Thursday of the 24th week after Pentecost

He is called Simon, son of John, John being his natural father. But mystically, Simon is obedience, John grace, a name well befitting him who was so obedient to God's grace, that he loved our Lord more ardently than any of the others. Such virtue arising from divine gift, not mere human will.

It is Peter, chosen by the Lord himself to feed his flock, who merits three times to hear the words "Feed my little lambs; feed my lambs; feed my sheep." And so, by feeding well the flock of Christ with the food of faith, he effaced the sin of his former fall. For this reason he is admonished three times to feed the flock. He is asked three times whether he loves the Lord in order that he may confess him three times whom he had denied three times before his crucifixion.

O pastors! Imitate that diligent pastor, the chief of the whole flock, who cared so greatly for his flock. He brought near those who were far away. He brought back the wanderers. He visited the sick. He strengthened the weak. He bound up the broken. He guarded those who were well fed. He gave himself up for the sake of the sheep. He chose and instructed excellent leaders, and committed the sheep into their hands and gave them authority over all his flock. For he said to Simon Cephas, "Feed my sheep and my lambs and my ewes." So Simon fed his sheep and fulfilled his calling and handed over the flock to you and departed. And so you also must feed and guide them well. For the pastor who cares for his sheep engages in no other pursuit along with that. He does not make a vineyard, or plant gardens, or fall into the troubles of this world. Never have we seen a pastor who left his sheep in the wilderness and became a merchant, or one who left his flock to wander and became a husbandman. But if he deserts his flock and does these things, he thereby hands over his flock to the wolves.

Christ rose again in the flesh, and Peter rose in the spirit because, when Christ died in his passion, Peter died by his denial. Christ the Lord was raised from the dead, and out of his love he raised Peter. He questioned him about the love he was confessing and entrusted him with his sheep. After all, what benefit could Peter confer on Christ by the mere fact of his loving Christ? If Christ loves you, it is to your advantage, not Christ's. And if you love Christ, it is to your advantage, not Christ's. And yet Christ the Lord wanted to indicate how people ought to show that they love Christ. And he made it plain enough by entrusting him with his sheep. "Do you love me?" "I do." "Feed my sheep." All this once, all this a second time, all this a third time. Peter made no other reply than that he loved him. The Lord asked no other question but whether he loved him. When Peter answered, our Lord did nothing else but entrust his sheep to him.

He is being armed for weightier and greater matters. He is told "Feed my sheep," a task that was certainly going to mean danger for the flesh but glory for the spirit. Just think how much he was going to suffer for the name of Christ by feeding the sheep of Christ! "Feed my sheep, feed my lambs." I mean, if you love me, what present are you going to give me? The prince of pastors made him a pastor so that Peter would feed Christ's sheep, not his own.…"Feed my sheep." Why? Because you love me, because you are devoted to me, I am committing my sheep to you. Feed them, but remember they are mine. Heretical leaders, though, wish to make their own the sheep that are really Christ's. All the same, they are forced … to set the stamp of Christ on them. They may make them their own private flock, but they still have to register them in the Lord's name.

Feed "my" sheep; he did not say "yours," did he? Feed, good servant, the Lord's sheep that bear the Lord's brand. After all, was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Peter and Paul? So feed his sheep, washed in his baptism, sealed in his name, redeemed with his blood. "Feed," he says, "my sheep."

"So when they had dined, He saith to Simon Peter, Simon, [son] of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto Him, Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs." To the threefold denial there is now appended a threefold confession, that his tongue may not yield a feebler service to love than to fear, and imminent death may not appear to have elicited more from the lips than present life. Let it be the office of love to feed the Lord's flock, if it was the signal of fear to deny the Shepherd. Those who have this purpose in feeding the flock of Christ, that they may have them as their own, and not as Christ's, are convicted of loving themselves, and not Christ, from the desire either of boasting, or wielding power, or acquiring gain, and not from the love of obeying, serving, and pleasing God. Against such, therefore, there stands as a wakeful sentinel this thrice inculcated utterance of Christ, of whom the apostle complains that they seek their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ's. For what else mean the words, "Lovest thou me? Feed my sheep," than if it were said, If thou lovest me, think not of feeding thyself, but feed my sheep as mine, and not as thine own; seek my glory in them, and not thine own; my dominion, and not thine; my gain, and not thine; lest thou be found in the fellowship of those who belong to the perilous times, lovers of their own selves, and all else that is joined on to this beginning of evils?

We have it also demonstrated here that love and liking are one and the same thing; for the Lord also in the last question said not Diligis me? but, Amas me? Let us, then, love not ourselves, but Him; and in feeding His sheep, let us be seeking the things which are His, not the things which are our own. For in some inexplicable way, I know not what, every one that loveth himself, and not God, loveth not himself; and whoever loveth God, and not himself, he it is that loveth himself. For he that cannot live by himself will certainly die by loving himself; he therefore loveth not himself who loves himself to his own loss of life. But when He is loved by whom life is preserved, a man by not loving himself only loveth the more, when it is for this reason that he loveth not himself [namely] that he may love Him by whom he lives.

Our Lord asked this, knowing it: He knew that Peter not only loved Him, but loved Him more than all the rest.

While our Lord was being condemned to death, he feared, and denied Him. But by His resurrection Christ implanted love in his heart, and drove away fear. Peter denied, because he feared to die: but when our Lord was risen from the dead, and by His death destroyed death, what should he fear? He saith unto Him, Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee. On this confession of his love, our Lord commends His sheep to him: He saith unto him, Feed My lambs: as if there were no way of Peter's showing his love for Him, but by being a faithful shepherd, under the chief Shepherd.

(Tract. cxxii) Well doth He say to Peter, Lovest thou Me (ἀγαπᾶς diligis), and Peter answer, Amo Te (φελῶ amo), and our Lord replies again, Feed My lambs. Whereby, it appears that amor and dilectio are the same thing: especially as our Lord the third time He speaks does not say, Diligis Me, but Amas Me. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? A third time our Lord asks Peter whether he loves Him. Three confessions are made to answer to the three denials; that the tongue might show as much love as it had fear, and life gained draw out the voice as much as death threatened.

(Tract. cxxiii) They who feed Christ's sheep, as if they were their own, not Christ's, show plainly that they love themselves, not Christ; that they are moved by lust of glory, power, gain, not by the love of obeying, ministering, pleasing God. Let us love therefore, not ourselves, but Him, and in feeding His sheep, seek not our own, but the things which are His. For whoso loveth himself, not God, loveth not himself: man that cannot live of himself, must die by loving himself; and he cannot love himself, who loves himself to his own destruction. Whereas when He by Whom we live is loved, we love ourselves the more, because we do not love ourselves; because we do not love ourselves in order that we may love Him by Whom we live.

(Serm. Pass.) But unfaithful servants arose, who divided Christ's flock, and handed down the division to their successors: and you hear them say, Those sheep are mine, what seekest thou with my sheep, I will not let thee come to my sheep. If we call our sheep ours, as they call them theirs, Christ hath lost His sheep.

When therefore they had dined. It should be noted that during the meal he did not ask about love, because, as is said in Sirach chapter six, "there is a friend who is a companion at table, and he will not remain in the day of necessity." But afterward he asks: Jesus says to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? Therefore he asks about love, because he does not wish to entrust his flock except to one who loves; therefore about greater love, because he wishes to entrust it to one who loves more. Hence Gregory: "He who does not have charity ought by no means to undertake the office of preaching"; certainly much less the office of prelacy, because, as is said in John chapter ten, "the good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep."

He says to him: Yes, Lord. Here is set forth Peter's response, in which he responds that he loves, but not that he loves more, because he did not know the love of the others. Hence Augustine: "That Peter responds, I love you, and did not add more than these: he responded what he knew about himself; for he could not know how much he was loved by another, because he could not see the heart of another." You know that I love you: in this response Peter shows that he does not respond in flattery, but truly. Hence Chrysostom: "He calls as witness him who knows hidden things." So Jeremiah invoked him, in the seventeenth chapter: "I have not desired the day of man, you know."

He says to him. Here is noted after the response the exhortation to action: because "the proof of love is the display of works"; therefore he says: Feed my lambs: in which the wondrous love of Christ for his sheep is expressed, because he showed this above all other things as a sign of his love: and this indeed Peter fulfilled and urged to be fulfilled, 1 Peter 5: "Elders, feed the flock of God which is among you," etc.

It is asked: since the other Apostles stood around, who loved the Lord, why was only Peter questioned about love? There is one response: because the care of the flock was to be specially entrusted to him among the others, therefore he is specially asked about his love. Hence Chrysostom: "Peter was the foremost of the Apostles and the mouth of the disciples and the head of the college"; therefore, passing over and bypassing the others, he speaks to him about such things. — Another reason can also be assigned: because Peter had notably denied him, and therefore seemed not to be worthy to be placed before the other Apostles; therefore the Lord asks, so that he might show his charity excelling above the rest, and might confirm the pastoral office which he had given.

It is asked: since Peter could not answer this question: Do you love me more than these? because he did not know about the others, why does the Lord ask? I respond: It must be said that the Lord asks this in order to show his excellence in the asking and his correction in the answering; hence Augustine: "That Peter loved the Lord more than the others is evidently apparent where, questioning him, he says: Do you love me more than these? Which indeed he knew, and yet he was asking, so that we too might know his love toward the Lord." And Peter's correction is shown in this, that he does not dare to place himself before the others, as above before the passion, when he said: "Even if all shall be scandalized in you, yet not I."

If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, "I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed nay sheep." And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained; " yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, "My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her." Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, "There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?"

We have been informed by Crementius the sub-deacon, who came to us from you, that the blessed father Cyprian has for a certain reason withdrawn; "in doing which he acted quite rightly, because he is a person of eminence, and because a conflict is impending," which God has allowed in the world, for the sake of cooperating with His servants in their struggle against the adversary, and was, moreover, willing that this conflict should show to angels and to men that the victor shall be crowned, while the vanquished shall in himself receive the doom which has been made manifest to us. Since, moreover, it devolves upon us who appear to be placed on high, in the place of a shepherd, to keep watch over the flock; if we be found neglectful, it will be said to us, as it was said to our predecessors also, who in such wise negligent had been placed in charge, that "we have not sought for that which was lost, and have not corrected the wanderer, and have not bound up that which was broken, but have eaten their milk, and been clothed with their wool; " and then also the Lord Himself, fulfilling what had been written in the law and the prophets, teaches, saying, "I am the good shepherd, who lay down my life for the sheep. But the hireling, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth, and the wolf scatter-eth them." To Simon, too, He speaks thus: "Lovest thou me? He answered, I do love Thee. He saith to him, Feed my sheep." We know that this saying arose out of the very circumstance of his withdrawal, and the rest of the disciples did likewise.

Peter started to reach Jesus before the rest, disdaining, as it appears, to go by boat, because of the incomparable fervour and admirable zeal of his love towards Christ. Therefore He comes first to land, and draws up the net; for he was always an impressionable man, easily excited to enthusiasm both in speech and action. Therefore, also, he first made confession of faith when the Saviour put to them the inquiry in the parts of Caesarea Philippi, saying: Who do men say that I the Son of Man am? And of the other disciples some said Elijah, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. But when Christ put the further question to them: But Who say ye that I am? Peter took the lead, and becoming spokesman for the rest, hastened to reply: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Moreover, when the band of soldiers came, together with the officers of the Jews, to take Jesus away to the rulers, the rest all left Him and fled, but Peter struck off Malchus' ear with a sword. For he thought it right by every means in his power to defend his Master, though the attack that he made was in fact altogether displeasing to Him. As, therefore, he came more impetuously than the rest, Christ puts to him the question whether he loved Him more than they, and repeated it three times; and Peter answers in the affirmative, and confesses his love for Him, saying that Christ Himself was a witness to his state of mind. And, after each confession, he heard Christ telling him in different words to take thought of His sheep, as He calls mankind in the parable.

And I think (for I say that we ought to search out the hidden meaning that is here implied) that these words were not written without a purpose, but the saying is pregnant with meaning, and the sense of the passage contains something more than meets the eye. May not someone reasonably ask, Why is it that Christ only asks Simon, though the other disciples were present? And what is the meaning of the words, Feed My lambs, and the like? We reply, that the inspired Peter had indeed already been elected, together with the other disciples, to be an Apostle of God (for our Lord Jesus Christ Himself named them Apostles, according to the Scripture), but, when the events connected with the plot of the Jews against Him came to pass, his fall came betwixt; for the inspired Peter was seized with uncontrollable fear, and thrice denied the Lord. Christ succours His erring disciple, and elicits by divers questions his thrice-repeated confession, counterbalancing, as it were, his error thereby, and making his recovery as signal as his fall. For a transgression which was verbal, and only in mere words supplied ground of accusation against him, could surely be wiped out in the same fashion as it was committed. He requires him to say whether he loved Him more than the rest. For in truth, as he had enjoyed a greater measure of forgiveness, and received from a more bountiful Hand the remission of his transgression, surely he would be likely to feel greater love than the rest, and requite his Benefactor with the extremity of affection. For although all the holy disciples alike betook themselves to flight, the inhumanity of the Jews inspiring them with a terror that they could not overcome, and the ferocity of the soldiers threatening them with cruel death when they came to take Jesus, still Peter's transgression by his thrice-repeated denial was special and peculiar to him.

Therefore, as he had received a greater measure of forgiveness than the rest, he is asked to tell Christ whether he loved Him more; for, as the Saviour Himself said, he to whom most is forgiven will also love much. Herein, also, is a type given to the. Churches, that they ought thrice to ask for a confession of Christ from those who have chosen to love Him by coming to Him in Holy Baptism. And, by dwelling on this passage, instructors in religion may arrive at the knowledge that they cannot please the Chief Shepherd, that is Christ, unless they take thought for the health of the sheep of His fold, and their continuance in well-being. Such was the inspired Paul, who shared the infirmities of his weak brethren, and called those who through him believed, and chose to gain repute by the glory of their deeds, the boast, and joy, and crown of his apostleship. For he knew that this was the visible fruit of love for Christ. And this, if he reason well and justly, any one may perceive. For if He died for us, surely He must esteem the salvation and life of us all as deserving of all care. And if they who sin against the brethren, and wound their conscience when it is weak, in truth sin against Christ; surely it is true to say, that they are doing the Lord Himself service who take, as it were, by the hand the mind of those who have been admitted to the faith, and who are expected to be called to perfection therein, and are eager to stablish them firmly in the faith, by every help that they can offer. Therefore, by his thrice-repeated confession the thrice-repeated denial of the blessed Peter was done away, and by the saying of our Lord, "Feed my lambs," we must understand a renewal as it were of the apostleship, already given unto him, washing away the disgrace of his fall that came betwixt, and obliterating his faint-heartedness, that arose from human infirmity.

There are indeed many other things which are able to give us boldness towards God, and to show us bright and approved, but that which most of all brings good will from on high, is tender care for our neighbor. Which therefore Christ requireth of Peter. And why, having passed by the others, doth He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, "If thou lovest Me, preside over thy brethren, and the warm love which thou didst ever manifest, and in which thou didst rejoice, show thou now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldest lay down for Me, now give for My sheep."

There are indeed many other things which are able to give us boldness towards God, and to show us bright and approved, but that which most of all brings good will from on high, is tender care for our neighbor. Which therefore Christ requireth of Peter.

(Hom. lxxxviii. 1) That which most of all attracts the Divine love is care and love for our neighbour. Our Lord passing by the rest, addresses this command to Peter: he being the chief of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and head of the college. Our Lord remembers no more his sin in denying Him, or brings that as a charge against him, but commits to him at once the superintendence over his brethren. If thou lovest Me, have rule over thy brethren, show forth that love which thou hast evidenced throughout, and that life which thou saidst thou wouldest lay down for Me, lay down for the sheep. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? He saith unto Him, Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee.

And our Lord also called the faithful ones of His pastures by names in which simplicity is indicated: "If thou lovest Me", He said to Simon, the chief of His disciples, "feed My sheep, and My lambs, and My ewes." And as He was called symbolically by the word of the prophecy, "lamb", and "sheep", and John also called Him, "The Lamb of God", even so did He call the disciples of His word by the names which indicate simpleness. And He did this that when all believers heard what names were given to them by the Shepherd they might, like sheep, and lambs, and ewes, be incited to abide in all simpleness, and might not go forth from the law of simplicity, and that like these innocent animals, which are led to death, and are brought to slaughter, and are bound for shearing, and are hunted by wild beasts, they might neither cry out nor complain, but remain in quietness and in the innocency of their nature.

Look to me, Peter, on how you offer instruction. Remembering your own fall, sympathize with all. Mindful of that maiden who caused your own downfall, do not be harsh. If conceit attacks you, listen again to the sound of the rooster's crow, And remember the tears with whose streams I washed you, I who alone know what is in your heart. Peter, do you love me? Do what I say, feed my flock, and love those whom I love, Sympathizing with sinners and remembering the compassion I had for you, since I received you after you denied me three times. You have a thief as gatekeeper of paradise to give you courage. Send him those whom you wish. Because of you, Adam turned to me, Crying, "O Creator offer me The robber as gatekeeper, and Cephas as keeper of the keys. You who alone know what is in the heart."

Jesus promoted Peter and placed him as the head of the lambs of his herd and said, "Feed my lambs," that is, all those who believe in me and who, because they were instructed only recently, are weaker. And for this reason, it is necessary that you carry their burden, and protect them, and comfort them in their weakness and nourish them with the grace that was given to you.

Since the dinner had a purpose for Him, He entrusts to Peter the care of the sheep of the whole world, entrusting the care not to anyone else but to him, first, because he was the chosen one from among all and was the mouthpiece of the entire company of the apostles; then in order to show that he must have boldness, since his denial has been atoned for. He does not bring up the denial, does not reproach him for it, but says: "If you love Me, take care of the brethren and prove now that ardent love for Me of which you spoke, saying that you were ready even to die for Me."

The dinner being ended, He commits to Peter the superintendence over the sheep of the world, not to the others: So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me more than these?

Thence is taken the custom of threefold confession in baptism.

There is a difference perhaps between lambs and sheep. The lambs are those just initiated, the sheep are the perfected.

The Evangelist just showed what the Lord did for the disciples in general; here he shows him dealing with his two especially loved disciples: first, what he did for Peter; and how he dealt with John (v 20). He does two things with the first: first, he lays on Peter the pastoral office; secondly, he predicts that he will be martyred (v 18).

He imposes the pastoral office on Peter only after an examination. Thus, those who are to be raised to this office are first examined, "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands" (1 Tim 5:22). Christ examined him three times, and so this part is divided into three parts. In the first part we see our Lord's question (v 15); Peter's answer; and the imposition of the office (v 15). Looking at the first, we can consider three things: the time of the examination; the tenor of the conversation; and on what Peter was examined.

