Thursday 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.

The lesser righteousness, therefore, is not to commit adultery by carnal connection; but the greater righteousness of the kingdom of God is not to commit adultery in the heart. Now, the man who does not commit adultery in the heart, much more easily guards against committing adultery in actual fact. Hence He who gave the later precept confirmed the earlier; for He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.

(Serm. ix. 3 and 10.) Thou shalt not commit adultery, that is, Thou shalt go no where but to thy lawful wife. For if you exact this of your wife, you ought to do the same, for the husband ought to go before the wife in virtue. It is a shame for the husband to say that this is impossible. Why not the husband as well as the wife? And let not him that is unmarried suppose that he does not break this commandment by fornication; you know the price wherewith you have been bought, you know what you eat and what you drinkg, therefore keep yourself from fornications. Forasmuch as all such acts of lust pollute and destroy God's image, (which you are,) the Lord who knows what is good for you, gives you this precept that you may not pull down His temple which you have begun to be.

Because adultery is a serious sin and in order to uproot it, lest our conscience be defiled, he forbade even lust, which is the fuel of adultery. According to the words of blessed James in his epistle, "Lust when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death." The Holy Spirit speaks concerning this to David: "Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock." The symbolism here is that the blessed and truly evangelical person roots out the desires and lust of the flesh arising from human weakness. He does this immediately before they grow, at the onset, through faith in Christ who has been described as a rock.

Gerontius of Petra said, 'Many people who are tempted by pleasures of the flesh do not sin with the body but lust with the mind; they keep their bodily virginity but lust in their heart. It is better then, beloved, to do what is written, "Let everyone keep a close guard upon his heart" (Prov. 4:23).'

A brother asked some of the monks whether evil thoughts defiled a man. When they were asked this question, some said, 'Yes,' but some said, 'No, for if that were so, we ordinary people could not be saved. If we think of vile actions but do not do them, it is this which brings salvation.' The questioner was discontented with the monks' diverse answers, and he went to an experienced hermit and asked him about it. He replied, 'Everyone is required to act according to his capacity.' Then the brother asked him, 'For the Lord's sake, explain this saying to me.' So he said, 'Look here, suppose there was a valuable jug and two monks came in, one of whom had a great capacity for a disciplined life, and the other a small capacity. Suppose that the mind of the more disciplined man is moved at the sight of the jug and he says inwardly, "I'd like to have that jug," but the idea leaves him at once, and he puts away any thought of it, then he would not be defiled. But if the less disciplined man covets the jug and is strongly moved by an impulse to take it, and yet after a struggle he does not take it, he would not be defiled either.'

(Mor. xxi. 2.) But whoso casts his eyes about without caution will often be taken with the pleasure of sin, and ensnared by desires begins to wish for what he would not. Great is the strength of the flesh to draw us downwards, and the charm of beauty once admitted to the heart through the eye, is hardly banished by endeavour. We must therefore take heed at the first, we ought not to look upon what it is unlawful to desire. For that the heart may be kept pure in thought, the eyes, as being on the watch to hurry us to sin, should be averted from wanton looks.

Between πάθος and προπάθεια, that is between actual passion and the first spontaneous movement of the mind, there is this difference: passion is at once a sin; the spontaneous movement of the mind, though it partakes of the evil of sin, is yet not held for an offence committedh. When then one looks upon a woman, and his mind is therewith smitten, there is propassion; if he yields to this he passes from propassion to passion, and then it is no longer the will but the opportunity to sin that is wanting. Whosoever, then, looketh on a woman to lust after her, that is, so looks on her as to lust, and cast about to obtain, he is rightly said to commit adultery with her in his heart.

Having now finished the former commandment, and having extended it unto the height of self-denial, He, advancing in course and order, proceeds accordingly unto the second, herein too obeying the law.

For beginning from those passions, which most belong to our whole race, anger, I mean, and desire (for it is these chiefly that bear absolute sway within us, and are more natural than the rest); He with great authority, even such as became a legislator, both corrected them, and reduced them to order with all strictness. For He said not that the adulterer merely is punished; but what He had done with respect to the murderer, this He doth here also, punishing even the unchaste look: to teach thee wherein lies what He had more than the scribes. Accordingly, He saith, "He that looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her:" that is, he who makes it his business to be curious about bright forms, and to hunt for elegant features, and to feast his soul with the sight, and to fasten his eyes on fair countenances. For He came to set free from all evil deeds not the body only, but the soul too before the body. Thus, because in the heart we receive the grace of the Spirit, He cleanses it out first.

"And how," one may say, "is it possible to be freed from desire?" I answer, first, if we were willing, even this might be deadened, and remain inactive.

In the next place, He doth not here take away desire absolutely, but that desire which springs up in men from sight. For he that is curious to behold fair countenances, is himself chiefly the enkindler of the furnace of that passion, and makes his own soul a captive, and soon proceeds also to the act.

Thus we see why He said not, "whosoever shall lust to commit adultery," but, "whosoever shall look to lust." And in the case of anger He laid down a certain distinction, saying, "without a cause," and "for nought;" but here not so; rather once for all He took away the desire. Yet surely both are naturally implanted, and both are set in us for our profit; both anger, and desire: the one that we may chastise the evil, and correct those who walk disorderly; the other that we may have children, and that our race may be recruited by such successions.

Why then did He not make a distinction here also? Nay, very great is the distinction which, if thou attend, thou wilt see here also included. For He said not simply, "whosoever shall desire," since it is possible for one to desire even when sitting in the mountains; but, "Whosoever shall look to lust;" that is to say, he who gathers in lust unto himself; he who, when nothing compels him, brings in the wild beast upon his thoughts when they are calm. For this comes no longer of nature, but of self-indulgence. This even the ancient Scripture corrects from the first, saying, "Contemplate not beauty which is another's." And then, lest any one should say, "what then, if I contemplate, and be not taken captive," He punishes the look, lest confiding in this security thou shouldest some time fall into sin. "What then," one may say, "if I should look, and desire indeed, but do no evil?" Even so thou art set among the adulterers. For the Lawgiver hath pronounced it, and thou must not ask any more questions. For thus looking once, twice, or thrice, thou wilt perhaps have power to refrain; but if thou art continually doing this, and kindling the furnace, thou wilt assuredly be taken; for thy station is not beyond that nature which is common to men. As we then, if we see a child holding a knife, though we do not see him hurt, beat him, and forbid his ever holding it; so God likewise takes away the unchaste look even before the act, lest at any time thou shouldest fall in act also. For he who hath once kindled the flame, even when the woman whom he hath beheld is absent, is forming by himself continually images of shameful things, and from them often goes on even to the deed. For this cause Christ takes away even that embrace which is in the heart only.

For in truth greater is the struggle on beholding, and not possessing the object of fondness: nor is the pleasure so great which we reap from the sight, as the mischief we undergo from increasing this desire; thus making our opponent strong, and giving more scope to the devil, and no longer able to repulse him, now that we have brought him into our inmost parts, and have thrown our mind open unto him. Therefore He saith, "commit no adultery with thine eyes, and thou wilt commit none with thy mind."

For one may indeed behold in another way, such as are the looks of the chaste; wherefore he did not altogether prohibit our seeing, but that seeing which is accompanied with desire. And if He had not meant this, He would have said simply, "He who looketh on a woman." But now He said not thus, but, "He who looketh to lust," "he who looketh to please his sight."

For not at all to this end did God make thee eyes, that thou shouldest thereby introduce adultery, but that, beholding His creatures, thou shouldest admire the Artificer.

Just then as one may feel wrath at random, so may one cast looks at random; that is, when thou doest it for lust. Rather, if thou desirest to look and find pleasure, look at thine own wife, and love her continually; no law forbids that. But if thou art to be curious about the beauties that belong to another, thou art injuring both thy wife by letting thine eyes wander elsewhere, and her on whom thou hast looked, by touching her unlawfully. Since, although thou hast not touched her with the hand, yet hast thou caressed her with thine eyes; for which cause this also is accounted adultery, and before that great penalty draws after it no slight one of its own. For then all within him is filled with disquiet and turmoil, and great is the tempest, and most grievous the pain, and no captive nor person in chains can be worse off than a man in this state of mind. And oftentimes she who hath shot the dart is flown away, while the wound even so remains. Or rather, it is not she who hath shot the dart, but thou gavest thyself the fatal wound, by thine unchaste look. And this I say to free modest women from the charge: since assuredly, should one deck herself out, and invite towards herself the eyes of such as fall in her way; even though she smite not him that meets with her, she incurs the utmost penalty: for she mixed the poison, she prepared the hemlock, even though she did not offer the cup. Or rather, she did also offer the cup, though no one were found to drink it.

In fact, how does the Lord demonstrate Himself as adding a superstructure to the Law, except by interdicting sins of the will as well (as other sins); while He defines not only the man who had actually invaded another's wedlock to be an adulterer, but likewise him who had contaminated (a woman) by the concupiscence of his gaze? Accordingly it is dangerous enough for the mind to set before itself what it is forbidden to perform, and rashly through the will to perfect its execution.

But he had withal said above: "Are we, then, making void the law through faith? Far be it; but we are establishing the law " -forsooth in those (points) which, being even now interdicted by the New Testament, are prohibited by an even more emphatic precept: instead of, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," "Whoever shall have seen with a view to concupiscence, hath already committed adultery in his own heart; " and instead of, "Thou shalt not kill," "Whoever shall have said to his brother, Racha, shall be in danger of hell.

Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. That is, if one stands gazing and examining, kindling desire by looking, and looking again to desire even more, he has already brought the evil to readiness in his heart. If he did not add to it the deed itself, what of it? He was not able. If he had been able, he would immediately have perpetrated the evil. But nevertheless understand that if we have lusted, and then were prevented from committing the deed, clearly we were protected by grace. And if a woman has adorned herself in order to attract others, yet does not succeed in attracting, she is guilty of having mixed the poison into the cup, though no one drank.

It is well worthy of consideration that He did not say, Whosoever lusts after a woman, but, Whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her, i.e. turns toward her with this aim and this intent, that he may lust after her; which, in fact, is not merely to be tickled by fleshly delight, but fully to consent to lust; so that the forbidden appetite is not restrained, but satisfied if opportunity should be given.

