And it came to pass, when He had finished, or completed, all that He had spoken in the last chapter concerning, the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world, then He girded Himself to meet His Passion, which was nigh at hand, and foretold it. He would not seem to be ignorant of the things which were shortly to come to pass, whilst He prophesied of those in the far distant future. He would not have His disciples suppose that Christ was ignorant of the things which were to befall Him, or that they happened to Him against His will; but that they might know that all was foreseen by Him. The meaning is, as S. Thomas expresses it, “When Christ had fulfilled His office as a Teacher, He began to prepare Himself for the office of a Redeemer and a Saviour.”

Ye know, &c., after two days. He said, therefore, these things on the Tuesday evening, when, after the Hebrew custom, the fourth day of the week, or Wednesday, was about to begin. This was the reckoning employed with respect to festivals. For, as Pererius says (on Gen. i. 5, on the words, “The evening and the morning were one day”), “It is certain that the ancient Jews reckoned their days by a threefold method.” First, the legal day from evening to evening. Secondly, the natural day from sunrise to sunrise. Thirdly, the common day from midnight to midnight. Wherefore Christ saith truly, After two days shall be the feast of the Passover, because after two days, that is to say, Wednesday and Thursday, on the evening of Thursday, when Friday is about to begin, is the Passover.

The Passover. This means in Hebrew, passing over, because the angel passed over the houses of the Hebrews. For pasach means to pass over. But the Syrians write pascha not with samech, as the Hebrews, but with tsade, and then pascha signifies joy and gladness, for the feast of the Passover was a time of utmost joyfulness.

Then were gathered together, &c. Then means on the morning of the fourth day of the week, or Wednesday. It was or the morning of this day that Judas came to them, and sold Christ to them for the stipulated price of thirty denarii, according to the general opinion of the Church, and as the same may be gathered from S. Matthew’s narrative. Wherefore from this council of the Jews, and selling of Jesus, the ancient Christians were accustomed to fast on Wednesday, as S. Augustine testifies (Epist. 86). Moreover, the Greeks, and many inhabitants of Poland and Holland, still abstain from eating flesh on Wednesday, because on that day the flesh of Christ was sold.

Observe, we gather from S. Matthew’s narrative that on these two days—Wednesday and Thursday—Christ did not come into Jerusalem, as He had done on the Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, but remained at Bethany, and only returned to Jerusalem towards the evening of Thursday, that He might celebrate the Passover.

Take Jesus by subtilty—by subtilty, because they were afraid lest Christ should take Himself out of their hands, as He had done before. Again, they seek a stratagem, that they might seize Him without a tumult of the people. For they were afraid lest the people, hanging upon the words of Christ, as a very great prophet, might fight for Him, and not suffer Him to be taken. Wherefore it follows,

For they said, &c. It was not, therefore, out of regard for the festival, but from fear of the people, that they were unwilling to take Jesus on the feast of the Passover. For at this feast a countless multitude of Jews flocked together to Jerusalem, among whom were many who had received salvation both of body and soul from Jesus, who, they feared, would defend Him. Wherefore, “They had no zeal for devotion, but for wickedness,” says S. Jerome. In like manner, Herod Agrippa did not wish to put Peter to death until after the Passover (Acts xii.). For the Passover was to the Jews a festival of liberty and joy, because in it they celebrated their deliverance from the slavery of Egypt. Whence they were accustomed to release condemned persons at that time, as they released Barabbas. The rulers, therefore, had decreed to take Christ and put Him to death after the Passover; but in consequence of the treachery of Judas, they changed their purpose. For the counsel and purpose of God was, that Christ should die at the Passover, in order that He might show that the antitype answered to its type. For the sacrifice of a lamb, which took place at the Passover, was a type that Christ would be sacrificed at that feast. By this circumstance God signified that Christ was the very Paschal Lamb, who suffered upon the cross for the redemption of the world.

In the house of Simon the leper. Matthew repeats more circumstantially things which had already happened, in order to relate the manner in which Christ was taken. For Judas was moved to betray Christ to the Jews by the occasion of this ointment, that he might by his treachery recover the price of the ointment, and, like a thief, as he was, hide it in his coffers. This feast, when Christ was in the house of Simon, took place on the day before Palm Sunday, as is plain from S. John xii. 1, where it is said, six days before the Passover, which was Friday, He came to Bethany. And it is added, they made Him a feast, that is, Simon and his friends. This was on the Saturday, or the Sabbath; and the next day was Palm Sunday.

Simon the leper. Some of the Fathers are of opinion that Simon had really been a leper, and had been healed by Christ. Others think that Leper was a patronymic of the family of Simon, either because he was descended from a leper, or because of some connection with lepers. Thus there were at Rome the families of the Claudii (the Lame), and the Balbi (the Sutterers), although there were many members of those families who were neither lame nor stutterers.

There came to Him a woman, &c. This was the same feast as that which S. John gives an account of (xii. 1), as will be seen by comparing these two Evangelists. S. Matthew relates it in order to explain the occasion of Judas’ being moved to betray Christ, as I have said.

You may object that John says, They made Him a feast, and Martha served, which might seem to intimate that the feast was in Martha’s house, not in Simon’s. I reply by denying the inference. John does not say that Martha and Mary made Him a feast, but simply, they, that is, some persons, made one. The persons meant were the inhabitants of Bethany, friends of Jesus, prominent among whom was this Simon the leper. But Martha ministered at this supper, either because she was a neighbour, or because she was a friend and relative of Simon.

A woman. Mary Magdalene, as S. John says expressly (xii. 3), who, as she had two years before this repented, and washed the feet of Jesus with her tears, and anointed them with ointment, so upon this occasion likewise, six days before His death, she did the same thing, partly from devotion, and partly by an inspiration from God, as a kind of prophecy of Christ’s rapidly approaching death and burial.

Alabaster. Vessels made of alabaster, or onyx stone, which Pliny says was an excellent material for preserving ointment incorrupt (lib. 36, cap. 8), were made use of for this purpose. Wherefore it is not surprising that this hollow vessel, which was as thin and brittle as glass, might easily be broken by Mary Magdalene, by striking it with a small hammer, so that she might pour the whole of the ointment upon the head of Christ. Unless you prefer to think, with Suidas, that this so-called alabaster box was a clear vessel without a handle, such as chemists have in their shops to keep unguents and drugs in.

S. Epiphanius (lib. de Mensuris) says, “This box was a small glass vessel of ointment, containing a pound of oil. It was called alabaster because of its brittleness.”

Ointment. I have shown on Eccles. ix. 8 that the Jews followed the custom of the Arabians, Persians, Syrians, and other Eastern nations in making use of unguents at their feasts for purposes of refreshment, and as a hindrance to drunkenness. Moreover, those ointments were not unfrequently not thick, such as those which doctors make use of for blows and wounds, but in a liquid state. They were confections of odoriferous herbs, which refreshed and delighted the brain and the other parts of the body. This particular ointment was fluid spikenard, as we learn from S. John. Spikenard has a very sweet smell, and abounds in Syria. Whence Tibullus, “His temples lately moist with Tyrian (or better, Syrian) nard.” It is certain that spikenard compounded with oil formed a very precious ointment, which the ancients made use of for anointing the head. (See Plin. lib. xiii. caps. 1 and 2.)

Precious; Gr. βαζυτίμου, of great price; lit. heavy, because money was formerly estimated according to weight, as by the ounce, the pound. The Syriac adds, it was very sweet; S. Mark says, spicati (Vulg.); S. John, pistici. I will explain the meaning of these words in S. John xii. 3.

Upon His head. You will say that John has, she anointed the feet of Jesus, &c. I answer that Mary Magdalene first anointed the feet of Christ and then poured all the contents of the vessel upon His head. To do this she broke off the narrow neck of the bottle, as we gather from S. Mark. So S. Augustine (lib. de Consens. Evangel. 79). John adds, she wiped His feet, that is, before she anointed them, to cleanse them from dust. For Jesus went about with the upper part of His feet uncovered, as I have shown, x. 10. So Toletus. But if any one shall maintain that she wiped Christ’s feet after the anointing, in order to dry them, I offer no objection. John, in order to show the surpassing excellence of the ointment, adds, And the house was filled with the odour. In the Magdalene, therefore, was fulfilled the words of Canticles i. 12, “When the king was on his couch my spikenard gave its odour” (Vulg.). Also, “Thy name is as oil poured forth.”

Tropologically: Origen says that oil or ointment is the work of virtue, especially of mercy. If this be shown out of natural compassion, as it is by infidels, not for God’s sake, God accepts it indeed, but not unto life eternal. But if it be done from love to God, it is an excellent ointment of a sweet-smelliing savour. Again, if a good work be done to relieve the wants of the poor, it is an anointing of the feet of the Lord. For the poor in the Church are the mystical feet of the Lord. But if the work be done for the glory of God, as in the way of zeal for chastity, fasting, or prayer, it is an anointing of the Lord’s head, a precious ointment, with whose odour the whole Church is filled; and this is the proper work of the perfect.

2d The Gloss says, “This woman who anointed the head and feet of Christ signifies the faith of the Church, which, when it preaches and invokes the Godhead of Christ, anoints His head: when it preaches His humanity, His feet.”

Lastly, he anoints the feet, who in an active life serves his neighbour; but he the head, who cleaves to God by contemplation, and becomes one spirit with Him.

When the disciples saw it, &c. You may say that S. John speaks only of Judas as murmuring. S. Augustine (lib. 2, de Consens. Evang. c. 69) says that Judas was the leader and inciter of this murmuring, who stirred up the other Apostles, in the pretence of pity for the poor, to indignation, which in their case flowed from a real affection of pity, but with him was a mere pretence, springing from avarice.

Sold for much . . . three hundred denarii, as Mark has. Judas meant to say that this ointment ought not to have been used for luxury and pleasure upon the head of Christ, but ought to have been poured into the lap of many poor, to relieve their wants. This was the opinion of Calvin, who, lest any one should make use of the “example of Mary Magdalene to approve of funereal honours, in the way of lights, incense, and other like observances, says that this action of hers must neither be approved nor imitated, but only defended, as done by a special inspiration of the Holy Ghost. But who cannot see that the spirit of Judas and Calvin are identical, and that the same Satan speaks by Calvin who erst spake by Judas, whom Christ proceeds to confute?

But Jesus knowing, &c.,—by the Divine Spirit their secret murmuring,—said, Why trouble ye, &c. Arab. Why do you blame? A good work; καλόν, i.e., fair, honourable, worthy of highest praise. For what can be more worthy and honourable than to anoint the feet of God? Who would not account himself happy if he might but touch and kiss the feet of Christ?

The poor ye have always, &c. The world is full of poor, to whom ye may always do good; but I, after six days, am about to die, and go away to Heaven, so that ye will not be able either to see Me or to touch Me. Suffer then this woman’s act of service towards Me. In six days ye would vainly desire to do the like.

