Matthew § 111

The weight of Judas's impiety overshadowed the magnitude of his avarice. Seeing the Lord condemned to death, he brought the money to the priests as if it were in his power to change the sentence of Christ's persecutors. Although he would change his mind eventually, he could not change the consequence of his first decision.

Then seeing Judas, who had betrayed Him, that He was condemned, being moved by repentance, he returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. He cast away the weight of impiety from the greatness of his greed. Seeing that the Lord was condemned to death, Judas returned the price to the priests, as if he had the power to change the sentence of those who persecuted. Therefore, although he changed his will, he did not change the outcome of his first intention. But if he who handed over the innocent blood sinned, how much more did the Jews sin, who bought the innocent blood, and by offering a price, provoked the betrayal of the disciple? Let those who attempt to introduce different natures and say that Judas, the traitor, had an evil nature, and could not be saved by election, answer how an evil nature could have repented.

Judas, when he saw that the Lord was condemned to death, returned the money to the Priests, as though it had been in his power to change the minds of His persecutors.

This was a charge both against him, and against these men; against him, not because he repented, but because he did so, late, and slowly, and became self-condemned (for that he delivered Him up, he himself confessed); and against them, for that having the power to reverse it, they repented not.

But mark, when it is that he feels remorse. When his sin was completed, and had received an accomplishment. For the devil is like this; he suffers not those that are not watchful to see the evil before this, lest he whom he has taken, should repent. At least, when Jesus was saying so many things, he was not influenced, but when his offense was completed, then repentance came upon him; and not then profitably. For to condemn it, and to throw down the pieces of silver, and not to regard the Jewish people, were all acceptable things; but to hang himself, this again was unpardonable, and a work of an evil spirit. For the devil led him out of his repentance too soon, so that he should reap no fruit from thence; and carries him off, by a most disgraceful death, and one manifest to all, having persuaded him to destroy himself.

But mark, I pray thee, the truth shining forth on every side, even by what the adversaries both do and suffer. For indeed even the very end of the traitor stops the mouths of them that had condemned Him, and suffers them not to have so much as any shadow of an excuse that is surely shameless. For what could they have to say, when the traitor is shown to pass such a sentence on himself.

He brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests, and saith, I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood. And they said, what is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

For neither could he bear his conscience scourging him. But mark, I pray thee, the Jews too suffering the same things. For these men also, when they ought to have been amended by what they suffered, do not stop, until they have completed their sin. For his sin had been completed, for it was a betrayal; but theirs not yet. But when they too had accomplished theirs, and had nailed Him to the cross then they also are troubled.

Hear, ye covetous, consider what befell him; how he at the same time lost the money, and committed the sin, and destroyed his own soul. Such is the tyranny of covetousness. He enjoyed not the money, neither the present life, nor that to come, but lost all at once, and having got a bad character even with those very men, so hanged himself.

Observe that he repents only when his sin is finished and complete; for so the Devil suffers not those who are not watchful to see the evil before they bring it to an end.

Let us see whether or not, by the grace of God, we can explain the meaning of the following verse, which still remains hidden to many: "When Judas his betrayer saw him condemned, he repented and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests" and so on.If this were written after Jesus had been sentenced by Pilate, scourged and delivered to the Jews for crucifixion, we would not need to inquire any further into the meaning of the report that "Judas … saw him condemned" because we know that Judas was a party to those events. But how is it that Judas saw Jesus condemned before Jesus had either been sentenced or interrogated by Pilate? Some perhaps will answer that Judas was anticipating in his mind the final result of Jesus having been handed over by the chief priests and elders of the people, which he did witness. Others, however, will say that one whom Judas "saw condemned" was not Jesus but Judas himself. According to this account, when the chief priests and elders of the people handed Jesus over to Pilate, Judas then realized the evil he had done and understood that such an audacious act was already under the judgment and condemnation of God. Perhaps also Satan, who had entered Judas after the dipping of the morsel of bread, remained present in him until Jesus was delivered to Pilate but "departed from him" after he finished accomplishing Satan's will. Judas then sensed the devil's departure and at once saw and understood that "betraying righteous blood" is condemned by God, which he was able to understand only after the devil had ceased working in him. Only then, free from Satan's influence, was Judas capable of penitence by returning the thirty pieces of silver to those who had paid him. When the devil had left him, he could then say what he had not been able to say earlier, for when his heart was still full of Satan he was unable to confess, "I have sinned in betraying righteous blood." We are not saying, however, that the devil ceases to prey upon anyone whom he may have left. Rather, he waits and watches for an opportune moment to apply himself again. Even after his victim has sinned and come to recognize the devil's influence, he still waits and watches for yet a third opportunity to deceive.

Let the propounders of those fables concerning intrinsically evil naturesa answer me here, whence Judas came to the acknowledgment of his sin, I have sinned in that I have betrayed righteous blood, except through the good mind originally implanted in him, and that seed of virtue which is sown in every rational soul? But Judas did not cherish this, and so fell into this sin. But if ever any man was made of a nature that was to perish, Judas was yet more of such a nature. If indeed he had done this after Christ's resurrection, it might have been said, that the power of the resurrection brought him to repentance. But he repented when he saw Christ delivered up to Pilate, perhaps remembering the things Jesus had so often spoken of His resurrection. (John 13:27.) Or, perhaps Satan who had entered into him continued with him till Jesus was given up to Pilate, and then, having accomplished his purpose, departed from him; whereupon he repented. But how could Judas know that He was condemned, for He had not yet been examined by Pilate? One may perhaps say, that he foreboded the event in his own mind from the very first, when he saw Him delivered up. Another may explain the words, when he saw that he was condemned, of Judas himself, that he then perceived his evil case, and saw that he himself was condemned.

(Hil. Quæst. V. et N. Test. q. 94.) Since the Chief Priests were employed about the murder of the Lord from the morning to the ninth hour, how is this proved that before the crucifixion Judas returned them the money he had received, and said to them in the temple, I have sinned, in that I have betrayed innocent blood? Whereas it is manifest that the Chief Priests and Elders were never in the temple before the Lord's crucifixion, seeing that when He was hanging on the Cross they were there to insult Him. Nor indeed can this be proved hence, because it is related before the Lord's Passion, for many things which were manifestly done before, are related after, that, and the reverse. It might have been done after the ninth hour, when Judas, seeing the Saviour dead and the veil of the temple rent, the earthquake, the bursting of the rocks, and the elements terrified, was seized with fear and sorrow thereupon. But after the ninth hour the Chief Priests and Elders were occupied, as I suppose, in the celebration of the Passover; and on the Sabbath, the Law would not have allowed him to bring money. Therefore it is to me as yet unproved on what day or at what time Judas ended his life by hanging.

The very amount and the destination of the money, which on Judas' remorse was recalled from its first purpose of a fee, and appropriated to the purchase of a potter's field, as narrated in the Gospel of Matthew, were clearly foretold by Jeremiah: "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him who was valued and gave them for the potter's field.

Then Judas, who had betrayed Him, when he saw that Jesus had been condemned, repented, and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. Judas began to have second thoughts and he repented, but it was not a good repentance. To pass judgement against oneself is good, but to hang oneself is of the devil; for Judas was not able to endure the thought of the reproaches that would later be heaped upon him and so he fled from this life, when he ought instead to have wept and reconciled himself to Him Whom he had betrayed. Some say that Judas in his greed believed that he himself could gain the silver by betraying Christ, without Christ actually being slain, as He would escape from the Jews as He had done on many occasions. But when Judas saw that Jesus had been condemned and already sentenced to die, he repented that the affair had not turned out as he had planned. Whereupon he hanged himself thinking to precede Jesus into hades and there to plead for his own salvation. Nevertheless, know that while he did put his neck into the noose and hanged himself from a tree, the tree bent and he survived, as God wanted to save his life, either so that he could repent, or to make an example of him and to shame him. They say that Judas later became so bloated from dropsy that he could not pass through an opening that a wagon could easily pass through; and then falling face forward he burst asunder, or ruptured, as Luke says in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 1:18).

Here the repentance and death of Judas are treated. And concerning this he does two things. First, he narrates the betrayal; secondly, what was done with the price, at "but the chief priests having taken the pieces of silver, said." Concerning the first, first the repentance is treated; secondly, the despair, at "and casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed." Concerning the first he does three things. First, the motive is set forth; secondly, the repentance; thirdly, the effect. The motive: "then Judas, seeing that he was condemned, repenting himself, brought back the thirty pieces of silver." It may be that Judas believed, when he sold him, that he would not be killed but that he would be scourged; therefore seeing that he was condemned, he repented. But there is a question: when he was handed over to the governor, how could he see that he was condemned? Jerome says that he saw this with the eye of his mind, because since he saw that he was condemned by the Jews and handed over to Pilate, he thought that Pilate would judge according to their will, namely, of the Jews. Origen said that some have said: Judas seeing that he was condemned, namely, Judas himself, was moved to repentance from this. Hence "repenting himself, he brought back the thirty pieces of silver." And this repentance was not true repentance; yet it had something of repentance, because repentance ought to be a middle way between hope and fear; but Judas indeed had fear and sorrow, because he grieved over his past sin, but he did not have hope. And such is the repentance of the wicked; Wisdom 5:3: "repenting and groaning for anguish of spirit." And why was he led to repentance? It should be noted that Origen says that sometimes it happens that the devil impels a man to sin, and sometimes man himself does so; but in different ways, because man does so to fulfill his desire, the devil to destroy him. And if the devil put it in him, he did not have it from creation, and therefore he was able to repent. And this is against the Manichaeans, who say that there is a twofold creation, good and evil, and those who are of the evil creation cannot act well, and conversely. And according to them Judas was of the evil creation. How then could he repent? He says therefore that the fact that he despaired was only because he was negligent.

Yet if he sins who betrays innocent blood, how much more do they sin who purchase innocent blood and provoke a disciple by offering a reward for his apostasy. Those who deny the apostle's free will and attempt instead to explain Judas's betrayal by attributing to him an evil nature will need also to explain how a person of evil nature can repent.

(Serm. 52, 5.) When he says, I have sinned, in that I have betrayed innocent blood, he persists in his wicked treachery, seeing that amid the last struggles of death he believed not Jesus to be the Son of God, but merely man of our rank; for had he not thus denied His omnipotence, he would have obtained His mercy.

But they said, What is that to us? that is to say, What is it to us that He is righteous? See thou to it, i. e. to thy own deed what will come of it. Though some would read these in one, What must we think of you, when you confess that the man whom yourself have betrayed is innocent?

Next follows the effect. The effect of repentance is that the sinner strive to make amends. He had sinned because he had sold Christ, for he had done what was in his power: therefore he brought back the thirty denarii. And first, the retraction is set forth; secondly, the repentance, at "I have sinned in betraying just blood." He brought back, therefore, the thirty pieces of silver; and in this he retracted, saying "I have sinned," i.e., I have truly done wrong. But in saying "in betraying just blood," although he speaks well, it is not complete, because it can be referred to a just man. Hence Jeremiah 26:15: "if you put me to death, you will deliver innocent blood against yourselves." Hence Jerome says that if he had had right faith, he would not have despaired. For he ought to have said: "in betraying God." In this therefore, that he said "in betraying just blood," he diminished his power and showed himself not to have right faith. Then the obstinacy of the Jews is set forth: "but they said: What is that to us?" He was confessing that the man was just, and yet they say "what is that to us?" Jeremiah 8:7: "my people have not known the judgment of the Lord." "Look thou to it," i.e., we do not follow your conscience. Remigius: "what is that to us? You first sold him, and now you confess him just. What standing have you with us, who thus change your opinion?" For to change from evil to good is good: but from evil to evil is evil; Sirach 27:12: "the just man stands forever, but the fool is changeable as the moon."

"You shall not steal:" [Exodus 20:15] for Achan, when he had stolen in Israel at Jericho, was stoned to death; [Joshua 7:1] and Gehazi, who stole, and told a lie, inherited the leprosy of Naaman; [2 Kings 5:27] and Judas, who stole the poor's money, betrayed the Lord of glory to the Jews, [John 12:6] and repented, and hanged himself, and burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out; [Matthew 27:5; Acts 1:18] and Ananias, and Sapphira his wife, who stole their own goods, and "tempted the Spirit of the Lord," were immediately, at the sentence of Peter our fellow-apostle, struck dead. [Acts 5:1-11]

(Verse 5.) But they said: What is that to us? You see. And throwing the silver coins into the temple, he left: and going away, he hanged himself. It availed him nothing to have repented, by which he could not correct his crime. If at any time a brother sins against his brother, so that he is able to amend what he has sinned, it can be forgiven to him. But if his works remain, repentance is taken up in vain with words. This is what is said in the psalm concerning the same most unfortunate Judas: Let his prayer be turned into sin (Psalm 108:7); so that he not only could not correct the wickedness of his betrayal, but also added the crime of his own homicide to the former sin. Here's what the Apostle says in his second Epistle to the Corinthians: 'So that on the contrary ye should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.' (2 Corinthians 2:7)

It profits nothing to do an act of penance which is incapable of correcting the sin. If a man sins against his brother in such a way that the wrong he committed can be amended, it is possible for him to be forgiven. If the consequences of his sin remain in force, however, in vain does he attempt to do penance. The psalmist applies this truth to our most miserable Judas when he says, "Let his prayer be counted as sin." Not only was Judas unable to repair the damage of his sinful betrayal, but he even continued to compound the evil of that initial crime by committing suicide. Of such things the apostle speaks in his second epistle to the Corinthians: "Let not a brother be overwhelmed by greater sorrow."

