The obstinate Pharisees and Sadducees, as though his foresaid miracles were not sufficient to proue him to be Christ, require to see some one from heauen, 5 Wherevpon forsaking them, he warneth his disciples to beware of the leauen of their doctrine: 〈◊〉 and Peter (the time now approching for him to goe into lewrie to his Passion) for confessing him to be Christ, he maketh the Rocke of his Churche, geuing fulnes of Ecclesiastical power accordingly. 21 And after, he so rebuketh him fordissuading his Crosse and Passion, that he also affirmeth the like suffering in euery one to be necessarie to saluation.
1And there came to him the Pharisees and Sadducees tempting: and they asked him to shew them a sign from heaven.E andarono a trovarlo i Farisei, e i Sadducei per tentarlo: e lo pregarono di far loro vedere qualche prodigio dal cielo.〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 AND there came to him the Pharisees and Sadducees tempting: and they demaunded him to shevv them a signe from heauen.Et accesserunt ad eum pharisæi et sadducæi tentantes: et rogaverunt eum ut signum de cælo ostenderet eis. 2But he answered and said to them: When it is evening, you say, It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.Ma egli rispose loro, e disse: Alla sera voi dite: Farà bel tempo, perché il cielo rosseggia.But he ansvvered & said to them, when it is euening, you say, It vvil be faire-vvether, for the elemēt is redde.At ille respondens, ait illis: Facto vespere dicitis: Serenum erit, rubicundum est enim cælum. 3And in the morning: To day there will be a storm, for the sky is red and lowering. You know then how to discern the face of the sky: and can you not know the signs of the times?E alla mattina: Oggi farà temporale, perché il cielo scuro rosseggia.And in the morning, This day there vvil be a tēpest, for the element doth glovve and lovvre. The face therfore of the element you haue skil to discerne: and the signes of times can you not?Et mane: Hodie tempestas, rutilat enim triste cælum. 4A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. And he left them, and went away.Voi sapete dunque distinguere gli aspetti del cielo: e non siete da tanto di distinguere i segni de' tempi. Generazione perversa, e adultera ella chiede un prodigio: né altro prodigio saralle accordato, che quello di Giona profeta. E, lasciati costoro, si partì.The naughtie and aduouterous generation seeketh for a signe: and there shal not a signe be giuen it, but the signe of Ionas the Prophet. And he left them and vvent avvay.Faciem ergo cæli dijudicare nostis: signa autem temporum non potestis scire ? Generatio mala et adultera signum quærit: et signum non dabitur ei, nisi signum Jonæ prophetæ. Et relictis illis, abiit. 5And when his disciples were come over the water, they had forgotten to take bread.Ora i suoi discepoli in andando a traghettare il lago si erano scordati di prender del pane.And vvhen his disciples vvere come ouer the vvater, they forgot to take bread.Et cum venissent discipuli ejus trans fretum, obliti sunt panes accipere. 6Who said to them: Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.E disse loro Gesù: Tenete aperti gli occhi, e guardatevi dal lievito de' Farisei, e Sadducei.Who said to them, Looke vvel and bevvare of the leauen of the Pharisees & Sadduces.Qui dixit illis: Intuemini, et cavete a fermento pharisæorum et sadducæorum.
7But they thought within themselves, saying: Because we have taken no bread.Ma essi stavan pensosi dentro di se, e dicevano: Non abbiaci preso del pane.But they thought vvithin them selues saying, Because vve tooke not bread.At illi cogitabant intra se dicentes: Quia panes non accepimus. 8And Jesus knowing it, said: Why do you think within yourselves, O ye of little faith, for that you have no bread?Il che conoscendo Gesù: disse: Perché state pensosi dentro di voi, gente di poca fede, a motivo che non avete pane?And IESVS knovving it, said, why do you thinke vvithin your selues O ye of litle faith, for that you haue not bread?Sciens autem Jesus, dixit: Quid cogitatis intra vos modicæ fidei, quia panes non habetis ? 9Do you not yet understand, neither do you remember the five loaves among five thousand men, and how many baskets you took up?Non riflettete ancora, né vi ricordate dei cinque pani per i cinquemila uomini, e quante misure ne raccoglieste?Do you not yet vnderstand, neither do you remember the fiue loaues among fiue thousand men, and how many baskets, you tooke vp?Nondum intelligitis, neque recordamini quinque panum in quinque millia hominum, et quot cophinos sumpsistis ? 10Nor the seven loaves, among four thousand men, and how many baskets you took up?Né dei sette pani per li quattro mila uomini, e quante sporte ne raccoglieste?neither the seuen loaues, among foure thousand men, and hovv many maundes you tooke vp?neque septem panum in quatuor millia hominum, et quot sportas sumpsistis ? 11Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread I said to you: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees?Come non comprendete, che non per riguardo al pane io vi ho detto: Guardatevi dal fermento de' Farisei, e de' Sadducei?Why do you not vnderstand that I said not of bread to you, Bevvare of the leauen of the Pharisees & Sadducees?Quare non intelligitis, quia non de pane dixi vobis: Cavete a fermento pharisæorum et sadducæorum ? 12Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.Allora intesero, come non aveva egli detto di guardarsi dal fermento del pane, ma dalla dottrina de' Farisei, e de' Sadducei.Then they vnderstoode that he said not they should bevvare of the leauen of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.Tunc intellexerunt quia non dixerit cavendum a fermento panum, sed a doctrina pharisæorum et sadducæorum.
13And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?Gesù poi essendo andato dalle parti di Cesarea di Filippo, interrogò i suoi discepoli, dicendo: Chi dicono gli uomini, che sia il Figliuolo dell'uomo?And IESVS came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying, whom say men that the Sonne of man is?Venit autem Jesus in partes Cæsareæ Philippi: et interrogabat discipulos suos, dicens: Quem dicunt homines esse Filium hominis ? 14But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.Ed essi risposero: Altri dicono, egli è Giovanni Batista; altri Elia; altri Geremia, o alcun de' profeti.But they said, Some Iohn the Baptist, & othersome Elias, and others Hieremie, or one of the Prophets.At illi dixerunt: Alii Joannem Baptistam, alii autem Eliam, alii vero Jeremiam, aut unum ex prophetis. 15Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?E Gesù disse loro: E voi chi dite voi, ch'io mi sia?IESVS saith to them, But vvhom do you say that I am?Dicit illis Jesus: Vos autem, quem me esse dicitis ? 16Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.Rispose Simone Pietro, e disse: Tu se' il Cristo, il figliuolo di Dio vivo.Simon Peter ansvvered & said, Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God.Respondens Simon Petrus dixit: Tu es Christus, Filius Dei vivi. 17And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.E Gesù rispose, e dissegli: Beato sei tu, Simone Bar Jona: perché non la carne, e il sangue te lo ha rivelato, ma il Padre mio, che è ne' cieli.And IESVS ansvvering, said to him, Blessed art thou Simon bar-Iona: because flesh & bloud hath not reuealed it to thee, but my father vvhich is in heauen.Respondens autem Jesus, dixit ei: Beatus es Simon Bar Jona: quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi, sed Pater meus, qui in cælis est. 18And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.E io dico a te, che tu sei Pietro, e sopra questa pietra edificherò la mia Chiesa, e le porte dell'inferno non avran forza contro di lei.And I say to thee, That thou art Peter: and vpon this Rocke vvil I build my Church, and the gates of hel shal not preuaile against it.Et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificabo Ecclesiam meam, et portæ inferi non prævalebunt adversus eam. 19And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.E a te io darò le chiavi del regno de' cieli: e qualunque cosa avrai legata sopra la terra, sarà legata anche ne' cieli: e qualunque cosa avrai sciolta sopra la terra, sarà sciolta anche ne' cieli.And I vvil giue to thee the keies of the kingdom of heauen. And vvhatsoeuer thou shalt binde vpon earth, it shal be bound also in the heauens: and vvhatsoeuer thou shalt loose in earth it shall be loosed also in the heauens.Et tibi dabo claves regni cælorum. Et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in cælis: et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in cælis.
20Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.Allora ordinò a' suoi discepoli, che non dicessero a nissuno, ch'ei fosse Gesù il Cristo.Then he commaunded his disciples that they should tel no body that he vvas IESVS CHRIST.Tunc præcepit discipulis suis ut nemini dicerent quia ipse esset Jesus Christus. 21From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again.Da indi in poi Gesù cominciò a indicare a' suoi discepoli, come bisognava, ch'egli andasse a Gerusalemme, e ivi molte cose soffrisse dai seniori, e dagli Scribi, e dai principi dei sacerdoti, e fosse ucciso, e risuscitasse il terzo giorno.From that time IESVS began to shevv his disciples, that he must goe to Hierusalem, & suffer many things of the Ancients & Scribes & cheefe-Priestes, and be killed, and the third day rise againe.Exinde cœpit Jesus ostendere discipulis suis, quia oporteret eum ire Jerosolymam, et multa pati a senioribus, et scribis, et principibus sacerdotum, et occidi, et tertia die resurgere. 22And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee.E Pietro, presolo a parte, cominciò a riprenderlo dicendo: Non sia mai vero, o Signore: non avverrà a te simil cosa.And Peter taking him vnto him, began to rebuke him, saying, Lord, be it farre from thee, this shal not be vnto thee.Et assumens eum Petrus, cœpit increpare illum dicens: Absit a te, Domine: non erit tibi hoc. 23Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.E rivoltosi a Pietro gli disse: Ritirati da me, Satana: tu mi sei di scandalo; perché non hai la saggezza di Dio, ma quella degli uomini.Who turning said to Peter, Goe after me Satan, thou art a scandal vnto me: because thou sauourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.Qui conversus, dixit Petro: Vade post me Satana, scandalum es mihi: quia non sapis ea quæ Dei sunt, sed ea quæ hominum. 24Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.Allora Gesù disse a' suoi discepoli: Chi vuoi venire dietro a me, rinneghi se stesso, dia di mano alla sua croce, e mi siegua.Then IESVS said to his disciples, If any man wil come after me, let him denie him self, and take vp his crosse, and follow me.Tunc Jesus dixit discipulis suis: Si quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum, et tollat crucem suam, et sequatur me.
25For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.Imperocché chi vorrà salvare l'anima sua, la perderà: e chi perderà l'anima sua per amor mio, la troverà.For he that will saue his life, shal lose it. and he that shal lose his life for me, shal finde it.Qui enim voluerit animam suam salvam facere, perdet eam: qui autem perdiderit animam suam propter me, inveniet eam. 26For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?Imperocché che giova all'uomo di guadagnare tutto il mondo, se poi perda l'anima? o che darà l'uomo in cambio dell'anima sua?For what doth it profite a man, if he gaine the vvhole vvorld, and sustaine the damage of his soule? Or vvhat permutation shal a man giue for his soule?Quid enim prodest homini, si mundum universum lucretur, animæ vero suæ detrimentum patiatur ? aut quam dabit homo commutationem pro anima sua ? 27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works.Imperocché il Figliuolo dell'uomo verrà nella gloria del Padre suo co' suoi Angeli: e allora renderà a ciascheduno secondo il suo operato.For the Sonne of man shal come in the glorie of his father vvith his Angels: and then vvil he render to euery man according to his vvorkes.Filius enim hominis venturus est in gloria Patris sui cum angelis suis: et tunc reddet unicuique secundum opera ejus. 28Amen I say to you, there are some of them that stand here, that shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.In verità io vi dico: Tra coloro, che son qui presenti, vi sono di quelli, che non morranno, prima che veggano il Figliuol dell'uomo entrar nel suo regno.Amen I say to you, there be some of them that stand here, that shal not taste death, til they see the Sonne of man comming in his kingdom.Amen dico vobis, sunt quidam de hic stantibus, qui non gustabunt mortem, donec videant Filium hominis venientem in regno suo.
16:1
about the year A.D. 32.
Bible de Vence
The Pharisees and Sadducees. These were widely opposite in their religious sentiments to each other, but closely united in their design of persecuting Jesus Christ, and they come and ask of him a sign or prodigy from heaven, to convince them that he was the Christ, the Messias. (Bible de Vence)
The Sadducees deny the immortality of the soul, and affirm that our only obligation is the observance of the law; insomuch, that they prided themselves on their right of disputing the most important points with their teachers. This sect is not numerous, and chiefly composed of men of condition, who, when properly qualified for offices of state, are compelled to conform, at least in appearance, to the principles of the Pharisees; otherwise, they would incur the resentment of the Pharisees. (Josephus, Book XVIII. ch. II.) See also note on Matthew 3:7. above.
Haydock
St. Chrysostom is of opinion he would have granted them any sign they wished, had they been willing to believe; but as their object was curiosity and censure, he refused to comply. They mistrusted, it would seem, his other miracles as the effect of some occult quality inherent in him, and wished to see a miracle performed upon distant objects in the heavens or clouds, which would be to them less suspicious and objectionable. (Haydock)
16:4
Denis the Carthusian
You know then how to discern the face of the sky, etc. Jesus Christ does not condemn every observation made upon the weather, from external appearances in the heavens. He only upbraids the Jews for so closely examining these signs, and neglecting at the same time to notice the many signs and predictions which so plainly manifested him to be the promised Messias. (Denis the Carthusian)
Tirinus
The reasoning of Jesus Christ is this: you know how to judge of the weather from observation, and cannot you then know the certain signs so often promised, and now completed in my coming? The signs of this event were, the taking away the sceptre from the tribe of Juda. (Genesis xxxix.[xlix.?] 10.) The completion of the 70 weeks of years of Daniel 9:25, amounting to 490 years, which were now on the eve of being completed. The miracles of Jesus Christ, as the curing of the blind, the lame, the deaf and dumb, foretold by Isaias 35:5.; Isaias 61:1. To which may be added the apparition of angels to the shepherds at Bethlehem, the miraculous star which appeared to the magi, the testimony of his heavenly Father, the descent of the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. Besides, the testimony of the Baptist, and so many miracles of every kind wrought to establish this truth, most certainly, clearly, and infallibly demonstrate, that the long expected Messias had already come, and that this Jesus was the Messias. (Tirinus)
16:5
Barrardius
Forgotten to take bread. The disciples had just filled seven baskets with fragments, but had forgotten to take any with them into the ship; or, according to others, had distributed all among the poor. (Barrardius)
St. Anselm
They were so taken with the company of Christ, that they even forgot the necessities of life. (St. Anselm)
St. Remigius
The disciples, ever constant attendants on our Redeemer, were retained so strongly by the love of his company, that they would not be absent from him for one moment. We may also remark how far they were from an eager search after delicacies, when they even forgot the daily pittance requisite for their support. (St. Remigius)
Bible de Vence
It was the custom of those times, and that country, for persons on a journey to carry their own bread. (Bible de Vence)
16:6
Bible de Vence
Beware of the leaven, etc. The disciples, not understanding the meaning of Christ's words, supposed he was instructing them not to touch the bread of the Scribes and Pharisees. (Bible de Vence)
16:8
St. Chrysostom
Why do you think? That we might know what effect this discourse of our Saviour had upon his disciples, the evangelist immediately subjoins, then they understood, etc. This exposition of Christ freed them from the accusation of the Jews; it made them who were negligent and inattentive, both diligent and attentive, and confirmed them in their faith. (St. Chrysostom)
16:13
St. Chrysostom
Caearea Philippi, was first called Paneades, and was afterwards embellished and greatly enlarged by Philip the tetrarch, son of Herod the great, and dedicated in honour of Augustus, hence its name. There was moreover another Caesarea, called Straton, situated on the Mediterranean: and not in this, but in the former, did Christ interrogate his disciples. He first withdrew them from the Jews, that they might with more boldness and freedom deliver their sentiments. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lv.)
The Caesarea here mentioned continued to be called by heathen writers Panea, from the adjoining spring Paneum, or Panium, which is usually taken for the source of the Jordan.
16:14
Denis the Carthusian
Some say, etc. Herod thought that Christ was the Baptist, on account of his prodigies. (Matthew 14:2.) Others that he was Elias: 1st. because they expected he was about to return to them, according to the prophecy of Malachias; behold I will send you Elias; 2nd. on account of the greatness of his miracles; 3rd. on account of his invincible zeal and courage in the cause of truth and justice. Others again said he was Jeremias, either on account of his great sanctity, for he was sanctified in his mother's womb; or, on account of his great charity and love for his brethren, as it was written of Jeremias: he is a lover of his brethren. Or, again, one of the prophets, viz. Isaias, or some other noted for eloquence; for it was the opinion of many of the Jews, as we read in St. Luke, that one of the ancient prophets had arisen again. (Denis the Carthusian)
16:15
St. Chrysostom
Whom do you say that I am? You, who have been continually with me; you, who have seen me perform so many more miracles; you, who have yourselves worked miracles in my name? From this pointed interrogation, Jesus Christ intimates, that the opinion men had formed of him was very inadequate to the exalted dignity of his person, and that he expects they will have a juster conception of him. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lv.)
16:16
St. Chrysostom
Simon Peter answering. As Simon Peter had been constituted the first in the college of apostles, (Matthew 10:2.) and therefore surpasseth the others in dignity as much as in zeal, without hesitation, and in the name of all, he answers: thou art the Christ, the Redeemer promised to the world, not a mere man, not a mere prophet like other prophets, but the true and natural Son of the living God. Thus Sts. Chrysostom, Cyril, Ambrose, Augustine, and Tirinus. When our Saviour inquired the opinion of the vulgar, all the apostles answered; but when he asks their opinion of him, Peter, as the mouth of the rest, and head of the whole college, steps forth, and prevents the others. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lv.)
Tu es Christus, filius Dei vivi; or, as it is in the Greek, o christos, o uios; The Christ, the Son, the Christ formerly promised by the law and the prophets, expected and desired by all the saints, the anointed and consecrated to God: o uios, the Son, not by grace only, or an adoptive filiation like prophets, to whom Christ is here opposed, but by natural filiation, and in a manner that distinguishes him from all created beings.
Witham
Thou art[Ver. 16. Tu es Christus, Filius Dei vivi. o christos o uios tou theou. Where the Greek articles seem significant.] Christ, the Son of the living God, not by grace only, or by adoption, as saints are the sons of God, but by nature, and from all eternity, the true Son of the living God. (Witham)
16:17
Pastorini
Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona. Simon is undoubtedly Sumeon, as written 2 Peter 1:1. Bariona is son of Jona, or John, an abridgment for Barioanna. Bar, in Chaldaic, is son; hence St. Peter is called, in John xxi, 16. and 17, Simon, son of John. It was customary with the Jews to add to a rather common name, for the sake of discrimination, a patronumikon, or patronymic, as appears from Matthew 10:3.; Matthew 23:35; Mark 2:14; John 6:42. (Pastorini)
16:18
Tirinus
Kago. And I say to thee, and tell thee why I before declared, (John 1:42.) that thou shouldst be called Peter, for thou art constituted the rock upon which, as a foundation, I will build my Church, and that so firmly, as not to suffer the gates (that is, the powers) of hell to prevail against its foundation; because if they overturn its foundation, (that is, thee and thy successors) they will overturn also the Church that rests upon it. Christ therefore here promises to Peter, that he and his successors should be to the end, as long as the Church should last, its supreme pastors and princes. (Tirinus)
Bible de Vence
In the Syriac tongue, which is that which Jesus Christ spoke, there is no difference of genders, as there is in Latin, between petra, a rock, and Petrus, Peter; hence, in the original language, the allusion was both more natural and more simple. (Bible de Vence)
Witham
Thou art Peter;[Ver. 18. St. Augustine, serm. 13, de Verbis Domini, in the new edit. serm. 76. t. v. p. 415, expounds these words super hanc Petram, that is super hanc Petram, quam confessus es, super meipsum. See also tract. 24. in Joan, t. iii. p. 822. But he elsewhere gave the common interpretation, as he says, lib. i. Retrac. and in Psal. lxix. Petrus, qui paulo ante Christum confessus erat filium Dei, et in illa Confessione appellatus erat Petra, super quam fabrificatur Ecclesia, etc. See St. Jerome on this place, lib. iii. p. 97. aedificabo (inquit Christus) super te Ecclesiam meam. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lv. in Matt. etc.)] and upon this (that is, upon thee, according to the literal and general exposition of the ancient Fathers) I will build my church. It is true St. Augustine, in one or two places, thus expounds these words, and upon this rock, (that is, upon myself:) or upon this rock, which Peter hath confessed: yet he owns that he had also given the other interpretation, by which Peter himself was the rock. Some Fathers have also expounded it, upon the faith, which Peter confessed; but then they take not faith, as separated from the person of Peter, but on Peter, as holding the true faith. No one questions but that Christ himself is the great foundation-stone, the chief corner-stone, as St. Paul tells the Ephesians; (Ephesians 2:20.) but it is also certain, that all the apostles may be called foundation-stones of the Church, as represented Apocalypse 21:14. In the mean time, St. Peter (called therefore Cephas, a rock) was the first and chief foundation-stone among the apostles, on whom Christ promised to build his Church. (Witham)
Thou art Peter, etc. As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ, so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz. that he, to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, (John 1:42.) should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be next to Christ himself, the chief foundation-stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
Upon this rock, etc. The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews, which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built; Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ by building his house, that is, his Church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder. (Matthew 7:24, 25.)
Challoner
The gates of hell, etc. That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself or his agents. For as the Church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or Church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the Church of Christ. (Challoner)
Bible de Vence
The gates, in the Oriental style, signify the powers; thus, to this day, we designate the Ottoman or Turkish empire by the Ottoman port. The princes were wont to hold their courts at the gates of the city. (Bible de Vence)
16:19
And I will give to thee the keys, etc. This is another metaphor, expressing the supreme power and prerogative of the prince of the apostles. The keys of a city, or of its gates, are presented or given to the person that hath the chief power. We also own a power of the keys, given to the other apostles, but with a subordination to St. Peter and to his successor, as head of the Catholic Church.
Witham
And whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc. All the apostles, and their successors, partake also of this power of binding and loosing, but with a due subordination to one head invested with the supreme power. (Witham)
Challoner
Loose on earth. The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence: the power of which is here granted. (Challoner)
Tirinus
Although Peter and his successors are mortal, they are nevertheless endowed with heavenly power, says St. Chrysostom, nor is the sentence of life and death passed by Peter to be attempted to be reversed, but what he declares is to be considered a divine answer from heaven, and what he decrees, a decree of God himself. He that heareth you, heareth me, etc. The power of binding is exercised, 1st. by refusing to absolve; 2nd. by enjoining penance for sins forgiven; 3nd. by excommunication, suspension or interdict; 4th. by making rules and laws for the government of the Church; 5th. by determining what is of faith by the judgments and definitions of the Church. (Tirinus)
Bible de Vence
The terms binding and loosing, are equivalent to opening and shutting, because formerly the Jews opened the fastenings of their doors by untying it, and they shut or secured their doors by tying or binding it. (Bible de Vence)
Dr. Whitby, a learned Protestant divine, thus expounds this and the preceding verse: "As a suitable return to thy confession, I say also to thee, that thou art by name Peter, that is a rock; and upon thee, who art this rock, I will build my Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of making laws to govern my Church." (Tom. i, p. 143.) Dr. Hammond, another Protestant divine, explains it in the same manner. And p. 92, he says: " What is here meant by the keys, is best understand by Isaias 22:22, where they signify ruling the whole family or house of the king: and this being by Christ accommodated to the Church, denotes the power of governing it."
16:20
Bible de Vence
Tell no one that he was Jesus, the Christ. In some manuscripts both Greek and Latin, the name Jesus is not here found, and many interpreters think it superfluous in this place. The Greek expressly says the Christ adjoining the article, which the Latin tongue does not express. (Bible de Vence)
St. Jerome
"In a preceding part of Scripture, Jesus sending his apostles, commanded them to publish his coming; but here he seems to give a contrary mandate, tell no one, etc. but in my opinion it is one thing to preach the Christ, and another to preach Christ Jesus; for Christ is a name of dignity, but Jesus is the particular name of the Redeemer." (St. Jerome)
Mat. Polus
He did not forbid them to teach that there was a Messias a Redeemer, but to declare then that he was the person; 2nd. the disciples (Matthew x,) are not sent to preach the gospel, strictly speaking, but only to prepare the minds and hearts of the people for the coming of the Messias, as is evident from Matthew 10:23. See Mark 14:61-62; John 5:18.; John 8:58.; John 10:30.; and 11:27. But why did he lay this injunction? To avoid the envy of the Scribes, and not to appear to raise his own glory. He wished the people to be induced to own him for their Messias, not from the testimony of his retainers, but from his miracles and doctrines; and lastly, because as his time was not yet come, the apostles were not yet fit to deliver, nor the people to receive, this grand tenet. (Mat. Polus.)
It might moreover have proved a hinderance to his death.