34. For there are three things which go to complete sin: the suggestion of, the taking pleasure in, and the consenting to. Suggestion takes place either by means of memory, or by means of the bodily senses, when we see, or hear, or smell, or taste, or touch anything. And if it give us pleasure to enjoy this, this pleasure, if illicit, must be restrained. Just as when we are fasting, and on seeing food the appetite of the palate is stirred up, this does not happen without pleasure; but we do not consent to this liking, and we repress it by the right of reason, which has the supremacy. But if consent shall take place, the sin will be complete, known to God in our heart, although it may not become known to men by deed. There are, then, these steps: the suggestion is made, as it were, by a serpent, that is to say, by a fleeting and rapid, i.e. a temporary, movement of bodies: for if there are also any such images moving about in the soul, they have been derived from without from the body; and if any hidden sensation of the body besides those five senses touches the soul, that also is temporary and fleeting; and therefore the more clandestinely it glides in, so as to affect the process of thinking, the more aptly is it compared to a serpent. Hence these three stages, as I was beginning to say, resemble that transaction which is described in Genesis, so that the suggestion and a certain measure of suasion is put forth, as it were, by the serpent; but the taking pleasure in it lies in the carnal appetite, as it were in Eve; and the consent lies in the reason, as it were in the man: and these things having been acted through, the man is driven forth, as it were, from paradise, i.e. from the most blessed light of righteousness, into death — in all respects most righteously. For he who puts forth suasion does not compel. And all natures are beautiful in their order, according to their gradations; but we must not descend from the higher, among which the rational mind has its place assigned, to the lower. Nor is any one compelled to do this; and therefore, if he does it, he is punished by the just law of God, for he is not guilty of this unwillingly. But yet, previous to habit, either there is no pleasure, or it is so slight that there is hardly any; and to yield to it is a great sin, as such pleasure is unlawful. Now, when any one does yield, he commits sin in the heart. If, however, he also proceeds to action, the desire seems to be satisfied and extinguished; but afterwards, when the suggestion is repeated, a greater pleasure is kindled, which, however, is as yet much less than that which by continuous practice is converted into habit. For it is very difficult to overcome this; and yet even habit itself, if one does not prove untrue to himself, and does not shrink back in dread from the Christian warfare, he will get the better of under His (i.e. Christ's) leadership and assistance; and thus, in accordance with primitive peace and order, both the man is subject to Christ, and the woman is subject to the man. 35. Hence, just as we arrive at sin by three steps—suggestion, pleasure, consent,— so of sin itself there are three varieties—in heart, in deed, in habit,— as it were, three deaths: one, as it were, in the house, i.e. when we consent to lust in the heart; a second now, as it were, brought forth outside the gate, when assent goes forward into action; a third, when the mind is pressed down by the force of bad habit, as if by a mound of earth, and is now, as it were, rotting in the sepulchre. And whoever reads the Gospel perceives that our Lord raised to life these three varieties of the dead. And perhaps he reflects what differences may be found in the very word of Him who raises them, when He says on one occasion, Damsel, arise; on another, Young man, I say unto you, Arise; and when on another occasion He groaned in the spirit, and wept, and again groaned, and then afterwards cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. 36. And therefore, under the category of the adultery mentioned in this section, we must understand all fleshly and sensual lust. For when Scripture so constantly speaks of idolatry as fornication, and the Apostle Paul calls avarice by the name of idolatry, who doubts but that every evil lust is rightly called fornication, since the soul, neglecting the higher law by which it is ruled, and prostituting itself for the base pleasure of the lower nature as its reward (so to speak), is thereby corrupted? And therefore let every one who feels carnal pleasure rebelling against right inclination in his own case through the habit of sinning, by whose unsubdued violence he is dragged into captivity, recall to mind as much as he can what kind of peace he has lost by sinning, and let him cry out, O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ. For in this way, when he cries out that he is wretched, in the act of bewailing he implores the help of a comforter. Nor is it a small approach to blessedness, when he has come to know his wretchedness; and therefore blessed also are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted.

(cont. Faust. xix. 23.) He then goes on to correct the error of the Pharisees, declaring, Whoso looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery already with her in his heart. For the commandment of the Law, Thou shall not lust after thy neighbour's wife, (Exod. 20:17.) the Jews understood of taking her away, not of committing adultery with her.

(Serm. in Mont. i. 12.) For there are three things which make up a sin; suggestion either through the memory, or the present sense; if the thought of the pleasure of indulgence follows, that is an unlawful thought, and to be restrained; if you consent then, the sin is complete. For prior to the first consent, the pleasure is either none or very slight, the consenting to which makes the sin. But if consent proceeds on into overt act, then desire seems to be satiated and quenched. And when suggestion is again repeated, the contemplated pleasure is greater, which previous to habit formed was but small, but now more difficult to overcome.

She is a snare to those who look upon her; whence it is written: "Many, having admired the beauty of a strange woman, have become reprobate." It is read of blessed Bernard that his sister came to see him, adorned with the most beautiful finery; he spat in her face and fled from her. She, indignant, asked why he did this; he answered: "because you come in the adornment of a harlot to capture souls and carry the devil with you." Therefore he says: "She is the snare of hunters," that is, of the devil, who through her captures souls: because "whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

A hermit used to say, 'A lustful thought is brittle like papyrus. When it is thrust at us, if we do not accept it but throw it away it breaks easily. If it allures us and we keep playing with it, it becomes as difficult to break as iron. We need discernment to know that those who consent lose hope of salvation and for those who do not consent, a crown is made ready.'

(Verse 28.) Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Between passion and pre-passion, that is, between feeling and intense feeling, there is a difference: passion is considered a vice, while pre-passion, although it carries the fault of initiation, is not held accountable in the crime. Therefore, whoever looks at a woman and his soul is tickled, he is struck by pre-passion. But if he agrees and allows himself to be affected by the thought, as it is written in David: They passed into the feeling of their hearts (Ps. 73:7), he moves from pre-passion to passion, and it is not a lack of will to sin, but an opportunity. Therefore, whoever sees a woman with lustful intent, that is, if he looks at her in order to lust after her, he is rightly said to commit adultery in his heart.

But how far wider an extent the Lord assigns to those crimes we are sure: when He defines adultery to consist even in concupiscence, "if one shall have cast an eye lustfully on," and stirred his soul with immodest commotion; when He judges murder to consist even in a word of curse or of reproach, and in every impulse of anger, and in the neglect of charity toward a brother just as John teaches, that he who hates his brother is a murderer.

Enough, that the Lord has said faults are committed in the mind and the conscience. If concupiscence or malice have ascended into a man's heart, He saith it is held as a deed. You therefore have given a guarantee; which clearly has "ascended into your heart," which you can neither contend you were ignorant of nor unwilling; for when you gave the guarantee, you knew that you did it; when you knew, of course you were willing: you did it as well in act as in thought; nor can you by the lighter charge exclude the heavier, so as to say that it is clearly rendered false, by giving a guarantee I for what you do not actually perform.

For, when one reads of God as being "the searcher and witness of the heart; " when His prophet is reproved by His discovering to him the secrets of the heart; when God Himself anticipates in His people the thoughts of their heart, "Why think ye evil in your hearts? " when David prays "Create in me a clean heart, O God," and Paul declares, "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness," and John says, "By his own heart is each man condemned; " when, lastly, "he who looketh on a woman so as to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart," -then both points are cleared fully up, that there is a directing faculty of the soul, with which the purpose of God may agree; in other words, a supreme principle of intelligence and vitality (for where there is intelligence, there must be vitality), and that it resides in that most precious part of our body to which God especially looks: so that you must not suppose, with Heraclitus, that this sovereign faculty of which we are treating is moved by some external force; nor with Moschion, that it floats about through the whole body; nor with Plato, that it is enclosed in the head; nor with Zenophanes, that it culminates in the crown of the head; nor that it reposes in the brain, according to the opinion of Hippocrates; nor around the basis of the brain, as Herophilus thought; nor in the membranes thereof, as Strato and Erasistratus said; nor in the space between the eyebrows, as Strato the physician held; nor within the enclosure of the breast, according to Epicurus: but rather, as the Egyptians have always taught, especially such of them as were accounted the expounders of sacred truths; in accordance, too, with that verse of Orpheus or Empedocles:

The emotions of sin, indeed, when not resulting in effects, are usually imputed to the soul: "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after, hath already in his heart committed adultery with her." But what has the flesh alone, without the soul, ever done in operations of virtue, righteousness, endurance, or chastity? What absurdity, however, it is to attribute sin and crime to that substance to which you do not assign any good actions or character of its own! Now the party which aids in the commission of a crime is brought to trial, only in such a way that the principal offender who actually committed the crime may bear the weight of the penalty, although the abettor too does not escape indictment.

"Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Therefore, even for this cause it is most fitting that the soul, without at all waiting for the flesh, should be punished for what it has done without the partnership of the flesh.

The Lord Himself, in short, when rebuking our thoughts, includes in His censures this aspect of the flesh, (man's heart), the citadel of the soul: "Why think ye evil in your hearts? " and again: "Whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." So that even the thought, without operation and without effect, is an act of the flesh.

For His own servants, may the Lord by His mercy take care that to them it may be lawful even to presume on His goodness! But why are we a (source of) danger to our neighbour? why do we import concupiscence into our neighbour? which concupiscence, if God, in "amplifying the law," do not dissociate in (the way of) penalty from the actual commission of fornication, I know not whether He allows impunity to him who has been the cause of perdition to some other.

For, since he says that married persons make this their solicitude, "how to please one another" (not, of course, morally, for a good solicitude he would not impugn); and (since), he wishes them to be understood to be solicitous about dress, and ornament, and every kind of personal attraction, with a view to increasing their power of allurement; (since), moreover, to please by personal beauty and dress is the genius of carnal concupiscence, which again is the cause of fornication: pray, does second marriage seem to you to border upon fornication, since in it are detected those ingredients which are appropriate to fornication? The Lord Himself said, "Whoever has seen a woman with a view to concupiscence has already violated her in his heart." But has he who has seen her with a view to marriage done so less or more? What if he have even married her?-which he would not do had he not desired her with a view to marriage, and seen her with a view to concupiscence; unless it is possible for a wife to be married whom you have not seen or desired.

He speaks about the numbers of the body but employs hyperbole. It is not that one should literally "cut off one's members." Rather, one is called to mortify them and render them useless for sin, as the apostle has said. One should not spare even things thought most necessary, if through them any bad activity threatens to occur.

