not Christ
Himself, whom he believed to be dead, but His Church
and doctrine. We see, as Tertullian says, that the
Church is most frequently persecuted between two op
posite heresies.
The Ebionites said that Christ was God alone, and had
only the appearance of man. The Church stands in the
midst, and joins the two in one true God and true man.
The Sabellians taught that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
were not only one nature, but one Person also.
The Arians said that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were
not only three Persons, but three natures also.
The Church stands in the middle, teaching one nature,
three Persons.
The Nestorians said that in Christ were not only two
natures, but two Persons also.
The Eutychians taught that there was both one Person
and one nature.
The Church, in the middle, says one Person, two natures.
The Manichseans of old, and the followers of Luther
and Calvin in these days, deny that man has any free-
532 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH.XXVII. 39,42.
dom of will, and refer everything either to nature or divine
grace.
The Pelagians say that we have such strength of free-will
that we have no need of divine grace.
The Church is in the middle, and says that we have in
deed free-will, on the one hand, but that, on the other, we
still need the grace of God.
Verse 39. And they that passed by blasphemed Him.
S. Matthew says " they that passed by," meaning all who
did so, to show that not by one or two, but by all in com
mon, were insults heaped upon the crucified Christ.
Wagging their Jieads.
To move the head was a sign among the Jews sometimes
of commiseration or of admiration united with pity, some
times also of derision. In Job xvi. 5 ; xlii. n, it is a sign
of commiseration ; that is, they wept with him that wept
according to the admonition of S. Paul (Rom. xii. 15 ;
Ecclus. xii. 1 8, 19 ; Jerem. xviii. 16). Of derision, 4 Kings
xix. 21 ; Is. xxxvii. 22 ; Ps. xxi. 8, in which this scene was
foretold long before. For that whole psalm is to be under
stood of Christ suffering, as He Himself shows (verse 46)
by repeating its commencement ; and Ps. cviii. 25 ; Ecclus.
xiii. 8 ; Lam. ii. 15.
Verse 42. If He be the King of Israel, let Him now come
down from the cross.
It was not for the king, as such, to come down from the
cross ; for a king may be no stronger nor more able to
work miracles than another man. The words are to be
understood as in adaptation to the subject. They under
stand the king who would be the Messiah, and the Son
of God, as Christ professed Himself to be (S. Mark xv. 32 ;
5. Luke xxiii. 35).
CH. xxvii. 43, 44-J CHRIST REVILED. 533
Verse 43. He trusted in God. Let Him now deliver Him if
He will have Him.
The priests showed their blindness, bringing up Scrip
ture against themselves ; for these words, which they used
to convict Christ, are taken from Ps. xxi., which, as just
stated, was written entirely of Christ. They are the
words of the wicked who opposed not only the Divine
Providence but even God Himself ; and derided the holy
David, who served Him because he trusted to Him in
adversity. " He trusted in God," they say ; " let God
deliver Him, seeing that He delighteth in Him " ; that is,
David loved Him, that is, God as if they had said, " Let
the God whom He loves deliver Him ". In the same
sense we should understand what is here put concisely,
" Let God deliver Him if He will have Him " ; that is, if
He love God. It is a Hebraism yZT\velle\ that is, amare,
"to love". In the Greek it is expressed more at length
pvcrdo-Ow avrov el 6e\ei avrov, liberet mine eum si vult eum ;
that is, si amat eum, keeping the same Hebraism ; for the
Greeks do not say 0e\et, CLVTQV. The unwise priests, whilst
they endeavour to mock Christ, prove Him by their very
act to be the true Christ ; for they fulfil the prophecy of
David which was spoken of Christ. For although those
words were written by David of himself, as if spoken to
him by his enemies, it cannot be but that he showed in his
own person what would happen to Christ.
Verse 44. And the self -same thing.
That is, the same words, or the same reproaches in
other words : " If Thou be Christ, save Thyself and us "
(S. Luke xxiii. 39).
The thieves also that were crucified with Him.
