Cheesefare Tuesday

And he went out and went, according to custom, to the Mount of Olives. And his disciples followed him. The Lord, about to be betrayed by a disciple, goes to the usual place of retreat where he could be most easily found. Where, then, are those who argue that he feared death, and was unwillingly crucified? And beautifully, he leads the disciples imbued with the mysteries of his body and blood to the Mount of Olives, so that he might designate that all those baptized in his death were to be confirmed by the highest chrism of the Holy Spirit, who can say with the Psalmist: "The light of your face, O Lord, has been signed upon us, you have put gladness in my heart" (Psalm 4). And about whom it is added elsewhere: "From the time of their grain, wine, and oil, they were multiplied" (ibid.).

As He was to be betrayed by His disciple, our Lord goes to the place of His wonted retirement, where He might most easily be found; as it follows, And he came out, and went, as he was want, to the mount of Olives.

Rightly does He lead the disciples, about to be instructed in the mysteries of His Body, to the mount of Olives, that He might signify that all who arc baptized in His death should be comforted with the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

And going out, he went according to his custom, etc. After describing the machination of the betrayer and the institution of the Sacrament of the altar and the instruction of the disciples, the Evangelist here describes the prayer of Christ the man to God; and this with respect to the sevenfold condition which ought to be in prayer. For it ought to be secret, solicitous, devout, discreet, vigorous, anxious, and circumspect.

First, therefore, as regards the secrecy of prayer on the part of the place, he says: And going out, he went according to his custom to the Mount of Olives. For his custom was to pray on that mountain, because that place was secluded, to suggest that devout prayer ought to flee the public; on account of which, Matthew 6: "But you, when you pray, enter into your chamber, and having shut the door, pray to your Father," etc.; and Hosea 2: "I will lead him into the wilderness and speak to his heart"; or because the place was elevated, to which the one praying ought to ascend, by reason of which, Matthew 14: "Having dismissed the crowd, he ascended the mountain"; or also, because it was the mount of Olives and of anointing and of piety, from which God ought to be prayed to, according to that word of the Psalm: "You have anointed my head with oil," etc.; or also, because from that place he was about to ascend into heaven; whence Jerome: "On the Mount of Olives Jesus is seized, and from there he ascended into heaven, so that we might know that we shall ascend to heaven from the place where we watch and pray and are bound and do not kick back." — The principal reason, however, was seclusion, whence he also permitted only the disciples to accompany him; on account of which he adds: And the disciples also followed him, as intimates and close companions, among whom he also chose the more intimate ones, before whom he was transfigured on the mountain; whence Matthew 26: "Having taken Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and troubled."

The Savior stayed in Jerusalem during the day, evidently teaching the Israelites and revealing to them the way of the kingdom of heaven. When the evening came, he continued with the holy disciples on the Mount of Olives at a spot called Gethsemane. The wise evangelist Matthew tells us this.…"Taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, 'My soul is very sorrowful, even to death.' " Going forward a little, Christ knelt and prayed, saying, "Father, if you will, put this cup away from me, but not my will but yours be done." Please see here the depths of the appointed time in the flesh and the height of that unspeakable wisdom. Focus the penetrating eye of the mind on it. If you can see the beautiful art of the mystery, you also will say, "Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! His judgments are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out."

By day He was in Jerusalem, but when the darkness of night came on He held converse with His disciples on the mount of Olives; as it is added, And his disciples followed.

After supper, the Lord does not give Himself over to idleness, pleasures, and sleep, but teaches and prays, giving us a model and example in this. Therefore, woe to those who after suppers turn to the shameful deeds of fornication. Having taught this to the disciples, the Lord ascends the Mount of Olives to pray. He loved to do this in private, and therefore withdraws even from the disciples. However, He takes disciples with Him, but not all—only those three who had seen His glory on the mountain (Luke 9:28).

Now after supper our Lord betakes Himself not to idleness or sleep, but to prayer and teaching. Hence it follows, And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray, &c.

(de Qu. Evang. lib. ii. qu. 50.) He was torn from them about a stone's cast, as though He would typically remind them that to Him they should point the stone, that is, up to Him bring the intention of the law which was written on stone.

And he was separated from them about a stone's throw. And kneeling down, he prayed, saying. Having given the apostles the command to pray, he himself, separated from them, prays alone for all, signifying that his prayer is as far removed from ours as his passion is, and he kneels to show the humility of his mind by the posture of his body. He was separated from them about a stone's throw, as if to typify for them that they should direct the stone at him, that is, that they should bring him into the temptation of the law which was inscribed on stone. For that stone can come as far as he, since Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes.

He also alone prays for all, who was to suffer alone for all, signifying that His prayer is as far distant from ours as His Passion.

Third, as regards the devotion of prayer on the part of the manner of praying, he adds: And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's throw, and kneeling down he prayed: in which he shows the devotion and humility and reverence of the heart. Whence Bede: "He prayed on bended knees, so that he might show the humility of mind through the posture of the body." And this indeed was fitting: for such prayer is most pleasing, according to that passage in Ecclesiasticus thirty-five: "The prayer of him who humbles himself shall pierce the clouds, and until it draws near, he shall not be consoled"; whence also in the Psalm: "He has regarded the prayer of the humble and has not despised their petition"; and therefore Judith nine: "The prayer of the humble and the meek has always been pleasing to you." In this manner Paul prayed, Ephesians three: "I ask that you do not lose heart in my tribulations for you. For this reason I bend my knees before the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named."

And note that he says that he was withdrawn from the disciples about a stone's throw, not only for the sake of privacy, but also for the sake of the mystery: because by this it was signified that that cornerstone was to be separated from the disciples for a little while and would soon return, which the hiding of the paten in the Mass signifies. — Or it certainly signifies that in order for one to pray devoutly, it is necessary that one be torn away from carnal affections; whence Isaiah twenty-eight: "Whom shall he teach knowledge? And whom shall he make to understand the message? Those weaned from milk, those torn from the breasts." And this tearing away cannot happen except through a certain force and violent motion; and on account of this force of the spirit interceding, it is said in Romans eight: "It is the Spirit who intercedes for us with unutterable groanings."

Surely there's no difficulty about the prayer in Gethsemane on the ground that if the disciples were asleep they couldn't have heard it and therefore couldn't have recorded it? The words they did record would hardly have taken three seconds to utter. He was only "a stone's throw" away. The silence of night was around them. And we may be sure He prayed aloud. People did everything aloud in those days. You remember how astonished St. Augustine was—some centuries later in a far more sophisticated society—to discover that when St. Ambrose was reading (to himself) you couldn't hear the words even if you went and stood just beside him? The disciples heard the opening words of the prayer before they went to sleep. They record those opening words as if they were the whole.

But not to do good by words only, He went forward a little and prayed; as it follows, And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast. You will every where find Him praying apart, to teach you that with a devout mind and quiet heart we should speak with the most high God. He did not betake Himself to prayer, as if He was in want of another's help, who is the Almighty power of the Father, but that we may learn not to slumber in temptation, but rather to be instant in prayer.

