Friday of the 3rd week after Pentecost

The prize is superior insofar as it comes from God. It is not the same thing to acknowledge in a human manner and to be acknowledged in God's manner.… The believer then must acknowledge God with both heart and mouth. "For one believes with one's heart and so is justified, and one confesses with his one's lips and so is saved."

No doubt he must very soon realise that his own faith is in direct opposition to the assumptions on which all the conversation of his new friends is based. I don't think that matters much provided that you can persuade him to postpone any open acknowledgment of the fact, and this, with the aid of shame, pride, modesty and vanity, will be easy to do. As long as the postponement lasts he will be in a false position. He will be silent when he ought to speak and laugh when he ought to be silent. He will assume, at first only by his manner, but presently by his words, all sorts of cynical and sceptical attitudes which are not really his. But if you play him well, they may become his. All mortals tend to turn into the thing they are pretending to be. This is elementary.

This He says in conclusion, because it behoves them after being confirmed by such teaching, to have a confident freedom in confessing God.

This teaches us, that in what measure we have borne witness to Him upon earth, in the same shall we have Him to bear witness to us in heaven before the face of God the Father.

Having, you see, cast out the fear and distress that was agitating their soul; by what follows He also encourages them again, casting out fear by fear; and not by fear only, but also by the hope of great prizes; and He threatens with much authority, in both ways urging them to speak boldly for the truth; and saith further,

"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in Heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in Heaven."

Thus not from the good things only, but also from the opposites, doth He urge them; and He concludes with the dismal part.

And mark His exact care; He said not "me," but "in me," implying that not by a power of his own, but by the help of grace from above, the confessor makes his confession. But of him that denies, He said not, "in me," but "me;" for he having become destitute of the gift, his denial ensues.

"Why then is he blamed," one may say, "if being forsaken, he denies?" Because the being forsaken is the fault of the forsaken person himself.

But why is He not satisfied with the faith in the mind, but requires also the confession with the mouth? To train us up to boldness in speech, and a more abundant love and determination, and to raise us on high. Wherefore also He addresses Himself to all. Nor doth He at all apply this to the disciples only in person, for not them, but their disciples too, He is now rendering noble hearted. Because he that hath learnt this lesson will not only teach with boldness, but will likewise suffer all things easily, and with ready mind. This at any rate brought over many to the apostles, even their belief in this word. Because both in the punishment the infliction is heavier, and in the good things the recompense greater. I mean, whereas he that doeth right hath the advantage in time, and the delay of the penalty is counted for gain by the sinner: He hath introduced an equivalent, or rather a much greater advantage, the increase of the recompenses. "Hast thou the advantage," saith He, "by having first confessed me here? I also will have the advantage of thee, by giving thee greater things, and unspeakably greater; for I will confess thee there." Seest thou that both the good things and the evil things are there to be dispensed? Why then hasten and hurry thyself? and why seek thy rewards here, thou who art "saved by hope?" Wherefore, whether thou hast done anything good, and not received its recompense here, be not troubled (for with increase, in the time to come, the reward thereof awaits thee): or whether thou hast done any evil, and not paid the penalty, be not easy; for there will vengeance receive thee, if thou turn not and amend.

It should be known that not even Pagans can deny the existence of God, but the infidels may deny that the Son as well as the Father is God. The Son confesses men before the Father, because by the Son we have access to the Father, and because the Son saith, Come, ye blessed of my Father. (Mat. 25:34.)

Or, He confesses Jesus who by that faith that worketh by love, obediently fulfils His commands; he denies Him who is disobedient.

Figuratively; Christ is the head, the Apostles the hairs, who are well said to be numbered, because the names of the saints are written in heaven.

Here is to be understood that confession of which the Apostle speaks, With the heart men believe unto justification, with the month confession is made unto salvation. (Rom. 10:10.) That none therefore might suppose that he could be saved without confession of the mouth, He says not only, He that shall confess me, but adds, before men; and again, He that shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

And thus He will deny the man that hath denied Him, in that he shall not have access to the Father through Him, and shall be banished from seeing either the Son or the Father in their divine nature.

