Father Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on John 9:1-41

Jn 9:1.—And as Jesus passed by, &c. Passing through the midst of His enemies and the crowd of the people. This signifies (though some deny it) that this cure took place immediately after Christ had withdrawn from the temple. As soon as He had escaped His enemies, He became visible again, and His disciples followed Him. “He mitigated their anger by His withdrawal, and softened their hardness by working a miracle” says S. Chrysostom.

He looked upon him tenderly and fixedly, as pitying him, and intending to restore his sight. And this intent look caused the disciples to inquire the cause of his blindness. “He Himself” (says S. Chrysostom) “saw that he was blind. The blind man did not come to Him, but He looked on him so stedfastly, that the disciples asked the question which follows.” Mystically, sinners and unbelievers are blind, and are thus unable to see and seek for Christ. So that Christ must needs look on them first and enlighten them with the eyes of His grace.

His blindness was congenital and incurable. If it had been accidental, surgeons could have cured it. But when a man is cured who is blind from his birth, “it is not a matter of skill,” says S. Ambrose, “but of power. The Lord gave him soundness, but not by the exercise of the medicinal art. The Lord healed those whom none could cure.” His name is said to have been Cedonius or Celedonius (see Jn 9:38).

Mystically, this man is a type of mankind, blinded by original sin, which Jesus, “passing along the road of our mortality” (says the Gloss), “looked upon, pitied and enlightened.” “For blindness befel the first man through sin, and as we spring from him, the human race is blind from its birth.” And Bede, “The way of Christ is His descent from heaven to earth. But He beheld the blind man, when He beheld mankind with pity.” Again: “This blind man denotes the Gentiles born and brought up in the darkness of unbelief and idolatry, to whom Christ passed over, when expelled from the hearts of the Jews, and enlightened them with the light of faith and His Gospel,” says Bede. And Christ wished to designate this in type by the enlightenment of this blind man. So S. Cyril, Rupert, and Bede.

Jn 9:2.—And His disciples, &c. This question sprang out of the opinion of the ignorant multitude, who think that diseases are the punishments of sin, and, as S. Ambrose says, “They ascribe weaknesses of body to the deserts of their sins.” But they are wrong in this; for though it is often the case, yet not always. For Job, though innocent, was afflicted in order to try his patience, as Tobias also, and many others. S. Chrysostom and Theophylact say that this question was out of place and absurd.

Others think that the disciples were led to ask this question by what Christ said (Jn 9:14), “Sin no more, lest a worse thing happen to thee.”

A man’s own fault, and not that of another, seems to be the cause of his own blindness, by way of punishment. Original sin is in truth the cause of all the evils and punishments which befal us in this life, and of the diseases of infants especially as S. Augustine teaches us (Contr. Julian iii. 4). But this was not the special reason why this man, above all other infants, was born blind. Whence S. Augustine says, “This man could not have been born without original sin; nor yet have added nothing to it by his life. He therefore and his parents had sin, but the sin was not the cause of his being born blind.”

S. Cyril supposes that the disciples were imbued with the error of Pythagoras and Plato, who thought that souls existed before their bodies, and that for their sins they were thrust down into bodies, as Origen afterwards held. But Leontius considers that the disciples did not speak of the sin of the blind man which took place before his birth, but after it. As if God, foreseeing what would happen punished him beforehand with blindness. But whatever might be the opinion of the disciples (and it is hard to conjecture), it is certain they were wrong. For souls did not exist before their bodies, and God only punishes past and not future sins. God, it is true, punishes the sins of parents in the persons of their children. And children are frequently born weak, blind, and deformed, &c., or soon die, in consequence of the vices of their parent (see 2 Sam. 12:14, and Ex. 20:5).

Jn 9:3.—Jesus answered, &c. Christ denies not that he and his parents had sinned both by original and actual sin. But He denies that he was condemned to blindness for these sins, beyond other people, who had committed the same and even greater sins. So S. Augustine. In vain therefore do the Pelagians misuse this passage to do away with original sin.

The reason why God inflicted blindness on this man was that the miraculous power of Christ should be made manifest in his case, and thus Christ be acknowledged as the true Messiah. So the Fathers quoted above. The Gloss gives the mystical meaning, that it was to signify what Christ would do in enlightening mankind in like manner by His grace, and the doctrine of the Gospel. And accordingly the man himself was enlightened not only in his body, but in his mind, as will be seen below. And therefore he suffered no wrong, but gained a benefit by his blindness (says S. Chrysostom), for in consequence of it he beheld with the eyes of his mind, Him who from nothing brought him into being, and received from Him enlightenment both in body and in mind.

Jn 9:4.—I must work, &c. S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others understand by the word “day” the present life, and by “night” the future life. But this is what is common to all men. But Christ speaks of this day as specially relating to Himself and His own work. And therefore S. Augustine, Cyril, and Bede put a better and closer meaning on the word day, as speaking of the life of Christ on earth, and night as referring to His absence, meaning by this, that just as men cannot work at night on account of the darkness, so after death shall I no longer work as I do now for the salvation and redemption of men. “My day” (8:56) means in like manner My birth and My life amongst men. He says this, as preparing the way for the healing of the blind man. “I am sent into the world to do good to men: this blind man presents himself and I will restore his sight.” Symbolically: Night, says the Interlinear Gloss, is the persecution of the Apostles, especially by antichrist. Tropologically: The time of life given to every one to gain eternal glory is his “day.” Night is his death (see Eccles. 9:10). And S. Augustine (in loc.) says, “Night is that of which it is said, ‘Cast him into outer darkness.’ Then will be the night, when no man can work, but only receive for what he hath wrought. Work while thou art alive, lest thou be prevented by that night.” It was common among poets and philosophers to call life day, and death night, and many instances and authorities are given from Pagan writers to this purpose. But to take some Christian ones, Messodamus, a very holy man, was once asked by a friend to dine with him on the morrow. “I have had no morrow,” he replied, “for many years: every day have I looked for the coming of death.” And this is what S. Anthony (apud S. Athanasius) and Barlaam advised every devout and “religious” man to do. S. Jerome wisely says, “One who is ever thinking that he will die, easily makes light of everything,” for he regards each day as his last.

“Fixed is the day of death alike to all,

Brief life’s short hours soon pass beyond recal.”

—Virg. Æn. x.

Jn 9:5.—As long as I am in the world, &c. And therefore I will give light to this blind man, to show that I am the Light of this world.

Jn 9:6.—And when He had thus said, &c. He used clay, which naturally closes up the eyes, to show that He healed the man supernaturally. The symbolical reason was (S. Chrysostom says) to signify that He was the self-same (God) who formed man out of clay, and that it was His work to form and fashion again (by restoring his sight) a man who was formed by Him, but deformed by blindness. He showed thus that He was the Lord of all things, and of the Sabbath also, so as to work His cure on that day whatever outcry the Pharisees might make. So Cyril, Leontius, Theophylact. Accordingly the Interlinear Gloss says, “See, here is the eye-salve with which mankind is anointed, the thought, namely, of its own vileness, as being made of clay, so as to be cured of the pride which had blinded it. According to the saying, ‘Remember, O man, that thou art dust, and into dust thou wilt return.’ ” Christ used His spittle, says Cyril, to show that even His Flesh had a supernatural power of healing. (2.) Because spittle is a symbol of recuperative power (several derivations of “saliva” are here suggested which are of no value, and several instances of cures by its use). (3.) He used it that no virtue should be ascribed to the pool of Siloam, but to the power of His own mouth from whence it came; for by the bidding of His own mouth He drove away the blindness. (4.) That thus this miracle might be the more fully attested. (5.) To test the faith and obedience of the blind man (see S. Chrysostom). Why did He send him to Siloam, that all men might see him going with the clay on his eyes? But there was no reason to fear that the cure would be attributed to Siloam, because many had washed there without being cured. But the faith of the blind man was shown by his not saying a word or having a thought against it, but he simply obeyed.

Allegorically. S. Augustine says, “Christ made clay of the spittle because the Word was made flesh.” He anointed the eyes of the blind man, but yet he did not see, for when He anointed him He most likely made him a catechumen. He sends him to the pool of Siloam. For being baptized in Christ he is illuminated. The Gloss says, “The spittle is the wisdom which came forth from the mouth of the Most High; the earth is the flesh of Christ, to anoint the eyes is to make a catechumen. He that believeth in the Word made flesh is sent to wash, that is to be baptized in Siloam, that is in Him that was sent, i.e., in Christ. But he who is baptized receives the light of the mind through faith, hope, and charity, which are infused into him by God in baptism.”

Jn 9:7.—And said unto Him, &c. Siloam is a stream at the foot of Mount Sion, which does not flow continuously, but at uncertain times of the day; it bursts forth (says S. Jerome) with a loud noise, and is then silent. It hides itself under the earth, and by channels runs into the pool of Siloam, and hence is conveyed silently and gently into the royal gardens, which it waters. (See S. Jerome on Is. 8) Epiphanius thus gives its history. “God made the fount of Siloam at the request of the Prophet (Isaiah), who shortly before his death prayed that He would grant the waters to flow from that place, and He immediately poured down from heaven living waters; whence the place obtained the name Siloam, which means sent down. And under king Hezekiah, before he built the pool, a small stream sprang up at the prayers of Isaiah (for they were hard pressed by the enemy), that the people might not perish for lack of water. The soldiers searched everywhere for water and could not tell where to find it. But when the poor Jews went to seek water it burst out for them in a stream. But strangers could not find it, for the water withdrew itself. And even up to the present time it bursts forth secretly, thus signifying a mystery.” Epiphanius records this in his life of the Prophet. Baronius compares it to a stream in Palestine called Sabbaticus, because it flowed only on the Sabbath. (See Baronius a.d. 33, cap. xxvi., and Josephus, de Bello Jud. cap. xiv.) S. Irenæus (iv. 19) says that Siloam effected its cures very frequently on the Sabbath.

(2.) From Siloam, flowing as it did at intervals, and in a country where there was a want of water, the water was drawn gently and noiselessly into the pool, or bath, and thence passed into the gardens. From this letting in and letting out of the waters it was called Siloam from the root schalach.

But why did Christ send the blind man to this particular pool? (1.) Because it was a type of Himself, who was sent into the world, to enlighten it. (See S. Chrysostom and S. Irenæus, iv. 19.) (2.) Because Christ was meek and gentle like its waters, and because He was secretly and silently sent forth by the Father, as God in heaven, and on earth by His birth from the Virgin. He is also, like Siloam, a fountain of water, “springing up into eternal life.” (3.) He is the Fount of graces, who distributes His gifts to the faithful by channels. (See Is. 12:3, and Zech. 13:1, and notes thereon.) And Isaiah, who was an express type of Christ both in his life and martyrdom, caused this pool to be built. (4.) Solomon was anointed to be king near the spot. Hence the waters of Siloam signify the royal race of David. And Christ sent the blind man there to show that He was the Son of David. (5.) He sent the blind man to Siloam to recall the prophecy of Jacob (Gen. 49:10), as indicating that he was the messenger and ambassador sent from the Father. (6.) Siloam was the type of Christian Baptism, whereby we are spiritually enlightened. Baptism is called in Greek φωτισμὸς, (See S. Ambrose, Epist. lxxv., and S. Augustine in loc.) And hence S. Irenæus (v. 15) thinks that this man was enlightened both in body and mind by the waters of Siloam. (7.) There is great affinity between water and light, ablution and illumination. The Hebrew word ain signifies both a fountain and light. Cicero and Quinctilian speak of the lights of wisdom, and floods of oratory, &c. And even the Psalmist uses both terms, “For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy Light shall we see light.” And here too Christ connects light with a fountain. For after having said, “I am the Light of the world,” He sent the blind man to Siloam to recover his sight. Water washes away the noxious humours of the eyes, and thus gives them light.

Adrichomius describes Siloam and the virtue of its waters, speaking of the value Saracens and Turks put upon them, especially for restoring the sight. And no wonder. For as Christ, by being baptized in Jordan, sanctified the waters, and gave them the power of washing away sins in baptism; in like manner by giving sight to the blind man by the waters of Siloam, He seemed to have conferred on them a somewhat similar power of giving sight to others, and accordingly S. Helena (says Nicephorus, 8:30) erected some magnificent works about the pool. S. Chrysostom (in loc.) says that in Siloam was the virtue of Christ which cured the blind man. For as the apostles called Christ “a spiritual door,” so was He a spiritual Siloam. (So too S. Cyril, and S. Basil on Isaiah 8:6, and Eusebius, Demonst. Evang. vii. 2.)

Which is by interpretation. “Sent,” because it was a type of the Messiah, whose name was Siloach (i.e., sent, or to be sent, by God). For unless He had been sent, none of us (says S. Augustine) would have been delivered from his guilt.

He went therefore, &c. Not by the virtue of the waters of Siloam, but by that of Christ, who used these waters for the enlightenment of the blind man, as He uses the waters of Baptism for the purification and enlightenment of the soul. “In Siloam,” says S. Chrysostom, “was the virtue of Christ, which cured the blind man.” But the faith and obedience of the blind man merited this, not of condignity, but of congruity. For he believed that he would recover his sight by washing away in the waters of Siloam the clay which Christ had put on his eyes. For had he not believed this, he would not have kept the clay on his eyes, to the ridicule of those who saw him; nor would he have gone to Siloam, nor have there washed away the clay from his eyes. The Gloss says with less truth, “How was this man healed without faith, when nobody is said to have been healed outwardly by Christ without being healed within?” This is said of those who were sick on account of their sins, but he was suffering for the glory of God; for as I have shown, his faith and obedience were great, and by them was he alike justified, as we shall hear at the end of the chapter. So Elisha cleansed from his leprosy Naaman the Syrian by means of the waters of Jordan. And he also made sweet the bitter waters by the salt which was thrown into them. S. Augustine remarks that Christ was “the day who divided the light from the darkness, when He took away his blindness and restored him his sight.”

Jn 9:8-9.—The neighbours therefore, &c., and they that saw him, that he was a beggar, &c. (Vulg.) “The greatness of the deed brought about incredulity,” says S. Chrysostom. “And the opening of the eyes had changed the appearance of the blind man,” says S. Augustine, “so that looking on him they doubted whether he who saw was the one who aforetime was blind; but carefully watching him as he walked along the long way, they acknowledged him to be the same, and that it could not be denied.” So S. Chrysostom.

The wondrous mercy of God healed most carefully those who were beggars, counting those who were mean of birth to be worthy of His providential care; for He came for the healing of all. Thus many poor people and of slender means obtain of the Blessed Virgin miracles of healing, at her shrines at Loretto and Sichem, both because they are in greater need than the rich, and are more innocent in their lives, also exhibit greater faith and devotion, and because she specially cares for them, as being destitute; just as it is said, “The poor committeth himself to Thee [is left to Thy care]; Thou art the helper of the orphan” (Ps. 10:14).

Jn 9:10-11.—Therefore said they unto him, &c. “The man,” says Euthymius and Theophylact, “knew not as yet that Jesus was God.” The blind man had learned the name of Jesus from common report, or from asking the bystanders. That he called Him not Rabbi, must be ascribed partly to his simplicity and candour, and partly to his truthfulness. For in order that he might not give any weight to his own opinion respecting Christ, he spake only the bare truth, and merely called Him Jesus. Perhaps he did it, likewise, in order not to excite the Jews, who were opposed to Christ, the more against Him.

Jn 9:12.—And they said to him, Where is He? He said, I know not. For Jesus had withdrawn Himself, as shrinking from praise; for He did not, says S. Chrysostom, “seek for glory, or self-display.”

Jn 9:13.—They brought to the Pharisees, &c. They brought him to the Pharisees, that they might examine the matter. This was done by the purpose of God, that the miracle might be fully attested and made widely known, so that the Pharisees could not deny it. Whence S. Augustine says, “The blind man confessed, the heart of the wicked was broken.” “They bring him to the Pharisees, as being judges, and therefore assembled in their house of judgment.” This house seems to have been a synagogue, close to the temple; for a question of religion and belief was at stake, which the Pharisees had to decide by examining the miracle, and to judge accordingly whether He who wrought it was the Messiah or not.

Jn 9:14-16. It was the Sabbath day. This is added to show their evil disposition; for they sought occasion against Jesus, and wished to detract from the miracle in consequence of its seeming violation of the law. For in truth to make clay in order to give sight to the blind, is not a breaking but a sanctification of the Sabbath.

Jn 9:17.—They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of Him who hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a Prophet. That is a specially holy man, a wonder-worker. So Abraham (Gen 20:7) is called a Prophet (see what is said on 1 Cor. 14 ad rem, and Sir 48:12, on the various meanings of the word Prophet). “Being at present not anointed in heart, he did not confess Christ to be the Son of God. But yet he did not speak falsely of Him. For the Lord said of Himself, “A prophet is not without honour, save in His own country.”

They asked the blind man the same question again and again, out of bitter hatred of Christ, and also to involve him in the same guilt with Christ. They wished also to elicit something out of his mouth to make him contradict himself, that so they might convict him of a lie. But God caught them in their own craftiness. For by this frequent examination, the consistent confession of the blind man, and consequently the glory of Christ, shone forth. S. Chrysostom wisely says, “It is the nature of truth to become stronger by the snares laid against it.” And that was now the case, for the parents are brought forward, who fully acknowledged their son, and confirmed his words.

Jn 9:18-21.—But the Jews did not believe, &c. They hoped to elicit something from them to refute either the blind man or Christ, “by finding that he was not born blind,” says S. Chrysostom, or was not quite blind but dim-sighted, or that he regained his sight by magic, and not by the miracle wrought by Christ. “They sought,” says S. Augustine, “how they might accuse him, that they might cast him out of the synagogue,” as they shortly afterwards did. Theophylact states that this was their dilemma. It is either false that your son now sees, or that he was blind at first. But it is admitted that he sees, it was therefore false that he was, as he says, previously blind. His parents reply cautiously. They knew him to be their son, and that he was born blind. But how he gained his sight they knew not. They speak with prudence so as not to deny the truth, nor yet incur the peril of excommunication. And hence they say, “He is of age,” meaning, says S. Augustine, “we should justly be compelled to speak for an infant, for it could not speak for itself. But he is a man who can speak for himself, therefore (say they) ask him.”

Jn 9:22-23.—For the Jews, &c. “But it was no evil to be put out of the synagogue,” says S. Augustine, “for they expelled, but Christ received him.” “But the parents said this, because they were less firm than their son, who stood forth as an intrepid witness of the truth,” says Theophylact.

Jn 9:24.—Then again called they the man, &c. To give God the glory, is a form of obtestation or oath among the Jews (see Josh. 7:19). Confess that this man is a sinner, and so wilt thou by this confession of the truth give glory to God, who is the chief and eternal truth. “To give glory to God” (says the Gloss) “is to speak the truth as in the presence of God.” They wished to persuade him under the pretext of religion (says S. Chrysostom), to deny that he was cured by Christ, or if he were, it was by magic and sleight of hand. “Deny,” says the Interlinear Gloss, “the benefit thou hast received by Christ. But this were to blaspheme, and not to give glory to God.”

Jn 9:25. Whether He be a sinner. “He answers prudently and cautiously, neither laying himself open to the charge, nor yet concealing the truth,” says the Interlinear Gloss. But S. Chrysostom objects, “How was it that just before he called Him a Prophet, and now he says, ‘Whether he be a sinner I know not?’ ” He does not say this by way of assertion, or through fear, but because he wished Jesus to be acquitted of the charges by the evidence of the fact. “I do not wish to argue the point with you. But I know for certain, that though once blind, now I see.”

Jn 9:26. How opened He thine eyes? Just like hounds, says S. Chrysostom, who track their prey now here, now there.

Jn 9:27. Wherefore would ye hear it again? “Ye do not wish to learn, but merely to cavil,” says S. Chrysostom.

Will ye also be His disciples? “As I now see and envy not,” says the Gloss, “nay, I profess myself to be Jesus’ disciple, even so I wish you to become His disciples also.” “He speaks thus,” says S. Augustine, “as indignant at the hardness of the Jews, and as having been restored to sight, not enduring those who were blind (in heart).” Note here the heroic constancy and nobleness of the blind man in defending Jesus before the Pharisees, His sworn enemies. And hence he deserved to be taken up and exalted by Christ.

Jn 9:28.—They then reviled him, &c. They cursed him, saying, Be thou accursed, or at all events heaped maledictions and reproaches upon him. But their curse was without effect, and was turned by Christ into a blessing. For it is an honour to the godly, to be cursed by the wicked. Whence S. Augustine says, “It is a curse if thou look into the heart of the speakers, but not if thou weighest the words themselves. May such a curse be on us, and on our children.”

Jn 9:29. But we know not this man whence he is, whether sent by God, as was Moses, or by the devil. So Euthymius.

Jn 9:30.—The man answered, &c. It was your business, as doctors and learned in the Law, to know that Jesus, who works so many miracles, must have been sent by God only. For it is God who works miracles by Him. “He brings in everywhere the miracle of his recovery of sight,” says S. Chrysostom, “because they could not gainsay that, but were convinced thereby.”

Jn 9:31.—Now we know, &c. How can this be? For if sinners penitently ask pardon God vouchsafes it, and frequently bestows on sinners temporal blessings, and spiritual blessings also, if they ask for them. But I reply (1.) God ordinarily does not hear sinners; sinners, I mean, persisting in their sin. Yet sometimes, though rarely, He hears even them. So Jansen. This is plain from Scripture (see Ps. 59:1-2; Prov. 28:9; Ps. 50:16; Mal. 2:2). But of the just it is said, “The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and His ears are open to their prayers” (Ps. 32:6). And, “The eyes of the Lord are on them that fear Him” (Sir. 15:20).

(2.) Secondly, and more befittingly to the case in point, He hears not sinners, so as to work miracles to establish their sanctity as He did by Jesus, to testify that He was the Messiah. So Maldonatus on this passage. (See also Suarez, tom. ii. de Relig., lib. de Orat. cap. xxv.) “God heareth not sinners if they pray with an evil intention,” as e.g., to confirm their hypocrisy or lies.

(3.) S. Augustine (De Bapt. contr. Don. iii. 20) replies that this blind man spoke only generally, being still a catechumen, and not yet sufficiently instructed in the Faith. For generally it is not true, nor the view of Scripture, which in this place only states what was said by the blind man.

Hear S. Augustine, “He speaks as one not yet anointed (i.e., a catechumen). For God does hear sinners also. For else the publican would say in vain, ‘God be merciful to me, a sinner,’ from which confession he obtained justification, as this blind man obtained enlightenment.”

From this passage S. Cyprian (Ep. 64 and 80) and the Donatists who followed his teaching inferred that Baptism by an heretical minister was invalid, and ought to be repeated; because a heretic is a great sinner whom God hears not. But quite wrongly. For in like manner, Baptism administered by a Catholic Priest living in sin would be void, and would require to be repeated. I say therefore that the efficacy of the Sacrament is one thing, the efficacy of prayer is another. For a sacrament derives its efficacy ex opere operato, but prayer ex opere operantis, from the sanctity and character of him who prays. And therefore if a sinner (a heretic, e.g.) baptizes, this sacrament is valid, and derives its efficacy from the institution of Christ, who confers grace by the Sacrament. For Christ is the original author of Baptism, who baptizes by His ministers as by instruments. Besides, though God hears not the prayers of a sinner, as a private person, yet He hears the prayers of the same person, in his public capacity, because he is a minister of the Church. For the Church is holy, as having Christ as its holy Head, and as having many faithful and holy members, to whose prayers God hearkens.

Jn 9:32.—Since the world began, &c. Granted that Moses and the Prophets wrought many miracles, yet they never restored sight to one who was born blind. Jesus who has restored my sight must needs be a greater Prophet than they. He retorted the words of the Pharisees on themselves, “Ye prefer Moses to Christ, but I prefer Christ. Ye choose to be Moses’ disciples, I am Christ’s.”

Jn 9:33.—If this man were not of God, He could do nothing, i.e., for curing my blindness. “He says this freely, stedfastly, and truly” (S. Augustine), “for to enlighten the blind is supernatural work, and specially belongs to God.”

Jn 9:34.—They answered, &c., in sins, both in mind and body, for thou wast born blind by reason of thy sin. For they held the tenet of Pythagoras that the soul existed before the body, and that it was in consequence of its sins thrust down into a deformed (i.e., a blind) body. So Cyril, Leontius, and others. Maldonatus explains, “Thou hast done nothing but sin from thy birth.” So S. Chrysostom and Theophylact. And dost thou teach us? Thou blind sinner, wilt thou teach us who have our sight, and are wise and righteous?

And they cast him out of the private house in which they were, as not deserving to be disputed with by such just teachers, says Maldonatus. Or out of the temple, as says S. Chrysostom, and consequently out of the synagogue, adds Leontius. That is, they excommunicated him. “But the Lord of the temple found him,” says Chrysostom, “and took him up.” Both statements are credible: that they drove him out of the house, and also excommunicated him, for this latter they had decided to do. As if they said, “Begone, thou apostate, and go to thine own Jesus.” But this leads us to suppose that all this took place in the House of Judgment, a public place (see on verse 31). And that he was expelled from the synagogue appears more plainly from our Lord’s own words in the next chapter, I am the door.

Jn 9:35.—Jesus heard that they had cast him out, &c. Christ received him kindly, and rewards his constancy. Having given sight to his body, He now enlightens his mind. In giving him bodily sight, He had cast in some scattered seeds of faith, which He now particularly forms into perfect shape: so as to make him believe, that He whom he looked upon as a mere prophet, for having given him sight, was God also, and the Son of God. The Gloss says, “The blind man had already a heart prepared to believe, but knew not in whom he had to believe.” This, in answer to his question, he learns from Christ.

Christ took trouble to find him in the place, where He knew he was. It is the part of a good shepherd to seek for a wandering sheep, who cannot by itself come back into the right way. “They expel,” says S. Augustine (in loc.), “the Lord receives, and he becomes a Christian, even the more because he was expelled.”

Believest thou? Christ did not demand faith from the blind man for the healing of his body, but He does for the healing of his soul: for, as S. Augustine says (Serm. xv. de Verb. Apost.), “He who made thee without thyself, doth not justify thee without thyself: He made thee without thy knowledge, He justifies thee through thy will.”

Jn 9:36.

Jn 9:37.—And Jesus said, &c. Thou seest him now for the first time, for he had been healed in the pool of Siloam, when Christ was not there. Christ therefore points out to him that it was He who restored his sight. He recalls his healing to his remembrance, says Theophylact, and that he had received the gift of sight from Him, so as to make him believe that He was not only the Son of man, but the Son of God.

Jn 9:38.—And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped Him, as the Son of God, and very God, to be worshipped as God with the worship due to Him (latria). Moreover, the blind man, inwardly enlightened (and moved to it by Christ), by saying, “I believe,” brought out acts of hope, contrition, charity, devotion, and adoration towards Christ, and was by them cleansed from his sins and justified. He consequently became a holy and apostolic man. He was said to have been one of the seventy disciples, and to have become Bishop of Aix, in Provence, where he died and was buried by the side of Maximinus, to whom he had been coadjutor (see Peter de Natalis in Cat. Sanctorum, lib. v. cap. 102).

Jn 9:39.—And Jesus said (not to him but to the Pharisees), for judgment, &c. “That is for condemnation,” says S. Cyril, “to convict and condemn the proud and worldly Pharisees of blindness who seem in their own sight to be wise.”

But others explain it better, not of condemnation, but of inquiry and discrimination. I have come into the world to discriminate and separate believers from unbelievers, good from evil, godly from ungodly; in order that the people, who before had lived in ignorance of God and of salvation, and in darkness of mind, like this blind man, might by believing in Me be enlightened with the knowledge of God, and of things which concern their salvation; and that I might suffer the proud who refuse to believe in Me (like the Pharisees who are puffed up by their knowledge of the law) to be blinded, and might convict them of their blindness.

(2.) But judgment might possibly here mean the secret counsel and mysterious decree of God, determined and fixed by His righteous decree, whereby God ordained that the Gentiles who knew not God, and consequently were blind, might behold the Light of Faith in Christ, and humbly and eagerly accept it; while the Scribes and Pharisees and wise men of the world, puffed up by their own knowledge, might become darkened in unbelief, and reject the faith and enlightenment of Christ. Humility, therefore, enlightened by faith the unlearned Gentiles, who submitted themselves to Christ, while pride darkened with unbelief the learned Scribes who rejected Him. So S. Cyril, or rather Clictoveus, who filled up what was wanting in his commentary. (See Rom. 11:33.) “His judgments are a great deep.” Theodoret applies this to Paul and Judas. For S. Paul having been blind received his sight, and Judas, after seeing, became blind. The words “that,” “therefore,” &c., frequently signify not the cause, but the result or consequence. For Christ came not in order that the Scribes should be made blind; but their blindness was a result of Christ’s preaching, not from anything on His part, but from their own pride and fault. So Cyril and others.

Jn 9:40.—And some of the Pharisees, &c. The Pharisees felt themselves sharply touched by our Lord’s words, which they understood to speak not of the blindness of the body, but of the mind. They knew that they were not bodily blind, and therefore if He had said this, they would have hooted Him down as a fool. They said, Are we blind also? Hast thou come to give sight to those who are blind in body, and to make out that we who spiritually see, and are doctors of the law, are blind and foolish? Show us our blindness and foolishness.

Jn 9:41.—Jesus said to them, &c. (1.) S. Chrysostom. Theophylact, and Euthymius explain this of bodily blindness; meaning, If ye were blind in your bodies, ye would be less proud and sinful. For bodily blindness would humble your mind. (2.) S. Augustine (in loc.) is more to the point. If ye were blind in your own opinion, if ye would acknowledge yourselves to be blind (i.e., ignorant and foolish) in things which concern your salvation, ye would not have sin, for ye would seek a remedy for it, and would obtain it from Me.

(3.) Accurately and scholastically, If ye were blind through ignorance of Scripture and the law of nature, ye would not have sin, by acting according to this ignorance and not acknowledging Me as your Messiah. That is to say, If your ignorance were clearly without blame and invincible, ye would have some sin, but one which was less serious, and more excusable, and therefore ye might easily be enlightened and cured by Me, since My doctrine would dispel your ignorance. But now ye say to yourselves, “We see,” that is, ye think ye see, and are so wise as to be excellent judges of Christ’s advent and person. And therefore ye from your arrogant and evil thoughts continue in the sin of unbelief against Me; ye obstinately set your mind against Me, and thus refuse to believe in Me as the Messiah, though I have demonstrated that I am by very many signs and miracles. And therefore, ye cannot by any possibility be enlightened and healed by Me, because ye obstinately refuse to hear Me. So Jansen and others.

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Matthew 27:1-66

Ver. 1. But when the morning was come (Syr. when it was dawn), all the chief priests, &c. “See here,” says S. Jerome, “the eagerness of the Priests for evil,” their feet were swift to shed blood (Ps. 14:6). They were urged on by their bitter hatred of Christ, and by Satan’s instigation. It was the morning of Friday, only a few hours before His crucifixion, when Caiaphas, who had already tried and condemned Him the night before, summoned thus early the great Council of the Sanhedrim. It was to obtain His condemnation by the whole Body, which would ensure the subsequent condemnation by Pilate. S. Matthew omits the proceedings of this Council, as being a mere repetition of what he had already recorded (chap. 26:59 seq.). But the narrative is supplied by S. Luke (22:26 seq.), as explained above (see ver. 59).

S. Leo says strikingly, “This morning, O Jews, destroyed your Temple and altars, took away from you the Law and the Prophets, deprived you of your kingdom and priesthood, and turned all your feasts into unending woe” (Serm. iii. de Pass.).

To put Him to death. That is, how they could do it without hindrance or tumult, and also by what kind of death, as, e.g., that of the Cross, the most ignominious of all. Some members of the Council were probably Christ’s followers and friends; and these most likely absented themselves, or were not summoned, or sent away elsewhere, for fear they should defend Him. But if any of them were present, they either gave sentence in His favour, or were forced by the clamour of the rest to remain silent; as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathæa (Luke 23:51). Here notice, this wicked Council erred not only in fact, but in faith. For it gave sentence that Jesus was not the Christ nor the Son of God, but that He was guilty of death, as having falsely claimed to be both: all which statements are erroneous and heretical. This, however, was only a small and particular, not an Œeumenical Council. These latter, as representing the whole Church, have the gift of inerrancy by the power of the Holy Ghost and by Christ’s own promise. But you will say the whole Jewish Church at that time fell away from the faith. It was not so, for many of Christ’s converts in Judæa remained steadfast, and there were true believers among the Jews who were converted at the day of Pentecost (Acts 2).

Ver. 2. And when they had bound Him, they led Him away, and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor. “For,” as S. Jerome says, “it was the Jewish custom to bind and deliver to the judge those they had condemned to death.” Here then was Samson bound by Delilah, Christ by the Synagogue. Origen says truly, “They bound Jesus who looseth from bonds; who saith to them that are in bonds, ‘Go forth’ (Isa. 49:9); who looseth the fetters, and saith, ‘Let us break their bands asunder.’ ” For Jesus was bound that He might set us free by taking on Himself the bonds and the punishment of our sins.

They brought. Caiaphas, i.e., and all the other members of the Council, to crush by the weight of their authority both Jesus and Pilate alike. For if Pilate refused to ratify their sentence, they would be able to accuse him of aiming at the sovereignty of Judæa, and being thus an enemy of Cæsar, and so force him in this way, even against his will, to condemn Him to death.

Delivered to Pontius Pilate. Why? Some think from what is said in the Talmud that the Jews were forbidden to put any one to death. But see Deut. 21:23; Num. 25:4; Josh. 13:29; 2 Sam. 21:6 and 9.

But the fact was that the Romans had taken away from the Jews the power of life and death (John 18:31). Ananus was deposed from the High-Priesthood for killing James the Lord’s brother and others, without the consent of the Roman governor. The stoning of S. Stephen was only an outbreak of popular fury.

There were also other reasons. 1. To remove from themselves the discredit of His death, as though it had arisen merely from envy. 2. To dishonour Him as much as they could, by getting Him condemned by Pilate to the ignominious death of crucifixion, the punishment of rebels. They themselves had condemned Him of blasphemy, which was punished by stoning (Lev. 24:16). 3. To dishonour Him the more by causing Him to be put to death as a profane person, by one, too, who was himself profaning the holy feast of the Passover (see S. Chrysostom, Hom. lxxxvi. in Matt.; S. Augustine, Tract. cxiv. in John; and S. Cyril, Lib. xii. in Joan. cap. 6).

But a retaliatory punishment was inflicted on the Jews; for as they delivered up Christ to Pilate, so were they in turn delivered up to be destroyed by Titus and Vespasian (S. Cyril on John, cap. xviii.; Theophylact, and Victorinus on Mark xiv.).

Vers. 3, 4. Then Judas, which had betrayed Him, when he saw that He was condemned, &c. Judas, when he sold Christ, did not expect that He would be killed, but merely seized, and either render them some satisfaction, or in some way escape, as before, out of their hands. But on finding Him condemned to death, he felt the gravity of his sin. And repenting, when too late, of what he had done, he was self-condemned, and hanged himself. “The devil is so crafty,” says S. Chrysostom, “that he allows not a man (unless very watchful) to see beforehand the greatness of his sin, lest he should repent and shrink from it. But as soon as a sin is fully completed, he allows him to see it, and thus overwhelms him with sorrow and drives him to despair. Judas was unmoved by Christ’s many warnings; but when the deed had been wrought, he was brought to useless and unavailing repentance.”

That He was condemned. By Caiaphas, i.e., and the whole Council, and that he would shortly be condemned by Pilate on their authority, and by their urgent importunity.

Repented himself. Not with true and genuine repentance, for this includes the hope of pardon, which Judas had not; but with a forced, torturing, and despairing repentance, the fruit of an evil and remorseful conscience, like the torments of the lost. In Gr. μεταμεληθεις.

Brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the Chief Priests. To rescind his bargain. As if he had said, “I give, back the money; do ye, on your part, restore Jesus to liberty.” So S. Ambrose (in Luc. xxii.), “In pecuniary causes, when the money is paid back, justice is satisfied.” And S. Hilary, “Judas gave back the money that he might expose the dishonesty of the purchasers.” And S. Ambrose, “Though the traitor was not absolved himself, yet was the impudence of the Jews exposed; for though put to shame by the confession of the traitor, they insisted wickedly on the fulfilment of the bargain.”

I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent Blood; Gr. ἀθῶον; for what more innocent than the immaculate Lamb? what purer than the purity of Jesus Christ?

But they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. Carry out what thou hast begun. Bear the punishment of the guilt thou ownest. We own no fault in ourselves. But He is guilty of death as a false Christ, and therefore we insist on it. Now, as they refused to take back the money, Judas cast it down in the Temple, and hung himself, despairing of the life of Jesus and of his own salvation. For assuredly he would not have thus acted had the Chief Priests taken the money back and set Jesus free. Up to a certain point, then, his repentance was right, but when it drove him to despair it was wrong. “See how unwilling they were,” says S. Chrysostom, “to see the audacity of their conduct, which greatly aggravated their fault. For it was a clear proof that they were hurried away by audacious injustice, and would not desist from their evil designs, foolishly hiding themselves the while under a cloak of pretended ignorance.”

And he cast down the pieces of silver in the Temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. He first took them to the house of Caiaphas, or certainly to that of Pilate, where the Chief Priests were prosecuting their case; and afterwards, on their refusing to take them, threw them down in the Temple for the Priests to pick up. Some of the Chief Priests were probably there, but anyhow by throwing them down in the Temple he devoted them, as the price of the Most Holy Blood, to sacred and pious uses, if the Priests refused to take them back.

And he went and hanged himself. The Greek writers are mistaken in thinking that he did not die in this way, but was afterwards crushed to death (see on Acts 1:18). Judas then added to his former sin the further sin of despair. It was not a more heinous sin, but one more fatal to himself, as thrusting him down to the very depths of hell. He might, on his repentance, have asked (and surely have obtained) pardon of Christ. But, like Cain, he despaired of forgiveness, and hung himself on the self-same day, just before the death of Christ. For he could not bear the heavy remorse of an accusing conscience. So S. Leo (Serm. de Pass. iii.; S. Augustine, Quæst. v., and N. Test. xciv.). David had prophesied respecting him, “Let a sudden destruction,” &c. (Ps. 35:8). Thus S. Leo, “O Judas, thou wast the most wicked and miserable of men, for repentance recalled thee not to the Lord, but despair drew thee on to thy ruin!” And again, “Why dost thou distrust the goodness of Him who repelled thee not from the communion of His Body and Blood, and refused thee not the kiss of peace when thou earnest to apprehend Him? But thou wast past conversion (a spirit that goeth and returneth not); and with Satan at thy right hand, thou followedst the mad desire of thy own heart, and madest the sin which thou hadst sinned against the King of Saints to recoil on thine own head; that thus, as thy crime was too great for ordinary punishment, thou mightest pronounce, and also execute, the sentence on thyself.

Some say that Judas hung himself from a fig-tree, the forbidden tree of Hebrew tradition, and one of ill-omen. Hence Juvencus—

“Even as his own wild punishment he sought,

He hung with deadly noose on fig-tree’s height.”

Now it was avarice that drove Judas to this fate. “Hear ye this,” says S. Chrysostom; “hear it, I say, ye covetous. Ponder it in your mind what he suffered. For he both lost his money, and committed a crime, and lost his soul. Such was the hard tyranny of covetousness. He enjoyed not his money, nor this present life, nor that which is to come. He lost them all at once, and having forfeited the goodwill even of those to whom he betrayed Him, he ended by hanging himself.”

This confession of Judas, then (not in word, but in deed), was a clear proof of Christ’s innocence, and it assuredly ought to have kept the Jews from killing Him, if they had only had the smallest amount of shame. But their obstinate malice could not be restrained even by this strange portent.

Symbolically: Bede remarks (in Acts 1), “His punishment was a befitting one. The throat which had uttered the word of betrayal was throttled by the noose. He who had betrayed the Lord of men and angels hung in mid-air, abhorred by Heaven and earth, and the bowels which had conceived the crafty treachery burst asunder and fell out.” S. Bernard, too (Serm. viii. in Ps. xc. [xci.]), says, “Judas, that colleague of the powers of the air, burst asunder in the air, as though neither the Heaven would receive nor the earth endure the betrayer of Him who was true God and man, and who came to work salvation in the midst of the earth” (Ps. 83:12, Vulg.). Again, S. Augustine (Lib. Hom. l., Hom. xxvii.), “That which he wrought on his own body, this was also wrought on his soul. For as they who throttle themselves cause death, because the air passes not within them, so do they who despair of the forgiveness of God choke themselves by their very despair, that the Holy Spirit cannot reach them.”

But the chief priests said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury. Corban is the same as offering. It here signifies the treasury into which the offerings were cast. In Arab. the house of offerings (see Joseph, de B. J., i. 8).

Because it is the price of blood. What hypocrisy! They suffer not the price of Christ’s blood to be paid into the treasury, whereas they had taken money out of it to procure His betrayal and death.

Ver. 7. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. “They saw,” says Origen, “that it was most fitting that, as the price of blood, it should be expended on the dead and their place of burial.”

Strangers: for the inhabitants had their own burial-places. And God so ordered it that this field should be a standing witness both of Judas’ repentance and of Christ’s innocence. “The name,” says S. Chrysostom, “proclaims their bloody deed with trumpet tongue, for had they cast it into the treasury, the circumstances would not have been made so clearly known to future generations.”

Symbolically: It was thus signified that the price of Christ’s Blood would benefit not Jews only, but strangers, the Gentiles, i.e., who would hereafter believe on Him. So Hilary, “It belongs not to Israel, but is solely for the use of strangers.”

Ver. 8. Wherefore that field was called Aceldama. A Chaldee word. The Ethiopic and Persian versions agree as to its meaning. Adrichomius (Descr. Jerus. Num. 216) describes the spot, and a peculiar property of the soil, that it destroys within a few hours the dead bodies which are placed in it, a property which it preserves even when taken elsewhere. Some of it the Empress Helena is said to have taken to Rome, where it forms the Campo Santo. “It still retains,” says Cornelius, “the same property.”

Tropologically: “The field bought for strangers with Christ’s Blood is the Church (S. Chrysostom in loc.; S. Augustine, Serm. cxiv. de Temp.), and particularly the state of ‘Religious,’ who count themselves strangers upon earth, and citizens of Heaven, and of the household of God,” &c. See also 1 Pet. 2:11, where S. Chrysostom says, “Nothing is more blessed than this burial, over which all rejoice, both angels and men, and the Lord of angels. For if this life is not our life, but our life is hidden, we ought to live here as though we were dead.” So S. Paul, Col. 3:3. It was perhaps for this symbolical reason that this soil possessed the remarkable property mentioned above. See Comment, on Acts 1:18, 19.

Vers. 9, 10. Then was fulfilled, &c. See on Zech. 11:12, 13.

The price of Him that was valued; Gr. τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ τετιμημένου. Christ, who is beyond all price (Theophyl.), Whom the Chief Priests bought of the sons of Israel, of Judas, i.e., who was one of them. (So Titelman and Barradeus.) This is stated to add to the ignominy of the transaction, viz., that He was sold not by a Gentile, but by an Israelite, and one, too, who was called after the Patriarch’s eldest son. The plural is here put for the singular. Theophylact explains it otherwise, that Christ was valued, or bought, by the Chief Priests for the thirty pieces. Euthymius and others, that this price was put on Christ by those who were of the sons of Israel, i.e., Israelites.

The Syriac version has the first person, agreeing with Zechariah, “And I took,” &c. (Zech. 11:13).

As the Lord appointed me. These words can be taken: 1. As the words of Christ speaking by the Prophet, and signifying that God would suffer nothing which concerned Him to come to nought, so that even the field purchased with the price of His Blood should not be unoccupied, but serve for the burial of strangers. 2. As the words of the Prophet, “God ordained that I should by my own act, as well as by my word, prophesy and foretell this, and even the goodly price,” as he says in irony, “at which Christ should be valued.”

Ver. 11. But Jesus stood before the Governor. S. Matthew having recorded the fate of Judas, now returns to the main narrative, omitting, however, several incidents, which are to be found in John 18:19. It appears from S. Luke 23:2 that the Jews brought three definite charges against Jesus—that He was perverting the people, that He forbade them to give tribute to Cæsar, and maintained that He was Himself a King. Pilate, it would seem, put aside the first two as false and malicious, and dwelt only on the third. He simply asked Him whether he were the King of the Jews, as being of royal descent, or as the promised Messiah, or on any other ground. Jesus asked him in reply, “Sayest thou this of thyself?” (John 18:34). He knew very well the nature of the charge. But he wished to mortify Pilate by suggesting that this must be a mere calumny of His enemies, since he who was bound to maintain the authority of the Emperor, and had hitherto been most vigilant in the matter, had heard nothing of the kind. Pilate was irritated, and replied, “Am I a Jew, so as to know or care anything about Thy family or descent, or aught else relating to Thyself, who art a Jew born? Thine own nation and the Chief Priests have delivered Thee to me. What hast Thou done?” This was the very answer which Jesus wished to obtain from him, and He clearly and directly replied, “My kingdom is not of this world,” &c. (John 18:36).

He explained that it was not to be supported by human agency or force of arms (so that Tiberius need not fear that he would lose the kingdom of Judæa, but that it was heavenly, spiritual, and transcendental,—a kingdom wherein He would reign in the hearts of the faithful by grace, and bring them to His kingdom in Heaven. S. Matthew, omitting all other points for the sake of brevity, assigns this last as the true cause of Christ’s death, merely saying, The Governor asked Him, saying, Art Thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. He meant by this, I am Messiah the King. He might have said truly, I am not the King of the Jews, I am no temporal King, nor do I aim at being one. But the Jews understood the title King of the Jews to mean the Messiah, and as He could not deny His Messiahship, He confessed that He was the King of the Jews, the promised Messiah.

It will be asked, What is the nature of Christ’s kingdom, and its manifold relations? Christ, then, as man had a twofold kingdom even when on earth. 1. A spiritual kingdom, i.e., His Church, which He instituted as a commonwealth of the faithful, and founded with certain laws, ordinances, and sacraments. He rules it by S. Peter and his successors, as His Vicars, and makes it spread through all nations. This kingdom David and the Prophets foretold would be given to Christ (S. Aug. Tract. cxvii. in John). 2. As S. Thomas (Lib. i. de Reg. Princ. cap. xii.) and others rightly teach, in opposition to Abulensis [Tostatus] on Matth. xxi., it is physical and of this world. For Christ, from His very conception, had properly and directly dominion over the world, so as to depose and appoint kings, though as a fact He did not exercise such power on earth.

Here observe there is a threefold dominion and sovereignty. 1. The highest of all, which God exercises over all creatures, being peculiarly His own. 2. The human authority, which earthly kings and princes exercise. 3. Between these two is the authority of Christ as man, which far surpasses all kingly power: 1. In its origin, for God gave it to Christ. 2. In its stability, for it cannot be overcome, and abides for ever. 3. In its object, as extending to all created beings, even to angels (see Rev. 19:16, 1:5; Matt. 28:18). This was His, as man, by reason of His hypostatic union with the Word or Son of God. And accordingly this sovereignty is peculiar to Christ as man, nor has He communicated it to any one, not even to S. Peter and the Pontiffs his successors.

It will be asked whether Christ as man had a human claim to the Jewish kingdom? And I say, He had; for He was the son, the successor, and heir of David. He did not, it is true, enter on His kingdom, nor was He inaugurated as King. But yet He furnished an instance of what He was by His triumph and entry into Jerusalem. He did not actually enter on His kingdom, both because the family of David had long ceased to reign, and the kingdom had by common consent passed into other hands.

Ver. 12. And when He was accused of the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing. 1. Because all the charges against Him were false, and deserved not an answer. So S. Augustine (Serm. cxviii. de Temp.), “The Lord by keeping silence does not confirm the charge, but makes light of it. For far better is that cause which is undefended, and yet is successful; that justice is most complete which is not supported by words but is based on truth. The Saviour, who is Wisdom itself, knew how to conquer by silence, to overcome by not replying.” 2. Jesus knew that any answer would be useless, and would only make the Jews more eager for His death. 3. For fear He should excuse His crime, and obtain His deliverance, and so the benefit of His death be deferred, says S. Jerome, “for He wished to be condemned through keeping silence, and to die for the salvation of men.” So S. Ambrose (in Luc. xxii.), “He rightly keeps silence who needs not a defence. Let those who fear defeat be eager for defence. But why should He fear who wished not to escape? He sacrificed His own single life for the salvation of all.” 4. To atone thus for all faults of the tongue, and teach men to keep their tongues from all evil words.

Ver. 13. Then saith Pilate unto Him, Hearest Thou not how many things they witness against Thee? For Pilate had brought Him forth from his house to hear the accusations of the Chief Priests, as they would not enter the hall, lest they should be defiled (see John 18:28).

Ver. 14. And He answered him to never a word, insomuch that the Governor marvelled greatly. Pilate marvelled at His silence in this His extreme peril, when assailed by vehement accusations and clamour. He marvelled at His gentleness, calmness, and contempt of death, and, recognising more fully His innocence and holiness, he laboured the more earnestly to deliver Him. [Pseudo-]Athan. de Cruce, says, “It was a marvellous thing that our Saviour was so effectual in His persuasion by keeping silence, and not by answering, that the judge acknowledged of His own accord that it was a mere conspiracy against Him.” And thus do the Saints often in like manner refute the false charges against them.

Ver. 15. Now at that feast the Governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner whom they would. There comes in before this verse Luke 22:5, which records Jesus being sent to Herod, Pilate and Herod being reconciled, and His coming back again in a gorgeous or white robe. This was the dress of candidates for an office, of royal persons, and also of buffoons: Herod mocking in this way at the supposed ambition of Jesus in affecting to be a king.

Symbolically: The white garment represented the innocence, victory, immortality, glory, &c., of Christ, which He purchased by His sufferings and insults. “Let thy garments “be always white” (Eccles. 9:8). And so S. Ambrose, “He is arrayed in white, in evidence of His immaculate Passion,” and that as the spotless Lamb of God He took on Himself the sins of the world. Pilate then saw what was Herod’s object in sending Him back, and said to the Chief Priests (Luke 23:14), “Ye have brought this man unto me as one that perverteth the people … I will therefore correct Him, and let Him go,” that is, chastise and punish Him, not for His offence (for He is guiltless), but to satiate your rage against Him. Shortly afterwards he proposed another plan for His deliverance, viz., by releasing some one to them at the Passover, having little doubt, if the choice were given them, whom they would prefer. This Paschal custom was introduced in memory of the deliverance from Egypt. But did Pilate really wish to release Christ? Rupertus thinks it was mere pretence, for that he had secretly agreed with the Jews to put Him to death, having given Him up to their will. But S. Augustine and the rest suppose, more correctly, that Pilate was sincere (see Luke 23:20 and Acts 3:13). This is clear also from the many occasions on which he laboured to save Him (see John 18:31, 38; Luke 23:7, 15).

Ver. 16. For he had then a notable prisoner called Barabbas. Notorious, that is, for his crimes. S. John terms him “a robber.” S. Mark and S. Luke, “one who had committed murder in the insurrection.” “Notorious,” says S. Chrysostom, “for his bold bearing, and stained with many murders.” Now to be thus compared with Barabbas, and counted his inferior, was a great dishonour and pain to Christ. And His patience under this wrong is a fitting pattern to all Christians when slights are put on them.

Barabbas. In Hebrew “the Son of a father, of Adam, i.e., the first father of all sinners.” And Christ was made lower than Adam when He took on Himself to atone for his disobedience and sin.

S. Jerome explains it less correctly as Barabbas, the son of a Master.

Ver. 17. When therefore they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus? “That if the Chief Priests wished through envy to destroy Him, the people, who had experienced His manifold benefits, might ask for His life,” saith Druthmar; or if, as S. Chrysostom says, “they did not wish to pronounce Him innocent, they might release Him, though guilty, in consideration of the feast.”

Which is called Christ. Pilate was in earnest, wishing the Jews to demand His deliverance, as being their promised Messiah.

Ver. 18. For he knew that for envy they had delivered Him. From their general bearing and demeanour, and also from his own knowledge of His holiness, and teaching, and boldness in reproof.

Ver. 19. When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day (this night) in a dream because of Him. This act of Pilate’s wife is a fresh effort to deliver Him. Her dreams were full of threats against her husband and herself, if he condemned Christ. Some suppose them to have been the work of an evil angel, wishing to prevent His death, lest sinners should be saved by Him. (See the Sermon on the Passion, apud S. Cyprian; S. Bernard, Serm. i. in Pasch.; Lyranus, Dionys. Carthus., Rabanus, and others.)

Origen, S. Hilary, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, and others more correctly suppose that it was the work of a holy angel, and that the dream was sent to Pilate’s wife (not himself): 1. That both sexes (as well as all the elements afterwards) might witness to Christ’s innocence. 2. That she might make it publicly known by telling her husband. 3. Because she appears to have been a noble, tender-hearted, and holy woman. Origen, S. Chrysostom, and others consider that she was in this way brought to a true belief in Christ. S. Augustine (in Aurea Catena) says, “that both husband and wife bore witness to Christ;” “thus presaging,” says S. Jerome, “the faith of the Gentiles.” And S. Augustine (Serm. cxxi. de Temp.), “In the beginning of the world the wife leads the husband to death, in the Passion she leads him on to salvation.” Joanna, too, the wife of Chusa, Herod’s steward, was one of those who ministered to Christ of their substance.

The Greek Menology terms her Procula; some suggest that she was Claudia (2 Tim. 4:21), as she probably remained at Rome when he was banished. S. Augustine implies that she converted him (Serm. iii. de Epiph.). “The Magi came from the East, Pilate from the West. They accordingly witnessed to Him at His birth, he at His death, that they might sit down with Abraham, &c., not as their descendants in the flesh, but as grafted into them by faith.” Tertullian, too (Apol. cap. xxi.), speaks of Pilate as a Christian.

But all this is at variance with what others say of his banishment and his self-inflicted death.

When Pilate then is termed a Christian, it must mean a favourer and protector of His innocence. He yielded, it is true, at last to the threats of the Jews; and so it was that by the just retribution of God he was himself the victim of the like false charge from the Jews, who caused him to be exiled.

Ver. 20. But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. The Chief Priests used the time which Pilate had given the people for consideration in persuading them to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus, as the most dangerous person of the two.

Notice here the effect of anger and malice, and the false and perverted judgments of the world. Jesus, the author of salvation, was to suffer; but Barabbas, the murderer, was to be spared. But God undoubtedly so ordered it that the Innocent should suffer, and thus atone for the guilt of sinners, whom Barabbas represented.

Ver. 21. But the Governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas. That is, after he had given them time for consideration, he again asked them, and demanded an answer.

Bede (on Mark 15:9) strikingly remarks, “The demand they made still cleaves to them. For as they preferred a robber to Jesus, a murderer to the Saviour, the destroyer to the Giver of Life, they deservedly lost both their property and their life. They were reduced, indeed, so low by violence and sedition as to forfeit the independence of their country, which they had preferred to Christ, and cared not to recover the liberty of body and soul which they had bartered away.”

Allegorically: “Their choice of Barabbas foreshadowed,” says S. Jerome, “that robber Antichrist, whom they would hereafter choose in the end of the world.” And S. Ambrose (in Luke xxii), “Barabbas means the son of a father. They, therefore, to whom it was said, ‘Ye are of your father the devil,’ are set forth as those who would afterwards prefer Antichrist, the son of his father, to the true Son of God.”

Ver. 22. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let Him be crucified. “Pilate,” says S. Chrysostom, “places the matter in their hands, that all might be ascribed to their clemency, thus to charm and soften them down by his obsequiousness. But all in vain. For the Chief Priests had already resolved to insist on His crucifixion, as being not only the most cruel, but also the most ignominious of deaths, the death of robbers and other evildoers. For they hoped in this way to destroy all His former credit and reputation.” So says S. Chrysostom, “Fearing that His memory should be kept in mind, they chose this disgraceful death, not knowing that the truth when hindered is more fully manifested.”

Ver. 23. The Governor said, Why, what evil hath He done? But they cried out the more (vehemently, περισσῶς), saying, Let Him be crucified. The more Pilate insisted on His innocence, the more did they clamour for His crucifixion, “not laying aside their anger, hatred, and blasphemy, but even adding to them” (Origen). They thus fulfilled the prophecy of Jeremiah’ (12:11), “Mine heritage (the synagogue) is made unto Me as a lion in the forest; they have uttered their voice against Me;” and David’s (Ps. 22:13), “They opened their mouth upon Me, as a ravening and a roaring lion;” and Isaiah’s (5:7), “I looked for judgment, and behold iniquity; and for righteousness, and behold a cry.” (So S. Jerome.)

Ver. 24. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude. ἀπενίψατο, washed away. “He adopted,” says Origen, “the Jewish custom, and wished to calm them down, not by words only, but also by deed.” He washed his hands, but not his conscience. But this took place after the scourging and crowning of Christ. (See S. John.) Here is a transposition.

Saying, I am innocent. I condemn Him against my will. Ye are the offenders. Ye are guilty of His death. How foolish was this timid, heartless, and slothful Governor in speaking thus! Why opposest thou not the injustice of the people? “Seek not to be judge, if thou canst not by thy power break through iniquities” (Eccles. 7:6). At another time thou didst let loose the soldiers on the riotous mob (Joseph. B. J., xviii. 4). Why dost thou not act thus firmly now? If thou canst not, through the fury of the Jews, set Him free now, at least delay thy sentence till their fury subsides.

S. Chrysostom (in Luke xxiii. 22) says, “Though he washed his hands, and said he was innocent, yet his permitting it was a sign of weakness and cowardice. For he ought never to have yielded Him up, but rather rescued Him, as the Centurion S. Paul” (Acts 21:33). S. Augustine more forcibly (Serm. cxviii. de Temp.), “Though Pilate washed his hands, yet he washed not away his guilt; for though he thought he was washing away the Blood of that Just One from his limbs, yet was his mind still stained with it. It was he, in fact, who slew Christ by giving Him up to be slain. For a firm and good judge should not condemn innocent blood, either through fear or the risk of being unpopular.” And S. Leo (Serm. viii. de Pass.) said, “Pilate did not escape guilt, for by siding with the turbulent mob he became partner of others’ guilt.”

Ver. 25. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Let the guilt thou fearest be transferred from thee to us. If there be any guilt, may we and our posterity atone for it. But we do not acknowledge any guilt, and consequently, as not fearing any punishment, we boldly call it down on ourselves. And thus have they subjected not only themselves, but their very latest descendants, to God’s displeasure. They feel it indeed even to this day in its full force, in being scattered over all the world, without a city, or temple, or sacrifice, or priest, or prince, and being a subject race in all countries. It was, too, in punishment for Christ’s crucifixion that Titus ordered five hundred Jews to be crucified every day at the siege of Jerusalem, as they crowded out of the city in search of food, “so that at last there was no room for the crosses, and no crosses for the bodies” (Joseph. B. J., vi. 12). “This curse,” says Jerome, “rests on them even to this day, and the blood of the Lord is not taken away from them,” as Daniel foretold (9:27).

Strange stories are told by Cardinal Hugo of special diseases which attacked the Jews, in periodical loss of blood, etc., though Salmeron and Abulensis [Tostatus] attribute them to natural causes.

Ver. 26. Then (when the Jews had taken on themselves the guilt of Christ’s death) released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified. S. Matthew, as usual, slightly touches on the scourging; S. Mark and S. Luke speak of it more fully, and reckon this as Pilate’s fifth appeal to the compassion of the Jews, to induce them to ask for His life.

Observe—1. Scourging among the Romans was the punishment of slaves. (See Ff. de Pœnis 1. “Servorum,” and the Lex Sempronia.) S. Paul, as a Roman citizen, protested against being scourged (Acts 16). Martyrs were scourged by way of disgrace, of which many instances are given. 2. Free persons also were scourged after they had been condemned to death, as though they had thus become slaves. Hence the fasces had rods for scourging, and the axe for executions. 3. This scourging of Christ was before His condemnation, and He was thus spared the usual scourging afterwards. For one scourging only is spoken of in the Gospels. 4. S. Jerome (Epitaph. Paulæ), S. Paulinus (Ep. 34), Prudentius, and others (see Gretser, de Cruce, Lib. i.), say that Christ was fastened to a column to be scourged, and that this column was afterwards placed in the Church of S. Praxedes at Rome. But the column which is there is very small, and is consequently supposed to be only a part of the large column mentioned by S. Jerome. Bosius maintains that it is the whole of the column, and that S. Jerome is speaking of the column at which Christ was first scourged. S. Chrysostom considered that there were two scourgings. But most probably it was only part of the column S. Jerome mentions, or one of those to which He was bound in the house of Caiaphas, and the larger one that at which He was scourged in the house of the Governor.

But in what respects was this scourging so cruel and savage?

1. Christ being bound to this short column, and standing with the whole height of His body above it, was quite at the mercy of those who scourged Him. Again, the mere exposure of His most pure and virgin body to these filthy mockers was a sore affliction to Him. But He was twice, or as some say thrice, stripped; first, at His scourging; secondly, when crowned with thorns. This stripping was attended with the greatest pain; for as His garment stuck to His wounds, they were forcibly reopened as it was torn away.

The forty martyrs were animated by this example, when they boldly stripped themselves and plunged into the freezing water. (See S. Basil’s Homily.)

2. Pilate wished to excite the compassion of the Jews by saying, “Behold the man.” Behold Him who has no longer the appearance of a man, but of some slaughtered animal, so besmeared was He with blood and marred in His form.

3. The soldiers had of their own wanton cruelty crowned Him with thorns, and perhaps had been bribed by the Jews to scourge Him with greater severity. The blessed Magdalene of Pazzi, a nun of Florence, saw in a trance Christ scourged by thirty pairs of men, one after the other. Some say that He had 5000 blows inflicted on Him. S. Bridget is said to have had the exact number (5475) revealed to her. From such a scourging as this He would have died naturally again and again, had not His Godhead specially sustained Him.

4. His bodily frame was most delicate, and acutely sensitive to pain, as fashioned by the Holy Spirit, and He consequently felt the scourging more severely than we should have done.

5. The prophets, and also Christ Himself, foretold that this scourging would be most heavy and severe. See S. Matt. 20:19, and Job 16:14, “He brake Me with wound upon wound.” They added, i.e., blows to blows, wounds to wounds, so that the whole body seemed one continuous wound. Conf. Ps. 73:14, “All the day long have I been scourged;” and Ps. 129:3, “The sinners wrought upon my back as smiths on an anvil;” but the Hebrew [and A.V.], “The ploughers ploughed upon My back,” they made furrows on My back with scourges. So, too, Aquila and Theodot. This is also indicated by Jacob’s words (Gen. 49:11), “He shall wash His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of the grape,” meaning by His garments and clothes His flesh, and by the wine His blood.

6. Christ was scourged, as slaves were, with small ropes or thongs. Some suppose that He was scourged: 1. with rods of thorns; 2. with cords and iron goads; 3. with chains made of hooks. Antonius Gallus (de Cruciatu Martyrum) describes the various kinds of scourges which were used.

S. Bridget says that the Blessed Virgin was present at the scourging, and that her pain and sorrow added wondrously to His. She describes also the mode and the barbarity of His scourging (S. Bridget, Rev. i. 10).

Now Christ wished in this way to atone for our evil lusts and manifold sins. And in doing this (says S. Thom., par. iii. sec. 46, art. 6, ad. 6), He considered not only the great virtue of His sufferings from the union of His Godhead with His human nature, but also how much it would avail even in that nature for making satisfaction. Moreover, He wished to obtain power and strength for all martyrs, in order to their enduring every kind of scourging. Conf. Isa. 53:5. In all this Christ manifested most marvellous patience. He uttered not a groan, gave no indication of pain, stood firm as a rock. Nay, He lorded it over all sufferings, as being above them. Such a temper obtained heathen admiration. S. Cyprian (de Bono Patient. cap. iii), among the proofs of His Divine Majesty, speaks of “His continuous endurance, in which He exhibited the patience of His Father.” Tertullian, too (de Pat. cap. iii), “He who had proposed to hide Himself in man’s form, exhibited nought of man’s impatience. And in this ye Pharisees ought to have specially recognised the Lord.” S. Ambrose, too (Serm. xvii in Ps. cxviii) [cxix.], speaks of His “triumphant silence under calumny.” The Jews ought to have gathered from this the conclusion of the Centurion, “Truly this was the Son of God.” All this was caused by His love of God and man. Love triumphed over pain, and made His pains as nothing. And hence He was willing to suffer in all points, and in all His members and senses. S. Thomas (par iii qu. 46, art. 5) thus writes, “He suffered in the desertion of His friends, in His credit, in His honour, in the spoiling of His goods, in His soul by sorrow, in His body by His wounds. He suffered too in all parts of His body, and in every sense.” But His sufferings of mind were by far the greatest. For He was specially wounded by the sins of each single man. He grieved also for the multitude of the lost. He had sympathy for the martyrs and others who had to endure sufferings. But His boundless love urged Him on to endure all this. For love is the measure of pain, and we cannot live in love without pain. Hence it is said of Christ, “Sculptured, thou seest His love in every limb.”

Delivered Him to be crucified. After His scourging and crowning with thorns, which comes next, as I have said (ver. 24), This is therefore a transposition. S. Matthew here relates many things briefly, which S. John (19:1–16) records more fully. Pilate then delivered Jesus to the Jews, after he had condemned Him. Adrichomius (p. 163) gives Pilate’s supposed sentence, which states that the charges had been proved; making these charges, which he knew to be false, a cloak for his own sloth and injustice; the Chief Priests gave no proof, but merely made false and calumnious assertions.

Pilate in his rescript to Tiberius says that he had condemned Jesus through the importunity of the Jews, though He was in other respects a holy and divine man. Orosius (Hist. vii. 4) speaks of his testimony to Christ’s virtues; and Eusebius (in Chron. ad an. 38), that he spoke in favour of Christians to Tiberius, who proposed that Christianity should be recognised among other religions. (Conf. Tert. Apol. cap. 5 and 21; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ii. 2, and others.)

Christ, then, was on Pilate’s own testimony most unjustly condemned by him; for envy accused, hatred witnessed against Him; His crime was innocence; fear perverted judgment, ambition condemned, cruelty punished.

Ver. 27. Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall. “Then” refers not to the preceding words, “delivered Him to be crucified,” but to the scourging. The soldiers scourged Jesus, and crowned Him at the same time with thorns.