But what meaneth His bending of knees? of which it is said, And he kneeled down, and prayed. It is the way of men to pray to their superiors with their faces on the ground, testifying by the action that the greater of the two are those who are asked. Now it is plain that human nature contains nothing worthy of God's imitation. Accordingly the tokens of respect which we evince to one another, confessing ourselves to be inferior to our neighbours, we have transferred to the humiliation of the Incomparable Nature. And thus He who bore our sicknesses and interceded for us, bent His knee in prayer, by reason of the man which He assumed, giving us an example, that we ought not to exalt ourselves at the time of prayer, but in all things be conformed to humility; for God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble. (James 4:6, 1 Pet. 5:5.)

(de Con. Ev. lib. iii. c. 4.) Now Luke has not stated after which prayer He came to His disciples, still in nothing does he disagree with Matthew and Mark.

And when He rose from prayer and came to His disciples, He found them sleeping from sorrow. And He said to them: Why do you sleep? Rise and pray, lest you enter into temptation. That is, lest the cup of my passion fall on you. Where He clearly shows that He prayed for them too, whom He diligently warns, by vigilantly and praying, to be participants in His prayers.

Seventh, as to the circumspection of prayer, he adds: And when he had risen from prayer and had come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow. For he so prayed to God that he nevertheless did not forget his sheep; indeed, he interrupted his prayer three times in order to return to rouse his disciples: whence it is said in Mark 14 that "he came the third time and found them sleeping." In this the wondrous solicitude of Christ for his disciples is apparent, as a hen is solicitous for her chicks: Deuteronomy 32: "As an eagle provoking her young to fly and hovering over them."

For it was midnight, and the disciples' eyes were heavy from grief, and their sleep was not that of drowsiness but sorrow.

The great significance of divine power, the great discipline of virtue. And the plan of betrayal is revealed, and yet patience is not denied. You have shown, Lord, who would betray, while you reveal hidden things. You have also shown whom he would deliver, while you say: Son of man; because flesh, not divinity, can be understood. However, the fact that he handed him over contradicts even more the ungrateful, that he, although being the Son of God, yet wanted to be the Son of man for our sake. As if to say: Because of my kindness, ungrateful one, you betray me. Behold the hypocrisy. Therefore, I think it should be pronounced as a question, as if a loving person rebukes a traitor: Judas, do you hand over the Son of Man with a kiss? This means, you inflict a wound as a pledge of love, and you shed blood in the duty of charity, and you inflict death with an instrument of peace? The servant betrays the master, the disciple betrays the teacher, the chosen one betrays the author? This is that which is said: The wounds of a friend are more valuable than the kisses of an enemy. What does this traitor say? Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth.

And he kissed him, he said. Not that he teaches us to pretend, but so that he does not seem to avoid betrayal and to affect the traitor more, to whom he would not deny acts of love; for it is written: I was peaceful with those who hated peace.

And when He had done this thrice, while we out of despondency of mind were fallen asleep, He came and said: "The hour is come, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. And behold Judas, and with him a multitude of ungodly men," to whom he shows the signal by which he was to betray Him-a deceitful kiss. But they, when they had received the signal agreed on, took hold of the Lord; and having bound Him, they led Him to the house of Caiaphas the high priest...

While he was still speaking, behold, a crowd, and he who was called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them, and he drew near to Jesus to kiss him. Why he kissed him, the other evangelists make clear; that is, so that by this sign they might recognize that it was he who would betray him. However, the Lord accepted the kiss of the betrayer, not to teach us dissimulation but so as not to seem to flee betrayal, and at the same time fulfilling what is in the Psalm of David: "With those who hate peace, I was peaceful" (Psalm 119).

While He was yet speaking, behold, a crowd etc. After he described the preambles to the Passion, here secondly he describes the concomitants. Now these were six, namely the apprehension of Christ, the mocking of the one apprehended, the accusation of the one mocked, the condemnation of the one accused, the crucifixion of the one condemned, and the death and burial of the one crucified. In setting forth the manner of the apprehension, four things are introduced, namely the treachery of the betrayer, the zeal of the disciples, the power of the Savior, and the deceit of the Jews.

First, therefore, as to the fraud of the betrayer he says: While he was yet speaking, for the admonition of the disciples: whence Matthew 26: "Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us go: behold, he who shall betray me is at hand."

During these words Judas arrived: whence he also adds: Behold, a crowd, and he who was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, as a leader of the wicked: Acts 1: "The Scripture must be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of those who apprehended Jesus." He therefore led them to the place, according to that of John 18: "And Judas also, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often gathered there with his disciples." — He was also the leader in capturing Christ: whence he adds: And he drew near to Jesus to kiss him, to give the sign of betrayal; whence Matthew 26: "He who betrayed him gave them a sign, saying: Whomsoever I shall kiss, he it is, seize him."

He adds that he was one of the Twelve. This also is a matter of great importance to demonstrate more fully the guilt of the traitor's crime. The Lord equally honored him with the rest and decorated him with apostolic dignities. Christ admitted him, chosen and beloved, to the holy table and the highest honors, but this became the pathway and the means for the murderers of Christ. What dirge can be sufficient for him, or what floods of tears must not each shed from his eyes when he considers from what happiness that wretched being fell into such total misery! For a worthless cent, he stopped being with Christ and lost his hope toward God. He lost the honor, crowns, life and glory prepared for Christ's true followers, and the right of reigning with the Lord.

He says, he that was called Judas, holding his name as it were in abhorrence; but adds, one of the twelve, to signify the enormity of the traitor. For he who had been honoured as an apostle became the cause of the murder of Christ.

The tribe of Judah marked the beginning of the kingdom, and the apostle Judas marked its extinction. In deceitfully handing him over to the Romans with a kiss, he handed over to them the responsibility of avenging Jesus so that they would one day exact it from Judah. The wicked one came to dig his deep abyss, and our God explained it gently to him. He showed that he was helpful, a fountain of mercy. He said, "Judas, would you betray the Son of man with a kiss?" He showed that Judas did not have the power to hand over the Son of God. "Well then, why have you come, my friend?" The Lord called animosity friendship, and he turned toward Judas. The deceitful disciple approached the true Master to kiss him. The Lord withdrew from him the Spirit that he had breathed into him. He removed it from him, not wanting the corrupting wolf to be among his sheep. He said, "That which he had has been taken away from him."

(non occ.) After first mentioning the prayer of Christ, St. Luke goes on to speak of His betrayal wherein He is betrayed by His disciple, saying, And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas.

For just as incurable wounds yield neither to severe nor soothing remedies, so the soul when once it is taken captive, and has sold itself to any particular sin, will reap no benefit from admonition. And so it was with Judas, who desisted not from His betrayal, though deterred by Christ by every manner of warning. Hence it follows, And drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.

(Conc. 1. de Laz.) Now we must not depart from admonishing our brethren, albeit nothing comes of our words. For even the streams though no one drink therefrom still flow on, and him whom thou hast not persuaded to-day, peradventure thou mayest to-morrow. For the fisherman after drawing empty nets the whole day, when it was now late takes a fish. And thus our Lord, though He knew that Judas was not to be converted, yet ceased not to do such things as had reference to him. It follows, But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?

The Christ of the prophets was destined, moreover, to be betrayed with a kiss, for He was the Son indeed of Him who was "honoured with the lips" by the people.

Judas set a kiss as the sign for those going against Jesus, but so that they would not make a mistake because of the night, he pointed Him out not from afar. So that Jesus would not hide, for this reason they come with lanterns and torches. What then does the Lord do?