16:21
Haydock
From that time, etc. Now when the apostles firmly believed that Jesus was the Messias, and the true Son of God, he saw it necessary to let them know he was to die an infamous death on the cross, that they might be disposed to believe that mystery; (Witham) and that they might not be too much exalted with the power given to them, and manifestation made to them. (Haydock)
16:22
Witham
Peter taking him, etc. out of a tender love, respect and zeal for his honour, began to expostulate with him, and as it were to reprehend him,[Ver. 22. Increpare epitiman, by saying absit a te Domine, ileos soi, propitius sit tibi Deus, etc.] saying, Lord, far be it from thee, God forbid, etc. (Witham)
16:23
Bible de Vence
Go after me, Satan.[Ver. 23. Vade post me, upage opiso mou.] The words may signify, begone from me; but out of respect due to the expositions of the ancient fathers, who would have these words to signify come after me, or follow me, I have put, with the Rheims translation, go after me. Satan is the same as an adversary: (Witham) and is here applied to Peter, because he opposed, out of mistaken zeal, Christ's passion, without which the great work of man's redemption could not be effected. Peter, however, unknowingly or innocently, raised an opposition against the will of God, against the glory of Jesus, against the redemption of mankind, and against the destruction of the devil's kingdom. He did not understand that there was nothing more glorious than to make of one's life a sacrifice to God. (Bible de Vence)
Tirinus
Thou dost not, that is thy judgment in this particular is not conformable with that of God. Hence our separated brethren conclude that Christ did not, in calling him the rock in the preceding verses, appoint him the solid and permanent foundation of his Church. This conclusion, however, is not true, because, as St. Augustine and theologians affirm, Peter could fall into error in points regarding morals and facts, though not in defining or deciding on points of faith. Moreover, St. Peter was not, as St. Jerome says, appointed the pillar of the Church till after Christ's resurrection. (Tirinus)
Haydock
And it was not till the night before Christ suffered that he said to Peter: Behold, Satan hath desired to have thee; but I have prayed for thee, that "thy faith fail not," and thou being once converted confirm thy brethren. (Luke 22:31.) (Haydock)
16:24
St. Chrysostom
If any man will come. St. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylactus, shew that free will is confirmed by these words. Do not expect, O Peter, that since you have confessed me to be the Son of God, you are immediately to be crowned, as if this were sufficient for salvation, and that the rest of your days may be spent in idleness and pleasure. For, although by my power, as Son of God, I could free you from every danger and trouble, yet this I will not do for your sake, that you may yourself contribute to your glory, and become the more illustrious. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lvi.)
16:25
Witham
Whosoever will save his life. Literally, his soul. In the style of the Scriptures, the word soul is sometimes put for the life of the body, sometimes for the whole man. (Witham)
Whosoever acts against duty and conscience to save the life of his body, shall lose eternal life; and whoever makes the sacrifice of his life, or the comforts and conveniences of life for conscience sake, shall be rewarded with life eternal.
16:26
Witham
And lose his own soul. Christ seems in these words to pass from the life of the body to that of the soul. (Witham)
16:27
St. Chrysostom
Shall come in the glory. Jesus Christ wishing to shew his disciples the greatness of his glory at his future coming, reveals to them in this life as much as it was possible for them to comprehend, purposely to strengthen them against the scandal of his ignominious death. (St. Chrysostom)
16:28
Witham
Till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Some expound this, as fulfilled at his transfiguration, which follows in the next chapter. Others understand it of the glory of Christ, and of his Church, after his resurrection and ascension, when he should be owned for Redeemer of the world: and this state of the Christian Church might be called the kingdom of Christ. (Witham)
St. Augustine
This promise of a transitory view of his glory he makes, to prove that he should one day come in all the glory of his Father, to judge each man according to his works: not according to his mercy, or their faith, but according to their works. (St. Augustine, de verb. apos. serm. 35.)
Bristow
Again, asks St. Augustine, how could our Saviour reward every one according to his works, if there were no free will? (lib. 2:chap. 4. 5. 8, de act. cum Foelic. Manich.) (Bristow)
16:18
Thou art Peter, etc.... As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Upon this rock, etc.... The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25. The gates of hell, etc.... That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.
16:19
Loose on earth.... The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence; the power of which is here granted.
16:22
And Peter taking him.... That is, taking him aside, out of a tender love, respect and zeal for his Lord and Master’s honour, began to expostulate with him, as it were to rebuke him, saying, Lord, far be it from thee to suffer death; but the Lord said to Peter, ver. 23, Go behind me, Satan. These words may signify, Begone from me; but the holy Fathers expound them otherwise, that is, come after me, or follow me; and by these words the Lord would have Peter to follow him in his suffering, and not to oppose the divine will by contradiction; for the word satan means in Hebrew an adversary, or one that opposes.
16:1
Concordanza Mar. 8, 12.
Concordanza Luc. 12, 54.
16:4
Concordanza Mat. 12, 39.
16:5
Concordanza Mar. 8, 14.
16:6
Concordanza Lu. 12, 1.
16:9
Concordanza Mat. 14, 17. 15, 34.
16:13
13. Whom say men.] Christ intending here to take order for the founding, OF PETERS PRIMACIE. regiment, and stabilitie of his Church after his decea•e, and to name the person to whom he meant to geue the general charge thereof, would before by interrogatories draw out (and namely out of that one whom he thought to make the cheefe) the professiō of that high and principal Article, That he was the sonne of the liuing God. Which being the ground of the Churches faith, was a necessarie qualitie and condition in him that was to be made Head of the same Church, and the perpetual keeper of the said faith and al other points thereon depending.
Liturgia The Gospel vpō SS. Peter and Paules day Iun. 29. And in Cathedra Petri Roma, Ian. 18. & Antiochia Febr. 22. And Petri ad vincula Aug. 1. And on the day of the creation and coronation of the Pope, and on the Anniuersarie thereof.
Concordanza Mar. 8, 27.
16:14
14. But they said.] When Christ asked the peoples opinion of him, the Apostles al indifferently made answer: but when he demaunded what them selues thought of him, then loe Peter the mouth and head of the whole felowship answered for al. Chrys. ho. 55. in Mat.
Concordanza Luc. 9, 18.
16:17
17. Blessed art thou.] Though some other (as Nathanael Io. 1, 49) seeme to haue before beleued and professed the same thing for which Peter is here counted blessed, yet it may be plainely gathered by this place, Hilar. can. 6 in. Mat. & li. 6. de Trinit. and so S. Hilarie and others thinke, that none before this did further vtter of him, then that he was the sonne of God by adoption as other Saincts be, though more excellent then other be. For it was of congruitie and Christes special appointment, that he vpon whom he intended to found his new Church, and whose faith he would make infallible, should haue the preeminence of this first profession of Christes natural diuinitie, Chrys. ho. 55 in Mat. or, that he was by nature the very sonne of God a thing so farre aboue the capacitie of nature, reason, flesh and bloud, and so repugnant to Peters sense and sight of Christes humanitie, flesh, and infirmities, that for the beleefe and publike profession there of he is counted blessed, as Abraham was for his saith: and hath great promises for him self and his posteritie, as the said Patriarche had for him and his seede. According as S. Basil saith, Basil. li. 1 adu. Eunom. Because he excelled in faith, he receiued the building of the Church committed to him.
16:18
1•. And I say to thee.] Our Lord recompenseth Peter for his confession, geuing him a great reward, in that vpon him he builded his Church. Theophilactus vpon this place.
1•. Thou art Peter.] Christ (in the first of Iohn v. 42) foretold and appointed that this man then named Simon, PETER. should afterward be called Cephas, or Petrus, that is to say, a Rocke, not then vttering the cause, Cyril. li. • c. 12 Com. in Io. but now expressing the same, videlicet (as S. Cyril writeth) For that vpon him is vpon a firme rocke his Church should be builded. Wherevnto S. Hilarie agreing saith, O happie foundation of the Church in the imposing of thy new name. &c. And yet Christ here doth not so much call him by the name Peter or Rocke, Hilar. in hunc lo•ū. as he doth affirme him to be a rocke: signifying by that Metaphore, both that he was designed for the foundation and ground worke of his house, which is the Church: and also that he should be of inuincible force, firmitie, durablenes, and stabilitie, to sustaine al the windes, wa•es, and stormes that might fall or beate against the same. And the Aduersaries obiecting against this, that Christ only is the Rocke or foundation, wrangle against the very expresse Scriptures and Christes owne wordes, geuing both the name and the thing to this Apostle. And the simple may learne by S. Basils wordes, Basil. li. de poenit. how the case standeth. Though (saith he) Peter be a rocke, yet he is not a rocke as Christ is. For Christ is the true vnmoueable rocke of him self. Peter is vnmoueable by Christ the rocke. For Iesus doth communicate and impart his dignities, not voyding him self of them, but holding them to him self, 2 Mt. 5. 14. bestoweth them also vpon others. He is the light, and yet, 2 You are the light: he is the Priest, and yet he 3 maketh Priests: 3 Luc. 22. 19. he is the rocke, and he made a rocke.
18. And vpon this rocke.] Vpon that which he said Peter was, wil he build his Church: and therfore by most euident sequele he foundeth his Church vpon Peter. And the Aduersaries wrangling against this, Thou art Cephah, and vpon this Cephah. do against their owne conscience and knowledge: specially seing they know and confesse that in Christes wordes speaking in the Syriake tonge, there was no difference at al betwene Petrus and Petra: yea and that the Greeke wordes also though differing in termination, yet signifie one thing, to wit, rocke.. a rocke, or stone, as them selues also translate it. Io. 1, 42. So that they which professe to follow the Hebrew or Syriake and the Greeke, and to translate immediatly out of them into Latin or English, should if they had dealt sincerely, haue thus turned Christes wordes, Thou art a rocke, and vpon this rocke: or, Thou art Peter, and vpon this peter wil I build my Church: For so Christ spake by their owne confession without any difference. Which doth expresly stoppe them of al their vaine euasions, that Petrus the former word is referred to the Apostle: and petra the later word, either to Christ only, or to Peters faith only: neither the said original tonges bearing it, nor the sequele of the wordes, vpon this, suffering any relation in the world but to that which was spoken of in the same sentence next before: neither the wordes folowing which are directly addressed to Peters person, nor Christes intention by any meanes admitting it, which was not to make him self or to promisse him self to be the head or foundation of the Church. For his father gaue him that dignitie, and he tooke not that honour to him self, nor sent him self, nor tooke the keies of heauen of him self, but al of his father. he had his cōmission the very houre of his incarnation. Aug. li. 1 retr. c. 21. 〈…〉 in Ps. 69. de verb. And though S. Augustine sometimes referre the word (Petra) to Christ in this sentence (which no doubt he did because the terminations in Latin are diuers, and because he examined not the nature of the original wordes which Christ spake, nor of the Greeke, and therefore the Aduersaries which otherwise flee to the tongs, should not in this case alleage him) yet he neuer denieth but Peter also is the Rocke and head of the Church, saying that him self expounded it of Peter in many places, and alleageth also S. Ambrose for the same in his hymne which the Church singeth. And so do we alleage the holy Councel of Chalcedon, Do. sec. Io. ser. 49. ser. 15. 16. 26. 29 de Sanctis. Annot. in Iob c. 30. Act. 3 pag. 118. Tertullian, de praescript, Origen, Ho. 5 in Exo. S. Cyprian, De vnit. Ec. S. Hilarie, Can. 16 in mat. S. Ambrose, Ser. 47. 68. li. 6 in c. 9. Luca. S. Hierom, Li. 1 in Iouin, & in c. 2 Esa. & in c. 16 Hier. S. Epiphanius, In Anchor. S. Chrysostom, Ho. 55 in Mat. S. Cyril, Li. 2 c. 12. com. in Io. S. Leo, Ep. •9. S. Gregorie, Li. 4 ep. 32 ind. 13. Theodor. li. 5 haer. Fabul. c. de. poenit. and others: euery one of them saying expresly that the Church was founded and builded vpon Peter. For though sometimes they say the Church to be builded on Peters faith, yet they meane not (as our Aduersaries do vnlearnedly take them) that it should be builded vpon faith either separated from the man, or in any other man: but vpon faith as in him who here confessed that faith.
1•. Rocke.] The Aduersaries hearing also the Fathers sometimes say, that Peter had these promises and prerogatiues, as bearing the person of al the Apostles or of the whole Church, deny absurdly that him self in person had these prerogatiues. As though Peter had been the proctor only of the Church or of the Apostles, confessing the faith and receiuing these things in other mens names. Where the holy Doctors meane only, that these prerogatiues were not geuen to him for his owne vse, but for the good of the whole Church, and to be imparted to euery vocation according to the measure of their callings: Hiero. ep. 7, to. 2. and that these great priuileges geuen to Peter should not decay or die with his person, but be perpetual in the Church in his successors. Therfore S. Hierom to Damasus taketh this Rocke not to be Peters person only, but his successors and his Chaire. I (saith he) folowing no cheefe or principal but Christ, Psal. cont. part. Donat. to. 7. Leo ep. 89. ioyne my self to the communion of Peters chaire, vpon that rocke I know the Church was built. And of that same Apostolike Chaire S. August. saith, That same is the Rocke which the proud gates of Hel do not ouercome. And S. Leo, Our Lord would the Sacrament or mysterie of this gift so to pertaine vnto the office of al the Apostles, that he placed it principally in blessed S. Peter the cheefe of al the Apostles, that from him as from a certaine head he might poure out his giftes, as it were through the whole body: that he might vnderstand him self to be an aliene from the diuine mysterie that should presume to reuolt from the soliditie or stedfastnes of Peter.
1•. Build my Church.] The Church or house of Christ was only promised here to be builded vpon him (which was fulfilled, Io. 21, 1•.) the foundation stone and other pillers or matter being yet in preparing, and Christ him self being not only the supereminent foundation but also the founder of the same: which is an other more excellent qualitie then was in Peter, for which he calleth it my Church: meaning specially the Church of the new Testament. Which was not perfectly formed and finished, and distincted from the Synagogue til whitsunday, though Christ gaue Peter and the rest their commissions actually before his Ascension.
18. Gates of hel.] Because the Church is resembled to a house or a citie, the aduersarie powers also be likened to a contrarie house or towne, the gates wherof, that is to say, the fortitude or impugnations shal neuer preuaile against the citie of Christ. And so by this promis we are assured that no heresies nor other wicked attempts can preuaile against the Church builded vpon Peter, Psal. cont. part. Donati. which the Fathers call Peters see and the Romane Church. Count (saith S. Augustine) the Priests from the very See of Peter, and in that order of fathers consider vvho to vvhom hath succeeded. that same is the rocke vvhich the proud gates of Hel do not ouercome. De vtil. ••ed. c. 17. And in an other place, that is it which hath obtained the toppe of authoritie, Heretikes in vaine barking round about it.
Concordanza Io. 1, 42.
That is, a Rocke.
16:19
19. To thee.] In saying, to thee vvil I geue, it is plaine that as he gaue the keies to him, so he builded the Church vpon him. Cyp. epist. 73. So saith S. Cyprian, To Peter first of al, vpon vvhom our Lord built the Church, and from vvhom he instituted and shevved the beginning of vnitie, did he geue this povver, that that should be loosed in the heauens, Greg. li. 4. ep. •2. ind. 11. vvhich he had loosed in earth. Wherby appeareth the vaine cauil of our Aduersaries, which say the Church was built vpon Peters Confession only, cōmon to him and the rest, and not vpon his person, more then vpon the rest.
19. The keies.) That is, The authoritie or Chaire of doctrine, knowledge, iudgement and discretion betwene true and false doctrine: the height of gouernement, The dignities of the keies. the power of making lawes, of calling Councels, of the principal voice in them, of confirming them, of making Canons and holesom decrees, of abrogating the contrarie, of ordaining Bishopes and Pastors or deposing and suspending them, finally the povver to dispense the goods of the Church both spiritual and temporal. Which signification of preeminent power and authoritie by the vvord keies the Scripture expresseth in many places: Apoc. 1. namely speaking of Christ, I haue the keies of death and Hel, that is, the rule. And againe, Esa. •2, 22 I vvil geue the key of the house of Dauid vpon his shoulder. Moreouer it signifieth that men can not come into heauen but by him, the keies signifing also authoritie to open and shut, as it is said Apoc. 3. of Christ, who hath the key of Dauid, he shutteth and no man openeth. By which wordes we gather that Peters authoritie is maruelous, to whom the keies, that is, the power to open and shut heauen, is geuen. And therfore by the name of keies is geuen that supereminent power which is called in comparison of the power graunted to other Apostles, Bishops aud Pastors, plenitude potestatis, fulnes of power. Bernard, lib. 2. de considerat. c. 8.
19. Whatsoeuer thou shal bind.) Al kind of discipline and punishment of offenders, either spiritual (which directly is here meant) or corporal so farre as it tendeth to the execution of the spiritual charge, is comprised vnder the word, bind. Of which sort be Excommunications, Anathematismes, Suspensions, degradations, and other censures and penalties or penances enioyned either in the Sacrament of Confession or in the exterior Courtes of the Church, for punishment both of other crimes, and specially of heresie and rebellion against the Church and the cheefe pastors therof.
19. Loose.) To loose, is as the cause and the offenders case requireth, to loose them of any the former bandes, and to restore them to the Churches Sacraments and Communion of the faithful and execution of their function, to pardon also either al or part of the penances enioyned, or what debtes so euer man oweth to God or the Church for the satisfaction of his sinnes forgeuen. Which kind of releasing or loosing is called Indulgence: finally this whatsoeuer, excepteth nothing that is punishable or pardonable by Christ in earth, for he hath committed his power to Peter. And so the validitie of Peters sentence in binding or loosing whatsoeuer, shal by Christes promis be ratified in heauen. Leo Ser. de Transfig. & Ser. 2. in anniuers-assumpt. ad Pontif. Hilar. can. 16. in Matth. Epiph. in Ancherato prepe initium. If now any temporal power can shew their warrant out of scripture for such soueraine power, as is here geuen to Peter and consequently to his successors, by these wordes, whatsoeuer thou shal binde, and by the very keies, wherby greatest soueraintie is signified in Gods Church as in his familie and houshold, Esa. 22. and therfore principally attributed and geuen to Christ who in the scripture is said to haue the key of Dauid, but here cōmunicated also vnto Peter, Apoc. •. as the name of Rocke: if I say any temporal potestate can shew authoritie for the like soueraintie, let them chalenge hardly to be head not only of one particular, but of the whole vniuersal Church.
Concordanza Io. 21, 15.
16:23
This word in Hebrew signifieth an aduersarie, as 3 Reg. 5, 4. and so it is taken here.
16:24
THE GOSPEL for a Martyr that is a bishop.
16:27
27. Workes.) He saith not, Good workes. to geue euery man according to his mercie (or their faith) but according to their workes. August. de verb. Apost. Ser. 35. And againe, How should our Sauiour reward euery one according to their workes, Freewill. if there were no free wil? August. lib. 2. cap. 4. 5. 8. de act. cum Foelic. Manich.
16:28
Concordanza Mar. 9, 1
Concordanza Luc. 9, 27.
16:1
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.1
“ And the Sadducees and Pharisees came, and tempting Him kept asking Him to shew them a sign from heaven. ”
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 43.76
76. He emulated the zeal of Peter, the intensity of Paul, the faith of both these men of name and of surname, the lofty utterance of the sons of Zebedee, the frugality and simplicity of all the disciples. Therefore he was also entrusted with the keys of the heavens,
16:2
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 14
[37] And he said to the multitudes, When ye see the clouds appear from the west, [38] straightway ye say that there cometh rain; and so it cometh to pass. And when [39] the south wind bloweth, ye say that there will be heat; and it cometh to pass.
16:3
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 14
[37] And he said to the multitudes, When ye see the clouds appear from the west, [38] straightway ye say that there cometh rain; and so it cometh to pass. And when [39] the south wind bloweth, ye say that there will be heat; and it cometh to pass. And when the evening is come, ye say, It will be fair weather, for the heaven has become [40] red.
san Basilio † 379 d.C. The Hexæmeron 6.4
… In fact what useful observations will long experience make us discover, if we ask without undue curiosity! What signs of rain, of drought, or of the rising of the wind, partial or general, violent or moderate! Our Lord indicates to us one of the signs given by the sun when He says, “It will be foul weather to-day; for the sky is red and lowering.”
16:4
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 14
… and so it cometh to pass. And when [39] the south wind bloweth, ye say that there will be heat; and it cometh to pass. And when the evening is come, ye say, It will be fair weather, for the heaven has become [40] red. And in the morning ye say, To-day there will be severe weather, for the redness [Arabic, p. 57] of the heaven is paling.
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.3
Next let us remark in what way, when asked in regard to one sign, that He might show it from heaven, to the Pharisees and Sadducees who put the question, He answers and says, “ An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall be no sign given to it, but the sign of Jonah the prophet, ” when also, “He left them and departed.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.4
… she be joined to another man.” But this very saying, “So then while her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress,” we have brought forward, wishing clearly to show why in answer to the Pharisees and Sadducees who were tempting Him and asking Him to show them a sign from heaven, He said not only “a wicked generation,” but an “adulterous” generation.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 54
4. What then saith the ardent Peter? “It is good for us to be here.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 23
… Wherefore He will not give them a sign; and before, when they came and asked Him, He made them the same answer, “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.” (
Giovanni Cassiano † 435 d.C. The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 3.16
… unless perhaps—as the Jews once demanded—you too might ask for a sign to be given you from heaven? But if you ask this, we must give you the same answer which was formerly given to them: “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign. And no sign shall be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah.”
16:5
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.5
“ And His disciples came to the other side and forgot to take loaves. ”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 52
4. “And when His disciples,” so it is said, “were come to the other side, they forgot to take bread. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 2.52
… And when His disciples were come to the other side, they forgot to take bread. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed, and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees;” and so forth, down to where we read, “Then understood they that He bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.”
16:6
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 4.41.3
… their anger is after the likeness of a serpent.” And therefore did the Lord term those whom He knew to be the offspring of men “a generation of vipers;” because after the manner of these animals they go about in subtilty, and injure others. For He said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.5
… And perhaps that He might turn back those who, by crossing to the other side, “had begun in spirit,” from running back to carnal things, Jesus said to them when on the other side, “Take heed and beware.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.6
… for the Lord alone, as Solomon says in the third Book of Kings, knows the hearts of men. But since the disciples understood, when Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven,”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 49
For if even after the miracle they forgot what had been done, and after the baskets, supposed Him to be speaking of loaves, when He gave the name of “leaven” to the doctrine of the Pharisees;
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 15
This however was done by them of late ; but now no longer. For every where there is leaven, where a Jew is found. For it is in the midst of cities that the feast of unleavened bread is kept: a thing which is now rather a game at play than a law. For since the Truth is come, the Types have no longer any place.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 31
… And so the disciples were taught to use the like disposition themselves; for they took with them no provisions for the road. And this another Evangelist declares, saying, that when He spake to them concerning “the leaven of the Pharisees” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 38
… For when Christ warned His disciples, saying, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On Christian Doctrine 3.25
35. But as there are many ways in which things show a likeness to each other, we are not to suppose there is any rule that what a thing signifies by similitude in one place it is to be taken to signify in all other places. For our Lord used leaven both in a bad sense, as when He said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 41.5
… But who knows whether they love this, or do not love it? This is a matter of the heart, it can have no other judge but God. Now the Lord Himself warned His disciples, that they should not fall into this leaven; as He calls it in another place, “Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 79.2
… and assuredly what He spake to them, He spake to us too their posterity. Nor to them only does what He said, “Lo, I am with you alway even unto the end of the world,” apply, but even to all Christians that should be after them, and succeed them even unto the end of the world. Speaking then to them He said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.”
16:7
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 23
[17] And his disciples forgot to take with them bread, and there was not with them [18] in the boat, not even one loaf. And Jesus charged them, and said, Take heed, and guard yourselves from the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and from the [19] leaven of Herod.
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.5
… And there are many among the heterodox who, because of their unbelief in regard to the resurrection of the dead, are imbued with the leaven of the Sadducees. Now, while Jesus said these things, the disciples reasoned, saying not aloud, but in their own hearts, “We took no loaves.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.7
… but though she is not pure outwardly, is she therefore now also unchaste? I have said these things because of the words, “They reasoned among themselves saying, We took no loaves,” to which is added, “And Jesus perceiving it, said, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves,”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 52
Wherefore also He works another miracle, and then and not till then He reproves; I mean, He brings forward what they were reasoning in their hearts. But what were their reasonings? “Because,” so it is said, “we have taken no bread.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 5.3
… Besides, we have also a beatitude for a confession in words: for we confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God; and Jesus declares with His own lips that this confession has a benediction, when He says to Peter, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."
16:8
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 23
[17] And his disciples forgot to take with them bread, and there was not with them [18] in the boat, not even one loaf. And Jesus charged them, and said, Take heed, and guard yourselves from the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and from the [19] leaven of Herod. And they reflected within themselves that they had taken with them [20] no bread.
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.6
… is to be observed, in view of those who think that the divinity of the Saviour is not at all demonstrable from the Gospel of Matthew, that the fact that, when the disciples were reasoning among themselves and saying, “We have no loaves,” Jesus knew their reasonings and said, “Why reason ye among yourselves, O ye of little faith, because ye took no loaves,”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 52
But Matthew saith, that after this He also rebuked them, saying, “O ye of little faith, do ye not yet understand, nor remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? nor the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?”
16:9
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 30
But to His disciples not so, but He puts them in mind of His signs, saying on this wise, “Do ye not yet remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 49
Therefore also, from them He receives the loaves, that the testimonies of what was doing might be many, and that they might have memorials of the miracle. For if even after these occurrences they forgot,
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 52
… Perceive ye not yet, neither understand? Have ye your heart hardened? Having eyes, see ye not? Having ears, hear ye not? Do ye not remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 42
… And what took place was moreover no ordinary condemnation of Judas, who bore a basket. And that these things were done for their instruction is plain from what is said afterwards, when He reminded them, saying, “Do ye not yet understand—how many baskets ye took up?” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 41.5
… as He calls it in another place, “Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” And when they supposed that He said this to them because they had brought no bread; He answered them, “Have ye forgotten how many thousands were filled with the five loaves? Then understood they,” it is said, “that He called their doctrine leaven.”
16:11
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.6
… But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. ”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Concerning Repentance 1.15
82. The Lord taught me in the Gospel what leaven is when He said: “Do ye not understand that I said not concerning bread, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees?”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 52
… For Jesus having said no more, but having reproved them, and added this only, “How is it that ye do not understand, that I spake it not to you concerning bread that ye should beware, but of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 6.6
… Such is the absurdity of your notions. And you persist in making out an opposition in us to the Old Testament, because we consider no flesh unclean: according to the opinion of the apostle, "To the pure all things are pure;" and according to the saying of our Lord Himself, "Not that which goeth into your mouth defileth you, but that which cometh out."