The order of this event is given as When they had finished the meal. This signifies the spiritual meal by which the soul is refreshed with spiritual gifts, even when it is united to the body: "I will come in to him and eat with him" (Rev 3:20). Therefore it is appropriate that one who is raised to this office be already refreshed with this joyous meal. Otherwise, how could he refresh the hungry ones that come to him: "I will feast the soul of the priests with abundance" (Jer 31:14), with that abundance mentioned in Psalm 63 (v 5): "My soul is feasted as with marrow and fat."

The tenor of the conversation is seen when he says, Jesus said to Simon Peter. Three things are given here which are necessary for a prelate. First, obedience, when he says, Simon, which means obedient. A prelate needs to be obedient because one who does not know how to obey superiors does not know how to govern inferiors: "An obedient man will speak of victory" (Prv 21:28). Secondly, a prelate needs knowledge, indicated by Peter, which means understanding. A prelate needs understanding for he is the appointed watchman, and one who is blind is a poor watchman: "His watchmen are blind" (Is 56:10); "Because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me" (Hos 4:6). Thirdly, a prelate needs grace, for he says son of John. Prelates need grace because if they do not have grace they do not have anything: "By the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor 15:10); "And when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship" (Gal 2:9).

The questions are about love; and Jesus asks, Do you love me more than these? This was a suitable question, for Peter had previously fallen, as we saw before, and it was not appropriate that he be preferred to the others until his sin was forgiven ‑ which is only brought about by charity: "Love covers a multitude of sins" (1 Pet 4:8); "Love covers all offenses" (Prv 10:12). So it was fitting that his charity be made known by this questioning, not indeed to him who looks into the depths of our hearts, but to others. So Christ said, but not as one who did not already know, Do you love me more than these? Now we read that "perfect love casts out fear" (1 Jn 4:18). Thus it was that when our Lord was about to die, Peter was afraid and denied him; but the risen Lord restored love and banished his fear. So Peter, who before had denied Christ because he was afraid to die, now, after our Lord has arisen, feared nothing. Why should he be afraid, since he now realized that death had died?

This questioning was also appropriate for the office, since many who assume a pastoral office use it as self‑lovers: "In the last days there will come times of stress. For men will be lovers of self" (1 Tim 3:1). One who does not love the Lord is not a fit prelate. A fit prelate is one who does not seek his own advantage, but that of Christ's; and he does this through love: "The love of Christ controls us" (2 Cor 5:14). Love also becomes this office because it benefits others: for it is due to the abundance of love that those who love Jesus will at times give up the quiet of their own contemplation to help their neighbor. Although the Apostle said, "I am sure that neither death nor life... will be able to separate us from the love of God" (Rom 8:39), he added, "For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren" (Rom 9:3). Thus a prelate should be questioned about his love.

He adds, more than these, for even as the Philosopher says in his Politics, it is the natural order of things that the one who cares for and governs others should be better. Thus he says that just as the soul is to the body that it rules, and reason is to our lower powers, so man is related to the irrational animals. And there ought to be a similar relation between prelates and their subjects. Thus, according to Gregory, the life of a pastor should be such that he is related to his subjects as a shepherd to his sheep. So Christ says, more than these, because the more Peter loves the better he is: "Do you see him whom the Lord has chosen? There is none like him among all the people" (1 Sam 10:24).

But in selecting someone to rule is it always necessary to choose the one who is unconditionally better, even if the laws say that it is enough to choose one who is merely good? To answer this two distinctions must be made. Some things are sufficient according to human judgment which are still not sufficient according to the divine judgment. According to human judgment, if a person cannot be reproached for something, this is sufficient for his election to stand. For it is obvious that it would be difficult to have elections if they could be nullified because someone was found who was better than the one actually chosen. So, according to our human judgment, it is sufficient if an election is honest and a suitable person is chosen.

But, so far as concerns the divine judgment, and our own conscience, it is necessary to choose that person who is better. Now a person can be unconditionally better; and this is the way a holier person is said to be better, for holiness makes one good. Yet such a person might not be better for the Church. For this purpose, that person would be better who is better educated, more competent, more discerning, and chosen more unanimously. But if other things are equal, such as the benefit and welfare of the Church, one would sin if he were to choose a person who was less unconditionally good than another. There has to be a reason for such a choice. This is either the honor of God and the benefit of the Church, or some private motive. If the motive is the honor of God and the benefit to the Church, these goods will be regarded as linked to the one chosen, and will make him the better person, in these respects. If there is some private motive for the choice, such as some carnal love, the expectation of ecclesiastical advancement, or temporal advantage, the election is a fraud and there has been partiality.

Now we see Peter's answer, Yes, Lord; you know that I love you. This is a clear sign that he had retracted his previous denial. And it shows that if the predestined fall, they are always better after they are corrected. Before his denial, Peter thought that he was better than the other apostles, saying, "Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away" (Mt 26:33). And when Jesus said to him, "You will deny me three times," Peter went against this and even boasted that "Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you" (Mt 26:35). But now, Peter, having been conquered by his own weakness, does not presume to state his love unless it is attested to and confirmed by the Lord. He humbles himself before Christ, saying, You know that I love you: "My witness is in heaven, and he that vouches for me is on high" (Job 16:19). He also humbles himself in respect to the apostles, for he does not say that he loves Jesus more than they do, but simply, I love you. This teaches us not to rank ourselves before others, but others before ourselves: "In humility count others better than yourselves" (Phil 2:3).

We can also notice, as Augustine points out, that when our Lord asks, Do you love (diligis) me, Peter does not answer with the same word, but says I love (amo) you, as if they were the same. And they are the same in reality, but there is some difference in meaning: Love (amor) is a movement of our appetitive power, and if this is regulated by our reason it is the will's act of love, which is called "direction" (dilectio) ‑ because it presupposes an act of election, choice (electio). This is why the brute animals are not said to love (diligere). For if the appetitive movement is not regulated by reason, it is called amor.

After this examination, Christ assigns Peter his office, saying, Feed my lambs, that is, my faithful, which I, the Lamb, call lambs: "Behold, the Lamb of God" (1:29). Thus, one should not be called a Christian who says he is not under the care of that shepherd, that is, Peter: "They shall all have one shepherd" (Ez 37:24); "They shall appoint for themselves one head" (Hos 1:11). It was appropriate that this office be assigned to Peter, the others being passed over, because, according to Chrysostom, he was the extraordinary apostle, the voice of the disciples, and the head of the group.

Peter also restrained himself in this inquiry of our Lord's by answering cautiously, for he remembered earlier on, when Christ's passion was drawing near, he had attributed greater constancy to himself than he possessed.

He says to him again. Here is set forth the second inquiry, in which the procedure is similar, as before. The Lord therefore inquires, as before, about love: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Simon, son of John he is called, because he was the son of John. — And Peter responds: He said to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. Bede: "O how faithful and pure a soul! which does not fear to say to its Creator, before whose eyes all things are naked and open: Lord, you know that I love you." He says to him. Here is set forth the exhortation, as before: Feed my lambs. He repeats the aforesaid exhortation: whence Bede: "This is the sole and true proof of complete love toward God: if you have striven to exercise the care of solicitous labor toward your brothers." Feed, namely by example, as he of whom it is said in the Psalm: "He fed them in the innocence of his heart."

If the faith of the apostle Peter is shaken by his Lord's passion, it is so that with bitter weeping he may hear the soothing words "Feed my sheep."

When then having been asked once and again, he called Him to witness who knoweth the secrets of the heart, and then was asked even a third time, he was troubled, fearing a repetition of what had happened before, (for then, having been strong in assertion, he was afterwards convicted,) and therefore he again betaketh himself to Him. For the saying, "Thou knowest all things," meaneth, "things present, and things to come." Seest thou how he had become better and more sober, being no more self-willed, or contradicting? For on this account he was troubled, "lest perchance I think that I love, and love not, as before when I thought and affirmed much, yet I was convicted at last." But Jesus asketh him the third time, and the third time giveth him the same injunction, to show at what a price He setteth the care of His own sheep, and that this especially is a sign of love towards Him.

And our Lord also called the faithful ones of His pastures by names in which simplicity is indicated: "If thou lovest Me", He said to Simon, the chief of His disciples, "feed My sheep, and My lambs, and My ewes." And as He was called symbolically by the word of the prophecy, "lamb", and "sheep", and John also called Him, "The Lamb of God", even so did He call the disciples of His word by the names which indicate simpleness. And He did this that when all believers heard what names were given to them by the Shepherd they might, like sheep, and lambs, and ewes, be incited to abide in all simpleness, and might not go forth from the law of simplicity, and that like these innocent animals, which are led to death, and are brought to slaughter, and are bound for shearing, and are hunted by wild beasts, they might neither cry out nor complain, but remain in quietness and in the innocency of their nature.

A second time he said to him, "Tend my Sheep," that is, Simon, tend the men who are mature in faith and possessing proven wisdom, who obey you in the prescribed degrees of the church, in the apostolate, in the priesthood, and in the pastoral office.

Now we have the second examination. In order to avoid a lot of repetition, note that Christ says three times, Feed my lambs, because Peter ought to feed them three ways. First, they are to be fed by being taught: "And I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding" (Jer 3:15). Secondly, they are to be fed by example: "Set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity" (1 Tim 4:12); "Upon the mountain heights of Israel," that is, in the excellence of great men, "shall be their pasture" (Ez 34:14). Thirdly, they are to be fed by being offered temporal help: "Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep?" (Ez 34:2).

To feed the sheep is to support the believers in Christ from falling from the faith, to provide earthly sustenance for those under us, to preach and exemplify withal our preaching by our lives, to resist adversaries, to correct wanderers.

(de Verb. Dom. serm. 50) He was grieved because he was asked so often by Him Who knew what He asked, and gave the answer. He replies therefore from his inmost heart; Thou knowest that I love Thee.

(Tract. cxxiv) He says no more, He only replies what he knew himself; he knew he loved Him; whether any else loved Him he could not tell, as he could not see into another's heart: (non occ.). Jesus saith unto him, Feed My sheep; as if to say, Be it the office of love to feed the Lord's flock, as it was the resolution of fear to deny the Shepherd.

What [Christ] said to [Peter] at this point, "Feed my sheep," was surely the same thing that he had said to him more clearly before his passion, "But I have asked on your behalf that your faith may not fail you, and once you have recovered, strengthen your brothers." To feed Christ's sheep is to strengthen those who believe in Christ, lest their faith fail them, and to devote oneself ceaselessly [to seeing to it] that they may make greater and greater progress in their faith. However, we must look carefully at the fact that his feeding of the Lord's flock is not to be carried out with one single approach but should rather be multifaceted. A director must diligently see to it that earthly necessities are not lacking to his subjects and also be careful in providing them with examples of virtues along with words of preaching.… When those who are under his care may perhaps themselves have fallen into error, he as a righteous person should, according to the word of the psalmist, "accuse them mercifully and rebuke them," but he should not soothe their hearts with the oil of harmful approval. This too is one of the obligations of a pious shepherd.

He says to him a third time. Here is set forth the third inquiry in the same order as before, namely question, response, exhortation. The Lord therefore asks about the same thing: Simon, son of John, do you love me? From this text it is clear that to love is taken in a good sense, as to love. — And Peter was saddened. Here is noted Peter's response: but nevertheless he responded with sadness, because, as Chrysostom says, he feared lest it should happen to him as it happened when he said: "I will lay down my life for you"; and therefore he was saddened, because he said to him a third time: Do you love me? But nevertheless he did not despair; rather, he responded confidently and said to him: whence he adds to his response: Lord, you know all things, as God; you know that I love you, you know even better than I. For he knew that he was the one who said in Jeremiah 17: "I am the Lord who searches hearts and reins," that is, thoughts and affections. He says to him: Feed my sheep. Here is noted the exhortation: and by sheep are understood the more perfect subjects. It should be noted that the Lord commands to feed the sheep, not to shear them, not to devour them, because the pastor is not commanded by the love of Christ to feed himself, but the sheep; Ezekiel 34: "Woe to the shepherds of Israel who fed themselves! Are not the sheep fed by the shepherds? You ate the milk and covered yourselves with the wool."

It is asked: why does the Lord ask so many times: Peter, do you love me? Augustine responds: "He asks three times for this reason, so that a threefold confession might be rendered for the threefold denial, lest the tongue serve love less than it served fear." Another reason is given: because he was asking for the purpose of commending his flock; and because he wished to commend the flock three times, therefore he asks three times about love.

It is asked: why does he say to him three times: Feed? And it is answered that the sheep of Christ ought to be fed in three ways, namely by word, by example, and by temporal support; hence Bede: "The solicitude of the pastoral office requires that the ruler of the Church diligently provide lest temporal supports be lacking to the people, and show them examples of virtue, and zealously bestow upon them the word of preaching."

It is asked: why does he say twice that lambs are to be fed and once sheep? I respond that by lambs are understood those who are imperfect and tender in faith, and these need more ample pasture, that is, more solicitous care; but by sheep, the more mature, who are able to govern themselves, and these do not need such great care.

In the last chapter of John: Feed my sheep, was said to Peter: but the sheep of Christ are all who walk by the way of salvation: therefore Peter was set as prelate over all such: therefore one was the shepherd of all the sheep of Christ according to the foundation of the Church: therefore also according to its progress and consummation, one must be obeyed by all.

Bernard, treating the aforementioned words, in the second book to Eugene says thus: "You are the one to whom the keys have been handed over, to whom the sheep have been entrusted. There are indeed other doorkeepers of heaven and shepherds of flocks: but you so much more gloriously, inasmuch as you have more distinctly than the rest inherited both names. They have flocks assigned to them, each one his own; to you alone all have been entrusted, one flock to one shepherd. Not only of sheep, but also of shepherds, you alone are the pastor of all. How shall I prove this, you ask? From the word of the Lord: If you love me, Peter, feed my sheep. Which sheep? The peoples of this or that city, or region, or kingdom? My sheep, he says. To whom is it not plain that he did not designate some, but assigned all? Nothing is excepted where nothing is distinguished." And afterwards: "Your privilege stands unshaken, both in the keys and in the sheep entrusted to you, namely the sign of the singular pontificate of Peter, through which he undertook to govern not one ship, as each of the others his own, but the world itself."

We have been informed by Crementius the sub-deacon, who came to us from you, that the blessed father Cyprian has for a certain reason withdrawn; "in doing which he acted quite rightly, because he is a person of eminence, and because a conflict is impending," which God has allowed in the world, for the sake of cooperating with His servants in their struggle against the adversary, and was, moreover, willing that this conflict should show to angels and to men that the victor shall be crowned, while the vanquished shall in himself receive the doom which has been made manifest to us. Since, moreover, it devolves upon us who appear to be placed on high, in the place of a shepherd, to keep watch over the flock; if we be found neglectful, it will be said to us, as it was said to our predecessors also, who in such wise negligent had been placed in charge, that "we have not sought for that which was lost, and have not corrected the wanderer, and have not bound up that which was broken, but have eaten their milk, and been clothed with their wool; " and then also the Lord Himself, fulfilling what had been written in the law and the prophets, teaches, saying, "I am the good shepherd, who lay down my life for the sheep. But the hireling, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth, and the wolf scatter-eth them." To Simon, too, He speaks thus: "Lovest thou me? He answered, I do love Thee. He saith to him, Feed my sheep." We know that this saying arose out of the very circumstance of his withdrawal, and the rest of the disciples did likewise.

Here is a type given to the churches in that they ought to ask for a threefold confession of Christ from those who have chosen to love him by coming to him in holy baptism. And, by dwelling on this passage, instructors in religion may arrive at the knowledge that they cannot please the chief shepherd, that is, Christ, unless they take thought for the health of the sheep of his fold and their continual well-being.… Surely it is true to say that they are doing the Lord himself service who take, as it were, by the hand the mind of those who have been admitted to the faith and who are expected to be called to maturity in this faith. They are, in fact, eager to establish them firmly in the faith by every help that they can offer. Therefore, by his thrice-repeated confession the thrice-repeated denial of the blessed Peter was done away with. And, by the saying of our Lord, "Feed my lambs," we must understand a renewal as it were of the apostleship already given to him, washing away the disgrace of his fall that came in the intervening period and obliterating his faintheartedness that arose from human infirmity.

It appears from these words that, if one who is able refuses to feed the sheep of almighty God, he shows that he does not love the chief Shepherd. For if, in order to accomplish the good of all, the Only Begotten of the Father came forth from the concealment of the Father into our midst, what shall we say if we prefer our privacy over the good of our neighbors? And so, rest is to be desired by us with all our heart. And yet for the advantage of many it should sometimes be laid aside. For, as we ought with full desire to fly from occupation, so, if there should be a lack of anyone available to preach, we need to put a willing shoulder under the burden of occupation. And this we are taught by the conduct of two prophets [Jeremiah and Isaiah], one of whom attempted to shun the office of preaching, while the other desired it.

I myself am convinced by the Petrine claims, nor looking around the world does there seem much doubt which (if Christianity is true) is the True Church, the temple of the Spirit* dying but living, corrupt but holy, self-reforming and rearising. But for me that Church of which the Pope is the acknowledged head on earth has as chief claim that it is the one that has (and still does) ever defended the Blessed Sacrament, and given it most honour, and put it (as Christ plainly intended) in the prime place. 'Feed my sheep' was His last charge to St Peter; and since His words are always first to be understood literally, I suppose them to refer primarily to the Bread of Life. It was against this that the W. European revolt (or Reformation) was really launched – 'the blasphemous fable of the Mass' – and faith/works a mere red herring. I suppose the greatest reform of our time was that carried out by St Pius X surpassing anything, however needed, that the Council will achieve. I wonder what state the Church would now be but for it.

* Not that one should forget the wise words of Charles Williams, that it is our duty to tend the accredited and established altar, though the Holy Spirit may send the fire down somewhere else. God cannot be limited (even by his own Foundations) – of which St Paul is the first & prime example – and may use any channel for His grace. Even to love Our Lord, and certainly to call him Lord, and God, is a grace, and may bring more grace. Nonetheless, speaking institutionally and not of individual souls the channel must eventually run back into the ordained course, or run into the sands and perish. Besides the Sun there may be moonlight (even bright enough to read by); but if the Sun were removed there would be no Moon to see. What would Christianity now be if the Roman Church has in fact been destroyed?

(Hom. lxxxviii) A third time He asks the same question, and gives the same command; to show of what importance He esteems the superintendence of His own sheep, and how He regards it as the greatest proof of love to Him.

(Hom. lxxxviii) The question asked for the third time disturbed him: Peter was grieved because He said unto him the third time, Lovest thou Me? He was afraid perhaps of receiving a reproof again for professing to love more than he did. So he appeals to Christ Himself: And he said unto Him, Lord, Thou knowest all things, i. e. the secrets of the heart, present and to come.