(de Con. Ev. lib. iii. c. 5.) Now Luke says, But Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far; which is what Matthew records, Put thy sword up into its sheath. Nor will it move you as contrary thereto, that Luke says here that our Lord answered, Suffer ye thus far, as if He had so spoken after the blow to show that what was done had pleased Him so far, but He did not wish it to proceed farther, seeing that in these words which Matthew has given, it may rather be implied that the whole circumstance in which Peter used the sword was displeasing to our Lord. For the truth is, that upon their asking, Lord, shall we strike with the sword? He then answered, Suffer ye thus far, that is, be not troubled with what is about to happen. They must be permitted to advance so far, that is, to take Me, and so to fulfil the things which were written of Me. For he would not say, And Jesus answering, unless He answered this question, not Peter's deed. But between the delay of their words of question to our Lord and His answer, Peter in the eagerness of defence struck the blow. And two things cannot be said, though one may be said and another may be done, at the same time. Then, as Luke says, He healed him who was struck, as it follows, And he touched his ear, and healed him.

Seeing what was to happen, those around him said: Lord, shall we strike with the sword? And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. Peter did this, as the evangelist John teaches, with the same fervor of mind with which he had done other things. For he knew how Phinehas received the reward of righteousness and everlasting priesthood by punishing the sacrilegious. What follows:

Second, as to the zeal of the disciples he adds: But those who were around him, seeing what was about to happen, said to him: Lord, shall we strike with the sword? For the disciples, kindled with zeal of love for Christ, were inflamed for his defense, but they hesitated on account of what they had been taught by him — to show all patience, according to that of Matthew 5: "Whoever strikes you on one cheek, offer him the other also"; but Peter was so fervent that he neither asked nor waited for a response.

The blessed disciples, wounded with the prodding of divine love, drew their swords to repel the attack. Christ would not permit this, but he rebuked Peter, saying, "Put your sword into its sheath; for all who have taken swords shall die by swords." In this, he gave us a pattern of the way in which we must hold on by our love for him and of the extent to which the burning zeal of our piety may proceed. He does not want us to use swords to resist our enemies. He would rather have us use love and prudence.… The Savior moderates the unmeasured heat of the holy apostles. By preventing the example of such an act, he declares that those who are the leaders in his religion have no need in any way whatsoever of swords. With divine dignity, Christ healed him who received the blow and gave this godlike sign for their condemnation to those who came to seize him.

The disciples are inflamed with zeal and draw out swords. Where did they have them from? It was natural for them to have them, since they had just before been slaying the lamb and had come out from the table.

The disciples are inflamed with zeal, and unsheath their swords. But whence have they swords? Because they had slain the lamb, and had departed from the feast. Now the other disciples ask whether they should strike; but Peter, always fervent in defence of his Master, waits not for permission, but straightway strikes the servant of the High Priest; as it follows, And one of them smote, &c.

For Peter being well versed in the law, and full of ardent affection, knowing that it was counted righteousness in Phineas that he had killed the sacrilegious persons, struck the High Priest's servant.

The Lord in wiping away the bloody wounds, conveyed thereby a divine mystery, namely, that the servant of the prince of this world, not by the condition of His nature but by guilt, should receive a wound on the ear, for that he had not heard the words of wisdom. Or, by Peter so willingly striking the ear, he taught that he ought not to have a ear outwardly, who had not one in a mystery. But why did Peter do this? Because he especially obtained the power of binding and loosing; therefore by his spiritual sword he takes away the interior ear of him who understandeth not. But the Lord Himself restores the hearing, showing that even they, if they would turn, might be saved, who inflicted the wounds in our Lord's Passion; for that all sin may be washed away in the mysteries of faith.

He who struck, according to John, was Peter, but he whom he struck was called Malchus.

Or that servant is the Jewish people sold by the High Priests to an unlawful obligation, who, by the Passion of our Lord, lost their right ear; that is, the spiritual understanding of the law. And this ear indeed is cut off by Peter's sword, not that he takes away the sense of understanding from those that hear, but manifests it withdrawn by the judgment of God from the careless. But the same right ear in those who among the same people have believed, is restored by the Divine condescension to its former office.

Whence he adds: And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. This, however, was Peter. Hence three Evangelists do not name him out of reverence, but John names him to intimate his fervent zeal; whence John 18: "Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the servant of the high priest." In this deed, Peter's zeal is praised; whence the Gloss: "Peter was zealous with the same ardor of mind as Phinehas," of whom it is said in Numbers 25 that on account of the zeal with which he pierced through the fornicators, he obtained an everlasting priesthood. Here, however, the zeal is praised, not the deed; whence Matthew 26: "Put your sword back into its sheath: for all who take the sword shall perish by the sword."

Nevertheless, although the deed is not praised, the mystery is commended. For in this it is signified that the power of Peter's priesthood took away the observance of the rite of the legal priesthood, which was a servitude. — Or certainly by the cutting off of this ear it is understood that that people, who in name is called king, but in truth is a servant, lost spiritual understanding; whence the Gloss on John 18: "The servant of the high priest, who is called Malchus, that is, king, is the Jewish people, who through unbelief was made a servant of impiety, who lost the right ear, so that he might hear only the usefulness of the letter." Hence Peter did not take away this ear, but showed it to have been taken away; whence the Gloss: "The ear was taken away, not by Peter removing it, but by divine judgment revealing it to have been taken away."

Not fearing the power that had flattened them, they stretched out their impure hands and seized him who was purifying them. "Simon cut off the ear of one of them." The good Lord in his gentleness took it and put it back in its elevated place on the body, as a figure of him who had fallen into the lower abyss because of his sins. "Put your sword back again into its place." He whose word was a sword did not need a sword. Just as he restored the ear that was cut off back to its place, he could have separated the members that were joined. Unsatisfied with showing the intensity of his power with a single example, he showed it to all those who "retreated and fell backwards to the ground." The one whose ear had been healed would not be the only one to benefit from grace. He allowed all that were about to apprehend him to benefit from it, so that they would certainly know whom they were going to arrest. The grace of him who had restored the ear to its place made those who "fell backwards to the ground" able to get up again.

But the fervent Peter receives a rebuke, because he used his zeal contrary to the Lord's intention. Whereas the others ask, "shall we strike?" he does not wait for approval (as everywhere he was fervent for the Teacher!), but strikes "the servant of the high priest" and cuts off his "right ear." This happened not by chance, but as a sign that the high priests of that time had all become slaves and had lost their right hearing. For if they had listened to Moses, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (John 5:46).

The disciples are inflamed with zeal, and unsheath their swords. But whence have they swords? Because they had slain the lamb, and had departed from the feast. Now the other disciples ask whether they should strike; but Peter, always fervent in defence of his Master, waits not for permission, but straightway strikes the servant of the High Priest; as it follows, And one of them smote, &c.

And he followed from a distance, about to deny it; for he could not have denied it if he had joined Christ closely. But perhaps in this we should greatly admire him, that he did not leave the Lord, even when he was afraid. Fear is natural, concern is piety. He fears what is foreign: he does not flee what is his own. What he follows is devotion: what he denies is deception. What is shared is what slips away: what is of faith is what he regrets. Now a fire was burning in the high priest's courtyard: Peter approached to warm himself; because with the Lord locked away, the heat of his mind had also cooled in him.

