Friday of the 1st week after Pentecost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thence is taken the custom of threefold confession in baptism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i. e. Shall he not die?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(cont. Faust. xix. 23.) Inasmuch as the sin of perjury is a grievous sin, he must be further removed from it who uses no oath, than he who is ready to swear on every occasion, and the Lord would rather that we should not swear and keep close to the truth, than that swearing we should come near to perjury.

(Serm. in Mont. i. 17.) This precept also confirms the righteousness of the Pharisees, not to forswear; inasmuch as he who swears not at all cannot forswear himself. But as to call God to witness is to swear, does not the Apostle break this commandment when he says several times to the Galatians, The things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. (Gal. 1:20.) So the Romans, God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit. (Rom. 1:9) Unless perhaps some one may say, it is no oath unless I use the form of swearing by some object; and that the Apostle did not swear in saying, God is my witness. It is ridiculous to make such a distinction; yet the Apostle has used even this form, I die daily, by your boasting. (1 Cor. 15:31.) That this does not mean, your boasting has caused my dying daily, but is an oath, is clear from the Greek, which is νὴ τὴν ὑμετέραν καύχησιν.

The idea, or at any rate the ideal, of the thing called a vow is fairly obvious. It is to combine the fixity that goes with finality with the self-respect that only goes with freedom. The man is a slave who is his own master, and a king who is his own ancestor. For all kinds of social purposes he has the calculable orbit of the man in the caste or the servile state; but in the story of his own soul he is still pursuing, at great peril, his own adventure. As seen by his neighbours, he is as safe as if immured in a fortress; but as seen by himself he may be for ever careering through the sky or crashing towards the earth in a flying-ship. What is socially humdrum is produced by what is individually heroic; and a city is made not merely of citizens but knight-errants.

(non occ.) The Lord has hitherto taught to abstain from injuring our neighbour, forbidding anger with murder, lust with adultery, and the putting away a wife with a bill of divorce. He now proceeds to teach to abstain from injury to God, forbidding not only perjury as an evil in itself, but even all oaths as the cause of evil, saying, Ye have heard it said by them of old, Thou shall not forswear thyself. It is written in Leviticus, Thou shalt not forswear thyself in my name; (c. 19:12.) and that they should not make gods of the creature, they are commanded to render to God their oaths, and not to swear by any creature, Render to the Lord thy oaths; that is, if you shall have occasion to swear, you shall swear by the Creator and not by the creature. As it is written in Deuteronomy, Thou shall fear the Lord thy God, and shall swear by his name. (c. 6:13.)

The law had prescribed a penalty for false swearing, so that the ritual of an oath might hold false testimony in check.… But faith removes the need for using an oath. It establishes in truth the dealings of our life. Once the inclination to deceive has been checked, it enjoins simplicity in speaking and hearing.… Therefore those who are living in the simplicity of faith have no need for the ritual of an oath. With such people, what is, always is, and what is not, is not. For this reason, their every word and deed are always truthful.

This was allowed under the Law, as to children; as they offered sacrifice to God, that they might not do it to idols, so they were permitted to swear by God; not that the thing was right, but that it were better done to God than to dæmons.

"Again, ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths. But I say unto you, swear not at all."

Why did He go straightway not to theft, but to false witness, passing over that commandment? Because he that steals, doth upon occasion swear also; but he that knows not either swearing or speaking falsehood, much less will he choose to steal. So that by this He hath overthrown the other sin likewise: since falsehood comes of stealing.

But what means, "Thou shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths?" It is this, "thou shalt be true in swearing." "But I say unto you, swear not at all."

Next, to lead them farther away from swearing by God, He saith, "Neither by Heaven, for it is God's throne, nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King:" still speaking out of the prophetical writings, and signifying Himself not to be opposed to the ancients. This was because they had a custom of swearing by these objects, and he intimates this custom near the end of his Gospel.

But mark, I pray thee, on what ground He magnifies the elements; not from their own nature, but from God's relation to them, such as it had been in condescension declared. For because the tyranny of idolatry was great, that the elements might not be thought worthy of honor for their own sake, He hath assigned this cause, which we have mentioned, which again would pass on to the glory of God. For He neither said, "because Heaven is beautiful and great," nor, "because earth is profitable;" but "because the one is God's throne, the other His footstool;" on every side urging them on towards their Lord.

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt not swear falsely, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths. That is, when you take an oath, speak the truth.

(de Mendac. 15.) But what we could not understand by mere words, from the conduct of the saints we may gather in what sense should be understood what might easily be drawn the contrary way, unless explained by example. The Apostle has used oaths in his Epistles, and by this shows us how that ought to be taken, I say unto you, Swear not at all, namely, lest by allowing ourselves to swear at all we come to readiness in swearing, from readiness we come to a habit of swearing, and from a habit of swearing we fall into perjury. And so the Apostle is not found to have used an oath but only in writing, the greater thought and caution which that requires not allowing of slip of the tongue. Yet is the Lord's command so universal, Swear not at all, that He would seem to have forbidden it even in writing. But since it would be an impiety to accuse Paul of having violated this precept, especially in his Epistles, we must understand the word at all as implying that, as far as lays in your power, you should not make a practice of swearing, not aim at it as a good thing in which you should take delight.

(cont. Faust. xix. 23.) Therefore in his writings, as writing allows of greater circumspection, the Apostle is found to have used an oath in several places, that none might suppose that there is any direct sin in swearing what is true; but only that our weak hearts are better preserved from perjury by abstaining from all swearing whatever.

(Serm. in Mont. i. 17.) Or; It is added, By the Heaven, &c. because the Jews did not consider themselves bound when they swore by such things. As if He had said, When you swear by the Heaven and the Earth, think not that you do not owe your oath to the Lord your God, for you are proved to have sworn by Him whose throne the heaven is, and the earth His footstool; which is not meant as though God had such limbs set upon the heaven and the earth, after the manner of a man who is sitting; but that seat signifies God's judgment of us. And since in the whole extent of this universe it is the heaven that has the highest beauty, God is said to sit upon the heavens as showing divine power to be more excellent than the most surpassing show of beauty; and He is said to stand upon the earth, as putting to lowest use a lesser beauty. Spiritually by the heavens are denoted holy souls, by the earth the sinful, seeing He that is spiritual judgeth all things. (1 Cor. 2:15.) But to the sinner it is said, Earth thou art, and unto earth thou shalt return. (Gen. 3:19.) And he who would abide under a law, is put under a law, and therefore He adds, it is the footstool of His feet. Neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King; this is better said than 'it is mine;' though it is understood to mean the same. And because He is also truly Lord, whoso swears by Jerusalem, owes his oath to the Lord. Neither by thy head. What could any think more entirely his own property than his own head? But how is it ours when we have not power to make one hair black or white? Whoso then swears by his own head also owes his vows to the Lord; and by this the rest may be understood.