For My burial. Christ might have excused Mary because of the excellence of His Divine Person, which was anointed by her, which made it more meritorious to expend the price of the ointment upon Him than upon feeding the poor, as Theophylact teaches. And the same argument holds good in the present day with respect to the adornment of temples, altars, chalices, &c. For this is done in honour of the person of Christ, to stir up the devotion and reverence of others towards Him, when there is no special necessity calling for the relief of the poor. Or Christ might have excused her, because she performed this anointing out of gratitude, piety, reverence. But out of modesty He was unwilling to make use of these pleas. His only ground of defence is, she did it for My burial, that He might show that His death was at hand, and that He was willing and ready to die, yea, that He had ordained the anointing with a view to His death, and so permitted the consequent betrayal of Judas. For Christ very greatly longed for His death, for the glory of God and the redemption of men. At the same time He, as it were, pricks Judas; as S. Chrysostom says, “I am troublesome and burdensome to you, but wait a little while, and I will depart hence. But take thou care lest, by betraying Me, thou promotest My death, lest thou bring death and hell upon thyself.” The Syriac adds, She did it as if for My burial, because Mary did not intend to anoint Him for burial; but the Holy Ghost, knowing what was about to take place, inwardly moved her to do what she did.

Christ therefore excuses her because of her inward affection of charity, because of the peculiar circumstances and the unique occasion, and especially because the Holy Ghost guided her, although she knew not what she did. For she anointed Him as though He had been on the very point of being buried. She could not anoint Him for burial after He was dead, because she was anticipated by Joseph of Arimathea. So Mark says distinctly, She hath done what she could; she is come aforehand to anoint My body for the burial. S. John has, Let her alone, that she may keep (ut servet) it for the day of My burial (Vulg.). The Greek is in the past tense, she hath kept it. As though He had said, “Suffer her, 0 Judas, to obey the instinct of her devotion, that she may anoint Me yet alive, though so soon about to die, for she will not be able to do it after I am dead.” So Vatablus. Otherwise Maldonatus, That she may keep it, “She has so bestowed this ointment in anointing Me that she cannot lose it.” As if one should say that he had kept his money who had bought a field with it; for if he had hidden it in a coffer, he might have lost it. That she may keep it—that she may be proved to have kept it (Franc. Lucas).

Somewhat differently Nonnus Panopolitanus, who read with the Vulg. ίνα τηζήόη, that she may keep, “Account this woman’s gift free from all blame, so that she may keep and preserve the treasure of My body until the hour of My death and preparation for burial be come.”

Verily I say unto you . . . for a memorial of her, i.e., of Mary Magdalene, not of Christ, as is shown by the fem. pronoun αυ̉τη̃ς. This anointing and pious devotion shall be celebrated throughout the whole world for the everlasting praise and honour of Mary, and for the infamy of Judas, who found fault with her. Victor of Antioch paraphrases as follows, “So far am I from condemning her as though she had done amiss, or blaming her as though she had not acted aright, that I will never suffer this deed of hers to he forgotten in all time to come. Yea, the whole world shall know what she did in a house and in obscurity. For she did it with a pious mind, and with fervent faith and a contrite heart. What was done was pleasing, not so much because of the money that was spent, as because of the faith which she offered together with the ointment. For this was to Me as the most fragrant of all odours.”

Then went away (abiit) one of the twelve, &c. The word then refers partly to what has immediately preceded, and partly to the council of the rulers about taking Christ in the 16th verse. It means that on the Saturday before Palm Sunday, when Judas, the instigator of the murmuring, found himself rebuked by Christ, he did not repent as the other Apostles, whom he had misled, did, but then he made his forehead brazen, and clothed himself with the cloak of impudence, and, mad with covetousness and wickedness, he determined to sell and betray Christ to the Jews. Therefore, on the following Wednesday, when the rulers were taking counsel as to the way in which they might lay hold on Christ, he came to them, and suggested a method, and stipulated to deliver Him into their hands for thirty pieces of silver.

One of the twelve. An Apostle, not one even of Christ’s seventy disciples, or He might the better have borne it, but one of the twelve Apostles, and of His own most intimate friends, whom He had elevated to that lofty rank. So this was the dark ingratitude and wickedness of Judas, which pierced the heart of Christ, so that He said, “If mine enemy had spoken evil of Me, I would have borne it,” &c. “But thou, the man united to me, my guide and my familiar friend! We took sweet counsel together, and walked in the house of God by consent” (Ps. lv. 13, &c). Wherefore S. Augustine (Tract. 61 in Joan.) says, “One by vocation, not by predestination; in number, not in merit; in body, not in spirit; in appearance, not in reality.”

He went away. Satan having entered into him, as Mark has, not that Satan insinuated himself into the soul of Judas, and so inclined his will and intellect to betray Christ. For God alone is able to glide into the soul, as Didymus rightly teaches (Tract. 3, de Spiritu Sancto). Neither was it that Satan took bodily possession of Judas, in the same way that he possesses energumens, but that he presented reasons suited to his imagination, which induced him to betray Christ, as S. John shows, xiii. 2. The same Evangelist says in the 27th verse, that after supper, when Judas had received the morsel from Christ, Satan entered into him, in order that he might accomplish in act the treachery which he had already purposed in his mind. This expression shows also the horrible atrocity of Judas’ wickedness, as though a man were not sufficient for its perpetration, but there were need of the help and instigation of the devil.

And he said unto them, What will ye give me, &c. “Unhappy Judas,” says S. Jerome, “wishes to recompense himself for the loss which he deemed he had sustained by the pouring forth of the oil, by selling his Master. Nor does he even demand a certain sum, so that his treachery might at least seem profitable, but as though he were disposing of a worthless slave, he left the price to the option of the buyers.”

So S. Jerome, who thinks that Judas did not stipulate for any fixed sum, but left it to be determined by the rulers, as though he had said, “Give me what you will.” But others, with greater probability, say that Judas bargained with the rulers thus, “I will sell Christ to you, but for so great a person, and for one whom you hate so much, I demand a suitable price. How much will ye give me?”

Thirty pieces of silver. See the vileness of Judas in valuing Christ, the Saviour of the world, his Master and his Lord, for such a miserable sum. This vileness afflicted Christ with great sorrow. Wherefore S. Ambrose says (lib. de Spirit. Sanct. c. 18) “0 Judas, the traitor, thou valuest the ointment of His Passion at 300 denarii, and His Passion itself at thirty,—rich in valuing, cheap in crime!”

You will ask what was the weight and value of these thirty pieces of silver. Baronius (ex Helia in Tisbi, R. David, and other more modern Rabbins) thinks that the silver piece of Zechariah and the prophets, and consequently of this passage of S. Matthew, as is plain from xxvii 9, is a pound of silver. This would amount to about 1000 Flemish florins. But who can believe that the covetous Jews would pay such a sum to Judas, of his own accord making the offer, not to sell, but only to betray and guide them to a man who was daily to be met with, especially since the Fathers and Zechariah marvel at the price as being so small and poor?

With greater probability, Maldonatus and others understand thirty shekels to be here intended, which would be equal in value to thirty Flemish florins. This was the price at which a slave, who had been killed, was estimated, according to the law in Exod. xxi. 32. Thus the life of Christ was valued by Judas and the Jews at the same price as that of a slave.

But since Jeremiah (xxxii. 9) distinguishes the stater, or the shekel, which is the Hebrew word, from the silver piece, for he says, “Weigh for it the silver, seven staters and ten silver pieces” (Vulg. following the Heb. See also the margin of the English Version), it would seem more probable that these silver pieces of Judas were half shekels or double denarii. I have been the more confirmed in this opinion from seeing in the Church of the Holy Cross of Jerusalem at Rome, together with a portion of the true Cross brought thither by S. Helena, one of those silver pieces for which Christ was sold. This is about the size of a Spanish real, but a little thicker. Hence, also, Zacharias calls the price, ironically, due or fitting; Ang. Vers. goodly. The shekel was equal to a Flemish florin, so that the thirty pieces of silver would be equal to fifteen Flemish florins.

You will ask how could “the potter’s field” be bought for such a sum as this? I answer, that the Heb. שדה, sade, and the Syr. חקל, chakel, i.e., a field, is put for any piece of land, however sandy, stony, or barren, such as sand-pits, which this “field” probably was. It seems to have been useless for agricultural purposes, and of very small value, like the Jewish cemeteries outside the cities of Germany. It is also possible that the rulers may have supplemented the thirty pieces of silver by a grant from the corbana, or treasury.

Observe: Joseph being sold by his brethren was a type of this selling of Christ. But Joseph was sold for twenty pieces of silver, for it was not fitting, says S. Jerome, that the servant should be sold for as much as his Master.

Observe secondly: Judas, according to S. Ambrose, received the tenth part of the price of the ointment with which Christ was anointed, which was valued at 300 denarii. But it is more probable that he received the fifth part, for the silver piece of Judas seems to have been, as has been said, a double denarius.

Thirdly, because Christ was sold at so vile a price, therefore He deserved to become the price of the whole world, and of all sinners.

Fourthly, because of these thirty pieces of silver, with which Judas and the Jews trafficked for Christ, God smites them with thirty curses in the 109th Psalm. The first is, “Set Thou an ungodly man to be ruler over him.” The second, “Let the devil stand at his right hand.” The third, “When he is judged, let him be condemned.” The fourth, “Let his prayer be turned into sin.” The fifth, “Let his days be few.” The sixth, “His bishopric let another take,” and so on. Lastly, as Hegesippus says, thirty Jews, who were taken captive by Titus, were sold for one denarius.

Sought opportunity—and found it the following day, being Thursday, which was the first day of unleavened bread. Hear Origen: “Such an opportunity as he sought, Luke explains by saying, he sought . . . in the absence of the multitude, that is to say, when the people were not about Him; but He was in private with His disciples. This also he did, betraying Him at night after supper, in the garden of Gethsemane, whither He had retired.”

Ver. 17. On the first day of unleavened bread, &c. The Passover was to be eaten with unleavened, that is, pure unfermented bread, according to the Law. This abstinence from leaven lasted seven days, and the first day of unleavened bread was the first day of the Passover. The Pasch or Passover was celebrated on the 14th day of the first month, at even ; that is to say, on the full moon of the month called Nisan, which was that in which fell the full moon of the vernal equinox. Wherefore, Nisan answers partly to our March and partly to April.

The following is the chronology of the last eight days of the life of Christ. On the Friday, which was the 8th day of Nisan, He came from Ephrem to Bethany. The next day, being the Sabbath, He sups in the house of Simon the leper. The day following was the 10th of Nisan, and Palm Sunday. On the 11th of Nisan, He taught in the Temple, and cursed the barren fig-tree. On the 12th, He foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, and spake the parables recorded in S. Matthew xxiv. and xxv. On the 13th of Nisan, or Wednesday, the rulers held their council, when Judas sold Him to them. On the 14th of Nisan, He instituted the Eucharist. On the 15th, He was crucified. The 16th of Nisan was Saturday, when He lay in the tomb. The 17th of Nisan was Easter Sunday.

