may well have been that some of the other disciples, not knowing yet the secret wickedness of Judas, and deceived by his plausible reasoning, caught up the sentiment he expressed, and even repeated his words. Moreover, the rebuke of our Lord, which followed these murmurings, is addressed not to one only, but to many. This is strikingly apparent in the Greek and Latin versions, which may be rendered thus: Jesus said to them, Why trouble je this woman?"

Having the purse. From these words it appears that Jesus and his Apostles had a common purse, carried by Judas, in which were deposited the contributions of pious followers, to be used, as occasion might require, for their own wants, and for the wants of the poor. The possession of property in common is, therefore, not inconsistent with the full observance of the Gospel counsel contained in the words of our Lord : "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and come, follow me."1

Carried what was put therein; rather carried away, purloined. The Greek word, Baoragev, is the same that Saint John uses, in telling how Mary Magdalen asked the gardener (as she supposed) if he had carried off the body of Jesus from the Sepulchre.2

Jesus knowing it said. Jesus heard the complaints and the murmurs, and He knew the guilty thoughts that were passing in the mind of Judas.

Me you have not always. Jesus is still present amongst men, in more ways than one. First, He is everywhere and always present, in his divine nature: secondly, He is present on our altars, even in his human nature. But He is no longer present in human form; He is no longer capable of suffering fatigue and pain, or of receiving bodily comfort; and therefore He is not present with us in the same sense as He was present at the supper in Bethania. We cannot now show our affection, as Mary did, by anointing his body.

She is come beforehand to anoint my body for the burial. Not that this was her intention: she seems rather to have been moved by an impulse of love, without having any further end in view but what she did answered for the day of burial. Some commentators, however, think that in thus anointing our Lord, she was guided by a special inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In Saint John, according to the Vulgate, we read: "Let her alone that she may keep it for the day of my burial"; that is, Let her do this act for the day of my burial. The phrase is variously given in the Greek manuscripts: but those of highest authority agree with the Vulgate. But whatever 1 Matth. xix. 21. 2 John, xx. 15. See Alford, in loc.; Liddell and Scott, in voce. 3 See Jans. Gand. Concord. Evang. cap. cix. pp. 756, 757; Alford, Greek Test. John, xii. 7.

may be the grammatical explanation of the words in Saint John, it is plain that the substantial sense is the same as that conveyed by the other Evangelists; that our Lord wishes to keep the fact of his approaching death before the minds of his Apostles, and tells them that the anointing of his body has a prophetical significance in reference to his burial. He alludes to the practice of the Jews, who were accustomed, in preparing a body for burial, to insert perfumed spices in the folds of the grave-clothes, or perhaps apply them to the body in the form of an ointment.1

§ 3.

COMPACT OF JUDAS.

TEXT.

Vulgate Version.

MATT. xxvi. 14-16.-Tunc abiit unus de duodecim, qui dicebatur Judas Iscariotes, ad principes sacerdotum ; (15). Et ait illis: Quid vultis mihi dare, et ego vobis eum tradam? At illi constituerunt

ei triginta argenteos. (16). Et exinde quærebat opportunitatem ut eum traderet.

MARK, xiv. 10, 11.-Et Judas Iscariotes, unus de duodecim, abiit ad summos sacerdotes, ut proderet eum illis. (11). Qui audientes gavisi

sunt; et promiserunt ei pecuniam se daturos. Et quærebat quomodo illum opportune traderet.

LUKE, xxii. 3-6.-Intravit autem Satanas in Judam, qui cognominabatur Iscariotes. unum de duodecim. (4). Et abiit, et locutus est cum principibus sacerdotum et magistratibus, quemadmodum illum traderet eis. (5). Et gavisi sunt, et pacti sunt pecuniam illi dare. (6). Et spopondit. Et quærebat opportunitatem, ut traderet illum sine turbis.

Rheims Version.

MATT. xxvi. 14-16.-Then went one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, to the chief priests, (15). and said to them: What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you? But they appointed him thirty pieces of silver. (16). And from thenceforth he sought opportunity to betray him.

MARK, xiv. 10, 11.-And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went to the chief priests, to betray him to them. (11). Who hearing it were glad; and they promised him they would give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him. LUKE, xxii. 3-6.-And Satan entered into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariot, one of the twelve. (4). And he went and discoursed with the chief priests and the magistrates, how he might betray him to them. (5). And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money. (6). And he promised. And he sought cpportunity to betray him, in the absence of the multitude. HARMONY.

Now Satan entered in Judas, surnamed Iscariot, one of the twelve; and he went and discoursed with the chief priests

1 John, xix. 39, 40; Mark, xi. 1; Luke, xxiii. 56, xxiv. 1; Kitto, Cyclop. Bib. Lit.; Smith, Dict of the Bible, burial.

and magistrates, how he might deliver up Jesus to them. He said to them: What will you give me and I will deliver Him unto you? And they were glad, and covenanted to give him thirty pieces of silver. And he promised. And from thenceforth he sought an opportunity to deliver up Jesus, in the absence of the multitude.

NOTES.

Satan entered in Judas. Judas had allowed the lust of money to get possession of his heart; and the devil suggested to his imagination a dreadful thought. The price of the ointment was lost, and could not be recovered; but he might sell his Master to those who were thirsting for his blood. Judas gave consent to this evil inspiration: and so the devil entered into his soul. "The love of money," says Saint Paul, “is the root of all evils."1

One of the twelve. It is remarkable that all three Evangelists, as if with one accord, note this circumstance. It was a very grievous crime to deliver up Jesus Christ into the hands. of his enemies but there was a special enormity in the fact that this crime was committed by "one of the twelve," whom He had chosen for his favoured friends and intimate associates. "If my enemy," said the Psalmist, "had reviled me, I would verily have borne with it: but thou a man of one mind, my guide and my familiar, who didst take sweet meats together with me!"2

Went to the chief priests. Probably upon Wednesday morning, when the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people, were taking counsel together how they might get Jesus into their hands.