The Manichaeans assail us and say that we ought not to swear at all, because it is said in the New Testament, namely in Matthew: "You shall not swear falsely;" and it follows: "But I say to you, not to swear at all. But let your speech be: yes yes, no no."

I certainly say that in certain cases or for certain reasons it is quite lawful to swear. But the heretics do not rightly attend to the force of the words. For it is one thing to say: "not to swear at all," and another to say: "at all not to swear" — just as it is one thing to say: "a certain man does not run," and another: "not a certain man runs." "At all not to swear" is the same as "in no way to swear," and "not to swear at all" is the same as not "to swear in every way," but for certain reasons.

By the grace of gospel teaching, the law given by Moses acquired an advantage. The law prescribes that one must not swear falsely; but according to the gospel one must not swear at all. The Holy Spirit had seen fit to order this through Solomon when he said, "Do not accustom your mouth to oaths." And again: "Even as a well-chastised servant is not deterred from envy, whoever swears and does business will not be purged from sin." Therefore it is absolutely inappropriate for us to swear. What need is there for us to swear when we are not allowed to lie at all and our words must always be true and trustworthy, so much so that they may be taken as an oath? On this, the Lord not only forbids us to swear falsely but even to swear, lest we appear to tell the truth only when we swear and lest (while we should be truthful in our every word) we think it is all right to lie when we do not take an oath. For this is the purpose of an oath: Everyone who swears, swears to the fact what he is saying is true. Therefore the Lord does not want a gap between our oath and our ordinary speech. Even as there must be no faithlessness in an oath, in our words there must be no lie. For both false swearing and lying are punished with divine judgment, as the Scripture says: "The mouth that lies kills the soul." So whoever speaks the truth swears, for it is written: "A faithful witness will not lie."

Now we, at any rate, are talking about an idea, a thing of the intellect and the soul; which we feel to be unalterable by legal antics. We are talking about the idea of loyalty; perhaps a fantastic, perhaps only an unfashionable idea, but one we can explain and defend as an idea. Now I have already pointed out that most sane men do admit our ideal in such a case as patriotism or public spirit; the necessity of saving the state to which we belong. The patriot may revile but must not renounce his country; he must curse it to cure it, but not to wither it up. The old pagan citizens felt thus about the city; and modern nationalists feel thus about the nation. But even mere modern internationalists feel it about something; if it is only the nation of mankind. Even the humanitarian does not become a misanthrope and live in a monkey-house. Even a disappointed Collectivist or Communist does not retire into the exclusive society of beavers, because beavers are all communists of the most class-conscious solidarity. He admits the necessity of clinging to his fellow creatures, and begging them to abandon the use of the possessive pronoun; heart-breaking as his efforts must seem to him after a time. Even a Pacifist does not prefer rats to men, on the ground that the rat community is so pure from the taint of Jingoism as always to leave the sinking ship. In short, everybody recognises that there is some ship, large and small, which he ought not to leave, even when he thinks it is sinking.

(Verses 34 onwards) But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor should you swear by your head, because you cannot make a single hair white or black. The Jews have always had this wicked habit of swearing by the elements, as the prophetic word often accuses them (Isaiah 65). Whoever swears, worships, or loves the one by whom they swear. In the law it is commanded that we do not swear, except by the Lord our God (Deut. VI and VII). The Jews, by swearing by angels, and by the city of Jerusalem, and by the temple, and by the elements, honored and worshipped creatures and earthly things with the honor and worship due to God. Finally, consider that here the Savior did not prohibit swearing by God, but by heaven, and earth, and Jerusalem, and by your own head. And this was granted in the law as if to little children, so that just as they would sacrifice animals to God and not to idols, they would be allowed to swear by God: not that they would do this rightly, but because it was better to offer this to God than to demons.

Lastly, consider that the Saviour does not here forbid to swear by God, but by the Heaven, the Earth, by Jerusalem, by a man's head. For this evil practice of swearing by the elements the Jews had always, and are thereof often accused in the prophetic writing's. For he who swears, shows either reverence or love for that by which he swears. Thus when the Jews swore by the Angels, by the city of Jerusalem, by the temple and the elements, they paid to the creature the honour and worship belonging to God; for it is commanded in the Law that we should not swear but by the Lord our God.

Next, to lead them farther away from swearing by God, He saith, "Neither by Heaven, for it is God's throne, nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King:" still speaking out of the prophetical writings, and signifying Himself not to be opposed to the ancients. This was because they had a custom of swearing by these objects, and He intimates this custom near the end of His Gospel.

But mark, I pray thee, on what ground He magnifies the elements; not from their own nature, but from God's relation to them, such as it had been in condescension declared. For because the tyranny of idolatry was great, that the elements might not be thought worthy of honor for their own sake, He hath assigned this cause, which we have mentioned, which again would pass on to the glory of God. For He neither said, "because Heaven is beautiful and great," nor, "because earth is profitable;" but "because the one is God's throne, the other His footstool;" on every side urging them on towards their Lord.

For no man can swear often, but he must sometimes forswear himself; as he who has a custom of much speaking will sometimes speak foolishly.

In the next place proceeding to mendacity, the minister of covetousness (of false swearing I am silent, since even swearing is not lawful )-is trade adapted for a servant of God? But, covetousness apart, what is the motive for acquiring? When the motive for acquiring ceases, there will be no necessity for trading.

But I say unto, Swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king. Since the Jews had heard God say, "Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool" (Is. 66:1) they would swear by such things. In prohibiting them from swearing by these things, the Lord does not say, "Do not swear by them because heaven is good and great, and earth is useful." Instead He says, "Do not swear by them because the one is the throne of God and the other is His footstool," so that idolatry would not occur. For they might make gods out of those elements by which they swore, which indeed had happened before.

For this reason Jesus prohibits us from swearing by heaven or by the earth. This is in order that we should not give to creation an honor surpassing creation. Do not deify creation. Those who swear, he says, "swear by the greater," as the apostle has said. And he also forbids swearing by Jerusalem. For the earthly Jerusalem is a type of the Jerusalem above, and God swears only by himself, that is, by his own glory. Wherefore, since the similarity transcends us, we are obliged to swear neither by ourselves nor by our own glory, for we are not free like God but are subject to God's authority.

These words of the Lord whereby he forbids us to swear by these different elements invite a double explanation.First, he wanted to draw us away from the use of oaths and the customs of human error, lest each of us through swearing by these elements accord a creature the honor of divine veneration or believe one has impunity in swearing falsely if one swears by the elements of the world.… It can also be explained in this way: When one swears by heaven and earth, one swears by him who made heaven and earth, as the Lord himself declared elsewhere: "He who swears by the altar swears by it and by all things that are on it; and he who swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it." Jesus goes on to say, "nor by Jerusalem," for it is the city of the great King, that is, the symbol of Christ's body, which is the spiritual and heavenly church. "Neither shall you swear," he says, "by your head," for according to the apostle, "the head of every man is Christ." Therefore the one who swears by these things makes reference to him who is the author of all these things.