But when the Devil leaves any one, he watches his time for return, and having taken it, he leads him into a second sin, and then watches for opportunity for a third deceit. (1 Cor. 5:1.) So the man who had married his father's wife afterwards repented him of this sin, but again the Devil resolved so to augment this very sorrow of repentance, that his sorrow being made too abundant might swallow up the sorrower. Something like this took place in Judas, who after his repentance did not preserve his own heart, but received that more abundant sorrow supplied to him by the Devil, who sought to swallow him up, as it follows, And he went out, and hanged himself. But had he desired and looked for place and time for repentance, he would perhaps have found Him who has said, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked. (Ezek. 33:11.) Or, perhaps, he desired to die before his Master on His way to death, and to meet Him with a disembodied spirit, that by confession and deprecation he might obtain mercy; and did not see that it is not fitting that a servant of God should dismiss himself from life, but should wait God's sentence.

Judas did not die by hanging, but lived on, having been cut down before he was suffocated. And the acts of the apostles show this, that falling head long he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. This fact is related more clearly by Papias, the disciple of John, and the fourth book of the Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord as follows:

Judas walked about in this world a terrible example of impiety; his flesh swollen to such an extent that, where hay wagon can pass with ease, he was not able to pass, no, not even the mass of his head merely. They say that his eyelids swelled to such an extent that he could not see the light at all, while as for his eyes they were not visible even by a physician looking through an instrument, so far have they sunk from the surface.

His genitals appeared entirely disfigured, nauseous and large. When he carried himself about discharge and worms flowed from his entire body through his private areas only, on account of his outrages. After many agonies and punishments, he died in his own place. And on account of this the place is desolate and uninhabited even now. And to this day no one is able to go by that place, except if they block their noses with their hands. Such judgment was spread through his body and upon the earth.

He hung himself, to show that he was hateful to both heaven and earth.

Then the despair is set forth. For one in despair cares nothing for temporal goods; and so this man acts, because "casting down the pieces of silver in the temple he departed" (he had no care for the money) "and went and hanged himself with a halter." Hence it is found at Acts 1:18 that he hanged himself and burst asunder in the midst. And why? Origen says that it happens that the devil hurls someone into sin, and although he gives a space of time, yet he wishes to hurl him into another. And the Apostle wished to guard against this, saying, 2 Corinthians 2:7: "lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow." So Judas came to such a depth of absorption that he went and hanged himself with a halter. Psalm 69:16: "let not the deep swallow me up." Origen narrates the opinion of certain people who say that because Judas had heard talk about the resurrection, he therefore believed he would meet Christ, and so he hanged himself. Augustine asks when this happened. Because if we wish to consider, we will scarcely find a time before the passion when this could have occurred, because the chief priests were occupied the whole day with the death of Christ. Likewise, on the following day it was the Sabbath, and they would not have received money on that day. Therefore Augustine seems to hold that this happened after the resurrection. Yet it can be said that although some had gone to Pilate and were occupied with the death of Christ, yet some remained in the temple, and to these Judas handed over the thirty denarii.

(Verse 6.) But the chief priests, having received the silver, said: It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. Truly straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. For if they do not put money into the treasury, that is, into the storeroom for gifts to God, because it is the price of blood, why is the blood itself being spilled?

Truly straining out the gnat, and swallowing the camel; for if they would not put the money into the treasury, because it was the price of blood, why did they shed the blood at all?

What then did that man? When he saw that he was laboring to no profit, and that they would not consent to receive the pieces of silver, "he cast them down in the temple, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the pieces of silver, and said, it is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, the field of blood, unto this day. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, and they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him that was valued, and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me."

Seest thou them again self-condemned by their conscience? For because they knew that they had been buying the murder, they put them not into the treasury, but bought a field to bury strangers in. And this also became a witness against them, and a proof of their treason. For the name of the place more clearly than a trumpet proclaimed their blood-guiltiness. Neither did they it at random, but having taking counsel, and in every case in like manner, so that no one should be clear of the deed, but all guilty. But these things the prophecy foretold from of old. Seest thou not the apostles only, but the prophets also declaring exactly those things which were matters of reproach, and every way proclaiming the passion, and indicating it beforehand?

This was the case with the Jews without their being conscious of it. For if they had cast it into the treasury, the thing would not have been so clearly discovered; but now having bought a piece of ground, they made it all manifest even to subsequent generations.

Hear ye as many as think to do good works out of murders, and take a reward for the lives of men. These almsgiving are Judaical, or rather they are Satanical. For there are, there are now also they, that take by violence countless things belonging to others, and think that an excuse is made for all if they cast in some ten or a hundred gold pieces.

The Chief Priests knowing that they had purchased a murder were condemned by their own conscience; they said, It is the price of blood.

Because the quality of resting places for the dead varies (for many are buried in their ancestral tombs which were secured by a pledge, but those who suffer misfortune are often buried in the graves of the homeless), those who received payment in exchange for the blood of Jesus used it to acquire a potter's field for the purpose of having a place in which to bury those foreigners who could not supply a pledge to secure a proper tomb. If it is suitable to interpret these foreigners typologically, we can consider those persons to be foreigners who remained strangers to God until the end and alien to his covenants. Vagabonds such as these meet their end buried in a potter's field acquired with blood money. The righteous are able to say, "We are buried with Christ in a new tomb cut from the rock in which no dead body had yet been laid," but those foreigners who remain finally estranged from Christ and alien to God will have to say, "We are buried with strangers in the field which is called the 'Field of Blood.' "

They thought it meet to spend upon the dead that money which was the price of blood. But as there are differences even in burial places, they used the price of Jesus' blood in the purchase of some potter's field, where foreigners might be buried, not as they desired in the sepulchres of their fathers.

Or, the foreigners are they who to the end are aliens from God, for the righteous are buried with Christ in a new tomb hewn out in the rock. But they who are aliens from God, even to the end, are buried in the field of a potter, a worker in clay, which being bought by the price of blood, is called the field of blood.

And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful to put them into the corban, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him that was valued, Whom they of the sons of Israel did value, and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me. The corban was the treasury in the temple in which they put the gifts offered to God. See how God brings to naught their schemes by exposing their bloodstained minds. For to this day, it says, that field is called "The field of blood," as a reminder to all that they murdered the Lord. Learn this as well, that the Jews were so diligent in providing hospitality that they purchased a plot where even strangers could be buried. Let us be ashamed, then, we who think we live a more perfect life while disregarding strangers. "The price of Him that was valued," it says, that is to say, the price of Christ. He was beyond price, yet the sons of Israel set a price on Him, having agreed to give Judas thirty pieces of silver.

He shows what was done with the money of Judas. And first, it is said how it is excluded from the treasury; secondly, on what it was spent. He says therefore: "but the chief priests having taken the pieces of silver, said: It is not lawful to put them into the treasury etc." It should be noted that into the treasury was placed the offering of gratitude, or the gift of grace. Hence some offerings were voluntary, others from obligation: the voluntary ones were put into the treasury, the others elsewhere; Sirach 34:23: "the Most High approveth not the gifts of the wicked." "It is not lawful therefore to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood." And in this the word of the Lord is verified, above at 23:24: "straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel." They did not wish to put this money into the treasury, but they readily dealt with the death of the Son of God.

(App. Serm. 80. 1.) It was brought about, I conceive, by God's providence, that the Saviour's price should not minister means of excess to sinners, but repose to foreigners, that thence Christ might both redeem the living by the shedding of His blood, and harbour the dead by the price of His passion. Therefore with the price of the Lord's blood the potter's field is purchased. We read in Scripture that the salvation of the whole human race has been purchased by the Saviour's blood. This field then is the whole world. The potter who is the Lord of the soil, is He who has formed of clay the vessels of our bodies. This potter's field then was purchased by Christ's blood, and to strangers who without country or home wander over the whole world, repose is provided by Christ's blood. These foreigners are the more devout Christians, who have renounced the world, and have no possession in it, and so repose in Christ's blood; for the burial of Christ is nothing but the repose of a Christian; for as the Apostle says, We are buried with him by baptism into death. (Rom. 6:4.) We are in this life then as foreigners.

In my daily paper this morning I read the following interesting paragraphs, which take my mind back to an England which I do not remember and which, therefore (perhaps), I admire.

"Nearly sixty years ago--on 4 September, 1850--the Austrian General Haynau, who had gained an unenviable fame throughout the world by his ferocious methods in suppressing the Hungarian revolution in 1849, while on a visit to this country, was belaboured in the streets of London by the draymen of Messrs. Barclay, Perkins and Co., whose brewery he had just inspected in company of an adjutant. Popular delight was so great that the Government of the time did not dare to prosecute the assailants, and the General--the 'women-flogger,' as he was called by the people--had to leave these shores without remedy.

"He returned to his own country and settled upon his estate at Szekeres, which is close to the commune above-mentioned. By his will the estate passed to his daughter, after whose death it was to be presented to the commune. This daughter has just died, but the Communal Council, after much deliberation, has declined to accept the gift, and ordered that the estate should be left to fall out of cultivation, and be called the 'Bloody Meadow.'"

Now that is an example of how things happen under an honest democratical impulse. I do not dwell specially on the earlier part of the story, though the earlier part of the story is astonishingly interesting. It recalls the days when Englishmen were potential lighters; that is, potential rebels. It is not for lack of agonies of intellectual anger: the Sultan and the late King Leopold have been denounced as heartily as General Haynau. But I doubt if they would have been physically thrashed in the London streets.

It is not the tyrants that are lacking, but the draymen. Nevertheless, it is not upon the historic heroes of Barclay, Perkins and Co. that I build all my hope. Fine as it was, it was not a full and perfect revolution. A brewer's drayman beating an eminent European General with a stick, though a singularly bright and pleasing vision, is not a complete one. Only when the brewer's drayman beats the brewer with a stick shall we see the clear and radiant sunrise of British self-government. The fun will really start when we begin to thump the oppressors of England as well as the oppressors of Hungary. It is, however, a definite decline in the spiritual character of draymen that now they can thump neither one nor the other.

But, as I have already suggested, my real quarrel is not about the first part of the extract, but about the second. Whether or no the draymen of Barclay and Perkins have degenerated, the Commune which includes Szekeres has not degenerated. By the way, the Commune which includes Szekeres is called Kissekeres; I trust that this frank avowal will excuse me from the necessity of mentioning either of these places again by name. The Commune is still capable of performing direct democratic actions, if necessary, with a stick.

I say with a stick, not with sticks, for that is the whole argument about democracy. A people is a soul; and if you want to know what a soul is, I can only answer that it is something that can sin and that can sacrifice itself. A people can commit theft; a people can confess theft; a people can repent of theft. That is the idea of the republic. Now, most modern people have got into their heads the idea that democracies are dull, drifting things, a mere black swarm or slide of clerks to their accustomed doom. In most modern novels and essays it is insisted (by way of contrast) that a walking gentleman may have ad-ventures as he walks. It is insisted that an aristocrat can commit crimes, because an aristocrat always cultivates liberty. But, in truth, a people can have adventures, as Israel did crawling through the desert to the promised land. A people can do heroic deeds; a people can commit crimes; the French people did both in the Revolution; the Irish people have done both in their much purer and more honourable progress.

But the real answer to this aristocratic argument which seeks to identify democracy with a drab utilitarianism may be found in action such as that of the Hungarian Commune--whose name I decline to repeat. This Commune did just one of those acts that prove that a separate people has a separate personality; it threw something away. A man can throw a bank note into the fire. A man can fling a sack of corn into the river. The bank-note may be burnt as a satisfaction of some scruple; the corn may be destroyed as a sacrifice to some god. But whenever there is sacrifice we know there is a single will. Men may be disputatious and doubtful, may divide by very narrow majorities in their debate about how to gain wealth. But men have to be uncommonly unanimous in order to refuse wealth. It wants a very complete committee to burn a bank note in the office grate. It needs a highly religious tribe really to throw corn into the river. This self-denial is the test and definition of self-government.

I wish I could feel certain that any English County Council or Parish Council would be single enough to make that strong gesture of a romantic refusal; could say, "No rents shall be raised from this spot; no grain shall grow in this spot; no good shall come of this spot; it shall remain sterile for a sign." But I am afraid they might answer, like the eminent sociologist in the story, that it was "wiste of spice."

(Vers. 7, 8.) However, with a plan devised, they bought a field from that potter, for the burial of strangers, therefore that field was called Acheldemach, which means the field of blood, to this day. Indeed, they acted with a different intention, that they might leave a lasting monument of their impiety from the purchase of the land. But we, who were strangers to the Law and the prophets, have embraced their corrupt practices for salvation: and we find rest in the price of his blood. But the field is called 'figulus' because our potter is Christ.

Also we, who were strangers to the Law and the Prophets, have profited by the perverse temper of the Jews to obtain salvation for ourselves.

Because the quality of resting places for the dead varies (for many are buried in their ancestral tombs which were secured by a pledge, but those who suffer misfortune are often buried in the graves of the homeless), those who received payment in exchange for the blood of Jesus used it to acquire a potter's field for the purpose of having a place in which to bury those foreigners who could not supply a pledge to secure a proper tomb. If it is suitable to interpret these foreigners typologically, we can consider those persons to be foreigners who remained strangers to God until the end and alien to his covenants. Vagabonds such as these meet their end buried in a potter's field acquired with blood money. The righteous are able to say, "We are buried with Christ in a new tomb cut from the rock in which no dead body had yet been laid," but those foreigners who remain finally estranged from Christ and alien to God will have to say, "We are buried with strangers in the field which is called the 'Field of Blood.' "

They thought it meet to spend upon the dead that money which was the price of blood. But as there are differences even in burial places, they used the price of Jesus' blood in the purchase of some potter's field, where foreigners might be buried, not as they desired in the sepulchres of their fathers.