The wretched men understood not the mystery, nor had reverence unto an outpouring of compassion so merciful, that even His enemies He suffered not to be wounded. For it is said, Then look they him, &c. When we read of Jesus being holden, let us guard against thinking that He is holden with respect to His divine nature, and unwilling through weakness, for He is held captive and bound according to the truth of His bodily nature.

Rightly he followed afar off, soon about to deny, for he could never have denied if he had clung close to Christ. But herein must he be revered, that he forsook not our Lord, even though he was afraid. Fear is the effect of nature, solicitude of tender affection.

But first He was led to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, as John says, then to Caiaphas, as Matthew says, but Mark and Luke do not give the name of the High Priest.

Having seized him, they led him to the high priest's house. By high priest, he means Caiaphas, who was the high priest that year, as the evangelist John testifies.

Peter, however, followed from a distance. He rightfully followed from afar, for he was already close to denying. For he could not deny if he had adhered closely to Christ. But in this, he is most worthy of our admiration, that he did not abandon the Lord even when he was afraid. For what he feared was natural; what he followed was devotion; what he denied was deception; what he repented was faith.

Otherwise: when Peter followed the Lord going to His passion from a distance, it symbolized the Church, which indeed would follow, that is, imitate the passions of the Lord, but in a much different way. For the Church suffers for itself, but He suffered for the Church.

Now the Chief Priest means Caiaphas, who according to John was High Priest that year.

But that when our Lord was going to His Passion, Peter followed afar off represents the Church about to follow indeed, that is, to imitate our Lord's Passion, but in a far different manner, for the Church suffers for herself, our Lord suffered for the Church.

Having apprehended him etc. After the described apprehension of Christ, here is described the denial of Peter; for whose full description four things are introduced, namely Peter's own tepidity in fearing, fragility in denying, the Lord's compassion in receiving him back, and Peter's faithfulness in returning.

First therefore, as regards Peter's tepidity in fearing, after the apprehension of the Master, he says: Having apprehended him, they led him to the house of the high priest. But Peter was following him from afar. Peter was following from afar, because he feared to draw nearer; for he had already been left alone; whence Mark 14: "Then the disciples, leaving him, all fled," according to that passage of Proverbs 19: "The brothers of the poor man hated him; moreover his friends also withdrew far from him"; Psalm: "You have put my acquaintances far from me" etc. For love unites and causes one to draw near, and conversely tepidity of love causes one to withdraw far away; and this tepidity was already beginning to be in Peter.

(Hom. 83. in Matt.) It is therefore said, to the house of the High Priest, that nothing whatever might be done without the consent of the chief of the Priests. For thither had they all assembled waiting for Christ. Now the great zeal of Peter is manifested in his not flying when he saw all the others doing so; for it follows, But Peter followed afar off.

And by this time there was a fire burning in the house of the High Priest; as it follows, And when they had kindled a fire, &c. Peter came to warm himself, because his Lord being taken prisoner, the heart of his soul had been chilled in him.

And when they kindled a fire in the midst of the courtyard and sat around it, Peter was in their midst. There is a fire of love, and there is also a fire of desire. Of this, it is said: "I came to cast fire on the earth, and what will I, if it be already kindled?" (Luke 12:49). Of that: "Behold, all you that kindle a fire, that gird yourselves with flames: walk in the light of your fire, and in the flames that you have kindled" (Isaiah 50:11). This fire, descending from heaven upon the believers in the upper room of Zion, taught them to praise God in various tongues. That fire, kindled from earthly materials of Caiaphas in the courtyard, inflamed the crowds to deny the Lord. With this fire, Moses burned the head of the golden idol, with that Zedekiah burned the writings of Jeremiah prophesying. Whoever extinguishes a vicious and harmful fire within himself can sing to the Lord: "For I am become like a bottle in the frost, I have not forgotten your statutes" (Psalm 119:83). But he who loses the flame of virtues hears from the Lord: "Because iniquity has abounded, the charity of many will grow cold" (Matthew 24:12). Numbed by this chill for a moment, Apostle Peter desired to be warmed by the coals of the persecutors, because he sought the temporary comfort of their company. But without delay, being regarded by the Lord, he abandoned both their physical fire and the infidelity in his heart.

And therefore he adds: Now when a fire had been kindled in the middle of the courtyard and they were sitting around it, Peter was in their midst: in which is shown the tepidity of love and of the interior fire. Whence the Gloss: "What the malignant assembly was carrying on inside the house of the high priest, the fire kindled outside amid the cold of the night was figuratively demonstrating. Growing numb from this cold for a time, Peter began to warm himself at the coals of the servants, as it were, because he was seeking the consolation of temporal comfort in the company of the faithless"; and concerning this fire, Micah 6: "Still there is fire in the house of the wicked and treasures of iniquity." And here it is intimated that when the fire of iniquity and cupidity abounds—concerning which Job 15: "Fire shall devour the tents of those who gladly accept bribes"—the fire of charity shall grow cold, concerning which above in chapter 12: "I have come to cast fire upon the earth" etc. Whence also Matthew 24: "Because iniquity shall abound, the charity of many shall grow cold." And made lukewarm by this fire, a man becomes prone to denying Christ and indeed to every evil.

(App. Serm. 79.) For to Peter were delivered the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to him were entrusted an innumerable multitude of people, who were wrapped up in sin. But Peter was somewhat too vehement, as the cutting off the car of the High Priest's servant betokens. If he then who was so stern and so severe had obtained the gift of not sinning, what pardon would he have given to the people committed to him? Therefore Divine Providence suffers him first to be holden of sin, that by the consciousness of his own fall he might soften his too harsh judgment towards sinners. When he wished to warm himself at the fire, a maid came to him, of whom it follows, But a certain maid beheld him, &c.

What does it mean that the first witness proclaims him, when men could certainly recognize him more; unless it seemed that this sex had sinned unto the death of the Lord, so that this sex might be redeemed through the passion of the Lord? And therefore, the woman receives the first mystery of the resurrection, and she keeps the commandments; in order to abolish the ancient error of transgression.

What meaneth it, that a maid is the first to betray Peter, whereas surely men ought the more easily to have recognised him, save that that sex should be plainly implicated in our Lord's murder, in order that it might also be redeemed by His Passion? But Peter when discovered denies, for better that Peter should have denied, than our Lord's word should have failed. Hence it follows, And he denied, saying, Woman, I know him not.

(ut sup.) What ails thee, Peter, thy voice is suddenly changed? That mouth full of faith and love, is turned to hatred and unbelief. Not yet awhile is the scourge applied, not yet the instruments of torture. Thy interrogator is no one of authority, who might cause alarm to the confessor. The mere voice of a woman asks the question, and she perhaps not about to divulge thy confession, nor yet a woman, but a door-keeper, a mean slave.

When a certain servant girl saw him sitting in the light and looked closely at him, she said, "This man was also with him." Why is it that the servant girl is the first to betray him, when surely men could have recognized him more clearly, except that this gender also should appear to have sinned in the death of the Lord, and this gender should be redeemed by the Lord's passion? Therefore, a woman first received the mystery of the resurrection and kept the command, to abolish the old error of transgression.

Second, as regards the fragility of Peter in denying, he adds: When a certain maidservant had seen him sitting by the light and had gazed upon him, she said: This man also was with him. But he denied him, saying: Woman, I do not know him: in which Peter's fragility appears, because, as Gregory says, "struck by the voice of a single woman, while he feared to die, he denied the Life." But the devil first assails Peter through a woman in remembrance of the prior deed, according to that passage of Ecclesiasticus 25: "From a woman was the beginning of all sin"; and again in chapter 42: "Does not the moth come forth from garments? So from a woman comes the iniquity of man."