And our Lord also called the faithful ones of His pastures by names in which simplicity is indicated: "If thou lovest Me", He said to Simon, the chief of His disciples, "feed My sheep, and My lambs, and My ewes." And as He was called symbolically by the word of the prophecy, "lamb", and "sheep", and John also called Him, "The Lamb of God", even so did He call the disciples of His word by the names which indicate simpleness. And He did this that when all believers heard what names were given to them by the Shepherd they might, like sheep, and lambs, and ewes, be incited to abide in all simpleness, and might not go forth from the law of simplicity, and that like these innocent animals, which are led to death, and are brought to slaughter, and are bound for shearing, and are hunted by wild beasts, they might neither cry out nor complain, but remain in quietness and in the innocency of their nature.

The Savior does not say to him, fast, or keep watch for me. But, since the pastoral care of souls is more worthy and more useful to the community, he entrusts him with this. I, he says, need nothing: feed my sheep, and return to me the love with which I loved you, because I will take your care for them as care devoted to me.

He asks him three times, partly to show that He cares so much for the faithful and loves His own sheep so much that the care of His sheep serves as a sign of love for Him Himself; and partly by the threefold questioning and confession He heals the threefold denial, and corrects with words the fall that occurred in words. From this arose the custom of requiring a threefold confession from those desiring to be baptized. After the first and second question, Peter calls as witness Him who knows hearts; he no longer trusts in himself, does not answer hastily, but each time adds: "You know." When Peter was asked a third time, he became troubled, wondering whether he was mistaken in thinking that he loved, when perhaps in reality he did not love, because before he too had thought highly of himself and his own strength, yet the outcome proved him wrong. And now he feared the same thing. Therefore he answers with reverence: "Lord! You know all things, both the present and the future; You know that now I love You, as it seems to me, but whether my love will endure for the time to come, this You know, and I do not vouch for myself." Another person, perhaps, will find a distinction between the terms "lambs" and "sheep," between the words "feed" and "tend." By "lambs," perhaps, are meant beginners, and by "sheep" – those more perfect. Therefore, whoever loves Christ must have care for both the lambs and the sheep, must "feed" the lambs, that is, exercise over them a simpler oversight, and "tend" the sheep, which points to a higher guidance. Sometimes, however, even the most perfect are in need of tender care, and the overseers of the sheep must nourish them. "To tend" expresses a stricter oversight, while "to feed" – a more tender one. What then shall we render to the Lord, who so loved us that He made the care of His sheep the sign of love for Himself?

The third time Christ says to him, Feed my sheep. This is because there are three types of people in the Church: beginners, those who have made some progress, and the perfect. The first two types are the lambs, since they are still imperfect. The others, since they are perfect, are called sheep: "The mountains," that is, the perfect, "skipped like rams," and "the hills," the others, "like lambs" (Ps 114:4). And so all prelates ought to guard their charges as Christ's sheep and not their own. But alas! As Augustine says in his Easter Sermon: "We witness the appearance of certain unfaithful servants who have abandoned Christ's flock and by their thefts have made gold their flock. You hear them say, 'These are my sheep. What do you want with my sheep? I will not let you come to my sheep.' But if we say 'my sheep,' and others talk about their sheep, then Christ has lost his own sheep."

Note also that just as Peter was assigned his office three times, so he was examined three times. This was because he had denied Christ three times. As Augustine says: "A threefold profession was required so that Peter's tongue might show as much love as it had shown of fear, and that life gained would wrest more words than the threat of death." Another reason for this was because Peter was obligated to love Christ for three things. First, because his sin was forgiven, for the one who is forgiven more loves the more (cf. Lk 7:43). Secondly, because he was promised a great honor: "On this rock I will build my Church" (Mt 16:18). Thirdly, because of the office entrusted to him, as right here, when Christ entrusts the care of the Church to him, Feed. "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart," so that you will direct your entire intention to God, "and with all your soul," so that your entire will might rest in God through love, "and with all your might," so that the performance of all your actions will serve God.

Peter became sad because asked three times. As was seen, he was rebuked by our Lord before the passion when he so quickly asserted that he loved him. Now, seeing that he is questioned so many times about his love, he is afraid he will be rebuked again and becomes sad. Thus he says, Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you. He is saying in effect: I do love you; at least I think I do. But you know all things, and perhaps you know of something else that will happen. And so the final commitment of the Church is given to the humbled Peter. According to one of the Greek doctors, this is also the reason why catechumens are questioned three times during their baptism.

And as he [Peter] went forth of the city, he saw the Lord entering into Rome. And when he saw him, he said: Lord, whither goest thou thus (or here)? And the Lord said unto him: I go into Rome to be crucified. And Peter said unto him: Lord, art thou (being) crucified again? He said unto him: Yea, Peter, I am (being) crucified again. And Peter came to himself: and having beheld the Lord ascending up into heaven, he returned to Rome, rejoicing, and glorifying the Lord, for that he said: I am being crucified: the which was about to befall Peter.

He went up therefore again unto the brethren, and told them that which had been seen by him: and they lamented in soul, weeping and saying: We beseech thee, Peter, take thought for us that are young. And Peter said unto them: If it be the Lord's will, it cometh to pass, even if we will it not; but for you, the Lord is able to stablish you in his faith, and will found you therein and make you spread abroad, whom he himself hath planted, that ye also may plant others through him. But I, so long as the Lord will that I be in the flesh, resist not; and again if he take me to him I rejoice and am glad.

And while Peter thus spake, and all the brethren wept, behold four soldiers took him and led him unto Agrippa. And he in his madness (disease) commanded him to be crucified on an accusation of godlessness.

The whole multitude of the brethren therefore ran together, both of rich and poor, orphans and widows, weak and strong, desiring to see and to rescue Peter, while the people shouted with one voice, and would not be silenced: What wrong hath Peter done, O Agrippa? Wherein hath he hurt thee? tell the Romans! And others said: We fear lest if this man die, his Lord destroy us all.

And Peter when he came unto the place stilled the people and said: Ye men that are soldiers of Christ! ye men that hope in Christ! remember the signs and wonders which ye have seen wrought through me, remember the compassion of God, how many cures he hath wrought for you. Wait for him that cometh and shall reward every man according to his doings. And now be ye not bitter against Agrippa; for he is the minister of his father's working. And this cometh to pass at all events, for the Lord hath manifested unto me that which befalleth. But why delay I and draw not near unto the cross?

And having approached and standing by the cross he began to say: O name of the cross, thou hidden mystery! O grace ineffable that is pronounced in the name of the cross! O nature of man, that cannot be separated from God! O love (friendship) unspeakable and inseparable, that cannot be shown forth by unclean lips! I seize thee now, I that am at the end of my delivery hence (or, of my coming hither). I will declare thee, what thou art: I will not keep silence of the mystery of the cross which of old was shut and hidden from my soul. Let not the cross be unto you which hope in Christ, this which appeareth: for it is another thing, different from that which appeareth, even this passion which is according to that of Christ. And now above all, because ye that can hear are able to hear it of me, that am at the last and final hour of my life, hearken: Separate your souls from every thing that is of the senses, from every thing that appeareth, and does not exist in truth. Blind these eyes of yours, close these ears of yours, put away your doings that are seen; and ye shall perceive that which concerneth Christ, and the whole mystery of your salvation: and let thus much be said unto you that hear, as if it had not been spoken. But now it is time for thee, Peter, to deliver up thy body unto them that take it. Receive it then, ye unto whom it belongeth. I beseech you the executioners, crucify me thus, with the head downward and not otherwise: and the reason wherefore, I will tell unto them that hear.

And when they had hanged him up after the manner he desired, he began again to say: Ye men unto whom it belongeth to hear, hearken to that which I shall declare unto you at this especial time as I hang here. Learn ye the mystery of all nature, and the beginning of all things, what it was. For the first man, whose race I bear in mine appearance (or, of the race of whom I bear the likeness), fell (was borne) head downwards, and showed forth a manner of birth such as was not heretofore: for it was dead, having no motion. He, then, being pulled down -who also cast his first state down upon the earth- established this whole disposition of all things, being hanged up an image of the creation (Gk. vocation) wherein he made the things of the right hand into left hand and the left hand into right hand, and changed about all the marks of their nature, so that he thought those things that were not fair to be fair, and those that were in truth evil, to be good. Concerning which the Lord saith in a mystery: Unless ye make the things of the right hand as those of the left, and those of the left as those of the right, and those that are above as those below, and those that are behind as those that are before, ye shall not have knowedge of the kingdom.

This thought, therefore, have I declared unto you; and the figure wherein ye now see me hanging is the representation of that man that first came unto birth. Ye therefore, my beloved, and ye that hear me and that shall hear, ought to cease from your former error and return back again. For it is right to mount upon the cross of Christ, who is the word stretched out, the one and only, of whom the spirit saith: For what else is Christ, but the word, the sound of God? So that the word is the upright beam whereon I am crucified. And the sound is that which crosseth it, the nature of man. And the nail which holdeth the cross-tree unto the upright in the midst thereof is the conversion and repentance of man.

Now whereas thou hast made known and revealed these things unto me, O word of life, called now by me wood (or, word called now by me the tree of life), I give thee thanks, not with these lips that are nailed unto the cross, nor with this tongue by which truth and falsehood issue forth, nor with this word which cometh forth by means of art whose nature is material, but with that voice do I give thee thanks, O King, which is perceived (understood) in silence, which is not heard openly, which proceedeth not forth by organs of the body, which goeth not into ears of flesh, which is not heard of corruptible substance, which existeth not in the world, neither is sent forth upon earth, nor written in books, which is owned by one and not by another: but with this, O Jesu Christ, do I give thee thanks, with the silence of a voice, wherewith the spirit that is in me loveth thee, speaketh unto thee, seeth thee, and beseecheth thee. Thou art perceived of the spirit only, thou art unto me father, thou my mother, thou my brother, thou my friend, thou my bondsman, thou my steward: thou art the All and the All is in thee: and thou Art, and there is nought else that is save thee only.

Unto him therefore do ye also, brethren, flee, and if ye learn that in him alone ye exist, ye shall obtain those things whereof he saith unto you: 'which neither eye hath seen nor ear heard, neither have they entered into the heart of man.' We ask, therefore, for that which thou hast promised to give unto us, O thou undefiled Jesu. We praise thee, we give thee thanks, and confess to thee, glorifying thee, even we men that are yet without strength, for thou art God alone, and none other: to whom be glory now and unto all ages. Amen.

And when the multitude that stood by pronounced the Amen with a great sound, together with the Amen Peter gave up his spirit unto the Lord.

Such was the end reached by that denier and lover; elated by his presumption, prostrated by his denial, cleansed by his weeping, approved by his confession, crowned by his suffering, this was the end he reached, to die with a perfected love for the name of Him with whom, by a perverted forwardness, he had promised to die. He would do, when strengthened by His resurrection, what in his weakness he promised prematurely. For the needful order was that Christ should first die for Peter's salvation, and then that Peter should die for the preaching of Christ. The boldness thus begun by human temerity was an utter inversion of the order that had been instituted by the Truth. Peter thought to lay down his life for Christ, the one to be delivered in behalf of the Deliverer, seeing that Christ had come to lay down His life for all His own, including Peter also, which, you see, was now done. Now and henceforth a true, because graciously bestowed, strength of heart may be assumed for incurring death itself for the name of the Lord, and not a false one presumptuously usurped through an erroneous estimate of ourselves. Now there is no need that we should any more fear the passage out of the present life, because in the Lord's resurrection we have a foregoing illustration of the life to come. Now thou hast cause, Peter, to be no longer afraid of death, because He liveth whom thou didst mourn when dead, and whom in thy carnal love thou didst try to hinder from dying in our behalf. Thou didst dare to step in before the Leader, and thou didst tremble before His persecutor: now that the price has been paid for thee, it is thy duty to follow the Buyer, and follow Him even to the death of the cross. Thou hast heard the words of Him whom thou hast already proved to be truthful; He Himself hath foretold thy suffering, who formerly foretold thy denial.

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shall be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wilt not. And this spake He, signifying by what death he should glorify God." "Thou shall stretch forth thy hands," He said; in other words, thou shall be crucified. But that thou mayest come to this, "another shall gird thee, and carry thee," not whither thou wouldest, but "whither thou wouldest not." He told him first what would happen, and then how it should come to pass. For it was not after being crucified, but when actually about to be crucified, that he was carried whither he would not; for after being crucified he went his way, not whither he would not, but rather whither he would. And though when set free from the body he wished to be with Christ, yet, were it only possible, he had a desire for eternal life apart from the grievousness of death, to which grievous experience he was unwillingly carried, but from it [when all was over] he was willingly carried away; unwillingly he came to it, but willingly he conquered it, and left this feeling of infirmity behind that makes every one unwilling to die,-a feeling so permanently natural, that even old age itself was unable to set the blessed Peter free from its influence, even as it was said unto him, "When thou shalt be old," thou shall be led "whither thou wouldest not."

For our consolation the Saviour Himself transfigured also the same feeling in His own person when He said, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me;" and He certainly had come to die without having any necessity, but only the willingness to die, with power to lay down His life, and with power to take it again. But however great be the grievousness of death, it ought to be overcome by the power of that love which is felt to Him who, being our life, was willing to endure even death in our behalf. For if there were no grievousness, even of the smallest kind, in death, the glory of the martyrs would not be so great. But if the good Shepherd, who laid down His own life for His sheep, has raised up so many martyrs for Himself out of the very sheep, how much more ought those to contend to death for the truth, and even to blood against sin, who are entrusted by Him with the feeding, that is, with the teaching and governing of these very sheep? And on this account, along with the preceding example of His own passion, who can fail to see that the shepherds ought all the more to set themselves closely to imitate the Shepherd, if He was so imitated even by many of the sheep under whom, as the one Shepherd and in the one flock, the shepherds themselves are likewise sheep? For He made all those His sheep for [all of] whom He died, because He Himself also became a sheep that He might suffer for all.

(Tract. cxxiii. 5) That is, shalt be crucified. And to come to this end, Another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. First He said what would come to pass, secondly, how it would come to pass. For it was not when crucified, but when about to be crucified, that he was led whither he would not. He wished to be released from the body, and be with Christ; but, if it were possible, he wished to attain to eternal life without the pains of death: to which he went against his will, but conquered by the force of his will, and triumphing over the human feeling, so natural a one, that even old age could not deprive Peter of it. But whatever be the pain of death, it ought to be conquered by the strength of love for Him, Who being our life, voluntarily also underwent death for us. For if there is no pain in death, or very little, the glory of martyrdom would not be great.

(Tract. cxxiii) He who denied and loved, died in perfect love for Him, for Whom he had promised to die with wrong haste. It was necessary that Christ should first die for Peter's salvation, and then Peter die for Christ's Gospel.

After Peter's confirmation in love was made, here follows his invitation to the consummation of love. Now the consummation of love is that a man lay down his life for Christ: therefore here follows an invitation to imitate the passion.

Peter is therefore certified by the Lord concerning the manner of his death, namely through passion and the cross: and to make it certain, he says: Amen, amen I say to you: and this is the passion, that in his old age he would be crucified for Christ: whence he says: When you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished, that is, you followed your own will: Sirach 18: "Son, do not go after your concupiscences, and turn away from your own will." But when you have grown old, you will stretch out your hands, namely on the cross; and another will gird you, "namely with bonds," as Nero, and will lead you where you do not wish, "that is, to death"; because, as is said in Second Corinthians 5, "we do not wish to be unclothed, but to be further clothed." And the reason for this is given in Ephesians 5: "Because no one ever hated his own flesh." Peter was bound with chains: Acts 12: "Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains."

It is asked about what he says: Another will gird you and lead you where you do not wish. It seems from this that the passion of Peter was involuntary: therefore it was not meritorious. I respond: The will is twofold: of reason and of nature. He suffered willingly by the will of reason, but unwillingly by the will of nature or of sensuality. Nor is this surprising, because it was so in the Head; whence Matthew twenty-six: Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will. Whence Augustine: "Peter came unwilling to death, willing he conquered death, and he left behind this disposition of weakness, by which no one wishes to die, so deeply natural that not even old age could take it away from blessed Peter."

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.

With great kindness and tenderness our Lord Jesus Christ testifies to the fervour of the love which His disciple bore unto Him, and the high honour of his piety and endurance, tried to the uttermost. For He tells him clearly what would be the issue of his apostleship, and what would be the end of his life. For He foretold unto him, that one would take him to a place whither he would not go; that is, in which his persecutors, or those who condemned him to the penalty of death, had fixed the cross. He says, that the place of his crucifixion would be a place whither Peter would not go. For no one of the Saints suffers death of his own free choice. But though death be bitter, and though it come upon them sorely against their will, yet do they who yearn for the glory that God gives disdain earthly life. Therefore Christ foretold, that the blessed Peter would be taken to a place to die in, sore displeasing and hateful unto him. But he would never have attained to so glorious a death, nor have been crucified for Christ, had he not followed His injunction to take charge of the sheep of His fold, and, having the power of the love of Christ firmly rooted in his heart, called to obedience those who have been ensnared into error by the wiles of the devil. For they who ventured on this crime, and slew the blessed Peter, had no other accusation to charge him withal, save only his zeal in Christ's service. We may see then hereby, that our Lord Jesus Christ well, and of necessity, foretold Peter's end, that by the doom that he was destined to suffer he might in a manner put the seal of truth upon the words he spake unto Him: Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee. For that he met his death at all on account of preaching the Gospel was surely a plain and incontrovertible proof of affection, and showed that he was in no way lacking in perfect love towards Christ. Christ, then, adds to what He had said, the words "Follow Me," which bear the signification they so commonly have of following Him as a disciple, and also hinting darkly, as I think, at something else; or meaning, Tread in the track of the perils through which I have passed, and walk in the same path, by deed and word succouring the souls of those who are called, and hesitate not to encounter death itself upon the cross, which, Christ says, will be your lot when you reach old age; not suffering Peter to be alarmed before the time, but deferring for a long season the approach of the king of terrors.

Peter appears to have preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the Jews of the dispersion. And at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer in this way.

St. Peter was crucified upside down as a huge inhuman joke; but his human seriousness survived the inhuman joke, because, in whatever posture, he had died for his faith. The modern martyr of the Pankhurst type courts the absurdity without making the suffering strong enough to eclipse the absurdity. She is like a St. Peter who should deliberately stand on his head for ten seconds and then expect to be canonised for it.

Simon Peter the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion — the believers in circumcision, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia — pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord.

And having spoken to him concerning the love towards Himself, He foretelleth to him the martyrdom which he should undergo, showing that He said not to Him what he said as distrusting, but as greatly trusting him; wishing besides to point out a proof of love towards Him, and to instruct us in what manner especially we ought to love Him.

And yet this he did will, and desired; on which account also He hath revealed it to him. For since Peter had continually said, "I will lay down my life for Thee", and, "Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not deny Thee": He hath given him back his desire. What then is the, "Whither thou willest not"? He speaketh of natural feeling, and the necessity of the flesh, and that the soul is unwillingly torn away from the body. So that even though the will were firm, yet still even then nature would be found in fault. For no one lays aside the body without feeling, God, as I said before, having suitably ordained this, that violent deaths might not be many. For if, as things are, the devil has been able to effect this, and has led ten thousand to precipices and pits; had not the soul felt such a desire for the body, the many would have rushed to this under any common discouragement. The, "whither thou willest not," is then the expression of one signifying natural feeling.