"Neither by thy head," saith He, "because thou canst not make one hair white or black."

Here again, not as wondering at man, hath He withdrawn him from swearing by his head (for so man himself would be worshipped), but as referring the glory to God, and signifying that thou art not master even of thyself, and of course therefore not of the oaths made by thy head. For if no one would give up his own child to another, much more will not God give up His own work to thee. For though it be thy head, yet is it the property of another; and so far from being master thereof, thou shalt not be able to do with it, no not the least thing of all. For He said not, "Thou canst not make one hair grow;" but, "Not so much as change its quality."

What "grace" is compatible with "injury? "What "beauty" with "impurities? "Shall a Christian woman heap saffron on her head, as upon an altar? For, whatever is wont to be burned to the honour of the unclean spirit, that-unless it is applied for honest, and necessary, and salutary uses, for which God's creature was provided-may seem to be a sacrifice. But, however, God saith, "Which of you can make a white hair black, or out of a black a white? " And so they refute the Lord! "Behold!" say they, "instead of white or black, we make it yellow,-more winning in grace.

Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. God alone swears by Himself as He is not subject to anyone or anything. Since we do not have authority over ourselves, how can we swear by our own head? It is the property of another. But if you think your head is your own, then change one hair of it if you can.

(ubi sup.) And he who has learned that an oath is to be reckoned not among things good, but among things necessary, will restrain himself as much as he may, not to use an oath without necessity, unless he sees men loth to believe what it is for their good they should believe, without the confirmation of an oath. This then is good and to be desired, that our conversation be only, yea, yea; nay, nay; for what is more than this cometh of evil. That is, if you are compelled to swear, you know that it is by the necessity of their weakness to whom you would persuade any thing; which weakness is surely an evil. What is more than this is thus evil; not that you do evil in this just use of an oath to persuade another to something beneficial for him; but it is an evil in him whose weakness thus obliges you to use an oath.

Otherwise; They who live in the simplicity of the faith have not need to swear, with them ever, what is is, what is not is not; by this their life and their conversation are ever preserved in truth.

(Verse 37) Let your word be 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything more than this comes from evil. However, evangelical truth does not require an oath, since every faithful statement is considered as if made under oath.

Therefore Evangelic verity does not admit an oath, since the whole discourse of the faithful is instead of an oath.

Wherefore, with a loud and clear voice, I proclaim to all and testify, that those who are notorious for this transgression, who utter words which come "of the evil one," (for such is swearing,) shall not step over the threshold of the Church. Let this present month be the time allowed you for reforming in this matter. Talk not to me, "Necessity of business compels me to use oaths, else people do not believe me." To begin with this, retrench those oaths which come merely of habit.

"But what," it may be said, "if any one should require an oath, and apply constraint?" Let the fear of God be more powerful than the constraint: since, if thou art to bring forward such excuses, thou wilt keep none of the things which are enjoined.

Yea, for first with respect to thy wife thou wilt say, "what if she be contentious and extravagant;" and then as to the right eye, "what if I love it, and am quite on fire?" and of the unchaste look, "what then, if I cannot help seeing?" and of our anger against a brother, "what if I be hasty, and not able to govern my tongue?" and in general, all His sayings thou mayest on this wise trample under foot. Yet surely with regard to human laws thou darest not in any case use this allegation, nor say, "what then if this or that be the case," but, willing or unwilling, thou receivest what is written.

And besides, thou wilt never have compulsion to undergo at all. For he that hath hearkened unto those former blessings, and hath framed himself to be such as Christ enjoined, will have no such constraint to endure from any, being held in reverence and veneration by all.

"But let your yea, be yea; and your nay, nay: for that which exceedeth these cometh of the evil one."

What is it then that "exceeds yea" and "nay"? it is the oath, not the perjury. For this latter is quite acknowledged, and no man needs to learn that it is of the evil one; and it is not an excess, but an opposite: whereas an excess means something more, and added over and above: which kind of thing swearing is.

"What then," saith one, "was it of the evil one? and if it was of the evil one, how was it a law?" Well, this same thing thou wilt say concerning the wife also; how is that now accounted adultery, which was before permitted?

What now may one reply to this? That the precepts then uttered had reference to the weakness of them who were receiving the laws; since also to be worshipped with the vapor of sacrifice is very unworthy of God, just as to lisp is unworthy of a philosopher. That kind of thing accordingly was now laid down to be adultery, and swearing to be of the evil one, now that the principles of virtue have advanced. But if these things had been, from the first, laws of the devil, they would not have attained to so great goodness. Yea, for had those not been forerunners in the first place, these which we now have would not have been so easily received. Do not thou then require their excellency now, when their use is past: but then, when the time was calling for them. Or rather, if thou wilt, even now: yea, for now also is their virtue shown: and most of all for the very cause, by reason of which we find fault with them. For their appearing such now, is the greatest commendation of them. For had they not brought us up well, and made us meet for the reception of the greater precepts, they would not have appeared such.

Therefore as the breast, when it hath fulfilled all its part, and is dismissing the child to the more manly diet, after that appears useless; and the parents who before thought it necessary for the babe, now abuse it with ten thousand mockeries (and many even not content with words of abuse, anoint it also with bitter drugs; that when their words have not power to remove the child's unseasonable propensity towards it, the real things may quench their longing): so also Christ saith, that they are of the evil one, not to indicate that the old law is of the devil, but in order that with most exceeding earnestness He might lead them away from their ancient poverty.

But if the old law had belonged to the devil, it would not have led people away from idolatry, but rather would have drawn them on and cast them into it; for this did the devil desire. But now we see the opposite effect produced by the old law. And indeed this very thing, the oath, was ordained of old for this cause, that they might not swear by the idols. For "ye shall swear," saith He, "by the true God." They were then no small advantages which the law effected, but rather very great. For that they came unto the "strong meat," was the work of its care.

"What then," it may be said, "is not swearing of the evil one?" Yes, indeed it is altogether of the evil one; that is, now, after so high a rule of self-restraint; but then not so.

"But how," one may say, "should the same thing become at one time good, at another time not good?" Nay, I say the very contrary: how could it help becoming good and not good, while all things are crying aloud, that they are so: the arts, the fruits of the earth, and all things else?

See it, for example, taking place first in our own kind. Thus, to be carried, in the earliest age of life, is good, but afterwards pernicious; to eat food that hath been softened in the mouth, in the first scene of our life, is good, but afterwards it is full of disgust; to be fed upon milk and to fly to the breast, is at first profitable and healthful, but tends afterwards to decay and harm. Seest thou how the same actions, by reason of the times, appear good, and again not so? Yea, and to wear the robe of a child is well as long as you are a boy, but contrariwise, when you are become a man, it is disgraceful. Wouldest thou learn of the contrary case too, how to the child again the things of the man are unsuited? Give the boy a man's robe, and great will be the laughter; and greater the danger, he being often upset in walking after that fashion. Allow him to handle public affairs, and to traffic, and sow, and reap, and great again will be the laughter.