We do not say that the denial took place in order that Christ's words might come true. We say rather that his object was to forewarn the disciple, inasmuch as what was about to happen did not escape Christ's knowledge. The misfortune, therefore, happened to the disciple from the cowardice of human nature. Since Christ had not risen from the dead, he had not yet abolished death and wiped corruption away. The fear of undergoing death was something beyond human endurance.

Peter denied, because he promised rashly. He does not deny on the mount, nor in the temple, nor in his own house, but in the judgment-hall of the Jews. There he denies where Jesus was bound, where truth is not. And denying Him he says, I know him not. It were presumptuous to say that he knew Him whom the human mind can not grasp. For no one knoweth the Son but the Father. (Matt. 11:17). Again, a second time he denies Christ; for it follows, And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou wert also one of them.

But he denied him, saying, "Woman, I do not know him." Some, out of affection for the apostle Peter, interpret this passage as if he had rightly said that he did not know him whom the human mind cannot comprehend, for no one knows the Son except the Father (Matt. XI). Again, when questioned, he said, "Man, I am not," preferring to deny himself rather than Christ. But even when asked a third time, with the words, "Man, I do not know what you are saying," he signified that he rejected and cursed their sacriligeous acts, that is, condemning them by rejecting and execrating them. But this interpretation is frivolous, as both the Lord, who predicted with truthful assertion that Peter would deny him three times, and Peter himself, who revealed through his subsequent tears that he had spoken not out of premeditation but out of weakness, make clear.

In this denial then of Peter we affirm that not only is Christ denied by him who says that He is not Christ, but by him also, who, being a Christian, says he is not.

For he preferred to deny himself rather than Christ, or because he seemed to deny being of the company of Christ, he truly denied himself.

(de Con. Ev. lib. iii. c. 6.) And it is supposed that in the second denial he was addressed by two persons, namely, by the maid whom Matthew and Mark mention, and by another whom Luke speaks of. With respect then to what Luke here relates, And after a little while, &c. Peter had already gone out of the gate, and the cock had crowed the first time, as Mark says; and now he had returned, that, as John says, he might again deny standing by the fire. Of which denial it follows, And Peter said, Man, I am not.

After a little while, another saw him and said, "You also are one of them." But Peter said, "Man, I am not." In this denial by the blessed Peter, we learn that not only is Christ denied by him who says he is not Christ, but also by him who, although he is a Christian, denies being a Christian; the Lord, however, did not say to Peter, "You will deny that you are my disciple," but "You will deny me." Therefore, he denied him when he denied being his disciple.

And lest Peter could excuse himself on account of being taken by surprise, the inquiry is therefore repeated, when it adds: And after a little while, another seeing him said: You also are one of them. But Peter said: O man!, I am not. Peter repeats the denial because he did not abandon the company of the wicked. Whence Augustine says: "How harmful are the words of the wicked, which compel Peter to deny the Lord or to deny knowing as a man him whom among his fellow disciples he had confessed to be the Son of God." Whence that saying of First Corinthians fifteen is verified: "Evil communications corrupt good manners."

He is also asked a third time; for it follows, And about the space of one hour after, another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him.

(de Con. Ev. ut sup.) What Matthew and Mark call after a little while, Luke explains by saying, about the space of one hour after; but with regard to the space of time, John says nothing. Likewise when Matthew and Mark record not in the singular but in the plural number those who conversed with Peter, while Luke and John speak of one, we may easily suppose either that Matthew and Mark used the plural for the singular by a common form of speech, or that one person in particular addressed Peter, as being the one who had seen him, and that others trusting to his credit joined in pressing him. But now as to the words which Matthew asserts were said to Peter himself, Truly thou art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee; as also those which to the same Peter John declared to have been said, Did not I see thee in the garden? whereas Mark and Luke state that they spoke to one another concerning Peter; we either believe that they held the right opinion who say that they were really addressed to Peter; (for what was said concerning him in his presence amounts to the same as if it had been said to him;) or that they were said in both ways, and that some of the Evangelists related them one way, some the other.

And after about an hour had passed, another person insisted, saying: Truly this one also was with him, for he is a Galilean. It is not that the Galileans spoke a different language from the people of Jerusalem, who were both Hebrews, but because each province and region, having its own peculiarities, cannot avoid the local accent in speech. Hence in the Acts of the Apostles, when those on whom the Holy Spirit had descended spoke in the languages of all nations, among others who had gathered from different parts of the world, those who lived in Judea are recorded as having wondered and said: Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear each in our own language in which we were born?

But he adds, For he is a Galilæan; not that the Galilæans spoke a different language from the inhabitants of Jerusalem, who indeed were Hebrews, but that each separate province and country having its own peculiarities could not avoid a vernacular tone of speech. It follows, And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest.

And because Peter still did not take heed for himself, he therefore repeated the denial a third time. Whence it is added: And after an interval of about one hour, a certain other man affirmed, saying: Truly this man also was with him, for he is a Galilean. And Peter said: Man, I do not know what you are saying. And the word of the Lord was fulfilled, from above in the same chapter: "Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times." — Now this threefold denial, according to Bede and Jerome, took place in the courtyard of Caiaphas; but according to Augustine, in the Book on the Harmony of the Evangelists, it was begun in the house of Annas and completed in the courtyard of Caiaphas, with which John agrees.

Now the Lord permitted Peter to deny him, as Chrysostom says, so that Marcion might be confounded, so that no one would presume of himself, so that all would believe Christ in all things, so that others might take heed for themselves, and "so that the prelate of the Church might learn from his own fall how he ought to show mercy to others," and also so that, rising again more strong, he might show that to be true which is said in Romans eight: "We know that for those who love God, all things work together unto good." He was therefore permitted to deny three times to show that we offend God in a threefold manner, namely by heart, mouth, and deed. And he was impelled by three persons as a mystery of threefold temptation, and at a threefold interval to designate the threefold admonition. And concerning these three things, he was asked three times: do you love me? Three times it was said to him: feed; and a threefold solemnity of Peter is celebrated.

That is, I know not your blasphemies. But we make excuse for him. He did not excuse himself. For an involved answer is not sufficient for our confessing Jesus, but an open confession is required. And therefore Peter is not represented to have answered this deliberately, for he afterwards recollected himself, and wept.

(ut sup.) The cock-crow we understand to have been after the third denial of Peter, as Mark has expressed it.

And Peter said: Man, I do not know what you are saying. And immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. The sacred Scripture often signifies the merit of causes through the state of times. Hence Peter, who denied in the middle of the night, repented at the crowing of the rooster. Also, after the resurrection, in the light of day, he professed three times that he loved the Lord whom he had denied three times, because evidently what he erred in the darkness of forgetfulness, he corrected in the hope of the remembered light, and having attained the presence of the true light, he fully restored whatever had changed. I think that this rooster should be understood as some teacher who, waking us up and reproving us when we are sleepy, says: Awake, just ones, and do not sin (I Cor. XV).

Holy Scripture is often wont to mark the character of certain events by the nature of the times in which they take place. Hence Peter who sinned at midnight repented at cock-crow; for it follows, And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. The error he committed in the darkness of forgetfulness, he corrected by the remembrance of the true light.