Or, the foreigners are they who to the end are aliens from God, for the righteous are buried with Christ in a new tomb hewn out in the rock. But they who are aliens from God, even to the end, are buried in the field of a potter, a worker in clay, which being bought by the price of blood, is called the field of blood.

Then he narrates what was done with it. And first he states the deed; secondly, what came of it. He says: "and after they had consulted together etc." Why did they do this? It must be said that God so arranged it, that this deed should be kept in memory. Hence they bought with them the potter's field, to be a burying place for strangers, not for those who were of the country, but for foreigners. According to the mystery, this is fitting, because through the blood of Christ not only justification was hastened, but the repose of death; Apocalypse 14:13: "from henceforth now, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors." Or it may be that the strangers are those who do not have their own dwelling there; Psalm 120:5: "woe is me, that my sojourning is prolonged." But these are buried together with Christ. The Apostle, Romans 6:4: "you are buried together with Christ." That field is the holy Church. Hence above at 13:44: "the kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hidden in a field." That potter is Christ. Hence it is said at Jeremiah 18:6: "as clay is in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel."

(non occ.) To this day means to the time when the Evangelist was then writing.

Then the confirmation of the deed is set forth. And first, from the name: "for this cause that field was called Haceldama, that is, the field of blood, even to this day"; namely, up to that time in which this Gospel was written.

(de Cons. Ev. iii. 7.) But if any one thinks this lowers the historian's credit, first let him know that not all the copies of the Gospels have the name Hieremias, but some simply by the Prophet. But I do not like this defence, because the more, and the more ancient, copies have Hieremias, and there could be no reason for adding the name, and thus making an error. But its erasure is well accounted for by the hardihood of ignorance having heard the foregoing objection urged. It might be then, that the name Hieremias occurred to the mind of Matthew as he wrote, instead of the name Zacharias, as so often happens; and that he would have straightway corrected it, when pointed out to him by such as read this while he yet lived in the flesh, had he not thought that his memory, being guided by the Holy Spirit, would not thus have called up to him one name instead of another, had not the Lord determined that it should thus be written. And why He should have so determined, the first reason is, that it would convey the wonderful consent of the Prophets, who all spake by one Spirit, which is much greater than if all the words of all the Prophets had been uttered through the mouth of one man; so that we receive without doubt whatever the Holy Spirit spake through them, each word belongs to all in common, and the whole is the utterance of each. Suppose it to happen at this day, that in repeating another's words one should mention not the speaker's name, but that of some other person, who however was the other's greater friend, and then immediately recollecting himself should correct himself, he might yet add, Yet am I right, if you only think of the close unanimity that exists between the two. How much more is this to be observed of the holy Prophets! There is a second reason why the name Hieremias should be suffered to remain in this quotation from Zacharias, or rather why it should have been suggested by the Holy Spirit. (Jer. 32:9.) It is said in Hieremias, that he bought a field of his brother's son, and gave him silver for it, though not indeed the sum stated in Zacharias, thirty pieces of silver. That the Evangelist has here adapted the thirty pieces of silver in Zacharias to this transaction in the Lord's history, is plain; but he may also wish to convey that what Hieremias speaks of the field is mystically alluded to here, and therefore he puts not the name of Zacharias who spoke of the thirty pieces of silver, but of Hieremias who spoke of the purchase of the field. So that in reading the Gospel and finding the name of Hieremias, but not finding there the passage respecting the thirty pieces of silver, but the account of the purchase of the field, the reader might be induced to compare the two together, and so extract from them the sense of the prophecy, how far it refers to what was now accomplished in the Lord. For what Matthew adds to the prophecy, Whom they of the children of Israel did value, and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me, this, as the Lord appointed me, is found neither in Zacharias nor Hieremias. It must then be taken in the person of the Evangelist as inserted with a mystic meaning, that he had learned by revelation that the prophecy referred to this matter of the price for which Christ was betrayed.

(non occ.) He then confirms the event by the testimony of the Prophet; Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the Prophet, &c.

This prophecy does not come from Jeremiah but from a similar passage in Zechariah, who is almost the last of the twelve prophets. Although the meaning does not differ much, Zechariah's word order and vocabulary do conflict with Matthew's quotation. In a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures given to me by a member of the Nazarene sect, I recently read an apocryphal edition of the book of Jeremiah in which this quotation from Matthew appeared word for word. Nevertheless it still seems more likely to me that Matthew took this prophecy from Zechariah, since it was the ordinary practice of the Evangelists and apostles to communicate only the meaning of texts from the Old Testament while neglecting to observe their word order.

(Verse 9, 10) Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, 'And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me.' This testimony is not found in Jeremiah. But in Zechariah, who is almost the last of the twelve prophets, a certain similarity is mentioned (Zech. 11). And although the meaning does not differ much, nevertheless both the order and the words are different. I recently read in a certain Hebrew volume, which a Hebrew of the Nazarene sect offered to me, an apocryphal book of Jeremiah, in which I found the following words written verbatim. However, it seems to me more like a testimony taken from Zechariah: just like the Evangelists and Apostles commonly do, who, omitting the order of words, only present the meaning from the Old Testament as an example.

This is not found at all in Hieremias; but in Zacharias (Zech. 11:13.), who is the last but one of the twelve Prophets, something like it is told, and though the sense is not very different, yet the arrangement and the words are different.

(ad Pam. Ep. lvii. 7.) Far be it then from a follower of Christ to suppose him guilty of falsehood, whereas his business was not to pry into words and syllables, but to lay down the staple of doctrine.

(in loc.) I have lately read in a Hebrew book given me by a Hebrew of the Nazarene sect, an apocryphal Hieremias, in which I find the very words here quoted. After all, I am rather inclined to think that the passage was taken by Matthew out of Zacharias, in the usual manner of the Apostles and Evangelists when they quote from the Old Testament, neglecting the words, and attending only to the sense.

(in loc.) I have lately read in a Hebrew book given me by a Hebrew of the Nazarene sect, an apocryphal Hieremias, in which I find the very words here quoted. After all, I am rather inclined to think that the passage was taken by Matthew out of Zacharias, in the usual manner of the Apostles and Evangelists when they quote from the Old Testament, neglecting the words, and attending only to the sense.

This field then is this entire world, in which we who have been dispersed and scattered bear the fruit of good work for the Lord.Yet perhaps you would inquire of me, if the field is the world, who the potter might be who could have the ownership of the world. Unless I am mistaken, the potter is the one who made the vessels of our body from clay. Scripture says of him, "Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust from the earth." The potter is the one who, with the warmth of his own breath, made alive the slimy clay of our flesh and with fiery heat put together the fluid and earthly matter of our bodies. The potter, I say, is the one who fashioned us unto life with his own hands and who is refashioning us unto glory through his Christ. The apostle says, "We are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another." That is to say, we who from our previous condition have broken to pieces because of our own misdeeds are restored in a second birth through the loving kindness of this same potter. We who have been struck by death because of Adam's transgression rise anew through the grace of the Savior. Clearly this potter is the one of whom the blessed apostle says, "Will what is molded say to its molder?" And again, "Has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?" For from the same clay of our body God preserves some persons for the kingdom on account of their individual merits and keeps others for punishment. The field of this potter, then, was bought with Christ's blood for travelers. For travelers, I say, who were without home or country and were cast about as exiles throughout the earth, rest is provided by the blood of Christ, so that those who have no possession in the world might have a burial place in Christ. Who do we say that these travelers are if not very devout Christians who, renouncing the world and possessing nothing in the world, rest in the blood of Christ? For the Christian who does not possess the world utterly possesses the Savior. Christ's burial place then is promised to travelers so that the one who preserves himself from fleshly vices like a traveler and stranger may merit Christ's rest. For what is Christ's burial place if not the Christian's rest? We therefore are travelers, in this world, and we sojourn in this life as passersby, as the apostle says: "While we are in this body we are away from the Lord." We are travelers, I say, and a burial place has been bought for us at the price of the Savior's blood. "We have been buried with him," the apostle says, "through baptism in his death." Baptism therefore is Christ's burial place for us, in which we die to sins, are buried to evil deeds and are restored to a renewed infancy, the conscience of the old person having been dissolved in us for the sake of another birth.

Then he confirms it from authority: "then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremias the prophet." But there is a question: why does he say "by Jeremias the prophet saying," because the words, as they stand there, are not written in all of Sacred Scripture. Yet something similar is found at Zechariah 11:12: "they weighed my wages, thirty pieces of silver." There is therefore a question why it is attributed to Jeremias, when it was said by Zechariah. Augustine says that in some places it is found written "by the prophet" and not "by Jeremias," yet it seems that this one is Jeremias, as is found in the text. Jerome touches on the solution that the prophets wrote some books which were canonized among the Jews. Hence there are some books of the prophets which are not in the canon of the Bible, just as Jude mentions certain things in his canonical epistle, and the apostles also received all these. Hence he says that a certain person brought him a book of Jeremias where these words were written word for word, and the evangelist wrote according to what he found in the apocryphal work. Augustine resolves it thus: it sometimes happens that when one wishes to express the name of one author, the name of another comes to mind; therefore it may be that when he wished to write Zechariah, he wrote Jeremias. But there were many Jews at that time who knew the law; why did they not correct it? Because they thought it was said by divine inspiration, because all the prophets spoke by the Holy Spirit, and the words of a prophet have no efficacy except from the Holy Spirit; therefore, to insinuate this mystery, they did not correct it. Another solution which he suggests is that although they are not the words of Jeremias, yet there is a similar deed there, as is found at Jeremiah 32:6 ff., that he received the command to buy a field. Or the Holy Spirit moved Matthew to the same deed, as he had moved Jeremias.

But if we wish, we can accept the words of Jerome in his book on the best kind of translation, who says that a follower of Christ does not incur any mark of falsehood: for the office of a good translator is not to consider the words but the sense. Therefore he set forth the sense of certain writings in Jeremias and certain others in Zechariah, just as it is found in Mark that he sets forth the authority of Isaiah, one part of which is from Malachi and the other from Isaiah. So also Matthew joins two passages, one of which is from Zechariah and the other from Jeremiah 32:6. For what is in Zechariah, namely, that they weighed (i.e., took) thirty pieces of silver, is not found in Jeremias; but that he bought a field, which signified a deed for the whole people. "As the Lord appointed unto me": this is expressly found from the fact that he commands Jeremias, in the passage above, to buy a field. Therefore according to the first part it is found in Zechariah, and according to the second in Jeremias.

(de Cons. Ev. iii. 8.) Luke explains what were the accusations alleged against Him, And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. (Luke 23:2.) But it is of no consequence to the truth in what order they relate the history, or that one omits what another inserts.

Neither then nor now did Jesus make any reply to their accusations, for the word of God was not sent to them, as it was formerly to the Prophets. Neither was Pilate worthy of an answer, as he had no fixed or abiding opinion of Christ, but veered about to contradictory suppositions. Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?

He gave no other answer, however, for He knew that the tribunal was an unjust proceeding.

Next the accusation is treated. And first, the accusation is set forth; secondly, the inducement to respond, at "Pilate said to him." He says therefore: "and when he was accused by the chief priests, he answered nothing." On what charges he was accused, Matthew passes over in silence, but Luke says this at 23:1 ff. This is the custom of the evangelists, because what one omits, another narrates. Hence there it is said that he was seducing the crowds, etc., and that he forbade the giving of tribute to Caesar, and likewise that he called himself king. And this is false according to their intention, because they meant a temporal kingdom; but he says, John 18:36, "my kingdom is not of this world." But Christ answered nothing. Then was fulfilled what was said through Isaiah 53:7: "as a lamb before his shearer he shall be dumb, and shall not open his mouth." And at 42:2: "his voice shall not be heard abroad."

(Verse 13 and following) Then Pilate said to him: Do you not hear how many testimonies they speak against you? And he did not respond to him with any word, so that the governor wondered greatly. Now it was customary for the governor to release one prisoner to the people on the solemn day, whom they desired. Indeed, it is a Gentile who condemns Jesus, but he refers the matter to the Jewish people. Do you not hear how many testimonies they speak against you? But Jesus refused to respond, in order to not diminish the accusation from the governor, and to prevent the delay of the usefulness of the cross.

What then saith Pilate? "Hearest thou not how many things these witness against thee?" He wished that He should defend Himself and be acquitted, wherefore also he said these things; but since He answered nothing, he devises another thing again.

Of what nature was this? It was a custom for them to release one of the condemned, and by this means he attempted to deliver Him. For if you are not willing to release Him as innocent, yet as guilty pardon Him for the feast's sake.

Seest thou order reversed? For the petition in behalf of the condemned it was customary to be with the people, and the granting it with the rulers; but now the contrary hath come to pass, and the ruler petitions the people; and not even so do they become gentle, but grow more savage and bloodthirsty, driven to frenzy by the passion of envy. For neither had they whereof they should accuse Him, and this though He was silent, but they were refuted even then by reason of the abundance of His righteous deeds, and being silent He overcame them that say ten thousand things, and are maddened.

It might seem remarkable to you, brothers, that the Lord should be accused by the chief priests before the procurator Pilate and should be silent and that he should not refute their wickedness by his response, since indeed a defense which follows quickly is the only way to refute a persistent accusation. It might seem remarkable, I say, brothers, that the Savior should be accused and should remain silent. Silence is occasionally understood as avowal, for when a person does not wish to respond to what is asked of him he appears to confirm what is raised against him. Does the Lord then confirm his accusation by not speaking? Clearly he does not confirm his accusation by not speaking; rather he despises it by not refuting it. For one who needs no defense does well to keep silent, but let one who fears to be overcome defend himself and one who is afraid of being vanquished hasten to speak. When Christ is condemned, however, he also overcomes, and when he is judged he also vanquishes, as the prophet says: "that you should be justified in your words and should vanquish when you are judged." Why was it necessary for him therefore to speak before being judged, when for him judgment was a complete victory?