But how after having said, "When thou wast young," doth He again say, "When thou art old"? For this is the expression of one declaring that he was not then young; (nor was he; nor yet old, but a man of middle age.) Wherefore then did He recall to his memory his former life? Signifying, that this is the nature of what belongeth to Him. In things of this life the young man is useful, the old useless; "but in Mine," He saith, "not so; but when old age hath come on, then is excellence brighter, then is manliness more illustrious, being nothing hindered by the time of life." This He said not to terrify, but to rouse Him; for He knew his love, and that he long had yearned for this blessing. At the same time He declareth the kind of death. For since Peter ever desired to be in the dangers which were for His sake, "Be of good cheer," He saith, "I will so satisfy thy desire, that, what thou sufferedst not when young, thou must suffer when thou art old."

Then the Evangelist, to rouse the hearer, has added, "This spake He, signifying by what death he should glorify God." He said not, "Should die," but, "Should glorify God," that thou mayest learn, that to suffer for Christ, is glory and honor to the sufferer.

"And when He had spoken this, He saith, Follow Me." Here again He alludeth to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. And if any should say, "How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?" I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.

For 'most excellent Theophilus' Luke compiled the individual events that took place in his presence - as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter

(super. Matt.) It is not easy to find any ready to pass at once from this life; and so he says to Peter, When thou art old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hand.

Thus Peter, the first of the apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome.

We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another, when he is made fast to the cross.

Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's!

And if a heretic wishes his confidence to rest upon a public record, the archives of the empire will speak, as would the stones of Jerusalem. We read the lives of the Cæsars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another, [John 21:18] when he is made fast to the cross.

The Lord, having spoken to Peter about love for Himself, also foretells to him the martyrdom that he will endure. He says this in order to show that if He asks him about love, He asks not out of distrust toward him, but out of confidence that he loves, for how can he not love who will even be martyred for Him? He asked in order to more fully reveal the love of Peter himself and to teach all others that if we desire to love Him, we must prove our love for Him through care for the brethren. How then does He foretell his martyrdom? Listen. "When you were young, you girded yourself," and so forth. "Since," He says, "you love Me and have more than once promised to lay down your life for Me in times of danger, be at peace; I will fulfill your desire, so that what you did not suffer in your youth, you will suffer in your old age." He reminds him of his former life in order to show that the spiritual and the carnal stand in inverse relation. In worldly affairs the young man is useful, while the one who has grown old is useless; in spiritual affairs, on the contrary, the struggle is more glorious when old age has come. He says this with the aim of stirring up his love and inflaming him for martyrdom. He also hints to him that he too will be crucified. For the words "you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you" indicate nothing other than being stretched out on the cross and being bound. By the words "when you were young" and again "but when you grow old," he shows that Peter at that time was neither young nor old, but a man in his prime. Why did the Lord tell him that "another will gird you and lead you where you do not wish"? Although Peter desired martyrdom, and desired it ardently, the Lord's words point to the sympathy of our nature for life and to the fact that the soul is reluctant to part from the body. For God so arranged it, and arranged it for our benefit, so that we would not kill ourselves. Therefore no one, even if he be a saint, puts off the body without feeling.

Above, our Lord entrusted the office of shepherd to Peter. Now he foretells his martyrdom. This was pertinent because a good shepherd should lay down his life for his sheep (10:11). It was not granted to the young Peter to lay down his life for Christ; but rather to the old Peter to lay down his life for his sheep. This is what Christ foretold to him. Christ first tells of Peter's past life; then he predicts the end of his future life (v 18). Thirdly, the Evangelist explains our Lord's words (v 19).

Peter's past life showed certain shortcomings, for as a young man he was too presumptuous and self‑willed. But this is characteristic of the young, as the Philosopher says in his Rhetoric. Thus we read in Ecclesiastes (11:9) a kind of reproach: "Rejoice, O young man, in your youth, and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth; walk in the ways of your heart and the sight of your eyes." Our Lord refers to this trait of Peter and says, When you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would. He says, you girded yourself, that is, you restrained yourself from certain unlawful and superfluous things, but walked where you would, not allowing yourself to be kept in check by anyone. That is why you always wanted to be in danger for my sake. But it was not granted to you that you suffer for me when young, but when you are old I will fulfill your desire because you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you. What a wondrous prediction! It gives both the time and the suffering. From the time these words were spoken until Peter's death, about thirty‑seven years went by. We can see from this that Peter was quite old.

According to Chrysostom, he says, when you are old, because human affairs are different than divine affairs: in human affairs the young are useful, and the old are not of much use; but in divine matters virtue is not taken away by old age, rather it sometimes becomes even stronger: "My old age is exalted in abundant mercy" (Ps 92:10); "As the days of your youth, so shall your old age be" (Deut 33:25). But this is to be understood only of those who have practiced virtue in their youth, as Cicero says. For those who have passed their youth in idleness will become of little or no value when old. This also teaches us that we rarely find rulers and teachers who are useful to the Church dying young, as Origen remarks in his explanation of Matthew (25:19): "Now after a long time the master of those servants came." He gives Paul as an example. In Acts (7:58) Paul is seen as "a young man," but in Philemon (1:9) he is "an old man." The reason for this is that people of this caliber are so rare, that when they are found, the Lord preserves them to a ripe old age.

He mentions the way he will suffer when he says, you will stretch out your hands, for Peter was crucified. Yet he was crucified using ropes, not nails, so he would not die so quickly. This is the girding spoken of by Christ.

Three things can be considered in the sufferings of the saints. First, there is a natural affection: there is such a natural love between the soul and the body that the soul never desires to be separated from the body, nor the body from the soul: "For while we are still in this tent, we sigh with anxiety; not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed" (2 Cor 5:4); "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death" (Mt 26:38). This is why Christ says, where you do not wish to go, that is, by the impulse of nature, which is so rooted in nature that even old age could not destroy it in Peter. Yet, the desire due to grace weakens this: "My desire is to depart and be with Christ" (Phil 1:23); "We are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord" (2 Cor 5:8). Secondly, the intentions of the persecutors and the saints are different, and carry you where you do not wish to go. Thirdly, we see that we should be prepared to suffer, but not to kill ourselves. Thus Christ says, you will stretch out your hands. This clearly was the case with Peter: for when the people wanted to rebel against Nero and deliver Peter, he forbade it: "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example" (1 Pet 2:21).

The words another will gird you rightly come before and carry you, the thought being that another will gird you because he will carry you where you do not wish to go. Lest one think this statement was lightly written, it was written after the death of Peter. Peter was killed during Nero's lifetime; and John wrote this Gospel after he returned from the exile to which he had been banished during the reign of Domitian, there being several other emperors between Nero and Domitian.

Peter accomplished later on by the grace of God what he had previously been unable to do by self-reliance. You see, after the Lord had entrusted him with his, not Peter's sheep, to feed them, not for himself but for the Lord, he told him about his future martyrdom, which he had forfeited the first time because he had been in much too much of a hurry. "When you are older," he said, "someone else will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go. He said this, though, to signify by what death he was going to glorify the Lord." It came about that Peter arrived at his martyrdom, having washed away his denial with his tears. What had been promised him by the Savior could not be taken away from him by the tempter.

He said, "Follow me," but not in the same way as when he had previously called the disciples. Then too, certainly, he said, "Follow me." But then it was to school he was summoning them; now it is to the prize giving.

Why is it said to Peter, "Follow me," and not to the others who were likewise present? Surely the disciples followed Him also as their Master. But if it is to be understood only in reference to his suffering, was Peter the only one that suffered for the truth of Christianity? Was there not present there amongst those seven, another son of Zebedee, the brother of John, who, after His ascension, is plainly recorded to have been slain by Herod? But some one may say that, as James was not crucified, it was properly enough said to Peter, "Follow me," inasmuch as he underwent not only death, but, like Christ, even the death of the cross.

It is no unimportant question why the Lord, when He manifested Himself for the third time to the disciples, said unto the Apostle Peter, "Follow me;" but of the Apostle John, "Thus I wish him to remain till I come, what is that to thee?" When the Lord, then, had announced beforehand to Peter by what death he was to glorify God, "He saith unto him, Follow me. Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; who also leaned on His breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that shall betray Thee? Peter, therefore, seeing him, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what [of] this man? Jesus saith unto him, Thus do I wish him to remain till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me."

There are two states of life, therefore, preached and commended to herself from heaven, that are known to the Church, whereof the one is in faith, the other in sight; one in the temporal sojourn in a foreign land, the other in the eternity of the [heavenly] abode; one in labor, the other in repose; one on the way, the other in the fatherland; one in active work, the other in the wages of contemplation; one declines from evil and makes for good, the other has no evil to decline from, and has great good to enjoy; the one fights with a foe, the other reigns without a foe; the one is brave in the midst of adversities, the other has no experience of adversity; the one is bridling its carnal lusts, the other has full scope for spiritual delights; the one is anxious with the care of conquering, the other secure in the peace of victory; the one is helped in temptations, the other, free from all temptations, rejoices in the Helper Himself; the one is occupied in relieving the indigent, the other is there, where no indigence is found; the one pardons the sins of others, that its own may be pardoned to itself, the other neither has anything to pardon nor does aught for which pardon has to be asked; the one is scourged with evils that it may not be elated with good things, the other is free from all evil by such a fullness of grace that, without any temptation to pride, it may cleave to that which is supremely good; the one discerneth both good and evil, the other has only that which is good presented to view: therefore the one is good, but miserable as yet; the other, better and blessed. This one was signified by the Apostle Peter, that other by John.

The whole of the one is passed here to the end of this world, and there finds its termination, the other is deferred for its completion till after the end of this world, but has no end in the world to come. Hence it is said to the latter, "Follow me;" but of the former, "Thus I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me." For what means this last? So far as my wisdom goes, so far as I comprehend, what is it but this, Follow thou me by imitating me in the endurance of temporal evils; let him remain till I come to restore everlasting good? And this may be expressed more clearly in this way: Let perfected action, informed by the example of my passion, follow me; but let contemplation only begun remain [so] till I come, to be perfected when I come. For the godly plenitude of patience, reaching forward even unto death, followeth Christ; but the fullness of knowledge tarrieth till Christ come, to be manifested then.

Let no one, however, separate these distinguished apostles. In that which was signified by Peter, they were both alike; and in that which was signified by John, they will both be alike hereafter. In their representative character, the one was following, the other tarrying; but in their personal faith they were both of them enduring the present evils of the misery here, both of them expecting the future good things of the blessedness to come. And such is the case, not with them alone, but with the holy universal Church, the spouse of Christ, who has still to be rescued from the present trials, and to be preserved in the future happiness. And these two states of life were symbolized by Peter and John, the one by the one, the other by the other; but in this life they both of them walked for a time by faith, and the other they shall both of them enjoy eternally by sight. For the whole body of the saints, therefore, inseparably belonging to the body of Christ, and for their safe pilotage through the present tempestuous life, did Peter, the first of the apostles, receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven for the binding and loosing of sins; and for the same congregation of saints, in reference to the perfect repose in the bosom of that mysterious life to come did the evangelist John recline on the breast of Christ.

(Tract. cxxiii) He who denied and loved, died in perfect love for Him, for Whom he had promised to die with wrong haste. It was necessary that Christ should first die for Peter's salvation, and then Peter die for Christ's Gospel.

(Tract. cxxiv) Our Lord having foretold to Peter by what death he should glorify God, bids him follow Him. And when He had spoken this, He saith unto him, Follow Me. Why does He say, Follow Me, to Peter, and not to the others who were present, who as disciples were following their Master? Or if we understand it of his martyrdom, was Peter the only one who died for the Christian truth? Was not James put to death by Herod? Some one will say that James was not crucified, and that this was fitly addressed to Peter, because he not only died, but suffered the death of the cross, as Christ did.

Now this, namely that you will stretch out your hands, he said, signifying by what death he would glorify God: because by the death of the cross, which, although before Christ it was to be held in contempt, afterwards became glorious: and by this Peter was made glorious. Whence Augustine says: "That denier, both lifted up by presumption, cast down by denying, afterwards purged by weeping, proved by confessing, was crowned by suffering." By this Peter glorified the Lord, just as Paul said in Philippians 1: "Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death." And because the passion is not good unless it is voluntary: therefore he exhorts Peter to suffer voluntarily: and for this reason he says: And when he had said this, he says to him, that is, to Peter: Follow me, come voluntarily to the passion of the cross, according to what Peter himself says in First Peter 2: "Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you might follow his steps." Concerning this following or imitation, the Lord said to Peter above in chapter thirteen: "Where I go, you cannot come now; but you shall follow afterwards."

It is asked about what he says: Signifying by what death he would glorify God, because above in chapter five: I do not receive glory from men; therefore, since Peter was a man, he did not glorify God. I respond: It must be said that although God is not glorified in himself, he is nevertheless glorified to us in his Saints who suffer for his glory, because through this it becomes known to us how much must be suffered for the love of God by the example of the Saints.

It is asked about the fact that the Lord specially says to Peter: You, follow me; because if it is understood by way of perfection, many others followed; if by way of passion, likewise; if by the kind of death, Andrew also followed. And it is answered here according to some that you does not indicate distinction absolutely there, but only in respect to John, about whom the discourse was. Or it must be said that you indicates there more significance than distinction: for since Peter was the head of the Church and the chief prelate, just as he excelled in prelacy, so also he ought to excel in imitation.

The Lord did not hand over his little flock to its pastor until he had received genuine pledges. He received the threefold [confession] that [Simon] had professed as trustworthy pledges for the three [denials]. Therefore, when his Master said [to him], "Do you love me?" our Lord was wanting to receive from him his true love so that, after having given the pledge of his love, [Simon] might receive [Jesus'] sheep as a flock. When [the Lord] saw that his mouth was confessing and that his tears were a seal, he gave him the reward reserved for pastors, namely, death, since this is the crown of victory of the pastors and their shepherds. [The Lord] was not able to give Simon the allotted portion of death until he had received from him [the pledge of] his love. For in the same way our Lord would not have given his life for his little flock if it had not been on account of his love for it.

[Nero] publicly announced himself as the first among God's chief enemies and so was led on to the slaughter of the apostles. It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: "But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church." And that they both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his epistle to the Romans in the following words: "You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. And they taught together in the same way in Italy and suffered martyrdom at the same time." I have quoted these things in order that the truth of the history might be still more confirmed.

If equanimity be the contention, you have Lycurgus choosing death by self-starvation, because the Lacons had made some emendation of his laws: the Christian, even when he is condemned, gives thanks. If the comparison be made in regard to trustworthiness, Anaxagoras denied the deposit of his enemies: the Christian is noted for his fidelity even among those who are not of his religion.

The Evangelist, according to his custom, adds in explanation of the words: "This he said, signifying by what death Peter would glorify God." Jesus said to Peter "you will stretch out your hands" and so forth, signifying that he would suffer martyrdom for Him. He calls Peter's death the glory of God, because suffering for Him unto death is truly the glory of God. For if the soul is not fully convinced that He is the true God, then a man will not die for Him. And therefore the death of the saints is a confirmation of the glory of God. The Lord entrusted to Peter the care of all believers. For if James received the throne in Jerusalem, Peter received it in the whole world. After this the Lord says to him: "Follow Me," showing His care for him and His great affection toward him. By "following," understand here both diligence in all deeds and words. For those follow Him who walk in the footsteps of His life and imitate His uprightness in all things. Perhaps He commands Peter to follow Him physically as well, showing, as I said, His special affection for him. For we make those who are close to us our followers.

Peter hearing that he was to suffer death for Christ, asks whether John was to die: Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on His breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth Thee? Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

i. e. Shall he not die?

Or let him say, Christ did not deny that John was to die, for whatever is born dies; but said, I will that he tarry till I come, i. e. to live to the end of the world, and then he shall suffer martyrdom for Me. And therefore they confess that he still lives, but will be killed by Antichrist, and will preach Christ's name with Elias. But if his sepulchre be objected, then they say that he entered in alive, and went out of it afterwards.

When our Lord says to Peter, Follow Me, He confers upon him the superintendence over all the faithful, and at the same time bids him imitate Him in every thing, word and work. He shows too His affection for Peter; for those who are most dear to us, we bid follow us.

Some have understood, Till I come, to mean, Till I come to punish the Jews who have crucified Me, and strike them with the Roman rod. For they say that this Apostle lived up to the time of Vespasian, who took Jerusalem, and dwelt near when it was taken. Or, Till I come, i. e. till I give him the commission to preach, for to you I commit now the pontificate of the world: and in this follow Me, but let him remain till I come and call him, as I do thee now.

John mentions this as something in the future, saying, This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God, for the death of the saints gives glory to Christ: "Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death" (Phil 1:20); "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief... yet if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but under that name let him glorify God" (1 Pet 4:15). Indeed, the greatness of the Lord is shown by the fact that the saints brave death for his truth and faith.

After the Evangelist showed what our Lord had in mind for Peter, he now tells about John. First, we see the commendation of the disciple, John; secondly, his gospel is commended (v 25). In regard to the first, we see the occasion for John's commendation; and then the commendation itself, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

The occasion for John's commendation was Christ's invitation to Peter to follow him. And after he said this to him, that is, after Christ told Peter about his office and martyrdom, he said to him, Jesus said to Peter, Follow me. For Augustine, this means follow me in martyrdom, by suffering for me; for it is not enough just to suffer in some way, but this must be done by following Christ, that is, by suffering for his sake: "Blessed are you when men hate you... on account of the Son of man" (Lk 6:22); "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps" (1 Pet 2:21).

Many others who were present would also suffer for Christ, especially James, who was the first to be killed: "He killed James the brother of John with the sword" (Acts 12:2). Why then does Christ say to Peter in particular, Follow me? The reason, according to Augustine, was that Peter not only suffered death for Christ, but also followed Christ even in the kind of death, that is, death by the cross: "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Mt 16:24). Or, according to Chrysostom, in saying Follow me, Christ means in your office as prelate, leader. He was saying in effect: As I have the care of the Church, received from my Father ‑ "Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage" (Ps 2:8) ‑ so will you be, in my place, over the whole Church.

But after Christ's ascension, why did James hold first place in Jerusalem? We can say that James had a special jurisdiction over that place, but Peter had the universal authority over the whole Church of believers.

The Lord either said what he said to Peter about his martyrdom, or he said it about the gospel of John. As regards the martyrdom and this "Follow me," [he means] suffer for me, suffer what I did. Because Christ was crucified, Peter too was crucified … while John experienced none of this. That is what is meant by, "It is thus that I wish him to remain." Let him fall asleep without wounds, without torment, and wait for me. You, Peter, "Follow me," suffer what I did. That's one way these words can be explained.…As regards the Gospel of John, though, this is what I think is meant: that Peter wrote about the Lord, others too wrote; but their writing was more concerned with the Lord's humanity.… But while there is something about the divinity of Christ in Peter's letters, in John's gospel it is very much to the fore.… He soared above the clouds and soared above the stars, soared above the angels, soared above every creature and arrived at the Word through which all things were made.

"Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple dieth not: yet Jesus said not unto him, He dieth not; but, Thus do I wish him to remain till I come, what is that to thee?" You see the great extent in this Gospel of a question which, by its depth, must exercise in no ordinary way the mind of the inquirer. For why is it said to Peter, "Follow me," and not to the others who were likewise present? Who can readily believe that anything else was meant than what the brethren who lived at the time believed, namely, that that disciple was not to die, but to abide in this life till Jesus came? But John himself removed such an idea, by giving a flat contradiction to the report that the Lord had said so. For why should he add, "Jesus saith not, He dieth not," save to prevent what was false from taking hold of the hearts of men?

(Tract. cxxiv.) Or perhaps he will allow that John still lies in his sepulchre at Ephesus, but asleep, not dead; and will give us a proof, that the soil over his grave is moist and watery, owing to his respiration. But why should our Lord grant it as a great privilege to the disciple whom He loved, that he should sleep this long time in the body, when he released Peter rent the burden of the flesh by a glorious martyrdom, and gave him what Paul had longed for, when he said, I have a desire to depart and be with Christ? If there really takes place at John's grave that which report says, it is either done to commend his precious death, since that had not martyrdom to commend it, or for some other cause not known to us. Yet the question remains, Why did our Lord say of one who was about to die, I will that he tarry till I come? It may be asked too why our Lord loved John the most, when Peter loved our Lord the most? I might easily reply, that the one who loved Christ the more, was the better man, and the one whom Christ loved the more, the more blessed; only this would not be a defence of our Lord's justice. This important question then I will endeavour to answer. The Church acknowledges two modes of life, as divinely revealed, that by faith, and that by sight. The one is represented by the Apostle Peter, in respect of the primacy of his Apostleship; the other by John: wherefore to the one it is said, Follow Me, i. e. imitate Me in enduring temporal sufferings; of the other it is said, I will that he tarry till I come: as if to say, Do thou follow Me, by the endurance of temporal sufferings, let him remain till I come to give everlasting bliss; or to open out the meaning more, Let action be perfected by following the example of My Passion, but let contemplation wait inchoate till at My coming it be completed: wait, not simply remain, continue, but wait for its completion at Christ's coming. Now in this life of action it is true, the more we love Christ, the more we are freed from sin; but He does not love us as we are, He frees us from sin, that we may not always remain as we are, but He loves us heretofore rather, because hereafter we shall not have that which displeases Him, and which He frees us from. So then let Peter love Him, that we may be freed from this mortality; let John be loved by Him, that we may be preserved in that immortality. John loved less than Peter, because, as he represented that life in which we are much more loved, our Lord said, I will that he remain (i. e. wait) till I come; seeing that that greater love we have not yet, but wait till we have it at His coming. And this intermediate state is represented by Peter who loves, but is loved less, for Christ loves us in our misery less than in our blessedness: and we again love the contemplation of truth such as it will be then, less in our present state, because as yet we neither know nor have it. But let none separate those illustrious Apostles; that which Peter represented, and that which John represented, both were sometime to be.

(Tract. cxxiv) Jesus saith unto him, What is that to thee? and He then repeats, Follow thou Me, as if John would not follow Him, because he wished to remain till He came; Then went this saying abroad among the disciples, that that disciple should not die. Was it not a natural inference of the disciple's? But John himself does away with such a notion: Yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? But if any so will, let him contradict, and say that what John says is true, viz. that our Lord did not say that that disciple should not die, but that nevertheless this was signified by using such words as John records.

Jesus says to him. Here thirdly Peter is assured that John would not suffer, through the Lord's response, in which he reveals the truth, to satisfy the question, and rebukes curiosity, to correct the one asking. He reveals the truth when he says: Jesus says to him: Thus I wish him to remain until I come: Bede: "Thus, that is, to await the last day without the violence of persecution": he responds to the one asking. When he says: What is it to you? Follow me, he rebukes him for the curiosity of the question: whence Chrysostom: "What is it to you, if I wish him to remain thus? Attend to the things that are your own, and be solicitous about these": Sirach 3: "Do not be curious about his many works, but think always on those things which he has commanded you"; and therefore he repeats: Follow me, as if to say: think about this and be solicitous about this.

It is asked about what he says: Thus I will him to remain until I come. Therefore it seems that at least until the Lord's coming his soul has not been separated from his body: for after that, nothing is established from the text: therefore it seems that John has not yet died: and as evidence for this is the fact that his body is not found. I respond: It must be said that besides the first interpretation of the disciples, which they made, which the Evangelist himself refutes — namely that he would not die — there are three other interpretations. One is that he has not died, but will die at the coming of the Lord: but for now he is in slumber beneath the earth, and therefore his body is not to be found. — But this position is improbable: because it is not to be believed that the Lord would defer for so long showing his glory to the disciple whom he loved, which glory the Apostle desired, in Philippians 1: I desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ. Another opinion is that the Lord assumed him in body and soul, and in that assumption he died and rose again. — Even if this opinion cannot be so easily disproved, nevertheless, because it lacks authority, it is dismissed with the same ease with which it is proved. The third opinion says that John died, and asserts nothing about his body, because nothing certain is found. But what was said: Thus I will him to remain until I come, that is, "to await the last day not of the age, but of his own death, when I myself coming shall receive him into the dwelling of eternal blessedness."

The inspired Evangelist points to himself obscurely, but still sufficiently to indicate who is meant. For he it was who was the beloved disciple, and who leaned upon Christ's Breast at the last Supper, and asked who it was that should betray Him. Peter, then, observing him, longed for information, and sought to know in what perils he would be involved in the time to come, and in what way his life would end. But the question seemed unseemly, and it appeared to savour rather of a meddlesome and inquisitive spirit, that, after having learnt what was to happen unto himself, he should seek to know the future fate of others. For this cause, then, I think the Lord makes no direct reply to his question or inquiry, but, diverting the aim of the questioner, does not say that John will not die, but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? That is to say, Thou hast heard, O Peter, the things concerning thyself, what need is there for thee to ask questions about others, and to seek to fathom out of season the knowledge of the Divine decrees. For if he never die at all, He says, what consolation will this be to thy heart? The man who is wise and prudent, then, if he is doomed to die, will not trouble himself as to whether another will be saved alive or not; for it will be enough for him to suffer his own doom, and he will receive no comfort at all from the misfortune or good cheer of another. The passage is fraught with some such meaning as this. Peter's speech here seems to imply that the blessed Peter anxiously desired to know what was destined to be John's fate, as he would have considered it a consolation in his own sufferings if John were surely fated to, die by torture, either of the same or of some other kind. And do not be amazed at this, but rather take the following thought into consideration. It is common to us, however profitless it be, to like at times not to be seen to be the only ones who are suffering, or who are destined to undergo some dreadful fate, but to prefer to hear that others have either suffered it already or are expected to suffer it in the future.

Antony was confused as he meditated upon the depths of God's judgements, and he asked God, 'Lord, how is it that some die young and others grow old and sick? Why are there some poor and some rich? Why are there those who are bad and rich and oppress the good poor?' He heard a voice saying to him, 'Antony, worry about yourself; these other matters are up to God, and it will not do you any good to know them.'

I will that he tarry, i. e. I will not that he suffer martyrdom, but wait for the quiet dissolution of the flesh, when I shall come and receive him into eternal blessedness.

Since he spake from strong affection, and wishing not to be torn away from him, Christ, to show that however much he might love, he could not go beyond His love, saith, "If I will that he tarry - what is that to thee?" By these words teaching us not to be impatient, nor curious beyond what seemeth good to Him. For because Peter was ever hot, and springing forward to enquiries such as this, to cut short his warmth, and to teach him not to enquire farther, He saith this.

However, inasmuch as they were now going to have the care of the world committed to them, and could not remain together without injury to their charge, our Lord says, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? as if to say, Attend to the work committed to thee, and do it: if I will that he abide here, what is that to thee?

Knowing that Peter cared about John and did not wish to be separated from him, the Lord, in order to put an end to their untimely union and attachment to one another, says: "You have been entrusted with a task; carry it out and follow Me, as I lead you out to preach and place the whole world in your hands. But if I wish him to remain here, in the vicinity of Galilee, and do not wish to send him together with you, what is that to you?" The words "till I come" some understood thus: until I come upon the Jews who crucified Me, to punish them by means of the Romans and destroy their city. For they say that this apostle (John) remained in the highland regions almost until the reign of Vespasian, preaching and dwelling there, and before the capture of Jerusalem he withdrew from there. So then, since a great task was being entrusted to them — the preaching of the Gospel — they no longer needed to be together with one another, but to go separately, one to some people, and the other to others.

Christ's answer is given, So it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Notice that the Greek text does not have "So" but If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Yet the difference is not too important, for whatever the expression, the meaning understood by the apostles from the beginning was that John was not going to die. So it is my will that he remain until I come, was for them the same as saying, John will not die until I come.

But this interpretation is rejected by what follows: yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, So it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?

Those who defend the first interpretation, claim that John added this not to exclude the first interpretation but to show that our Lord did not convey that meaning by these words, but only by the words, So it is my will that he remain. This is the reason they say that John has not yet died.

There are various opinions about John's burial. All say that it is true that he was buried in a tomb which still exists. But some say he entered his tomb while still alive, and then left it by divine power, transported to the region of Enoch and Elias, and he is being kept there until the end of the world. According to this, the meaning is: So it is my will that he remain alive until the end of the world; and then, under the Antichrist, he will be martyred along with those other two. For it is not right that he should not die, for whatever is born dies: "It is appointed for men to die once" (Heb 9:27).

Others say he entered his tomb at Ephesus alive, and he remains there still alive, but sleeping, until the Lord comes. They base their theory on the fact that the soil there moves up and down in rhythm with John's breathing. Augustine rejects this by saying that it is not as good to be alive and sleeping as to be alive and blessed. Why then would Christ reward the disciple he loved above the others with a long sleep and deprive him of that great good for the sake of which the apostle wanted to be dissolved and to be with Christ (Phil 1:23). Thus, we should not believe this. Rather, we should say that he died and arose with his body indicated by the fact that his body cannot be found ‑ and remains happy with Christ, as Christ invited him: "He who testifies to these things says, Surely I am coming soon" (Rev 22:20).

Augustine explains this passage mystically. Then the word remain means "continue on," or "persist," as in "Remain in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high" (Lk 24:49). Consequently, our Lord is saying about John, that is, about the contemplative life, So it is my will that he remain, that is, continue on, until I come, either at the end of the world, or at the death of any contemplative; for the contemplative life although begun here is not completed here. It remains incomplete and continues on till Christ comes to complete it: "Then they were... told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren should be complete" (Rev 6:11); "Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her" (Lk 10:42); "Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor" (Prv 3:16). Meanwhile, the active life, completed and vivified by the example of Christ's passion, follows him by suffering for him.

Chrysostom understands it this way: So it is my will that he remain, that is, to remain in Judea, and to preach on this earth; and I want you, Peter, to follow me by having a concern for the entire world, and by suffering for me; and John is to remain until I come, to destroy the Jewish nation. What is that to you? means "These things are for me to decide." For we do see from history that John did not leave Judea until Vespasian came to Judea and took Jerusalem; then John set out for Asia.

Then there is the interpretation of Jerome: Follow me! Peter, by your martyrdom; and so, now speaking about John, it is my will that he remain, without the sufferings of martyrdom and death, until I come, to call him to myself ‑ "I will come again and take you to myself" (14:3) ‑ what is that, this privilege, to you? And so in the stories about blessed John it is said that when he was ninety years old our Lord Jesus Christ appeared to him and invited him to his banquet.

There is, then, nothing for us to fear in death, nothing for us to mourn, whether life, which was received from nature be rendered up to it again, or whether it is sacrificed to some duty that claims it, and this will be either an act of religion or the exercise of some virtue. And no one ever wished to remain as at present. This has been supposed to have been promised to John, but it is not the truth. We hold fast to the words and deduce the meaning from them. He himself in his own writing denies that there was a promise that he should not die, that no one from that instance might yield to an empty hope. But if to wish for this would be an extravagant hope, how much more extravagant would it be to grieve without rule for what has happened according to rule!

This saying therefore went out among the brethren. Here fourthly the understanding of the believers is corrected, that John would simply not die: whence he says: That that disciple does not die, against that verse of the Psalm: "Who is the man that shall live and not see death." And Jesus did not say. Here the correction of that saying is set forth, because Jesus did not say this, namely that he does not die; he did not say: He does not die, because, as is said in Ecclesiastes 9, "there is no one who lives forever": but: Thus I wish him to remain until I come: what is it to you? This is to be read and expounded in a qualified sense, as above.

"Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die; yet Jesus said not that he shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" "Do not thou on any account suppose," He saith, "that I order your matters after a single rule." And this He did to withdraw them from their unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together; for assuredly this would have been a great loss to the world. Wherefore He saith unto him, "Thou hast had a work entrusted to thee, look to it, accomplish it, labor and struggle. What if I will that he tarry here? Look thou to and care for thine own matters."

And observe, I pray thee, here also the absence of pride in the Evangelist; for having mentioned the opinion of the disciples, he corrects it, as though they had not comprehended what Jesus meant. "Jesus said not," he tells us, "that he shall not die, but, If I will that he tarry."

John underwent death, although concerning him there had prevailed an unfounded expectation that he would remain alive until the coming of the Lord.

Even John underwent death, although concerning him there had prevailed an ungrounded expectation that he would remain alive until the coming of the Lord. Heresies, indeed, for the most pan spring hurriedly into existence, from examples furnished by ourselves: they procure their defensive armour from the very place which they attack.

Peter turned to the secret decision of providence and saw from a distance the disciple John, son of thunder, who followed slowly, admiring the great and sublime promise made by our Lord to Peter.… Since John lived long, that is, seventy-three years after the ascension of the Lord to the time of Trajan, and died after all the other apostles in peace and serenity by natural death, the Lord alludes to this by saying, If I want him to live long enough so that he may remain until my return, you do not need to investigate this. Only pay attention to what is yours, that is, take care of your work and follow me.

Look, please, at the modesty of the evangelist, with what care he corrects the mistaken understanding of many who did not comprehend what the Lord said about him, but thought that he would not die. This was not the case; the Lord did not say that he would not die, but that he would not preach at the same time as Peter, but would remain after him. "Until I come," that is, until I wish to bring him out to preach as well. I am now sending you out to care for the whole world, and you follow Me, but let him remain here until I come again and bring him out too, just as I did you. Some understand it this way: Peter, having heard that he would die for Christ, said, "What about John? Will he not also die?" Christ did not deny this, for everyone who is born will also die, but said, "If I want him to remain, that is, to live until the end of the world and then become a martyr for Me." Hence they also say that he is alive and will be put to death by the Antichrist, when together with Elijah he will preach Christ. If they point to his tomb, what of it? He entered it alive and was then translated, like Enoch and Elijah. So, the Evangelist refutes the false opinion of those who thought that this disciple would not die, but would be immortal: for it is an outright lie that a man could be immortal. Although Enoch and Elijah did not die, nevertheless they are mortal. So too he, although he has not died, will die. Therefore the understanding of the words "will not die" in the sense that he would be immortal, is false. Others assert that he died, and they understand the words "if I want him to remain" in the way we explained above. We have presented all opinions so that none would be unknown to the curious. In our opinion, the words "that he remain until I come" are better understood not as referring to life, but to separation from Peter, as the illustrious and golden-mouthed John understood it.

Then the Evangelist shows how the disciples understood these words of our Lord. They thought that John would not die. The saying spread abroad among the brethren, the disciples ‑ "Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!" (Ps 133:1) ‑ that this disciple, John, was not to die. But he corrects this error, saying, Yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die: "Are you also still without understanding?" (Mt 15:16). The rest has been explained.

Also a good argument against the most foolish superstition of the Jews, who condemned the building of tombs for the prophets and their fathers; but by emulating their fathers' crimes, they turned the judgment upon themselves. Indeed, by constructing the tombs of the prophets, they were accusing those who had killed them of wrongdoing; and by imitating similar actions, they were also revealing themselves as heirs of their fathers' wickedness. Therefore, it is not the act of building, but the act of emulation that is considered a crime. For those who crucified the Son of God, which is the more serious offense, added to the heap of their father's crimes, cannot be absolved from hereditary wickedness. And therefore he rightly added elsewhere: Fill up the measure of your fathers; because there is nothing more serious that they can sin beyond the injury against God.

This is a good answer to the foolish superstition of the Jews, who in building the tombs of the prophets condemned the deeds of their fathers, but by rivalling their fathers' wickedness, throw back the sentence upon themselves. For not the building but the imitation of their deeds is looked upon as a crime. Therefore He adds, Truly ye bear witness that ye allow, &c.

Woe to you who build the tombs of the prophets, but your fathers killed them. It is a crime not to adorn the tombs of the prophets, but to imitate the murderers of the prophets. Therefore, the Jews, by building the tombs of the prophets, were accusing the deeds of their fathers who killed them; but by emulating the deeds of their fathers, while they persecuted Christ and his apostles, they were turning the judgment upon themselves, committing the same deeds which they condemned in their parents.

Woe to you who build etc. After he has threatened them with woe for the fault of sloth arising from a defect of truth of life, here secondly he repeats the same for the fault of perfidy against the truth of justice, which indeed consisted in the impious persecution of the just. Concerning which, first the fault itself is aggravated, then the punishment is intensified. First therefore, as to the aggravation of the fault, he says: Woe to you who build the monuments of the Prophets, displaying piety in deed, but bearing impiety in mind, just as their fathers also did. — On account of which he adds: But your fathers killed them, namely as impious men killed the just. Whence in Acts seven blessed Stephen said: "Which of the Prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One." But these men also, although they pretended otherwise, were nevertheless imitators of them.

What wicked act were they guilty of in building the tombs of the saints? Were they not rather doing them a distinguished honor? What doubt can there be of this? It is necessary to see what Christ teaches us. From time to time, the ancestors of the Jews put to death the holy prophets who were bringing them the word of God and leading them into the right way. Their descendants, acknowledging that the prophets were holy and venerable men, built tombs over them, as bestowing on them an honor suitable to the saints. Their ancestors murdered them, but they, believing that they were prophets and holy men, became the judges of those who murdered them. By determining to pay honor to those who were killed, they accused the others of doing wrong. They, who condemned their ancestors for such cruel murders, were about to become guilty of equal crimes and commit the same, or rather more abominable, offenses. They murdered the Prince of life, the Savior and Deliverer of all. They also added to their wickedness toward him other abominable murders. They put Stephen to death, not for being accused of anything shameful but rather for admonishing them and speaking to them what is contained in the inspired Scriptures. Besides this, they committed other crimes against every saint who preached the gospel message of salvation to them.