On the first day of unleavened bread, that is, the 14th day of Nisan, or the full moon, Christ about mid-day sent two of His disciples from Bethany to Jerusalem to prepare and roast the paschal lamb, that He might eat it with them in the evening. Here observe, that the first day of unleavened bread is sometimes called the 14th of Nisan and sometimes the 15th. For that evening in which the Jews celebrated the Pasch, with which the days and the eating of unleavened bread commenced, according to the natural computation of time, pertained to the fourteenth day, but according to the computation observed with respect to festivals, it pertained to the following day, or the 15th of Nisan.

You will ask, What was the precise day on which Christ ate the Passover and instituted the Eucharist? Was it the same day on which the Jews kept the Pasch, or was it another? I take it for granted that, according to the belief of the whole Church, Christ was crucified on Friday, and therefore that He ate the paschal lamb at supper the day before, or on Thursday evening.

1st Euthymius and the Greeks say that Christ celebrated the Pasch on the 13th of Nisan; that He anticipated the time fixed by the Law for the Passover, on account of His Passion, which was about to be on the next day, on which the Jews celebrated the Passover. And because the use of azyms, or unleavened bread, began with the Passover on the following day, they think that Christ instituted the Eucharist before the azyms, and in leavened bread. Therefore they celebrate in leavened bread; and they say that this is a command. Whence they condemn the Latins for celebrating in unleavened bread, and call them Azymites and heretics. And they wash their altars before they will celebrate upon them, as deeming them polluted with unleavened bread. They cite in favour of their view S. John xiii. 1, 2, who says, before the feast of the Passover (that is, before the fourteenth day of the moon, when they began to eat unleavened bread) Christ made His supper.

2d Rupertus, Jansen, Maldonatus, and Salmeron, who enters at length into the subject (tract 9, tom. 4), say that Christ celebrated the Pasch according to the Law on the 14th of Nisan, but that the Jews deferred it until the 15th, an opinion thought to be supported by S. John. For there was a tradition, says Burgensis (ex Seder Olam), that if the Passover fell on the Friday, or the preparation for the Sabbath, it was transferred to the following day, which was the Sabbath, or Saturday, lest two solemn festivals, the Passover and the Sabbath, should concur.¹ But this tradition is later than the time of Christ, as may be proved from the Talmud and Aben Ezra.

With these I say that both Christ and the Jews celebrated the Passover on the same day prescribed by the Law, namely, on the 14th day of Nisan, in the evening. That this was so, appears from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who say that Christ celebrated the Passover on the first day of unleavened bread, on which the Passover must (by the Law) be killed. And on which day they (ie., the Jews) killed the Passover. Had it been otherwise, the Jews would have proved and condemned Christ to be a transgressor of the Law.

You may object, 1st If Christ celebrated the Passover on the 14th of Nisan, why do Matthew, Mark, and Luke say that He celebrated it on the first day of unleavened bread, which fell upon the fifteenth day? The answer is, as I have already said, that the first day of the azyms was partly the 14th and partly the 15th of Nisan. For that evening on which the Jews celebrated the Passover, with which began the days and the use of unleavened bread, pertained, according to the natural reckoning of time, to the day which preceded the evening, that is, to the 14th of Nisan. But the same evening pertained, according to the festal reckoning, to the day following, which was the 15th of Nisan. And in this sense John says that Christ supped upon the paschal lamb before the feast of the Passover, which was the 15th of Nisan, according to the festal reckoning.

You will object, 2d That it is said, John xviii. 28, that the Jews did not enter the prætorium lest they should be defiled, but that they being pure, might eat a pure Pasch. I answer, Passover, in that place, does not signify the paschal lamb, for that had been already sacrificed and eaten the evening before, but the other paschal victims, which they were wont to immolate on the seven following days, but especially on the first day of the azyms, that is, on the morning of the 15th day of Nisan, according to the Law.

You will object, 3d John (xix. 21) calls the 15th of Nisan, on which Christ celebrated the paschal supper, the preparation of the Passover. I answer yes, of the Passover, that is, of the Paschal Sabbath, or the Sabbath which fell within the octave of the Paschal Feast, which was for that reason more thought of than other Sabbaths. As S. John adds by way of explanation, For that Sabbath-day was a high day. This appears also from Mark xv. 32, who calls this preparation day the day before the Sabbath. For on the preparation day, that is, the Friday, they prepared food and other necessaries for the following day, which was the Sabbath. For on this Sabbath, as being most holy, they abstained from every kind of work, even from preparing food, which was allowable on other festivals.

You will object, 4th That the rulers say in Matt. xxvi. 5, Let us put Christ to death, but not on the feast day. I reply that, after the treachery of Judas, they changed their counsel; and they did put Him to death on the feast day.

The disciples came,—two, says S. Mark; Peter and John, S. Luke. Where?—this is not to ask the city or town, but the house. They were certain from the Law (Deut. xvi. 5-7) that the Passover could not be offered anywhere save at Jerusalem. The paschal lamb, however, was not immolated in the temple by the priests, but at home, by each master of a household, who for this purpose retained the ancient right of the priesthood, which was originally given to each first-born son of a family. Philo shows this at length (lib. de Decalogo, sub finem): “Every one ordinarily sacrifices the Passover without waiting for the priest; for they in this case, by the permission of the Law, discharge the office of the priest.” For the sacrifice of the paschal lamb consisted rather in the eating thereof, than in the immolation. Whence the disciples say, eat the Passover. Hence, also, it might be slain, immolated, flayed, and roasted, not indeed by common butchers, but either by a priest, or by that member of a family whom its head should appoint. Thus Peter and John, who were here sent by Christ, killed and made ready the lamb, and prepared the unleavened bread, and the wild herbs with which the lamb was to be eaten. The lamb was wont to be slain at the ninth hour, or three o’clock in the afternoon, as Josephus says (lib. 7, de.Bell. c. 17).

Go into the city: Jerusalem. From this it is plain that Christ said these things in Bethany. To such a one, and say. Such a one; this is the Hebrew idiom, when any one is intended whose name is not mentioned. However, He indicates him by certain marks, as S. Mark signifies: “And He sendeth forth two of His disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the good man of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guest-chamber, where I shall eat the Passover with My disciples? And he will show you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. And His disciples went forth, And came into the city, and found as He had said unto them; and they made ready the Passover.”

Where observe, that it is plain from S. Mark’s words that this water-carrier, who guided them to the house, was not the master of the house. This latter appears to have been a wealthy man, who possessed a spacious mansion, and who was probably a friend and disciple of Christ. The tradition is, that this house belonged to John, whose surname was Mark, the companion of Paul and Barnabas. This was the house in which the Apostles lay concealed after the death of Christ. In it Christ appeared to them in the evening of the day of His resurrection. And in the same house they received the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. Wherefore also Peter, when he was delivered by the angel out of the prison into which he had been cast by Herod, betook himself to the believers who were gathered together in this same house (see Acts xii. 12). Wherefore, this house was converted into a church. For in it was Sion builded up, which is the greatest and the holiest of all churches. Alexander shows all these things in his Life of the Apostle S. Barnabas. He is followed by Baronius and many others. For where My refreshment is, as the Vulgate of S. Matt. (ver. 14) translates, the Greek has κατάλυμα, inn or lodging. The Greek for chamber is α̉νώγεων, an upper floor, or chamber, or flat, such as are inhabited at Rome by wealthy people. Wherefore it is a type of the Church, which is tending from earth to Heaven.

My time, i.e., the time of My death, and of finishing the work which My Father sent Me to do.

Ver. 19. And the disciples, viz., Peter and John, did as Jesus had appointed them: they killed and roasted the paschal lamb. Now the lamb, prepared for roasting, set forth the image of Christ crucified. For as S. Justin (contr. Tryph.) teaches, the body of the lamb was pierced through with the spit. The hind- feet as well as the fore-feet, which stood in the place of hands, were distended, and held apart by little sticks inserted in the hollows of the feet. As if the spit signified the longitudinal portion of the cross, and the little stakes the transverse bars, together with the nails driven into the hands and feet of the Divine Lamb. For the fire of His affliction was no less than the fire by which the paschal lamb was roasted. “Why,” asks Franc. Lucas, “do lambs always bear the marks of wounds in the hollow of their feet, in a manner not unlike to those which our Saviour retained from the piercing of the nails upon the cross?” Christ then, when He came to the house, and beheld the roasted lamb, beheld in it a lively image of His own crucifixion. Wherefore He offered this lamb, as it were a type of Himself, or rather He offered up Himself, a whole burnt-offering, and as it were a Victim for the sins of the whole world, with a great and burning ardour unto God the Father.

When the evening was come, &c. For in the evening, according to the Law, the lamb was to be eaten, and by the eaters standing, that the Hebrews might thereby show that they were prepared for the journey, that is to say, out of Egypt to the land of promise But Jesus is said to have lain down (discubuisse) with His disciples, because the ancients were accustomed at supper to recline upon couches; that is to say, with the lower portion of the body they were in a recumbent position, but with their arms they leant upon supports, as though they were sitting at table. Mark (xiv. 17) has, when it was evening he came with the twelve. Speaking precisely, there were ten, since two had been previously sent to prepare the Passover, and were already on the spot.

You will ask, Was Judas the traitor present at the celebration of the Passover and the Eucharist? And did he partake of it? S. Hilary and Theophylact (in loc.) say, No. So do Clemens Romanus (lib. 5, Constit. c. 16), Innocent III. (lib. de Myster. Euchar. c. 13), and Rupertus (lib. 10, in Matth.). S. Dionysius (de Eccles. Hierar.) is thought by some to favour the same opinion; but other writers, as S. Thomas, take S. Dionysius to incline to the opposite view. Theophylact also may be taken both ways. The reason why the above writers think that Judas did not partake is, because a traitor was unworthy of so great Mysteries, and one who must be forbidden to assist at them.

But that Judas was present at the Passover and the Eucharist, and that he did communicate with the rest of the Apostles, is the common opinion of all other Fathers and Doctors, namely, Origen, Cyril, Chrysostom, Ambrose, SS. Leo, Cyprian, Austin, Bede, Rabanus, S. Thomas, and others, whom Suarez cites and follows (3 part. quæst. 73, art. 5, disp. 41, sect. 3), where he maintains that S. Dionysius also held the same opinion. For Dionysius says thus, “And the Author Himself (Christ) of the Creeds most justly separates him, who not as He Himself, nor in like manner, with sacred simplicity, had supped with Him.” Which means, Christ separates Judas from the company of Himself and His Apostles, saying to him, “What thou doest, do quickly,” because he had supped and taken the Eucharist unworthily with Him. For presently, after his unworthy communicating, Satan entered into him, and compelled him to accomplish his betrayal of Christ, as SS. Chrysostom, Cyril, and Austin teach.

