Tuesday of the 3rd week after Pentecost

(Serm. 46.) The Gospel therefore is not for sale, that it should be preached for reward. For if they so sell it, they sell a great thing for a small price. Let preachers then receive their necessary support from the people, and from God the reward of their employment. For the people do not give pay to those that minister to them in the love of the Gospel, but as it were a stipend that may support them to enable them to work.

(De Cons. Ev. ii. 30.) Otherwise; When the Lord said to the Apostles, Possess not gold, He added immediately, The labourer is worthy of his hire, to show why He would not have them possess and carry about these things; not that these things were not needed for the support of this life, but that He sent them in such a way as to show that these things were due to them from those to whom they preached the Gospel, as pay to soldiers. It is clear that this precept of the Lord does not at all imply that they ought not according to the Gospel to live by any other means, than by the contributions of those to whom they preached; otherwise Paul transgressed this precept when he lived by the labour of his own hands. But He gave the Apostles authority that these things were due to them from the house in which they abode. But when the Lord has issued a command, if it be not performed, it is the sin of disobedience; when He bestows a privilege, it is in any one's power not to use it, and as it were to refrain from claiming his right. The Lord then having sanctioned this maxim, that they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel, He spoke these things to the Apostles, that being confident they should not possess nor carry about with them the necessaries of life, neither things great nor things small. Therefore He adds, Nor a staff, to show that from His people all things are due to His ministers, and they require no superfluities. This authority He signifies by the staff, saying in Mark, Take nothing but a staff only. (Mark 6:18.) And when He forbids them (in Matthew) to take with them shoes, He forbids that carefulness and thought which would be anxious to carry them lest they should be wanting. Thus also we must understand concerning the two coats, that none should think it necessary to carry another besides that which he wore, supposing that he should have need of it; for it would be in his power to obtain one by this authority which the Lord gave. Further that we read in Mark that they should be shod with sandals, seems to imply that this kind of shoe has a mystic meaning in it, that the foot should neither be covered above, nor yet bare beneath, that is, that the Gospel should not be hid, nor yet rest itself on earthly advantage. Also when He forbids them to carry two coats, He warned them not to walk deceitfully, but in simplicity. So we cannot doubt that all these things were said by the Lord, partly in a direct, partly in a figurative sense; and that of the two Evangelists one inserted some things, the other other things, in his narrative. If any one should think that the Lord could not in one speech speak some things in a direct, and some things in a mystic sense, let him look at any other of His sayings, and he will see how hasty and unlearned his opinion is. When the Lord commands that the left hand should not know what the right hand doeth, does he think that almsgiving, and the rest of His precepts in that place are to be taken figuratively?

Matthew 10: Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your belts, nor a wallet for the journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals: Gloss: "Let them carry with them neither necessities themselves nor a storehouse: nothing beyond the clothing with which one can be content." But in this the form of perfection is handed down to the Apostles themselves, and what belongs to perfection is perfect to imitate: therefore to go through the world in such a manner pertains to evangelical perfection. But this is to beg and to live on alms: therefore this pertains to evangelical perfection.

(non occ.) Whence He adds, Neither money in your purses. For there are two kinds of things necessary; one is the means of buying necessaries, which is signified by the money in their purses; the other the necessaries themselves, which are signified by the scrip.

Hence it is also added: "Do not carry a money bag, nor a wallet, nor sandals, and greet no one along the way." For the preacher ought to have such great trust in God that, although he does not provide for the expenses of the present life, he nevertheless knows most certainly that these will not be lacking to him, lest while his mind is occupied with temporal things, he provide less for others concerning eternal things. If anyone wishes to understand these words also allegorically: in a money bag, money is enclosed; but enclosed money is hidden wisdom. Therefore, whoever has the word of wisdom but neglects to distribute it to his neighbor holds money bound up in a bag, as it were. Hence it is written: "Hidden wisdom and a concealed treasure, what profit is there in either?"

The girdle is the making ready for the ministry, the girding up that we may be active in duty; we may suppose that the forbidding money in the girdle is to warn us from suffering any thing in the ministry to be bought and sold. We are not to have a scrip by the way, that is, we are to leave all care of our worldly substance; for all treasure on earth is hurtful to the heart, which will be there where the treasure is. Not two coats, for it is enough to have once put on Christ, nor after true knowledge of Him ought we to be clothed with any other garment of heresy or law. Not shoes, because standing on holy ground as was said to Moses not covered with the thorns and prickles of sin, we are admonished to have no other preparation of our walk than that we have received from Christ.

Neither a staff; that is, We are not to seek rights of extraneous power, having a rod from the root of Jesse.

Consequently he gave this order to the preachers of truth to whom he had said before: "Freely you have received, freely give." If they truly declare that they do not receive payment, the possession of gold, silver and money is superfluous. For if they were to have gold and silver, it would seem they were preaching not for the sake of humanity's salvation but for the sake of their own financial gain. "No copper in your belts." One who cuts off riches nearly cuts off what is necessary for life. Thus as the apostles and teachers of true religion taught that all things were governed by providence, they show they are not concerned about what tomorrow will bring.

(Vers. 9, 10.) Do not possess gold, silver, or money in your belts. Take no bag for the journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staff. For the worker deserves his food. Therefore, he gives these precepts to the evangelizers of truth, to whom he had said before: Freely you have received, freely give. For if they preach in such a way that they do not accept payment, the possession of gold, silver, and money is superfluous. For if they had gold and silver, they seemed to preach not for the sake of the salvation of souls, but for the sake of profit. Nor is there money in their purses. He who cuts off wealth, almost cuts off the necessities of life, as the apostolic teachers of true religion, who taught that all things are governed by the providence of God, showed themselves to think nothing of tomorrow. Not a bag on the way. By this precept he condemns the philosophers, who are commonly called Bactroperitae, because they despise the world and consider everything as worthless, and carried the storeroom with them. Nor two tunics. In two tunics it seems to me to show a double garment. Not that in the regions of Scythia and freezing snow, one should be satisfied with one tunic: but rather that we understand clothing in the tunic: so that, dressed in one thing, we do not preserve another thing out of fear of future events. Nor footwear. And Plato taught that the two summits of the body should not be covered, nor should we become accustomed to the softness of the head and feet. For when these things have strength, the rest are stronger. Not the rod: Why do we seek the help of the Lord, the protection of the staff? And because he had sent apostles somewhat dumb and unprepared to preach, and the condition of masters seemed hard, he tempered the severity of the command with the following sentiment, saying: The worker is worthy of his food. Only, he said, take what is necessary for you in food and clothing. And the Apostle also repeats: Having food and clothing, let us be content with these (I Tim. VI, 8). And in another place: Let him who is being catechized communicate the word to him who is catechizing him in all good things (Galat. VI, 6): so that those who reap spiritual things may make them companions of their carnal things: not in greed, but in necessity. We have said these things historically. However, according to the anagoge, it is not permitted for teachers to possess gold and silver, and money that is in belts. We often read about gold in terms of its value; silver, in terms of its use in conversation; copper, in terms of its sound. These things we are not allowed to receive from others, but to possess them as gifts from the Lord. Nor are we to embrace the teachings of heretics, philosophers, or false doctrines that are weighed down by the world, nor should we have two minds or allow our feet to be bound by deadly chains. Instead, as we enter the holy land, we are to be naked; we are not to have a staff that turns into a snake or rely on any support from the flesh. For this kind of staff and stick is made of reeds, and if you press on it even a little, it will break and pierce the hand of the one leaning on it.

For if they preach without receiving reward for it, the possession of gold and silver and wealth was unnecessary. For had they had such, they would have been thought to be preaching, not for the sake of men's salvation, but their own gain.

As He had cut off riches, which are meant by gold and silver, He now almost cuts off necessaries of life; that the Apostles, teachers of the true religion, who taught men that all things are directed by God's providence, might show themselves to be without thought for the morrow.

In forbidding the scrip, neither scrip for your journey,He aimed at those philosophers commonly called Bactroperatæ (vid. Cotel. not. in Herm. Past. ii. 1.), who being despisers of this world, and esteeming all things as nothing, yet carry a bag about with them. Nor two coats. By the two coats He seems to mean a change of raiment; not to bid us be content with a single tunic in the snow and frosts of Scythia, but that they should not carry about a change with them, wearing one, and carrying about the other as provision for the future. Nor shoes. It is a precept of Plato, that the two extremities of the body should be left unprotected, and that we should not accustom ourselves to tender care of the head and feet; for if these parts be hardy, it will follow that the rest of the body will be vigorous and healthy. Nor staff; for having the protection of the Lord, why need we seek the aid of a staff?

As He had sent the Apostles forth unprovided and unencumbered on their mission, and the condition of the teachers seemed a hard one, He tempered the severity of the rules by this maxim, The labourer is worthy of his hire, i. e. Receive what you need for your food and clothing. Whence the Apostle says, Having food and raiment, let us therewith be content. (1 Tim. 6:8. Gal. 6:6.) And again, Let him that is catechized communicate unto him that catechizeth in all good things; that they whose disciples reap spiritual things, should make them partakers of their carnal things, not for the gratification of covetousness, but for the supply of wants.

Thus far we have expounded by the letter; but metaphorically, as we often find gold put for the sense, silver for the words, brass for the voice—all these we may say we are not to receive from others, but to have them given by the Lord. We are not to take up the teaching of heretics, of philosophers, and of corrupt doctrine.

Or; The Lord herein teaches us that our feet are not to be bound with the chains of death, but to be bare as we tread on the holy ground. We are not to carry a staff which may be turned into a serpent, nor to trust in any arm of flesh; for all such is a reed on which if a man lean ever so lightly, it will break and go into his hand and pierce him.

After this plucking up immediately the root of the evils, He saith,

"Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet a staff."

He said not, "take them not with you," but, "even if you can obtain them from another, flee the evil disease." And you see that hereby He was answering many good purposes; first setting His disciples above suspicion; secondly, freeing them from all care, so that they might give all their leisure to the word; thirdly, teaching them His own power. Of this accordingly He quite speaks out to them afterwards, "Lacked ye anything, when I sent you naked and unshod?"

He did not at once say, "Provide not," but when He had said, "Cleanse the lepers, cast out devils," then He said, "Provide nothing; freely ye have received, freely give;" by His way of ordering things consulting at once for their interest, their credit, and their ability.

But perhaps some one may say, that the rest may not be unaccountable, but "not to have a scrip for the journey, neither two coats, nor a staff, nor shoes," why did He enjoin this? Being minded to train them up unto all perfection; since even further back, He had suffered them not to take thought so much as for the next day. For even to the whole world He was to send them out as teachers. Therefore of men He makes them even angels (so to speak); releasing them from all worldly care, so that they should be possessed with one care alone, that of their teaching; or rather even from that He releases them, saying, "Take no thought how or what ye shall speak."

And thus, what seems to be very grievous and galling, this He shows to be especially light and easy for them. For nothing makes men so cheerful as being freed from anxiety and care; and especially when it is granted them, being so freed, to lack nothing, God being present, and becoming to them instead of all things.

Next, lest they should say, "whence then are we to obtain our necessary food?" He saith not unto them, "Ye have heard that I have told you before, 'Behold the fowls of the air;'" (for they were not yet able to realise this commandment in their actions); but He added what came far short of this, saying, "For the workman is worthy of his meat;" declaring that they must be nourished by their disciples, that neither they might be high minded towards those whom they were teaching, as though giving all and receiving nothing at their hands; nor these again break away, as being despised by their teachers.

After this, that they may not say, "Dost thou then command us to live by begging?" and be ashamed of this, He signifies the thing to be a debt, both by calling them "workmen," and by terming what was given, "hire." For "think not," saith He, "because the labor is in words, that the benefit conferred by you is small; nay, for the thing hath much toil; and whatsoever they that are taught may give, it is not a free gift which they bestow, but a recompence which they render: "for the workman is worthy of his meat." But this He said, not as declaring so much to be the worth of the apostles' labors, far from it; God forbid: but as both making it a law for them to seek nothing more, and as convincing the givers, that what they do is not an act of liberality, but a debt.

And again, when sending them out, He said not, "Fast," but, "Eat of all that is set before you." With regard to wealth, however, He required of them great strictness, saying, "Provide not gold, or silver, or brass, in your purses."