Gathered unto Him the whole band, to adorn Him, by way of insult, with the royal insignia, as pretending to be King of the Jews. “For soldiers are a cruel race,” says S. Chrysostom, “and take pleasure in insulting.” It was the Prætorian Band, quartered in the castle of Antonia.

Ver. 28. And they stripped Him, and put on Him a scarlet robe. “Making jest of Him,” says Origen. This stripping can be referred either to His scourging or to His crowning with thorns. It is consequently uncertain whether He resumed His garments after He had been scourged, and was stripped of them again and arrayed in the scarlet robe, or whether the scarlet robe was put upon His naked body immediately after His scourging.

Symbolically: “In the scarlet robe,” says S. Jerome, “the Lord bears the blood-stained works of the Gentiles.” “He bare,” says S. Athanasius, “in the scarlet garment a resemblance to the blood wherewith the earth had been polluted.” And Origen, “The Lord, by taking on Him the scarlet robe, took on Himself the blood, that is, the sins of the world, which are bloody and red as scarlet; for the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.”

Anagogically: S. Gregory, “For what is purple save blood, and the endurance of sufferings, manifested for love of the Kingdom?” And again, “The Lord made His empurpled ascent in a triumphal litter, because we attain to the Kingdom that is within through tribulation and blood.”

S. Mark and S. John call this a purple garment (not scarlet). S. Ambrose says they were two different garments, and that He was arrayed in both. Gretser (Lib. 1, de Cruce) gives authorities for there being only one garment, called indifferently purple or scarlet. Perhaps the garment had been twice dyed,—with the murex and the coccus; and garments thus dyed are of a more lasting colour. Now this was a kingly dress, and thus did they make Christ a King in mockery. This robe or chlamys was shorter and tighter than the pallium, and soldiers wore it over their armour. The one then used seems to have been the worn out dress of some Roman soldier, but being purple, was of the imperial colour.

Symbolically: S. Cyril (in John xii. 15) says, “By the purple garment is signified the sovereignty over the whole world, which Christ was about to receive.” So, too, Origen, S. Augustine, and others. But this He obtained for Himself by fighting and shedding His blood. African and other soldiers anciently wore red garments. See, too, Nahum 2:3.

Ver. 29. And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon His head. This was done both for insult and for torture. It was done, too, by Jewish insolence, and not by Pilate’s order, though he permitted it (see above on ver. 25). These thorns were those of the sea-rush or of the blackthorn; perhaps the two sorts were twisted together. S. Helena brought two of them to Rome and placed them in the Church of Santa Croce. S. Bridget (Rev. 1:10) says that the crown was placed a second time on His head when on the Cross; that it came down to the middle of His forehead, and that such streams of blood flowed from the wounds as to run down to His eyes and ears, and even to His beard; that He seemed one mass of blood. He could not indeed see His Mother till the blood had been squeezed out of His eyelids. All pictures represent Him as crucified with the crown of thorns, as Origen and Tertullian distinctly assert He was. The torture of all this was very great, for the thorns were very sharp, and also driven into the head and brain. The literal object of this was to insult and torture Christ for pretending to be King of the Jews.

But Origen gives its mystical meaning, “In this crown the Lord took on Himself the thorns of our sins woven together on His head.” For S. Hilary says “the sting of sin is in the thorns of which Christ’s victorious crown is woven.” “Let me ask you,” says Tertullian (de Con. Milit. ad fin.), “what crown did Jesus wear for both sexes? Of thorns, methinks, and briars, as a figure of those sins which the earth of our flesh hath brought forth unto us, but which the virtue of the Cross hath taken away, crushing (as it did) all the stings of death by the sufferings of the head of the Lord. For besides the figurative meaning there is assuredly the contumely, disgrace, and dishonour, and, blended with them, the cruelty, which thus both defiled and wounded His brows.”

Tropologically: The thorns teach us to wound and subdue the flesh with fastings, haircloths, and disciplines. “For it is not fitting that the members of a thorn-crowned Head should be delicate,” says S. Bernard. And Tertullian (ut supra) teaches us that Christians, out of reverence for Christ’s crown of thorns, did not wear crowns of flowers, as the heathen did. Christ offered S. Catharine of Sienna two crowns,—one of jewels, the other of thorns,—on condition that if she chose one of them in this life she should wear the other in the next. She seized at once the crown of thorns from His hand, and fixed it so firmly on her head that she felt pain for many days, and therefore she received a jewelled crown in heaven. S. Agapitus, a youth of only fifteen, when live coals were put on his head, said exultingly, “It is a small matter that that head which is to be crowned in heaven should be burned on earth,” &c. Think, then, when enduring any kind of pain, that Christ is giving thee one of the thorns from His crown.

Anagogically: S. Ambrose (in Luke xxii) says, “This crown placed on His head shows that triumphant glory should be won for God from sinners of this world, as if from the thorns of this life.”

Symbolically: S. Bernard (de Pass. Dom. cap. xix.) says, “Though they crown Him in derision, yet in their ignorant mockery they confess Him to be a crowned King. Therefore is He proved to be a King by those who knew Him not.” And S. Augustine (Tract. cxvi. in John) says, “Thus did the Kingdom which was not of this world overcome the proud world, not with fierce fighting, but lowly suffering. [Jesus comes forth] wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, not resplendent in power, but overwhelmed with reproach.” “Purple,” again says Elias Cratensis, “exhorts good rulers to be ready to shed their blood for the benefit of their subjects.” Hence the purple is given to Cardinals to remind them that they should shed their blood for the Church; and S. Germanus, Patriarch of C. P. (Orat. in Sepult. Christi), says that the purple robe and the crown of thorns which was placed on Him before His crucifixion assured the victory to Him who said, “Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”

[Pseudo-]Athanasius (de Cruce) strikingly says, “When the Lord was arrayed in the purple, there was raised invisibly a trophy over the devil. It was a strange and incredible marvel, and doubtless a token of great victory, that they placed the ornaments of triumph on Him whom they had struck in mockery and derision. He went forth to death in this array, to show that the victory was won expressly for our salvation.” He points out also that Christ was crowned with thorns to restore to us the tree of life, and to heal our worldly cares and anxieties by taking them on Himself.

Godfrey of Bouillon refused on this ground to be crowned king of Jerusalem, since it ill became a Christian king to wear a crown of gold in the very city in which Christ had worn one of thorns.

The tonsure of priests and monks represents this “crown of thorns,” and is a token of their humility and contempt of the world (Bede, Hist. Angl. v. 22, and S. Germanus, C. P., in Theor. rer. Eccles.).

Anagogically: Tertullian (de Cor. Mil. cap. xiv.) says, Put on Christ’s crown of thorns, “that so thou mayest rival that crown which afterwards was His, for it was after the gall that He tasted the honey; nor was He saluted as King by the heavenly hosts till He had been written up upon the Cross as the King of the Jews. Being made by the Father a little lower than the angels, He was afterwards crowned with glory and honour.” “Christ,” says S. Jerome, “was crowned with thorns that He might win for us a royal diadem.”

And a reed in His right hand. This, which represented His sceptre as King of the Jews, was a fragile, worthless, mean, and ridiculous thing. It is described as a smooth cane with a woolly top, &c.

Symbolically: S. Jerome and [Pseudo-]Athanasius say, as the reed drives away and kills serpents, so does Christ venomous lusts. Hear S. Jerome: “As Caiaphas knew not what He said (John 11:50 seq.), so they too, though acting with another intent, yet furnished us believers with mysteries (sacramenta). In the scarlet robe He bears on Him the blood-stained deeds of the Gentiles; in the crown of thorns He does away with the ancient curse; with the reed He destroys poisonous animals, or (in another sense) He holds in His hand the reed to record the sacrilege of the Jews.” S. Ambrose too (in Luke xxii.) says, “The reed is held in Christ’s hand that human weakness should no more be moved as a reed with the wind, but be strengthened and made firm by the works of Christ; or, as S. Mark says, it strikes His head that our nature, strengthened by contact with His Godhead, should waver no more.” This reed and other relics of the Passion are said to have been carefully preserved (Bede, de Con. Sanctis, cap. xx.; and Greg. Turon. de Gloria Martyrum, cap. vii.).

And they bowed the knee before Him, and mocked Him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! Notice here all that was done in jest. Bringing together the whole band as an attendant army. His throne a stone or seat, raised up like a tribunal. His crown was of thorns, His robe a scarlet chlamys, His sceptre a reed; in the place of the people’s applause were the mockings of the soldiers; there were the spittings, the blows, and the stripes. All these did Christ bear with divine humility and patience, and thus deserved “that at the name,” &c. (Phil. 2:10).

Tropologically: Christ here wished to set forth the vain estate and the sufferings of all kings and rulers; to turn all insults into weapons of victory, and specially to overcome the pride of Satan by His humility; to teach that worldly kingdoms consisted in pomp and display, His in contempt of honour, pleasures, and self. See Theophylact, Jansenius [Gaudno], Pseudo-Athanasius, and Tertullian, ut supra.

It is to be noted that Agrippa was shortly afterwards insulted at Alexandria exactly in the same way. See Philo, in Flaccum.

Ver. 30. And they spit upon Him, and took the reed, and smote Him on the head. As having foolishly aspired to be King of Judea; to drive also the crown of thorns more firmly into His head. These grossest insults and most cruel pains were devised by devils rather than men, says Origen. “Not one member only, but the whole body suffered these atrocious injuries,” &c., says S. Chrysostom. Here comes in John 19:1–16. Pilate’s presenting Christ to the people to excite their compassion; their vehement demand that He should be crucified, as making Himself the Son of God. Pilate on hearing this was startled, and asked Him who He was, as if He might have been the son of some heathen god who might avenge His death. When He gave no answer, Pilate added that He had power to put Him to death, which brought out our Lord’s reply, that he had no power over Him, “unless it were given him from above.” For Pilate, notwithstanding his paramount authority over other Jews, had but a permissive authority over Christ, who, as the Son of God, was not subject to any human power. Pilate then, in judging and condemning Christ, sinned in a threefold way: by usurping an authority over Him which He really had not; by yielding to the clamour of the Jews; and by condemning an innocent man.

Ver. 31. And after that they had mocked Him they took the robe off from Him. “After they had fully satiated themselves with their insults,” Victor of Antioch on Mark xv. “But they left on Him (says Origen) the crown of thorns.” “He is stripped,” says [Pseudo-]Athanasius, “by His executioners of the coats of skins which we had put on in Adam, that for these we might put on Christ.”

And put His own raiment on Him. That they who crucified Him might claim it as their own, and also that He might thus be recognised and be insulted the more.

And led Him away to crucify Him. Preceded, it would seem, by a trumpeter, who summoned the people to the execution (Gretser, de Cruce, 1. 16). Now Christ was worn out by having been constantly on foot both through the night and on the morning. (Adrichomius calculated the exact distances.) Accordingly,

Ver. 32. As they came out (either from Pilate’s house, so S. Jerome—or from the city, so Fr. Lucas and others) they found a man of Cyrene. Either Cyrene in Libya, or in Syria, or in Cyprus, from whence he came to Judea. He was a Gentile (S. Hilary, S. Ambrose, S. Leo, Bede, and others), though Maldonatus and Fr. Lucas consider he was a Jew, having probably become a proselyte on coming to Judea. This signified that the Gentiles would believe in Christ, and that the Jews would be eventually converted by their means,

Simon by name. Pererius mentions the tradition that he and his afterwards became Christians. S. Mark adds that he was the father of Alexander and Rufus, who, it seems, were well known in his day as Christians. (Rufus was first Bishop of Thebes and afterwards of Tortosa. He is mentioned by Polycarp (ad Philipp. chap. ix.). Alexander was martyred at Carthagena, March 11.) Some suppose Simon or Niger (Acts 13:1) to be the same person.

Him they compelled. See above, chap. 5:41. It was a great injury and insult which they put on Simon as a stranger. But he bore it all with patience, and therefore was enlightened by Christ, and became, as I have said, a Christian. He was a sharer in His Cross first, and afterwards a partaker of His joy.

Symbolically: S. Gregory (Mor. viii. 44), “To bear the Cross by compulsion is to submit to affliction and abstinence from some other motive than the proper one. Does not He bear the Cross by compulsion who subdues his flesh, as if at Christ’s command, but yet loves not the spiritual country? So, too, Simon bears the Cross, and yet dies not under it, since every hypocrite chastens, indeed, his body by abstinence, and yet through love of glory lives to the world.”

To bear the cross. Christ at first bare His own Cross, fifteen feet high (as is said) and eight feet across. And that, too, when covered all over with blood, wearied, and broken down. He supported one end on His shoulder, and dragged the other along the ground. He thus constantly struck against the stones, and so reopened His wounds, causing continual pain. S. John says, “He went forth bearing His cross” (19:17), as was customary with criminals (see Lipsius and Gretser). But when the soldiers saw that He was sinking under it, they placed it on Simon, to keep Jesus alive, and reserve Him for greater sufferings. They wished, too, to get quickly over their work, and then go home to their meal, for it was now mid-day.

It does not appear that Simon carried the Cross with Jesus in front and himself behind, but that he bare it alone. (See Luke 23:26.) The Fathers here discern various mysteries.

[Pseudo-]Athanasius, “The Lord both bear His own Cross, and again Simon bare it also. He bare it first as a trophy against the devil, and of His own will, for He went without any compulsion to His death. But afterwards the man Simon bare it, to make it known to all that the Lord died not as His own due, but as that of all mankind.” S. Ambrose (in Luke xxiii.), “He first lifted up the trophy of His Cross, and afterwards handed it to His martyrs to do the like. For it was meet that He should first lift up His own trophy as victor, and that afterwards Christ should bear it in man, and man in Christ.”

Origen, “It was not only meet that He should take up His Cross Himself, but that we also should bear it, and thus perform a compulsory but salutary service” (see Matt. 10:38). It was the heresy of Basilides and Marcion, that Christ, having dazzled the eyes of the Jews, disappeared from their sight and left Simon behind, who was crucified in His stead. This, too, is the error of the Mahometans.

Here comes in, from Luke 23:31, our Lord’s meeting the women on His way to Calvary, and telling them not to weep for Him; “for if they do these things in the green tree,” &c. For He Himself was a green tree, ever flourishing with the branches and fruits of grace, and thus unsuited for the fire of God’s vengeance. But the Jews were a dry tree, void of grace and barren of good works, and thus most fitted for the fire of His wrath. One of these women, Berenice or Veronica, offered Christ a napkin to wipe His face, and received it back from Him with His features marked on it (see Marianus, Scotus, Baronius, and others). The napkin is said to be preserved at Rome.

Ver. 33. And they came unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull. “Calvary” is the bare skull of a man; Golgotha means the same; so called from its roundness; from the root “gal” or “gabal,” to roll about. Some suppose that S. Matthew wrote in Greek and himself explained the Hebrew; others that the explanation was given by the Greek translator of the original Hebrew.

But why was the place so called? Some say because Adam was there buried, and redeemed, too, by Christ on the same spot by the Blood of the Cross, and restored to the life of grace. See note on Eph. 5:14, and the Fathers there quoted. For there was a tradition that Noah took the bones of Adam into the ark, and after the deluge gave the skull, and Judæa with it, to Shem, his favourite son. Such respect did the ancients pay to their dead from believing in the immortality of the soul. “Christ,” says S. Ambrose (in Luke xiii.), “was crucified in Golgotha because it was fitting that the first-fruits of our life should rest in the very spot from which our death had come.” Others give a more literal and obvious reason, that it was because criminals were there beheaded. Baronius and others reject this view, on the ground that beheading was not a Jewish practice. But it is certain that after the Roman conquest criminals were beheaded, as John the Baptist by Herod Antipas and S. James by Herod Agrippa. Besides this, there were lying about on that spot the skulls of those who had died in various other ways.

Mystically: Gretser says, “It was prophetically called Golgotha, because Christ our Lord, our true Head, there died.”

It was Christ’s own will to be crucified in a dishonourable place like this, in order to expiate our infamous and execrable sins. He thus converted it into one of honour and adoration, for Christians in Calvary reverence and adore Christ crucified. For Christ, as Sedulius says,—

“With glory all our sufferings hath arrayed,

And sanctified the torments He endured.”

So, too, Seneca (Cons. ad Helvidiam) says that Socrates entered the prison to take away the ignominy from the place.

Bede (de Locis Sanctis, cap. ii.) observes, from S. Jerome and S. Augustine (Serm. lxxi. de temp.), that Abraham offered up his son on this very mountain. For Mount Moriah and Calvary are close together, and they look like one mountain parted into two ridges or hills.

The Apostle (Heb. 13:11 seq.) gives four reasons for Christ being crucified outside Jerusalem, and thence concludes, “Let us go forth to Him without the camp, bearing His reproach.” It was chiefly to signify that the virtues of His Cross were to be transferred from the Jews to all nations, that “the Cross of Christ might be the altar, not of the temple, but of the world” (S. Leo, Serm. ix. de Pass.).

Ver. 34. And they gave Him wine (Arab. and A. V., vinegar) to drink mingled with gall. This was while the Cross was being made ready, and Christ was resting for a while. Wine used to be given to condemned criminals to quench their thirst, and to strengthen them also to endure their sufferings, as it is said (Prov. 31:6), “Give strong drink unto those that are ready to perish, and wine to those in bitterness of heart.” But the Jews, with untold barbarity, made this wine bitter with gall, partly to insult and partly to give Him pain. Whence Christ complains, “They gave Me gall to eat” (Tertullian, Lib. x. contra Judæos, reads “to drink”); for the gall was Christ’s food, the wine His drink. Euthymius thinks that bits of dried gall were steeped in vinegar, so that the vinegar was in the place of wine, and the bits of gall instead of the morsel of bread which is thrown into the wine, that those who are faint might drink first and eat afterwards.

This was different from the draught given to Christ on the Cross, this being of wine, the latter of vinegar. The Greek writers here mention “vinegar,” but it was probably only a sour kind of wine. On the first occasion Christ says, “They gave Me gall to eat;” on the second, “They gave Me vinegar to drink.” S. Mark terms it “wine mingled with myrrh,” myrrh and gall having been mixed together, or because the myrrh, from being bitter, was called gall. So say all the Fathers and commentators, except Baronius, who considered that the wine was flavoured with myrrh and other spices. But the Jews would not have allowed this to be given to Christ. Baronius seems afterwards (vol. x. ad fin.) to have changed his opinion.

And when He had tasted thereof, He would not drink. Either as offended at the Jews for offering so nauseous a draught, or as wishing to suffer greater thirst on the Cross, and thus set us an example of self-mortification.

Palamon is said to have refused to taste some wild herbs which his disciple Pachomius had, for his Easter repast, flavoured with oil, saying, “My Lord had vinegar to drink, and shall I taste oil?”

Ver. 35. But after they had crucified Him (see Vulg.). S. Matthew here studies brevity (as usual), and partly shrinks with horror from the crucifixion, not speaking of it as an actual occurrence, but only by the way. It is a doctrine of the faith that Christ was nailed, not merely tied, to the Cross. (See John 20:25, and Ps. 22:16.) But it is possible that ropes were used as well, so says S. Hilary (Lib. x. de Trin.). The ropes are to be seen in the Church of Santa Croce at Rome. Nonnus, in his paraphrase of S. John, says that Christ’s hands were fastened to the Cross with an iron band as well as by nails. The Cross, he says, was first raised up, and then a huge nail driven through both feet, laid one over the other. Some writers speak of a support for the feet to rest on, or a space hollowed out for the heels; and questions, too, are raised as to the number of the nails, whether three or four (or, as S. Bernard suggests, six), and the direction in which they were driven so as to cause the greatest torture.

The anguish of the crucifixion was very great; because the tenderest parts of the body were pierced by the nails, and the whole weight hung from the hands. The pain was lasting, Christ hanging on the Cross for three hours. Mystically, the words spoken of Jerusalem (Lam. 1:12) are applicable to Christ. Very great pain, too, was caused by the racking and stretching out of His limbs. S. Catharine of Sienna said she had practically experienced this when she had been made by Christ a partaker of all His sufferings. His bones were able to be counted when He was thus stretched out. It is in the Hebrew, “I will tell all My bones,” that is, I am able to do so. But the Vulgate has it, “they counted,” since Christ, while suffering such torture, was not able to count them Himself.

He was crucified with the crown of thorns, and between two robbers, as though He were the chief of them; and naked too, after the Roman custom. Some suppose that He was entirely naked, though others consider that this would have been too unseemly before a crowd of both sexes. This, then, was the greatest shame and pain to One who was so pre-eminently modest and chaste. S. Ambrose (in Luke xiii.) says, “Naked He ascends the Cross. I behold Him naked. Let him who is preparing to conquer the world ascend in like manner, not seeking worldly supports. Adam, who sought to get clothing, was a conquered person. But He who laid aside His garments, and went up on the Cross just as nature had made Him, was a conqueror.” “Adam,” said Tauler (Excerc. Vit. Christi, cap. xxxiii.), “hasted to clothe himself because he had lost his innocence, but Christ was stripped naked because He had preserved His innocence, and needed no other covering.” S. Francis, wishing to follow Christ’s example, threw himself, when dying, naked on the ground. See notes on S. Matt. 5:3.

S. Flavia, a noble virgin and martyr, when she was exposed naked at the command of the tyrant Manucha, to make her deny Christ, said, “I am ready to endure not merely the stripping of my body, but also the fire and the sword, for Him who was willing to suffer all this for me” (see Acta S. Placidi, art. 5).

It is generally thought that Christ was nailed to the Cross when lying on the ground, as was the case with those who carried their own cross. S. Anselm, S. Laur. Justiniani, and others hold this view; S. Bonaventura, Lipsius, and others, the contrary, which is supported by the text (Cant. 7:8), “I will go up to the palmtree,” on which passage see the notes. But it is quite an open question.

But why was Christ crucified rather than put to death in any other way? The obvious reason was, that the Jews wished to inflict on Him a most ignominious death, and thus bring discredit on His name and followers. They wished Him also to bear the punishment which was due to Barabbas, whom they preferred before Him. But on God’s part the reason was to save by the foolishness of the Cross those that believed (see 1 Cor. 2:14).

Besides which, victims of old time were lifted up as offerings, and afterwards burnt. And so, too, Christ, who offered Himself as a burnt-offering for our sins, was raised up on the Cross, and burnt and consumed there, not so much with pain as with love for men; just as the paschal lamb was stretched on the spit in the form of a cross, and then roasted.

There were various moral causes on the part of Christ and of men. 1st. That as Adam and Eve sinned by stretching forth their hands to the forbidden tree, so Christ might atone for their sin by stretching forth His hands to the wood of the Cross (so Augustine in Append. Serm. de Diversis iv.). Whence the Church sings, “By a tree we were made slaves, and by the holy cross have we been set free” (in the Office for Sept. 14); and “that life might spring from that from which death arose, and that he who conquered by the tree might be conquered by the tree.” And S. Greg. Naz. (in Orat. de Seipso), “We are by the tree of disgrace brought back to the tree of life which we had lost.” And S. Ambrose (in Luke iv.), “Death by the tree, life by the cross.” Nay, Christ Himself says, “I raised thee up under the apple-tree; there was thy mother defiled, there was she defiled that bare thee.” The Cross, again, is the remedy and expiation of the concupiscence which came from Adam’s sin, itself the fount and origin of all sins. Christ therefore teaches us by the pattern of His Cross continually to crucify and mortify our evil affections, if we wish to avoid sin and save our souls (S. Ath. de Incarn. Verbi).

2d. That by hanging between Heaven and earth He might reconcile those in Heaven and those on earth. So S. Ambrose (in Luc. xxiii.), “That He might conquer not for Himself only, but for all, He extended His arms on the Cross to draw all things to Himself, to free from the bands of death, raise aloft by the balances of faith, and associate with things in Heaven the things that before were earthly.” So too [Arnoldus apud] Cyprian, “I see Thee victorious over sufferings, with uplifted hands triumphing over Amalek, bearing up into the heavens the standard of Thy victory, and raising up for those below a ladder of ascent to the Father.”

Hence S. Jerome teaches that Christ on the Cross embraces the four quarters of the world with its four arms. In its very shape does it not resemble the four quarters? The east shines from the top, at the right is the north, the south on the left, the west firmly planted beneath His feet. Whence the Apostle says, “that we may know the height and breadth, and length and depth.” Birds fly in the form of a cross; we swim or pray in the same form. The yards of a ship resemble a cross. And S. Greg. Naz. says (Carm. de Virg.),—

“For stretching forth to earth’s remotest bounds

His sacred limbs, He brought the human race

From every clime, and gathering them in one,

He placed them in the very arms of God.”

As Christ said, “I, if I be lifted up from the earth,” &c.

S. Athanasius (de Incarn. Verbi) says, “If He came to bear our sins and curse, how could He have done so but by taking on Himself an execrable death? But the Cross is that very death, as it is written, ‘Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree’ ” (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13).

Besides this, all kinds of suffering concur in the Cross, and Christ embraced them all in His own, to set the martyrs an example of every kind of endurance. For the Cross wounds the hands and feet as a sword, it stretches out the body as a rack, lacerates it as a hoof, mangles it as a beast, burns and tortures it as a flame, and kills the whole man, as it were, with a slow fire. He experienced, then, the torments of all the Martyrs, and brought them before Himself, and was evil-entreated for their sakes, that He might obtain for all of them the power of overcoming them. As the blessed Laurence Justiniani says (de Triumph. Christi Agone, cap. xix.), “He was stoned in S. Stephen, burnt in S. Laurence, and bore the special sufferings of each several Martyr.”

S. Augustine says further (Serm. lxix. de Diversis), “He refused to be stoned, or smitten with the sword, because we cannot always carry about stones or swords to defend ourselves. But He chose the Cross, which is made with a slight motion of the hand, and we are protected thereby against the craft of the enemy.” As S. Paul says, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse,” &c. (Gal. 3:13).

S. Anselm (in Phil. ii.) says, “He chose the worst kind of death, that He might overcome all death.” As S. Augustine says (in Ps. cxl.), “That His disciples should not only not fear death itself, but not even this kind of death.” And (de Ag. Christi, cap. xi.), “Fear not insults, and crosses, and death, for if they really were hurtful to men, the man whom the Son of God took upon Him would not have suffered them” (see S. Thomas, par. iii. Quæst. 48, art. 4).

S. Athanasius (de Incarn. Verb.) says, “The Lord came to cast down the devil, to purify the air, and to make for us a way to Heaven.” It was therefore requisite for Him to be crucified in the air (see S. Chrysost. de Cruce). S. Thomas (par. iii. Quæst. 46, art. 4) gives many other reasons. Lastly, S. Basil (Hom. de Humil.) says, “The devil was crucified in Him whom he hoped to crucify, and was put to death in Him whom he had hoped to destroy.” And S. Leo (Serm. x. de Pass.), “The nails of Christ pierced the devil with continuous wounds, and the suffering of His holy limbs was the destruction of the powers of the enemy.”

Moreover, in the Cross that ancient reading of Ps. 96 was made good, “God hath reigned from the tree;” for, as S. Ambrose says (in Luke 23), “though He was on the Cross, yet He shone above the cross with royal majesty.” And as S. Augustine says, “He subdued the world not by the sword, but by the tree” (Serm. xxi, Ben.). The Cross was the triumphal car of Christ, in which He triumphed over the devil, sin, death, and hell. S. Ambrose accordingly calls it “the chariot of the Conqueror, and the triumphal Cross.”

The Cross is said to have been made of the cypress, cedar, palm, and olive:—

“Cedar the trunk, tall cypress holds His frame,

Palm clasps His hands, and olive boasts His name.”

(Dr. Littledale’s Version in Cant. vii. 8.)

For Christ was on the Cross exalted as a cedar, beauteous as the leafy cypress, poured forth the oil of grace as the olive, triumphed over death as the victorious palm. So says [Arnold. apud] S. Cyprian, “Thou hast gone up unto the palm tree, because the wood of thy Cross foretold Thy triumph over the devil, Thy victory over principalities, and powers, and spiritual wickednesses,” &c.

In short, God willed the Cross to be the price of our redemption, a book of heavenly wisdom, a mirror of every virtue and perfection. The book, I say, of the wisdom of God; for in the sufferings of the Cross Christ set forth His supreme love for man, for whom He was so cruelly and ignominously crucified; the heinousness of mortal sin, which could not be atoned for in any other way; the awfulness of hell-torments (for if God punished so heavily the sins of others in Christ His Son, how will He not punish in hell-fire the personal guilt of sinners themselves?); the value of each single soul, for which so great a price has been paid; the care which should be had for the salvation of souls, lest the Blood of Christ should be shed for them in vain; the great happiness in store for the blessed, as having been purchased by Christ on the Cross. Rightly, therefore, S. Augustine says (Tract. cxix. in S. John), “The tree on which were fastened the limbs of the sufferer was the seat also of the Master and Teacher.”

It is also the mirror of all virtue and perfection, for Christ on the Cross exhibited humility, poverty, patience, fortitude, constancy, mortification, charity, and all other virtues in their highest perfection. Look on Him, therefore, O Christian, and live “according to the pattern showed thee in the mount” Ex. 25:40). This, too, is the teaching of the Apostle (Eph. 3:17), “That ye being rooted and grounded in love,” &c. An accordingly the Martyrs strengthened themselves to bear all their sufferings by meditating on the Cross of Christ. As, e.g., S. Felicitas, S. Ignatius (whose saying it was, “Jesus, My Love, is crucified”), the Brothers Marcus and Marcellinus (who said that “they were never so glad at a feast as in enduring this for Christ’s sake; we have now begun to be fixed in the love of the Cross, may He permit us to suffer as long as we are clothed in this corruptible body”): and, among others, the Martyrs of Japan. S. Francis, too, counted himself happy in receiving the Stigmata, and being thus conformed to Christ crucified. Those in “religion” should also rejoice, as having been crucified with Christ by their three vows, which are, as it were, three nails they have taken to bear for Christ’s sake (see Pinutius apud Cassian, lib. iv. de Instit. Renunc. cap. 34, &c.). In a word, how holy, tender, and true was that couplet of S. Francis de Sales—

“Or love or madness slew Thee, Saviour mine:

Ours was the madness, Lord; the love was Thine!”

But, next, on what day was Christ crucified? I answer, on March 25, the day of His conception, on which day S. Dismas, the penitent thief, is commemorated. So say, too, S. Augustine (de Civ. lib. xviii. ad fin.), S. Chrysostom, Tertullian, S. Thomas, and others, whom Suarez follows (par. iii. disp. xl. sect. 5, ad fin.). This was the completion of His thirty-fourth year, the day too of the sacrifice of Isaac, and the passage of the Red Sea (both eminent types of Christ on the Cross), and of the victory of Michael the Archangel. Hence it is inferred that the world and the angels were created on the same day, and that they began from the very first to war with each other.

The hour was mid-day. “The sixth hour,” says S. John (19:14), i.e., from sunrise. S. Mark says “the third hour” (15:25), meaning the end of the third and the beginning of the sixth; for these hours with the Jews and Romans contained three of ours. S. Mark clearly means this when he says (ver. 33), “And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land.” Theophylact speaks of the fitness of this: “Man was created on the sixth day, and on the sixth hour he ate of the tree. At the same hour that the Lord created man, did He heal him after his fall. On the sixth day, and on the sixth hour, was Christ nailed to the Cross.” Bede, among the Latins, takes the same view. “At the very hour when Adam brought death into the world did the second Adam by His dying destroy death.”

Many suppose that Adam was created on the same day of the year, and ate the forbidden fruit at the same hour, when Christ expiated his sin on the Cross. Tertullian (lib. i. contra Marcion) gives it in verse—

“’Twas on the day and place where Adam fell,

As years rolled on the mighty athlete came

And battle gave, where stood th’ accursed tree;

Stretched forth His hands, sought pain, despising praise,

And triumphed over death.”

Procopius says (in Gen. 3), “It was at the same hour in which Adam ate of the tree.”

But, observe, He was crucified with His back to Jerusalem, as though He were its enemy, and unworthy to look on it; but in truth, as being about to reject the Jews, and choose the Gentiles. He thus looked on the west (Rome and Italy). Christians accordingly, by Apostolic usage, pray towards the east, as if looking at Christ crucified; and as the Crucifix in a Church looks westward, so must they who look towards and adore it necessarily look eastward. (See S. J. Damasc. de Fide, iv. 13; S. Jerome, &c.) Jeremiah prophesied this (18:17), “I will show them the back,” &c.; and David (Ps. 66:7), “His eyes look upon the Gentiles.”

S. Bridget speaks of the details of the Crucifixion as revealed to her by Christ (Rev. 7:15) and by the Blessed Virgin (Rev. 1:10).

To conclude, Lactantius (iv. 26) says, “Since he who is hung upon a cross is raised high above all about him, the Cross was chosen to signify that He would be raised so high that all nations would flock together to acknowledge and adore Him,” &c. He, therefore, stretched forth His hands, and compassed the world, to show that from the rising to the setting sun a mighty people from all languages and tribes would come under His wings, and receive on their brows that noblest of all signs. On other points relating to the Cross, its various forms, its oracular answers, &c., see Gretser, i. 29 seq.; S. Thomas, par. iii. Q. 46; and Suarez in loc. On the Moral Cross, i.e., the patient, resolute, and firm endurance of all tribulations, see Gretser, lib. iv. de Cruce.

Tropologically: S. Chrysostom (Hom. de Cruce) thus recounts its praises: “It is the hope of Christians, the resurrection of the dead, the leader of the blind, the way to those in despair. It is the staff of the lame, the consolation of the poor, the restrainer of the rich, the destruction of the proud. It is the punishment of evil-livers, the triumph over evil spirits, the victory over the devil. It is the guide of the young, the support of the destitute, the pilot to those at sea, the harbour of those in peril, the bulwark of the besieged, the father of orphans, the defender of widows, the counsellor of the righteous, the rest of the troubled, the guardian of the young, the head of men, the closing act of the old.” And so on at great length. See, too, S. Ephr. de Cruce; and S. J. Damasc. iv. 12.

Seven holy affections (especially) should be excited by meditating on Christ crucified,—compassion, compunction, gratitude, imitation, hope, admiration, love and charity.

Here comes in from S. Luke 23:34 our Lord’s first word on the Cross, “Father, forgive them,” &c. He forgets entirely the pains and injuries He had received, and, kindled with the glow of charity, prayed for their forgiveness. And He was “heard for His reverence” (Heb. 5:7). For many repented at S. Peter’s preaching, and were converted to Christ at Pentecost. He Himself taught us to pray for our persecutors, to do good to those who do us wrong, and to overcome evil with good. S. Stephen, too, imitated His example (Acts 7:59): “They know not what they do.” They know not I am the Christ the Son of God, for else they would not dare to commit this monstrous sacrilege, the murder of God. They know not that I am the Saviour of the world, and that I am dying for their salvation. “So does the gentleness and tenderness of Christ triumph over the cruelty and malice of the Jews” (de Passione apud S. Cyprian).

The flint is the emblem of the love of our enemies, and has this motto, “Fire comes from flint, but not without a blow.” The flint is popularly called a “living stone” from the living fire within. The flint, then, here is Christ, the corner-stone. For He poured forth on the Cross the latent fire of His Godhead and His boundless charity. But yet not without a blow, for it was while smitten by His persecutors that He prayed for them so ardently. He had Himself said before, “I came to send fire upon the earth, and what will I but that it be kindled?” (Luke 12:49). Let the Christian, then, imitate Christ, and make himself a flint, which is full of fire itself, and ignites others; and when he is wrongfully smitten, let him shoot forth sparks of Divine love, as Christ did against His smiters.

They parted His garments, casting lots. S. John relates this more fully (19:23). S. Cyril observes on this, “They claim the garments as being theirs by the law of inheritance, as the reward for their services.” S. Chrysostom says also, “This was generally done in the case of mean and utterly destitute criminals.” And again, “They part those garments wherewith miracles were wrought. But at that time they wrought none since Christ did not display His unspeakable power.” It was a great affront and distress to Christ to see His garments insolently torn by the soldiers before His very eyes, and divided by casting lots. But He doubtless wished to die and suffer for us in the utmost poverty, in nakedness and disgrace, and to lay aside not merely His garments, but also His body and His life; that so His ignominy might clothe and hide the ignominy both of our and Adam’s nakedness, and restore to us thereby the garments of immortality; “that He might clothe us with immortality and life” ([Pseudo-]Athanasius, de Cruce).

Tropologically: He would teach us to strip off the superfluities of this world.

Now, here observe Christ had a coat without seam. It was a kind of under-garment, worn next to the body, says Euthymius. And he adds, approvingly, that it was woven for Him (as ancient writers held) when a child by the Blessed Virgin. If so, it appears to have grown with His growth, like the garments of the Hebrews in the wilderness. It is religiously preserved, and is to be seen at Treves.

Symbolically: [Pseudo-]Athanasius says, This coat was without seam, “that the Jews might believe who and whence He was who ware it; that He was the Word, who came not from earth but from Heaven; that He was the inseparable Word of the Father; and that when made man He had a body fashioned of the Virgin alone by the grace of the Spirit.” And again, “This was not their doing, but that of the Saviour as He hung on the Cross. He spoiled principalities, and led the devil captive, and terrified the soldiers so that they rent not the coat, but that as long as it remained it might be a standing testimony against the Jews. For the veil was rent, but not the coat, no not even by the soldiers, but remained entire. For the Gospel ever remains entire when the shadows pass away.” The soldiers rent Christ’s other garments, and divided them into four parts for the four soldiers who crucified Him, and they again cast lots what each should take. It is supposed He had three garments, the seamless coat, another one over it like a soutane, and the upper coat, which covered the whole body.

Symbolically: [Pseudo-]Athanasius says, “They divided His garments into four parts, because He wore them for the sins of the four quarters of the world. And when the Baptist saw Him clothed therein, he said, ‘Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.’ ”

Ver. 36. And sitting down they watched Him there. They watched Him lest His disciples should take Him away, or lest He should miraculously descend. But in the Divine counsels it was for another purpose, which they knew not. For, as S. Jerome says, “The watchfulness of the soldiers and of the priests was for our benefit, as manifesting more fully the power of His resurrection.” For they saw Him dying on the Cross, and after He had been seen again alive, would be obliged to confess that He had risen by Divine power.

Ver. 37. And set up over His head His case (causam) written (Syr. the occasion of His death), This is the King of the Jews. They put up a board inscribed with the reason of His crucifixion, that He had set up to be a King. And, consequently, the chief priests suggested that Pilate should not write, “The King of the Jews, but that He said, I am the King of the Jews” (John 19:21). Pilate refused, for he and the Jews meant the same thing. But God guided his hand, and he wrote, in another and truer sense, “This is the King of the Jews,” i.e., the Messiah or Christ. This inscription, then, conferred on Christ the highest honour, for it set forth not only His innocence, but also His dignity, that He was indeed the very Christ, the Redeemer of the world. It therefore convicts and condemns the Jews as His murderers, since it was they who compelled Pilate to crucify Him. Pilate, then, by this very title reproaches them with it, avenges himself on them for their obstinate importunity, and holds them up to general infamy. For he knew well that Jesus was the Messiah, the desire and expectation of all people. Hence Origen says, “This title adorns the head of Jesus as a crown.” And Bede, dwelling on the words “over His head,” says, “Though He was in the weakness of a man suffering for us on the Cross, yet did He shine forth with regal majesty above the Cross.” For it was made known that He was even now beginning to “reign from the tree.” Pilate accordingly refused to alter the title. And by this is signified, mystically, that while the Jews remained in their obstinate unbelief, Gentiles, such as Pilate, would acknowledge and worship Him as their King and Saviour.

Observe, 1. A title, declaring the cause of their death, used to be placed over the head of malefactors. It is hence inferred that the cross was not T-shaped, but with an upper limb to carry the title.

2. No one Evangelist fully sets out the title; but on comparing them all, it is concluded to have been, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”

This title still exists in the Church of S. Croce at Rome, though much mutilated. Bosius (de Cruce Triumph, i. 11) gives an exact copy of it as it was when he wrote.

Ver. 38. Then were there crucified (with the like spikes and nails, says Nonnus, on John xix. 19) two thieves, one on the right hand and another on the left. The cross was the punishment of such criminals, and Christ, as placed between them, seemed to be their chief and leader, exactly as the Jews wished, in order to dishonour Him. But God overthrew and turned back on them all their artifices. For, as S. Chrysostom says, “The devil wished to hide the matter, but could not.” For though three were crucifed, Jesus only was the distinguished one, to show that all proceeded from His power; for the miracles which took place vere attributed to no one but Jesus. Thus were the devices of the devil frustrated, and recoiled on his own head; for even of these two one was saved. Thus, then, so far from marring the glory of the Cross, he greatly increased it. For it was as great a matter for the thief to be converted on the Cross, and to enter Paradise, as for the rocks to be rent.

Symbolically: Christ between the thieves represents the last judgment, with the elect on his right hand and the wicked on His left. So S. Ambrose (in Luke xxiii.); and S. Augustine (Tract. xxxi. in S. John) says, “The Cross, mark it well, was a judgment-seat, for the Judge, being between them, he who believed was set free, the other was condemned, signifying the judgment of the quick and dead.”

Ver. 39. And they that passed by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads. All their revilings and insults were blasphemies, as being against the Son of God. “They blasphemed the Holy One of Israel,” Isa. 1:4, and Ps. 22:8. This was a greater torment even than the crucifixion. Whence it is said (Ecclus. 7:11), “Laugh not at a man in the bitterness of his soul.” And Christ complains (Ps. 69:26), “They persecute Him whom Thou hast smitten, and added to the pain of My wounds;” and (Ps. 22:13), “They gaped upon Me,” &c., so great was their cruelty.

Ver. 40, And saying, Ah! Thou, that destroyest the temple of God. The word “Ah!” is a term of reproach. Shame on Thee for boasting! Thou canst destroy the temple of God and build it up in three days! Show that Thou canst do it by setting Thyself free from the cross. If Thou canst not do this small matter, how canst Thou do that greater work on the temple, that vast building?

Ver. 41. Likewise also the chief priests mocking Him, with the scribes and elders, said. These were more fierce than the people against Christ, for they jest at His miracles, as though wrought not by the power of God, but by Beelzebub; or certainly as not real, but imaginary. For had they been wrought by God. He would certainly have delivered Him from the Cross. But His not doing it was a sign that He was an impostor. “For they wished Him to die as a boastful and arrogant deceiver,” says S. Chrysostom, “and to be reviled in the sight of all men,” that they might thus utterly stamp out His name and sect, so that no one might afterwards follow his teaching, or reverence and preach Him as the Messiah.

If Thou be the King of Israel. The King of the Jews, that is, the Messiah. “What is the connection here?” says S. Bernard (Serm. i. in Pasch.); “that He should descend from the Cross, if He be the King of Israel, and not rather go up on it? Hast thou, then, so entirely forgotten, O Jew, that ‘the Lord hath reigned from the tree,’ as to say, ‘He is not King, because He remains on it.’ Nay, rather, because He is the King of Israel let Him not abandon the royal title, let Him not lay down the rod of empire, for His government is upon His shoulder. If Pilate hath written what he hath written, shall not Christ complete that which He hath begun?” He goes on to say, “This is clearly the craft of the serpent, the invention of spiritual wickedness. The evil one knew His zeal for the salvation of that people, and therefore most maliciously did he teach these blasphemers to say, ‘Let Him descend, and we will believe,’ as though there were now no obstacle to His descending, since He so earnestly desired that they should believe. But He, as knowing all hearts, is not moved by their worthless profession. For their malicious suggestion tended not only to their unbelief, but to our own utter loss of faith in Him. For if we read, ‘Perfect are all the works of God’ (Deut. 32:14), how could we even believe in Him as God if He had left the work of salvation unfinished?” He adds a further reason, “To give him no opportunity of stealing from us our perseverance, which alone is crowned; and that preachers should not be silenced when they exhort the feeble-minded not to abandon their post. For this would be the sure result if they were able to reply that Christ had abandoned His.

Let Him come down front the cross. Christ, though able to do so, was unwilling to descend when thus taunted, because it was the Father’s command that He should die on the Cross for our redemption. He despised, therefore, their reproaches, to teach us to do the same. So Theophylact (on Mark xv.) observes, “Had He been willing to descend, He would not have ascended at all. But knowing that men were to be saved by this means, He submitted to be crucified.” “He wished not,” said Origen, “to do any unworthy act, because He was jested at, or to do their bidding against reason and due order.” And S. Augustine (Tract. xxxvii. on S. John), “Because He was teaching patience, He deferred a display of His power. For had He descended, it would seem as though He had given way to their cutting reproaches.” And again, “He deferred the exercise of His power, because He wished not to descend from the Cross, though able to rise from the grave. But yet He manifested His compassion, for while hanging on the Cross He said, ‘Father, forgive them,’ &c.”

Lastly, S. Gregory (Hom. xxi. in Evang.) says, “Had He then come down from the Cross, as yielding to their insults, He would not have exhibited the virtue of patience. But He waited awhile, He endured their reproaches and derision, He maintained His patience, He deferred their astonishment, and though He had refused to descend from the Cross, yet He rose from the tomb. And this, indeed, was a much greater matter; greater, indeed, to destroy death by rising again, than to save life by descending from the Cross.”

And we will believe Him to be the Messiah. They spake falsely, for they who believed Him not when He raised others, would assuredly not have believed Him had He freed Himself from death. They would have said that He had descended in appearance only. S. Jerome calls this promise of theirs a “fraudulent one; for which is greater, to descend when alive from the Cross, or to rise again from the grave? He rose again, and ye believed not, and were He even to descend from the Cross, ye would, in like manner, believe not.” Just as heretics now say, We would believe the saints if they wrought miracles; but when their miracles are adduced, they cavil at them as pretended or imaginary.

Ver. 43. He trusted in God, let Him deliver Him, if He will have Him (Arab., if He loved Him), for He said, I am the Son of God. They used the very words of David (Ps. 22:8), thus testifying that they were the very persons who were foretold, and that Jesus was the true Messiah, for the whole Psalm speaks of Him. When a man is in the agony of death, all human hope is gone. Confidence in God alone remains, and of this, His last stay, they try to deprive Him. Thou hast vainly put Thy trust in God. Thou hast said falsely that Thou art the Son of God. If He loved Thee, He would set Thee free. But as He will not, Thou art clearly not His Son, but an odious impostor. Thus do they revile and seek to drive Him to despair, as the devil who assails men in their last agony. But how fallacious was their argument! For God, as specially loving Christ, wished Him to die on the Cross, that He might afterwards glorify Him in His resurrection, and by Him save many souls. Now Christ knew all this. He heeded not their revilings, but fixed all His hope on God, and thereby gained from Him both of these great ends. He poured forth accordingly, after all these insults, fresh acts of confidence in God, teaching us to do the like. “Thou art He that took Me out of My mother’s womb,” &c. (Ps. 22:10). And so, too, the Martyrs used to say that God would not deliver them, in order that He might give them a better life, and the crown of martyrdom.

The Wise Man, speaking in their person, foretold all these insults (Wisd. 2:13), and then added, “Such thoughts had they, and were in error,” &c.

Tropologically: Sinners utter reproaches against Christ when they dishonour Him by their sins. S. Bernard (Rhythm on Passion) makes Him thus tenderly appeal to them:

“ ’Tis I who die for thee, to thee who cry,

Thee I exhort on Cross uplifted high;

’Tis I who bare for thee, and open wide

The cruel spear-wound in My sacred side;

My inward and My outward pains are great,

But sadder far to find thee thus ingrate.”

Zechariah (13:6) speaks of His being wounded in the house of His friends.

Ver. 44. The thieves also which were crucified with Him uttered against Him the like reproach. The Greek Fathers, and S. Hilary among the Latins, think it probable that both the thieves blasphemed Christ at first, but that one of them afterwards repented. But the Latin Fathers consider that the plural is here, by synecdoche, put for the singular. “Thieves,” i.e., “one of the thieves” (as Luke 23:36, “the soldiers,” meaning one of them); S. Matthew wishing by the word thieves to point out not so much the persons of the thieves, as the condition of those who insulted Christ; all vying in insulting Him, even the thief at His side. S. Luke (23:40) gives the story of the other thief (see Comment. in loc.).

Here comes in the third word on the Cross, “Woman, behold thy Son,” &c. (see John 19:26, and the notes thereon).

Ver. 45. But from the sixth hour there was darkness over the whole earth unto the ninth hour. From mid-day, i.e., till 3 P.M., which is usually the brightest part of the day. This darkness was supernatural; as though the sun and the whole heavens were veiled in black, as bewailing the ignominious death of Christ their Lord. So S. Jerome and S. Cyprian (de Bono Patient.); and S. Chrysostom (in Catena), “The creature could not bear the wrong done to its Creator, and the sun withdrew his rays, that he might not see the evil doings of the wicked.”

Again, it took place at full moon. It lasted much longer than an ordinary eclipse; it was total, the light of the moon as well as of the sun being withdrawn, the stars being seen, and so on.

Over the whole earth. Of Judæa, say Origen and Maldonatus. Others, more correctly (as S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others), over the whole world. Dionysius, the Areopagite, is said to have exclaimed at the time, “Either the God of Nature (or, as otherwise quoted, ‘an Unknown God’) is suffering, or the fabric of the world is being dissolved.” He was afterwards converted by S. Paul’s preaching Christ at Athens as the Unknown God. This, then, was a token of Christ’s Godhead; for when the sun, the eye of the world, was obscured and dying out, it signified that Christ, its God and Lord, the Sun of Righteousness, was dying on the Cross, and that sun and moon and all the elements were bewailing Him in His agony.

Symbolically: This darkness signified the blinding of the Jews. So S. Chrysostom (de Cruce), Darkness is to this very day upon them; but with us night is turned into day. For it is the property of godliness to shine in the darkness; but ungodliness, though in the light, is in darkness still. Night is for believers turned into day, but for unbelievers their very light is darkness. It is said of believers, “Their darkness is no darkness, and their night shall be clear as the day” (Ps. 139:11); but for unbelievers even the day is turned into night, for “they shall grope for the wall as the blind” (Isa. 60:10), “they will walk in mid-day as in the night” (Job 5:14).

Ver. 46. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama Sabachthani? that is to say, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? quoting Ps. 22:1. “Sabachthani” is Syriac, not Hebrew.

He was indeed continually praying on the Cross, and offering Himself wholly to God for man’s salvation. But as his death was drawing near He recited this Psalm, which throughout speaks of His Passion, to show that He was the very person there spoken of, and that the Jews might thus learn the reason why He refused to descend from the Cross, viz., because the Father had decreed that He should die for the salvation of men; as David had there foretold.

Calvin says impiously that these were the words of Christ in despair, for that He was obliged to experience the full wrath of God which our sins deserve, and even the sufferings of the lost, of which despair is one. But this blasphemy refutes itself. For if he despaired on the Cross, He sinned most grievously. He therefore did not satisfy, but rather enflamed, the wrath of God. And how can it be said that Christ ever despaired, when He said shortly afterwards, “Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit”? Christ therefore does not cry out as being forsaken by the Godhead and hypostatic union of the Word, nor even by the grace and love of God, but only because the Father did not rescue Him from instant death, nor soothe in any way His cruel sufferings, but permitted Him to endure unmitigated tortures. And all this was to show how bitter was His death on the Cross, the rending asunder of His soul and body with such intense pain as to lead Him to pray in His agony and bloody sweat, “Father, if it be possible,” &c. So S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and other Fathers; nor do S. Hilary and S. Ambrose mean anything else in saying, “The man cried aloud when dying at being separated from the Godhead.” For they mean not a severing of essence and of the hypostatical union, but of support and consolation. For the faith teaches us that though the soul of Christ was separated from His body, yet the Godhead remained as before, hypostatically united both to His soul and His body. Besides this, Christ complained of His desertion, because the Godhead withheld Its succour, solely to keep Him still suffering, and to prolong His life for greater endurances; nay, rather to augment His pain when He saw Himself, though in union with Godhead, enduring such atrocious indignities (see S. L. Justiniani, de Triumph. Agone Christi, cap. viii.).

Symbolically: Christ here inquires why He was thus forsaken. What have I done that I should die on this Cross? I am most innocent, the Saint of Saints. He gives His own answer. “Far off from My salvation are the words of My sins” (Ps. 22:1), meaning thereby, “The sins of men, whose expiation the Father hath put on Me, these are they which take away My life, and bring Me to the death of the Cross.” But some (see Theophylact) consider that He is here speaking not of His own desertion, but of that of the Jewish people.

Origen thinks He is complaining of the fewness of those who will be saved, and the multitude of the lost, in whom the fruit of His Passion comes to nought. Why forsakest Thou My kinsmen in the flesh, for whom I am dying? Why savest Thou the few and rejectest the many? For in so doing Thou forsakest Myself; for thou makest the fruit of My suffering to perish.

Tropologically: [Arnold apud] Cyprian (de Passione) thinks He spoke thus in order that we should inquire why He was forsaken. “He was forsaken,” he says, “that we should not be forsaken; that we should be set free from our sins and eternal death; to manifest His love to us; to display His righteousness and compassion; to draw our love towards Him; lastly, to set before us an example of patience.” The way to Heaven is open, but it is arduous and difficult. He wished to precede us with His wondrous example, that the way might not terrify us, but that the stupendous example of God in suffering might urge us on to say exultingly with S. Paul, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?”

This, then, His fourth word on the Cross, is a consolation to all who are desolate and afflicted. He consoled in this way S. Peter Martyr when falsely accused. The Saint complained to Christ (he was kneeling before the crucifix) that he had kept silence, and not defended him. Christ replied, “What wrong had I done to be crucified for thee on this Cross? Learn patience from Me, for all thy sufferings cannot equal Mine.” The Saint on this was so strengthened that he wished to endure still further suffering. And therefore Christ at length established his innocence, and turned all his disgrace into glory (see Surius, April 29).

Ver. 47. Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. According to S. Jerome and others, these were the Roman soldiers, who also gave Him vinegar (Luke 23:36). But not understanding Hebrew, they thought He called for Elias, of whose return at Christ’s coming they had heard from the Jews.

Ver. 48. And straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave Him to drink. All these were ready at hand, for the drink used to be given to those who were crucified. They did this as soon as Jesus had cried, “I thirst” (John 19:28), His fifth word on the Cross. The sponge was for Christ to suck out the vinegar, as they could not lift a cup to His lips. The sponge is preserved in St. John’s Lateran. Wine was usually given to those who were crucified, to quench their thirst, and strengthen them to bear their tortures. But the Jews (and the soldiers to gratify the Jews’ hatred to Christ) offered Him vinegar instead (Ps. 69:22). De Lyra says (quoting Prov. 31:6) that devout women used to prepare wine flavoured with spices, but that the Jews on this occasion took it away, and put in its stead vinegar mingled with gall.

Now they gave it Him in mockery, to give Him pain by the bitterness of the draught; to increase and not to quench His thirst, this being the property of vinegar. Baronius thinks it was given to keep Him alive, and thus prolong His suffering; Theophylact, Caietan, and others, that it was to hasten His death. “For vinegar has malignant properties,” says Theophylact, “which penetrates into wounds.” Thus—

Symbolically: It signifies the malignity which the Jews, and all sinners, exhibit to Christ. So S. Augustine (in John xix. 29), “Give that which ye are yourselves.” For the Jews were as vinegar, in degenerating from the wine of the Patriarchs and Prophets; having a heart full of iniquity, as a vessel full of vinegar; and full of fraud, like a sponge, with its winding and hollow hiding-places.

But Christ by drinking the vinegar converted it for us into wine, and by so doing gained power to turn our vices into virtues, our weaknesses into glory. “The wine,” says S. Hilary, “which turned acid in Adam was the glory or might of immortality. But He drank it, and thus transfused into Himself, and into union with immortality, that which in us was vitiated.” And so Remigius, “Vinegar means the Jews who had degenerated from their fathers; the sponge, their hearts full of fraud; the reed, Holy Scripture, which was thus fulfilled.”

And put it on a reed. That is, the stalk of some plant. S. John (19:29) says it was the stalk of the hyssop. For the Cross was not high, so that by stretching out the arms the sponge on a short stalk would easily reach Christ’s mouth. In Palestine the garden hyssop grows higher than in Europe, though on walls it grows low (1 Kings 4:33). Sometimes it runs to 18 inches.

Some suspect that for ὑσσώπῳ is to be read ὑσσῷ, a spear; a mere conjecture. Others think, with S. Augustine, that a sponge full of vinegar was placed on the hyssop, and then both of them on the reed. Others, that a sponge full of hyssop juice and vinegar was placed on the reed. Anyhow, the sponge was placed on the hyssop, whether it was itself the stalk or merely fastened to it.

Hyssop was given, because it is frequently used with wine and vinegar (see Columella, de Re Rust. xii. 35; and Pliny, N. H. xiv. 16). It has reviving, and strengthening, and other medicinal properties.

Now the soldiers tied the hyssop round the sponge, that the vinegar should not escape, and that Christ, taking the vinegar and the hyssop, might revive.

It was used for cleansing lepers (Lev. 14:49), also in the sin-offering and in the sprinkling of the water of purification (Num. 19:2 seq.); and was therefore a type of Christ’s Blood, in its purifying, refreshing, and strengthening power. “It is a lowly herb,” says S. Augustine on John xix., “cleansing the chest, and signifies the humility of Christ, whereby we are cleansed.”

Ver. 49. But the rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save Him. The word “let be” is here in the singular, in S. Mark in the plural. In the plural it would mean, keep quiet, attend solely to Jesus, see whether Elias will come to save Him; for they doubted whether He were really the Messiah, whose precursor Elias was to be.

S. Mark says that only one soldier spoke thus, addressing the rest. It is supposed by S. Augustine (de Cons. Evang. iii. 17) and others that the word was used both by the one soldier and by the whole body; secondly, that the soldiers said to him that offered the vinegar, Wait a while, do not give it, for fear He should die too soon, for vinegar hastens death; let us see whether Elias will come. And that he replied, Let me give it, lest He should die of thirst. Just let Him drink it, and keep alive; so shall we see whether Elias will come (so Jansenius). Or, again, that the soldiers said to him who offered the vinegar, Leave Him alone, do not annoy Him. For they thought that Elias would come if He were left alone, but not if others were about Him. And that he replied, Cease your clamour, lest ye drive Elias away; or otherwise, Leave Him lest ye hasten His death (Barradi). Or, again, Suffer me to mock Him in this way, for the more He is molested, the more will Elias come if he wishes to help Him. What I am doing will not delay but rather hasten his coming. Or, it may be, Let me give Him the vinegar, for I shall thus kill Him, and keep Elias from saving Him. For all this (as S. Luke says) was done in jest and mockery.

Ver. 50. But Jesus, when He had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. “Again” refers to the former words on the Cross. He first cried out, and then expired. S. Luke gives the exact words, “Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit.” In the Greek, “I will lay down My life; I will consign it into Thy hands as a deposit, to take it back when I am raised up on the third day.” Hence the faithful use this verse when dying, as David first used it when in suffering (Ps. 31:5).

It was by a miracle that Christ cried with a loud voice, for the dying lose their voice, so that they can hardly speak. For though S. Thomas says (par. iii. q. 47) that Christ preserved the vigour and strength of His body to the last; yet others suppose, more correctly, that His strength had so failed by what He had gone through, that He could not cry out naturally, but only by a miracle, for otherwise He would not have died through the violence of His sufferings, but merely by His own voluntary severing of His soul and body, and thus would not have been slain, or have made satisfaction to His Father by His death of violence.

He cried out, then, by the supernatural powers which His Godhead furnished. And that to signify, 1st, that He, as God, died not by compulsion or necessity, but of His own free will. As He said, “I have power to lay down My life,” &c. (John 10:18); and that His sacrifice of Himself might clearly be voluntary. “He had His whole life and death,” says S. Victor of Antioch, “entirely in His own power.” 2nd. To show that He was more than man, and was God, as the Centurion exclaimed. 3rd. To set forth His vehement love of God, His reverence, His obedience, and earnest desire for man’s salvation (see Heb. 5:7, and notes thereon). 4th. To indicate His sure and certain hope of His glorious resurrection on the third day (so Origen).

Yielded up the ghost. Voluntarily. “For that which is sent forth (emittitur) is voluntary, that which is lost (amittitur) is of necessity,” S. Ambrose (in Luc. xxiii.); and S. Augustine (de Trin. iv. 13), “The spirit of the Mediator left not His body against His will, but because of it, when He willed, and as He willed it; for man was blended into union with the Word of God. Hence He says, ‘I have power,’ ” &c. (John 10:18).

So, too, S. Jerome, Bede, and others. Whence, also, “He bowed His head” (John 19:30). “As the Lord of death,” says Theophylact; “for other men when dying first breathe their last, and then bow the head, which thus droops by its own weight.” S. Chrysostom says this was “to show that He died not of necessity, but voluntarily. He lived as long as He willed; when He willed He gave up the ghost.” A spurious work attributed to S. Athanasius is also quoted to the same effect. For though His human nature sank beneath the violence of His pains, and He ought to have died, yet His Godhead was able to give it strength, and to prolong His life. That nature, therefore, could not die, except by permission of His Godhead. He therefore freely died, whether as God or man; for His human nature could have asked, and would have obtained, this strength from His Godhead.

Observe, He died at the ninth hour, the very hour when Adam sinned, and to expiate his sin. The same hour also when the Paschal Lamb was slain, and the Jews offered the daily sacrifice. And this to show that He thus fulfilled all these types in His death. Whence the ninth hour is the Christian’s hour of prayer.

Symbolically and Morally: He bowed His head, as bearing the burden of all men’s sins, sin being the heaviest of all burdens; to mark His obedience, thus teaching “religious” persons, and those under authority, to obey those over them (conf. Phil. 2:8); to humble Himself before the Father, to do Him reverence, and to submit His own will to His, even to the death of the Cross; to bid farewell to the world, especially to Italy and the West, for His head, as we have said, was turned towards Italy, which He wished to make illustrious by His faith, and by the Pontificate and martyrdom of SS. Peter and Paul; to bid farewell to His Mother; to mark the spot where the spear was to pierce Him; to show that He and His Father were by His Passion reconciled to men. So S. Augustine (de Virg.) says, “Behold His wounds when hanging, His Blood when dying, His value when dying, His scars when rising, His head bent down to kiss, His heart opened to love, His arms extended to embrace, His whole body exposed to redeem,” &c. It was, again, to show that His soul would descend below, and set the Patriarchs’ free; to manifest His compassion. “He made His head to melt,” says Laur. Justiniani (de Triumph. Agone, cap. xx.), “to show compassion; He bent down to display His grace; He bowed it to show forgiveness;” again, to manifest His love for S. John, the Magdalen, and others like them who were standing by, and to turn away from those who shrank from the Cross; to look away (again) from the title on the Cross, as declining, and teaching us to decline, all worldly sovereignty and pomp; to show that His death, as He was to rise on the third day, was rather sleep than death; for they who sleep bow the head, “I will lay me down in peace,” &c. (Ps. 4:8). Lastly, having fulfilled His mission, He asks, as it were, His Father’s blessing and permission to depart from the world. He seems to say, I have finished My course, I have done and suffered for man’s salvation all Thou commandest. Permit Me to die, and return to Thee. And I ask, too, according to Thy promise (Ps. 2:8), that all nations may be converted and saved by My Passion and death. I have done Thy bidding, fulfil Thou Thy word. “Religious” persons and Priests, in like manner, when their mission is done, return to their Superiors, bow the head, and ask their blessing, and their former rank and position. S. Bernard pointedly says, in a moral sense, “What avails it to follow Christ if Thou canst not come up with Him? For S. Paul said, ‘So run that ye may attain.’ Fix the limits of thy course where Christ fixed His. ‘He became obedient even unto death.’ However far thou hast run, if thou hast not gone as far as unto death, thou wilt not win the prize.”

Ver. 51. And behold the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. At the death of Christ the Creator the whole Creation was agitated with indignation. S. Augustine (de Cons. Evang. iii. 19) observes that the veil was rent immediately on His death, to show that it was on account of it. S. Luke, therefore, who connects it with the darkness which took place before His death, speaks by anticipation. Now there were two veils, one before the Holy of Holies, the other before the Holy Place, which the priests entered every day. But the Holy of Holies the Chief Priest alone entered, and once only in the year. Some consider that the outer veil was rent (S. Jerome, Ep. cl. ad Hedibiam). But it was clearly the inner one. (See S. Leo, Serm. x. de Pass.; S. Cyril, in John xix.; Euthymius and others.) But why was it rent? S. Cyril, Theophylact, and Euthymius say to show that the temple was indignant that the Priests, who should have been the first to acknowledge Christ, had denied and slain Him. And that it thus foretold, and threatened, as it were, that they were to be deprived of their Priesthood (S. Leo, Serm. x. de Pass.).

Mystically: Theophylact says it was to signify that the temple was to be profaned, and done away with, and set aside, with all its rites and sacrifices (nay, more, says S. Chrysostom, “to be laid waste”). God in this way made it manifest,” says Theophylact, “that the grace of the Holy Spirit was flying away from the temple, and that the Holy of Holies (before inaccessible) was brought within view of all.” “For then,” says S. Cyril (xii. 27 on John), “Israel fell utterly away from the grace of God when it so madly and impiously slew its Saviour.” And S. Hilary, “The glory of the veil was taken away, and the protection of the guardian angel.” Hence S. Ephr. (Serm. de Pass.) records that when it was rent asunder, a dove, the type of the Holy Spirit, flew out of the temple.

Allegorically: To signify that the veil of legal ceremonies was thrown open, as fulfilled in Christ, so that henceforth both Jews and Gentiles should clearly know God, and Christ, and His Mysteries, which the Jews figuratively shadowed forth in so many ways; nay, more, that the service and Church of God should be transferred from Jerusalem, and the temple to the Gentiles and to Rome. So Origen, S. Jerome, S. Ambrose, and others. S. Leo says (Serm. xvii. de Pass.), “There was then so clear a change made from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to the One Victim, God Himself, that when our Lord gave up the ghost the veil was violently and suddenly rent asunder.” And S. Jerome, “The veil of the temple was rent, and all the mysteries of the Law, which before were kept secret, were then laid open, and handed over to the Gentiles.”

Anagogically: S. Paul says (Heb. 9) that the way to Heaven, was then opened; for the Holy of Holies was a type of Heaven, and the veil signified that it was closed till Christ burst through it by His death. S. Jerome mentions that the huge lintel of the temple was then broken (Epist. cl.). But Josephus says that it was at the destruction of Jerusalem.