Here, certainly, there is need of great courage in order to cut off one's members. For whatever it is that is meant by the eye, undoubtedly it is such a thing as is ardently loved. For those who wish to express their affection strongly are wont to speak thus: I love him as my own eyes, or even more than my own eyes. Then, when the word right is added, it is meant perhaps to intensify the strength of the affection. For although these bodily eyes of ours are turned in a common direction for the purpose of seeing, and if both are turned they have equal power, yet men are more afraid of losing the right one. So that the sense in this case is: Whatever it is which you so love that you reckon it as a right eye, if it offends you, i.e. if it proves a hindrance to you on the way to true happiness, pluck it out and cast it from you. For it is profitable for you, that one of these which you so love that they cleave to you as if they were members, should perish, rather than that your whole body should be cast into hell.

(Serm. in Mont. i. 13.) As the eye denotes contemplation, so the hand aptly denotes action. By the eye we must understand our most cherished friend, as they are wont to say who would express ardent affection, 'I love him as my own eye.' And a friend too who gives counsel, as the eye shows us our way. The right eye, perhaps, only means to express a higher degree of affection, for it is the one which men most fear to lose. Or, by the right eye may be understood one who counsels us in heavenly matters, and by the left one who counsels in earthly matters. And this will be the sense; Whatever that is which you love as you would your own right eye, if it offend you, that is, if it be an hindrance to your true happiness, cut it off and cast it from you. For if the right eye was not to be spared, it was superfluous to speak of the left. The right hand also is to be taken of a beloved assistant in divine actions, the left hand in earthly actions.

No doubt there are already, even in the unregenerate self, faint hints of what mould each is designed for, or what sort of pillar he will be. But it is, I think, a gross exaggeration to picture the saving of a soul as being, normally, at all like the development from seed to flower. The very words repentance, regeneration, the New Man, suggest something very different. Some tendencies in each natural man may have to be simply rejected. Our Lord speaks of eyes being plucked out and hands lopped off—a frankly Procrustean method of adaptation.

All natural affections... can become rivals to spiritual love: but they can also be preparatory imitations of it, training (so to speak) of the spiritual muscles which Grace may later put to a higher service; as women nurse dolls in childhood and later nurse children. There may come an occasion for renouncing this love; pluck out your right eye. But you need to have an eye first: a creature which had none—which had only got so far as a "photo-sensitive" spot—would be very ill employed in meditation on that severe text.

But since the body has been mentioned, this can be understood more properly of the body of the church. In this body the eye, like a precious member, is recognized as the bishop who enlightens the entire body by the light of a divine commandment. The passage properly applies here: "If your right eye is an occasion of sin to you, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is better for you that one of your members should perish than your whole body should be thrown into hell." Hence, if this type of eye—symbolizing an unworthy bishop—through his disreputable faith and base dealings becomes a scandal to the church, Christ advises that he be plucked out, lest the people be held accountable for his sins.For it is written that "a little leaven leavens the whole lump." And again: "Keep yourself from every kind of evil." The hand is understood to signify a priest who, because of his disreputable faith or life, becomes a scandal to God's people. The Lord orders that he be cut away, that is, removed, lest the church become defiled by his sin. For the church, according to the apostle, ought to be holy and spotless.

And it must be remembered that the most purely practical science does take this view of mental evil; it does not seek to argue with it like a heresy, but simply to snap it like a spell. Neither modern science nor ancient religion believes in complete free thought. Theology rebukes certain thoughts by calling them blasphemous. Science rebukes certain thoughts by calling them morbid. For example, some religious societies discouraged men more or less from thinking about sex. The new scientific society definitely discourages men from thinking about death; it is a fact, but it is considered a morbid fact. And in dealing with those whose morbidity has a touch of mania, modern science cares far less for pure logic than a dancing Dervish. In these cases it is not enough that the unhappy man should desire truth; he must desire health. Nothing can save him but a blind hunger for normality, like that of a beast. A man cannot think himself out of mental evil; for it is actually the organ of thought that has become diseased, ungovernable, and, as it were, independent. He can only be saved by will or faith. The moment his mere reason moves, it moves in the old circular rut; he will go round and round his logical circle, just as a man in a third-class carriage on the Inner Circle will go round and round the Inner Circle unless he performs the voluntary, vigorous, and mystical act of getting out at Gower Street. Decision is the whole business here; a door must be shut for ever. Every remedy is a desperate remedy. Every cure is a miraculous cure. Curing a madman is not arguing with a philosopher; it is casting out a devil. And however quietly doctors and psychologists may go to work in the matter, their attitude is profoundly intolerant--as intolerant as Bloody Mary. Their attitude is really this: that the man must stop thinking, if he is to go on living. Their counsel is one of intellectual amputation. If thy head offend thee, cut it off; for it is better, not merely to enter the Kingdom of Heaven as a child, but to enter it as an imbecile, rather than with your whole intellect to be cast into hell--or into Hanwell.

(non occ.) Because we ought not only to avoid actual sin, but even put away every occasion of sin, therefore having taught that adultery is to be avoided not in deed only, but in heart, He next teaches us to cut off the occasions of sin.

(ord.) Or; the right eye is the contemplative life which offends by being the cause of indolence or self-conceit, or in our weakness that we are not able to support it unmixed. The right hand is good works, or the active life, which offends us when we are ensnared by society and the business of life. If then any one is unable to sustain the contemplative life, let him not slothfully rest from all action; or on the other hand while he is taken up with action, dry up the fountain of sweet contemplation.

As the degree of innocence increases, faith becomes more advanced. For we are advised to be free not only from our own particular faults but also from those things that affect us outwardly. For is it not because of sin that the bodily members were condemned in the first place? The right eye is no less sinister than the left. It is pointless to chastise a foot that is unaware of lust and thus involves no grounds for punishment. But our members indeed do differ from each other while we are all one body. We are here being advised to pluck out inordinate loves or friendships if they are the occasion that leads us further into wrongdoing. We would do well to not even have the benefit of a member, like an eye or a foot, if it furnishes the avenue by which one is drawn by excessive affections into a partnership with hell. Even the cutting away of a member might be beneficial if the heart (figuratively speaking) were also able to be cut away. But if the impulse of the heart is left unchanged, the cutting away of a member would be pointless.

Thus a more lofty step of innocence is appointed us, in that we are admonished to keep free, not only from sin ourselves, but from such as might touch as from without.

Since Jesus spoke before about lust for a woman, he now rightly refers to an unruly thought or feeling as an eye. By the right hand and other members of the body the onset of the will and emotions is suggested. Thus what we conceive in the mind we might complete with an act. Hence we must be aware that what is best in us may soon devolve into a vice. If your right eye and your right hand are an occasion of sin to you, how much more is this true of the left members. If your soul begins to slip, how much more the body, which has a greater tendency to sin. In other words, in the right eye and the right hand of one's siblings and wife and children and relatives and neighbors, an emotion is indicated. If we perceive they are an obstacle to us in contemplating the true light, we must cut off those parts. Otherwise, in our desire to profit from others, we may perish for all eternity. Hence it is said concerning the high priest whose soul is dedicated to the worship of God: "He shall not defile himself for mother and father and children." That is, he shall have affection only for the One to whose worship he is dedicated.

(Verse 29, 30.) And if your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell. For he had spoken earlier about a woman's desire, and now correctly referred to the wandering of thought and sense as an eye. On the right hand, as well as other parts of the body, the beginnings of the will and emotions are demonstrated: such as what we conceive in our minds, we accomplish in our actions. Therefore, we must be careful that what is best in us does not quickly turn into vice. For if the right eye and right hand cause stumbling, how much more those things that are on the left in us! For if the soul falters, how much more the body, which is inclined towards sin! Otherwise, in the right eye and in the right hand, the affections of brothers, wives, children, relatives, and close ones are shown, which if we see as an impediment to contemplate the true light, we must cut off such portions, so that while we desire to make others gain, we ourselves do not perish forever. Where is it said, concerning the high priest, whose soul is dedicated to the worship of God: 'He shall not defile himself for the dead among his people, except for his close relatives.' (Lev. 21:11), that is, he shall not experience any emotions except for those related to his dedication.

Therefore by the right eye and the right hand we must understand the love of brethren, husbands and wives, parents and kinsfolk; which if we find to hinder our view of the true light, we ought to sever from us.

Otherwise; As above He had placed lust in the looking on a woman, so now the thought and sense straying hither and thither He calls 'the eye.' By the right hand and the other parts of the body, He means the initial movements of desire and affection.

"Why then doth He not discourse with them also?" it may be said. "Because the laws which He appoints are in every case common, although He seem to address Himself unto men only. For in discoursing with the head, He makes His admonition common to the whole body also. For woman and man He knows as one living creature, and nowhere distinguishes their kind."

Wherefore also He subjoins, "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee."

Thus, lest thou shouldest say, "But what if she be akin to me? what if in any other way she belong to me?" therefore He hath given these injunctions; not discoursing about our limbs;-far from it,-for nowhere doth He say that our flesh is to be blamed for things, but everywhere it is the evil mind that is accused. For it is not the eye that sees, but the mind and the thought. Often, for instance, we being wholly turned elsewhere, our eye sees not those who are present. So that the matter does not entirely depend upon its working. Again, had He been speaking of members of the body, He would not have said it of one eye, nor of the right eye only, but of both. For he who is offended by his right eye, most evidently will incur the same evil by his left also. Why then did He mention the right eye, and add the hand? To show thee that not of limbs is He speaking, but of them who are near unto us. Thus, "If," saith He, "thou so lovest any one, as though he were in stead of a right eye; if thou thinkest him so profitable to thee as to esteem him in the place of a hand, and he hurts thy soul; even these do thou cut off." And see the emphasis; for He saith not, "Withdraw from him," but to show the fullness of the separation, "pluck it out," saith He, "and cast it from thee."

Then, forasmuch as His injunction was sharp, He shows also the gain on either hand, both from the benefits and from the evils, continuing in the metaphor.

"For it is profitable for thee," saith He, "that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."

For while he neither saves himself, nor fails to destroy thee too, what kindness is it for both to sink, whereas if they were separated, one at least might have been preserved?