This cock must, I think, be understood mystically as some great Teacher, who rouses the listless and sleepy, saying, Awake, ye righteous, and sin not.

Why did he weep? Because guilt overtook him: I am accustomed to weeping, if guilt is lacking to me, that is, if I do not avenge myself, if I do not obtain what I wickedly desire. Peter was grieved and wept; because he erred as a man. I do not find what he said, I find that he wept: I read his tears, I do not read satisfaction: but what cannot be defended, can be washed away. Tears wash away the sin, which shame is too modest to confess with words. And tears seek both forgiveness and modesty. Tears speak of guilt without horror; tears confess a crime without causing offense; tears do not ask for forgiveness, and yet they deserve it. I found out why Peter remained silent, so that a quick request for forgiveness would not cause further offense. Before we cry, we must pray like this.

To wash away the sin of denial, Peter needed the baptism of tears. From where would he get this, unless the Lord gave him this too? That is why the apostle Paul gave this advice to his people concerning deviant opinions and about how they should deal with them. He said they must be "correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth." So even repentance is a gift from God. The heart of the proud is hard ground. It is softened for repentance only if it is rained on by God's grace.

By saying that Peter did penance, we have to take care not to think that he did it as those who are properly called penitents now do it in the church. Who could bear it that we should think the first of the apostles was numbered among such penitents? He repented of having denied Christ, as his tears show, for so it is written, "he wept bitterly." They had not yet been strengthened by the resurrection of the Lord, the coming of the Holy Spirit who appeared on the day of Pentecost, or by that breath which the Lord breathed on them after he rose from the dead.

And therefore he adds: And going out, Peter wept bitterly, that is, he shed tears from the great bitterness of compunction; whence Ambrose says: "He wept most bitterly, so that tears might wash away the offense; and you likewise wash away your fault with tears." This bitterness, moreover, is the greatest part of penance; whence Ambrose says: "I read of tears; I do not read of satisfaction." Tears of this kind, when they proceed from bitterness, incline the Lord to forgiveness. As a figure of which it is said in Fourth Kings chapter twenty: "Hezekiah wept with a great weeping"; and it is added there that the Lord delivered him from the danger of death. And therefore the holy prophet David, in the person of the penitent man, says in the Psalm: "I will wash my bed every night; I will water my couch with my tears." From which it is apparent what the fruit of the permitted denial was, namely, an example of penance and compunction; on account of which the Lord also drew the princes of the Apostles, Peter and Paul, out of the filth of vices. On account of which, First Timothy chapter one: "I was a blasphemer and a persecutor and insolent, but therefore I obtained mercy," "so that in me first Christ Jesus might show all patience, for the instruction of those who would believe in him unto eternal life."

Now Peter did not dare to weep openly, lest he should be detected by his tears, but he went out and wept. Ho wept not because of punishment, but because he denied his beloved Lord, which was more galling than any punishment.

For I consider Peter, I reflect upon the thief, I look at Zacchaeus, I gaze upon Mary, and I see nothing else in these except examples of hope and repentance placed before our eyes. For perhaps someone has fallen in faith; let him look to Peter, who wept bitterly because he had denied out of fear.

Did he not hold Peter in his mouth when he denied? But when he returned to life through repentance, this Leviathan in a certain way lost him as if through the hole in his jaw.

Mark says that Peter went out even after the first denial (Mark 14:68). Then it was natural for him to go back in again, so as not to arouse greater suspicion that he was one of Jesus' followers. But when he came to his senses again, he then goes out and weeps bitterly. And so as not to be noticed by those who were in the courtyard, he goes out secretly from them. Some, I do not know why, compose an insane defense in favor of Peter, boldly saying that Peter did not deny, but said: I do not know this "man," that is, I know Him not as a mere man, but as God who became Man. This insane argument we shall leave to others. For they make the Lord out to be a liar, they contradict the coherence of the Gospel narrative, and they will in no way be able to reconcile the order of the account. And what would Peter have to weep about, if he did not deny?

(de Con. Ev. lib. iii. c. 7.) The temptation of Peter which took place between the mockings of our Lord is not related by all the Evangelists in the same order. For Matthew and Mark first mention those, then Peter's temptation; but Luke has first described the temptations of Peter, then the mockings of our Lord, saying, And the men that held Jesus mocked him, &c.

And the men who held Him mocked Him, beating Him, and blindfolded Him, and struck His face. The prophecy is fulfilled that says: "With a rod they strike the judge of Israel on the cheek" (Micah 5). But He who was struck then by the blows of the Jews is also struck now by the blasphemies of false Christians. But they blindfolded Him, not so that He would not see their wickedness, but to hide His own face from them as they once did to Moses. For if they believed Moses, they might perhaps have believed in the Lord as well. But this veil remains over their hearts to this day, not revealed to them, but taken away from us who believe in Christ. For not in vain, at His death, was the temple veil torn in two.

And the men who held him, etc. After having described the arrest of Christ and the denial of Peter, here secondly he describes the mocking of the Lord after his arrest. And since this mocking was done by shameless and plotting Jews, therefore he first treats of the insolence of the mockers; second, of the malice of the plotters, at the passage: And when it was day. And since Christ is "the power of God and the wisdom of God," and according to this is to be honored in a twofold way, therefore by way of opposition a twofold dishonoring of Christ is described here, namely, through the mocking of him with respect to a deficiency of power and with respect to a deficiency of wisdom.

First, therefore, as regards the mocking of Christ as powerless, it is said: And the men who held him mocked him, striking him. And they blindfolded him and struck his face. As a figure of this, it is said in Job 16: "Reproaching me, they struck my cheek; they were sated with my punishments"; and Micah 5: "With a rod they shall strike the cheek of the judge of Israel." But they could not have done this unless he himself willed to endure it mercifully, according to that passage in Isaiah 50: "I gave my body to those who struck me and my cheeks to those who plucked them"; and Lamentations 3: "He shall give his cheek to the one who strikes him; he shall be filled with reproaches." This cheek, nay rather this beautiful face, upon which "the Angels desire to gaze," which "is full of graces" and "desired by all nations," which is the salvation of those who behold it — the impious Jews blindfolded, spat upon, and struck; but the Lord endured this for our sake. Whence Jerome says: "The Lord willed to be spat upon, that he might wash us; he willed to be blindfolded, that he might remove the veil of guilt and ignorance from our hearts; he willed to be struck on the head, that he might restore our head to health; he willed to be beaten with blows and mocked with words, that we with our lips and hands, that is, with words and works, might applaud."

Second, as regards the mocking of Christ as ignorant, he adds: And they questioned him, saying: Prophesy: Who is it that struck you? But they did this in mockery, mocking him who had said he was a true Prophet, of whom it is said in Deuteronomy 18: "The Lord will raise up a Prophet from your nation; you shall hear him as you would me." This Prophet they did not hear but interrogated with insult, according to that passage in Wisdom 2: "Let us interrogate him with insult and torment," because they struck him at the same time.