Then Pilate saith to him. From then on Pilate strove to release him, therefore he strove to make him answer; hence he said: "dost not thou hear how great testimonies they allege against thee?" And first, the urging is set forth: "dost not thou hear etc." But he said this because he wished to release him: for they who were the accusers were the witnesses, and therefore he did not wish to respond.

The ministers and elders of western Jewish literature, who are the sons of those chief priests and elders who accused Jesus, still today adopt and repeat these same allegations against him. On this account, since the sins of their forebears go before them and remain in them, their works suffer "[God's] wrath forever," and they are forsaken along with their entire people "like a tent in the vineyard, like a lodge in a cucumber field and like a city besieged." Just as Jesus "gave no answer" then, neither does he give an answer now to the accusations of the Jewish priests and elders. The Word of God remains silent toward them. Still today they turn a deaf ear to the Word of God, as they previously did to the prophets and to him at the consummation of the ages when he "was made flesh and dwelt among us."

The governor marvelled at His endurance, as knowing that he had power to condemn Him, He yet continued in a peaceful, placid, and immovable prudence and gravity. He marvelled greatly, for it seemed to him a great miracle that Christ, produced before a criminal tribunal, stood thus fearless of death, which all men think so terrible.

Pilate marveled at the Lord because He scorned death, and because, though He was eloquent and could have said a myriad of things in His own defense, He made no answer and disregarded His accusers. May we also learn from this to say nothing when we are brought before a corrupt court lest we cause a greater stir and provoke those who refuse to hear our defense to condemn us all the more.

But why he did not respond, the reason may be on the part of Christ, because he did not wish to excuse his passion: for he could have avoided it by speaking; therefore he did not wish to speak. "He was offered because it was his own will," Isaiah 53:7. Likewise, to give us an example, because "when he was reviled, he did not revile in return." Likewise, because the Jews had seen so many signs that they could have been converted, and therefore he considered them unworthy; Sirach 32:6: "where there is no hearing, pour not out words." And it should be noted that in many things he speaks, and in many he is silent, because if he always spoke, he would be excusing himself; likewise, if he always kept silent, he would seem obstinate. To Pilate he sometimes answers and sometimes does not; but to the Jews he never answers, because Pilate was ignorant, and therefore he sometimes told him the truth, but the Jews were obstinate. Then the astonishment of Pilate is set forth: "so that the governor wondered exceedingly." And why does he wonder? Because he had heard him to be most eloquent: and this is what David says, Psalm 38:14: "but I, as a deaf man, heard not; and as a dumb man not opening his mouth," i.e., as if he were ignorant. And note that he says "exceedingly": for that some wise man should answer nothing is remarkable; but that in such a case, where he is being sentenced to death, he should not answer, this is exceedingly astonishing. Likewise, because he did not see him terrified: for in such a case men are usually terrified too.

You should not be surprised that shortly after Roman rule had begun [in Palestine], the Jews who came under their yoke were granted the priviledge of asking for [the release of] "one [prisoner] whom they wanted," even though he appeared to be guilty of a thousand murders; the pagan nations granted a certain amount of leniency to their subjects until the yoke had been firmly secured around them.

Thus do the Gentiles show favours to those whom they subject to themselves, until their yoke is riveted. Yet did this practice obtain also among the Jews, Saul did not put Jonathan to death, because all the people sought his life. (1 Sam. 14.)

Now on that feast there was the custom that the governor would release unto the people a prisoner whom they wanted. And they had then a notorious prisoner whom they called Barabbas. Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ? For he knew that out of envy they had delivered Him. Pilate was eager to release Christ, though even that would have been cowardly; for he ought to have stood up for the truth. First Pilate asked the Lord, "Do you not hear what they are testifying against you?" He asked this so that if Christ had given a defense, he would have had a reason to release Him. But the Lord did not defend Himself, since, all-knowing, He knew that even if He made a defense He would not be freed. Pilate then turned to another course of action. He appealed to the custom at the feast, all but saying, "Even if you do not release him as innocent, pardon him on the feast as one who has been condemned." For how could Pilate have suspected that the people would demand the crucifixion of Jesus, Who was innocent, and the release of the guilty thief? Pilate knew, then, that Jesus was not guilty but was the object of spite, and it was for this reason that he asked them to choose which prisoner they wanted released. This shows that he was cowardly; for he ought to have disdained all danger to champion the good. Therefore he merits condemnation for having covered up the truth. "Barabbas" means "son of the father," "bar" meaning "son," and "abbas," "father." These Jews, therefore, demanded the son of their spiritual father, the devil, but Jesus they crucified. And to this day, there are those like them who have chosen Antichrist, the substitute messiah, the son of their father, and have rejected Christ, the true Messiah.

Then the condemnation is treated. And first, the diverse efforts of those wishing to excuse him are set forth; secondly, the efforts of those wishing to condemn him, at "but the chief priests and ancients persuaded the people that they should ask for Barabbas"; thirdly, the condemnation, at "then he released to them Barabbas." Concerning the first, first the effort of Pilate to free him is set forth; secondly, the effort of the chief priests to condemn him. Concerning the first, first he sets forth certain opportunities; secondly, he deals with his release; thirdly, he gives the reason. The second is at "therefore, they being gathered together, Pilate said"; the third at "for he knew that for envy they had delivered him." In the first he sets forth two opportunities. He says therefore: "now upon the solemn day the governor was accustomed to release to the people one prisoner." This custom was not from the law of the emperor, but from his own will, so as to make the people more devoted to him: because on the solemnity they ought to be more joyful, he did not wish there to be a cause of sadness on that day. So also at Rome, on the day when the emperor made his entrance, no one was sentenced to death. Likewise, he had newly acquired the prefecture, and therefore he wished them to be devoted to him. Yet something similar is read in the Old Testament, namely, that Saul freed Jonathan, who had been sentenced to death, 1 Samuel 14:44 ff.

At that time he had a notorious prisoner called Barabbas. Now, in the Gospel written according to the Hebrews, 'the son of their teacher' is interpreted as referring to this man, who had been condemned for sedition and murder.

In the Gospel entitled 'according to the Hebrews,' Barabbas is interpreted, 'The son of their master,' who had been condemned for sedition and murder.

And he sought to rescue Christ by means of this practice, that the Jews might not have the shadow of an excuse left them. A convicted murderer is put in comparison with Christ, Barabbas, whom he calls not merely a robber, but a notable one, that is, renowned for crime.

I believe that these events reveal something of a mystery. Barabbas represents the one who enacts dissension, war and murder in human souls, but Jesus is the Son of God who works peace, reason, wisdom and everything good. When the two of them were bound humanly and bodily, the people requested that Barabbas be released. Because of this act, they suffer continual dissention, murder and robbery. Such things afflict the pagans from without but the Jews, who do not believe in Jesus, from within their very souls. Where Jesus is absent, there is dissention and strife and war. Where Jesus is present, however, in such a way that the people can say "if Christ is in us, although the body is dead on account of sin, the spirit is alive on account of righteousness," there is everything good: spiritual riches beyond measure and peace, for "he is our peace who has made us both one." Anything contrary to this should be recognized as the mark of Barabbas struggling to be set free from his bondage within human souls, that is, not only in the historically sinful Israel, considered according to the flesh, but in all who teach like it and live like it. Within everyone who does evil, then, Barabbas is set free and Christ is bound. Within everyone who does good, however, Christ is set free and Barabbas is bound.

Then he sets forth the opportunity from a certain robber who was called Barabbas, which is interpreted "son of the father," namely, of the devil; John 8:44: "you are of your father the devil."

So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them: Whom do you want me to release to you, Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ? For he knew that they had handed Him over out of envy. Pilate offers them the option of releasing whoever they want, either the robber or Jesus, not doubting that they would choose Jesus, knowing that He had been handed over out of envy. Therefore, the evident cause of the cross is envy.

Pilate gives them the choice between Jesus and the robber, not doubting but that Jesus would be the rather chosen.

Whom will ye that I release unto you? &c. As much as to say, If ye will not let him go as innocent, at least, yield Him, as convicted, to this holy day. For if you would have released one of whose guilt there was no doubt, much more should you do so in doubtful cases. Observe how circumstances are reversed. It is the populace who are wont to petition for the condemned, and the prince to grant, but here it is the reverse, the prince asks of the people, and renders them thereby more violent.

"Therefore they being gathered together, Pilate said: Whom will you that I release to you?" Here Pilate acts contrary to the custom of the Jews, because he was not accustomed to ask them, but they used to ask him. But he did this because he sought to release him, and he seems to suggest it, because it seemed to him that they ought to prefer Christ to Barabbas; because this man was guilty of injury to majesty and had harmed many. Likewise, from the fact that he names Christ, saying "or Jesus who is called Christ?" For Christ means anointed. Hence he was calling him king, and therefore he believed they ought to accept Christ; Sirach 15:18: "before man is life and death." So Pilate set before them good and evil; and they chose evil, and therefore evil always follows them.

(non occ.) The Evangelist adds the reason why Pilate sought to deliver Christ, For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.

Thus it is plainly seen how the Jewish people is moved by its elders and the doctors of the Jewish system, and stirred up against Jesus to destroy Him.

John explains what their envy was, when he says, Behold, the world is gone after him; (John 12:19.) and, If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him. (John 11:48.) Observe also that in place of what Matthew says, Jesus, who is called Christ, Mark says, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? (Mark 15:9.) For the kings of the Jews alone were anointed, and from that anointing were called Christs.

Whence it is written, "From the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was God; " to whom "is given by the Father all power in heaven and on earth." "The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son" -from the very beginning even.

Then he sets forth the reason: "for he knew that for envy they had delivered him." From what did he know? For he had heard many good things about him, and he saw him constant; hence he knew that for envy they had delivered him. For just as the envy of the devil was hostile to the first man, so the envy of these men was bound to be hostile to Christ. So indeed Joseph was delivered up by his brothers out of envy, Genesis 37:28.

(Verse 19 onwards) Now while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, 'Have nothing to do with that righteous Man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of Him.' But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. The governor answered and said to them, 'Which of the two do you want me to release to you?' They said, 'Barabbas!' Note that God often reveals dreams to the Gentiles; and that the testimony of the people is that Pilate and his wife confess the righteous Lord.

Observe also that visions are often vouchsafed by God to the Gentiles, and that the confession of Pilate and his wife that the Lord was innocent is a testimony of the Gentile people.

"And when he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, have thou nothing to do with this just man, for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of Him." See what a thing takes place again, sufficient to recall them all. For together with the proof from the things done, the dream too was no small thing. And wherefore doth he not see it himself? Either because she was more worthy, or because he, if he had seen it, would not have been equally believed; or would not so much as have told it. Therefore it was ordered that the wife should see it, so that it might be manifest to all. And she doth not merely see it, but also suffers many things, that from his feeling towards his wife, the man may be made more reluctant to the murder. And the time too contributed not a little, for on the very night she saw it.

But it was not safe, it may be said, for him to let Him go, because they said He made Himself a king. He ought then to have sought for proofs, and a conviction, and for all the things that are infallible signs of an usurpation, as, for instance, whether He levied forces, whether He collected money, whether he forged arms, whether He attempted any other such thing. But he is led away at random, therefore neither doth Christ acquit him of the blame, in saying, "He that betrayeth me unto thee hath greater sin." So that it was from weakness that he yielded and scourged Him, and delivered Him up.

He then was unmanly and weak; but the chief priests wicked and criminal. For since he had found out a device, namely, the law of the feast requiring him to release a condemned person, what do they contrive in opposition to that? "They persuaded the multitude," it is said, "that they should ask Barabbas."

Thus then the judge is terrified through his wife, and that he might not consent in the judgment to the accusation of the Jews, himself endured judgment in the affliction of his wife; the judge is judged, and tortured before he tortures.

Jesus was delivered up out of jealousy, and plainly out of jealousy. Even Pilate could not ignore it. Furthermore, the Evangelist did not overlook the matter of divine providence regarding the praise of God, who desired to convert Pilate's wife in a dream. The woman took it upon herself to prevent her husband from passing sentence against Jesus. But Matthew did not explain the dream. All he said was that she had "suffered many things in a dream" because of Jesus. Therefore she "suffered in a dream" and did not suffer beyond that, so we may say that Pilate's wife was fortunate. She "suffered many things in a dream" because of Jesus and she received "in a dream" what she would suffer. Hence you may say it is better for someone to receive bad things in a dream than to receive them in life. Who indeed would not choose to receive bad things "in a dream" [rather than receive them] in life [unless one deserved such things, and it were better to receive bitter things in life than to receive minor troubles in a dream]? He finds comfort indeed and peaceful repose "in the bosom of Abraham" who receives bad things in his life (and not those bad things which he receives in his dreams), and because of them he will also be consoled. As to whether he will also have the beginning of conversion to God for having "suffered many things in a dream" because of Jesus, God only knows.

It is to be noted, that the bench (tribunal) is the seat of the judge, the throne (solium) of the king, the chair (cathedra) of the master. In visions and dreams the wife of a Gentile understood what the Jews when awake would neither believe nor understand.

Or otherwise; The devil now at last understanding that he should lose his trophies through Christ, as he had at the first brought in death by a woman, so by a woman he would deliver Christ out of the hands of His enemies, lest through His death he should lose the sovereignty of death.