And all this I say, not to depreciate fasting, God forbid, but rather highly to commend it. But I grieve when other duties being neglected, ye think it enough for salvation, having but the last place in the choir of virtue. For the greatest thing is charity, and moderation, and almsgiving; which hits a higher mark even than virginity.

To all the others who wished to walk in the lofty path of perfection He said, "Possess not gold, nor silver, nor money in your wallets, nor two coats, nor shoes, nor staff, for the labourer is worthy of his food," that is to say, "Such freedom befitteth such labour." So then Jesus sent them from all the world, and then He brought them out of the world, saying, "Go forth, and leave everything in its place in the world, and take not out with you to the country of life things which are mortal. Ye have been called to put on purple, cast off first the filthy rags of the world, and then put on royal purple. For who that wisheth to put on the glory which is for eternity would not first cast off the garments which are worn out, and then put on that glory which never becometh old? And whosoever wisheth to be enrolled in Jerusalem above will not have a dwelling in the earth, but he will dwell in that city. Whosoever wisheth not to be received in that world by Grace shall be received in this world graciously by every man; and whosoever wisheth to be a dweller in the marriage chamber, let him not possess in this world either a wallet or a cloak; and whosoever seeketh to obtain God, let him not possess money in his wallet; for it is an endless disgrace that together with God a man should be possessed of money. For he who possesseth the things of time, together with those of eternity, is not sensible of the greatness of his possession, and therefore he runneth to obtain poverty together with riches. And neither is it possible that these two treasures can be contained in one vessel, for no man ever put scourings together with gold in one vessel, nor did any one ever account straw and wood of equal value with precious stones." This commandment then was given by the Master to His disciples when He sent them to be fishers of men unto life; He cut off first from them all the fetters of the world, and He loosed from them all human ties, and then He sent them to loose others, for the man that is fettered cannot loose him that is in bondage. The possession of the things of the world is a fetter to all the members, and a curb of all the senses, and the whole man is bound and fettered in his inward and outward things thereby. And well did our Lord first loose the fetters of the world from His disciples, and then send them to loose the bonds of others, that those who were in bonds might see that those whose bonds were loosed bore the mark of freedom, and the sign of the Kingdom, and that He that loosed them might be believed in by them, especially when they saw that those from whom they had cut off the bonds of the world were free.

Let us then be strong in the war against this evil lust which although it be a good thing when coupled with marriage in the world, is accounted a vice if it be wrought by disciples; for not every thing is good for every man, even though it be very fair and good in its nature, for riches in the nature of their creation by their Maker are good, but if solitaries, who are commanded not to have two tunics, and not to take care for the morrow, acquire them, the possession thereof to them is a vice. And the eating of flesh and the drinking of wine is pure unto those who devote themselves unto the life of the world, but for those who of their own will have given themselves unto the maintenance of the election of the discipleship of Christ, it is not right to make use of things, except for necessity's sake. And, moreover, good and fair also are the powers and dominions of this world, for it is written, "There is no dominion which is not from God", but for those who have separated themselves from human habitation, and have promised to do great and sublime things, to desire human grades of honour is a subject for rebuke and reproach. And dwelling in cities and villages, and the habitation in the world, and life and intercourse among the children of men are not blameworthy, but for those who have become destitute for the love of God, and who have once cast off the world of their own free-will, and have gone forth to become solitaries and ascetics outside it, the dwelling among and intercourse with the children of men are unto them subjects for reprehension and blame; and there are many things like these, the doing of which is blameless unto those who have not already bound themselves by a covenant against them, but if they be done by those who have promised to abstain from them they are blameworthy.

The Lord shows by these words that the holy preachers were reinstated in the dignity of the first man, who as long as he possessed the heavenly treasures, did not desire other; but having lost those by sinning, he straightway began to desire the other.

"Possess neither gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, nor satchel for your journey, neither two tunics, neither sandals, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his food." He is training them in all strictness, and for this reason He allows them absolutely nothing in excess, nor to have any cares. He does not even allow them a staff, for this is the strictness of non-possessiveness which makes credible the words of one who would teach this virtue. And then, so that they might not ask, "How shall we eat?" He says, "The workman is worthy of his food"; that is, your disciples shall feed you. For they owe this to you as they would to workmen. But He said, "worthy of his food," not of delicacies, for teachers should not live luxuriously.

Take no gold..., because they could say: On what are we to live. So he instructs them about expenses: first, he forbids them to carry anything for expenses; secondly, he teaches from whom to accept hospitality (v. 11). He says, therefore, Take no gold. But note the words that follow: nor sandals, whereas Mark (6:9) says: "Wear sandals." Matthew says, nor a staff; Mark says: "Take nothing... but a staff." Consequently, these words engender doubt and difficulty, for the saying, take no gold... is either a precept or a counsel. But it is certainly a precept, because it says that Jesus charged them... But the apostles were both apostles and believers. Therefore, it was a precept for them either as believers or as apostles. If as believers, then all believers are bound to this; and this was a heresy, as Augustine says, which taught that no one can be saved except those who possess nothing. Again, there was another heresy that no one would be saved, unless he went about without shoes. These were heresies, not because they commanded something evil, but because they denied that non-observers were on the path to salvation. But if they were commanded in as much as they were apostles, then all prelates, who are successors of the apostles, are bound to these things.

But granted that they did not act wickedly, did not Paul act wickedly by carrying money and accepting it from some to give to others. Therefore, these words bristle with difficulties. So it must be said, according to Jerome, that he commanded something on account of their office as apostles, and not that it is necessary absolutely, but for that time. Hence before the Passion he charged them to carry nothing, but at the time of the Passion he says in Luke (22:35): "When I sent you out with no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything? They said, 'Nothing'." Then he continues: "But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one." Hence before the Passion they were sent to the Jews, among whom it was the custom to provide for their teachers. That is why he commanded them to carry nothing, when he sent them to the Jews. But that was not the custom among the gentiles; therefore, when they were sent to the gentiles, they were permitted to carry living expenses. Hence they carried them when they preached to others than the Jews. And because some things are for our needs and others for purchasing what we need, that is what is said, namely, that some riches are made by art, such as clothing and shoes; therefore, he forbids both types. So he says, take no gold..., because money is made of gold or silver or brass. Hence Peter said: "Gold and silver I have none, but what I have I give to you" (Acts 3:6). But why did the Lord give this command? Because he sent poor men to preach; therefore, some could not believe that they preached only for the income. So in order to remove that suspicion, he ordered them to carry nothing. He also did it in order to leave no room for worry; for if they were too concerned about this, the word of God would be impeded. He likewise forbids riches which help in case of need.

But every true prophet that willeth to abide among you is worthy of his support. So also a true teacher is himself worthy, as the workman, of his support. Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, thou shalt take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests. But if ye have not a prophet, give it to the poor. If thou makest a batch of dough, take the first-fruit and give according to the commandment. So also when thou openest a jar of wine or of oil, take the first-fruit and give it to the prophets; and of money (silver) and clothing and every possession, take the first-fruit, as it may seem good to thee, and give according to the commandment.

And what is signified by the wallet, except the burdens of the world; and what in this place by sandals, except the examples of dead works? Therefore, whoever undertakes the office of preaching, it is not fitting that he carry the burden of worldly affairs, lest while this weighs down his neck, he not rise up to preach heavenly things. Nor ought he to look upon the examples of foolish works, lest he believe he is protecting his own works, as it were, with the skins of dead animals. For there are many who defend their own depravity from the depravities of others. Because they consider that others have done such things, they think they may do these things freely. What else do these people do except try to protect their feet with the skins of dead animals?

They are forbidden to keep gold, silver or money in their belts, to carry a wallet for their journey, to keep two tunics, or sandals, or to take a staff in hand. The laborer deserves his food. Does it not cause envy, as I believe, to carry money in one's belt? And what does the forbidden possession of gold, silver and copper in one's belt signify? The belt is the equipment of the ministry, and the sash helps one to work efficiently. Therefore we are warned about anything in our ministry that is of monetary value, nor should the possession of gold, silver and copper become necessary for our apostolic mission. "Take no wallet for your journey." Leave behind any concern for worldly goods. All treasure on earth is detrimental, for where our treasure is, there our heart will be. "Nor two tunics." The garment of Christ is all we will ever need. And, because of the depravity of our mind, we should not put on any other garment, either of a heretical sect or of the law. "Nor sandals." Are frail humans capable of going barefoot? On holy ground covered with thorns and briars, as God said to Moses, we are urged to stand firm with bare feet and to have no other footwear for our journey than what we have received from Christ. "Nor staff in hand," that is, the possession of external power, or unworthily holding a staff from the root of Jesse—for whatever else it may be, it will not be the staff of Christ. Rather, we are to be equipped for our journey in the world with every higher level of language, grace, travel fare, clothes, footwear and power. Following these directions, we shall be found worthy of our reward; that is, through observance of them, we will receive the reward of heavenly hope.

"Nor staff." Why do we who have the Lord as our help seek the aid of a walking stick? And since he had sent the apostles out to preach somewhat divested and ill equipped and the teachers seemed to be in difficult straits, he tempered the severity of his command with the following sentence: "The laborer deserves his living." However, Jesus said, accept by way of food and clothing whatever you need. Jesus' teaching is reflected in Paul's words: "Having sufficient food and clothing, with these let us be content." And in another place: "Let one who is instructed in the word share all good things with the teacher," so that the disciples of those who have a healthy fear of the demonic will make them sharers of their own material goods, not because of greediness but genuine need. We said this by way of interpretation. According to another scriptural interpretation, teachers may not possess gold or silver or money in their belts. Gold is often understood to mean feeling, silver to mean speech and copper to mean voice. We are not allowed to accept these things from others but to possess them as given by the Lord. Nor are we allowed to accept the teachings of heretics and philosophers and false doctrine or to be burdened by the cares of the world or to be two-faced or to have our feet bound by deadly chains. But we are to be divested of everything as we advance on holy ground. We are not to have a staff that is changed into a snake or to lean upon the flesh for any support. A staff or walking stick of this kind is a reed: If you press on it just a little, it will break and will pierce your hand.

And because they could say, "We shall not take gold or silver, but we can take a bag for eggs and bread, which are necessary for food," he even forbids this. No bag for your journey. But why did he forbid even this? Chrysostom says that it was in order to manifest his power to them, because he was able to send them off without these things. Hence Luke (22:35): "When I sent you without staff and bag, did you lack anything?" Therefore, he did it to show his power. Again, as to clothing, nor two tunics: not that they should possess only one tunic, but that they should not have two sets of clothing, such that they would store one and wear the other. Hence by "one tunic" is understood one set of clothing: "He that has two coats, let him give to him that has none" (Lk 3:11). Nor sandals. Why did he forbid these?

There are two causes with the same reason as for the gold and silver. The Lord sent them in such a way that they would be regarded as poor by all. Hence the Apostle in 1 Corinthians (1:26): "God called not many that were powerful." Therefore he wanted them to be lowly; for in the East the poor go about without shoes, although they do use footwear made of straw. Accordingly, he wanted them to go about as the poor of that country. And another reason — as Plato taught that men should not much cover their feet or head — in order to condition them in endurance he commanded that they go barefooted. Nor a staff. What is the reason? For some use horses, while others are kept upright with a staff. But he forbids even that slight thing, in order that they put their entire trust in him: "Your rod and your staff comfort me" (Ps 23:4). Hence what he says elsewhere, that they should carry a staff, was not a command but something to observe for the place and the time.

Augustine follows another path, saying that these are not precepts or counsels, but permissions, so that to abstain is more a counsel than to fulfill. Hence the sense is take no..., i.e., it is not necessary to own any shoes but those you are wearing. Nor a staff, i.e., nothing, as it is said, "not a speck." And why? For the laborer is worthy of his hire...; since you have the power to receive from others, it is not necessary to carry these things. Hence when something is permitted, if it is not done, it is not a sin; whatever is over and above is of supererogation. Hence even Paul, although he could receive from others, accepted nothing; and that was supererogation, as Augustine says, because not to use things permitted is of supererogation. Hence Paul says: "It is better for me to die than to shed my glory" (1 Cor 9:15). And why? Because he did not make use of that permission, the laborer is worthy of his hire. But what about the statement elsewhere, that they may carry a staff? Augustine says that it is not out of place for things to be said mystically sometimes and literally at other times. Hence what he says here in Matthew, namely, that they should not take a bag, he says literally; but what Mark says is understood mystically, namely, that they should not carry temporal things but have the power to accept them from others. Hence for the laborer is worthy of his hire. The "for" in this sentence is not causal. The workers are those mentioned above: "Pray the Lord of the harvest to send laborers into his harvest."