16:12
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 23
… They said, Twelve. He said unto them, And the seven also for four thousand: how many baskets full of broken pieces took ye up? They [24] said, Seven. He said unto them, How have ye not understood that I spake not to you because of the bread, but that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees [25] and Sadducees?
16:13
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 23
[31] And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, to the villages of Cæsarea Philippi. [32]
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 3.18.4
4. The Lord Himself, too, makes it evident who it was that suffered; for when He asked the disciples, “Who do men say that I, the Son of man, am?”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Scorpiace 10
… 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?”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On Monogamy 8
… Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age. 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,
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.7
… He does so by showing that a similar mistake was widely current about the Saviour Himself; for “some said that He was John the Baptist, others Elijah, others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.9
“ Now when Jesus came into the parts of Cæsarea Philippi, He asked His disciples. ”
san Gregorio Taumaturgo † 270 d.C. Four Homilies 4
… This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear Him. If He shall say, I and my Father are one, hear Him. If He shall say, He that hath seen me hath seen the Father, hear Him. If He shall say, He that hath sent me is greater than I, adapt the voice to the economy. If He shall say, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Eusebio di Cesarea † 339 d.C. The Church History of Eusebius 6.36.2
2. He also at this time composed a work of eight books in answer to that entitled True Discourse, which had been written against us by Celsus the Epicurean, and the twenty-five books on the Gospel of Matthew,
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.26
… and when He was at Bethany He asked where Lazarus lay; and He said besides to His disciples, ‘How many loaves have ye
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.27
… For with this end have we examined them beforehand, that, if we should hear Him asking where Lazarus is laid , or when He asks on coming into the parts of Cæsarea, ‘Whom do men say that I am?’ or, ‘How many loaves have ye?’ and, ‘What will ye that I shall do unto you
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 2.53
… “And Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi; and He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am? And they said, Some say that Thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets;” and so on, down to the words, “And whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 25.11
… this man is even God. In another place, when questioning His disciples, He saith: “Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am? And they answered, Some John, some Elias, some Jeremias, or one of the prophets. And He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 10.1
… When the Lord asked them who He was, and whom did men say that He was, the disciples made answer to Him, “Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 89.7
… in their character of preachers of God, they are styled clouds. Ye have said what clouds men imagine Me to be: do ye too say, “Whom say ye that I am?” Peter replying in behalf of all, one for those who were one, answered, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;”
papa san Leone I Magno † 461 d.C. Letters 28
… Whereupon blessed Peter, whose divinely inspired confession was destined to profit all nations, said, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God
papa san Leone I Magno † 461 d.C. Letters 33
… as if he wished it to be declared by the most blessed Peter himself what was praised in his confession, when the Lord said, “whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am
Pseudo-Clement The Clementine Homilies 17.18
“Thus to me also was the Son revealed by the Father. Wherefore I know what is the meaning of revelation, having learned it in my own case. For at the very time when the Lord said, ‘Who do they say that I am?’
16:14
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 23
[31] And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, to the villages of Cæsarea Philippi. [32] And while he was going in the way, and his disciples alone, he asked his disciples, [33] and said, What do men say of me that I am, the Son of man?
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.9
… Moreover also those who said, “that he was a certain one of the prophets,”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 52
Then, since they said, “Some John the Baptist, some Elias, some Jeremias, or one of the prophets,”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 55
But should any one say, “Wherefore did He not even now raise up Elias and send him, witnessing as He doth so great good of his coming?” we should reply, that even as it was, while thinking Christ to be Elias, they did not believe Him. For “some say,” such are the words, “that Thou art Elias, and others, Jeremias.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 68.20
20. Secondly, in the expression, “Mountain of God, Mountain full of curds,” Mountain “fruitful,” let no one dare from this to compare the Lord Jesus Christ with the rest of the Saints, who are themselves also called mountains of God.…For there were not wanting men to call Him, some John Baptist, some Elias, some Jeremias, or one of the Prophets;
16:15
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 23
[31] And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, to the villages of Cæsarea Philippi. [32] And while he was going in the way, and his disciples alone, he asked his disciples, [33] and said, What do men say of me that I am, the Son of man? They said unto him, Some say, John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the [34, 35] prophets.
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.15
… Was it that also according to him, Peter answered and said to the question, “Who say ye that I am.”—“The Christ, the Son of the living God?”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 52
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?”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 47
For since Peter said, “We believe,” Jesus excepteth Judas from the band. In the other place Peter made no mention of the disciples; but when Christ said, “Whom say ye that I am?” he replied, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 118.4
… Just as in the case of the apostles, who formed the exact number of twelve, in other words, were divisible into four parts of three each, when the question was put to all of them, Peter was the only one that answered, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;” and to whom it was said, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,”
16:16
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 23
… [32] And while he was going in the way, and his disciples alone, he asked his disciples, [33] and said, What do men say of me that I am, the Son of man? They said unto him, Some say, John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the [34, 35] prophets. He said unto them, And ye, what say ye that I am?
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 3.19.2
2. For this reason [it is, said], “Who shall declare His generation?” since “He is a man, and who shall recognise Him?” But he to whom the Father which is in heaven has revealed Him,
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Against Praxeas 21
… He is, no doubt, ever the Son of God, but yet not He Himself of whom He is the Son. This (divine relationship) Nathanæl at once recognised in Him, even as Peter did on another occasion: “Thou art the Son of God.”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Against Praxeas 23
Again, when Martha in a later passage acknowledged Him to be the Son of God, she no more made a mistake than Peter
sant'Ippolito † 235 d.C. The Discourse on the Holy Theophany 9
… This is the Spirit that David sought when he said, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.” Of this Spirit Gabriel also spoke to the Virgin, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.” By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.9
… The saying of Peter to the Saviour, “Thou art the Christ,” when the Jews did not know that He was Christ, was indeed a great thing, but greater that he knew Him not only to be Christ, but also “the Son of the living God,”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.11
… it by the revelation of flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven Himself taking away the veil that lay upon their heart, in order that after this “with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord” they may speak through the Spirit of God saying concerning Him, “Lord Jesus,” and to Him, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.15
… But it is not only in respect of the difference of knowing that those who know do not know alike, but also according to that which is the source of the knowledge; so that according to this he who knows the Son by the revelation of the Father,
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.40
… for he is a liar and the father thereof;” and as there is no truth apart from the working of Him who says, “I am the Truth,” so there is no lie apart from him who is the enemy of truth. These contrary qualities, accordingly, were still in Peter truth and falsehood; and from truth he said, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God,”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 13.14
… For John reclined on His breast through love, and we may conclude that before the Supper they had seen many tokens of special honour given by Jesus to John; but Peter on his confession was called blessed in their hearing, because of his saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;”
Antipapa Novaziano † 258 d.C. A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 26
… “Moreover, in your law it is written that the witness of two is true. I bear witness of myself, and the Father who sent me beareth witness of me?” Or when the voice from heaven is: “I have both glorified Him, and I will glorify Him again?” Or when by Peter it is answered and said: “Thou art the Son of the living God?”
san Gregorio Taumaturgo † 270 d.C. Four Homilies 4
… hear Him. If He shall say, I and my Father are one, hear Him. If He shall say, He that hath seen me hath seen the Father, hear Him. If He shall say, He that hath sent me is greater than I, adapt the voice to the economy. If He shall say, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? answer ye Him thus: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Archelao † fl. 278 d.C. The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 47
… Nay, He does not deign even to hear it said that He is David’s son. The Apostle Peter, however, the most eminent of all the disciples, was able to acknowledge Him on that occasion, when all were putting forth the several opinions which they entertained respecting Him: for he said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;”
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 2.23
… Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 6.36
… If this be a mere title, to which adoption is His only claim; if He be not the Son in virtue of having proceeded forth from God, whence, I ask, was it that the blessed Simon Bar-Jona confessed to Him, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 6.46
… If the Father has never asserted this, nor the Son confirmed it, nor the Apostles proclaimed it, then the dating which prompts their allegation is bred not of ignorance, but of hatred for Christ. When the Father says of His Son, This is , and the Son of Himself, It is He that talketh with Thee , and when Peter confesses Thou art
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.27
… Why, when Peter made this error through ignorance, did He not call him ‘Satan’ and a ‘stumbling-block ?’ Thus was Peter, who deprecated the mystery of the Passion, established in the faith by so sharp a rebuke from the lips of the gentle Christ, Whom not flesh and blood, but the Father in Heaven had revealed to him
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Persecution and Lapse of Liberius 1
… The Eunuch of Ethiopia indeed, though he understood not what he read , believed the words of Philip, when he taught him concerning the Saviour; but the eunuchs of Constantius cannot endure the confession of Peter
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.15
18. Much more then did Peter say this without meaning that the Essence of the Word was a work; for he knew Him to be God’s Son, confessing, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.22
… For this we must seek before all things, whether He is Son , ‘and on this point specially search the Scriptures ;’ for this it was, when the Apostles were questioned, that Peter answered, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.28
… For as a child He was carried to the Temple; and when He became a boy, He remained there, and questioned the priests about the Law. And by degrees His body increasing, and the Word manifesting Himself in it, He is confessed henceforth by Peter first, then also by all, ‘Truly this is the Son of God
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 31
… For it has come down to you from Apostolic tradition, and frequently has accursed envy wished to unsettle it, but has not been able. On the contrary, they have rather been cut off by their attempts to do so. For this is it that is written, ‘Thou art the Son of the Living God
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 28
… and the other unable to endure the Presence of Christ in his boat and therefore bidding Him depart; and this though Peter was more zealous than the others for the knowledge of Christ, and received a blessing for this,
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 2.15
… if they think that there be any still to be brought forward, I allow that there be well-nigh all; for whereas the unbelievers are in uttermost need of arguments, the faithful have enough and to spare. Indeed, Peter’s single confession was abundant to warrant faith in Christ: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 52
2. What then saith the mouth of the apos tles, Peter, the ever fervent, the leader of the apostolic choir? When all are asked, he answers. And whereas when He asked the opinion of the people, all replied to the question; when He asked their own, Peter springs forward, and anticipates them, and saith, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Commentary on Galatians 2
… Indeed it was upon one such occasion that he gained his name from the unbending and impregnable character of his faith. For when all were interrogated in common, he stepped before the others and answered, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 21
Now what is the question arising from this passage? It is this. Peter, when after so many miracles and such high doctrine he confessed that, “Thou art the Son of God” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 8.23
… And with the prophet are to be classed those who rejoiced that that which they knew was to come had actually come,—as Simeon, or Anna, who immediately recognized Jesus when He was born, or Elisabeth, who in the Spirit recognized Him when He was conceived, or Peter, who said by the revelation of the Father, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 3.34
… or as though, even if the lying spirit should have said something that was true, it was to be denied, because the spirit whom we should abominate had said it. But if any one thinks this, he is mad enough to contend that Peter ought not to have said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,"
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 40.8
… For certain who boasted of faith, and had not a good conversation, the Apostle James rebukes and says, “Thou believest there is one God, thou doest well; the devils also believe and tremble.” Call to mind with me whereupon Peter was praised, whereupon called blessed. Was it because he said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”?
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 26.5
… “Thou art Christ, Son of the living God.” Not as a prophet, not as John, not as some great and just man, but as the only, the equal, “Thou art Christ, Son of the living God.” See that he was drawn, and drawn by the Father. “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 49.8
… for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” And yet a little before, in confessing the Son of God, he had merited commendation: for he heard the words, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 109.3
… Him was not yet such as He wished it to be, inasmuch as even Peter himself, to whom, on making the confession, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” He had borne so excellent a testimony, was disposed rather to hinder Him from dying than to believe in His resurrection when dead, and hence was called immediately thereafter by the same of Satan.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 124.5
… For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra ; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, “On this rock will I build my Church,” because Peter had said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 35.17
… And yet the same man became afar off by saying, “Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall not be unto Thee.” Lastly, what said He, his Neighbour, as it were, to him drawing near? “Blessed art thou, Simon, Barjona.” To him afar off, as it were, and unlike, what said He? “Get thee behind Me, Satan.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 50.2
… He saith, “For all the gods of the nations are devils.” To the gods of the nations, to the devils, terrible: to the gods made by Himself, to sons, lovely. Furthermore, I find both of them confessing the Majesty of God, both the devils confessed Christ, and the faithful confessed Christ. “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 88.7
… What he wished understood by these words, he has expressed more clearly, by adding, “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.” Wherefore as those eyes, that is, the holy Apostles, to whom not flesh and blood, but the Father which is in Heaven had revealed Him, so that Peter said, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God,”
Giovanni Cassiano † 435 d.C. The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 3.12
… But it was fitting that he should first give the answer, that the order of the answer might correspond to the degree of honour: and that he might outstrip them in confession, as he outstripped them in age. What then does he say? “Thou art,” he says, “the Christ the Son of the living God.”
Giovanni Cassiano † 435 d.C. The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 6.19
… man, confessed Him by spiritual sight to be God, saying, “Yea, Lord, I have believed that Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God, who art come into the world.” So Peter, owing to the Holy Spirit’s revelation, while externally he beheld the Son of man, yet proclaimed Him to be the Son of God, saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Giovanni Cassiano † 435 d.C. The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 7.10
… “of His kingdom there shall be no end.” But also when He had already come, could the fact of His having come escape the knowledge of those who openly confessed that He had come? Was Peter ignorant of the coming of God, when he said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God?”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 147
Let no one then foolishly suppose that the Christ is any other than the only begotten Son. Let us not imagine ourselves wiser than the gift of the Spirit. Let us hear the words of the great Peter, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
papa san Leone I Magno † 461 d.C. Sermons 3
… And I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed also in heaven
papa san Leone I Magno † 461 d.C. Sermons 62
… And rightly was the blessed Apostle Peter praised for confessing this union, who when the Lord was inquiring what the disciples knew of Him, quickly anticipated the rest and said, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God
san Giovanni Damasceno † 749 d.C. An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.9
… For by the three immersions , baptism signifies the three days of our Lord’s entombment . The baptism then into Christ means that believers are baptized into Him. We could not believe in Christ if we were not taught confession in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit . For Christ is the Son of the Living God
Pseudo-Clement The Clementine Homilies 17.18
… Wherefore I know what is the meaning of revelation, having learned it in my own case. For at the very time when the Lord said, ‘Who do they say that I am?’ and when I heard one saying one thing of Him, and another another, it came into my heart to say (and I know not, therefore, how I said it), ‘Thou art the Son of the living God.’
16:17
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 23
… They said unto him, Some say, John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the [34, 35] prophets. He said unto them, And ye, what say ye that I am? Simon Cephas answered [36] [Arabic, p. 91] and said, Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God.
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 3.13.2
… How also did the seventy preach, unless they had themselves previously known the truth of what was preached? Or how could Peter have been in ignorance, to whom the Lord gave testimony, that flesh and blood had not revealed to him, but the Father, who is in heaven?
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 3.21.8
… For if He were the son of Joseph, how could He be greater than Solomon, or greater than Jonah, or greater than David, when He was generated from the same seed, and was a descendant of these men? And how was it that He also pronounced Peter blessed, because he acknowledged Him to be the Son of the living God?
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. The Five Books Against Marcion 4.11
… 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.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Against Praxeas 21
… for He answered Nathanæl: “Because I said, I saw thee under the fig-tree, therefore dost 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.”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Against Praxeas 26
… “Since Thou art the Son of God .” This, accordingly, the devils also acknowledge Him to be: “we know Thee, who Thou art, the Holy Son of God .” His “ Father ” He Himself adores. When acknowledged by Peter as the “Christ (the Son) of God,”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.9
… But also the Jews, as worthy of the veil which was upon their heart, held false opinions concerning Jesus; while Peter as not a disciple “of flesh and blood,”
Antipapa Novaziano † 258 d.C. A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 26
… “I have both glorified Him, and I will glorify Him again?” Or when by Peter it is answered and said: “Thou art the Son of the living God?” Or when by the Lord Himself the sacrament of this revelation is approved, and He says: “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed this to thee, but my Father which is in heaven?”
san Dionigi di Alessandria † 265 d.C. Containing Various Sections of the Works 1.4
… “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes.” And on the ground of such a revelation as that the Lord pronounced Peter blessed, when He said: “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”
Eusebio di Cesarea † 339 d.C. The Church History of Eusebius 7.25
… ‘That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes.’ For because of such a revelation the Lord also blessed Peter, saying, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my heavenly Father.’
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 2.23
… He shall have a prompt answer from the Gospels, not once or twice, but often repeated, This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased . He shall hear the words, The Father is greater than I , and I go to the Father , and Father, I thank Thee , and Glorify Me, Father , and Thou art the Son of the living God
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 11.3
… And there follows a blessing upon his speech (for in truth it was above man), and as a seal upon what he had said, that it was the Father who had revealed it to him. For the Saviour says, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father which is in heaven
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 52
What then saith Christ? “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Commentary on Galatians 1
… Wherefore our Lord too, though He generally spoke gently to His disciples, here and there uses sterner language, and at one time pronounces a blessing, at another a rebuke. Thus, having said to Peter, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona,” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 19
… for Christ does not immediately nor at first declare all His power, but speaks for a while in a humbler tone; and so, when He had given the proof of His Divinity, He puts it more authoritatively, saying, “Blessed art thou, Simon, because My Father hath revealed it to thee”; and again, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 45
[3.] And the “by whom” is also applied to the Father, as when the Apostle saith, “By whom ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son” ( 1 Cor. i. 9 ): and, “By the will of the Father.” And again; “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee.” (
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. Against Jovinianus 2.10
… who tells of purple-clad Dives in hell for his feasting, and says that poor Lazarus for his abstinence was in Abraham’s bosom; who, when we fast,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.65
… nor was it praiseworthy in Peter to deny the Lord thrice; nor, again, was he praiseworthy on that occasion when Christ called him Satan because, not understanding the things of God, he wished to withhold Christ from his passion, that is, from our salvation. Here Peter, immediately after being called blessed, is called Satan.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Two Letters Written by Augustin to Valentinus and the Monks of Adrumetum 1.1
… and maintain—a more serious matter—that in the day of judgment God will not render to every man according to his works.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 26.1
… Then said the Lord to Him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 26.3
… Thou wonderest at the difference of the names, mark the difference of the reasons of them. Why wonderest thou that he who was a little before blessed, is afterwards Satan? Mark the reason wherefore he is blessed. “Because flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 31.4
… “Get thee behind Me, Satan, thou art an offence to Me.” Here undoubtedly the Lord who hath given thee an example of life, hath taught thee both what an “offence” is, and how an offence is to be avoided. Him to whom He had a little while before said, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona;”
papa san Leone I Magno † 461 d.C. Letters 33
… For Peter received this answer from the Lord for his confession. “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. And I say 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
16:18
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 23
… He said unto them, And ye, what say ye that I am? Simon Cephas answered [36] [Arabic, p. 91] and said, Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God. Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jonah: flesh and [37] blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. The Prescription Against Heretics 22
… Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called “the rock on which the church should be built,”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On Modesty 21
If, because the Lord has said to Peter, “Upon this rock will I build My Church,”
sant'Ippolito † 235 d.C. The Discourse on the Holy Theophany 9
… in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.” Of this Spirit Gabriel also spoke to the Virgin, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.” By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” By this Spirit the rock of the Church was stablished.
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 5.3
… And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.11
… Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, “The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.14
And after this let us see in what sense it is said to Peter, and to every Peter, “ I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. ” And, in the first place, I think that the saying, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” is spoken in consistency with the words, “The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.15
… but with the addition, “the Son of the living God.” Accordingly Mark and Luke who have recorded that Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ,” but have not given the addition found in Matthew, have not recorded that he was declared blessed for what had been said, nor the blessing which followed the declaration of blessedness, “Thou art Peter,”
san Tascio Cecilio Cipriano † 258 d.C. The Epistles of Cyprian 26
… “I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
san Tascio Cecilio Cipriano † 258 d.C. On the Unity of the Church 4
… and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
san Tascio Cecilio Cipriano † 258 d.C. On the Advantage of Patience 9
… if we put Him on, if He is the way of our salvation, who follow Christ in the footsteps of salvation, let us walk by the example of Christ, as the Apostle John instructs us, saying, “He who saith he abideth in Christ, ought himself also to walk even as He walked.” Peter also, upon whom by the Lord’s condescension the Church was founded,
Eusebio di Cesarea † 339 d.C. The Church History of Eusebius 6.25.8
8. And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail,’
Eusebio di Cesarea † 339 d.C. The Oration of Eusebius 17.8
… Respecting the temple of these wicked men, our Saviour said: “Your house is left unto you desolate”: and, “There shall not be left one stone upon another in this place, that shall not be thrown down.” And again, of his church he says: “I will build my church upon a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 18.25
… But after the Jews for the plots which they made against the Saviour were cast away from His grace, the Saviour built out of the Gentiles a second Holy Church, the Church of us Christians, concerning which he said to Peter, And upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.2
26. Go thy way, therefore, to my brethren—that is, to those everlasting doors, which, as soon as they see Jesus, are lifted up. Peter is an “everlasting door,” against whom the gates of hell shall not prevail.
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.5
… “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.” To the same Apostle, again, when on a former occasion he said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” He made answer: “Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build My Church, and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Two Homilies on Eutropius 2.1
… And yet the tide of war flowed hither; for here the refugee was sought, and we withstood them, not fearing their rage. And wherefore prithee? because we held as a sure pledge the saying “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 52
… 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;”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 6
… but there are also other predictions which extend along from that time until His coming; which examine as you please: for instance, this, “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world: (St. Matt. xxviii. 20 .) and, “Upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it:” (St.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 7
But that my meaning may be yet plainer, let me illustrate it from the actual case. He raised up Lazarus by a single word merely, and shewed him alive. Again, He said, “The gates of Hades shall not prevail against the Church (St.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 21
… And this we see fulfilled by facts. He said, “in the world ye shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world” ( John xvi. 33 ), that is, no man shall get the better of you. And this we see by the events has come to pass. He said that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church” (
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Letters of St. Jerome 15.2
… Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Letters of St. Jerome 41.2
2. If, then, the apostle Peter, upon whom the Lord has founded the Church,
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Letters of St. Jerome 108.9
… the Lord loveth the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob.” He does not mean the gates which we see to-day in dust and ashes; the gates he means are those against which hell prevails not
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. Against Jovinianus 1.26
… If, however, Jovinianus should obstinately contend that John was not a virgin, (whereas we have maintained that his virginity was the cause of the special love our Lord bore to him), let him explain, if he was not a virgin, why it was that he was loved more than the other Apostles. But you say,
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. Against Jovinianus 2.3
3. The apostle Peter, to whom it was said, “He that is bathed needeth not to wash again,” and
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 53.2
2. For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: “Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 2.17
… absent from the Lord, and walk by faith, not by sight, we ought to see the “back parts” of Christ, that is His flesh, by that very faith, that is, standing on the solid foundation of faith, which the rock signifies, and beholding it from such a safe watch-tower, namely in the Catholic Church, of which it is said, “And upon this rock I will build my Church.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Creed 14
… fight, it can: be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they went all out of it, like as unprofitable branches pruned from the vine: but itself abideth in its root, in its Vine, in its charity. “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On Baptism, Against the Donatists 2.1
… We know, indeed, the great merit of the bishop and martyr Cyprian; but is it in any way greater than that of the apostle and martyr Peter, of whom the said Cyprian speaks as follows in his epistle to Quintus? "For neither did Peter, whom the Lord chose first, and on whom He built His Church,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4.1
… Accordingly, though the waters of Paradise are found beyond its boundaries, yet its happiness is in Paradise alone. So, therefore, the baptism of the Church may exist outside, but the gift of the life of happiness is found alone within the Church, which has been founded on a rock, which has received the keys of binding and loosing.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On Baptism, Against the Donatists 7.43
85. Are, then, ill-affectioned murderers successors of the apostles? Why, then, do they baptize? Is it because they are not outside? But they are outside the rock, to which the Lord gave the keys, and on which He said that He would build His Church.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On Baptism, Against the Donatists 7.51
Chapter 51.— 99. Taking all these things, therefore, into consideration, I think that I am not rash in saying that there are some in the house of God after such a fashion as not to be themselves the very house of God, which is said to be built upon a rock,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.109
… But the men themselves are not within the constitution of the Church, which increases in the increase of God in its members through connection and contact with Christ. For that Church is founded on a rock, as the Lord says, "Upon this rock I will build my Church."