S. Mark describes the same thing in the same words. S.
Luke says that one only of the thieves mocked Him. Many
534 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvn. 44.
of the Ancients have therefore supposed that at first both of
the thieves mocked Christ ; but that afterwards one of
them, seeing the portents which were taking place, patiente
C/iristo, and His singular patience and meekness, believed in
Him, and rebuked the other. Origen, S. Athanasius (Semi,
cont. Hceres. Omn.\ S. Hilary, S. Cyprian, Theophylact,
and Euthymius (in loc.} are of this opinion. S. Ambrose,
S. Jerome, and Bede think it probable. S. Cyprian (Serm.
de Pass. Dom.} y S. Cyril Jerusalem (Cat. Comm., xiii.),
S. Augustin (De Cons., iii. 17), S. Ambrose (Comment, on
S. Luke), S. Jerome (in loc.\ S. Leo (Serm. ii. de Pass.),
and S. Gregory (On Job xxvii. 16) hold the opinion, which
appears more probable, that only one of the thieves
reviled.
It is easy to see why S. Matthew and S. Mark spoke of
the thieves in the plural number. They did so by syllepsis.
S. Ambrose and S. Augustin bring many similar passages
from Scripture. "The kings of the earth stood up, and the
princes met together against the Lord, and against His
Christ" (Ps. ii. 2), though there was only one Herod who
conspired against Him, as S. Peter says (Acts iv. 26, 27).
Again (Heb. xi. 33, 34), Daniel alone stopped the mouths
of lions, and (verse 37) Isaiah alone was cut asunder.
Euthymius says that the Evangelists related these insults
of the thieves to show us what and how many contumelies
were endured by Christ, when not only the chief priests and
the others who brought Him to that place, but even the
thieves who were His companions in His punishment, and
who should have been filled with compassion both for
themselves and for Him, covered Him with reproaches.
The robbers were probably Jews : (i) because one received
Christ, even when hanging on the cross, as the Messiah so
long expected by the Jews ; and (2) because the other
treated Him with all the malice and incredulity of the
Jews. S. Luke (xxiii. 40) says that the other rebuked the
CH. xxvrr. 44-1 THE PENITENT THIEF. 535
blasphemer, saying, Neque tu times Deum, ou8e <f)o/3f) au
TOV Beov. These few words, " variously taken with each
other," admit of several explanations.
1. If joined together thus : " Nee, neither, fearest thou
God," the nee being referred to times, "fearest," and
meaning, " Thou not only dost not love and revere God,
but thou dost not even fear Him ". This opinion, which is
a more modern one, seems hardly tenable, because no
doubt the good and faithful thief meant to compare the
other with the Jews. This comparison is contained in the
word nee, " neither," as if he had said, " Not only those who
are under no punishment feel no fear of God, but even
thou, who art in the same condemnation, feelest none ".
2. If the stress comes on Deum, " God," the meaning
will be, " Not only dost thou not fear man, but not even
God Himself". This also seems inadmissible, because it
is not in agreement with the subject. There is no force in
the faithful thief saying, " Thou fearest not men alone, but
thou dost not even fear God". It seems clear that the words
are to to be taken as meaning, " Neither dost thou fear
God," although the Greek is ouSe <poj3fj av TOV Oeov. Our
version rightly alters the order of the words, and makes
the meaning plainer. The meaning will then be that, " Not
only these, who, as they are suffering no punishment, are
moved by no pity for that of this man, but rather forgetful
of the fear of God, heap insults upon Him, but not even
dost thou, who art under the same punishment as He, and
who oughtest, therefore, not to insult, but to commiserate
Him, fear God, but like the rest, without fear, addest
affliction to the afflicted ". This is the meaning of that
40th verse of S. Luke : " Neither dost thou fear God, seeing
thou art under," or " because thou art under," " the same
condemnation," as our version renders the Greek, which is
somewhat obscure.
An entirely new explanation has been offered by some
536 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH. xxvn. 44.
Moderns on ev roS avra) Kpi/jian el ; that is, " Because
thou art under the same condemnation," as if the thief had
said, " Though thou art at the point of death, and art
undergoing the most extreme punishment, thou dost not
fear God ". But the Greek does not allow this ; for the
Evangelist did not say, on ev rco auroS rcpl/juan, but on ev TO>
avrq* T&&gt; Kpfaan. These words mean not " that," but " the
same " condemnation. But as the expression " the same "
can only be used by comparison, another difficulty arises.
With what condemnation that is, with what punishment
(for it is clear that condemnation, or, as the Greek word is,
Kpifut, judiciunt) is called punishment) is that of the thief
compared ? Some think it the condemnation of the Jews,
as if the meaning were, " Neither dost thou fear God more
than these Jews, though thou deservest the same punish
ment as they for the contumelies heaped upon Christ ".