But that thou mayest see yet more clearly the profit of this law; let us, if you please, try what hath been said, in the case of the body itself, by way of supposition. I mean, if choice were given, and thou must either, keeping thine eye, be cast into a pit and perish, or plucking it out, preserve the rest of thy body; wouldest thou not of course accept the latter? It is plain to everyone. For this were not to act as one hating the eye, but as one loving the rest of the body. This same reckoning do thou make with regard to men also and women: that if he who harms thee by his friendship should continue incurable, his being thus cut off will both free thee from all mischief, and he also will himself be delivered from the heavier charges, not having to answer for thy destruction along with his own evil deeds.

Seest thou how full the law is of gentleness and tender care, and that which seems to men in general to be severity, how much love towards man it discloses?

Let them hearken to these things, who hasten to the theatres, and make themselves adulterers every day. For if the law commands to cut off him, whose connexion with us tends to our hurt; what plea can they have, who, by their haunting those places, attract towards them daily those even that have not yet become known to them, and procure to themselves occasions of ruin without number?

For henceforth, He not only forbids us to look unchastely, but having signified the mischief thence ensuing, He even straitens the law as He goes on, commanding to cut off, and dissever, and cast somewhere far away. And all this He ordains, who hath uttered words beyond number about love, that in either way thou mightest learn His providence, and how from every source He seeks thy profit.

But if according to that of the Prophet, there is no whole part in our body, (Ps. 38:3.) it is needful that we cut off every limb that we have that the punishment may be equal to the depravity of the flesh. Is it then possible to understand this of the bodily eye or hand? As the whole man when he is turned to God is dead to sin, so likewise the eye when it has ceased to look evil is cut off from sin. But this explanation will not suit the whole; for when He says, thy right eye offends thee, what does the left eye? Does it contradict the right eye, and it is preserved innocent?

Otherwise; Christ would have us careful not only of our own sin, but likewise that even they who pertain to us should keep themselves from evil. Have you any friend who looks to your matters as your own eye, or manages them as your own hand, if you know of any scandalous or base action that he has done, cast him from you, he is an offence; for we shall give account not only of our own sins, but also of such of those of our neighbours as it is in our power to hinder.

The eye of flesh is the mirror of the inward eye. The body also has its own sense, that is, the left eye, and its own appetite, that is, the left hand. But the parts of the soul are called right, for the soul was created both with free-will and under the law of righteousness, that it might both see and do rightly. But the members of the body being not with free-will, but under the law of sin, are called the left. Yet He does not bid us cut off the sense or appetite of the flesh; we may retain the desires of the flesh, and yet not do thereafter, but we cannot cut off the having the desires. But when we wilfully purpose and think of evil, then our right desires and right will offend us, and therefore He bids us cut them off. And these we can cut off, because our will is free. Or otherwise; Every thing, however good in itself that offends ourselves or others, we ought to cut off from us. For example, to visit a woman with religious purposes, this good intent towards her may be called a right eye, but if often visiting her I have fallen into the net of desire, or if any looking on are offended, then the right eye, that is, something in itself good, offends me. For the right eye is good intention, the right hand is good desire.

For as we are every one members one of another, it is better that we should be saved without some one of these members, than that we perish together with them. Or, it is better that we should be saved without one good purpose, or one good work, than that while we seek to perform all good works we perish together with all.

The reason why the right eye and the right hand are to be cast away is subjoined in that, For it is better, &c.

And if thy right eye causeth thee to sin, pluck it out and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into gehenna. And if thy right hand causeth thee to sin, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into gehenna. When you hear "eye" and "hand" do not imagine that the Lord is speaking of parts of the body, for He would not in that case have specified "right eye" and "right hand." He is speaking instead of those who appear to be friends, but who are in fact harming us. Take, for example, a young man who has friends living in debauchery, and who is harmed by their bad influence. Cut these off from you, the Lord says, and perhaps you will also save them, when they come to their senses. And if you cannot save them, you will at least save yourself. But if you continue in your affection for them, both you and they will be destroyed.

In this connection, I can think of no more fitting example than that of a dearly beloved friend, for that which we ardently love is certainly that which we may rightly call a member. And we may rightly call this member a counselor, for he is, as it were, an eye that shows the way, and because he is on the right side, we may rightly call him a counselor in divine matters. In this way, a friend on the left side is indeed a counselor, but a counselor in earthly matters, which pertain to the needs of the body. However, it would be superfluous to talk about him insofar as he may be an occasion of sin, since not even the friend on the right side is to be spared. But a counselor in divine matters is actually a stumbling block if, under the guise of religion and doctrine, he is trying to lead us into some pernicious belief. Let the right hand therefore be understood as a beloved helper and minister in divine works. For, just as contemplation is properly represented by the word eye, so action is rightly represented by the word hand. In this way, the left hand signifies the works that are necessary for this life and body.

And it must be remembered that the most purely practical science does take this view of mental evil; it does not seek to argue with it like a heresy, but simply to snap it like a spell. Neither modern science nor ancient religion believes in complete free thought. Theology rebukes certain thoughts by calling them blasphemous. Science rebukes certain thoughts by calling them morbid. For example, some religious societies discouraged men more or less from thinking about sex. The new scientific society definitely discourages men from thinking about death; it is a fact, but it is considered a morbid fact. And in dealing with those whose morbidity has a touch of mania, modern science cares far less for pure logic than a dancing Dervish. In these cases it is not enough that the unhappy man should desire truth; he must desire health. Nothing can save him but a blind hunger for normality, like that of a beast. A man cannot think himself out of mental evil; for it is actually the organ of thought that has become diseased, ungovernable, and, as it were, independent. He can only be saved by will or faith. The moment his mere reason moves, it moves in the old circular rut; he will go round and round his logical circle, just as a man in a third-class carriage on the Inner Circle will go round and round the Inner Circle unless he performs the voluntary, vigorous, and mystical act of getting out at Gower Street. Decision is the whole business here; a door must be shut for ever. Every remedy is a desperate remedy. Every cure is a miraculous cure. Curing a madman is not arguing with a philosopher; it is casting out a devil. And however quietly doctors and psychologists may go to work in the matter, their attitude is profoundly intolerant--as intolerant as Bloody Mary. Their attitude is really this: that the man must stop thinking, if he is to go on living. Their counsel is one of intellectual amputation. If thy head offend thee, cut it off; for it is better, not merely to enter the Kingdom of Heaven as a child, but to enter it as an imbecile, rather than with your whole intellect to be cast into hell--or into Hanwell.

If a layman divorces his own wife, and takes another, or one divorced by another, let him be suspended.

A person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only a specious adultery. "For whosoever puts away his wife," says He, "and marries another, commits adultery;" [Matthew 19:9] not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. For he who deprives himself of his first wife, even though she be dead, is a cloaked adulterer, resisting the hand of God, because in the beginning God made one man and one woman, and dissolving the strictest union of flesh with flesh, formed for the intercourse of the race.

For He who gave the commandment that a writing of divorcement should be given, did not give the commandment that a wife should be put away; but whosoever shall put away, says He, let him give her a writing of divorcement, in order that the thought of such a writing might moderate the rash anger of him who was getting rid of his wife. And, therefore, He who sought to interpose a delay in putting away, indicated as far as He could to hard-hearted men that He did not wish separation.

(cont. Fasust. xix. 26.) The Lord's command here that a wife is not to be put away, is not contrary to the command in the Law, as Manichæus affirmed. Had the Law allowed any who would to put away his wife, to allow none to put away were indeed the very opposite of that. But the difficulty which Moses is careful to put in the way, shows that he was no good friend to the practice at all. For he required a bill of divorcement, the delay and difficulty of drawing out which would often cool headlong rage and disagreement, especially as by the Hebrew custom, it was the Scribes alone who were permitted to use the Hebrew letters, in which they professed a singular skill. To these then the law would send him whom it bid to give a writing of divorcement, when he would put away his wife, who mediating between him and his wife, might set them at one again, unless in minds too wayward to be moved by counsels of peace. Thus then He neither completed, by adding words to it, the law of them of old time, nor did He destroy the Law given by Moses by enacting things contrary to it, as Manichæus affirmed; but rather repeated and approved all that the Hebrew Law contained, so that whatever He spoke in His own person more than it had, had in view either explanation, which in divers obscure places of the Law was greatly needed, or the more punctual observance of its enactments.

(Serm. in Mont. i. 14.) By interposing this delay in the mode of putting away, the lawgiver showed as clearly as it could be shown to hard hearts, that he hated strife and disagreement. The Lord then so confirms this backwardness in the Law, as to except only one case, the cause of fornication; every other inconvenience which may have place, He bids us bear with patience in consideration of the plighted troth of wedlock.

(ubi sup.) Yea more, He declares the man who marries her who is put away an adulterer.

(ubi sup.) The Apostle has fixed the limit here, requiring her to abstain from a fresh marriage as long as her husband lives. After his death he allows her to marry. But if the woman may not marry while her former husband is alive, much less may she yield herself to unlawful indulgences. But this command of the Lord, forbidding to put away a wife, is not broken by him who lives with her not carnally but spiritually, in that more blessed wedlock of those that keep themselves chaste. A question also here arises as to what is that fornication which the Lord allows as a cause of divorce; whether carnal sin, or, according to the Scripture use of the word, any unlawful passion, as idolatry, avarice, in short all transgression of the Law by forbidden desires. For if the Apostle permits the divorce of a wife if she be unbelieving, (though indeed it is better not to put her away,) and the Lord forbids any divorce but for the cause of fornication, unbelief even must be fornication. And if unbelief be fornication, and idolatry unbelief, and covetousness idolatry, it is not to be doubted that covetousness is fornication. And if covetousness be fornication, who may say of any kind of unlawful desire that it is not a kind of fornication?

(Retract. i. 19. 6.) Yet I would not have the reader think this disputation of ours sufficient in a matter so arduous; for not every sin is spiritual fornication, nor does God destroy every sinner, for He hears His saints daily crying to Him, Forgive us our debts; but every man who goes a whoring and forsakes Him, him He destroys. Whether this be the fornication for which divorce is allowed is a most knotty question—for it is no question at all that it is allowed for the fornication by earnal sin.

(lib. 83. Quæst. q. ult.) If any affirm that the only fornication for which the Lord allows divorce is that of earnal sin, he may say that the Lord has spoken of believing husbands and wives, forbidding either to leave the other except for fornication.

(Serm. in Mont. i. 16.) Not only does He permit to put away a wife who commits fornication, but whoso puts away a wife by whom he is driven to commit fornication, puts her away for the cause of fornication, both for his own sake and hers.