The third explanation is take [possess] no gold, i.e., worldly wisdom, silver, worldly eloquence, or a bag, i.e., anxiety, or two tunics, i.e., duplicity, or sandals, i.e., love of material things, for sandals are made from the hides of dead animals.

(in Luc. 9:5.) The Apostles are not to choose carelessly the house into which they enter, that they may have no cause for changing their lodging; the same caution is not enforced upon the entertainer, lest in choosing his guests, his hospitality should be diminished. When ye enter a house, salute it, saying, Peace be to this house.

Figuratively, The Lord teaches us not to enter the houses or to mix in the acquaintance of those who persecute Christ, or who are ignorant of Him; and in each town to enquire who among them is worthy, i. e. where there is a Church wherein Christ dwells; and not to pass to another, because this house is worthy, this host is our right host. But there would be many of the Jews who would be so well disposed to the Law, that though they believed in Christ because they admired His works, yet they would abide in the works of the Law; and others again who, desiring to make trial of that liberty which is in Christ, would feign themselves ready to forsake the Law for the Gospel; many also would be drawn aside into heresy by perverse understanding. And since all these would falsely maintain that with them only was Catholic verity, therefore we must with great caution seek out the house, i. e. the Church.

Entering a new town, the apostles were unable to know what kind of persons they were meeting. Therefore a host must be chosen according to his reputation and the judgment of his neighbors. Otherwise the dignity of the message preached might be tainted by the ill repute of the recipient. Since they must preach to all, only one host is to be chosen; and they are not to bestow favor on persons with whom they stay but to receive it.

(Verse 11) Whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there until you leave. Concerning the appointment of bishops and deacons, Paul speaks; They must also have a good testimony from those who are outside. (1 Timothy 3:7). When the apostles entered a new city, they could not know what kind of person he was. Therefore, a host should be chosen by the reputation of the people and the judgment of the neighbors, so that the dignity of the preacher is not tarnished by the infamy of the recipient. When everyone should preach, one guest is chosen, not giving a favor to the one who is going to stay, but receiving it, for it is said, who is worthy in her, so that he may know himself more to receive grace than to give it.

The Apostles, on entering a strange town, could not know of each inhabitant what sort of man he was; they were to choose their host therefore by the report of the people, and opinion of the neighbours, that the worthiness of the preacher might not be disgraced by the ill character of his entertainer.

One host is chosen who does not so much confer a favour upon him who is to abide with him, as receive one. For it is said, Who in it is worthy, that he may know that he rather receives than does a favour.

"And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy: and there abide till ye go thence."

That is, "it follows not," saith He, "from my saying, 'The workman is worthy of his meat,' that I have opened to you all men's doors: but herein also do I require you to use much circumspection. For this will profit you both in respect of your credit, and for your very maintenance. For if he is worthy, he will surely give you food; more especially when ye ask nothing beyond mere necessaries."

And He not only requires them to seek out worthy persons, but also not to change house for house, whereby they would neither vex him that is receiving them, nor themselves get the character of gluttony and self-indulgence. For this He declared by saying, "There abide till ye go thence." And this one may perceive from the other evangelists also.

Seest thou how He made them honorable by this also, and those that received them careful; by signifying that they rather are the gainers, both in honor, and in respect of advantage?

But mark, I pray thee, how He doth not even yet give the whole to them. For neither doth He as yet bestow upon them foreknowledge, so as to learn who is worthy, and who is not so; but He bids them inquire, and await the trial. How then did He Himself abide with a publican? Because he was become worthy by his conversion.

And mark, I pray thee, how when He had stripped them of all, He gave them all, by suffering them to abide in the houses of those who became disciples, and to enter therein, having nothing. For thus both themselves were freed from anxiety, and they would convince the others, that for their salvation only are they come; first by bringing in nothing with them. then by requiring no more of them than necessaries, lastly, by not entering all their houses without distinction.

Since not by the signs only did He desire them to appear illustrious, but even before the signs, by their own virtue. For nothing so much characterizes strictness of life, as to be free from superfluities, and so far as may be, from wants. This even the false apostles knew. Wherefore Paul also said, "That wherein they glory, they may be found even as we."

The Lord therefore taught his disciples to offer peace on their entering into a house, that by means of their salutation their choice might be directed to a worthy house and host. As though He had said, Offer peace to all, they will show themselves either worthy by accepting, or unworthy by not accepting it; for though you have chosen a host that is worthy by the character he bears among his neighbours, yet ought you to salute him, that the preacher may seem rather to enter by invitation, than to intrude himself. This salutation of peace in few words may indeed be referred to the trial of the worthiness of the house or master.

"And into whatsoever city or village ye shall enter, inquire diligently who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence." He bids them not to go to just anyone lest they associate with those who are unworthy and so be slandered. But if they go only to the worthy, their needs will be met in full. He commands them to stay there and not move from one house to the next lest they be accused of being gluttons and appear to insult those who first received them.

And whatever town or village you enter... Above the Lord ordained that the apostles take no sustenance with them, and the reason he gave is that the laborer is worthy of his hire; now he declares how they should accept. First, he gives the way, because they should accept from those willing to give; secondly, what should be done in regard to those not willing (v. 14).

In regard to the first he does three things: first, he teaches them to select a host; secondly, he forbids them to change lodgings (v. 11b); thirdly, he tells them to salute the host (v. 12).

He says, therefore: "It has been said that the laborer is worthy of his hire, in order that you know from whom you should receive, and lest you suppose that anyone's house be granted to you. Therefore, whatever town or village you enter, find out who is worthy in it, lest the host's bad reputation cause your preaching to be despised: "He must be well thought of by outsiders" (1 Tim 3:6). The second reason is that if he is a good person, he will more readily minister what you need. And in this he provides for them. The third reason is to exclude suspicion of profit; because when people saw such poor men not taking anything except from the good, it was a sign to them that they were not preaching for gain. The last two explanations are Chrysostom's; the first is Jerome's. And the Apostle says this: "We used neither words nor flattery as a cloak for greed" (1 Th 2:5).

He says, who is worthy in it, because it is regarded a great thing for one who receives such guests, as it says in Hebrews (13:2): "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." And stay with him. Here he teaches about stability of hospitality: stay with him. Why? So as not to cause the host sorrow. If he is worthy, he will receive you gladly and be sorry when you must go: "Is evil a payment for good" (Jer 18:20). The second reason is that they not be considered fickle, which does not befit a preacher: "In the serious throng I will praise you" (Ps 35:18). Also that they might avoid the mark of gluttony, because if they left poor hospitality for a good one, it would be charged to gluttony. Therefore, the Lord says that before they enter, they should inquire who in it is worthy.

(interlin.) As much as to say, Pray ye for peace upon the master of the house, that all resistance to the truth may be pacified.

Into whatsoever house you enter, first say: Peace be to this house. The peace which is offered from the mouth of the preacher either rests in the house, if there be a son of peace in it, or returns to the same preacher; because either someone will be predestined to life, and follows the heavenly word which he hears; or if no one shall have been willing to hear, the preacher himself will not be without fruit, because peace returns to him, since a reward is recompensed to him from the Lord for the labor of his work.

These things really baffle the mind. For if the apostles are not to submit to hospitality unless they first inquire who is worthy, how will the house later be found unworthy? And what if the host does not listen to their words and does not receive them? Either there is no fear of this in the well-intentioned person, or, if he is found unworthy, there is no point in sharing his dwelling. And what good will it do to inquire who is worthy if respect and punishment are advised regarding an unworthy host? But the Lord instructs them to desire no part of the home and hospitality of those who either reproach Christ or turn a deaf ear to him. In each town they are to inquire who in the house is worthy, that is, if the church and Christ are inhabitants there, and not to move on to anywhere else if the house is worthy and the host well-intentioned.There would be many Jews with a great affection for the law who, although they might believe in Christ out of admiration for his works, still lingered in the works of the law. And others, curious to explore the freedom that is in Christ, would pretend they were going over to the gospel from the law. Many others, too, would be led into heresy out of a misguided understanding. And since all those who deceive and flatter their listeners in this way claim they have the catholic truth, he forewarned his apostles that they must inquire whether the person they are to dwell with is worthy. And since naïve persons might go along with the ideas of the host through deceptive words, one must make cautious use of a house that was called worthy, that is, the church that is called catholic. He directs that it should be saluted peaceably, so that peace is spoken rather than given. For thus he instructed them: "Salute it, saying, 'Peace to this house.' " Hence their peaceful greeting is in words and must be tendered as a gesture. Furthermore, he said that peace itself, which is the very heart of compassion, ought not to come to that house unless it is worthy. If that house is not found worthy, the homage of heavenly peace must be withheld.

The Apostles salute the house with the prayer of peace; yet so as that peace seems rather spoken than given. For their own peace which was the bowels of their pity ought not to rest upon the house if it were not worthy; then the sacrament of heavenly peace could be kept within the Apostles own bosom.

(Verses 12, 13.) But when you enter the house, greet it. And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. The hidden greeting is expressed in Hebrew and Syriac speech. For what is said in Greek, χαῖρε, and in Latin, ave, is called in the Hebrew Syriac language Salom Lach () or Salom Emmach (), which means peace be with you. And the instruction is as follows: When you enter a house, bless the guest with peace, and as much as you can, calm the strife and quarrels. But if a contradiction arises, you will receive a reward for the offered peace: they, who wish to have war, will possess it.

Here is a latent allusion to the form of salutation in Hebrew and Syriac; they say Salemalach or Salamalach, for the Greek χαῖρε, or Latin Ave; that is, 'Peace be with you.' The command then is, that on entering any house they should pray for peace for their host; and, as far as they may be able, to still all discords, so that if any quarrel should arise, they, who had prayed for peace should have it—others should have the discord; as it follows, And if that house be worthy, your peace shall rest upon it; but if it be not worthy, your peace shall return to you again.

Then pursuing again the same subject, He saith,

"And when ye come into an house, salute it. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you."

Seest thou how far He declines not to carry His injunctions? And very fitly. For as champions of godliness, and preachers to the whole world, was He training them. And in that regard disposing them to practise moderation, and making them objects of love, He saith,

"That is, do not," saith He, "because ye are teachers, therefore wait to be saluted by others, but be first in showing that respect." Then, implying that this is not a mere salutation, but a blessing, He saith, "If the house be worthy, it shall come upon it," but if it deal insolently, its first punishment will be, not to have the benefit of your peace.

"And when ye come into a house, salute it, saying, Peace be unto this house. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you." By "salutation" and "peace" understand "blessing," which remains only upon those who are worthy. Learn, then, from this that it is primarily our own deeds that bring blessing upon us.

As you enter the house, salute it. Here he speaks of saluting the host: first, he mentions the salutation; secondly, the effect (v. 13). For it was fitting that they minister spiritual things to those who ministered temporal things, and not only spiritual things but things necessary for salvation by saying, Peace be to this house. And this was a suitable greeting, because the world was in conflict; but in Christ the world was reconciled. For they were the Lord's legates, and to what end? Certainly for peace; therefore, this greeting was suitable.

And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you. The peace which is offered from the mouth of the preacher either rests in the house, if there be a son of peace in it, or returns to the same preacher; because either someone will be predestined to life, and follows the heavenly word which he hears; or if no one shall have been willing to hear, the preacher himself will not be without fruit, because peace returns to him, since a reward is recompensed to him from the Lord for the labor of his work.

(ap. Raban.) Thus either the hearer, being predestined to eternal life, will follow the heavenly word when he hears it; or if there be none who will hear it, the preacher himself shall not be without fruit; for his peace returns to him when he receives of the Lord recompense for all his labour.