This explanation seems to be strengthened by the
opinion we have lately offered, that by the words " neither
dost thou" the other thief was compared to the Jews.
Some suppose that there is a comparison by the penitent
thief of his own punishment with the punishment of the
other. As if he had said : " While you are in the same
suffering as I, you yet do not fear God more than the
rest". But this explanation is abs re. The comparison
seems to be between the punishment of Christ and that of
the thief; and thus the meaning will be taken to be:
" Although you are in the same punishment as Christ, and,
what is more, you are suffering justly and He unjustly,
neither your fellowship in His punishment, nor His innocence
moves you to pity Him". The stress rightly falls upon the
words (verse 41), "we indeed justly, but He hath done no
thing amiss, 1 which is a correction of verse 40. As the good
thief had said that the other was under the same punishment
as Christ, he might have appeared to signify that Christ had
therefore committed a like offence. To prevent this he
CH. xxvn. 44 .] THE PENITENT THIEF. 537
classes himself by his words, "we indeed justly," with the
other, that his blame might be more moderate and gentle ;
and, not to appear to visit him too severely, he blamed
himself in an equal degree. Nihil mail gessit that is.
ov&ev CLTOTTOV nothing unbecoming a good man. The good
thief wished by these words to show, not merely that there
was no great wickedness in Christ, but that there was not
even the very slightest cause for blame. The word aroTrov
shows this, and therefore the thief used the word " Lord "
(S. Luke xxiii. 42). These words mean, not "when Thou
comest to reign," but " when Thou comest, reigning al
ready " ; not " when Thou comest to obtain a kingdom,"
but "when Thou hast obtained it" as Christ will come
to the judgment. A brief but full confession ; for the
thief confessed in a few words that Christ is both God and
King : a King when he said, " when Thou comest to Thy
kingdom," and God when he calls Him " Lord," and con
fesses Him to be such a King as to be able to forgive sins.
Lastly, the words "Remember me" show that He believed
in Christ s Resurrection. For he would not have asked
One who was apparently drawing His last breath to re
member him when He came to His kingdom, unless he
believed that He would both rise again and reign after He
had risen.
This confession, though most admirable in itself, yet is
more so if we take the time, place, and circumstances into
consideration, as S. Chrysostom (Horn. ii. de Cruce et
Latr^) and S. Leo (Serm. ii. de Passione) have ob
served. S. Leo s words are as follows : " What exhorta
tion urged to that confession ? What teaching instilled it ?
What preacher kindled it? The thief had not seen
Christ s miracles before : His care of the sick, His giving
sight to the blind, His raising the dead, had ceased. The
events that were to be had not yet taken place, and still
he confessed Him, whom he only saw as a sharer of his own
THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvu. 44.
punishment, to be his Lord and King." " Remember me."
A modest request. The thief did not ask to be made a
sharer of Christ s kingdom, or to have a more honourable
place in it than others, nor to sit on His right hand or on
His left, as the wife of Zebedee asked for her sons (xx. 21).
He only said, " Remember me " ; as if he had said, " Do
not shut me out, or take account of my sins, but for Thy
mercy and loving-kindness admit me even to the lowest
place. S. Augustin rightly concludes from these words
that there is a purgatory. The thief saw that he would
shortly die, and yet he prayed Christ to remember him
that is, to forgive his sins after his death. He believed,
therefore, according to the Jewish religion, that sins would
be forgiven after death. But this can only be done in
purgatory. S. Luke (xxiii. 43) says that Christ answered,
" Amen, I say to thee this day thou shalt be with Me in
paradise ". Three difficult questions are caused by these
words: (i) on "this day"; (2) on "in paradise"; (3) on
"with Me", i. Some join the words "this day" to "say,"
as if Christ had said, " Amen, I say to thee this day," not
" Thou shalt be with Me this day," as Theophylact says.
If this had been Christ s meaning He would assuredly have
said, "Amen, I say unto thee now," and not "this day".