He, moreover, affirms also that to no man is the Father known, but to His Son; and promises that, as the Son of the Father, He will confess those who confess Him, and deny those who deny Him, before His Father.

If to flee, how to suffer? If to suffer, how to flee? In fact, what utter inconsistency in the decrees of One who commands to flee, and yet urges to suffer, which is the very opposite! "Him who will confess Me, I also will confess before My Father." How will he confess, fleeing? How flee, confessing? "Of him who shall be ashamed of Me, will I also be ashamed before My Father.

"Whosoever therefore shall confess in Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father Who is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father Who is in heaven." He exhorts them to bear witness even unto martyrdom. For belief only within one's soul does not suffice; He desires also the belief confessed with the tongue. He did not say, "Whosoever shall confess Me," but "in Me" (ostis omologesei en emoi), that is, in My strength. For he who confesses does so aided by the grace which is from above. But as for him who denies, Christ did not say "in Me," but "whosoever shall deny Me," showing that he denies because he does not have the aid from above. Therefore everyone who confesses that Christ is God will find Christ giving confession of him to the Father, that he is a true servant. But those who deny will hear the words "I do not know you."

So everyone who acknowledges me before men I will acknowledge before my Father. Here he touches on the advantage which accrues from acknowledging him; secondly, the loss which comes from denying him (v. 33).

He says, therefore: Thus I will that you suffer and die. Why? Certainly for your benefit, because he that acknowledges me before men... And he crushes the error of the one who said that it is not necessary to confess the faith except before God in the heart but not with the tongue before men. This is false, because "one believes with the heart unto righteousness, but confession is made with the mouth unto salvation" (Rom 10:4). I will acknowledge him before my Father, namely, when I shall have access to the Father, when it will be said: "Come, you blessed of my Father..." (Mt 25:34). But they could say: You are on earth, so this has little value; therefore, he adds, who is in heaven, and he has power.

For why should you skulk withal, when you contaminate your own conscience by your neighbour's ignorance? If you are not unknown to be a Christian, you are tempted, and you act as if you were not a Christian against your neighbour's conscience; if, however, you shall be disguised withal, you are the slave of the temptation. At all events, whether in the latter or the former way, you are guilty of being "ashamed of God." But "whosoever shall be ashamed of Me in the presence of men, of him will I too be ashamed," says He, "in the presence of my Father who is in the heavens."

I refer to the bird which is peculiar to the East, famous for its singularity, marvelous from its posthumous life, which renews its life in a voluntary death; its dying day is its birthday, for on it it departs and returns; once more a phoenix where just now there was none; once more himself, but just now out of existence; another, yet the same. What can be more express and more significant for our subject; or to what other thing can such a phenomenon bear witness? God even in His own Scripture says: "The righteous shall flourish like the phoenix; " that is, shall flourish or revive, from death, from the grave-to teach you to believe that a bodily substance may be recovered even from the fire. Our Lord has declared that we are "better than many sparrows: " well, if not better than many a phoenix too, it were no great thing. But must men die once for all, while birds in Arabia are sure of a resurrection?

But whoever denies me before men in word, as Peter, or in action, as those of whom it says in Titus (1:16): "Some profess with their mouth that they know God, but in their deeds they deny him." I also will deny them, when he will say, as above (7:23): "I have never known you," i.e., I have never approved you.

The unbelievers' disagreement with the believers will produce a distinction. Now since the unbelievers think that peacemaking is their proper duty, they say, "Do not believe that it is best under all circumstances to be saved, for you owe it as a duty to be at peace with all." But there are some who are preparing for battle against our peace, and you should not let their false peace rule. For the only true concord is according to God … and this above all is peace.

(Quæst. in Matt. q. 3.) Otherwise; I am come to set a man against his father; for he renounces the Devil, who was his son; the daughter against her mother, that is, the people of God against the city of the world, that is, the wicked society of mankind, which is spoken of in Scripture under the names of Babylon, Egypt, Sodom, and other names. The daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, that is, the Church against the Synagogue, which according to the flesh, brought forth Christ the spouse of the Church. They are severed by the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And a man's foes are they of his household, those, that is, with whom he before lived as intimates.