And the earth did quake. 1. That is, the whole earth, as the darkness (ver. 45) was universal. Many authorities are quoted for this. Didymus (in Catena) says it was prophesied by Job (9:6). Both Pliny and Suetonius speak of a great earthquake in Asia at this time. By this earthquake was indicated the Godhead of Christ, for He it was who shook the earth, earthquakes being frequently ascribed to divine power, e.g., 1 Kings 19:11; Ex. 19; Ps. 18:7; Nahum 3:6. In the Passion, then, of Christ is fulfilled the prophecy of Hag. 2:6.

2. It signified the natural indignation of the earth at the awful crime committed against its Lord.

Mystically: It signified the new heavens and earth (Isa. 65:17), for the old earth seemed to be passing away.

Tropologically: It signified that the earthly and stony hearts of men would be moved to repentance by the death of Christ, since the earth, the sea, the sun, and the heavens, the darkened air, and the riven rocks, proclaimed their indignation at the death of their Creator. But see here how Christ, in His lowliest estate, manifested His supreme majesty and power, that He might not seem to be compelled to die, and that men, learning who and how mighty He was, who was suffering for them such vile indignities with such great dignity, might be astounded and awe-struck. For, as S. Ambrose says (de Fide, v. 2), “Jesus was wearied by His journey, that He might refresh the wearied; He asks for drink, though about to give spiritual drink to those who thirsted for it; He is hungry, though about to give the food of life to the hungry; He dies, though about to quicken; He is buried, though about to rise again; He hangs on the trembling tree, though about to strengthen the trembling; He covers the heaven with darkness, that He may illuminate it; He shakes the earth, in order to make it firm; He lifteth up the sea, that He may calm it; He unbars the tombs of the dead, to show that they are the abodes of the living; He is fashioned of a Virgin, that He may be believed to be the Son of God; He assumes ignorance, that He may instruct the ignorant; He is said to worship as a Jew, to the end that He may be worshipped as indeed the Son of God.”

And the rocks rent. First in Golgotha. Whence S. Cyril Hieros. says (Catech. xiii.), “Up to this day Golgotha bears its witness, where on Christ’s account the rocks were rent.” And S. Lucian, too, giving a reason for His faith to the Governor, says, “With these, too, agree the very spot at Jerusalem, and the rock of Golgotha, which was burst asunder by the weight of the Cross.” Adrichomius (Descr. Jerus. num. 252) speaks more fully: “There can be seen even now the fissure which was made at Christ’s death, and also the stain of His Blood,” and then describes at length its size, &c. But in many other places besides, says Baronius (ad An. 34, num. 107), the rocks were rent, as at Mount Alverno, where it was revealed to S. Francis that this took place at the crucifixion. He had accordingly a great devotion to the place, and he there received the Stigmata. S. Ambrose therefore justly exclaims, “O breasts of the Jews! harder than rocks, for the rocks were rent, but their hearts were hardened,” &c.

Allegorically: S. Jerome (ad Hedib. q. 8), “The rocks were rent, that is, the hard hearts or rocks of the Gentiles; the universal predictions, too, of the Prophets (who, as well as the Apostles, were termed rocks, by the Rock which is Christ), that whatever was concealed in them by the hard covering of the Law might be rent open and revealed to the Gentiles. The tombs also (of whom it was written that they were as whited sepulchres) were rent, that they who were dead in unbelief might come forth; might live with Christ who had risen; might enter the Heavenly Jerusalem, and have their citizenship no longer on earth, but in Heaven; might die with the earthly, to reign with the Heavenly Adam.” Eusebius mentions that at Paxos a voice was heard, “Great Pan is dead,” which he explains of Lucifer, whom Christ destroyed by His own death. Others say that Pan was Christ, being “our God and all,” and that the devils bewailed His death, because they were thereby despoiled of their dominion over the world.

Ver. 52. And the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose. This was immediately on Christ’s death (as S. Matthew implies), to signify that it was wrought by the power of His Passion, and consequently that by the same power death was overcome, and life restored to mankind. So Bede, Theophylact, and S. Jerome, who says, “The graves were opened in token of the future resurrection.” So, too, S. Ambrose (cap. x. on Luke). And S. Hilary says, “Illumining the darkness of death, and lighting up the gloom of the pit, He robbed death of its spoils, in order to the resurrection of the dead who are now asleep.” But yet they came not forth from their graves till after Christ’s resurrection (see ver. 53). For S. Paul terms Christ “the first-born from the dead” (Col. 1:18), and “the first-fruits of them that rise again” (1 Cor. 15:20). For Christ by His death procured resurrection both for Himself and for us. It was therefore but right that, when He had overcome death, He should be the first to rise as its conqueror, and others after Him. (So Origen, S. Jerome, and Bede.)

They rose, then, that Christ might confirm the truth of His resurrection, by those His companions who announced it; and, again, that in and through them Christ might manifest the power of His Passion; that just as the souls of the Patriarchs were freed by it from the pit, so, mystically, would men’s souls, which were dead in sin, be now quickened by His grace, and themselves rise gloriously at last to a blessed and eternal life.

Did, then, these saints die again after their resurrection, or continue in life and glory? Some think they did die, and are to rise again at the last day, and this from S. Paul’s words, “That they without us should not be made perfect.” (See S. Augustine, Epist. xcix. ad Evodium.) Others suppose, and more correctly, that they died no more, but were raised up to life immortal. Because it was but fitting that Christ should manifest at once in their resurrection the power of His own. It was also meet that happy souls like these should be united only to glorious and immortal bodies. But their happiness would have been but brief, and their misery greater, if they had died again so speedily. It would have been better, indeed, if they had not risen at all. It was also but fitting that they should adorn Christ’s triumphant ascension, as captives redeemed by Him, and the spoils He had won from death; and, lastly, that He should have them with Him in Heaven, and that His human nature, enjoying their presence and society, might never be solitary and void of human consolation. So Origen, S. Jerome, S. Clemens Alex. (Strom. lib. vi.), and others. The words “without us” do not refer to the day of judgment, but to the resurrection of Christ and Christians. (See notes on Heb. 11:40.)

But it is not clear who these saints were. Probably those, in the first place, who were specially connected with Christ, either by kindred, or promise, or type and figure, or by faith and hope, or else by chastity and holiness; as Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Melchisedek, David, who wished to be buried in the promised land, and thus be partakers of Christ’s resurrection. Job, also, and Jonah, as types of the resurrection; Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Isaiah, and the other Prophets. Daniel, also, and his three companions (though their bodies are at Rome). Eve, also (some suppose), as well as Adam, though Lorinus considers that the Blessed Virgin was the first woman raised from the grave, as Christ Himself was the first-fruits among men. Those, also, who died but recently; as Zacharias, Simeon, S. John the Baptist (though his head is shown at Rome and Amiens, his finger at Florence). Raymundus also (lib. de Bono Latrone, cap. xiii.) mentions the penitent thief, though S. Augustine (contr. Felician, cap. xv.) says, but only by the way, that he was reserved for the future resurrection. There were also many more (especially those mentioned in Heb. 11) outside Judæa, for “many bodies of the saints arose.” For it was indeed quite in harmony with the profuse magnificence of Christ that a crowded procession of the saints who then arose should dignify His resurrection and ascension.

Tropologically: This, says S. Jerome, “is a type of believers, who once, like the graves of the dead, have forsaken their sins, and whose hard hearts have been softened to acknowledge their Creator, and who have risen through penitence to a life of grace.”

Went into the Holy City. Jerusalem, so called because of the temple worship, of the many saints who had been there, and of the institution of the Church therein by Christ the King of Saints.

And appeared unto many. To the Apostles, and disciples, and also to the Jews, to persuade them to believe in the resurrection. “That by their resurrection,” says Euthymius, “others might be the more assured, by considering that He who had raised them had much more surely raised Himself.”

Now when the centurion, &c. Baronius and others suppose that this was Longinus, to whose keeping Pilate had consigned Christ. He was converted by the miracles he had seen, and became a witness and preacher of the resurrection. He is said to have retired to Cappadocia, and there to have been martyred by the Jews (see Surius, March 15). Lucius Dexter, a writer of small authority, considers it was C. Oppius, a Spaniard, afterwards the third Bishop of Milan (see Cornelius, Proæm. in Acta ad fin.).

Saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. God enlightened him to acknowledge from what he had seen that Jesus was more than man, and God indeed. He had heard that He had been condemned for calling Himself the King of the Jews. But when he saw that God had borne witness to Him by these many miracles, he acknowledged that He had spoken truly. It was thus God’s will that the Centurion should bear unquestionable witness to Christ (S. Hilary). S. Augustine thinks that he confessed Him to be the Son of God not in a natural, but only in a spiritual sense, as a righteous and holy man (Luke 23:47). But others, more correctly, that he confessed Him to be the Son of God by nature. So S. Jerome, “Consider that the Centurion in the very scandal of the Passion confessed Him to be truly the Son of God, and that Arius proclaims Him a creature;” and adds, “But now the last are first; the Gentile people confess, the Jews in their blindness deny, that their last error may be worse than their first.” And Theophylact, “The order of things is reversed, while the Jews kill, the disciples fly, and a Gentile confesses. Now do the Lord’s words (John 12:32) receive their fulfilment, for lifted up on the Cross He drew to Himself the robber and the Centurion.” Bede too, “The faith of the Church is very fitly designated by the Centurion, for when the Synagogue is mute, it affirms Him to be the Son of God.” Lastly, S. Bernard (Serm. ii. de Epiph.), “How keen-sighted is faith! It recognises the Son of God when at the breast, when hanging on the Cross. If the thief recognised Him on the Cross, so did the Magi in the stable. The thief proclaims Him King, but the Centurion the Son of God, and man too at the same time.”

Not only the Centurion and the soldiers, but, as S. Luke (23:48) adds, “All the people … smote their breasts,” in token of sorrow, “and returned.” They begin now to put forth the blossoms of repentance, that they may bear fruit at the preaching of S. Peter and the Apostles (Acts 2).

Here comes in S. John 19:31, on which see notes in loc.

Ver. 55. And many women were there (beholding) afar off, &c. S. Matthew says this to set forth how much greater faith, constancy, and affection for Jesus these women had than men. “See how things were reversed,” says Euthymius; “the disciples had fled, but the women remained.” For women are commonly more holy than men, and hence the Church prays “for the devout sex of women.” It was also to point out that they, as grave and pious matrons, were reliable witnesses of what had taken place, and moreover that they had carefully provided for His burial. It was also to show that they had been so drawn to Him by His patience and holiness, that they could not be torn away, either by fear, or by the threats of the Jews, from wondering, gazing, and meditating on Him.

Many women. The Blessed Mother was the chief, the others merely her attendants. She “stood by the Cross,” bearing all the pains in her compassion which He endured in His Passion, and with like constancy and fortitude. S. Antoninus says (Theol. par. iv. tit. 15, cap. 41), “The Virgin was so conformed to the Divine Will, that, if necessary (as Anselm says), she would herself have offered Him on the Cross; for her obedience was equal to Abraham’s.”

Damascene (de Fide, iv. 25) points out the greatness of her pain. “The Virgin suffered at the Passion the pangs she escaped in child-birth.” And S. Anselm (de Excell. Virg. cap. v.), “Whatever suffering was inflicted on martyrs was light, O Virgin, compared with thine.” And S. Laur. Justiniani (de Agone Christi, cap. ii.), “The heart of the Virgin was made the brightest mirror of Christ’s Passion;” and cap. xvii., “The Son was crucified in body, the Mother in mind.” And S. Bernard, in Apoc. xii., on the words “a great sign,” says, “A mighty pain, O Virgin, pierced thy soul, so that we rightly term thee more than martyr, for in thee the feeling of compassion was far greater than the sense of bodily suffering.”

Baronius (ad An. 34, cap. xi.) describes, from Simeon Metaphrastes, her great self-possession, in helping to take Him down from the Cross, treasuring the nails in her bosom, washing His wounds with her tears, embracing His body in her arms, and saying at last with calm voice, “O Lord, the mystery ordained for Thee before all ages has come at length.” And on giving the napkin to Joseph, she said, “It will now be thy duty to bury Him honourably in this, to perfume Him with myrrh, and to perform for Him all rightful observances.”

Afar off. S. John says they stood “by the Cross,” meaning thereby opposite to it, though at some distance. For the soldiers who were watching Christ, and the dense crowd, kept them from coming very near. But they came as close as they could to hear and see Him. Adrichomius says about eighteen paces. Some say that they were close at one time, and farther off at another. The Greek adds, “beholding” both the wondrous patience of Jesus, and the prodigies which took place around Him, and pondering over them in their mind with holy meditation.

Ministering unto Him. Supporting Him and His disciples. S. Jerome says, “It was a Jewish custom for women thus to minister to their teachers.”

Among whom (as the chief and leader of the rest) was Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast forth seven devils, who clung to Him from gratitude, and would not be torn from Him.

And Mary the mother of James and Joses. The wife of Cleophas or Alphæus. Salmeron considers her the daughter of Cleophas; called from her relationship, Mary the sister of our Lord’s mother, from her husband, Mary (the wife) of Alphæus. See above, chap, 13:55.

And the mother of Zebedee’s children. Salome. See Mark 15:40.

Ver. 57. But when even was come. Evening was drawing on, but had not yet come, and it was necessary for Him to be buried before the evening, when the Sabbath (on which they had to rest) began.

A certain rich man. For a poor man would not have dared to make such a request, says S. Jerome.

Of Arimathæa. Called (1 Sam. 1) Ramathaim-Zophim, afterwards Rama, Aarima, and Memphtis (S. Jerome, de locis Hebr.), called Rama from its high position. Joseph was a native of the place, but a citizen of Jerusalem. Arimathæa, says S. Jerome, means “lifted up,” as was Joseph here.

Named Joseph. Christ came into the world by Joseph the betrothed husband of the Virgin,* and was buried by another Joseph. Joseph means “increased“—that is, by the grace of God. For as the Patriarch Joseph abounded in chastity and affection for his father, so did Joseph the husband of the Virgin excel in chastity; and this Joseph, again, was eminent for his tender love for Christ, his spiritual father, when now dead. S. Mark calls him a noble Counsellor (βουλευτής), in Vulg. decurio, which was the provincial word for Senator. He is supposed to have been a Councillor of Jerusalem, from his having, lived and made his burial-place there. Maldonatus supposes he took part in the Council about taking and killing Christ (Matt. 26:4), but that he did not agree with the rest (Luke 23:51). “Whence some think,” says S. Jerome, “that he is spoken of in Ps. i.”

Who also himself was Jesus’ disciple, and thus wished to perform the last offices for his Master.

Ver. 58. He came to Pilate. “Came boldly,” says S. Mark, for though, for fear of the Jews, he was a secret disciple, yet he fearlessly entered on this difficult work; for he was both strengthened by Christ and urged on by the Blessed Virgin (see above, ver. 55). “From this we may see,” says Victor of Antioch, “his great resolution and boldness, for he nearly sacrificed his own life for Christ’s sake, by drawing down on himself the suspicions of his Jewish enemies;” and S. Chrysostom, “The boldness of Joseph is highly to be admired, when for love of Christ he incurred peril of death, and exposed himself to general hatred.” S. Luke and S. Mark say, “who also himself waited for the Kingdom of God.” He hoped, i.e., through Christ, for heavenly love, and thus risked danger for His sake.

And begged the body of Jesus. S. Anselm (Dial, de Pass.) says it was revealed to himself by the Blessed Virgin that Joseph gave this reason, among others, for his request, that His mother was dying of grief for her only Son, and that it was unreasonable that the innocent mother should die as well as the Son; but that it would be some consolation to her to bury Him. Grant her, therefore, most afflicted as she is, this favour. It is probable, also, that he alleged the holiness and innocence of Jesus, which Pilate well knew, and that therefore His body ought not to be cast forth with those of criminals into the Valley of Corpses, adjoining Golgotha, but was worthy of honourable burial, which he was ready to provide.

A wild story is here told, on the authority of the Gospel of Nicodemus, that Joseph was in consequence imprisoned by the Chief Priests, and miraculously delivered; and that, when the Chief Priests required the soldiers to produce the body of Jesus, they replied, “Do you produce Joseph, and we will produce Christ” (Greg. Tur. Hist. i. 21), whereupon the soldiers were acquitted of the charge. There is an equally improbable story in Baronius (ad An. 35, cap. 4), that Joseph crossed with S. Mary Magdalene and others in a vessel without oars or sail to Marseilles, and from thence to England, where he preached Christ, and was venerated after his death there as the Apostle of England.

Then (having heard and approved of Joseph’s reasons) Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. That he might thus make Him some kind of satisfaction for having condemned Him to death, and also palliate his own conduct by giving Him an honourable burial, as though he had condemned Him by compulsion.

To be delivered. On Joseph paying a price, says Theophylact. But this is not probable, for the reasons just given, and because S. Mark says, “He gave the body to Joseph,” who had it as a gift, and did not pay for it. It would indeed have been a most sordid and avaricious act for Pilate to have sold it. “To be delivered” means “to be given,” as in the Syriac. But the Evangelist says “to be delivered,” because the body had been already given up to the soldiers for crucifixion. He orders them, therefore, to return it to Joseph. S. Mark adds, “But Pilate marvelled if He were already dead,” because the thieves were not yet dead, and also (says Euthymius) because he expected that Jesus would die slowly, being a divine man, far surpassing others in endurance. “But when he knew from the Centurion that He was dead, he gave the body to Joseph” (Mark 15:45).

Ver. 59. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth. Such a cloth well suited this most pure body. Sindon is a cloth woven of the finest and most delicate flax, so called from Sidon, where it was first made. The Jews used to wrap their dead bodies in it, bound their hands and feet with bandages, and the head with a napkin (John 11:44). Thus did Joseph do to Christ (John 19:40). S. Jerome from this condemns the lavish funerals of the rich, and adds, “But we can take this to signify, in a spiritual sense, that he who receives Jesus in a pure mind wraps him in a clean linen cloth.”

For this reason the body of Christ is in the Mass placed only in a very clean and fine linen cloth. This is called a Corporal, from the body of Christ which it contains within it, as though in a tomb. S. John adds that Nicodemus brought myrrh and aloes to anoint and perfume the body (John 19:39). For these kept bodies from putrefying.

Mystically: Euthymius wishes us to be fragrant with these ointments when we receive the body of Christ in our breast, as in a new tomb. “Let us, too,” he says, “when we receive the body of Christ at the altar, anoint it with sweet odours, i.e., by virtuous acts and by contemplation,” &c. Baronius describes from Jewish writers their mode of laying out for burial.

Ver. 60. And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock. S. John adds (19:41) that it was in a garden. It was “a new tomb,” lest any one else who had there been buried should be supposed (says S. Chrysostom) or pretended (S. Jerome) to have risen again. S. Augustine says,

Mystically: As no one either before or after Him was conceived in the Virgin’s womb, so no one either before or after Him was buried in this tomb.

In the rock. “For had it been built of many stones, and the foundations had fallen in, it might have been said that the body had been stolen away,” says S. Jerome. Bede, on Mark xv., describes fully its shape, “That it was so high that a man could hardly touch the top. Its entrance was on the east. On the north was the place where the Lord lay, raised up above the rest of the floor, and open on the south.” Adrichomius also describes it, and adds “that Joseph gave up his own tomb to Christ, who was thus buried in the grave of a stranger.” “He who had no home of His own when alive (says Theophylact), has no tomb of His own, but is laid in another’s tomb, and being naked is clothed by Joseph.” “He is buried,” says S. Augustine (Serm. cxxxiii. de Temp.), “in the tomb of another, because He died for the salvation of others. Why needed He a tomb of His own, who had not any true cause of death in Himself? Why needed He a tomb on earth, whose seat was for ever in Heaven? What had He to do with a tomb, who for the space of three days rather rested in His bed than lay dead in the grave?”

Anagogically: Christ thus signified that He and His were strangers on earth, and that Heaven was their true country. S. Antony, S. Ephrem, S. Francis, and others preferred to be buried in another’s grave, and not their own, after Christ’s pattern. Here, then, was fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy (11:10), “And His sepulchre shall be glorious.” Hence, too, the custom of pilgrimages to Jerusalem for so many centuries. Hence the erection by S. Helena of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, with its surpassing splendour, enclosing under the same roof the site of the crucifixion, resurrection, &c. Hence the wish of Godfrey of Bouillon, and other kings after him, to be buried on the same spot, and the institution also of an order of knighthood.

Lastly, that tomb was in a garden, because Adam had sinned in a garden. Hence, too, Christ began His Passion in a garden, and completed it by being buried in a garden. And this, too, to atone for the sentence passed on Adam; and, moreover, that He might form and plant a most beautiful garden, flourishing with the blossoms and fruits of all virtues, i.e., His Church. Note here that Christ’s body was laid in the tomb, as on the Cross, with its head and face so turned as to look away from the east, and towards the west. So Bede and Adrichomius.

Observe, Christ, as soon as He expired, descended in His soul to the Limbus Patrum, and made the patriarchs glad by manifesting to them Himself and His Godhead. He freed also the souls in Purgatory, and gave them the first general jubilee. He manifested His Godhead to them also, and made them blessed (see on 1 Pet. 3:19). The devils also, and ungodly men in hell, He condemned to perpetual punishment, as their Lord, their Judge, and their triumphant Victor. The soul of Christ there remained till the third day, when it came forth with the Patriarchs and other saints, resumed its body, and rose in glory. He then made the Patriarchs resume their bodies, and rise together with Him. The order, mode, and time when these things took place is mentioned in the beginning of Chap, xxviii. Observe, the Godhead of Christ, the Divine Person of the Word, ever remained hypostatically united both to His body in the tomb and to His soul in the Limbus, for that which it once assumed it never gave up, and will not give up for ever.

And he rolled (aided by his servants and Nicodemus) a great stone to the door of the sepulchre. That no one might take away the body; or, rather, Divine Wisdom so ordered it, lest the Jews after the resurrection should deny the fact, and maintain that the Apostles, who had stolen the body away, had boldly invented the tale. And for the same reason God willed that His body should be buried by those, as Joseph and Nicodemus, who were worthy of credit, and that it should be sealed up and watched by the Jews, that in this way His death and subsequent resurrection might be clearly known to all. Now the Lord’s body, while still in the grave, gave indeed an indication and prelude (as it were) of His resurrection, by remaining uncorrupt for three days; being in truth a virgin and holy body, fashioned by the Holy Spirit, and as such does it abide for ever.

Ver. 61. And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary. The other Mary, the mother of James and Joses. It appears that Salome, having no further office to do for Jesus, returned home in sorrow, or took home the Blessed Virgin. Simeon Metaphrastes, however, asserts that the Blessed Virgin remained on the spot till the resurrection, as assuredly believing that it would take place on the third day.

Sitting over against the sepulchre. Our Lord, as was fitting, was laid out by men, and not by women, who, while this was taking place, did not venture to enter the sepulchre. But they waited till the men retired, and then went in and saw how he was laid, that they might return very early the next morning, when the Sabbath was over, and anoint His body.

Ver. 62. Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together to Pilate. The day of the preparation was the Friday, so called because they then prepared everything needed for the Sabbath, on which day they had to rest.

But it was the day after, that is, on the Sabbath, that they came together unto Pilate. Theophylact says, “He names not the Sabbath, for there was no Sabbath (or rest) in the Jews’ madness.” They raged, indeed, like madmen against Jesus, to abolish utterly His name and memory. And it increased their rage to see Him so honourably buried, as though it were the prelude to His future resurrection, whether it were actually to occur, or would be a mere invention of the disciples.

Ver. 63. Saying, Sir, we remember that deceiver said, when He was yet alive. “That impostor” (S. Augustine, Hom. xxxvi. inter 1.). “By this name,” he says also (in Ps. lxiii. 7), “was the Lord Jesus Christ called, to console His servants when called deceivers.”

After three days I will rise again. Three days not completed, but only begun, i.e., within three days, or the third day after.

Ver. 64. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest His disciples come and steal Him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead. Wishing before this to prove Him an impostor, they carry out their malice even to the grave. They were greatly afraid that He would rise again, and therefore ask for a guard, either to keep Him from rising, or to seize Him at the moment and put Him to death. For what they add about the disciples stealing Him was a mere pretext, for they knew that they had fled in fear and consternation, and would never think or attempt anything of the kind.

So the last error shall be worse than the first. The first error was the Gospel doctrine that Jesus was the Son of God. The last error was His resurrection, and it would be the worst as confirming the first. For if Jesus had spoken falsely in calling Himself the Son of God, God would not “have raised Him.” But if He is believed to have risen, He will have a multitude of followers; and if this belief once takes root, it will not afterwards be eradicated. Lastly, it would arouse great hatred and ill-will against the Chief Priests and Romans for having killed Him unjustly; and might indeed lead them to avenge His death by war or rebellion. It would therefore have been better not to have killed Him than to allow Him to rise again. For the devil, foreseeing the future of the Church (the numbers, the faith, the holiness of Christ’s followers), endeavoured to crush and choke it in its birth. But “there is no counsel against the Lord” (Prov. 21:30).

Ver. 65. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch (i.e., the soldiers assigned you for His crucifixion; use them now to guard Him in the grave).

Go your way, make it as sure as ye can. Guard Him as ye know how (Vulg.), i.e., in the best way ye know. I leave to your skill and prudence the mode of doing it. I do not wish to interfere any more in this matter. “As if taught by experience,” says S. Chrysostom, “he does not wish to act with them any further.”

Some take the word (ἔχετε) imperatively, Take ye, summon ye the guard. But it is more forcible to consider it in the indicative mood, “Ye have,” &c. (So Vulg., Arab., and A. V.)

Ver. 66. So they went their way, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch. They secured the sepulchre in a twofold way—with the guard of soldiers, whom they ordered to keep diligent watch, and by sealing the stone.

They sealed it with a signet, not Pilate’s, as S. Chrysostom suggests, but with their own, i.e., with the signet of the city of Jerusalem, or of the Sanhedrim, so that the stone could not be moved, nor the body be taken away, without its being detected. So, too, Darius (Dan. 6:17). Nicephorus adds that the Jews bored through both the stones of the tomb, and fastened them with an iron band. And thus, by endeavouring to prevent the resurrection of Christ, they did but add to the miracle, and furnished greater evidence for it; which God, as it were, extorted from them. So S. Chrysostom, “An undoubted demonstration is furnished by your own doings. For if the sepulchre were sealed, no room was left for fraud and deceit. But if no fraud had been committed, and the tomb was found empty, it is clear beyond all question that He had risen. Thou seest how, even against their will, they help to demonstrate the truth.” “It was not enough,” says S. Jerome, “for the Chief Priests and Pharisees to have crucified the Lord, unless they took a band of soldiers, sealed the stone, and, as far as they could, opposed His resurrection; so that all they did was for the furtherance of our faith. For the more it is kept back, the more fully is the power of the resurrection displayed.”

Tropologically: Says Barradius, “From this deed of the ungodly let us learn godliness. After we have received Christ into our breast, as into a new tomb, let us take diligent heed that He may remain therein by grace, and never forsake us. Let us post our vigilant guards—that is, our watchful virtues—to drive away sleep and sloth from us; let us gird ourselves with a weapon stronger than iron; let us fortify our breasts with an unconquerable resolve to sin no more.”

Father Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on Matthew 26:14-75

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. 55:13, &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, 13:2. 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), “O Judas, the traitor, thou valuest the ointment of His Passion at 300 denarii, and His Passion itself at thirty,—rich in valuing, cheap in crime!”

You will ask what was the weight and value of these thirty pieces of silver. Baronius (ex Helia in Tisbi, R. David, and other more modern Rabbins) thinks that the silver piece of Zechariah and the prophets, and consequently of this passage of S. Matthew, as is plain from 27:9, 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 1 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. 21:32. Thus the life of Christ was valued by Judas and the Jews at the same price as that of a slave.

But since Jeremiah (32:9) distinguishes the stater, or the shekel, which is the Hebrew word, from the silver piece, for he says, “Weigh for it the silver, seven staters and ten silver pieces” (Vulg. following the Heb. See also the margin of the English Version), it would seem more probable that these silver pieces of Judas were half shekels or double denarii. I have been the more confirmed in this opinion from seeing in the Church of the Holy Cross of Jerusalem at Rome, together with a portion of the true Cross brought thither by S. Helena, one of those silver pieces for which Christ was sold. This is about the size of a Spanish real, but a little thicker. Hence, also, Zacharias calls the price, ironically, due or fitting; Ang. Vers, goodly. The shekel was equal to a Flemish florin, so that the thirty pieces of silver would be equal to fifteen Flemish florins.

You will ask how could “the potter’s field” be bought for such a sum as this? I answer, that the Heb. שָׂדֶה, sade, and the Syr. חַקֵל, 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 24 and 25 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 13:1, 2, who says, before the feast of the Passover (that is, before the fourteenth day of the moon, when they began to eat unleavened bread) Christ made His supper.

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

With these I say that both Christ and the Jews celebrated the Passover on the same day prescribed by the Law, namely, on the 14th day of Nisan, in the evening. That this was so, appears from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who say that Christ celebrated the Passover on the first day of unleavened bread, on which the Passover must (by the Law) be killed. And on which day they (i.e., 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 18:28, that the Jews did not enter the prætorium lest they should be defiled, but that they, being pure, might eat a pure Pasch. I answer, Passover, in that place, does not signify the paschal lamb, for that had been already sacrificed and eaten the evening before, but the other paschal victims, which they were wont to immolate on the seven following days, but especially on the first day of the azyms, that is, on the morning of the 15th day of Nisan, according to the Law.

You will object, 3d. John (19:21) 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 15:32, who calls this preparation day the day before the Sabbath. For on the preparation day, that is, the Friday, they prepared food and other necessaries for the following day, which was the Sabbath. For on this Sabbath, as being most holy, they abstained from every kind of work, even from preparing food, which was allowable on other festivals.

You will object, 4th. That the rulers say in Matt. 26:5, Let us put Christ to death, but not on the feast day. I reply that, after the treachery of Judas, they changed their counsel; and they did put Him to death on the feast day.

The disciples came,—two, says S. Mark; Peter and John, S. Luke. Where?—this is not to ask the city or town, but the house. They were certain from the Law (Deut. 16:5–7) that the Passover could not be offered anywhere save at Jerusalem. The paschal lamb, however, was not immolated in the temple by the priests, but at home, by each master of a household, who for this purpose retained the ancient right of the priesthood, which was originally given to each first-born son of a family. Philo shows this at length (lib. de Decalogo, sub finem): “Every one ordinarily sacrifices the Passover without waiting for the priest; for they in this case, by the permission of the Law, discharge the office of the priest.” For the sacrifice of the paschal lamb consisted rather in the eating thereof, than in the immolation. Whence the disciples say, eat the Passover. Hence, also, it might be slain, immolated, flayed, and roasted, not indeed by common butchers, but either by a priest, or by that member of a family whom its head should appoint. Thus Peter and John, who were here sent by Christ, killed and made ready the lamb, and prepared the unleavened bread, and the wild herbs with which the lamb was to be eaten. The lamb was wont to be slain at the ninth hour, or three o’clock in the afternoon, as Josephus says (lib. 7, de Bell. c. 17).

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 12:12). Wherefore, this house was converted into a church. For in it was Sion builded up, which is the greatest and the holiest of all churches. Alexander shows all these things in his Life of the Apostle S. Barnabas. He is followed by Baronius and many others. For where My refreshment is, as the Vulgate of S. Matt. (ver. 14) translates, the Greek has κατάλυμα, inn or lodging. The Greek for chamber is ἀνώγεων, 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 hindfeet, 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 (14:17) has, when it was evening He came with the twelve Speaking precisely, there were ten, since two had been previously sent to prepare the Passover, and were already on the spot.

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

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

This opinion is proved—1st. Because Matthew here says that Christ sat down to the Supper of the lamb and the Eucharist with the twelve Apostles—therefore with Judas. Whence in the 21st verse it follows, And when they were eating, He said unto them, Verily I say unto you that one of you shall betray Me. 2d. Because Mark (14:23) says concerning the Eucharistic Chalice, And they all drank of it. 3d. Because Luke says that, after the consecration of the Chalice, Christ immediately added, Nevertheless the hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me on the table. 4th. Because John (chap. 13), 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 (13:26), It is he to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it. And when He had dipped the piece of bread (Vulg.), He gave it to Judas Iscariot, 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 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 (22:22) 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. ὁ ἐμβαψάς, aorist, 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 1:6. Each three or four, therefore, had a common dish, in such a way, that those who reclined on opposite couches might have the same dish. Therefore, because several of the Apostles had the same dish, Christ did not by those words indicate precisely who was the traitor. After this Christ instituted the Eucharist. And when this was finished, He again said that the traitor was with Him at the table, as S. Luke relates at length; on which I have said more on S. John 13:21. Whereupon Peter made signs to John, who was reclining upon the bosom of Christ, to ask Him definitely, and by name, who was the traitor. John then asked, and to him Christ answered, “that it was he to whom He was about to give a morsel,” which presently He gives to Judas. Judas having received it, and feeling that he was designated both by his own consciousness of his guilt and by the sign which Christ gave, impudently asks, Rabbi, is it I? Christ answered, Thou hast said, that is, thou art he. Wherefore he seemed to himself altogether detected, goes forth, as it were, in madness and rage to accomplish the betrayal of Christ, and goes to the house of Caiaphas, to ask for servants and officers to take Christ.

Ver. 24. The Son of Man indeed goeth, &c. Good were it for that man if he had not been born. For “far better is it not to exist at all, than to exist in evil. The punishment is foretold, that him whom shame had not conquered, the denunciation of punishment might correct,” says S. Jerome. He threatens him with the woe of damnation. For far better is it not to be, than to exist only to be endlessly miserable, as I have shown on Eccles. 4:2, 3. Wisely does S. Jerome say (Epist. ad Furiam), “It is not their beginning which is inquired about in Christians, but their ending. Paul began badly but ended well. Judas’ beginning was commended, but his end was to be condemned as a traitor.”

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

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

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

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 Iamb, 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. 12. 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. 11:25. 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 13:4. 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. 14–17. 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 cat; 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 into 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. Cryil 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 6), 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 3:13), “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. 10). 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 9:16). 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. 10:16), “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. 11:24. There Paul, in the same words, repeats and relates the institution of the Eucharist. We must add, that some have been torn away from this faith, because they are not able to comprehend how the Body of Christ, so lofty and so great, can be contained whole in (sub) a very little host. But these persons ought to remember that God is Almighty; and that as He constituted nature, so also He often works, as He wills, contrary to nature, in a supernatural manner, that He may show Himself to be the Lord and God of nature and of all things. Wherefore, whatsoever there is peculiar in nature may be inverted and altogether changed (everti). Consequently, God is able to effect that a great quantity may be contained in a little space, yea, in a point. This is the theological reason. But in order to give full satisfaction to some weak minds, I will subjoin two evidential arguments for this mystery to show that it is possible—arguments which derive their force from analogy. Take, therefore, the following demonstration, drawn from a physical analogy—from the eye and a mirror. For both a looking-glass and a small eye receive into themselves the whole quantity of the very greatest things, not only men, but houses, temples, trees, mountains, &c., and clearly reproduce and represent them whole. Why then should not a small host, by God’s power, set forth (exhibeat) whole Christ? You will say that in the eye and in the mirror what takes place is done in a spiritual manner, by means of optical or visual appearances. I reply, in like manner the Body of Christ in the Eucharist assumes a spiritual mode of existence, so that, as a spirit, it should be spiritually in the very small portion of the host.* Let us add this, that the objective appearances themselves are not spiritual in such a sense as that they are not really natural and physical, yes, corporeal, entities. For they are inseparable from corporeal entities, such as the atmosphere. And of these things we see that very many, and as it were an infinite number, are received and comprehended in a mirror and in the eye. If all this constantly takes place in a natural manner, with respect to the appearances received by the eye, much more can the omnipotence of God do the same thing supernaturally in respect to the Body of Christ, miraculously in the Eucharist.

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

You may add here a third proof drawn from condensation and rarefaction, which I have brought forward on 1 Cor. 11:25. Water in a vessel, made dense by means of cold, occupies only half of the vessel, but when it is made hot and rarefied by means of fire, it bubbles up and fills the whole vessel. And yet the water continues the same as regards matter, volume (molem), and, as many celebrated philosophers are of opinion, as regards intrinsic bulk; for nothing is added to the water by rarefaction except extension in space. If, then, this takes place according to natural laws, why should God be unable to do the same thing supernaturally, as respects the body of Christ?

Luke adds (22:19), This is My Body which is given for you, i.e., which is about to be given. S. Paul (1 Cor. 11.) 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. 11:26), may announce (Vulg.), My death.” For consecrating Priests are here bidden not only to remember the Death of Christ, but to recall the same to memory with Christian people, that they may be always mindful of so great a benefit, and of Christ’s great condescension and redemption, and thankful for it, and so by it ask and obtain all grace from God.

Ver. 27. And taking the chalice, &c. Bellarmine (lib. iv. de Eucharist. c. xxvii) 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 14:23 there is an hysterologia when it is said, and they all drank of it. And presently he relates that Christ consecrated it, saying, This is My Blood of the New Testament. But it is certain from Matthew and Luke that Christ first consecrated the chalice, and then gave it to His Apostles to drink. For otherwise they would have drunk mere wine, and not the Blood of Christ.

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

S. Cyprian, or whoever is the author of the treatise (de Cæna Dom.), observes that formerly it was forbidden to the Hebrews to drink the blood of animals, as is plain from Heb. 9:22, Lev. 4:6, &c., but that now the Blood of Christ is drunk by His Priests. First, because the Blood of Christ is life-giving. 2nd. Because by It we have been redeemed. 3rd. Because by It, being made spiritual, we shudder at the sins of a carnal life, as at impure blood.

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. ix) 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. 11 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 ἐρχυνόμενον, 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. 110:4 and Heb. 5:6, 7). The Eucharist is, therefore—1st. A burnt-offering; 2nd. A sin-offering; 3rd. A peace-offering; 4th. A mincha, or meat-offering (Lev. 1, &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 ἐκχυνόμενον, 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, τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον 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 αἵματι 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. 11:26, says, As oft as ye shall eat, &c., ye shall announce the Lord’s Death until He come.

The third reason was, the greatness of the love of Christ towards His faithful people, by which, as He united our flesh, hypostatically, in the Incarnation, to His Deity, so in the Eucharist, sacramentally, He unites the same together with His Godhead, to each faithful communicant, and as it were incorporates them, that each may become Divine, and in a certain sense a Christ and God. For this is what S. John says of Christ when He was about to institute the Eucharist, before He washed the Disciples’ feet. John 13:1: Jesus, knowing that His hour was come, and that He was about to pass out of this world to the Father, having loved His own that were in the 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. (8:31), “My delights are with the sons of men.”

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

“Himself as born for brotherhood,

Feasting He gives His brethren food:

Their price He gives Himself to die,

Their guerdon when they reign on high.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“My Jesus, my Love, my God, and my all.”

Again, the Eucharist is the Food of immortality, because by virtue of It our bodies rise to the life immortal, according to that saying of Christ (John 6), “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. 9:17) Vulgate.

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

But it is far more probable that Christ spake these words before the institution of the Eucharist, concerning the supper and the chalice of the paschal lamb. For at that supper a cup of wine was carried round, which the father of the family tasted first, and then sent round about to all who partook of the lamb, as the Jewish tradition is. This second view is proved, because Luke expressly asserts as much. He distinctly gives an account of the two suppers of Christ,—that upon the lamb, and the Eucharistic Supper,—which Matthew, for the sake of brevity, condensed into one. And he says that these words concerning the chalice were spoken before the Eucharist at the paschal supper. We may see that the same conclusion must be drawn from what Christ said previously concerning the eating of the lamb (Luke 22:15, 16). “And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” Then immediately afterwards He subjoins what is said concerning the cup of the paschal lamb, “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: for I say unto you, I will not drink of the 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 36:9, “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 ὑμνήσαντες, 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. 5:19), 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 (21:37). 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 18:2).

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 16:14). 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 16:31, 32, “The hour cometh when ye shall be scattered, every one to his own, and shall leave Me alone. Ye believe in Me now, but very soon ye will not believe, when ye see Me a captive and suffering.” For not only “did they forsake Him hastily, but” (says S. Augustine, Tract. ciii.) “in their hearts forsook the faith. For they were reduced to as great despair, and extinction (as it were) of their faith, as appeared in Cleopas 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 smile. The Heb. and Sept. read “smite” in the imperative. The meaning is, however, the same. The Prophets frequently use the imperative for the future by way of apostrophe. “Smite, O sword,” that is, “I God will smite Christ, will suffer Him,” i.e., to be smitten. Comp. Isa. 6:10 with S. Paul, Acts 28:26.

The shepherd. Christ the Shepherd and the Bishop of our souls (1 Pet. 2:25).

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

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

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

Ver. 34. Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shall deny Me thrice. In Greek ἀπαρνήσῃ, 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, yet will I not deny Thee. Likewise also said they all. To testify their faith, affection, and love towards Him; but in their presumption they sinned in a twofold manner. Thou wilt say, The Apostles believed Christ to be the Son of God, why then did they not believe (nay, clamoured against) Him when He predicted their fall? Why, because they did not attend to Christ’s prediction, but looked rather to their then purpose of heart, which they felt to be so strong that it would be impossible for them to fall away. And consequently regarding Christ’s words not so much a prediction as a test and trial of their purpose and love, they thought that in this time of trial their affection towards Him should be boldly and resolutely manifested. “Peter,” says S. Hilary, “was so carried forward by his affection and love for Christ, as to take no account of his own natural weakness, nor the belief he should have in the Lord’s words.” But even though they believed Christ’s prediction, yet they were free to deny Him, because neither did the prediction itself nor their belief in it take away their liberty, but rather presupposed it. For Christ predicted their defection because they would certainly forsake Him; but they did not forsake Him because He foretold they would do so. Objectively their future defection was prior to Christ’s foreknowledge and prediction, for Christ only foresaw that which they would do as free agents, and accordingly imposed not on them any necessity of denying Him, since His prediction was objectively subsequent.

But thou wilt maintain, If Peter, believing Christ’s words, had persuaded himself that he would certainly deny Christ that very night, he could not have but done it; because this persuasion and belief would have determined his mind, and bound him to do so. For no one can effectually strive against that which he knows will certainly happen by his own agency. The attempt would be vain. He regards and shrinks from it as impossible; for he knows that this and nothing else would happen, whatever his efforts. But, I reply, this persuasion would have inclined and in some measure have determined Peter to deny Christ, but yet only in a general way, that he would deny Him some time in the night, but not at that particular moment or occasion, or before such and such people. All his particular acts then would have been free. And in like manner that knowledge, that we cannot avoid all venial sins, obliges us to fall into them at some time or another. But yet only generally, and in a confused way. For as often as we commit this or that venial sin, we sin of free choice. Theologians, and Suarez in his treatise on Hope, teach us that if a man’s damnation were revealed to him, he could not possibly effectually hope for eternal life, as already apprehending it to be impossible (for no one can attempt what he thinks impossible). But yet he both ought and can observe God’s commands, and that as often as he transgresses he would do so freely and sinfully, even though he is generally aware that he would fall into, and die in, some mortal sin. This fall of Peter and the rest made them more humble and cautious. See John 21:15, 21, 22.

Ver. 36. Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, &c. Gethsemane is the valley of oil or fatness, or more precisely, the oil-press, for pressing the oil from the olives which grew on Mount Olivet. It was somewhat more than half an (Italian) mile from the cænaculum (upper chamber). Christ withdrew there—(1) for retirement and prayer, and to be free from distraction; (2) to show that He did not fly from death, but rather sought for it, for the place was well known to the traitor; and (3) to show that He suffered out of pure love and compassion for men. For oil is the type of compassion; and as oil was in that spot pressed from the olives, so in His agony was the Blood of Christ pressed forth, with which we are refreshed as with oil, are anointed and are fed. See Cant. 1:3.

Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. That is, in the garden, about a stone’s throw distant. See John 18:1; Luke 22:41. Adrichomius describes the hut of S. Pelagia the penitent and the tomb of the Blessed Virgin as close by, and above it Mount Olivet, the place of the ascension; humility and exaltation being fitly associated together, as is oft the case with God’s elect. To speak accurately, Christ neither prayed nor suffered His agony in Gethsemane, but in the garden close by; and He began His Passion in a garden as expiating the sin of Adam, which was committed in a garden. For he ruined therein himself and all his descendants, and subjected them to sin, death, and hell. And all these did Christ expiate in a garden by the agony He there endured. As in the Canticle, “I raised thee up under the apple tree: there was thy mother defiled: there was she violated that bare thee” (Cant. 8:5). Christ therefore in the garden restored us to Paradise, from which we had been expelled by Adam, and planted there the garden of His Church, verdant with the anguish of mortification, the saffron of charity, the spikenard of humility, the lilies of virgins, the roses of martyrs, the chaplets of doctors; for “a garden enclosed is my sister, a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed. Thy sendings forth (shoots) are of Paradise” (Cant. 4:12, 13).

Ver. 37. And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, &c. He took only these three to be witnesses of His sorrow and agony, lest the other Apostles should be troubled and scandalised thereby. Moreover, Christ most relied on these three as His special intimates, and also because it was but fitting that they who had seen the glory of His transfiguration should contemplate His agony, and learn that the way to glory is through agony and suffering, and that the way of Calvary and the Cross leads to the Mount and glory of Tabor.

And began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Of His own free will, and not by compulsion. He began to be so sore distressed as to be almost lifeless and beside Himself. “My soul is exceeding sorrowful,” He says, “even unto death.” S. Luke calls it “an agony,” like those who are at the last struggle with death. Vulg. in Mark reads “fœdet,” for sorrow makes a man weary of life. S. Mark adds, to be stupefied (ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι), for excessive fear has this effect, as a lion stupefies other animals with its roar. Note, first, that Christ had true sorrow. For though from the moment of His conception He enjoyed the vision of God, as hypostatically united to Him, and thus enjoyed the highest happiness, He was yet supremely sorrowful, God supernaturally enlarging the capacity of His soul, that it might experience the highest joy and the deepest sorrow at the same time. This is the general opinion of theologians, though Melchior Canus (de Locis xii. 14) says that the joy naturally arising from the sight of God was suspended while He was but a sojourner, in order that He might feel sorrow. (See S. Thomas, p. iii. q. 46, art. 8, and Suarez, p. 111, q. 18, Disp. 38, sect. 8.) Christ was both on His journey and had reached the end (viator et comprehensor). In the one character He was full of sorrow, in the other full of joy. But even when on the way He had both the greatest joy and the greatest sorrow in His Passion. He was sorrowful in His lower nature, since it was painful; He rejoiced in His higher nature, since it was the will of God, and ordained for man’s salvation.

2. This sorrow was not only in His feelings, but also in His will (at least in its lower part), which naturally regards that which is for itself good as life and death, and hates the contrary. This is clear from His own prayer, “Father, not what I will, but what Thou wilt.” He naturally wished to be saved from death. As in Luke, “Not my will, but Thine be done.”

3. The primary cause of His sorrow was not the flight of His Apostles, which He foresaw, but the vivid apprehension of His approaching Passion and death, as is plain from His prayer, “Let this cup pass from Me.” For Christ foresaw all the torments, one by one, which the Jews would inflict on Him, and fully entered into and weighed the magnitude and bitterness of His several sorrows, so as to seem to be already suffering them, even to the shedding of His blood. For Christ doubtless wished to atone by His sorrow for the pleasure which Adam had in eating the forbidden fruit, and which sinners now experience in their sins.

There were, moreover, other grounds of sorrow, which He experienced in the highest degree from the very moment of His conception to His death. First, the sins of all men, which He undertook to atone for, and thus make satisfaction for the injury done to His Father. For the soul of Christ saw them all in God, and manifested for them the greatest sorrow and compunction, as though they had been His own. For He saw how great was their gravity, how the majesty of God was offended, and consequently what wrong had been done to Him. All which elicited condign and commensurate sorrow. So He says Ps. 22:1.

2. The second was His foreseeing all the pains which martyrs, confessors, virgins, married people also would suffer in their several ways. Prelates too and pastors in governing the faithful; the faithful in withstanding the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil. All which sorrows Christ generally and severally mentally took upon Him, that by His sorrow He might obtain for them from God the Father grace and strength to bear and overcome them all. For He loves His children as Himself, and feels for their affliction. See Matt. 25:35, 40.

3. The third was the ingratitude of men. For He foresaw that His Passion would be of use to but very few, and that the many would be lost through their own negligence and ingratitude. As the poet sings,—

“ ’Tis not my grief, ’tis love; my only pain

Is that to thousands ’twill be all in vain.”

4. The fourth was the affliction of His mother; for the sorrows of the Son pierced, as a sword, the soul of the mother, and from her were reflected on Christ. For His greatest sorrow was that His mother suffered so grievously on His account. All other sorrows Christ suppressed and overcame, manifesting this only to His disciples. Now, observe this sorrow of Christ was not by compulsion, or involuntary, so as to prevent the exercise of reason, but was freely undergone by Christ. Whence theologians say that in Christ were not passions, but their first suggestions (propassiones);* for all His affections resulted from the ordering of His reason and His own free choice. For to this all the inferior powers were perfectly subjected, both in Adam and in Christ. For original righteousness, which was in Christ as in Adam before his fall, required this. See S. Augustine, de Civ. xiv. 9, and Damascene (de Fid. iii. 23). Nothing was compulsory in Christ, for of His own will He hungered, was fearful, and was sad.

5. S. Luke adds, that He sweated blood, and was comforted by an angel; while Isaiah (53:3) calls Him a man of sorrows.

But the final and moral grounds of this were manifold. S. Chrysostom gives as the 1st: “To show that He took on Himself true flesh, He endures human sufferings.” So Jerome and Origen; and S. Leo (Serm. vii. de Pass.) says, “He was despised in our humility, made sad with our sadness, and crucified with our pain.” 2nd. S. Gregory (Mor. xxiv. 17), “As His death was approaching, He set forth in His own person our struggles of mind, for we fear greatly the approach of death.” The 3rd. S. Ambrose sets forth (in Luke xxii. 44), “In no point do I more admire the tenderness and majesty of Christ than in this, which most men dread. He would have done much less for me had He not taken on Himself my feelings; He took on Him my sorrow, that He might now give me joy. I confidently make mention of His sorrow, for I preach the Cross. He was obliged to endure pain, that He might conquer. Insensibility wins not the praise of fortitude. But He wished to instruct us to overcome the sorrow of coming death, and perhaps He was sad because, after the fall of Adam, death was a necessity, and again because He knew that His persecutors would have to pay the penalty of their monstrous sacrilege.” And again, “Thou smartest not for Thine own wounds, but for ours; not for Thine own death, but for our infirmity.” S. Athanasius (de Cruce) writes thus elegantly, “Christ descended to win for us our ascension; was born that we might be reconciled to the unborn Father; was made weak for our sakes, that we might be raised up by His strength, and say with S. Paul, I can do all things through Jesus Christ that strengtheneth me. He assumed a corruptible body, that the corruptible might put on incorruption; a mortal body, that mortality might put on immortality. Lastly, He became man, and died, that we men might by dying become gods, and no longer have death reigning over us.” 4th. The fourth was to mitigate the dread of death, which was inflicted as a punishment for Adam’s sin, and turn it into joy and the hope of attaining a better life. Christ then obtained for the martyrs exemption from pain and fear in their grievous torments, and caused them to undergo them willingly, and even to rejoice in them. “Christ came,” says S. Chrysostom, “to bear our infirmities, and to give us His strength. And again, Christ by His agony enabled His faithful ones not to fear death, but patiently and even joyfully to meet it from their hope in the resurrection, saying with Hosea and S. Paul, as triumphing over death, ‘Death is swallowed up in victory’ ” (1 Cor. 15:55).

5th. The fifth was to cure by His sorrow our sloth, weakness, fear, &c. As Isaiah (53:4) says, “Surely He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.” And accordingly our best remedy in all these trials is to look at Christ in His agony, that by the pattern and merits of the agony He endured in the garden He may heal our sorrow. As S. Leo (Serm. iv. de Pass.) says, “He healed our weaknesses by partaking them, and drove away the fear of suffering punishment by undergoing it Himself: our Lord trembled with our fear, that He might take on Himself our weakness, and robe our weakness with His strength.” It was, again, to remove the dread of difficulty, which occurs in every virtuous act. For this dread keeps many back from virtue and holiness. Whenever, therefore, any difficulty or temptation assails, let us strengthen ourselves by meditating on the agony of Christ; for if He overcame His by the struggle and bloody sweat, we ought also to overcome ours by manly resistance. See Heb. 12:1.

Christ then taught us to fight against our passions with reason and judgment, especially our sloth, sadness, and anxiety. Calvin and Beza here impiously and unlearnedly accuse Christ of timidity, inconstancy, and vacillation, as being indeed more cowardly than the martyrs; rather He not only willingly underwent these sufferings, but brought them of His own accord on Himself, that He might by His bold struggle overcome them in Himself, and subdue them also in us. For, as S. Augustine says, “Christ was troubled when exercising His power, and not in His weakness” [John 11:33].

Ver. 38. Then saith He unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with Me. I am as sorrowful from the lively apprehension of My sufferings and death, as if I were now dying; I seem to be lifeless with sorrow and dread. My pain well-nigh takes away My life and breath. It is not My flesh, but My soul, which is so very sad, for sorrow penetrates the inmost parts of My soul, and cuts it in sunder as a sword. “The waters have come in even to My soul,” Ps. 69:1. I am but the smallest point removed from death, so that the slightest addition to My sorrow would crush Me, and take away My life. Consider with what feeling of sorrow and love Christ spake these words,—His pathos, His look, His voice, His countenance,—Tarry ye here. Wait and behold Me here, deeply sorrowing and praying in the agony of death, both as witnesses of My sorrow, and to learn from Me in every tribulation to betake yourselves to prayer; so that thus watching ye may be some solace to Me in My affliction. But it is not so; for sorrow hath overwhelmed you, and forces you to sleep. Whence Christ complains (Ps. 69:21), “I waited for some to have pity on Me, but there was no man, neither found I any to comfort Me.” Christ from the vehemence of His love wished to pass through His unmitigated and wondrous Passion without any consolation or consoler. He wished to drain the chalice of gall and bitterness unmixed with the sweetness of honey, both in order that His redemption should be plenteous, and for an example of heroic virtue. For Christ manifested in His Passion the most perfect acts of heroic virtue. And He Himself was therein a prodigy of humanity; for though “He was in the form of God … He became obedient as far as unto death, even the death of the Cross,” Phil. 2:8. He was also therein a prodigy of patience, fortitude, and of charity; for “greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). But Christ laid down His for His enemies (Rom. 5:8).

Ver. 39. And He went a little farther, and fell on His face. For a few steps, that He might pray in secret, and yet be seen and heard by them. By this prostration He manifested His extreme suffering, gave a striking example of humility, and the highest reverence to God the Father. Again, to set forth the heavy burden of our sins, which He had taken upon Him, and present Himself to the Father in our stead as though guilty and penitent, and submit Himself entirely to chastisement, I surrender Myself, He says, to Thee, O Father, as guilty, in the place of men. I give up Myself entirely to Thee, and present to Thee the punishment due to them. I offer My back to the scourger, My head to the crown of thorns, My hands and feet to the nails, and My entire body to the cross. Wound and crucify Me, that man may be spared and received back into Thy favour.

And prayed, saying. For as man He in a true and proper sense prayed to the Father, yea, even to Himself as God. On the spot where He prayed a church was erected, and the marks of His footsteps were said by Baronius to be still there.

O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me. Absolutely this was possible, but it was impossible according to God’s decree that man was to be redeemed by Christ’s death. Christ knew this, and therefore did not wish for it absolutely, and asks for nothing contrary to His own and the Father’s will. But He merely expresses His natural shrinking from death, His ineffectual and conditionated will, and yet freely submitted Himself to the contrary will of God, that He should die.

Let this cup pass from Me. Calvin here accuses our Lord of hastiness, forgetfulness, ignorance, darkness of mind, inconstancy, and opposition to the Divine will—in fact, ascribing to Him sin. But, as I before observed, Christ took all this upon Him voluntarily, yet in accordance with the will of God. His first act was subordinated to the latter act, and was therefore regulated and ordered by right reason; for nothing in Christ could be disordered and out of place. Reason, then, and the higher nature were justly unwilling that His inferior nature should feel sorrow and horror of death, as stated above. 2. S. Jerome understands by the “cup,” the sin of the Jews. I pray, O Father, that I may not suffer at the hand of the Jews, my kinsmen. For in killing Me they commit a most awful crime, and will be punished most severely in hell. But this is too restricted a meaning.

3. The full and adequate meaning is, that this cup of suffering should pass away, even though Thou hast decreed that I should drink it to the dregs; and thus (as Origen says) it should pass away from Himself, and the whole race of mankind.

4. S. Catharine of Sienna offered two other explanations, which she said were revealed to her by Christ. The first, that Christ most eagerly thirsted for this cup, to manifest His love to the Father, and to effect our redemption. He wished to die and suffer immediately. His love admitted not any delay. I wish the cup to pass away, and that I may return at once to Thee. This was the prayer of His spirit, though in His flesh He dreaded death. The two meanings are compatible. But why did He not effect His wish? It was (1) in order to give the martyrs an example of longing for the Cross; (2) Because so many would be unthankful for His Passion, and would die in their sins; and as this was His greatest sorrow, He prays that this “cup” might be taken away, and that all might be saved. But yet He chose to conform Himself to His Father’s will, “Not My will,” &c. So S. Catharine, not taking it literally, but expressing the holy and ardent affection of Christ.

Symbolically: S. Hilary says, “Christ took all our infirmities and nailed them to the Cross, and therefore that cup could not pass away from Him without His drinking it, for we cannot suffer except through His Passion.” May that cup, O Father, pass over to My own followers, that when enduring My sufferings they may experience also through My gift My strength and power to endure.

S. Bernard (Serm. x. in Cant.) piously and wisely remarks, “The cup Thou didst drink, the mark of our redemption, makes Thee above all things lovely. It is this which readily claims our entire love. It both more tenderly attracts our devotion, more justly demands it, binds us to Thee the more firmly, and affects us the more vehemently. For great was the Saviour’s labour, greater than in the work of creation. For He spake and it was done. But here He had those who contradicted His words, watched His actions, jested at Him in His torments, and reproached Him in His death. Behold how He loved! Learn thou, O Christian, from Christ Himself, how to love Him. Learn to love Him sweetly, wisely, and firmly: sweetly, that we may not be allured away; wisely, that we be not deceived; and firmly, that we may not by force be drawn away from the love of the Lord,” &c.

Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt. Here it is plain, as against the Monothelites, that there are two wills in Christ: not only the Divine, to supply the place of the human will, as they said, but the will He had as man, by which He obtained our redemption. The Sixth Synod (Acts 4 and 10) proves that there were in Him two wills, and that the human was by obedience subject to the Divine; and this on the authority of SS. Athanasius, Augustine, Ambrose, and Leo. Nay, rather, though the human will was in itself one, yet in its power and action it was twofold, the one natural, with which it shrank from death; the other rational and free, with which He subjected Himself to the will of God. “Nevertheless, not what I will” naturally, “but what Thou wilt.” By My reasonable will I subject My natural will to Thee, O Father, and only will what Thou wiliest. And, accordingly, the natural will of Christ was conditional and of no avail, because it wished to escape death only under the condition that it pleased God. But His rational will was absolute and effectual, because He embraced death for the same reason that God willed it, that is, for man’s redemption. But the natural will of Christ seemed materially contrary to the Divine will. But by the rule of subordination it was conformable to it, as suffering itself to be guided by the rational will, and thus by the Divine will; and, on the other hand, the will of God, as well as the rational will of Christ, wishes on deliberate and just ground that His natural will should express this natural fear of death. In both aspects, therefore, was the will of Christ in all respects conformable to the Divine. Christ here teaches us, as a moral duty, that our sole remedy in affliction is submission to the Divine will, and that in every temptation we must betake ourselves to the aid of God, who alone can free us from them or strengthen us under them if we submit ourselves humbly, reverently, and lovingly to His will. “This voice of the Head,” says S. Leo, “is the salvation of the whole body. It taught the faithful, it inspired confessors, it crowned the martyrs. For who could overcome the hatred of the world, the whirlwinds of temptations, the terrors of persecution, had not Christ in all and for all said in submission to His Father, Thy will be done?”

Ver. 40. And He cometh to His disciples and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with Me one hour? To gain some consolation, little though it were, and also as having care for His people; thus teaching bishops and pastors to do the like, and to break off prayer in order to visit them. They were sleeping for sorrow, and He speaks to Peter as the head of the rest, and as having so boldly professed his allegiance to Christ.

But observe how gently and tenderly He reproves them. He does not reproach them with their grand promises; but He merely says, “Could ye not?” Ye wished indeed to watch, but I attribute your sleep not to your will, but to your weakness: arouse yourselves, overcome your infirmity, shake off sleep.

Mystically: “He signified,” says S. Irenæus, “that His Passion is the awakening of sleepers.”

Ver. 41. Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. Of denying and forsaking Me for fear of the Jews. If My dangers move you not, may your own do so. There hangs over you the great temptation of denying Me; watch and pray to overcome it. “The more spiritual a man is,” says Origen, “the more anxious should he be lest his great goodness should have a great fall.” Watchfulness and prayer are the great means of foreseeing and overcoming the arts of devils and men.

Enter into temptation. Be not ensnared, as birds in a net and fishes with a hook. Not to be tempted is often not in our own power, nor is it God’s will for us. He wills we should be tempted, to try our faith, to increase our virtue, and to crown our deserts. But we must not enter into temptation, so that it should occupy, possess, and rule over us. So Theophylact and S. Jerome.

The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. I know your readiness in spirit, but your weakness in the flesh. By the flesh is meant our natural feelings, which shrink from suffering and death. Pray, therefore, that your weak flesh may not enfeeble your spirit and compel it to deny Me; but may God by His grace so strengthen both your spirit and your flesh, that ye may not only be ready, but strong to overcome all adversities, so that for My sake ye may eagerly wish for death, and bravely endure it. “The more, therefore,” says S. Jerome, “we trust to the warmth of our feelings, the more let us fear for the weakness of the flesh.” Some understand (less suitably) by “spirit” the devil, by the “flesh” man. That is, the devil is powerful to tempt, man is feeble to resist. Origen, moreover, observes “the flesh of all is weak, but it is only the spirit of the saints which is ready to mortify the deeds of the flesh.” S. Mark adds, “And they knew not what to answer, for they were struck down by their grief, and oppressed with sleep, and had neither sense nor understanding.

Ver. 42. He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O My Father, if this cup may not pass away unless I drink it, Thy will be done. S. Mark says that He used the same words as before. But S. Matthew omitted the first part of the prayer as without efficacy or meaning, and in order to insist on the latter part, in which the whole force of the passage consists, and set it forth for our imitation. For Christ absolutely wished and prayed to drink the cup of His Passion, which was decreed and destined for Him by the will of God. For He plainly and expressly asked that the will of God might be fulfilled in Him in and through all things.

Ver. 43. And He came and found them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy. With sorrow and watching, and afterwards with sleep. “For,” says S. Chrysostom, “it was a wild night,” adding that “Christ did not reprove them, since their weakness was great.”

Ver. 44. And He left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, using the same words. 1st. To show the intensity of His sorrow; for, as S. Luke says, He sweated blood, and an angel comforted Him. But this was only when He prayed the third time, and not the first and second time, as Jansen maintains. 2nd. To teach us that if God hears us not in our first prayer, we should pray more frequently and fervently, till He hears us, and we obtain our request. Perseverance crowns the work, in prayer especially. And if Christ was not heard in His first and second prayer, what wonder if we are not heard at once? Let us persevere, and we shall gain the fruit of our prayer, strengthening, calming of sorrow, and power of mind to withstand and overcome our trials.

Symbolically: 1. Remigius says, “He prays thrice for the Apostles, and especially for Peter, who was about to deny Him thrice.” 2. Rabanus says “that He prayed thrice, in order that we should ask pardon for past sins, protection in present, and caution in future perils; that we should direct all our prayers to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and that our body, soul, and spirit should be preserved blameless.” 3. S. Augustine (Quæst. Evang. in loc.) says, “It is not unreasonable to conclude that our Lord prayed thrice, in consequence of our temptation being threefold. For as the temptation of desire is threefold, so also is the temptation of fear. The fear of death is opposed to the desire of curiosity. For as in the one there is the desire of knowledge, so in the other is the fear of losing it. But to the desire for honour or praise there is opposed the fear of disgrace and contumely, and to the desire of pleasure there is opposed the fear of pain.”

Ver. 45. Then cometh He to His disciples, and saith unto them. Being after His third prayer strengthened by an angel, He resumed His former courage and spirit, and nobly composed Himself to meet His Passion (see on Luke 22:41).

Sleep on now, and take your rest. S. Chrysostom and others suppose that this was said ironically. This is no time for sleeping in our moment of extreme peril; rouse yourselves now, if ever.

But S. Augustine (de Cons. Evan. iii. 4), and Bede after him, suppose that Christ spoke seriously, and in compassion for them granted them a little longer rest. “Sleep on for the short time that remains till Judas arrives.”

Behold, the hour has arrived. Fixed from eternity by the Father, and decreed for My Passion and death.

And the Son of Man is betrayed, i.e., is about to be betrayed into the hands of sinners—sinners in a special manner, such as Judas and the Jews who were raging against Him. For there was no nation more wicked at that time, and therefore Christ had resolved to be born and die at that very time, in order that He might suffer more atrocious cruelties from such a people. His supreme goodness resolved to do battle with their consummate malice, in order that He might crush in them, as its head, the malice of all men, subject it to Himself, and convert it into goodness. The divine clemency and power of Christ were equally manifested in converting to Himself and making saints of those self-same wicked Jews, by Peter and the other apostles.

Ver. 46. Rise, let us be going: behold, he hath come who will betray Me. He bids them rise, not in order to fly with Him, but to go forth to meet Judas. It is hence clear that Christ was heard in His last prayer; that, comforted of God by the angel, He had thrown off His sadness and sorrow, and went forth to meet Judas and the death of the cross with great and noble resolution. “For,” as Origen says, “He saw in the spirit Judas the traitor drawing nigh, though he was not yet seen by the disciples.” “He therefore in every way teaches His disciples,” says S. Chrysostom, “that this was not a matter of necessity or of weakness, but of a certain incomprehensible dispensation, for He foresaw that they were coming, and so far from flying, He went forth to meet them.”