Having forbidden swearing, He instructs us how we ought to speak, Let your speech be yea, yea; nay, nay. That is, to affirm any thing it is sufficient to say, 'It is so:' to deny, to say, 'It is not so.' Or, yea, yea; nay, nay, are therefore twice repeated, that what you affirm with the mouth you should prove in deed, and what you deny in word, you should not establish by your conduct.

Moreover, they remembered the words): "Let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil; " so that they were not to handle the gospel in a diversity of treatment.

But with us there is no equivocation, nothing twisted into a double sense. Light is light; and darkness, darkness; yea is yea; and nay, nay; "whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." She who bare (really) bare; and although she was a virgin when she conceived, she was a wife when she brought forth her son.

Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality? For, of course, all things will be what their names represent them to be; and what they are and ever will be, that will they be called; and the distinction indicated by the names does not at all admit of any confusion, because there is none in the things which they designate. "Yes is yes, and no is no; for what is more than these, cometh of evil."

But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay. Lest you ask, "How then will people believe what I say?" He says, "They will believe you if you always tell the truth and never swear at all." For no one is disbelieved more than he who is eager to swear that he speaks the truth. What is more than this, is of the evil one. The Lord says that swearing, which is more than "Yea" and "Nay," is of the devil. But, you will ask, is the law of Moses, which bids us to swear, also evil? Learn, then, that at that time it was not evil to swear. But after Christ, it is evil. And so it is with circumcision and, in short, with all the Judaic practices. So also, to nurse at the breast is proper for infants, but shameful for adults.

This law, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, was enacted to repress the flames of mutual hate, and to be a check on their undisciplined spirits. For who when he would take revenge, was ever content to return just so much harm as he had received? Do we not see men who have suffered some trifling hurt, straightway plot murder, thirst for blood, and hardly find evil enough that they can do to their enemies for the satisfying their rage? To this immeasured and cruel fury the Law puts bounds when it enacts a lex talionis; that is, that whatever wrong or hurt any man has done to another, he should suffer just the same in return. This is not to encourage but to check rage; for it does not rekindle what was extinguished, but hinders the flames already kindled from further spread. It enacts a just retaliation, properly due to him who has suffered the wrong. But that mercy forgives any debt, does not make it unjust that payment had been sought. Since then he sins who seeks an unmeasured vengeance, but he does not sin who desires only a just one; he is therefore further from sin who seeks no retribution at all.

(non occ.) The Lord having taught that we are not to offer injury to our neighbour, or irreverence to the Lord, now proceeds to show how the Christian should demean himself to those that injure him.

(non occ.) Or it may be said that the Lord said this, adding somewhat to the righteousness of the old Law.

(Verse 38.) You have heard that it was said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, do not resist evil. Whoever says an eye for an eye does not want to take away the other, but to preserve both. Our Lord, by taking away vengeance, cuts off the beginnings of sins. And in the Law there is retribution, in the Gospel there is grace. There, fault is corrected, here the beginnings of sins are taken away.

Thus our Lord by doing away all retaliation, cuts off the beginnings of sin. So the Law corrects faults, the Gospel removes their occasions.

Seest thou that it was not of an eye that He was speaking before, when He made the law to pluck out the offending eye, but of him who by his friendship is harming us, and casting us into the gulf of destruction? For He who in this place uses so great strength of expression, and who, not even when another is plucking out your eye, permits you to strike out his; how should He have made it a law to strike out one's own?

But if any one accuses the ancient law, because it commands such retaliation, he seems to me very unskillful in the wisdom that becomes a legislator, and ignorant of the virtue of opportunities, and the gain of condescension. For if he considered who were the hearers of these sayings, and how they were disposed, and when they received this code of laws, he will thoroughly admit the wisdom of the Lawgiver, and will see that it is one and the same, who made both those laws and these, and who wrote each of them exceeding profitably, and in its due season. Yes, for if at the beginning He had introduced these high and most weighty commandments, men would not have received either these, or the others; but now ordaining them severally in their due time, He hath by the two corrected the whole world.

And besides, He commanded this, not that we might strike out one another's eyes, but that we might keep our hands to ourselves. For the threat of suffering hath effectually restrained our inclination to be doing.

And thus in fact He is silently dropping seed of much self-restraint, at least in that He commands to retaliate with just the same acts. Yet surely he that began such transgression were worthy of a greater punishment, and this the abstract nature of justice demands. But forasmuch as He was minded to mingle mercy also with justice, He condemns him whose offenses were very great to a punishment less than his desert: teaching us even while we suffer to show forth great consideration.

In the next place, they criticise the law in the old covenant, which bids put out "an eye for an eye," and "a tooth for a tooth;" and straightway they insult and say, "Why, how can He be good who speaks so?"

What then do we say in answer to this? That it is the highest kind of philanthropy. For He made this law, not that we might strike out one another's eyes, but that fear of suffering by others might restrain us from doing any such thing to them. As therefore He threatened the Ninevites with overthrow, not that He might destroy them (for had that been His will, He ought to have been silent), but that He might by fear make them better, and so quiet His wrath: so also hath He appointed a punishment for those who wantonly assail the eyes of others, that if good principle dispose them not to refrain from such cruelty, fear may restrain them from injuring their neighbors' sight.

And if this be cruelty, it is cruelty also for the murderer to be restrained, and the adulterer checked. But these are the sayings of senseless men, and of those that are mad to the extreme of madness. For I, so far from saying that this comes of cruelty, should say, that the contrary to this would be unlawful, according to men's reckoning. And whereas, thou sayest, "Because He commanded to pluck out an eye for an eye, therefore He is cruel;" I say, that if He had not given this commandment, then He would have seemed, in the judgment of most men, to be that which thou sayest He is.

For let us suppose that this law had been altogether done away, and that no one feared the punishment ensuing thereupon, but that license had been given to all the wicked to follow their own disposition in all security, to adulterers, and to murderers, to perjured persons, and to parricides; would not all things have been turned upside down? would not cities, market-places, and houses, sea and land, and the whole world, have been filled with unnumbered pollutions and murders? Every one sees it. For if, when there are laws, and fear, and threatening, our evil dispositions are hardly checked; were even this security taken away, what is there to prevent men's choosing vice? and what degree of mischief would not then come revelling upon the whole of human life?

The rather, since cruelty lies not only in allowing the bad to do what they will, but in another thing too quite as much; to overlook, and leave uncared for, him who hath done no wrong, but who is without cause or reason suffering ill. For tell me; were any one to gather together wicked men from all quarters, and arm them with swords, and bid them go about the whole city, and massacre all that came in their way, could there be anything more like a wild beast than he? And what if some other should bind, and confine with the utmost strictness those whom that man had armed, and should snatch from those lawless hands them, who were on the point of being butchered; could anything be greater humanity than this?

