in the world, he loved them to the end (11); and when supper was done," as we have just related, "(the devil having now put into the heart (12) of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him) (13), knowing that the Father had (14) given him all things into his hands, and that he came from God, and goeth to God: He riseth from supper, and layeth aside his garments, and having taken a tow

(11) His disciples: all his elect who were in existence are included in this number, viz., all those whom he left in the world, a land of misery, of woe, and of crime, which increased his tender compassion for them. He loved them until the end of his life. This is the signification of the word in finem. Others understand by this expression that he loved them to excess. Nothing is more true; and his love never appeared so excessive as in his last moments, wherein he made himself their victim, after having made himself their food. However, the literal sense only expresses the constancy of his love, which, far from being susceptible of change or alteration, appeared always on the in

crease.

(12) The instigation of the devil is mentioned, and even more than once, in order that we may know how, having been the principal instigator of the Saviour's death, he has deserved, as we have elsewhere remarked, to be deprived of the empire of death. God might also have had another design. He foresaw that people would one day assert that the treachery of Judas is not less the work of God than the conversion of Saint Paul. (Protestants have made this assertion.) This blasphemy is, therefore, refuted by anticipation, and Satan is not more opposed to God than these new evangelists are opposed to the Gospel.

(13) The knowledge which he had of the treachery and of the traitor did not hinder him from washing his feet, and giving him his flesh to eat. The evangelist alludes to it in this place only, for the purpose of making us observe this prodigy of love and of humility. If it were not for this reason, his allusion to it here would be misplaced.

(14) Jesus knew that the work of the redemption had been confided to him by the Father, and that he alone who had commenced it should himself finish it. As the time was becoming short, since he was on the point of returning to the bosom of God from whence he had gone forth, he did three things which he could no longer defer, and which he judged necessary for the establishment and preservation of his Church. He gave an example of the most profound humility; he instituted the sacrament and the perpetual sacrifice of his body and of his blood; lastly, he finished his instructions to us in the person of his apostles, by the admirable discourse which he addressed to them after supper. This is the most common explanation of these words: they are also explained in the following manner: Jesus, although knowing that he had received from the Father the plenitude of divinity and of power, did not disdain to humble himself at the feet of his apostles, and to wash them with his own hands. This sense is very fine; whilst recalling to mind the infinite greatness of him who humbles himself, it paints, with a single stroke, the depth of his humiliations.

If the great who imitate him in this point are sensible of their greatness, they should also remember that he who has given them the example is infinitely higher above them than they themselves are above the poor whom they serve.

el, he girded himself." After these preparations, to which these words are so applicable: He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant “after that he putteth water into a basin, and began to wash the feet of the disciples, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. He cometh, therefore, to Simon Peter (15). And Peter saith to him: Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered, and said to him: What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter saith to him: Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him: If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me (16). Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head (17). Jesus saith to him: He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly (18). And you are clean, but not all; for he knew who he was that would betray him, therefore he said: You are not all clean."

(15) Saying, as the evangelist does, He cometh, therefore, to Simon Peter, after having said he began to wash the feet of his disciples, gives us to understand that Jesus did not begin with Saint Peter. Notwithstanding, some interpreters will have it that he did, and that for the sole reason of Peter's being the chief of the apostles, as if a question of rank and pre-eminence could enter into an action wherein the Master placed himself last of all.

(16) You shall not participate in the sacrament of my body, because you shall not have received the symbol of purity which I require from those who participate in it; or otherwise you shall be eternally separated from me, because you have disobeyed the orders which I give you to let me perform the lowly service which I wish to render to We you. may choose between these two explanations. If the first be the true explanation, Saint Peter did not at first comprehend the meaning; but still he understood that some sort of separation between himself and his dear Master was threatened here if he should persist in his refusal. This was sufficient for this disciple, whose love was so ardent, in order to restore him to the most perfect obedience.

"The ardor and zeal of devotion, even when accompanied by exterior marks of humility, are merely illusions, when not regulated by obedience to the Church and to our superiors."

(17) It is love which speaks. Peter, startled at the sight of his Master prostrate at his feet for the purpose of washing them, is, notwithstanding, less amazed at seeing him there, than he is alarmed by the dread of being separated from him.

(18) The feet always become dirty, especially when men walk barefooted, as is commonly thought to have been the case with the apostles. Not so with the rest of the body; when it is very clean, it remains so at least for some time. The most upright individuals always contract, in their commerce with the world, some slight stains, which are like the dust that adheres to the feet. Confession is not the only means to purify us therefrom, but it is the best.

Jesus was perhaps still at the feet of the traitor, when he gave him this first warning, so calculated to touch a heart less callous than his was. The apostles, who knew not to whom he addressed it, might at least have comprehended the lesson by which he inculcated to them a purity more perfect than that which confines itself to exemption from gross faults. This is what Peter knew not before. But to this first instruction, which was directed equally to all, the Saviour added a second, which might apply more especially to him whom he had established the chief of his brethren, although it was common to all. "Then, after he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, having sat down, he said to them: Know you what I have done to you? You call me Master and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. If I, then, being Lord and Master, having washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet; for I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also. Amen, amen, I say to you, The servant is not greater than his lord, neither is the apostle greater than he that sent him. If you know these things, you shall be blessed if you do them."