This opinion is proved—1st Because Matthew here says that Christ sat down to the Supper of the lamb and the Eucharist with the twelve Apostles—therefore with Judas. Whence in the 21st verse it follows, And when they were eating, He said unto them, Verily I say unto you that one of you shall betray Me. 2d Because Mark (xiv. 23) says concerning the Eucharistic Chalice ,And they all drank of it. 3d Because Luke says that, after the consecration of the Chalice, Christ immediately added, Nevertheless the hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me on the table. 4th Because John (chap. xiii.), when he relates that Christ, before the Eucharistic Feast, washed the Apostles’ feet, signifies that He washed the feet of Judas, for He says, Ye are clean, but not all, for He knew who would betray Him. If, then, Christ washed the feet of Judas, He also gave him the Eucharist; for this washing was preparatory to the Eucharistic Feast. 5th Because Christ, after the Eucharistic Supper, said that one of them who were reclining with Him at the table, meaning Judas, was His betrayer. And when John asked, Who was this betrayer? Christ answered (xiii. 26), It is he to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it. And when We had dipped the piece of bread (Vulg), He gave it to Judas Iscatiot, the son of Simon.

The a priori reason is, that although Christ might properly have made known to the Apostles the hidden treachery of Judas, for the manifestation of His Divinity and His love, both because He was the lord of the character (famæ) of Judas, as well as because the treason of Judas was already known to others, that is, to the princes and elders, and was very shortly to become known to the Apostles themselves by the course of events, yet was He unwilling to do this, that He might give an example of perfect charity, and that He might by this means draw Judas to repentance. Lastly, He would show that secret sinners must not be publicly traduced nor prohibited from coming to the celebration of holy Communion. Wherefore, when Christ, in instituting the Eucharist, made the Apostles priests and bishops when he said, Do this in commemoration of Me, it follows that He created Judas also, who was present, a priest and a bishop. Wherefore it is said concerning him in the 109th [108th 8] Psalm, “And his bishopric let another take.” For S. Peter interprets this of Judas in the 1st chapter of the Acts. For although the Hebrew of the passage in the Psalm is pecuddato, i.e., prefecture, meaning his Apostleship, yet there is no reason why it should not be properly understood of Bishopric, as Suarez takes it. Lastly, it is plain that none others, except the twelve Apostles, were present at the Supper and the Eucharist. For these twelve only are mentioned. This against Euthymius, who thinks that others were present.

And whilst they were eating, &c. Matthew says that Christ spake this before the institution of the Eucharist, but Luke (xxii. 22) says after it. And this seems more probable. For Christ would be unwilling to trouble the minds of His disciples with such dreadful news before the Eucharist. Rather would He have them wholly intent upon, and devoted to the consideration of so great a Sacrament. Wherefore S. Matthew speaks by way of anticipation. Although S. Austin thinks (lib. 3, de Consens. Evang. c. 1) that Christ spake thus twice, both before and after the Eucharist.

About to betray (Vulg.), i.e., in a few hours to deliver up. Christ spoke thus, as well to show that He was conscious of the treachery, as that, not against His will, but voluntarily, He suffered. Wherefore He did not flee away, but offered Himself to His betrayer. He did it also to prick the conscience of Judas and arouse him to repentance. So S. Jerome says, “He casts the accusation generally, that the conscience of the guilty one might lead him to repentance” Christ did not name Judas for three reasons. 1st For the sake of his good name, and to teach us to act in like manner. 2d Lest Peter and the Apostles should rise up against Judas, and tear him to pieces. 3d That by this gentleness and charity He might provoke Judas to repentance. Wherefore S. Leo says (Serm. 7, de Passione), “He made it plain to the traitor that his inmost heart was known to Him, not confounding the impious one by a rough or open rebuke, but convicting him by a gentle and quiet admonition, that He might the more easily correct, by bringing to repentance, him whom no charge had robbed of his good name.”

And they were exceeding sorry, &c. Syr. They were vehemently troubled. Lord, is it I? Syr. Mori, i.e., My Lord, is it I? For very greatly did they grieve that Christ their Lord, their Parent and their Master, upon whom they wholly depended, was to be torn from them, and to die, and that through treachery, which was to be perpetrated by one of their own college, which would be the greatest injury, and occasion the utmost infamy to the entire college. Wherefore these words of Christ transfixed their hearts as with a sword, and, says S. Chrysostom, “they became half dead.”

One by one: therefore Judas lest if he alone kept silence should betray himself, or render himself suspected to the rest of the Apostles. For, as Origen says, “I think that at first he thought he might lie hid as a man. But when afterwards he saw that his heart was known to Christ, he embraced the opportunity of concealment offered by Christ’s words.” His first action was one of unbelief, his second of impudence. Now the other Apostles all said, Is it I? because, although their conscience did not accuse them of such a crime, yet, as S. Chrysostom says, they believed the words of Christ rather than their own conscience. Because, as S. Austin says in another place, “There is no sin which a man has done, which a man may not do, if the Ruler, by whom man was made, be absent from him.”

He that dippeth his hand, &c. Dippeth; Gr. ό ε̉μβαψάς, who dipped, or who is accustomed to dip. It appears that Judas, in order the better to conceal his treachery, and show himself a friend to Christ, the more frequently dipped bread, or flesh, into the vessel of broth, or vinegar, or condiment. But inasmuch as the other Apostles were wont to do the same thing to some extent, they could not know that Judas was certainly designated as the traitor by these words of Christ. Whence they strove to get at the fact by means of other questions addressed to Him.

Here take notice, for the harmony of the Evangelists, who relate diversely the pointing out of Judas the traitor, that the following is the historical order which harmonises all the Gospels with one another. First, Christ before the Eucharist foretold that He should be betrayed by one of the Apostles. But this He did in a general manner, without naming or indicating any individual. This is plain from Matthew and Mark. Afterwards, when the Apostles asked one by one, Lord, is it I? Christ answered, that “he was the traitor, who dipped his hand with Him in the dish.” For the ancients were wont to recline at table on couches by threes and fours, as I have shown on Esther i. 6. Each three or four, therefore, had a common dish, in such a way, that those who reclined on opposite couches might have the same dish. Therefore, because several of the Apostles had the same dish, Christ did not by those words indicate precisely who was the traitor. After this Christ instituted the Eucharist. And when this was finished, He again said that the traitor was with Him at the table, as S. Luke relates at length; on which I have said more on S. John xiii. 21. Whereupon Peter made signs to John, who was reclining upon the bosom of Christ, to ask Him definitely, and by name, who was the traitor. John then asked, and to him Christ answered, “that it was he to whom He was about to give a morsel,” which presently He gives to Judas. Judas having received it, and feeling that he was designated both by his own consciousness of his guilt and by the sign which Christ gave, impudently asks, Rabbi, is it I? Christ answered, Thou hast said, that is, thou art he. Wherefore he seemed to himself altogether detected, goes forth, as it were, in madness and rage to accomplish the betrayal of Christ, and goes to the house of Caiaphas, to ask for servants and officers to take Christ.

Ver. 24. The Son of Man indeed goeth, &c. Good were it for that man if he had not been born. For “far better is it not to exist at all, than to exist in evil. The punishment is foretold, that him whom shame had not conquered, the denunciation of punishment might correct,” says S. Jerome. He threatens him with the woe of damnation. For far better is it not to be, than to exist only to be endlessly miserable, as I have shown on Eccles. iv. 2, 3. Wisely does S. Jerome say (Epist. ad Furiam), “It is not their beginning which is inquired about in Christians, but their ending. Paul began badly but ended well. Judas’ beginning was commended, but his end was to be condemned as a traitor.”

Goeth. “By this word,” says Victor of Antioch, “Christ showeth that His death is like rather to a departure or passing away, than to real death. He signifies, likewise, by it that He went voluntarily to death.” Moreover, the betrayal of Judas was an act of infinite sacrilege, perpetrated directly against the very Person of Christ and God. Thus it was true deicide. Wherefore it is exceedingly probable that Judas abides in the deepest pit of Gehenna, near to Lucifer, and is there grievously tormented. And this seems to be indicated by the word woe, which Christ here pronounces upon him above the rest of the reprobates. Blessed Francis Borgia was wont, in meditation, in the depth of his humility, to place himself at the feet of Judas, that is to say, in the lowest pit of hell, exclaiming that there was no other place fit for him, neither in Heaven, nor in earth, nor under the earth, as the due reward of his sins.

Ver. 25. Judas answered . . . Is it I? Franc. Lucas thinks, with probability, that Judas asked this question after Christ had given him the morsel of bread.

Now Judas asked this question out of impudence, to cover his wickedness; and, as Jerome says, “by boldness to lay a lying claim to a good conscience.” For he thought that Christ, out of gentleness, would not name His betrayer. As though he had said, “Surely it is not I, 0 Christ, who am Thy betrayer? I who have faithfully served Thee all these years? Who have fed Thy family, and executed all Thy business?”

Thou hast said. This is the modest Hebrew method of answering, by which they confirm what is asked. As though Christ said, “It is not that I say it, and call thee traitor. It is thou thyself who in reality dost call thyself so because thou art, in truth, a traitor.” Whence S. Chrysostom extols the meekness of Christ, who, in just anger, did not say, “Thou wicked and sacrilegious wretch! thou ungrateful traitor! but gently, Thou hast said. “Thus has He fixed for us the bounds and rules of forbearance and forgetfulness of injuries.”

Ver. 26. Whilst they were at supper, &c. This is My Body. Thus the Syriac, Arabic, and Persian. But the Ethiopic more significantly renders, This is My very Flesh. The Egyptian adds for: For this is My Body. The rest, indeed, understand for. For that the word must here be supplied is sufficiently plain from the account of the consecration of the wine in ver. 28, For this is My Blood. The word for gives the reason why they must eat and drink, namely, because it is the Body and Blood of Christ which are offered to them by Him to be eaten and drunken. For who would not most eagerly receive such Divine and precious meat and drink?