Now then, I bid thee transfer these examples to the law likewise; for He that commands to pluck out "an eye for an eye," hath laid the fear as a kind of strong chain upon the souls of the bad, and so resembles him, who detains those assassins in prison; whereas he who appoints no punishment for them, doth all but arm them by such security, and acts the part of that other, who was putting the swords in their hands, and letting them loose over the whole city.

Seest thou not, how the commandments, so far from coming of cruelty, come rather of abounding mercy? And if on account of these thou callest the Lawgiver grievous, and hard to bear with; tell me which sort of command is the more toilsome and grievous, "Do no murder," or, "Be not even angry"? Which is more in extreme, he who exacts a penalty for murder, or for mere anger? He who subjects the adulterer to vengeance after the fact, or he who enjoins a penalty even for the very desire, and that penalty everlasting? See ye not how their reasoning comes round to the very contrary? how the God of the old covenant, whom they call cruel, will be found mild and meek: and He of the new, whom they acknowledged to be good, will be hard and grievous, according to their madness? Whereas we say, that there is but one and the same Legislator of either covenant, who dispensed all meetly, and adapted to the difference of the times the difference between the two systems of law. Therefore neither are the first commandments cruel, nor the second hard and grievous, but all of one and the same providential care.

For that He Himself gave the old covenant also, hear the affirmation of the prophet, or rather (so we must speak), of Him who is both the one and the other: "I will make a covenant with you, not according to the covenant which I made with your fathers."

But if he receive not this, who is diseased with the Manichaean doctrines, let him hear Paul saying the very same in another place, "For Abraham had two sons, one by the bondmaid, and another by the freewoman; and these are two covenants." As therefore in that case the wives are different, the husband the same; so here too the covenants are two, the Lawgiver one.

And to prove to thee that it was of one and the same mildness; in the one He saith, "An eye for an eye," but in this other, "If one smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

For as in that case He checks him that doth the wrong with the fear of this suffering, even so also in this. "How so," it may be said, "when He bids turn to him the other cheek also?" Nay, what of that? Since not to take away his fear did He enjoin this, but as charging yourself to allow him to take his fill entirely. Neither did He say, that the other continues unpunished, but, "do not thou punish;" at once both enhancing the fear of him that smiteth, if he persist, and comforting him who is smitten.

Who else, therefore, are understood but we, who, fully taught by the new law, observe these practices,-the old law being obliterated, the coming of whose abolition the action itself demonstrates? For the wont of the old law was to avenge itself by the vengeance of the glaive, and to pluck out "eye for eye," and to inflict retaliatory revenge for injury. But the new law's wont was to point to clemency, and to convert to tranquillity the pristine ferocity of "glaives" and "lances," and to remodel the pristine execution of "war" upon the rivals and foes of the law into the pacific actions of "ploughing" and "tilling" the land.

So, too, "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth," has now grown old, ever since "Let none render evil for evil" grew young.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. Condescending to human perversity, the law permitted retaliation so that men would not harm each other, out of fear of suffering the same themselves (Ex. 21:24).

For the righteousness of the Pharisees is a less righteousness, not to transgress the measure of equal retribution; and this is the beginning of peace; but perfect peace is to refuse all such retribution. Between that first manner then, which was not according to the Law, to wit, that a greater evil should be returned for a less, and this which the Lord enjoins to make His disciples perfect, to wit, that no evil should be returned for evil, a middle place is held by this, that an equal evil should be returned, which was thus the passage from extremest discord to extremest peace. Whoso then first does evil to another departs furthest from righteousness; and who does not first do any wrong, but when wronged repays with a heavier wrong, has departed somewhat from extreme injustice; he who repays only what he has received, gives up yet something more, for it were but strict right that he who is the first aggressor should receive a greater hurt than he inflicted. This righteousness thus partly begun, He perfects, who is come to fulfil the Law. The two steps that intervene He leaves to be understood; for there is who does not repay so much, but less; and there is yet above him, he who repays not at all; yet this seems too little to the Lord, if you be not also ready to suffer wrong. Therefore He says not, Render not evil for evil, but, Resist not against evil, not only repay not what is offered to you, but do not resist that it should not be done to you. For thus accordingly He explains that saying, If any man smite thee on thy right cheek, offer to him the left also. Which as being a high part of mercy, is known to those who serve such as they love much; from whom, being morose, or insane, they endure many things, and if it be for their health they offer themselves to endure more. The Lord then, the Physician of souls, teaches His disciples to endure with patience the sicknesses of those for whose spiritual health they should provide. For all wickedness comes of a sickness of the mind; nothing is more innocent than he who is sound and of perfect health in virtue.

The things which are done by the Saints in the New Testament profit for examples of understanding those Scriptures which are modelled into the form of precepts. Thus we read in Luke; Whoso smiteth thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also. Now there is no example of patience more perfect than that of the Lord; yet He, when He was smitten, said not, 'Behold the other cheek,' but, If I have spoken amiss, accuse me wherein it is amiss; but if well, why smitest thou me? hereby showing us that that turning of the other cheek should be in the heart.

For the Lord was ready not only to be smitten on the other cheek for the salvation of men, but to be crucified with His whole body. It may be asked, What does the right cheek expressly signify? As the face is that whereby any man is known, to be smitten on the face is according to the Apostle to be contemned and despised. But as we cannot say 'right face,' and 'left face,' and yet we have a name twofold, one before God, and one before the world, it is distributed as it were into the right cheek, and left cheek, that whoever of Christ's disciples is despised for that he is a Christian, may be ready to be yet more despised for any of this world's honours that he may have. All things wherein we suffer any wrong are divided into two kinds, of which one is what cannot he restored, the other what may be restored. In that kind which cannot be restored, we are wont to seek the solace of revenge. For what does it boot if when smitten you smite again, is the hurt done to your body thereby repaid to you? But the mind swollen with rage seeks such assuagements.

Whence the Lord judges that others' weakness should rather be borne with compassion, than that our own should be soothed by others' pain. For that retribution which tends to correction is not here forbidden, for such is indeed a part of mercy; nor does such intention hinder that he, who seeks to correct another, is not at the same time ready himself to take more at his hands. But it is required that he should inflict the punishment to whom the power is given by the course of things, and with such a mind as the father has to a child in correcting him whom it is impossible he should hate. And holy men have punished some sins with death, in order that a wholesome fear might be struck into the living, and so that not his death, but the likelihood of increase of his sin had he lived, was the hurt of the criminal. Thus Elias punished many with death, and when the disciples would take example from him they were rebuked by the Lord, who did not censure this example of the Prophet, but their ignorant use of it, seeing them to desire the punishment not for correction's sake, but from angry hate. But after He had inculcated love of their neighbour, and had given them the Holy Spirit, there wanted not instances of such vengeance; as Ananias and his wife who fell down dead at the words of Peter, and the Apostle Paul delivered some to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. Yet do some, with a kind of blind opposition, rage against the temporal punishments of the Old Testament, not knowing with what mind they were inflicted.