Others even more senselessly refer these words to a period
after the Resurrection, that is, to the Day of Judgment; as
if Christ had said, " This day," that is, after the Resurrec
tion and last judgment. This would involve the souls of
the blest not being in any state of bliss before the supreme
judgment. If Christ had meant this He would not have
answered the prayer well ; for although this would only
have granted what was asked, it is clear that Christ granted
far more than this. The thief had said, " Remember me " ;
that is, " Forgive my offences ". Christ answered, " This
day thou shalt be with Me in paradise " ; that is, " I will
not only forgive thy sins, but I will give thee the best place
CH. xxvn. 44.] CHRIST S PROMISE TO PENITENT THIEF. 539
I will bring thee into paradise to be with Me". As if
He had said, " Near Me where I am " as He said before
(S. John xii. 26), " Where I am there also shall My minister
be". The thief had asked to be remembered, not im
mediately, but when Christ should come into His kingdom.
The answer of Christ was, " This day " " I will not delay
the granting of thy prayer so long as thou askest for so
many ages ; I will give thee thy prayer this day ". The
words " this day " correspond to the thief s " when Thou
comest ". Others have passed this over. S. Augustin
alone seems to have seen it (Cont. Felician, cxv.).
2. " In paradise." These words have been explained
both by Ancients and Moderns, and in many different
senses. Some, as S. Cyril of Jerusalem (CatecJi. Comm.,
xiii.), S. Greg. Nyss. (Serm. de Resur. Dom.), S. Chrysos-
tom (Horn. ii. de Cruce et Latr.\ S. Augustin (Tract, cxi.
on S. John), say that paradise here means heaven. If it be
asked how the thief could be in heaven with Christ on
that day, when He Himself would not ascend into it till
after forty days, the above authors and others who hold
this opinion answer that Christ, as He is God, is everywhere
present, and that He was therefore in heaven on that day.
But Christ evidently meant that not only the thief, but that
He Himself also should be that day in paradise, where,
when He spoke those words, He was not. There is a sort
of tacit comparison of persons and antithesis of places in
these words, as if Christ had said : " As thou art with Me
in the same punishment now, so thou shalt be with Me
this day in the same paradise".
Others explain paradise to be the place of Adam where
was the terrestrial paradise. Among these are Theophylact
and Euthymius. But these from the word "paradise" would
place Christ and the thief in the country of Mesopotamia,
or wherever Adam s paradise was. But what would Christ
do there after His death, or what benefit would it have been
54 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvn. 44.
to the thief to be carried to a place which is now waste
and barren and without enjoyment ? Others think that no
especial place was intended, but that wherever Christ is,
and is seen to be God, there paradise is said to be ; and
because the soul of the thief was to follow Christ and see
Him as God on that day, he is therefore said to be about
to be with Christ in paradise. Many Moderns adopt this
idea, and cite S. Augustin and Bede as its author. Let
them see how truly. It seems to be an idea which, who
ever was its author, cannot be maintained ; for Christ spoke
of paradise as a place where He then was not. On the
other hand, this opinion seems open to objection ; for if
paradise is merely a place whence God is seen, the thief
was in paradise when hanging on the cross, for he there
saw God, and, as the Doctors of the Church agree, never
ceased to be in bliss.
Paradise, in fact, would appear to be the bosom of
Abraham, the place where the holy men of old were in
waiting until the way to heaven was opened to them.
This place was called paradise and the place of rest ;
for into it as a place of enjoyment, or certainly of rest,
Lazarus was carried by the angels after his death (S. Luke
xvi. 22). As, then, Christ was about to go down thither on
that same day to show Himself to the holy fathers and the
spirits who were there, and to preach the Gospel to them,
as S. Peter tells us (i Ep. iii. 19), that returning thence He
might lead captivity captive (Ephes. iv. 8), Christ promised
the thief that he should go thither with Him that same
day. This is the opinion of S. Justin Martyr (Qucest. 76
ad Orthod.), S. Athanasius (Ep. to Epictetus\ S. Augustin
(De Genes, ad Litt., xii. 34), and Prudentius (Hymn, pro De-
functis). From this it is clear how the third word, mecum,
is to be understood : " Where I also shall be, whither 1 am
about to go ". It is said by some teachers of heresy that
there is no purgatory, and that no offence is remitted
CH. xxvn. 44.] PARADISE. 541
without also the remission of the punishment, for both
were remitted to the thief, who was not sent into purgatory
after his death but was admitted to paradise. These argue
from the particular to the general. There was no purga
tory for the thief, therefore there is none for any man ; the
offence of the thief was remitted and his punishment was
remitted also ; to none, therefore, when the fault is remitted
is the punishment retained. By this reasoning there would
be neither paradise nor hell. Not to speak of the other
thief, an infinite number of lost souls have no paradise. Are
we, therefore, to conclude that there is no paradise for
anyone ? Not only for this thief of whom we are speaking,
but also for the Apostles and many others of the blessed,
there was no hell. Is there none, therefore, for any man ?