(de Fid. et Op. 16.) He also rightly puts away his wife to whom she shall say, I will not be your wife unless you get me money by robbery; or should require any other crime to be done by him. If the husband here be truly penitent, he will cut off the limb that offends him.

(Serm. in Mont. i. 16.) Nothing can be more unjust than to put away a wife for fornication, and yourself to be guilty of that sin, for then is that happened, Wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself. (Rom. 2:1.) When He says, And he who marrieth her who is put away, committeth adultery, a question arises, does the woman also in this case commit adultery? For the Apostle directs either that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. There is this difference in the separation, namely, which of them was the cause of it. If the wife put away the husband and marry another, she appears to have left her first husband with the desire of change, which is an adulterous thought. But if she have been put away by her husband, yet he who marries her commits adultery, how can she be quit of the same guilt? And further, if he who marries her commits adultery, she is the cause of his committing adultery, which is what the Lord is here forbidding.

In all things our Lord and Savior reforms for the better the justice of the ancient law. Indeed, it seems that long ago a license for divorce was granted by Moses on tenuous grounds to the Jewish people who were living licentiously and serving their pleasures. This was due not to the system of law but to the unbridled pleasure of a carnal people unable to uphold the righteousness of the law according to rigorous standards.This concession was allowed, according to what the Lord himself said in another place in his reply to the inquiring Sadducees. For when they asked why Moses had allowed a bill of divorce to be given, the Lord answered, "Moses, by reason of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to put away your wives, but it was not so from the beginning." And now, not without good reason does our Lord and Savior, with that license removed, restore the precepts of his former constitution. For he orders that chaste wedlock be preserved by indissoluble law, showing that the law of marriage was first instituted by himself. For he said, "What therefore God has joined together, let no one put asunder."

Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, "Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;" and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive. Not to deck and adorn herself beyond what is becoming, renders a wife free of calumnious suspicion, while she devotes herself assiduously to prayers and supplications; avoiding frequent departures from the house, and shutting herself up as far as possible from the view of all not related to her, and deeming housekeeping of more consequence than impertinent trifling. "He that taketh a woman that has been put away," it is said, "committeth adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress," that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband.

(non occ.) The Lord had taught us above that our neighbour's wife was not to be coveted, He now proceeds to teach that our own wife is not to be put away.

But the Lord who brought peace and goodwill on earth, would have it reign especially in the matrimonial bond.

A man's dealings with women can be purely physical (they cannot really, of course: but I mean he can refuse to take other things into account, to the great damage of his soul (and body) and theirs); or 'friendly'; or he can be a 'lover' (engaging and blending all his affections and powers of mind and body in a complex emotion powerfully coloured and energized by 'sex'). This is a fallen world. The dislocation of sex-instinct is one of the chief symptoms of the Fall. The world has been 'going to the bad' all down the ages. The various social forms shift, and each new mode has its special dangers: but the 'hard spirit of concupiscence' has walked down every street, and sat leering in every house, since Adam fell. We will leave aside the 'immoral' results. These you desire not to be dragged into. To renunciation you have no call. 'Friendship' then? In this fallen world the 'friendship' that should be possible between all human beings, is virtually impossible between man and woman. The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favourite subject. He is as good every bit at catching you through generous romantic or tender motives, as through baser or more animal ones. This 'friendship' has often been tried: one side or the other nearly always fails. Later in life when sex cools down, it may be possible. It may happen between saints. To ordinary folk it can only rarely occur: two minds that have really a primarily mental and spiritual affinity may by accident reside in a male and a female body, and yet may desire and achieve a 'friendship' quite independent of sex. But no one can count on it. The other partner will let him (or her) down, almost certainly, by 'falling in love'. But a young man does not really (as a rule) want 'friendship', even if he says he does. There are plenty of young men (as a rule). He wants love: innocent, and yet irresponsible perhaps. Allas! Allas! that ever love was sinne! as Chaucer says. Then if he is a Christian and is aware that there is such a thing as sin, he wants to know what to do about it.

There is in our Western culture the romantic chivalric tradition still strong, though as a product of Christendom (yet by no means the same as Christian ethics) the times are inimical to it. It idealizes 'love' — and as far as it goes can be very good, since it takes in far more than physical pleasure, and enjoins if not purity, at least fidelity, and so self-denial, 'service', courtesy, honour, and courage. Its weakness is, of course, that it began as an artificial courtly game, a way of enjoying love for its own sake without reference to (and indeed contrary to) matrimony. Its centre was not God, but imaginary Deities, Love and the Lady. It still tends to make the Lady a kind of guiding star or divinity – of the old-fashioned 'his divinity' = the woman he loves – the object or reason of noble conduct. This is, of course, false and at best make-believe. The woman is another fallen human-being with a soul in peril. But combined and harmonized with religion (as long ago it was, producing much of that beautiful devotion to Our Lady that has been God's way of refining so much our gross manly natures and emotions, and also of warming and colouring our hard, bitter, religion) it can be very noble. Then it produces what I suppose is still felt, among those who retain even vestigiary Christianity, to be the highest ideal of love between man and woman. Yet I still think it has dangers. It is not wholly true, and it is not perfectly 'theocentric'. It takes, or at any rate has in the past taken, the young man's eye off women as they are, as companions in shipwreck not guiding stars. (One result is for observation of the actual to make the young man turn cynical.) To forget their desires, needs and temptations. It inculcates exaggerated notions of 'true love', as a fire from without, a permanent exaltation, unrelated to age, childbearing, and plain life, and unrelated to will and purpose. (One result of that is to make young folk look for a 'love' that will keep them always nice and warm in a cold world, without any effort of theirs; and the incurably romantic go on looking even in the squalor of the divorce courts).

Women really have not much part in all this, though they may use the language of romantic love, since it is so entwined in all our idioms. The sexual impulse makes women (naturally when unspoiled more unselfish) very sympathetic and understanding, or specially desirous of being so (or seeming so), and very ready to enter into all the interests, as far as they can, from ties to religion, of the young man they are attracted to. No intent necessarily to deceive: sheer instinct: the servient, helpmeet instinct, generously warmed by desire and young blood. Under this impulse they can in fact often achieve very remarkable insight and understanding, even of things otherwise outside their natural range: for it is their gift to be receptive, stimulated, fertilized (in many other matters than the physical) by the male. Every teacher knows that. How quickly an intelligent woman can be taught, grasp his ideas, see his point – and how (with rare exceptions) they can go no further, when they leave his hand, or when they cease to take a personal interest in him. But this is their natural avenue to love. Before the young woman knows where she is (and while the romantic young man, when he exists, is still sighing) she may actually 'fall in love'. Which for her, an unspoiled natural young woman, means that she wants to become the mother of the young man's children, even if that desire is by no means clear to her or explicit. And then things are going to happen: and they may be very painful and harmful, if things go wrong. Particularly if the young man only wanted a temporary guiding star and divinity (until he hitches his waggon to a brighter one), and was merely enjoying the flattery of sympathy nicely seasoned with a titillation of sex – all quite innocent, of course, and worlds away from 'seduction'.

You may meet in life (as in literature) women who are flighty, or even plain wanton — I don't refer to mere flirtatiousness, the sparring practice for the real combat, but to women who are too silly to take even love seriously, or are actually so depraved as to enjoy 'conquests', or even enjoy the giving of pain – but these are abnormalities, even though false teaching, bad upbringing, and corrupt fashions may encourage them. Much though modern conditions have changed feminine circumstances, and the detail of what is considered propriety, they have not changed natural instinct. A man has a life-work, a career, (and male friends), all of which could (and do where he has any guts) survive the shipwreck of 'love'. A young woman, even one 'economically independent', as they say now (it usually really means economic subservience to male commercial employers instead of to a father or a family), begins to think of the 'bottom drawer' and dream of a home, almost at once. If she really falls in love, the shipwreck may really end on the rocks. Anyway women are in general much less romantic and more practical. Don't be misled by the fact that they are more 'sentimental' in words – freer with 'darling', and all that. They do not want a guiding star. They may idealize a plain young man into a hero; but they don't really need any such glamour either to fall in love or to remain in it. If they have any delusion it is that they can 'reform' men. They will take a rotter open-eyed, and even when the delusion of reforming him fails, go on loving him. They are, of course, much more realistic about the sexual relation. Unless perverted by bad contemporary fashions they do not as a rule talk 'bawdy'; not because they are purer than men (they are not) but because they don't find it funny. I have known those who pretended to, but it is a pretence. It may be intriguing, interesting, absorbing (even a great deal too absorbing) to them: but it is just plumb natural, a serious, obvious interest; where is the joke?

They have, of course, still to be more careful in sexual relations, for all the contraceptives. Mistakes are damaging physically and socially (and matrimonially). But they are instinctively, when uncorrupt, monogamous. Men are not. .... No good pretending. Men just ain't, not by their animal nature. Monogamy (although it has long been fundamental to our inherited ideas) is for us men a piece of 'revealed' ethic, according to faith and not to the flesh. Each of us could healthily beget, in our 30 odd years of full manhood, a few hundred children, and enjoy the process. Brigham Young (I believe) was a healthy and happy man. It is a fallen world, and there is no consonance between our bodies, minds, and souls.

However, the essence of a fallen world is that the best cannot be attained by free enjoyment, or by what is called 'self-realization' (usually a nice name for self-indulgence, wholly inimical to the realization of other selves); but by denial, by suffering. Faithfulness in Christian marriage entails that: great mortification. For a Christian man there is no escape. Marriage may help to sanctify & direct to its proper object his sexual desires; its grace may help him in the struggle; but the struggle remains. It will not satisfy him – as hunger may be kept off by regular meals. It will offer as many difficulties to the purity proper to that state, as it provides easements. No man, however truly he loved his betrothed and bride as a young man, has lived faithful to her as a wife in mind and body without deliberate conscious exercise of the will, without self-denial. Too few are told that — even those brought up 'in the Church'. Those outside seem seldom to have heard it. When the glamour wears off, or merely works a bit thin, they think they have made a mistake, and that the real soulmate is still to find. The real soul-mate too often proves to be the next sexually attractive person that comes along. Someone whom they might indeed very profitably have married, if only —. Hence divorce, to provide the 'if only'. And of course they are as a rule quite right: they did make a mistake. Only a very wise man at the end of his life could make a sound judgement concerning whom, amongst the total possible chances, he ought most profitably to have married! Nearly all marriages, even happy ones, are mistakes: in the sense that almost certainly (in a more perfect world, or even with a little more care in this very imperfect one) both partners might have found more suitable mates. But the 'real soul-mate' is the one you are actually married to. You really do very little choosing: life and circumstance do most of it (though if there is a God these must be His instruments, or His appearances). It is notorious that in fact happy marriages are more common where the 'choosing' by the young persons is even more limited, by parental or family authority, as long as there is a social ethic of plain unromantic responsibility and conjugal fidelity. But even in countries where the romantic tradition has so far affected social arrangements as to make people believe that the choosing of a mate is solely the concern of the young, only the rarest good fortune brings together the man and woman who are really as it were 'destined' for one another, and capable of a very great and splendid love. The idea still dazzles us, catches us by the throat: poems and stories in multitudes have been written on the theme, more, probably, than the total of such loves in real life (yet the greatest of these tales do not tell of the happy marriage of such great lovers, but of their tragic separation; as if even in this sphere the truly great and splendid in this fallen world is more nearly achieved by 'failure' and suffering). In such great inevitable love, often love at first sight, we catch a vision, I suppose, of marriage as it should have been in an unfallen world. In this fallen world we have as our only guides, prudence, wisdom (rare in youth, too late in age), a clean, heart, and fidelity of will.....