But who that is of sober mind would say to kings, It is nothing of your concern who will live religiously, or who profanely? It cannot even be said to them, that it is not their concern who will live chastely, or who unchastely. It is indeed better that men should be led to serve God by right teaching than by penalties; yet has it benefitted many, as experience has approved to us, to be first coerced by pain and fear, that they might be taught after, or to be made to conform in deed to what they had learned in words. The better men indeed are led of love, but the more part of men are wrought on by fear. Let them learn in the case of the Apostle Paul, how Christ first constrained, and after taught him.

Therefore in this kind of injuries which are wont to rouse vengeance Christians will observe such a mean, that hate shall not be caused by the injuries they may receive, and yet wholesome correction be not foregone by Him who has right of either counsel or power.

What the Lord says: "But I say to you, not to resist evil," is true, from the desire for vengeance: but from the love of justice it is well lawful to resist evil.

Daniel said that in Babylon there was a nobleman's daughter, who was possessed by a devil. Her father asked a monk for help. The monk said to him, 'No one can cure your daughter except some hermits I know: and if you go to them, they will refuse to do it from motives of humility. Let us do it this way: when they come to the city bringing their produce for sale, tell them that you want to buy what they have. When they come into the house to receive the money, we will ask them to pray, and I believe that your daughter will be cured.' So they went into the street, and found a disciple of a hermit who was sitting there to sell his baskets. They took him back with them to the house, as if to give him the money for his wares. When the monk came into the house, the girl who was troubled with the demon went up to him and slapped him. He followed the Lord's commandment, and turned to her the other cheek. The demon was forced out, and began to cry: 'Violence! The commandment of Jesus Christ is driving me out;' the girl was healed at that moment. When they came back to the hermit, they told him what had happened, and he glorified God, saying, 'The pride of devils must fall before humble obedience to the commandments of Jesus Christ.'

[Poemen] also said, 'There is no greater love than that you should lay down your life for your neighbour. When you hear a complaint against you and you struggle with yourself, and do not begin to complain in return, when you bear an injury with patience and do not look for revenge, that is when you lay down your life for your neighbour.'

He would not find the ordinary platitudes in favour of peace. He would find several paradoxes in favour of peace. He would find several ideals of non-resistance, which taken as they stand would be rather too pacific for any pacifist. He would be told in one passage to treat a robber not with passive resistance, but rather with positive and enthusiastic encouragement, if the terms be taken literally; heaping up gifts upon the man who had stolen goods. But he would not find a word of all that obvious rhetoric against war which has filled countless books and odes and orations; not a word about the wickedness of war, the wastefulness of war, the appalling scale of the slaughter in war and all the rest of the familiar frenzy; indeed not a word about war at all.

The Lord wishes that the hope of our faith, extending into eternity, be tested by these things, so that the very toleration of a hidden injury should be a witness of our future judgment. The law used to hold unfaithful Israel within a boundary of fear and contained the desire for injury by the threat of injury returned. Faith, however, does not permit resentment for injuries, nor does it wish for revenge.… There is in the judgment of God a greater consolation for those who have suffered injury and a punishment more dreadful than injuries returned. Therefore the Gospels not only warn us away from iniquities but also drive out the latent desire for vengeance. For if we have received a blow, we ought to offer the other cheek.… The Lord who accompanies us on our journey offers his own cheek to slaps and his shoulders to whips, to the increase of his glory.

(Verse 39.) But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. The man described in Ecclesiasticus is an imitator of him who says: Learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart (Matthew 11:29). And he confirms his promise by saying: If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if well, why do you strike me? (John 18:23). David says in the Psalm: 'If I have repaid those who did evil to me' (Ps. VII, 5). And Jeremiah in the Lamentations: 'It is good for a man to bear the yoke from his youth' (or sit by it, etc.). He will give his cheek to the one who strikes him; he will be filled with insults (Thren. III, 27,30). This is directed against those who think there is one God of the Law and another of the Gospel, which is taught both there and here. According to mystical understanding: our right hand, when struck, we are not commanded to offer the left, but the other, that is, the other right. For justice does not have a left hand. If a heretic strikes us in a dispute and wants to wound the right doctrine, let another testimony from the Scriptures be set against him, and let us continually offer him our right hands while he is weary with anger.

Mystically interpreted; When we are smitten on the right cheek, He said not, offer to him thy left, but the other; for the righteous has not a left. That is, if a heretic has smitten us in disputation, and would wound us in a right hand doctrine, let him be met with another testimony from Scripture.

Having therefore mentioned the ancient law, and recognized it all, He signifies again, that it is not our brother who hath done these deeds, but the evil one. For this cause he hath also subjoined, "But I say unto you, that ye resist not the evil one." He did not say, "resist not your brother," but "the evil one," signifying that on his motion men dare so to act; and in this way relaxing and secretly removing most of our anger against the aggressor, by transferring the blame to another.

"What then?" it is said, "ought we not to resist the evil one?" Indeed we ought, but not in this way, but as He hath commanded, by giving one's self up to suffer wrongfully; for thus shall thou prevail over him. For one fire is not quenched by another, but fire by water. And to show thee that even under the old law he that suffered rather prevails, that he it is who wins the crown; examine just what is done, and thou wilt see that his advantage is great. For as he that hath begun with unjust acts, will have himself destroyed the eyes of both, his neighbor's and his own (wherefore also he is justly hated of all, and ten thousand accusations are aimed at him): so he that hath been injured, even after his equal retaliation, will have done nothing horrible. Wherefore also he hath many to sympathize with him, as being clear from that offense even after he hath retaliated. And though the calamity be equal to both parties, yet the sentence passed on it is not equal, either with God, or with men. It should seem then, that neither is the calamity equal in the end.

Now whereas at the beginning He said, "he that is angry with his brother without a cause," and "he that calleth him fool shall be in danger of hell fire," here He requires yet more entire self-restraint, commanding him that suffers ill not merely to be quiet, but even to be more exceedingly earnest in his turn, by offering the other cheek.