It would be well if this were so ; we should then be free
from the numberless evils by which God punishes us. Who
denies that diseases, the miseries of this life, and death
itself are the penalties of original sin ? But the fault of
original sin is remitted, though the punishments of it are
retained. Who does not know that the offence of David s
adultery was forgiven, though some portion of the punish
ment was inflicted upon him (2 Kings xii. 13, 14) ?
The words of S. John (xix. 25, 26, 27) apply here :
" Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His Mother and
His Mother s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magda
lene. When Jesus, therefore, had seen His Mother and the
disciples standing whom He loved, He said to His Mother,
Woman, behold thy son ." Christ called His Mother
woman and not mother to show that she was widowed and
alone ; but when He said, " Behold thy son," He did not
commend that disciple to her, but He commended her to
the disciple, as if to say, " I do not leave thee wholly
deserted. That disciple shall fulfil My offices to thee ;
he shall console thee, protect thee, support thee". Then
He said to the disciple, " Behold thy mother ". These
54 2 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [CH.xxvii.45.
words are to be understood in a contrary sense, because
of the difference of the persons ; for Christ does not now
commend the disciple to the mother, but the mother to
the disciple, as if to say, " Henceforth thou shalt have
her as thy mother ; thou shalt cherish (cold] her, comfort
her, protect her, support her (ales).
Verse 45. Now from the sixth hour.
We have now to meet the difficult question of the hour
at which Christ was crucified. S. Mark (xv. 25) says that
it was the third hour. Hence it has been concluded that,
as there was darkness for three hours, Christ hung on the
cross during that time, for the words of S. Mark are not
contrary to those of S. Matthew. For although S. Matthew
does not state directly at what hour Christ was crucified,
yet when he says that the darkness happened at the sixth
hour (after the distribution of His clothes, the blasphemies
of the Jews as He was hanging on the cross, and the
conversation of Christ and the thief), he shows that Christ
was crucified before the sixth hour. But S. John appears
to be at variance with S. Mark ; for S. John says (xix. 14),
" And it was the parasceue of the Pasch, about the sixth
hour ". Christ, therefore, could not have been crucified at
the third hour, as S. Mark says ; nor even at the sixth,
when S. Matthew speaks of the darkness while He was on
the cross ; for there were so many things done in the
interval between His condemnation and crucifixion. He
was brought by the soldiers into the hall. He was
scourged, crowned with the thorns, clothed in the purple
robe, mocked, and, lastly, led slowly to Calvary, as a man
so greatly wearied and carrying his cross would necessarily
be. All these things could not have been done in the
space of one hour only. S. Augustin has solved the
difficulty in two ways (Tract, on S. John cxvi., and De
Consens., iii. 13).
CH. xxvn. 45.] THE DARKNESS. 543
1. At the third hour, as S. Mark says (xv. 25), Christ was
crucified, not by the hands of the soldiers, but by the
tongues of the Jews ; for it was at that hour that they
cried out to Pilate, "Crucify Him! crucify Him!" But
this explanation does not appear to agree with the words
of the Evangelists. For it is clear that S. Mark does not
speak of that metaphorical crucifixion of tongues, but of
the actual crucifixion ; for he speaks at once (xv. 24, 25) of
His being crucified and of the division of His garments.
Again, he had said just before (verses 13, 14) that the Jews
cried out to Pilate, " Crucify Him ! " Why should it have
occurred to him to say a second time that Christ was cruci
fied by the tongues of the Jews ? Lastly, it is clear from
S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke that Christ was crucified
before the sixth hour, for they all three say, Eojam crucifixo,
" When He was now crucified the darkness came ". He
could not have been crucified, therefore, at the sixth hour,
and much less condemned by Pilate. Hence if one or
other Evangelist requires to be explained S. Mark or
S. John it must be S. John rather than S. Mark, for his
opinion seems to be less in harmony with that of the others.