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 2.17
… Neither is there anything contradictory here to that other passage where Matthew tells us how the Lord said to Peter, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 40.24
… But the Lord, that He might make him not go before Him, but follow after Him, says, “Get thee behind, Satan!” It is for this reason He said “Satan,” because thou art seeking to go before Him, whom thou oughtest to follow; but if thou art behind, if thou follow Him, thou wilt henceforth not be “Satan.” What then? “Upon this Rock I will build My Church.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 55.5
… Christ on the sea was walking fearless, from whose heart there could not by any means be taken away the love of an enemy, who hanging on the Cross did say, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Peter too would walk. He as Head, Peter as Body: because, “Upon this rock,” He saith, “I will build My Church.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 61.3
… therefore of thee for Himself temptation, of Himself for thee victory. If in Him tempted we have been, in Him we overcome the devil.…“On the Rock Thou hast exalted me.” Now therefore here we perceive who is crying from the ends of the earth. Let us call to mind the Gospel: “Upon this Rock I will build My Church.”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 142
… For this truth when assailed you have bravely fought, not striving to protect it as though it were weak, but shewing your godly disposition; for the teaching of our Master Christ is gifted with stability and strength, in accordance with the promise of the same Saviour, “that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
papa san Leone I Magno † 461 d.C. Letters 10
… so that any one who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. For He wished him who had been received into partnership in His undivided unity to be named what He Himself was, when He said: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church
papa san Leone I Magno † 461 d.C. Letters 156
Since, therefore, the universal Church has become a rock ( petra ) through the building up of that original Rock , and the first of the Apostles, the most blessed Peter, heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock ( petra ) I will build My Church
papa san Gregorio I Magno † 604 d.C. Register of the Epistles of St. Gregory the Great 5.20
… 31 ). To him it is said, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind an earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven (
Pseudo-Clement The Clementine Homilies 17.19
… And how did He appear to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to His teaching? But if you were seen and taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single hour, proclaim His utterances, interpret His sayings, love His apostles, contend not with me who companied with Him. For in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church,
16:19
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 23
… Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jonah: flesh and [37] blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that thou art Cephas, and on this rock will I build my church; and the [38] gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Policrate di Efeso † 196 d.C. Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus 1
… Those who in our own times have revived the observance of the Jewish Sabbath, show us how much may be said on their side,
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. The Prescription Against Heretics 22
… 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,”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On Modesty 21
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;”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.11
… And also the saying, “Upon this rock I will build My church”? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.14
And after this let us see in what sense it is said to Peter, and to every Peter, “ I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. ”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 13.31
… But since it was necessary, even if something in common had been said in the case of Peter and those who had thrice admonished the brethren, that Peter should have some element superior to those who thrice admonished, in the case of Peter, this saying “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens,”
san Tascio Cecilio Cipriano † 258 d.C. The Epistles of Cyprian 74.16
… remission of sins can be granted in the synagogues of heretics, and does not abide on the foundation of the one Church which was once based by Christ upon the rock, may be perceived from this, that Christ said to Peter alone, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
sant'Efrem il Siro † 373 d.C. Ephraim Syrus: Three Homilies 1.52
… Therefore, His Father gave Him the spirit not by measure, because all measures of the spirit are under his hand. And that our Lord might show that He received the keys from the former stewards, He said to Simeon: To thee I will give the keys of the doors .
san Basilio † 379 d.C. The Letters 8.3
… For the word Jesus Christ suggests all these ideas to us. For this reason too before His passion our Lord deprecates the designation of “Jesus Christ,” and charges His disciples to “tell no man that He was Jesus, the Christ.”
san Basilio † 379 d.C. The Letters 217
LXXIV. If, however, each man who has committed the former sins is made good, through penitence, he to whom is com mitted by the loving-kindness of God the power of loosing and binding
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 14
… Be not ashamed of thine Apostles; they are not inferior to Moses, nor second to the Prophets; but they are noble among the noble, yea, nobler still. For Elias truly was taken up into heaven; but Peter has the keys of the kingdom of heaven, having received the words, Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 17.27
27. In the power of the same Holy Spirit Peter also, the chief of the Apostles and the bearer of the keys
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.12
100. How, then, can He not have in His power that which He gives, saying: “To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven”?
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Concerning Repentance 1.7
… and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 55
… but indefinitely they ask, “Who then is greater?” For when they saw the three preferred, they felt nothing of the kind; but now that the honor had come round to one, they were vexed. And not for this only, but there were many other things which they put together to kindle that feeling. For to him He had said, “I will give thee the keys;”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 62
For that He Himself hath power over the whole, is manifest from His having the entire judgment. For to Peter too He speaks thus, “I will give thee the keys of the Heavens.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 36
… This let us also do, and we shall open for ourselves—not a prison, but—heaven. If we pray, we shall be able even to open heaven. Elias both shut and opened heaven by prayer. ( James v. 17 .) There is a prison in heaven also. “Whatsoever,” He saith, “ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven.” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 250.1
… In those cases, indeed, as a warning to the survivors, death was inflicted on bodies which, as mortal, were destined at some time to die; but a spiritual judgment, founded on what is written, “That which ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On Christian Doctrine 1.18
17. He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven;
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On Baptism, Against the Donatists 3.17
Chapter 17.— 22. "For as regards the fact that to preserve the figure of unity the Lord gave the power to Peter that whatsoever he should loose on earth should be loosed,"
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On Baptism, Against the Donatists 7.51
… which house also received the keys, and the power of binding and loosing.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Correction of the Donatists 10
… otherwise an argument will be raised against the keys that were given to the Church, of which we have the testimony of Scripture: "Whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 2.61
… while Matthew mentions that in the discourse now under notice the Lord made this declaration, which, however, the self-same evangelist at the same time affirms to have been given on a previous occasion to Peter.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 17.3
3. Now one may say, what profit then is the Church, if he that confesseth comes forth, at once raised to life again by the voice of the Lord? What profit to Him that confesseth, is the Church, to which the Lord said, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 49.24
… Accordingly, when the dead man had come forth, still bound; confessing, yet guilty still; that his sins also might be taken away, the Lord said to His servants: “Loose him, and let him go.” What does He mean by such words? What soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 50.12
… For if in Peter’s case there were no sacramental symbol of the Church, the Lord would not have said to him, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 113.2
… and not merely the youth of both sexes, when of an age at which the exercise of fortitude seems to be fairly required; but even boys and girls could do—even as an innumerable company of holy martyrs with brave hearts and by a violent death entered the kingdom of heaven—what at that moment he was unable to do, who received the keys of that kingdom.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 10.10
… How the Church? Why, to her it was said, “To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 109.1
… as it is written, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,”
papa san Leone I Magno † 461 d.C. Sermons 49
… He sees, too, those that have lapsed, and have been deceived by his treacherous snares, washed in the tears of penitence and, by the Apostle’s key unlocking the gates of mercy, admitted to the benefit of reconciliation
papa san Gregorio I Magno † 604 d.C. Register of the Epistles of St. Gregory the Great 7.40
… For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra . And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (
Early Popes (Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals) The Epistles of Zephyrinus 1
… because, although they may be transferred to other bishops, it was yet to the blessed Apostle Peter these terms were addressed: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
16:20
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 23
… And I say unto thee also, that thou art Cephas, and on this rock will I build my church; and the [38] gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and [39] whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.15
“ Then enjoined He His disciples that they should tell no man that He was the Christ. ”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.40
… These contrary qualities, accordingly, were still in Peter truth and falsehood; and from truth he said, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God,” but from falsehood he said, “May God be propitious to Thee, Lord, this shall not be unto Thee,”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.43
… they might serve the Son of God concerning the salvation of the people, Jesus commanded the disciples saying, “Tell the vision to no man until the Son of man rise from the dead.” But that saying, “Tell the vision to no man,” is like that which was investigated in the passage above, when “He enjoined the disciples to tell no man that He was the Christ.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 52
4. And then, when He had so said, “He charged them that they should tell no man that He was the Christ.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 2.54
… From that time forth began Jesus to show unto His disciples how that He must go into Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders, and chief priests, and scribes;” and so on, down to where we read, “Thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”
16:21
san Giustino † 165 d.C. Dialogue with Trypho 100
… Hence, also, among His words He said, when He was discoursing about His future sufferings: ‘The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the Pharisees and Scribes, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.’
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 23
… To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and [39] whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And he sternly charged his disciples, and warned them that they should not tell any man concerning him, [40] that he was the Messiah.
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 3.18.4
… “For from that time forth,” it is said, “He began to show to His disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the priests, and be rejected, and crucified, and rise again the third day.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.17
… for it is written in the passage now under consideration, “From that time began Jesus to show unto His disciples that He must go unto Jerusalem”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.18
… And that this was His meaning, when He forbade proclamation to be made that He was the Christ, is in a measure established by the words, “From that time began Jesus to show unto His disciples how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders,” and what is annexed;
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.19
… and He prepared them to say that He was the Christ crucified and risen from the dead, “when He began” not only to say, nor even to advance to the point of teaching merely, but “to show”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.20
… is, and also from the profane spirit who transforms himself into the Holy Spirit, He might gain for those who had been delivered the right to be baptized in spirit and soul and body, into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which represent the three days eternally present at the same time to those who by means of them are sons of light.
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 13.8
“ And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men. ” And these things will appear to be of the same effect as those, “that Jesus began to show unto His disciples that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes.”
san Gregorio Taumaturgo † 270 d.C. Twelve Topics on the Faith 6
How could it be said that He who suffered is one, and He who suffered not another, when the Lord Himself says, “The Son of man must suffer many things, and be killed, and be raised again the third day from the dead;”
Archelao † fl. 278 d.C. The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 48
… this shall not be unto Thee.” This he said after Jesus had announced to him that the Son of man must go up to Jerusalem, and be killed, and rise again the third day.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 52
5. “From that time forth began He to show unto them that He must suffer.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 55
“Then,” for instance, it saith, “He began to signify how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and be killed, and suffer many things.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Enchiridion 101
… for example, it was through the wicked designs of the Jews, working out the good purpose of the Father, that Christ was slain and this event was so truly good, that when the Apostle Peter expressed his unwillingness that it should take place, he was designated Satan by Him who had come to be slain.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 123.4
… Now thou hast cause, Peter, to be no longer afraid of death, because He liveth whom thou didst mourn when dead, and whom in thy carnal love thou didst try to hinder from dying in our behalf.
16:22
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 23
… And henceforth began Jesus to shew to his disciples [41] that he was determined to go to Jerusalem, and suffer much, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and of the scribes, and be killed, and on the [42] third day rise. And he was speaking plainly.
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.21
“ And Peter took Him and began to rebuke Him, saying, God be propitious to Thee. Lord, this shall never be unto thee. ”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.23
… Who is made to stumble, and I burn not?” In harmony with which we may put, “Who is made to stumble, and I am not made to stumble?” But if Peter, at that time because of the saying, “God be propitious to Thee, Lord, this shall not be unto Thee,”
Archelao † fl. 278 d.C. The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 48
… But in order to show you still more clearly that this is the real account of the matter, let me remind you that Peter, on a certain season, subsequent to the time of his receiving that declaration of blessedness from Him, said to Jesus, “Be it far from Thee, Lord: this shall not be unto Thee.”
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 6.38
… this shall not be , was rebuked with, Get thee behind Me, Satan, thou art an offence unto Me
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.27
27. Do you suppose, heretic, that the Lord of glory feared to suffer? Why, when Peter made this error through ignorance, did He not call him ‘Satan’ and a ‘stumbling-block
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.8
… But if such be the word of men, who are passible and partitive, why speculate they about passions and parts in the instance of the immaterial and indivisible God, that under pretence of reverence
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 13.5
… not for sinning in words, or deeds, or thoughts, He who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth; who when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, threatened not ; who came to His passion, not unwillingly, but willing; yea, if any dissuading Him say even now, Be it far from Thee, Lord , He will say again, Get thee behind Me, Satan
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Against Marcionists and Manichæans 2
… “get thee behind me Satan, thou art an offence unto me, for thou savourest not the things which be of God, but those which be of men:”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 30
… Because for themselves already to have this said to them, would have been grievous and galling, since we know that afterwards, being uttered, it troubled them;
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 52
… Therefore, the rest being troubled and in perplexity, Peter again, in his ardor, alone ventures to discourse of these things; and not even he openly, but when he had taken Him apart; that is, having separated himself from the rest of the disciples; and he saith, “Be it far from Thee, Lord, this shall not be unto Thee.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 53
Then ; when? When Peter said, “Be it far from Thee, this shall not be unto Thee;” and was told, “Get thee behind me, Satan.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 54
4. What then saith the ardent Peter? “It is good for us to be here.” For because he had heard that Christ was to go to Jerusalem and to suffer, being in fear still and trembling for Him, even after His reproof, he durst not indeed approach and say the same thing again, “Be it far from thee;
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 62
But I say another thing also more perplexing than this: If they did not know, how were they sorry. For another saith, they were sorry. If therefore they knew it not, how were they sorry? How did Peter say, “Be it far from Thee. This shall not be unto Thee?”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 68
… for He would not then have reproved Peter for this,
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 78
3. What sayest thou, O Peter? the prophet said, “The sheep shall be scattered;” Christ hath confirmed the saying, and sayest thou, No? Is not what passed before enough, when Thou saidst, “Far be it from Thee,”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Commentary on Galatians 2
… xvi. 16 .) This was when the keys of heaven were committed to him. So too, he appears to have been the only speaker on the Mount; ( Mat. xvii. 4 .) and when Christ spoke of His crucifixion, and the others kept silence, he said, “Be it far from Thee.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 23
… For very strange and paradoxical was the assertion that one could raise himself, and would raise himself in such wise. And so Peter was rebuked, when, knowing nothing about the Resurrection, he said, “Be it far from Thee.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 31
… And as He desired it to be believed that He was God, so also that, being God, He bore the flesh; therefore even after the Resurrection, He said to the disciple, “Handle Me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones” ( Luke xxiv. 39 ); therefore also He rebuked Peter when he said, “Be it far from Thee, this shall not be unto thee.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 70
Ver. 8 . “Thou shalt never wash my feet.” “What doest thou, Peter? Rememberest thou not those former words? Saidst thou not, ‘Be merciful to Thyself,’ and heardest thou not in return, ‘Get thee behind Me, Satan’? (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 73
… He desired indeed to teach him even by the first words, but when he continued in his vehemence, He did not indeed throw or force him into the denial, but left him alone, that he might learn his own weakness. Christ had said that He must be betrayed; Peter replied, “Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall not happen unto Thee.” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 16.17
… spare Thyself." And this sin too was severely rebuked, when the Lord replied, "Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offense unto me: for thou savorest not the things which be of God, but those which be of men."
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 26.8
… In that case, Peter was more truthful than Christ when he said to Him, "Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall not be unto Thee;" for which it was said to him, "Get thee behind me, Satan."
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 26.3
… He feared lest he should by death, lose Him whom he had confessed as the fountain of life. He was troubled, and said, “Be it far from Thee, Lord: this shall not be to Thee.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 35.5
… he would to Him as it were give counsel for His health. The sick man to the Saviour give counsel for His health! And what said he to the Lord, affirming that His future Passion? “Be it far from Thee, Lord. Be gracious to Thyself. This shall not be to Thee.” He would go before that the Lord might follow; and what said He? “Get thee behind Me, Satan.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 40.24
… they acknowledge that He ought to go before; that He should precede, they follow. Thence He thus rebukes Peter giving Him evil counsel. For the Lord, when about to suffer for our salvation, also foretold what was to happen concerning that Passion itself; and Peter says, “Be it far from Thee,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 56.14
… In going before therefore he is not amended: it is a good thing for him that he be turned backward, and follow him whom to go before he willed. The Lord to His disciples was speaking of His Passion that was to be. Peter shuddered, and saith, “Far be it, O Lord;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 63.13
… Because of this even Peter was rebuked, when he willed to give counsel to Christ, who was going to suffer for us.…“Far be it from Thee, O Lord, be Thou merciful to Thyself.” And the Lord, “Go back behind Me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things which are of God, but the things which are of men.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 69.23
… Whence, except because an evil thing it seemed to him to die? For he was shunning that which he thought an evil thing. This then even in the Lord he was lamenting, which he was himself shunning. On this account even before he had said, “Far be it from Thee, O Lord, merciful be Thou to Thyself: there shall not come to pass this thing:”
Anonymous A Treatise on Re-Baptism by an Anonymous Writer 9
… nevertheless that true confessor of Christ, after a few days, taking Him aside, began to rebuke Him, saying, “Be propitious to Thyself: this shall not be;”
16:23
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 23
… And he was speaking plainly. And Simon Cephas, as one grieved [43] for him, said, Far be thou, my Lord, from that. And he turned, and looked upon [44] his disciples, and rebuked Simon, and said,
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Scorpiace 15
… “Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offence unto me. It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.21
“ And Peter took Him and began to rebuke Him, saying, God be propitious to Thee. Lord, this shall never be unto thee. ” To whom He said, “ Get thee behind Me, Satan; thou art a stumbling-block unto Me; for thou mindest not the things of God but the things of men. ”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.22
But you will compare together His saying to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan,”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.23
Next we must inquire how He said to Peter, “Thou art a stumbling-block unto Me,”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.40
… with them, about whom it is written, “Having put off from Himself the principalities and the powers, He made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in the cross.” But this spirit was perhaps that which is called a stumbling-block by Jesus, and which is spoken of as Satan in the passage, “Get thee behind Me, Satan; thou art a stumbling-block unto me.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 13.14
… but Peter on his confession was called blessed in their hearing, because of his saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;” but again because of the saying, “Get thee behind Me, Satan; thou art a stumbling-block unto Me, for thou mindest not the things of God but the things of men,”
Archelao † fl. 278 d.C. The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 48
… this shall not be unto Thee.” This he said after Jesus had announced to him that the Son of man must go up to Jerusalem, and be killed, and rise again the third day. And in answer then to Peter He said: “Get thee behind me, Satan; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.21
… And being joined to God, no longer do we abide upon earth; but, as He Himself has said, where He is, there shall we be also; and henceforward we shall fear no longer the serpent, for he was brought to nought when he was assailed by the Saviour in the flesh, and heard Him say, ‘Get thee behind Me, Satan
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.29
57. And as to His saying, ‘If it be possible, let the cup pass,’ observe how, though He thus spake, He rebuked
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 2.7
… Further, to show that life is the object of human will, because we fear death, whilst the passion of Christ depended on the Divine Will, that He should suffer for us, the Lord said, when Peter would have detained Him from suffering: “Thou savourest not of the things which be of God, but the things which be of men.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 52
And He said not, “Satan spake by thee,” but, “Get thee behind me, Satan.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 4
… what impiety, what shamelessness! For wherever the Holy Spirit is present, He makes men of gold out of men of clay. Look, I pray you, at Peter now: examine well that timid one, and devoid of understanding; as Christ said, “Are ye also yet without understanding?” ( Matt. xv. 16 ) the man, who after that marvellous confession was called “Satan.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 39
… For to endure when insulted is God’s part: to be merely abusive, is the part of the devil. See the two sides. “Thou hast a devil” ( John vii. 20 ; ib. xviii. 22 ), Christ was told: He received a blow on the face from the servant of the high-priest. They who wrongfully insult, are in the same class with these. For if Peter was even called “Satan” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Commentary on Galatians 1
… Thus, having said to Peter, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona,” ( Matt. xvi. 17 .) and having promised to lay the foundation of the Church upon his confession, shortly afterwards He says, “Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art a stumbling block unto Me.” (
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Letters of St. Jerome 14.3
… The enemy takes sword in hand to slay me, and shall I think of a mother’s tears? Or shall I desert the service of Christ for the sake of a father to whom, if I am Christ’s servant, I owe no rites of burial, albeit if I am Christ’s true servant I owe these to all? Peter with his cowardly advice was an offence to the Lord on the eve of His passion;
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Letters of St. Jerome 38.4
… It is intended to keep her clothes right, and not to cut her waist in two. Therefore, if the scorpion looks askance upon her purpose, and with alluring words tempts her once more to eat of the forbidden tree, she must crush him beneath her feet with a curse, and say, as he lies dying in his allotted dust: “Get thee behind me, Satan.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 8
… for they were afraid that, if He died, they would lose Him. So He calls Peter Satan for dissuading Him from suffering, because he understood not the things of God, but the things of men.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 21.30
… and yet because they are not separated from the Church, they are called “babes in Christ;” for indeed he desired that they should be either Angels, or even Gods, whom he reproved because they were men, that is, in those contentions, “They savoured not the things which be of God, but the things which be of men.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 26.3
… but Christ far better said, I am willing to die for thee. And then He forthwith rebuked him, whom He had a little before commended; and calleth him Satan, whom he had pronounced “blessed.” “Get thee behind Me, Satan,” he saith, “thou art an offence unto Me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 31.4
… Hear now how that this is the meaning of “offence.” I have brought forward the example of Job and his wife; but there the word “offence” did not occur. Hear the Gospel: when the Lord prophesied of His Passion, Peter began to persuade him not to suffer. “Get thee behind Me, Satan, thou art an offence to Me.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 27.8
… For our Lord Christ once addressed Peter as Satan, rather because he wished to precede his Lord, and to give counsel that He should not die, He who had come to die, that we might not die for ever; and He says to him, “Get thee behind me, Satan; for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 9.4
4. For now the Person of the Lord begins to appear speaking in this Psalm. For it follows, “I will sing to Thy Name, O Most High, in turning mine enemy behind.” His enemy then, where was he turned back? Was it when it was said to him, “Get thee behind, Satan”?
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 56.14
… “For thou savourest not the things which are of God,” He saith, “but those things which are of man.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 70.4
… Now in a certain place Peter willed to go before the Lord.…A little before, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father which is in Heaven:” now in a moment, “Go back behind Me, Satan.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 127.3
… The way I go, do ye follow, He saith. For if ye choose to go this way where I do not go, your labour is lost, in rising before dawn. Peter too had risen before the light, when he wished to give the Lord advice, deterring Him from suffering for us.…But what did our Lord do? He caused him to rise after the Light: “Get thee behind Me, Satan.”
16:24
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 3.18.4
… For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it; and whosoever will lose it for My sake shall save it.”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On Idolatry 12
… “But I was under contract.” “None can serve two lords.” If you wish to be the Lord’s disciple, it is necessary you “take your cross, and follow the Lord:”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. A Treatise on the Soul 55
… Observe, then, the difference between a heathen and a Christian in their death: if you have to lay down your life for God, as the Comforter counsels, it is not in gentle fevers and on soft beds, but in the sharp pains of martyrdom: you must take up the cross and bear it after your Master, as He has Himself instructed you.
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.24
“ Then Jesus said to His disciples, If any man wills to follow after Me, ” etc.
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.25
Moreover in regard to the saying, “Let him deny himself,”
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Second Arian Persecution under Constantius 1
… In this manner it is that the Devil, when he has no truth on his side , attacks and breaks down the doors of them that admit him with axes and hammers . But our Saviour is so gentle that He teaches thus, ‘If any man wills to come after Me,’ and, ‘Whoever wills to be My disciple
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Persecution in Egypt 1
… For it is the part of true godliness not to compel , but to persuade, as I said before. Thus our Lord Himself, not as employing force, but as offering to their free choice, has said to all, ‘If any man will follow after Me
san Basilio † 379 d.C. The Letters 2.1
… So in the end I have not got much good out of my solitude. What I ought to have done; what would have enabled me to keep close to the footprints of Him who has led the way to salvation—for He says, “If any one will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross, and follow me”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. On the Duties of the Clergy 2.3
… “Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you and shall say all manner of evil against you for righteousness’ sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.” And again: “He that will come after Me, let him take up his cross and follow Me.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Concerning Repentance 2.10
97. Well then did the Lord say: “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 60
… It is not then enough to despise wealth, but we must also maintain poor men, and above all things follow Christ; that is, do all the things that are ordered by Him, be ready for slaughter and daily death. “For if any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on Philippians 13
… thou bearest the Cross when thou art at enmity with him, not simply when thou sealest thyself by it, but when thou sufferest the things belonging to the Cross. Christ thought fit to call our sufferings by the name of the Cross. As when he saith, “Except a man take up his cross and follow Me” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 67
… For certainly he that serveth must follow him who is served. And observe at what time He said these things to them; not when they were persecuted, but when they were confident; when they thought they were in safety on account of the honor and attention of the many, when they might rouse themselves and hear, “Let him take up his cross, and follow Me” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 5
These things I say, because I wish you to observe the laws of Christ who commands us to “pray that we enter not into temptation” ( Matt. xxvi. 41 ), and commands us to “take up the cross and follow” Him. (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 55.24
… Of these three, that of which the cross is the symbol is the business of our present life: those things which are symbolized by His rest in the grave and His resurrection we hold by faith and hope. For now the command is given to each man, “Take up thy cross, and follow me.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 4
… And what do they all show us but the free choice of the human will? So, again, in the evangelical and apostolic books of the New Testament what other lesson is taught us? As when it is said, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth;” and, “Fear not them which kill the body;” and, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 2.55
111. Matthew continues thus: “Then said Jesus unto His disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me;” and so on, down to the words, “And then He shall reward every man according to his work.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 149.4
… How well did he “sing a psalm on timbrel and psaltery,” who said, “the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world”? This psaltery or timbrel He wishes thee to take up, who loveth a new song, who teacheth thee, saying to thee, “Whosoever willeth to be My disciple, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.”
Pseudo-Clement The First Epistle of the Blessed Clement, the Disciple of Peter the Apostle 5
… conquer the world in the Spirit of God; conquer these vain things of time, which pass away and grow old, and decay, and come to an end; conquer the dragon; conquer the lion; conquer the serpent; conquer Satan;—through Jesus Christ, who doth strengthen thee by the hearing of His words and the divine Eucharist. “Take up thy cross and follow”
16:25
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.26
“ For whosoever would save his own life shall lose it. ”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.27
But at the same time also observe that at the beginning it is said, “Whosoever wills,” but afterwards, “Whoso shall lose.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 38
And how, some one may say, is the burden light, when He saith, “Except one hate father and mother;” and, “Whosoever taketh not up his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me:” and, “Whosoever forsaketh not all that he hath, cannot be my disciple:” when He commands even to give up our very life?
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 53
“For whosoever will save his life shall lose it,” saith He, “but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he should gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul ?”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 54
And see what He doth. Having discoursed of hell, and of the kingdom (for as well by saying, “He that findeth his life shall lose it, and whosoever will lose it for my sake, shall find it;”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on Colossians 8
… But now, if thou seest him attaching himself to harlots, thou wishest him buried, and sayest, “why, what good is it for him to live?” but when thou seest him in peril of his salvation, dost thou wish to see him live? Heardest thou not Christ saying, “He that loseth his life, shall find it; and he that findeth it, shall lose it”? (
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. Against the Pelagians 2
xvi. 25 . Whosoever will lose his life will find it.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 13.7
… be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven;” and in another place, “Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.100
… For where my purpose is not interfered with by any mistake which you make, or any false impression which you convey in quoting from the Scriptures, I do not concern myself about the matter. It is not then written, "Whosoever shall lose his substance," but "Whosoever shall lose his life for my sake."
Giovanni Cassiano † 435 d.C. The Conferences of John Cassian 21.4
… “For what shall a man give in exchange for his own soul?”