It is so in another way with that magnificent menace about bringing into the world a sword to sunder and divide. Nobody could have guessed then either how it could be fulfilled or how it could be justified. Indeed some freethinkers are still so simple as to fall into the trap and be shocked at a phrase so deliberately defiant. They actually complain of the paradox for not being a platitude.

It is just here that Buddhism is on the side of modern pantheism and immanence. And it is just here that Christianity is on the side of humanity and liberty and love. Love desires personality; therefore love desires division. It is the instinct of Christianity to be glad that God has broken the universe into little pieces, because they are living pieces. It is her instinct to say "little children love one another" rather than to tell one large person to love himself. This is the intellectual abyss between Buddhism and Christianity; that for the Buddhist or Theosophist personality is the fall of man, for the Christian it is the purpose of God, the whole point of his cosmic idea. The world-soul of the Theosophists asks man to love it only in order that man may throw himself into it. But the divine centre of Christianity actually threw man out of it in order that he might love it. The oriental deity is like a giant who should have lost his leg or hand and be always seeking to find it; but the Christian power is like some giant who in a strange generosity should cut off his right hand, so that it might of its own accord shake hands with him. We come back to the same tireless note touching the nature of Christianity; all modern philosophies are chains which connect and fetter; Christianity is a sword which separates and sets free. No other philosophy makes God actually rejoice in the separation of the universe into living souls. But according to orthodox Christianity this separation between God and man is sacred, because this is eternal. That a man may love God it is necessary that there should be not only a God to be loved, but a man to love him. All those vague theosophical minds for whom the universe is an immense melting-pot are exactly the minds which shrink instinctively from that earthquake saying of our Gospels, which declare that the Son of God came not with peace but with a sundering sword. The saying rings entirely true even considered as what it obviously is; the statement that any man who preaches real love is bound to beget hate. It is as true of democratic fraternity as of divine love; sham love ends in compromise and common philosophy; but real love has always ended in bloodshed. Yet there is another and yet more awful truth behind the obvious meaning of this utterance of our Lord. According to Himself the Son was a sword separating brother and brother that they should for an æon hate each other. But the Father also was a sword, which in the black beginning separated brother and brother, so that they should love each other at last.

Instead of looking at books and pictures about the New Testament I looked at the New Testament. There I found an account, not in the least of a person with his hair parted in the middle or his hands clasped in appeal, but of an extraordinary being with lips of thunder and acts of lurid decision, flinging down tables, casting out devils, passing with the wild secrecy of the wind from mountain isolation to a sort of dreadful demagogy; a being who often acted like an angry god--and always like a god. Christ had even a literary style of his own, not to be found, I think, elsewhere; it consists of an almost furious use of the a fortiori. His "how much more" is piled one upon another like castle upon castle in the clouds. The diction used about Christ has been, and perhaps wisely, sweet and submissive. But the diction used by Christ is quite curiously gigantesque; it is full of camels leaping through needles and mountains hurled into the sea. Morally it is equally terrific; he called himself a sword of slaughter, and told men to buy swords if they sold their coats for them. That he used other even wilder words on the side of non-resistance greatly increases the mystery; but it also, if anything, rather increases the violence. We cannot even explain it by calling such a being insane; for insanity is usually along one consistent channel. The maniac is generally a monomaniac. Here we must remember the difficult definition of Christianity already given; Christianity is a superhuman paradox whereby two opposite passions may blaze beside each other. The one explanation of the Gospel language that does explain it, is that it is the survey of one who from some supernatural height beholds some more startling synthesis.

(interlin.) Or connect it with what has gone before, As the fear of death ought not to draw you away, so neither ought carnal affection.

(interlin.) Otherwise; He means, I am not come among men to strengthen their carnal affections, but to cut them off with the sword of the Spirit; whence it is rightly added, And a man's foes are they of his household.