When he was seated upon the judgement seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of Him. O, how miraculous! While being judged by Pilate, Christ caused his wife to suffer a fright. It was not Pilate who saw the dream, but his wife; either because he was unworthy, or because the people would not have believed that he had seen such a dream and would think that he said this only with a view towards granting a pardon. And perhaps he would have kept silent if he had seen the dream, as he was the judge. The dream was a work of providence, not occurring so that Christ would be released, but so that the woman would be saved.

"And as he was sitting in the place of judgment, his wife sent to him." Above the evangelist set forth one reason why Pilate strove to release him; here he sets forth another reason, namely, the warning of his wife. And first, the warning is set forth; secondly, the cause of the warning, at "for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him." As a certain Gloss says, the tribunal is the seat of judges. Proverbs 20:8: "the king that sitteth on the throne of judgment scattereth away all evil with his look." Properly, the chair belongs to teachers; above at 23:2: "the scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses." And it is called "tribunal" from the tribunes, because tribunes were first elected by the Romans to render judgments. And he says "in the place of judgment": and this is a Greek manner of speaking. For sometimes "pro" is taken for "before"; just as, "the army is before the camp," i.e., in front of the camp. Sometimes for "in"; hence "in the place of judgment," i.e., at the tribunal. His wife sent to him saying. This woman was a Gentile, and she signifies the Church of the Gentiles, which received Christ, as in 1 Corinthians 1. "Have thou nothing to do with that just man," i.e., it does not pertain to you to judge him; rather, he himself ought to be your judge; Acts 10:42: "who was appointed judge of the living and of the dead." "For I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him." Here the cause is set forth. And the manner of speaking is this: for when someone is withdrawn from the senses, certain things appear according to the imagination, and it is customary for a vision to be referred to what appears, since there is an alienation from the senses: but this happens sometimes in waking and sometimes in sleep. When in waking, it is called a vision; hence Numbers 12:6 says: "if there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I will speak to him by a dream." But here "prophet" is used for both. It should be noted that the cause of this is sometimes an intrinsic bodily one, as when blood is superabundant, there is an appearance of red things, and so with other things. Sometimes from an external cause, as from cold someone dreams he is in snow. But sometimes it happens from a spiritual cause, and this either from God through a good angel; and concerning this Job 33:15 says: "by a dream in a vision by night he openeth the ears of men." And these are true and have truth; yet one should not trust in them too much; Sirach 34:7: "give not thy heart to them, for dreams have led many astray." Sometimes they are caused by demons, who can impress upon the imagination, because it is a bodily power: hence divinations and things of this sort are forbidden in the law; Deuteronomy 18:10: "neither let there be found among you any one that observeth dreams, or auguries etc." Concerning this vision we can say that it was made by God through good angels; or by the devil, because it was aimed at impeding the passion: because in the passion there was the sin of killing. And in this way it was done through good angels; but from the passion follows its fruit, and therefore the devil, now perceiving him to be God and fearing to lose his power through the passion, just as he had put it in the mind of Judas to betray him, so now also wished to impede it, not because he wished to impede the sin, but rather the fruit of the passion.

When Pilate offered to release Jesus, following the customary practice wherein the people were granted the privilege of gaining the freedom of one prisoner per solemn feast day, they were persuaded by their priests to choose Barabbas instead. Here already the mystery of their future infidelity is contained in Barabbas's very name, which means "son of the father." They preferred this "son of the father" to Christ. At the instigation of their leaders, they chose the Antichrist, a man of sin and son of the devil. They chose the one elected for damnation over the author of life.

At the desire of the Priests the populace chose Barabbas, which is interpreted 'the son of a Father,' thus shadowing forth the unbelief to come when Antichrist the son of sin should be preferred to Christ.

See how much care he taketh for them to relieve them from blame, and how much diligence they employed, so as not to leave to themselves so much as a shadow of an excuse. For which was right? to let go the acknowledged criminal, or Him about whose guilt there was a question? For, if in the case of acknowledged offenders it was fit there should be a liberation, much more in those of whom there was a doubt. For surely this man did not seem to them worse than acknowledged murderers. For on this account, it is not merely said they had a robber; but one noted, that is, who was infamous in wickedness, who had perpetrated countless murders. But nevertheless even him did they prefer to the Saviour of the world, and neither did they reverence the season because it was holy, nor the laws of humanity, nor any other thing of the kind, but envy had once for all blinded them. And besides their own wickedness, they corrupt the people also, that for deceiving them too they might suffer the most extreme punishment.

But the populace, like wild beasts that rage the open plains, would have Barabbas released to them. For this people had seditions, murders, robberies, practised by some of their own nation in act, and nourished by all of them who believe not in Jesus, inwardly in their mind. Where Jesus is not, there are strifes and fightings; where He is, there is peace and all good things. All those who are like the Jews either in doctrine or life desire Barabbas to be loosed to them; for whoso does evil, Barabbas is loosed in his body, and Jesus bound; but he that does good has Christ loosed, and Barabbas bound. Pilate sought to strike them with shame for so great injustice, What shall I do then with Jesus that is called Christ? And not that only, but desiring to fill up the measure of their guilt. But neither do they blush that Pilate confessed Jesus to be the Christ, nor set any bounds to their impiety, They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. Thus they multiplied the sum of their wickedness, not only asking the life of a murderer, but the death of a righteous man, and that the shameful death of the cross.

And "the clouds were commanded not to rain a shower upon the vineyard of Sorek," -the clouds being celestial benefits, which were commanded not to be forthcoming to the house of Israel; for it "had borne thorns"-whereof that house of Israel had wrought a crown for Christ-and not "righteousness, but a clamour,"-the clamour whereby it had extorted His surrender to the cross. And thus, the former gifts of grace being withdrawn, "the law and the prophets were until John," and the fishpool of Bethsaida until the advent of Christ: thereafter it ceased curatively to remove from Israel infirmities of health; since, as the result of their perseverance in their frenzy, the name of the Lord was through them blasphemed, as it is written: "On your account the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles: " for it is from them that the infamy (attached to that name) began, and (was propagated during) the interval from Tiberius to Vespasian.

But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask for Barabbas, and kill Jesus. The governor answered and said unto them, Which of the two will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them, What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath He done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified. Why, then, did Pilate not release Him? Because it was not politic to do so as Jesus had been charged with accusations concerning kingship. But Pilate should have asked for evidence either that Jesus had enlisted soldiers or that He had forged weapons. Instead, Pilate let himself be drawn to their side, like one who is mute and cowardly, and because of this he is not without blame. For when they demanded the man who was notorious for wickedness, he handed Barabbas over; but when it came to Christ, he asked them, "What then shall I do with Jesus?" thus making them masters of the decision. Yet he was the governor and could have snatched Christ away from them, as the chief captain did with Paul (Acts 21:31-33). They said, "Let him be crucified," desiring not only to kill Him but to mark Him as a criminal, for the cross was reserved as a punishment for criminals.

Then the effort of the Jews wishing to kill Christ is set forth: "but the chief priests and ancients persuaded the people that they should ask Barabbas." In both respects they show themselves abominable, because as chief priests they ought to have corrected others; Proverbs 17:15: "he that justifieth the wicked is abominable." Similarly, because they were ancients; Daniel 13:5: "iniquity came out from the ancients of the people."

(non occ.) Pilate is said to make this answer, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? either to the message of his wife, or the petition of the people, with whom it was a custom to ask such release on the feast-day.

"And the governor answering said to them." Here he sets forth the effort by which Pilate strove to release him. And first, he shows by what words he acted for his release; secondly, by what deeds, at "and Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing." In three ways he strove to free him. First, by comparison; secondly, by his dignity; thirdly, by his innocence. By comparison, because he compared him with a criminal, answering, namely, the petition of the people or of those chief priests who were instigating him: "whether will you of the two to be released unto you? But they said: Barabbas." Which Peter also reproaches the people with, Acts 3:13, saying of Christ: "whom you indeed delivered up and denied before the face of Pilate, when he judged he should be released. But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you etc."

But even now all is not lost. There is still an appeal to the People—the poor and simple whom He had blessed, whom He had healed and fed and taught, to whom He himself belongs. But they have become over-night (it is nothing unusual) a murderous rabble shouting for His blood.

Plato in his Republic is arguing that righteousness is often praised for the rewards it brings—honour, popularity, and the like—but that to see it in its true nature we must separate it from all these, strip it naked. He asks us therefore to imagine a perfectly righteous man treated by all around him as a monster of wickedness. We must picture him, still perfect, while he is bound, scourged, and finally impaled (the Persian equivalent of crucifixion). At this passage a Christian reader starts and rubs his eyes. What is happening? Yet another of these lucky coincidences? But presently he sees that there is something here which cannot be called luck at all.

...Plato is talking, and knows he is talking, about the fate of goodness in a wicked and misunderstanding world. But that is not something simply other than the Passion of Christ. It is the very same thing of which that Passion is the supreme illustration. If Plato was in some measure moved to write of it by the recent death—we may almost say the martyrdom—of his master Socrates then that again is not something simply other than the Passion of Christ. The imperfect, yet very venerable, goodness of Socrates led to the easy death of the hemlock, and the perfect goodness of Christ led to the death of the cross, not by chance but for the same reason; because goodness is what it is, and because the fallen world is what it is.

(Verse 22, 23.) Pilate said to them: What then shall I do with Jesus, who is called Christ? They all said: Let him be crucified. The governor asked: What evil has he done? But they shouted even louder, saying: Let him be crucified. Pilate gave many opportunities to release the Savior. First, he compared him to a just thief. Then he asked: What then shall I do with Jesus, who is called Christ? That is, who is your king. When they replied, Let him be crucified, he did not immediately agree; but according to the suggestion of his wife, who had said: Have nothing to do with that righteous man, he also replied: What evil has he done? By saying this, Pilate absolved Jesus. But they shouted even more, saying: Crucify him. So that what was said in the twenty-first psalm would be fulfilled: Many dogs have surrounded me; A congregation of evildoers have encircled me. And that which Jeremiah said: My inheritance has become like a lion in the forest; They have raised their voices against me. Isaiah also agrees with this statement: I waited for them to do justice, but they did iniquity, not righteousness; they made a loud cry.

Yet even after this answer of theirs, Pilate did not at once assent, but in accordance with his wife's suggestion, Have thou nothing to do with that just man, he answered, Why, what evil hath he done? This speech of Pilate's acquits Jesus. But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified; that it might be fulfilled which is said in the Psalm, Many dogs have compassed me, the congregation of the wicked hath inclosed me; (Ps. 22:16.) and also that of Hieremias, Mine heritage is unto me as a lion in the forest, they have given forth their voice against me. (Jer. 12:8.)

Since therefore they ask for the other, He saith, "What shall I do then with the Christ," in this way desiring to put them to the blush, by giving them the power to choose, that at least out of shame they might ask for Him, and the whole should be of their bountifulness. For though to say, He had not done wrong, made them more contentious, yet to require that He should be saved out of humanity, carries with it persuasion and entreaty that cannot be gainsaid.

But even then they said, "Crucify Him. But he said, why, what evil hath He done? but they cried out exceedingly, let Him be crucified. But he, when he saw that he profited nothing, washed his hands, saying, I am innocent." Why then didst thou deliver Him up? Why didst thou not rescue Him, as the centurion did Paul. For that man too was aware that he would please the Jews; and a sedition had taken place on his account, and a tumult, nevertheless he stood firm against all. But not so this man, but he was extremely unmanly and weak, and all were corrupt together. For neither did this man stand firm against the multitude, nor the multitude against the Jews, and in every way their excuse was taken away. For they "cried out exceedingly," that is, cried out the more, "Let Him be crucified." For they desired not only to put Him to death, but also that it should be on a charge of wickedness, and though the judge was contradicting them, they continued to cry out the same thing.

Seest thou how many things Christ did in order to recover them? For like as He often times checked Judas, so likewise did He restrain these men too, both throughout all His Gospel, and at the very time of His condemnation. For surely when they saw the ruler and the judge washing his hands of it, and saying, "I am innocent of this blood," they should have been moved to compunction both by what was said, and by what was done, as well when they saw Judas had hanged himself, as when they saw Pilate himself entreating them to take another in the place of Him. For when the accuser and traitor condemns himself, and he who gives sentence puts off from himself the guilt, and such a vision appears the very night, and even as condemned he begs Him off, what kind of plea will they have? For if they were not willing that He should be innocent, yet they should not have preferred to him even a robber, one that was acknowledged to be such, and very notorious.

"Pilate therefore saith to them: What shall I do then with Jesus who is called Christ?" Here he appeals to his dignity: "what shall I do with Jesus?", as if to say: it will be injurious to you if you kill him who is called Christ. But they could not be deterred: rather, they all say "let him be crucified": for this was the most shameful death. Therefore what is said at Wisdom 2:20 is fulfilled: "let us condemn him to a most shameful death"; Isaiah 3:8: "their tongue and their devices are against the Lord."

"The governor said to them: Why, what evil hath he done?" Here he appeals to his innocence, intending to free him, as if employing what is said at Jeremiah 2:5: "what iniquity have your fathers found in me?" And John 8:46: "which of you shall convince me of sin?" "But they cried out the more, saying: Let him be crucified." Hence they could not be swayed, according to Jeremiah 8:5: "they have laid hold on lying, and have refused to return." Hence they were obstinate in malice.

(de Cons. Ev. iii. 8.) Pilate many times pleaded with the Jews, desiring that Jesus might be released, which Matthew witnesses in very few words, when he says, Pilate seeing that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made. He would not have spoken thus, if Pilate had not striven much, though how many efforts he made to release Jesus he does not mention.