Then he continues with the effect both on the good and on the wicked. And if the house is worthy... We can say that such a house will obtain a blessing. Hence the apostles or bishops in first turning toward the people say, "Peace be to you." So it says in Numbers (6:27): "They shall invoke my name upon the people of Israel, and I shall bless them." But if it is not worthy, your peace will return to you. Why does he say this? Did he not say that they should first inquire? Therefore, he shows that in such inquiries men make mistakes: "Man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart" (1 Sm 16:7). For they were not yet perfect enough to know who was worthy. Your peace will return to you. This shows that sometimes someone prays and labors for the salvation of another, and yet he does not obtain the effect. Nevertheless, he does not lose what he did, but it redounds to him. Hence it will return to you, i.e., the fruit will be referred to you.

Upon such as rejected the precepts of the heavenly kingdom an eternal curse is left by the departure of the Apostles, and the dust shaken from their feet; And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye go out of that house, or that town, cast the dust off your feet. For he that lives in any place seems to have a kind of fellowship with that place. By the casting the dust off the feet therefore all that belonged to that house is left behind, and nothing of healing or soundness is borrowed from the footsteps of the Apostles having trod their soil.

(Verse 14.) And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. The dust is shaken off the feet as a testimony of their labor, that they have entered the city and the apostolic preaching has reached them. Whether the dust is shaken off so that they receive nothing from them, not even necessary food, those who have rejected the Gospel.

Also they shake off the dust as a testimony of the Apostles' toil, that in preaching the Gospel they had come even so far, or as a token that from those that rejected the Gospel they would accept nothing, not even the necessaries of life.

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city."

If the house deal insolently, its second punishment shall be, that it shall suffer the doom of Sodom. "And what," it will be said, "is their punishment to us?" Ye will have the houses of such as are worthy.

But what means, "Shake off the dust of your feet?" It is either to signify their having received nothing of them, or to be a witness to them of the long journey, which they had travelled for their sake.

Otherwise; The feet of the disciples signify the labour and progress of preaching. The dust which covers them is the lightness of earthly thoughts, from which even the greatest doctors cannot be free; their anxiety for their hearers involves them in cares for their prosperity, and in passing through the ways of this world, they gather the dust of the earth they tread upon. They then who have despised the teaching of these doctors, turn upon themselves all the toils and dangers and anxieties of the Apostles as a witness to their damnation.

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement, than for that city." He wants them to shake the dust from their feet to show that the apostles received nothing from that place because of the inhabitants' unbelief; or, as a testimony to the great distance the apostles had walked, which nonetheless brought no benefit to the inhabitants. It will be more tolerable for the Sodomites than for the unbelievers because the Sodomites, having been chastised here in this life, will be punished less severely there in the next life.

And if anyone will not receive you... Here he speaks of those who do not receive: first, he teaches them what to do; secondly, what those will receive from God (v. 15). He says, therefore, if anyone will not receive you. He mentions two offenses: one is that they had not received them; the other is that they had not listened to the word of God which they had been sent to preach. Therefore, as you leave that house or town, because sometimes they were received in the town but not in any house, and sometimes not even in the town, as is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. What, therefore, is to be done? Shake off the dust from your feet. This is exactly what Paul and Barnabas did (Acts 14:51). But why does the Lord command this? For dust clings to the feet; hence he ordered this to show them that they had made the labor of the journey useless. And this was to be punishment for them. As if to say: because of this you are deserving of damnation. Yet the Apostle says (Phil 2:16): "I have not labored in vain." Another reason is that the least one can have is dust; therefore, he wanted them to shake it off to signify that they would have nothing from them. The third reason is that by dust is signified temporal things, by the feet, affects, to signify that nothing temporal should remain in their affections. The fourth reason is mystical. The feet are their affections; for no matter how holy preachers are, it happens that their affections are stirred by some dust, either by vain glory, as it says in John (c. 13) that Jesus washed the disciples' feet and that he said: "He that is clean needs only to wash his feet, and he is wholly clean." Hence they needed to be washed for venial sins. And why did the Lord command this? To show that the preacher commits himself to danger. Hence if they do not believe him, it redounds to their damnation.

(v. 15) Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that city. If it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah ((or Gomorheis)) than for that city which did not receive the Gospel, and therefore more tolerable, because to Sodom and Gomorrah the preaching was not given, but to this city it was given, and yet it did not receive the Gospel: therefore among sinners there are different punishments.

Because to the men of Sodom and Gomorrah no man had ever preached; but this city had been preached to and had rejected the Gospel.

But if it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom than for that city, hence we may learn that there is difference of degree in the punishment of sinners.

And if this were not so, but He have delivered all that were before Him from hell, how saith He, "It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah?" For this saying supposes that those are also to be punished; more mildly indeed, yet still that they are to be punished. And yet they did also suffer here the most extreme punishment, nevertheless not even this will deliver them. And if it is so with them, much more with such as have suffered nothing.

And lest it should seem a slight thing not to receive the Apostles, He adds, Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.

(ap. Raban.) Or because the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were hospitable among their sensuality, but they had never entertained such strangers as the Apostles.

Sodom and Gomorrah are especially mentioned, to show that those sins which are against nature are particularly hateful to God, for which the world was drowned with the waters of the deluge, four towns were overthrown, and the world is daily afflicted with manifold evils.

But what is this? Will they not fare worse? Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that city, because, as it says in John (15:22): "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin." For they sin more who hear and do not, than those who have never heard. Therefore, perhaps those people from Sodom had not heard, so it will be more tolerable for them. Again, although they were unclean, they offered hospitality. Hence for this reason it will be more tolerable for them. But the opposite is stated in Genesis (c. 19), namely, that the sin of Sodom is the gravest sin, as is clear from the punishment. I answer that it is the gravest in the class of carnal sins. But as in directly against God, such as idolatry, is graver. Or you might answer that he is not comparing sin with sin but with circumstances, because those to whom they preached sinned, which was not true of the others. Likewise it refutes certain heretics who said that all sins are equal, and all punishments, and all merits, and all rewards. Therefore, he excludes this, when he says, more tolerable..., because it will be worse for certain sinners.

Caesarea Philippi is outside Judea in the region of the Gentiles. Why therefore did our Lord not examine his own disciples within the borders of Judea? Why did he go far north into the territory of the Gentiles? But as our insignificance [as Gentiles] works against us, he questioned the disciples in Gentile territory. The result was that by the true and everlasting conviction of the blessed apostle Peter—what flesh and blood had not unveiled, the Father revealed from the heavens. Through faith the Gentiles rather than the Jews would come to acknowledge the Son of God. This indeed occurred in the city of Caesarea—Cornelius who was first among the Gentiles to believe with all his own household, through the holy apostle Peter. The Lord was not inclined to question his own disciples in Judea, when the Jews did not believe that he was the Son of God but regarded him merely as the son of Joseph.

(non occ.) As soon as the Lord had taken His disciples out of the teaching of the Pharisees, He then suitably proceeds to lay deep the foundations of the Gospel doctrine; and to give this the greater solemnity, it is introduced by the name of the place, When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi.

(ap. Anselm.) When about to confirm the disciples in the faith, He would first take away from their minds the errors and opinions of others, whence it follows, And he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?

By asking, Whom do men say that the Son of Man is? He implied that something ought to be thought respecting Him beyond what appeared, for He was the Son of Man. And in thus enquiring after men's opinion respecting Himself, we are not to think that He made confession of Himself; for that which He asked for was something concealed, to which the faith of believers ought to extend itself. We must hold that form of confession, that we so mention the Son of God as not to forget the Son of Man, for the one without the other offers us no hope of salvation; and therefore He said emphatically, Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?

(Verse 13) And Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi. This Philip is the brother of Herod, about whom we spoke before, the tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis regions, who built Caesarea, which is now called Paneas, in honor of Tiberius Caesar, and in honor of Caesar, and also named it after himself, Caesarea Philippi, and it is in the province of Phoenicia. He imitated his father Herod, who named Caesarea in honor of August Caesar, which was formerly called the Tower of Straton. And he built, in the name of his daughter Julia, across the Jordan. This place (which is also called Ille) is Caesarea Philippi, where the Jordan River originates at the foot of Mount Lebanon, and it has two springs, one called Jor and the other Dan, which, when mixed together, become the Jordan River.

And he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? He did not say, whom do men say that I am, but the Son of man: lest he should seem to seek glory from men. And note that wherever it is written in the Old Testament, son of man, in Hebrew it is written as son of Adam. Just as it is in that (also), which we read in the psalm: Sons of men, how long will you be heavy of heart? (Psal. IV, 3), which in Hebrew is said as sons of Adam. But beautifully he asks: Whom do people say the Son of Man is? For those who speak of the Son of Man are humans; but those who understand his divinity are not humans, but gods are called.

This Philip was the brother of Herod, the tetrarch of Ituræa, and the region of Trachonitis, who gave to the city, which is now called Panæas, the name of Cæsarea in honour of Tiberius Cæsar.

Beautifully is the question put, Whom do men say that the Son of Man is? For they who speak of the Son of Man, are men: but they who understood His divine nature are called not men but Gods.

He says not, Whom, do men say that I am? but, Whom do men say that the Son of Man is? that He should not seem to ask ostentatiously concerning Himself. Observe, that wherever the Old Testament has 'Son of Man,' the phrase in the Hebrew is 'Son of Adam,'

Wherefore hath he mentioned the founder of the city? Because there was another besides, Caesarea Stratonis. But not in that, but in this doth He ask them, leading them far away from the Jews, so that being freed from all alarm, they might speak with boldness all that was in their mind.

And wherefore did He not ask them at once their own opinion, but that of the people? In order that when they had told the people's opinion, and then were asked, "But whom say ye that I am?" by the manner of His inquiry they might be led up to a sublimer notion, and not fall into the same low view as the multitude. Accordingly He asks them not at all in the beginning of His preaching, but when He had done many miracles, and had discoursed with them of many and high doctrines, and had afforded so many clear proofs of His Godhead, and of His unanimity with the Father, then He puts this question to them.

And He said not, "Whom say the Scribes and Pharisees that I am?" often as these had come unto Him, and discoursed with Him; but, "Whom do men say that I am?" inquiring after the judgment of the people, as unbiassed. For though it was far meaner than it should be, yet was it free from malice, but the other was teeming with much wickedness.

And signifying how earnestly He desires His Economy to be confessed, He saith, "The Son of Man;" thereby denoting His Godhead, which He doth also in many other places. For He saith, "No man hath ascended up to Heaven, but the Son of Man, which is in Heaven." And again, "But when ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up, where He was before."

Christ puts this question to His disciples, that from their answer we may learn that there were at that time among the Jews various opinions concerning Christ; and to the end that we should always investigate what opinion men may form of us; that if any ill be said of us, we may cut off the occasions of it; or if any good, we may multiply the occasions of it.

He enquires the opinions of His disciples and of those without, not because He was ignorant of them; His disciples He asks, that He may reward with due reward their confession of a right faith, and the opinions of those without He enquires, that having the wrong opinions first set forth, it might be proved that the disciples had received the truth of their confession not from common opinion, but out of the hidden treasure of the Lord's revelation.

Rather is the nature preserved, though the life blushes; nor does Christ know other men than those with reference to whom He says, "Whom do men say that I am? " And, "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye likewise so to, them.

Peter alone do I find-through (the mention of) his "mother-in-law" ,-to have been married. Monogamist I am led to presume him by consideration of the Church, which, built upon him, was destined to appoint every grade of her Order from monogamists.

Jesus asks this in order that we might know what opinions about him were current among the Jews. [He also asks] so that we might learn to inquire intently into what people are saying about him, and if it is bad, to remove the causes, or if complimentary, to increase them. But he said "Son of man" in order to show that he himself not only appears to be but in fact unchangeably is man, and again, is true God. [It is] not as if he were divided into different species, one part God and one part man; rather one may address him as Son of man with no doubt that this very same one is also the Son of God.

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am? The evangelist mentions the founder of the city, Philip, because there is another Caesarea, of Strato, and it was not in the latter, but in the former, that Christ asked them the question. He leads the disciples far away from the Jews so that they could speak boldly without fear of anyone. First He asks for the opinion of the multitude so that the disciples would be directed upwards to a greater understanding and not fall into the same lowliness of understanding as that of the people. He does not ask them, "Who do the Pharisees say that I am?" but "Who do men say?" referring to the guileless multitude.