Christ in thus going forth, as indeed in the whole of His Passion, left three points most worthy of notice, 1st. His innocence in boldly going forth to meet His enemies. 2nd. His majesty, forethought, and power, wherewith as God He orders and foretells the approach of His enemies, and so moderates their fury that they could do no more than He permitted and foreordained. 3rd. The readiness with which He voluntarily met Judas, to show that it was not from weakness or unwillingness, but with the highest dignity, condescension, and generous love that He suffered and died for us. “Rise, let us be going,” to meet Judas; and, as S. Jerome says, “let us go of our own accord to death.”

Morally: Christ here teaches us to arouse ourselves, and go forth to meet our sufferings. It is the act of an heroic mind to weaken by its own resolution the force of any imminent evil, and by voluntarily embracing it to overcome and subdue it. Great evils are more easily overcome by a great mind than minor evils by a small one. As says the poet, “Yield not to trials; boldly go to meet them, as a lion shuts its eyes when rushing on its foes” (Plin. N. H. viii. 16). The cross therefore pursues those who fly from it, and flies those who seek for it. As is said of honour.

Ver. 47. And while He yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, &c. This is more fully set forth, John 18:2. The truth of His prediction and foreordaining was thus made good. He so interwove Judas’ sin and His Passion, that the whole action appeared to be partly permitted and partly ordained by Him.

Lo, Judas, one of the twelve. Lo is an expression of wonder. An unheard-of portent, a stupendous crime, that one of the Apostles was not only a thief and robber, but the traitor, and the leader of those who killed Christ! “He went before them,” says S. Luke.

A great multitude: of Roman soldiers, high priests’ servants, &c.

Staves: tipped with iron, as spears, &c., or not so tipped, as clubs. Observe here the folly and madness of Judas and the Jews. He knew that He was a very great prophet, nay, the Son of God, who could not be overcome by force, as the Jews well knew, and yet, maddened with avarice and fury, they bring armed men to use violence towards Him, to seize and bind Him. Dost thou wish, O Judas, to bind God, to seize the Almighty, to fight, O petty men, against your Creator, and compel Him to give Himself into your hands? “It was avarice,” says S. Chrysostom, “which inspired him with this madness, avarice which makes all its slaves cruel and fierce; for if the covetous man neglect his own salvation, what will he care for another?

Ver. 48. Now he that betrayed Him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is He: hold him fast. Lest He escape, as He did at other times. “And lead Him away carefully,” adds S. Mark. For Judas was afraid lest Christ should escape by changing His shape, and that He should thus lose the thirty pieces of silver, which were not as yet given, but only promised.

Gave them a sign. That the Roman soldiers might know him. For it was night. And perhaps, as some moderns suggest, from His likeness to S. James the Less, His kinsman.

I shall kiss. Origen mentions a tradition that Christ had two countenances, one natural, the other assumed at will, as at His transfiguration, and that Judas gave this sign for fear Christ should alter His appearance, so as not to be recognised. But this is a gratuitous assumption, and not to the point, for Judas was not present at the Transfiguration; and even had he been there, he might reasonably fear that Christ might render Himself invisible, as He knew He had done at other times. The true reason is as given above.

Ver. 49. And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Master; and kissed Him. Judas knew from Christ’s words at the Last Supper that he and his treachery were known to Christ; but yet, in order to hide it from the other Apostles, he pretends to give Christ the usual mark of friendship and reverence. It was the ancient mode of salutation. The Apostles probably saluted Christ in this manner, when returning back to Him from some other place. The early Christians also used to salute each other in the same way (see Tert. de Orat., and 1 Cor. 16:20). But Judas most wickedly misused this token of friendship for the purpose of betrayal, being persuaded (says S. Chrysostom) that Christ in His gentleness would not reject his kiss, and that if He rejected it, the sign would yet have been given. S. Victor of Antioch says, “The unhappy man gave the kiss of peace to Him against whom he was laying deadly snares.” “Giving,” says pseudo-Jerome, “the sign of the kiss with the poison of deceit.” Moreover, though Christ felt deeply, and was much pained at His betrayal by Judas, yet He refused not his kiss, and gave him a loving kiss in return. 1. “That He might not seem to shrink from treachery” (S. Ambrose in Luke 21:4, 5), but willingly to embrace it, and even greater indignities, for our sake. 2. To soften and pierce the heart of Judas (S. Ambrose, ibid.); and 3. To teach us to love our enemies and those whom we know would rage against us (S. Hilary). For Christ hated not, but loved the traitor, and grieved more at his sin than at His own betrayal, and accordingly strove to lead him to repentance. Just as the spark of fire is elicited from the steel, so was Christ’s latent love elicited by His blows and sufferings. His love was pre-eminent through the whole of His Passion.

Ver. 50. And Jesus said unto Him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? If thou comest to betray Me, why givest thou Me this friendly kiss? But if thou comest as a friend, why bringest thou so many enemies against Me? “Thou kissest Me,” says S. Augustine, “and layest snares for Me. Thou pretendest to be a friend, though thou art a traitor.” Hence Luke adds that Christ said, “Judas, why betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?” And such words, full of majesty and love, ought to have wounded his stony heart, unless he had hardened it like iron.

It was a wondrous instance of Christ’s gentleness and patience, that He tolerated Judas for three years, and deprived him not of his Apostolate, or disclosed to any one his sin. Teaching us to overcome our wrongs by love.

The Saints in this matter imitated Christ, S. Martin especially in his treatment of Brice, one of his clerks, who was constantly calumniating him. And when blamed for it, he said, “Christ bore with Judas the traitor, and should not I bear with Brice my calumniator?” By this gentleness he so won upon him, that he amended his ways, became a Saint, and succeeded S. Martin as Bishop, as S. Martin had foretold (Sulp. in Vit. S. Martin).

The passage, John 18:4, should here come in, in the regular course of the narrative.

To harmonise S. John with the other Evangelists the order of the history is as follows:—Judas preceded the crowd by a few steps, so as not to seem to be one of them; and then, when he had kissed Christ, he drew back into the crowd again, and when Jesus boldly confronted the crowd, Judas was standing with them. Jesus thus boldly asked them, “Whom seek ye?” and on Jesus saying that He was Jesus of Nazareth whom they were seeking, they were thunderstruck, and fell to the ground; not on their faces, but backward, so as to make it clear that they were struck down by His power. He allowed them, however, to rise up again, and on their saying again that they were seeking Christ, He replied, “I told you that I am He; if, therefore, ye seek Me, let these go their way,” showing that He cared more for them than for Himself.

Observe (with S. Chrysostom and S. Cyril) that the eyes of the soldiers were miraculously blinded, so that they could not discern, and much less lay hold on Christ. (S. Augustine thinks otherwise.) They gather this from the reply, “We seek Jesus of Nazareth,” as though they knew not it was He. S. Chrysostom and others suppose that even Judas did not recognise Him. But he seems to have withdrawn rather from horror at his crime. For Christ cut him off from the Apostolic band, “Begone, O traitor; thou art not worthy of the companionship of Me and Mine,” and then struck him and the whole band to the earth. This was the first miracle which Christ wrought when He was seized, to manifest His Divine majesty and omnipotence, and that the Jews might learn that they would have come in vain against Him with the armed band, had not He given Himself gracefully and willingly into their hands. The Sodomites were struck with a like blindness (Gen. 19:11). “Seest thou His surprising power, that though standing in their midst He struck them blind?” says S. Chrysostom and S. Cyril. “The divine power of Christ shone forth in that, though He presented Himself to those who sought Him, He was not recognised.” Symbolically S. Augustine in John xviii. The eternal day was so hid by human form,* as to be sought for with lanterns and torches, in order to be slain by the darkness.

2. His second miracle was His striking them to the ground by the single word, “I am He.” “That word, ‘I am He,’ struck them down like a thunderbolt,” says S. Leo. “Where was their cruel conspiracy? where their glowing anger? where their array of weapons? The Lord saith, I am He, and at His voice the multitude of the ungodly falls prostrate. What will His Majesty do hereafter in judgment, when His humility, though about to be judged, had such power?”

Though “I am He” means only “He whom ye seek,” yet Rupertus explains it, “I am that I am” (Exod. 3). And S. Jerome (Ep. cxl. ad Principium) thinks that Christ struck down these guards with the heavenly splendour of His countenance, for otherwise the Apostles would not have followed Him, nor would those who came to lay hold on Him have fallen to the earth.

Allegorically: This fall of Judas and his followers signified the comparable fall of the Jews, who would be obstinate in their unbelief, and well-nigh incapable of salvation. “Their fall is an image of all those who oppose Christ.” S. Cyr. Alex. in John xviii. and S. Augustine in loc. “Where is now the band of soldiers, the terror and defence of weapons? A single word, without a weapon, struck down, smote, laid prostrate that crowd, fierce in hatred and terrible in arms. For God was veiled in flesh. What will He do when He comes in judgment, who wrought this when He came to be judged?”

Tropologically: Here is represented the fall of the reprobate, for they fall on their back so that they cannot arise; but when the elect sin, they fall on their face, because they are soon touched by God, and rise up in penitence. “We fall on our face,” says S. Gregory (Hom. viii. in Ez.), “because we blush for our sins, which we remember to have committed.” And also (Mor. xiii. 10), “To fall on the face is for every one to acknowledge his own faults in this life, and to bewail them with penitence. But to fall on the back, where we cannot see, is to depart suddenly out of life, and to know not to what punishment we are brought.”

Again, “The righteous fall on their face, as looking on those things that are before; but sinners fall on their back, as seeking for those things which are behind and pass away, and are soon gone.” “For everything which passes away,” says S. Gregory (Mor. xxxiii. 23), “is behind, while everything which is coming and is permanent is before.”

3. The third miracle, as S. Chrysostom and S. Augustine remark, was that which He wrought by His all-powerful providence and the efficacy of His word. “Let these go their way,” that the Jews laid hands on none of the disciples. He offered Himself alone to death, as a good shepherd laying down His life for the sheep.

4. The fourth, the instantaneous healing of Malchus’ ear. But how great was their blindness and malice, who, after they had seen so many miracles, dared to lay hands on Him!

Then came they and laid hands on Jesus, and took Him. The order is here inverted, for before they could take Him Peter smote off Malchus’ ear, and it was only when Jesus had healed it that He gave Himself up to be taken and bound.

Ver. 51. And behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched forth his hand, and struck the servant of the high priest. Peter, that is, who was more fervent and resolute than the others. S. Luke adds that he first asked permission from Christ, “Shall we smite with the sword?” but waited not for His answer, and in his zeal for Christ in His imminent danger drew his sword.

A question is raised, what was this sword? merely a knife (culter), or a military sword (ensis), or an ordinary sword (gladius)? The Fathers are in favour of ensis.* S. Hilary says that the sword was ordered to be sheathed, because He was about to destroy them with no human sword, but with the word of His mouth (Rev. 1:16, 19:15). S. Ambrose explains the two swords (Luke 22:38) mystically, as the Old and New Testaments, with which we are armed against the wiles of the devil.

But writers on all sides explain these two swords allegorically as the twofold power of the Church, temporal and spiritual (see Extrav. “Unam sanctam” De Majoritate et obedientia). And again by the sword is denoted excommunication, which cuts off a man from the Church.

Many think that Peter intended to kill Malchus, but that God guided the blow so that he merely cut off his ear.

Tropologically: S. Ambrose by this sword understands martyrdom. “There is,” saith he, “the sword of suffering, by which thou canst cast off the body, and purchase for thyself the crown of a martyr by putting off the slough of the body.” Cornelius urges many reasons why it should be a sword, and not merely a knife which S. Peter used, adding that the sword of Peter is still preserved, and exposed to the veneration of the faithful.

A servant of the high priest, named Malchus (John 18:10). S. Peter seems to have attacked him, as being the most bold and forward in assailing Christ.

Cut off his ear. His right ear, say S. John and S. Luke, signifying, as Origen says, that the Jews in reading and hearing Scriptures had lost their right ear, the true understanding of heavenly things.

S. Augustine (contr. Faust. xxii. 70) remarks that Moses, after he had smitten the Egyptian, was made the head of the Synagogue. S. Peter, after mutilating Malchus, was made the head of the Church. Both of them went beyond bounds, not from hateful cruelty, but from blameless impetuosity. For Peter sinned through rashness, for it was without the knowledge, rather* against the will of Christ that he drew his sword, his sole means of defending Christ against so many armed men, and in cutting off Malchus’ ear he provoked them the rather against Christ. But he showed his ardour and zeal for Christ, blameable as it was; and when this fault had been corrected at Pentecost, he obtained through Him to be the Pastor and Prince of the Church.

Christ by blaming and restraining S. Peter, and by healing Malchus’ ear, manifested most strikingly His power and clemency. Especially since it is a theological dogma (as Paulus de Palatio adds) that when the Lord heals, He heals perfectly. If Christ healed Malchus both in body and mind, what greater proof could there be of charity, what stronger evidence of an undisturbed mind? It is clear from Acts 2:37 that many of these persecutors of Christ were converted. And what marvel if Malchus were, who had experienced so striking an evidence of Christ’s goodness and power? Christ thus acted that He might furnish no ground for the charge that He had opposed the public ministers of justice, and also to exhibit a pattern of forbearance and gentleness, as He did when He converted Saul into Paul. Mystically, the Gloss says that the wounding and healing Malchus’ ear is the restoration of hearing, when the old man is taken away, for slavery is the old estate, healing is liberty.

Ver. 52. Then Jesus saith to him, Put up again thy sword into his place. Christ here reproves Peter’s rashness in drawing his sword against His wish. Peter’s sin, then, was twofold: first in striking against Christ’s wish, and next, because this was an act not so much of defence as of revenge, which did not help to deliver Christ from the soldiers, but rather excited them the more against Him. But Peter, says S. Chrysostom, was hurried on by his eagerness to protect Christ, and did not think of this, but remembered rather His words, that Christ had ordered them to take two swords, inferring that it was for His defence. And accordingly he thought that in striking the servant he was acting according to the mind of Christ, “Let revenge cease, let patience be exhibited,” says the Interlinear Gloss.

For all they that take the sword (without proper authority). To strike, i.e., and wound others. To take the sword by public authority to punish the guilty, or in a just war, is lawful and honest.

Shall perish with the sword. Deserve thus to perish (Gen. 9:6) (see Aug. Quæst. V. and N. T., cap. civ.). Homicides, moreover, and gladiators very often die violent deaths in war or by casualties (see Act. 28:4).

And Christ here insinuates that the Jews would perish by the swords of the Romans. S. Luke adds that Christ said, “Suffer ye thus far.” “Cease to draw your swords, ye have contended sufficiently,” just as we part two combatants. But Cajetan explains otherwise, “Suffer the Jews to rage against Me, while their hour lasts, and the power of darkness.” Hence Maldonatus and others infer that the other Apostles, when they saw S. Peter’s zeal, wished to fight for Him also, but were forbidden by Christ. For, says S. Ambrose (in Luke xxii.), He who wished to save all by His own wounds, wished not to be saved by the wounding of His persecutors. Whence the motto, “Health by wounds,” which is specially applicable to Christ, by whose stripes we are healed (1 Pet. 2:24).

Ver. 53. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and He will give Me more than twelve legions of angels? A second reason for our Lord forbidding Peter to defend Him. I need not thy aid, since I have at My command all the armies of angels, one of whom slew the host of the Assyrians (2 Kings 19:35). “If one angel,” says S. Chrysostom, “slew so many thousands of armed men, what would twelve legions of them do against one thousand?” He accommodated His discourse to their wish, for they were already half dead with fear. “For Christ Himself as God needed not their aid,” as Origen remarked; “they much rather needed His,” to whom thousands of thousands ministered (see Dan. 7:10).

Christ is within bounds in speaking as He does. For angels are countless, exceeding the number of all men, past, present, and future (see S. Dion. de Cel. Hier. S. Thom. part 1, quæst. 2, art. 3).

Christ here teaches us in every danger to invoke our guardian angels, as most wise, powerful, and full of love for us, as knowing that God orders this to be so. Conf. Ps. 91:11, 34:7; Gen. 32:1, &c.

Ver. 54. But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? And if Scripture foretells My sufferings, “Why do ye oppose it?” says S. Chrysostom. This, then, is the third reason why Christ prohibits His defence by arms. “Though He might have these legions, He was unwilling to have them, in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, that it was fitting He should thus suffer.” For we owe that reverence to the word of God, as not to oppose, but to assent to it and make it good. But thou wilt say, “The Jews then did no sin in killing Christ, because they merely fulfilled the Scriptures.” S. Athanasius (de Cruce) denies the inference. “For they did sin thus boldly against Christ, as fulfilling the words of prophecy, but merely of their own accord, so that the Prophet was not the cause of their acts, but their own free will. Or rather, they themselves caused the Prophets to predict such things of them.” The Jews then perpetrated this sacrilegious murder from their own wickedness and hatred of Christ, and the Prophets only foresaw and foretold it. They did not approve, or order the Jews to do it. But God ordered Christ to bear it all, and thus atone for the sins of men. “Pleasing the suffering, though the deed displeased.” Hence S. Leo (Serm. i. de Pass.) says, “We have nothing to thank you for, O ye Jews; we owe nought to thee, O Judas. For your wickedness promoted our salvation without your will, and that was wrought by you which the hand and counsel of God decreed to be done. That death thus sets us free, but is a charge against you. Ye only justly lose that which ye wished all to lose.” See on Acts 2:23. 24. The fourth reason is given by S. John (18:11). “The cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it? God ordained this cup of the Passion from all eternity, and now gives it Me to drink. Shall I not eagerly take it from His hand, and gladly drain it out?” Observe, He had before deprecated it as a very bitter cup of gall, but now, on knowing the Father’s will, He embraces it, as full of honeyed sweetness. For what is sweeter than for Him to obey God, to offer Himself as a holocaust to God, to make Himself a sacrifice to God for the salvation of men? “How sweetly,” says S. Bernard (Serm. ii. in Pent.), “didst Thou hold converse with men How abundantly didst Thou bestow on them many and great blessings! How boldly didst Thou suffer such indignities and cruelties for men, so as to draw honey from the rock, and oil from the hardest stone!” (Deut. 32:13). Which was hard set against Thy words, harder still at Thy wounds, most hard at the horrors of the Cross; for in all these sufferings He was as a lamb before His shearers, and opened not His mouth (Isa. 53:7).

Ver. 55. In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief, with swords and staves for to take Me? I sat daily with you teaching in the Temple, and ye laid no hold on Me. He had before reproved Peter and the Apostles when they drew their swords; He now reproves still more severely Judas and the Jews who wished to take Him; exhibiting in this way wonderful loftiness, freedom, and calmness of mind. For He said this when He was still free. It was just after He had healed Malchus’ ear. Shame on you, He would say, to come and seize Me by night, as a thief! I am no thief, but publicly taught the Jews in the Temple. Why did ye not seize Me then? I know why you seek to take Me, but I know also that ye were afraid to take Me in the Temple on account of the people. Deal with Me now as you please; I surrender Myself willingly; bind Me, scourge Me at your will, &c This is your hour, and the power of darkness. And ye therefore fittingly come to seize Me by night, because I am the light of the world, and have openly taught the light of truth in the light of day. But ye as children of darkness shun the light and love darkness, and therefore do ye seize Me in the darkness. So say Bede and Theophylact, and S. Leo (Serm. viii. de Pass.), “The sons of darkness rushed against the true Light, and though using torches and lanterns, yet escaped not the darkness of unbelief, because they knew not the Author of light,” &c.

It is clear from S. Luke that it was after these words that the Jews laid hands on Jesus. The order of events (see ver. 50) is here transposed by S. Matthew, who wished to bring together at one time all that related to the seizure of Christ without regard to the order of time.

Lastly, how cruel and insulting was this seizure of Christ! First, as being seized as a malefactor, though most innocent, and in Himself, as God, boundless and uncreated sanctity. Secondly, in being seized by the vilest of men, and His greatest enemies. Thirdly, in being forsaken by the Apostles. Fourthly, because by these His bonds He wished to loose the most grievous and hard bonds of our sins (see Lam. 4:20). Fifthly, because He wished in this way to animate Christians and martyrs especially to bear boldly their imprisonment and bonds, as S. Paul did, Eph. 3:1, and S. Chrysostom in loc. The bonds of many martyrs were cruel, but those of Christ were more cruel still.

This crowd consisted of a thousand soldiers, and also of many attendants and servants of the high priest. See John 18:12.

Ver. 56. But all this was done that the Scriptures of the Prophets might be fulfilled. These are the words of the Evangelist, not of Christ. All these indignities were foreordained in the eternal counsel of God, who willed that Christ should take them all on Himself, and suffer for the salvation of man. And He willed also that the Prophets should foretell them.

Then all the disciples forsook Him, and fled. As He foretold (ver. 31), they fled because they saw no hope of assisting Him, and were afraid lest they themselves should be seized and evil entreated by the Jews. “They were more ready,” says Bede (in Mark 14:49), “to take safety in flight, than to suffer boldly with Christ.” For, as Origen says, “the Spirit was not yet given” (John 7:39). Was this flight of the Apostles allowable? Some say there was little blame in it, because they inwardly and in their minds clave to Christ, though in outward act they fled, as being no longer able to help Him. They were therefore wise in flying, to avoid the risk of either denying Christ or of suffering hardship. But when they had received at Pentecost the gift of the Holy Spirit, they boldly exposed themselves to every trial. This flight of theirs was defective, as arising from fear and failing in resolution, but not unlawful and wicked.

But others regard it as unlawful, as springing from distrust in Christ, and despairing of His aid, by which act they tacitly denied Christ. The first opinion I said (ver. 31) was the most probable. They sinned therefore venially, as struck down by sudden and excessive fear, and without His command or assent. For having experienced so often Christ’s aid in danger, they ought to have still trusted in it, especially after His recent displays of power. They ought to have sought for His aid, and to have prayed, Lord, help us! what wouldst Thou have us to do? And Christ no doubt would have told them. S. Mark here speaks of the young man who left his linen cloak and fled away naked. Who he was, and why he did so, we shall read in S. Mark.

Ver. 57. But they that had laid hold on Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the High Priest, where the scribes and elders were assembled. S. John mentions that they led Him first to Annas, the father-in-law to Caiaphas. This was out of respect to Annas as the elder, or because he especially wished that Christ should be taken. Whence S. Cyril and F. Lucas think that the price of Judas’ betrayal was paid him there, or because the house of Annas was on the road (see on S. John 18:13). For it was in the house of Caiaphas that Christ was first examined, smitten, and denied by S. Peter, as is clear from S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke; and S. John (18:19) also insinuates the same when he says “that the High Priest questioned Jesus.” For when he says (ver. 24) that Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas, it must be considered an analepsis. For John merely goes back to what he had omitted, for fear any one should conclude from his previous statement that Christ had been examined by Annas and not by Caiaphas. Some transpose ver. 24 and put it in after ver. 13, as S. Cyril does. So Origen, S. Augustine (de Cons. Evang. cap. vi.), Jansen, &c.

Were assembled. He says not “were called together,” for this had been done when Judas requested Caiaphas’ soldiers to take Christ. For it was then that Caiaphas summoned the Scribes and Elders to judge and condemn Him as soon as Judas brought Him before them. For they had conceived a deadly hatred against Christ, and thirsted for His death. “They sat watching all the night in Caiaphas’ house,” says S. Chrysostom.

Ver. 58. But Peter followed Him afar off. Peter alone gathered courage, and partly from curiosity, but more from love of Jesus, followed Him; but yet it was “afar off,” for fear he should be seized by the soldiers, both as a disciple of Jesus, and also as having cut off Malchus’ ear. His flight was a token of fear, his return a token of love overmastering his fear. “Peter,” says S. Ambrose in Luke xxii., “is deserving our highest admiration for not forsaking the Lord even when afraid; his fear was natural, his care for Him was from affection; his fear alien to his nature, his not flying natural; his following Him was from devotion, his denial from surprise.” In Peter, therefore, fear and love struggled together; in the first case love overcame fear, but soon afterwards under heavy temptation fear overcame love, when through fear of the attendants he denied Christ.

Unto the High Priest’s house. That is, Caiaphas’. This is more fully stated John 18:15. The disciple there mentioned was S. John, according to S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius. So Jerome (in Epit. Marc.), and Lyranus, who says that John was known to the High Priest from selling him fishes, or because one of his kindred was a servant of the High Priest, or because he had sold his inheritance to the High Priest (Niceph. i. 28). But it is more likely that it was not one of the Apostles, because they were not known to the High Priest. And, moreover, both Christ and his Apostles were hated by the High Priest, and would not have been admitted into his palace by the servants; more likely would have been taken prisoners. Most probably it was one of His secret disciples, according to the Syriac version,

And went in, and sat with the servants. Not into the house where Jesus was to be examined, but into the court. “He approached not the place where Jesus was,” says S. Jerome, “lest he should be suspected, but sat with the servants and warmed himself at the fire,” as the other Evangelists state. Peter erred from imprudence and rashness, for thrusting himself among the servants, and thus exposing himself to the risk of either joining with them in reviling Him, or else of suffering imprisonment and scourging. He therefore shortly afterwards denied Christ. “He that loveth danger shall perish therein” (Ecclus. 3:26).

To see the end. Whether Christ would be condemned or not, or set Himself free from His peril. If condemned, Peter would have taken refuge in flight; if acquitted, he would have dutifully returned to Him.

Ver. 59. But the Chief Priests and all the Council sought false witness against Jesus, to put Him to death. Here comes in S. John’s narrative (18:19).

The High Priest “asked Jesus of His disciples and of His doctrine,” as is there said, because, says Euthymius, “he wished to convict Him of introducing strange doctrines, and of stirring up sedition.” For it was the duty of the High Priest to inquire into heresies and new sects. But Jesus firmly and prudently replied that He had taught openly, and that those who heard His teaching were there present, and though His enemies, could speak to it. Let him ask them what He had taught them. For there is no surer evidence of innocence and sound teaching than that which comes from unfriendly hearers. For had Christ stated His own doctrine, they might have urged that through fear of condemnation He had said one thing in the Council and another in public. “He replied not arrogantly,” says S. Chrysostom, “but as confident in the truth.” Whence He says, “Why askest thou Me?” Why dost thou insidiously and captiously ask Me, thou crafty High Priest, to catch something out of My mouth wherewith to accuse and condemn Me? Thou canst easily learn from the common opinion of the people what I taught them. If thou knowest it not, thou hast not done thy duty as High Priest. And if thou wishest to know it now, ask the bystanders, My enemies, who have often heard Me. Let them produce, if they can, a single untrue or unsound word of Mine. For I know they cannot do so in truth.

But when S. John says “that one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand,” S. Cyril thinks that he was struck with His teaching, and wished to remove this impression by striking Him.

He struck Him on the cheek, as vindicating the honour of the High Priest. Such a blow, inflicted with a mailed hand, was both severe and disgraceful, as appears from the “sacred countenance” which is religiously preserved at S. Peter’s, and exhibited to the people in Passion Week. “What more audacious act?” says S. Chrysostom. “Let the Heaven be horrified, let the earth tremble at the patience of Christ and the insolence of His servants.” “Methinks,” says S. Cyril, “the whole universe would have shuddered had it known what it meant: for the Lord of Glory was smitten by the impious hand of a man.” It is a marvel that this hand was not at once shrivelled up, nay, that the earth had not swallowed the man up alive. But the gentleness and love of Christ prevented this, who called him and many of his fellows to repentance (Acts 2:37). Just as Jeremiah foretold in sorrow, or rather in astonishment, “He will give His cheek to him that smiteth Him. He will be filled full of reproach” (Lam. 3:30).

Now comes in S. Matthew’s narrative. Finding they could find nothing against Him from those who were there, “they sought false witnesses,” as despairing of finding true testimony, because Christ’s wisdom, truthfulness, and sanctity were fully known to all the people.

That they might deliver Him to death. This was the great end for which they sought for false witnesses as a necessary means, though the sole end of justice is to condemn only on true evidence, and to inflict on false witnesses a correspondent punishment. For they wished for their own credit not to appear men of violence, but impartial judges, and consequently to be proceeding judicially against Him, though they were at the same time both judges and accusers, against every rule of justice and equity. “They craftily devise,” says S. Chrysostom, “the outward form and appearance of justice, disguising their craft under the veil of a trial” (Vict. Ant. on Mark xiv.). Again, they wished Him to be condemned by Pilate, but they knew he would not condemn Him unless the crime were proved by witnesses to be deserving of death. The Chief Priests therefore seek false witnesses against Jesus, the Author of life and Saviour of the world, because, though they knew it not, God had decreed to give us, by His death, life both here and hereafter.

Ver. 60. But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. “The wicked men found no semblance of blame in him,” says Origen, “though they were many, astute, and ingenious, so pure and blameless was the life of Jesus.” For the evidence of these witnesses was either false or contradictory, or not to the point, so that He could not be proceeded against as worthy of death.

At last came two false witnesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days. Christ, indeed, had said this (John 2:19), in answer to their request for a sign that He was sent from God. But they were false witnesses, because, though they spake the truth in part, yet they perverted His words and meaning. For, first, He did not say “I am able to destroy,” but “destroy ye,” i.e., “if ye destroy it.” Next, S. Mark says they added the words “made without hands,” though S. John has nothing of the kind. Next, Christ said not, “I will build it again,” but “I will raise it up.” In like manner they distorted its meaning, for He spake of the temple of His Body, in which the fulness of the Godhead dwelt as in a temple, as S. John added. For when the Jews asked for a sign, Christ gave them the sign of His resurrection. Christ might have plainly said, “I will rise again from the dead.” But He chose rather to make use of the figure of the temple, because in the presence of cavillers He was obliged to speak covertly and symbolically, and also by speaking thus obscurely to furnish occasion for His Passion; for He knew that the Jews, from misunderstanding this obscure saying, would prosecute Him as guilty of death. S. Mark here adds, “But neither so did their testimony agree together.” For however boastful these words of Christ seemed to be, yet they injured no one, and a capital charge could not be founded on them.

Ver. 62. And the High Priest arose and said, Answerest Thou nothing to those things which they witness against Thee? He arose, as being indignant that He was silent, and slighted this accusation as futile, and confuted it by His silence. Again, he rose up to show the heinousness and gravity of the crime brought against Christ, as though Christ, in speaking thus, had made light of the magnificence and holiness of the temple.

But Jesus held His peace. 1. Because the charge contained nothing worthy of death, and needed not an answer. 2. Because He knew that anything He might answer would be turned into a charge against Him. 3. Because He was fully preparing Himself for the death decreed for Him of the Father, and wished not to escape it by self-excuse. 4. The silence of Christ atoned for Adam’s excuses (Com. on Mark xiv. apud S. Jer.). Christ was silent, in order by His silence to make satisfaction for Adam’s foolish talking.

Ver. 63. And the High Priest said to Him, I adjure Thee by the Living God that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God. I, the High Priest, am the Vicar of God on earth, and therefore by the authority of God committed to me, I call God to witness, and conjure Thee to answer. Caiaphas here touches the essence of the whole matter. Jesus said that He was the Christ, sent with supreme power for the salvation of men. The Chief Priests pertinaciously denied it. He therefore asks the question not for information, but in order to condemn Him. For if He said He were, they condemned Him to death as a blasphemer; but if He said He were not, he would have replied, Why then didst Thou pass Thyself off with the people as Christ the Son of God? and would consequently have condemned Him as a false Prophet, in having made Himself equal with God, as the Jews urged against Him (John 5:19). For the whole ground of their hatred against Him was that He, a man, as it seemed, of low birth, said He was Christ and Son of God, preached accordingly without their sanction, despised their foolish traditions, and publicly and sharply reproved their vices and crimes.

Ver. 64. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said. Meaning thereby, I am. Christ candidly and clearly replied that He was Christ, both to show reverence to the Divine Name by which He was adjured, and to bestow due honour and obedience to the authority of the High Priest who adjured Him. Says S. Chrysostom, “to take away from them every excuse,” that they might not be able to excuse themselves with men, nor before God in the day of judgment, by saying, We asked Jesus judicially in the Council, but He was either silent or answered ambiguously, wherefore we were not obliged to accept and believe in Him as Christ!

Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power. After this time, i.e., in the day of judgment. Ye shall see Me then, who now seem to be only the Son of Man, to be truly the very Son of God, when I am seated at the right hand of God, and to be His equal in dignity, majesty, and glory. He alludes to Ps. 110:1. I am He of whom David sang of old, “The Lord said unto my Lord,” &c. Christ, moreover, not only as God, but as man too, sitteth on the right hand of God, as explained in Col. 3:1.

The Chief Priests will not strictly and exactly see this in the day of judgment, as being reprobates, and not to be blessed with the sight of God, but to be cursed with the sight of the devil. But indirectly and in effect they will see it. For they will see such great majesty, glory, and splendour, and such a train of angels attending Him, that they will not doubt that He is near to God, nay, God himself, and the Son of God. For they will then experience His omnipotence in glorifying the godly and condemning the ungodly, who here have condemned Him as weak and feeble.

And coming in the clouds of Heaven. Alluding to Dan. 7:13. Behold here, and wonder at His greatness of mind, who though standing in the midst of His enemies, yet threatens them with His coming to judgment. As though He said, Ye now unjustly condemn Me as a false prophet and false Christ, but that day will come when I, who stand at your tribunal, shall be seated as judge. Ye condemn Me now to the death of the Cross; but I, in this very same place (for Christ will sit in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, which is nigh Jerusalem, Joel 3:2), will condemn you to the eternal torture of hell-fire, because ye committed on My person this awful sacrilege, because ye were the murderers of Christ and of God. And surely it will thus be.

Ver. 65. Then the High Priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard His blasphemy. The garments of the Jews could easily be rent, for they were open at the neck, so as to be readily taken on and off. They could therefore easily take hold of both sides of the opening, and tear them down to the waist (but no farther), in token of grief and indignation. This was usual among the heathen, but especially among the Jews, in grief or when they heard blasphemy against God. (See 2 Kings 19:1)

But Caiaphas, being High Priest, tore his garments unlawfully; for “he shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes,” Lev. 21:10: the reasons for which I have there given. But Caiaphas rent his garment to arouse their ill-will against Jesus, and to expose Him as a blasphemer to general execration. But by this very act he signified symbolically that the old law with its priesthood was rent away by the death of Christ, and that he also was deprived of his Priesthood by Him. So S. Leo (Serm. vi. de Pass.) says, “He did this to increase their anger at what they had heard. But not knowing the meaning of his mad act, he deprived himself of the honour of the Priesthood in forgetfulness of the precept, ‘He shall not take off his head-dress, nor rend his clothes.’ ” And Origen says, “He rent his garments, displaying his filthiness and the nakedness of his soul, and showing forth in mystery that the old Priesthood was to be rent away, and its school of Priests, and its training, which was according to the letter.” And Jerome, “He rent his garments to show that the Jews had lost the glory of the Priesthood, and that the seats of the High Priests were empty.” So, too, S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, Jansen, Barradius, and others.

He hath spoken blasphemy, in saying He was the Messiah and Son of God. The High Priest, for fear any one should be influenced by the words of Christ, anticipates it by fastening on Him the charge of blasphemy, to keep any one from speaking in His behalf, and to compel them all to condemn Him as a blasphemer.

What need we any further witness? Caiaphas here displays his wickedness, in not acting as a judge, but as a prosecutor and accuser of Christ. (See S. Chrysostom.)

What think ye? Here again he acts the part of a prosecutor and not of a judge, makes the very enemies of Christ His judges, and by his pontifical authority, and his sentence already decided on, drives them, as it were, to condemn Him as a malefactor. “The same persons,” says S. Chrysostom, “bring the charge, discuss it, and pass sentence.”

But they answered and said, He is guilty of death. Blasphemers were stoned (Lev. 24:16), as S. Stephen was stoned. But they cried out that He was guilty, not of stoning, but of death. For they had already decided to crucify Him. Origen touchingly sets forth the indignity of this most iniquitous sentence. “How great an error was it to declare the Prince of Life Himself guilty of death, and not, on the testimony of so many who had risen, to look on Him as the Fount of Life, from whom life flowed forth on all living! For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself.” What greater indignity than that the Son of God, the source of all life to angels, men, and all living things, should be condemned by the whole Council as guilty of death for having, when asked and adjured by the High Priest, confessed that He was the Son of God?

He had restored sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, life to the dead, and is therefore condemned to death by the envious priests. But they said in ignorance (but in another sense), that though Christ was in Himself most innocent and holy, yet He had taken on Himself to atone for our sins. And on that account He was guilty of death. For Christ took on Himself the sentence passed on Adam and his posterity, “In the day thou eatest thereof,” &c. (Gen. 2:17). For He wished to atone for our death, that by His death He might restore us to the eternal life of grace and glory. And accordingly He took on Himself this most undeserved sentence with the greatest calmness, equanimity, and patience, and surrendered Himself to God the Father as a victim for our sins (see Isa. 53), to teach us to bear contentedly (after His example, and for love of Him) the unjust judgments, the reproaches and censures of men, in order to make the best return to Him we can; while in His service we are treated as guilty of death, just as He was, by the whole Council, judged and proclaimed guilty of death for our sakes.

Tropologically: a Christian who sins condemns our Redeemer a second time to death, kills Him (as it were), and crucifies Him (see Heb. 6:6). Whence S. Bridget (Rev. i. 37) tells us that the Blessed Virgin said to her, “I complain that my Son is crucified more cruelly by His enemies in the world now, than He was by the Jews. For the sins with which they spiritually crucify my Son are more abominable and grievous than the sins of those who crucified Him in the body.” Some suppose that this Council was held early the next day, and that everything here recorded by S. Matthew from ver. 59 is spoken by anticipation, and ought to come after the first verse of the next chapter (see S. Aug. de Cons. Evan. iii. 7, &c.). Others maintain, more correctly, that these events were recorded by S. Matthew in due order, and that they took place immediately after midnight. For there were two Councils held, one at night, the one here mentioned, the second next morning (Luke 22:66). For as all the Council were not present at night, Caiaphas summoned a general assembly in the morning, to which he convened them all. In this Christ was condemned unanimously as guilty of treason, not only against Divine law in calling Himself the Son of God, but against human law also, in asserting that He was a King, and was given up to Pilate to sentence Him to crucifixion. The great Council (the Sanhedrim) was held in the morning.

Ver. 67. Then they spat on His face. Great and brutal was the barbarity of the servants, as also of the Chief Priests and the Councillors who permitted it. But they considered they did rightly, in vindicating their law and the honour of God, since Christ had been already condemned to death as a blasphemer. Those who held Him, and the other bystanders as well, and some, too, of the Council (as S. Mark implies), spat upon Him.

On that Divine face, worthy of reverence and adoration from all creatures, on which the angels desire to look. This was an atrocious insult inflicted by the vilest men on Christ the Son of God, who here exhibited stupendous gentleness, humility, and patience, and fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah (2:6), “I gave My back to the smiters, and My cheeks to them that pluck off the hair.” Whence Forerius says that the plucking of the beard was a great pain and insult, like spitting in the face. Whence S. Clement Alex. (Pæd. iii. 3) says “it is a monstrous thing to pluck off the hair, which is man’s natural beauty.”

Whence Euthymius says, “Shudder, ye heavens and earth, and all creation; for what face was it on which they inflicted such insults?” And so S. Chrysostom, and Titus Bostrensis after him, “They spat on that face which the waves of the sea feared, on seeing which on the Cross the sun hid his rays; they smote it, fully satisfying their anger, inflicting the most insulting wounds, thrusting their hands into His face, &c. But why did they beat Him when they were about to kill Him? What need was there for such insults? But their cruelty was manifest in all they did, like hunters who vent their rage on the prey they have at length found, counting it a pleasure and festive sport, and showing how eager they were for cruelty.”

S. Anselm (de Pass. Dom.) introduces the Blessed Virgin as thus saying, “After a little while my Son appeared covered with spittle as with leprosy;” and speaking of His scourging says, “My Son was so benumbed and disfigured, that He appeared as though struck with leprosy.”

They buffeted Him. A buffet (colaphus) is a blow struck with the fist on the neck or head; a blow (alapa) is given with the flat of the hand on the cheek, inflicting greater insult, but less pain than the blow (colaphus).

But others struck Him in the face with their hands. Some translate ῥαπίς as a rod or a slipper. But here, by a misuse of words, it means “a blow.” Christ is therefore here accused as impious,—struck with the hand, as impudent; speaks as the Lord, is silent as innocent; is condemned as sacrilegious; is smitten with fists, “though He measures out the waters with the hollow of His hand” (Isa. 40). His countenance, the brightness of His Father’s glory, is disfigured with blows. His eyes are veiled who lays bare the secrets of the hearts and looks into all thoughts. He is insulted, beaten, and assailed with scoffs, and has His hair torn out.

Ver. 68. Frophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote Thee? They jest at Him for saying He was a Prophet. If Thou art a Prophet, prophesy to us. They seem to have said this insultingly, after they had covered His face. If Thou art the Christ, Thou canst not be ignorant of what is hid from Thee. Tell us who smote Thee? They jested at Him as a pretended soothsayer. “The King of Prophets,” says Theophylact gravely, “is jested at as a false Prophet.” “They insultingly covered His face, so as to make mock of Him, and next that they might not be deterred from beating Him by His Divine countenance,” says Jansen. “For His majesty beamed forth in His countenance,” says S. Jerome.

Mystically: Christ when veiled signified that He hid His face from the Jews, who were deprived of faith and the knowledge of God. Just as Moses, a type of Christ, when he veiled his eyes on coming down from the Mount, signified the same thing (2 Cor. 3:13). In his own words, “I will hide my face from them” (Deut. 32:20).

Tropologically: it signifies that He atoned for Adam and Eve’s sin, for they sinned both with their eyes and their mouths, in looking at and then eating the forbidden fruit. Christ therefore, to expiate this sin, suffered His mouth and eyes to be covered. For, as S. Augustine says, “Christ suffered in all the members in which man has sinned, that He might expiate all.”

Christ, moreover, endured all these sufferings with steadfast patience. “As He,” says S. Chrysostom, “omitted no act of gentleness, so did they omit no act of insult or impiety, but sought to glut their rage both in word and deed.”

The Delphic Sibyl thus foretold—

“Then impious Israel

Will buffet Him, and from their sinful lips

Will pour their poisonous spittle,

And will give, for food the gall, and vinegar to drink,” &c.

And the Erythræan Sibyl (Lact. iv. 18)—

“The innocent will give His back to blows,” &c.

The reason for these insults was—First, That Christ should thus expiate the infinite sins with which men (so far as they can) inflict the greatest injuries on God. For the sinner, so far as he can, spits upon God, buffets and beats Him, because he despises Him, and esteems Him less than the creature which he loves. So Origen, “He suffered all these indignities to save us who deserved them all.” “His reproaches took away our reproach,” Pseudo-Jerome on S. Mark. “It was not Christ that suffered, but we suffered in Him,” says S. Athanasius. Christ wished to endure all these dire sufferings in order to honour God the more, and to make the greater satisfaction for the wrong done Him. His Passion therefore honoured God more than Adam’s sin dishonoured Him. Add to this, that wicked men insult God, and invent fresh ways of insulting Him. Christ therefore willed to be insulted, and to expiate their newly-devised sins by His newly-devised insults.

Secondly, to set forth the highest pattern of patience and virtue. If any one, therefore, desires a specimen of the greatest humility, gentleness, obedience, patience, constancy, charity, let him look on Christ suffering and crucified, and imitate Him as far as he can. “According to the pattern I showed to thee in the Mount” of Calvary (Exod. 25:40). “Wondrous is Thy Passion, O Lord Jesus,” says S. Bernard (Wednesday in Holy Week), “which hath driven away all our sufferings, makes propitiation for all our iniquities, and is never found ineffectual in all our diseases. For what is so deadly as not to be healed by Thy death? In this Passion, then, three things we must specially look at: the act, the mode, the cause; for in the act, patience; in the mode, humility; in the cause, charity,—is specially commended to us.”

Thirdly, to animate the martyr to endure every kind of torment, and the faithful to bear any injuries, by whomsoever imposed. “He endured them all with great courage, teaching us to bear injuries,” says Euthymius, deriving from Christ adamantine hardness; as Isaiah (50:7) says, “I have set my face as a flint, and I know that I shall not be confounded. He is near that justifieth me; who will contend with me?” For as iron is hardened the more it is struck with the hammers, and is so far from being broken by them that it breaks them itself; so let us, the more we are afflicted, exhibit the greater courage, and thus by our patience overcome the hatred of our adversaries (see Ezek. 3:9). Again, as iron breaks iron, so do the patient overcome the obstinate wickedness of the ungodly, of whom Zecharias says (7:12), “They made their hearts as adamant, lest they should hear the law.” “For nothing is so hard as not to be surpassed by something harder,” says S. Bernard. Moreover, S. Athanasius says (de Cruce), “Just as when a man strikes a stone with his hand, he does not break the stone, but hurts his hand; so they who strove against the Lord, as contending against incorruption, were corrupted, and as plotting against the Immortal, themselves perished.”

And so the Jews, for these insults offered to Christ, were rejected by God, and exposed to universal reprobation. “They received,” says Origen, “a lasting blow, and lost all their Prophets; whereas God exalted Jesus, who humbled Himself even unto death, and gave Him a name which is above every name.”

After Caiaphas had with the whole Council proclaimed Christ to be guilty of death, the servants of the High Priest and some of the Council insulted Him for three whole hours, while the others lay down to rest, to be ready to proceed with the case in the morning.

Indeed, He was subjected all the night through to cruel injuries, and bore them all with sweetness and fortitude.

S. Bernard (Serm. xliii. in Cant. i. 12), on the words, “My beloved is as a bundle of myrrh,’ wisely and piously observes, “He made up this bundle from the reproaches and insults of these attendants,” and adds, “This healthful posy is preserved for me; no one shall take it from me. It shall lie between my breasts. These I said meditated wisdom; in these I established the perfections of my righteousness, in these the fulness of wisdom, in these the riches of salvation, in these abundance of merits. From these there came to me one while the heathful draught of bitterness, at another the sweet ointment of consolation. They sustain me in adversity, those check me in prosperity; and amidst the joys and sorrows of this present life they afford me safe guidance on either side as I walk along the royal road, and ward off imminent dangers on both sides.”

Ver. 69. Now Peter sat without in the hall: and a damsel came unto Him, saying, And thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. S. Matthew here goes back to the history of S. Peter, whom he speaks of (ver. 58) as having followed Jesus into the hall; and he here brings together in one S. Peter’s three denials, though they took place at different times. He sat at the fire warming himself. S. John says he stood; but this with the Jews merely meant that he was present, not any particular attitude. He stood, it may be, at one time, and sat at another.

But if he stood without, how was it that he was within the house? He was within, as being in the outer court, but without with respect to the inner court. Whence S. Ambrose says (Luke 22), “Where was it that Peter denied Christ? In the prætorium of the Jews, in the company of the wicked.” And Bede, too, on Mark 14., “How hurtful is converse with the wicked! Peter amongst the servants of the High Priest said he knew not the man, though among the disciples he had confessed Him to be God.”

A damsel. One of inferior degree, “a doorkeeper,” says S. John. Hence we see more clearly the weakness and fear of Peter, who was staggered by the question of a humble damsel, and denied Christ; though afterwards, when he had received the Spirit, feared not Caiaphas, or the whole Council, when he said, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 4). Learn from this how weak is man when over-confident in himself and forsaken of God; and, on the other hand, how bold, if he distrusts himself and trusts in God. “Peter without the Spirit was overcome by the words of the damsel, but with the Spirit he yielded neither to rulers nor kings” (Com. on S. Mark, apud S. Jerome).

But how did this damsel recognise Peter before all the men who had seen him in the garden with Christ? Because, as the doorkeeper, she carefully noticed those who went in and out. And she observed that Peter was not one of the servants, but a stranger, and with an agitated look, and hence conjectured he was a follower of Jesus. For sagacious doorkeepers are quick in detecting, for it is difficult to conceal the feelings, and not to betray them by the look. Perhaps, also, she had seen Peter with the other Apostles, and had carefully noted his appearance.

Of Galilee. For Jesus was of Nazareth in Galilee, and he calls him a Galilean, both as despised by the Jews, who thought that no Prophets came from thence (John 7:52), and also as a seditious person, a follower of Judas of Galilee (Acts 5:37).

Ver. 70. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. Fearing he would be seized, and to obtain belief for his denial, he said that her question was so strange that he knew not what it meant. “I am so far from knowing who Jesus is, that I know not what it is you ask. For I know not whether He has disciples, or who and what they are.” It was a lie; just as when a person, if asked by Pagans whether he is a Christian, says he is not. This is a sin against the profession of the faith, of which Peter had heard Christ’s warnings and threatenings (Matt. 10:33). “But Peter,” says Victor of Antioch, “was in such consternation and agitation of mind as entirely to forget the Lord’s threatening.” And hence S. Augustine (on John xviii. 65), commiserating his fall, exclaims, “Behold this most firm pillar tumbled at one single breath of air! Where is now that boldness of promising, that over-confidence in himself? Where are his words, ‘If I should die with Thee, I will not deny Thee’? But what marvel if God’s prediction proved true, and man’s presumption false?”

Denied. How many times? Dionys. Carthus. says six times, thrice in the house of Annas. S. John implies, thrice in the house of Caiaphas, as the other Evangelists expressly state (see S. Aug. de Cons. Evang. iii. 6). Cajetan (on John 18) says seven times, thrice when addressed by women, and four times by men.

But the common opinion is that he denied only thrice. See S. Cyril on John xviii.; S. Ambrose (Luke xxii.), and others. And this is clear from S. Matthew’s narrative, who sets forth the history succinctly, and in the best order.

The Evangelists relate his threefold denials in different ways. But in order to reconcile them, observe that Peter first simply denied in the hall, when asked by the first damsel, next with an oath, when asked by the second, and thirdly, with cursing and swearing.

Here observe that S. Hilary on this passage, and S. Ambrose on Luke xxii., seem to say that Peter in denying Christ did not lie, but spoke ambiguously. For he said he knew not the man, because he knew Him to be God. “I was not with Him whom ye call a man, but I withdrew not from the Son of God,” says S. Ambrose. I know not what thou sayest,—that is, I understand not your profanity. But S. Jerome tacitly refutes them, as Christ does also by saying, “Thou shalt thrice deny Me.” But SS. Hilary and Ambrose can both be excused, because they merely meant to say that Peter’s words were so measured that a sound meaning could be elicited from them, that he spoke so ambiguously that his words of denial could be turned into a good meaning.

1. It is certain, therefore, that Peter sinned mortally. So S. Chrysostom here, and S. Augustine (Tract. cxiii. on John). He therefore lost by his denial the grace and love of God. But whether he lost his faith is doubtful. But if any one of the Apostles retained his faith it was Peter (see above, ver. 31), especially as he soon afterwards repented, and wept bitterly for his sin of denial. He therefore mentally retained his faith, which moved him to repentance and tears. 2. He was to fall thus gravely for three reasons. First (which is the source of all), from over-confidence; next, because, though conscious of his weakness, he threw himself into the company of the wicked men who had seized Jesus; and lastly, that he, the future head of the Church, might learn to have compassion for the fallen, and set a pattern of true penitence to all sinners. So S. Chrysostom, S. Leo (Serm. ix. de Pass.), S. Gregory (Hom. xxi.), and others.

The first denial took place just after midnight. He went away for fear the damsel should question him again.

And the cock crew. This first cock-crowing did not rouse Peter from his fall, nor keep him from falling again.

Ver. 71. But as he was going out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said to them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. “It is clear,” says S. Augustine (de Cons. Evang. iii. 6), “by comparing the testimony of all the Evangelists, that Peter did not deny in front of the gate, but within it, in the hall by the fire. S. Matthew and S. Mark mention his going, but for brevity’s sake do not mention his return.”

Ver. 72. And immediately he denied with an oath, I know not the man. It appears from S. Luke and S. John that several others put the same question, and pressed him hard. On which Peter, finding that a stronger answer was required, added an oath, i.e., committed perjury; for, as S. Gregory says, “a sin which is not blotted out by repentance, by its very weight quickly draws on to another,” both because it weighs down, depresses, and weakens the conscience, and also because the sinner thinks that as he has sinned, it is of little moment if he falls again into the like sin. Some Christians when they have once fallen into fornication or gluttony repeat the sin, as thinking, “We have already fallen, let us fall again, and then by the same confession we shall blot out all our sins together.” But they are wrong; for a second is a new offence against God, and inflicts on the soul a new wound more deadly than the first; for repentance is more difficult after repeated sin than after the first fall. “Perseverance in sin causes increase of guilt,” says Rabanus. His intercourse with the ungodly, which he ought to have given up after his first fall, drove Peter to this, though, assuredly, he never should have done it, as having experienced its noxiousness and his weakness in their company.

Ver. 73. And after a while came unto him they that stood by and said unto him, Surely thou art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee.

Ver. 74. Then began he to curse and swear, saying, I know not the man. The servants who were watching the trial at the door after a while returned to the fire, and turning to Peter, tempted him again, and forced him to his third denial. They gave their reason, “Thy speech bewrayeth thee;” from his Galilean dialect. S. John adds (18:26) a further charge, for a kinsman of Malchus said, “Did I not see thee in the garden with Him?” Peter, therefore, finding himself driven to extremities, “began to curse and swear” that he knew not the man, saying, after the Hebrew manner, May God do these things to me if I know Him. May the earth open, may the lightning blast me, if I know Him. The Greek word is καταναθεματίζειν, to anathematise vehemently, to call curses down on oneself. “The more they urge and insist upon it, the more vehemently does he swear, the more obstinately does he act,” says Victor of Antioch on Mark xiv. “Consider here,” says S. Cyril (Lib. xii. on John), “what the Apostles were before the coming of the Holy Spirit, and what they were made afterwards, when endued with power from on high.”

And immediately the cock crew. To remind Peter of Christ’s prediction, and to move him to repentance. S. Luke adds, “And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter,” &c. This look, then, as S. Ambrose teaches, caused Peter, who had not noticed the first cock-crowing, to notice this, to call to mind his warning, and to begin to repent and weep. “Christ looked on Peter,” says S. Leo, “and then raised him up.” He looked on him also with the eyes of His mind, putting before him the baseness of his denial, and urging him on to repentance (S. Augustine, Bede, Ambrose, and others). And with His bodily eyes also, because Christ, after being pronounced guilty of death, seems to have been brought down to the outer hall, which was below, and where Peter was; and there turning to him, and smiting him with His gracious look, He reminded him of his fall, and recalled him to himself Christ seems to have been brought down to this hall that, while the Priests were taking a little rest, He might be handed over to the custody and insolence of their attendants. Or Christ certainly from the inner hall saw Peter standing in the outer one, Christ’s overruling providence so ordering everything, that a fit opportunity was afforded for looking on Peter.

Here admire alike the loftiness and the charity of Christ. For though already condemned to death, and in the midst of His insults and blows, He seemed as it were to forget Himself, and to care for Peter, to bring him back as a lost sheep into the path of safety, and teach us to do the like. It was so with S. Chrysostom, who, when driven into exile, and even to death, seemed to forget himself, and wrote most affectionate letters to his friends; and exhorts Constantius, his presbyter, not to be downcast at his persecution, but to rouse himself, and send apostolic men to convert Phoenicia, and write him an account of their proceedings. For the energy and courage of the helmsman is exhibited in the storm, as that of a soldier in fight, a general in the field, a physician in the paroxysm of a disease. S. Leo (Serm. iii. de Pass.) observes, “The Lord looked on Peter, and though exposed to the revilings of the Priests, the falsehoods of the witnesses, and the insults of those who smote and spat upon Him, He met His troubled disciple with those eyes wherewith He foresaw he would be troubled. And the glance of truth was turned on him in whom amendment of heart was to be wrought, as though the voice of the Lord sounded within him, and said, What doest thou, Peter? Why dost thou withdraw into thine own conscience? Turn to Me, trust in Me, follow Me; this is the time of My passion, the hour of thy punishment has not yet arrived. Why fearest thou that which thou also wilt overcome? Let not the weakness I have taken upon Me perplex thee; I was trembling for thy fate, be not thou anxious for Mine.” And therefore “it was impossible,” says S. Jerome, “that he should remain in the darkness of denial, since the Light of the World had looked upon him.”

Ver. 75. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus which He said, Before the cock crow twice (S. Mark adds), thou shalt deny Me thrice. And he went out and wept bitterly. “After the herald of day cried to him,” says Origen, “he remembered.” And Victor of Antioch on Mark xiv. says, “He was admonished by the cock crowing, and, as if aroused from deep sleep and brought back again to himself, he remembered that he had fallen into that very sin and disgrace which the Lord had foretold.”

Symbolically: a cock. Our own conscience is given to us by God, which cries out against us as oft as we sin, and says, Why committest thou this great sin? Why dost thou offend God? Why dost thou hurt thyself, and expose thyself to the peril of hell? This cry wounds the conscience, and stimulates it to repentance; and whoso hears and regards it feels true compunction with S. Peter, and does away his sin by penitence. So Laur. Justin de Christi agone, cap. ix. So, too, S. Gregory (Mor. xxx. 4), explaining Job 38:36 (Vulg.), “Who hath given the cock understanding?”

And he went out. Because he could not weep before the Jews, lest he should betray himself; and because the very sight of them was the cause of his denying Christ. As he was penitent, this ground for falling away had to be removed. He goes forth, therefore, and gives full vent to his tears. “For he could not,” says S. Jerome, “manifest his repentance when sitting in the hall of Caiaphas; he therefore goes away from the council of the wicked to wash away the filth of his cowardly denial with the tears of love.”

Calvin objects, that this was but a halting repentance, because he did not confess his sin before the Jews, in whose presence he had denied Christ, and thus do away with the scandal he had caused them. I reply, that he had not given them any scandal so as to strengthen them in their hatred of Christ, for they were already most determined in their hatred of Him. And if he had retracted his denial in their presence, it would have been without any benefit, nay, with hurt both to himself and them. For he would have exposed himself to the risk of relapse, and them to the peril of feeling greater indignation against Christ; and they would then have punished more severely both himself and Christ

Wept bitterly. He wept with bitter tears (in the Arabic), as though his great sorrow had embittered his heart, so as to shed bitter tears in satisfaction for his sin. “For” (as S. Bernard says) “the tears of penitents are the wine of angels”—nay, of God and Christ. Hear S. Ambrose (in Luc. xxii.), “Why wept he? Because his sin came into his mind. Peter grieved and wept because he had erred as a man. To fall is a common thing, to repent is of faith. But why did he not pray rather than weep?” He answers, “Tears wash away the sin which the voice is ashamed to confess. Tears do not ask for pardon, they merit it. I know why Peter kept silence. It was because an earlier request for pardon would have added to his offence. We must weep first, and then pray.” And shortly after he says, “Teach us, O Peter, what did thy tears profit thee! Thou hast taught us already. For thou didst fall before thou wept. But after thy tears thou wast raised up to rule others, though before thou couldest not rule thyself.”

Thou wilt say that S. Ambrose remarks in the same passage, “I read of the tears of Peter, but not of his satisfaction.” These words the Calvinists pervert, as doing away with works of satisfaction, and destroying their efficacy. But ignorantly and foolishly. For S. Ambrose means by “satisfaction” excuses for sin, as appears from what follows. “I read that Peter lamented his sin, and did not excuse it, as guilty men are wont to do.” But Peter confessed his sin with loving tears. And there is no question among the orthodox that such works are satisfactory.

S. Clement, the disciple and successor of S. Peter, records that Peter was so penitent, as his whole life afterwards to fall on his knees when he heard the cock crow, shed bitter tears, and ask pardon again of God and Christ for his sin, long since forgiven. His eyes also gave evidence of this, being bloodshot from constant weeping (Niceph. ii. 37). And lastly, Peter compensated for his fall by living to his death an austere life, feeding on lupins (S. Gregory Naz. de Amore pauperum), and also by his unwearied labours as an apostle, his persecutions, his sorrows, and, finally, his death on the cross, which he most resolutely and joyfully underwent for Christ’s sake.

S. Bridget records (Rev. iii. 5) that S. Peter appeared to her, and stated that the cause of his fall was his forgetfulness of his own resolution and the promise he made to Christ. And he thence suggests this remedy for temptation, “Rise up by humility to the Lord of Memory, and seek for memory from Him.”

Father Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on Matthew 20:1-16

Mt 20:1. The kingdom of heaven is like to an householder, who went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. 

The kingdom of Heaven is like. That is, God acts in the kingdom of Heaven like a master hiring labourers into his vineyard; for strictly speaking, the kingdom of Heaven is not like the householder himself, but like his house and family.

Christ’s purpose is by means of this parable to prove the truth of His last saying in the preceding chapter, many that are first shall be last, &c., and to shew that by the grace of God, without any injustice or injury to anyone it will come to pass that those who here seemed to have the first place will in the Day of Judgment have the last, and those who seemed to have the last will then have the first; that is, that the Apostles and the despised faithful who followed Christ will in the kingdom of Heaven be preferred to the Scribes and Pharisees; and the believing Gentiles to the Jews, who were called by the Lord that they might obtain the first place in the kingdom of God, that is, in the Church both militant and triumphant; or, that the Sons of the New Testament, and especially the Apostles who are to sit on twelve thrones in the Day of Judgment, will be preferred to the Sons of the Old Testament, who under the shadows of legal sacrifices performed a laborious service, because, trusting to the works of the Law, they falsely claimed the kingdom of God for themselves, and rejected Christ. Whence they deservedly lost the kingdom; while the others submitted with humility to Christ, and zealously co-operated with Him, and therefore were elected in preference to the Jews both to grace and glory. That this is the scope of the parable is evident, 1. From the saying which precedes and follows it, many that are first, &c. 2. From S. Luke, who in chap. 13:29, 30, explains these same words of the admission of the Gentiles and the exclusion of the Jews. 3. Because otherwise we cannot explain the murmuring of those who were first called, for in Heaven among the blessed there is no murmuring, but only in hell among the damned.

By the vineyard we are to understand the Church; by the market place the world; by those called at the first, third, and sixth hour, the Jews, called in their fathers, Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, to the faith and worship of God; by those called at the eleventh hour, we are to understand the Gentiles; by the evening, the Day of Judgment, in which each will receive his reward, either already given in this life (as it was given to the Jews), or to be then given, as in the case of the Gentiles in Heaven.

By the penny (denarius) is signified a whole day’s pay. The denarius was a common coin, of which there were many different kinds; for there was the copper, the silver, and the gold denarius. And it is clear that the pay given to the labourers was unequal, because the last were preferred to the others who came at the first, third, and sixth hour, for although the latter had laboured for a longer time, yet the former had laboured with greater grace, diligence and zeal.

You will say then, that to the greater labourer the less reward is given. I answer: True, but not to the greater merit; for to this a greater reward is always due, and is always given, Moreover, it is not the greater labourer that makes the merit greater, but grace, and co-operation with grace. The Apostles had greater grace than the Scribes, Christians than Jews, and co-operated more with grace, and therefore the greater denarius, i.e., the greater reward was promised them. For to the Jews the denarius promised by God was a temporal reward, an abundance of temporal blessings; but to the Gentile Christians was promised by Christ a denarius far more noble, namely eternal life. The Jews therefore received a denarius of copper or silver, the Christians one of gold. For otherwise if the denarius signified exactly the same reward, it would not agree with the words which precede and follow the parable—the first shall be last, and the last first.

In a word, the parable signifies that the Gentiles who believe in Christ will be preferred to the Jews who despise Christ. And this is what S. Paul teaches in many places, and especially in his Epistle to the Romans. And Christ Himself says, The publicans and harlots go into the Kingdom of God before you. (See also S. Matt. 8:11, 12, and S. Luke 13:28, 30.)

According to this sense, the first will be saved, the last will be damned. But in another sense, the first who will be the last arc those who were first called but arrive at their reward last; while the last who will be the first are those who though called last become the first in reward. Whence the Fathers, doctors, and schoolmen commonly explain this parable as if Christ intended to say that the first as well as the last, i.e., Jews as well as Christians, who serve God, will receive the same eternal life; nor will it be to the injury of anyone that he has been called at the end of the world or of his own life; yea, rather he will be preferred in heavenly glory before others who were called long before, if with greater labour and zeal he co-operated with the greater grace given him by God. This is the interpretation of S. Jerome, S. Augustine, S. Chrysostom, S. Thomas, Maldonatus, Gregorius de Valentia, Bellarmine (lib. iii. de Justificatione, cap. 16), and Suarez. And this interpretation is very probable, and it is much in its favour, that it is better explained in this way how the same denarius is given to all the labourers. For the Fathers everywhere by the denarius understand eternal life.

You will say, how is it that in this denarius the first and the last are equal, since the first excel the last in the felicity and glory of eternal life? I answer, that the same denarius denotes the same blessing generically and objectively, i.e., the same Divine essence which constitutes the blessedness of the saints; for this is one and the same, but nevertheless the fruition of it is different according to their different degrees of merit; for those who have served God with greater grace and labour, as those did who were called last, will behold God in a clearer and more perfect vision, and therefore will have a fuller fruition of His love, and will be more blessed than those who served God with less grace and labour. So S. Gregory, S. Augustine, S. Jerome, S. Thomas (Part I., quæst. 15, art. 6), and others explain it. To these may be added Bellarmine in the place already quoted, for that denarius, he says, signifies an equality of eternity, not of glory. Again, this opinion is favoured by the words of Christ (chap. 19:21, and following), which are closely connected with this parable. And now to explain the several points of the parable according to this sense: By the day is to be understood the course of this world; by the various hours the different ages of the world; so that the first hour is the age from Adam to Noah, the second that from Noah to Abraham, the third from Abraham to Moses, the sixth from Moses to Christ, the eleventh from Christ to the end of the world. Thus S. Hilary, S. Gregory, and Theophylact explain it. Or the day is the life of each man; the first hour being infancy; the third, youth; the sixth, manhood; the ninth, old age; the eleventh, decrepitude. So S. Jerome and S. Basil explain it. By the murmuring, understand with Theophylact, Suarez, and others, the surprise of the saints when those who shall be less in glory, and yet (as the Jews) had laboured more here will wonder that others, who laboured less here, but excelled them in the measure of grace, are preferred to them in glory. To conclude: the sense will be complete and adequate, if this second meaning is taken in conjunction with the first; for as I said at the end of the preceding chapter, the last can be taken in both ways—either as meaning the last, in the sense of the damned, or the last in Heaven itself, and therefore saved. The first sense applies to those who were first called, and clearly explains their murmuring; while the second sense applies to those last called, and in their case clearly explains the denarius, how the same denarius—i.e., eternal life—is given to all. Wherefore, the second sense supplies the first, and the first supplies what is wanting in the second.