This happiness was not to be enjoyed by all. Wherefore, continues the Saviour: "I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen," and if he who is to betray me is found amongst the number, I have not admitted him without knowing what he is; "but that the Scripture may be fulfilled: He that eateth bread with me, shall lift up his heel against me. At present I tell you, before it come to pass, that when it shall come to pass you may believe that I am He."

Thus the Saviour was, as it were, divided between two objects which constituted alternately the subject of his discourse. He labored to excite remorse in the heart of Judas, and he exhorted his disciples to render to each other the duties of a charity, both humble and considerate. In order to smooth to them the practice thereof, he adds, that very far from lowering themselves in the sight of men by humbling themselves to one another, the honor which they have of being his apostles, will make them as respected as himself. This exposition alone can connect the preceding words with these, which come immediately after: "Amen, amen, I say to you, he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me."

CHAPTER LIX.

INSTITUTION OF THE EUCHARIST.-JESUS IS TROUBLED.-WOE TO THE TRAITOR.-JESUS MAKES HIM KNOWN TO JOHN.-WITHDRAWAL OF JUDAS.-DISPUTE OF THE APOSTLES UPON PRIORITY.-PRESUMPTION OF PETER.—HIS DENIAL FORETOLD.— STATE OF WARFARE ABOUT TO COMMENCE FOR THE DISCIPLES.

THE moment was come when Jesus Christ was at last to institute the sacrament of his body and blood, and to replace the ancient sacrifices by that which, in its unity, should supply the place of them all, and, by its excellence, infinitely surpass them in merit and in value. (a)" And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, gave thanks, and blessed, and broke, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat; this (1) is my body (2), which is given for

(a) St. Matthew, xxvi. 26-29; St. Luke, xxii. 19, 20; St. Mark, xiv. 23.

(1) If, as Luther said, the substance of bread remained in the Eucharist, Jesus Christ could not have said: This is my body, but this (which is bread) contains my body; or, my body is united to this; or else, here is my body.

(2) If Jesus Christ meant to say that the Eucharist is not merely the figure of his body, but that it contains the reality, he could not have expressed himself more clearly, seeing that for fifteen centuries the Christian world understood the phrase as importing reality and not figure.

If Jesus Christ meant to say that the Eucharist is only the figure of his body, he could not have expressed himself more obscurely, since for so many ages the entire world understood the phrase as expressing his real presence.

When we say, for fifteen centuries, we are not unaware that, in the eleventh century, Beranger denied the real presence, but he was the first to do so: he had very few disciples; scarcely one remained after his death, and in a short time not a single disciple of his was in existence. He was a restless and fickle man, whose entire life was spent in abjuring what he had taught, and in teaching over again what he had abjured.

Luther frankly avows that he for a long time was itching to attack the dogma of the real presence; but that he could not venture on such a step, having before him those unmistakeable words: This is my body.

Calvin denied the real presence, and took his stand by the figurative sense. However, the stamp of reality, so visible in these words of the Saviour, has driven him to assert that, although the body of Jesus Christ be not really present in the Eucharist, yet it is, nevertheless, really and in substance received therein. Thus, whilst seeking to escape from the mystery, he falls into a palpable contradiction.

In like manner taking

you. Do this for a commemoration of me. the chalice also, after he had supped, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this (3); for this is my blood, of the New Testament, which shall be shed (4) for you [and] for many (5) unto the remission of sins. And they all drank of it. Amen, I say to you," added the Saviour, supposing that he twice made use of this expression, "I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of this vine, until that day when I shall drink it new with you in the kingdom of the Father."

According to one of the sacred writers, Jesus, immediately after he had pronounced the words which changed the wine into blood, added these: (a) “But yet behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table." These last words, connected, as they are, with the preceding discourse, seem to decide, contrary to the opinion of many, that Judas was then present, and that he received communion with the other disciples. Jesus Christ could not have

(a) St. Luke, xxii. 21.

(3) That is to say, drink ye all of this chalice, because there was but one single chalice that was to pass from hand to hand. This expression comprises a precept for priests to communicate under both kinds every time that they consecrate, and this precept admits of no exception. Protestants allege that this expression establishes a universal and indispensable obligation of communicating under both kinds. Yet they themselves do not follow this construction, since they have decided in their Synods that communion may be given under one kind, viz., that bread may be given to those who cannot drink wine, which is surely equivalent to deciding that, according to the institution of Jesus Christ, both kinds are not essential to communion.

The legitimacy of communion under one kind is founded on the doctrine of concomitancy.

(4) We read in the Greek, which is shed, which is the cause why many interpreters explain the expression as referring to the mystical effusion then made. The author of the Vulgate took it as referring to the effusion thereof, which was to occur upon the cross; and for this reason he has translated it, which shall be shed. We say in the words of the consecration, which shall be shed, showing that the Church also understands the expression as referring to the effusion on the cross. Jesus Christ might have referred to the same effusion, and yet say, which is shed, since an event so near might be regarded as present.

(5) One of the evangelists inserts only for you; two others insert for many. The Church unites both in the words of consecration. For many signifies in this place for all, according to the Scriptural mode of expression. Supposing that Jesus Christ had said for you, he would not have thereby excluded the reprobate sinner, for, according to the opinion which is most followed, Judas was one of the company present.