Mystically; A sword is the sharpest of all weapons, and thence it is the emblem of the right of authority, the impartiality of justice, the correction of offenders. The word of God, we may remember, is likened to a sword; (Eph. 6:17. Heb. 4:12.) so here the sword that is sent upon the earth is His preaching poured into the heart of man.

(Verse 34) Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth: I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. Above, he had said: What I tell you in the dark, say in the light; and what you hear in your ear, preach on the housetops. Now he explains what follows after preaching. By the faith of Christ, the whole world is divided against itself: every household had both unbelievers and believers, and therefore a good war was sent, so that a bad peace would be broken. It is written that in Genesis God did a certain thing against the rebellious men who had been moved from the East and were hastening to build a tower (Gen. XI) through which they might penetrate the heights of heaven, in order to divide their languages. Therefore, in the psalm, David prays: Disperse, O Lord, the nations who desire war (Ps. LXVII, 32).

He had before said, What I say to you in darkness, that speak ye in the light; He now tells them what will follow upon that preaching, saying, Think not that I am come to send peace upon earth; I am not come to send peace, but a sword.

For in the matter of belief in Christ, the whole world was divided against itself; each house had its believers and its unbelievers; and therefore was this holy war sent, that an unholy peace might be broken through.

Again, He sets forth the things that are more painful, and that with great aggravation: and the objection they were sure to meet Him with, He prevents them by stating. I mean, lest hearing this, they should say, "For, this then art Thou come, to destroy both us, and them that obey us, and to fill the earth with war?" He first saith Himself, "I am not come to send peace on earth."

How then did He enjoin them to pronounce peace on entering into each house? And again, how did the angels say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace"? And how came all the prophets too to publish it for good tidings? Because this more than anything is peace, when the diseased is cut off, when the mutinous is removed. For thus it is possible for Heaven to be united to earth. Since the physician too in this way preserves the rest of the body, when he amputates the incurable part; and the general, when he has brought to a separation them that were agreed in mischief. Thus it came to pass also in the case of that famous tower; for their evil peace was ended by their good discord, and peace made thereby. Thus Paul also divided them that were conspiring against him. And in Naboth's case that agreement was at the same time more grievous than any war. For concord is not in every case a good thing, since even robbers agree together.

The war is not then the effect of His purpose, but of their temper. For His will indeed was that all should agree in the word of godliness; but because they fell to dissension, war arises. Yet He spake not so; but what saith He? "I am not come to send peace;" comforting them. As if He said, For think not that ye are to blame for these things; it is I who order them so, because men are so disposed. Be not ye therefore confounded, as though the events happened against expectation. To this end am I come, to send war among men; for this is my will. Be not ye therefore troubled, when the earth is at war, as though it were subject to some hostile device. For when the worse part is rent away, then after that Heaven is knit unto the better.

And these things He saith, as strengthening them against the evil suspicion of the multitude.

And He said not "war," but what was more grievous than it, "a sword." And if there be somewhat painful in these expressions, and of an alarming emphasis, marvel not. For, it being His will to train their ears by the severity of His words, lest in their difficult circumstances they should start aside, He fashioned His discourse accordingly; lest any one should say it was by flattery He persuaded them, and by concealing the hardships; therefore even to those things which merited to be otherwise expressed, He gave by His words the more galling and painful turn. For it is better to see persons' gentleness in things, than in words.

"I have not come to cast peace upon the earth," why then dost thou hasten to have peace with the children of the earth? I cry War, and yet thou hastenest to peace; I preach Division, and thou hastenest to strengthen concord. I have come to set a man against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the bridegroom against the bride, and thou hastenest to salute the children of thy house, and to sew together with thy folly the rent which I have made in the world. I have rent this garment of concord because it was woven wholly of error, and in its place I have woven another garment of heavenly peace; do thou also weave this garment, and hasten not to sew an old garment. I have put an end to the world which was wont to increase wickedness in every man, and I have scattered that brotherhood which was assembled for the gathering together of sins; hasten thou not to become a companion of those who work iniquity.