Tropologically. The vineyard is the soul which each man has to cultivate. Morally, therefore, we learn that we are called to labour in the vineyard, i.e., our own souls and the Church of God. The cultivators of this vineyard are not held in honour for the time during which they have laboured, but for the diligence, the zeal, and the spirit with which they have laboured. S. Jerome (Epist. 13, ad Paul): Hence the Spouse in the Canticles says, They have made me keeper of the vineyards, mine own vineyard have I not kept. The essence of the soul is the vineyard, planted in the soil of the body; its faculties are the vines, and works of charity are its wine; the vines are to be fastened to the Cross, at the foot of which we make a grave, against the approach of our death and burial. This vineyard must be kept from the wild boar out of the wood (Ps. 80)—i.e., from lustful pleasure; and from the singular wild beast (Vulg.)—i.e., from the sin of pride, which makes a man singular; from the fox of cunning flattery; from the wolf of greediness; from the dog of detraction. We must pray the Lord to send upon this His vineyard the rain of His doctrine, and the warmth of His charity, and dung—i.e., the memory of the death of His Son and of the holy martyrs. The soul is green like a vineyard with flowers and leaves, that is, with holy desires and edifying speech; it pours forth the tears of compunction; it sheds forth the sweet odour of virtue; it bears the ripe grapes of good works. Again, the faithful man performs in his own soul the same works as the vine-dresser in the vineyard. He prunes, hoes, transplants, disentangles, &c.; the faithful does the same mystically in his own soul.

Mt 20:2 And having agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.

And now to explain each verse briefly. Verse 2. Having agreed with the labourers. Jovian and Calvin have asserted that all the just are equal in reward, i.e., in the denarius of eternal life, and that therefore they are equal in merit, and all good works are equal. But I have already answered that all are equal generally in eternal life; but in this there will be degrees, for some will have a clearer and others a dimmer vision of God, and therefore the one will be more and the others less blessed and glorious.

Mt 20:3. And going out about the third hour, he saw others standing in the marketplace idle. 

And he went out about the third hour. The Romans and the Jews used to divide the night as well as the day into twelve hours reckoned in four periods which in the night were called watches. The first hour began at sunrise, the sixth at midday. Again, in winter the hours were shorter in the day and longer in the night, and the reverse in summer.

Mt 20:4. And he said to them: Go you also into my vineyard, and I will give you what shall be just.

And He said to them, go you also. To these He does not promise a denarius, but what is right (just, Vulg.) By this is signified the merit of good works, which according to justice merits a reward, which God promises to each work according to distributive justice.

Mt 20:5. And they went their way. And again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did in like manner. 

And again He went out. This shews the carefulness of God who is desirous that all men should be workers in the vineyard of their own souls, and of the Church, that both may be adorned with fruits of every kind.

Mt 20:6. But about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing, and he saith to them: Why stand you here all the day idle?

About the eleventh hour. This is the last hour of the day, and those called at this hour are Christians. Origen says that Adam was called at the first hour, Paul at the eleventh.

Mt 20:7. They say to him: Because no man hath hired us. He saith to them: Go ye also into my vineyard.

Because no man hath hired us. This is the vain excuse, S. Chrysostom says, of slothful men; for God calls all to virtue from childhood. But again S. Chrysostom says the hiring is the promise of eternal life: but the Gentiles knew neither God nor the promises of God, so they say that they had not been hired, or called, though they had been called by the law and light of nature.

Mt 20:8. And when evening was come, the lord of the vineyard saith to his steward: Call the labourers and pay them their hire, beginning from the last even to the first.

And when the evening was come. The evening is the end of the world and the Day of Judgment.

Symbolically, Origen understands by the steward the holy Angels, as S. Michael; but Remigius understands Christ, Who as man is the steward of God the Father, and in His name will judge the quick and dead. Irenæus (lib. iv. contr. hær. c. 70) understands the Holy Spirit who dispenses both gifts and graces, and glory and rewards.

The Gentiles had more grace, and co-operated with grace more than the Jews who were first called, and therefore they obtain a higher place in Heaven. We may learn from this that a man may easily gain an increase of merit and glory if he practise frequent acts of charity, and perform all external works from charity and the love of God; for thus he will merit more even than the religious who undergo hard penances, if he practise his works with greater charity than they do, although they be less difficult,

Beginning from the last. S. Gregory says, Those who are called at the end of life are often times rewarded before others, inasmuch as they depart out of the body into the kingdom before those who were called in childhood.

Mt 20:9. When therefore they were come that came about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. 
Mt 20:10. But when the first also came, they thought that they should receive more: And they also received every man a penny.

When therefore they were come that came about the eleventh hour; they received every man a penny. This penny (denarius) was, as I have said above, in kind the same, but in appearance different. The meaning is that the Apostles and Christians called in the last age of the world have received a better denarius, and one that corresponds (congruentem) and is due to their labour and merit.

You will say that the first called, murmured and said, Thou hast made them equal to us, and therefore the same denarius was given to both; for if it had been a better one, they would have said, Thou hast made them superior to us, and they would have murmured much more.

I answer, that the day’s hire is given to workmen in the evening, and therefore those who come last could not easily perceive what sort of denarius was given to those who preceded them, but they only heard the steward say to each, receive your denarius: or if they did see it, they could not clearly perceive in the darkness that they had received a copper denarius, while the others had received a gold one. For copper (aurichaleum) resembles gold in glow and brightness, so that they thought the same denarius was given to them as themselves, and were offended. All this parabolically signifies the envy of the Jews against the Gentiles, for they were offended because the Gentiles were made equal to them in the grace and glory of their Messiah: for they thought that these things were due properly and entirely to them alone, but to the Gentiles only by a certain gratuitous dispensation. Whence arose that contention of the Jews against S. Peter for preaching the Gospel to Cornelius; and that more vehement contention against S. Paul, as is clear from the Acts of the Apostles.

If you ask why Christ did not say expressly that those who came at the eleventh hour received a greater denarius, I answer that Christ was not here treating of that point, but He only intended to eradicate from the Jews their prejudice, and arrogant claim to the first place in the kingdom of Heaven. In opposition to this therefore He teaches that the first shall be last and the last first. For He wishes to confirm His promise made to the Apostles (S. Matt. 19:28). For thus the Apostles will be first in Heaven, inasmuch as they will be the judges of the rest, but the Jews will be the last, as they are to be judged by them.

Morally, S. Chrysostom says, they are called at the eleventh hour who are called in old age; so that this parable was spoken to quicken the zeal of those who are converted in extreme old age, so that they may not suppose that they shall have any less than others.

Mt 20:11. And receiving it they murmured against the master of the house, 

They murmured. By the murmuring, S. Chrysostom says, is signified the greatness of the reward and glory, which in the Apostles is so great that the rest of the elect and blessed from among the Jews would envy them and would murmur, if envy and murmuring were possible among the blessed. In a different way, S. Gregory says, Because the Fathers before Christ were not brought to the kingdom; this is to have murmured. Lastly, S. Chrysostom thinks that this murmuring is only an ornament of (a point introduced into) the parable, and therefore not to be applied to the thing signified by it.

Mt 20:12. Saying: These last have worked but one hour. and thou hast made them equal to us, that have borne the burden of the day and the heats. 

We have borne the burden of the day and the heats. That is, we have toiled under the burden of the Law. The Scribes and Pharisees used to fast twice in the week, give tithes of all things to God, teach the people, compass sea and land to make one proselyte; so that they had a weight of labours, but often an unprofitable one.

Mt 20:13. But he answering said to one of them: friend, I do thee no wrong: didst thou not agree with me for a penny?

But He answering, &c. An evil eye is an envious eye. The sense is, Since I have bestowed a favour of grace on those who came at the eleventh hour by giving them a denarius, I have done thee no wrong. The Master might have made answer to the murmurer, Those who came at the eleventh hour worked with greater grace and zeal, and accomplished more in one hour than thou didst in the whole day, and therefore merited more, as the first have received a better denarius. But it did not become the Master to contend on an equality with His servant, but rather to silence his murmuring by asserting his own right of ownership, liberality, and grace.

You will object, that S. Prosper here seems to take away all merit; for (lib. 2, de Vocal. Gent. c. 5) speaking of this parable, he says: “We read that the same reward was given to all the labourers, in order that those who laboured much without receiving more than the last might understand that they had received a gift of grace, not a reward of work.” Bellarmine answers: “S. Prosper considers eternal life is the reward which is the same and equal in the case of all the blessed: and God bestows this eternal life as a gift of grace, not a reward of works, in that sense of which S. Augustine speaks, ‘God crowns His own gifts, not thy merits;’ and therefore He willed to bestow eternal life on those who had laboured much and on those who had laboured little; that those who labour much may not glory in their own strength.”

Mt 20:14. Take what is thine, and go thy way: I will also give to this last even as to thee.

Take that thine is. Take, O Pharisee, thy wealth and honours which I have given thee in this life and which thou didst desire more than eternal life; be content with them, and go thy way. But Remigius explains the words thus: “Take thy reward, and enter into glory.”

I will also give to this last (i.e., the Gentiles), according to his merit, even as to thee. But Origen says: “Perhaps He says to Adam, Friend, I do thee no wrong, &c.” One may reasonably suppose that this last is the Apostle Paul, who laboured one hour. Others interpret: “Take thy damnation due to thee on account of thy murmuring, and go thy way to hell.”

Mt 20:15. Or, is it not lawful for me to do what I will? Is thy eye evil, because I am good?+

Lapide offers no comment on this verse, but see the comments on verse 13 where he has alluded to it.

Mt 20:16. So shall the last be first and the first last. For many are called but few chosen.

So the last shall be first. According to the first sense of the parable, the last who will be the first in Heaven are the elect; but the first who will be the last are the called only, who have not followed their calling or who have abandoned it, and are therefore damned. These are many, if they are compared with the elect, who are few (S. Matthew 7:14). But according to the second sense, which I have given above, it is not easy to connect the latter clause, “Many are called, &c.,” with the first, “so the last shall be first.” Maldonatus thus connects them: “From the particular sentence in which He said that the first should be last and the last first, He draws a more general conclusion—that not all who are called will receive a reward, because very many when called will not come.” Suarez considers that it is an argument a fortiori—You will not be astonished that the first will be last and the last first, since many are called but few chosen, and therefore all the rest will be damned, which is more to be wondered at and dreaded; for if many are called who are not saved, what wonder is it that many are called who are not first in reward, although they may obtain something?

Again many, i.e., all are called to eternal life, yet He says many, because all are many and because He opposes them to the few who are elect: “live therefore like the few,” says Cassian, “that with the few you may merit election and a place in Heaven.”

Lastly, some explain thus, many, i.e., all are called to grace and to the keeping of the commandments, but few are chosen to extraordinary grace, and to the keeping of the Evangelical counsels.

Of this opinion are those schoolmen who hold that there are two classes of the elect. I. The ordinary class consisting of those who upon the pre-knowledge of their merits are elected to glory; the other, consisting of those who are elected to glory before their merits are pre-known, whom they call extraordinarily predestinated and suppose to be here intended, when it is said, “few are chosen.” Among these few are the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles, and a few others; but the former are far more numerous, and therefore of them it is, many are called.

The Arabic version renders How many are called, &c., as if the words were an exclamation of Christ moved with wonder and pity at the multitude of the called and the fewness of the elect, and consequently at the multitude of the damned.

Here is brought to conclusion the narration of the events of the third year of Christ’s ministry; for a short time after this He raised Lazarus, which event took place in March, after which in the same month and year He was crucified.

Father Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on Matthew 3:13-17

13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him.

Then cometh Jesus, &c. Then, when the Baptist was stirring up all to repentance, and baptizing as a preparation for receiving the grace of Christ, then, I say, Christ came, that Him whom he had commended when absent, he might point out being present, even as the day-star goes before and indicates the rising of the sun.

From Galilee, or as S. Mark says from Nazareth, where he had lived with His mother in a private station until He was thirty years of age. Then He came to John, that He might be by him declared to be the Messiah, that is, the Teacher and Redeemer of the world: and that He might, upon John’s testimony, inaugurate His public office of teaching, and bringing in the Evangelical Law, for which He had been sent by the Father.

To be baptized. You will ask, what were the causes of John’s preaching and baptism, and why did Christ wish to be baptized by him? There was a threefold reason, says S. Jerome. 1. That because He was born a man, he might fulfil all the righteousness and humility of the law. 2. That He might give a sanction to John’s baptism. 3. That sanctifying the waters of Jordan by the descent of the Dove, He might show the coming of the Holy Ghost to the laver of the faithful.

4. A fourth reason was that by the Holy Spirit’s coming down upon Christ in the form of a dove, and by the Father thundering from heaven, He might afford Himself an irrefragable testimony. So S. Jerome.

5. Christ, by receiving baptism from John, would allure all men to His own Baptism, and would show them its benefit, viz. the coming and gift of the Holy Ghost.

6. Christ took our sins upon Him. Therefore as guilty and a penitent He stood before John, that He might wash away and cleanse our sins in Himself. Whence Nazianzen says (Orat. in sancta luminaria), “John baptizes, and Jesus comes to him, sanctifying even him who baptizes, that especially He may bury the old Adam in the waters.” And again, “Jesus ascended up out of the water, drawing and lifting up with Himself a drowned world.”

7. That Christ, who had determined to found the new commonwealth of Christians, in which none should be admitted except by baptism, should Himself, their Chief, be baptized, that He might in all things except sin, be made like unto His brethren. That is a famous saying of Cato, “Submit to the law, which thou thyself hast enacted.”

8. As Abraham formerly, by God’s command, instituted the sign of circumcision, so Christ would give a new pledge to His Church by sanctioning baptism. Thus S. Thomas thinks (3 p., q. 66, art. 2) that when Christ was baptized, He instituted the Sacrament of Baptism, not in words, but in deed. For then there appeared all the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity, in whose name we are baptized. The Father was manifested by His Voice, the Son appeared in Jordan, the Holy Ghost was seen in the form of a Dove.

But it is more correct to say that Christ when He was baptized only directed attention to His own Sacrament, and its matter, water; but that He instituted it shortly afterwards, when He began to preach publicly. For He does not seem to have instituted Baptism publicly at the time He said to Nicodemus coming to Him privately and by night, “Except any one be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” And this is the opinion of S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine (Serm. 36 & 37, de Tempore), S. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. in S. Nativit.), and others, who at the same time assert that Christ by His Baptism sanctified all water, and by His corporeal contact with it endued it with regenerating power, not as though He infused into water any physical, but only a moral quality, because water was then, ipso facto, by the intention of Christ, designed for the sanctification of men by washing them in the Sacrament of Baptism.

Tropologically, Christ by His Baptism at this time wished to teach us that a holy and perfect life must begin with baptism, and that this should be the great object of all who teach others, such as doctors and preachers.

14 But John stayed him, saying: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me?

But John stayed him. John recognized Christ by a secret instinct and revelation of God, by which he knew Him as to his face, which he had seen and known thirty years before, when he leapt in his mother’s womb for joy. You may ask, “Why then was there a sign given to the Baptist (John 1:33) by which he was to recognize Christ, viz., the descending and abiding of the Holy Ghost upon Him?” I reply, This sign was given to the Baptist, not that he should for the first time know Christ, but that it should more fully confirm him in that faith and knowledge, and that by the same, as by a sure testimony of God, he should point out and commend Christ to the people.

I ought to be baptized, &c. That is, to be spiritually washed from my sins, and perfected by the Spirit of Thy grace. Have need here does not signify an obligation of precept, as though the Baptist was obliged to receive the baptism of Christ. For this precept of baptism was given and promulged by S. Peter on the Day of Pentecost, and therefore after John’s death. Some gather from this place that John was soon afterwards baptized by Christ Himself, as were also the Blessed Virgin Mary, SS. Peter, James, and John, and the rest of the Apostles. This is stated by S. Evodius, who succeeded S. Peter in the Chair of Antioch, in an Epistle of his, entitled τὸ φώς. In favour of this idea are also Nazian. (Orat. 39 towards the end); “Christ knew,” he says, “that He would Himself shortly afterwards baptize the Baptist; also S. Chrysostom, who says, “John baptized Christ with water, but Christ baptized John with the Spirit.” Whence the author of the Imperfect Comment. says, “It is plainly written in apocryphal writings, that John baptized Christ with water, but He baptized John with the Spirit.”

Abulensis thinks, on the other hand, that John was not baptized by Christ. And he proves it by the marvelling of John’s disciples, who soon afterwards told John that Christ, whom he had baptized, was Himself baptizing, and that all men were coming unto Him. For this would have been needlessly told to John if he had been baptized by Christ, and he would have given this reply to his disciples. So that it is a doubtful point whether John was baptized by Christ or not.

15 And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfil all justice. Then he suffered him.

And Jesus answering said, &c. It becometh us, i.e., Me to receive, thee to confer, baptism. Others understand us in this way: “It behoves us who are teachers to set an example in ourselves. Nothing, however apparently unimportant, must be omitted. I shall institute baptism. It is the part of him who commands, to do before others what he commands.” Whence S. Luke says of Christ (Acts 1:1), “Jesus began both to do and to teach.” “This is righteousness,” saith S. Ambrose, “that what you wish another to do, you should yourself first begin, and encourage others by your own example.” Whence S. Gregory, “Of true humility is ever sprung secure authority.

Moreover, not only Christ receiving, but John conferring baptism fulfilled all righteousness, because, contending in humility with Christ, he suffered himself to be vanquished, by being as it were put upon an equality with Christ. And so he, as it were, being vanquished by Christ in humility, vanquished Christ by yielding to Him and obeying Him. As S. Dominic, wishing to give his right hand to S. Francis, whilst Francis opposed it and strove to take his left, said at length, “You overcome me in humility; I conquer you by obedience.”

It is very probable that in the act of baptism John pointed out Christ to the people, since the form of John’s baptism would be something of this kind: “I baptize thee in the Name of Him who is to come;” or, “Believe in Messiah who is about to come.” This is inferred from chap. 19:4. Thus it would seem that when Christ came, and was being baptized, John would say, “This is Messias of whom I said that He was about to come.”

S. Jerome observes—“Beautifully is it said, ‘Suffer it now,’ that it might be shown that Christ was baptized with water, and that John was about to be baptized by Christ with the Spirit. And by-and-by Christ might say, ‘Thou baptizest Me in water, that I may baptize thee in thine own blood shed for Me.’ ”

For so it becometh us to fulfil (Arabic, to perfect) all righteousness. Instead of righteousness the Syriac has all rectitude, i.e., whatever is just, right, holy, and pleasing unto God. And it is not right to decline or depart from such things, even though they seem lowly and abject; and even though they be not provided for by any precept, but are matters of counsel only. But again, all righteousness is whatsoever God the Father hath commanded. So Vatabl. For that is righteous which God sanctions and commands. And it would seem that as God the Father commanded Christ to die, so also He gave Him a precept to submit to John’s baptism.

Hence, secondly, the Gloss says, humility is all righteousness—humility which subjects itself to all—superiors, equals, and inferiors. On the contrary, pride, by which a man prefers himself to all, not only inferiors and equals, but superiors, is all unrighteousness. For it takes away their just rights, and deprives them of the subjection which is their due. For as in every act of righteousness, i.e., of virtue, humility comes in, in that a man submits himself to reason and virtue, so pride mixes itself up with every act of sin, in that a man prefers himself, and his own will and desire, to the law and will of God. Humility therefore fulfils all righteousness, because it is the head of all right and justice which a man owes to God, his neighbour, and himself. He submits himself to God by religion, to his neighbour by charity. He subjects the body to the soul, the soul to the law of God. Wherefore the humble hath peace with all; the proud with all hath strife and war. At this present day how many lawsuits and contentions are there between clergy and prelates for places, titles, precedence! How both sides pertinaciously contend for what is due to each, to the great scandal of the laity, and with little gain of victory to either side. For what dost thou gain if thou over-comest in the lawsuit, save some small worthless point of honour, and in the meanwhile makest a far greater loss of reputation, peace, and conscience? Learn from Christ, O Christian, to believe in, yea, even to be ambitious of the lowest place, so shalt thou be exalted with Christ and deserve the highest. For Christ, subjecting Himself to John, was declared by John, yea, by all the Holy Trinity, to be greater than John, to be the Son of God. Say, therefore, with Christ, “Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” S. Ignatius, the founder of our Society, was a follower of Christ when he gave this golden axiom:

“With e’en the least, let no true Christian fight,
But still to yield be e’er his chief delight.”

For the grace, honour, and glory of a Christian is humility, that is to say, to yield, to suffer himself to be vanquished, to yield the place of honour to another. Wherefore the greater is he who is the humbler. For, as S. Gregory says, “Pride is the place of the wicked, humility the place of the good.” Christ here teaches us to follow an ordinary life, not to seek exemption from the common law and lot, and to be accounted as one of the common people, according to the words in Ecclus. 3:20, “If thou wouldst be famous, be as one of the flock;” yea, descend to the lowest place, and prefer all men to thyself.

3. All righteousness, i.e. the highest justice. Thus God says to Moses (Exod. 33:10), “I will shew thee all,” i.e. the highest “good” (Vulg.) namely, Myself. For the lowest degree of righteousness is to submit oneself to a superior, the middle degree to submit to an equal, the highest to an inferior, even as Christ submitted Himself to John. Christ, I say, who is the Holy of Holies, bowed His head to John for baptism, as though seeking from him sanctification and purification, like the rest, who were sinners, who came to his baptism.

Excellently says S. Gregory (3 p. Pastor. Admonit. 18), “Let the humble hear that the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister; let those who are lifted up hear that pride is the beginning of all sin. Let the humble hear that our Redeemer humbled Himself, being made obedient even unto death; let the proud hear what is written of their head, ‘He is a king over all the children of pride.’ The pride of the devil was made the occasion of our ruin, the humility of God was found to be the assurance of our redemption. Let the humble therefore be told that when they abase themselves they rise to the likeness of God; but let it be said to the proud that when they lift up themselves they sink down to the likeness of the apostate angel. What then is more base than to be haughty? And what is more exalted than humility; which, while it puts itself in the lowest place, is united to its Maker in the very highest?”

S. Gregory says elsewhere: “This is the highest righteousness and sanctity, when we are in respect of our virtue the loftiest, in respect of our humility the lowliest.” S. Thomas Aquinas, being asked by what mark a really holy and perfect person might be known, answered, “By humility, by contempt of himself, contempt of honour and praise, by bearing ignominy and reproach.” “For if,” he said, “you see any one, when he is neglected and despised, and has others preferred before him, show a sense of pain or indignation, to be of a downcast countenance, to turn up his nose, wrinkle his forehead, you may be very sure he is not a saint, even though he should work miracles. For when he is neglected he shows his pride, anger, impatience, and so makes himself vile and contemptible.”

4. All righteousness, i.e., every increase of righteousness, that is to say, of virtue and sanctity. Christ indeed could not increase in interior grace, for with that He was always perfectly filled from the first moment of His Conception and union with the Word; but He showed daily ever greater and greater signs of virtue, and ever more and more humbled Himself. For Christ came down from heaven into the Virgin’s womb, from the womb to the manger, from the manger to Jordan, from Jordan to the Cross, as He would teach us in Ps. 84:8: “They shall go from strength to strength: the God of gods shall be seen in Sion.” (Vulg.) So S. Augustine (Epist. 50, ad Dioscorum), “I would, my Dioscorus, that thou shouldst in all piety subject thyself to Christ and the Christian discipline, nor fortify for thyself any other way of reaching and obtaining the truth than that which has been fortified for us by Him who knoweth the infirmity of our footsteps, forasmuch as He is God. And so it is said of that most famous orator Demosthenes, that when he was asked what was the first rule to be observed in oratory, he replied, Pronunciation; and when he was asked what was the second, replied, Pronunciation; and being asked what was the third, still answered, Pronunciation. So if thou shouldst ask and ask again concerning the precepts of the Christian religion, I should answer that nothing else but humility would make you perfectly fulfil their obligations, although, perchance, I might be obliged to speak of other duties. To this most salutary humility, which, that our Lord Jesus Christ might teach us, He humbled Himself, to this, the greatest adversary is, if I may so say, a most uninstructed science.”

Lastly, he fulfils all righteousness who endures the unpleasant ways and manners and tempers of others, according to those words of St. Paul, “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.” He who loves those who hate him, blesses those who curse him, does good to those who injure him, honours those who despise him, vanquishes his enemies by the warmth of his love, who with Paul desires to be anathema for his enemies, and to be all things to all men that he may gain all for Christ, he is truly humble and is like Christ.

Then he suffered him. That is, when he heard this, John yielded and baptized Christ. “If God received baptism from man, no one need disdain to receive it from his fellow-servant,” says S. Jerome. And S. Ambrose says, “Let no one refuse the laver of grace, when Christ refused not the laver of penance.” Beautifully, too, says S. Bernard, “John acquiesced and obeyed; he baptized the Lamb of God, and washed Him in the waters; but we, not He, were washed, because, for washing us, the waters are known to be of cleansing power.”

S. Augustine (Serm. 154 de Temp.) says that the day on which Christ was baptized was a Sunday, though John Lucidus (lib. 7, c. 2) was of opinion that the day was Friday. What is certain from tradition is, that Christ was baptized on the 6th day of January, the same day of the month on which he had been adored by the Magi thirty years before. Whence the Church commemorates the event on that day. The Ethiopians on the 6th of January, in memory of Christ’s Baptism, not only sprinkle themselves with water, but immerse themselves in it. The faithful in Greece also were accustomed, about midnight before the 6th of January, to draw water from the nearest river or fountain, which, by the gift of God, remained sweet for many years, as S. Chrysostom expressly testifies (Hom. de Baptism. Christiano, tom. 5, Opp. Græc). S. Epiphanius (Hæres. 51) adds, that on that day the Nile was turned into wine. “About the 11th day of the month Tybus (our 6th of January) Christ’s first miracle was wrought in Cana of Galilee, when water was made wine. Wherefore in various places, until this very time, the same thing takes place as a divine sign for a testimony to unbelievers. Various rivers and fountains which are turned into wine are the proof of this. Cibyris, a fount of a city of Caria, becomes wine at the very hour in which Christ said ‘Draw out now, and bear to the governor of the feast.’ Gerasa in Arabia is another example. I myself have drunk of the fountain of Cibyris, and our brethren of the fount of Gerasa, which is in a temple of the Martyrs. Many testify the same concerning the Nile.”

Moreover, that the water of Jordan received by reason of Christ’s Baptism in it the gift of incorruption, Gretser testifies. “Let us add this,” he says, “that the waters of Jordan, after Christ had consecrated them by His Baptism in them, have been endowed with the gift of incorruption. That illustrious prince, Nicolas Christopher Radzivil, in his Hodæporicum Hierosolymit., says, “The water of the Jordan is extremely turbid, but very wholesome, and when kept in vessels does not become putrid. This I have found to be the case with some which I have brought with me.”

Christ appears to have been baptized and washed by John, not only as to His head, but with respect to the rest of His body. I think so, because such was the manner of the Jews, who were accustomed to denude themselves of their clothes, and undergo their ceremonial baptisms and lustrations naked. Jesus therefore condescended to appear naked before John, and he underwent this indignity for our sakes, that Adam’s and our nakedness and shame, induced by sin, He might clothe and cover by His grace. Whence also, as Bede testifies, a church was erected by the faithful on the spot where the clothes of Christ were deposited when He was baptized. Bede adds, that the same place was adorned with a noble monastery and church which was dedicated in honour of John the Baptist.

Gregory of Tours (lib. de Gloria Martyr., c. 17) writes about the same place: “There is a place by Jordan where the Lord was baptized. The water flows into a certain bay, in which, even now, lepers are cleansed. When they be come thither, they wash frequently until they are cleansed from their infirmity. As long as they remain there they are fed at the public expense. When they are cleansed they depart to their own homes. This spot is five miles from where the Jordan loses itself in the Dead Sea.”

The place is called in S. John’s Gospel Ænon, near to Salim. It was not far from Zarthan and Jericho, where the children of Israel under Joshua passed over on dry ground, that it might be signified that the same Christ, who once led the Israelites over Jordan into the land of promise, will, by baptism, bring His faithful people to heaven. “And as under Joshua the waters were driven back, so under Christ, as our baptized Leader, are our sins turned back,” says S. Augustine. Again, Elias divided the waters of Jordan when he was about to be taken up into heaven in a chariot of fire, that it might be signified that those who pass through the waters of Christ’s baptism shall have an entrance into heaven opened to them by the fire of the Holy Ghost. Thus S. Thomas.

16 And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him.

And Jesus being baptized, &c. Luke adds, Jesus being baptized and praying. Whence it is plain that not by virtue of John’s baptism, but by the merit of Christ’s humility and prayer, the heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him.

Straightway. This word is best referred, not to the words coming up out of the water, but to the heavens were opened.

Lo! the heavens were opened. Mark has, He saw the heavens opened. He—that is, Jesus—John too, and others who were present, doubtless saw them, since it was for their sakes this was done. Whence Matthew says, They were opened, i.e., unto him or for him. This is, they were seen to be opened in His honour, that God might make manifest that heaven is open unto all through Christ, says S. Chrysostom.

Also that the heavenly power of baptism might be pointed out, because by it carnal men become heavenly and spiritual, and by it are called and, as it were, taken by the hand to heaven. So S. Thomas.

You will inquire, in what way were the heavens opened unto Christ? It is replied, it was not the actual substance (soliditatem, Lat.) of the sky which was opened and rent in twain, for this is naturally impossible and supernaturally unneeded. Neither were the heavens opened by a merely imaginary vision, as they were opened to Ezekiel (1:1); but there was in the upper region of the air a hiatus visible to the senses, from which visible aperture both the Dove and the Voice of the Father appeared to come down upon Christ. Such hiatuses appear not unfrequently in the atmosphere, concerning which see Aristotle on meteors.

Hieron. Prado, the Jesuit, on the words the heavens were opened, says, “There was an appearance as though the sky were opened and divided by thunders and lightnings, and from the opening the Father’s voice burst forth as thunder. For thunder is always accompanied by lightning; indeed, lightning is the cause of thunder, although the thunder is always heard after the lightning, because sound travels more slowly than light.”

And saw (Syriac, looked up at) the Spirit of God descending as a dove (Egyptian, in the form of a dove). You will ask first, was this a true and real dove, or was it only the appearance and likeness of a dove? SS. Jerome, Anselm, and Thomas, Salmeron, and others, think that it was a real dove; and this is probable. It is, however, equally, or rather, more probable that it was not a real dove, but only the shape of a dove, formed by an angel, agitated and moved so that it should descend upon Christ. The reason is that all the Evangelists seem to indicate this. S. Matthew says, as if a dove; Mark, as it were a dove; John, like a dove; Luke, in a bodily shape like a dove. There was therefore the appearance and similitude only, not the reality of a dove. Nor was there any need of a real dove, but of its likeness for a symbolical signification, that by such a symbol those gifts of Christ of which I shall speak presently might be designated. In such wise were the heavens opened, not in reality, but in appearance, as I have already said. This was the opinion of S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Lyra, &c.

You will urge, Was it then a phantasm, a merely fancied dove? I reply, By no means. It was a real, solid body, having the form of a dove, as S. Augustine teaches, de Doctr. Christian. c. 22; not indeed assumed, hypostatically, by the Holy Spirit, as the Humanity of Christ was assumed by the Word, as Tertullian appears to have thought, lib. de Carne Christi., c. 3. But it was only an index and a symbol of the Holy Ghost. It was thus taken because the dove is a most meek, simple, innocent, fruitful bird, very amiable, but very jealous. Such in like manner is the Holy Ghost, who endowed the soul of Christ at the very moment of His conception with these qualities of meekness and the rest. And what was now done was, by this sign of the dove, to signify that the Holy Ghost had done this, and to declare it to the people publicly.

You will inquire in the next place, why the Holy Ghost descended upon Christ in the form of a dove, upon Apostles in the shape of tongues of fire? S. Chrysostom answers, 1. Because Christ came in the flesh, and into the world, meek like a dove, for the remission of sins, and for the release of sinners. But in the Day of Judgment, He will come as a severe Judge, to punish the wicked. 2. And more literally, the Holy Spirit was given to the Apostles in the likeness of fire, because He endued them with fervour and ardour in preaching. (S. Augustine, Tract. 6 in Joan.)

Again, the dove represented excellently well the Holy Sevenfold Spirit, or His sevenfold gifts which He poured upon Christ as Isaiah predicted (11:2), “And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and godliness, and shall fill him with the spirit of the fear of the Lord.” All these gifts are appositely signified by the dove. For as S. Thomas expounds (3 p., q. 39, art. 6, ad. 4), the dove tarries by flowing streams, and when in the waters she beholds the reflection of a hawk she is able to escape it. Here is the gift of wisdom. 2. The dove selects the best grains of corn, and places them by themselves in a heap. Here is the gift of understanding. 3. The dove brings up the young of others. Behold the gift of counsel. 4. The dove does not tear with her beak. Behold the gift of knowledge. 5. The dove is without gall and bile. Lo! the gift of piety or godliness. 6. The dove maketh her nest in the rocks. See the gift of true strength. 7. The dove utters a mournful plaint instead of a song. Behold the gift of fear, wherewith Christ and His saints wail for sins, whether their own, or those of others.

Again, the dove is the symbol of the reconciliation and renewal of the world, which the Holy Spirit has wrought through Christ. Hence His symbol was a dove, bearing a green olive-branch to Noah, signifying that the Deluge and God’s anger were at an end.

Lastly, because the dove is an amicable and social bird, it denotes the union of the faithful in the Church, which the Holy Spirit effects through the baptism of Christ. So S. Thomas. In fine, the dove is very fair, it delights in sweet odours, and it dearly loves its young. So too Christ is most fair, He delights in the odour of virtues, and dearly loves His children.

As the Holy Spirit thus descended upon Christ, so has He often descended in the form of a dove upon illustrious Christians, more especially upon doctors, bishops, and pontiffs of the Church, and thus, as it were, consecrated them. S. Eleucadius, the disciple of S. Apollinaris, Apostle of Ravenna, when a dove had flown upon his head, was ordained Bishop of Ravenna. After a life illustrious for sanctity he migrated to heaven, a.d. 115. (Philip Ferrar in his Catalogue of the Saints of Italy.)

Thus a dove flew down upon the head of S. Aderitus, in the presence of the clergy, and designated him the successor of S. Apollinaris, and second Bishop of Ravenna.

S. Marcellinus in like manner, was designated Bishop of the same city, a.d. 230.

S. Fabian, in consequence of a dove lighting upon his head, was elected Bishop of Rome.

When S. Gregory was writing his works, the Holy Spirit, in the likeness of a dove, was seen to instil into his ear what he wrote.

So S. Basil, who wished to be baptized in the same river Jordan as Christ was, in celebrating Mass, was surrounded by a celestial light, and gave orders for a dove to be made of pure gold, and a portion of the consecrated Host to be placed in it, and suspended it above the altar. So Amphilochius. He adds that S. Ephrem saw the Holy Ghost, in the likeness of a dove of fire, sitting upon S. Basil, wherefore he exclaimed, “Truly is Basil a column of fire; truly the Holy Ghost speaks by his mouth.”

Flavian the patriarch, by the command of an angel, consecrating S. John Chrysostom to be a priest, beheld a white dove fly down upon his head. Leo Augustus relates this in his life of S. Chrysostom. (See Baronius, a.d. 456, n. 7.)

This was the reason why the impostor Mahomet tamed a dove, and accustomed it to fly to him, by placing in his ear grains of corn, which the dove picked and ate, and by this means he persuaded the people that the Holy Spirit was his friend, and dictated the Koran to him, and revealed the most secret purposes of God. He also caused the dove to bring him a scroll, on which was written in letters of gold, “Whosoever shall tame a bull, let him be king.” But he had brought up a bull, which of course he easily tamed, and was thereupon saluted as king by the foolish people. So the authors of the Life of Mahomet.

And coming upon him. Piously says S. Bernard (Serm. 1 de Epiphan.), “Not unsuitably came a dove, to point out the Son of God; for nothing so well corresponds to a lamb as a dove. As the lamb among beasts, so is the dove among birds. There is the utmost innocence in each, the utmost gentleness, the utmost guilelessness. What is so opposed to all malice as a lamb and a dove? They know not how to injure or do harm.”

17 And behold a voice from heaven saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

And behold a voice, &c. From the opened heaven a dove glided down upon the head of Christ, and whilst it sat upon Him, there came the voice, “This is my Son.” The voice explained the symbol of the dove, that it had reference to Christ, and to Him alone. This voice, “in the Person of the Father, was framed by the ministry of angels,” say Victor Antioch. (in c. 1 S. Marc.). Here was first revealed to the world the mystery of the Holy Trinity, which had been darkly indicated to the Jews. The Father manifested Himself by a voice, the Son was seen in the flesh, the Holy Ghost was visible in the form of a dove, that it might be signified that the faith of the Holy Trinity was about to be unfolded, and that the baptism of Christ was conferred in Their Name. For although all these things—viz., heaven opened, the forming of the voice, the descent of the dove—were, as regards operations, ad extra, as theologians say, common to the whole Trinity, yet each several Person was represented by the aforenamed symbols. (See S. Augustine, Serm. 38 de Temp.)

This is my beloved Son. Greek ὁ υἱὸς—i.e., the Son of God the Father, by nature, not by adoption, as the angels and holy men are sons of God. Therefore the Son of God is not a creature, but the Creator, consubstantial with God the Father, as was defined by the Nicene Council.

Mark and Luke have, in different words, but with the same meaning, “Thou art my Son.” And it is probable that these last were the exact words used, not merely because of the consensus of two Evangelists, but because, when Jesus was looking up into heaven, and praying to the Father, it is probable that the words would be immediately and directly addressed to Him. So Jansen, Maldonatus, and others.

My beloved Son. Gr. ὁ αγαπητός, i.e., only and chiefly beloved, through whom all others are beloved. For no one is beloved by God save those whom Christ loves. The Syriac has most beloved.

In whom I am well pleased. As it were, “Thou only, O Christ, art perfectly, in all things, and infinitely pleasing unto Me; and no one is pleasing unto Me save through Thee. For by Thee I am well pleased with all the human race, with whom I was offended because of Adam’s sin.” The Heb. רצה signifies both to please and to be propitious, or reconciled.

“Because Thou art the Brightness of My glory and the express Image of My substance (Heb. 1:3.), Thou art immeasurably pleasing unto Me. In Thee nothing ever displeases, but all things please Me. Thou art He in whom I have always delight. And for Thy sake all Thy disciples and followers—that is to say, all holy Christians—are pleasing unto Me.” There is an allusion to Noah, who alone of his generation pleased God. (See Gen. 6:9; 8:20.)

As, therefore, Noah was well-pleasing unto God—especially when he offered the sacrifice unto Him, with which He was propitiated, and promised that He would no more destroy the world by the waters of a flood—so, much more, when Christ offered Himself to God as a peculiar and special victim, did He cause God to be propitious to the whole human race. “By this Voice was Christ constituted by God the Father the universal Doctor and Legislator of the world.”

The voice added, Hear ye him. “Hear Christ, believe in Him, obey Him. He hath come forth from My bosom. He will show you My mysteries, things kept secret from the foundation of the world. He will open to you the way of peace, the way to heaven, the way to happiness. He will preach to you the glad tidings of the kingdom of heaven, even such divine things as eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have they come into the heart of man.” Hence, when the Magdalen sat at the feet of Jesus, and diligently listened to Him, it was said to her, “Mary hath chosen that good part which shall not be taken from her.”

Very well saith S. Leo (Serm. de Transfigurat.): “This is My Son who is from Me, and with Me from everlasting. This is My Son, who is not separated from Me in Deity, divided in power, severed by eternity. This is My Son, My very own, not created of any other substance, but begotten of Myself. This is My Son, by whom all things were made. This is My Son, who sought not by robbery that equality which He hath with Me. He attained it by no presumption, but, abiding in the form of My glory, and in order that He might fulfil Our common purpose for the restoration of the human race, He bowed down the unchangeable Godhead, even to the form of a servant. In Him, therefore, I am in all things well pleased, and by His preaching I am manifested, and by His humility I am glorified. Hear ye Him, therefore, without delay, for He is the Truth and the Life. He is My strength and My wisdom. Hear Him of whom the lips of the prophets sung. Hear Him who hath redeemed the world by His Blood; who by His Cross hath prepared for you a ladder by which ye may ascend up to heaven.”

Father Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians Chapter 9

 SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTER

i.      (1 Cor 9:1-6)He proceeds to show by his own example how offences are to be avoided, and he says that he had refused to accept payment, or the maintenance due to a preacher of the Gospel, both to gain greater merit and for the sake of edification.
ii.      (1 Cor 9:7-19) He then (ver. 7) proves by six arguments (summarised in the notes to ver. 12) that this maintenance is due to himself and other preachers of the Gospel.
iii.     (1 Cor 9:20-23) He shows (ver. 20) that for the same reason he had become all things to all men, that the Corinthians might learn how each one must care for his own edification and the salvation of his neighbour.
iv.     (1 Cor 9:24-27) He urges them (ver. 24) to that same edification, pointing out that our life is a race and trial of virtue, and in them we must run and strive after better things, and after the prize, by abstinence and bodily mortification.

1 Cor 9:1  AM I not I free? Am not I an apostle? Have not I seen Christ Jesus our Lord? Are not you my work in the Lord?

—Am I not free? Am not I an Apostle? It may be asked what connection this has with the preceding chapter: it seems to be an abrupt transition to another subject. I reply that Paul had spoken at the end of the last chapter of the necessity of avoiding all that might cause offence. Now, that he may enforce this, he puts himself forward as an example, and points to his having refused to receive any payment for his preaching, and his having earned his bread by his own labours; this cession of his rights he made, both to avoid causing any to offend, and to give an example of singular virtue. He would so teach the Corinthians not to stand upon their rights, especially in the matter of eating idol-sacrifices, out of regard for their neighbours, if they saw that they were thus made to stumble, or led into sin. Yet at the same time Paul, by implication, guards in this declaration the sincerity and authority of his preaching against the false apostles who impugned them; he points indirectly to his having preached the Gospel without money and without price, while the false apostles made gain out of it. He says, therefore: “Am I not an Apostle? am I not free? Am I not within my rights, as the Apostle of Christ, if I demand and receive from you means for my maintenance? Yet this I do not do, because I wish to show you what our neighbour’s salvation demands from us, and how you ought, therefore, to avoid all causes of offence.” Cf. Chrysostom’s homily on this text (No. 20).

Have not I seen Christ Jesus our Lord? Are not you my work in the Lord?  It is clear that I am an Apostle, for I have seen Christ, and been sent by Him to preach the Gospel. Cf. Acts 9:5; 22:18.

Ye are my work in the Lord, because I begat you by the Gospel in Christ. Your Church was built up by me: ye are my building.

1 Cor 9:2 And if unto others I be not an apostle, but yet to you I am. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

—For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. A proof of my apostleship may be seen in you, in my preaching, in my miracles, in the toil and the dangers which I have either borne or performed amongst you for your conversion; by such things as by Divine seals have I sealed, confirmed, and proved my apostleship. All these things loudly testify that I am a true Apostle, sent by God to teach and save you.

1 Cor 9:3 My defence with them that do examine me is this.

—My defence with them that do examine me is this. Those who ask about my Apostleship may take what I have said as their answer. So Anselm. But Chrysostom and Ambrose just as suitably refer this to the following verse.

To examine or interrogate is a judicial term, and is purposely used by S. Paul to point to the audacity of those who called in question his jurisdiction.

1 Cor 9:4 Have not we power to eat and to drink?

—Have not we the power to eat and to drink? Viz., at your expense. This is the glory and defence of me and my apostleship, that it is gratuitous, unlike that of the false apostles. Notwithstanding I have the same right, the same power to look for means from you for my eating and drinking.

1 Cor 9:5 Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister as well as the rest of the apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas?

—Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister as well as the rest of the apostles? The Greek is ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα, which the Latin version turns mulierem sororem; and Beza, Peter Martyr, Vatablus, and Valla render sororem uxorem. They argue from this that Paul was married, urging that, though the Greek word stands both for woman and wife, yet here its meaning is fixed to the latter by the term “lead about.” Men do not, they say, lead about sisters but wives.

They mistake: 1. Christ led about women, not as a husband might a wife, but as a teacher is accompanied by disciples and handmaidens, who see to his necessities. Cf. Luke 8:3.

2. It would be absurd to call a sister a wife, and the term sister would be superfluous.

3. The definite article is wanting in the Greek, which would be required if a certain woman, as, e.g., a wife, were designated.

4. It is evident from 1 Cor. 7:8 that Paul was unmarried. This passage is explained at length in the sense I have given by Augustine (de Opere Monach. c. iv.), Jerome (contra Jovin. lib. i.), Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theodoret, Theophylact in their comments on the verse, and by other Fathers generally, except by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. lib. iii.). S. Jerome indeed says that, among the Apostles, Peter was the only one that had a wife, and that only before his conversion. Tertullian’s words (de Monogamia) are: “I find that Peter alone was a husband.”

I say, then, that the phrase here is literally “sister woman,” and denotes a Christian matron who ministered to Paul’s necessities from her means. We have a similar phrase in Acts 13:26, “men brethren,” i.e., Christian men. S. Paul says then that he might, if he so saw fit, lead about a matron to support him, as much as Peter; but he does not do so, because it might be a cause of offence to the Gentiles, whose Apostle he was, and might only cause evil surmisings. So Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Œcumenius, Anselm.

It may be said that Ignatius, in his letter to the Philadelphians, classes Paul among the married. Baronius (a.d. 57, p. 518) and others well reply that Paul’s name was inserted there by later Greek copyists, to serve as an excuse for themselves being married. The oldest and best copies of the Epistles of S. Ignatius, including that of the Vatican and of Sfort, have not S. Paul’s name.

It may be said again that Clement of Alexandria (Strom. lib. iii.) understands this passage of a wife of Paul. I reply, firstly, that that is true, but that he goes on to say that after he became an Apostle she was to him as a sister, not as a wife, which is against the heretics, and in the second place that all the Fathers are against Clement.

And the brethren of the Lord. Brethren is a common Hebraism for kinsmen. James, John, and Judas are here meant. So Anselm.

And Cephas. Nay, as well as Peter, the prince of the Apostles and of the Church.

1 Cor 9:6. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to do this?

Lapide offers no comment on this verse.

1 Cor 9:7 Who serveth as a soldier, at any time, at his own charges? Who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Who feedeth the flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock?

—Who serveth as a soldier, at any time, at his own charges? Just as it is right for soldiers to be paid and to live on their pay; just as it is right for a vine-grower to eat of the fruit of his vine, for a shepherd of the milk of the flock that he feeds, so is it right for the preachers of the Gospel to live of the Gospel, of their vineyard the Church, and of their flock, the members of Christ. The Apostle is beginning here to prove in various ways his right to receive payment for his preaching, that all after him might know that this is owing to preachers of the Word of God, and that he may show how undeniable and how clear is the right that he has freely given up by refusing to receive payment out of regard to the Corinthians. He so acted in order that by this generosity of his he might draw them to Christ and help forward their salvation. I will summarise his reasons at ver. 12.

1 Cor 9:8 Speak I these things according to man? Or doth not the law also say; these things? 

—Speak I these things according man? Do I prove or strengthen my arguments by human reasons merely, and by similitudes drawn from the life of the soldier, the vine-grower, the shepherd? By no means. Nay, rather I establish and fortify them from the law of God.

1 Cor 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses: Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

—For it is written in the law of Moses, &c. Deut. 25:4. The reason doubtless was that it was right that the animals who laboured should also eat. Hence God forbade that the mouths of the oxen that trod out the corn should be muzzled, to prevent them from eating of what they trod out. It was the custom in Palestine, as it is now in some places, for the oxen to thresh out the grain by treading the corn-ears with their hoofs. That this is the literal meaning appears from the words in which it is enjoined on the hard-hearted Jews.

It may be objected that the Apostle seems here to exclude this meaning, by saying, “Doth God take care for oxen?” Abulensis, commenting on Deut. 25, says that the literal sense of the verse is twofold: (1.) It refers to oxen, as has just been said, but not principally; (2.) The sense which is uppermost and chiefly intended by the Holy Spirit is that given by the Apostle here when he speaks of preachers. God, he says, takes care for oxen in the second place, but for teachers in the first; and therefore it is more the literal sense of the injunction that preachers should be maintained than that oxen should. But it is evident that the first only of these two is the literal sense. For the word ox denotes a preacher typically only, and not literally. Otherwise the literal sense would be wholly allegorical, which is absurd. For the literal sense is that which is the first meaning of any sentence; the allegorical or typical is that which is derived from the literal. As then the shadow of a body is not the body itself, so the typical sense cannot be the literal, but is merely shadowed forth by the literal.

The literal meaning therefore of the verse in Deuteronomy is that which I have given, but the mystical is that which is given by the Apostle, that preachers must be maintained, and that they are to live of the Gospel, just as the ox is fed on what he treads out; and since God’s chief care is for the former, the mystical meaning of the text is, as the Apostle says, the one that is uppermost.

Notice that it is a matter of faith that God takes care for oxen: for by His providence He cares for the sparrows (S. Matt. 10:29), and for the young ravens that call upon Him (Ps. 147:9), and for all animals, as the Psalmist frequently says, and especially throughout Psalm 104. The Apostle means, therefore, that in this precept God’s chief care was not for oxen, but for preachers like S. Paul, who are like oxen in labouring and treading out the corn in the Lord’s field and threshing-floor, and are to be allowed to live of the Gospel.

1 Cor 9:10. Or doth he say this indeed for our sakes? For these things are written for our sakes: that he that plougheth, should plough in hope and he that thrasheth, in hope to receive fruit.

—Or doth he say this indeednfor our sakes? For these things are written for our sakes. The argument is here, as so often in S. Paul’s writings, from the mystical, not the literal sense; or rather it is an à fortiori argument from the literal to the mystical sense, thus: If the ox lives on what he treads out, much more may an Apostle live of the Gospel. Cf. Tertullian (contra Marcion, lib. v. c. 7) and Theodoret (qu. xxi. in Deut.). Observe here that, though the literal sense is the first in time, yet the mystical is the first in importance, and the one chiefly intended by the Holy Spirit.

That he that plougheth should plough in hope. Just as those that plough and thresh do so in hope of being partakers of what is reaped and threshed out, so too the preacher may hope for support because of his preaching. Of this hope Ovid speaks (Ep. ex Ponto, lib. i. vi. 30): “Hope it is that gives courage to the farmer, and intrusts the seeds to the ploughed-up furrows, to be returned with heavy interest by the kindly earth.”

From this passage we may argue à fortiori that to work in hope of an eternal reward is an act of virtue, and that this act therefore is meritorious. Hence the Sorbonne, as Claudius Guiliandus testifies in his remarks on this passage, has defined as erroneous the proposition that “he that strives for the sake of a reward, and would not strive unless he knew that a reward would be given, deprives himself of the reward.” The Council of Trent has the same definition (Sess. vi. can. 31).

1 Cor 9:11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we reap your carnal things?

No commentary is given on this verse.

1 Cor 9:12 If others be partakers of this power over you, why not we rather? Nevertheless, we have not used this power: but we bear all things, lest we should give any hindrance to the gospel of Christ.

—If others be partakers of this power over you, why not we rather? The Apostle proves by six arguments that he and other ministers of the Word of God and the Church may receive their expenses from their flocks: (a) By the examples of the other Apostles (1 Cor 9:5); (b) by comparisons drawn from the practice of soldiers, shepherds, and agriculturists (1 Cor 9:7); (c) from the law of Moses (1 Cor 9:9); (d) from the example of the priests and Levites of the Old Testament, who lived on the sacrifices offered on the altar that they served (1 Cor 9:13); (e) from the ordinance of God and of Christ (1 Cor 9:14); (f) from the very nature of the case, from the positive command of God, as well as from the law of nature, which declares that, as payment is due to a workman, so is support to a minister of the Word, not as the price of sacred things, which would be dishonouring to them and simoniacal, but as what is necessary for them to fitly discharge their sacred functions for the people’s sake. Hence this support is owing to them as a matter of justice. So Chrysostom.

Nevertheless we have not used this power: but we bear all things. We have not claimed our right to maintenance, but endure the utmost poverty, and undertake every kind of evil to relieve that poverty by working with our hands.

Lest we should give any hinderance to the gospel of Christ. He would not receive money for his support, lest he should give occasion to covetous or injudicious men to hinder the Gospel and bring obloquy upon it. That there was no cause of offence given here by the Apostle, but that it was received from others, and that it was in him a work of supererogation to refuse to receive payment, appears from what has gone before, and from 1 Cor 9:15, where he says, “It were better for me to die than that any man should make my glorying void.”

1 Cor 9:13 Know you not that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place; and they that serve the altar partake with the altar?

—Know you not that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place? The priests and Levites partake of the victims offered, and the tithes and firstfruits. The Greek for “minister” is “labour.” The office of the priests was to labour at killing, cutting up, skinning, boiling, and burning the victims, all of which are laborious, and under other circumstances would be the work of butchers.

And they that serve the altar partake with the altar. He does not say, says S. Chrysostom, the priests, but they which wait at the altar, that we may see that constant attendance on sacred things is required from the ministers of the temple of Christ, who partake of the good things of the Temple. On the other hand, now-a-days, none are less often at the altar than some who derive the greatest profit from the altar and from tithes. These are condemned by the Council of Trent.

1 Cor 9:14 So also the Lord ordained that they who preach the gospel should live by the gospel.

—So also the Lord ordained. S. Luke 10:7; S. Matt. 10:10, 11, 14.

 1 Cor 9:15 But I have used none of these things. Neither have I written these things, that they should be so done unto me: for it is good for me to die rather than that any man should make my glory void.

—for it is good for me to die rather than that any man should make my glory void. His glorying has for its subject the preaching of the Gospel without charge, or his work of liberality, free grace, and supererogation, as is evident from ver. 18. It appears from this that it is an Evangelical counsel to preach the Gospel without charge, as is now done by some apostolic and religious men. So Theophylact, Theodoret, and Anselm. Cf. also Chrysostom and Anselm.

Observe that S. Paul does not speak of his glory but his glorying, viz., that that he could make before God and before men, especially before the false apostles, who were held of great account and sumptuously maintained by the Corinthians. Cf. 2 Cor. 11:7, for similar “glorying.”

1 Cor 9:16 For if I preach the gospel, it is no glory to me: for a necessity lieth upon me. For woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel. 

.—For woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel. It appears from this that strict injunctions were given to the Apostles (S. Matt. 28:19) to preach the Gospel and teach all nations, insomuch that, if they had neglected to do so, they would have sinned mortally. For on those that neglect this their duty he pronounces the woe of the wrath of God and of hell. By the same injunctions all pastors, Bishops, and Archbishops are now bound. Cf. 1 Cor 1:17.

1 Cor 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation is committed to me. 

—For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward. That is, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Œcumenius, and Anselm say, if I freely preach without charge, I have not merely the reward given to a work that has been enjoined on me, as other Apostles have, but the exceeding reward of abounding glory given to a work not enjoined, but heroically undertaken by a soul that is of its own accord generous towards God.

But if against my will. Compelled by a command of God, or under fear of punishment. Willingly here denotes the doing a thing of one’s own motion, one’s own accord, and free will; unwillingly, the doing it under order, being moved and forced by the will of another.

A dispensation is committed unto me. I shall not have that supreme glory I spoke of, but neither shall I sin, because I fulfil my duty, and do what I am ordered. For this commission of preaching the Gospel was intrusted to me. But though I do not sin, yet I act as a slave, or as a steward in matters intrusted to his care, not of his own accord, but merely doing what he ought to do, because compelled to it by his Lord’s command. Cf. S. Luke 17:8. So the Fathers cited understand this passage, and that this is the meaning appears also from the context.

Some explain it differently in this way: If I preach the Gospel willingly I have merit and reward, because of my own free will I fulfil the command of Christ; but if I do it unwillingly, I fail to attain merit and reward, because I act under compulsion. A dispensation of the Gospel is committed unto me, and so by me, though unwilling, Christ’s Gospel is propagated, and others profit, though I do not. This seems to be the simple meaning of the words by themselves. This explanation is favoured by S. Thomas, Lyranus, and the Ambrosian commentary; but the context requires the former sense.

1 Cor 9:18 What is my reward then? That preaching the gospel, I may deliver the gospel without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

—What is my reward then? That glorious and supreme reward spoken of.

Observe that reward is put by metonymy for merit, or for a heroic and meritorious work, that calls for a great reward. This work, he goes on to say, is to preach the Gospel without charge.

From these words it is evident that not all good works are matters of precept, but that some are works of counsel and supererogation, and that such merit with God an illustrious crown of glory. So S. Chrysostom, Ambrose, S. Augustine (de Opere Monach. c. 5), and Bellarmine (de Monach. lib. ii. c. 9).

The other Apostles, being full of zeal for God, would as well as Paul have preached the Gospel freely, if they might thence have hoped for a greater harvest of souls, and greater glory before God. But this they might not hope for, for the faithful were generous to them, and the Jews devoted to them, and of their own accord they supplied their needs. Cf. Acts 4:34. But Paul, as one outside the order and number of the twelve Apostles, called to the apostolate after the death of Christ, had to gain a recognition of his authority, and he judged it useful to that end that he should preach the Gospel without charge. Moreover, the Corinthians, though rich, were covetous; and, therefore, Paul preached freely to prevent them from supposing that he sought their goods instead of themselves; but from the more generous Thessalonians and Philippians he accepted support. In short, Paul wished by this course of action to shut the mouth of the Jews, who hated him, and of the false Apostles. He says this indeed in 2 Cor. 11:12.

That I abuse not my power in the Gospel. That I may not use my undoubted right and liberty to the detriment of the Gospel. Not that it really is an abuse to receive money for preaching the Gospel, but that it is the employment of a lesser good. Abuse is used here for use to the full, as it is in chap. 7:31. Cf. a similar use of the word in S. Paulinus (Ep. 2.)

It may be said that Ambrose here understands the word to mean literal abuse, which is sin, when he says: “They who use their right, when it is inexpedient to do so, or when another suffers loss, are guilty, and therefore sin.” I reply that this is true when they can easily give up their right, and when others suffer great loss by their not yielding; for charity then bids us give way. These conditions, the Ambrosian commentary seems to think, existed with Paul and the Corinthians.

But the opposite is far more true. It was a very difficult matter for the Apostle to yield his right of maintenance at the hands of the Corinthians, because by so yielding he had to spend nights without sleep, while he laboured with his hands to procure food for himself and his companions; while the Corinthians, who were numerous and rich, might easily have maintained him. Nor ought they to have taken offence at this, for the other Apostles were maintained by their flocks, and all law and reason say that he who labours for another should be maintained by him. The Apostle, therefore, wished to set a noble example of poverty, sincerity, and zeal, for the greater commendation and spread of the faith among those who were young in it, and the avaricious rich. But such a heroic work as this is not a precept, but a counsel of charity. Therefore, in the next verse, he says that in such matters he is free.

1 Cor 9:19 For whereas I was free as to all, I made myself the servant of all, that I might gain the more.

—For whereas I was free as to all, I made myself the servant of all. I humbled myself to all things, even to want and hunger; I accommodated myself to the weaknesses of all, insomuch that, when I saw the Corinthians slow and niggardly in their support of the Apostles, I refused to accept any payment from them, that I might gain all by condescending to their infirmity.

1 Cor 9:20 And I became to the Jews a Jew, that I might gain the Jews:

1 Cor 9:21 To them that are under the law, as if I were under the law, (whereas myself was not under the law,) that I might gain them that were under the law. To them that were without the law, as if I were without the law, (whereas I was not without the law of God, but was in the law of Christ,) that I might gain them that were without the law.

—To them that are under the law, as if I were under the law. To the Jews I became as one under the Mosaic law. This took place, e.g., says Œcumenius, when he circumcised Timothy, when, after purifying himself, he went to the Temple, because he had a vow (Acts 21:26).

To them that were without law, as if I were without law. To the Gentiles I became as though I followed nature only as my light and leader, as the Gentiles do. So Œcumenius, Theophylact, and Chrysostom.

1 Cor 9:22 To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I became all things to all men, that I might save all.

—I became all things to all men. Not by acting deceitfully or sinfully, but through sympathy and compassion, which made me suit myself to the dispositions of all men, so, as far as honesty and God’s law allow, that I might be able to heal the indispositions of all. Cf. S. Augustine (Epp. 9 and 19): “Not by lying, but by sympathy; not by cunning craftiness, but by large-hearted compassion was Paul made all things to all men.”

The Apostle does not sanction what men of the world wish for and do, viz., the accommodating ourselves through right and wrong to all men, feigning to be heretics with heretics, Turks with Turks, pure with the pure, and unclean with those that are unclean. This he condemns (Gal. 2:11 et seq.). The advice of S. Ephrem (Attende tibi, c. 10) is sound: “Have charity with all and abstain from all;” and again the apophthegm of S. Bernard, which embraces every virtue: “Live so as to be prudent for yourself, useful to others, pleasing to God.” S. Jordan, S. Dominic’s successor in the Generalship of the Order, used to say, as his life relates: “If I had devoted myself as closely to any branch of learning as I have to that sentence of S. Paul’s, ‘I am made all things to all men,’ I should be most learned and eminent in it. Throughout the whole of my life I have studied to accommodate myself to every one: to the soldier I was as a soldier, to the nobleman as a nobleman, to the plebeian as a plebeian; and thus I always endeavoured to do them good in this way, while on the watch that I did not lose or hurt my soul while benefitting them.”

1 Cor 9:23 And I do all things for the gospel’s sake, that I may be made partaker thereof.

—And this I do all things for the gospel’s sake, that I may be made partaker thereof. That I may with other preachers receive, in due time, fruit of the Gospel that I have preached. The Greek denotes a partaker with others. Hence in the second place Chrysostom understands “partaker thereof” to mean a fellow-sharer of the faithful in the Gospel, i.e., of the crowns laid up for the faithful. And Chrysostom rightly points to the wonderful humility of Paul, in putting himself on a level with even ordinary Christians, when he had surpassed not only the faithful, but all the other Apostles in his labours for the Gospel. Cf. 1 Cor. 15:10.

1 Cor 9:24 Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize. So run that you may obtain.

—Know you not that they that run in the race, , but all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? For this I preach the Gospel without charge; for this I am made all things to all men; for this I labour, that I may obtain that best prize of all, given to those who run in this race.

As it is in a race, so is it in the Christian course: it is not all that run that receive the prize, but those only that run well and duly reach the appointed goal. I say duly, or according to the laws of the course which Christ the Judge has laid down for those that run, and according to which He has promised the prize to those that run well. When, therefore, one is mentioned, more are not excluded. For the Apostle does not mean to say, as Chrysostom well remarks, that only one Christian surpasses the rest, and is more zealous of good works, and will receive the prize; for a similitude does not hold good in all points, but only in that one which is expressed. The comparison here is that, as in a race he who runs well receives the prize, so in Christianity he who runs well will receive a crown of glory. And this is evident from what is added, “So run that you may obtain,” i.e., not one, but each one. Moreover, in a race it is often not only the first, but the second, third, or fourth who also receives a prize.

Still the Apostle says one, not three or four, because he is chiefly looking at that glory and superexcellent reward given, not to all the elect, but to those few heroic souls that follow, not only the precepts, but also the counsels of Christ. For he is looking to the prize which he is expecting for himself, in having been the only Apostle to preach the Gospel without charge, in having surpassed all the other Apostles in the greatness of his labour and his charity, in having become all things to all men. He says in effect: O Christians, do not merely run duly, that ye may obtain, but run most well and most swiftly, that you may carry off the first and most splendid prize of glory. It is a sluggish soul that says, “It is enough for me to be saved and reach heaven.” For each one, says Chrysostom, ought to strive to be first in heaven, and receive the first prize there.

Some understand this passage to refer to the mansions or crowns and prizes prepared for each of the elect, and would read it, “Let each so run that he may obtain his prize.” But this explanation is more acute than simple.

Anselm again takes it a little differently. Heathens, heretics, reprobates, he says, run, but the one people of elect Christians receives the prize. But the Apostle is speaking to Christians only as running, and he urges them to so run that they may obtain the prize to which they are called by the Gospel of Christ.

So run that you may obtain. I.e., obtain the crown of glory and the prize of victory. The allusion is to those that ran in the public games for a crown as the prize, with which they were crowned when victorious. Cf. notes to Rev. 3:2. The word so denotes the rectitude, the diligence, the swiftness, and the perseverance especially required in order to win the prize. The course of Christ was marked by these qualities, that course which all ought to put before themselves for imitation. S. Bernard (Ep. 254) says: “The Creator Himself of man and of the world, did He, while He dwelt here below with men, stand still? Nay, as the Scripture testifies, ‘He went about doing good and healing all.’ He went through the world not unfruitfully, carelessly, lazily, or with laggard step, but so as it was written of Him, ‘He rejoiced as a giant to run his course.’ No one catches the runner but he that runs equally fast; and what avails it to stretch out after Christ if you do not lay hold of Him? Therefore is it that Paul said, ‘So run that ye may obtain.’ There, O Christian, set the goal of your course and your journeying where Christ placed His. ‘He was made obedient unto death.’ However long then you may have run, you will not obtain the prize if you do not persevere even unto death. The prize is Christ.” He then goes on to point out that in the race of virtue not to run, to stand still, is to fail and go back. “But if while He runs you stand still, yon come no nearer to Christ, nay, you recede from Him, and should fear for yourself what David said, ‘Lo, they that are far from Thee shall perish.’ Therefore, if to go forward is to run, when you cease to go forward you cease to run: when you are not running you begin to go back. Hence we may plainly see that not to wish to go forward is nothing but to go back. Jacob saw a ladder, and on the ladder angels, where none teas sitting down, none standing still; but all seemed to be either ascending or descending, that we might be plainly given to understand that in this mortal course no mean is to be found between going forward and going back, but that in the same way as our bodies are known to be continuously either increasing or decreasing, so must our spirit be always either going forward or going back.”

1 Cor 9:25 And every one that striveth for the mastery refraineth himself from all things. And they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown: but we an incorruptible one.