Pilate accepted the water in line with that prophetic saying, "I will wash my hands among the innocent," that he might cleanse the works of the Gentiles by the washing of his hands and in some way separate us from the wickedness of the Jews who cried out "Crucify him!" What he intimated was this: I truly wanted to release an innocent man, but a riot is breaking out and the charge of treason against Caesar has been brought against me. So "I am innocent of the blood of this just man."The judge who was induced to pass judgment against the Lord does not condemn the defendant but puts the blame on the plaintiffs. He declares him to be a just man who was meant to be crucified. "See to it yourselves," he says. "I am the administrator of the laws. It is according to your word that his blood is being shed."

(Verse 24) But Pilate, seeing that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a tumult was taking place, took water and washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man: you shall see. Pilate took water, according to that prophetic saying: I will wash my hands among the innocent (Ps. 25:6); so that in the washing of his hands, the works of the Gentiles might be cleansed, and he might separate us from the impiety of the Jews, who cried out, crucify him, thereby attesting in a way that I indeed wanted to free the innocent man; but since sedition arises and an accusation of treason against Caesar is brought against me: I am innocent of the blood of this just man. The judge who is forced to pass sentence against Christ does not condemn the accused; but he accuses those who offer him, pronouncing that the one who must be crucified is just. He says, 'You will see. I am the minister of the laws: your voice sheds blood.'

Pilate took water in accordance with that, I will wash my hands in innocency, (Ps. 26:6.) in a manner testifying and saying, I indeed have sought to deliver this innocent man, but since a tumult is rising, and the charge of treason to Cæsar is urged against me, I am innocent of the blood of this just man. The judge then who is thus compelled to give sentence against the Lord, does not convict the accused, but the accusers, pronouncing innocent Him who is to be crucified. See ye to it, as though he had said, I am the law's minister, it is your voice that has shed this blood.

Also in the washing of Pilate's hands all the works of the Gentiles are cleansed, and we are acquitted of all share in the impiety of the Jews.

By what law is it, my Jewish friends, that what is unlawful to do is lawful to desire? By what standard is it that what defiles the body does not taint the heart? You fear to be contaminated by the shedding of his blood that you would take upon yourselves and your children. Since your wickedness will not commit so great a crime, allow the procurator to pass judgment. But, prevailing upon him impetuously, you do not allow him to swerve from that goal you deceitfully abstain from.Pilate sinned by doing what he did not want to do. He acquiesced in your judgment, doing whatever your rage wrought by force. Such was your observance of the law that you eschewed placing into the treasury the money which the seller of Christ returned to you, wary lest the blood money pollute the sacred coffers. Whose heart is guilty of this pretense? The conscience of the priests accepts what the money box does not receive. Thus with untold shades of deceit you cover yourselves, and a deal is made with the traitor.

(Serm. lix. 2.) The impiety of the Jews then exceeded the fault of Pilate; but he was not guiltless, seeing he resigned his own jurisdiction, and acquiesced in the injustice of others.

For Christ conquers when he is judged, because in this way he is proven innocent. Hence Pilate says, "I am innocent of the blood of this just man." It is a better case which is not defended and still is proved. It is a fuller righteousness that is not supplemented by words but is still supported by the truth. It must be that the tongue should keep silent when justice itself is present to itself. Let the human tongue keep silent in a good affair, inasmuch as it has also been accustomed to speak out in favor of bad causes. I do not want righteousness to be defended in the same manner that wickedness is usually excused. It is not by reason of speech but because of virtue that Christ vanquishes, for the Savior, who is wisdom, knows how to vanquish by keeping silent and how to overcome by not responding. Therefore he prefers to establish the truth of his case rather than to speak about it. What in fact would compel him to speak when silence is enough to conquer? But perhaps fear would compel him, lest he lose his life. Yet this was precisely the reason for his victory. He lost his own life in order to gain life for all; he preferred to be conquered in himself in order to be the victor in everyone.

It was customary among the ancients, when one would refuse to participate in any crime, to take water and wash his hands before the people.

Accordingly, all the synagogue of Israel did slay Him, saying to Pilate, when he was desirous to dismiss Him, "His blood be upon us, and upon our children; " and, "If thou dismiss him, thou art not a friend of Caesar; " in order that all things might be fulfilled which had been written of Him.

Onward even to the passion does the witness of baptism last: while He is being surrendered to the cross, water intervenes; witness Pilate's hands: when He is wounded, forth from His side bursts water; witness the soldier's lance!

When I was scrupulously making a thorough investigation of this practice, and searching into the reason of it, I ascertained it to be a commemorative act, bearing on the surrender of our Lord.

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, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this righteous Man: see ye to it yourselves. Pilate washed his hands as if to show that he was clean of defilement, but his thoughts were evil. For he called Jesus a righteous man and yet handed Him over to murderers.

"And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing." Here he intends his release through a deed; and first, the deed is set forth; secondly, the obligation of the people to punishment. He says: "and Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing." By this he gives us to understand that he had said many other things, and that nothing availed. "Taking water, he washed his hands." It was the custom that when someone wished to show himself innocent, he washed his hands; and so this man did; hence he said: "I am innocent of the blood of this just man etc." According to this manner it is found in Psalm 26:6: "I will wash my hands among the innocent." And truly he would have been innocent if he had persisted in his resolve; hence he calls him just. "Look you to it," i.e., consider what ought to befall you. Hence John 18:31 says: "take him you, and judge him according to your law."

(Verse 25) And all the people answered and said, 'His blood be on us and on our children.' This curse persists upon the Jews until the present day, and the blood of the Lord is not removed from them. Hence, Isaiah speaks: 'If you raise your hands to me, I will not listen to you. For your hands are full of blood' (Isaiah 1:15). The Jews leave the best inheritance to their children, saying, 'His blood be on us and on our children.'

Then answered all the people and said, His blood be on us and on our children. This imprecation rests at the present day upon the Jews, the Lord's blood is not removed from them.

For as though they were afraid lest they should seem to fall short at all in the crime, having killed the prophets with their own hands, but this man with the sentence of a judge, so they do in every deed; and make it the work of their own hands, and condemn and sentence both among themselves and before Pilate, saying, "His blood be on us and on our children," and insult Him, and do despite unto Him themselves, binding Him, leading Him away, and render themselves authors of the spiteful acts done by the soldiers, and nail Him to the cross, and revile Him, and spit at Him, and deride Him. For Pilate contributed nothing in this matter, but they themselves did every thing, becoming accusers, and judges, and executioners, and all.

What then did they? When they saw the judge washing his hands, and saying, "I am innocent," they cried out "His blood be on us, and on our children." Then at length when they had given sentence against themselves, he yielded that all should be done.

See here too their great madness. For passion and wicked desire are like this. They suffer not men to see anything of what is right. For be it that ye curse yourselves; why do you draw down the curse upon your children also?

Nevertheless, the lover of man, though they acted with so much madness, both against themselves, and against their children, so far from confirming their sentence upon their children, confirmed it not even on them, but from the one and from the other received those that repented, and counts them worthy of good things beyond number. For indeed even Paul was of them, and the thousands that believed in Jerusalem; for, "thou seest it is said, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe." And if some continued in their sin, to themselves let them impute their punishment.

If, however, you accept the gospel of truth, you will discover on whom recoils the sentence of the Judge, when requiting on sons the sins of their fathers, even on those who had been (hardened enough) to imprecate spontaneously on themselves this condemnation: "His blood be on us, and on our children." This, therefore, the providence of God has ordered throughout its course, even as it had heard it.

Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. The people took upon themselves the punishment for His murder, and this punishment indeed overtook them when the Romans destroyed them and their children. But even to this day, the Jews, who are children of those who slew the Lord, have His blood upon them. Because of their disbelief in the Lord they have been persecuted by all, and they have had no boldness before their persecutors on account of those words spoken to Pilate.

Then follows the offering of themselves to punishment: "his blood be upon us and upon our children." And so it happened that the blood of Christ has been required of them to this day; and what was said at Genesis 4:10 well applies to them: "the blood of thy brother Abel crieth to me from the earth." But the blood of Christ is more efficacious than the blood of Abel. The Apostle, Hebrews 12:24: "we have the blood speaking better than that of Abel"; Jeremiah 26:15: "but know ye, and understand, that if you put me to death, you shall shed innocent blood against yourselves."

The floggings [are] for the sins of the world, because the sinner is flogged many times, according to the prophecy that says, "I gave my back to the whips." And so is fulfilled [the saying] that the righteous [will give himself] for sinners. The height of goodness is also fulfilled when "the righteous [suffered] for the unrighteous," so that "by his wounds we might be healed," as Isaiah says.

Barabbas the robber, who had provoked a riot among the crowds and committed murder, was released to the Jewish people.… Now Jesus, having been delivered up by the Jews, was absolved of guilt by Pilate's wife and was called a just man by the governor himself. Moreover, the centurion declared that he was truly the Son of God. The learned reader may be hard pressed to explain the fact that Pilate washed his hands and said, "I am innocent of the blood of this just man," and later handed over the scourged Jesus to be crucified. It is important to realize that Jesus was dealt with according to Roman law, which decreed that whoever is to be crucified must first be beaten with whips. Thus Jesus was handed over to the soldiers for scourging, and their whips did their work on that most sacred body and that bosom which held God. This came about so that, in keeping with the words "many cords of sins" and with the whipping of Jesus, we might be free from scourging. As holy Scripture says to the just man: "The whip did not draw near to your tabernacle."

(Ver. 26.) Then he released to them Barabbas, but Jesus, after he had been scourged, he handed over to them to be crucified. Barabbas, a robber, who had caused insurrections in the crowds, who was a murderer, was released to the Jewish people, that is, the devil, who reigns in them even to this day, and therefore they cannot have peace. But Jesus, being handed over by the Jews, is acquitted by Pilate's wife, and is called just by the governor himself. And the centurion confesses that he is truly the Son of God. The learned reader may wonder how it is fitting for Pilate to have washed his hands and said, 'I am innocent of the blood of this just man,' and then handed over Jesus to be crucified after he had been scourged. But it should be known that he served the Romans' laws, which decreed that whoever is to be crucified should first be scourged. Therefore, Jesus was handed over to the soldiers to be scourged, and they tore into that most sacred body, capable of containing the heart of God, with lashes. However, this was done so that, as it is written: 'Many are the scourges of the wicked' (Psalm 31:10), by him being scourged, we might be freed from scourges, as the Scripture says to the righteous man: 'No scourge shall come near your tent' (Psalm 90:10).

It should be known that Pilate administered the Roman law, which enacted that every one who was crucified should first be scourged. Jesus then is given up to the soldiers to be beaten, and they tore with whips that most holy body and capacious bosom of God.

This was done that we might be delivered from those stripes of which it is said, Many stripes shall be to the wicked. (Ps. 32:10.)

"Then released he Barabbas unto them, but Jesus, when he had scourged Him, he delivered to be crucified."

And wherefore did he scourge Him. Either as one condemned, or willing to invest the judgment with due form, or to please them. And yet he ought to have resisted them. For indeed even before this he had said, "Take ye Him, and judge Him according to your law." And there were many things that might have held back him and those men, the signs and the miracles, and the great patience thirdly, he persuaded him to slay and to deny his murder; and did not leave him before he had put on him the crowning act of evil.

Wherefore it is necessary for us to resist the beginning. For at any rate, even if the first sins stopped at themselves, not even so were it right to despise the first sins; but now they go on also to what is greater, when the mind is careless. Wherefore we ought to do all things to remove the beginnings of them.

For look not now at the nature of the sin, that it is little, but that it becomes a root of great sin when neglected. For if one may say something marvellous, great sins need not so much earnestness, as such as are little, and of small account. For the former the very nature of the sin causes us to abhor, but the little sins by this very thing cast us into remissness; and allow us not to rouse ourselves heartily for their removal. Wherefore also they quickly become great, while we sleep. This one may see happening in bodies also.

(Hom. iii. in Cæna Dom.) See the Lord is made ready for the scourge, see now it descends upon Him! That sacred skin is torn by the fury of the rods; the cruel might of repeated blows lacerates His shoulders. Ah me! God is stretched out before man, and He, in whom not one trace of sin can be discerned, suffers punishment as a malefactor.

Those who were crucified being suspended on a cross, by nails driven into the wood through their hands and feet, perished by a lingering death, and lived long on the cross, not that they sought longer life, but that death was deferred to prolong their sufferings. The Jews indeed contrived this as the worst of deaths, but it had been chosen by the Lord without their privity, thereafter to place upon the foreheads of the faithful the same cross as a trophy of His victory over the Devil.

Barabbas also, who headed a sedition among the people, is released to the Jews, that is the Devil, who to this day reigns among them, so that they cannot have peace.

Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified. Pilate scourged Jesus, that is, he had Him whipped, either to gratify the people, or else to show that it was he himself who had condemned Christ, and to make it appear that they were not about to crucify an innocent man, but rather one who was dishonorable. Thus was fulfilled this prophecy of Isaiah as well, "I gave My back to scourges" (Is. 50:6).

"Then he released to them Barabbas." He released, i.e., he absolved him from the sentence of death. "And having scourged Jesus, he delivered him unto them to be crucified." And why scourged? Jerome says that it was the Roman custom that one sentenced to death was first scourged. And as it is said at John 19:1, he himself scourged him; hence what is found in Psalm 38:18 is fulfilled in him: "I am ready for scourges." Some say that he scourged him so that they might be moved to pity, and thus release him after the scourging.

(de Cons. Ev. iii. 9.) After the lord's trial comes His Passion, which Matthew thus begins, Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, &c.