And this He saith, not as legislating about such a blow as this only, but as teaching also what forbearance we should practise in all our other trials. For just as when He saith, "whose calleth his brother fool, is in danger of hell," He speaks not of this word only, but also of all reviling; even so here also He is making a law, not so much for our bearing it manfully, when smitten, as that we should be undisturbed, whatever we suffer. Because of this He both there singled out the extremest insult, and here hath set down that which seems to be of all blows most opprobrious, the blow on the cheek, so full of all insolence. And He commands this as having regard both of him that strikes and of him that is stricken. Since both he that is insulted will not think that he suffers any harm, being thus framed to self-restraint (nay, he will not even have any sense of the insult, as striving rather for a prize than as receiving a blow); and he that is offering the affront will be made ashamed, and not add a second blow, though he be fiercer than any wild beast, yea, rather will condemn himself heartily for the former. For nothing so restrains the wrong doers, as when the injured bear what is done with gentleness. And it not only restrains them from rushing onward, but works upon them also to repent for what has gone before, and in wonder at such forbearance to draw back. And it makes them more our own, and causes them to be slaves, not merely friends, instead of haters and enemies; even as avenging one's self does just the contrary: for it both disgraces each of the two, and makes them worse, and their anger it heightens into a greater flame; yea, often no less than death itself is the end of it, going on from bad to worse. Wherefore He not only forbade thee to be angry when smitten, but even enjoined thee to satiate the other's desire, that so neither may the former blow appear to have befallen thee against thy will. For thus, lost as he may be to shame, thou wilt be able to smite him with a mortal blow, rather than if thou hadst smitten him with thine hand; or if his shamelessness be still greater, thou wilt make him gentle in proportion.

Jesus' words regarding turning the other cheek concern more than simply long-suffering. For it is against nature to be so arrogant as to hit the other person. The one therefore who is "ready to give an answer" to every malicious person "concerning the faith that is in him" will not offer resistance. The spiritual meaning is this: To one who strikes him upon the right cheek—that is, against the rational doctrines—the believer will offer also the ethical ones. This will scandalize those who do not understand the reasonings of faith. They will cease from their accusations, since they will be ashamed and continue progress in divine things.

For without this command, the commands of the Law could not stand. For if according to the Law we begin all of us to render evil for evil, we shall all become evil, since they that do hurt abound. But if according to Christ we resist not evil, though they that are evil be not amended, yet they that are good remain good.

Or has your return blow at all restrained him from striking you again? It has rather roused him to another blow. For anger is not checked by meeting anger, but is only more irritated.

If one attempt to provoke you by manual violence, the monition of the Lord is at hand: "To him," He saith, "who smiteth thee on the face, turn the other cheek likewise." Let outrageousness be wearied out by your patience.

So, too, "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth," has now grown old, ever since "Let none render evil for evil" grew young.

But I say unto you, that ye resist not the evil one: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. "The evil one" here means the devil, who works through man. We ought not, then, to resist the devil? Yes, we should, but not by striking back at our neighbor, but through patient endurance. For fire is not extinguished by fire but by water. Do not think that the Lord is speaking only of a blow on the cheek, but of any and every other kind of affliction.

Hence also what follows, And if any man will sue you at the law, and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also, is rightly understood as a precept having reference to the preparation of heart, not to a vain show of outward deed. But what is said with respect to the coat and cloak is to be carried out not merely in such things, but in the case of everything which on any ground of right we speak of as being ours for time. For if this command is given with respect to what is necessary, how much more does it become us to contemn what is superfluous! But still, those things which I have called ours are to be included in that category under which the Lord Himself gives the precept, when He says, If any man will sue you at the law, and take away your coat. Let all these things therefore be understood for which we may be sued at the law, so that the right to them may pass from us to him who sues, or for whom he sues; such, for instance, as clothing, a house, an estate, a beast of burden, and in general all kinds of property. But whether it is to be understood of slaves also is a great question. For a Christian ought not to possess a slave in the same way as a horse or money: although it may happen that a horse is valued at a greater price than a slave, and some article of gold or silver at much more. But with respect to that slave, if he is being educated and ruled by time as his master, in a way more upright, and more honourable, and more conducing to the fear of God, than can be done by him who desires to take him away, I do not know whether any one would dare to say that he ought to be despised like a garment. For a man ought to love a fellow-man as himself, inasmuch as he is commanded by the Lord of all (as is shown by what follows) even to love his enemies.

It is carefully to be observed that every tunic is a garment, but that every garment is not a tunic. Hence the word garment means more than the word tunic. And therefore I think it is so expressed, And if any one will sue you at the law, and take away your tunic, let him have your garment also, as if He had said, Whoever wishes to take away your tunic, give over to him whatever other clothing you have. And so some have interpreted the word pallium, which in the Greek as used here is ἱμάτιον .

The other kind of injuries are those in which full restitution can be made, of which there are two kinds; one relates to money, the other to work; of the first of these it is He speaks when He continues, Whoso will sue thee for thy coat, let him have thy cloak likewise. As by the cheek are denoted such injuries of the wicked as admit of no restitution but revenge, so by this similitude of the garments is denoted such injury as admits restitution. And this, as the former, is rightly taken of preparation of the heart, not of the show of the outward action. And what is commanded respecting our garments, is to be observed in all things that by any right we call our own in worldly property. For if the command be expressed in these necessary articles of life, how much more does it hold in the case of superfluities and luxuries? And when He says, He who will sue thee, He clearly intends to include every thing for which it is possible that we should be sued. It may be made a question whether it is to be understood of slaves, for a Christian ought not to possess his slave on the same footing as his horse; though it might be that the horse was worth the more money. And if your slave have a milder master in you than he would have in him who seeks to take him from you, I do not know that he ought to be given up as lightly as your coat.

The Lord here forbids his disciples to have lawsuits with others for worldly property. Yet as the Apostle allows such kind of causes to be decided between brethren, and before arbiters who are brethren, but utterly disallows them without the Church, it is manifest what is conceded to infirmity as pardonable.

Beyond the tolerance of physical injury, the Lord wants us also to have contempt for things of this world and to be so far removed from every lawsuit or contest of judgment. If by chance a slanderer or tempter comes forward to initiate a lawsuit for the sake of testing our faith and desires to rob us of the things which are ours, the Lord orders us to offer willingly not only the things that the person goes after unjustly but even those not demanded.

(Mor. xxxi. 13.) There are, who are so far to be endured, as they rob us of our worldly goods; but there are whom we ought to hinder, and that without breaking the law of charity, not only that we may not be robbed of what is ours, but lest they by robbing others destroy themselves. We ought to fear much more for the men who rob us, than to be eager to save the inanimate things they take from us. When peace with our neighbour is banished the heart on the matter of worldly possessions, it is plain that our estate is more loved than our neighbour.

"And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also."

For not in the matter of blows only, but of our goods also, He would have such forbearance exhibited. Wherefore He again employs the same strong figure. That is, as in the other case He commands to overcome in suffering, so here again, by allowing ourselves to be deprived of more than the wrong doer expected. However, He did not put it so merely, but with something to enhance it: not saying, "give thy cloak to him that asketh," but "to him that would sue thee at the law," that is, "if he drag thee into court, and give thee trouble."