At supper, i.e., after the supper, as Luke and Paul have, it, of the paschal lamb, but whilst they were still reclining at the table as it was spread for the feast. Therefore Matthew says, whilst they were at supper. Here take notice that this supper of Christ was threefold. First, that of the paschal lamb, which Christ and His Apostles celebrated standing, according to the law in Exod. xii. Secondly, a common supper of other food after the lamb, which they ate reclining upon couches. For all the members of a family, especially if it were a numerous one, would not have sufficient food in the lamb alone. Thirdly, Christ added a most sacred, yea, a Divine Supper, that is to say, the institution of the Eucharist. For Christ before the Eucharist partook of the lamb and the ordinary supper, since it was fitting that the type of the lamb should precede the Eucharistic Verity; and that the Eucharist should be the final memorial of Him who was about to die, as it were the highest pledge of love. So Jansen, Maldonatus, and others. Suarez, however, in speaking of this passage, thinks that the Eucharist was instituted between the paschal and the ordinary supper. At present, indeed, for the sake of reverence of so great a Sacrament, it is, says S. Augustine (Epist. 128), an Apostolic tradition that the Eucharist should only be taken by those who are fasting. Wherefore the heretics falsely and deceitfully call the Eucharist “the Supper,” although it be true the first Christians for some time celebrated the Eucharist at supper, after the example of Christ, as we gather from 1 Cor. xi. 25. Moreover, in the place of the second and ordinary supper, which Paul calls the Lord’s Supper, there succeeded in ancient times, among Christians, the Agape, that is, a feast common to all, as a sign and incentive of charity, but taken after the reception of the Eucharist. Lastly, Christ, after the supper upon the lamb and the ordinary supper, but before the institution of the Eucharist washed the disciples’ feet. He did this to signify with what purity we ought to approach so great Mysteries. This is plain from John xiii. 4. After the washing, He took and consecrated bread and wine, which were still upon the table, and converted them into the Eucharist, that is, into His own Body and Blood.

From all this it is gathered that Christ instituted the Eucharist about the first or second hour of the night. For after taking the Eucharist, Judas went out to summon the servants of the rulers, that they might seize Christ. Christ in the meanwhile delivered His prolonged discourse, of which John gives an account, chaps. xiv.-xvii. When this was ended, He went out to the Mount of Olives, and there continued a long time in prayer. Then He was taken by the Jews and dragged back from Gethsemane to Jerusalem. Then He was taken to Annas, and after that to Caiaphas. Still there was a great part of the night left, during which He was beaten by the hands of the servants of the priests, was spat upon and mocked by them, whilst they were waiting for the day, that they might take Him to Pilate to be condemned. From all this it appears that Christ instituted the Eucharist about the beginning of Thursday night.

Lastly, listen to the Council of Trent (Sess. 22, c. 1): “After Christ had celebrated the ancient Passover, which the multitude of the sons of Israel sacrificed in memory of their going out of Egypt, He instituted a new Passover, that He Himself should be immolated by the Church (ab ecclesia), by means of (per) the priests, under (sub) visible signs, in memory of His passage from this world to the Father, when He redeemed us by the shedding of His Blood, and delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us to His Kingdom.”

Jesus took bread. Observe here five actions of Christ. 1st He took bread. 2d He gave thanks to the Father. 3d He blessed bread. 4th He brake bread. 5th He extended it, and as He was extending it to them He said, Take and eat; this is My.Body. For these are the words by which He offered it to them as well as by which He consecrated it. This annihilates Calvin’s argument, who says, all these words, namely, took, blessed, brake, gave, have respect only unto bread. Therefore the Apostles received and ate bread, not the Body of Christ. I reply to the major premiss: These words refer to bread, not as it remained bread, but as it was in the act of being bestowed (inter dandum), changed by virtue of the words and consecration of Christ into the Body of Christ. For thus might Christ have said at Cana of Galilee, “Take and drink, for this is wine,” if He had wished by these words to turn water into wine. For so we say in ordinary speech, “Herod shut up S. John in prison, killed and buried him, or permitted him to be buried.” And yet it was not the same that he shut up in prison whom he buried. For he imprisoned a man, he buried a corpse. After a similar and common way of speaking is what the Evangelists and S. Paul say of the Eucharist.

Observe, secondly, from what Christ said, Take ye, for this is, &c., it would seem that Christ took one loaf, and during the act of consecration broke it inter twelve parts, and gave one of these parts to each of the Apostles, which they appear to have received in their hands. Wherefore also, for a long time in the Church, the Eucharist was given to the faithful in their hands, as is plain from Tertullian (lib. de Spectac.), and from S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechesi Mystagog. 5), and from S. Austin (Serm. 244). Afterwards, however, from fear of desecration, and through reverence, it was given in the mouth.

Lastly, the Apostles were not troubled at this unaccustomed action of Christ, and this new and wonderful Sacrament, for two reasons. First, because they had been already instructed and premonished (John vi.), as S. Chrysostom teaches (Hom. 83, in Matth.). The other, because the same Christ who delivered the Mysteries, illuminated their minds by faith, that they might simply believe. For they had heard and believed many other more marvellous things without being troubled; as, chiefly that that Man, whom they saw eat, drink, sleep, be weary, was true God. Yea, that He was in Heaven at the very same time that He was speaking with them on earth, when He said (John iii. 13), “And no man hath ascended up to Heaven, but He that came down from Heaven, even the Son of Man, which is in Heaven.”

Blessed. Observe, Christ before consecration, 1st gave thanks to God the Father, as Luke and Paul say; and that, after His manner, with His eyes lifted up to Heaven, as it is in the Canon of the Mass and the Liturgy of S. James. Whence this Sacrament is called the Eucharist, i.e., Giving of Thanks, because it is itself the greatest and chief Thanksgiving.

2d Christ blessed, not the Father, as the heretics choose to say, but the bread and wine, as S. Paul says expressly, the cup of blessing which we bless, &c (1 Cor. x.). Now Christ blessed the bread and the chalice, that is to say, He invoked the blessing and almighty power of God upon the bread and wine, that it might be then at that time, and in all future consecrations, converted, the bread into the Body, and the wine of the chalice into the Blood of Christ, whensoever the, words of consecration are rightly and duly (legitime) pronounced. Similar was the blessing of the loaves (Luke ix. 16). Not, therefore, was this benediction the same as consecration, though S. Thomas thinks otherwise (see Council of Trent, Sess. 13, cap. 1). Whence in the Liturgies of S. James and S. Basil, and in our Canon, we pray, after Christ’s example, that God would bless these gifts, that the Divine power may descend upon the bread and the chalice, to perfect the consecration. Hence it is called the chalice of benediction, i.e., blessed by Christ. Whence also S. Paul says (1 Cor. x. 16), “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communication of the Blood of Christ?”

Lastly, it seems that Christ blessed the bread by making over it the sign of the cross, and in blessing, invoked the power of God, that it might become consecrated and transubstantiated. For, according to the practice of the Church, priests in consecration bless the bread and the wine with the sign of the cross. This they do after the example of Christ.

This is My Body. From hence it is plain that the Eucharist is not the figure of the Body of Christ, as the Innovators perversely say, but the true and proper Body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, and crucified on Calvary, as the Church has believed in all ages, and defined in many Councils. This I have shown on 1 Cor. xi. 24. There Paul, in the same words, repeats and relates the institution of the Eucharist. We must add, that some have been torn away from this faith, because they are not able to comprehend how the Body of Christ, so lofty and so great, can be contained whole in (sub) a very little host. But these persons ought to remember that God is Almighty; and that as He constituted nature, so also He often works, as He wills, contrary to nature, in a supernatural manner, that He may show Himself to be the Lord and God of nature and of all things. Wherefore, whatsoever there is peculiar in nature may be inverted and altogether changed (everti). Consequently, God is able to effect that a great quantity may be contained in a little space, yea, in a point. This is the theological reason. But in order to give full satisfaction to some weak minds, I will subjoin two evidential arguments for this mystery to show that it is possible—arguments which derive their force from analogy. Take, therefore, the following demonstration, drawn from a physical analogy—from the eye and a mirror. For both a looking-glass and a small eye receive into themselves the whole quantity of the very greatest things, not only men, but houses, temples, trees, mountains, &c., and clearly reproduce and represent them whole. Why then should not a small host, by God’s power, set forth (exhibeat) whole Christ? You will say that in the eye and in the mirror what takes place is done in a spiritual manner, by means of optical or visual appearances. I reply, in like manner the Body of Christ in the Eucharist assumes a spiritual mode of existence, so that, as a spirit, it should be spiritually in the very small portion of the host.² Let us add this, that the objective appearances themselves are not spiritual in such a sense as that they are not really natural and physical, yes, corporeal, entities. For they are inseparable from corporeal entities, such as the atmosphere. And of these things we see that very many, and as it were an infinite number, are received and comprehended in a mirror and in the eye. If all this constantly takes place in a natural manner, with respect to the appearances received by the eye, much more can the omnipotence of God do the same thing supernaturally in respect to the Body of Christ, miraculously in the Eucharist.

(Here follows in the original what the Author calls an analogical mathematical demonstration. This is omitted, both because it would involve the printing of two intricate mathematical diagrams, as also because such a species of argument seems less likely to convince now than it did when à Lapide wrote.)

You may add here a third proof drawn from condensation and rarefaction, which I have brought forward on 1 Cor. xi. 25. Water in a vessel, made dense by means of cold, occupies only half of the vessel, but when it is made hot and rarefied by means of fire, it bubbles up and fills the whole vessel. And yet the water continues the same as regards matter, volume (molem), and, as many celebrated philosophers are of opinion, as regards intrinsic bulk; for nothing is added to the water by rarefaction except extension in space. If, then, this takes place according to natural laws, why should God be unable to do the same thing supernaturally, as respects the body of Christ?

Luke adds (xxii. 19), This is My Body which is given for you, i.e., which is about to be given. S. Paul (1 Cor. xi.) has, which shall be delivered (Vulg.); Gr. κλώμενον, broken.

Luke also adds, This do ye for a commemoration of Me. By these words Christ gave to the Apostles, and to the Priests who were to be ordained by them, power, as well as commandments, to consecrate and transubstantiate bread into His Body, and wine into His Blood. Wherefore by these words Christ constituted and ordained His Apostles Priests and Bishops, as the Council of Trent teaches (Sess. 22, cap. 1). For by these words He commanded His Apostles, as Bishops, to ordain Priests to celebrate as well the Sacrament as the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, continuously and perpetually throughout all ages. And this He did both for the perpetual praise and worship of God, and also for the spiritual nourishment of the faithful, that they might, by this means, ask and obtain of God every grace for the Church. And this is the doctrine and faith of the whole Church. This do, therefore, is as though He said, “Do what I do, i.e., consecrate, sacrifice, transubstantiate bread and wine, and eat them, as I have consecrated, sacrificed, transubstantiated, eaten the same. Moreover, also, ordain Priests and Bishops, who, by a perpetual succession, may do the same, even unto the end of the world.”

For a commemoration of Me. “That, namely, by the consecration and receiving of the Eucharist, ye may commemorate, and, as S. Paul says (1 Cor. xi. 26), may announce (Vulg.), My death.” For consecrating Priests are here bidden not only to remember the Death of Christ, but to recall the same to memory with Christian people, that they may be always mindful of so great a benefit, and of Christ’s great condescension and redemption, and thankful for it, and so by it ask and obtain all grace from God.

Ver. 27. And taking the chalice, &c. Bellarmine (lib. iv. de Eucharist. c. 27) is of opinion that Christ did not consecrate the chalice immediately after the consecration of the bread, but that many actions and words of His intervened. He endeavours to prove this from the fact that S. Matthew says, whilst they were at supper; but Luke and Paul say concerning the chalice, likewise also the cup after supper.