Or, He confesses Jesus who by that faith that worketh by love, obediently fulfils His commands; he denies Him who is disobedient.

For no other mutual rights can be preserved between those who are at war in their creeds.

But who shall produce these results with the sword, and not their opposites rather-deceit, and harshness, and injury-which, it must be confessed, are the proper business of battles? Let us see, therefore, whether that is not some other sword, which has so different an action. Now the Apostle John, in the Apocalypse, describes a sword which proceeded from the mouth of God as "a doubly sharp, two-edged one." This may be understood to be the Divine Word, who is doubly edged with the two testaments of the law and the gospel-sharpened with wisdom, hostile to the devil, arming us against the spiritual enemies of all wickedness and concupiscence, and cutting us off from the dearest objects for the sake of God's holy name. If, however, you will not acknowledge John, you have our common master Paul, who "girds our loins about with truth, and puts on us the breastplate of righteousness, and shoes us with the preparation of the gospel of peace, not of war; who bids us take the shield of faith, wherewith we may be able to quench all the fiery darts of the devil, and the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which (he says) is the word of God." This sword the Lord Himself came to send on earth, and not peace. If he is your Christ, then even he is a warrior. If he is not a warrior, and the sword he brandishes is an allegorical one, then the Creator's Christ in the psalm too may have been girded with the figurative sword of the Word, without any martial gear.

Here I endure the entire course (in question), the Lord Himself not appointing a different quarter of the world for my doing so. For what does He add after finishing with confession and denial? "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, but a sword,"-undoubtedly on the earth. "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." For so is it brought to pass, that the brother delivers up the brother to death, and the father the son: and the children rise up against the parents, and cause them to die. And he who endureth to the end let that man be saved. So that this whole course of procedure characteristic of the Lord's sword, which has been sent not to heaven, but to earth, makes confession also to be there, which by enduring to the end is to issue in the suffering of death.

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Harmony is not always a good thing, while separation sometimes is. The sword, then, is the word of faith which severs our bond to our families and relatives when they hinder our piety towards God. For He does not tell us simply to separate ourselves from them, but only when they will not come with us, and especially when they hinder us in our faith.

Do not think I have come to bring peace on earth... Above he urged the disciples not to abandon preaching the truth either on account of reproaches or fear of death. Here he urges that they not cease even on account of personal attachment. First, he shows that the separation from personal attachment is close at hand for them; secondly, how they should act in this matter (v. 37). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he excludes a supposed intention; secondly, he proposes his own plan (v. 34b); thirdly, he explains (v. 35).

He says, therefore: They could think thus: Why is it, Lord, that so many things will happen to us? With your coming we believed that we would have peace. Therefore, he says, Do not think... But what is he saying? Is it not recorded in Luke (2:14) that at the Lord's birth the angels sang, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will"? And the first time the bishop turns toward the people he says, "Peace be to you," and above the Lord announced peace. So it must be said that there are two kinds of peace, namely, good and bad. By the word "peace" is signified concord. There is evil peace, about which Wisdom (14:22) says: "They live in great strife due to ignorance, and they call such great evils peace." That is the peace of personal affections. I have not come to bring such peace; hence Revelation (6:4): "Its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth." There is also a good peace, about which Ephesians (2:14) says: "He is our peace who made both one"; wherefore, the angels said: "And on earth peace to men of good will." Therefore, I have not come to bring peace but a sword. It is the function of a sword to divide. This sword is the word of God: "The word of God is living and efficacious, and more piercing than a two-edged sword" (Heb 4:12). Hence, too: "The sword of the spirit, which is the word of God" (Eph 6:17). That sword was brought to this earth. Some believed and some did not. Consequently, a war takes place, as it says in Galatians (4:9): "How are you turned again to the weak and needy elements, which you want to serve again...?" Hence he came to separate that division. Therefore, he came to bring a sword..., i.e., the word, but partly; because some believed, and this came from him, and some did not, and this was from their own wickedness. Yet this, too, is caused by him, because he permits it, as it says in Romans (1:26): "For this reason God gave them over to their wicked desires."