And the magistrates, Toîs στpaτηyoîs. A little further on they are distinguished by Saint Luke from the elders, and are called magistrates of the temple, σrparyyous Toû iepov.3 It appears, therefore, that they had charge of the temple, and were probably provided with soldiers to keep order there.*

Thirty pieces of silver, τpiákovτa apyípia. This circumstance was foretold by the prophet Zachary: "They weighed, for my price, thirty pieces of silver." Now as the shekel was the common unit of weight for money, among the Jews, there can be little doubt that the prophet meant by these words, thirty shekels of silver: and consequently we should understand the words of Saint Matthew in the same sense. It may be observed, too, that, under the Old Law, if a slave were gored by an ox, through the fault of its owner, thirty shekels of silver were to be paid for his life. And the chief priests

1 Tim. vi. 10. Ps. liv. 13, 14. 3 Luke, xxii. 52. 4 See Maldonatus, Matth. xxvi. 14; Lamy, Harm. Evang, in loco. Zach. xi. 12.

6 Exod. xxi. 32.

it would seem, with this law before their eyes, put the same price on the head of Jesus Christ. The shekel of silver was equal to four denarii, and was therefore about half a crown or three shillings of our money. Accordingly, the price paid to Judas for his treachery, was a little more or less than four pounds sterling.1

In the absence of the crowd. As Jesus was daily teaching in the temple, there could have been no difficulty in finding Him: but his enemies dared not lay hands upon Him, through fear of the people. What Judas, then, agreed to do was, to deliver Him up when He should be away from the crowds that followed Him during the day. This he was able to promise, and afterwards to effect, by reason of his intimate familiarity with his Divine Master.

NOTICES OF BOOKS.

Vindiciae Alphonsianae, seu Doctoris Ecclesiae S. Alphonsi M. de Ligorio Episcopi et Fundatoris Congregationis SS. Redemptoris Doctrina Moralis Vindicata a pluribus impugnationibus Cl. P. Antonii Ballerini, S. Jesu, in Collegio Romano Professoris, cura et studio quorumdam Theologorum e Congregatione SS. Redemptoris. Romae, ex Typ. Polyg. S. C. de Prop. Fide, 1873.

II.

THIS voluminous Defence or Vindication of the Moral Doctrine of St. Alphonsus, published by his Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, was noticed by us last month, and then we promised our readers a fuller account of the work for some future occasion, which we are happy to make the present-at least in part, reserving further considerations for next, and perhaps other issues.

An "Introductory Dissertation" opens the volume, which is at the same time an amplification of the Preface we last month spoke of, and an epitome of the whole work, laying down the Thesis to be proved, and, in a general and a priori manner, establishing and maintaining the same. To this Dissertation we now confine ourselves, having found therein abundant matter for consideration and for the practical information of the readers of this ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD. Should we not esteem it profitable to enter hereafter into the particular disputations of the "Vindiciae," we shall, nevertheless, have thus communicated a general knowledge of them, and, perhaps, adopted the conclusions they endeavour to maintain. 1 See Smith, Dict. of the Bible; Kitto Cyclop. Bib. Lit. piece of silver.

The "Vindiciae" are-as is clearly set forth in the title page -a defence of the Moral Theology of St. Alphonsus against the objections of Father Ballerini; that is to say, they are a refutation of these objections; which being many, the labour is long; which all, however, the "Introductory Dissertation" classifies and refutes in common, comprising thus in parvo the multum of 950 pages. Now the style of Father Ballerini is in truth a dagger: it need not be told the readers of his notes. This is in reality the greatest of his objections, or, we should perhaps say the most objectionable of them. We would venture to say that but for this form the matter of his observations would have evoked little comment, and never, certainly, the unenviable notoriety of the Doctorate and these "Vindiciae." This very notoriety, however, may be for him simply delicious: he is, no doubt, even while we write, assaulting, as best he can, the " Vindiciae" and all opponents courageous enough to face him. Can it be that he contradicts and disputes for the very pleasure of discussion? Such a Theologian is known to us; yet we do not say that such is Father Ballerini, even though we have been told by one who heard his adnotations that they sounded not half so hard as they look, and that his manner at times would rob them of all sting. We would not say that he was not in earnest, precisely because his notes are printed. Verba volant, it is true, no matter how pungent; but the littera scripta manet, in its sober simple meaning, unqualified and unmollified by tone or gesture; and this no one knew better than the learned Professor. This cutting style of his attacking, insulting persons for their opinions, is justly dwelt on by the Redemptorist Theologians and exemplified. They point out where, in his notes, Pontius is accused of ostentation, Collet of prejudice, Cardenas of stupidity, Comitolus of disorder, Croix of absurdity, Henriquez of mis-quotation, Lugo of anachronism, Suarez of singularity, Lambertinus of irreverence, and every adversary of something personally disgraceful. This reflection is merciful, for it removes the impression of single combat, and softens, with a certain compassion, that which is unavoidably hard in refutation. Earnestly, nevertheless, is the particular opposition of the adnotator to the celebrated Salmanticenses pointed out, and the particular esteem of St. Alphonsus for the same great Theologians.

Then come the Ballerinian censures in long lists, ranged side by side with the doctrine of the Saint. We give a number of these censures for the reader's consideration, that he may remark with us how each appears to scoff at the Theological knowledge and ability of the Saint, without openly, or indeed intentionally attacking his sanctity, which, as we have just