Above, the Lord taught that the evangelical doctrine must be kept pure from the leaven of the Jews; here he teaches its eminence. And first, with regard to faith in the two natures, namely of the divinity and the humanity; second, with regard to faith in the passion, at from that time Jesus began to show to his disciples etc.; third, with regard to faith in the judicial power, at for the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father. Concerning the first: first, the opinion of the crowds about Christ is sought out; second, the faith of the disciples, at but whom do you say that I am? Concerning the first: first, the place is set forth; second, Christ's question, at whom do men say that the Son of man is? Third, Peter's response, at but they said etc. He says therefore Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea; and not only this, but he added Philippi, because there were two Caesareas, namely Caesarea of Traco, where Peter was sent to Cornelius; and this other one, which is otherwise called Paneas. The first was established by Herod in honor of Caesar Augustus; Philip built this one in honor of Tiberius. But why did the Lord raise this question here? It must be said that this city was situated at the borders of the Jews; therefore, before he wished to inquire about the faith, he drew them away from the Jews. Similarly it is found that the Lord, leading the Jews out of Egypt, did not lead them out through the lands of the Philistines, as is found in Exod. 13:17. Consequently the question is set forth: and he asked his disciples etc. A wise man, when he asks, teaches, as Jerome says. Hence in many things we are instructed, that we should be solicitous about what is said of us: so that if it is evil, we may correct it; if good, that we may preserve and multiply it. Hence take care of a good name; for this shall continue with thee, more than a thousand treasures precious and great, Ecclus. 41:15. Hence Christ asked what was said about him. Likewise, those who know the divinity are called gods, Ps. 81:6: I have said: you are gods; but those who know the humanity are called men; hence it is said whom do men say that the Son of man is? But, as Hilary says, Christ appeared to be only a man: therefore he wished them to know that he was something other than a mere man. Hence by this he gives to understand that there was something else in him. Likewise the humility of Christ is shown, because he confesses himself Son of man, according to that saying above 11:29: learn of me, because I am meek and humble of heart.

When they had presented diverse human origins concerning him, he asked what they themselves thought about him. Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." But Peter had pondered the nature of the question. For the Lord had said, "Whom do men say that the Son of man is?" Certainly his human body indicated he was a Son of man. But by adding "Who do you say that I am?" Jesus indicated that they should consider something besides what he seemed in himself, for he was a Son of man. Therefore what judgment concerning himself did he desire? It was a secret he was asking about, into which the faith of those who believe ought to extend itself.

(Verse 15, 16.) But who do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Wise reader, take note that from the following text and the discourse, the apostles are not called men, but gods. For when he had said: Who do men say that the Son of man is, he added: But who do you say that I am? To them, who are men, forming their opinions based on human things; but to you, who are gods, what do you think of me being? Peter, speaking on behalf of all the apostles, declares: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. He calls Him the living God, in distinction from those gods who are thought to be gods but are dead: Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, Minerva (or Ceres), Bacchus, Hercules, and other monstrous idols.

Observe how by this connection of the discourse the Apostles are not styled men but Gods. For when He had said, Whom say ye that the Son of Man is? Ho adds, Whom say ye that I am? as much as to say, They being men think of Me as man, ye who are Gods, whom do you think Me?

He calls Him the living God, in comparison of those gods who are esteemed gods, but are dead; such, I mean, as Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, Hercules, and the other monsters of idols.

Then, since they said, "Some John the Baptist, some Elias, some Jeremias, or one of the prophets," and set forth their mistaken opinion, He next added, "But whom say ye that I am?" calling them on by His second inquiry to entertain some higher imagination concerning Him, and indicating that their former judgment falls exceedingly short of His dignity. Wherefore He seeks for another judgment from themselves, and puts a second question, that they might not fall in with the multitude, who, because they saw His miracles greater than human, accounted Him a man indeed, but one that had appeared after a resurrection, as Herod also said. But He, to lead them away from this notion, saith, "But whom say ye that I am?" that is, "ye that are with me always, and see me working miracles, and have yourselves done many mighty works by me."

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Once again Peter leaps forward with fervor and confesses that He is truly the Son of God. He did not say, "Thou art the anointed one, a son of God," without the article "the," but with the article, "the Son," that is, He Who is the One and the Only, not a son by grace, but He Who is begotten of the same essence as the Father. For there were also many other christs, anointed ones, such as all the priests and kings; but the Christ, with the article, there is but One.

Jesus saith to them: but whom do you say that I am? Here the faith of the disciples is sought out. And first, the question is set forth; second, the response; third, the approval. The second is at Peter answering; the third is at and Jesus answering etc. Jesus saith to them: but whom do you say that I am? As if to say: so say the crowds; but because more has been entrusted to you, therefore more is required of you. You have seen the miracles, therefore you ought to have a higher opinion. But why did he ask? Did he not know? Indeed he knew, but he wished them to merit by their confession; Rom. 10:10: with the heart we believe unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Hence they are more meritorious, the more they are set apart, and just as to crowds knowing lower things, they should not answer with greater things, and therefore etc.

This definition is not something we have made up; Theology is, in a sense, an experimental science. It is simple religions that are the made-up ones. When I say it is an experimental science 'in a sense', I mean that it is like the other experimental sciences in some ways, but not in all. If you are a geologist studying rocks, you have to go and find the rocks. They will not come to you, and if you go to them they cannot run away. The initiative lies all on your side. They cannot either help or hinder. But suppose you are a zoologist and want to take photos of wild animals in their native haunts. That is a bit different from studying rocks. The wild animals will not come to you: but they can run away from you. Unless you keep very quiet, they will. There is beginning to be a tiny little trace of initiative on their side.

Now a stage higher; suppose you want to get to know a human person. If he is determined not to let you, you will not get to know him. You have to win his confidence. In this case the initiative is equally divided—it takes two to make a friendship.

When you come to knowing God, the initiative lies on His side. If He does not show Himself, nothing you can do will enable you to find Him.

This confession of Peter met a worthy reward, for that he had seen the Son of God in the man. Whence it follows, Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas, for flesh and blood has not revealed this unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

Otherwise; He is blessed, because to have looked and to have seen beyond human sight is matter of praise, not beholding that which is of flesh and blood, but seeing the Son of God by the revelation of the heavenly Father; and he was held worthy to be the first to acknowledge the divinity which was in Christ.

(Verse 17.) But Jesus answered and said to him: Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. The Apostles answer on behalf of Jesus. Peter had said: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God; a true confession has received a reward: Blessed are you, Simon Barjona. Why? because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but the Father revealed it. What flesh and blood could not reveal, has been revealed by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, from confession, it obtains the name which has revelation from the Holy Spirit, whose son is also to be called. For indeed, Barjona in our language means son of a dove. Others simply understand that Simon, that is, Peter, is the son of John, according to the question in another place: Simon, son of John, do you love me? (John 21:15) He answered: Lord, you know. And by the fault of the writers, it is corrupted so that instead of Bar Joanna, that is, son of John, it is written Barjona, with one syllable removed. Joanna, however, means 'by the grace of the Lord.' Both names can be understood mystically, as both the dove represents the Holy Spirit and grace represents the spiritual gift of God. Also, what is said, 'For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,' is compared to the apostolic narrative where it says, 'I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood' (Galatians 1:16), signifying the Jews as flesh and blood, so that here also it may be demonstrated in a different sense that Christ, the Son of God, was revealed to him not through the teaching of the Pharisees, but through the grace of God.

This return Christ makes to the Apostle for the testimony which Peter had spoken concerning Him, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. The Lord said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonas? Why? Because flesh and blood has not revealed this unto thee, but My Father. That which flesh and blood could not reveal, was revealed by the grace of the Holy Spirit. By his confession then he obtains a title, which should signify that he had received a revelation from the Holy Spirit, whose son he shall also be called; for Barjonas in our tongue signifies The son of a dove. Others take it in the simple sense, that Peter is the son of Johnq, according to that question in another place, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? (John 21:15.) affirming that it is an error of the copyists in writing here Barjonas for Barjoannas, dropping one syllable. Now Joanna is interpreted 'The grace of God.' But either name has its mystical interpretation; the dove signifies the Holy Spirit; and the grace of God signifies the spiritual gift.

Compare what is here said, flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, with the Apostolic declaration, Immediately I was not content with flesh and blood, (Gal. 1:16.) meaning there by this expression the Jews; so that here also the same thing is shown in different words, that not by the teaching of the Pharisees, but by the grace of God, Christ was revealed to him the Son of God.

What then saith Christ? "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee."

Yet surely unless he had rightly confessed Him, as begotten of the very Father Himself, this were no work of revelation; had he accounted our Lord to be one of the many, his saying was not worthy of a blessing. Since before this also they said, "Truly He is Son of God," those, I mean, who were in the vessel after the tempest, which they saw, and were not blessed, although of course they spake truly. For they confessed not such a Sonship as Peter, but accounted Him to be truly Son as one of the many, and though peculiarly so beyond the many, yet not of the same substance.

And Nathanael too said, "Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of Israel;" and so far from being blessed, he is even reproved by Him, as having said what was far short of the truth. He replied at least, "Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these."

Why then is this man blessed? Because he acknowledged Him very Son. Wherefore you see, that while in those former instances He had said no such thing, in this case He also signifies who had revealed it. That is, lest his words might seem to the many (because he was an earnest lover of Christ) to be words of friendship and flattery, and of a disposition to show favor to Him, he brings forward the person who had made them ring in his soul; to inform thee that Peter indeed spake, but the Father suggested, and that thou mightest believe the saying to be no longer a human opinion, but a divine doctrine.

And wherefore doth He not Himself declare it, nor say, "I am the Christ," but by His question establish this, bringing them in to confess it? Because so to do was both more suitable to Him, yea necessary at that time, and it drew them on the more to the belief of the things that were said.

Seest thou how the Father reveals the Son, how the Son the Father? For "neither knoweth any man the Father," saith He, "save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." It cannot therefore be that one should learn the Son of any other than of the Father; neither that one should learn the Father of any other than of the Son. So that even hereby, their sameness of honor and of substance is manifest.

But in heavenly things every spiritual sin is a gate of hell, to which are opposed the gates of righteousness.

He does not express what it is which they shall not prevail against, whether the rock on which He builds the Church, or the Church which He builds on the rock; but it is clear that neither against the rock nor against the Church will the gates of hell prevail.

Wherefore if we, by the revelation of our Father who is in heaven, shall confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, having also our conversation in heaven, to us also shall be said, Thou art Peter; for every one is a Rock who is an imitator of Christ. But against whomsoever the gates of hell prevail, he is neither to be called a rock upon which Christ builds His Church; neither a Church, or part of the Church, which Christ builds upon a rock.

The case of Peter escaped his memory, who, although he was a man of the law, was not only chosen by the Lord, but also obtained the testimony of possessing knowledge which was given to him by the Father. He had nowhere read of Christ's being foretold as the light, and hope, and expectation of the Gentiles! He, however, rather spoke of the Jews in a favourable light, when he said, "The whole needed not a physician, but they that are sick.

And He affirmed Himself that they were quite right in their convictions; for He answered Nathanµl: "Because I said, I saw thee under the fig-tree, therefore dose thou believe?" And in the same manner He pronounced Peter to be "blessed," inasmuch as "flesh and blood had not revealed it to him"-that he had perceived the Father-"but the Father which is in heaven." By asserting all this, He determined the distinction which is between the two Persons: that is, the Son then on earth, whom Peter had confessed to be the Son of God; and the Father in heaven, who had revealed to Peter the discovery which he had made, that Christ was the Son of God.

When acknowledged by Peter as the "Christ (the Son) of God," He does not deny the relation.

This is not the property of Peter alone, but it came about on behalf of every human being. Having said that his confession is a rock, he stated that upon this rock I will build my church. This means he will build his church upon this same confession and faith. For this reason, addressing the one who first confessed him with this title, on account of his confession he applied to him this authority, too, as something that would become his, speaking of the common and special good of the church as pertaining to him alone. It was from this confession, which was going to become the common property of all believers, that he bestowed upon him this name, the rock. In the same way also Jesus attributes to him the special character of the church, as though it existed beforehand in him on account of his confession. By this he shows, in consequence, that this is the common good of the church, since also the common element of the confession was to come to be first in Peter. This then is what he says, that in the church would be the key of the kingdom of heaven. If anyone holds the key to this, to the church, in the same way he will also hold it for all heavenly things. He who is counted as belonging to the church and is recognized as its member is a partaker and an inheritor of heaven. He who is a stranger to it, whatever his status may be, will have no communion in heavenly things. To this very day the priests of the church have expelled those who are unworthy by this saying and admitted those who have become worthy by repentance.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father Who is in heaven. He calls Peter blessed for having received knowledge by divine grace. And by commending Peter, He thereby shows the opinions of other men to be false. For He calls him "Bar Jona," that is, "son of Jona," as if saying, "Just as you are the son of Jona, so am I the Son of My Father in heaven, and of one essence with Him." He calls this knowledge "revelation," speaking of hidden and unknown things that were disclosed by the Father.