16:26
papa san Clemente I † 99 d.C. The Second Epistle of Clement 6
Now the Lord declares, “No servant can serve two masters.” If we desire, then, to serve both God and mammon, it will be unprofitable for us. “For what will it profit if a man gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
sant'Ignazio di Antiochia † 108 d.C. Epistle to the Romans: Shorter and Longer Versions 6
All the pleasures of the world, and all the kingdoms of this earth, shall profit me nothing. It is better for me to die in behalf of Jesus Christ, than to reign over all the ends of the earth. “For what shall a man be profited, if he gain the whole world, but lose his own soul?”
san Giustino † 165 d.C. The First Apology 15
… but lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for it? Lay up treasure, therefore, in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.28
But the saying, “ What shall a man give in exchange for his own life, ”
san Pietro I di Alessandria † 311 d.C. The Canonical Epistle, with the Commentaries of Theodore Balsamon and John Zonaras 12
… For they have sustained the loss and sacrifice of their goods that they might not hurt or destroy their soul, which others for the sake of filthy lucre have not done; and yet the Lord says, “What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. An Exhortation to Theodore After His Fall 2.2
… What shall we say then, let me ask at that time? or what defence shall we make, if we continue to disregard Him? What shall we say then? Shall we plead the anxieties of business? Nay He has anticipated this by saying, “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 53
“For whosoever will save his life shall lose it,” saith He, “but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he should gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul ?”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 56
Knowest thou not, that thou canst do no such kindness to the youth, as to keep him pure from whorish uncleannness? For nothing is equal to the soul. Because, “What is a man profited,” saith He, “if he shall gain the whole world, but lose his own soul.”
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Letters of St. Jerome 108.19
… “What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul:”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 220.9
… But if you consult me regarding your relation to God and the salvation of your soul, and if you fear the word of truth which says: “What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.99
… Lastly, it is trafficking in a madman’s gains to lose your own souls in order not to lose your wealth. For the Lord Christ says, ‘If a man shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul, what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?’"
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 2.15
… “He that loveth his soul shall lose it.” And here, unless we understand the expression of this present life, which we ought to lose for the kingdom of God, as it is clear the martyrs were able to do, this precept will be in contradiction to that sentence where it is said: “What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 52.5
… What is it that I have said? If there be such citizens of Jerusalem, that hear the voice of their Lord, of their King, saying, “Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul:” that hear the voice which but now from the Gospel hath been read, “What doth it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and of himself make wreck:”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 73.18
… If a garment is more precious than fidelity, the former doth suffer the greater loss: but if incomparably good faith doth surpass the whole world, the latter shall seem to have sustained the loss of a garment; but to the former is said, “What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but suffer the loss of his own soul?”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 80.10
… A man would bribe thee, for example, to bear false witness. Countless cases there are, but I am setting before you the plainer cases, whereby ye may imagine the rest. Hast thou hearkened unto God, and hast thou said in thy heart, “What doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, but of his own soul suffer loss?”
Giovanni Cassiano † 435 d.C. The Conferences of John Cassian 24.23
… “For what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”
papa san Gregorio I Magno † 604 d.C. The Book of Pastoral Rule 3.20
… since, while they crave to be increased in goods here through the iniquity of avarice, they become disinherited there of their eternal patrimony. When they either solicit very much, or succeed in obtaining all that they have solicited, let them hear what is written. What is a man profited, if he should gain the whole world, but lose his own soul (
16:27
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 23
… What shall [48] a man profit, if he gain all the world, and destroy his own life, or lose it? or what [49] [Arabic, p. 92] will a man give in ransom for his life? Whosoever shall deny me and my sayings in this sinful and adulterous generation, the Son of man also will [50] deny him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with his holy angels.
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.29
“ For the Son of man shall come in the glory of His own Father with His angels. ”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.30
… of the Word which by “the foolishness of preaching” is proclaimed to those who believe, and spoken in wisdom to them that are perfect, you will see in what way the Word has the form of a slave to those who are learning the rudiments, so that they say, “We saw Him and He had no form or beauty.” But to the perfect He comes “in the glory of His own Father,”
san Gregorio Taumaturgo † 270 d.C. Twelve Topics on the Faith 6
… it be said that He who suffered is one, and He who suffered not another, when the Lord Himself says, “The Son of man must suffer many things, and be killed, and be raised again the third day from the dead;” and again, “When ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the Father;” and again, “When the Son of man cometh in the glory of His Father?”
san Basilio † 379 d.C. De Spiritu Sancto 6
… What shall we say? What just defence shall we have in the day of the awful universal judgment of all-creation, if, when the Lord clearly announces that He will come “in the glory of his Father;”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Three Homilies Concerning the Power of Demons 3.3
3. On this account God places together servants and servants in order that the one set may judge the other, and that some being judged by the others may not be able for the future to accuse the master. On this account, he saith “The Son of Man cometh in the glory of his Father.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 54
And see what He doth. Having discoursed of hell, and of the kingdom (for as well by saying, “He that findeth his life shall lose it, and whosoever will lose it for my sake, shall find it;” as by saying, “He shall reward every man according to his works,”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 2
… 17–20 ); they learned that there will be a resurrection ( Matt. xvii. 9 ); that when He ascended He sat on the right hand of God ( Luke xxii. 69 ); and what is still more stupendous, that Flesh is seated in heaven, and adored by Angels, and that He will come again ( Mark xvi. 19 ); they learned what is to take place in the judgment (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Confessions 4.3
… And who is this but Thee, our God, the sweetness and well-spring of righteousness, who renderest “to every man according to his deeds,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 4
… Nor does it detract at all from a man’s own will when he performs any act in accordance with God. Indeed, a work is then to be pronounced a good one when a person does it willingly; then, too, may the reward of a good work be hoped for from Him concerning whom it is written, “He shall reward every man according to his works.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 19
And hence there arises no small question, which must be solved by the Lord’s gift. If eternal life is rendered to good works, as the Scripture most openly declares: “Then He shall reward every man according to his works:”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 20
… But that to which it is given is solely and simply grace; this therefore is also that which is given to it, because it is its reward;—grace is for grace, as if remuneration for righteousness; in order that it may be true, because it is true, that God “shall reward every man according to his works.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 45
… Be ye then well assured that your labour will never be in vain, if, setting before you a good purpose, you persevere in it to the last. For God, who fails to render, according to their deeds, only to those whom He liberates, will then “recompense every man according to his works.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 44.6
… There is a time for working, another for receiving; for the Lord shall render to every one according to his works.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 7.12
12. “God the righteous judge, strong (in endurance) and long-suffering” ( ver. 11 ). What God is judge, but the Lord, who judgeth the people? He is righteous; who “shall render to every man according to his works.”
Early Popes (Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals) The Epistles of Zephyrinus 2.1
… For it is written, “The way of a fool is right in his eyes;” and, “There are ways which seem right unto a man, but the end thereof leads to death.” Now we who suffer these things ought to leave them to the judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his works;
16:28
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 24
[1] And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There be here now some standing that shall not taste death, until they see the kingdom of God come with strength,
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.31
“ Verily I say unto you there be some of them that stand here that shall not taste of death. ”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.34
But since some one may think that the promise of the Saviour prescribes a limit of time to their not tasting of death, namely, that they will not taste of death “until”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.35
But since here it is written in the three Evangelists, “They shall not taste of death,”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. On the Decease of His Brother Satyrus 2.94
… For indeed the apostles knew not death, according to that which was said: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, many of those standing here shall not taste death until they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.12
96. To begin with, learn, from further testimonies [of Scripture], how that the kingdom of heaven is also the kingdom of the Son: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that there are some amongst those which stand here with us, who shall not taste death, until they see the Son of Man coming into His kingdom.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 2.56
… to no man until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.” This vision of the Lord upon the mount in the presence of the three disciples, Peter, James, and John, on which occasion also the testimony of the Father’s voice was borne Him from heaven, is related by the three evangelists in the same order, and in a manner expressing the same sense completely.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 28.1
1. We must now look into and treat of that vision which the Lord showed on the mount. For it is this of which He had said, “Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man in His Kingdom.”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 146
… Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto the body of His glory.” He does not say to “His glory” but to “the body of His glory,” and the Lord Himself, when He had said to His apostles “There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in His Father’s glory,”
papa san Leone I Magno † 461 d.C. Sermons 51
… because, although they had recognised the majesty of God in Him, yet the power of His body, wherein His Deity was contained, they did not know. And, therefore, rightly and significantly, had He promised that certain of the disciples standing by should not taste death till they saw “the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom
16:1
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
As the Lord sent the multitudes away after the miracle of the five loaves, so also now, not on foot, but by boat, that the multitudes may not follow Him; And he sent away the multitude, and entered into a ship, and came into the coasts of Magedan.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Cons. Ev. ii. 51.
Mark says Dal-manutha, no doubt the same place under a different name, for many copies of the Gospel according to Mark have Magedan.
Rabano Mauro † 856 d.C.
This Magedan is the country opposite Gerasa, and is interpreted ‘fruits,’ or ‘a messenger.’ It signifies a garden, of which it is said, A garden enclosed, a fountain sealed, (Song of Sol. 4:12.) wherein the fruits of virtues grow, and where the name of the Lord is announced. It teaches us that preachers having ministered the word to the multitude ought to be refreshed themselves with the fruits of the virtues within the chamber of their own heart. It follows; And there come unto him Pharisees and Sadducees tempting him, and desired him to shew them a sign from heaven.
Remigio † 908 d.C.
Wondrous blindness of the Pharisees and Sadducees! They asked a sign from heaven, as though the things they now saw were not signs. John shews what sign it was they desired; for he relates, that after the feeding with the five loaves, the multitudes came to the Lord and said, What sign doest thou, that we may see it and believe on thee? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written, He gave them bread to eat from heaven. (John 6:30.) Therefore when they say here, Shew us a sign from heaven, they mean, Cause that it rain manna for one or two days, that the whole people may eat, as was done for a long time in the desert. He looking into their thoughts as God, and knowing that even if a sign from heaven should be shewed them they would not believe, would not give them the sign for which they asked, as it follows, But he answered and said unto them, When the evening is come, ye say, It will be fair weather; for the sky is red, &c.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
This is not found in most copies of the Greek textp. But the sense is clear, that fair and rainy days may be foretold by the condition and harmony of the elements. But the Scribes and Pharisees who seemed to be doctors of the Law could not discern the Saviour’s coming by the predictions of the Prophets.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Quæst. Ev. i. 20.
We might also understand this saying, When it is evening, ye say, It mill be fair weather, for the sky is red, in this way, By the blood of Christ’s passion at His first coming, indulgence of sin is given. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to-day, for the sky is red and lowring; that is, at His second coming He will come with fire before Him.
La Glossa
Otherwise; The sky is red and lowring; that is, the Apostles suffer after the resurrection, by which ye may know that I shall judge hereafter; for if I spare not the good who are mine from present suffering, I shall not spare others hereafter; Ye can therefore discern the face of the sky, but the signs of the times ye cannot.
Rabano Mauro † 856 d.C.
The signs of the times He means of His own coming, or passion, to which the evening redness of the heavens may be likened; and the tribulation which shall be before His coming, to which the morning redness with the lowring sky may be compared.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
As then in the sky there is one sign of fair weather, and another of rain, so ought ye to think concerning me; now, in this My first coming, there is need of these signs which are done in the earth; but those which are done in heaven are reserved for the time of the second coming. Now I come as a physician, then as a judge; now I come in secret, then with much pomp, when the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. But now is not the time of these signs, now have I come to die, and to suffer humiliations; as it follows, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. ubi sup.
This Matthew has already given; whence we may store up for our information, that the Lord spoke the same things many times, that where there are contradictions which cannot be explained, it may be understood that the same sayings were uttered on two different occasions.
La Glossa interlin.
He says, Evil and adulterous generation, that is, unbelieving, having carnal, and not spiritual understanding.
Rabano Mauro † 856 d.C.
To this generation that thus tempted the Lord is not given a sign from heaven, such as they sought for, though many signs are given on the earth; but only to the generation of such as sought the Lord, in whose sight He ascended into heaven, and sent the Holy Spirit.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
But what is meant by the sign of Jonas has been explained above.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
And when the Pharisees heard this, they ought to have asked Him, What it was He meant? But they had not asked at first with any desire of learning, and therefore the Lord leaves them, as it follows, And he left them, and went his way.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
That is, leaving the evil generation of the Jews, He passed over the strait, and the people of the Gentiles followed Him.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
Observe, we do not read here as in other places, that He sent the multitudes away and departed; but because the error of unbelief held the minds of the presumptuous, it is said that He left them.
Il testo latino
Chrysostomus in Matth
Sicut post miraculum quinque panum, dominus turbas dimisit, ita et nunc; nec autem pedes recedit, sed navigio, ne turba eum sequatur: unde dicitur et dimissa turba, ascendit in naviculam, et venit in fines Mageddan
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Marcus autem dicit, quod in Dalmanutha; nec est dubitandum eumdem locum esse sub utroque nomine: nam plerique codices non habent, etiam secundum Marcum, nisi Mageddan
Rabano Mauro
Est autem Mageddan regio contra Gerasam, et interpretatur poma, vel nuntia; et significat hortum, de quo dicitur: hortus conclusus, fons signatus, in quo crescunt poma virtutum, et ubi nuntiatur nomen domini. Docet autem, quod praedicatores, ministrato verbo turbae, ipsi intra cubiculum cordis virtutum pomis debent refici. Sequitur et accesserunt ad eum Pharisaei et Sadducaei tentantes et rogaverunt eum ut signum de caelo ostenderet eis
Remigio
Admiranda quippe est caecitas Pharisaeorum et Sadducaeorum: sic enim postulabant signum de caelo, quasi ea non essent signa quae facere videbatur. Quod autem signum postularent, Ioannes manifestat: refert enim post refectionem de quinque panibus, turbam accessisse ad dominum et dixisse: quod signum facis, ut videamus, et credamus tibi? Patres nostri manna in deserto comederunt, sicut scriptum est: panem de caelo dedit eis manducare. Ideoque et hic dicunt: ostende nobis signum de caelo; idest, fac ut uno vel duobus diebus manna pluat, ut totus populus pascatur, sicut multo tempore factum est in deserto. Ipse vero inspiciens cogitationes eorum, ut Deus, et sciens quod si etiam signum de caelo eis ostenderet, non crederent, noluit eis dare signum quod postulabant: unde sequitur at ille respondens ait illis: facto vespere dicitis: serenum erit
, et cetera. Hieronymus
Hoc apud Graecos in plerisque codicibus non habetur. Sensus autem manifestus est, quod ex elementorum ordine et consonantia possunt et sereni et pluviosi dies praenosci. Scribae autem et Pharisaei, qui videbantur legis esse doctores, ex prophetarum vaticinio non poterant cognoscere salvatoris adventum
Augustinus de quaest. Evang
Potest etiam intelligi quod dixit dominus: facto vespere dicitis: serenum erit, etenim rubicundum est caelum: idest sanguine passionis Christi, primo adventu indulgentia peccatorum datur. Et mane: hodie tempestas, rubet enim cum tristitia caelum; illud est quod secundo adventu igne praecedente venturus est
Glossa
Vel aliter. Rutilat triste caelum; idest, patiuntur apostoli post resurrectionem; post quos me iudicare in futuro scire potestis; quia cum non parco meis bonis quin patiantur, non parcam aliis in futuro. Faciem ergo caeli diiudicare nostis, signa autem temporum non potestis. Signa temporum dixit de adventu suo vel passione, cui simile est roseum caelum vespere; et idem de tribulatione, ante adventum suum futura, cui simile est mane roseum cum tristitia caelum
Chrysostomus in Matth
Sicut ergo in caelo aliud quidem est signum serenitatis, aliud pluviae, ita et in me putare oportet: nunc enim, scilicet in primo adventu, his signis quae in terra sunt, opus est; quae autem in caelo sunt, conservantur tempori secundi adventus. Nunc enim sicut medicus veni; tunc sicut iudex adero: propter hoc nunc occultus veni; tunc autem cum multa divulgatione quando virtutes caelorum movebuntur. Sed non est nunc tempus horum signorum: quia veni mori, et quae abiecta sunt pati: et ideo sequitur generatio mala et adultera signum quaerit; et signum non dabitur ei, nisi signum Ionae prophetae
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Hoc autem et alibi iam dixit Matthaeus: unde retinendum est, eadem dominum saepe dixisse; ut quod existente contrario solvi non poterit, bis dictum intelligatur
Glossa
Dicit autem generatio mala et adultera, idest incredula, pro spirituali carneum habens intellectum
Rabano Mauro
Non ergo generationi illi tentantium dominum signum caeleste datur, quale quaerebant, quibus multa signa dedit in terra; sed generationi quaerentium dominum, idest apostolis; quibus cernentibus, ascendit in caelum, et spiritum sanctum misit
Hieronymus
Quid autem sibi velit signum Ionae, iam supra dictum est
Chrysostomus in Matth
Cum autem hoc Pharisaei audissent, oportebat interrogare, et dicere: quid est quod dicitur? Sed ipsi non desiderio discendi, hoc a domino quaesierunt; et ideo dominus eos relinquit; unde sequitur et relictis illis, abiit
Rabano Mauro
Idest relicta generatione mala Iudaeorum, abiit trans fretum, et gentium secutus est populus. Nota, quod non, sicut in aliis legitur locis, dimissis turbis abiit; sed quia infidelitatis error insolentium animos obtinebat, dicitur quod eos reliquit
16:5
La Glossa non occ.
As the Lord had left the Pharisees on account of their unbelief, so now He teaches His disciples to be on their guard against their doctrine; whence it follows, And when His disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.
Remigio † 908 d.C.
They were bound to their Master with so great affection, that they were unwilling to part from Him for even a moment of time. And herein it should be observed how far they were from any longing for delicacies, when they took so small care for necessaries, that they had even forgotten to take bread, without which human weakness cannot support itself. He said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees; and of the Sadducees.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
Herein the Apostles are admonished not to be partakers in the doctrine of the Jews; for the works of the Law were established to produce faith, and to prefigure the things that were to follow; and they on whose times truth itself had chanced should look for no further types of truth; lest the teaching of the Pharisees, which knew not of Christ, should stay the effect of Gospel truth.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
For he that takes heed of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, does not observe the precepts of the Law and of the letter, and neglects the traditions of men that he may do the commandments of God. This is the leaven of which the Apostle speaks, A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. (1 Cor. 5:6.) By every means also we should avoid that leaven which Marcion, Valentinus, and all the heretics had. For the nature of leaven is such, that when mixed with flour, that which seemed a little increases to a large quantity, and brings the whole mixture to its own flavour. Thus heretical doctrine if it have cast but a small spark into your breast, in a short time a mighty flame is raised, and drives the whole temper of the man along with it.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
Why did He not say plainly, Take heed of the doctrine of the Pharisees? Because He would remind them of those things that had been done in the multiplication of the loaves, knowing them to be forgetful. To have given them this charge at once bluntly would have seemed unreasonable; but to find fault with them on occasion furnished by themselves prepared the way for the charge; therefore it is that the Evangelist brings forward their thoughts; But they thought within themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
How had they no bread, seeing that as soon as they had filled seven baskets they entered into the boat, and came into the parts of Magedan? There they hear that they ought to take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. But the Scripture is witness that they had forgotten to take the baskets with them.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
Because the disciples still grovelled about Jewish observances, the Lord sharply rebukes them for the benefit of all; whence it follows, But Jesus knowing their thoughts said unto them, O ye of little faith, why consider ye among yourselves because ye have no bread?
La Glossa ord.
As much as to say; Why do ye think that I spake of earthly bread, for which ye ought not to have a thought, having beheld Me of so little make such abundant overplus?
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
This He does that He may put away from them all care for food. But why did He not reprove them, when they said, Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness? for that seemed a more fitting occasion. He did not blame them at that time that He might not seem to be by that urged on to do miracles, and He was unwilling to find fault with them before the people. Also there was more reason in the charge, when after two miracles of multiplication of loaves, they had anxiety about food. Observe with what mildness He rebukes them; He makes an excuse in answer Himself, saying, Do ye not yet understand, nor remember the five loaves?
La Glossa interlin.
As much as to say, Do ye not understand the mystery, nor remember the miracle?
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
By this calling to mind what was past, and rousing their attention to what was to come.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
Thus He takes this occasion to instruct them what is meant by the five loaves and the seven loaves, the five thousand and the four thousand, who were fed in the desert. For if the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees signified not earthly food, but corrupt traditions and heretical dogmas, why should not the food with which the people of God is nourished signify the true and uncorrupt doctrine?
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
But that you may learn what force Christ’s reproof had upon His disciples, and how it roused their sluggish spirit, hear what says the Evangelist; Then they understood how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and the Sadducees; yet He had not interpreted this to them. This instruction of the Lord them drew them away from Jewish observances, and made them attentive instead of careless, and raised them out of their little faith, that whenever they should seem to have but little provision of bread they should have no fear about food, but should despise all those things.
Il testo latino
Glossa
Sicut dominus Pharisaeos reliquerat propter eorum infidelitatem, ita consequenter et doctrinam eorum a discipulis cavendam esse docet: unde sequitur et cum venissent discipuli eius trans fretum, obliti sunt accipere panes
Remigio
Tanto enim amore magistri detinebantur ut nec etiam ad punctum vellent ab eo recedere. Animadvertendum est ergo quantum alieni essent ab appetitu deliciarum, cum tam parvam haberent de necessariis curam ut etiam obliti sint panes accipere, sine quibus humana fragilitas subsistere non potest. Sequitur qui dixit illis: intuemini et cavete a fermento Pharisaeorum et Sadducaeorum
Hilarius in Matth
In quo monentur apostoli non admisceri Iudaeorum doctrinae: quia legis opera in effectum fidei et praefigurationem rerum consequentium constituta sunt: et in quorum tempora atque aetatem veritas contigisset, nihil ultra in veritatis similitudinem positum arbitrarentur: ne doctrina Pharisaeorum Christum nesciens, effectum evangelicae veritatis rumperet
Hieronymus
Qui enim cavet a fermento Pharisaeorum et Sadducaeorum, legis ac litterae praecepta non servat, traditiones hominum negligit, ut faciat Dei mandata. Hoc est fermentum de quo apostolus ait: modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit. Istiusmodi fermentum etiam omni ratione vitandum est, quod habuit Marcion, Valentinus et omnes haeretici. Fermentum enim hanc habet vim ut, si farinae mixtum fuerit, quod parum videbatur, crescat in maius, et ad saporem suum universam conspersionem trahat: ita et doctrina haeretica, si vel modicam scintillam iecerit in tuum pectus, in brevi ingens flamma concrescit, et totam hominis passionem ad se trahit
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quare non dixit: attendite a doctrina Pharisaeorum manifeste? Quia vult commemorare ea quae facta sunt, scilicet de multiplicatione panum: etenim noverat eos esse oblitos. Simpliciter autem de hoc eos incusare non videtur rationem habere: occasione autem ab eis recepta eos increpare, susceptibilem faciebat incusationem; et ideo quae cogitabant discipuli, Evangelista in medium introducit, dicens at illi cogitabant intra se dicentes quia panes non accepimus
Hieronymus
Quomodo autem panes non habebant qui statim impletis septem sportis, ascenderunt in naviculam, et venerunt in fines Mageddan? Ibi audiunt navigantes quod cavere debeant a fermento Pharisaeorum et Sadducaeorum. Sed Scriptura testatur, quod obliti sunt eos secum tollere
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quia vero discipuli circa observationes Iudaicas adhuc repebant, ideo dominus vehementer eos increpat ad utilitatem omnium: unde sequitur sciens autem Iesus, dixit eis: quid cogitatis intra vos, modicae fidei, quia panes non habetis?
Glossa
Quasi dicat: quid cogitatis me dixisse de terrenis panibus, de quibus non est vobis dubitandum, cum de tam paucis tantas feci abundare reliquias?
Chrysostomus in Matth
Hoc autem facit, ut sollicitudinem escarum ab eis abiciat. Sed quare non arguit eos, cum dixerunt: unde nobis in solitudine panes tanti? Etenim opportunius videbatur hoc dici. Sed ideo tunc non reprehendit eos, ne videretur se ingerere ad signa facienda, et nolebat ante turbas eos increpare. Tunc etiam rationabilior haec accusatio fuit quando iam duplici miraculo de panibus facto tales erant ut adhuc de escis dubitarent. Vide autem et increpationem cum mansuetudine: velut enim excusando respondet, pro his quos increpaverat dicens nondum intelligitis neque recordamini quinque panum?
Glossa
Quasi dicat: neque mysterium intelligitis, neque virtutem in memoria habetis
Chrysostomus in Matth
Per quod in memoriam eis reducit ea quae praeterierunt, et ad futura attentiores facit
Hieronymus
Per hoc autem quod dicit quare non intelligitis? Ecce per occasionem docet eos quid significent quinque panes et septem, quinque millia hominum et quatuor millia, quae pasta sunt in eremo. Si enim fermentum Pharisaeorum et Sadducaeorum non corporalem panem, sed traditiones perversas et haeretica significat dogmata; quare cibi quibus nutritus est populus Dei, non veram doctrinam integramque significent?
Chrysostomus in Matth
Ut autem discas quantum in discipulis potuit increpatio Christi, et qualiter eorum mentem erexerit dormientem, audi quid Evangelista dicat: tunc intellexerunt quod non dixit cavendum a fermento panum, sed a doctrina Pharisaeorum et Sadducaeorum, quamvis eo hoc non interpretante. Interpretatio ergo domini eos a Iudaicis observationibus abduxit, desides existentes attentiores fecit, et a parva fide eos eripuit, ut non timeant si quando paucos panes habere videantur, neque pro pane solliciti sint, sed haec despiciant universa
16:13
La Glossa 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.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. liv.