My own history is so exceptional, so wrong and imprudent in nearly every point that it makes it difficult to counsel prudence. Yet hard cases make bad law; and exceptional cases are not always good guides for others.

[...]

Out of the darkness of my life, so much frustrated, I put before you the one great thing to love on earth: the Blessed Sacrament. .... There you will find romance, glory, honour, fidelity, and the true way of all your loves upon earth, and more than that: Death: by the divine paradox, that which ends life, and demands the surrender of all, and yet by the taste (or foretaste) of which alone can what you seek in your earthly relationships (love, faithfulness, joy) be maintained, or take on that complexion of reality, of eternal endurance, which every man's heart desires.

(Vers. 31 seqq.) However, it is said: Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. But I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. In the later part, the Savior explains this place more fully, that Moses commanded the certificate of divorce to be given because of the hardness of the hearts of the husbands, not granting a separation, but removing homicide. For it is far better, even if a sorrowful discord were to arise, for blood to be shed through hatred.

For touching Moses's allowance of divorce, the Lord and Saviour more fully explains in conclusion, that it was because of the hardness of the hearts of the husbands, not so much sanctioning discord, as checking bloodshed.

"Now it hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away, committeth adultery."

He goes not on to what lies before Him, until He have well cleared out the former topics. For, lo, He shows us yet another kind of adultery. And what is this? There was an ancient law made, that he who hated his wife, for whatever kind of cause, should not be forbidden to cast her out, and to bring home another instead of her. The law however did not command him simply to do this, but after giving the woman a writing of divorcement, that it might not be in her power to return to him again; that so at least the figure of the marriage might remain.

For if He had not enjoined this, but it were lawful first to cast her out, and take another, then afterwards to take back the former, the confusion was sure to be great, all men continually taking each others' wives; and the matter thenceforth would have been direct adultery. With a view to this, He devised, as no small mitigation, the writing of divorcement.

But these things were done by reason of another, a far greater wickedness; I mean, had He made it necessary to keep in the house her even that was hated, the husband, hating, would have killed her. For such was the race of the Jews. For they who did not spare children, who slew prophets, and "shed blood as water," much more would they have showed no mercy to women. For this cause He allowed the less, to remove the greater evil. For that this was not a primary law, hear Him saying, "Moses wrote these things according to the hardness of your hearts," that ye might not slay them in the house, but rather put them out. But forasmuch as He had taken away all wrath, having forbidden not murder only, but even the mere feeling of anger, He with ease introduces this law likewise. With this view also He is ever bringing to mind the former words, to signify that His sayings are not contrary to them, but in agreement: that He is enforcing, not overthrowing them; perfecting, not doing them away.

And observe Him everywhere addressing His discourse to the man. Thus, "He that putteth away his wife," saith He, "causeth her to commit adultery, and he that marrieth a woman put away, committeth adultery." That is, the former, though he take not another wife, by that act alone hath made himself liable to blame, having made the first an adulteress; the latter again is become an adulterer by taking her who is another's. For tell me not this, "the other hath cast her out;" nay, for when cast out she continues to be the wife of him that expelled her. Then lest He should render the wife more self-willed, by throwing it all upon him who cast her out, He hath shut against her also the doors of him who was afterwards receiving her; in that He saith, "He who marrieth her that is put away committeth adultery;" and so makes the woman chaste even though unwilling, and blocks up altogether her access to all, and suffers her not to give an occasion for jealousy. For she who hath been made aware that she positively must either keep the husband, who was originally allotted to her, or being cast out of that house, not have any other refuge;-she even against her will was compelled to make the best of her consort.

And if He discourse not at all unto her concerning these things, marvel not; for the woman is rather a weak creature. For this cause letting her go, in his threatening against the men He fully corrects her remissness. Just as if any one who had a prodigal child, leaving him, should rebuke those who make him such, and forbid them to have intercourse, or to approach him. And if that be galling, call to mind, I pray thee, His former sayings, on what terms He had blessed His hearers; and thou wilt see that it is very possible and easy. For he that is meek, and a peacemaker, and poor in spirit, and merciful, how shall he cast out his wife? He that is used to reconcile others, how shall he be at variance with her that is his own?

And not thus only, but in another way also He hath lightened the enactment: forasmuch as even for him He leaves one manner of dismissal, when He saith, "Except for the cause of fornication;" since the matter had else come round again to the same issue. For if He had commanded to keep her in the house, though defiling herself with many, He would have made the matter end again in adultery.

Seest thou how these sayings agree with what had gone before? For he who looks not with unchaste eyes upon another woman, will not commit whoredom; and not committing whoredom, he will give no occasion to the husband to cast out his wife.

Therefore, you see, after this He presses the point without reserve, and builds up this fear as a bulwark, urging on the husband the great danger, if he do cast her out, in that he makes himself accountable for her adultery. Thus, lest thou being told, "pluck out the eye," shouldest suppose this to be said even of a wife: He added in good time this corrective, in one way only giving leave to cast her out, but no otherwise.

Concerning chastity, He uttered such sentiments as these: "Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart before God." And, "If thy right eye offend thee, cut it out; for it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of heaven with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into everlasting fire." And, "Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced from another husband, committeth adultery." And, "There are some who have been made eunuchs of men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake; but all cannot receive this saying." So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners, and those who look upon a woman to lust after her. For not only he who in act commits adultery is rejected by Him, but also he who desires to commit adultery: since not only our works, but also our thoughts, are open before God.

For as we are every one members one of another, it is better that we should be saved without some one of these members, than that we perish together with them. Or, it is better that we should be saved without one good purpose, or one good work, than that while we seek to perform all good works we perish together with all.

For when Moses brought the children of Israel out of Egypt, they were indeed Hebrews in race, but Egyptians in manners. And it was caused by the Gentile manners that the husband hated the wife; and if he was not permitted to put her away, he was ready either to kill her or ill-treat her. Moses therefore suffered the bill of divorcement, not because it was a good practice in itself, but was the prevention of a worse evil.

If we ought to bear the burdens of strangers, in obedience to that of the Apostle, Bear ye one another's burdens, (Gal. 6:2.) how much more that of our wives and husbands? The Christian husband ought not only to keep himself from any defilement, but to be careful not to give others occasion of defilement; for so is their sin imputed to him who gave the occasion. Whoso then by putting away his wife gives another man occasion of committing adultery, is condemned for that crime himself.

"Sir, if any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with her?" And he said to me, "As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery." And I said to him, "What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices?" And he said, "The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery." And I said to him, "What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband?" And he said to me, "Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented. But not frequently. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God. In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband ought not to marry another, when his wife has been put away. In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way."

And concerning chastity, the holy word teaches us not only not to sin in act, but not even in thought, not even in the heart to think of any evil, nor look on another man's wife with our eyes to lust after her. Solomon, accordingly, who was a king and a prophet, said: "Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee: make straight paths for your feet." [Proverbs 4:25-26] And the voice of the Gospel teaches still more urgently concerning chastity, saying: "Whosoever looketh on a woman who is not his own wife, to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." [Matthew 5:28] "And he that marrieth," says [the Gospel], "her that is divorced from her husband, committeth adultery; and whosoever putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery." [Matthew 5:32] Because Solomon says: "Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Or can one walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goeth in to a married woman shall not be innocent." [Proverbs 6:27-29]

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. Moses commanded that if a man hated his wife, he should be separated from her lest anything worse occur. For if he hated her, he might kill her. Moses also commanded that the husband give the divorced woman a writing of divorcement. By this writing she could no longer return to him, thus preventing the confusion that would result if she did so and he was now living with another woman.

But it is rather that statement which the Lord Himself makes in another passage which is wont to disturb the minds of the little ones, who nevertheless earnestly desire to live now according to the precepts of Christ: If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. For it may seem a contradiction to the less intelligent, that here He forbids the putting away of a wife saving for the cause of fornication, but that elsewhere He affirms that no one can be a disciple of His who does not hate his wife. But if He were speaking with reference to sexual intercourse, He would not place father, and mother, and brothers in the same category. But how true it is, that the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and they that use violence take it by force! For how great violence is necessary, in order that a man may love his enemies, and hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers! For He commands both things who calls us to the kingdom of heaven. And how these things do not contradict each other, it is easy to show under His guidance; but after they have been understood, it is difficult to carry them out, although this too is very easy when He Himself assists us. For in that eternal kingdom to which He has vouchsafed to call His disciples, to whom He also gives the name of brothers, there are no temporal relationships of this sort. For there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; but Christ is all, and in all. And the Lord Himself says: For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Hence it is necessary that whoever wishes here and now to aim after the life of that kingdom, should hate not the persons themselves, but those temporal relationships by which this life of ours, which is transitory and is comprised in being born and dying, is upheld; because he who does not hate them, does not yet love that life where there is no condition of being born and dying, which unites parties in earthly wedlock.