But it is far more probable that Christ, after the consecration of the bread, proceeded immediately with the consecration of the chalice. For Matthew, Mark, and Luke so relate. Moreover, the rationale of the Sacrament and the Eucharistic Sacrifice so required that there should not be any division or interruption, but that the whole matter should be accomplished at one and the same time. And we know that to the rationale of the Sacrifice pertains the consecration of the wine as well as the bread. For Christ instituted this Sacrifice after the manner of a feast, for which wine is required for drink, as well as bread for food. Thus likewise in the Old Testament, in the sacrifice of the mincha, that is, of fine flour, equally as in the sacrifice of animals, there was added a drink-offering, i.e., a pouring forth of wine and oil. For sacrifice is offered to God that it should be a refection of God. But for a refection, drink is required as well as food, that is to say, both wine and bread.

Drink ye all of this. Christ said this before the consecration of the chalice. Wherefore, in Mark xiv. 23 there is an hysterologia when it is said, and they all drank of it. And presently he relates that Christ consecrated it, saying, This is My Blood of the New Testament. But it is certain from Matthew and Luke that Christ first consecrated the chalice, and then gave it to His Apostles to drink. For otherwise they would have drunk mere wine, and not the Blood of Christ.

Observe, that Christ divided the bread into thirteen parts, one of which He took first Himself, and then gave the remaining parts to the Apostles, one by one. But with the contents of the chalice, being liquid, He could not do this. Wherefore, after it was consecrated, Christ first drank of it Himself, and then gave it to his next neighbour, whether John or Peter, bidding him pass it to his nearest neighbour, and thus the chalice passed round the company, and all the Apostles drank of it. Wherefore it does not follow, as the Hussites and Luther say, that the chalice ought to be given to the laity, and that they ought to communicate in both kinds, because Christ and the Apostles communicated in both kinds, and that the same is Christ’s command. For this precept of drinking, where He said, Drink ye all of this (as the Church has always understood), pertained only to the Apostles, who alone were then present. For Christ at that time was consecrating them Priests, and He bade them consecrate the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Eucharist under both kinds, and bade them receive both kinds, that they might complete a perfect Sacrifice. But He did not command this to the laity, to whom, inasmuch as they do not sacrifice, but only receive the Eucharist as a Sacrament, it is sufficient that they take it under one kind, because in one kind they receive the whole effect and fruit of the Sacrament. And it is especially to be considered that in so great a number of lay people communicating, the chalice might easily be overturned, and the Blood of Christ contained in it spilt upon the ground, which would be an act of great irreverence. Similarly the command of Christ, This do ye for a commemoration of Me, in what refers to consecration, pertains only to Priests; but to the laity pertains only the receiving of the consecrated Bread, as is plain. For when several precepts are mingled together, their variety may be limited and distributed, according to the condition of the persons intended, and the intention of the legislator, who in this place is Christ, and His interpreter the Church.

S. Cyprian, or whoever is the author of the treatise (de Cæna Dom.), observes that formerly it was forbidden to the Hebrews to drink the blood of animals, as, is plain from Heb. ix. 22, Lev. iv. 6, &c., but that now the Blood of Christ is drunk by His Priests. First, because the Blood of Christ is life-giving. 2nd Because by It we have been redeemed. 3rd Because by It, being made spiritual, we shudder at the sins of a carnal life, as at impure blood.

For this is My Blood of the New Testament. Syr. Covenant, &c. The Ethiopic has, This is My very Blood. He means, “in this chalice, by this My consecration, wine is turned into My Blood. Wherefore, after this consecration, there is no longer wine there, but My Blood, by which the new Covenant and Testament are confirmed and rectified, by means of My mediation between God and man.” For Christ by His Blood, shortly to be shed, merited and confirmed for us the hope and the right of eternal inheritance in Heaven, which was the chief and the last will of Christ the Testator. And the Sacraments afford this right to us, especially the Eucharist, in the same way that a testament consigns in writing to the heir a right to the testator’s goods.

Observe: Matthew and Mark have, My Blood of the New Testament. But Luke and Paul have, This chalice is the New Testament in My Blood. The meaning in both is the same, but Christ would seem to have actually uttered what Matthew and Mark relate. For this is an expression of clearer meaning. Christ, by instituting the Eucharist at His last supper, rather than upon the Cross, ratified His testament and covenant with the Church. For all the Apostles were here present. And they personified and represented the Church.

Observe, secondly: In the form of consecrating the chalice which we now use in the Sacrifice of the Mass, there are added these words, The eternal testament, the mystery of the faith. Tradition says they have been handed down from S. Peter, who is the author of our Liturgy. So teach Leo IX. (Epist. ad. Michael imp. c. 9) and S. Thomas (3 p. q. 78, art. 2, ad. 4). For although they do not concern the essence of the form (and yet S. Thomas in 1 Cor. xi. seems to say they do), wherefore they are not found in the Liturgies of S. James, S. Basil, S. Chrysostom, and S. Clement, yet they pertain to its complete integrity. And this is the common opinion of the whole Latin Church, which, in the form of consecrating the chalice in the Mass, writes and pronounces these words as spoken by Christ, and enjoined by the Apostles, equally with the rest.

Where observe: The mystery of the faith signifies—1st That the Blood of Christ veiled beneath the species is a hidden (arcanam) thing, which can be recognised and believed by faith alone. 2nd That the very Blood of Christ, as it was shed in His Passion, is the object of faith whereby we are justified. For we believe that we are justified and cleansed from our sins by the merits of the Passion and Death of Christ.

For many, i.e., for all men, who are very many.

Shall be shed (Vulg.). But the Greek of Matthew, Mark, and Luke has ε̉κχυνόμενον, is shed, in the present, i.e., is offered in this Sacrifice of the Eucharist under the species of wine, and which shall be presently shed upon the Cross in its own species and natural form of blood. For the blood of the victim was wont to be shed in the sacrifice itself, and so was a libation made to God. Whence the shedding itself is called a libation, a drink-offering. Wherefore this chalice of the Blood of Christ, as it was the drink-offering of the Sacrifice of Christ, was poured into the mouth of Christ and His Apostles, and for this reason the reception of the species, both of bread and wine, pertains to the object and the perfection of the Sacrifice.

Hence, then, it is plain that the Eucharist is not only a Sacrament, but a Sacrifice, in truth, the only Sacrifice of the New Law, which has succeeded to all the ancient sacrifices, and which contains them all in their completeness in Itself. Therefore Christ is called “a Priest after the order of Melchizedek,” not of Aaron. For Aaron offered sheep, but Melchizedek bread and wine, even as Christ did, and transubstantiated them into His Body and Blood (see Ps. cx. 4 and Heb. v. 6, 7). The Eucharist is, therefore—1st A burnt-offering; 2nd A sin-offering; 3rd A peace-offering; 4th A mincha, or meat-offering (Lev. i., &c.).

That this is so is plain—1st Because Christ did not say of His Blood, “which is poured upon many,” as a Sacrament, but which is shed for many,” as a sacrifice and drink-offering.

2nd Because the Greek of all three Evangelists is ε̉κχυνόμενον, which is shed, in the present tense, that is to say, now, in this Supper and consecration of the Eucharist. Therefore He speaks of the present Sacrifice of the Eucharist, and not only of that which was about to take place upon the Cross. And so S. Ambrose understands (in Ps. 38). But the Vulgate translates, shall be shed, because it has respect to the Sacrifice of the Cross, which was just about to take place, in which the Blood of Christ was most evidently and most perfectly shed for the salvation of sinners, of which this sacramental shedding of His Blood in the Eucharist was a type and figure, and therefore was, typically, one and the same with It.

3rd Because Luke and Paul, to the words of consecration, This is My Body, add, which is given, that is, is offered, for you in sacrifice. Paul has, which is broken for you, that is to say, under the species of bread in the Eucharist, and actually by the nails and lance upon the Cross. Wherefore Paul calls the Eucharist, the bread which we break, viz., in the Sacrament, because we break and eat the species of bread, as offering this in sacrifice to God, by receiving and consuming them, none of which things were done upon the cross. Therefore to break bread signifies the Sacrifice, not of the Cross, but of the Eucharist.

4th Because Luke has expressly, του̃το τὸ ποτήριον ή καινὴ διαθήκη ε̉ν τω̃ αίματί μου τὸ ύπὲζ υ̉μω̃ν ε̉κχυνόμενον, i.e., this cup is the New Testament in My Blood, which, i.e., the cup, shall be poured forth for you. For the word which must be referred to the cup, not to the Blood; since αίματι is in the dative case, τό in the nom. Therefore the chalice of the Blood of Christ is poured out for us; but it is poured out in the Eucharist, not on the Cross, for then there was no chalice. Therefore the pouring out of the Blood is a drink-offering and a sacrifice.

The Sacrifice of the Eucharist, then, is a whole burnt-offering, because in consecrating and eating we offer whole Christ to God. The same is a peace-offering, because by It we ask and obtain peace, that is, all good things from God. The same also is a sin-offering, because it is offered to God, and obtains from Him remission of venial sins and temporal punishments. But It obtains remission of mortal sins indirectly, because It obtains from God prevenient grace and contrition, by which they are blotted out. (See Council of Trent, Sess. 22. q. 2. See also S. Thomas and the Scholastics on the Eucharistic Sacrifice.)

Lastly, to the Blood of Christ rather than to His Body is ascribed remission of sins, although it pertains to both. The reason is, that in the Old Testament expiation is attributed to blood, and in the sin-offering the victim’s blood was poured out. Also by the shedding of His Blood the Death of Christ is signified, which was the all-worthy price, expiation and satisfaction for our sins.

The first reason, then, which moved Christ to institute the Eucharist, was to ordain a most excellent and Divine Sacrament in the New Law, by means of which He might feed the faithful with Divine Food. And that the Church might worthily, by It, as well unceasingly honour and worship God. For the victim which is offered to God in the Eucharistic Sacrifice is of infinite value. It is commensurate and co-equal with God Himself. For the victim is Christ Himself, who is both God and man. God Himself therefore is offered to God. Wherefore, since all our other worship, inasmuch as it is but that of creatures, is poor and worthless, therefore Christ made Himself to be the Victim in the Eucharist, that by It, as being God’s equal, we might render due and equal worship to God, even such as He of right requires. Moreover, this Sacrifice chiefly consists in the consecration. For by it Christ is mystically slain, when His Body and His Blood are severally apportioned (seorsim allocantur) under the species of bread and wine, as Suarez and Lessius (lib. 12, de Perfect. Div. c. 13, n. 94) teach from SS. Gregory, Irenæus, Nyssen, &c. By the word “severally” (seorsim), “by themselves,” understand only as regards the effect (vis) of consecration. For by concomitance, where there is the Body of Christ, there also Is His Blood, and vice versâ.