He adds ‘of Philip,’ to distinguish it from the other Cæsarea, of Strato. And He asks this question in the former place, leading His disciples far out of the way of the Jews, that being set free from all fear, they might say freely what was in their mind.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
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.
La Glossa 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?
Origene † 253 d.C.
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.
La Glossa non occ.
So by this instance of the Apostles, the followers of the Bishops are instructed, that whatever opinions they may hear out of doors concerning their Bishops, they should tell them to them.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
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.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
He says not, Whom do the Scribes and Pharisees say that I am? but, Whom do men say that I am? searching into the minds of the common people, which were not perverted to evil. For though their opinion concerning Christ was much below what it ought to have been, yet it was free from wilful wickedness; but the opinion of the Pharisees concerning Christ was full of much malice.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
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?
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
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,’
Origene † 253 d.C.
Then the disciples recount the divers opinions of the Jews relating to Christ; And they said, Some say John the Baptist, following Herod’s opinion; others Elias, (vid. Matt. 14:2.) supposing either that Elias had gone through a second birth, or that having continued alive in the body, He had at this time appeared; others Jeremias, whom the Lord had ordained to be Prophet among the Gentiles, not understanding that Jeremias was a type of Christ; or one of the Prophets, in a like way, because of those things which God spoke to them through the Prophets, yet they were not fulfilled in them, but in Christ.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
It was as easy for the multitudes to be wrong in supposing Him to be Elias and Jeremias, as Herod in supposing Him to be John the Baptist; whence I wonder that some interpreters should have sought for the causes of these several errors.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
The disciples having recounted the opinion of the common people, He then by a second question invites them to higher thoughts concerning Him, and therefore it follows, Jesus saith unto them, Whom say ye that I am? You who are with Me always, and have seen greater miracles than the multitudes, ought not to agree in the opinion of the multitudes. For this reason He did not put this question to them at the commencement of His preaching, but after He had done many signs; then also He spoke many things to them concerning His Deity.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
Observe how by this connexion 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?
Rabano Mauro † 856 d.C.
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.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
When the Lord enquires concerning the opinion of the multitudes, all the disciples answer; but when all the disciples are asked, Peter as the mouth and head1 of the Apostles answers for all, as it follows, Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
Origene † 253 d.C.
Peter denied that Jesus was any of those things which the Jews supposed, by his confession, Thou art the Christ, which the Jews were ignorant of; but he added what was more, the Son of the living God, (Ezek. 33:11.) who had said by his Prophets, I live, saith the Lord. And therefore was He called the living Lord, but in a more especial manner as being eminent above all that had life; for He alone has immortality, and is the fount of life, wherefore He is rightly called God the Father; for He is life as it were flowing out of a fountain, who said, I am the life. (John 14:6.)
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
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.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
This is the true and unalterable faith, that from God came forth God the Son, who has eternity out of the eternity of the Father. That this God took unto Him a body and was made man is a perfect confession. Thus He embraced all in that He here expresses both His nature and His name, in which is the sum of virtues.
Rabano Mauro † 856 d.C.
And by a remarkable distinction it was that the Lord Himself puts forward the lowliness of the humanity which He had taken upon Him, while His disciple shews us the excellence of His divine eternity.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
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.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
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.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
It would be without meaning to say, Thou art the son of Jonas, unless he intended to shew that Christ is as naturally the Son of God, as Peter is the son of Jonas, that is, of the same substance as him that begot him.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
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 shewn 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.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
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.
Origene † 253 d.C.
It must be enquired in this place whether, when they were first sent out, the disciples knew that He was the Christ. For this speech shews that Peter then first confessed Him to be the Son of the living God. And look whether you can solve a question of this sort, by saying that to believe Jesus to be the Christ is less than to know Him; and so suppose that when they were sent to preach they believed that Jesus was the Christ, and afterwards as they made progress they knew Him to be so. Or must we answer thus; That then the Apostles had the beginnings of a knowledge of Christ, and knew some little concerning Him; and that they made progress afterwards in the knowledge of Him, so that they were able to receive the knowledge of Christ revealed by the Father, as Peter, who is here blessed, not only for that he says, Thou art the Christ, but much more for that he adds, the Son of the living God.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
And truly if Peter had not confessed that Christ was in a peculiar sense born of the Father, there had been no need of revelation; nor would he have been worthy of this blessing for confessing Christ to be one of many adopted sons; for before this they who were with Him in the ship had said, Truly thou art the Son of God. (John 1:49.) Nathanael also said, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God. Yet were not these blessed because they did not confess such sonship as does Peter here, but thought Him one among many, not in the true sense a son; or, if chief above all, yet not the substance of the Father. But see how the Father reveals the Son, and the Son the Father; from none other comes it to confess the Son than of the Father, and from none other to confess the Father than of the Son; so that from this place even it is manifest that the Son is of the same substance, and to be worshipped together with the Father. Christ then proceeds to shew that many would hereafter believe what Peter had now confessed, whence He adds, And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter,
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
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.)
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. 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.)
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
And pursuing the metaphor of the rock, it is rightly said to him as follows: And upon this rock I will build my Church.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
That is, On this faith and confession I will build my Church. Herein shewing that many should believe what Peter had confessed, and raising his understanding, and making him His shepherd.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. 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.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
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 shew the firmness of this Church thus built upon a rock, He adds, And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
La Glossa interlin.
That is, shall not separate it from the love and faith of Me.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
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.
Origene † 253 d.C.
But in heavenly things every spiritual sin is a gate of hell, to which are opposed the gates of righteousness.
Rabano Mauro † 856 d.C.
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 shew the path of destruction.
Origene † 253 d.C.
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.
san Cirillo di Alessandria † 444 d.C.
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.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
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.
Origene † 253 d.C.
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.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
Then He speaks of another honour of Peter, when He adds, And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; as much as to say, As the Father hath given thee to know Me, I also will give something unto thee, namely, the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
Rabano Mauro † 856 d.C.
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 discernment1 and power; power, by which he binds and looses, discernment, by which he separates the worthy from the unworthy.
La Glossa 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.
Origene † 253 d.C.
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.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
See how Christ leads Peter to a high understanding concerning himself. These things that He here promises to give him, belong to God alone, namely to forgive sins, and to make the Church immoveable amidst the storms of so many persecutions and trials.
Rabano Mauro † 856 d.C.
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.
La Glossa 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.
Second Council of Constantinople 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.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
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 shew 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.
Origene † 253 d.C.
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.
Il testo latino
Glossa
Postquam discipulos a Pharisaeorum doctrina removerat dominus, convenienter evangelicae doctrinae altitudinem in eis fundat: et ut maior solemnitas designetur, locus describitur cum dicitur venit autem Iesus in partes Caesareae Philippi
Chrysostomus in Matth
Ideo autem non simpliciter Caesaream nominat, sed Caesaream Philippi: quia est et alia Caesarea quae est Stratonis: non autem in illa, sed in hac discipulos interrogavit; longe eos a Iudaeis abducens, ut ab omni timore eruti, libere dicant quae habebant in mente. Philippus autem iste, frater fuit Herodis tetrarchae Ithureae et Trachonitidis regionis, qui in honorem Tiberii Caesaris Caesaream Philippi, quae nunc Paneas dicitur, appellavit
Glossa
Confirmaturus autem in fide discipulos, prius opiniones et errores aliorum a mentibus eorum voluit removere: unde sequitur et interrogavit discipulos suos dicens: quem dicunt homines esse filium hominis?
Origenes in Matth
Interrogat Christus discipulos, ut ex apostolorum responsionibus nos discamus diversas opiniones fuisse tunc apud Iudaeos de Christo; et ut nos semper scrutemur qualis opinio sit apud homines de nobis: ut si quid male dicitur de nobis, occasiones illius praecidamus: si quid autem boni, eius occasiones augeamus. Sed et discipuli episcoporum, apostolorum instruuntur exemplo, ut qualescumque opiniones audierint foris de episcopis suis, referant eis
Hieronymus
Pulchre autem interrogat quem dicunt homines esse filium hominis? Quia qui de filio hominis loquuntur, homines sunt; qui vero divinitatem eius intelligunt, non homines sed dii appellantur
Chrysostomus in Matth
Non autem dicit: quem me dicunt Scribae et Pharisaei esse? Sed: quem me dicunt homines esse? Plebis mentem quae ad malum inflexa non erat, investigans. Etsi enim multo humilior quam oportebat eorum erat de Christo opinio, sed tamen a nequitia libera erat; Pharisaeorum autem opinio de Christo erat plena multa malitia
Hilarius in Matth
Dicendo ergo quem dicunt homines esse filium hominis? Significavit, praeter id quod in se videbatur, esse aliud sentiendum: erat enim hominis filius. Quod igitur de se opinandi iudicium desiderabat, non illud arbitramur quod de se ipse confessus est; sed occultum erat de quo quaerebatur, in quod se credentium fides debeat extendere. Est autem haec confessionis tenenda ratio: ut sicut Dei filium, ita et filium hominis meminerimus: quia alterum sine altero nihil spei tribuit ad salutem; et ideo signanter dixit quem dicunt homines esse filium hominis?
Hieronymus
Non enim dixit: quem me esse dicunt homines? Sed quem dicunt esse filium hominis? Ne iactanter de se quaerere videretur. Et nota, quod ubicumque in veteri testamento scriptum est filius hominis, in Hebraeo positum est filius Adam
Origenes in Matth
Diversas autem Iudaeorum opiniones de Christo discipuli referunt: unde dicitur at illi dixerunt: alii Ioannem Baptistam, aestimationem scilicet secuti Herodis; alii autem Eliam, videlicet aestimantes, quod aut secundam nativitatem susceperit Elias, aut ex eo tempore in corpore vivens, in tempore apparuit illo; alii vero Ieremiam, quem dominus in gentibus prophetam constituit: non intelligentes quoniam Ieremias typus fuerat Christi; aut unum ex prophetis, ratione simili, propter illa quae Deus ad ipsos locutus est per prophetas, non tamen in ipsis, sed in Christo sunt impleta
Hieronymus
Sed tamen turbae sic errare potuerunt in Elia et Ieremia, quomodo Herodes erravit in Ioanne: unde miror quosdam interpretes causas errorum inquirere singulorum
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quia vero discipuli opinionem turbae recitaverant, evocat eos per secundam interrogationem ad opinandum aliquid maius de ipso: et ideo sequitur dicit illis Iesus: vos autem quem me esse dicitis? Vos, inquam, qui simul mecum estis semper, quia maiora signa vidistis quam turbae, non oportet vos in opinione convenire cum turbis: et propter hoc non a principio praedicationis eos de hoc interrogavit, sed postquam multa signa fecit, et multa locutus est de sua deitate
Hieronymus
Attende autem, quod ex hoc textu sermonis apostoli nequaquam homines sed dii appellantur; cum enim dixisset quem dicunt homines esse filium hominis? Subiecit vos autem quem me esse dicitis? Ac si dicat: illis, quia homines sunt, humana opinantibus, vos, qui dii estis, quem me esse existimatis?
Rabano Mauro
Non autem quasi nesciens, de se sententiam discipulorum, vel extraneorum inquirit; sed ideo discipulos quid de se sentiant interrogat, ut confessionem rectae fidei digna mercede remuneret. Ideo quid alii de se sentiant inquirit, ut expositis primo sententiis errantium, discipuli probarentur veritatem suae confessionis non de opinione vulgata, sed de ipso percepisse dominicae revelationis arcano
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quando vero dominus de plebis opinione interrogat, omnes respondent; sed omnibus discipulis interrogatis, Petrus tamquam os apostolorum et caput, pro omnibus respondet: unde sequitur respondens Simon Petrus, dixit: tu es Christus filius Dei vivi
Origenes in Matth
Denegavit quidem Petrus aliquid eorum esse Iesum quae arbitrabantur Iudaei, confessus est autem tu es Christus, quod nesciebant Iudaei; sed, et quod maius est, filius Dei vivi, qui et per prophetas dixerat: vivo ego, dicit dominus; et ideo dicebatur vivus, sed secundum supereminentiam, quia supereminet omnibus habentibus vitam: quoniam solus habet immortalitatem et est fons vitae, quod proprie dicitur Deus pater; vita autem est quasi de fonte procedens, qui dixit: ego sum vita
Hieronymus
Deum etiam vivum appellat, ad comparationem eorum deorum qui putantur dii, sed mortui sunt. Saturnum dico, Iovem, Venerem, et Herculem, et cetera idolorum portenta
Hilarius in Matth
Est autem haec vera et inviolabilis fides, ex Deo Deum filium profectum esse, cui sit ex aeternitate patris aeternitas. Hunc igitur assumpsisse corpus et hominem factum esse, perfecta confessio est. Complexus est itaque omnia qui et naturam et nomen expressit: in quo summa virtutum est
Rabano Mauro
Mira autem distinctione factum est ut dominus ipse humilitatem assumptae humanitatis profiteatur, discipulus excellentiam divinae aeternitatis ostendat
Hilarius
Dignum autem confessio Petri praemium consecuta est, quia Dei filium in homine vidisset: unde sequitur respondens autem Iesus dixit ei: beatus es, Simon Bar Iona: quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi, sed pater meus qui est in caelis
Hieronymus
Reddit enim Christus apostolo vicem pro testimonio quod de se Petrus dixerat tu es Christus filius Dei vivi. Dominus autem dixit ei beatus es, Simon Bar Iona. Quare? Quia non revelavit tibi caro et sanguis; sed revelavit pater. Quod caro et sanguis revelare non potuit, spiritus sancti gratia revelatum est. Ergo ex confessione sortitur vocabulum quod revelationem ex spiritu sancto habeat, cuius et filius appellandus sit: siquidem Bar Iona in lingua nostra sonat filius columbae. Alii simpliciter accipiunt, quod Simon, scilicet Petrus, filius sit Ioannis, iuxta alterius loci interrogationem: Simon Ioannis, diligis me? Et volunt scriptorum vitio depravatum: ut pro Bar Ioanna, idest filius Ioannis, Bar Iona scriptum sit, una detracta syllaba; Ioanna vero interpretatur Dei gratia. Utrumque autem nomen mystice intelligi potest: quod et columba spiritum sanctum, et gratia Dei donum significet spiritale
Chrysostomus in Matth
Vanum est enim dicere: tu es filius Ionae, vel Ioanna, nisi ut ostendat quoniam ita naturaliter est Christus filius Dei sicut Petrus filius Ionae, eiusdem substantiae cum eo qui genuit
Hieronymus
Illud autem quod ait quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi, apostolicae narrationi compara, in qua ait: continuo non acquievi carni et sanguini: carnem ibi et sanguinem Iudaeos significans: ut hic quoque sub alio sensu demonstretur, quod ei non per doctrinam Pharisaeorum, sed per Dei gratiam Christus Dei filius revelatus sit
Hilarius in Matth
Vel aliter. Beatus hic, quia ultra humanos oculos et intendisse et vidisse laudatus est, non id quod ex carne et sanguine est contuens, sed Dei filium caelestis patris revelatione conspiciens: dignusque iudicatus est ut primus agnosceret quod divinitas esset in Christo
Origenes in Matth
Est autem in hoc loco quaerendum utrum cum prius mitterentur, iam cognoscebant discipuli quoniam ipse erat Christus. Hic enim sermo demonstrat, quoniam tunc primum confessus fuerit eum Petrus Christum filium Dei vivi. Et vide, si potes huiusmodi quaestionem solvere, dicens, quoniam credere Iesum esse Christum, minus est quam cognoscere: ut dicamus, quod quando mittebantur ad praedicandum, credebant quidem Iesum esse Christum; postea autem proficientes etiam cognoverunt. Aut ita est respondendum ut dicamus quoniam tunc quidem apostoli initia cognitionis habebant Christi, et exigua cognoscebant de illo; postea autem profecerunt in agnitione ipsius, ut possent capere scientiam Christi revelatam a patre: sicut et Petrus qui beatificatur, non solum in eo quod dicit tu es Christus; sed in eo magis quod addidit filius Dei vivi
Chrysostomus in Matth
Nimirum autem, si non confessus esset Petrus Christum proprie ex patre natum, non esset hic revelatione opus: neque aestimare Christum unum ex multis filiis adoptivis, beatitudine dignum esset: nam et ante hoc illi qui erant in navi dixerunt: vere filius Dei est hic. Sed et Nathanael dixit: Rabbi, tu es filius Dei. Non tamen beati dicti sunt, quia non talem confessi sunt filiationem qualem Petrus: sed unum ex multis eum aestimabant, non vere filium; vel etsi praecipuum quidem prae multis, non autem ex substantia patris. Vides autem qualiter et filium revelat pater et patrem filius. Non enim ab alio est dicere filium quam a patre, nec ab alio patrem quam a filio: quare et hinc manifestum est quod filius est consubstantialis et coadorandus patri. Ostendit autem Christus ex hinc iam multos credituros quod fuerat Petrus confessus; unde subdit et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus
Hieronymus
Ac si dicat: quia tu mihi dixisti tu es Christus filius Dei vivi, et ego dico tibi, non sermone casso et nullum opus habente; sed dico tibi (quia meum dixisse, fecisse est), quia tu es Petrus; sicut enim ipse lumen apostolis donavit ut lumen mundi appellentur, et cetera quae a domino sortiti vocabula sunt; ita et Simoni qui credebat in petram Christum, Petri largitus est nomen
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Nullus tamen arbitretur quod hic Petrus nomen acceperit: non enim accepit hoc nomen nisi ubi Ioannes commemorat ei dictum esse: tu vocaberis Cephas; quod interpretatur Petrus
Hieronymus
Secundum autem metaphoram petrae, recte dicitur ei: aedificabo Ecclesiam meam super te; et hoc est quod sequitur et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam
Chrysostomus in Matth
Idest in hac fide et confessione aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Hinc ostendit multos iam credituros quod Petrus confessus fuerat, et erigit eius sensum, et pastorem ipsum facit
Augustinus in Lib. Retract
Dixi in quodam loco de apostolo Petro, quod in illo tamquam in petra aedificata est Ecclesia; sed scio me postea saepissime sic exposuisse quod a domino dictum est tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, ut super hunc intelligeretur quem confessus est Petrus dicens tu es Christus filius Dei vivi; ac si Petrus ab hac petra appellatus, personam Ecclesiae figuraret, quae super hanc petram aedificatur; non enim dictum est illi: tu es petra, sed tu es Petrus; petra autem erat Christus, quem confessus Simon, sicut ei tota Ecclesia confitetur, dictus est Petrus. Harum autem duarum sententiarum quae sit probabilior, eligat lector
Hilarius in Matth
Est autem in nuncupatione novi nominis felix Ecclesiae fundamentum, dignaque aedificatione illius petra, quae infernales leges et Tartari portas et omnia mortis claustra dissolveret: unde ad ostendendam firmitatem Ecclesiae supra petram fundatae, subditur et portae Inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam
Glossa
Idest, non separabunt eam a caritate mea et fide
Hieronymus
Ego portas Inferi, vitia reor atque peccata; vel certe haereticorum doctrinas, per quas illecti homines ducuntur ad Tartarum
Origenes in Matth
Sed et singulae spirituales nequitiae in caelestibus portae sunt Inferorum, quibus contrariantur portae iustitiae
Rabano Mauro
Portae quoque Inferi, etiam tormenta et blandimenta sunt persecutorum; sed et prava infidelium opera ineptaque colloquia portae sunt Inferi, quia iter perditionis ostendunt
Origenes
Non autem exprimit utrum petrae non praevalebunt in qua aedificat Christus Ecclesiam, aut Ecclesiae quam aedificat supra petram; tamen manifestum est quia nec adversus petram, nec adversus Ecclesiam portae praevalent Inferorum
Cyrillus in Lib. thesauri
Secundum autem hanc domini promissionem, Ecclesia apostolica Petri ab omni seductione haereticaque circumventione manet immaculata, super omnes praepositos et episcopos, et super omnes primates Ecclesiarum et populorum in suis pontificibus, in fide plenissima et auctoritate Petri. Et cum aliae Ecclesiae, quorumdam errore sint verecundatae, stabilita inquassabiliter ipsa sola regnat, silentium imponens, et omnium obturans ora haereticorum: et nos necessario salutis, non decepti superbia, neque vino superbiae inebriati, typum veritatis et sanctae apostolicae traditionis una cum ipsa confitemur et praedicamus
Hieronymus
Nemo autem putet haec de morte dici, quod apostoli conditioni mortis subiecti non fuerint, quorum martyria videat coruscare
Origenes in Matth
Si ergo et nos, patre nobis revelante qui est in caelis, quando scilicet conversatio nostra in caelis est, confessi fuerimus Iesum Christum esse filium Dei vivi: et nobis dicetur: tu es Petrus: petra enim est omnis qui imitator est Christi. Adversus quem autem portae praevalent Inferorum, ille neque petra dicendus est, supra quam aedificat Christus Ecclesiam; neque Ecclesia, neque pars Ecclesiae, quam Christus aedificat supra petram
Chrysostomus in Matth
Deinde et alium Petri dicit honorem, cum subditur et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum; quasi dicat: sicut pater tibi dedit me cognoscere, ita et ego tibi aliquid dabo, scilicet claves regni caelorum
Rabano Mauro
Qui enim regem caelorum maiori prae ceteris devotione confessus est, merito prae ceteris ipse collatis clavibus regni caelestis donatus est; ut constaret omnibus, quia absque ea confessione ac fide regnum caelorum nullus posset intrare. Claves autem regni caelorum ipsam discretionem et potentiam nominat: potentiam, qua liget et solvat; discretionem, qua dignos vel indignos discernat
Glossa
Unde sequitur et quaecumque ligaveris, idest quemcumque indignum remissione iudicaveris dum vivit, indignus apud Deum iudicabitur; et quodcumque solveris, idest quemcumque solvendum iudicaveris dum vivit, remissionem peccatorum consequetur a Deo
Origenes in Matth
Vide autem quantam potestatem habet petra super quam aedificatur Ecclesia, ut eius etiam iudicia maneant firma, quasi Deo iudicante per eam
Chrysostomus in Matth
Vide autem qualiter Christus reducit Petrum ad excelsam de ipso intelligentiam. Haec enim ei se promittit daturum quae sunt propria Dei solius: scilicet peccata solvere, et Ecclesiam immutabilem facere inter tot persecutionum et tentationum procellas
Rabano Mauro
Haec autem ligandi atque solvendi potestas quamvis soli Petro data videatur a domino, tamen et ceteris apostolis datur, nec non etiam nunc in episcopis ac presbyteris omni Ecclesiae. Sed ideo Petrus specialiter claves regni caelorum et principatum iudiciariae potestatis accepit, ut omnes per orbem credentes intelligant quia quicumque ab unitate fidei vel societatis illius quolibet modo semetipsos segregant, tales nec vinculis peccatorum absolvi, nec ianuam possunt regni caelestis ingredi
Glossa
Specialiter etiam eam Petro concessit, ut ad unitatem nos invitaret. Ideo enim eum principem apostolorum constituit, ut Ecclesia unum principalem Christi haberet vicarium, ad quem diversa membra Ecclesiae recurrerent, si forte inter se dissentirent. Quod si diversa capita essent in Ecclesia, unitatis vinculum rumperetur. Quidam autem dicunt, quod ideo dicit super terram: non enim data est potestas hominibus ligandi vel solvendi mortuos, sed vivos. Qui autem mortuos solveret vel ligaret, non super terram, sed post terram hoc faceret
Ex sententiis Constantin. Concilii
Quomodo autem praesumunt quidam dicere de vivis tantummodo haec dicta esse? An ignorant quia iudicium anathematis nihil est aliud quam separatio? Evitandi sunt autem illi qui pessimis culpis detinentur, sive in vivis sint, sive non. A nocente enim semper refugere necessarium est. Sed et Augustini religiosae memoriae, qui inter Africanos episcopos splenduit, diversae epistolae recitatae sunt, significantes quod oporteret haereticos et post mortem anathematizare. Talem autem ecclesiasticam traditionem et alii Africani episcopi servaverunt. Sed et sancta Romana Ecclesia quosdam episcopos post mortem anathematizavit, licet pro fide in vita sua non essent accusati
Hieronymus
Istum locum episcopi et presbyteri non intelligentes, aliquid sibi de Pharisaeorum assumunt supercilio, ut vel damnent innocentes, vel solvere se noxios arbitrentur; cum apud dominum non sententia sacerdotum sed reorum vita quaeratur. Legimus in Levitico de leprosis, ubi iubentur ostendere se sacerdotibus; et si lepram habuerint, tunc a sacerdote immundi fiant: non quod sacerdotes leprosos faciant et immundos, sed quod habeant notitiam leprosi et non leprosi, et possint discernere qui mundus quive immundus sit. Quomodo ergo ibi leprosum sacerdos immundum facit, sic et hic alligat vel solvit episcopus vel presbyter, non eos qui insontes sunt vel innoxii; sed pro officio suo, cum peccatorum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus sit, qui solvendus
Origenes
Sit ergo irreprehensibilis qui alterum ligat vel solvit, ut inveniatur dignus ligare vel solvere in caelo. Sed et ei qui potuerit virtutibus portas obstruere Inferorum, quasi praemium dantur claves regni caelorum: omnis enim species virtutis, cum quis eam coeperit operari, quasi ipsa se adaperit ante eum, domino videlicet aperiente eam per gratiam suam, ut inveniatur eadem virtus et porta esse et clavis portae. Forsitan autem et unaquaeque virtus est regnum caelorum
16:20
Origene † 253 d.C.
Seeing Peter had confessed Him to be Christ the Son of the living God, because He would not have them preach this in the mean time, He adds, Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
When then above He sends His disciples to preach, and commands them to proclaim His advent, this seems contrary to His command here, that they should not say that He is Jesus the Christ. To me it seems that it is one thing to preach Christ, and another to preach Jesus the Christ. Christ is a common title of dignity, Jesus the proper name of the Saviour.