The hard sayings of our Lord are wholesome to those only who find them hard. There is a terrible chapter in M. Mauriac's Vie de Jesus. When the Lord spoke of brother and child against parent, the other disciples were horrified. Not so Judas. He took to it as a duck takes to water: "Pourquoi cette stupeur?, se demande Judas... aime dans le Christ cette vue simple, ce regard de Dieu sur l'horreur humaine." ("'Why this stupefaction?' asked Judas...He loved in Christ his simple view of things, his divine glance at human depravity.") For there are two states of mind which face the dominical paradoxes without flinching. God guard us from one of them.

The Lord himself proclaims peace, which is why the apostle Paul also admonishes peace and says, "For he is our peace." This means, of course, the peace of those who believe and receive. But in what way does he not bring peace to the earth? When the daughter believed and the father remained an unbeliever, "what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?" For the proclamation of peace caused a division. With a believing son and an unbelieving father there is necessarily strife. The peace that was proclaimed itself caused a division: a good division! For it is in peace that we are saved.

And so when we are renewed by the water of baptism through the power of the Word, we are separated from the sins and ancestors of our origin; we are cut away from the inordinate love of father and mother as if by an incision from God's sword, and we are divided from them. And as we shed our former self with its sins and unfaithfulness and are made new by the Spirit in mind and body, we will necessarily detest the habits of our old, inborn way of life.

The five inhabiting one house, whom He divides three against two, and two against three, we may explain thus; The three are the three parts of man, the body, the soul, and the will; for as the soul is bestowed in the body, so the will has power of using both in any way it chooses; and thence when a law is given it is given to the will. But this is only found in those who were first formed by God. By the sin and unbelief of the first parent, all the generations of men since have had sin for the father of their body, and unbelief for the mother of their soul. And as each man has his will within him, there are thus five in one house. When then we are renewed in the laver of baptism, by virtue of the word we are set apart from our original guilt, and severed, as it were, by the sword of God, from the lusts of this our father and mother, and thus there is great discord made in one house.

(Verse 35) For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be those of his own household. This passage is written in almost the same words in the prophet Micah (Micah 7). And it should be noted whenever a testimony from the Old Testament is presented, whether the meaning alone or also the wording agrees.

These are almost the words of the Prophet Micah. (Mic. 7:6.) We should always take note when a passage is cited out of the Old Testament, whether the sense only, or the very words are given.

Wherefore neither with this was He satisfied, but unfolds also the very nature of the war, signifying it to be far more grievous even than a civil war; and He saith, "I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

For not friends only, saith He, nor fellow citizens, but even kinsmen shall stand against one another, and nature shall be divided against herself. "For I am come," saith He, "to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." That is, not merely among those of the same household is the war, but among those that are dearest, and extremely near to each other. And this more than anything signifies His power, that hearing these things, they both accepted Him, and set about persuading all others.

Yet was it not He that did this: of course not: but the wickedness of the other sort: nevertheless He saith it is His own doing. For such is the custom of the Scripture. Yea, and elsewhere also He saith, "God hath given them eyes that they should not see:" and here He speaks in this way, in order that having, as I said before, exercised themselves in these words, they might not be confounded on suffering reproaches and insults.

But if any think these things intolerable, let them be reminded of an ancient history. For in times of old also this came to pass, which thing especially shows the old covenant to be akin to the new, and Him who is here speaking, the same with the giver of those commands. I mean that in the case of the Jews also, when each had slain his neighbor, then He laid aside His anger against them; both when they made the calf, and when they were joined to Baal Peor. Where then are they that say, "That God is evil, and this good?" For behold He hath filled the world with blood, shed by kinsmen. Nevertheless even this we affirm to be a work of great love towards man.