—And every one that striveth for the mastery refraineth himself from all things. Every wrestler, &c., refrains from everything that may endanger his success, 1. The allusion is to the Isthmian games, celebrated at Corinth in honour of Neptune and Palæmon, in which the victor was crowned with a pine-wreath. Of these games the poet Archias thus sings:—

“Four Argive towns the sacred contests see,
And two to men, and two to gods belong;
Love gives the olive, Phœbus sunny fruit,
Palæmon poppy, and Archemorus the pine.”

2. There is consequently an allusion also to the athletes, the wrestlers, and boxers, who fought with their fists; to the runners, who strove for the prize for speed; to all who contested, whether with hand, or foot, or the whole body, for the prize.

3. All these abstained from luxurious living, and only lived on the necessities of life. This is what the Apostle alludes to when he says, reefraineth himself from all things. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. lib. iii.), following Plato (de Leg. lib. viii.), adds that they also refrained from all sexual intercourse. For as lust weakens, enervates, and exhausts the body, so do continence and chastity strengthen the body, and much more the mind. S. Ephrem, too, in his tractate on the words, “It is better to marry than to burn,” explains this abstinence from all things spoken of here to be abstinence from all lust.

4. The course is this present life, or each one’s state in the Church, and especially that of an evangelist; the runner or wrestler is each Christian. Hence, S. Dionysius (de Eccles. Hierarch. cvii.) says that those who are baptized are anointed with oil, that they may understand that by this sign they are anointed to be Christ’s athletes, and are consequently called to fight a holy fight for faith and godliness. He adds that it is the practice, too, to anoint them when dead, as athletes perfected by death. He says: “The first anointing called him to a holy fight; the second shows that he has finished his course and been perfected by death.”

5. In this course and contest the antagonist is the world, the flesh, and the devil; the athlete’s diet is moderate food tempered with fasting; the fight consists in the castigation of the body, and all the arduous offices of virtue, which are accomplished with a conflict, whether external or internal;—especially is the preaching and spreading of the Gospel such a fight; and from such arises the victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil. The prize is the incorruptible crown of eternal glory for which Paul expresses his longing in 2 Tim. 4:8. The punishment inflicted on the conquered is rejection and eternal confusion (1 Cor 9:27). As the athlete, by abstinence, exercise, and toil, subdues and exercises his body, and prepares it for the race-course or the contest, that he may conquer by lawful and generous effort, and may obtain a corruptible crown, so much more to obtain the eternal crown do we Christians, and especially I, your Apostle, keep under and exercise my body by fasting, labour, and weariness, and so much more severely do I, as an athlete in the Divine contest, exact from myself all the offices of those that fight. I do this, lest my body lose the strength derived from continency and a hard life by luxurious living, and then dwindle down into the helplessness of a self-indulgent life. But as I have to fight against the world, the flesh, and the devil, let me rather imitate the athletes, and so conquer and be crowned. Come, then, O Corinthians, run with me in this course; abstain not only from things offered to idols, because of scandal, but also from luxuries—from wine and lust—that you may gain the victory and carry off the prize. This exhortation to abstinence was occasioned by the question of idol-sacrifices, as I said at the beginning of chapter 8.

Epaminondas, leader of the Thebans, having fought most bravely in battle, and being wounded, even to death, asked, as he was dying, whether his shield were safe and the enemy slain; and when they answered “Yes” to both questions, he said: “Now is the end of my life; but a better and higher beginning is at hand: now is Epaminondas being born in so dying.” So Valerius Maximus relates. If Epaminondas so strove for a temporal victory, for praise and glory that are evanescent, and died so joyfully and gloriously what shall the soldier of Christ do for the crown that fadeth not away, for the glory that knows no ending? Tertullian (ad Martyres, c. iv.) says excellently: “If earthly glories can so overcome bodily and mental delights as to throw contempt on the sword, fire, crucifixion, wild beasts, and torments, in order to obtain the reward of human praise, I may well say that these sufferings are but little to undergo to obtain the glories of heaven. Is glass worth as much as true pearls? Who therefore would not most joyfully suffer for the true glory as much as others suffer for the false?”

Virgil says of Junius Brutus, who ordered his sons to be put to death for conspiring against the Romans with the Tarquins—

“The love of Rome him mastered with boundless thirst for praise;”

so we may say of the Christian—

“The love of Christ will conquer, and heaven’s unquenchable thirst.”

Listen to what S. Chrysostom says (de Martyr, vol. iii.): “You are but a feather-bed soldier if you think that you can conquer without a fight, triumph without a battle. Exert your strength, fight strenuously, strive to the death in this battle. Look at the covenant, attend to the conditions, know the warfare—the covenant that you have entered into, the conditions on which you have enrolled yourself, the warfare into which you have thrown yourself.”

It is clear from this, says S. Chrysostom, that faith alone is not sufficient for salvation, but that works also are requisite, and heroic efforts, and especially no small abstinence from all the allurements of the world. For, as S. Jerome says (Ep. 34 ad Julian): “It is difficult, nay, it is impossible for any one to enjoy both the present and the future, to fill here his belly and there his soul, to pass from one delight to the other, to show himself glorious both in heaven and in earth.”

S. Augustine piously consoles and animates Christ’s athletes by reminding them of the help that God gives (Serm. 105). He says: “He who ordered the strife helps them that strive. God does not look upon you in your contest as the spectators do on the athlete: for the populace warms him by shouts, but cannot lend him any help. He who arranged the contest can provide the crown, but cannot lend strength; but God, when He sees His servants striving, helps them when they call upon Him. For it is the voice of the combatant himself in Psalm 94:18, who says, ‘When I said, my foot slippeth, Thy mercy, O Lord, held mc up.’ ” S. Dionysius too (de Eccl. Hier. cii.) says: “To them that strive the Lord promises crowns as God. He has laid down the rules of the contest by His wisdom. He has appointed rewards most fair and beautiful for the conquerors; and, what is surely more Divine, He Himself, as supreme loving-kindness and goodness, conquers in His warriors; and while He indwells within them, He fights for their safety and victory against the forces of death and corruption.”

1 Cor 9:26 I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty: I so fight, not as one beating the air.

—I so fight I, not as one beating the air. The comparison is still maintained. I fight as an athlete, but I do not spend my toil for nought, but I wound my enemy, i.e., I subdue my body and my flesh; and when I have subdued this foe, the remaining two, the world and the devil, are easily overcome. For the world and the devil cannot kill us, wound us, strike us, tempt us, approach us, except through the body and its organs, the eyes and ears and tongue and other members.

1 Cor 9:27 But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.

—But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection. I chastise means, says S. Ambrose, “I repress it by fastings;” “I wound it with stripes,” says S. Basil (de Virginitate); “I starve it,” says Origen. S. Augustine (de Utilit. Jejun.) says: “The devil often takes it upon him to protect the flesh against the soul, and to say, ‘Why do you thus fast?—you are laying up punishment in store for yourself, you are your own torturer and murderer.’ Answer him, ‘I keep it under, lest this beast of burden throw me headlong.’ ” For our flesh is the devil’s instrument; it is, says S. Bernard, “the snare of the devil” (Serm. 8 in Ps. xci.). Erasmus, following Theophylact and Paulinus (Ep. 58 ad. Aug.), renders the Greek verb, “I make it black and blue,” or “I make the eyes of a black and bloody colour.” This last is, as Hesychius and Suidas say, the literal rendering of the word. But all others in general take the word to mean subdue, coerce, bruise. Castigate in the Latin, or “keep under,” as the text, suits both renderings, but the second is better, as being at once plainer and more near to the Greek—taking ὑπωπιάζω to be synonymous with ὑποπιέζω.

This keeping under or castigation of the body is effected by fastings, hair-shirts, humiliations, scourgings, and other mortifications of the flesh. Hence some think that Paul was in the habit of scourging his body. This is certainly the literal meaning of the Greek, which is rendered by Beza, Melancthon, Castalion, and Henry Stephen “bruise.” But a bruise is not caused except by a blow, whether from a stick, or a scourge, or some other instrument. Moreover, fasting (which some, as, e.g., Ambrose, Gregory, and Chrysostom, think was Paul’s discipline) is not so much a strife and contest as a preparation for them; for of it he has already said, “Every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things.” Cf. also Jacob Gretser (de Discipl. lib. i. c. 4).

Moreover, as Anselm remarks, as well as Gregory, in a passage to be quoted directly, the Apostle, while he keeps under and scourges his body, at the same time scourges and wounds the devil, his antagonist, who is in alliance with our carnal concupiscence, and lies in hiding within the foul jungle of the flesh, and through it tempts and attacks us.

Lest perhaps… I myself should become a castaway. Lest I be a reprobate from God and excluded from heaven. Maldonatus (Notæ Manusc.) learnedly says that, as the comparison is still with the arena, a castaway here is one who is conquered in the fight; and that S. Paul’s meaning is, “Lest while I teach others to conquer I myself be conquered.” The Apostle is speaking not of eternal reprobation, which is in the mind of God, but of that temporal reprobation which is the execution of the eternal. He is referring to Jer. 6:30: “Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them.”

1. Hence it is clear that the Apostle is not speaking (as in 2 Cor. 13:7), as some think, of the reprobation of men, as if his meaning were, “What I preach that I practise: I do not fare sumptuously, but I keep under my body, lest I be a castaway and reprobate of men, and regarded as one not doing what he teaches.” For Jeremiah clearly speaks of God’s rejection, not men’s; and reprobation and reprobate always refer to this when they are spoken of absolutely, and not restricted to men, as they are restricted in 2 Cor. 13:7. Hence appears the uncertainty to us of grace and predestination. Paul feared being condemned, and will you believe that your faith cannot but save you?

2. It also follows that Paul had no revelation of his salvation. Cf. S. Gregory (lib. vi. Ep. 22, ad Gregoriam).

3. And that he was not so strong in grace but that he might fall from it.

From this passage, it is evident that the Christian’s fight consists especially in bringing the body into subjection. For this foe is an inward foe, and one most hard to withstand, and therefore the snares of the flesh are to be dreaded more than all others. We ought also to get ourselves ready for this fight by the athlete’s training, that is, by temperance, and in this temperance we should begin the fight, and in it daily increase, grow strong, and come to perfection. The Christian, therefore, must begin with conquering gluttony. When that is done, it will be easier for him to conquer other vices, as Cassianus and others say. Hence it appears that the Christian fighter must keep under his body, lest its lusts make him a castaway; and that, therefore, bodily mortification, by watchings, fastings, and other afflictions, is the right way to salvation, and is the most suitable instrument for perfecting virtue, and for the complete subdual of vices, if it be done with discretion, and in proportion to one’s strength and health. Cf. S. Thomas (ii. ii. qu. 188, art. 7).

But let us hear what the ancient doctors of the Church have to say on this head. Ambrose (Ep. ad Eccl. Vercell.) says: “I hear that there are men who say that there is no merit in fasting, and who scoff at those who mortify their flesh, that they may subdue it to the mind. This S. Paul would never have done or said if he had thought it folly” (let our Protestant friends observe this); “for he says, as though boasting, ‘I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.’ Therefore, those who do not mortify their body, and who wish to preach to others, are themselves regarded as reprobates. What new school has sent forth these Epicureans to preach pleasure and advise luxury? The Lord Jesus, wishing to strengthen us against the temptations of the devil, fasted before He strove with him, that we might know that we cannot in any other way overcome the blandishments of the evil one. Let these men say why Christ fasted if it were not to give us an example to do likewise.”

S. Gregory (Morals, lib. xxx. c. 26) says: “Nebuzaradan, the chief of the cooks, destroyed the walls of Jerusalem as he destroys the virtues of the soul when the belly is not kept in check. Hence it is that Paul took away his power from the chief of the cooks, i.e., the belly, in its assault on the walls of Jerusalem, when he said, ‘I keep under my body and bring it into subjection.’ Hence it is that he had said just before, ‘So fight I, not as one that beateth the air.’ When we restrain the flesh, it is not the air but the unclean spirits that we wound with the blows of our abstinence; and in subduing what is within we deal blows to the foes without. Hence is it that, when the King of Babylon orders the furnace to be heated, he has a heap of tow and pitch thrown into it, but nevertheless the fire has no power over the children of abstinence; for though our old enemy put before our eyes a countless number of delicacies to increase the fire of our lust, yet the grace of the Spirit from on high whispers to us, bidding us stand our ground, untouched by the burning lusts of the flesh.”

S. Basil (Hom. de Legend. Gentil. Libris) says: “The body must be mortified and kept in check like a wild beast, and the passions that take their rise from it to the soul’s hurt must be kept in order by the scourge reason, lest by giving free rein to pleasure the mind become like a driver of restive and unbroken horses, and be run away with and lost. Amongst other sayings there is one of Pythagoras which deserves to be remembered. When he saw a certain man looking after himself with great care, and fattening himself by sumptuous living and exercise, he said: ‘Unhappy man! you are ever engaged in building for yourself a worse and worse prison!’ It is said too of Plato, that owing to his vivid realisation of the harm that arises from the body, he fixed his Academy at Athens in an unhealthy spot, that he might reduce the excessive prosperity of the body, as a gardener prunes a vine whose boughs stretch too far. I too have often heard physicians say that extremely good health is fallacious. Since, therefore, care for the body seems to be harmful to body and soul alike, to hug this burden and to be a slave to it is evident proof of madness. But if we study to despise it, we shall not easily lose ourselves in admiration of anything human.” S. Basil again (in Reg. Fusius Disp. Reg. 17) says: “As a muscular build and good complexion put a stamp of superiority on the athlete, so is the Christian distinguished from others by bodily emaciation and pallid complexion, which are ever the companions of abstinence. He is thereby proved to be a wrestler indeed, following the commands of Christ, and in weakness of body he lays his adversary low on the ground, and shows how powerful he is in the contests of godliness according to the words, ‘When I am weak, then am I strong!’ ”

S. Chrysostom says here: “ ‘I mortify my body’ means that I undergo much labour to live temperately. Although desire is intractable, the belly clamorous, yet I rein them in, and do not surrender myself to my passions, but repress them, and with wearisome effort bring under nature herself. I say this that no one may lose heart in his struggle for virtue, for it is an arduous fight. Wherefore he says, ‘I keep under my body and bring it into subjection.’ He did not say, ‘I destroy and punish it,’ for the flesh is not an enemy, but ‘I keep it under and bring it into subjection,’ because it is the property of my Lord, not of an enemy; of a trainer, not a foe; ‘lest by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.’ If Paul feared this, being such a teacher as he was; if he had any dread, after having preached to the whole world, what are we to say?”

S. Jerome, writing against Jovinian, a heretic, an opponent of fasting, of chastity, and asceticism, ably defends these duties, and about the end of lib. ii. he says: “The fact that many agree with your opinions is a mark of luxuriousness; and you think it adds to your reputation for wisdom to have more pigs running after you to be fed with the food or the flames of hell. Basilides, a teacher of luxury and filthy practices, has after these many years now been transformed into Jovinian, as into Euphorbus, that the Latin race might know his heresy. It was the banner of the Cross and the severity of preaching” (let the Protestants mark this) “which destroyed the idol-temples. Impurity, gluttony, and drunkenness are endeavouring to overthrow the fortitude taught by the Cross. False prophets always promise pleasant things, but they give not much satisfaction. Truth is bitter, and those who preach it are filled until bitterness.”

Cassianus (de Instit. Renunt. lib. v. c. xvii. et seq.) says: “Do you want to listen to the true athlete of Christ striving according to the lawful rules of the contest? He says, ‘I therefore so run not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air, but I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, lest when I have preached to others I myself should be a castaway.’ Seest thou how he has placed in himself, that is in his flesh, the hottest part of the battle, and has thus put it on a firm base, and how he has made the fight consist in simple bodily mortification and in the subjection of his flesh?” And then a little afterwards he repeats these words of the Apostle, and adds: “This properly has to do with the sufferings of continence, and bodily fasting, and mortification of the flesh. He describes himself as a strenuous combatant of the flesh, and points out that the blows of abstinence that he directs against it are not in vain, but that he has gained a triumph by mortifying his body. That body, having been punished by the blows of continence and wounded by the bruises of fastings, has given to the victorious spirit the crown of immortality and the palm that never fadeth.… So fights he by fastings and affliction of the flesh, not as one that beateth the air, i.e., that deals in vain the blows of continence; but he wounds the spirits who dwell in the air, by mortifying his body. For he that says, ‘not as one that beateth the air,’ declares that he strikes some one that is in the air.”

Further, not only for the sake of lust, but to subdue pride and break down all vices, and to cultivate every virtue, the body must be mortified, as S. Jerome says (Ep. 14 ad Celantiam): “They who are taught by experience and knowledge to hold fast the virtue of abstinence mortify their flesh to break the soul’s pride, in order that so they may descend from the pinnacle of their haughty arrogance to fulfil the will of God, which is most perfectly fulfilled in humility. Therefore do they withdraw their mind from hankering after variety of foods, that they may devote all their strength to the pursuit of virtue. By degrees the flesh feels less and less the burden of fastings, as the soul more hungers after righteousness. For that chosen vessel, Paul, in mortifying his body and bringing it into subjection, was not seeking after chastity alone, as some ignorant persons suppose: for fasting helps not only this virtue but every virtue.”

Lastly, the holy hermits of old, in their zeal after perfection, mortified their bodies to a degree that seems incredible. And that this was pleasing to God is seen from the holiness, the happiness, and the length of their lives. We may read for this Jerome, in his life of S. Hilarion, S. Paul, S. Malchus; Athanasius in his life of S. Antony; Theodoret in his life of S. Simeon Stylites, who for eighty years stood under the open sky night and day, hardly taking food or sleep. Sagacious men have observed in their lives of the Saints that scarcely any Saints have been illustrious for their miracles and for their actions but such as were eminent for their fastings and asceticism, or who afflicted their bodies, or were afflicted by God with diseases, or by enemies and tyrants with tortures and troubles; that other Saints, who led an ordinary life, were of great benefit to the Church, but seldom if ever performed any miracles.

Father Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians Chapter 8

CHAPTER 8

1 To abstain from meats offered to idols. 8, 9 We must not abuse our Christian liberty, to the offence of our brethren: 11 but must bridle our knowledge with charity.

SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTER

In this Chapter he treats of the second general question put before him by the Corinthians. It dealt with things offered to idols, and whether it was lawful to eat of them.

i.      He answers that, taken by itself, such eating was not unlawful, since an idol is nothing.

ii.      He next says that it is unlawful, if conscience be wounded, or if offence be caused to the weaker brethren. He impresses upon them that this last is by all means to be avoided.

CONTEXT

To understand the three following chapters, note that the things spoken of as offered to idols are flesh, bread, wine, &c. It was not sin simply to eat such things, as S. Thomas lays down (i. ii. qu. 103, art. 4, ad. 3). Still it was a sin (1.) if it was out of unbelief, as, e.g., if any idolater ate of such things in honour of the idol, or if it were done out of weakness of faith, as was frequently the case in S. Paul’s time. For many had been but lately converted, and were only half-taught, and so had not wholly cast off their old ideas about idols and idol-offerings, and therefore still regarded them as having something Divine about them. They regarded the food offered to idols as holy and consecrated, although the Christian faith taught them the opposite.

2. It would be sinful if any one who thought it unlawful to eat of such things were to go against his conscience and eat of them, thinking, that is, that so doing was holding communion with the idols and professing idolatry. The same would be the case if he thought that the flesh had been polluted by the idol or devil to whom it had been offered, and that consequently it defiled him that ate of it. The Apostle said the same in Rom. 14.

3. It would be a sin if any one, knowing that an idol is nothing, should yet eat of things offered to idols in the presence of weak brethren, and to show his knowledge and liberty, and so provoke them (1 Cor 8:10) to eat of the same things against their conscience, or to think that he, by eating, was sinning against the faith, or returning to the worship of idols, and dragging others with him.

4. It would be against the Apostolic precept, given in Acts 15:19, forbidding the eating of things offered to idols.

5. It would be a sin if eaten in such way and under such circumstances, as, e.g., in the idol-temple, when the idolatrous sacrifice is offered, as to cause others to think that it was done in honour of the idol, and in profession of idolatry, in the same way that any one who participates in a Calvinistic supper is looked upon as professing Calvinism. It is of this case that that S. Augustine speaks (de Bono Conjug. xvi.) when he says, “It is better to die of hunger than to eat of things offered to idols.”

The Emperor Julian, in order to compel the Catholics of Constantinople to some outward compliance with idolatry, forced them all to eat of things offered to idols. The story is related by Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, in a sermon delivered by him at the beginning of Lent. He says: “He defiled all the foods that were exposed for sale in the public markets, with sacrifices offered to the gods, that so all might either be compelled to eat of these sacrificial foods or perish of hunger. The faithful inquired at the oracle of the martyr Theodore how they were to act at this crisis; and they were bidden from heaven to use, instead of bread, boiled corn for food. This the rich generously distributed to their poorer brethren for a week, when the Emperor Julian, despairing of being able to accomplish his purpose, and vanquished by the continence and constancy of the Christians, ordered pure and undefiled food to be again sold in the markets”

1. We should observe here the expression, “vanquished by the continency of the Christians.” Their abstinence was constant and spontaneous. For, though they might have eaten of the foods defiled by Julian’s orders, as though common foods, yet they refused out of abhorrence of Julian and his idols. That they might lawfully have eaten of them appears from the fact that Julian was unable to defile ordinary food by bringing it into contact with things offered to idols, or to make it sacred to devils, in such a way that one who ate of them should be regarded as an idol-worshipper. For though this might have been Julian’s intention, yet he was but a single individual, and unable to alter the common judgment of men, which regarded this not as idolatrous but as indifferent. Hence, too, the citizens of Antioch, when Julian had in like manner polluted their food and drink, ate and drank of them freely and without scruple, as Theodoret tells us (Hist. lib. i. c. 14). S. Augustine, too (Ep. 154), says that it is lawful to eat of vegetables grown in an idol’s garden, and to drink from a pitcher or a well in an idol-temple, or into which something offered to idols has fallen. Cf. notes to 10:21.

2. Notice, again, that there were at Corinth some who knew and felt that this was the case, viz., that idols and the things offered to them had no meaning; and so they ate of such things to the scandal of those who were not so strong and not so well informed, in order to show their knowledge and liberty. But others, less well instructed, either had not quite cast off their old feelings about idols and idol-sacrifices, or at all events had a lingering feeling that they were sacred, and hence might easily relapse. This is why the Apostle, fearing danger for such, said, in 1 Cor 10:14, “Flee from idolatry.” It led to the question being put to the Apostle by the Corinthians, whether it was lawful to eat of things offered to idols.

3. The Apostle answers that question by saying (a) that an idol and its sacrifice is nothing; (b) that they should abstain from things offered to idols where there was offence caused; and this is the subject of this chapter.

4. The Apostle here only begins his answer to the question, for he clears it up and fully replies in 1 Cor 10:20-21. Not only does he not allow them, because of the scandal caused, to eat of such things; but even when there is no scandal he forbids them to eat of them in the temples, at the altars, or tables of idols, as their wont was, and in the presence of those who offered them. For this would be to profess idolatry, and to worship the idol in the feast which consummated the sacrifice offered to it; for this banquet was a part of the sacrifice and its completion. In this sense we must understand Rev. 2:14 and Rev 2:20, where the angel, i.e., the Bishop of Pergamos and Thyatira, is rebuked for allowing his flock to eat of things offered to idols, as though they were sacred and Divine, and so give honour to idols. For this was the stumbling-block that King Balak, at the instigation of Balaam, put before the children of Israel: by eating of things offered to idols they were enticed into worshiping Baal-Peor. (Num. 25:2). For the same reason it was forbidden by the Council of Gangra (cap. ii.) to eat of idol-sacrifices, and also by the Third Council of Orleans (cap. xix.).

5. The Apostle says nothing of the apostolic precept of Acts 15, which forbade absolutely the eating of things offered to idols, because that precept was directed to the men of Antioch and its neighbourhood alone (1 Cor 8:13), where were very many Jews who abhorred idols and idol-sacrifices. These had sent with the Gentiles messengers to Jerusalem to the Apostles, that they might decide the question about the observance of the Law. To them the Apostles replied that the ordinances of the Law were not binding, but that, notwithstanding, they must abstain from the eating of things offered to idols, for the sake of concord between the Jews and Gentiles. Afterwards, however, other heathen living far distant from Antioch, of their own free will obeyed the command, through the reverence they felt for the Apostles. Cf. Baronius (a.d. 51, p. 441).

1 Cor 8:1 NOW concerning those things that are sacrificed to idols: we know we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up: but charity edifieth.

Now concerning those things that are sacrificed to idols we know that we all have knowledge. We all know, though some of you may think differently, that things offered to idols are the same as other food, and have no greater sanctity or power. All of us who are fairly well instructed in the faith of Christ know that they belong to the class of adiaphora.

Knowledge puffeth up. This knowledge of yours, that idols are nothing, and that consequently it is lawful to eat of things offered to idols, which accordingly you do to the great offence of those who know it not, makes you proud towards the ignorant, and makes you look down on them. The word for puffeth up points to a bladder distended with wind. Such, he says, is this windy knowledge. S. Augustine (Sent. n. 241) says: “It is a virtue of the humble not to boast of their knowledge; because, as all alike share the light, so do they the truth.”

But charity edifieth. The weak and ignorant. It brushes aside such things as the eating of idol-sacrifices, which may be stumbling-blocks to them, so as to keep them in the faith of Christ, and help them forward in it. Windy knowledge, therefore, makes a man proud, if it be not tempered with charity. So Anselm.

It plainly appears that this knowledge, which puffeth up, is contrary to charity, for it induces contempt of one’s neighbours, while charity is anxious to edify them. S. Bernard (Serm. 36 in Cantic.) says appositely: “As food, if not digested, generates unhealthy humours, and harms rather than nourishes the body, so if a mass of knowledge be bolted into the mind’s stomach, which is the memory, and be not assimilated by the fire of Christ, and if it be so passed along through the arteries of the soul, vis., the character and acts, will it not be regarded as sin, being food changed into evil and noxious humours?”

1 Cor 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he hath not yet known as he ought to know.

And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know. He who is puffed up at the thought that he knows something, knows not yet the end, use and measure of knowledge. Knowledge is given to cause humility, to enable us to benefit all that we can, to stand in the way of no one, to cause offence to no one, that so we may be known and loved by God. He is pointing at those who displayed their knowledge about the nature of idol sacrifices, by eating of them, though it were an offence to the untaught.

S. Bernard, in explaining this passage (Serm. 36 in Cantic.), says beautifully: “You see that he gives no praise to him that knoweth many things, if he is ignorant of the measure of knowing. That measure is to know the order, the zeal, and the end with which we should seek knowledge. The order is to seek that first which is more conducive to salvation. The zeal we should show is in seeking that more eagerly which makes us love more vehemently. The end of knowledge is not for vain glory, curiosity, or any like thing, but only for our own edification or that of our neighbour. For there are some who wish to know only that they may know, and this is vile curiosity. There are some who wish to know that they may be known themselves, and this is contemptible vanity: such do not escape the scoff of the satirist, ‘To know your own is nothing, unless another knows that you know yourself.’ There are some again who wish to know, that they may see their knowledge, and this is despicable chaffering. But there are also some who wish to know that they may edify, and this is charity; and some who wish to know that they may be edified, and this is prudence. Of all these the last two only are not found to abuse knowledge, for they wish to gain understanding that they may do good.” Again (de Conscientia, c. ii.) he says: “Many seek for knowledge, few conscience. If as much care and zeal were devoted to couscience as is given to the pursuit of empty and worldly knowledge, it would be laid hold of more quickly and retained to greater advantage.”

1 Cor 8:3 But if any man love God, the same is known by him.

But if any man love God, the same is known of Him. If any, for God’s sake, love his neighbour, so as not to make him stumble at seeing him eat of idol sacrifices, &c., but seeks instead to edify him, then that man is approved of and beloved by God, and in His knowledge God is well pleased.

Note that he that loves God loves also his neighbour; for the love of God bids us love our neighbour for God’s sake; and the love of God is exhibited and seen in the love of our neighbour (1 John 4:20).

1 Cor 8:4 But as for the meats that are sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one.

We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but One. An idol is not what it is commonly supposed to be, not what it stands for, is not God. It has no Divine power; materially it is of wood, formally it is nothing. It is an image of a falsehood, or of a non-existent God. Consequently that which is offered to idols is as such nothing, has no Divinity or sanctity derived from the idol to which it was offered.

The word “idol” itself is derived from the Greek ειδος, which Tertullian says denotes appearance; and from it the diminutive, εἴδωλον, was formed (de Idolol. ciii.). An “idol” among the earlier Greek writers denoted any empty and untrustworthy image, such as hollow phantasms, spectres, the shades of the dead, and the like. In the same way Holy Scripture and Church writers have limited the term idol to an image of God which is regarded as God, and is not really so, as is evident from this verse. The LXX., too, throughout the Old Testament, apply the same term to the statues and gods of the heathen.

Hence Henry Stephen and John Scapula are deceived and deceive, when they lay down in their lexicons that the term idol is applied by ecclesiastical writers to any image representing some deity to which honour and worship are paid. It is not every statue or image of every god that is an idol, but only the image of a false god. Cf. Cyprian (de Exhort. Mart. c. i.), Tertullian (de Idolol.), Athanasius (contra Idola).

The Protestant fraud, therefore, must be guarded against which confounds idol with image, and concludes that all images are forbidden by those passages of Scripture which condemn idolatry. Cf. Bellarmine (de Imagin. lib. ii. c. 5), who shows unanswerably that an idol is the representation of what is false, an image of what is true.

1 Cor 8:5 For although there be that are called gods, either in heaven or on earth (for there be gods many and lords many):
1 Cor 8:6 Yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him: and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

For although there be that are called gods, … Yet to us there is but one God, &c. The pagans have gods many and lords many, as the sun, moon, and stars, or terrestrial gods, as Jupiter, Apollo, Hercules; but we have only one God, for whose glory and honour we were created.

Notice that Scripture speaks of the Father as He of whom are all things, as their first principle; and of the Son as He by whom are all things, as the archetype and word by whom all things were made; and of the Holy Spirit as in whom are all things, inasmuch as He is the bond of love between the Father and the Son. Cf. notes to Rom. 11:36.

Notice also against the Arians that, when S. Paul says One God, he is only excluding false gods, not the Son and the Holy Spirit. When he says One Lord Jesus Christ, he is only excluding false lords, not the Father and the Holy Spirit.

1 Cor 8:7 But there is not knowledge in every one. For some until this present, with conscience of the idol, eat as a thing sacrificed to an idol: and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.

But there is not knowledge in everyone. I.e., that an idol and what is offered to it are nothing.

For some until this present, with conscience of the idol, eat as a thing sacrificed to an idol. They eat what is offered to an idol with reverence, thinking that the idol has something that is Divine, and that the offering was made to the deity lurking behind the idol. So Anselm.

Theophylact explains this verse differently, thus: “Some eat of what has been offered to the idol, under the false supposition that it has been changed by the idol and physically breathed upon by a devil, and so in some way affected by him, or, at all events, morally defiled by him, so as to be regarded to be now his property and food, with power to change and pollute him that eateth of it. In this way they eat of idol sacrifices under the mistaken belief that they are polluted by them.” This sense also is suitable and likely; for there can be no doubt that, among the Corinthians lately converted, were some who were over-scrupulous and some over-superstitious.

And their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Being not fully instructed in the faith about these matters, they go against their conscience in following the example of others, and eating of idol sacrifices. So Chrysostom.

Libertines do but rave when they lay down from this passage that neither fornication, nor drunkenness, nor anything else is sin, if the conscience has no scruples. This is to advise men to get rid of conscience, so as to sin at pleasure. Libertines therefore have no conscience; and they would appear therefore to have put aside their manhood, their reason, and all virtue. But what folly is it to ascribe such sentiments to the Apostle! For who is there that sees not that the Apostle is here speaking, not of sins or of forbidden things, but of things indifferent, such as the eating of idol offerings?

1 Cor 8:8 But meat doth not commend us to God. For neither, if we eat, shall we have the more: nor, if we eat not, shall we have the less.
1 Cor 8:9 But take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumblingblock to the weak.

But meat does not commend us to God. The eating of idol sacrifices or of any other food is in itself no help towards piety, which makes us acceptable to God. Therefore, we that are strong ought not, under the pretext of piety, to wish to use all things as alike indifferent. The Apostle here turns to the more advanced, and warns them to avoid giving offence to the weak.

It is foolish, therefore, as well as wrong, for heretics to wrest this passage into an argument against the choice of food and the fasts of the Church. Food, indeed, does not commend us to God, for it is not a virtue; but abstinence from forbidden food is an act of temperance, obedience, and religion, and does therefore commend us to God, as it commended Daniel and his companions, the Rechabites, John Baptist, and others. Cf. notes to Rom. 14:17.

For neither if we eat are we the better. If we eat of idol offerings, we do not on that account abound the more in virtue, merit, and grace, which commend us before God, and therefore we ought not to have any desire so to eat. So Chrysostom.

Secondly, it is more simple to take this as a fresh reason to dissuade them from eating idol-sacrifices. Whether we eat of these things, we shall not abound any the more with pleasant food and other good things; or whether we eat not, we shall not be deprived of them, for we may eat of other things. So it is often said that, whether we be invited to a banquet or not, we shall not on that account be full or be hungry, be fatter or leaner, richer or poorer. He is pointing out that food is a thing of little account, and may therefore be put aside if scandal arise, and be subordinated to the edification of our neighbours. So Anselm.

1 Cor 8:10 For if a man see him that hath knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to eat those things which are sacrificed to idols?
1 Cor 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ hath died? 

Sit at meat in the idol’s temple. Erasmus takes the word which we have idol’s temple to mean idol’s feast. The text, however, gives the better translation. S. Paul speaks of their sitting at meat in an idol’s temple, or at a table consecrated to idols. Those who were about to partake of the idol-sacrifices were wont to have tables set out in the temple, as Herodotus says in Clio, and Virgil (Æn. viii. 283), in his description of the sacrifice of Evander and the subsequent feast with the Trojans. So too did the Jews eat of the peace-offerings in the court of the Temple (Deut. 16:2).

It hence follows that to eat of things offered to idols in an idol temple is not only an evil because of the scandal it causes, but also is an evil in itself, because it is a profession of idolatry, as will be said at chap. 10.

Anselm says tropologically: “The knowledge of idol-offerings is the knowledge of the vanity of heathen philosophy, poetry, and rhetoric. This must be guarded against. Far be it from a Christian mouth to say, ‘By Jove,’ or ‘By Hercules,’ or ‘By Castor,’ or to use other expressions that have more to do with monsters than with Divine beings.”

Emboldened here is either (1.) provoked to eat of things offered to idols, as though they were sacred and the channels of grace, and so he will be led to sacrifice to some deity and return to idolatry; or (2.) he will be provoked to act against his conscience, which tells him that food offered to an idol has been breathed upon by it and polluted, and that therefore he will be polluted if he eat. Cf. note to ver. 7.

1 Cor 8:12 Now when you sin thus against the brethren and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 

But when you sin so against the brethren … you sin against Christ. For Christ reckons as done to Himself whatever is done to one of the least of His brethren (S. Matt. 25:40). Moreover, those who cause their neighbour to stumble, sin against Christ, for by their evil example they destroy and overturn the building of Christ, viz., their neighbour’s righteousness and salvation, which Christ has built up at the cost of His own blood.

1 Cor 8:13 Wherefore, if meat scandalize my brother, I will never eat flesh, lest I should scandalize my brother.

Wherefore, if meat scandalize my brother, I will never eat flesh. S. Chrysostom says: “It is the mark of a good teacher to teach by example as well as precept. The Apostle does not qualify what he says by adding ‘justly’ or ‘unjustly,’ but he says absolutely, ‘If meat make my brother to offend.’ He does not speak of idol-offerings as being prohibited for other reasons, but he says that if what is lawful causes his brother to offend, he will abstain from it, not for one or two days, but for his whole life. Nor does he say, ‘Lest I destroy my brother,’ but ‘Lest I make my brother to offend.’ It would be the height of folly in us to regard those things, which are so dear to Christ that He refused not to die for them, as so worthless that we will not for their sake abstain from certain food.”

On the subject of offence, see S. Basil (Reg. Brevior. 64), where, towards the end, he says that the offence is greater in proportion to the knowledge or rank of him who gives it; and he adds that at his hand God will require the blood of those sinners who follow his bad example.

Father Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians Chapter 7

Text in red, if any, are my additions.

CHAPTER 7

He treateth of marriage (1 Cor 7:1-4), showing it to be a remedy against fornication (1 Cor 7:5-10): and that the bond thereof ought not lightly to be dissolved (1 Cor 7:11-17). Every man must be content with his vocation (1 Cor 7:18-24). Virginity wherefore to be embraced (1 Cor 7:25-34). And for what respects we may either marry, or abstain from marrying (1 Cor 7:35-40).

SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTER

In this chapter he answers five questions of the Corinthians about the laws of matrimony, and about the counsel of virginity and celibacy—
               i.      The first question is whether matrimony and its use are lawful for a Christian, as being born again and sanctified. The answer is that they are lawful, and that, moreover, when either party demands his due, it ought to be given, and that therefore it is better to marry than to burn.
               ii.      The second is (ver. 10) concerning divorce, whether it is lawful, and S. Paul answers that it is not.
               iii.      The third is (ver. 12), If a believer have an unbelieving partner, can they continue to live together? He answers that they both can and ought, if the unbeliever consents to live in peace with the believer.
               iv.      The fourth is (ver. 17) whether a man’s state is to be changed because of his faith; whether, e.g., a married person who was a slave when a heathen becomes free when a Christian, whether a Gentile becomes a Jew. He answers in the negative, and says that each should remain in his station.
               v.      The fifth is (ver. 25) whether at all events those who are converted to Christ as virgins ought to remain so. He replies that virginity is not enjoined on any as a precept, but that it is on all as a counsel, as being better than matrimony for six reasons:—
             (a)      Because of the present necessity, inasmuch as only a short time is given us for obtaining, not temporal but eternal gain: she that is a virgin is wholly intent on these things (ver. 26).
             (b)      Because he that is married is, as it were, bound to his wife with the wedding-bond, but the unmarried is free and unconstrained (ver. 27).
             (c)      Because the unmarried is free from the tribulation of the flesh which attacks the married (ver. 28).
             (d)      Because a virgin thinks only of what is pleasing to God, but one that is married has a heart divided between God and his wife (ver. 32)
             (e)      Because a virgin is holy in body and in soul, but the married not in body, and often not in soul (ver. 34).
             (f)      Because he that is unmarried gives his virgin an opportunity to serve God without interruption, whereas the married have a thousand hindrances to piety and devotion (ver. 35).
 

1 Cor 7:1 NOW concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 

Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me. In answer to the questions you have put to me about the rights, use, and end of matrimony and the single life, I answer that it is good for a man not to touch a woman. Notice here from S. Anselm and Ambrose that certain false Apostles, in order to seem more holy, taught that marriage was to be despised, because of the words of Christ (S. Matt. 10:12), “There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake,” which they interpreted as applying to all Christians, especially since the act of fornication, which had been so severely condemned by the Apostle in the preceding chapter, is physically the same as conjugal copulation. The Corinthians, therefore, asked S. Paul by letter whether Christians ought to be so chaste, and ought to be so much free for prayer, godliness, and purity as to be bound, even though married, to abstain altogether from intercourse with their wives.

It is good for a man not to touch a woman. It is beautiful, exemplary, and excellent. The Greek here is καλὸν. So Theophylact. Good is not here the same as useful or expedient, as Erasmus turns it, but denotes that moral and spiritual good which of itself conduces to victory over passion, to piety, and salvation (cf. 1 Cor 7:32, 34, 35). To touch a woman or to know is with the Hebrews a modest form of speech denoting the act of conjugal copulation.

S. Jerome (lib. i. contra Jovin.) adds that the Apostle says touch, “because the very touching of a woman is dangerous, and to be avoided by every man.” These are his words: “The Apostle does not say it is good not to have a wife, but ‘it is good not to touch a woman,’ as though there were danger in the touch, not to be escaped from by any one who should so touch her: being one who steals away the precious souls of men, and makes the hearts of youths to fly out of their control. Shall any one nurse a fire in his bosom and not be burnt? or walk upon hot coals and not suffer harm? In the same way, therefore, that he who touches fire is burnt, so when man and woman touch they feel its effect and perceive the difference between the sexes. The fables of the heathen relate that Mithras and Ericthonius, either in stone or in the earth, were generated by the mere heat of lust. Hence too Joseph fled from the Egyptian woman, because she wished to touch him; and as though he had been bitten by a mad dog and feared lest the poison should eat its way, he cast off the cloak that she had touched.” Let men and youths take note of these words.

Cardinal Vitriaco, a wise and learned man, relates of S. Mary d’Oignies that she had so weakened and dried up her body by fastings that for several years she felt not even the first motions of lust, and that when a certain holy man clasped her hand in pure spiritual affection, and thus caused the motions of the flesh to arise, she, being ignorant of this, heard a voice from heaven which said, “Do not touch me.” She did not understand it, but told it to another who did, and thenceforward she abstained from all such contact.

S. Gregory (Dial. lib. iv. c. 11) relates how S. Ursinus, a presbyter, had lived in chastity separated from his wife, and when he was on his death-bed, drawing his last breath, his wife came near and put her ear to his mouth, to hear if he still breathed. He, still having a few minutes to live, on perceiving this, said with as much strength as he could summon, “Depart from me, woman—a spark still lingers in the embers; do not fan it into a flame.” Well sung the poet:—

“Regulus by a glance, the Siren of Achelous with a song,

The Thessalian sage with gentle rubbing slays:

So with eyes, with hands, with song does woman burn,

And wield the three-forked light of angry Jove.”

S. Jerome rightly infers from this (lib. i. contra Jovin.) that it is an evil for a man to touch a woman. He does not say it is sinful, as Jovinian and others falsely alleged against him, but evil. For this touching is an act of concupiscence, and of the depraved pleasure of the flesh; but it is nevertheless excused by the goad of wedlock, but is wholly removed by the good of the single life.

It may be urged from Gen. 2:18, where it is said that it is not good for a man to be alone, that it is therefore good to touch a woman. I answer that in Genesis God is speaking of the good of the species, S. Paul of the individual; God in the time when the world was uninhabited, Paul when it is full; God of temporal good, Paul of the good of the eternal life of the Spirit. In this it is good for a man not to touch a woman.

1 Cor 7:2 But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife: and let every woman have her own husband.

But for fear of fornication let every man have his own wife. Lest being unmarried, and unwilling to live a chaste life, he fall into fornication. Every man, say Melancthon and Bucer, must include the priest and the monk. I reply that every man means every man that is free, not bound by vow, disease, or old age: for such are incapable of matrimony. Laws and documents must be interpreted according to their subject-matter: they only apply to those capable of receiving them, not to those who are not. To him then who is free, and unbound, and can fulfil the requirements of matrimony, the apostle gives no precept, but advice and permission, that if he fears to fall into fornication he should marry a wife, or keep to her that he has already married, rather than fall into any danger of committing such a sin. So the Fathers whom I will quote at 1 Cor 7:9 all agree in saying. This must be the Apostle’s meaning, for otherwise he would contradict himself, for throughout the whole chapter he urges the life of chastity.

Moreover, the apostle is speaking primarily to the married alone, and not to the unmarried. To these latter he begins to speak in 1 Cor 7:8, Now I say to the unmarried and widows, where the adversative now marks the change. He says too here let every man have, not let every man marry, because he is speaking to those who already had wives. So S. Jerome (lib. i. contra Jovin.) says, “Let every man that is married have his own wife,” i.e., continue to have her, not dismiss or repudiate her, but rather use her lawfully and chastely. The word have signifies not an inchoate but a continuous action. So 2 Tim. 1:13: “Hold fast the form of sound words,” where the same word is used. So in S. Luke 19:26: “Unto every one that hath (that uses his talent) shall be given; and from him that hath not (does not use), even that he hath shall be taken away from him; otherwise there cannot well be taken from a man what he has not. That this is the true meaning is evident from what follows in ver. 3.

1 Cor 7:3 Let the husband render the debt to his wife: and the wife also in like manner to the husband. 

Let the husband render the debt to his wife. A modest paraphrase for the conjugal debt. 

1 Cor 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body: but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body: but the wife. 

The wife hath not power of her own body: but the husband. She has not power, that is, over those members which distinguish woman from man, in so far as they serve for the conjugal act. Power she has not over them so as to contain at her own will or to have intercourse with another. That power belongs to the husband alone, and that for himself only, not for another. Cf. S. Augustine (contra Julian, lib. v.). The Greek is literally, has no right over her body, whether to contain or to hand it over to another.

And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body: but the wife. Hence it is clear that, though in the government of the family the wife should be subject and obedient to her husband, yet in the right of exacting and returning the marriage debt she is equal with her husband, has the same right over his body that he has over hers, and this from the marriage contract, in which each has given to the other the same power over the body, and received the same power over the other’s body. The husband, therefore, is as much bound to render his wife, as the wife her husband, faithfulness and the marriage debt. This is taught at length in their expositions of this passage by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Œcumenius, Primasius, Anselm, and by S. Jerome (Cit. 32, qu. 2, cap. Apostolus), who says that husband and wife are declared to be equal in rights and duties. “When, therefore” says S. Chrysostom (Hom. 19), “a harlot comes and tempts you, say that your body is not your own but your wife’s. Similarly, let the wife say to any one who proposes to rob her of her chastity, ‘My body is not mine but my husband’s.’ ”

1 Cor 7:5 Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer: and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency. 

Defraud not one another. By denying the marriage debt. The words and to fasting, though in the Greek, are wanting in the Latin. Hence Nicholas I., in his answers to the questions of the Bulgarians (c. 50), writes to them that, throughout the forty days of Lent, they should not come at their wives. But this is a matter of counsel.

And come together again. From this Peter Martyr and the Magdeburgians conclude that it is not lawful for married persons to vow perpetual continence by mutual consent. But the answer to this is that the Apostle is not prescribing but permitting the marriage act.

1 Cor 7:6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 

But I speak this by indulgence

1. I permit the act of copulation by way of indulgence: I do not prescribe it. Nay, S. Augustine (Enchirid. c. 78) takes it: “I say this by way of pardon.” The Greek word denotes forgiveness, and hence S. Augustine gathers that it is a venial sin to have sexual connection, not for the sake of children but for carnal pleasure, and to avoid the temptations of Satan; for pardon is given to what is sinful. So too indulgence is given in what concerns sin, or at all events a lesser good, as S. Thomas has rightly observed.

2. That there is no precept given here is also evident, because the Apostle permits married people to contain for a time, that they may give themselves to fasting and to prayer; therefore, if they agree to devote their whole life to fasting and to prayer, he permits them to contain themselves for life.

3. He says come together, and gives the reason, “that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency;” i.e., that there may be no danger of your falling into adultery, or other acts of impurity, because of your incontinency. Therefore, when the cause does not exist, viz., the danger of incontinency, as it does not exist in those who have sufficient high-mindedness to curb it and tame it, he permits them to be continent for life.

4. He says in ver. 7, “I would that all men were even as I myself,” i.e., not chaste in some way or other, but altogether continent, unmarried, nay, virgin souls, even as I, who am unmarried. So Ambrose, Theodoret, Theophylact, Anselm, Chrysostom, Œcumenius and Epiphanius (Hœres. 78), S. Jerome (Ep. 22 ad Eustoch.)

5. In the early days of the Church many married persons, in obedience to this admonition of S. Paul, observed by mutual consent perpetual chastity, as Tertullian tells us (ad Uxor. lib. i. c. vi., and de Resurr. Carn. c. 8, and de Orland. Virg. c. 13). The same is said by the author of commentaries de Sing. Cleric, given by S. Cyprian.

Here are some examples of married persons, not merely of low estate, but people illustrious both for their birth and holiness and renown, who preserved their continency and chastity unimpaired in wedlock.

(1.) There are the Blessed Virgin and Joseph, who have raised the banner of chastity not only before virgins, but also before the married. (2.) We have the illustrious martyrs Cecilia and Valerian, who were of such merit that the body of S. Cecilia has been found by Clement VIII. in this age, after the lapse of so many centuries, undecayed and uninjured. (3.) There are SS. Julian and Basilissa, whose illustrious life is narrated by Surius. (4.) S. Pulcheria Augusta, sister of the Emperor Theodosius, made a vow to God of perpetual chastity, and on the death of Theodosius, married Marcian, stipulating that she should keep her vow, and raised him to the Imperial throne; and this vow was faithfully kept unbroken by both, as Cedrenus and others testify. (5.) We have the Emperor Henry II. and Curnegund, the latter of whom walked over hot iron to prove her chastity. (6.) There is the example of Boleslaus V., King of the Poles, who was called the Maid, and Cunegund, daughter of Belas, King of the Hungarians. (7.) King Conrad, son of the Emperor Henry IV., with Matilda his wife. (8.) Alphonse II., King of the Asturians, who by keeping himself from his wife gained the name of “the Chaste.” (9.) Queen Richardis, who, though married to King Charles the Fat, retained her virginity, (10.) Pharaildis, niece of S. Amelberga and Pepin, was ever-virgin though married, (11.) Edward III. and Egitha were virgin spouses. (12.) Ethelreda, Queen of the East Angles, though twice married, remained a virgin. (13.) We have two married people of Arvernum, spoken of by Gregory of Tours (de Gloria Conf. c. xxxii.): “When the wife was dead, the husband raised his hands towards heaven, saying: ‘I thank Thee, Maker of all things, that as Thou didst vouchsafe to intrust her to me, so I restore her to Thee undefiled by any conjugal delight.’ But she smilingly said: ‘Peace, peace, O man of God; it is not necessary to publish our secret’ Shortly afterwards the husband died and was buried in another place; and, lo! in the morning the two tombs were found together, as it is to this day: and therefore the natives there are wont to speak of them as the Two Lovers, and to pay them the highest honour.” Nowadays two examples of the same thing may be found.

1 Cor 7:7 For I would that all men were even as myself. But every one hath his proper gift from God: one after this manner, and another after that. 

For I would that all men were even as I myself. That is so far as the single life and continency is concerned. The Apostle means that he wishes it if it could well be. I would, therefore, denotes an inchoate and imperfect act of the will. This is evident too from his subjoining,

But every one hath his proper gift of God. The word all again means each one, or all taken one by one, not collectively. For if all men in a body were to abstain, there would be no matrimony, and the human race and the world would come to an end together. In the same way we are said to be able to avoid all venial sins: that is, all taken singly, not collectively, or in other words, each one. Others take all collectively, inasmuch as if God were to inspire all men with this resolution of continency, it would be a sign that the number of the elect was completed, and that God wished to put an end to the world. But Paul was well aware that God at that time was willing the contrary, in order that the Church might increase and be multiplied through matrimony. The first explanation therefore is the sounder.

But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner and another after that. That is, he has his own gift of his own will, says the treatise de Castitate, falsely assigned to Pope Sixtus III., which is preserved in the Biblioth. SS. Patrum, vol. v. It is, however, the work of some Pelagian; for the tenor of the whole treatise is to show that chastity is the work of free-will, and of a man’s own volition, and not of the grace of God. (Cf. Bellarmine, de Monach. lib. ii. c. 31, and de Clcricis, lib. i. c. 21, ad. 4.) But this is the error of Pelagius; for if you take away the grace of God from a man’s will it can no longer be called “his proper gift of God.” For the will of a man is nothing else but the free choice of his own will. For God has given to all an equal and similar gift of free-will; wherefore that one chooses chastity, another matrimony, cannot be said to be the gift of God if you take away His grace; but it would have to be attributed to the free choice of each man, and that choice therefore in diverse things is unlike and unequal.

Proper gift then denotes the gift of conjugal, virginal, or widowed chastity. But heretics say that priests therefore, and monks, if they have not the gift of chastity, may lawfully enter on matrimony. But by parity of reason, it might be said that therefore married people, if they have not the gift of conjugal chastity, as many adulterers have not, may lawfully commit adultery, or enter upon a second marriage with one that is an adulterer. Or again that if a wife is absent, is unwilling, or is ill, the husband may go to another woman, if he alleges that he has not the gift of widowed chastity. And although the passion of Luther may admit this excuse as valid, yet all shrink from it; and the Romans and other heathen, by the instinct of nature, regarded all such tenets as monstrous.

I reply, then, with Chrysostom and the Fathers cited, that the Apostle is here giving consolation and indulgence to the weak, and to those that are married, for having embraced the gift and state of conjugal chastity, when before they might have remained virgins. For of others that are not married he adds, It is good for them if they abide even as I; that is, it is good for them, if they will, to remain virgins; but this I do not command, nay, I am consoling the married, and I permit them the due use of wedlock, in order that they may avoid all scruple, by the reflection that each one has his own gift from God, and that they have the gift of wedlock, i.e., conjugal chastity; for matrimony itself is a gift of God, and was instituted by Him. God wills, in order to replenish the earth, in a general and indeterminate way, that some should be married; and yet this gift of wedlock is less than the gift of virginity.

It may be said that not only is matrimony a gift from God, but that one is a virgin and another married is also a gift from God. I answer that this is true enough, as when God inspires one with a purpose to lead a single life, and another a married life; as, e.g., in the case of a queen who may bear an honest offspring to the good of the realm and the Church; but still God does not always do this, but leaves it wholly to the decision of many whether they will choose the married or unmarried life.

It will be retorted, “How, then, is it that the Apostle says that each one has his proper gift of God?” I answer that this word gift is of two-fold meaning: (1.) It denotes the state itself of matrimony, or celibacy, or religion; (2.) The grace that is necessary and peculiar to this or that state. If you take the first, then each man’s own gift is from God, but only materially, inasmuch as that gift which each one has chosen for himself and made his own is also from God. For God instituted, either directly or by His Church, matrimony and celibacy and other states, and gave this or that state to each one according as he wished for it; and in this sense each one has his own gift, partly from God and partly from himself and his own will. But properly and formally, that this gift or that is proper to this or that man, is often a matter of free-will. Yet it may be said to be so far from God as the whole direction of secondary causes, and all good providence generally is from God. For God in His providence directs each one through his parents, companions, confessors, teachers, and through other secondary causes, by which it comes to pass that one devotes himself, though freely, to matrimony, another to the priesthood. For all this direction does not place him under compulsion, but leaves him free.

Here notice 1. that the Apostle might have said, “Every man hath his proper state of himself, having chosen it by an exercise of his free-will;” but he chose rather to say that “every man hath his proper gift of God,” because he wished to console the married. Lest any one, therefore, who was of scrupulous conscience and penitent should torture himself and say, “Paul wishes us to be like him, single and virgins; why ever did I then, miserable man that I am, enter into matrimony? It is my own fault that I did not embrace the better state of virginity, that I have deprived myself of so great a good, that I have plunged myself into the cares and distractions of marriage”—for this is how weak-minded, troubled, and melancholy people often look at things, and especially when they find difficulties in their state; and therefore they seek after higher and more perfect things, and torture themselves by attributing to their own imprudence the loss of some good, and the miseries that they have incurred—Paul, then, to obviate this, says that the gift, in the sense explained above, is not of man but of God. And therefore each one ought to be content with his state and calling, as being the gift of God—ought to be happy, perfect himself, and give thanks to God.

2. Gift may be the grace befitting each state. The married require one kind of grace to maintain conjugal fidelity, virgins another to live in virginity; and this grace peculiar to each is formally from God, because, it being given that you have chosen a certain state, whether of matrimony, or celibacy, or any other, God will give you the grace that is proper to that state to enable you, if you will, to live rightly in it. For this belongs to the rightly ordered providence of God, that since He has not seen fit to prescribe to each of us his state, but has left the choice of it, as well as most other things, to our own free-will, He will not forsake a man when he has made his choice, but will give him the grace necessary for living honestly in that state. For God and nature do not fail us in things necessary, especially since God, as the Apostle says, wishes all men to be saved, whatever their state. Consequently He will supply to all the means necessary to salvation, by which, if they are willing, they will be enabled to live holily and be saved. For else it would be impossible for many to be saved, as, e.g., for religious and others who have taken a vow of chastity, for one married who has bound himself to a person that is hard to please, infirm, or detestable. To meet and overcome such difficulties they need to receive from God proper and sufficient grace. For neither the married can be loosed from matrimony, nor the religious from their vow, to adopt some other state more fitting for them.

In this the sense of this passage is: Choose whatever state you like, and God will give you grace to live in it holily. So Ambrose. And that this is the strict meaning of the Apostle is evident from the words, “For I would” which import: I have said that I allow, but do not command, the state of wedlock; for I would that all would abstain from it, and cultivate chastity, and live a single life; but still each one has his own gift—let him be content with that, let him exercise that. Let the single man who has received virginal or widowed chastity, i.e., the grace by which he can contain himself, look upon it as the gift of God; let the married, who has received conjugal chastity, i.e., the grace of using wedlock chastely, look upon it as the gift of God, be content with it, and use it as such.

Hence it follows (1.) that God gives to monks, even though they be apostates, the gift of sufficient grace to enable them, if they will, to live chastely; that is to say, if they pray to God, give themselves to fasting, to holy reading, to manual labour, to constant occupation. Otherwise they would be bound to an impossibility, and God would be wanting to them in things necessary, and they would not have the gift proper to their state, although the Apostle here asserts that each one, whether unmarried, or virgin, or married, has the gift of chastity proper to his state.

It follows (2.) that if any one changes his state for the better, God also changes and gives him a greater gift, and a greater measure of grace befitting that state, for this is necessary to a more perfect state. So the Council of Trent (Sess. xxiv. can. 9) lays down: “If any one says that clerks who have been placed in Holy Orders, or regulars who have solemnly professed chastity, and who do not think that they have the gift of chastity, can lawfully enter into matrimony, let him be anathema, since God does not deny it to them that seek for it, nor suffer us to be tempted above that we are able.”

Hath his gift of God. The gifts of God are twofold. 1. Some are wholly from God. So the gifts of Nature, which is but another name for God, inasmuch as He is the Author and Maker of Nature, are talent, judgment, memory, and a good disposition. The gifts of grace again are faith, hope, charity, and all the virtues infused by God, as the Author of grace.

2. Other gifts are from God indeed, but require for their due effect our co-operation. For example, all prevenient grace and good inspirations are gifts of God; so all good works, and the acts of ail virtues, are gifts of God, says S. Augustine, because He gives (a) prevenient grace to excite us to these works and these actions, and (b) co-operating grace, by which He works with men to produce such things. Yet this grace so acts that man is left free, and has it in his power to act or not, to use this grace or not. In this sense all good works are gifts of God: yet they are free to man, and subject to his will and power. Of this second class the Apostle is here speaking in connection with the gift of chastity. The gift of chastity is, strictly speaking, an infused habit, or an acquired habit in those who already have it infused. But for those who have not yet the habit, there is sufficient help of grace, both internal and external, prepared for each one by God, so that by freely co-operating with it, each one may live in chastity, if he is willing to use that help. And this is evident from what is said in 1 Cor 7:25, 35, 38, about the single life being counselled by God and Christ, who puts it before all men, and advises them to adopt it. But God does not advise a man to anything which is not in his power; but the single life is not in the power of each man, unless his will is helped by the grace of God. Therefore Christ has prepared, and is prepared to give to each one, this grace that is necessary to a single life and to virginity. If he is ready to give to each one virginal chastity, much more conjugal. Whoever, therefore, has his proper gift, that is his proper grace, in its beginning, will have it also in its perfect ending, if he will only pray to God earnestly and constantly to give him the grace prepared for him, and then co-operate vigorously with the grace that he has received.

1 Cor 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 

I am unmarried: let them remain the same. Hence it is most evident that S. Paul had no wife, but was single.

1 Cor 7:9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. 

But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to be burnt. This may be a reference to Ruth 1:13. It is better to marry than to burn, unless, that is, you are already wedded to Christ by a vow. Cf. S. Ambrose (ad Virg. Laps. c. v.). For to those who are bound by a vow of chastity, and are professed, as well as for husbands, it is better to burn and commit fornication than to marry a second time. For such marriage would be a permanent sacrilege or adultery, which is worse than fornication, or some momentary sacrilege; just as it is better to sin than to be in a constant state of sin, and to sin from obstinacy and contempt. But it is best of all neither to marry, nor to burn, but to contain, as Ambrose says; and this can be done by all who have professed chastity, as was said in the last note, no matter how grievously they may be tempted. The Apostle found it so in his sore temptation, as many other saints have done, and especially he to whom the devils exclaimed, when they were overcome by him and put to confusion through the resistance he made to their temptation: “Thou hast conquered, hast conquered, for thou hast been in the fire and not been burnt.”

Burn here does not denote to be on fire, or to be tempted by the heat of lust, but to be injured and overcome by it, to yield and consent to it. For it is not he that feels the heat of the fire that is said to be burnt by it, but he that is injured and scorched by it. So Virgil sings of Dido, who had been overcome by love for Æneas (Æn. 4, 68): “The ill-starred Dido burns and wanders frantically about the city.” Cf. also Sir 23:22. The Apostle is giving the reason why he wishes the incontinent and weak to marry, viz., lest they should burn, i.e., commit fornication; others, who are combatants of great soul, he wishes to contain. In other words, let those who do not contain marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. So Theodoret, Ambrose, Anselm, S. Thomas, Augustine (de Sancta Virgin, c. 74), Jerome (Apolog. pro Lib. contra Jovin.). “It is better,” says S. Jerome, “to marry a husband than to commit fornication.” And S. Ambrose says: “To burn is to be at the mercy of the desires; for when the will consents to the heat of the flesh it burns. To suffer the desires and not be overcome by them is the part of an illustrious and perfect man.”

It may be objected that S. Cyprian (Ep. 11 ad. Pompon, lib. i.) says of virgins who have consecrated themselves to Christ, that “if they cannot or will not persevere, it is better for them to marry than to burn.” But Pamelius, following Turrianus and Hosius, well replies that S. Cyprian is not speaking of virgins already consecrated but of those about to be. These he advises not to dedicate and vow themselves to Christ if they do not intend to persevere; and in the same epistle he points out that they would be adulterous towards Christ if, after a vow of chastity, they should be wedded to men. Like the Apostle here, he is speaking, therefore, not of those who are already bound, but of those who are free. Erasmus therefore is wrong and impudent, as usual, in making a note in the margin of this passage of S. Cyprian’s, “Cyprian allows sacred virgins to marry.”

It may be objected secondly that S. Augustine says (de Sancta Virgin, c. 34) that those vowed virgins who commit fornication would do better to marry than to bum, i.e., than to be consumed by the flame of lust.

I answer (1.) that this is a mere passing remark of S. Augustine’s, meaning that for such it would be better, i.e., a less evil to marry than to commit fornication. He does not deny that they sin by marrying, but he only asserts that they sin less by marrying than by committing fornication. In the same way we might say to a robber, “It is better to rob a man than to kill him,” i.e., it is a less evil. (2.) For such it is even absolutely better to marry than to burn, if only they enter into wedlock lawfully, that is to say, with the consent of the Church and a dispensation of their vow of continency from the Pope. (3.) Possibly, and not improbably, S. Augustine’s meaning was that even for those who have no such dispensation it is better to marry than to commit fornication persistently, i.e., to live in a state of fornication and concubinage. And the reason is that such a one, if she marries, sins indeed grievously against her vow by marrying; yet still, after her marriage she may keep her vow of chastity and be free from sin, viz., by not exacting, but only paying the marriage debt, as the women commonly do of whom S. Augustine is here speaking. If, however, such a one is constantly committing fornication, she is by repeated acts constantly breaking her vow, and she consequently sins more grievously than she would by marrying. For those acts of fornication constantly repeated seem to be a far worse evil and more grievously sinful than the single act of entering into a contract of marriage against a vow of continency. For though this one act virtually includes many, viz., the seeking and paying of the marriage debt as oft as it shall please either, yet this is only remotely and implicitly. But one who commits fornication constantly sins directly and explicitly, and daily repeats such actions; therefore he sins more grievously. For it is worse to sin explicitly and in many acts than by one tacit and implicit action.

Observe also that at the time of S. Augustine those maidens who had vowed and professed chastity, though they might sin by marrying, yet might contract a lawful marriage. For the Church, as S. Augustine gives us plainly enough to understand, had not at that time made the solemn vow an absolute barrier to matrimony. Moreover, it is evident from his next words that S. Augustine is of opinion that such ought simply and absolutely to keep their vow of chastity; for he adds: “Those virgins who repent them of their profession and are wearied of confession, unless they direct their heart aright, and again overcome their lust by the fear of God, must be reckoned among the dead.”

Lastly, that the Apostle is here speaking to those who are free, and not to those who are bound by a vow, is proved at length by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Œcumenius, by Epiphanius (Hœres. 61), Ambrose (ad Virgin. Lapsam c. 5), Augustine (de Adulter. Conjug. lib. i. c. 15), Jerome (contra Jovin, lib. i.). S. Ephrem, 1300 years ago, being asked to whom this verse applies, wrote a most exhaustive treatise about it, in which he abundantly proves that it has to do, not with religious or the clergy, and those who have taken a vow of chastity, but with seculars who are free.

1 Cor 7:10 But to them that are married, not I, but the Lord, commandeth that the wife depart not from her husband.
1 Cor 7:11 And if she depart, that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife. 

But to them that are married, not I, but the Lord, commandeth &c. The Apostle now passes from the question of marriage to that of divorce; for, as this verse indicates, the Corinthians had put to Paul a second question, one relating to divorce. Granted that in matrimony its use was lawful, nay obligatory, as S. Paul has said, at all events may not one that is faithful to his marriage vow dissolve it and have a divorce? And again, when a divorce has taken place, may not the wife or the husband marry again? This verse and ver. 11 give the answer to the question.

He says that she remain unmarried. Hence it follows that divorce, even supposing it to be just and lawful, does not loose the marriage knot, but only dispenses with the marriage debt; so that if the wife is an adulteress it is not lawful for the innocent husband to enter into another marriage. And the same holds good for the wife if the husband is an adulterer.

We should take notice of this against the heretics Erasmus, Cajetan, and Catharinus, who say that this cannot be proved from Scripture, but only from the Canons. But they mistake, as is evident from this passage of S. Paul’s. For the Apostle is here speaking evidently of a just separation made by the wife when she is innocent, and injured by her husband committing adultery, for he permits her to remain separated, or to be reconciled to her husband. For if he were speaking of an unjust separation, such as when a wife flies from her husband without any fault on his side, he would have had not to permit of separation but altogether to order a reconciliation.