And just as, after He had bidden not to call another fool, nor to be angry without cause, He went on and required more, in that He commanded to offer the right cheek also; even so here, having said, "Agree with thine adversary," He again amplifies the precept. For now He orders us not only to give what the other would have, but even to show forth a greater liberality.

"What then!" one may say, "am I to go about naked?" We should not be naked, if we obeyed these sayings with exactness; rather more abundantly than any should we be clothed. For first, no one would attack men of this disposition; and next, if there chanced to be any one so savage and ungentle, as to proceed even so far, yet many more would be found to clothe him, who acted with such self-denial, not with garments only, but even with their own flesh, if it were possible.

Further: even though one were of necessity to go about naked on account of this sort of self-denial, neither so were it any disgrace. Since Adam too was "naked" in paradise, "and was not ashamed;" and Isaiah was "naked, and barefoot," and more glorious than all the Jews; and Joseph also, when he stripped himself, did then more than ever shine forth. For to be thus naked is no evil, but to be so clad, as we now are, with costly garments, this is both disgraceful and ridiculous. For this cause, you see, those had praise of God, but these He blames, both by prophets and by apostles.

Let us not therefore suppose His injunctions impossible. Nay, for besides their expediency, they are very easy, if we are sober-minded; and the profit of them is so great as to be an exceeding help, not to ourselves only, but to those also who are using us despitefully. And in this chiefly stands their excellence, that while they induce us to suffer wrong, they by the same means teach them also that do the wrong to control themselves. For while he on his part thinks it a great thing to take what belongs to others, but thou signifiest to him, that to thee it is easy to give even what he doth not ask: while thou bringest in liberality for a counterpoise to his meanness, and a wise moderation to his covetousness: consider what a lesson he will get, being taught not by sayings, but by actual deeds, to scorn vice and to seek after virtue.

For God will have us profitable not to ourselves alone, but to all our neighbors as well. Now if thou givest, and abstainest from suing, thou hast sought thine own advantage only; but if thou give him some other thing, thou hast made him too better, and so sent him away. Of this nature is salt, which is what He would have them to be; seeing it both recruits itself, and keeps all other bodies with which it may associate: of this nature is light; for it shows objects both to a man's self and to all others. Forasmuch then as He hath set thee in the rank of these things, help thou likewise him who is sitting in darkness, and teach him that neither before did he take any thing by force: persuade him that he hath done no despite. Yea, for thus thou thyself also wilt be had in more respect and reverence, if thou signify that thou gavest freely and wert not robbed. Make therefore his sin, through thy moderation, an instance of thine own bounty.

For it were an unworthy thing that a believer should stand in his cause before an unbelieving judge. Or if one who is a believer, though (as he must be) a worldly man, though he should have reverenced you for the worthiness of the faith, sues you because the cause is a necessary one, you will lose the worthiness of Christ for the business of the world. Further, every lawsuit irritates the heart and excites bad thoughts; for when you see dishonesty or bribery employed against you, you hasten to support your own cause by like means, though originally you might have intended nothing of the sort.

Else how will one, when he has two coats, give the one of them to the naked, unless he be a man likewise to offer to one who takes away his coat his cloak as well? How shall we fashion to us friends from mammon, if we love it so much as not to put up with its loss? We shall perish together with the lost mammon.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy tunic, let him have thy cloak also. If he drags you into court and harasses you, give him your cloak as well, and not only what he asks for. The "tunic" is what we would call the inner garment, and the "cloak" is the outer garment. But the names are sometimes used one for the other.

The third kind of wrongs, which is in the matter of labour, consists of both such as admit restitution, and such as do not—or with or without revenge—for he who forcibly presses a man's service, and makes him give him aid against his will, can either be punished for his crime, or return the labour. In this kind of wrongs then, the Lord teaches that the Christian mind is most patient, and prepared to endure yet more than is offered; If a man constrain thee to go with him a mile, go with him yet other two. This likewise is meant not so much of actual service with your feet, as of readiness of mind.

Let us suppose it therefore said, Go with him other two that the number three might be completed; by which number perfection is signified; that whoever does this might remember that he is fulfilling perfect righteousness. For which reason he conveys this precept under three examples, and in this third example, he adds a twofold measure to the one single measure, that the threefold number may be complete. Or we may so consider as though in enforcing this duty, He had begun with what was easiest to bear, and had advanced gradually. For first He commanded that when the right cheek was smitten we should turn the other also; therein showing ourselves ready to endure another wrong less than that you have already received. Secondly, to him that would take your coat, he bids you part with your cloak, (or garment, as some copies read,) which is either just as great a loss, or perhaps a little greater. In the third He doubles the additional wrong which He would have us ready to endure. And seeing it is a small thing not to hurt unless you further show kindnesses, He adds, To him that asketh of thee, give.

Some believe that this section, "He who is pressed into service for one mile, let him go with that man as far as another two," is to be understood spiritually in this fashion: If a nonbeliever, or one who has not yet followed the knowledge of the truth, makes mention of the one God the Father, the founder of all things, as if coming to God by the way of the law, go with that one the second mile. That is, after his profession of God the Father, lead this same person, by the way of truth, to the knowledge of the Son and the Holy Spirit, showing that one is to believe not only in the Father but also in the Son and the Holy Spirit.

One of the fathers said, 'If anyone asks you for something, and you give it to him, even if you are forced to give it, let your heart go with the gift, as it is written, "If a man forces you to go with him one mile, go with him two" (Matt. 5:41). This means that if you are asked for anything, give it with a willing heart.'

"If any one shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him twain."

Seest thou the height of self-denial? in this at least, that after giving thy coat, and thy cloak, not even if thine enemy should wish to use thy naked body for hardships and labors, not even so (saith He), must thou forbid him. For He would have us possess all things in common, both our bodies and our goods, as with them that are in need, so with them that insult us: for the latter comes of manliness, the former of mercifulness.

Because of this, He said, "If any one shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him twain:" again leading thee higher up, and commanding thee to show forth the same kind of ambition.

For if the things of which He spake at the beginning, being far less than these, have so great blessings pronounced on them; consider what sort of portion awaits them, who duly perform these, and what they become even before their rewards, in a human and passible body winning entire freedom from passion. Since when neither insult, nor blows, nor the spoiling of their property, galls them; while they give way to no such thing, but rather add in large measure to their endurance; reflect what kind of training their soul is undergoing.

On this account then, as in regard of blows, as in regard of our goods, so in this case also, He hath bidden us act. "For why," saith He, "do I mention insult, and property? Though he should want to make use of thy very own limbs for toil and weary work, and this unjustly, do thou again conquer and overpass His unjust desire."

For "to compel" is this, to drag unjustly and without any reason, and by way of despite. Nevertheless, for this also be thou ready in thy station, so as to suffer more than the other would fain do to thee.

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him two. "Why should I speak of cloaks and tunics?" the Lord is saying. Give even your body to him who wrongfully compels you, and do more than he wants you to do.

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.