Therefore, if I were to ask any good Christian who has a wife, and even though he may still be having children by her, whether he would like to have his wife in that kingdom; mindful in any case of the promises of God, and of that life where this incorruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality; though at present hesitating from the greatness, or at least from a certain degree of love, he would reply with execration that he is strongly averse to it. Were I to ask him again, whether he would like his wife to live with him there, after the resurrection, when she had undergone that angelic change which is promised to the saints, he would reply that he desired this as strongly as he reprobated the other. Thus a good Christian is found in one and the same woman to love the creature of God, whom he desires to be transformed and renewed; but to hate the corruptible and mortal conjugal connection and sexual intercourse: i.e. to love in her what is characteristic of a human being, to hate what belongs to her as a wife. So also he loves his enemy, not in as far as he is an enemy, but in as far as he is a man; so that he wishes the same prosperity to come to him as to himself, viz. that he may reach the kingdom of heaven rectified and renewed. This is to be understood both of father and mother and the other ties of blood, that we hate in them what has fallen to the lot of the human race in being born and dying, but that we love what can be carried along with us to those realms where no one says, My Father; but all say to the one God, Our Father: and no one says, My mother; but all say to that other Jerusalem, Our mother: and no one says, My brother; but each says respecting every other, Our brother. But in fact there will be a marriage on our part as of one spouse (when we have been brought together into unity), with Him who has delivered us from the pollution of this world by the shedding of His own blood. It is necessary, therefore, that the disciple of Christ should hate these things which pass away, in those whom he desires along with himself to reach those things which shall for ever remain; and that he should the more hate these things in them, the more he loves themselves.

A Christian may therefore live in concord with his wife, whether with her providing for a fleshly craving, a thing which the apostle speaks by permission, not by commandment; or providing for the procreation of children, which may be at present in some degree praiseworthy; or providing for a brotherly and sisterly fellowship, without any corporeal connection, having his wife as though he had her not, as is most excellent and sublime in the marriage of Christians: yet so that in her he hates the name of temporal relationship, and loves the hope of everlasting blessedness. For we hate, without doubt, that respecting which we wish at least, that at some time hereafter it should not exist; as, for instance, this same life of ours in the present world, which if we were not to hate as being temporal, we would not long for the future life, which is not conditioned by time. For as a substitute for this life the soul is put, respecting which it is said in that passage, If a man hate not his own soul also, he cannot be my disciple. For that corruptible meat is necessary for this life, of which the Lord Himself says, Is not the soul more than meat? i.e. this life to which meat is necessary. And when He says that He would lay down His soul for His sheep, He undoubtedly means this life, as He is declaring that He is going to die for us.

Here there arises a second question, when the Lord allows a wife to be put away for the cause of fornication, in what latitude of meaning fornication is to be understood in this passage—whether in the sense understood by all, viz. that we are to understand that fornication to be meant which is committed in acts of uncleanness; or whether, in accordance with the usage of Scripture in speaking of fornication (as has been mentioned above), as meaning all unlawful corruption, such as idolatry or covetousness, and therefore, of course, every transgression of the law on account of the unlawful lust [involved in it]. But let us consult the apostle, that we may not say rashly. And unto the married I command, says he, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. For it may happen that she departs for that cause for which the Lord gives permission to do so. Or, if a woman is at liberty to put away her husband for other causes besides that of fornication, and the husband is not at liberty, what answer shall we give respecting this statement which he has made afterwards, And let not the husband put away his wife? Wherefore did he not add, saving for the cause of fornication, which the Lord permits, unless because he wishes a similar rule to be understood, that if he shall put away his wife (which he is permitted to do for the cause of fornication), he is to remain without a wife, or be reconciled to his wife? For it would not be a bad thing for a husband to be reconciled to such a woman as that to whom, when nobody had dared to stone her, the Lord said, Go, and sin no more. And for this reason also, because He who says, It is not lawful to put away one's wife saving for the cause of fornication, forces him to retain his wife, if there should be no cause of fornication: but if there should be, He does not force him to put her away, but permits him, just as when it is said, Let it not be lawful for a woman to marry another, unless her husband be dead; if she shall marry before the death of her husband, she is guilty; if she shall not marry after the death of her husband, she is not guilty, for she is not commanded to marry, but merely permitted. If, therefore, there is a like rule in the said law of marriage between man and woman, to such an extent that not merely of the woman has the same apostle said, The wife has not power of her own body, but the husband; but he has not been silent respecting him, saying, And likewise also the husband has not power of his own body, but the wife;— if, then, the rule is similar, there is no necessity for understanding that it is lawful for a woman to put away her husband, saving for the cause of fornication, as is the case also with the husband.

It is therefore to be considered in what latitude of meaning we ought to understand the word fornication, and the apostle is to be consulted, as we were beginning to do. For he goes on to say, But to the rest speak I, not the Lord. Here, first, we must see who are the rest, for he was speaking before on the part of the Lord to those who are married, but now, as from himself, he speaks to the rest: hence perhaps to the unmarried, but this does not follow. For thus he continues: If any brother has a wife that believes not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. Hence, even now he is speaking to those who are married. What, then, is his object in saying to the rest, unless that he was speaking before to those who were so united, that they were alike as to their faith in Christ; but that now he is speaking to the rest, i.e. to those who are so united, that they are not both believers? But what does he say to them? If any brother has a wife that believes not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which has an husband that believes not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not put him away. If, therefore, he does not give a command as from the Lord, but advises as from himself, then this good result springs from it, that if any one act otherwise, he is not a transgressor of a command, just as he says a little after respecting virgins, that he has no command of the Lord, but that he gives his advice; and he so praises virginity, that whoever will may avail himself of it; yet if he shall not do so, he may not be judged to have acted contrary to a command. For there is one thing which is commanded, another respecting which advice is given, another still which is allowed. A wife is commanded not to depart from her husband; and if she depart, to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband: therefore it is not allowable for her to act otherwise. But a believing husband is advised, if he has an unbelieving wife who is pleased to dwell with him, not to put her away: therefore it is allowable also to put her away, because it is no command of the Lord that he should not put her away, but an advice of the apostle: just as a virgin is advised not to marry; but if she shall marry, she will not indeed adhere to the advice, but she will not act in opposition to a command. Allowance is given when it is said, But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. And therefore, if it is allowable that an unbelieving wife should be put away, although it is better not to put her away, and yet not allowable, according to the commandment of the Lord, that a wife should be put away, saving for the cause of fornication, [then] unbelief itself also is fornication.

For what do you say, O apostle? Surely, that a believing husband who has an unbelieving wife pleased to dwell with him is not to put her away? Just so, says he. When, therefore, the Lord also gives this command, that a man should not put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, why do you say here, I speak, not the Lord? For this reason, viz. that the idolatry which unbelievers follow, and every other noxious superstition, is fornication. Now, the Lord permitted a wife to be put away for the cause of fornication; but in permitting, He did not command it: He gave opportunity to the apostle for advising that whoever wished should not put away an unbelieving wife, in order that, perchance, in this way she might become a believer. For, says he, the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother. I suppose it had already occurred that some wives were embracing the faith by means of their believing husbands, and husbands by means of their believing wives; and although not mentioning names, he yet urged his case by examples, in order to strengthen his counsel. Then he goes on to say, Else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. For now the children were Christians, who were sanctified at the instance of one of the parents, or with the consent of both; which would not take place unless the marriage were broken up by one of the parties becoming a believer, and unless the unbelief of the spouse were borne with so far as to give an opportunity of believing. This, therefore, is the counsel of Him whom I regard as having spoken the words, Whatsoever you spend more, when I come again, I will repay you.

Moreover, if unbelief is fornication, and idolatry unbelief, and covetousness idolatry, it is not to be doubted that covetousness also is fornication. Who, then, in that case can rightly separate any unlawful lust whatever from the category of fornication, if covetousness is fornication? And from this we perceive, that because of unlawful lusts, not only those of which one is guilty in acts of uncleanness with another's husband or wife, but any unlawful lusts whatever, which cause the soul making a bad use of the body to wander from the law of God, and to be ruinously and basely corrupted, a man may, without crime, put away his wife, and a wife her husband, because the Lord makes the cause of fornication an exception; which fornication, in accordance with the above considerations, we are compelled to understand as being general and universal.

But when He says, saving for the cause of fornication, He has not said of which of them, whether the man or the woman. For not only is it allowed to put away a wife who commits fornication; but whoever puts away that wife even by whom he is himself compelled to commit fornication, puts her away undoubtedly for the cause of fornication. As, for instance, if a wife should compel one to sacrifice to idols, the man who puts away such an one puts her away for the cause of fornication, not only on her part, but on his own also: on her part, because she commits fornication; on his own, that he may not commit fornication. Nothing, however, is more unjust than for a man to put away his wife because of fornication, if he himself also is convicted of committing fornication. For that passage occurs to one: For wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you that judge do the same things. And for this reason, whosoever wishes to put away his wife because of fornication, ought first to be cleared of fornication; and a like remark I would make respecting the woman also.

But in reference to what He says, Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery, it may be asked whether she also who is married commits adultery in the same way as he does who marries her. For she also is commanded to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband; but this in the case of her departing from her husband. There is, however, a great difference whether she put away or be put away. For if she put away her husband, and marry another, she seems to have left her former husband from a desire of changing her marriage connection, which is, without doubt, an adulterous thought. But if she be put away by the husband, with whom she desired to be, he indeed who marries her commits adultery, according to the Lord's declaration; but whether she also be involved in a like crime is uncertain—although it is much less easy to discover how, when a man and woman have intercourse one with another with equal consent, one of them should be an adulterer, and the other not. To this is to be added the consideration, that if he commits adultery by marrying her who is divorced from her husband (although she does not put away, but is put away), she causes him to commit adultery, which nevertheless the Lord forbids. And hence we infer that, whether she has been put away, or has put away her husband, it is necessary for her to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.

Again, it is asked whether, if, with a wife's permission, either a barren one, or one who does not wish to submit to intercourse, a man shall take to himself another woman, not another man's wife, nor one separated from her husband, he can do so without being chargeable with fornication? And an example is found in the Old Testament history; but now there are greater precepts which the human race has reached after having passed that stage; and those matters are to be investigated for the purpose of distinguishing the ages of the dispensation of that divine providence which assists the human race in the most orderly way; but not for the purpose of making use of the rules of living. But yet it may be asked whether what the apostle says, The wife has not power of her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband has not power of his own body, but the wife, can be carried so far, that, with the permission of a wife, who possesses the power over her husband's body, a man can have intercourse with another woman, who is neither another man's wife nor divorced from her husband; but such an opinion is not to be entertained, lest it should seem that a woman also, with her husband's permission, could do such a thing, which the instinctive feeling of every one prevents.