It may be said that the word reconciled points to some offence and injury done by the wife who caused the separation, and that therefore S. Paul is speaking of an unjust separation. I reply by denying the premiss. For reconcile merely signifies a return to mutual good-will; and the offending party is spoken of as being reconciled to the offended just as much as the offended to the offending. For instance, in 2 Macc. 1:5, it is said “that God may hear your prayers and be reconciled to you.” The Councils and Fathers explain this passage in this way, and lay down from it that fornication dissolves the marriage bond so far as bed and board are concerned, but not so that it is lawful to marry another. Cf. Concil. Milevit. c. 17; Concil. Elibert. c. 9; Concil. Florent. (Instruct. Armen. de Matrim.); Concil. Trident (Sess. 20. can. 7); Pope Evaristus (Ep. 2); S. Augustine de Adulter. Conjug. (lib. ii. c. 4); S. Jerome (Ep. ad Amand.); Theodoret, Œcumenius, Haymo, Anselm and others.

It may be said that Ambrose, commenting on this verse, says that the Apostle speaks of the wife only, because it is never lawful for her to many another after she is divorced; but that it is lawful for the husband, after putting away an adulterous wife, to marry another, because he is the head of the woman. I answer that from this and similar passages it is evident that this commentary on S. Paul’s Epistles is not the work of S. Ambrose, or at all events that these passages are interpolations. For in matrimony and divorce the same law governs the wife which governs the husband, as the true Ambrose lays down (in Lucam 8. and de Abraham, lib. i. c. 4). What then the Apostle says of the wife applies equally to the husband; for he is speaking to all that are married, as he says himself; and moreover, in ver. 4, he declared that the marriage rights of husband and wife are equal, and that each has equal power over the other’s body.

Let not the husband put away his wife. I.e., without grave and just cause; for it is allowed to put her away because of fornication and other just causes.

1 Cor 7:12 For to the rest I speak, not the Lord. If any brother hath a wife that believeth not and she consent to dwell with him: let him not put her away.
1 Cor 7:13 And if any woman hath a husband that believeth not and he consent to dwell with her: let her not put away her husband. 

For to the rest speak I … let him not put her away.

The rest are those that are married and belong to different religions; and to them I say, that if a brother, i.e., one of the faithful, have a wife that is an unbeliever, &c. In other words, I have thus far spoken to married people when both are of the number of the faithful, as I implied in ver. 5, when I said “that ye may give yourselves to prayer.” Now, however, I am addressing those of whom one is a believer, the other an unbeliever. This is the explanation given by many together with S. Augustine, who will be quoted directly.

But if this is so it is certainly strange that the Apostle did not express himself more clearly, for by the addition of a single word he might have said more simply: “To the faithful who are married it is not I that speak but the Lord; but to the rest, viz., to those married couples of whom one is an unbeliever, I speak, not the Lord.” But by saying not to the faithful, but unto the married, he seems to speak in general terms of all that are married, whether believers or unbelievers. Nor is it to be objected to this that in ver. 5 he speaks casually to the faithful, for there he is excepting from the general law which governs the marrage debt those of the faithful who are married, when by mutual consent they give themselves to prayer. But this exception is not to be made to cover all the marriage laws, which the Apostle in this chapter is laying down for all who are married. Moreover, the Apostle so far has not said a single word about the unbeliever, or about a difference of religion.

Hence we may say secondly and better, that the rest are those who are not joined in matrimony. For by the words but and the rest this verse is opposed to ver. 10 (1 Cor 7:10), as will appear more clearly directly.

I speak, not the Lord. “I command,” says Theodoret. But S. Augustine (de Adulter. Conjug. lib. i. c. 13 et seq.), Anselm, and S. Thomas interpret it: I give the following advice, viz., that the believing husband is not to put away an unbelieving wife who lives at peace with him, and vice versâ.

There is a third interpretation, and the best of all, given us from the Roman, Plantinian, and other Bibles, which put a full stop after the words, But to the rest speak I, not the Lord, thus separating them from what follows and joining them to what precedes. We have then the meaning as follows: To the rest, viz., the unmarried, the Lord gives no command (supply command from ver. 10 [1 Cor 7:10]), but I say, and I advise what I said and advised before in ver. 8 (1 Cor 7:8) viz., that it is good for them to remain as they are, unmarried.

This interpretation too is supported by the antithesis between the rest and the married, by which it is clear that the rest must be the unmarried, not married people of different faiths. Moreover, he explains himself in this way in ver. 25 (1 Cor 7:25), where he says, “Now, concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord, yet I give my judgment,” which is identical with he says here, “To the rest speak I, not the Lord.”

If any brother hath a wife that believeth not. This is the third question put to Paul by the Corinthians: Can one of the faithful that is married live with an unbelieving partner? S. Augustine and others, as I have said, connect these words with the preceding, which then give as the meaning: Although Christ permitted a believer to put away his wife that believeth not, yet I give as my advice that he do not put her away; for to put her away is neither expedient for her salvation nor for that of the children, if she is willing to live with a believer without casting reproach on her Creator and on the faith. Hence many doctors, cited by Henriquez (de Matrim. lib. xi. c. 8), gather indirectly by analogy that, since Paul forbids what Christ permits, one of the faithful that is married may, by Christ’s permission, put away an unbelieving partner that refuses to be converted, and contract another marriage. On the contrary, when both are believers, neither is allowed this, as has been said. But if we separate these words, as the Roman Bible does, from the preceding, by a full stop, nothing of the kind can be proved. Nay, Thomas Sanchez (de Matrim. vol. ii. disp. 73, no. 7), who does not read any full stop, as S. Augustine does not, and so refers these words to what follows, thinks that all that is exactly to be gathered from this is that Christ permits to a married believer separation a toro, but not dissolution of a marriage entered into with one that believes not. In the third place, this passage might be explained to mean that Christ laid down no law on this matter, but left it to be settled by His Apostles and His Church, according to needs of different ages, as, e.g., the Church afterwards declared the marriage of a believer with an unbeliever null and void, if one was a believer at the time of the marriage. According to S. Augustine’s reading, this rendering is obtained with difficulty; according to the Roman, not at all. For all that the Apostle means is that the believer is not to put away an unbeliever, if the latter is willing to live with the former. Cf. note to ver. 15.

Infidelity in S. Paul’s time was no impediment that destroyed a marriage contracted with a believer, nor did it prevent it from being contracted, if the believer ran no risk of apostatising, and if the unbeliever would consent to live in peace with the believer, retaining his faith, as S. Paul here lays down. But now by long custom it has become the law of the Church that not heresy but infidelity not only impedes, but also destroys a marriage which any one who was a believer at the time might wish to contract with an unbeliever.

1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife: and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband. Otherwise your children should be unclean: but now they are holy.

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife. Such union by marriage is holy. The believer, therefore, is not, as you so scrupulously fear, defiled by contact with an unbeliever, but rather the unbeliever, as Anselm says, is sanctified by a kind of moral naming and sprinkling of holiness, both because he is the husband of a holy, that is a believing, wife, and also because by not hindering his wife in her faith, and by living happily with her, he as it were paves the way for himself to be converted by the prayers, merits, words, and example of his believing wife, and so to become holy. So did S. Cecilia convert her husband Valerian; Theodora, Sisinnius; Clotilda, Clodævus. So say Anselm, Theophylact, Chrysostom.

S. Natalia, the wife of S. Adrian, is illustrious for having not only incited her husband to adopt the faith, but also most gloriously to undergo martyrdom for it. For when she had heard that women were forbidden to serve the martyrs, and that the prison-doors would not be opened to them, she shaved off her hair, and having donned man’s dress, she entered the prison and strengthened the hearts of the martyrs by her good offices. Other matrons followed her example. At length the tyrant Maximianus discovered the fraud, and ordered an anvil to be brought into the prison, and the arms and legs of the martyrs to be placed on it and smashed with a crow-bar. The lictors did as they had been ordered; and when the Blessed Natalia saw it, she went to meet them and asked them to begin with Adrian. The executioners did so, and when the leg of Adrian was placed on the anvil, Natalia caught hold of his foot and held it in position. Then the executioners aimed a blow with all their might, and cut off his feet and smashed his legs. Forthwith Natalia said to Adrian, “I pray thee, my lord, servant of Christ, while your spirit remains in you, stretch forth your hand that they may also cut that off, and that you may be made like the martyrs in all things: for greater sufferings have they endured than these.” Then Adrian stretched out his hand, and gave it to Natalia, who placed it on the anvil, and then the executioners cut it off. Then they took the anvil away, and soon after his spirit fled. Cf. his life, September 8th.

It is worth our notice what Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople, writes, in his exposition of the Council of Florence (Sess. v.) of Theophilus, a heretic and not a heathen emperor, son of Michael the Stammerer, who was saved by the prayers of his wife Augusta. He had made an onslaught on images, and his mouth was in consequence so violently pulled open that men might see down his throat. This brought him to his senses, and he kissed the holy image. Shortly afterwards he was taken away to appear before the tribunal of God, and through the prayers offered for him by his wife and by holy men he received pardon; for the queen in her sleep saw a vision of Theophilus bound and being dragged by a vast multitude, going before and following. Before him were borne different instruments of torture, and she saw those following who were being led to punishment until they came into the presence of the terrible Judge, and before Him Theophilus was placed. Then Augusta threw herself at the feet of the Dread Judge, and with many tears besought Him earnestly for her husband. The terrible Judge said to her: “O woman, great is thy faith; for thy sake, and because of the prayers of thy priests, I pardon thy husband.” Then He said to His servants: “Loose him, and deliver him to his wife.” It is also said that the Patriarch Methodius, having collected and written down the names of all kinds of heretics, including Theophilus, placed the roll under the holy table. Then in the same night on which the queen saw the vision, he too saw a holy angel entering the great temple, and saying, “O Bishop, thy prayers are heard, and Theophilus has found pardon.” On awaking from sleep he went to the holy table, and, oh! the unsearchable judgment of God, he found the name of Theophilus blotted out. Cf. also Baronius (Annal. vol. ix., a.d. 842).

otherwise should your children be unclean. If you were to put away a wife that believed not, your children would be looked upon as having been born in unlawful wedlock, and as therefore illegitimate. But, as it is, they are holy, i.e., clean—conceived and born in honourable and lawful wedlock. So Ambrose, Anselm, Augustine (de Peccat. Meritis. lib. ii. c. 26). In the second place they would be strictly unclean, because they would be enticed into infidelity, and educated in it by the unbelieving parent, who had sought for the divorce through hatred of his partner; and especially if it is the father that is the unbeliever, for in such cases the children for the most part follow the father. But if the believer remain in wedlock with the unbeliever, the children are holy, because, with the tacit permission of the unbeliever, they can easily be sanctified, baptized, and Christianly educated through the faith, the diligence, and care of the believer. So S. Augustine (de Peccat. Meritis. lib. iii. c. 12), and after Tertullian, S. Jerome (ad Paulin. Ep. 153). It is from this passage that Calvin and Beza have gathered their doctrine of imputed righteousness, teaching that the children of believers are strictly holy, and can be saved without baptism. They say that by the very fact that they are children of believers they are regarded as being born in the Church, according to the Divine covenant in Gen. 17:7: “I will be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.” Similarly, in the Civil Law, when one parent is free the children are born free.

But these teachers err. For (1.) the Apostle says equally that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife. But it is not precisely correct to say that such a man is sanctified through his wife; neither, therefore, is it strictly true of the child. (2.) The Church is not a civil but a supernatural republic, and in it no one is born a Christian; but by baptism, which has taken the place of circumcision, every one is spiritually born again and is made holy, not civilly but really, by faith, hope, and charity infused into his soul. This is the mind of the Fathers and the whole Church. (3.) It is said absolutely in S. John 3:5, that “except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” It is therefore untrue that any one not born of water, but merely of believing parents, can enter into the kingdom of God.

1 Cor 7:15 But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases. But God hath called us in peace. 

But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. If the unbeliever seek for a dissolution of the marriage, or will not live with his partner without doing injury to God, by endeavouring to draw her away to unbelief or to some wickedness, or by uttering blasphemy against God, or Christ, or the faith, then, as Sanchez lays down from the common consent of the Doctors of the Church (vol. ii. disp. 74), he by so acting is rightly regarded to wish for a separation; then let the believer depart from the unbelieving, because it is better, says S. Chrysostom, to be divorced from one’s husband than from God.

Observe that the Apostle in this case allows a separation, not only a toro but also a vinculo; and therefore the believer may contract another marriage, this being a concession made by Christ in favour of the faith; otherwise a Christian man or woman would be subject to slavery. For it is a grievous slavery to be bound in matrimony to an unbeliever, so as not to be able to marry another, and to be bound to live a life of celibacy, even if the unbeliever depart. So S. Augustine (de Adulter. Conjug. lib. i. c. 13), S. Thomas, and S. Ambrose, who says: “The marriage obedience is not owing to him who scoffs at the Author of marriage, but in such case remarriage is lawful.”

Further, many doctors, cited by Henriquez (de Matrim. lib. xi. c. 8), amongst whom is S. Augustine (de Adulter. Conjug. lib. i. c. xix.), gather from this verse and from verse 12 (1 Cor 7:12)that the believer whose unbelieving partner is not willing to be converted, even though he may be willing to live with her without injury to God, has by this very fact a right to enter upon a new marriage. But S. Paul and the Canonical decrees (cap. Quanto, cap. Gaudemus, tit. de Divort, and cap. Si Infidelis 28, qu. 2) only deal with the case where the unbeliever wishes to depart, or where he is a blasphemer against the faith. And. therefore, other doctors, cited by Henriquez, think that in this case it is lawful for the believer to marry again. And this opinion is the more sound not only for the reason given above, but also because the Fathers who support the first opinion rely on glosses on the various capitula, which are merely glosses of Orleans, and if anything darken the text.

Moreover, no gloss by itself can be the foundation of a right, or of a new law. Since, therefore, it is agreed that the marriage of unbelievers is true marriage, and that it is not dissolved by the conversion of either party, because there is no law of God or of the Church to dissolve it, it follows that they must hold to their contract, which by its very nature is indissoluble. This is strengthened by the consideration that each party possesses good faith; therefore it cannot be set aside, unless it is agreed that either or both have no right to this marriage, or that one loses his right through the conversion of the other. This, however, is not agreed on, but is highly doubtful. In matters of doubt the position of the possessor is the stronger, and he ought not to be ousted from it because of any doubt that may arise.

Nevertheless, Sanchez adds (disp. 74, num. 9) that it is lawful for the believer to marry again, because it is now forbidden by the Church to live with an unbeliever who will not be converted, because of the danger of perversion which exists nearly always. The unbeliever is then looked upon as having departed, because he refuses to live with the believer in a lawful and proper manner. But Sanchez means that the Church now forbids in general a believer to continue to live with an unbeliever. But this is denied by Navarrus and others; for though the Fourth Council of Toledo forbids a believer to live with an unbeliever if he is a Jew, this was done merely because of the obstinate tenacity of the Jews to their creed. Neither here nor elsewhere is marriage with a heathen forbidden.

Moreover, the Council of Toledo was merely local, and this same canon has been differently interpreted by different authors, as Sanchez says (disp. 73, num. 6). And in truth it would be hard and a just cause of offence if, in India, China, and Japan, when the faith is first preached, Christians should be compelled to put away the wives that they had married when unbelievers, or if wives should be compelled to leave their husbands who were unwilling to be converted to Christianity, especially when they were in high position; for occasion would be taken from thence to exterminate Christians and their faith. The case is different in Spain and amongst Christians, where the Church might, without causing scandal, enact this, either by a general law (which as a matter of fact does not exist, as I have said), or by use and custom, by forbidding individuals in particular to remain in marriage with one that was not a believer, because of the danger of perversion. Such a precept it would be the duty of the believer to obey, and therefore it would not be he that was in fault, but the unbeliever, who, by refusing to live in marriage, according to the law binding on the believing partner and the precept of the Church, becomes the cause of the separation. By so acting, the unbeliever will be reckoned to wish for separation, and consequently it would be lawful for the believer to contract another marriage, as Sanchez learnedly argues. For example, Queen Cæsara, wife of the King of the Persians in the time of the Emperor Mauritius, fled secretly to Constantinople, and was there converted and baptized. When her husband requested her to return, she refused to do so unless he became a Christian. He then went to Constantinople and was there baptized, and assisted out of the font by Augustus, and having received his wife again, he returned joyfully to his home. This happened about the year 593, as Baronius relates on the authority of Paul the Deacon and Gregory of Tours. All that has been said must be clearly understood to refer to matrimony contracted when both parties were unbelievers, followed by the conversion of one and the refusal of the other to be converted; for matrimony contracted by an unbeliever with a believer has been declared null and void by the Church since the time of S. Paul; and thence it is that difference of faith is a barrier to matrimony. This was the reason why Theresa, sister of Adelphonsus, King of Liège, refused to marry Abdallah, King of the Arabs, unless he adopted the Christian faith. This he promised, but falsely. Therefore on the arrival of Theresa he forced her, in spite of her struggles; but being smitten by God with a sore disease, he was unable to be cured without sending back Theresa to her brother. This is told by Roderic, Vazæus, and Baronius (a.d. 983).

S. Eurosia too, daughter of the King of Bohemia, having been taken prisoner by the King of the Moors, chose death rather than marriage with him; and while she was patiently awaiting the sword of the executioner, she heard an angel saying, “Come, my elect, the spouse of Christ, receive the crown which the Lord hath prepared for you, and the gift that your prayers shall be heard as often as the faithful call upon you for help against rain or any storm whatsoever.” Having heard these words, her arms and legs having been lopped off, she gave up the ghost, being renowned for her miracles, as Lucius Marinæus Siculus relates (de Rebus Hispan. lib. v.).

But God hath called us in peace. Peace of conscience with God, and of agreement with men. Therefore, on our part, let us not depart from unbelieving husbands, but live with them as peacefully as we can. Secondly, and more fitly, peace here stands for that rest and tranquil life to which the Apostle is urging the married believer. Such a life in separation and solitude is to be preferred to marriage with an unbeliever who wishes to depart, and who is perpetually provoking the believer to quarrel, and disturbing his peace. This better agrees with the mention of departure which has gone just before these words, and of which I shall have more to say.

1 Cor 7:16 For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? 

For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? If we take the first meaning of “peace” given above, the sense will be: Live in peace as far as you can, O believer, with your unbelieving partner, for you know not the good that he may derive thence: perhaps by living with him you will convert him and save him. So Chrysostom, Ambrose, Anselm, Theophylact, and others. If we take the second meaning of peace, the sense will be still better. Peace is the gift of Christ; to this have we been called by Christ, not to unhappy and quarrelsome slavery. If, therefore, the unbeliever seeks by quarrels, abuse, by threats against the faith and against his faithful partner, to drive her away, let her depart and live peacefully, and give up all hope of his conversion. For what ground of hope is there of one that is a heathen, blasphemous, and quarrelsome? Therefore, what do you know, or whence do you hope to save him?

1 Cor 7:17 But as the Lord hath distributed to every one, as God hath called every one: so let him walk. And so in all churches I teach. 

But as the Lord hath distributed to every one, as God hath called every one: so let him walk. I have said thus much about the marriage of an unbeliever with a believer, and about separation and divorce, if the unbeliever seek for it, and about living together in peace; but I do not wish to be understood to mean that a divorce is to be sought for, or that peace is to be broken, merely through lust and a desire to change one’s state, as, e.g., that a believer, because he is a believer and called to Christian liberty, may desire and find an excuse for changing his servile condition into one of freedom, his position as a Gentile into that of a Jew. I ordain, therefore, that each one of the faithful, whether he be a Jew or a Gentile, bond or free, maintain the state and condition which the Lord has given him, and which he had before he became a believer. Let each one walk in his own line; let him be content with that, and live as becometh a Christian; let him not grow restless to change his state because of his Christianity, and so cause the Gentiles to stumble. 

This seems to be the answer to a fourth question put to Paul by the Corinthians, viz., whether Christians who had been slaves before conversion became free when they were made Christians—Christian liberty, it might seem, calls for this; and, again, whether Gentiles who had been made, or were about to be made Christians, ought to be circumcised as the Jews. For the Apostles and the first Christians were Jews, and were made into Christians out of Judaism, and hence some thought that Judaism was a necessary medium between heathenism and Christianity. To both questions Paul gives an answer in the negative.

1 Cor 7:18 Is any man called, being circumcised? Let him not procure uncircumcision. Is any man called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. 

Let him not procure uncircumcision. For the possibility of the actual restoration of the forsaken, see Celsus (lib. vii. c. 25). For its actual use by apostate Jews, see 1 Macc. 1:18, and Josephus (Antiq. lib. xii. c. 6) and Epiphanius (de Ponder. et Mesur.). The latter says that Esau was the author of this practice, and that therefore it was said of him: “Esau have I hated.” He also tells us that Jews, when they passed over to the Samaritans, were commonly circumcised a second time, and that Symmachus, who was as famous as Aquila and Theodotion as an interpreter of Holy Scripture, was so treated. Similarly, the Anabaptists baptize again those who have left their ranks and then returned. There is a reference to this perhaps in Martial’s Epigram, where he speaks of not flying from the circumcised Jew, and in Juvenal’s [Hor. i. Sat. v. 100], saying, “Let the uncircumcised Jew believe it; I will not.”

S. Jerome, in commenting on Isa. 53, gives these words a mystical and symbolical meaning: “Art thou called being unmarried, then do not marry.” But this is outside the literal meaning.

1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing: but the observance of the commandments of God. 

Circumcision is nothing. It neither profits nor prevents the salvation of a Christian. He is treating of converted Jews, as appears from what has gone before. So Cajetan, Ambrose, Anselm.

1 Cor 7:20 Let every man abide in the same calling in which he was called. 

Let every man abide in the same calling in which he was called. If one that is circumcised, or that is a slave, or married, come to Christianity, let him not on that account change his state, but remain circumcised, a slave, or married. The state was to be retained, provided it were one that was lawful and honest. S. Cyprian refused to admit actors to the sacraments of the Church.

S. Ephrem (Adhortat. 4, vol. ii.) says well: “In whatever work you have been called, strengthen your anchors and ropes, that you may be safe, as if in port, from all storms, and that your ship may not be driven out into the ocean.”

1 Cor 7:21 Wast thou called, being a bondman? Care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 

Wast thou called, being a bondman? Care not for it. Be not anxious about your state, as though slavery were inconsistent with your Christian profession; be rather glad that you have been set free by Christ from the slavery of sin and death, and made the servant of God, even though in this life you are the servant of man, so long as it shall seem good to God. Cf. the apophthegms quoted in the notes to Exod. 1:12.

There is a golden saying of S. Augustine (Sentent. num. 53); He says: “Whatever evil a master does to the righteous is not punishment for misdoing but a trial of their virtue. For a good man, even though he be a slave, is free; but a bad man, though he be a king, is a slave; nor does he serve one person only, but, what is far worse, he has as many masters as vices.” Again (num. 24), he says: “God’s service is always freedom, for He is served, not of necessity but from love.”

But if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 1. Use that slavery as a cause of humility to the glory of God. Hence Theodoret explains it thus: Grace knows no difference between slavery and freedom. Do not, therefore, flee from slavery as though it were inconsistent with the faith; but, if it is possible for you to obtain your freedom, yet go on as a slave and await your reward. So too it is explained by S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and S. Thomas. What follows is in perfect harmony with this exposition.

2. It is better, however, to explain it thus: If you gain your freedom, embrace it and enjoy it. The word rather points clearly to this meaning, for who is there that would not prefer freedom to slavery, especially if he is a slave of an unbeliever, so that he cannot serve Christ freely? S. Paul clearly advises this afterwards when he says, “Ye are bought with a price: be not ye the servants of men.”

We should notice that the Apostle is here speaking not of hired servants, such as are found among Christians now-a-days, but such as were the absolute property of their master, such as the Gentiles had, even when converted to Christianity, such as even now Christians have from the Turks and Moors. The opposition is between slaves and free-men.

S. Jerome (in Apolog. pro lib. ad Jovin.), following Origen (in Epis. ad. Rom. lib. i.), explains this passage of the service of matrimony. “If, like a slave, you have been bound to matrimony, care not for it; do not torture yourself as though it were impossible to live a godly life when married and attain salvation. Still, if you can persuade your wife to set you free and let you live separately as a single man, rather choose this.” But the former sense is the simpler and more relevant.

1 Cor 7:22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a bondman, is the freeman of the Lord. Likewise he that is called, being free, is the bondman of Christ. 

For he that is called in the Lord being a bondman. These words, by a common Hebrew mode of speech, refer to the first clause of the preceding verse, and not to the words immediately preceding. The Apostle’s chief aim here is to teach slaves to be content with their servile condition, and to bear it patiently, until God in His providence should appoint them another by giving them their freedom. They have been already called in the Lord, i.e., by the Lord, to the faith and grace of Jesus Christ.

Is the freeman of the Lord. Has been set free by Christ, and called to Christian liberty. Slaves, if they become Christians, are not to seek to be set free from their master’s service, but are to rejoice that they have been called from the service of sin into the freedom of grace and adoption of the sons of God. Cf. Chrysostom here, and Hom. xix. (in Morali.), where he shows that there is no antagonism between slavery and Christianity.

1 Cor 7:23 You are bought with a price: be not made the bondslaves of men. 

Ye are bought with a price. By the blood of Christ, which is called the price of our redemption. So Ambrose. Christ bought and redeemed you with a heavy price from the slavery of sin, and has made you children, and, therefore, be not made the bondslaves of men: do not sell yourselves into slavery if you can enjoy freedom. This civil freedom befits the freedman of Christ, and in it he can more completely serve Christ, more so than he does any owner, especially one that is a heathen.

Constantine the Great, about the year 330, in honour of Christ, and as an indulgence to His religion, decreed that no Jew should have a Christian slave. Any Jew who should disobey was to be beheaded, and his slave set at liberty. He thought it impious that Christians, who had been redeemed by the death of Christ, should be subjected to the yoke of slavery by those who had slain the Redeemer. This law was confirmed by the three sons of Constantine (Sozomen, lib. iii. c. 17). S. Gregory too ordered that the slave of a Jew who wished to be converted to Christianity should at his admission become free (lib. iii. Ep. 9). The Fourth Council of Toledo (cap. 64) has a similar enactment.

This is to be understood of Jews and pagans who are subject to the jurisdiction of some Christian prince. The Christian slaves of such become by that very fact free, and may therefore leave their master; nay, if they are unbelievers, they may fly to the Church to become Christians and therefore free. For of these the laws say: In the case of those unbelievers who are not temporally subject to the Church or her members, the Church has not laid down the above-named right, although she might rightly do so. For she has the authority of God; and unbelievers, by reason of their unbelief, deserve to lose their power over believers, who are transferred into children of God. But this the Church does not do, in order to avoid scandal, as S. Thomas says (pt. ii. qu. x. art. 10).

Others not amiss explain this passage thus: Do not be the servants of men in such a way as to neglect the obedience owing to God. For they become servants of men who regard the opinion of men above all things, and flatter them even when they do wrong, and obey and serve them in all things, even when they order them to sin. So S. Chrysostom and Jerome (in Ep. ad Eph. vi.). For in Eph. 6 the Apostle bids servants serve their masters, not as men pleasers, but as serving the Lord, and for the Lord’s sake.

1 Cor 7:24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God. 

Brethren, let every man, wherein he was called therein abide with God. Whatever a man’s state when he comes to Christianity, whether bond or free, in that let him stay. With God implies that by so doing he will serve God, for if otherwise the Gentiles would complain that Christianity made their slaves restless and ambitious of liberty. 

1 Cor 7:25 Now, concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give counsel, as having obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithful. 

Now, concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give my counsel. I have no command that they are to remain virgins and serve God in that state, but I advise them to do so. This is the fifth question of the Corinthians, and the answer is that the law of Christ has no precept bidding them remain virgins, but that it is better for all to do so.

From this passage is proved the common opinion of the Fathers, that the single life is in our power if we seek it from God, and strive after it with undaunted fortitude, and co-operate with God’s grace through the appointed means. In this way every one can, if he likes, live unmarried, however much he may be by nature or habit inclined to impurity. Tertullian teaches this (de Monogam.), Chrysostom, Origen, Jerome (in S. Matt. c. 19), Ambrose (de Viduis), Augustine (Enarr. in Ps. cxxxviii.), who says, “He who bids you take the vow, Himself helps you keep it.” And again (Conf. lib. vi. c. 11): “I know that Thou wouldst give me continence if I were but to deafen Thy ears with my inward groaning.” S. Paul too plainly implies the same thing in this verse and in ver. 7 (1 Cor 7:7), where he recommends virginity to all. He would not counsel us nor order us to do anything but what lay in our own power, i.e., save what we can do with the grace of God which God has prepared for us, and which He offers to us, only waiting for us to ask for it, and to be willing to co-operate with it.

Christ teaches the same in S. Matt. 19, where, on the Apostles’ saying that, because of the burden and difficulties of matrimony, it was not expedient to marry, He gave His approbation to what they said, adding: (1.) “All men cannot receive this saying.” Origen and Nazianzen (Orat. de tribus Eunuch. Gener.) take this, “all are not capable of this saying,” understanding by capacity the natural leaning towards chastity, which all have not. But others take it better as meaning that all men do not receive this saying as vessels receive liquids: they do not approve of it, do not understand it, do not embrace chastity because of its difficulty. Hence Christ adds: (2.) “There be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs,” viz., of their own free will they have made themselves chaste, and have strengthened their purpose by a life-long vow. For this is the signification of the word eunuch—moral impotence. If the meaning is otherwise, it would have been better for Christ to say, “There be some who are making themselves eunuchs, or endeavouring to make themselves eunuchs.” So S. Jerome, Epiphanius (Hœres. 58), Fulgentius (de Fide ad Petrum, c. iii.), Augustine (de Sancta Virgin. c. 30).

Christ adds (3.) that these eunuchs have made themselves such, not because of the inconveniences of marriage, nor even because of the Gospel, that they may preach it better, as heretics wrest these words of Christ, but “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake,” i.e., that they may merit to obtain it. So Origen, Hilary, Chrysostom, Euthymius, and S. Augustine (de Sancta Virgin. c. 23).

Lastly, Christ ends by saying: “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” These are the words of one who is exhorting and urging others to heroic virtue as well as to an illustrious reward. By these words, therefore, Christ puts before all a counsel of chastity as a thing that is most heroic and excellent. Christ does not say, says Chrysostom, all cannot, but all do not receive it, i.e., all indeed can receive it, but all do not wish to. He says: “The power of making themselves eunuchs has been given by God to those that have sought for it, have wished for it, and have laboured to obtain it.

It may be objected, Why, then, does Christ say, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it?” For by these words He implies that all cannot receive it. I reply that by the words he that is able, He merely means that it is a hard and difficult matter. In other words, he who is willing to force himself, who is willing to strive with all his might to accomplish so arduous a task, let him receive it and obtain it. So in the comic writer it is said, “I cannot, mother, take this woman as my wife,” i.e., I am unwilling, because it is difficult for me to do so, because this wife does not please me. Frequently also in Scripture the difficult is spoken of as impossible. Again, all cannot contain by their own power, but by received power they can. They can pray, and by their prayers and co-operation obtain for themselves an immediate power of continence.

Although, therefore, all have not the gift of continency enabling them actually to contain, as all the righteous have not the gift of perseverance to enable them actually to persevere in grace; yet, just as all the righteous have the gift of perseverance by which they can, if they like, persevere, so can all have the gift of continency if only they seek for strength from God for it, and co-operate with God’s grace coming through the appointed means. It is different with the gift of prophecy, and other gifts that are given gratuitously, which frequently we can obtain neither by prayer nor by co-operation. Nevertheless, since there are some who both by nature and use are prone to lust, and have not the spirit to labour earnestly after that heroic virtue which by the grace of God they might have, but easily allow themselves to be led astray by nature and habit, so as to yield to the temptations of lust, hence it is better for them and others equally weak to enter into matrimony, “for it is better to marry than to burn.” Cf. 1 Cor 7:2, 5, 9.

As having obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithful. I counsel virginity, as being he who has been mercifully called to the grace of Apostleship among the Gentiles, in order to counsel them faithfully. So Ambrose, Anselm, Theodoret. In other words, the more unworthy I am when compared with the other Apostles, the greater is the mercy and grace with which I have been called to the apostolate, and the more incumbent is it upon me to be faithful, and to give faithful counsel to those to whom I have been sent by Christ.

1 Cor 7:26 I think therefore that this is good for the present necessity: that it is good for a man so to be.
1 Cor 7:27 Art thou bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. 

I think therefore, that this is good. Either virginity, with Ambrose and others, or else that they remain virgins, as was said in the note to ver. 25.

For the present necessity. The necessity, say some, of travelling about to evangelise the whole world, which would be difficult for one who was hampered by a wife and children. But Paul is not writing this to Apostles or Evangelists, but to the citizens of Corinth; and, therefore, others understand a reference to the distress of the persecutions and flights in the primitive Church (The Greek word ἀνάγκην = anaken means necessity, distress, pressure). The virgins were well able to escape from tyrants, but the married, being weighed down with wife and children, found this difficult. At that time, therefore, celibacy was preferable to marriage. This is the way that heretics understand this passage.

But Calvin finds fault with this. He admits that the Apostle here counsels celibacy for the whole world and in all ages, even in such peaceful times as our own; but he understands the necessity to be the disquiet and the various afflictions by which the saints are harassed in this life, because of which celibacy is to be counselled before matrimony. But this, though true, is far-fetched. I say, then, that the present necessity is that which the Apostle defines and explains in vers. 28 and 29 (1 Cor 7:28-29), and is two-fold. And here observe that the Greek word for present has two significations: (a) the literal present, opposed to the future, as in Rom. 8:38 and 1 Cor. 3:22; (b) it signifies imminent, urgent, pressing. Both meanings are suitable here.

1. This present necessity is that which is incumbent on matrimony, and inseparable from it, arising from the difficulties, annoyances, and troubles, such as child-bearing, labour, the bringing up of children, the cares, anxieties, rivalries, quarrels, and maintenance of the family; the solicitude to grow rich and to form good alliances by marriage; overbearingness on the part of the husband; hastiness of temper, drunkenness, extravagance, poverty, bereavement, and the constant distraction of mind springing from all these, and the being occupied about such things. Explaining himself in ver. 28 (1 Cor 7:28), he calls all these “trouble in the flesh,” and opposes this to the pleasure of marriage. So Ambrose, Anselm, Chrysostom, Theophylact.

2. It is simpler and more obvious to say that the present necessity is the shortness of this life, which is always pressing upon us, and hurrying us onwards towards death and eternity. The present necessity thus denotes the shortness of the time which is given us to gain eternal life, and which, therefore, is to be given, not to the world nor to matrimony, but to the soul and to God. So Chrysostom, Anselm, and S. Jerome (cont. Jovin. lib. i.). “This distress’ ” he says, “is the necessity of dying shortly.” In this short life we have the necessity laid on us of pleasing God, and of carefully preparing good works, that so we may live in bliss throughout eternity. Therefore we are counselled to virginity; for virginity can give itself wholly to God, while the married are distracted by the burdens of wedlock. As the ant throughout the summer lays up store of grain for the winter, so should we collect merits for eternity. S. Paul explains this distress in ver. 29 (1 Cor 7:29): Do you, he seems to say, long for a wife, for children, for conjugal delights? Do you thirst for these things, and set your affections and thoughts on them? Is it your sole purpose to perpetuate your name, your family, your race? Are you heaping up riches, buying farms, building houses, as though you would dwell in them for ever? Recollect the saying of Horace, “Land and home and beloved wife must be left behind” (Carmin. ii. 14, 21).

1. Why do you weary and torment yourself with toils? Why buy with such sorrows a short-lived pleasure, the fame of your name and family? Why hope for long endurance? Transient is whatever you see here, whatever you lust for; transitory this present life. Thirty years of manhood is all that is given us here below. Listen to the poet: “The short span of life forbids us to entertain any far-reaching hope.”

2. Death is pressing upon you: towards it you are hastening with relentless speed. Judgment awaits you; an eternity is at hand, unending and inevitable. God is constraining you, and forcing you to prepare yourself for it and hasten towards it.

3. God has given you this short life, this present time—not that you may spend it in wedded bliss, not that you may found a family, or establish a seat, or enjoy the present as though you were to remain here for ever—but solely and entirely that in it, as the arena for virtue, you may hasten to your goal and to the prize of an eternity of bliss; that on that bliss you should hang with eyes, with mind, with soul, and for it earnestly strive, and keep it ever before you as your goal and the end of all your actions. Wherefore though the world is full of folly, there is none greater or made to suffer more than that which so neglects its supreme and everlasting good, and so eagerly pursues what is perishable and empty, at so great risk of eternal damnation.

4. Reflect daily. So much of my life has now flown by that perhaps not much is left. Every day that I live brings me nearer to death: what if it should meet me to-day or to-morrow? Have I so lived as not to fear to die? Have I laid by in store merits and good works by which I may live throughout eternity? On this thy salvation turns as on a hinge: why then dost thou not give thyself wholly to it?

5. Why do you busy yourself about other matters? Why do you divide your mind between your wife, your children, your household, so as to think throughout the day scarcely once of God or heaven? Why do you not collect yourself wholly for that one thing which is needful, and choose with Mary the best part? Why hunger after gain, wealth, position, and family alliances? All men’s cares—how empty are they! Thou fool, this night shall thy soul be required of thee, and then whose shall those things be which thou hast provided? Your sons succeed you and forget you; you will leave all your goods to ungrateful heirs, for whom you toiled and laboured and gave your body to death and your soul to hell. Even if they be grateful, they will have no power to set you free from hell.

6. Have pity on your soul: on that one precious soul which God gave you to take care of and save, bestow some thought. Call away your mind from wedlock, from your wife, from your children; your thoughts from your family, from the cares and business attending on a wife, all which things distract you, drown you, and swallow you up in the earth and earthly things.

7. Why do you not embrace that single life that I advise? It will give you leisure for thought how you may please God, not how you may please the world; how you may get yourself ready for your journey to heaven; how you may compose your ideas as befits the judgment that is to come; how you may stand before God. It will enable you to serve the Lord without hindrance freely, to worship Him constantly, so as by perseverance in prayer, fasting, and almsgiving to merit in heaven to shine in glory, to stand close by God, and most blissfully to enjoy Him throughout eternity—where with S. Agnes (S. Ambrose, Serm. 90) you may ever sing, “I am united in heaven to Him whom on earth I loved with all the power of my mind;” and, “The kingdoms of the world and all the glory of them I despised, because of the love of my Lord Jesus Christ, on whom I believed, whom I loved, and for whom I longed.”

Maldonatus (in Notis Manusc.) says: “Because of the present distress, the approaching end of the world, let us not involve ourselves in earthly business such as matrimony, that so we may prepare ourselves for that end.”

From what has been said, the argument of Jovinian and Calvin falls to the ground. They say that the Apostle opposes the present to the future; therefore, if the single life is a good merely because of the present distress, it is not so because of the future reward. I answer that the antecedent is false; for the present distress is that which urges us to seek to prepare ourselves in this short life, by a single life, for our eternal reward. Moreover, S. Jerome (contra Jovin. lib. i.) says: “The Apostle joins together the present and the future, that no one may suppose that virgins are indeed happier so far as concerns spiritual things, but not as concerns material, when they are better off in both than those that are married—better off in time, better off in eternity.” S. Augustine says the same, and refutes at length this argument of Calvin’s (de Sancta Virgin. lib. vi. c. 22), as does the Apostle here in vers. 33 and 35 (1 Cor 7:33, 35), as I will prove there at greater length.

That it is good for a man so to be. This is merely a repetition of the first clause of this verse for the sake of emphasis. It is good for a man to remain unmarried.

1 Cor 7:28 But if thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned. And if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned: nevertheless, such shall have tribulation of the flesh. But I spare you. 

If a virgin marry she hath not sinned. A virgin here of course is one that is capable of matrimony—free, and unwedded, and not dedicated to God. If such marry she does not sin. Cf. notes to ver. 2. So Theodoret, Theophylact, Photius, and Jerome.

Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh. By letting loose on themselves a host of ills through the bond of wedlock, says S. Basil (de Sancta Virgin). It is the cares of marriage, of children, and of household matters that the Apostle means when he speaks of trouble in the flesh. Cf. S. Augustine (de Sancta Virgin. c. 16), S. Ambrose (de Virg. lib. i.), and S. Jerome (contra Jovin.). (1.) Trouble in the flesh, therefore, is that which has to do with the flesh and fleshly things, and which troubles the flesh. It is opposed to that pleasure of the flesh which is found in matrimony. This pleasure is so counterbalanced by this “trouble” that it is scarcely felt. For the pleasure derived from the conjugal act is very base and brutish, and makes a man, as Alexander the Great used to say, epileptic; it carries with it great shame, and is gone in a moment, and is followed by numerous inconveniences. For from the moment of its conception it is accompanied by loathing, sleeplessness, giddiness, melancholy, palpitation of the heart, foolish longings, and a thorough disturbance of the bodily economy. The grievous pains of child-bearing follow, which often end in death. (2.) When children are born they need to be constantly washed, fed, enswathed, clothed, put to bed, rocked to sleep, taken out for fresh air, and kept healthy, and sung to sleep to prevent them from crying; and so mothers have to be occupied day and night about their children, and can think of nothing else. (3.) The more children, the greater the number of anxieties. How great is the grief if he happen to die, or be led by bad society into crime and disgrace, or if he show himself rebellious to his parents; if he waste his father’s goods by gambling and drinking, if he make a reckless marriage! For even if the parents be most holy, yet it often happens that the children are wicked, and so torture their parents most grievously. We have examples in Adam and Cain, Noah and Ham, Abraham and Ishmael, Isaac and Esau, Jacob and Reuben with nearly all his brothers, David and Amnon and Absalom, and many others.

It was because of these burdens attending on marriage that S. Augustine, following S. Ambrose, would never advise any one to marry. Possidonius, in his life of him (c. xxvii.), says that he recommended these three things to be observed by a man of God: (a) never to ask for any one a wife, (b) not to support any one who thought of entering the army, (c) and in his country not to go to a banquet when invited. The reasons he gave were (a) that if the married couple were to quarrel they would blame him by whom they were united; (b) that if the soldier behaved himself so as to be unsuccessful, he would lay the blame on his adviser; (c) that if he frequently attended banquets, he might lose the measure of temperance that was fitting.

But I spare you. Since you prefer the state of trouble, viz., matrimony, I permit it. So Ambrose.

1 Cor 7:29 This therefore I say, brethren: The time is short. It remaineth, that they also who have wives be as if they had none: 

But this therefore I say, brethren: the time is short. The duration of this life is short, so that we may not think of merely enjoying our wives and the things of this present life, but, as strangers and sojourners, use them for a short time, in order to travel better towards that glorious City into which we shall be enrolled as everlasting citizens. Ambrose takes the time here in a wider sense, as denoting the duration of the world. Time is short, and the day of judgment is at hand: do not, therefore, spend your time on the temporal pleasures of the world, but prepare yourselves for judgment.

It remaineth that they also who have wives be as if they had none. That they do not greatly devote themselves to the things of marriage so as to give their spirit, their mind, and their love more to their wives than to the Lord. So Ambrose and Anselm; S. Augustine (de Serm. Dom. in Mont. lib. i. c. xiv.), that they should by mutual consent live in chastity, if possible.

1 Cor 7:30 And they that weep, as though they wept not: and they that rejoice, as if they rejoiced not: and they that buy as if they possessed not: 

And they that buy as if they possessed not. Let them not regard themselves as possessors for ever, but only as tenants for life. For Paul is forbidding that inordinate love of things which makes them possess us rather than we them. We are not to fix our heart on transitory things, nor with inordinate affection cling to any creature that so soon passeth away. S. Anselm, S. Augustine (in Joan. Tract. 40), in giving to a rich man a rule for the due use of money, says beautifully: “Use money as a traveller in an inn uses a table, or a cup, or a ewer—as one soon to depart, not to abide for ever.”

That God might effectually teach the Jews this lesson, He appointed every fiftieth year to be a year of Jubilee, when all lands that had been sold should return without payment to their first owner. Cf. Lev. 25:23. He said to them in effect: I, the Most High, have true and real dominion over your land; and therefore it belongs to Me to lay down what conditions of sale that I please, especially since I have put you into possession as settlers and colonists, and wish you to always remain such. Wherefore I will and decree that all possessions whatsoever return in the year of Jubilee to their first owners, and that for this reason, that you may know, says Philo (de Cherubim), that God alone is the true Lord and possessor of all things, and that men have but usufruct of them, not dominion. “Hence,” says Philo, “it is clear that we use the goods of another; that we possess in the way of right and dominion neither glory, nor riches, nor power, nor anything whatever, even if it be some power of the body or faculty of the mind: we merely have the usufruct of them while we live.”

1 Cor 7:31 And they that use this world, as if they used it not. For the fashion of this world passeth away. 

And they that use this world as if they used it not. By not giving themselves to it overmuch. The Latin version translates the compound word as if it were a simple one—as not using it; but the meaning is the same. Not to use it is to abuse it by holding too tightly to it; for we must use things according to what they are. A world that is fleeting must therefore be used loosely, and by the way as it were, which is as though it were not used. But if you cling to the world you abuse it, for you use a thing that is ever changing, as though it were firm, fixed, and solid. For abuse, as Theophylact says, is use that is immoderate—exceeding the measure and nature of the thing. Hence the Syriac renders this passage, “Let not those that use this world use it beyond its proper measure.” Abuse is found in 1 Cor. 9:18 in the sense of “use to the full.” Wherefore S. Basil (Reg. Brev. Interrog. 70) says: “The Apostle condemns abuse in the words, ‘use the world as not abusing it.’ The very need that we have of things that are for use is the measure of their use. He who goes beyond what necessity enjoins is a victim, either to covetousness, or lust, or vain glory.”

S. Leo (Serm. 5 de Jej. Sept. Mensis) says excellently: “In the love of God is no excess; in the love of the world everything is harmful. And therefore should we hold fast to the things that are eternal, use the things of time in passing, as being pilgrims hastening along the road which takes us back to our country, and regarding whatever good things the world has given us as rather sustenance on the road than inducements to remain. Therefore is it that the Apostle says: ‘The time is short, it remaineth that they that have wives be as though they had them not, &c.; ‘for the fashion of this world is passing away.’ But it is not easy to turn aside from the blandishments of form, of abundance, of novelty, unless in the beauty of visible things we love the Creator and not the creature.” Again (Serm. xi. de Quadrag.), after quoting these words of the Apostle, he adds: “Happy is the man who, in pure self-control, passes the time of his pilgrimage here, and does not rest contentedly in those things amongst which he must walk; who is a guest rather than a waster in his earthly home; who does not depend on human affections, nor lose sight of the Divine promises.”

For the fashion of this world passeth away. The Greek verb may be also translated “is deceitful” or “acts falsely.” For, as S. Augustine says (Ep. xxxix. ad Licentium): “The chains of this world gall while they seem to please, bring certain pain and uncertain pleasure, painful fear and fearful rest; a reality full of misery, and an empty hope of happiness. Will you of your own accord bind your hands and feet with these?” And again (Serm. xxiii. de Verb. Apostol.) he says: “Temporal things never cease to enflame us with expectation of their coming, to corrupt us when they do come, and to torture us when they have gone by. When longed for they enkindle, when obtained they lose their value, when lost they vanish away.” And S. Bernard says: “Do not love the things of this world, for they burden us when we have them, defile us when we love them, and torture us when we lose them.”

Again, S. Gregory (lib. vi. Ep. ad Andream) says: “Our life is as the journey of a sailor: for the sailor stands, sits, lies down, and is borne along whither the ship carries him. So is it with us: whether waking or sleeping, whether silent or speaking, or walking, or willing or not willing, through the moments of time we are hastening daily to our end. When, then, the day of our end comes, what good will all that do us that we have so eagerly sought after, and so anxiously got together? It is not honour nor riches that we should seek after: all these things must be left behind. But if we want to find what is good, let us love those things which we shall have for ever; if we fear what is evil, let us fear those sufferings which the lost suffer eternally.” Then, shortly after, he advises Andrew for the short span of our life and pilgrimage here, “to give himself to sacred reading, to meditate on heavenly words, to kindle himself with love of eternity, to do all good works in his power with his earthly things, and to hope for an everlasting kingdom as a reward for them. So to live is to have a part already in the life of eternity.” S. Jerome says, in his life of S. Hilarion, that “he was wont to remind every one that the fashion of this world is passing away, and that that is the true life which is purchased by the sufferings of this present life.”

Fashion. The nature, appearance, and fugitive state of the world, as Ambrose and Anselm say. The Apostle does not attribute form to the world, which is something more firm and constant, but fashion, which is ever changeful, fugitive, and ready to vanish away. Cf. note to Rom. 12:2 “Do not,” says Anselm, “give the world a constant love; for the object of your love is inconstant. In vain do you firmly fix your heart on it: it flies while you love.” If the world it fugitive, so then is marriage and everything else contained in the world.

The day flies by; none knows the morrow’s fount, whether toil or rest it brings: so the world’s glory fades. So too Lipsius, our brother, a man as wise as lifted up above man and human things, was wont with great discernment to say, when we talked together, as we often did freely, of the vanity of knowledge and all human things, that he had long thought of what he would have inscribed on his tomb. It was this: “Do you wish me to speak to you still more loudly? All human things are smoke, shadow, vanity, stage-play, and in one word—nothing.”

For all the world’s a play in which this life’s story is given. Men are the players; they have their exits and their entrances; and the place of the theatre is the earth. “One generation passeth away and another generation cometh, but the earth abideth for ever,” says Ecclesiastes 1:4. On the stage are two doors—that of birth for those coming on, that of death for those going off. Each receives the dress fitted to his part. He who personates a king will not take away with him the purple which he wore. Soon the comedy comes to an end. Seneca says that the same hour which gave us life began to end it. We often hear it said: “Tell me, O farm, O house, O prebend, O money, how many lords thou hast had, and how many yet await thee. Tell me where is Solomon and his wisdom, Samson and his strength, Absalom and his beauty, Cicero and his eloquence, Aristotle and his subtle intellect. Where are the illustrious princes, the things of old, the favour of governors, the strong limbs, the power of the princes of the world?” They are food for worms; they have returned to the dust. Transient as the morning dew, they have fled away. What seek you? What are you so eager for. Happy the man who was able to despise the world!

Gregory of Nazianzen enumerates in detail and describes most beautifully and tersely the empty and fugitive nature of everything in this world (de Vitæ Itineribus). He says: “Who am I, and whence came I into this life? and who shall I be, after that having been nursed for a short time in the lap of earth, I return from the dust to life? Where in His universe will God place me? Many are the sorrows that await the traveller on life’s road, and there is no good amongst men unalloyed with evil. And would that evils did not claim for themselves the greater part! Wealth is beset by snares, and the pride of high office and of thrones is the mere dream of a sleeper. To be subject to another’s power is grievous and burdensome. Poverty drags down; beauty is as short lived as the lightning of summer; youth is nothing more than a temporary glow; old age is the gloomy sunset of life. Words take wings, glory is but breath, nobility old blood, strength is shared with the wild-boar, satiety is disgusting, matrimony a bond, a large family is the mother of inevitable anxiety, to be bereaved is as a disease, the market is the seed-plot of vices, rest is feebleness, arts are practised by worthless men, the bread of another is scanty, agriculture is toilsome, the greater number of sailors go to the bottom, one’s native land is a prison, and the region beyond it a scorn.” Then he comprehends them all in one view, and holds up to our gaze the vanity of all things in many apt similitudes, saying: “All things, in short, are full of sorrow for mortals, all human things are fearful and yet ridiculous—like to thistle-down, to a shadow, to dew, to the idle wind, the flight of a bird, to a vapour, a dream, a wave, a ship, a foot-print, a breath; to dust, to a world perpetually changing all things as it revolves—now stable, now rotating, now falling, now fixed by seasons, days, nights, labours, death, sorrows, pleasures, diseases, calamities, prosperity. Not without great wisdom is it, O Christ, that you have so appointed that all the things of this life are uncertain and unstable. Doubtless it was that we might learn to glow with love and desire of something firm and settled, that we might tear away the mind from thoughts of the folly of the flesh, and might preserve pure and intact that image given us from above; might lead a life apart from this life, and, in short, by changing this world for another, bear with fortitude all the difficulties and trials of this life.”

S. Augustine too remarks appositely (Enarr. Ps. cx) on the words, “He shall drink of the brook on the way,” that, “a brook is the current of mail’s mortality. As a brook is swollen by the rains, overflows, roars as it goes, hurries along, and as it hurries hastens to its end, so is the whole current of mortality. Men are born, they live, they die; and while they die others are born. What stands still here? what is there that does not hasten onwards? what is there that is not as it were collected from the rain, and on its way to the sea, unto the deep?”

The fashion of this world implies that it is dressed and masked as an actor. Just as if a man were to sell you a horse and its trappings, you would take off its covering and examine the body and limbs of the horse before buying—even so do here. The world offers you for sale dressed-up honours, masked pleasures, decorated riches. Remove the decorations, take off the masks, look what lurks behind them: you will see that all is foreign, slender, empty.

The Wise Man pathetically describes (v. 5) the complaint of the ungodly, and the late remorse that follows on the love of vanity; and he compares it to a slight shadow, a messenger hastening by, a ship cutting the sea, the flight of a bird, an arrow shot forth—to thistle-down, foam, smoke, wind, and to an inn where one spends a night. S. Jerome explains these images at length in his letter to Cyprianus, in which, commenting on Ps. 90:4, he says: “Compared to eternity the length of all time is short.” Then, at ver. 6, he says: “As in the morning the grass flourishes, and delights with its verdure the eyes of all that see it, and then gradually withers and loses its beauty, and is turned into hay to be trodden under foot, even so does the whole race of men show the freshness of spring in childhood, blossom in youth, and flourish in manhood; but suddenly, when he knows not, the head turns white, the face wrinkles, the skin contracts, and at last, in the evening of old age, he can scarcely move. He is hardly recognised for what he used to be, and seems almost changed into another man; and, lastly, as Symmachus turns Ps. 90:10, we are suddenly cut down and fly away.”

1 Cor 7:32 But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord: how he may please God. 

But I would have you without solicitude, and therefore living in virginity and celibacy. 

1 Cor 7:33 But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife. And he is divided. 

But he that is with a wife is solicitous … how he may please his wife. “A woman,” says Plautus, “and a ship are never ornamented enough: he therefore that wants work had better marry a wife and fit out a ship.” 

1 Cor 7:34 And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord: that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world: how she may please her husband. 

There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The Latin takes the first half of this clause with the preceding, and refers it to the husband. He that is married careth how he may please his wife and is divided. He is distracted by many anxieties, so that he cannot give himself to one Lord; but God claims a part, and his wife and children claim a part, and that the greater. So Ambrose takes it.

But the Greeks—Chrysostom, Œcumenius, Theophylact, Basil, and Ephrem—join them as above. The meaning, then, is that the pursuits of a wife and a virgin are different. As Chrysostom says, what separates a wife from a virgin is leisure and business: the virgin has leisure, the wife has business. But S. Jerome (contra Jovin. lib. i.) asserts that this reading is not the true one. The Greeks still support the latter reading, the Latins the former.

The unmarried woman’s concern is that she may be holy in body and is spirit. “Holy” is pure and unstained. “A virgin,” says Œcumenius, “is holy in body, because of her chastity; she is holy in spirit, because of the close converse she holds with God, and because of the indwelling of the Spirit.”

Observe this plain testimony to evangelical counsel, and especially to that of virginity. Paul, in this chapter, frequently commends and counsels it (1 Cor 7:7, 8, 25, 26, 34, 35, 40). Hence Peter Martyr and Beza admit here that the maintenance of virginity is better than matrimony, as Luther thought, not only as a safeguard against temporal cares and troubles, but that it excels it also, as being better adapted for the service of God. Still they add that virginity by itself is not an act of worship to God, and at all events not greater or better than marriage.

But it is certain that virginity in this state is in itself an illustrious virtue, one by which God is honoured and worshipped, far better and more excellent than matrimony, meriting a far greater reward, and having its peculiar crown of glory in heaven. I say “in this state,” for in the state of innocence virginity would not have been a virtue, nay, it would not have existed any more than concupiscence would.

What has been said is proved, 1. by the Apostle laying down here that virginity is holiness of body and of spirit, and that by it we please God. For the sense of the verse is: “As a married woman thinks how she may preserve her beauty and adorn herself, that she may please her husband, so a virgin thinks how she may preserve chastity and purity, that she may be holy in body and mind, that so she may please God.” So Anselm, Theophylact, Œcumenius, Chrysostom, and many others. She thinks, too, how she may adorn and increase this chastity with prayers and other virtues, that she may be still more pleasing to God, as Ambrose suggests. Therefore, through virginal chastity a virgin is pleasing to God, and therefore chastity itself is holiness. So the Apostle calls it here. If virginity is holiness, it is surely worship done to God.

2. In the following verses the Apostle speaks of celibacy as being honourable, that is, more so than marriage; therefore celibacy is a virtue; for the proper object of virtue is the good that is honourable.

3. Virginity by itself is a branch of temperance, and is an heroic exhibition of it, springing from the most perfect chastity, fortitude, and resolution, and is a perfect bridling of lust. It is often also enjoined by charity, religion, or a vow. Hence I argue thus: As concupiscence, and especially that of impurity, is an evil in itself, so to bridle it is good and pleasing to God, and to bridle it more completely is a greater good and more pleasing to God. But virginity does bridle it more, nay, it wholly bridles concupiscence, whereas marriage gives it play; therefore virginity is a greater good, and more pleasing to God, and better than matrimony. This the Apostle teaches us expressly in ver. 38 (1 Cor 7:38), where he says: “He that giveth his virgin in marriage doeth well, but he that giveth her not doeth better.” Hence Fulgentius (c. iv. Ep. 3) says: “So much is virginity a virtue, that a virgin derives her name from virtue.” S. Jerome (contra Jovin. lib. i.) says: “Virginity is a sacrifice to Christ.”

In short, this is expressly taught against Jovinian, Calvin, and such men, by Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Athanasius, and Basil, in works written for the very purpose of proving this truth about virginity, and by S. Thomas (ii. ii. qu. 152), and by all Scholastic and Catholic doctors.

S. Aldhelm, Bishop of the West Saxons about a.d. 680, says excellently (Bibl. SS. Patrum, vol. iii. c. ix. de Laud. Virgin.): “Since there are three states in the Church—virginity, widowhood, and marriage—we have been taught by revelation from heaven, if the scale of merits is taken into account, that the difference fixed between them is of this kind: virginity is as gold, widowhood as silver, marriage as brass. Virginity is wealth, widowhood sufficiency, marriage poverty; virginity is peace, widowhood release, marriage captivity; virginity is a sun, widowhood a lamp, marriage darkness; virginity is a queen, widowhood a lord, marriage a handmaid.”

Tertullian also says (Lib. de Pudicitia): “Chastity is the flower of character, the body’s honour, the adornment of the sexes, the foundation of holiness, and every good mind instinctively leans towards it. Although it is seldom found, and scarcely ever is life-long, yet will it abide for a space in the world, if discipline lend its aid, and correction keep it in its bounds.”

S. Martin once, on seeing a meadow, one part of which the oxen had fed on, another part rooted up by the pigs, and a third part uninjured and variegated by different kinds of flowers, said: “The first part reminds us of marriage: it has been eaten down by cattle, but has not wholly lost the beauty of the herbage, though it retains none of the brightness that flowers give. The second part, which the unclean tribe of swine has rooted up, gives us a foul picture of fornication. The third, which has felt no injury, shows the glory of virginity: it is covered with luxuriant herbage, in it is an abundant crop of grass, it is adorned with flowers of all kinds, and shines as though adorned with radiant jewels.” So Sulpitius writes (Dial. 2, c. 11).

From all this we may gather eight prerogatives of virginity and the widowed life. 1. It is an imitation of the life and integrity of the angels; for the angels do not marry, but are wholly engaged on the service of God. Virgins do the same. Listen to S. Athanasius (de Virginitate): “O virginity, unfailing wealth, crown that fadeth not away, temple of God, abode of the Holy Spirit, pearl most precious, conqueror of death and hell, life of angels, crown of the Saints,” &c. And S. Chrysostom (de Virginitate, c. xi.): “Virginity far excels wedlock as heaven is above earth, as angels are higher than men.” And S. Augustine (de Sancta Virgin. c. xiii.): “Virginal as integrity is the portion of angels, and is a striving after life-long incorruption in a corruptible body.” Again, it is the distinguishing mark of that new race of angels planted by Christ on the earth, as S. Jerome says (Ep. 22 ad Eustock.): “As soon as the Son of God came down to earth, He founded for Himself a new family, in order that He who was worshipped by angels in heaven might have angels on earth.” Cf. S. Fulgentius (Ep. 3 ad Probam, c. 9).

2. Virginity is a whole burnt-offering, as S. Jerome says, when commenting on Ps. 96; for it devotes and consecrates to God and Divine things the body, and with it the mind. Hence S. Ignatius, in his Epistle to Tarsus, calls virgins “Christ’s priests.” “Value highly,” he says, “them that are living in virginity, as Christ’s priests.” Hence S. Ambrose, in his comment on Ps. 119:5, calls virgins “martyrs,” because they often have a severer struggle than martyrs, and slay for God’s sake their affections and the vital lusts of the soul.”

3. A virgin enters into a spiritual marriage with Christ, as I will explain at 2 Cor. 11:2. The offspring of this marriage is not bodily but spiritual, viz., (a) virtuous works; (b) alms and other offices of charity; (c) holy examples, by which they bring more souls to serve Christ, and so bear them to Christ. So S. Cecilia not only converted her husband Valerian and her brother Tiburtius and others, but also made them martyrs and virgins. Hence the Church says of her: “O Lord Jesus Christ, Sower of holy counsel, accept the fruits of the seeds which Thou didst sow in Cecilia,” and, “Thy hand-maiden Cecilia, like a bee loaded with honey, served Thee with store of good works.”

4. Virgins are more loved by Christ than others; for Christ as a Bridegroom loves virgins as His brides, as S. Ambrose says (de Virgin. lib. i.). Again, He loves them as His soldiers. Hence Ambrose says again: “This is that celestial warfare which the army of angels, praising God, carried on on earth.” On these soldiers see Chrysostom (Hom. 71 on S. Matthew).

5. Virgins are the noblest part of the Church. Listen to S. Cyprian (de Discipl. et Habitu Virgin.): “Now I speak to the virgins, whose glory is the higher as their purpose is better. They are the flower of the Church’s plant, the adornment of spiritual grace, a wine that gladdens, a complete and uncorrupted work of praise and honour, the image of God answering to the holiness of the Lord, the more illustrious portion of the flock of Christ.” And S. Jerome (contra Jovin. lib. ii.) says: “The Church’s necklace is adorned with virgins as its fairest jewels.” And Sir26:15, says: “A shamefaced and faithful woman is a double grace,” i.e., in marriage (for he is speaking of that); and therefore it is much more true of continency in the single life.

Hence S. Athanasius (de Virgin.) lays down that virginity is a mark of true religion and of the Church. For virginity is advised, embraced, and extolled by true religion: by infidelity and heresy it is spoken against, rejected, and slighted. And S. Ambrose (de Viduis) says: “They who regard with veneration the adulteries and lasciviousness of their gods, punish celibacy and widowhood: being themselves ardent for wickedness, they would fain chastise those who are zealous for virtue.”

Wherefore heretics and infidels are not and cannot be virgins; for without the grace of God, the beginning of which is faith, it is impossible, amongst so many allurements and temptations of the flesh, to preserve chastity inviolate. Hence S. Athanasius (Apolog. ad Constant. Imp.) says: “Nowhere else save among Christians is that holy and heavenly precept of life-long virginity happily fulfilled.”

6. S. Cyprian says that “marriage replenishes the earth, continency heaven;” therefore, as S. Basil says, “virgins anticipate the glory of the resurrection;” for in this life, as in the next, they neither marry nor are given in marriage.

7. Virgins have in heaven a more excellent reward and crown: they follow the Lamb wherever He goes, singing a new song which no one else can sing (Rev. 14:3, 4).

8. Virginity makes man like the Blessed Trinity. And all this is as true of virgins that live in their own home as of those that live in a monastery; for in the time of S. Paul and Ignatius there were no monasteries. In counselling and praising virginity, therefore, they mean that which is maintained at home. So Philip the deacon had at his house four daughters that were virgins (Acts 21:9), who were also gifted with the spirit of prophecy, and that as a reward of their virginity, as S. Jerome says (ad Demet.). Philip the Apostle had before his call three daughters, of whom two grew old in virginity, as Polycrates says in S. Jerome (de Script. Eccles.). S. Thecla, by the exhortation of S. Paul, embraced virginity (S. Ambrose de Virgin. lib. ii.). S. Iphigenia, a king’s daughter, was induced by S. Matthew to do the same (“Abdias,” Life). So too did S. Flavia Domitilla, daughter of Clement, a Roman consul, when urged by S. Clement (Beda. Martyrol. 7 May.); and S. Pudentiana and Praxedes, daughters of Pudens, a senator, and very many others. So many were there that S. Ambrose says (de Virgin. lib. iii.): “In the Eastern Church and in Africa there are more virgins consecrated than there are births in Milan and all Italy. And yet the race of men is not thereby diminished, but increased.” The reason of this is, that God is unwilling to be surpassed in generosity. If parents offer one or two of their offspring, He gives eight or ten in their place, giving fruitfulness and favourable labour, and filling the house with His blessing. So did He give to Hannah five children in the place of the one she offered to Him. So to the rich who give alms does God give greater wealth, and greater fertility to their fields, as S. Augustine says (Serm. 219 de Tempor.).

1 Cor 7:35 And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment. 

And this I speak this for your profit. I counsel you to remain single for your greater perfection and growth in spirit and in virtue.

Not to cast a snare upon you. Not that I wish to lay a necessity of continency upon you, or to force you to it. So Œcumenius, Theophylact, Chrysostom. For this precept would be a snare to those who find a difficulty in containing themselves, because it would deprive them of the remedy against incontinence, viz., marriage, and would drive them into the sin of fornication. It is evident from what follows that a snare, i.e., a precept, is contrasted with a counsel, for he goes on to say, but for that which is descent. In other words, he says what he does about the advantage of virginity, not by way of precept but of counsel, exhorting them to the more comely and better condition to be found in the single life. So Theodoret, Theophylact, Anselm, Œcumenius.