"For the men who held Him mocked and struck Him, saying, Prophesy, who is he that struck You?" "But He, when He was reviled, reviled not again: and when He suffered, He threatened not, but committed His cause to Him that judges righteously." Well therefore might we utter that which was said of certain men by one of the holy prophets, "The heavens were astonished thereat, and shuddered very greatly, says the Lord." For the Lord of earth and heaven, the Creator and Artificer of all, the King of kings and Lord of lords, Who is of such surpassing greatness in glory and majesty, the foundation of everything, and that in which it exists and abides----"for all things exist in Him"----He Who is the breath of all the holy spirits in heaven, is scorned like one of us, and patiently endures buffetings, and submits to the ridicule of the wicked, offering Himself to us as a perfect pattern of longsuffering, or rather manifesting the incomparable greatness of His godlike gentleness.

Or perhaps even He thus endures to rebuke the infirmity of our minds, and show that the things of men fall as far below the divine excellencies as our nature is inferior to His. For we who are of earth, mere corruption and ashes, attack at once those who would molest us, having a heart full of fierceness like savage beasts. But He, Who in nature and glory transcends the limits of our understanding and our powers of speech, patiently endured those officers when they not merely mocked, but even struck Him. "For when they had blindfolded Him, it says, and afterwards struck Him, they asked Him, Prophesy, who is he that struck You?" They ridicule, as if He were some ignorant person, Him Who is the Giver of all knowledge, and Who even sees what is hidden within us: for He has somewhere said by one of the holy prophets, "Who is this that hides from Me counsel, and shuts up words in his heart, and thinks that from Me he hides them?" He therefore Who tries hearts and reins, and Who is the Giver of all prophecy, how could He not know who it was that struck Him? But as Christ Himself said, "Darkness has blinded their eyes, and their minds are blinded." Of them too therefore may one say, "Woe to them that are drunken, but not with wine!" "For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and their tendril of Gomorrah."

Jesus, the Lord of heaven and earth, sustains and suffers the mockings of the ungodly, giving us an example of patience.

Those who did this to Jesus were certain revilers and unrestrained men, for it was necessary that the devil should leave no form of malice untried, but should pour out all of it, so that our nature, having proved holy in all things, might conquer and trample upon him. Since the Lord assumed our nature in order to strengthen it against all the wiles of the devil and to show that Adam too would not have been conquered in the beginning had he been vigilant, therefore, when all forms of devilish malice are poured out upon Him, He endures, so that we might afterward take courage, knowing that our nature has conquered in Christ, and not shrink before anything seemingly offensive and bitter.

Likewise the Lord of prophets is derided as a false prophet. It follows, And they blindfolded him. This they did as a dishonour to Him who wished to be accounted by the people as a prophet. But He who was struck with the blows of the Jews, is struck also now by the blasphemies of false Christians. And they blindfolded Him, not that He should not see their wickedness, but that they might hide His face from them. But heretics, and Jews, and wicked Catholics, provoke Him with their vile actions, as it were mocking Him, saying, Who smote thee? while they flatter themselves that their evil thoughts and works of darkness are not known by Him.

And they asked him, saying: Prophesy, who is it that struck you? And many other things blaspheming, they said against him. They did these things as a mockery of him, who wished to be regarded as a prophet by the people: but as he himself, who suffers, ordains, all things are done for us, so that as Peter exhorts, having suffered Christ in the flesh, we should arm ourselves with the same thought. And also heretics, or Jews to this day who deny Jesus as God, and evil Catholics, who, by their reproachful deeds, provoking him, do not believe that their thoughts and works of darkness are seen by him, as if mocking him, they say: Prophesy, who is it that struck you?

Therefore He endures mockery and beatings, and though He is the Master of the prophets, He is mocked as a false prophet. For the words "prophesy" to us, "who is the one who struck You," were meant to mock Him as an impostor who claims for Himself the gift of prophecy.

Likewise the Lord of prophets is derided as a false prophet. It follows, And they blindfolded him. This they did as a dishonour to Him who wished to be accounted by the people as a prophet. But He who was struck with the blows of the Jews, is struck also now by the blasphemies of false Christians. And they blindfolded Him, not that He should not see their wickedness, but that they might hide His face from them. But heretics, and Jews, and wicked Catholics, provoke Him with their vile actions, as it were mocking Him, saying, Who smote thee? while they flatter themselves that their evil thoughts and works of darkness are not known by Him.

And because it is not possible to narrate all the insults inflicted upon Christ, therefore, in order to conclude all things in a certain summary, he adds: And they said many other things blaspheming against him; and thus is fulfilled in them that passage of Isaiah 1: "Woe to the sinful nation, to a people heavy with iniquity! They have forsaken the Lord, they have blasphemed the Holy One of Israel, they are alienated backward." But Christ endured these things voluntarily, according to that passage of the Psalm: "The reproaches of those who reproached you have fallen upon me"; and this, so that he might give us an example for despising reproaches. Whence Hebrews 12: "Consider him who endured such opposition against himself"; and Chrysostom: "That divine head was struck by polluted and abominable men. What care, then, shall be ours henceforth regarding insults, after Christ has suffered these things?" But many are rather imitators of the Jews; whence Bede: "He who was then struck by the blows of the Jews is now struck by the blasphemies of false Christians, and he who was spat upon with the saliva of unbelievers is now dishonored by the mad reproaches of the faithful." Whence concerning such people can be understood that passage of Job 30: "They abominate me and flee far from me, and they do not hesitate to spit in my face"; and concerning such people Augustine says: "Those who blaspheme Christ reigning in heaven sin no less than the Jews who crucified him walking on earth."

(de Con. Ev. ut sup.) Now our Lord is supposed to have suffered these things until morning in the house of the High Priest, to which He was first led. Hence it follows, And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, Art thou the Christ? &c.

And when it was day, etc. After he described the insolence of the mockers, here he describes the malice of those lying in wait, and this in a fourfold manner: in assembling, interrogating, replying, and passing sentence.

First, therefore, as regards the malice in assembling, he says: And when it was day, the elders of the people assembled: they assembled, I say, together to consummate one wickedness, according to that passage of the Psalm: "The princes assembled together against the Lord and against his Christ." For concerning Behemoth it is said in Job 41: "His body is like molten shields, compact with scales pressing upon one another."

And because one wicked person draws another to wickedness, therefore he adds: And the chief priests and scribes led him into their council: they led him, I say, not to judge, but to ensnare, according to that passage of the Psalm: "For many dogs have surrounded me, a council of the malignant has besieged me." And in the council their hidden malice, which they had conceived against Christ, was laid bare, according to that passage of Proverbs 26: "He who covers hatred fraudulently, his malice shall be laid bare in the council." And therefore Jeremiah 18: "You, O Lord, know all their counsel against me unto death: do not be propitious to their iniquity, and let not their sin be blotted out from your face." And this is what is said in Mark 14: "The chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus, that they might deliver him to death."

But when at the dawn of day their wicked assembly was gathered together, He Who is the Lord of Moses, and the Sender of the prophets, after having been thus lawlessly mocked, was brought into the midst; and they asked if He were the Christ? O senseless Pharisee, if you ask because you know not, surely until you had learnt the truth you ought in no wise to have grieved Him, lest haply you should grieve God: but if you make pretence of ignorance, while really you know well that He is the Christ, you must hear what the sacred Scripture says, "God is not deceived."