And Jesus answering etc. Here, first, he approves his confession; second, he commands it to be kept silent, at then he charged his disciples to tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. Concerning the first: first, he approves this confession by commending the one confessing; second, by the reward, at and I say to thee that thou art Peter etc. Hence he says Jesus answered: blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona. Bar means the same as son; Jona means the same as dove: by its very name. Hence Bar-Jona, i.e., son of the dove. And the response of Christ seems to correspond to the confession of Peter. Because he had confessed him the Son of God, Jesus in turn calls him son of the dove, namely of the Holy Spirit, because this confession could not have been made except by the Holy Spirit. But it is believed that originally it was said Bar-Iona, i.e., son of John, but through a corruption of the text it was rendered thus. But what is this? Had not others also confessed him Son of God? Indeed, we read of Nathanael in John 1:49. Likewise those who were in the boat, above in chapter 9. Why then is Peter called blessed here, and not the others? Because the others had confessed him as an adopted son, but this man as the natural Son; therefore he is called blessed above the rest, because he first confessed the divinity. Origen says: it seems that before this he had not made such a confession. But how then did he send them to preach? He responds that from the beginning they did not preach that he was the Christ, but they preached penance. Likewise it may be that they preached Christ; but here for the first time that he was the Son of God. Therefore here he specially rewards. Blessed art thou, Simon etc., because blessedness is in knowledge; John 17:3: this is eternal life: that they may know thee, the only true God. But there is a twofold knowledge: one that is through natural reason, another that is above reason. The first does not bring about blessedness, because it is uncertain: hence it does not satisfy the intellect; but blessedness ought to satisfy the natural appetite, and this will be had in the fatherland; Isa. 64:4: eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, what things God hath prepared for them that love him. Therefore in this life, the more anyone can perceive of this knowledge, the more blessed he is; Prov. 3:13: blessed is the man that findeth wisdom. Hence he says blessed art thou, because you are beginning to be blessed. Because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee. This can be expounded so that flesh and blood are taken for carnal friends; Gal. 1:16: immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood. Hence flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, i.e., you did not have this from the tradition of the Jews, but from the revelation of God. Likewise, in Christ there was flesh, and blood, and divinity; therefore, because Peter did not look to the flesh and blood, it is said to him blessed art thou, because you do not judge according to what flesh and blood reveals, but according to what my Father reveals. Or you do not have this from natural industry, but from my Father. For no one knoweth the Son but the Father, Luke 10:22. For it belongs to him to manifest, whose it is to know. Hence no one knoweth, save him to whom the Father willeth to reveal; Dan. 2:28: there is a God in heaven that revealeth mysteries.

(de Cons. Ev. ii. 53.) But let none suppose that Peter received that name here; he received it at no other time than where John relates that it was said unto him, Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted, Peter. (John 1:42.)

(Retract. i. 21.) I have said in a certain place of the Apostle Peter, that it was on him, as on a rock, that the Church was built. But I know that since that I have often explained these words of the Lord, Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my Church, as meaning upon Him whom Peter had confessed in the words, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God; and so that Peter, taking his name from this rock, would represent the Church, which is built upon this rock. For it is not said to him, Thou art the rock, but, Thou art Peter. (1 Cor. 10:4.) But the rock was Christ, whom because Simon thus confessed, as the whole Church confesses Him, he was named Peter. Let the reader choose whether of these two opinions seems to him the more probable.

Because outside the unity of faith and charity, which makes us children and members of the Church, no one can be saved: therefore, if the Sacraments are received outside her, they are not received unto salvation, although they are true Sacraments; but they can become useful if one returns to holy mother Church, the sole bride of Christ, whose children alone Christ the bridegroom considers worthy of eternal inheritance.

Whence Augustine against the Donatists writes: "The baptism of the Church can exist outside the Church, but the gift of the blessed life is found only within the Church, which was also founded upon the rock, which received the keys of binding and loosing. This is the one Church which holds and possesses all the power of her bridegroom and Lord, through which conjugal power she can even bear children from handmaids, who, if they are not proud, will be called to the lot of inheritance; but if they are proud, they will remain outside."

Matthew sixteen: You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, etc., up to that point: it shall be loosed in heaven also; but it is established that he who can loose and bind all must be obeyed by all: therefore God so instituted the Church that one would be obeyed by all. But the Church is to be ruled and governed as it was instituted by the Lord: therefore, according to divine institution, all must obey one, namely the Supreme Pontiff.

And this is what Cyprian says: "The Lord speaks to Peter: I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock, etc. Upon one He builds the Church, and the beginning proceeds from unity, so that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one: the episcopate is one, of which a part is held by each one in its entirety: and the Church is one, which extends more broadly in multitude the increase of its fruitfulness. As there are many rays, but one light, and the branches of a tree are many, but the strength is one, founded on a tenacious root: and as from one fountain many streams flow, and although the multiplicity may seem diffused by the bounty of overflowing abundance, yet unity is preserved whole in the origin: so also the Church of God, suffused with light, extends its rays through the whole world: yet it is one that is diffused everywhere, nor is the unity of the body separated." Cyprian therefore intends that because the Church is one dove, one episcopate, one body, it ought to have been founded upon one preeminent pastor, namely Peter, as upon one bishop and head and bridegroom.

The gates of hell shall not prevail against the church; and again he declares that all the world shall be filled with his doctrine, even as the three measures of meal, in which the woman hid the leaven, were all leavened throughout and made one by that leaven. And again: The Gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world: and along with it shall the woman too be told of who did him a kindness—and we see that all these predictions have been fulfilled. For the Christians who were at one time persecuted by the Greeks and Jews have conquered, and drawn their persecutors over to their own side. In like manner we see that the Church has never been destroyed, but that its adherents have been greatly multiplied, and that similarly the whole earth has been filled with the doctrine of the Lord Christ, and is still being filled, and that the gospel is preached throughout all the world.

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA.s; According to this promise of the Lord, the Apostolic Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud, above all Heads and Bishops, and Primates of Churches and people, with its own Pontiffs, with most abundant faith, and the authority of Peter. And while other Churches have to blush for the error of some of their members, this reigns alone immoveably established, enforcing silence, and stopping the mouths of all heretics; and wet, not drunken with the wine of pride, confess together with it the type of truth, and of the holy apostolic tradition.

while we can if we choose see the Church amid a mob of Mithraic or Manichean superstitions squabbling and killing each other at the end of the Empire, while we can if we choose imagine the Church killed in the struggle and some other chance cult taking its place, we shall be the more surprised (and possibly puzzled) if we meet it two thousand years afterwards rushing through the ages as the winged thunderbolt of thought and everlasting enthusiasm; a thing without rival or resemblance; and still as new as it is old.

But this madness has remained sane. The madness has remained sane when everything else went mad. The madhouse has been a house to which, age after age, men are continually coming back as to a home. That is the riddle that remains; that anything so abrupt and abnormal should still be found a habitable and hospitable thing. I care not if the sceptic says it is a tall story; I cannot see how so toppling a tower could stand so long without foundation. Still less can I see how it could become, as it has become, the home of man. Had it merely appeared and disappeared, it might possibly have been remembered or explained as the last leap of the rage of illusion, the ultimate myth of the ultimate mood, in which the mind struck the sky and broke. But the mind did not break. It is the one mind that remains unbroken in the break-up of the world. If it were an error, it seems as if the error could hardly have lasted a day. If it were a mere ecstasy, it would seem that such an ecstasy could not endure for an hour. It has endured for nearly two thousand years; and the world within it has been more lucid, more levelheaded, more reasonable in its hopes, more healthy in its instincts, more humorous and cheerful in the face of fate and death, than all the world outside. For it was the soul of Christendom that came forth from the incredible Christ; and the soul of it was common sense.

This is the final fact, and it is the most extraordinary of all. The faith has not only often died but it has often died of old age. It has not only been often killed but it has often died a natural death; in the sense of coming to a natural and necessary end. It is obvious that it has survived the most savage and the most universal persecutions from the shock of the Diocletian fury to the shock of the French Revolution. But it has a more strange and even a more weird tenacity; it has survived not only war but peace. It has not only died often but degenerated often and decayed often; it has survived its own weakness and even its own surrender. We need not repeat what is so obvious about the beauty of the end of Christ in its wedding of youth and death. But this is almost as if Christ had lived to the last possible span, had been a white-haired sage of a hundred and died of natural decay, and then had risen again rejuvenated, with trumpets and the rending of the sky. It was said truly enough that human Christianity in its recurrent weakness was sometimes too much wedded to the powers of the world; but if it was wedded it has very often been widowed. It is a strangely immortal sort of widow. An enemy may have said at one moment that it was but an aspect of the power of the Caesars; and it sounds as strange to-day as to call it an aspect of the Pharaohs. An enemy might say that it was the official faith of feudalism; and it sounds as convincing now as to say that it was bound to perish with the ancient Roman villa. All these things did indeed run their course to its normal end; and there seemed no course for the religion but to end with them. It ended and it began again.

Christ founded the Church with two great figures of speech; in the final words to the Apostles who received authority to found it. The first was the phrase about founding it on Peter as on a rock; the second was the symbol of the keys. About the meaning of the former there is naturally no doubt in my own case; but it does not directly affect the argument here save in two more secondary aspects. It is yet another example of a thing that could only fully expand and explain itself afterwards, and even long afterwards. And it is yet another example of something the very reverse of simple and self-evident even in the language, in so far as it described a man as a rock when he had much more the appearance of a reed.

When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, He chose for its corner-stone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob a coward—in a word, a man. And upon this rock He has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link.

(interlin.) That is, shall not separate it from the love and faith of Me.

But in this bestowing of a new name is a happy foundation of the Church, and a rock worthy of that building, which should break up the laws of hell, burst the gates of Tartarus, and all the shackles of death. And to show the firmness of this Church thus built upon a rock, He adds, And the gates of hell shall not prevail against 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?

(Verse 18.) And I also say to you. What is it that he says: And I also say to you? Because you have said to me: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God; and I say to you, not with empty words, and having no need, but I say to you: what I have said, I have done.

Because you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. Just as he gave the title of 'light' to the apostles, so too did he bestow upon Simon, who believed in Christ the rock, the name of Peter. But according to the metaphor of the rock, it is rightly said to him: I will build my church upon you.

And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. I consider the gates of Hell to be vices and sins: or certainly the doctrines of heretics, through which deceived men are led to Tartarus. Therefore, let no one suppose that it is said concerning death, that the apostles were not subject to the condition of death, whose martyrdoms he sees flashing.

As much as to say, You have said to me, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God, therefore I say unto thee, not in a mere speech, and that goes not on into operation; but I say unto thee, and for Me to speak is to make it sor, that thou art Peter. For as from Christ proceeded that light to the Apostles, whereby they were called the light of the world, and those other names which were imposed upon them by the Lord, so upon Simon who believed in Christ the Rock, He bestowed the name of Peter (Rock.)

And pursuing the metaphor of the rock, it is rightly said to him as follows: And upon this rock I will build my Church.

I suppose the gates of hell to mean vice and sin, or at least the doctrines of heretics by which men are ensnared and drawn into hell.

Let none think that this is said of death, implying that the Apostles should not be subject to the condition of death, when we see their martyrdoms so illustrious.

What then saith Christ? "Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas." "Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee;" all but saying, "As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father." Else it were superfluous to say, "Thou art Son of Jonas;" but since he had said, "Son of God," to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, "And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;" that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." "And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because thou art shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified."