Origene † 253 d.C.
Or they then spake of Him in lowly words, as only a great and wonderful man, but as yet proclaimed Him not as the Christ. Yet if any will have it that He was even at the first proclaimed to be Christ, he may say that now He chose that first short announcement of His name to be left in silence and not repeated, that that little which they had heard concerning Christ might be digested into their minds. Or the difficulty may be solved thus: that the former relation concerning their preaching Christ does not belong to the time before His Resurrection, but to the time that should be after the Resurrection; and that the command now given is meant for the time present; for it were of no use to preach Him, and to be silent concerning His cross. Moreover, He commanded them that they should tell no man that He was the Christ, and prepared them that they should afterwards say that He was Christ who was crucified, and who rose again from the dead.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
But that none should suppose that this is only my explanation, and not an evangelic interpretation, what follows explains the reasons of His forbidding them to preach Him at that time; Then began Jesus to shew unto his disciples that he must needs go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and Scribes, and Chief Priests, and be put to death, and rise again the third day. The meaning is; Then preach Me when I shall have suffered these things, for it will be of no avail that Christ be preached publicly, and His Majesty spread abroad among the people, when after a little time they shall see Him scourged and crucified.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
For what having once had root has afterwards been torn up, if it is again planted, is with difficulty retained among the multitude; but what having been once rooted has continued ever after unmoved, is easily brought on to a further growth. He therefore dwells on these sorrowful things, and repeats His discourse upon them, that He may open the minds of His disciples.
Origene † 253 d.C.
And observe that it is not said,’ He began to say,’ or ‘to teach,’ but to shew; for as things are said to be shewn to the sense, so the things which Christ spake are said to be shewn by Him. Nor indeed do I think, that to those who saw Him suffering many things in the flesh, were those things which they saw so shewn as this representation in words shewed to the disciples the mystery of the passion and resurrection of Christ. At that time, indeed, He only began to shew them, and afterwards when they were more able to receive it, He shewed them more fully; for all that Jesus began to do, that He accomplished. He must needs go to Jerusalem, to be put to death indeed in the Jerusalem which is below, but to rise again and reign in the heavenly Jerusalem. But when Christ rose again, and others were risen with Him, they no longer sought the Jerusalem which is beneath, or the house of prayer in it, but that which is above. He suffers many things from the elders of the earthly Jerusalem, that He may be glorified by those heavenly elders who receive His mercies. He rose again from the dead on the third day, that He may deliver from the evil one, and purchase for such as are so delivered this gift, that they be baptized in spirit, soul, and body, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who are three days perpetually present to those that through them have been made children of light.
Il testo latino
Origenes in Matth
Postquam Petrus confessus est Christum filium Dei vivi, quia noluit hoc eos interim praedicare, subdit tunc praecepit discipulis suis ut nemini dicerent quia ipse esset Iesus Christus
Hieronymus
Sed cum supra mittens discipulos ad praedicandum iusserit eis ut annuntiarent adventum suum, videtur esse contrarium quod hic praecipit ne se dicant esse Iesum Christum. Mihi videtur aliud esse Christum praedicare, aliud Iesum Christum. Et Christus commune dignitatis est nomen, Iesus proprium vocabulum salvatoris
Origenes in Matth
Vel tunc leviter quidem de eo annuntiabant, quasi de magno et mirabili viro; Christum autem esse eum nondum annuntiabant. Qui autem vult etiam Christum eum praedicatum prius ab apostolis, dicet, quoniam leviter praemittere voluit eos mentionem nominis sui, ut interim facto silentio praedicationis huius, hoc ipsum quod leviter de Christo auditum fuerat, digeratur in sensibus auditorum. Aut ita est solvenda quaestio: ut videantur ea quae superius de annuntiando Christo sunt dicta, non ad tempus pertinere quod fuit ante Christi resurrectionem, sed ad tempora post futura. Haec autem quae mandat ut nemini dicant, tunc apostolis convenire: inutile enim est ipsum quidem praedicare, crucem autem eius tacere. Propterea praecepit eis ut nemini dicerent quia ipse est Christus, et praeparabat eos, ut postmodum dicant, quoniam ipse est Christus, qui crucifixus est, et resurrexit a mortuis
Hieronymus
Quod ne quis putet nostrae tantum esse intelligentiae quod sequitur, causas tunc prohibitae praedicationis exponit: sequitur enim exinde coepit Iesus ostendere discipulis suis quia oportebat eum ire Hierosolymam, et multa pati a senioribus et Scribis et principibus sacerdotum, et occidi, et tertia die resurgere. Est autem sensus: tunc me praedicate cum ista passus fuero: quia non prodest Christum publice praedicari, et eius vulgare in populis maiestatem, quem post paululum flagellatum visuri sunt et crucifixum
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quod enim semel radicatum est et postea evulsum, si iterum plantetur, difficile retinebitur apud multos: quod autem infixum semel est, et mansit postea immobile, facile provehitur ad augmentum. Propter hoc autem immoratur tristibus praedicendis, et sermonem multiplicat, ut aperiat discipulorum mentes
Origenes
Et vide quia non dixit: coepit dicere vel docere, sed ostendere; quia sicut corporalia ostendi dicuntur, sic ostendi dicuntur a Christo ea quae loquebatur. Non autem sic puto eis qui corporaliter eum multa patientem viderunt, ostensa fuisse ea quae videbantur, quomodo discipulis ostensus est rationabilis sermo de mysterio passionis et resurrectionis Christi: et tunc quidem coepit ostendere; consequenter autem postea capacioribus factis plenius demonstravit: quia omne quod coepit Iesus, hoc perfecit. Oportebat autem eum ire in Ierusalem, ut occidatur quidem in Hierosolymis quae sunt deorsum, regnet autem resurgens in Ierusalem caelesti. Postquam enim resurrexit Christus, et alii consurrexerunt ei, iam non deorsum quaeritur Ierusalem, vel domus orationis in ea, sed sursum. Patitur autem multa a senioribus Ierusalem terrenae, ut glorificetur ab his qui capiunt beneficia eius caelestibus senioribus. Tertia autem die resurrexit a mortuis, ut eripiens maligno, acquirat eis qui liberati fuerint hoc donum, ut baptizentur spiritu et anima et corpore in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti, qui sunt tres dies simul perpetuo instantes eis qui per eos facti fuerunt filii lucis
16:22
Origene † 253 d.C.
While Christ was yet speaking the beginnings of the things which He was shewing unto them, Peter considered them unworthy of the Son of the living God. And forgetting that the Son of the living God does nothing, and acts in no way worthy of blame, he began to rebuke Him; and this is what is said, And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
We have often said that Peter had too hot a zeal, and a very great affection towards the Lord the Saviour. Therefore after that his confession, and the reward of which he had heard from the Saviour, he would not have that his confession destroyed, and thought it impossible that the Son of God could be put to death, but takes Him to him affectionately, or takes Him aside that he may not seem to be rebuking his Master in the presence of his fellow disciples, and begins to chide Him with the feeling of one that loved Him, and to contradict Him, and say, Be it far from thee, Lord; or as it is better in the Greek, ἵλεώς σοι Κύριε, οὐ μὴ ἔσται σοι τοῦτο, that is, Be propitious to Thyself, Lord, this shall not be unto Thee.
Origene † 253 d.C.
As though Christ Himself had needed a propitiation. His affection Christ allows, but charges him with ignorance; as it follows, He turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto me.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
The Lord, knowing the suggestion of the craft of the devil, says to Peter, Get thee behind me; that is, that he should follow the example of His passion; but to him by whom this expression was suggested, He turns and says, Satan, thou art an offence unto me. For we cannot suppose that the name of Satan, and the sin of being an offence, would be imputed to Peter after those so great declarations of blessedness and power that had been granted him.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
But to me this error of the Apostle, proceeding from the warmth of his affection, will never seem a suggestion of the devil. Let the thoughtful reader consider that that blessedness of power was promised to Peter in time to come, not given him at the time present; had it been conveyed to him immediately, the error of a false confession would never have found place in him.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
For what wonder is it that this should befal Peter, who had never received a revelation concerning these things? For that you may learn that that confession which he made concerning Christ was not spoken of himself, observe how in these things which had not been revealed to him, he is at a loss. Estimating the things of Christ by human and earthly principles, he judged it mean and unworthy of Him that He should suffer. Therefore the Lord added, For thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
As much as to say; It is of My will, and of the Father’s will, that I should die for the salvation of men; you considering only your own will would not that the grain of wheat should fall into the ground, that it may bring forth much fruit; therefore as you speak what is opposed to My will, you ought to be called My adversary. For Satan is interpreted ‘adverse’ or ‘contrary.’
Origene † 253 d.C.
Yet the words in which Peter and those in which Satan are rebuked, are not, as is commonly thought, the same; to Peter it is said, Get thee behind me, Satan; that is, follow me, thou that art contrary to my will; to the Devil it is said, Go thy way, Satan, understanding not ‘behind me,’ but ‘into everlasting fire.’ He said therefore to Peter, Get thee behind me, as to one who through ignorance was ceasing to walk after Christ. And He called him Satan, as one, who through ignorance had somewhat contrary to God. But he is blessed to whom Christ turns, even though He turn in order to rebuke him. But why said He to Peter, Thou art an offence unto me, (Ps. 119:165.) when in the Psalm it is said, Great peace have they that love thy law, and there is no offence to them? It must be answered, that not only is Jesus not offended, but neither is any man who is perfect in the love of God; and yet he who does or speaks any thing of the nature of an offence, may be an offence even to one who is incapable of being offended. Or he may hold every disciple that sinneth as an offence, as Paul speaks, Who is offended, and I burn not?. (2 Cor. 11:29.)
Il testo latino
Origenes in Matth
Adhuc initia eorum quae ostendebantur dicente Christo, Petrus indigna haec filio Dei vivi arbitrabatur; et quasi oblitus quoniam filius Dei vivi nihil dignum increpatione facit aut agit, coepit increpare; et hoc est quod dicitur et assumens eum Petrus, coepit increpare illum
Hieronymus
Saepe diximus nimii ardoris amorisque quam maximi fuisse Petrum in dominum salvatorem. Qui ergo post confessionem suam et praemium salvatoris quod audierat, non vult destrui confessionem suam, nec putat posse fieri ut Dei filius occidatur, assumit eum in affectum suum vel separatim ducit, ne praesentibus ceteris condiscipulis videatur magistrum arguere; et coepit illum increpare amantis affectu, et obstans dicere absit a te, domine. Vel, ut melius habetur in Graeco, ileos si kyrie, u mi este si tuto; hoc est, propitius sis tibi, domine; non erit tibi hoc; quasi necessariam haberet propitiationem. Cuius affectum quidem suscipiens Christus, ignorantiam exprobrat; unde sequitur qui conversus dixit Petro: vade post me, Satana; scandalum mihi es
Hilarius in Matth
Sciens enim dominus diabolicae artis instinctum, Petro ait vade retro post me, idest ut exemplum suae passionis sequatur. In eum vero per quem opinio haec suggerebatur, conversus, adiecit Satana, scandalum mihi es. Non enim convenit existimare Petro Satanae nomen et accusationem scandali deputari, post indulta illa beatitudinis et potestatis tanta praeconia
Hieronymus
Sed mihi error apostolicus de pietatis affectu veniens, nunquam incentivum videbitur Diaboli. Prudens ergo lector consideret, Petro illam beatitudinem ac potestatem in futuro promissam, non in praesenti datam; quam si statim dedisset ei, nunquam in eo pravae confessionis error invenisset locum
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quid etiam mirabile est haec pati Petrum, qui de his revelationem non suscepit? Ut enim discas, quia neque illa quae de Christo confessus fuerat, ex se locutus est, vide qualiter in his quae non revelata sunt ei, turbationem patiatur: humana enim et terrestri cogitatione, quae sunt Christi considerans, aestimabat turpe et indignum esse ei quod pateretur. Et ideo dominus subiecit quia non sapis ea quae Dei sunt, sed ea quae hominum
Hieronymus
Quasi dicat: meae voluntatis est et patris, ut pro hominum salute moriar; tu tuam tantum considerans voluntatem, non vis granum tritici cadere in terram ut multos afferat fructus; et ideo, quia contraria loqueris voluntati meae, debes adversarius appellari. Satanas enim interpretatur adversarius, sive contrarius. Non tamen ut plerique putant, eadem Satanas et Petrus sententia condemnantur: Petro enim dicitur vade retro me, Satana; idest: sequere me, qui contrarius es voluntati meae; ille audit: vade, Satana; et non ei dicit retro, ut subaudiatur: vade in ignem aeternum
Origenes in Matth
Dixit ergo Petro vade post me, quasi desistenti per ignorantiam ire post Christum. Satana autem dixit ei, quasi per ignorantiam aliquid habenti contrarium Deo. Beatus autem ad quem convertitur Christus, etiam si corripiendi causa convertitur. Sed quare dixit ad Petrum scandalum mihi es, cum in Psalmo 118, 165 dicatur: pax multa diligentibus legem tuam, et non est illis scandalum? Sed respondendum est, quoniam non solum Iesus non scandalizatur, sed nec omnis homo qui in dilectione Dei perfectus est. Sed quantum ad se, qui tale aliquid vel agit vel loquitur, scandalum est alteri; licet ille inscandalizabilis sit. Aut certe omnem discipulum peccantem scandalum sibi appellat, sicut et Paulus dicebat: quis scandalizatur, et ego non uror?
16:24
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. lv.
Peter had said, Be it far from thee, Lord, this shall not be unto thee; and had been answered, Get thee behind me, Satan; but the Lord was not satisfied with this rebuke, but over and above desired to shew the impropriety of those things which Peter had said, and the fruit of His own passion; whence it is added, Then said Jesus to his disciples, If any man will to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me; as much as to say, You say unto me, Be it far from thee; but I say unto you, that not only is it harmful for you to hinder Me from My Passion, but yourself will not be able to be saved unless you suffer and die, and renounce your life always. And note, that He does not speak of it as compulsory, for He does not say, Though ye will not yet must ye suffer this, but, If any man will. By saying this He rather attracted them; for he who leaves his auditor at liberty, attracts him the more; whereas he that uses violence oftentimes hinders him. And He proposes this doctrine, not to His disciples only, but in common to the whole world, saying, If any man will, that is, if woman, if man, if king, if free, if slave; there are three things mentioned; let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C. Hom. in Ev. xxxii. 2.
For unless a man departs from himself, he does not draw near to Him who is above him. But if we leave ourselves, whither shall we go out of ourselves? Or if we have forsaken ourselves, who is it then that goes? Indeed, we are one thing when fallen by sin, another thing as we were made by nature. It is therefore then that we leave and deny ourselves, when we avoid that which we were of old, and strive towards that to which we are called in newness.
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C. in Ezech. Hom. i. 10.
He denies himself whosoever is changed for the better, and begins to be what he was not, and ceases to be what he was.
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C. Mor. xxxiii. 6.
He also denies himself, who having trode under foot the risings of pride, shews himself in the eyes of God to be estranged from himself.
Origene † 253 d.C.
But though a man may seem to keep from sin, yet if he does not believe in the cross of Christ, he cannot be said to be crucified with Christ; whence it follows, And take up his cross.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
Otherwise; He that disowns another, whether a brother, or a servant, or whosoever it be, he may see him beaten, or suffering aught else, and neither succours nor befriends him; thus it is he would have us deny our body, and whether it be beaten or afflicted in any other way, not to spare it. For this is to spare. So parents do then most spare their children when they hand them over to tutors, bidding them not to spare them. And that you should not think that this denial of self extends only to words or affronts, he shews to what degree we should deny ourselves, namely, to death the most shameful, even that of the cross; this He signifies when He says, And take up his cross, and follow me.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
We are to follow our Lord by taking up the cross of His passion; and if not in deed, yet in will, hear Him company.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
And because malefactors often suffer grievous things, that you should not suppose that simply to suffer evil is enough, He adds the reason of suffering, when He says, And follow me. For His sake you are to endure all, and to learn His other virtues; for this is to follow Christ aright, to be diligent in the practice of virtues, and to suffer all things for His sake.
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C. Hom. in Ev. xxxii. 3.
There are two ways of taking our cross; when the body is afflicted by abstinence, or when the heart is pained by compassion for another. Forasmuch as our very virtues are beset with faults, we must declare that vainglory sometimes attends abstinence of flesh, for the emaciated body and pale countenance betray this high virtue to the praise of the world. Compassion again is sometimes attended by a false affection, which is hereby led to be consenting unto sin; to shut out these, He adds, and follow me.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
Otherwise; He takes up his cross who is crucified to the world; and he to whom the world is crucified, follows his crucified Lord.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
And then because this seemed severe, He softens it by shewing the abundant rewards of our pains, and the punishment of evil, He that will save his life shall lose it.
Origene † 253 d.C.
This may be understood in two ways. First thus; if any lover of this present life spares his life, fearing to die, and supposing that his life is ended with this death; he seeking in this way to save his life, shall lose it, estranging it from life eternal. But if any, despising the present life, shall contend for the truth unto death, he shall lose his life as far as this present life is concerned, but forasmuch as he loses it for Christ, he shall the more save it for life eternal. Otherwise thus; if any understand what is true salvation, and desire to obtain it for the salvation of his own life, he by denying himself loses his life as to the enjoyments of the flesh, but saves it by works of piety. He shews by saying. For he that will, that this passage must be connected in sense with that which went before. If then we understand the first, Let him deny himself, of the death of the body, we must take this that follows of death only; but if we understand the first of mortifying the propensities of the flesh, then, to lose his life, signifies to give up carnal pleasures.
Il testo latino
Chrysostomus in Matth
Postquam Petrus dixerat: propitius esto tibi; nequaquam erit tibi hoc, et audivit: vade retro me, Satana, non fuit dominus hac solum increpatione contentus; sed ex superabundantia voluit ostendere inconvenientiam dictorum a Petro, et fructum suae passionis: unde subditur tunc Iesus dixit discipulis suis: si quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum, et tollat crucem suam, et sequatur me; quasi dicat: tu dicis mihi: propitius esto tibi; ego autem dico tibi, quoniam non solum me prohibere a passione nocivum tibi est; sed neque salvari poteris, nisi patiaris et moriaris, et vitae abrenunties semper. Et vide quia non coactivum facit sermonem; non enim dixit: si nolueritis, oportet vos hoc pati, sed si quis vult. Hoc autem dicens magis attrahebat: qui enim libertati auditorem dimittit, magis attrahit; qui vero violentiam infert, multoties impedit. Non autem solis discipulis suis; sed commune hoc dogma orbi terrarum proponit, dicens si quis vult, idest, si mulier, si vir, si rex, si liber, si servus. Tria autem sunt quae dicuntur: abneget semetipsum, et tollat crucem suam, et sequatur me
Gregorius in Evang
Quia nisi quis a semetipso deficiat, ad eum qui super ipsum est, non appropinquat. Sed si nos ipsos relinquimus, quo ibimus extra nos? Vel quis est qui vadit, si se deseruit? Sed aliud sumus per peccatum lapsi, aliud per naturam conditi. Tunc ergo nosmetipsos relinquimus et abnegamus, cum vitamus quod per vetustatem fuimus, et ad hoc nitimur ad quod per novitatem vocamur
Gregorius super Ezech
Semetipsum etiam abnegat quicumque mutatur ad meliora, et incipit esse quod non erat, et desinit esse quod erat
Gregorius Moralium
Semetipsum etiam abnegat qui calcato typo superbiae, ante Dei oculos se esse a se alienum demonstrat
Origenes
Quamvis autem videatur aliquis a peccato abstinere, tamen nisi in crucem Christi crediderit, non potest dici Christo confixus, sive cruci: unde sequitur et tollat crucem suam
Chrysostomus in Matth
Vel aliter. Qui negat alium, vel fratrem, vel famulum, vel quemcumque, et si flagellatum viderit, et quodcumque patientem, non assistit, non adiuvat: ita vult corpori nostro nos non ignoscere, ut si flagellaverint, vel quodcumque aliud fecerint, corpori non parcamus. Hoc enim est parcere: sicut patres tunc ignoscunt filiis, cum magistris eos tradentes, iusserint, ut non parcant. Ne autem aestimes quod usque ad verba tantum et contumelias oportet abnegare seipsum, ostendit usque ad quantum abnegare seipsum oporteat; quia usque ad mortem, etiam turpissimam, scilicet crucis: quod significat in hoc quod dicit et tollat crucem suam, et sequatur me
In Matth. Hilarius
Sequendus enim est dominus, cruce assumpta passionis suae; et si non sorte, tamen voluntate comitandus est
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quia etiam latrones multa gravia patiuntur, ut non aestimes quod passio malorum sufficiat, adiungit causam patiendi cum dicit et sequatur me, ut propter eum omnia sustineas, et alias eius virtutes addiscas: hoc est enim sequi Christum ut oportet, diligentem esse circa virtutes, et pati omnia propter ipsum
Gregorius in Evang
Duobus etiam modis crux tollitur, cum aut per abstinentiam affligitur corpus, aut per compassionem proximi affligitur animus. Sed quia ipsis virtutibus quaedam vitia mixta sunt, dicendum nobis est, quod abstinentiam carnis nonnumquam vana gloria obsidet: quia dum tenuitas in corpore, dum pallor in vultu respicitur, virtus patefacta laudatur. Compassionem vero animi plerumque latenter obsidet pietas falsa, ut hanc nonnumquam usque ad condescendendum vitiis pertrahat: unde ad haec excludenda, subdit et sequatur me
Hieronymus
Vel aliter. Tollit crucem suam qui mundo crucifigitur; cui autem mundus crucifixus est, sequitur dominum crucifixum
Chrysostomus in Matth
Deinde, quia grave videbatur quod dictum est, per ea quae consequuntur id mitigat, praemia ponens supereminentia laboribus, et malitiae poenas: unde sequitur qui enim voluerit animam suam salvam facere, perdet eam
Origenes in Matth
Quod dupliciter potest intelligi. Primum sic: si quis amator vitae praesentis, parcit animae suae, timens mori, et putans animam suam per hanc mortem perire; iste volens hoc modo salvare animam suam, perdet eam, alienam illam faciens a vita aeterna. Si quis contemnens vitam praesentem, usque ad mortem pro veritate certaverit, perdet quidem animam suam quantum ad vitam praesentem; sed quoniam propter Christum perdet eam, magis eam salvam faciet in vitam aeternam. Alio modo sic: si quis intelligit quae est vera salus, et acquirere vult eam ad salutem animae suae, iste abnegans semetipsum, perdit quantum ad voluptates carnales animam suam propter Christum; et perdens animam suam hoc modo, salvat eam per opera pietatis: dicendo enim qui voluerit, praecedentem et sequentem unum sensum esse ostendit. Si ergo quod superius dixit abneget semetipsum, de morte corporali dixit, consequenter hoc de sola morte intelligere debemus dictum esse. Si autem abnegare seipsum est carnalem conversationem reicere, et perdere animam est deponere voluptates carnales
16:26
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
Because He had said, Whoso will save, shall lose, and whoso will lose shall save, opposing saving to losing, that none should hence conclude that there was any equality between the losing on one side, and the saving on the other, He adds, What does it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, but suffer the loss of his soul? As though He had said, Say not that he who escapes the dangers which threaten him for Christ’s sake, saves his soul, that is, his temporal life; but add to his temporal life the whole world, and what of all these things will profit a man if his soul perishes for ever? Suppose you should see all your servants in joy, and yourself placed in the greatest evils, what profit would you reap from being their master? Think over this within your own soul, when by the indulgence of the flesh that soul looks for its own destruction,
Origene † 253 d.C.
I suppose also that he gains the world who does not deny himself, nor loses Ms own life as to carnal pleasures, and thence suffers the loss of his soul. These two things being set before us, we must rather choose to lose the world, and gain our souls.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
But if you should reign over the whole world, you would not be able to buy your soul; whence it follows, Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? As much as to say, if you lose goods, you may have it in your power to give other goods to recover them; but if you lose your soul, you can neither give another soul, nor any thing else in ransom for it. And what marvel is it if this happen in the soul, when we see the same happen in the body; for if you should surround a body afflicted with an incurable disease with ten thousand diadems, they would not heal it.
Origene † 253 d.C.
And at first sight indeed the ransom of the soul might be supposed to be in his substance, that a man should give his substance to the poor, and so should save his soul. But I suppose that a man has nothing that giving as a ransom for his soul he should deliver it from death. God gave the ransom for the souls of men, namely the precious blood of His Son.
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C. Hom. in Ev. xxxii. 4.
Or the connexion may be thus; The Holy Church has a period of persecution, and a period of peace; and our Redeemer accordingly distinguishes between these periods in His commands; in time of persecution the life is to be laid down; but in time of peace, those earthly lusts which might gain too great power over us are to be broken through; whence He says, What does it profit a man?
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
Having thus called upon His disciples to deny themselves and take up their cross, the hearers were filled with great terror, therefore these severe tidings are followed by more joyful; For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with the holy Angels. Dost thou fear death? Hear the glory of the triumph. Dost thou dread the cross? Hear the attendance of the Angels.
Origene † 253 d.C.
As much as to say; The Son of Man is now come, but not in glory; for He ought not to have been ordained in His glory to bear our sins; but then He shall come in His glory, when He shall first have made ready His disciples, being made as they are, that He might make them as He is Himself, in the likeness of His glory.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
He said not in such glory as is that of the Father, that you might not suppose a difference of glory, but He says, The glory of the Father, that it might be shewn to be the same glory. But if the glory is one, it is evident that the substance is one. What then fearest thou, Peter, hearing of death? For then shalt thou see Me in glory. But if I be in glory, so also shall ye be. But in making mention of His glory, He mingleth therewith things terrible, bringing forward the judgment, as it follows, And then shall he render to each man according to his works.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
For there is no difference of Jew or Gentile, man or woman, poor or rich, whore not persons but works are accepted.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
This He said to call to their minds not only the punishment of sinners, but the prizes and crowns of the righteous.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
But the secret thought of the Apostles might have suffered an offence of this sort; The killings and deaths you speak of as to be now, but the promise of your coming in glory is put off to a long distant time. He that knows secret things therefore, seeing that they might object this, requites a present fear with a present reward, saying, Verily I say unto you, There be some of those standing here that shall not taste death until the Son of Man come in his kingdom.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. lvi.