(Verse 27 onwards) Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the praetorium and gathered the whole cohort around him. And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe around him. And twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, 'Hail, King of the Jews!' The soldiers, since Jesus had been called the King of the Jews and the scribes and priests had accused him of claiming to be the ruler of the people of Israel, did this mockingly. They dressed him in the scarlet robe as a symbol of royalty, put a crown of thorns on his head, gave him a reed as a scepter, and pretended to worship him as a king. But we must understand all these things mystically. For just as Caiphas said, 'It is necessary for one man to die for all' (John 11:50), not knowing what he was saying, so these people, whatever they did, although they had different intentions, nevertheless gave us, who believe, the sacraments. In the scarlet robe, he bears the bloody works of the Gentiles; in the crown of thorns, he undoes the ancient curse; with the pen, he kills poisonous animals. Whether he held the pen in his hand to write the sacrilege of the Jews.

He had been styled King of the Jews, and the Scribes and Priests had brought this charge against Him, that He claimed sovereignty over the Jewish nation; hence this mockery of the soldiers, taking away His own garments, they put on Him a scarlet cloak to represent that purple fringe which kings of old used to wear, for the diadem they put on Him a crown of thorns, and for the regal sceptre give Him a reed, and perform adoration to Him as to a king.

All these things we may understand mystically. For as Caiaphas said that it is expedient that one man should die for the people, (John 11:50.) not knowing what he said, so these, in all they did, furnished sacraments to us who believe, though they did them with other intention. In the scarlet robe He bears the bloody works of the Gentiles; by the crown of thorns He takes away the ancient curse; with the reed He destroys poisonous animals; or He held the reed in His hand wherewith to write down the sacrilege of the Jews.

As though on some signal the devil then was entering in triumph into all. For, be it that Jews pining with envy and jealousy were mad against Him, as to the soldiers, whence was it, and from what sort of cause? Is it not clear that it was the devil who was then entering in fury into the hearts of all? For indeed they made a pleasure of their insults against Him, being a savage and ruthless set. I mean that, when they ought to have been awestruck, when they ought to have wept, which even the people did, this they did not, but, on the contrary, were despiteful, and insolent; perhaps themselves also seeking to please the Jews, or it may be doing all in conformity to their own evil nature.

And the insults were different, and varied For that Divine Head at one time they buffeted, at another they insulted with the crown of thorns, at another they smote with the reed, men unholy and accursed!

What plea shall we have after this for being moved by injuries, after Christ suffered these things? For what was done was the utmost limit of insolence. For not one member, but the whole entire body throughout was made an object of insolence; the head through the crown, and the reed, and the buffeting; the face, being spit upon; the cheeks, being smitten with the palms of the hands; the whole body by the stripes, by being wrapped in the robe, and by the pretended worship; the hand by the reed, which they gave him to hold instead of a sceptre; the mouth again by the offering of the vinegar. What could be more grievous than these things? What more insulting?

For the things that were done go beyond all language. For as though they were afraid lest they should seem to fall short at all in the crime, having killed the prophets with their own hands, but this man with the sentence of a judge, so they do in every deed; and make it the work of their own hands, and condemn and sentence both among themselves and before Pilate, saying, "His blood be on us and on our children," and insult Him, and do despite unto Him themselves, binding Him, leading Him away, and render themselves authors of the spiteful acts done by the soldiers, and nail Him to the cross. and revile Him, and spit at Him, and deride Him. For Pilate contributed nothing in this matter, but they themselves did every thing, becoming accusers, and judges, and executioners, and all.

Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the praetorium, and gathered unto Him the whole company of soldiers. And they stripped Him, and put on Him a scarlet cloak. And when they had plaited a crown of thorns, they put it upon His head, and a reed in His right hand: and they bowed the knee before Him, and mocked Him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spit upon Him, and took the reed, and smote Him on the head. Here was fulfilled the word of David, "Thou hast made Me a reproach to the foolish" (Ps. 38:8). For the soldiers were foolish, and did things that befitted their foolishness: they clothed Him with a cloak as if it were the imperial purple; they gave Him a reed for a scepter and a crown of thorns for a diadem; they paid Him homage, in mockery, for this is the meaning of "bowed the knee." See how they performed every sort of insult and abuse: His face they reviled with spit, His head with a crown, His hand with a reed, the rest of His Body with a cloak, and His ears with words of mockery. But if they did these things in derision, you, O reader, must understand them also in a more spiritual manner, as something not merely done to, but accomplished by, Jesus. The scarlet cloak reveals our nature, bloody and murderous, which He assumed and sanctified by wearing it. The crown is made of thorns which are the sins resulting from our cares for this life; these Christ consumes with His own divinity, for His head represents His divinity. The reed is a symbol of our weak and crumbling nature which the Lord assumed, as David also says, "The right hand of the Lord hath exalted me" (Ps. 117:16). By receiving insults in His ears, He healed Eve of the whispering of the serpent which had entered her ears.

After the condemnation has been treated, here the Passion and death are treated; second, the burial, at "when it was evening etc." Concerning the first, he does two things. For first, he narrates what Christ suffered unworthily; second, what he did magnificently, at "now from the sixth hour there was darkness." The first part is in three. In the first, he treats the mockery by the soldiers; second, the crucifixion; third, the derision of the crucified by the Jews. The second is at "and after they had mocked him"; the third is at "and they that passed by blasphemed him." Concerning the first, first the mockers are described; second, the mockery. He says therefore the soldiers gathered together the whole cohort. A cohort is a company of soldiers, and anyone who had judicial power had a cohort of soldiers for carrying out judgment. The praetorium is said to be the place where judgments were carried out. Hence both Gentiles and Jews were gathered together to him, so that none might be exempt, because he had to redeem all. Therefore what is found in Romans 11:32 is fitting: "God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all." And in Psalm 117:10: "they surrounded me like bees."

It was not as though those men had the power [to do these deeds]. Rather, it seemed good to God that these events occur for the redemption of humanity. The "Lord of glory" was treated shamefully for us because of the dishonor due to us. He is now glorified while the day of the righteous is always mocked by the ignorant. Since the cloak was tinged with the color of blood, those murdering him dressed him with it, though they did not realize the significance of what they were doing. Instead, they clothed Jesus … in scarlet cloth and bound his hand with the symbol of one of the sons of Tamar and Judah. The cloak itself [represents] the blood shed by the world and by the people in it. The Savior was put to death for the salvation of all.

(ubi sup.) Hence we understand what Mark means by clothed him with purple; (Mark 15:17.) instead of the royal purple, this scarlet cloak was used in mockery; and there is a shade of purple which is very like scarlet. Or it may be, that Mark spoke of the purple which the cloak contained, though its colour was scarlet.

(ubi sup.) But Matthew seems to introduce this here as recollected from above, not that it was done at the time Pilate gave Him up for crucifixion. For John puts it before. He is given up by Pilate.

(Quaest. Ev. ii. in fin.) That they took from off the Lord in His passion His own garment, and put on Him a coloured robe, denotes those heretics who said that He had a shadowy, and not a real body.

These things were done to mock Jesus. But now we know these things happened through a heavenly mystery. Wickedness was at work among the former; among the latter, the mystery of faith and the light of truth. In the purple tunic Christ is dressed as king; and in the scarlet robe, as prince of martyrs, he is resplendent as precious scarlet in his sacred blood. He receives the crown as conqueror, for crowns are usually bestowed upon conquerors. He is adored as God by people on bended knees. Therefore he is vested in purple as king, in scarlet as prince of martyrs; he is crowned as conqueror, is hailed as Lord and is adored as God.We can recognize in the purple cloak also the church, married to Christ the king and resplendent with regal glory. Hence it is called by John in the Revelation a "royal nation." As to this purple cloth, we read in the Song of Solomon: "His whole bed is purple." For Christ rests on that bed where he is able to find purple cloth, that is, royal faith and a beautiful spirit.…

The beaten Lord is dressed in a scarlet robe, a purple cloak and a crown of thorns, and a reed is placed on his right hand. Bending their knees before him, they mock him. Having taken upon himself all the infirmities of our bodies, he is covered with the scarlet blood of all the martyrs destined to reign with him, and he is cloaked with the high honor of the prophets and patriarchs in purple cloth. He is also crowned with thorns, that is, with the former sins of the remorseful Gentiles, so that glory might derive from the destructive and useless things, plaited on his divine head, which they contrive. The sharp points of the thorns aptly pertain to the sins from which a crown of victory is woven for Christ. The reed symbolizes the emptiness and weakness of all those Gentiles, which is held firm in his grasp. His head, moreover, is struck. As I believe, not much harm was done to his head from being struck with the reed; however, the typical explanation for this is that the bodily weakness of the Gentiles that was previously held in Christ's hand finds comfort now in God the Father, for he is the head. But amid all this, while Christ is mocked, he is being adored.

Or otherwise; The Lord having taken upon Him all the infirmities of our body, is then covered with the scarlet coloured blood of all the martyrs, to whom is due the kingdom with Him; He is crowned with thorns, that is, with the sins of the Gentiles who once pierced Him, for there is a prick in thorns of which is woven the crown of victory for Christ. In the reed, He takes into His hand and supports the weakness and frailty of the Gentiles; and His head is smitten therewith that the weakness of the Gentiles sustained by Christ's hand may rest on God the Father, who is His head.

That scarlet robe was prefigured by the scarlet sign mentioned in Joshua the son of Nun, which Rahab used for her safety, and mentioned in Genesis, which was placed on the hand of one of Tamar's newborn sons in token of the future Passion of Christ. So now, in taking up the "scarlet robe," he took upon himself the blood of the world, and in that thorny "crown" plaited on his head he took upon himself the thorns of our sins. As to the robe, it is written that "they stripped him of the scarlet robe." But as to the crown of thorns, the Evangelists mention nothing further. Apparently they wanted us to determine what happened to that crown of thorns placed on his head and never removed. My belief is that the crown of thorns disappeared from the head of Jesus, so that our former thorns no longer exist now that Jesus has removed them from us once and for all on his own distinguished head.

Or otherwise, By the scarlet robe is denoted the Lord's flesh, which is spoken of as red by reason of shedding of His blood; by the crown of thorns His taking upon Him our sins, because He appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh. (Rom. 8:3.)

"And stripping him, they put a scarlet cloak about him." Here the mockery is described. And first, as to the garment; second, as to the honor; third, as to the reproach. The second is at "and bowing the knee before him, they mocked him"; the third is at "and going out, they found a man of Cyrene, named Simon etc." It should be noted that although they had accused him of many things, yet he was not suffering for any other reason than because he called himself king, as is found in John 19:12: "if thou release this man, thou art not Caesar's friend." Hence from this cause Pilate feared more. Therefore, wishing to mock him, they impose upon him the insignia of a king. For it is the custom that kings are clothed in purple; and these, in place of this, clothed him in a scarlet garment. He says therefore "and they put a scarlet cloak about him," i.e., a red one. But what is it that Mark says (15:17), that they clothed him in purple? Augustine resolves this by saying that he said this because of the similarity of the color. Or it can be said that although it was scarlet, yet it had something of purple. By the fact that he is stripped of his own garments and clothed in another's, heretics are reproved who said that he was not a true man. This cloak can signify the flesh of Christ stained with his own blood: "he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins," Isaiah 53:5. Or it signifies the blood of the martyrs, who washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb. Or the sin of the Gentiles.

But they who are choked by "worries, wealth and pleasure" have received the word of God but have not borne fruit. They weave thorns together and crown Jesus with them, dishonoring him.… Those who deemed his kingdom to be of little value placed a reed in his right hand.

The crown of thorns which the Lord received on his head stands for our community, which came to faith from the Gentiles. At one time we were thorns—that is to say, sinners. Believing now in Christ, we have become a crown of righteousness, for we no longer cause pain or harm to the Savior. Rather, we surround his head with our profession of faith while we praise the Father in the Son, because the head of Christ is God, as the apostle says. This is the crown foretold by David in a psalm: "You placed a crown of precious stones on his head." We were thorns at one time, but after we were included in the crown of Christ, we became precious stones. For he, who raised up children of Abraham from stones, made precious stones out of thorns.

This scriptural passage did not consider of trivial importance the fact that a reed was placed in the Lord's right hand. Note what David says about Christ in the psalm: "My tongue is the pen of a ready writer." As he was about to suffer, therefore, he took up the reed in his right hand, so that with a heavenly notation he might pardon us our misdeeds or inscribe his law in our hearts with divine letters. As he says through the prophet: "I will put my law within them." … We may also infer other things about the reed, for it has many spiritual meanings. A reed that is hollow and without pith connotes the Gentile people, who were once without the pith of God's law, empty of faith and devoid of grace. Therefore this type of reed, that is, the Gentile people, is put in the Lord's right hand, for his left hand already contained the Jewish people who were persecuting him.

But it is essential to feel that he may have gone to Glastonbury: all songs, arts, and dedications branching and blossoming like the thorn, are rooted in some such sacred doubt. Taken thus, not heavily like a problem but lightly like an old tale, the thing does lead one along the road of very strange realities, and the thorn is found growing in the heart of a very secret maze of the soul. Something is really present in the place; some closer contact with the thing which covers Europe but is still a secret. Somehow the grey town and the green bush touch across the world the strange small country of the garden and the grave; there is verily some communion between the thorn tree and the crown of thorns.

What can be said about the reed they placed "in his right hand"? Here is my explanation: The reed embodied the hollow and fragile scepter that we all were leaning on before we saw it was a bad scepter, for we were trusting in the reed-shaped rod of Egypt or Babylon or some other kingdom opposed to God's kingdom. Then he took that reed and rod of the fragile kingdom from our hands, to subdue it and break it to pieces on the cross. In place of that reed we once were leaning on, he gave us the scepter of the heavenly kingdom and the rod mentioned in Scripture: "The rod of justice, the rod of your kingdom." In other words, the rod that chastens those who need to be chastened, as the apostle notes: "What do you want, that I come to you with a rod?" He also gave us a staff that we might celebrate the paschal feast (as Scripture says, "Let your staff be in your hand"), laying down that reed-shaped rod we once had before we celebrated the Lord's paschal feast.Then they took this fragile, hollow reed and struck the honorable head of Jesus with it, for that ever-adverse kingdom reviles and scourges God the Father, the head of the Lord and Savior. And amid all this, the only-begotten goodness itself was unharmed, nor did he suffer anything, "being made a curse for us," since by nature he is a blessing. But since he is a blessing, he destroyed and took away and dispelled all human malediction.