The second reason was, that He might leave unto us a perpetual exhibition (ideam) of His Life and Passion, to continually stir up in every one the memory of so great a redemption. For in the Eucharist the Blood is consecrated by Itself, and the Body of Christ is consecrated by Itself, that His Passion may thereby be set forth, in which His Blood was shed, and separated from His Body. The species therefore of wine shows forth (representat) the Blood of Christ shed. The species of bread exhibits the lifeless Body of Christ. This is what He said, Do this, &c. And S. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 26, says, As oft as ye shall eat, &c., ye shall announce the Lord’s Death until He come.

The third reason was, the greatness of the love of Christ towards His faithful people, by which, as He united our flesh, hypostatically, in the Incarnation, to His Deity, so in the Eucharist, sacramentally, He unites the same together with His Godhead, to each faithful communicant, and as it were incorporates them, that each may become Divine, and in a certain sense a Christ and God. For this is what S. John says of Christ when He was about to institute the Eucharist, before He washed the Disciples’ feet. John xiii. 1: Jesus, knowing that His hour was come, and that He was about to Pass out of this world to the Father, having loved His own that were in hie world, He loved them to the end.

To the end, to the extremity both of life and love. That is, He loved them with extremest and highest love, when He left Himself to them in the Eucharist, that they might always have Him present with them, that they might associate and converse with Him, consult Him, open to Him all their difficulties, troubles, and temptations, ask and obtain His assistance. For as He Himself says in Prov. (viii. 31), “My delights are with the sons of men.”

Hence, as the Church sings, with S. Thomas:

That by this extremity of love He may entice, yea, compel us, ardently to love Him back. For a “magnet is the love of love.” It was this love which, as a sharp goad, drove S. Laurence to the flames, S. Vincent to the “wooden horse,” S. Sebastian to the arrows, S. Ignatius to the lions, and all the other martyrs bravely to endure and overcome all manner of pains and torments, that they might pay back love for love, life for life death for Christ’s death. This was why they were ambitious of martyrdom, and rejoiced and triumphed in it. And these things were the effect of the Eucharist. This supplied them with strength and gladness in all temptations and sufferings. Wherefore, of old time, the Christians in days of persecution used to communicate daily, that they might strengthen themselves for martyrdom. Indeed, they took the Eucharist home with them, and received It with their own hands (as Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, when she was kept captive in England, and had no Priest with her). Christ before His Passion instituted the Eucharist, that by means of It He might arm the Apostles to meet temptation.

A fourth reason was, that in the Eucharist Christ might give us the opportunity of exercising every virtue. For in it our faith is exercised, when we believe that He who is true God and man is invisibly, but really and truly, contained in a small host. Hope is exercised, because when we believe that Christ giveth Himself unto us, we hope that He will give us all other things, which are far less than Himself. Charity is exercised, because the Eucharist is a furnace of love, which Christ exhales, and breathes upon us, that we may love Him again. Religion is exercised, because we worship and invoke God with the highest form of worship, and sacrifice to Him Christ Himself. Humility is exercised, because we ignore our eyes and senses and natural judgment, which suggests to us that there is only bread and wine in the Eucharist, and humbly submit ourselves to the words of Christ, who says, This is My Body: This is My Blood. Gratitude is exercised, because by it we render highest thanks to God for all His benefits, which is why it is called Eucharist. Abstinence is exercised, because it is not right to communicate otherwise than fasting. Patience and mortification are exercised, because it is a lively mirror of Christ’s sufferings and crucifixion, and so on.

The tropological reason is, that by feeding us with His Divine Flesh, He may call us away from earthly flesh, and its pleasures and concupiscences, that we may live a life that is not carnal, but spiritual and divine, and may say with S. Paul, “I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.” A Christian ought therefore so to live, speak, work, as though it were not he himself, but Christ who is living, speaking, working in him. Let him live, therefore, like an angel, “For man did eat angels’ food.” And S. Cyril of Jerusalem says (Cateches. 4, Myst.), “In the Eucharist we are made concorporate, and of the same blood with Christ.”

Moreover, S. Chrysostom says (Hom. 36, in 1 Cor.), “Where Christ is eucharistically, there is not wanting the frequent presence of angels. Where there is such a King and such a Prince, there is the celestial palace, yea, there is Heaven itself.” Wherefore we read concerning S. Ammon in the Lives of the Fathers, that when he was celebrating, an angel was seen to stand at the altar, sign the communicants with the sign of the cross, and write their names in a book. And S. Chrysostom (lib. 3, de Sacerdotio) relates that choirs of angels have been seen round about the altar, who, with bowed heads, showed deepest reverence to Christ their King, and uttered awe-inspiring voices. When, therefore, we communicate, or say or hear Mass, let us think that we are sitting by the side of Christ at the Last Supper. Let us think that Christ is speaking by the mouth of the Priest, is celebrating, is transubstantiating bread and wine into His Body and Blood, and is feeding us therewith. For it is Christ who is the chief Agent, and works the Eucharistic miracle, as the Council of Trent teaches (Sess. 22). Wherefore S. Ambrose (lib. 8, in Luc.) says, “It is this Body of which it is said, My Flesh is meat indeed. About this Body are the true eagles, which fly round about It with spiritual wings.” And (lib. 4 de Sac.) “well may the eagles be about the altar where the Body is.” Wherefore S. Francis says, in his epistle to Priests, “It is a great misery, and a miserable infirmity, when you have Him Himself present, and care for anything else in the world.”

The anagogical reason is, that Christ, in the Eucharist, gave us a pledge, a prelibation and a foretaste of the celestial inheritance. Wherefore the Church sings, with S. Thomas, in the Office of the Adorable Sacrament, “0 sacred Feast, in which Christ is received, in which the memory of His Passion is recalled, the soul is filled with grace, and to us is given a pledge of future glory.”

S. Thomas says, “In the Eucharist spiritual sweetness is tasted at the very fountain.” This was what S. Francis, S. Monica, S. Catherine of Sienna, and many others were wont to feel at the Holy Eucharist, who were inebriated with heavenly delights, and kept jubilee, exulted, and were rapt in ecstasy, saying with the Psalmist, “My heart and my flesh exult in the living God. For whom have I in Heaven but Thee, and who is there upon earth that I desire in comparison of Thee? God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever.”

Again, the Eucharist is the Food of immortality, because by virtue of It our bodies rise to the life immortal, according to that saying of Christ (John vi.), “Whoso eateth of this Bread shall live for ever.” The Eucharist therefore stamps upon our bodies a certain force, not physical, but moral, which is the seed of immortality, that by means of it we may rise again. Whence S. Chrysostom rightly concludes (Hom. 83, in Matth.), “How, then, does it not behove that he should be purer who enjoys such a sacrifice? Should not the hand which divides this Flesh be more resplendent than a solar ray? Should not the mouth be filled with spiritual fire; and the tongue, which is ruddy, with that tremendous Blood?”

And our Thomas, taught of God, says in the 4th Book of the Imitation, chap. 2, “It ought to seem as great, as new, and as pleasant to thee, when thou celebratest or hearest Mass, as though Christ on that self-same day descended into the Virgin’s womb, and became man; or was hanging upon the Cross, suffering and dying for man’s salvation.” Whence he gathers (chap. v.), “that when a Priest celebrates devoutly, he honours God, makes glad the angels, builds up the Church, assists the living, affords rest to the departed, and makes himself to have a share in all these good things.” “For what is His goodness, and what is His beauty, unless it be the wheat of the elect, and the wine that bringeth forth virgins?” (Zech. ix. 17) Vulgate.

Ver. 29. I say unto you . . . fruit of the vine; Arab., juice of the vine, &c. S. Austin (lib. de Consens. Evang. iii. 1), and from him Jansen and others, are of opinion that Matthew intimates that Christ spake these words after the Eucharistic Supper. Let us here consider the following objection. “The fruit of the vine is wine produced from it, pressed from its grapes; therefore in the Eucharistic Chalice there is not the Blood of Christ, but only wine sprung from a vine.” I answer, the pronoun this in this fruit, &c., does not signify exactly that wine which was in the consecrated Chalice, but in general the wine upon the table, from which the cup was filled, which was used both at the Passover and at the consecration of the Eucharist. Secondly, the Blood of Christ may be called wine, as the Body of Christ is called bread by S. Paul, on account, indeed, of the substance of bread and wine, as it was before consecration, and because of the species of bread and wine which remain after consecration. In truth, the species themselves, or the accidents of the wine, are rightly called the fruit of the vine, because they are produced by the vine. Thirdly, as all kinds of food, both by Scriptural and common usage, are often called bread, because it is the staple of all food, so in like manner is any kind of drink called wine, especially by the Italians, Syrians, and others.

But it is far more probable that Christ spake these words before the institution of the Eucharist, concerning the supper and the chalice of the paschal lamb. For at that supper a cup of wine was carried round, which the father of the family tasted first, and then sent round about to all who partook of the lamb, as the Jewish tradition is. This second view is proved, because Luke expressly asserts as much. He distinctly gives an account of the two suppers of Christ,—that upon the lamb, and the Eucharistic Supper,—which Matthew, for the sake of brevity, condensed into one. And he says that these words concerning the chalice were spoken before the Eucharist at the paschal supper. We may see that the same conclusion must be drawn from what Christ said previously concerning the eating of the lamb (Luke xxii. 15, 16). “And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” Then immediately afterwards He subjoins what is said concerning the cup of the paschal lamb, “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.” Then, immediately afterwards, he relates the institution of the Eucharist, and of the Eucharistic cup, which Christ consecrated, saying, “Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” Where there is no mention made of the fruit of the vine, nor of drinking new wine in the kingdom of God.

Christ intended, therefore, by these words only to signify that He, from henceforth, would not sup with His disciples after the accustomed manner; but that this was His last supper, after which He was about to be taken and put to death. Wherefore here, as proceeding to die, He bids the Apostles His last farewell. Wherefore these words do not refer to the Eucharistic Chalice, which does not contain the fruit of the vine, in the sense of wine, but the Blood of Christ, into which it has been changed by consecration. This is the opinion of Jerome, Bede, and many others.

When I will drink it new with you, &c. New, i.e., of a new and different kind. For in Heaven the Blessed drink no earthly wine, but heavenly, even the wine and nectar of everlasting glory and joy; according to the words of Psalm xxxvi. 9, “They shall be inebriated with the fatness of Thy house: Thou shalt give them to drink of the torrent of Thy pleasure.” So Origen on this passage, and Nazianzen (Orat. de Pascha.). For Scripture is wont to express the spiritual joys of the Blessed by means of corporeal pleasures, such as food and drink.

You will say that Christ after His Resurrection, in order to prove it to His Apostles, ate with them, and, as it would appear, also drank wine with them. How, then, does He here say that He will no more drink wine with them? I answer, that Christ did indeed both eat and drink with His Apostles after the Resurrection, but only by the way as it were, and to prove to them that He had risen, but not to satisfy the requirements of nature, as He had done before His death. Wherefore, speaking after the manner of men, that reception of food after the Resurrection cannot be counted eating.