And yet some occasions may arise, where a wife also, with the consent of her husband, may seem under obligation to do this for the sake of that husband himself; as, for instance, is said to have happened at Antioch about fifty years ago, in the times of Constantius. For Acyndinus, at that time prefect and at one time also consul, when he demanded of a certain public debtor the payment of a poundweight of gold, impelled by I know not what motive, did a thing which is often dangerous in the case of those magistrates to whom anything whatever is lawful, or rather is thought to be lawful, viz. threatened with an oath and with a vehement affirmation, that if he did not pay the foresaid gold on a certain day which he had fixed, he would be put to death. Accordingly, while he was being kept in cruel confinement, and was unable to rid himself of that debt, the dread day began to impend and to draw near. He happened, however, to have a very beautiful wife, but one who had no money wherewith to come to the relief of her husband; and when a certain rich man had had his desires inflamed by the beauty of this woman, and had learned that her husband was placed in that critical situation, he sent to her, promising in return for a single night, if she would consent to hold intercourse with him, that he would give her the pound of gold. Then she, knowing that she herself had not power over her body, but her husband, conveyed the intelligence to him, telling him that she was prepared to do it for the sake of her husband, but only if he himself, the lord by marriage of her body, to whom all that chastity was due, should wish it to be done, as if disposing of his own property for the sake of his life. He thanked her, and commanded that it should be done, in no wise judging that it was an adulterous embrace, because it was no lust, but great love for her husband, that demanded it, at his own bidding and will. The woman came to the villa of that rich man, did what the lewd man wished; but she gave her body only to her husband, who desired not, as was usual, his marriage rights, but life. She received the gold; but he who gave it took away stealthily what he had given, and substituted a similar bag with earth in it. When the woman, however, on reaching her home, discovered it, she rushed forth in public in order to proclaim the deed she had done, animated by the same tender affection for her husband by which she had been forced to do it; she goes to the prefect, confesses everything, shows the fraud that had been practised upon her. Then indeed the prefect first pronounces himself guilty, because the matter had come to this by means of his threats, and, as if pronouncing sentence upon another, decided that a pound of gold should be brought into the treasury from the property of Acyndinus; but that she (the woman) be installed as mistress of that piece of land whence she had received the earth instead of the gold. I offer no opinion either way from this story: let each one form a judgment as he pleases, for the history is not drawn from divinely authoritative sources; but yet, when the story is related, man's instinctive sense does not so revolt against what was done in the case of this woman, at her husband's bidding, as we formerly shuddered when the thing itself was set forth without any example. But in this section of the Gospel nothing is to be more steadily kept in view, than that so great is the evil of fornication, that, while married people are bound to one another by so strong a bond, this one cause of divorce is excepted; but as to what fornication is, that we have already discussed.

And accordingly the Lord Himself in another passage, when a question was asked Him as to this matter, gave this reply: Moses did so because of the hardness of your hearts. For however hard-hearted a man may be who wishes to put away his wife, when he reflects that, on a writing of divorcement being given her, she could then without risk marry another, he would be easily appeased. Our Lord, therefore, in order to confirm that principle, that a wife should not lightly be put away, made the single exception of fornication; but enjoins that all other annoyances, if any such should happen to spring up, be borne with fortitude for the sake of conjugal fidelity and for the sake of chastity; and he also calls that man an adulterer who should marry her that has been divorced by her husband. And the Apostle Paul shows the limit of this state of affairs, for he says it is to be observed as long as her husband lives; but on the husband's death he gives permission to marry. For he himself also held by this rule, and therein brings forward not his own advice, as in the case of some of his admonitions, but a command by the Lord when he says: And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. I believe that, according to a similar rule, if he shall put her away, he is to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to his wife. For it may happen that he puts away his wife for the cause of fornication, which our Lord wished to make an exception of. But now, if she is not allowed to marry while the husband is living from whom she has departed, nor he to take another while the wife is living whom he has put away, much less is it right to commit unlawful acts of fornication with any parties whomsoever. More blessed indeed are those marriages to be reckoned, where the parties concerned, whether after the procreation of children, or even through contempt of such an earthly progeny, have been able with common consent to practise self-restraint toward each other: both because nothing is done contrary to that precept whereby the Lord forbids a spouse to be put away (for he does not put her away who lives with her not carnally, but spiritually), and because that principle is observed to which the apostle gives expression, It remains, that they that have wives be as though they had none.

So the unfortunate man, who cannot tolerate the woman he has chosen from all the women in the world, is not encouraged to return to her and tolerate her, but encouraged to choose another woman whom he may in due course refuse to tolerate. And in all these cases the argument is the same; that the man in the intermediate state is unhappy. Probably he is unhappy, since he is abnormal; but the point is that he is permitted to loosen the universal bond which has kept millions of others normal. Because he has himself got into a hole, he is allowed to burrow in it like a rabbit and undermine a whole countryside.

But perhaps some Jewish man of those who dare to oppose the teaching of our Saviour will say, that when Jesus said, "Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, makes her an adulteress," [Matthew 5:32] He also gave permission to put away a wife like as well as Moses did, who was said by Him to have given laws for the hardness of heart of the people, and will hold that the saying, "Because he found in her an unseemly thing," [Deuteronomy 24:1] is to be reckoned as the same as fornication on account of which with good cause a wife could be cast away from her husband. But to him it must be said that, if she who committed adultery was according to the law to be stoned, clearly it is not in this sense that the unseemly thing is to be understood. For it is not necessary for adultery or any such great indecency to write a bill of divorcement and give it into the hands of the wife; but indeed perhaps Moses called every sin an unseemly thing, on the discovery of which by the husband in the wife, as not finding favour in the eyes of her husband, the bill of divorcement is written, and the wife is sent away from the house of her husband; "but from the beginning it has not been so." [Matthew 19:8] After this our Saviour says, not at all permitting the dissolution of marriages for any other sin than fornication alone, when detected in the wife, "Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, makes her an adulteress." [Matthew 5:32] But it might be a subject for inquiry if on this account He hinders any one putting away a wife, unless she be caught in fornication, for any other reason, as for example for poisoning, or for the destruction during the absence of her husband from home of an infant born to them, or for any form of murder whatsoever. And further, if she were found despoiling and pillaging the house of her husband, though she was not guilty of fornication, one might ask if he would with reason cast away such an one, seeing that the Saviour forbids any one to put away his own wife saving for the cause of fornication. In either case there appears to be something monstrous, whether it be really monstrous, I do not know; for to endure sins of such heinousness which seem to be worse than adultery or fornication, will appear to be irrational; but again on the other hand to act contrary to the design of the teaching of the Saviour, every one would acknowledge to be impious. I wonder therefore why He did not say, Let no one put away his own wife saving for the cause of fornication, but says, "Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, makes her an adulteress." [Matthew 5:32] For confessedly he who puts away his wife when she is not a fornicator, makes her an adulteress, so far as it lies with him, for if, "when the husband is living she shall be called an adulteress if she be joined to another man;" [Romans 7:3] and when by putting her away, he gives to her the excuse of a second marriage, very plainly in this way he makes her an adulteress. But as to whether her being caught in the act of poisoning or committing murder, furnishes any defense of his dismissal of her, you can inquire yourselves; for the husband can also in other ways than by putting her away cause his own wife to commit adultery; as, for example, allowing her to do what she wishes beyond what is fitting, and stooping to friendship with what men she wishes, for often from the simplicity of husbands such false steps happen to wives; but whether there is a ground of defense or not for such husbands in the case of such false steps, you will inquire carefully, and deliver your opinion also in regard to the difficult questions raised by us on the passage. And even he who withholds himself from his wife makes her oftentimes to be an adulteress when he does not satisfy her desires, even though he does so under the appearance of greater gravity and self-control. And perhaps this man is more culpable who, so far as it rests with him, makes her an adulteress when he does not satisfy her desires than he who, for other reason than fornication, has sent her away — for poisoning or murder or any of the most grievous sins. But as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seem to be married to a man, while the former husband is still living, so also the man who seems to marry her who has been put away, does not so much marry her as commit adultery with her according to the declaration of our Saviour.

For in the Gospel of Matthew he says, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery." He also is deemed equally guilty of adultery, who marries a woman put away by her husband.

But another reason, too, conspires; nay, not another, but (one)which imposed the law of "the beginning," and moved the will of God to prohibit divorce: the fact that (he)who shall have dismissed his wife, except on the ground of adultery, makes her commit adultery; and (he) who shall have married a (woman) dismissed by her husband, of course commits adultery. A divorced woman cannot even marry legitimately; and if she commit any such act without the name of marriage, does it not fall under the category of adultery, in that adultery is crime in the way of marriage? Such is God's verdict, within straiter limits than men's, that universally, whether through marriage or promiscuously, the admission of a second man (to intercourse) is pronounced adultery by Him.

Meantime withal, while prohibiting divorce, he uses the Lord's precept against adultery as an instrument for providing, in place of divorce, either perseverance in widowhood, or else a reconciliation of peace: inasmuch as "whoever shall have dismissed a wife (for any cause) except the cause of adultery, maketh her commit adultery; and he who marrieth one dismissed by a husband committeth adultery." What powerful remedies does the Holy Spirit furnish, to prevent, to wit, the commission anew of that which He wills not should anew be pardoned!

Through these things he clearly teaches that it is not unreasonable divorce which dissolves a marriage in God's sight. Rather, irresponsible action dissolves a marriage, even if the divorce is legal. For the whole teaching of Christ judges things according to one's disposition.

He has mixed his statement about divorce with one concerning fornication, for men who turn away from their own spouses out of a desire for intercourse with other women have committed adultery. The same applies to women. Thus he does not allow the divorced woman to remarry. The man she lives with must pay the penalties of an adulterer. For even if, to all appearances, she is separated from her husband, in spiritual reality she remains his body. At the beginning, she was joined and fitted by God to her husband as "one flesh." For the same reason, neither is the man able to marry another woman.

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Christ does not abolish the Mosaic decrees but corrects them by making the husband fearful of hating his wife without cause. If he divorces her with good cause, that is, if she has committed adultery, he is not condemned. But if there has been no fornication, he is condemned, for by divorcing her he compels her to commit adultery. And he that takes her is also an adulterer, for if he had not taken her she would have returned and submitted to her husband. For a Christian must be a peacemaker, both towards others and even more so towards his own wife.

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.