Therefore, O thou who wishest to become a disciple of God, do thou also get faith, the mistress of all possessions. Let this thing be to thee the beginning of thy instruction, and lay it as the foundation of the building of thy tower, in such a way that if it were to seize the height of heaven it would not fall, for the edifice of faith is its foundation, which cannot be shaken by waves and winds. And Jesus also set this faith [as] a foundation by the hand of Simon, and as our Lord made it the beginning, so also is it meet that the disciple, who would draw nigh to discipleship in systematic order, should first of all begin with it. Faith Jesus made the foundation of the whole Church, do thou also lay the foundation for thine own rule and manner of life therewith. He built thereupon excellent rules of life and conduct for the whole world, and do thou build upon it thine own triumphs and order of life. He laid it out as a foundation for all the generations of the world after His coming, and do thou make it the beginning of thy life which is in God. See then how great faith is, in that it is sufficient to bear all children of men!

And Jesus also made faith the foundation of the edifice of the Church because He saw aforetime its invincible might, its unconquerable assurance, its never-diminishing strength, its irreproachable triumph, its power which cannot be overthrown, its unenfeebled strength, its irresistible command, its decree of judgment which never turneth back, its never-failing word, and its dominion which can never fall into contempt. This faith, the mistress of triumphant deeds, did Jesus make the foundation of the Church, and the beginning of the building of His holy Body, that He might teach all men to begin therewith, and that the disciple might make it the foundation of all his rule and conduct of life. It was not set by Him to be the foundation of the Church to show its power only, but also to teach every man who might wish to begin to build the new edifice of his discipleship to make it the beginning [thereof], and in all other parts of the building it will support and raise up the mansions of the virtues.

The gates of hell are the torments and promises of the persecutors. Also, the evil works of the unbelievers, and vain conversation, are gates of hell, because they show the path of destruction.

(Concil. Con. ii. Collat. 8.) How is it that some do presume to say that these things are said only of the living? Know they not that the sentence of anathema is nothing else but separation? They are to be avoided who are held of grievous faults, whether they are among the living, or not. For it is always behoveful to fly from the wicked. Moreover there are divers letters read of Augustine of religious memory, who was of great renown among the African bishops, which affirmed that heretics ought to be anathematized even after death. (vid. Aug. Ep. 185. 4.) Such an ecclesiastical tradition other African Bishops also have preserved. And the Holy Roman Church also has anathematized some Bishops after death, although no accusation had been brought against their faith in their lifetimeu.

What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, "when they were alone, He used to expound" all things which were obscure, telling them that "to them it was given to know those mysteries," which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the church should be built," who also obtained "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth? " Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord's most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead? Of what could He have meant those to be ignorant, to whom He even exhibited His own glory with Moses and Elias, and the Father's voice moreover, from heaven? Not as if He thus disapproved of all the rest, but because "by three witnesses must every word be established.

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, "Upon this rock will I build My Church," "to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; " or, "Whatsoever thou shale have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens," you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? "On thee," He says, "will I build My Church; "and," I will give to thee the keys," not to the Church; and, "Whatsoever thou shall have loosed or bound," not what they shall have loosed or bound.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. The Lord gives Peter a great reward, that the Church will be built on him. Since Peter confessed Him as Son of God, the Lord says, "This confession which you have made shall be the foundation of those who believe, so that every man who intends to build the house of faith shall lay down this confession as the foundation." For even if we should construct a myriad of virtues, but we do not have as a foundation the orthodox confession, our construction is rotten. By saying "My Church" He shows that He is the Master of all, for the whole universe is the servant of God. The gates of hades are those persecutors who from time to time would send the Christians to hades. But the heretics, too, are gates leading to hades. The Church, then, has prevailed over many persecutors and many heretics. The Church is also each one of us who has become a house of God. For if we have been established on the confession of Christ, the gates of hades, which are our sins, will not prevail against us. It was from these gates that David, too, had been lifted up when he said, "O Thou that dost raise me up from the gates of death" (Ps. 9:13). From what gates, O David? From those twin gates of murder and adultery.

And I say to thee, that thou art Peter etc. Here he gives the reward for the confession. He had confessed the humanity and the divinity, and so the Lord gives the reward. First, he gives a name; second, power. Concerning the first: first, he gives the name; second, the reason for the name, at and upon this rock I will build my Church. And for this he came into this world, to found the Church. Isa. 28:16: behold, I will lay in the foundations of Sion a proved corner stone, precious, established in the foundation. This was signified by the stone which Jacob placed under his head, and anointed, as is found in Gen. 28:18. This stone is Christ, and from this anointing all are called Christians; hence we are called Christians not only from Christ, but from the rock. Therefore he specially imposes the name: thou art Peter, from the rock which is Christ. Although according to Augustine it seems that it was not imposed at this time, but from the beginning; John 1:42: thou shalt be called Cephas. Or it can be said that then it was promised, here it was given. In sign of this: upon this rock I will build my Church. The property of a rock is that it is placed in the foundation; likewise, that it gives firmness. Above 7:24: he is like a man who built his house upon a rock. Hence it can be expounded of Christ: and upon this rock, i.e., Christ, so that he may be the foundation, and so that the Church founded upon him may receive its firmness. Augustine in the book of Retractations says that he expounded it in multiple ways, and left it to the listeners to take whichever they wished. Or so that this rock points to Christ; 1 Cor. 10:4: and the rock was Christ. And elsewhere, 1 Cor. 3:11: for other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus. Another exposition: upon this rock, i.e., upon you the rock, because from me the rock you draw the fact that you are a rock. And just as I am the rock, so upon you the rock I will build, etc. But what is this? Are both Christ and Peter the foundation? It must be said that Christ is so of himself, but Peter insofar as he has the confession of Christ, insofar as he is his vicar. Eph. 2:20: built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone etc. Apoc. 21:4: the foundations of the city were twelve, and in them the twelve names of the apostles and of the Lamb. Therefore Christ is the foundation of himself, but the apostles are not so of themselves, but through the concession of Christ and the authority given by Christ; Ps. 86:1: the foundations thereof are in the holy mountains. But especially Peter's house, which is founded upon the rock, shall not be overthrown, as above 7:25. So it can be assailed, but it cannot be overcome. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Jer. 1:19: they shall fight against thee, and shall not prevail. And what are the gates of hell? Heretics: because just as through a gate one enters a house, so through these one enters hell. Likewise tyrants, demons, sins. And although other Churches can be rebuked on account of heretics, nevertheless the Roman Church has not been corrupted by heretics, because it was founded upon the rock. Hence in Constantinople there were heretics, and the labor of the apostles was lost; but the Church of Peter alone remained inviolate. Hence Luke 22:32: I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not. And this refers not only to the Church of Peter, but to the faith of Peter, and to the whole Western Church. Hence I believe that the people of the West owe greater reverence to Peter than to the other apostles.

Peter was for twenty-four years Bishop of the Church of Rome. We cannot doubt that, amongst other things necessary for the instruction of the church, he himself delivered to them the treasury of the sacred books, which, no doubt, had even then begun to be read under his presidency and teaching.

Peter therefore shall enter, who received the keys. Yet not alone: for he will also introduce me, if he shall have willed it, and will exclude another whom perhaps he shall have willed, in the knowledge and power given to him from above.

And what are these keys? The power of opening and closing, and the discernment between those to be excluded and those to be admitted. And the treasures are not in the serpent, but in Christ. And therefore the serpent could not give the knowledge which he did not have; but he who had it, gave it. Nor indeed could the serpent have the power which he did not receive; but he who received it, had it. Christ gave, Peter received, and was neither puffed up by the knowledge, nor to be cast down on account of the power. Why? Because in neither does he exalt himself against the knowledge of God, who desired none of these things apart from the knowledge of God.

Christ instituted orders by first giving the power of binding and loosing the sins of the human race and the power of confecting the Sacrament of the altar.

To all those established in the sacerdotal order, and to them alone, is given the power of the twofold key, namely the key of knowledge for discerning, and the key which is the power of binding and loosing, for judging and bestowing the benefit of absolution.

Because indeed, in order to avoid confusion, not just anyone is set over anyone else in the Church Militant, since the ecclesiastical hierarchy itself ought to be ordered according to judicial power: therefore this power of binding and loosing was granted first to one first and supreme priest, upon whom universal power was conferred as upon the supreme head; and then according to particular Churches it is divided into parts, such that it descends first to bishops and then to priests from one head. Therefore, although every priest has the order and the key, nevertheless the use of the key extends only to those who are ordinarily subject to him, unless it is committed to him by one who has ordinary jurisdiction. Since indeed that jurisdiction resides principally in the supreme head, and then in the bishop, and lastly in the parish priest, it can indeed be committed to another by any of these—sufficiently indeed by the lowest, more fully by the middle, and most of all by the supreme.

As the Assyrians devastated the Jews, so did the Saracens occupy the Churches of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople, and all the way to Sicily. As the Ten Tribes fell and broke away from the house of David, so did these Churches fall and break away from Peter to whom it had been said: "I will give thee the keys of the kingdom," and they succumbed to the wolves.

To that which is objected, that the same word was said to the Apostles which had previously been said to Peter — for in Matthew 16 it is said to Peter, I will give to you the keys, and whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, etc. — it must be said that it was said far differently to them and to Peter. For to Peter it was said separately and singularly, because in him the fullness of power was to be placed principally and singularly: but to the others it was said collectively; Whatsoever you shall bind, etc., because they were called "into a share of the solicitude." Whence although they had a similar power, they did not however have an equal one.

For Christ is a rock which is never disturbed or worn away. Therefore Peter gladly received his name from Christ to signify the established and unshaken faith of the church.… The devil is the gateway of death who always hastens to stir up against the holy church calamities and temptations and persecutions. But the faith of the apostle, which was founded upon the rock of Christ, abides always unconquered and unshaken. And the very keys of the kingdom of the heavens have been handed down so that one whom he has bound on earth has been bound in heaven, and one whom he has set free on earth he has also set free in heaven.

But the other image of the keys has an exactitude that has hardly been exactly noticed. The keys have been conspicuous enough in the art and heraldry of Christendom; but not every one has noted the peculiar aptness of the allegory. We have now reached the point in history where something must be said of the first appearance and activities of the Church in the Roman Empire; and for that brief description nothing could be more perfect than that ancient metaphor. The Early Christian was very precisely a person carrying about a key, or what he said was a key. The whole Christian movement consisted in claiming to possess that key. It was not merely a vague forward movement, which might be better represented by a battering-ram. It was not something that swept along with it similar and dissimilar things, as does a modern social movement. As we shall see in a moment, it rather definitely refused to do so. It definitely asserted that there was a key and that it possessed that key and that no other key was like it; in that sense it was as narrow as you please. Only it happened to be the key that could unlock the prison of the whole world; and let in the white daylight of escape.

The creed was like a key in three respects; which can be most conveniently summed up under this symbol. First, a key is above all things a thing with a shape. It is a thing that depends entirely upon keeping its shape. The Christian creed is above all things the philosophy of shapes and the enemy of shapelessness. That is where it differs from all that formless infinity, Manichean or Buddhist, which makes a sort of pool of night in the dark heart of Asia; the ideal of uncreating all the creatures. That is where it differs also from the analogous vagueness of mere evolutionism; the idea of creatures constantly losing their shape. A man told that his solitary latchkey had been melted down with a million others into a Buddhistic unity would be annoyed. But a man told that his key was gradually growing and sprouting in his pocket, and branching into new wards or complications, would not be more gratified.

Second, the shape of a key is in itself a rather fantastic shape. A savage who did not know it was a key would have the greatest difficulty in guessing what it could possibly be. And it is fantastic because it is in a sense arbitrary. A key is not a matter of abstractions; in that sense a key is not a matter of argument. It either fits the lock or it does not. It is useless for men to stand disputing over it, considered by itself; or reconstructing it on pure principles of geometry or decorative art. It is senseless for a man to say he would like a simpler key; it would be far more sensible to do his best with a crowbar. And thirdly, as the key is necessarily a thing with a pattern, so this was one having in some ways a rather elaborate pattern. When people complain of the religion being so early complicated with theology and things of the kind, they forget that the world had not only got into a hole, but had got into a whole maze of holes and corners. The problem itself was a complicated problem; it did not in the ordinary sense merely involve anything so simple as sin. It was also full of secrets, of unexplored and unfathomable fallacies, of unconscious mental diseases, of dangers in all directions. If the faith had faced the world only with the platitudes about peace and simplicity some moralists would confine it to, it would not have had the faintest effect on that luxurious and labyrinthine lunatic asylum. What it did do we must now roughly describe; it is enough to say here that there was undoubtedly much about the key that seemed complex; indeed there was only one thing about it that was simple. It opened the door.