(con. Julian. lib. 10.) Now here the apostate Julian says, that we must avoid graves which Christ says are unclean; but he knew not the force of our Saviour's words, for He did not command us to depart from the graves, but likened to them the hypocritical people of the Pharisees.

Having then condemned the burdensome dealing of the Lawyer, He brings a general charge against all the chief men of the Jews, saying, Woe to you who build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.

Although then He says pointedly of this generation, He expresses not merely those who were then standing by Him and listening, but every manslayer. For like is attributed to like.

But why is a "woe" pronounced against them for "building the sepulchres of the prophets whom their fathers had killed? " They rather deserved praise, because by such an act of piety they seemed to show that they did not allow the deeds of their fathers.

The Lord also reveals that the Jews are descendants of Cain and heirs of his malice, when He says that all "blood shed from Abel to Zechariah shall be required of this generation." You, He says, killed the prophets, your brothers, just as he killed Abel. Therefore, not without reason some have taken Cain as a type of the people who slew the prophets, for which vengeance was taken on them sevenfold, that is, with a lighter punishment, and Lamech as a type of the people who killed Christ, for which vengeance was taken on them seventy times sevenfold (Gen. 4:24), namely: by dispersion into an irreversible captivity.

Who then was the Zacharias who was killed between the temple and the altar? Some say it was the ancient Zacharias, son of Jehoiada, who was stoned to death, as is known from the book of Kings (2 Chron. 24:20-21). Others say it was the father of the Forerunner. He did not exclude the Theotokos from the rank of virgins after she gave birth to Christ, and placed her in the same spot where they stood; and this place was between the temple and the outer bronze altar. For this they killed him. Since some expected Christ to be their future king, while others did not wish to be under the authority of a king, they killed this saint also because he affirmed that a Virgin had given birth and that Christ was born, their future King — which was hateful to them, for they wished to be without a king.

Indeed you testify that you approve the deeds of your fathers. For they killed them, and you build their tombs. They pretended indeed, to win the favor of the masses, to abhor the treachery of their fathers, adorning the memorials of the prophets who were killed by them with great splendor. But by their very actions, they testify how much they agree with the wickedness of their fathers, injuring the Lord who was foretold by the same prophets. Thus they declare themselves both sons of murderers and, to the augmentation of their own damnation, knowingly sinning. Whence it is rightly added:

They pretended indeed, in order to win the favour of the multitude, that they were shocked at the unbelief of their fathers, since by splendidly honouring the memories of the prophets who were slain by them they condemned their deeds. But in their very actions they testify how much they coincide with their fathers' wickedness, by treating with insult that Lord whom the prophets foretold. Hence it is added, Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute.

On account of which he says: But indeed you testify that you consent to the works of your fathers, that is, you consent that these were the works of your fathers: whence Matthew twenty-three: "You are witnesses against yourselves that you are the sons of those who killed the Prophets." Therefore he adds: For they indeed killed them, but you build their tombs: and thus by sign and word they are witnesses that their fathers killed them. And indeed they pretended to condemn this by word and sign: whence Matthew twenty-three: "You adorn the monuments of the just and say: If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been their partners"; but they approved by similar deed and desire, because they themselves, like their fathers, were persecutors of the good: and from this they were witnesses that they consented to the works of their fathers. Whence Jerome: "You are witnesses against yourselves: for by deed you testify that you are imitators of your fathers, whose crimes you detest by word." Whence Acts seven: "You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you also".

His hands, at all events, are ever unclean, eternally dyed with the blood of the prophets, and of the Lord Himself; and on that account, as being hereditary culprits from their privity to their fathers' crimes, they do not dare even to raise them unto the Lord, for fear some Isaiah should cry out, for fear Christ should utterly shudder.

Therefore Wisdom sends apostles and prophets to them. Who is Wisdom if not Christ? Finally, in Matthew you have: Behold, I send you prophets and wise men.

The wisdom of God is Christ. The words indeed in Matthew are, Behold I send unto you prophets and wise men.

Therefore also said the wisdom of God: I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall kill and persecute. He calls himself the wisdom of God, for he is indeed the power of God and the wisdom of God, as the Apostle teaches (1 Cor. 1). Accordingly, in Matthew, you have it thus: Therefore behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes. If, however, the same wisdom of God sent prophets as well as apostles, let the heretics cease to ascribe Christ's beginning to the Virgin, and let them not proclaim a different God of the law and the prophets, different from the God of the New Testament, although often even the apostolic Scripture calls prophets not only those who foretold Christ's incarnation but also those who proclaimed the joys of the heavenly kingdom to come. The two or three prophets (it says) should speak, and the others should judge. But I would by no means believe these should be preferred to the apostles in the order of the catalog.

But if the same Wisdom of God sent prophets and Apostles, let heretics cease to assign to Christ a beginning from the Virgin; let them no longer declare one God of the Law and Prophets, another of the New Testament. For although the Apostolic Scripture often calls by the name of prophets not only those who foretell the coming Incarnation of Christ, but those also who foretell the future joys of the kingdom of heaven, yet I should never suppose that these were to be placed before the Apostles in the order of enumeration.

And because the malice which they bore in their heart was, by God's permission, to be made manifest in deed, therefore he adds: Therefore also the wisdom of God said, "that is, disposed from eternity," or Christ himself disposed or foresaw, who is "the power of God and the wisdom of God." Or said, that is, foretold by prophetic voice. I will send to them Prophets and Apostles, and of them they will kill and persecute, according to that passage of Jeremiah seven: "I sent to you all my servants the Prophets daily, rising early and sending them: they did not hear me, nor did they incline their ear, and they hardened their neck and wrought worse than their fathers." This was verified in these men, who not only killed the Prophets, but also slew their own Lord. Whence in Acts three Peter says to them: "But you denied the Just and Holy One and asked that a murderer be granted to you: but the Author of life you killed." They also killed and persecuted all his witnesses. For James was killed, and Peter was seized, Acts twelve. They also persecuted Paul and Barnabas, so that they crossed over to the Gentiles, Acts thirteen and fourteen: and all the disciples were also scourged, Acts five.

(Apol. 1. de fuga sua.) Now if they kill, the death of the slain will cry out the louder against them; if they pursue, they send forth memorials of their iniquity, for flight makes the pursuit of the sufferers to redound to the great disgrace of the pursuers. For no one flees from the merciful and gentle, but rather from the cruel and evil-minded man. And therefore it follows, That the blood of all the prophets who have been slain from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation.

That the blood of all the prophets that was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation. The question arises how the blood of all the prophets and the righteous may be required of one generation of the Jews, since many saints, both before the incarnation and after the death and resurrection of the Savior, were killed by other nations, and the Lord Himself was crucified by a Roman governor and Roman soldiers, though with the Jews shouting. But it is the custom of the Scriptures often to reckon two generations of men, namely, the good and the evil, that is, those who are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1); and those to whom it is said: You are of your father the devil (John 8). And elsewhere: Serpents, generation of vipers (Matt. 23).

It is asked, How comes it that the blood of all the prophets and just men is required of the single generation of the Jews; whereas many of the saints, both before the Incarnation and after, have been slain by other nations? But it is the manner of the Scriptures frequently to reckon two generations of men, one of the good, and the other of the evil.

Second, with regard to the aggravation of vengeance, he says: That the blood of all the Prophets may be required. It is required indeed through vengeance; whence in the Psalm: "For requiring their blood, he remembered," etc.; and Genesis nine: "From the hand of man and of his brother I will require the life of man. Whoever shall have shed human blood, his blood shall be shed." — Therefore it shall be required, the blood, that is, the vengeance for the shedding of blood; on account of which he adds: Which was shed from the foundation of the world, that is, from the beginning until the end. It shall be required, I say, of this generation, as if to say that the vengeance for all the blood of a holy man that was shed shall be upon the generation of the Jews, because they shed the blood of him who was the "Holy of Holies," namely Christ; Daniel nine and following: "Christ shall be killed, and the people who shall deny him shall not be his." Whence they themselves said, John nineteen: "We have no king but Caesar"; and Matthew twenty-seven: "His blood be upon us and upon our children."

Or this is said so that they themselves may be punished as an example for others, because, when they saw evil punished in others, they did not correct themselves. Whence Chrysostom: "Why does God avenge the sins of others upon these, if they alone suffered such things, when they had not sinned alone? Just as, when many servants sin, one is chastised for his own sin, and yet he alone, having been flogged for all, endured what was promised to all." The reason, moreover, why the punishment fell more upon these is given by the same John Chrysostom: "Because," he says, "you heard of the vengeance taken upon Cain and upon the other wicked, and if you were not corrected by their examples, you are held to a graver punishment, and the examples of those who came before shall come upon you."

He said, "That all the blood of the just may come on you," because they killed the Avenger of the righteous ones' deaths. The vengeance for their deaths is sought from their hands. One who kills the judge is indeed a friend of murderers, because in killing the judge, he has suppressed vengeance and opened the way for murderers. The Lord also said, "From the blood of Abel, the righteous one, to the blood of Zechariah," and not only until then but even until this day. Although still among them, he did not avenge his own blood until after they killed him, lest they say that it had been predetermined that he do this. He pronounced the sentence of judgment in relation to the righteous who had gone before, so that they might respect the righteous who were to follow. He gave them an opportunity to do penance for having put him to death, although according to the law, there could be no opportunity for repentance for one who murders the prophets. The law says, "Let the one who kills die," and not, "See if he does penance, and then pardon him." He gave them an opportunity to do penance, if they had wished, for having put him to death.

For if the flesh were not in a position to be saved, the Word of God would in no wise have become flesh. And if the blood of the righteous were not to be inquired after, the Lord would certainly not have had blood [in His composition]. But inasmuch as blood cries out from the beginning [of the world], God said to Cain, when he had slain his brother, "The voice of thy brother's blood crieth to Me." And as their blood will be inquired after, He said to those with Noah, "For your blood of your souls will I require, [even] from the hand of all beasts;" and again, "Whosoever will shed man's blood, it shall be shed for his blood." In like manner, too, did the Lord say to those who should afterwards shed His blood, "All righteous blood shall be required which is shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." He thus points out the recapitulation that should take place in His own person of the effusion of blood from the beginning, of all the righteous men and of the prophets, and that by means of Himself there should be a requisition of their blood. Now this [blood] could not be required unless it also had the capability of being saved; nor would the Lord have summed up these things in Himself, unless He had Himself been made flesh and blood after the way of the original formation [of man], saving in His own person at the end that which had in the beginning perished in Adam.

(Hom. 74. in Matt.) But if He means that the Jews are about to suffer worse things, this will not be undeserved, for they have dared to do worse than all. And they have been corrected by none of their past calamities, but when they saw others sin, and punished, they were not made better, but did likewise; yet it will not be that one shall suffer punishment for the sins of others.

(Geometer.) But others give another reason for the destruction of Zacharias. For at the murder of the children the blessed John was to be slain with the rest of the same age, but Elisabeth, snatching up her son from the midst of the slaughter, sought the desert. And so when Herod's soldiers could not find Elisabeth and the child, they turn their wrath against Zacharias, killing him as he was ministering in the temple.

From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the temple. Why from the blood of Abel, who suffered the first martyrdom, is not surprising, but why up to the blood of Zechariah is queried, since many after him, until the birth of Christ, and immediately after His birth, the innocent children in Bethlehem were killed by this generation, unless perhaps because Abel was a shepherd of sheep, Zechariah a priest, and one was killed in the field, the other in the temple courtyard, He wished to indicate the martyrs of both ranks, of the laity and of those dedicated to the service of the altar, under the name of both.

Why He begins from the blood of Abel, who was the first martyr, we need not wonder; but why, to the blood of Zacharias, is a question, since many were slain after him even up to our Lord's birth, and soon after His birth the Innocents, unless perhaps it was because Abel was a shepherd, Zacharias a Priest. And the one was killed in the field, the other in the court of the temple, martyrs of each class, that is, under their names are shadowed both laymen, and those engaged in the office of the altar.

And for this reason he exemplifies according to written testimonies, when he adds: From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah. Abel was indeed the first just man killed by his brother, as is said in Genesis four. Zechariah however was the son of Jehoiada, who was killed by King Joash, who had received many good things from his father, as the history narrates in Second Chronicles twenty-four. Nevertheless, he was not the last to be killed, but rather he is joined with the first because "Abel was a shepherd of sheep and was slain in the field, while Zechariah was a priest and was slain in the court of the temple; and they designate two orders of Martyrs, namely the laity, and those who are devoted to the ministry of the altar." Therefore he designates the entire place of his death, when he adds: Who perished between the altar and the temple, that is, he was slain between the temple and the altar of holocaust. "For there were two altars in the temple: one interior, namely the altar of incense, and another exterior, namely the altar of holocaust"; according to what is read in Exodus thirty-five. And between this altar and the temple, Zechariah was slain by the Jews, according to what is written in Second Chronicles twenty-four: "They gathered together against him and cast stones at him by the king's command in the court of the house of God." "Who, as he was dying, said: May the Lord see and require it." He said this, attending to the equity of divine justice, which leaves nothing unavenged.

To mark its infallibility, he repeats the future vengeance, when he adds: Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation; so that by the pronoun a demonstration is made of the wicked generation. For the Gloss of Bede says: "All the wicked are one generation, one city, one body of the devil, just as all the good are one body, one generation of God." Whence concerning this wicked generation, that passage of Proverbs thirty can be understood: "A generation that has swords for teeth and devours with its molars, to destroy the needy from the earth and the poor from among men." This is the generation from which vengeance shall be required; but within this, especially from the Jewish people, because perfidy was consummated in them. Whence Chrysostom says: "Just as God promised to the good through many generations that Christ would come, but bestowed him upon the last Saints, so through each generation he threatened the wicked, but he will repay the last generation. For never was such grace given to men as in Christ, nor did such destruction come upon the impious as upon the Jews." Whence they can most fittingly say that passage of Genesis forty-two: "We rightly suffer these things, because we sinned against our brother. Behold, his blood is required."

(Orat. in Diem Nat. Christi.) But some say that Zacharias, the father of John, by the spirit of prophecy forecasting the mystery of the immaculate virginity of the mother of God, in no wise separated her from the part of the temple set apart for virgins, wishing to show that it was in the power of the Creator of all things to manifest a new birth, while he did not deprive the mother of the glory of her virginity. Now this part was between the altar and the temple, in which was placed the brazen altar, where for this reason they slew him. It is said also, that when they heard the King of the world was about to come, from fear of subjection they designedly attacked him who bore witness to His coming, and slew the priest in the temple.

But our Lord shows that the Jews have inherited the malice of Cain, since he adds, From the blood of Abel, to the blood of Zacharias, &c. Abel, inasmuch as he was slain by Cain; but Zacharias, whom they slew between the temple and the altar, some say was the Zacharias of old time, the son of Jehoiadah the Priest.

They are still accused under the name of the Jews, and they are determined to be subject to future punishment; because while they claim for themselves the teaching of divine knowledge and hinder others, they themselves do not recognize what they profess.

Those also are even now condemned under the name of Jews, and made subject to future punishment, who, while usurping to themselves the teaching of divine knowledge, both hinder others, and do not themselves acknowledge that which they profess.

It follows, Woe to you, lawyers, for ye have taken away the key of knowledge.

(de qu. Ev. l. ii. q. 23.) But the key of knowledge is also the humility of Christ, which they would neither themselves understand, nor let be understood by others.

Woe to you lawyers, because you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter in yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering. The key of knowledge is the humility of Christ, which the lawyers neither wished to understand in the law and the prophets, nor wished others to understand. For to enter is not to be content with the surface of the letter, but to penetrate to the secrets of more sacred understanding. Alternatively: Every teacher who scandalizes the listeners whom he edifies by word with his example neither enters the kingdom of God himself, nor allows those who could enter to do so.

Likewise, knowledge is repelled when a man possesses knowledge and does not wish to live according to that knowledge nor to fulfill it. Whence the Lord says: "Woe to you, Scribes and Lawyers, because you have taken away the key of knowledge: you yourselves have not entered, and those who were entering, you have hindered." If a physician eats the food which he forbids to the sick person, the sick person is scandalized and wishes to eat that food.

Woe to you lawyers, etc. Here he repeats woe a third time on account of fraudulence against the truth of doctrine. And because the wicked and deceivers advance to worse things, therefore first there is set forth the threat of Gehenna; and second there is added the obstinacy of wickedness. First, therefore, as regards the threat of punishment on account of the deficiency of true doctrine, he says: Woe to you lawyers, who have taken away the key of knowledge, namely as regards the office of dispensing doctrine. Now this key belongs principally to Christ as the supreme teacher: "For one is your master, Christ," according to what is said in Matthew twenty-three. And concerning this, Isaiah twenty-two says: "I will place the key of the house of David upon his shoulder, and he shall open," etc. The scribes had taken this key away, pretending that they taught rightly; but nevertheless they did not teach rightly, because they neglected themselves and hindered others.

On account of which he adds: You yourselves did not enter, and those who were entering, you hindered. For they themselves did not enter, because, although they had words, they did not have deeds; whence that passage from Romans 2 could be said to them: "You who teach others do not teach yourself; you who preach that one should not steal, steal." And because they had words alone, they could not enter: Matthew 7: "Not everyone who says to me: Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven," etc.; therefore they did not enter by words alone; and they also hindered others by evil examples; whence that passage from Jeremiah 50 was fulfilled: "My people have become a lost flock; their shepherds led them astray," namely from the right way, either by evil examples or by false doctrines, according to that passage from Lamentations 2: "Your prophets saw false and foolish things for you, nor did they lay open your iniquity to anyone, so as to provoke you to repentance; but they saw for you false assumptions and banishments"; because from false assumptions nearly all distorted consciences are formed, through which men are cast out from the kingdom of God and are prohibited from entering into it. Whence Chrysostom: "The Law and the Prophets openly proclaimed the coming of Christ, but they closed this door of understanding by perverse interpretations"; and therefore they prohibited entering, calling back from the way of truth by example and by word. Against which, Proverbs 3: "Do not prohibit him who can from doing good"; if you can, do good yourself also.

We consider that the key of knowledge means the law itself, and by faith in him, I mean justification in Christ. Although the law was in shadow and type, yet those types show to us the truth, and those shadows depict to us in many ways the mystery of Christ. A lamb was sacrificed according to the law of Moses. They ate its flesh. They anointed the lintels with its blood and overcame the destroyer. The blood of a mere sheep could not turn away death. Christ was typified under the form of a lamb. He endures to be the victim for the life of the world and saves by his blood those who are partakers of him. One might mention many other instances as well, by means of which we can discern the mystery of Christ sketched out in the shadows of the law. When speaking to the Jews, he once said, "There is one that accuses you, even Moses, whom you trusted. For if you had believed Moses, you should have also believed me, because he wrote of me." "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me." Every word of divinely inspired Scripture looks to him and refers to him. As it has been shown, if Moses speaks, he typified Christ. If the holy prophets that you name speak, they also proclaimed to us in many ways the mystery of Christ, preaching beforehand the salvation that is by him.