Peter Martyr and Bucer, therefore, are wrong in supposing that this snare is the constraint of a vow; for such a vow is not imposed by the Apostle or any one else, but is self-imposed, as each one of his own free will takes a vow of chastity. He who takes a vow of his own accord, no more casts a snare round himself than one who of his own accord binds himself in marriage to one who is often quarrelsome and hard to live with. Moreover, vows are not taken except after some trial, and not without previous mature deliberation and counsel. In monasteries, e.g., a year of probation is given to novices, that they may test their strength and weigh well the cost. But if married people had such a year in which to try each other before marriage, I fancy that many would alter their minds; and yet when once they are married they are compelled to live with one that is often unknown, untried, and disliked. Why, then, should those who have made a solemn promise to God, and have professed chastity, after first trying their strength and their duty, be compelled to break their vows, which of their own accord they made to the Lord their God?

It is far more true to say that this dogma of Bucer and the Protestants is a snare. They say that chastity is impossible, and consequently that it is lawful to marry after taking the vows. For by this snare the souls of many religious, and of many married people are destroyed, so that adultery, uncleanness, and damnation follow. For, by persuading themselves that virginal or conjugal chastity is impossible, they are necessarily driven by this fond opinion into adultery and sacrilege.

And which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment. 1. The single life affords abundant facilities for prayer and meditation and worship. So the Magdalene, sitting at the feet of Jesus, heard His words (S. Luke 10:39).

2. S. Jerome (contra Jovin.) renders it not as the Latin, that ye may have facilities for worshipping the Lord without hindrance, but as above. The Greek εὐπάρεδρον has two meanings: (a) That constant attendance on any one; (b) assiduity in any work. As therefore, Socrates is said to have had his attendant genius, by whose counsel and advice he was ruled in all that he did; and as magi in their rings, and heresiarchs in the fabrication of their heresy (Iren. lib. i. c. 9 and 20) have attendant demons close at hand to prompt them, so here, vice versâ, the chaste are called attendants upon the Lord, i.e., His intimates and assessors, as it were, like some terrestrial angels who always behold through their chastity the face of their Father. Hence it is that the Fathers so commonly compare the chaste to angels. S. Bernard, Ep. 42, says: “The chaste man and the angel differ in felicity, not in virtue: the angels chastity is more blest, the man’s more strong.” Climacus (Gradu. 15) and Basil (de Sancta Virgin.) say that by chastity we become like God, and have a kind of celestial and Divine incorruption. Nay, the heathen Cato used to say that our life would be like the life of the gods if we could do without a wife, and that so a wife was a necessary evil. In this Cato erred; for S. Paul tells us that, through the grace of Christ, it is not necessary, but that both marriage and celibacy are free to every one. Hence Sir Thomas More, on being asked why he had married so tiny a wife, replied merrily, that out of evils he had freely and wisely chosen the least. The Wise Man says most truly (6:20): “It is chastity that makes us likest God;” for, as Gregory of Nazianzen says (Carmen de Virgin.), the Blessed Trinity is the Virgin that all virgins imitate. He says: “The primal Triad is a virgin; for the Son is born of a Father that has no beginning, for He derived His Being from none;” and, as Ambrose (de Virgin. lib. i.) says: “Virginity has descended from heaven to be imitated on earth. Transcending clouds, the air, and the angels, it has found the Word of God in the very bosom of the Father. Elias, because he was found to be free from all lusts of sexual delight, was taken up in a chariot to heaven.” And it was for this reason that virgins were seen by S. John, not on the mount but above it, in Rev. 14, singing a new song before the throne of God, and following the Lamb wherever He goes. S. Jerome goes so far as to say that celibate and celestial are conjugate terms. Quinctilian says that Gaius the Jurisconsult held that celibates were “cœlites,” or heavenly, because of their freedom from the burdens of marriage. By continency we are brought back to that unity from which we slipped away on all sides. This was well understood and shown by the four heroic sisters of the queen of the Emperor Theodosius, the most illustrious of whom was Pulcheria, who made a vow of chastity to God, and to whom Cyril wrote his book de Fide ad Reginas, of whom Nicephorus speaks (vol. i. lib. xiv. c. ii. p. 612). He adds that “day and night they worshipped God with hymns and praises, holding that idleness and ease were unbefitting the purpose with which they had embraced virginity.”

Hence it follows that the single life is the best for acquiring wisdom. Aristotle and other philosophers have laid this down, and Cicero showed by his actions that he thought so. For, after having divorced Terentia, he was asked why he did not marry again; and he said that it was impossible to at once devote one’s self to philosophy and to a wife, for he that is single and free from other cares can wholly devote himself to wisdom. Moreover, the single life tends to keep the heart pure, and ready to take in wisdom. It is again wonderfully enlightened by God, with whom it lives on terms of intimacy. For since, as the Apostle says here, the soul that is chaste is a close attendant upon and an assessor of God, it follows that it is also an assessor of the eternal wisdom of God: for this is an attendant and assessor of God. “Give me,” says Solomon, “give me, O Lord, the wisdom that attends on Thy abodes.” Hence it is that S. Jerome (contra Jovin. lib. i.) asserts that the Sibyls, because of their virginity, obtained from God the gift of prophecy.

Wisdom and chastity, as twin-sisters, were the companions of S. Gregory of Nazianzen. For, as Ruffinus (in Prolog. Apolog.) records, and also S. Aldhelm (de Laud. Virgin. c. 12), “when Naziansen was studying at Athens, he saw in a vision two beautiful maidens, sitting one on his right and the other on his left, as he was sitting reading. Looking askance at them, as purity bade, he asked who they were and what they wished; but they, with more freedom than he, embraced him and said, ‘Do not be angry with us, young man, for we are well known to you: one of us is called Wisdom, the other Chastity; and we are sent by God to dwell with you, because you have prepared for us a pleasant and pure dwelling in your heart. We are your twin-sisters, Wisdom and Chastity.’ ”

It follows, in the second place, that God and His angels have such familiar communion with virgins, and give them such protection, that they attend upon them, and often preserve them safely from the cruelty of tyrants. Of this S. Basil is a witness (de Vera Virgin.).

There is a famous instance of this in the life of S. Theophila, who was condemned to prostitution under the Emperor Maximian; and, while being led to it, she prayed thus: “My Jesu, my love, my light, my spirit, the guardian of my chastity and my life, look on her who has been betrothed to Thee; make haste to deliver Thy lamb from the teeth of the wolf; preserve, O my Bridegroom, Thy bride; preserve my chastity, Thou fount of chastity.” Then, when she entered the place of prostitution, she drew from her bosom the Gospel and read it attentively. Soon an angel stood by her side, and smote with death the first youth who approached her, the second with blindness, and punished the others with different penalties, so that at last no one dared come near her. Then lust gave way to fear; and when many entered the place from religious motives, they saw Theophila sitting unharmed, and intent on her book. They saw too a youth standing near her, refulgent with light and of ineffable beauty, sending forth, as it were, darts of lightning from his eyes. He at length led out Theophila to the church, and placed her in the porch, and left her with “Peace be to thee,” to the amazement of the heathen, who exclaimed, “Who is such a God as the God of the Christians?” We have similar marvels in the life of S. Agnes, S. Cecilia, and S. Lucy, and other virgins. We frequently read in the lives and martyrdoms of the holy virgins that, when they were solicited to prostitute themselves by the promises or threats of evil-minded tyrants, and even publicly condemned to it, yet they all preserved their virginity, by the aid of God and the holy angels, and even added to its merit by martyrdom.

1 Cor 7:36 But if any man think that he seemeth dishonoured with regard to his virgin, for that she is above the age, and it must so be: let him do what he will . He sinneth not if she marry. (Greek: “let them marry”)

But if any man think that he seemeth dishonoured with regard to his virgin. If any one think that it is unbecoming for himself and his daughter to be despised by men of the world, says Ephrem, because she is of more than marriageable age, and is not yet married, though she has passed the flower of her age, i.e., the age when she is ripe for marriage, and need so require, if the father think that he ought to give her in marriage, either because she cannot contain, or because he seeks for children by her, or for other reasons, let him do what he will, let him give his daughter in marriage, or keep her as a virgin, if he so prefer it.

Observe that this saying of the Apostle’s does not imply that it is in a father’s power to keep his daughter a virgin if she is unwilling, or to give her to a husband of his own choosing against her will; nor does it imply that the consent of the daughter is insufficient to matrimony without that of her father or guardian, as the civil laws have laid down, by enacting that the marriages of sons or daughters are null and void without the consent of the head of the family. The opposite is laid down by the law natural, Divine, and canonical. The Apostle merely says here and in ver. 37 (1 Cor 7:37), that it is prudent and fitting for parents, who see the inclination of their daughters or sons to marriage, to seek by their superior wisdom a suitable union for them, after the custom of their forefathers; and he says that the son and daughter ought, in such a matter, to follow the counsel and wish of their parents, if it be prudent to do so, unless they can allege some sufficient excuse. So did Abraham, Isaac, and Tobias chose wives for their sons, and their wish was obeyed.

Let them marry. The plural is used to embrace the virgin and her wooer, and to signify that the latter is doing the former a dishonour, as is commonly the case; and to prevent it going further, he says, “Let them be joined in matrimony.” So Maldonatus (Notæ).

1 Cor 7:37 For he that hath determined, being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will: and hath judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, doth well.
1 Cor 7:38 Therefore both he that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well: and he that giveth her not doth better.

For he that hath determined, being stedfast in his heart … doth well. This is linked on to the preceding, let him do what he will: if he give her in marriage he sinneth not, if he give her not he does well—nay, both father and daughter do better.

Having no necessity. Not being compelled, say heretics, to give his daughter in marriage, through lack of the gift of continence. This is to say that, if for this reason he keeps her unmarried, he does wrong; but he who is not under such necessity, if he keeps her unmarried does well.

But this is a mistake: for the words having no necessity, as well as having power, are to be referred to the phrase to keep his virgin. He does well who keeps his daughter a virgin, unless necessity compel him to keep her unmarried, through poverty, infamy, or because no one will have her, or other causes of the same kind. For then it is a case of necessity, not of virtue. Virtue is where no necessity compels, but where piety impels, as, e.g., when any one, by an act of free-will, chooses virginity. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Œcumenius.

But having power over his own will. That is when the father can do what he wills, through his virgin daughter consenting to remain a virgin.

Observe these words of the Apostle, and learn from them that man has free-will, even in the moral and supernatural spheres, as, e.g., in the case of lifelong virginity. For the father cannot will it for the daughter unless she freely choose and embrace it.

Secondly, we might take the words having no necessity as meaning, not being bound by any precept, but having the power of free-will to choose without sin which he will. Virginity is not a matter of precept but of counsel; he, therefore, that wishes his daughter to remain a virgin is not compelled to it by any law; yet he does well, because he fulfils the counsel of Christ and the Apostle.

 
1 Cor 7:39 A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth: but if her husband die, she is at liberty. Let her marry to whom she will: only in the Lord. 

But if her husband die. Literally, if he be asleep. With the faithful, death is called a sleep; for they awaken from it at the resurrection. Hence pious Christians say, when one dies, that he is asleep in the Lord.

She is at liberty. Let her marry to whom she will: only in the Lord. The Greek Fathers understand in the Lord to mean, according to the law of the Lord, which bids us marry with self-restraint, and for the procreation of children, not to satisfy our lusts. S. Basil says (de Vera Virgin.): “What is it to marry in the Lord? It is not to be dragged, as a despicable slave, to concubinage, to please the flesh, but to choose marriage in sound judgment, and because it will make life more convenient. For this reason was it that the Creator ordained marriage as a necessity in nature.”

Secondly, in the Lord means religiously, in the fear of God and to the Lord’s glory. This will be especially the case if she marry an upright Christian.

Thirdly, and most properly, in the Lord means in His church and religion. She may marry a Christian. So Ambrose, Theodoret, Theophylact, Anselm, Sedulius, S. Thomas, Augustine (de Adulter. Conjug. lib. i. c. 21).

Hence the Church afterwards, because of the danger of perversion, and because of its unseemliness, wholly forbade a Catholic to intermarry with a heretic, and disannulled the marriage of a Christian with a heathen. It is a mortal sin, therefore, to marry a heretic. We must except from this Germany, Poland, and France, where heretics live mingled with Catholics. For there a woman that is a Catholic is freely permitted, and, without danger of perversion, can remain in the faith, and bring up her children in it, as is said by S. Thomas, Sanchez (Disp. 72, no. 3, vol. ii.). But all such marriages are to be guarded against and dissuaded, because of the dangers they entail. Lastly, notice against Tertullian, the Montanists, Novatian, that second marriages are plainly sanctioned by this passage.

Fourthly, marriage in the Lord is that which is, according to the laws and usages of the Church, handed down by the Apostles, who represented the Lord and wielded His authority. The usages instituted by the Apostles and received by the whole Church are especially (a) that marriage should be solemnised in the presence of the priest lawfully deputed for the purpose. “It is seemly,” says S. Ignatius to Polycarp, “that men and women should be united with the approbation of the bishop, that marriages may be entered into according to the precept of the Lord, and not for the sake of concupiscence.” (b) Matrimony should be solemnised with a celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass. (c) Those who are contracting matrimony should receive the Eucharist. Tertullian (ad Uxorem, lib. ii.) says: “How can I sufficiently describe the happiness of that marriage which is blessed by the Church, confirmed by the oblation, and, when sealed, is recorded by the angels?”

1 Cor 7:40 But more blessed shall she be, if she so remain, according to my counsel. And I think that I also have the spirit of God. 

But more blessed shall she be, if she remain so. Happier here in a more peaceful and holy life, as well as in the greater bliss which awaits her in heaven. So Ambrose. Hence it appears that the state of widowhood is better than matrimony. It appears also from what has been said before and from the Fathers, cited at ver. 7. Cf. S. Augustine (de Bono Viduit. vol. iv.) and S. Ambrose (de Viduis, vol. i.).

And I think that I also have the Spirit of God. The Spirit of counsel, according to which I think that I give good advice. So Anselm and others. Observe the stress laid on I. As other Apostles have, so have I also the Spirit of God. He modestly reminds them of his authority, lest he should seem to give his advice according to human and not Divine wisdom. S. Augustine again observes (in Joan, tract 37) that I think is not an expression of doubt, but of asseveration and command.

Father Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians Chapter 6

1 Cor 6:1-5 The Corinthians must not vex their brethren, in going to law with them: 1 Cor 6:6-8 especially under infidels. 1 Cor 6:9-14 The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor 6:15-18 Our bodies are the members of Christ, 1 Cor 6:19 and temples of the Holy Ghost. 1 Cor 6:16-17 They must not therefore be defiled.

Synopsis Of The Chapter

i. The Apostle passes on to the subject of lawsuits and trials, and reproves the Corinthians for instituting
proceedings before heathen judges, and he declares those proceedings to be thereupon unjust and unfair.

ii. Then (1 Cor 6:9) he declares that the unrighteous, of whom he names several kinds, shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

iii. He passes on (1 Cor 6:13) to fornication, and condemns it on many grounds, which I will collect at the end of the chapter.

1 Cor 6:1. Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to be judged before the unjust: and not before the saints? 

Dare any of you.… go to be judged? Literally, be judged, i.e., contend in judgment. Cf. 1 Sam. 12:7; Ezek. 20:35; and Jer. 2:35. The Apostle is not censuring those who were dragged before the heathen tribunals, but those who dragged their brethren before them, or who appeared before them by the consent of both parties.

Before the unjust. The saints here is a name for the faithful, and the unjust, therefore, are Gentile unbelievers. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Anselm. The heathen are so called as lacking the faith by which the just man lives, and as being therefore unjust, and as often committing injustice strictly so called. In other words, since these unjust men are the judges, justice is not to be looked for from them. As they pervert the faith, so do they justice.

1 Cor 6:2 Know you not that the saints shall judge this world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

If the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? If the saints are to judge the whole world how much more ought they to be able to act as arbiters in composing their own small differences?

1 Cor 6:3 Know you not that we shall judge angels? How much more things of this world?

Know you not that we shall judge angels? Some think that angels here means priests, and they refer to Malachi 2:7, “For he is the angel of the Lord of hosts,” spoken of the priest. But this is foreign to the mind of S. Paul, and therefore the Fathers unanimously take it literally.

Observe that, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrose, and Anselm say, it is the day of general judgment that is here spoken of.

Hence it follows (1.) that at that day not only men but angels, both good and bad, are to be judged. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Anselm understand this passage to refer to evil angels; for there is one Church of angels and men, and one Head and Judge, even Christ. Such a judgment tends to display publicly the Divine righteousness, and the honour due to the angels.

It follows (2.) that this judgment is not such an one as is spoken of in S. Matt. 12:41, where it is said that the Queen of the South and the Ninevites should rise up in the judgment and condemn that generation of Jews, but judgment in the proper sense of the word, inasmuch as it is set side by side with that by which the Corinthians judged their worldly matters. S. Paul says then that Christ and the Saints, by their power and authority, shall judge the angels as well as men: the good by a judgment of approbation, of praise and glory, and the evil by a judgment of condemnation and reprobation. They shall be judges because, when they were frail men in the body, they devoted themselves to the worship of God and perfect purity. The others shall be judged because they refused to do God’s will, though they were incorporeal and pure spirits. So Theophylact and Theodoret. Again, because the Saints were victorious over the devil in this life, they for their reward shall, before the whole world, pass judgment on his malice, pride, and foolishness, and shall exult over him as conquered, mean, and contemptible, cast away by God, and condemned to everlasting punishment. So Christ is said to do in Col. 2:15. And this will be to the exquisite pride of the devils a most bitter punishment, as Francis Suarez says beautifully (pt. 3. qu. 69, disp. 57, sect. 8). Add to this that the Apostles and Apostolic men, who left all and followed Christ most closely, will be nearest to the Judge, as the leaders of His kingdom and assessors of their King. And so their sentence will be Christ’s; and as Cardinals are associated with the Pope, so they with Christ shall judge all others.

How much more the things of this world? We are competent and worthy to judge things that belong to man’s ordinary life, if only the office of judging is intrusted to us by the litigating parties, or if we are appointed to it by the Church or by the State. For if we are able to judge angels, why not matters of this world? For angels as far surpass worldly things as heaven is higher than earth.

1 Cor 6:4 If therefore you have judgments of things pertaining to this world, set them to judge who are the most despised in the church.

Set them to judge who are the most despised in the church, rather than the heathen.

1 Cor 6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so that there is not among you any one wise man that is able to judge between his brethren?

Is it so that there is not among you any one wise man? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? This is severe irony, and a tacit reproof and condemnation. Sedulius and Gregory (Mor. lib. xix. c. 21) take it a little differently, as if said seriously, as though he meant: Let those who are of lesser merit in the Church, and who have no great gifts of power, judge in matters of worldly business, that so those who cannot do great things may be the means of supplying lesser benefits.

This judging of secular causes was afterwards intrusted amongst Christians to the presbyters and Bishops, as appears from Clement (Constit. lib. i. c. 49–51, and Ep. i. to James the Lord’s brother). He says: “If brethren have any dispute let them not take it for decision before secular magistrates, but, whatever it is, let it be ended by the presbyters of the Church, and let their decision be implicitly obeyed.” “This too was afterwards decreed in the civil law by the Emperor Theodosius, and confirmed by Charlemagne (xi. qu. 1, Can. Quicunque and Can. Volumus), who gave permission to any one, whether plaintiff or defendant, to appeal from the secular tribunal to the Ecclesiastical court. Hence it was that Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bishop of Neo-Cæsarea, discharged among his faithful the office of judge, as is testified by Gregory of Nyssa in the life that he wrote of him; so did S. Ambrose, as appears from Offic. lib. ii. c. 29, where he says that he had brought to nought the unjust judgments of the Emperors; so did S. Augustine (de Opera Monach. c. 26); Synesius (Epp. 57 and 58). But as the number of Christians and lawsuits increased, the Bishops transferred this duty to secular judges, who were, however, Christians This they did, following the teaching and appointment of S. Peter, who thus writes to Clement, and in him to all Bishops, in the letter just cited: “Christ does not wish you to be a judge or decider of worldly affairs, lest being engrossed with the things that are seen you have no leisure for the word of God, or for severing the good from the bad according to the rule of truth.”

It may be asked, Why then does not S. Paul entrust this office of judge to the Bishop? Ambrose replies, Because there was no such officer at Corinth as yet: “He had not yet been appointed to rule their Church.” The Corinthians had but recently been converted by S. Paul, and were yet but few in number.

1 Cor 6:6 But brother goeth to law with brother: and that before unbelievers.

Lapide offers no comment on this verse. 

1 Cor 6:7 Already indeed there is plainly a fault among you, that you have law suits one with another. Why do you not rather take wrong? Why do you not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?

Already indeed there is plainly a fault among you. Fault Theophylact renders condemnation and shame. It is simpler to take it as a defect or shortcoming, as when a man is overcome by another his strength and courage are thereby diminished. Imperfection, meanness, and feebleness of mind are among you, because you are overcome by anger, avarice, and strife, and can bear nothing. It is the mark of a great mind to be raised high above all these things, to look down upon them as beneath its notice, and to care nothing for injuries. It is littleness of mind and love of gain which make you go to law before heathen tribunals, to the scandal of believers and unbelievers, who are thus led to blaspheme the faith of Christ.

Why do you not rather take wrong? Or suffer loss, as beseems those that are but newly Christians, who are few in number, and in the first fervour of their profession of peace and perfection.

This passage, however, does not favour the Anabaptists, who hold that it means that all judicial power should be taken from the magistrates. For (1.) as Chrysostom says, the Apostle is not condemning the existence of law-courts, but the impatience of the litigants. (2.) He censures them for inflicting injury on their fellow Christians (ver. 8); (3.) for going for judgment on these matters before the unbelievers and the unjust; (4.) for oppressing the poor among them wrongfully; (5.) for so scandalously disturbing brotherly peace, which is the bond of charity, and thus injuring the faith itself. Cajetan adds that one or other of the parties must always be in the wrong, because one or other favours an unjust cause, unless he can be excused through ignorance. Wherefore S. Augustine (Enchirid. c. 78) says that even lawsuits that are just can hardly be entered into without sin, at all events venial sin, because they generally proceed from a too great love of worldly things, and can scarcely be free from the danger of hatred, ill-will, and injurious dealing. There is added to this loss of time, of peace, and internal tranquillity, which cannot be compensated for except by a still greater good, and therefore even suits that have justice on their side are not undertaken without sin. Hence Christ, in S. Matt. 5:40, enjoins: “If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.” A greater good is the necessity of one’s self, of the public, of one’s family, godliness, or the obligations of justice, as when you determine to protect or recover the goods of a monastery, or of the poor, by the public law-courts. So Paul appealed to Cæsar’s judgment-seat (Acts 25:11). In fine, the Apostle is not here blaming judging on the part of the judge, but only on the part of the suitors. And so, even if it were sin to go to law, it would not be sin to pass judgment; for judgments put an end to suits, which is altogether a good thing. S. Clement of Rome supports in this S. Paul, his master and contemporary (Constit. Apost. lib. ii. c. 45), in the words: “It is the beautiful boast of a Christian that he goes to law with no one. But if by the doing of others, or by any temptation, it come to pass that he is entangled in a lawsuit, he does all he can to put an end to it, although he have thereby to suffer loss, and to prevent himself from having to appear before the heathen’s judgment-seat. Nay, do not suffer secular magistrates to decide in your causes, for by them the devil endeavours to bring the servants of God into reproach, by making it appear that you have no wise man to do justice between you, or to put an end to controversy.”

1 Cor 6:8 But you do wrong and defraud: and that to your brethren.

Lapide offers no commentary on this verse.

1 Cor 6:9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers:
1 Cor 6:10 Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God.

Neither fornicators nor adulterers, &c.… shall inherit the kingdom of God. Hence it appears that not only adultery but also fornication, by which an unmarried man sins with an unmarried woman, is against the law of Christ and of nature. Rabbi Moses Ægypt, erred shamefully in this respect (More, lib. iii. c. 50) when he excused the intercourse of Judah with Tamar, related in Gen. 38, on the ground that before the law of Moses whoredom was allowable. Our politicians err still more shamefully who, while allowing that fornication is forbidden by the law of Christ, yet deny that it was forbidden by the law of Moses. For Moses includes it, as do the Rabbins always, in Exod. 20, under the sixth commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” under which not only adultery, but also incest, sodomy, fornication, and all kinds of sexual intercourse and lust outside the limits of matrimony are forbidden. So Tobias (Tobit 4:13) says: “Keep thyself, my son, from all fornication.”

So the Apostle here reckons fornication with adultery, idolatry, and other sins which are against the law of nature and of the Decalogue, and naturally shut out men from the kingdom of heaven. For fornication is at variance with the first creation of man, and with the institution of matrimony, by which the God of nature and the Lord of all things has tied the use of those members which serve for generation to matrimony; and outside that He has taken away all permisson to use them. It is opposed also to conjugal fidelity, and to the good of the offspring, who cannot be properly brought up in fornication, but only in matrimony. Hence Deut. 22:21 orders a maiden to be stoned who before marriage has committed fornication in her father’s house. And the Wise Man says (Sir 19:3): “He who joins himself to fornication shall be vile.”

Lastly, to pass over other instances, 24,000 of the Israelites were killed for committing fornication with the daughters of Moab.

Effeminate. Those guilty of self-pollution.

Covetous. Those who by fraud, unfair contracts, and legal quibbles get possession of the goods of others. They are distinct from thieves and robbers. Cf. note to ver. 10.

Drunkards. The Greek word here stands both for one that is drunk and one that is given to drink. Here it denotes rather the act than the habit, as the other words, thieves, revilers, adulterers, do; for one of such acts excludes from the kingdom of heaven. Cf. Gal. 5:21. A single act of drunkenness, if it is perfected, is deadly sin, because it deprives a man of the use of his reason, and makes him like a beast, and exposes him to danger of broils, lust, and many other sins. S. Thomas says, however: “Drunkenness is not a mortal sin if a man is ignorant of the strength of the wine or the weakness of his head.” This excuse, however, is rendered invalid by frequent experience; therefore the Apostle says significantly, “habitual drunkard,” not merely “drunkard.” But the former explanation is the sounder.

1 Cor 6:11 And such some of you were. But you are washed: but you are sanctified: but you are justified: in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God.

But you are washed … and the Spirit of our God. Ye were justified in baptism by the Holy Spirit. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Œcumenius. S. Cyprian gives a beautiful example of this washing and change of character, produced in his own case by being baptized into Christianity, in Ep. 2, to Donatus, in which he candidly confesses what sort of man he was before his baptism, what a sudden change passed over him through the grace of baptism, and what benefits Christianity conferred upon him, which, as he says, “is the death of vices, the life of virtues.” Nazianzen (Orat. Funebr. in Laudem S. Cypr.) says the same, and relates his wonderful conversion, and the change of heart and life which baptism wrought in him.

1 Cor 6:12  All things are lawful to me: but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful to me: but I will not be brought under the power of any.

All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient. All things, say Theodoret and Œcumenius, are through free-will lawful unto me, are in my power, e.g., to commit fornication, to rob, to be drunken, and all the other sins mentioned above. But they are not expedient for the salvation of my soul, inasmuch as they are sins.

But this rendering is rightly condemned by Ambrose, who says: “How can that be lawful which is forbidden? For surely if all things are lawful there can be nothing unlawful.” In other words he says that that is said to be lawful which no law forbids. The word lawful does not apply to that which it is in the power of the will to do or leave undone. The meaning, therefore, of this passage is, all indifferent things, all not forbidden by any law, are lawful to me. So Chrysostom, who with Theophylact refers these words to the next verse.

1 Cor 6:13  Meat for the belly and the belly for the meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. But the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord: and the Lord for the body.

Meat for the belly and the belly for the meats. 1. Although it is lawful for me to eat every kind of food, yet I will not allow desire for any food to get the mastery over me, and make me a slave to my belly.

2. Ambrose and S. Thomas understand these words to refer to his personal expenses, and to mean—Though it is lawful for me as a preacher of the Gospel to receive from you means of support, yet I will not receive it, lest I become chargeable to any one and lose my liberty. The Apostle after his manner joins together various disconnected matters, which he knew would by intelligible in other ways to those to whom he was writing.

3. The best rendering is to refer these words, with Anselm and S. Thomas, to what had been said above about judgments: I have said these things against going to law, not because it is unlawful in itself for a man to seek to regain his own at law, but because I am unwilling for you to be brought under the power of any one, whether he be judge, advocate, or procurator, especially when they are of the unbelievers.

S. Bernard (de Consid. lib. iii.) says, moralising: “The spiritual man will, before undertaking any work, ask himself three questions, Is it lawful? Is it becoming? Is it expedient? For although, it is well known in the Christian philosophy, nothing is becoming save what is lawful, and nothing is expedient save what is both lawful and becoming, nevertheless it does not follow that all that is lawful is necessarily also becoming or expedient.”

Why, says S. Paul, do you enter on lawsuits for the sake of worldly good, which for the most part serves only for the belly and its meats? For food is but a perishing and mean thing, made but to be cast into the belly. The belly too is the lowest part of man, made only to cook, digest, cast forth, and corrupt the food, and is a vessel containing all that is disgusting. Both food and belly shall be destroyed, for both shall be food for worms; and though the belly shall rise again, yet it will no linger take in food. Secondly, it should be observed that the Apostle here purposely introduces gluttony, because it is the mother of lust, which he then proceeds to condemn. So Theophylact. Hence in the passage bearing the name of S. Athanasius (qu. 133 ad Antioch,), the belly here is understood to mean gluttony and drunkenness. The belly has its desire to drunkenness, and drunkenness to it; but he who is thus given up to serve his belly cannot serve God, but is the slave of his belly, and therefore shall be destroyed of God. This passage is plainly not the writing of S. Athanasius, for earlier (qu. 23) Athanasius himself is quoted, and differed from; moreover, Epiphanius and Gregory of Nyssa are quoted, who lived after Athanasius.

But God shall destroy both it and them. In death and the resurrection, in such a way that the belly will no longer be for meats, nor will there be meats to fill the belly.

But the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord: and the Lord for the body. It was not meant, or given us, for such an end, but that with chaste body we should serve the Lord, and follow Him, our Head, with pure and holy lives. So Anselm. So also is Christ given to our body to be its head and crown. Or the Lord is for the body in another sense, according to Ambrose and Anselm, viz., that He is the reward for the body that is chaste and pure, and He will give it incorruption and immortality. The first meaning is the simpler, for S. Paul proceeds to speak of the resurrection.

1 Cor 6:14  Now God hath raised up the Lord and will raise us up also by his power.

As He raised up Christ when crucified and dead, so too if with Christ we die to lust and gluttony, and crucify them, will He raise up us.

1 Cor 6:15  Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid!

Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? For ye yourselves, and consequently your body and soul, are members of the Church of Christ. S. Augustine (Serm. 18. in hæc Verb.) says beautifully: “The life of the body is the soul, the life of the soul is God. The Spirit of God dwells in the soul, and through the soul in the body, so that our bodies also are a temple of the Holy Spirit, whom we have from God.”

Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid! The word Take here is not to pluck off and separate from Christ, for a fornicator remains a member of Christ and His Church so long as he retains the true faith. But it means, as S. Thomas says, unjustly to withdraw these members, that were given for generation, from the obedient service of Christ, whose they are. For whoever of the faithful commits fornication filches as it were his body and his organs of generation, which body is a member of Christ, from their lawful owner, and gives them to a harlot. He takes, therefore from Christ, not jurisdiction over his body, but the use of it.

1 Cor 6:16  Or know you not that he who is joined to a harlot is made one body? For they shall be, saith he, two in one flesh.

Know you not that he who is joined to a harlot is made one body? One body by a union and blending of the two bodies. Just as merchants in partnership have but one capital, because it is common to both, so those who join in committing fornication have one body, because their bodies are common to both, as Cajetan says. So two are one flesh: that is, out of two there is made but one human being, and that not spiritual, but carnal—wholly fleshly.

For they shall be, saith he, two in one flesh. S. Paul is here quoting from Gen. ii. 24, where the words are applied to those married. But he refers them truly enough to fornicators, because the external acts, whether of them or of those married, do not differ in kind, though they differ morally by the whole sky, for the acts of the former are lustful and vicious, but those of the latter are acts of temperance, righteousness, and virtue, as S. Thomas says.

1. Observe that it is said of the married that they too shall be one flesh (1.) by carnal copulation, as the Apostle her takes it; (2.) by synecdoche, they shall be one individual, one person: for the man and the woman civilly are, and are reckoned as one; (3.) because in wedlock each is the master of the other’s body, and so the flesh of one is the flesh of the other (cf. 1 Cor 8:3); (4.) in the effect produced, for they produce one flesh, that is one offspring.

2. Observe again that Scripture employs this phrase in order to show that of all human relationships the bond of matrimony is the closest and the most inviolable. Hence it was that God made Eve out of the rib of Adam, to show that the man and the woman are not so much two as one, and ought to be one in heart and will, and therefore, if need be, each for the sake of the other ought to leave father and mother, as is said in Gen 2:24. The Apostle quotes this passage to show the fornicator how grievously he lowers and disgraces himself, inasmuch as he so closely joins himself to some abandoned harlot as to become one with her, and as it were he transforms himself into her and himself becomes a harlot.

1 Cor 6:17  But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit.

But he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit. Not one essentially, as Ruisbrochius (de Alta Contempt.) says that Almaric and certain fanatic “illuminati” thought, but one in the way of accidents: one in charity, in the consent of the will, in grace and glory, all which make man like God, so that he is as it were one and the same spirit with God. So Ambrose, Anselm, Œcumenius. From this passage S. Basil (de Vera Virgin.) shows that the chaste and holy soul is the spouse of God, and is changed into the excellence of the Divine image, so as to become one spirit with God, and from this union with God drinks in all possible purity, virtue, incorruption, peace, and inward calm. “Wherefore,” he says, “the soul which is joined to Christ is, as it were, the bride of the Wisdom or the Word of God; is necessarily wise and prudent, so that every mark of the yoke of brutish folly having been removed by meditation on Divine things, she wears the beauteous ornament of the Wisdom to which she has been joined, until she so thoroughly joins to herself the Eternal Wisdom, so becomes one with It, that of corruptible she is made incorruptible, of ignorant most prudent and wise, like the Word, to whose side she has closely kept, and in short, of mortal man is made immortal God; and so He to whom she has been united is made manifest to all.”

S. Bernard (Serm 7 in Cantic.) beautifully describes this betrothal of God with the soul that clings to Him with pure and holy love, and the communication of all good things that flows from it. He says: “The soul which loves God in called His bride; for the two names, bride and bridegroom, denote the closest affections of the heart; for to them all things are in common: they have one purse, one home, one table, one bed, one flesh. Therefore shall a man leave father and mother, &c., and they twain shall be one flesh. . . . She that loves is called a bride; but one that loves seeks for kisses—not for liberty, or wages, or a settlement of money, but for kisses after the manner of a most chaste bride, whose every breath whispers of her love in all its purity, and who is wholly unable to conceal the fire that is burning her. ‘Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth,’ she says. It is as though she were to say, ‘What have I in heaven, and what do I wish for on earth apart from you?’ Surely this, her love, is chaste, since she seeks to have Him that she loves, and nothing else besides Him. It is a holy love, because it is not in the lust of the flesh, but in the purity of the spirit. It is a burning love, because she is so drunken with her own love that she thinks not of His majesty. Yet is One that looks at the earth and it trembles, He toucheth the mountains and they smoke, and she seeks to be kissed by Him. Is she drunk? Surely so, because she had perchance come forth from the wine-cellar. How great is love’s power! how great is the confidence of the spirit of liberty! Perfect love casteth out fear. She does not say, ‘Let this or that bridegroom, or friend, or king, kiss me,’ but definitely, ‘Let Him kiss me.’ Just so when Mary Magdalene, when she found not her Lord in the tomb, and believed Him to have been taken away, said of Him, ‘If thou have borne Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away.’ Who is the ‘Him’? She does not reveal it, because she supposes that what is never for a moment absent from her heart must be obvious to all. So too the bride says, ‘Let him kiss me,’ i.e., him who is never absent from my heart; for being on fire with love she thinks that the name of him she loves is well known to all.” More on this betrothal and union to God of the soul that clings to Him will be found in the notes to 2 Cor 11:2.

Again we find S. Bernard, or the author of the treatise, “On the Solitary Life,” saying towards the end: “The perfection of the will that is moving towards God is to be found in the unity with God of the spirit of the man whose affections are set on things above. When he now no longer merely wills what God wills, but has so far advanced in love that he cannot will save what God wills, the union is complete. For to will what God wills is to be like God; not to be able to will save what God wills is to be what God is, with whom Will and Being are the same. Hence it is well said that then we shall see Him as He is, when we shall be so like Him that we shall be what He is. For to those to whom has been given the power of becoming the sons of God, there has been also given the power of becoming, not indeed God, but what God is.”

S. Bernard goes on to point out a triple similitude that men have to God, and then he adds: “This likeness of man to God is called a unity of spirit, not merely because it is the Holy Spirit that effects it, or because He affects man’s spirit towards it, but because it is itself the Holy Spirit—God who is love. Since He is the bind of love between the Father and the Son, He is unity, and sweetness, and good, and kisses, and embraces, and whatever can be common to Both in that supreme unity of Truth and truth of Unity; and similarly He makes man to become to God after man’s capacity all that by substantial unity the Father is through Him to the Son and the Son to the Father. The blessed consciousness of man has found in some way a means by which it embraces the Father and the Son: in an ineffable and inconceivable manner man merits to become of God, though not God. God, however, is what He is by His own Nature; man becomes what he does by grace.”

1 Cor 6:18  Fly fornication. Every sin that a man doth is without the body: but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

Fly fornication. Because, as Anselm, Cassian, and the Fathers generally teach, other vices are conquered by resistance, lust alone by flight, viz., by fleeing from women, from the objects and occasions of lust, by turning aside the eyes and the mind to see and think of other things. For if you oppose a temptation to some lewdness, or fight against some impure thought, you only excite the imagination by thinking of such things, and then inflame still more the innate lust of the flesh, that is naturally disposed to such acts as fornication.

Every sin that a man doth is without the body. Does not stain or pollute the body.

It may be said that if a man kills or mutilates or castrates himself he sins against his body, and therefore it is not a fact that every sin distinct from fornication is without the body.

I reply that every sin, i.e., every kind of sins which men commonly and ordinarily commit is without the body. For there are seven capital sins, which theologians, following S. Paul, divide into spiritual and bodily or carnal. Those that are carnal are two—gluttony and lust; the spiritual are five—pride, covetousness, anger, envy, sloth. Of these anger and envy tend directly of themselves towards murder of one’s neighbour, but not except by accident towards murder of one’s self, and that in few and extraordinary cases. The angry man, therefore, does nor ordinarily and necessarily sin against his body, but against that of another, by assaulting him or killing him. The Apostle’s meaning then is, that all the sins in general which men ordinarily and commonly commit are without the body. “Every sin” therefore does not include mutilation or suicide, which happen rarely, and as it were accidentally; nor does it include gluttony as I will show directly.

But he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. S. Jerome (Ep. ad Amand. tom. iii.) gives two explanations of this passage, of which the first is—the fornicator sins against his wife, who is his own body; the second is—he plants in his body the seeds of sexual passion, which, even after his sin, remain, when he wishes to repent, to spring up into active life.  S. Jerome says that “other sins are without, and after being committed are repented of, and though profit urge to them yet conscience rebukes. Lust alone, even in the hour of repentance, suffers under the whips and stings of the past, and under organic irritation, and under incentives to sin, so that material for sin is supplied again by thoughts of the very things which we long to see corrected.”  S. Jerome confesses (Ep. 22 ad Eustoch,) that he knew this from own experience.  S. Mary of Egypt found the same true in her own case, who endured under penance these whips and stings for as many years as she had formerly given to sexual passion, viz., seventeen, as Sophronius, Patriarch if Jerusalem, related in her life.

Œcumenius has ten other explanations of this passage, as has also Isidorus Pelusiota (lib. iv. Ep. 129 ). But the true and genuine sense is: Whoever commits fornication does injury to his own body, 1. because he polluted and disgraces his body, as Gregory of Nyssa says in his oration on these words.

2. Because by fornication he weakens and exhausts his body, and often destroys it, by contracting venereal disease. So S. Athanasius, quoted by Œcumenius. In both these ways the glutton and drunkard sin against their body, because the first disgraces it by subjecting it to unhealthy humours, to vomiting, and other disgusting things, while the latter weakens, injures, and finally ruins its natural heat and strength. Hence under the name of fornication, here gluttony and drunkenness, as being akin to it, or rather its mother, may be understood. It was for this reason that the Apostle, in ver. 13, spoke of gluttony. For these two sins, gluttony and lust, are vices peculiar to the body, and are thence called sins of the flesh: other sins belong to the spirit alone, as I have just said.

3. The fornicator dies injury to his own body, inasmuch as he alone brings his body, which was created free, pure, and noble, under the jurisdiction, service, and power of the mist degraded harlot, so that he becomes as one thing with her. In the same way that, if any one were to bind his own body, that was noble, healthy, and beautiful, to the body of some loathsome leper, he would be said to do his body a great wrong, so does he who unites to a common, base, and infamous harlot his body, that was created by God pure, noble, and free, and redeemed and washed by the blood of Christ, do to it grievous injury. In all these verses the Apostle lays stress upon this wrong.

4. The fornicator does injury to his body, because he excites in it a foul and shameful lust, which so absorbs the mind that in carrying it out into action the man can think of nothing else. He makes his body, therefore, the slave of his lust, in such a way that he is wholly ruled by it. Neither gluttony nor any other sin in the body excites such shameful and vehement lust as this is. Impurity alone then holds sway over the body, and by its lust and outward action stains, subjugates, and destroys it.

1 Cor 6:19  Or know you not that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God: and you are not your own?

Know you not that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost? They, therefore, who pollute their bodies by impurity are guilty of sacrilege, for they sin against the Holy Ghost. They do Him wrong by robbing Him of the body dedicated to Him, and transferring it to the demon of lust. Further, the bodies of the faithful are the temple of the Spirit of Christ, because they themselves are members of Christ, and because the faithful are one spirit with God. (See notes to vers. 16, 17, and 2 Cor 6:16. ) Tertullian cleverly and beautifully says (de Cultu Femin. c. i.) that the guardian and high-priestess of this temple is chastity. He says: “Since we are all the temple of God, because endowed and consecrated with the Holy Spirit, the guardian and high-priestess of His temple is chastity, who suffers nothing unclean, nothing unholy to be carried in, lest God, who inhabits it, be offended, and leave His polluted shrine.” The faithful and just is therefore a temple in which by grace dwells and is worshipped the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given us, to work in us all holy thoughts, affections, words, and works. Wherefore it is altogether unseemly that His soul and body should by fornication become the temple of Venus and Priapus: this is a grievous wrong done to God and the Holy Spirit. Hence it was that S. Seraphia, virgin and martyr, when asked by the judge, “Where is the temple of the Christ whom you adore, where you sacrifice?” replied, “I, by cultivating chastity, am the temple of Christ, and to Him I offer myself a sacrifice.” The judge retorted, “If your chastity, then, were taken from you, you would, I suppose, cease to be a temple of Christ?” The virgin rejoined: “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy.” The judge then sent two young men to violate her, but at her prayer an earthquake took place, and the young men fell down dead: they were, however, at her prayers restored to life. This is to be found in her life by Surius, under the 3rd of September.

1 Cor 6:20  For you are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body.

Value highly your bodies, though the devil bids for them with a shameful and brief bodily delight. Do not despise your bodies, do not sell them for nothing—rather think them of the highest possible worth; for it is to the glory of God if these bodies, which God bought at a great price, even with His own blood, become of great importance in our eyes. Hence the well-known proud name of a Christian is, “Bought and Redeemed,” viz., from sin and heathenism, by the precious blood of Christ. So in olden times the children of Christians were bought by the Turks, and became, instead of Christians, Mahometans, and were called Mamelukes, or “the bought;” for when the Tartars had subdued Armenia they sold the children of the Christians. Melech-Sala, Sultan of Egypt, bought them in great numbers, and had them trained as soldiers, and called Mamelukes. After the death of Melech-Sala the Mamelukes began to appoint a king for themselves, A.D. 1252, out of their own society of apostate Christians. As they took their rise under the Emperor Frederick II., so under Solyman, who filled the Egyptian throne, they were exterminated, A.D. 1516. Then their reign and existence ceased together. Glorify God in your body, by keeping it pure in obedience to the Spirit and to God.

The Latin has, Glorify and bear God, but “bear” is not in the Greek. “As a horse,” says S. Thomas, “carries its lord and rider, and moves as he wills, so does the body serve the will of God.” The Greek also adds, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

Observe that the Corinthians were greatly given to impurity, and consequently to gluttony. This is evident from Suidas, who, under the word “Cothys,” says: “Cothys is a devil worshipped by the Corinthians as the ruler of effeminate and unclean persons.” Herodotus says the same thing (Clio), and Strabo (lib.viii.). The latter says: “The temple of Venus at Corinth was so wealthy that it had mire than a thousand harlots as priestesses, whom men and women dedicated to the goddess.” Thus κορινθιάξεθν became a common word for lasciviousness, self-indulgence, and impurity generally. Hence it is that the Apostle takes such pains to warn the Corinthians against their common sin of fornication; and he does this by various reasons drawn from different sources: (1.) from creation, (2.) from the resurrection of the body, (3.) from the shamefulness of impurity, and the injury it does to the body, (4.) from the dignity of the body.

From these we may collect six arguments by which he seeks to save them from fornication: (1.) Because our body is not our own but the Lord’s (1 Cor 6:13); (2.) Because, if it is pure, it shall rise again with glory (1 Cor 6:14); (3.) Because our body is a member of Christ. (1 Cor 6:15); (4.) Because the body is a pure temple of the Holy Spirit, in order that by clinging to God in chastity it may become one spirit with Him (1 Cor 6:17); (5.) Because our body has been bought with the blood of Christ, and therefore it is an unworthy thing, and an injury to God, to Christ, and the Holy Spirit, to give it to a harlot (1 Cor 6:20). See Chrysostom (in Morali.).

S. Bernard (Serm. 7 in Ps.xci.) moralises thus: “Glorify, dearly beloved, and bear meanwhile Christ in your body, as a delightful burden, a pleasant weight, a wholesome load, even though He seem sometimes to weigh heavily, even though sometimes He use the spur and whip on the laggard, even though sometimes He hold in the jaws with bit and bridle, and curb us wholly for our good. Be as a beast of burden in the patience with which you bear the load, and yet not as a beast, heedless of the honour that its rider gives. Think wisely and sweetly both of the nature of the load you bear, as well as of your own future benefit.” So S. Ignatius, the martyr, was called “God-bearer” and “Christ-bearer,” and he salutes the Blessed Virgin by the same name, “Christ-bearer,” in his letters to her, as S. Bernard says.

Father Lapide’s Commentary on Luke 16:1-13

Lk 16:1 AND he said also to his disciples: There was a certain rich man who had a steward: and the same was accused unto him, that he had wasted his goods.

And He said also to His disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. Having rebuked in three parables those who murmured because He received penitents, Christ now adds a fourth and fifth on almsgiving and frugality, for the proud and avaricious Pharisees refused both pardon to the penitent, and relief to those who were in want. Gloss.

Unto His disciples, i.e. His hearers, those who were His followers, although they had not given up all, as the Apostles.

A steward, οἰκονόμος, one who had the management of his master’s property, and was answerable for the letting of his land.

Hence we learn “that we are not masters of what we possess, but rather stewards of that which is another’s.” S. Ambrose and Theophylact.

For although as regards men we are the absolute masters of our own possessions, yet with respect to God, who is Lord over all, we are but stewards. Because, whatever we possess was given us for our own moderate use and for the relief of our poorer brethren, and in the day of judgment we shall have to render a strict account of our stewardship.

So S. Paul says, “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.” 1 Cor. 4:2. For all our gifts and endowments are not our own, but belong to God who gave them. Hence we are bound to use them not for our own pleasure, but according to His will. Thou hast genius, a keen judgment, a retentive memory, wisdom, eloquence, or the like! Forget not that thou art a steward of these gifts, not a master. Remember that thou hast to give an account of their use, and take heed to use them to the honour and glory of God. Hear S. Chrysostom, “There is an erroneous opinion that all the good things of this life which we possess are our own, and that we are lords over them. But we are as it were guests and strangers, whose departure draweth nigh, and dispensers of another’s bounty. We ought therefore to assume the humility and modesty of a steward, for nothing is our own, but all things are the gift of God.”

Was accused, διεβλήθη, denounced, Arabic. Hence the devil διάβολος, is called the “accuser” (Rev. 12:10), because he accuses us before God. “We are accused,” says the Interlinear, “not only when we do evil, but when we omit to do good.” For a steward ought to omit nothing which concerns his own duty or his master’s good.

Had wasted his goods, i.e. by carelessness and riotous living.

Lk 16:2. And he called him and said to him: How is it that I hear this of thee? Give an account of thy stewardship: for now thou canst be steward no longer.

And he called him, and said to him, … give an account of thy stewardship, i.e. of how much thou hast received and how thou hast expended it, for now thou canst be steward no longer.

So Christ saith unto every one in the hour of death, “Give an account of thy stewardship. Give an account of thy life, of thy goods, and of thy talents, whether thou hast used them to promote the glory of God and the salvation of thyself and thy fellow-men.”

Climacus relates that a monk, who was afterwards abbot, saw in a dream, the first night he entered the monastery, certain men who demanded of him the payment of one hundred pounds of gold. Whereupon for the space of three years he gave himself up to obedience and mortification, and at the end of that time was told that ten pounds had been subtracted from his debt. for thirteen years longer he continued to practise still greater austerities, and then messengers were sent from God to say that all his debt was forgiven. The same writer has also something terrible to say about the abbot Stephen, who had for forty years lived a holy life of fasting and prayer. This man, the day before he died, fell into a trance, and was heard as if in colloquy with an unseen judge, denying at one time the accusations against him, at another time pleading guilty to the charges, and praying for mercy. Terrible indeed was the spectacle of this invisible and stern judgment.

Lk 16:3 And the steward said within himself: What shall I do, because my lord taketh away from me the stewardship? To dig I am not able; to beg I am ashamed.

Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? The steward acknowledges the justice of the accusation. He had wasted his master’s goods, henceforward he must labour or beg for his living. The one thing he was unable, and the other he was ashamed to do. In his distress, he knows not which way to turn. Truly, St. Chrysostom says, “A slothful life is powerless in action.” Symbolically, when life is past, no compunction can, as it were by digging, prepare the soul for fruit; whilst to beg, after the manner of the foolish virgins, is not only disturbing, but vain and useless. Gloss.

Lk 16:4 I know what I will do, that when I shall be removed from the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.

I know what I will do, &c. I will give each one of my lord’s debtors a bond to show that they owe less than they are actually indebted, so that in return for my kindness and dishonesty, they may entertain me when I am deprived of my stewardship.

Lk 16:5 Therefore, calling together every one of his lord’s debtors, he said to the first: How much dost thou owe my lord? 

Lk 16:6 But he said: An hundred barrels of oil. And he said to him: Take thy bill and sit down quickly and write fifty.

Vers. 5 and 6.—How much dost thou owe my Lord? He said, an hundred barrels of oil. Greek βάτος in the Vulgate cadus, the tenth part of an homer. Levit. 27:16, and Ezek. 45:11.

And he said to him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fourscore. Greek γράμμα, i.e. “cautio” or bond, or as the Vulgate renders it “obligatio.” The meaning is, “Take back thy bond, wherein thou didst acknowledge that thou owest one hundred measures of oil. Tear it up and write another, confessing to a debt of fifty only, and divide the other fifty between me and thee.”

Lk 16:7 Then he said to another: And how much dost thou owe? Who said: An hundred quarters of wheat. He said to him: Take thy bill and write eighty.

Then he said to another, And how much dost thou owe? Who said, An hundred quarters of wheat. He said to him, Take thy bill, and write eighty. The κόρος which was the same size as the homer, contained ten ephahs. See Ezek. 45:11.

“To me,” says S. Augustine (Quæst. Evang. Lib. ii. 34), “the meaning of the passage seems this; that whatever the Jews do for the priests and Levites, should be more liberally provided for in the Church; that whereas they give a tenth, Christians should give a half, as Zaccheus gave, not of his crops, but of his goods; or at least that they should give two tenths, and thus exceed the payments of the Jews.”

Lk 16:8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, forasmuch as he had done wisely: for the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light.

And the lord commended the unjust steward, forasmuch as he had done wisely. The landlord, not the Lord Jesus, as Erasmus holds. The lord praised not the action, for it was dishonest, but the prudence, the cunning craft of the steward, just as we often admire, not indeed a crime, but the cleverness shown in contriving it.

The children of this world are wiser in their generation, i.e. after their kind, in worldly matters, or as Himmel understands it, amongst their fellow-men, they are wiser than the children of light, i.e. than those who are followers of Christ. Very wisely has some one said, “In worldly matters we are philosophers, as to our spiritual affairs, fools; in earthly things we are lynx-eyed, but in heavenly we are moles.”

The children of this world, says S. Augustine (Lib. ii. de Genesi) are wiser in providing for their future; and very naturally so, because the desire of earthly pleasure and enjoyment is strong in man, but the aspirations of his soul are blunted and weakened, partly because of the body, partly from love of earthly things. Hence those that are led by the flesh are more active and energetic than those who are led by the spirit, inasmuch as spiritual things, being invisible, produce but little effect on the minds of men.

The parable was directed against the avarice of the Pharisees. We are taught by it to use our riches not for our own selfish ends, but for the relief of our poorer brethren. For Christ bids us all remember that we are but stewards of God’s good gifts, and therefore bound to use them so that we may give a good account of our stewardship, and obtain our due reward. In this sense the unjust steward is held up as an example, and not because of his injustice and fraud.

Hence S. Augustine, as already referred to, considers that Christ reasons thus, “If this steward could so wisely provide for this life, much more ought we to be solicitous for the life to come.” And again, “If this steward, unjust as he proved himself to be, was praised for his wisdom, much more shall we receive praise of God, if by our almsgiving we injure none, but benefit many.” And he goes on to say, “If a wrongdoer received praise from his lord, how much more pleasing are they to the Lord God, who do all in accordance with His will. So from the parable of the unjust judge Christ took occasion to speak of God as judge, although between the two no comparison was possible.”

We learn then from this parable (1.) That those who are possessed of riches, or any other gift of God, such as health, intellect, and the like, are but stewards of His bounty. (2.) That every one is bound to use his possessions to the honour and glory of God. (3.) And that every one at the day of judgment will have to give account, not only for the sins which he has committed, but also for duties which he has neglected to perform. Such is the general meaning of the parable. Its particular application I will proceed to explain.

Lk 16:9 And I say to you: Make unto you friends of the mammon of iniquity: that when you shall fail, they may receive you into everlasting dwellings.

And (in like manner) I say to you, Make unto you friends of the mammon of iniquity. Ye have heard how the unjust steward made his lord’s debtors so kindly disposed towards him, that when he was deprived of his stewardship, they were willing to receive him into their houses. In like manner take heed that ye, who have wasted your lord’s goods through your misuse of them, by the mammon or the riches of unrighteousness—not by robbery and fraud, but in another sense which I will soon explain—give to the poor, so that after this life is over, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.

Here note that the word unrighteousness has a double signification. In the case of the steward it meant dishonesty and deceit: in our case it has a different meaning, as I shall proceed to show.

Make to you friends of the mammon of iniquity, i.e. of riches, which are “unrighteous” in a fourfold sense and from a fourfold cause.

1. Because riches are often amassed through unrighteousness, i.e. through fraud, usury, and the like of oneself or one’s ancestors. Hence S. Jerome (Ep. 150) says every rich man is either himself unrighteous or else the heir of an unrighteous man, and although he may not be ignorant of the evil-doings of his ancestors, yet he can scarcely be expected to know to whom restitution should be made. Therefore he is bound to make such restitution as lies in his power, by giving to the poor. And commenting on S. Matt. 6. the same Father goes on to say, Riches are called Mammon because they are acquired through unrighteousness, taking mammon to be derived from מן, min, and מנה, mona, i.e. violence, from the root ינה, iana, the meaning being “to exercise force.” But the real derivation seems to be from טמן taman, to hide or conceal; for riches and money are wont to be hidden.

2. They are unrighteous in the sense of faithless and deceptive, for they are not to be depended upon, but often desert one man and pass on to another.

3. They are called the mammon of unrighteousness, because in their endeavour to become rich men are guilty of fraud, dishonesty, unrighteous dealing, and every kind of sin.

4. And again, they are unrighteous, because wicked and ungodly men esteem them of more value than the heavenly treasures. S. Augustine (serm. 35 De Verbis Domini.) Hence we may understand Christ as saying, “Ye rich and avaricious men have made money your god, but be ye well assured that it is unrighteous, i.e. vain and deceptive. Break up your idol, therefore, and give to the poor, and God will recompense you with eternal riches.” See S. Matt. 6:24.

That when you shall fail, when life is over and your riches are no longer at your disposal, or according to the Syriac version, when it, i.e. mammon, fails you.

They may receive you. The poor, i.e. those whom you have made your friends by the right use of your riches. For they, if they are worthy of heaven, will by their prayers and by a communication of their merits make a way for you to enter therein: but if, on the contrary, they are unworthy of so great a blessing, you will be received into heaven because of your almsgiving, for what is given to the poor is accepted of Christ.

Christ seems here to be speaking of the poor who lead godly lives, who are poor as far as earthly possessions are concerned, but rich in understanding and in spiritual grace. Let not the rich then think that they are conferring, but rather that they are receiving benefits from such as these, for they give gold, to receive in return heaven. Hence S. Gregory (Moral. xxii. 14) says, “Almsgiving is not so much the relieving the necessities of the poor as the offering of gifts to those who hereafter will receive us into everlasting habitations.”

Learn therefore, that heaven is the inheritance of the poor, not for their own possession, but rather that they may introduce therein those who have been their benefactors. They are therefore the door-keepers of heaven, for “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (see S. Matt. 5:3), and this their blessedness is not of their own deserving, but the special gift of God. So S. Augustine (lib. ii. q. 38 Quæst. Evang.) says, “They receive them not as of right but by the permission of Him who counselled them to make themselves friends, and who deigns to look upon Himself as being fed, clothed, entertained and visited in the person of the least of His followers.”

“Everlasting dwellings,” says Theophylact, “are in Christ ordained for the poor, wherein they may receive those who have given them liberal alms out of that which God has committed to their trust.” Happy indeed is the exchange, for earthly things become heavenly. “Hence almsgiving is the most skilful of arts, for it does not build us an earthly tabernacle, but provides us with eternal life.” S. Chrysostom.

Lk 16:10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in that which is greater: and he that is unjust in that which is little is unjust also in that which is greater.

He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in that which is greaater. By “that which is least” we must understand earthly possessions as distinguished from the “much” of spiritual gifts. That ye may not be deprived of your heavenly stewardship, or rather that ye may be entrusted therewith, take heed rightly to administer your temporal affairs, and especially to give alms to the poor, according to the purpose of God. For so Christ explains His words in the next verse. In a similar sense S. Paul writes, “If a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim. 3:5.) Christ seems here to be reproaching the Pharisees with unfaithfulness in the disposal of their riches, and in the interpretation of the law, and also with being little worthy of the position they held (see S. Matt. 5. and 23.), for from Lk 16:14 it is clear that these things were spoken against them.

Lk 16: 11 If then you have not been faithful in the unjust mammon, who will trust you with that which is the true?

if, then, you have not been faithful in the unjust mammon, who will trust you with that which is true? If ye have made a wrong use of this world’s fleeting possessions (1 Tim. 6:7), who will entrust to your care the things which are lasting, and which pertain unto the kingdom of God? Theophylact and many others.

Lk 16:12 And if you have not been faithful in that which is another’s, who will give you that which is your own?

And if you have not been faithful in that which is another’s, who will give you that which is your own? The wording of this verse is different, but the sense is the same as that of the preceding. The mammon which in the verse above Christ called unrighteous, he here calls “another man’s.” For temporal possessions are another’s:

1. Because they are in their nature totally different from the nature of man. They are of the earth, given to man for his use in this life, to revert again to the earth after death.

2. They are another’s as regards God, for we are not absolute masters of what we possess but administrators only, bound to dispose of our goods according to His will. So Titus says, “He describes much riches as that which is another man’s, because to abound in riches is, considering human nature, foreign to men. For if any man possesses them, they are external to him, and as it were, an accident.” “They are,” says S. Ambrose, “foreign to the nature of man, ut” (1 Tim. 6:7); and Euthymius: “Earthly riches are called another’s for they do not remain long with their possessor.”

Christ reproves avarice, and shows that he who loves money cannot love God: therefore the Apostles, if they would love Him, must despise riches. S. Jerome. But the better interpretation is one which I am about to give.

That which is your own. “Christ calls heavenly riches ours” says Euthymius, “because, as Theophylact explains, ‘our citizenship is in heaven.’ For man was created in the image of God, but wealth and earthly possessions are not ours, for there is nothing divine therein. But to enjoy divine blessings, and to partake in the nature of God, is ours.”

But you will say, Men are wont to value that which is their own, more than that which is the property of another. Why then does Christ here imply the contrary?

I answer that the force of our Lord’s argument is seen: 1. If we look to the meaning of the parable, If ye have not been faithful in earthly things, how will ye be so in heavenly, and who will dare to commit such things to your trust? and 2. From the parable itself. Men are as a rule more careful in their management of the affairs of others than of their own, for many reasons, but chiefly because they are bound in justice to make good any losses which may have been incurred by their carelessness, and if careless may even be suspected of dishonesty or theft; whereas for their own losses, or for the mismanagement of their own concerns, they are responsible to no one.

True, therefore, is the argument of Christ, If ye have not been faithful in earthly things, which are another’s, God will not give you those heavenly treasures which are rightly your own. For he who makes a wrong use of that which belongs to another deserves to lose that which is his own. For, as Dionysius (Denis) the Carthusian astutely remarks, “In the former verse, Christ spoke of the good things of this life, ‘who will trust, or commit,’ because an account will have to be rendered of their usfor they have no continuance, they were neither born with us, nor can they follow us when we die.” Augustine also (Quæst. Evang. ii. 35) “He calls earthly endowments another’s, for no man can carry them away with him at his death.” “We brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing oe. But of the good things of the heavenly country, he says, ‘who will give,’ for we shall not be called upon to account for these, because once given they are everlastingly our own.”

For the following verse, see S. Matt. 6:24

Lk 16:13. Here is what Lapide wrote in commenting on Matt 6:24~

No man can serve two masters, not only opposite but even different masters. It is a proverb, signifying that it is a rare and difficult thing to satisfy two masters of different dispositions and tempers, or to belong equally to both. Christ applies this proverb to avarice and the religion and worship of God. It is impossible to be the servant of God and also of money. Wherefore if you desire to serve God and give Him your heart, you must tear it away from gold and riches. This is Christ’s third argument and the most powerful of all, by which He calls away the Scribes and all men from the love of riches, because it is indeed impossible to serve them and serve God.

For either he will hate the one, &c. Instead of hold to, Augustine reads will suffer, endure (patietur), and explains it to refer to mammon, or riches, meaning that mammon is so imperious and hard a master, that the avaricious serve him with hard servitude, that they do not love him, but that they bear or suffer his harsh slavery. Vatablus translates, will owe himself to one—i.e., will give him his heart, will render him a loving servitude. The meaning of this disjunctive sentence is: “The slave of two masters will not in reality serve two, but will either hate one and love the other, or vice versa, will love and sustain the one, will hate and despise the other.”

Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Ye cannot give yourselves up to God and the desire of riches, so as to set your heart upon both, to expend your cares and works and labours upon both, especially since God so wills to be worshipped and loved above all things, that He will suffer no rival in the love of Himself.

Observe, the Heb. מטמון matmon, the Chald. mamon, the Syriac mamoma, as S. Jerome says, mean riches and treasures which rich men hide in secret receptacles, from the root טמן to hide. Or as Angelus Caninius says from aman, to strengthen, establish. For as it is said in Prov. 10:15, “The substance of a rich man is the city of his strength.” (Vulg.) So, too, riches are called in Hebrew charil, from strength, because they make the rich strong and powerful. And for this reason mamon is more correctly spelt with one m, as it is in the Chald. and Syriac books. Also gain in the Punic language, which is akin to Hebrew, is called mammona, as S. Augustine tells us (lib. de Ser. Dom. in Mont. c. 22). Hence also the Persian version of this passage renders mammon by transitory riches and possessions.

Observe, Christ does not say, “Ye cannot possess riches and God,” for Abraham, Isaac, David, Solomon, and many saints had both; but they did not set their hearts upon riches, but used them for pious purposes. But He said, “Ye cannot serve God and riches.” For he who serves mammon is the slave of riches. He does not rule them as their master, but he is ruled by them as their slave, so as to undertake all labours and sufferings which the desire of wealth suggests to him. Verily this is a hard and miserable servitude. But “to serve God is to reign.” Well does S. Bernard say (Ser. 21 in Cant.), “The covetous man hungers after earthly things like a beggar—the believer despises them like a lord. The former in possessing them is a beggar, the latter, by despising them, keeps them.”

Hear S. Augustine (lib. 4 de Civit. c. 21—“The heathen were wont to commend themselves to the goddess of money, that they might be rich—to the god Æsculanus, and his son, Argentinus, that they might have bronze and silver money. They made Æsculanus the father of Argentinus, because bronze money was first in use, afterwards silver. I really wonder why Argentinus did not beget Aurinus, because gold followed silver coin.” The reason why money was made a goddess was because of her power and empire; for, as it is said in Ecclus. 10, “All things are obedient to money.” By money are procured dignities, wine, feasts, clothes, horses, chariots, and what not? Whence Hosea (Hos 12:8) says of such men, “Verily I am made rich; I have found my idol.” (Vulg.) Hence also Juvenal (Satr. 1) says, “With us the majesty of riches is the most sacred of all things.” And Petronius Arbiter makes them equal, or indeed superior to Jupiter.

“Be money there, ask what you please,
’Twill come: your chest great Jove will seize.”

Well does S. Jerome say (Epist. 28 ad Lucinium), “Ye cannot, saith the Lord, serve God and mammon. To put away gold is the work of beginners, not of the advanced Christian. Crates, the Theban, did that, so did Antisthenes. But to offer ourselves to God is the distinguishing mark of Christians and Apostles: for they, casting with the widow the two farthings of their poverty into the treasury, delivered to the Lord all the living that they had, and deserved to hear the words, ‘Ye shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’ ”