But tell me, why do you question Him, and wish to learn of Himself, whether He be the Christ? For it is easy enough to obtain the knowledge of Him from the law and the prophets. Search the writings of Moses: you will see Him depicted there in manifold ways. For He was sacrificed as a lamb: He vanquished the destroyer by His blood: and was prefigured also in many other forms. Examine too the writings of the prophets; you will hear them proclaiming His divine and wonderful miracles. "For then, they say, shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the dumb shall hear: then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be plain." And again, "The dead shall arise, and those who are in the graves shall awake: for the dew from You is healing to them." Since therefore even you yourselves see the perfect clearness of the accomplishment of the prophecies respecting Him, why do you not rather acknowledge Him on the evidence of His divine miracles, and of His ineffable works?

When led before the council, He is asked whether He is the Christ. Of what Christ could the Jews have inquired but their own? Why, therefore, did He not, even at that moment, declare to them the rival (Christ)? You reply, In order that He might be able to suffer.

Drunken servants mocked and reviled Jesus Christ at night.

But they said: What further need do we have for testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from his own mouth. They accepted the testimony of the Lord, who himself said that he was Christ and the Son of God, in that he said: The Son of Man will be sitting at the right hand of the power of God. And to those asking: Are you then the Son of God? He answered: You say that I am. They therefore condemn themselves by their own judgment, who hand over to death him whom they know by the testimony of their own words and deeds to be God. They also condemn the Arians, who, after the Lord had already been glorified post-death, do not understand the words announcing divine majesty, which, while he was still bound, scourged, and mocked, the very executioners who were to crucify him understood.

Fourth, as to their malice in passing judgment, he subjoins: But they said: What further testimony do we desire? For we ourselves have heard it from his mouth. From which their perversity is apparent, because they were seeking with evil intent, namely "That they might catch him in his speech." It also appears that the perversity of their will perverted their judgment, because what Christ had said tentatively they accused him of having asserted. And thus is verified that saying of Ecclesiasticus 11: "Many are the snares of the deceitful one. Converting good things into evil, he lies in wait, and upon the elect he will place a stain." But this which he had intimated, namely that he was the Son of God, they regarded as blasphemy, and therefore as a blasphemer they judged him worthy even of death; whence Mark 14: "But the high priest, rending his garments, said: What need we any further witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy; what think you?" And then it is added there that "some began to spit upon him and to cover his face and to strike him with blows." — From which it can be gathered that this mockery was inflicted upon him twice, namely both by night and by day. Whence in John 18 it is said that a servant gave him a blow in the house of Annas; and the other Evangelists say that he was mocked in the house of Caiaphas, so that that saying of Jeremiah 20 is verified: "I am made a derision all the day long; all mock me; because I have long since spoken, crying out iniquity, and I proclaim devastation." And therefore now is fulfilled that which he foretold above in chapter 9: "The Son of man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes." Whence also in their person is said that word of Isaiah 53: "We desired him despised and the lowest of men, a man of sorrows and knowing infirmity; and his face was as it were hidden and despised, whence we esteemed him not. And we thought him as it were a leper and struck by God and humiliated." In figure of which it is said in 2 Kings 6 that "Michal, the daughter of Saul, despised David as he leapt"; so also the synagogue despised Christ suffering, and therefore she lost her offspring and her inheritance.

They say, "We no longer need any testimony," as being the hearers of Christ's words. What had they heard him say? O vile and senseless people, you wanted to learn if he were the Christ! He taught you that by nature and in truth he is the Son of God the Father, and he shares the throne of Deity with him. As you confessed, you now have no need of testimony, because you have heard him speak. You might now have learned best that he is the Christ. This would have proved for you the pathway to faith, had you only been one of those who would know the truth. Making even the pathway of salvation an occasion for their souls' ruin, they do not understand. They senselessly slay him, keeping but one aim in view in contempt of all law. They totally disregard the divine commands. It is written, "The holy and the just you shall not kill." They paid no regard whatsoever to the sacred commands but rushed down some steep hill to fall into the snares of destruction.

When Christ spoke this, the company of the Pharisees were very wroth, uttering shameful words; as it follows, Then said they, What need we any further witness?

By what means, however, are you going to prove to us that they pronounced the sentence "Ergo tu filius Dei es" interrogatively, and not affirmatively? Just as, (on the one hand, ) because He had shown them in an indirect manner, by passages of Scripture, that they ought to regard Him as the Son of God, they therefore meant their own words, "Thou art then the Son of God," to be taken in a like (indirect) sense, as much as to say, "You do not wish to say this of yourself plainly, so, (on the other hand, ) He likewise answered them, "Ye say that I am," in a sense equally free from doubt, even affirmatively; and so completely was His statement to this effect, that they insisted on accepting that sense which His statement indicated.

From this it is also evident that the obstinate receive no benefit from having mysteries revealed to them, but rather incur far greater condemnation. Therefore one must conceal these things from such people, for this is in fact the more compassionate thing to do.

There follows an admirable place, where the patience to bear moral harm is poured into the human breast. The Lord is accused, and he is silent: and he is right to be silent, who does not need to defend himself. Let those who fear to be conquered, roam around seeking to be defended. Therefore, he does not confirm the accusation by fearing it, but he despises it by not refuting it. For what would he fear, who does not seek salvation? He betrayed his own salvation for the salvation of all, that it may be acquired by all. And here Pilate absolves: but he absolves by judgment, he crucifies by mystery. But this is specific to Christ: the human aspect, that with unjust judges it seemed more a matter of unwillingness than inability to be defended. But why did the Lord remain silent? He himself gave the answer, saying: If I tell you, you will not believe me; if I ask you, you will not answer me. However, the most remarkable thing is that he preferred to prove himself as a king rather than to speak; so that those who accuse him could not have a reason to condemn him, as they confess what they object to.

Our Lord is accused and is silent, for He needs no defence. Let them cast about for defence who fear to be conquered. He does not then confirm, the accusation by His silence, but He despises it by not refuting it. Why then should He fear who does not court safety? The Safety of all men forfeits His own, that He may gain that of all.

(de Con. Ev. lib. iii. c. 7.) Luke, after he had finished relating the denial of Peter, recapitulated all that took place concerning our Lord during the morning, mentioning some particulars which the others omitted; and so he has composed his narrative, giving a similar account with the rest, when he says, And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him to Pilate, &c.

And the whole multitude of them arose and led him unto Pilate. That the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he had predicted concerning his death: For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death (Luke XVIII). By Gentiles, he indeed means the Romans. For Pilate was Roman, and the Romans had sent him as governor to Judea, to whom the Jews deliver the Lord to be crucified, wishing in this manner to make themselves appear as if not involved in his death, so that their cruelty might be shown, not their innocence.

That the word of Jesus might be fulfilled which He prophesied of His own death, He shall be delivered to the Gentiles, that is, to the Romans. For Pilate was a Roman, and the Romans had sent him as governor to Judæa.

First, therefore, as regards the wicked accusation, he says: And the whole multitude of them arose and led him to Pilate. The multitude came so that him whom they could not overcome by reason, they might at least conquer by numbers: Wisdom 4: "The manifold multitude of the ungodly shall not be profitable." And therefore it is dangerous to mingle with such a multitude; on account of which, Ecclesiasticus 7: "Do not sin in the multitude of the city, nor cast yourself into the people," because, Ecclesiasticus 21, "the congregation of sinners is like tow gathered together, and their end is a flame of fire."

For when He was brought before Pilate, they proceeded to urge Him with the serious charge , of declaring Himself to be Christ the King; that is, undoubtedly, as the Son of God, who was to sit at God's right hand.