Now we say, the law itself is the key of knowledge. For it was both a shadow and a figure of the righteousness of Christ, therefore it became the Lawyers, as instructors of the Law of Moses and the words of the Prophets, to reveal in a certain measure to the Jewish people the knowledge of Christ. This they did not, but on the contrary detracted from the divine miracles, and spoke against His teaching, Why hear ye him? So then they took away the key of knowledge. Hence it follows, Ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entered in ye hindered. But faith also is the key of knowledge. For by faith comes also the knowledge of truth, according to that of Isaiah, Unless ye have believed, ye will not understand. (Isa. 7:9. LXX.) The Lawyers then have taken away the key of knowledge, not permitting men to believe in Christ.

Woe to you, lawyers, because you have hidden the keys! That is, because they had hidden the knowledge of our Lord's manifestation which was in the prophecies. If our Lord is the door, as he has said, it is clear that the keys of knowledge belong to him. The scribes and Pharisees did not want to enter through this door of life, in keeping with what he had said, "See, the kingdom is among you." [He was referring to] himself, for he was standing in their midst.

John says in the book of Revelation, "He who has the key of David, he who opens and no one shuts, and who shuts and no one opens." The scribes and Pharisees held this key in the law. The Lord warns them in the Gospel, "Woe to you lawyers, who hold the key of the kingdom of heaven." O you Pharisees, who hold the keys of the kingdom and do not believe in Christ who is the gate of the kingdom and the door. The promise is made to you, but it is granted to us. You have the flesh, but we have the spirit. Since you deny the spirit, you have lost the flesh with the spirit.

This key is Christ the Lord, by whom the hidden places of our hearts are unlocked to believing faith. The Pharisees lost this key, and the apostles found it. The Lord says to Peter, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." The hand of the synagogue, abandoning Christ, withered up among the leaders of the Jews. The hand of the synagogue grew unhealthy, for whoever deserts the source, which is Christ, immediately gets sick and is found sicker than all the other members.

"For when the rising of Christ was at hand for the abolition of sacrifices, and for the bestowal of the grace of baptism, the enemy, understanding from the predictions that the time was at hand, wrought various schisms among the people, that, if haply it might be possible to abolish the former sin, the latter fault might be incorrigible. The first schism, therefore, was that of those who were called Sadducees, which took their rise almost in the time of John. These, as more righteous than others, began to separate themselves from the assembly of the people, and to deny the resurrection of the dead, and to assert that by an argument of infidelity, saying that it was unworthy that God should be worshipped, as it were, under the promise of a reward. The first author of this opinion was Dositheus; the second was Simon. Another schism is that of the Samaritans; for they deny the resurrection of the dead, and assert that God is not to be worshipped in Jerusalem, but on Mount Gerizim. They indeed rightly, from the predictions of Moses, expect the one true Prophet; but by the wickedness of Dositheus they were hindered from believing that Jesus is He whom they were expecting. The scribes also, and Pharisees, are led away into another schism; but these, being baptized by John, and holding the word of truth received from the tradition of Moses as the key of the kingdom of heaven, have hid it from the hearing of the people. [Luke 11:52] Yea, some even of the disciples of John, who seemed to be great ones, have separated themselves from the people, and proclaimed their own master as the Christ. But all these schisms have been prepared, that by means of them the faith of Christ and baptism might be hindered."

For He alone is the true God, who is the God of the Jews; and for this reason our Lord Jesus Christ did not teach them that they must inquire after God, for Him they knew well already, but that they must seek His kingdom and righteousness, [Matthew 6:33] which the scribes and Pharisees, having received the key of knowledge, had not shut in, but shut out. [Luke 11:52] For if they had been ignorant of the true God, surely He would never have left the knowledge of this thing, which was the chief of all, and blamed them for small and little things, as for enlarging their fringes, and claiming the uppermost rooms in feasts, and praying standing in the highways, and such like things; which assuredly, in comparison of this great charge, ignorance of God, seem to be small and insignificant matters."

Was it not because (Christ) was jealous of such a disposition as the Marcionites denounce, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the fourth generation? What "key," indeed, was it which these lawyers had, but the interpretation of the law? Into the perception of this they neither entered themselves, even because they did not believe (for "unless ye believe, ye shall not understand"); nor did they permit others to enter, because they preferred to teach them for commandments even the doctrines of men.

By the "key of knowledge" the Lord meant the teaching and guidance through the Law, which is able to lead to Christ. For the Law undoubtedly serves as a tutor leading to Christ (Gal. 3:24). Thus, the lawyers appeared to be explaining the Law, yet they maliciously withheld the "key of knowledge" and did not open the doors of the Law, through which they themselves and the people could have come to Christ. The Law serves as a door to Christ. But this door remains shut if someone does not explain the obscure aspects of the Law and thus open the door. For the Lord Himself said: "If you believed Moses, you would believe Me" (John 5:46). And again: "Search the Scriptures... they testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me" (John 5:39-40). I will point to one example.

Among the Jews, as is known, a lamb was slain, the doorposts were anointed, they ate these meats, and this was for them a victory over the destroyer (Ex. 12:1-13). By all of this, the Mystery of Christ was prefigured.

When Christ was slain as the Spotless and Most Pure Lamb, then our doorposts were also anointed, that is, the heart and the will, and their lintel, that is, the mind, and we tasted the flesh of the Son of Man and conquered the destroyer of our spiritual powers. And a great many ordinances of the Law pointed to Christ.

Although the Law was, as it were, covered and locked by the darkness of the letter, as if by a door of sorts, yet if the teaching was entrusted to someone, that person had the key of knowledge; and if such a person had wished, he could have opened it, and would have entered himself, and would have led others in. But the lawyers did not do this; rather, they "took away the key of knowledge," that is, they concealed it, hid it from sight; and when this key was taken out of the way (hidden), that is, the interpretation of the Law, then its door also remained locked.

By "the key of knowledge" you can also understand faith. For the knowledge of truth comes through faith, as the prophet Isaiah also says: "If you do not believe, you will not understand" (Is. 6:10). So the lawyers took "the key of knowledge," that is, faith, from the midst and hid it. For they did not allow certain people to believe in Christ, the Savior of all. He worked miracles, and the people, believing on account of these miracles, would have acknowledged Him as God, but they (the lawyers) said that He performed these miracles by the power of Beelzebub. Do you see how they took away the key of knowledge, not allowing people to believe in that which would have led them to knowledge? He (Christ) taught the will of God in the synagogues, but they (the lawyers) said: "He has a demon and is mad; why do you listen to Him?"

So they (that is, the Pharisees and scribes) truly took the key of knowledge, but they themselves did not enter and did not allow others to enter, and moreover those who were "entering," that is, those already capable of the knowledge of God.

Our Lord has introduced a most forcible argument for preserving simplicity, and being zealous for the faith, that we should not after the manner of faithless Jews put one thing in practice, while in words we pretend another, namely, that at the last day the hidden thoughts accusing or else excusing one another, shall be seen to reveal the secrets of our mind. Whence it is added, There is nothing hid which shall not be revealed.

Meanwhile, as many crowds gathered so that they trampled one another, He began to say to His disciples: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. All the things He had disputed earlier while reclining at the Pharisee's dinner pertain to this leaven. About which the Apostle also commands: Therefore, let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (I Cor V). For just as a little leaven corrupts the whole lump of dough into which it is thrown, and soon taints the entire mixture with its flavor, so indeed simulation, once it has imbued the mind of anyone, will rob it of all sincerity and truth of virtues.

For as a little leaven leaveneth a whole lump of meal, (1 Cor. 5:6.) so hypocrisy will rob the mind of all the purity and integrity of its virtues.

Now when great crowds were standing around, etc. After the Lord rebuked in the Pharisees the craftiness of malignant pretense, here he invites the disciples to caution against the pretense that has been rebuked. And since duplicity of this kind is caused by love that wrongly humbles, or love that wrongly inflames, therefore this part is divided into two. In the first of which he warns to guard against duplicity arising from timidity; in the second, against cupidity, below in the same chapter: But one of the crowd said to him, etc.

Now he instructs the disciples to guard against deceitfulness by a public instruction and a credible instruction: public, I say, on account of the multitude of the crowd; credible, on account of the certainty of the reason.

First, therefore, as regards the multitude of the crowd rendering the admonition public, it is said: Now when great crowds were standing around, so that they trampled one another; and this because each one wished to draw near to him, whether for the sake of obtaining salvation, as above in chapter six: "The whole crowd sought to touch him" etc.; or for the sake of receiving teaching, as below in chapter fifteen: "The publicans were drawing near to Jesus" etc.; or for the sake of beholding the kindness of Christ himself, as is said figuratively in Job chapter twenty-nine: "And when I sat as a king, with the army standing around, I was nevertheless a consoler of those who mourned." In the presence of so great a multitude, the teaching was public.

On account of which he adds: He began to say to his disciples, in the open, because truth does not require hiding places, according to that passage in John chapter eighteen: "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple" etc. And it was fitting for the teaching to be of such a kind in order to confute the malice of the Pharisees, which always seeks a hiding place, because "contraries are cured by contraries," and darkness is driven out by light.

For which reason it is added: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy, that is, take care lest you be hypocrites, like the Pharisees, whose life and doctrine on account of malice and deceit is called leaven, because it corrupts imperceptibly: Hosea 7: "The city rested a little from the leaven, until the whole was leavened." It also corrupts universally, as is said in First Corinthians 5: "A little leaven corrupts the whole lump"; and therefore it is added: "Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump." Now this is the old leaven, which consists in the deceitfulness of doctrine and the malice of life. Whence in the same place it is added: "Not with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." From this leaven he calls back in this place; and concerning this it is said figuratively in Deuteronomy 16: "No leaven shall appear in all your borders," because this pretense and hypocrisy ought to be kept far from all our works, and especially from spiritual devotion: Leviticus 2: "Every offering that shall be offered to the Lord shall be made without leaven"; from bodily affliction: Deuteronomy 16: "For seven days you shall eat the bread of affliction without leaven"; from the preaching of the divine word: Exodus 23: "You shall not offer the blood of the sacrifice upon leaven."

Whence Scripture teaches that this vice is to be avoided as supremely corruptive. But although it is supremely corruptive, it is nevertheless not a capital sin, because its corruption is caused from another source. For hypocrisy draws its origin from vainglory, and this from pride; and therefore hypocrisy is fittingly compared to leaven. For just as leaven puffs up and by puffing up renders vain and thus corrupts, so pride by puffing up introduces the vanity of glory, and this vanity introduces corrupting falsehood. Whence this leaven is guarded against through the truth of voluntary humiliation, of interior glorying, of outward attestation, according to that saying of Second Corinthians 1: "Our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity of heart and in the sincerity of God, and not in carnal wisdom, but in the grace of God, we have conducted ourselves in this world."

Being angry at this reproof, it says they began to urge him vehemently. This means to attack him with cunning, oppose him and show their hatred of him. They also tried, it says, to silence him about many things. What again is the meaning of their silencing him? It is that they required him to answer immediately and without consideration their wicked questions, expecting that he would fall and say something objectionable. They did not know that he was God. They despised him, were proud and disrespectful. Christ told his friends, that is, his disciples, to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and scribes, meaning by leaven their false pretense. Hypocrisy is hateful to God and humanity. It does not bring a reward, and it is utterly useless for the salvation of the soul. It is rather the cause of its damnation. Although sometimes it may escape detection for a little while, before long, it is sure to be uncovered and bring disgrace on them. It is like an unattractive woman when she is stripped of that external embellishment which she produced by artificial means.

For they were false accusers; therefore Christ warned His disciples against them.

When leaven is praised it is as composing the bread of life, but when blamed it signifies a lasting and bitter maliciousness.

And again in another place our Lord taught His disciples to beware of the cunning of the Pharisees and Sadducees, saying, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees, and of the leaven of Herod;" and thou mayest know that He here calleth cunning and wickedness by the name of leaven. Our Lord did not bid them beware of the doctrine of Moses which the Pharisees taught, but of their traditions which they invented in their cunning that they might be material for the merchandise of iniquity; and of their feigning to be righteous before the children of men; and of their being careful of the honour of God while in their secret works they belittled Him; and of their making long their prayers in order to devour widow's houses; and of their disfiguring their countenances that they might appear to be men who fasted; and of their washing the outside of the cup and platter—that is to say, they beautified and made fair the parts of them which were manifest—being filled within with iniquity and all impurity; and of their adorning their persons outside with a reverent and venerable demeanour to be observed with the eye, being secretly filled with rapine, and deceit, and wantonness, and the desire for all objects of lust. Of all this doctrine then of the Pharisees our Lord commanded His disciples to beware. All these things which arise from deceit, and which are wrought under a false disguise are born of cunning.

The Pharisees tried to catch the Lord in His words in order to turn the people away from Him, but the opposite happened. Even more people gathered: many "thousands" assembled, and each one so strove to draw near to Him that they "trampled one another." So powerful is truth, and so powerless is falsehood everywhere! Jesus, knowing the cunning of the Pharisees and seeing that they only pretended to be asking questions while in reality they were plotting against Him, spoke to His disciples about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, undoubtedly in order to expose them and reveal their hearts full of hypocrisy. The Lord calls hypocrisy "leaven" because it is bitter, full of ancient malice, and alters and corrupts the way of thinking of those people whom it assails. For nothing changes morals so much as hypocrisy. Therefore the disciples of Christ must flee from hypocrisy. For Christ, being the Truth (John 14:6), is obviously opposed to falsehood. And all hypocrisy, appearing as one thing outwardly while being another in reality, is full of falsehood.

The Pharisees sought indeed to catch Jesus in His talk, that they might lead away the people from Him. But this design of theirs is reversed. For the people came all the more unto Him gathered together by thousands, and so desirous to attach themselves to Christ, that they pressed one upon another. So mighty a thing is truth, so feeble every where deceit. Whence it is said, And when there were gathered together a great multitude, insomuch that they trode upon one another, he began to sag unto his disciples, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

He calls their hypocrisy leaven, as perverting and corrupting the intentions of the men in whom it has sprung up. For nothing so changes the characters of men as hypocrisy.

Or, perhaps it is more probable that Matthew here turns back to relate something that he had omitted; and we may suppose Matthew to have been called before the sermon on the mount; for on the mount, as Luke relates, the twelve, whom He also named Apostles, were chosen.

The Lord, about to give salvation to all sinners believing in him, willingly chose Matthew the former publican. The gift of his esteem for Matthew stands as an example for our salvation. Every sinner must be chosen by God and can receive the grace of eternal salvation if one is not without a religious mind and a devout heart. So Matthew was chosen willingly by God. And though he is immersed in worldly affairs, because of his sincere religious devotion he is judged worthy to be called forth by the Lord ("Follow me"), who by virtue of his divine nature knows the hidden recesses of the heart. From what follows, we know that Matthew was accepted by the Lord not by reason of his status but of his faith and devotion. As soon as the Lord says to him, "Follow me," he does not linger or delay, but thereupon "he arose and followed him."

(ap. Anselm.) He says, sitting at the receipt of custom, that is, in the place where the tolls were collected. He was named Telonarius, from a Greek word signifying taxes.

(non occ.) Matthew places his calling among the miracles; for a great miracle it was, a Publican becoming an Apostle.

Out of respect and deference, the other Evangelists were unwilling to call him by the common name of Matthew but said Levi. So Matthew went by a double name in accordance with what Solomon noted: "An accuser is righteous at the beginning of his words." And in another place: "Tell your sins, and you will be justified." Matthew also calls himself a publican to show his readers that no one must despair of salvation if he has changed for the better, for he was suddenly changed from a publican to an apostle.

(Verse 9) And as Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man sitting at the tax booth, named Matthew. And he said to him, 'Follow me.' And he rose and followed him. The other evangelists, out of respect and honor for Matthew, did not want to use his name openly, but they said, 'Levi,' for he had two names. But Matthew himself, according to what is commanded by Solomon (or rather, it is said), 'The righteous is an accuser of himself at the beginning of his speech' (Proverbs 18:17). And in another place: Confess your sins, that you may be justified (Isaiah 43:26). Matthew calls himself and the tax collector, in order to show to the readers that no one should despair of salvation if they have turned to better things; since he himself was suddenly changed from a tax collector to an apostle. Porphyry and Julian the Emperor argue in this place, either the incompetence of the lying historian, or the foolishness of those who immediately followed the Savior, as if they irrationally followed anyone who called them, when there were so many virtues and signs that the Apostles had seen before they believed. Certainly, that very brilliance and majesty of hidden divinity, which also shone forth in a human face, was able to draw those who saw it for the first time to itself by its appearance. For if this power is said to exist in a magnet and amber, so that they attract rings, straws, and stalks to themselves, how much more could the Lord of all creatures draw to himself those whom he wished?

The other Evangelists from respect to Matthew have not called him by his common name, but say here, Levi, for he had both names. Matthew himself, according to that Solomon says. The righteous man accuses himself, (Prov. 18:17.) calls himself both Matthew and Publican, to show the readers that none need despair of salvation who turn to better things, seeing he from a Publican became an Apostle.

Porphyry and the Emperor Julian insist from this account, that either the historian is to be charged with falsehood, or those who so readily followed the Saviour with haste and temerity; as if He called any without reason. They forget also the signs and wonders which had preceded, and which no doubt the Apostles had seen before they believed. Yea the brightness of effulgence of the hidden Godhead which beamed from His human countenance might attract them at first view. For if the loadstone can, as it is said, attract iron, how much more can the Lord of all creation draw to Himself whom He will!

But they had seen the Publican turning from sins to better things, and finding place of repentance, and on this account they do not despair of salvation.

For when He had performed the miracle, He did not remain, lest, being in sight, He should kindle their jealousy the more; but He indulges them by retiring, and soothing their passion. This then let us also do, not encountering them that are plotting against us; let us rather soothe their wound, giving way and relaxing their vehemence.

But wherefore did He not call him together with Peter and John and the rest? As in their case He had come at that time, when He knew the men would obey Him; so Matthew also He then called when He was assured he would yield himself. And therefore Paul again He took, as a fisher his prey, after the resurrection. Because He who is acquainted with the hearts, and knows the secrets of each man's mind, knew also when each of these would obey. Therefore not at the beginning did He call him, when he was yet in rather a hardened state, but after His countless miracles, and the great fame concerning Him, when He knew him to have actually become more prepared for obedience.

And we have cause also to admire the self-denial of the evangelist, how he disguises not his own former life, but adds even his name, when the others had concealed him under another appellation.