2. The second opinion of S. Augustin is that Christ was
condemned at the sixth hour of the night, and not of the
day, and that He was crucified at the third hour, not of
the night, but of the day, as S. Mark says. S. John does
not say absolutely that it was the sixth hour, but that it
was about (quasi] the sixth hour of the Parasceue. The
Parasceue was not only the day, but also the night ; or, as
S. Augustin thinks, the night rather than the day. But
S. Augustin himself thinks this idea less tenable than the
other, and can be more easily refuted. We have said
before, and it is certain from 6". Luke xxii. 66, that
the day had certainly dawned before Christ was brought to
Pilate. But even if He had been condemned as soon as
He was accused, He could not have been condemned at
544 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvn. 45.
the sixth hour ; and, besides, many things had happened
before His condemnation, but after He was brought to
Pilate. Pilate made many efforts to set Him free. He
examined Him carefully as to whether He were the King
of the Jews. He sent Him to Herod. Herod sent Him
back. He scourged Him when sent back. Some have
conjectured that the word " third " in S. Mark xv. 25 has
got into the text from a mistake of the transcriber, and
that for the third hour we should read the sixth. This may
easily have happened, from the resemblance of the Greek
letters <r and 7, which represent three and six. But there is
no evidence in support of this opinion, and we should not
alter the text merely to meet a difficulty. And even if this
conjecture were true, the passage would not be explained ;
for, supposing S. Mark to have said that Christ was cruci
fied at the sixth hour, how could He have been cruci
fied then, as S. John says that He was condemned at that
hour, and between His condemnation and crucifixion there
must have been at least an hour ? How do S. Matthew,
S. Luke, and even S. Mark himself, say that the darkness
was at the sixth hour, when Christ had been crucified
much before ? Again, S. Mark (verse 33) says, "When the
sixth hour was come " (yevofiew]? Se upas eVr???), when he
had said before that Christ was crucified at the third hour,
thus opposing the sixth hour to the third when Christ was
crucified. For the word 76^0/^^779 (factce, " come ") has the
force here of meaning that it had not come before, and the
particle Se, " but," is a disjunctive one, by which S. Mark
opposes that hour to the one in which he had said that
Christ was crucified. If any passage has to be corrected,
it should rather be, as some still think, that of S. John, that
for the sixth we may read the third hour. But this, again, is
not to correct, but to deprave Scripture, and the same ques
tion will remain : How could Christ have been condemned
at the third hour, when S. Mark says that He was crucified
CH. xxvii. 45.] THE SIXTH HOUR. 545
then, and at least one hour must have elapsed before His
condemnation and crucifixion ? The question is easy, and
it would have been already answered by N. de Lyra if
many, from over much curiosity and subtlety, had not
made it difficult.
It has been observed on chap. xx. that the Hebrews
divided the day into twelve hours, called by astronomers
usuales and incequales. These twelve hours they sub
divided again into four parts, as they did with the night
also, only that each division of the latter had its own
military name of watch <j>v\a/cai, each soldier keeping
guard for three hours. The four divisions of the day,
each consisting of three hours, having no proper name
of their own, received one from the end of the preced
ing division. The entire space of three hours, therefore,
which intervened between sunrise and the third hour of the
day was called the third hour, from the third hour, which
was the last of that interval if described strictly and
accurately. It was the custom of the Jews, as it is ours, to
call the hours that follow by those that have last passed.
Thus when the clock has struck twelve we call it noon till
one o clock ; or at least until twelve is nearly over, though
it is not properly noon, but one o clock, or the first hour
after noon ; for the hour of noon is that which begins at
eleven and ends at twelve.
When we speak of the time, therefore, between eleven
and twelve, we sometimes call it eleven and sometimes
twelve, at one time naming it from the beginning, and at
another from the end of the hour. S. Mark and S. John
speak in the same manner. For as Christ was condemned
and crucified in the interval between the end of the third
hour, which is the beginning of the sixth, and the end of
the sixth, which is the beginning of the ninth, S. John,
dating from the end of the third hour, calls it the sixth
hour : S. Mark, dating from the beginning of that period,
235
546 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvn. 45.
calls it the third hour ; but because it is not likely that S.
John would have called it the sixth hour until the time
was getting on towards the end of the sixth hour, as we
should not call it one o clock until it was at least half-past
twelve, it is to be supposed that Christ was condemned
after half-past ten if we reckon by our own time ; for their
third hour answered to our nine o clock, their sixth to our
twelve, and their third hour and half was our half-past ten.
At that time, therefore, Christ was condemned, and S. John
says that He was condemned about the sixth hour. He
was crucified about an hour later, that is, about half-past
eleven, which S. Mark calls the third hour, because the
whole time between the third and sixth hours was called
the third hour.