But even with that we return to the more specially Christian symbol in the same tradition; the perfect pattern of the keys. This is a historical and not a theological outline, and it is not my duty here to defend in detail that theology, but merely to point out that it could not even be justified in design without being justified in detail--like a key. Beyond the broad suggestion of this chapter I attempt no apologetic about why the creed should be accepted. But in answer to the historical query of why it was accepted, and is accepted, I answer for millions of others in my reply; because it fits the lock; because it is like life. It is one among many stories; only it happens to be a true story. It is one among many philosophies; only it happens to be the truth. We accept it; and the ground is solid under our feet and the road is open before us. It does not imprison us in a dream of destiny or a consciousness of the universal delusion. It opens to us not only incredible heavens, but what seems to some an equally incredible earth, and makes it credible. This is the sort of truth that is hard to explain because it is a fact; but it is a fact to which we can call witnesses. We are Christians and Catholics not because we worship a key, but because we have passed a door; and felt the wind that is the trumpet of liberty blow over the land of the living.

(interlin.) It follows, And whatsoever thou shalt bind; that is, whomsoever thou shalt judge unworthy of forgiveness while he lives, shall be judged unworthy with God; and whatsoever thou shalt loose, that is, whomsoever thou shalt judge worthy to be forgiven while he lives, shall obtain forgiveness of his sins from God.

(ap. Anselm.) This power was committed specially to Peter, that we might thereby be invited to unity. For He therefore appointed him the head of the Apostles, that the Church might have one principal Vicar of Christ, to whom the different members of the Church should have recourse, if ever they should have dissensions among them. But if there were many heads in the Church, the bond of unity would be broken. Some say that the words upon earth denote that power was not given to men to bind and loose the dead, but the living; for he who should loose the dead would do this not upon earth, but after the earth.

(Verse 19.) And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. The bishops and priests who do not understand this passage, arrogantly assume to themselves something of the Pharisees, either to condemn the innocent or to release the guilty; whereas with God, it is not the judgment of priests, but the life of the accused that is sought. In Leviticus (Chapter 14), we read about leprosy, where they are commanded to show themselves to the priests, and if they have leprosy, then they become unclean by the priest: not that priests make lepers and unclean; but so that they have knowledge of who is leprous and who is not, and they can discern who is clean and who is unclean. So just as the priest there makes the leper clean or unclean, so here the bishop and priest bind or loose, not those who are innocent or guilty; but according to their office, when they hear the varieties of sins, they know who should be bound and who should be loosed.

Bishops and Presbyters; not understanding this passage, assume to themselves something of the lofty pretensions of the Pharisees, and suppose that they may either condemn the innocent, or absolve the guilty; whereas what will be enquired into before the Lord will be not the sentence of the Priests, but the life of him that is being judged. We read in Leviticus of the lepers, how they are commanded to show themselves to the Priests, and if they have the leprosy, then they are made unclean by the Priest; not that the Priest makes them leprous and unclean, but that the Priest has knowledge of what is leprosy and what is not leprosy, and can discern who is clean, and who is unclean. In the same way then as there the Priest makes the leper unclean, here the Bishop or Presbyter binds or looses not those who are without sin, or guilt, but in discharge of his function when he has heard the varieties of their sins, he knows who is to be bound, and who loosed.

Then He mentions also another honor. "And I also will give thee the keys of the heavens." But what is this, "And I also will give thee?" "As the Father hath given thee to know me, so will I also give thee."

And He said not, "I will entreat the Father" (although the manifestation of His authority was great, and the largeness of the gift unspeakable), but, "I will give thee." What dost Thou give? tell me. "The keys of the heavens, that whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven." How then is it not "His to give to sit on His right hand, and on His left," when He saith, "I will give thee"?

Seest thou how He, His own self, leads Peter on to high thoughts of Him, and reveals Himself, and implies that He is Son of God by these two promises? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the church incapable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as "a brazen pillar, and as a wall;" but him to one nation only, this man in every part of the world.

I would fain inquire then of those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son, which manner of gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven. "For heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away." How then is He less, who hath given such gifts, hath effected such things?

And these things I say, not dividing the works of Father and Son ("for all things are made by Him, and without Him was nothing made which was made"): but bridling the shameless tongue of them that dare so to speak.

But see, throughout all, His authority: "I say unto thee, Thou art Peter; I will build the Church; I will give thee the keys of Heaven."

See how great power has that rock upon which the Church is built, that its sentences are to continue firm as though God gave sentence by it.

Let him then be without blame who binds or looses another, that he may be found worthy to bind or loose in heaven. Moreover, to him who shall be able by his virtues to shut the gates of hell, are given in reward the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For every kind of virtue when any has begun to practise it, as it were opens itself before Him, the Lord, namely, opening it through His grace, so that the same virtue is found to be both the gate, and the key of the gate. But it may be that each virtue is itself the kingdom of heaven.

For as with a zeal beyond the others he had confessed the King of heaven, he is deservedly entrusted more than the others with the keys of the heavenly kingdom, that it might be clear to all, that without that confession and faith none ought to enter the kingdom of heaven. By the keys of the kingdom He means discernment and power; power, by which he binds and looses, discernment, by which he separates the worthy from the unworthy.

But this power of binding and loosing, though it seems given by the Lord to Peter alone, is indeed given also to the other Apostles, and is even now in the^ Bishops and Presbyters in every Church. (vid. Matt. 18:18.) But Peter received in a special manner the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and a supremacy of judicial power, that all the faithful throughout the world might understand that all who in any manner separate themselves from the unity of the faith, or from communion with him, such should neither be able to be loosed from the bonds of sin, nor to enter the gate of the heavenly kingdom.

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, "Upon this rock will I build My Church," "to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; " or, "Whatsoever thou shale have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens," you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? "On thee," He says, "will I build My Church; "and," I will give to thee the keys," not to the Church; and, "Whatsoever thou shall have loosed or bound," not what they shall have loosed or bound.

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in the heavens; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in the heavens. He spoke as God, with authority, "I will give unto thee." For as the Father gave you the revelation, so I give you the keys. By "keys" understand that which binds or looses transgressions, namely, penance or absolution; for those who, like Peter, have been deemed worthy of the grace of the episcopate, have the authority to absolve or to bind. Even though the words "I will give unto thee" were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles. Why? Because He said, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted." Also, the words "I will give" indicate a future time, namely, after the Resurrection. "The heavens" also mean the virtues, and the keys to the heavens are labors. For by laboring we enter into each of the virtues as if by means of keys that are used to open. If I do not labor but only know the good, I possess only the key of knowledge but remain outside. That man is bound in the heavens, that is, in the virtues, who does not walk in them, but he who is diligent in acquiring virtues is loosed in them. Therefore let us not have sins, so that we may not be bound by the chains of our own sins.

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Here the second gift is set forth which Christ gave to Peter according to his humanity. For he founded the Church on earth, and established Peter as his vicar, so that he might introduce men into heaven; Heb. 10:19: having confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ. Hence Christ established Peter as his vicar, so that he might introduce men into heaven; hence he gave him that ministry, hence he gave him the keys. For a key introduces: hence Peter has the ministry of introducing. And he does two things. First, he entrusts the keys; second, he teaches their use: and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven etc. But let us see what the keys are. When a house is locked, it prevents entrance; but a key removes the impediment. The kingdom of heaven had an impediment, but not on its own part; Apoc. 4:1: I saw, and behold a door was opened; but the impediment was on our part, namely sin, because there shall not enter into it any thing defiled. Christ removed these impediments through his passion, because he washed us from our sins in his own blood, Apoc. 1:5. And he communicated this so that through the ministry sins might be taken away, which is accomplished through the power of Christ's blood: hence the sacraments have their power from the power of the passion of Christ. Hence I will give to you the ministry, etc. Isa. 22:22: I will lay upon thee the key of David. But he says I will give to thee; for they were not yet forged; but a thing cannot be given before it exists. For these were to be forged in the passion; hence in the passion was their efficacy. Hence here he promised, but after the passion he gave, when he said: feed my sheep. But why does he say keys? Because to absolve is to remove an obstacle. For there are two, because two things are required: power and knowledge. But what is this? Are there not some priests who do not have knowledge? Understand that they have knowledge, because no one has the key of knowledge except a priest. Knowledge is not spoken of here as the habit of the intellect etc., but it is called the authority of discerning. Hence there is some judge who does not have knowledge in the first way, and yet has knowledge in the second way, because he has authority; but someone has knowledge in the first way, and not in the second way, because he does not have authority. Hence knowledge here means the authority of discerning, and every priest has this so as to discern in absolving. Consequently he sets forth the use of the keys: whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven. But it seems that this is set forth improperly, because the use of a key is not to bind, but to open. I say that this use of the keys is fitting. For heaven itself is open; Apoc. 4:1: I saw a door opened. Hence it is not necessary that it be opened; but one who is bound and ought to enter, must be loosed. But here certain errors must be avoided. The first is touched upon in the Gloss, because some have usurped the claim that they could absolve all whom they wished, and introduce them into the kingdom of heaven. But this cannot stand, because it belongs to God alone to change wills. Another error is that the priest does not bind, but shows that one is absolved. But this derogates from the power of the sacrament, since the sacraments of the new law effect what they signify; but the sacraments of the old law did not. Hence if it effected nothing, it would not be a sacrament of the new law. Third, some say that in sin there are three things: guilt, liability, and punishment. From two of these a man is absolved by himself through contrition; but when a man has been absolved from these, there remains an obligation to temporal punishment, which a man cannot by himself remove and avoid; therefore the keys are given, which diminish something of this punishment, and bind with regard to some punishment. However, it seems to me that this is not well said, because the sacrament of the new law gives grace, but grace is not directed against punishment, but against guilt. Hence I say that it is so in this sacrament of confession as in the sacrament of Baptism, which has a spiritual instrumental power, by which it cleanses from guilt. Hence Augustine says: what is the power of water, that it washes the flesh and takes away guilt? So I say that in the priest there is a certain spiritual instrumental power, from which he is called a minister, and so he operates ministerially for the remission of sins, just as the water of Baptism does. But here a difficulty arises, because now only infants come to Baptism: and if an adult approaches, he either comes insincerely or sincerely: he comes insincerely when without a renewal of the mind, and then guilt is not remitted; he comes sincerely when with the purpose of confession, hence grace is required, or rather the purpose of conversion, and this is from grace. But grace takes away guilt. Hence in the sacrament of Baptism, an adult who comes, if he prepares himself, receives the remission of guilt. So in the sacrament of penance, to which only adults come, one is not contrite unless he has the purpose of submitting himself to the discernment and judgment of the priest. If he is not contrite, he does not obtain the effect, just as neither in Baptism. But it can happen that someone approaches who is not totally contrite, who by the power of grace conferred in the perfected sacrament is made contrite; therefore it should be understood: whatsoever thou shalt loose, i.e., if you apply the ministry of absolution. And he says whatsoever, because not only guilt, but punishment. It shall be loosed in heaven, i.e., it shall be held as absolved in heaven, just as it is with Baptism: hence the priest ought to say, I absolve thee, just as I baptize thee. But someone can ask how he binds. It should be known that the priest is a minister of God, and the action of the minister depends upon the action of the lord: hence in the way that the Lord binds and looses, so the priest does ministerially. God looses by infusing grace; he binds by not infusing it: so the priest looses by the sacrament, administering the sacrament; he binds by not administering it. In another way it is said that by the heavens the present Church is designated; hence whatsoever thou shalt bind, by excommunication, or loose, shall be loosed or bound, as regards the administration of the sacraments of the Church. Hence they hold that this administration, this binding and absolution, is upon earth, so that it does not extend to the dead. But this is disproved, because it extends not only to the living, but also to the dead: hence if it is referred to both, the sense is: whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, I say then existing upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven. But there is another question, because elsewhere it is found, John 20:23: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; but here he says this only to Peter. It must be said that he gave it immediately to Peter; but the others receive from Peter; therefore, lest these things should be thought to have been said only to Peter, he says: whose sins you shall forgive etc. And for this reason the Pope, who is in the place of Saint Peter, has plenary power, but the others receive from him.