But why did he say he was "sitting at the receipt of custom?" To indicate the power of Him that called him, that it was not when he had left off or forsaken this wicked trade, but from the midst of the evils He drew him up; much as He converted the blessed Paul also when frantic and raging, and darting fire; which thing he himself makes a proof of the power of Him that called him, saying to the Galatians, "Ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God." And the fishermen too He called when they were in the midst of their business. But that was a craft not indeed in bad report, but of men rather rudely bred, not mingling with others, and endowed with great simplicity; whereas the pursuit now in question was one full of all insolence and boldness, and a mode of gain whereof no fair account could be given, a shameless traffic, a robbery under cloak of law: yet nevertheless He who uttered the call was ashamed of none of these things.

And why talk I of His not being ashamed of a publican? since even with regard to a harlot woman, so far from being ashamed to call her, He actually permitted her to kiss His feet, and to moisten them with her tears. Yea, for to this end He came, not to cure bodies only, but to heal likewise the wickedness of the soul. Which He did also in the case of the paralytic; and having shown clearly that He is able to forgive sins, then, not before, He comes to him whom we are now speaking of; that they might no more be troubled at seeing a publican chosen into the choir of the disciples. For He that hath power to undo all our offenses, why marvel if He even make this man an apostle?

But as thou hast seen the power of Him that called, so consider also the obedience of him that was called: how he neither resisted, nor disputing said, "What is this? Is it not indeed a deceitful calling, wherewith He calls me, being such as I am?" nay; for this humility again had been out of season: but he obeyed straightway, and did not even request to go home, and to communicate with his relations concerning this matter; as neither indeed did the fishermen; but as they left their net and their ship and their father, so did he his receipt of custom and his gain, and followed, exhibiting a mind prepared for all things; and breaking himself at once away from all worldly things, by his complete obedience he bare witness that He who called him had chosen a good time.

Wherever natural faith is preserved in its original state, that man, with whom this faith is preserved, is a sheep of the Shepherd. For thus is it written concerning Matthew, "Our Lord saw him sitting at the place of toll, and He called him, and straightway he forsook his merchandise and all his possession, and went after Him."

In the call of Matthew and the Publicans is figured the faith of the Gentiles who first gaped after the gain of the world, and are now spiritually refreshed by the Lord; in the pride of the Pharisees, the jealousy of the Jews at the salvation of the Gentiles. Or, Matthew signifies the man intent on temporal gain; Jesus sees him, when He looks on him with the eyes of mercy. For Matthew is interpreted 'given,' Levi 'taken,' the penitent is taken out of the mass of the perishing, and by God's grace given to the Church. And Jesus saith unto him, Follow me, either by preaching, or by the admonition of Scripture, or by internal illumination.

He esteems lightly human dangers which might accrue to him from his masters for leaving his accounts in disorder, but, he arose, and followed him. And because he relinquished earthly gain, therefore of right was he made the dispenser of the Lord's talents.

So then, let everyone who wants approach Him, and let the one say: "Son of David, have mercy on me"; and, if he hears, "What do you want Me to do for you?" let him say quickly, "Lord, let me receive my sight," and right away he will hear, "So I desire. Receive your sight" [Luke 18:38-42]. Let another say, "Lord, my daughter"-i.e. my soul-"is severely possessed by a demon" [Matthew 15:22], and he will hear: "I will come to heal her" [Matthew 8:7]. If someone is hesitant and does not wish to approach the Master, even if He comes to him and says, "Follow Me" (Matthew 9:9), then let him follow Him as the publican once did, abandoning his counting tables and his avarice, and, I am sure, He shall make of him, too, an evangelist rather than a tax collector. If someone else is a paralytic, lying for years in sloth, carelessness, and love of pleasure, and if he should see another, be it the Master Himself or one of His disciples, come to him and ask, "Do you want to be healed?" [John 5:2-7], let him receive the word joyfully and reply immediately: "Yes, Lord, but I have no man to put me into the pool of repentance." And then if he should hear, "Rise, take up your bed, and follow me," let him get up right away and run after the footsteps of the One Who has called him from on high. - "Second Ethical Discourse"

Do you hesitate about arts, and trades, and about professions likewise, for the sake of children and parents? Even there was it demonstrated to us, that both "dear pledges," and handicrafts, and trades, are to be quite left behind for the Lord's sake; while James and John, called by the Lord, do leave quite behind both father and ship; while Matthew is roused up from the toll-booth; while even burying a father was too tardy a business for faith.

If that was wanting to the apostles, I know not in the faith of what things it was, that, roused by one word of the Lord, one left the toll-booth behind for ever; another deserted father and ship, and the craft by which he gained his living; a third, who disdained his father's obsequies, fulfilled, before he heard it, that highest precept of the Lord, "He who prefers father or mother to me, is not worthy of me.

"And as Jesus passed forth from thence, He saw a man, named Matthew, sitting collecting tax: and He saith unto him, Follow Me. And he arose, and followed Him." He did not call Matthew together with Peter and John, but when He knew that he would obey. He likewise called Paul later, when it was time. Marvel at how the evangelist displays his own former way of life, while the other evangelists disguise his name, calling him "Levi" (Mk. 2:13-17 and Lk. 5:27-32). That Matthew is converted by word alone is the work of God.

Here two things are mentioned: first, the conversion of sinners; secondly, the complaint of the Pharisees (v. 11).

First, he tells how he called a certain man to discipleship; secondly, how he called many to intimacy (v. 10).

He says, therefore, As Jesus passed on from there... Why did he pass on? Because they were lying in wait for him, he avoided the crowds, as it says in Sirach (8:3): "Do not heap wood on the fire of sinners." He saw a man, a man, indeed; because he was a sinner: "You shall die like men and fall like any prince" (Ps 82:7). Sitting at the tax office. Hence he was pursuing a vocation which one can scarcely follow without sin. By the name of Matthew. Others call him Levi, to save his honor and keep him from being known as a sinner. But he calls himself Matthew, because a just man in the beginning accuses himself; giving us to understand that the Lord is not an acceptor of persons. And he said to him: "Follow me." It is a great thing that the Lord moves him to follow. And he rose and followed him. Hence he could say from Job (23:11): "My foot has held fast to his steps; I have kept his way and have not turned aside."

But it is objected that it cannot be that at one word he followed him. The answer is that Jesus' fame had been so widespread, that anyone who followed him considered himself blessed; therefore, at one word he followed him. Hence obedience is shown, because he followed at once. But why did he not call him from the very beginning? The answer is that this wise person was the wisdom of the world. But the Lord waited before calling him, until he roused him by his miracles. Or, all this was said as a repetition, because he was present at the Lord's preaching on the mount. Then why does Matthew mention his call in this way? I say by reason of humility; for since he regarded his call as a miracle, he mentioned it among the miracles. But why was more mention made of the call of Peter and Andrew and Matthew than of the others? I answer that among the lowlier men were fishermen. Likewise among sinners, the worst were those who collected taxes. Therefore, special mention is made of them to show that God is not an acceptor of persons.

Luke adds to repentance, which explains the sense; that none should suppose that sinners are loved by Christ because they are sinners; and this comparison of the sick shows what God means by calling sinners, as a physician does the sick to be saved from their iniquity as from a sickness: which is done by penitence.

The greatest barrier I have met is the almost total absence from the minds of my audience of any sense of sin. This has struck me more forcibly when I spoke to the R.A.F. than when I spoke to students: whether (as I believe) the proletariat is more self-righteous than other classes, or whether educated people are cleverer at concealing their pride, this creates for us a new situation. The early Christian preachers could assume in their hearers, whether Jews, Metuentes, or Pagans, a sense of guilt. (That this was common among Pagans is shown by the fact that both Epicureanism and the mystery religions both claimed, though in different ways, to assuage it.) Thus the Christian message was in those days unmistakably the Evangelium, the Good News. It promised healing to those who knew they were sick. We have to convince our hearers of the unwelcome diagnosis before we can expect them to welcome the news of the remedy.

The Lord went to the banquet of sinners that he might have an opportunity to teach and to offer spiritual food to his hosts. In effect, when he is mentioned as frequently going out to attend feasts, nothing is said other than what he did there and taught there. Thus, we see both the Lord's humility in reaching out to sinners and the force of his teaching in converting penitents. What follows: "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice" and "I came not to call the righteous but sinners" (as he cites testimony from the prophet) challenged the scribes and Pharisees, who considered themselves righteous and shunned both publicans and sinners.

What then saith Infinite Wisdom? "They that be whole need not a physician," saith He, "but they that are sick."

See how He turned their reasoning to the opposite conclusion. That is, while they made it a charge against Him that He was in company with these men: He on the contrary saith, that His not being with them would be unworthy of Him, and of His love of man; and that to amend such persons is not only blameless, but excellent, and necessary, and deserving of all sorts of praise.

After this, that He might not seem to put them that were bidden to shame, by saying, "they that are sick;" see how He makes up for it again, by reproving the others.

He calls Himself a physician, because by a wonderful kind of medicine He was wounded for our iniquities that He might heal the wound of our sin. By the whole, He means those who seeking to establish their own righteousness have not submitted to the true righteousness of God. By the sick, He means those who, tied by the consciousness of their frailty, and seeing that they are not justified by the Law, submit themselves in penitence to the grace of God.

The Lord had come, of course, to save that which "had perished; " "a Physician." necessary to "the sick" "more than to the whole." This fact He was in the habit both of typifying in parables and preaching in direct statements.

"But when Jesus heard that, He said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." He says, "I have not come now as judge but as physician, and for this reason I endure stench and filth." He also rebukes them for being ignorant when He says, "Go ye and learn." This means, "Since up to the present time you have not managed to learn, so at least from this time on go and learn that God prefers mercy towards sinners above any sacrifice" (Hosea 6:7). The words "I am not come to call the righteous" He spoke ironically. That is, "I have not come to call you who consider yourselves to be righteous, but I have come to call sinners. I do this, not so that they remain sinners, but in order for them to repent."

Then follows Jesus' response, wherein he gives three reasons. First, he uses a comparison: But when Jesus heard it, he said: "Those who are well have no need of a physician." The Lord calls himself a physician; and correctly so: "He heals all your diseases" (Ps 103:3), namely, of soul and body. Therefore, he refers to infirmities of body and soul; hence he says, those who are well have no need of a physician. The well are those who from pride consider themselves well; concerning these Revelation (3:17): "You say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing; not knowing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind and naked." Such persons do not need a physician, but those who are weak, i.e., acknowledge their sin, as David: "For I know my transgression" (Ps 51:3).

(ap. Anselm.) Yet does not God contemn sacrifice, but sacrifice without mercy. But the Pharisees often offered sacrifices in the temple that they might seem to men to be righteous, but did not practise the deeds of mercy by which true righteousness is proved.

(ap. Anselm.) Or; Those who were righteous, as Nathanael and John the Baptist, were not to be invited to repentance. Or. I came not to call the righteous, that is, the feignedly righteous, those who boasted of their righteousness as the Pharisees, but those that owned themselves sinners.

Christ came for all; how is it then that He says He came not for the righteous? Were there those for whom it needed not that He should come? But no man is righteous by the law. He shows how empty their boast of justification, sacrifices being inadequate to salvation, mercy was necessary for all who were set under the Law.

(Verse 13) I desire mercy, and not sacrifice. For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners. And the Lord was going to the feasts of sinners, so that He may have an opportunity to teach and provide spiritual food to His invited guests. Ultimately, as He was frequently described as going to feasts, it is only important what He did there, what He taught, in order to demonstrate both the humility of the Lord in going to sinners and the power of His teaching in the conversion of repentant sinners. But as for what follows: 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice' (Hosea 6:6). And: 'I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners,' testifying of the prophet, he rebukes the scribes and Pharisees who consider themselves righteous, but reject the company of sinners and tax collectors.

This text from Osee (Hosea 6:6.) is directed against the Scribes and Pharisees, who, deeming themselves righteous, refused to keep company with Publicans and sinners.

"Go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice."

Now this He said, to upbraid them with their ignorance of the Scriptures. Wherefore also He orders His discourse more sharply, not Himself in anger, far from it; but so as that the publicans might not be in utter perplexity.

And yet of course He might say, "Did ye not mark, how I remitted the sins of the sick of the palsy, how I braced up his body?" But He saith no such thing, but argues with them first from men's common reasonings, and then from the Scriptures. For having said, "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick;" and having covertly indicated that He Himself was the Physician; after that He said, "Go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice." Thus doth Paul also: when he had first established his reasoning by illustrations from common things, and had said, "Who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk thereof?" then he brings in the Scriptures also, saying, "It is written in the law of Moses, Thou shall not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn;" and again, "Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel."

But to His disciples not so, but He puts them in mind of His signs, saying on this wise, "Do ye not yet remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?" Not so however with these, but He reminds them of our common infirmity, and signifies them at any rate to be of the number of the infirm; who did not so much as know the Scriptures, but making light of the rest of virtue, laid all the stress on their sacrifices; which thing He is also earnestly intimating unto them, when He sets down in brief what had been affirmed by all the prophets, saying, "Learn ye what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice."

The fact is, He is signifying hereby that not He was transgressing the law, but they; as if He had said, "Wherefore accuse me? Because I bring sinners to amendment? Why then ye must accuse the Father also for this." Much as He said also elsewhere, establishing this point: "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work:" so here again, "Go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice." "For as this is His will, saith Christ, so also mine." Seest thou how the one is superfluous, the other necessary? For neither did He say, "I will have mercy, and sacrifice," but, "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice." That is, the one thing He allowed, the other He cast out; and proved that what they blamed, so far from being forbidden, was even ordained by the law, and more so than sacrifice; and He brings in the Old Testament, speaking words and ordaining laws in harmony with Himself.

Having then reproved them, both by common illustrations and by the Scriptures, He adds again, "I am not come to call righteous men, but sinners to repentance."

And this He saith unto them in irony; as when He said, "Behold, Adam is become as one of us;" and again, "If I were hungry, I would not tell thee." For that no man on earth was righteous, Paul declared, saying, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." And by this too the others were comforted, I mean, the guests. "Why, I am so far," saith He, "from loathing sinners, that even for their sakes only am I come." Then, lest He should make them more careless, He staid not at the word "sinners," but added, "unto repentance." "For I am not come that they should continue sinners, but that they should alter, and amend."

He therefore warns them, that by deeds of mercy they should seek for themselves the rewards of the mercy that is above, and, not overlooking the necessities of the poor, trust to please God by offering sacrifice. Wherefore, He says, Go; that is, from the rashness of foolish fault-finding to a more careful meditation of Holy Scripture, which highly commends mercy, and proposes to them as a guide His own example of mercy, saying, I came not to call the righteous but sinners.

This therefore what Paul himself also knew when he said rightly:

Those whom God foreknew, the same He also predestined; and those whom He predestined, He also called; and those whom He called, the same He also glorified. [Romans 8:29-30]

It is not God's foreknowledge of those who, by their free choice and zeal, will prevail which is the cause of their victory, just as, again, it is not His knowing beforehand who will fall and be vanquished which is responsible for their defeat. Instead, it is the zeal, deliberate choice, and courage of each of us which effects the victory. Our faithlessness and sloth, our irresolution and indolence, on the other hand, comprise our defeat and perdition. So, while reclining on our bed of worldly affection and love of pleasure, let us not say: "Those whom God fore-knew, them also He predestined," without perceiving just what it is we are saying. Yes, indeed, He truly knew you beforehand as inattentive and disobedient and lazy, but this is certainly not because He ordered or foreordained it that you should have no power to repent yourself nor, if you will it, to get up and obey. You, though, when you say this, are clearly calling God a liar. While He says, "I came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance" [Matthew 9:13], you, lazy and unwilling to turn around and repent of your evil, contradict Him, as it were, and call Him a liar Who never lies, when you make such excuses as these. "Those who are going to repent", you say, "were predestined, but I am not one of them. So, let them repent therefore whom God clearly foreknew, and whom He also predestined." O what a lack of feeling! O shamelessness of soul and worse than the demons themselves! When did anyone ever hear of one of them saying such a thing? Where was it ever heard that a demon blamed God for its own damnation? Let us then not blame the demons, for here there is a human soul which thinks up blasphemies even worse than theirs. - "Second Ethical Discourse"

He therefore said: "You wash the outside of the cup," that is, the flesh, "but you do not cleanse your inside part," that is, the soul; adding: "Did not He that made the outside," that is, the flesh, "also make the inward part," that is to say, the soul?-by which assertion He expressly declared that to the same God belongs the cleansing of a man's external and internal nature, both alike being in the power of Him who prefers mercy not only to man's washing, but even to sacrifice. For He subjoins the command: "Give what ye possess as alms, and all things shall be clean unto you.

Saith He not, "He who hath fallen shall rise again, and he who hath been averted shall be converted? "He it is, indeed, who "would have mercy rather than sacrifices." The heavens, and the angels who are there, are glad at a man's repentance.

"But," say they, "God is `good, 'and `most good, ' and `pitiful-hearted, 'and `a pitier, 'and `abundant in pitiful-heartedness, ' which He holds `dearer than all sacrifice, ' `not thinking the sinner's death of so much worth as his repentance', `a Saviour of all men, most of all of believers.

Secondly, he cites a scriptural text, saying, "Go and learn what this means..." As if to say: You do not understand the Scripture, but go and learn what this means: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice." This is written in Hosea (6:6). And it is explained in two ways:

First, so that one is understood to be preferred to the other, because I desire mercy more than sacrifice; hence one sacrifice is preferred to another. A lamb is a sacrifice and so is mercy; for by such offerings God shows mercy. Therefore, which of these is better? "To show mercy and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than victims" (Pr 21:3).

Or secondly, so that one is approved and the rest rejected: I desire mercy, but not the sacrifice you make. Hence Isaiah (1:15): "I do not desire holocausts, because your hands are filled with blood."

Or, another way: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. For one is said to desire that which he wants for its own sake and not for the sake of something else. It is as though a physician said: "I desire health," and so among the works we offer God, we offer some for their own sake, as loving God and neighbor; others for the sake of these: "I will show you, O man, what is good; and what the Lord requires of you. Indeed, to do justice and to love mercy" (Mic 6:8).

Thirdly, the Lord gives another reason, based on his mission. It is as though an emissary, if he were prevented from exercising his office, should say: "You are foolish, because you are preventing what pertains to me." The Lord had come to save sinners; hence it was said above (1:21): "And you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." Therefore, he says, I have come to call not the just, but sinners. Luke adds, "to repentance." And this addition is proper, for he did not come to call sinners and let them remain in their sins, but that they be removed from them.

But we might inquire about the just, because no one is just but God alone, and we are all sinners. Likewise, it seems that what he says is false, because John was just, and Simeon and Zechariah were just; yet he called them. For an answer we must make a distinction about justice, because one is called just for not being subject to sin. In this sense no one is just, because all are subject to mortal or venial or original sin, at least as far as the debt is concerned. This he totally blotted out: "He came that they might have life" (Jn 5:40). Hence he did not come to call the just, as just, but the just, in so far as they are sinners. Likewise, one is called just who is not subject to mortal sin; hence he came not to call these just to repentance, but to greater justice. Or, in this way: I came not to call the just, i.e., who put trust in their own justice, but sinners, who repent, not knowing their justice.