Christ had, therefore, been crucified one and a half hour
when the darkness came on. His garments were then
divided by the soldiers, the revilings of the Jews took
place, and paradise was promised to the thief.
From this it follows that they are in error who think that
Christ hung on the cross alive for six hours ; that is, from
nine o clock in the morning till the third hour after noon ;
that is, three o clock. By this account of time He could
not have hung on the cross alive more than four hours ; for
He was crucified after eleven o clock, and at the ninth hour,
that is, the third after noon, or shortly after, He expired ;
as S. Matthew relates in verses 46 to 50.
Origen and Theophylact say that Christ was crucified
at the same hour as that in which Adam fell, which was
about noon ; others, that, at the hour of the expulsion of
Adam from paradise, Christ opened the gates of it again.
S. Luke (xxiii. 44) says that it was almost the sixth
hour ; not that it was not the sixth hour, but either he
was not quite sure whether or not the sixth hour was com
pleted, or he would not affirm that it was, he added the
word "almost," as we do when we state the time, but it is of
CH. xxvn. 45.] THE DARKNESS. 547
no consequence to be exact. Both S. Matthew, in this
place, and S. Mark (xv. 33) say : " When the sixth hour
was come there was darkness over the whole earth until
the ninth hour". The three Evangelists say that it was
the sixth hour that is, midday that the miracle might
appear more wonderful ; for when the sun was at its height
the darkness came, as Amos had foretold (viii. 9) : " And
it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that
the sun shall go down at midday, and I will make the
earth dark in the day of light ". They seemed opposite
events, and therefore more wonderful, that the sun should
be in the meridian and go down. The Evangelists probably
named the sixth hour that no one might endeavour to
obscure a miracle, so notable and clearer than the day, by
saying that it was not true darkness, but that it was either
morning or evening, and that the interposition of an un
usually dense cloud made it appear that there was darkness
when there was not really such.
TJiere was darkness.
It may not have been a darkness as thick and dense as
that of midnight, when there is neither sun nor moon, but
such as that of a total eclipse of the sun ; for neither the
Mother of Christ nor S. John left the place, nor the soldiers
nor the other spectators, whom no love of Christ detained
at the cross as it did the disciple and the Mother. For it
would have been wonderful if during those three full hours
the darkness had been as dense as night and they had not
gone away. The Evangelists do not explain how the
darkness was caused, and therefore we cannot know to any
certainty. But we may conceive what is most likely. Some
enemies of Christ, to magnify the miracle forsooth, have
said that it was a simple eclipse, as Origen and S. Jerome
inform us when treating of the passage. But they easily
answer the objection and expose their ignorance.
548 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. [Cn. xxvu. 45.
It was the season of Pasch, which always falls on the
fifteenth day of the first month, when the moon is at the
full ; whereas an eclipse of the sun, which is caused by the
irregularity of the natural course of the stars, can only
happen when the moon is new, for then it is in conjunction
with the sun and the earth, and intercepts the light of the
sun. Others think that it was an eclipse, but a super
natural one. For when the moon was distant from the sun
half the breadth of the heavens, as is the case when it is
full, at the commandment of God it went back and returned
to the place of the sun and darkened it, as happened at the
prayer of King Ezechia, when the sun went back ten
degrees. Origen and Dionysius the Areopagite were the
authors of this opinion. The latter, when he was in Egypt
with his attendant Apollophanes, has recorded, in his letter
to S. Polycarp, that he saw that eclipse which was caused
in contradiction to the laws of nature. This opinion is
held by almost all Catholics and is very probable, ipse per
se, without the weight of authority. The only point against
it, as will be shown by and by, is the fact that the darkness
was only seen in Judaea, and, therefore, that it could not
have been visible in Egypt, a country so far distant. This
objection shall, shortly, be answered. Others think that
the sun was darkened by the subtraction of its rays ; as
if it were astounded, as S. Jerome says, witnessing so
shameful a deed. Others, again, hold that dense clouds
were interspersed, as in the miraculous darkness in Egypt
(Exod. x. 22, 23). Origen appears to have been of this
opinion, and S. Chrysostom, in his Horn. Ixxxix. on S*
Matt. So also were Theophylact and Euthymius. It
would not be foreign to our object to enquire why this
darkness was sent ? Some think e.g., 