But someone could say: You have come to separate. Between whom have you come? Was it not between distant persons and strangers? He shows that it was not, but between those most closely united. For, he says, I have come to set a man against his father... For the closest union is twofold: one is the natural union; the other, domestic, or of the household; therefore, he brings a word against both. Natural friendship is based on a natural act, which is generation, or the union of man and wife; domestic or household, on kinship. Against the first, therefore, I have come to separate a man from his father.

But there is a question. It was stated above, "I have come not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it." But the Law commands that one honor his father... I answer that you are obliged to obey him, when it does not draw one from the love of God; but when it does draw one away, you are not bound to obey. And a daughter against a mother; and this is in regard to generation. And a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And in this the New Law shares with the Old, as it is recorded in Exodus (32:26): "Whoever is on the Lord's side, come to me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him. And he said to them: 'Put every man his sword on his side..., and let him slay his brother and friend.'" And this was regarded as worthy of praise for the Levites, as it says in Deuteronomy (33:8): "Of Levi he said, 'Your perfection and doctrine from your holy man,'" and he continues: "He said to his father and mother, 'I regard them not'; he disavowed his brothers and ignored his children." But a question arises: Why does he list six persons, whereas Luke (12:53) lists only three? The answer is that it is the same in both accounts, because one's mother is mother-in-law of his wife.

(Mor. iii. 8.) For the subtle enemy when he sees himself driven out of the hearts of the good, seeks out those who most love them, and speaking by the mouth of those who are dearest, endeavours while the heart is penetrated by love, that the sword of conviction may pierce to the inmost bulwarks of virtue.

The new man finding his foes within, he seeks with joy to live in newness of spirit; they which are derived from the old stock, lust to remain in their old pleasures.

He had said previously, "What I tell you in the dark, declare in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim upon the housetops." He now explains what follows after this proclamation. The whole world is divided against itself for the sake of faith in Christ. Every house contains both unbelievers and believers. And a necessary conflict has been sent to break an evil peace. It is written in Genesis that God did a similar thing to the rebellious people who streamed out of the east and rushed to build a tower, by which they meant to reach the heights of heaven. God divided their languages. For this same reason David prays in the psalm, "O God, scatter the peoples who delight in war."

But if any think these things intolerable, let them be reminded of an ancient history. For in times of old also this came to pass, which thing especially shows the old covenant to be akin to the new, and Him who is here speaking, the same with the giver of those commands. I mean that in the case of the Jews also, when each had slain his neighbor, then He laid aside His anger against them; both when they made the calf, and when they were joined to Baal Peor. Where then are they that say, "That God is evil, and this good?" For behold He hath filled the world with blood, shed by kinsmen. Nevertheless even this we affirm to be a work of great love towards man.

Therefore, you see, implying that it was He who approved those other acts also, He makes mention also of a prophecy, which if not spoken for this end, yet involves the same meaning. And what is this?

"A man's foes shall be they of his own household."

For indeed among the Jews also something of the kind took place. That is, there were prophets, and false prophets, and the people was divided, and families were in dissension; and some believed the one, and some the other. Wherefore the prophet admonishes, saying, "Trust ye not in friends, have not hope in guides; yea, even of her that lieth in thy bosom beware, in respect of communicating aught to her:" and, "A man's enemies are the men that are in his own house."

And this He said, preparing him that should receive the word to be above all. For to die is not evil, but to die an evil death. On this account He said moreover, "I am come to cast fire upon the earth." And this He said, to declare the vehemence and warmth of the love which He required. For, because He loved us very much, so He will likewise be loved of us. And these sayings would strengthen the persons present also, and lift them higher. "For if those others," saith He, "are to despise kinsmen, and children, and parents, imagine what manner of men ye their teachers ought to be. Since neither will the hardships stop with you, but will also pass on to the rest. For since I am come bringing great blessings, I demand also great obedience, and purpose of heart."

Likewise he mentions those who pertain to the household, where he says, and a man's enemies will be those of his own household. And it says in Jeremiah (20:10): "For I hear many whisperings. Terror is on every side. 'Denounce him! Let us denounce him!' say all my familiar friends who were at peace with me." And notice that it is all in Micah (7:6): "The son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house."

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.