And when they had sung an hymn, &c. Vulg. said an hymn, but meaning sung. Greek ύμνήσαντες, i.e., said or sung a hymn, by way of giving thanks and praise to God. The Arabic has they gave praise. Some think from the books of the Hebrew ritual that this was the hymn customarily sung by the Jews at the Passover, to give thanks after eating the lamb. But indeed, as Paul Burgensis observes, and from him Franc. Lucas, Baronius, and others, this hymn consisted of seven psalms of Hallelujah, beginning with the 113th, “When Israel came out of Egypt,” and ending with the 119th, “Blessed are the undefiled in the way.” From hence S. Chrysostom concludes that no one ought to depart from Mass before the thanksgivings, which are contained in the collects after communion. You may gather the same principle from an ordinary dinner or supper, from which people ought not to depart before returning thanks to God. Hence, also, the Fourth Council of Toledo asserts that this hymn of Christ’s affords us an example of singing hymns. Hence, also, the practice of singing at Mass is of the highest antiquity, as is plain from the ancient Liturgies.

This, then, was the custom of the ancient Hebrews, to sing hymns at the Paschal Supper, which the Christians afterwards followed, in that after the Eucharist and the Agape, a common feast of charity for all the faithful, they sung hymns and psalms by way of giving thanks to God. This is gathered from S. Paul (Eph. v. 19), and Tertullian eloquently shows the same (Apol. c. 39), and S. Cyprian (Epist. ad Donat.).

The ancient heathen had a similar practice at their feasts, in honour of their gods.

Lastly, S. Augustine (Epist. 253) says that this hymn of Christ was in circulation in his time, but he himself regarded it as spurious, and intimates that it was forged by the Priscillianists.

They went out to the Mount of Olives. Christ was wont, especially in these last days of His life, to go daily to Jerusalem, and teach in the Temple; and then about evening to return to Bethany, and there sup, and soon after supper return to the Mount, of Olives, and there spend the night in prayer, as Luke intimates (xxi. 37). But upon this occasion He did not go to Bethany, as He had supped in Jerusalem. He went, therefore, direct to the Mount of Olives, as it were to a wrestling-ground, that there He might offer Himself to be seized by Judas and the Jews. Thus Victor of Antioch asks, “Why did He go out to the mountain? why does He despise a lurking-place, and manifest Himself to those who came to apprehend Him? He made haste to occupy the spot where aforetime He was wont to pray, the spot which His betrayer knew so well” (John xviii. 2).

Ver. 31. Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of Me this night; for it is written, I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered. Be offended and fall into sin, first the sin of weakness and cowardice in forsaking Me, your Master and Lord, in My Passion. “The terror of the disciples,” says S. Leo, “was then excusable, nor did their sorrow sink into distrust.” And further on, speaking of S. Peter’s denial, “The Lord saw not in thee a feigned faith, nor estranged love, but shaken resolution.” It was thus that Marcellinus and many others, when asked whether they were Christians, and denied it through fear of tortures, sinned not directly against the faith, but merely against its open profession, in not daring openly to confess it.

But the Apostles seem to have stumbled in the faith, because, when they saw Christ seized by the Jews without defending Himself, they thought He was suffering either unwillingly or by compulsion, and as He could not deliver Himself and them, He consequently was not God, and that as He would die and never rise again, they had nothing further to hope for from Him. They consequently forgot and disbelieved all His promises and predictions. The Church accordingly seems to think that the Blessed Virgin alone remained then steadfast in the faith. For in the Office for Good Friday the Church puts out all the lights one by one, leaving only one burning; though others confine this more strictly to faith in the resurrection, as if she alone believed that He would rise again from the dead. This is clear, too, from the Apostles, who hardly believed Christ when He appeared to them after His resurrection, and said that He was alive. Christ accordingly reproved their unbelief (Mark xvi. 14). And so S. Hilary explains it, “Ye shall be troubled with fear and want of faith.” And Euthymius, “The faith ye now have in Me will be driven out of you, because ye will believe that I can no longer help you.” Indeed our Lord foretold this. See John xvi. 31, 32, “The hour cometh when ye shall be scattered, every one to his own, and shall leave Me alone. Ye believe in Me now, but very soon ye will not believe, when ye see Me a captive and suffering.” For not only “did they forsake Him hastily, but” (says S. Augustine, Tract. ciii.) “in their hearts forsook the faith. For they were reduced to as great despair, and extinction (as it were) of their faith, as appeared in Cleophas when he said he trusted that He would have redeemed Israel. But see how they forsook Him, in abandoning the very faith wherewith they believed in Him.” Many commentators follow S. Augustine in considering that the Apostles fell away from the faith. And S. Ambrose also maintains that S. Peter lost his faith, and Turrecremata also (de Eccl. i. 30 and iii. 61). But many theologians teach at the present day that he did not lose his faith, but merely sinned in not openly professing it. This, they urge, is all that the Evangelists say; why invent a heavier charge, and urge it against him? S. Augustine says (in John, Tract. cxiii.,) he merely denied that he was a Christian, as people did in Japan, though still retaining the faith in their hearts. S. Cyril (lib. xi. 41, in John) maintains that he denied Christ not through fear, but through love; for that if he confessed himself His disciple he could not have remained by Him, as he wished to do. S. Ambrose (in Luc. xxii.) says that he did not deny God, but man. “I know not the man, because I know Him to be God.” And when he says (Serm. xlvii.) that Peter gave up the faith, he means the profession of the faith. So, too, S. Hilary (cap. xxxii. in Matt.) and S. Leo (as above), “His tears abounded where his love failed not, and the fount of charity washed away the words of fear.” Peter then sinned mortally against the profession of the faith, and consequently lost charity, though not faith. Maldonatus, Toletus (in John xviii.), Bellarmine (de Eccl. iii. 17) distinctly maintain this; Suarez (de Fide Disp. ix. sect. 6) thinks it was probably the case with all the Apostles that they fled through fear, and not as denying Christ.

God allowed this for various reasons. 1. To suggest to Christ further grounds for patience, and to exercise Him in every kind of suffering. For the defection of the Apostles was a great affliction to Christ; not merely on their own account, but because He saw that all the fruit of His preaching had been lost upon them. 2. To humble the Apostles with a sense of their own weakness, when they saw that all their courage and resolution had melted away. “Like lions before the battle, like deer when in it.” 3. To show the power of persecution and fear which bereft them of their faith, their memory, and senses; and that consequently this fear could not be overcome by their natural reason or strength, but only by Divine grace, which they should constantly implore. “We learn thence,” says S. Chrysostom, “a great lesson, that the will of man is powerless unless strengthened by help from above.” And S. Victor of Antioch, “Man’s promptitude is worthless for withstanding graver temptations, if heavenly aid be wanting.”

I will smite. The Heb. and Sept. read “smite” in the imperative. The meaning is, however, the same. The Prophets frequently use the imperative for the future by way of apostrophe. “Smite, 0 sword,” that is, “I God will smite Christ, will suffer Him,” i.e., to be smitten. Comp. Isa. vi. 10 with S. Paul, Acts xxviii. 26.

The shepherd. Christ the Shepherd and the Bishop of our souls (1 Pet. ii. 25).

And the sheep shall be scattered, i.e., the Apostles. But God soon brought them together again, that Christ might find them joined in one body, and restore them their faith and courage. For having no homes of their own, they naturally betook themselves to the upper chamber, where they had kept the Passover, that He the master of that house might be again their host and friend, and where, in fact, He soon after appeared to them, and restored their faith. This was Christ’s special favour. He bestowed it on Peter after his threefold denial, when by a look He made him weep bitterly; and on S. John, whom He brought back and placed by His mother near the cross, and commended him to His mother as her son. There can then be no question that they both returned into favour with Christ and were sanctified. Christ foretold this to show that He was God, and that He suffered for man’s redemption, not compulsorily, but willingly; and that when suffering thus “they might not despair,” says S. Hilary, “but might exercise repentance and be saved.”

Ver. 32. But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee, “where I will meet you,” says Euthymius. “He mentioned Galilee,” says S. Chrysostom, “to deliver them from fear of the Jews, and induce them the more readily to listen to Him.” It was to keep them from despair.

Ver. 33. Peter answered and said unto Him, Though all should be offended because of Thee, yet will I never be offended. This was from his vehement love for Christ. “For faith is the ardent affection towards God,” says S. Jerome, “which makes him speak thus.” “For he thinks” (says S. Augustine, de Grat. de lib. Arb. cap. xvii.) “that he can really do that which he feels he wishes.” And yet his sin was threefold—first, in boldly and vehemently contradicting Christ; next, in arrogantly preferring himself to others; thirdly, in too great presumption and reliance on his own strength. He ought to have said, “I believe it can be, nay, that from my weakness it will be so. But do Thou, 0 Lord, strengthen my weakness by Thy grace; support and sustain me, that I fall not into sin.” And our experience is the same. We think that we are strong in faith, in chastity, in patience; but when tribulation assails us we stumble, we are afraid, and speedily fall. The remedy for temptation is the acknowledgment of our own weakness and the imploring Divine strength.

Ver. 34. Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice. In Greek α̉παρνήση, abjure Me. Thou wilt do much worse than the others. Thy presumption deserves it. They only fled, thou shalt abjure Me.—The cock crows more loudly in the morning than at midnight. This time, then, is properly the cock-crowing. It was before this cock-crowing that Peter thrice denied Christ. As S. Mark says, “Before the cock crow twice thou shalt deny Me thrice.” Thou who art now so eager to confess Me, wilt be more frequent and eager in thy denials this very night than the cock in his crowing. And yet the cock awakes the sleepers to praise God, whilst thou, by thy denial, wilt excite others to revile Me.

Peter, says S. Jerome, made professions from the warmth of his faith, and the Saviour foretold, as God, what would be. And He gives the cock-crowing as a sign to Peter, in order that whenever he hears it he may remember Christ’s prophecy, may penitently acknowledge his sin of denial and presumption, and seek for pardon; as indeed he did. “As God” (so Bede observes), “He foretells the mode, time, moment, and extent of his denial.”

Ver. 35. Peter saith unto Him, Though I should die with Thee, yea will I not deny Thee. Likewise also said they all. To testify their faith, affection, and love towards Him; but in their presumption they sinned in a twofold manner. Thou wilt say, The Apostles believed Christ to be the Son of God, why then did they not believe (nay, clamoured against) Him when He predicted their fall? Why, because they did not attend to Christ’s prediction, but looked rather to their then purpose of heart, which they felt to be so strong that it would be impossible for them to fall away. And consequently regarding Christ’s words not so much a prediction as a test and trial of their purpose and love, they thought that in this time of trial their affection towards Him should be boldly and resolutely manifested. “Pete