Or, The reed was a mystery signifying that before we believed we trusted in that reed of Egypt, or Babylon, or of some other kingdom opposed to God, which He took that He might triumph over it with the wood of the cross. With this reed they smite the head of Christ, because this kingdom ever beats against God the Father, who is the head of the Saviour.

They smite the head of Christ with a reed, who speak against His divinity, and endeavour to maintain their error by the authority of Holy Scripture, which is written by a reed. They spit upon His face who reject in abominable words the presence of His grace, and deny that Jesus is come in the flesh. And they mock Him with adoration who believe on Him, but despise Him with perverse works.

"And platting a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand." Hence in place of a crown of glory, they imposed upon him a crown of reproach; Isaiah 22:18: "crown him with a crown of tribulation." By these thorns are signified the stings of sins, by which the conscience is wounded: and Christ accepted these for us, because he died for our sins. Or it can be referred to the curse of Adam, where it was said: "thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee." Hence it was signified that this curse was being dissolved. And in place of a scepter, a reed in his right hand. And according to Origen, the power of the demons is signified, which Christ snatched from their hands; 4 Kings 18:21: "thou trustest in this broken staff of a reed." For the vanity of the Gentiles can be signified, which Christ nevertheless assumed to himself; Psalm 2:8: "ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance." And the Gentiles are well compared to a reed, because just as a reed is carried by every wind, so the Gentiles are carried into every error. Likewise, the reed was used for writing. Likewise, for killing venomous things. So Christ draws the faithful to himself and enrolls them, but persecutors to death. Then the mock honor is treated, and they showed this in deed; hence it says "and bowing the knee before him, they mocked him." And although they did this in mockery, yet it signified that every knee ought to bow before him; Philippians 2:10: "in the name of Jesus every knee should bow." Hence they mocked him in word, saying to him: "hail, king of the Jews." And by these are signified those who profess that they know God, but in their works they deny him, Titus 1:16.

(Verse 30) And spitting on him, they took a reed and struck his head. At that time it was fulfilled; I did not turn my face away from the shame of spitting (Isaiah 50:6), yet when they strike his head with the reed, he endures everything patiently, to fulfill the true prophecy of Isaiah, which says: He will not break a bruised reed (Isaiah 42:3).

Likewise, they inflicted various insults, because they spat in his face; Isaiah 50:6: "I have not turned away my face from them that rebuked me and spat upon me." Likewise, they struck his head, as though he were a fool. And who are those who strike the head of Christ? The head of Christ is God, as is found in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Therefore those strike the head of Christ who blaspheme the divinity of Christ. By the reed, sacred Scripture is signified. Such men confirm their error through sacred Scripture.

This is to be understood to have been done at the end of all, when He was led off to crucifixion after Pilate had delivered Him up to the Jews.

(non occ. Aug. de Cons. Ev. iii. 9.) After the Evangelist had narrated what concerned the mocking of Christ, he proceeds to His crucifixion.

(Verse 31) And after they had mocked him, they stripped him of his cloak and dressed him in his own clothes, and led him away to be crucified. When Jesus is whipped, spat upon, and mocked, he does not have his own garments, but those which he had taken on for our sins. But when he is crucified and the spectacle of mockery and illusion is over, then he receives his former clothes again and puts on his own attire. And immediately the elements are disturbed, and the creature gives testimony to its Creator.

It is to be noted, that when Jesus is scourged and spit upon, He has not on His own garments, but those which He took for our sins; but when He is crucified, and the show of His mockery is completed, then He takes again His former garments, and His own dress, and immediately the elements are shaken, and the creature gives testimony to the Creator.

Of the cloak it is mentioned that they took it off Him, but of the crown of thorns the Evangelists have not spoken, so that there are now no longer those ancient thorns of ours, since Jesus has taken them from us upon His revered head.

And after they had mocked Him, they took the cloak off from Him, and put His own raiment on Him, and led Him away to crucify Him. And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear His cross. The three evangelists say that Simon carried the cross of Jesus, while John says that the Lord carried it Himself. It is likely that both events occurred. At first Jesus carried the cross as no one else was willing to carry it; but along the way they found Simon and placed the cross on him. You, O reader, learn this as well, that "Simon" means "obedience"; therefore he who possesses obedience is he who carries the cross of Christ. And Cyrene was one of the five cities of Pentapolis, signifying the five senses that are compelled to bear the cross.

"And after they had mocked him, they took off the cloak from him and put on him his own garments and led him away to crucify him." After the mockery, the crucifixion is treated, and concerning this he does two things. First, he determines concerning the place of crucifixion; second, concerning the manner, and concerning those things which were done in that place. And first, he narrates how Christ was led to the place; second, how the cross was carried; third, how they arrived at the passion. Note that he is mocked in another's garment but led in his own; by which it is signified that it was not proper to him to be mocked, but to be slain: because, as is found in Philippians 2:8, "he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death." For there his power appeared, Psalm 117:16: "the right hand of the Lord hath wrought strength"; Isaiah 53:7: "he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter."

Finally, the Gospel reports in the present reading that as the Lord was being led to his Passion, "they found a certain man of Cyrene named Simon and compelled him to carry the cross." The cross of Christ is the triumph of virtue and a trophy of victory. How blessed is Simon, who deserved to be the first to bear so great a sign of victory! He was compelled to carry the cross before the Lord because the Lord wanted to demonstrate his cross to be a singular grace of that heavenly mystery which is himself: God and man, Logos and flesh, Son of God and Son of man. He was crucified as man but triumphed as God in the mystery of the cross. His suffering was of the flesh, but his glorious victory was divine. Through his cross, Christ defeated both death and the devil. Through the cross, Christ mounted his chariot of victory and chose the four Evangelists, as though horses for his chariot, to announce so great a victory to all the world. Simon of Cyrene therefore was carrying the instrument of this great triumph in his arms. He was a partaker of the Passion of Christ so that he might be a partaker of his resurrection, as the apostle teaches: "If we die with him, we will also live with him. If we endure with him, we will also reign with him." Similarly the Lord himself says in the Gospel: "He who does not take up his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple."

The Savior is led to the suffering that brings salvation. They laid his cross on Simeon of Cyrene. Another of the holy Evangelists said that Jesus himself carried the cross. Now surely both [accounts] are correct. For the Savior carried the cross, and, having met the Cyrene about half way, they transferred the cross to him. It is said about him through the voice of Isaiah that "a child has been born to us, and a son has been given to us, and the government shall be upon his shoulders." Now the cross has become the means by which he governs, through which he continues to rule over all heaven, since it is true that even as "far as death" he has become "obedient, even to death of a cross. Therefore God has exalted him."

This is well signified by that Simon who, found on the road, carries the Lord's cross under compulsion. For burdens belonging to another are carried under compulsion when something is done through the pursuit of vanity. Who then are designated by Simon, if not the abstinent and arrogant? They indeed afflict the flesh through abstinence, but they do not seek the fruit of abstinence within. Therefore Simon carries the Lord's cross under compulsion, because when he is not led to a good work by good will, a sinner performs the deed of a just man without fruit. Hence the same Simon carries the cross but does not die, because the abstinent and arrogant indeed afflict the body through abstinence, but through the desire for glory they live to the world.

(Hom. in. Ev. xxxii. 3.) Or otherwise; By Simon who bears the burden of the Lord's cross are denoted those who are abstinent and proud; these by their abstinence afflict their flesh, but seek not within the fruit of abstinence. Thus Simon bears the cross, but does not die thereon, as these afflict the body, but in desire of vain-glory live to the world.

For a Jew was not worthy to bear Christ's cross, but it was reserved for the faith of the Gentiles both to take the cross, and to suffer with Him.

(Verse 32) And as they went out, they found a man of Cyrene, named Simon: him they compelled to bear his cross. Lest anyone think that this account is contradictory to the story of John the Evangelist. For he said that the Lord, going out of the praetorium, carried his own cross; but Matthew reports that they found a man of Cyrene, named Simon, whom they compelled to bear Jesus' cross. But this is to be understood, that Jesus, going out of the praetorium, himself carried his own cross; afterward they encountered Simon, to whom they imposed the task of carrying the cross. According to anagoge, the nations accept the cross of Jesus, and the obedient stranger carries the ignominy of the Savior.

Let none think that John's narrative contradicts this place of the Evangelist. John says that the Lord went forth from the prætorium bearing His cross; Matthew tells, that they found a man of Cyrene upon whom they laid Jesus' cross. We must suppose that as Jesus went out of the prætorium, He was bearing His cross, and that afterwards they met Simon, whom they compelled to bear it.

Figuratively, the nations take up the cross, and the foreigner by obedience bears the ignominy of the Saviour.

But as the multitudes went with Jesus to the place of punishment, a certain Simon of Cyrene was found on whom to lay the wood of the cross, instead of the Lord. Even this act signified that faith would come to the Gentiles, to whom the cross of Christ was not to be shame but glory. It was not accidental therefore but symbolic and mystical, that while the Jewish rulers were raging against Christ, a foreigner was found to share his sufferings. Thus the apostle would say, "If we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him."Note that it was not a Hebrew or an Israelite but a foreigner who was drawn into service for the Savior in his most holy humiliation. By this transference the propitiation of the spotless Lamb and the fulfillment of all mysteries passed from the circumcision to the uncircumcision, from the sons according to the flesh to the sons according to the spirit. Hence the apostle would say, "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us." He offered himself to the Father as a new and true sacrifice of reconciliation. He was slain not in the temple, whose worship was now at an end, and not within the confines of the city which for its sin was doomed to be destroyed, but beyond the walls of the city, "outside the gate." Thus with the cessation of the old symbolic victims, a new victim was being placed on a new altar. The cross of Christ was to become the altar not of the temple but of the world.

"As they went out, they came upon a man of Cyrene, Simon by name; they compelled this man to carry the cross" of Christ. It was fitting not only for the Savior to take up his cross but also for us to carry it, doing compulsory service for our salvation. Furthermore, we did not benefit by taking up his cross then as much as we benefit by it now, since he takes it upon himself and carries it.

Or, as they went out, they laid hold of Simon, but when they drew near to the place in which they would crucify Him, they laid the cross upon Him that He might bear it. Simon obtained not this office by chance, but was brought to the spot by God's providence, that he might be found worthy of mention in the Scriptures of the Gospel, and of the ministry of the cross of Christ. And it was not only meet that the Saviour should carry His cross, but meet also that we should take part therein, filling a carriage so beneficial to us, ἀγγαρεία. Yet would it not have so profited us to take it on us, as we have profited by His taking it upon Himself.

For this Simon was not a man of Jerusalem, but a foreigner, and denizen, being a Cyrenean; Cyrene is a town of Lybia. Simon is interpreted 'obedient,' and a Cyrenean 'an heir;' whence he well denotes the people of the Gentiles, which was strange to the testaments of God, but by believing became a fellow-citizen of the saints, of the household, and an heir of God.

Christ, moreover, he affirms to have been sent, not by this maker of the world, but by the above-named Abraxas; and to have come in a phantasm, and been destitute of the substance of flesh: that it was not He who suffered among the Jews, but that Simon was crucified in His stead: whence, again, there must be no believing on him who was crucified, lest one confess to having believed on Simon.

"And going out, they found a man of Cyrene, named Simon: him they forced to take up his cross." Here the carrying of the cross is treated. And by this it is signified that he did not wish to suffer in the city, but outside. And the reason is assigned in Hebrews 13:12, where it says: "wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people by his own blood, suffered without the gate." It is also fitting to the figure, because, as is found in Leviticus 16:19 ff., the goat which was to be immolated for sin was sent outside the camp; so also Christ, because he was the victim of the people. Likewise, for our edification, to give us to understand that we ought to go out to him beyond our own way of life; Hebrews 13: "bearing his reproach." Likewise, he suffered outside the gate, so that the power of the Passion would not be confined to one nation; John 11:52, he died so that he might gather together all nations into one. Him they forced to carry his cross. Here there seems to be a discrepancy, because in John 19:17, it says that he went forth, bearing his own cross. There is a certain solution according to Jerome, that he first carried it, but as they were going along, they met Simon and forced him, etc. Origen says that the opposite was the case, that Simon first carried it, and afterward Christ. And the reason is mystical why he first bore the cross. Hence above (16:24): "if any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me etc." And it should be noted that this Simon was a foreigner: and he signifies the Gentile people, who bore the cross of the Lord; 1 Corinthians 1:18: "the word of the cross, to them indeed that perish, is foolishness; but to them that are saved, that is, to us, it is the power of God." And Simon means "obedient": and the Gentile people obeyed; Psalm 17:45: "the people whom I knew not hath served me; at the hearing of the ear they have obeyed me." And he came from the country. "Villa" in Latin is "pagos" in Greek. Hence he who comes from the country comes from paganism. It is also fitting that he is called a Cyrenean, which is interpreted "inheritance of a price"; Psalm 2:8: "ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance." And that it says they forced him signifies those who outwardly bear the cross, but inwardly bear it under compulsion, because not for God's sake, but for the world's. Galatians 5:24: "they that are Christ's have crucified their flesh with the vices and concupiscences."