Willing to shew what is that glory in which He shall come hereafter, He revealed it to them in this present life, so far as it was possible for them to receive it, that they might not have sorrow in their Lord’s death.
Remigio † 908 d.C.
What is here said, therefore, was fulfilled in the three disciples to whom the Lord, when transfigured in the mount, shewed the joys of the eternal inheritance; (vid. Bed. in Luc. 9:27.) these saw Him coming in His kingdom, that is, shining in His effulgent radiance, in which, after the judgment passed, He shall be beheld by all the saints.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
Therefore He does not reveal the names of those who should ascend into the mount, because the rest would be very desirous to accompany them whither they might look upon the pattern of His glory, and would be grieved as though they were passed over.
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C. ubi sup.
Or, by the kingdom of God is meant the present Church, and because some of His disciples were to live so long in the body as to behold the Church of God built up and raised against the glory of this world, this comfortable promise is given them, There be some of them standing here.
Origene † 253 d.C.
Morally; To those who are nearly brought to the faith, the Word of God wears the form of a servant; but to those that are perfect, He comes in the glory of the Father. His angels are the words of the Prophets, which it is not possible to comprehend spiritually, until the word of Christ has been first spiritually comprehended, and then will their words be seen in like majesty with His. Then will He give of His own glory to every man according to his deeds; for the better each man is in his deeds, so much the more spiritually does he understand Christ and His Prophets. They that stand where Jesus stands, are they that have the foundations of their souls rested upon Jesus; of whom such as stood firmest are said not to taste death till they see the Word of God; which comes in His kingdom when they see that excellence of God which they cannot see while they are involved in divers sins, which is to taste death, forasmuch as the soul that sinneth, dies. For as life, and the living bread, is He that came down from heaven, so His enemy death is the bread of death. And of these breads there are some that eat but a little, just tasting them, while some eat more abundantly. They that sin neither often, nor greatly, these only taste death; they that have partaken more perfectly of spiritual virtue do not taste it only, but feed ever on the living bread. That He says, Until they see, does not fix any time at which shall be done what had not been done before, but mentions just what is necessary; for he that once sees Him in His glory, shall after that by no means taste death.
Rabano Mauro † 856 d.C. e Bed. in Luc. 9.
It is of the saints He speaks as tasting death, by whom the death of the body is tasted just as it were sipping, while the life of the soul is, held fast in possession.
Il testo latino
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quia dixerat: qui vult salvare, perdet, et: qui perdet, salvabit, utrobique salutem et perditionem ponens, ne aliquis aestimet aequalem esse hinc inde perditionem et salutem, subiungit quid enim prodest homini si mundum universum lucretur, animae vero suae detrimentum patiatur? Quasi dicat: ne dicas, quod qui pericula quae propter Christum imminent, effugit, salvet animam suam, idest vitam temporalem. Sed pone etiam cum anima, idest vita temporali, totum orbem terrarum: quid ex his homini erit amplius, anima in perpetuum pereunte? Si enim famulos tuos videres in laetitia, te autem in malis ultimis constitutum: quid lucrareris ex eorum dominio? Hoc etiam in anima tua reputa, cum carne lasciviente, ipsa futuram perditionem expectat
Origenes in Matth
Puto etiam quod mundum lucratur qui non abnegat semetipsum, nec perdit animam suam quantum ad voluptates carnales, et ipse facit animae suae detrimentum; ideo duobus nobis propositis, magis est eligendum ut mundum perdamus, et lucremur animas nostras
Chrysostomus in Matth
Sed si regnaveris super universum orbem terrarum, non poteris animam tuam emere: unde sequitur aut quam dabit homo commutationem pro animam sua? Ac si dicat: divitias si perdideris, poteris dare divitias alias ad eas redimendas; animam autem perdens, non poteris animam aliquam dare, sed neque aliquid aliud. Quid autem mirabile est si in anima hoc contingit? Etenim in corpore hoc videtur contingere. Etsi enim decem millia diademata corpori insanabiliter aegroto circumposueris, non curatur
Origenes
Et prima quidem facie commutatio animae est in substantia, ut det substantiam suam homo pauperibus, et salvet animam suam. Sed puto quod non habet aliquid homo quod dans quasi commutationem animae suae, liberet eam de morte. Deus autem pro animabus hominum dedit commutationem pretiosum sanguinem filii sui
Gregorius in Evang
Vel aliter potest continuari: quia sancta Ecclesia aliud habet tempus persecutionis, et aliud pacis; redemptor noster ipsa eius tempora distinguit in praeceptis: nam persecutionis tempore ponenda est anima; pacis autem tempore ea quae amplius dominari possunt, frangenda sunt desideria terrena: unde dicitur quid enim prodest homini?
Hieronymus
Provocatis autem discipulis ut abnegarent se et tollerent crucem suam, grandis fit error audientium. Idcirco tristibus laeta succedunt, et dicit filius enim hominis venturus est in gloria patris sui cum Angelis suis. Times mortem? Audi gloriam triumphantis. Vereris crucem? Ausculta Angelorum ministeria
Origenes
Quasi dicat: nunc quidem filius hominis venit, sed non in gloria: non enim decebat eum in gloria constitutum peccata nostra portare; sed tunc veniet in gloria cum ante praeparaverit discipulos suos, factus sicut illi, ut illos faceret sicut et ipse, conformes gloriae suae
Chrysostomus in Matth
Non autem dixit in tali gloria in quali est pater, ne alteritatem gloriae suspiceris; sed ait gloria patris, ut eadem gloria ostendatur. Si autem gloria una est, manifestum quod et substantia una est. Quid ergo times, Petre, mortem audiens? Tunc me videbis in gloria. Si autem ego in gloria, et vos. Sed tamen dicens gloriam, terribilia immiscuit, in medium iudicium introducens: unde sequitur et tunc reddet unicuique secundum opera eius
Hieronymus
Non est enim distinctio Iudaei et gentilis, viri et mulieris, pauperum et divitum, ubi non personae, sed opera considerantur
Chrysostomus in Matth
Hoc autem dixit, non solum peccatoribus poenas commemorans, sed iustis bravia et coronas
Hieronymus
Poterat autem apostolorum tacita cogitatio istiusmodi scandalum sustinere. Occisionem et mortem nunc dicis esse futuram; quod autem promittis te affuturum in gloria, in tempora longa differtur. Praevidens ergo occultorum cognitor quid possent obicere, praesentem timorem praesenti compensat praemio, dicens amen dico vobis: sunt quidam de hic stantibus qui non gustabunt mortem, donec veniat filius hominis in regno suo
Chrysostomus in Matth
Volens ergo monstrare quid est illa gloria in qua postea venturus est, eis in praesenti vita revelavit, sicut possibile erat eos discere, ut neque in domini morte iam doleant
Remigio
Quod ergo hic dicitur, impletum est in tribus discipulis, quibus dominus transfiguratus in monte, gaudia aeternae repromissionis ostendit; qui viderunt eum in regno suo venientem, idest in ea claritate fulgentem, in qua, peracto iudicio, videbitur ab omnibus sanctis
Chrysostomus in Matth
Propter hoc autem non praedicit nomina eorum qui ascensuri erant in montem, quia reliqui valde concupiscerent sequi, exemplum illius gloriae visuri, et graviter tulissent velut despecti
Gregorius in Evang
Vel regnum Dei, praesens Ecclesia vocatur: et quia nonnulli ex discipulis eius usque adeo in corpore victuri erant ut Ecclesiam Dei constructam conspicerent, et contra huius mundi gloriam erectam, consolatoria promissione nunc dicitur sunt quidam de hic stantibus
Origenes
Moraliter autem verbum Dei his qui noviter inducuntur ad fidem, formam habet servi; perfectis autem venit in gloria patris sui. Angeli autem illius sunt prophetarum sermones, quos non est possibile ante spiritualiter intelligere nisi cum spiritualiter intellectum fuerit verbum Christi, ut videantur simul apparere in maiestate. Tunc autem dabit unicuique de gloria sua secundum actum eius: quia quanto quis melior fuerit in actibus suis, tanto spiritualius intelligit Christum vel prophetas ipsius. Stantes autem ubi stat Iesus, sunt qui fundatas habent apud Iesum animae bases: ex quibus qui melius stant dicuntur non gustare mortem, donec videant verbum Dei quod venit in regno suo, videntes eminentiam Dei, quam videre non possunt qui diversis involuti sunt peccatis; quod est mortem gustare, qua peccans anima moritur. Sicut enim vita est et panis vivus qui de caelo descendit, sic et inimica eius mors panis est mortuus. Ex istis autem panibus quidam modicum manducant, tantum gustantes; quidam autem abundantius: qui enim raro et modicum peccant, tantummodo gustant mortem; qui autem perfectius susceperint spiritualem virtutem, non gustant eam, sed vivo pane semper vescuntur. Quod autem dicit donec videant, non definit tempus, ut postquam transierit illud donec, fiat quod ante non fuerat factum; sed rem quae necessaria est, exponit: qui enim semel videt eum in gloria eius, iam nequaquam gustabit mortem
Rabano Mauro
Sanctos autem mortem gustare testatur, a quibus mors corporis quasi libando gustatur, vita vero animae possidendo tenetur
16:1
1. ET ACCESSERUNT AD EUM (in Magedan, cap. XV, vers. ult.) PHARISAEI ET SADDUCAEI (de quibus dixi cap. III, vers. 7) TENTANTES; ET ROGAVERUNT EUM UT SIGNUM DE CAELO OSTENDERET EIS. — Idem rogarunt cap. XII, 38. Sed hic rursum rogant occasione miraculi multiplicationis panum, quod paulo ante Christus patrarat. Cum enim hoc viderent passim a turbis, quae praesentes et panum participes fuerant, celebrari, ut illud apud populum elevarent, dixerunt illud signum esse terrestre, posseque a daemone, qui in terra dominatur, fieri: insinuabant ergo Christum esse Magum, et ope daemonis multiplicasse panes, caeteraque sua mira patrasse, ut colligitur ex cap. XII, 24. Petunt igitur a Christo signum de caelo, ut Deus, qui regnat in caelo, per illud attestetur Christo eum a se missum et caelestem ejus esse doctrinam: quod si fecerit, se credituros in eum quasi Messiam et populum in eamdem fidem inducturos. Sed Sadducaei, utpote athei, censebant nullum posse dari signum e caelo a Deo, cui illorum opinione nullus erat; Pharisaei censebant posse dari hoc signum, sed non dandum a Christo, utpote qui vel non erat Messias, vel si erat, nollet eorum petitioni annuere, uti noluerat cap. XII, 38; quare putabant se populo persuasuros Christum non posse edere signum de caelo, ac consequenter non esse missum a Deo, sed a daemone. Caetera vide explicata cap. XII, 38. Aliter Lyranus, qui censet Judaeos astrologiae judiciariae deditos, petiisse a Christo signum quo ex astris ostenderet se esse Messiam; in astris enim designasse et quasi scripsisse Deum omnem suam providentiam circa res humanas totumque ordinem universi. Verum nihil tale hic innuit Matthaeus. Proprie videntur Pharisaei allusisse ad manna, ut colligitur ex Joan. VI, 30, 31, q. d. O Jesu, multiplicasti quidem panes in terra, sed da signum e caelo, scilicet plue manna de caelo, uti fecit Moses, sic ostendes te Mosi esse similem, novumque Evangelii tui legislatorem a Deo missum. Ita Remigius, Beda, Abulensis.
16:2
2. AT ILLE RESPONDENS, AIT ILLIS: FACTO VESPERE, DICITIS: SERENUM ERIT (crastino mane), RUBICUNDUM EST ENIM CAELUM. — Ratio physica est, quod rubor caeli, id est aeris, indicet nubes esse raras, ideoque facile tota nocte consumendas vel dissipandas, ac consequenter mane fore serenum, utpote nube vacuum. Rubor enim est medius color inter nigredinem et albedinem. Nigredo nubium significat nubes esse spissas et densas, utpote per quas radii solis penetrare nequeant, ideoque opacas et solutu difficiles: albedo indicat eas esse rarissimas, utpote per quas radii solis transparent et tralucent: rubedo indicat eas nec esse plane densas, nec rarissimas, sed rarescere, ideoque partim solem per eas transparere, partim excludi; rubedo enim habet aliquid nigredinis et aliquid albedinis, ex utraque enim commista est: quatenus accedit ad nigredinem, solis radios excludit; quatenus accedit ad albedinem, eosdem admittit et transmittit.
16:3
3. ET MANE: HODIE TEMPESTAS (erit pluviae aut venti), RUTILAT ENIM TRISTE CAELUM. — Graece est idem verbum, quod praecessit vers. 2, πυῤῥάζει, id est rubicundum est; στυγνάζων, id est maestitiam afferens caelum. «Rutilat» ergo, id est rubet, ut vertit Syrus et Arabicus. Rutilus enim color est rubeus, quia rubedo rutilat, id est splendescit. Sic Ovidius, lib. V Metamorph.: «Cruor rutilus,» inquit, id est rubeus; et «capilli rutili,» id est rubei, lib. II Metamorph. «Et Mars rutilus,» id est rubeus et cruentus, apud Ciceronem in Somnio Scipionis. «Et flamma rutila,» id est rubea et splendens, lib. II Fast. Ratio physica est, quod caelum, si vespere rubeat, indicet raras esse nubes, ideoque nocte, utpote quae prolixa est, consumendas: sol enim occidens et abiens nequit eas liquare; sin mane rubeat, indicat nubes esse raras quidem, sed tamen ita densas, ut a sole oriente nequeant consumi, sed illi resistant, quare mox a sole increscente et incalescente resolvendas in pluviam aut ventum. Ex eo enim quod per penetrationem radiorum solis rarefactae sunt, liquet eas viciniores esse, ut in pluviam aut ventum resolvantur a sole, quam ut ab eo alio propellantur. Audi Plinium, lib. XVIII De Praesagiis temporum, cap. XXXV: «Si sol purus occidit, serenitatis signum est. Si occubuit pridie nitido caelo, et oritur eodem, tunc certius argumentum serenitatis. Si sol in ortu appareat major, quam solet, si quasi caeruleo colore imbutus prodeat vel occidat, imbrem; si igneo, Euro nuntiat. Cum ante illius ortum rubescunt nubes, venti erunt; cum expallescunt, vel nigrae rubentibus intermiscentur, pluviam spondent.» Ex luna similia haec accipe praesagia: «Si splendens exorta puro nitore fulsit, serenitatem; si rubicunda, ventos; si nigra, pluvias portendere creditur,» aiunt nostri Conimbricenses in Meteor., tract. VII, cap. III. Aliam causam planiorem horum duorum dissimilium, cur scilicet rubor caeli vespertinus sit index serenitatis, matutinus vero tempestatis, dat Abulensis hic, Quaest. VIII: Ratio, inquit, primi est, quia rubor, qui apparet ad vesperum in aere, signat desiccationem aeris, et ideo materia grossa vaporum, quae in aquam vertibilis erat, est jam desiccata, ita ut inflammetur, quod est rubefieri; et ita non est proxime disposita, ut pluvia ex illa fiat, et sic est signum propinquum serenitatis. Ratio secundi est, quia quando caelum mane rutilat, est materia inspissata, et non est illa desiccata, quia non est rubea sicut nubes rubeae, quae apparent occidente sole; sed est materia turbida aliqualiter et aliqualiter rubea, et ita est materia irregularis, quae calore solis soluta cadit in pluvias, quantum ad partem turbidam et grossam, vel solvitur in ventos, quantum ad partem aliqualiter desiccatam et rutilantem; vel propter humidam materiam circumstantem totum simul vertitur in pluvias, et ita fit tempestas, quia tempestas non solum dicit pluvias, sed etiam ventos impetuosos cum aqua; atque hoc innuit Noster, dum sagaciter vertit «rutilat». Symbolice idem Abulensis, Quaest. IX: «In primo, ait, adventu Christi fuit serenitas gratiae; in secundo, ad judicium erit tempestas vindictae et gehennae, quam in reprobos detonabit Christus judex.» Sic et S. Augustinus in Quaest. Evang. hic. FACIEM (externam formam et speciem) ERGO CAELI DIJUDICARE NOSTIS; SIGNA AUTEM TEMPORUM NON POTESTIS SCIRE. — «Signa temporum» vocat signa temporis adventus Messiae; sive «temporum,» id est septuaginta hebdomadarum Danielis, vaticinii patriarchae Jacob, Genes. XLIX, 10, et caeterorum Prophetarum. Haec enim vaticinia uti et miracula, quae per singulos dies patrabat Christus, plane convincebant Messiam jam venisse, ipsumque esse Messiam. Hic versus legendus est per interrogationem, non sine ea assertive, uti legit Lyranus, qui sic explicat, q. d. Vos Judaei dediti astrologiae, vultis ex astris cognoscere tempus adventus Messiae; at erratis. Ex astris enim possunt sumi praesagia serenitatis vel tempestatis, at non adventus Messiae. Sed hoc parergum est: est enim hic argumentum a minori ad majus, q. d. Si ex signis caeli, o Pharisaei, nostis dijudicare futuram serenitatem vel tempestatem: ergo multo magis ex oraculis Prophetarum meisque miraculis potestis et debetis agnoscere me esse Messiam. Haec enim illis sunt clariora et certiora. Ita S. Hilarius, Hieronymus, Euthymius; et sat patet ex Luc. XII, 56, ubi Christus ait: «Hypocritae, faciem caeli et terrae nostis probare; hoc autem tempus (adventus mei, qui sum Messias) quomodo non probatis?» Sic et hodie multi sunt in rebus terrenis lynces, in divinis talpae; prudentes in saeculo, insipientes in caelo; oculatissimi in congerendis nummis, ignorantissimi in colendo numine. Hi sapiunt in bursa, desipiunt in conscientia. Aliter explicat S. Chrysostomus, hom. 54, haec «signa temporum,» q. d. Alia sunt signa temporis praesentis, alia futuri: signa curationum, quae ego edo, sunt temporis praesentis: signa vero temporis futuri, erunt signa in caelo, quae vos postulatis, o Scribae: tunc enim erunt signa in sole, luna et stellis, Lucae XXI. Facitis ergo sicut Thales, qui, caelum contemplans eundo, in foveam incidit: sic et vos futura spectantes, et praesens gratiae tempus negligentes, ruitis in gehennam.
16:4
4. GENERATIO MALA ET ADULTERA SIGNUM QUAERIT, ET SIGNUM NON DABITUR EI, NISI SIGNUM JONAE PROPHETAE. — Hunc versum iterat Christus, jam enim eum audivimus cap. XII, vers. 39, ubi eum explicui. ET RELICTIS ILLIS, ABIIT. — Ex Magedan conscensa navi trajecit mare Galilaeae, et in citeriorem ejus ripam, unde venerat, rediit, ut patet ex vers. sequenti. Unde Marcus, cap. VIII, 13, ait: «Et dimittens eos, ascendit iterum navim, et abiit trans fretum.» Iterum enim, iterumque hoc mare trajiciebat Christus, ultro citroque meabat et remeabat, ut Galilaeos tam cis mare, quam ultra mare habitantes erudiret, juxta oraculum Isaiae, cap. IX, 1, quod citavit Matthaeus, IV, 14.
16:5
5. ET CUM VENISSENT DISCIPULI EJUS TRANS FRETUM, OBLITI SUNT PANES ACCIPERE. — «Cum venissent,» Graece ἐλθόντες, id est cum ivissent, puta cum navim conscendissent ad transfretandum: in navi enim haec contigisse patet ex circumstantiis; in navi enim et navigatione longiore egebant pane et cibo, nam in portu eum abunde erant inventuri. Idem patet ex Marci VIII, 16 et sequent. Est Hebraismus; Hebraea enim verba saepe actum non perfectum, sed inchoatum, vel destinatum significant, ut dixi in Canonibus. Sic hic «cum venissent,» id est cum venire coepissent, cum proficiscerentur, «obliti sunt,» quia eis reficiendi corporis necessitas, intentione Dominici comitatus, et dulcedine veri panis, qui cum eis erat, id est Christi, mente exciderat, ait Anselmus. TRANS FRETUM, — trans mare Galilaeae, scilicet Bethsaidam, ut ait Marcus, cap. VIII, 22.
16:6
6. QUI DIXIT ILLIS: INTUEMINI (Graece ὁρᾶτε, id est videte, ut vertit Noster in Marco) ET CAVETE A FERMENTO PHARISAEORUM ET SADDUCAEORUM. — «A fermento,» id est a doctrina, ut explicat vers. 12; ab hac caveri jubet, non quatenus Pharisaei legem Mosis docebant et explicabant: sic enim eos audiri, eisque obediri jubet, cap. XXIII, 2; sed quatenus illam suis vanis et legi Dei contrariis traditionibus, quasi acido fermento, inquinabant, ac per eas inficiebant et vitiabant mentes auditorum, quam Lucas, cap. XII, 1, vocat hypocrisim: «Attendite, ait, a fermento Pharisaeorum, quod est hypocrisis;» quia Pharisaei externas tantum caeremonias et apparentem sanctitatem spectabant, neglecta interna animi puritate, ait Beda. Audi Hieronymum: «Hoc est fermentum, de quo Apostolus loquitur: Modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit. Istiusmodi fermentum (quod omni ratione vitandum est) habuit Marcion et Valentinus, et omnes haeretici. Fermentum hanc vim habet, ut si farinae mixtum fuerit, quod parvum videbatur, crescat in majus, et ad saporem suum universam conversionem trahat; ita et doctrina haeretica, si vel modicam scintillam in tuum pectus jecerit, in brevi ingens flamma crescit, et totam hominis possessionem ad se trahit.»
16:7
7. AT ILLI COGITABANT INTER SE (Marcus habet, cap. VIII, 16, διελογίζοντο πρὸς ἀλλήλους, id est disputabant, vel disceptabant ad invicem), DICENTES: Quia panes non accepimus. — Hugo et Dionysius sic exponebant, q. d. Ideo Christus dixit: Cavete a fermento Pharisaeorum, quia panes non accepimus, nec vult nos panes accipere a Pharisaeis. Simplicius alii, q. d. Discipuli, audita mentione fermenti facta a Christo, recordati sunt se oblitos esse panes in navim inferre, ac metuentes, ne Christus in desertum locum more suo navigaret, solliciti erant quomodo panes ibidem necessarios compararent, ac inter se hac de re disceptabant, et forte unus in alterum culpam oblivionis panum conjiciebat; ubi dupliciter peccabant. Primo, quod nimis de panibus essent solliciti, nec satis fiderent Christo, cum tamen paulo ante experti essent ejus potentiam et providentiam in multiplicandis panibus. Secundo, quod censerent Christum loqui de corporali fermento et pane, cum ille de spirituali loqueretur: unde de utroque corripiuntur et corriguntur a Christo, uti sequitur.
16:8
8. Sciens autem Jesus, dixit: Quid cogitatis INTER VOS, MODICAE FIDEI, QUIA (quod) PANES NON HABETIS? — Graece, οὐκ ἐλάβετε, id est non accepistis: sic et Syrus. «Sciens,» per vim divinitatis suae, non enim audierat eos hac de re colloquentes. «Modicae fidei,» quasi ego de panibus corporeis locutus sim, de iisque velim vos esse sollicitos; aut quasi ego de iis vobis nequeam, aut nolim providere in mari, vel in deserto?
16:9
9. Nondum intelligitis (tum phrasim meam de fermento, tum meam curam de providendo vobis panes), NEQUE RECORDAMINI QUINQUE PANUM IN QUINQUE MILLIA HOMINUM (scilicet distributorum. Graece: Neque recordamini quinque panes quinque millium, quibus scilicet quinque millia hominum pavi), ET QUOT COPHINOS (reliquiarum) SUMPSISTIS? — Utique duodecim, q. d. Ego qui tunc non tantum multiplicavi, sed et restitui panes in fragmentis, quae feci esse residua, idem nunc et quovis tempore possum facere.
16:10
10. NEQUE SEPTEM PANUM IN QUATUOR MILLIA HOMINUM (Graece τετρακισχιλίων, id est quatuor millium, quibus scilicet quatuor millia hominum alui) ET QUOT SPORTAS SUMPSISTIS? — Utique septem, tot quot fuerant panes. Constanter tam Matthaeus quam Marcus hic nominant sportas, in priori vero miraculo cophinos: unde liquet sportas aliud vasis et mensurae genus fuisse a cophinis.
16:11
11. QUARE NON INTELLIGITIS, QUIA (quod) NON DE PANE DIXI VOBIS (cum dixi id quod sequitur): CAVETE A FERMENTO SCRIBARUM ET PHARISAEORUM? — Ex fermento enim fit panis communis et usualis; q. d. Debueratis ex meis sermonibus et actibus cognoscere me non loqui de fermento et pane terreno, utpote vili et exili, sed spirituali, qualis est doctrina.
16:12
12. TUNC INTELLEXERUNT, QUIA (quod) NON DIXERIT CAVENDUM A FERMENTO PANUM, SED A DOCTRINA PHARISAEORUM ET SADDUCAEORUM. — Correptio enim Christi acuit discipulorum mentem, et vexatio dedit intellectum.
16:13
13. VENIT (Graece ἐλθών, id est cum venisset) AUTEM JESUS IN PARTES (Syrus, in loca) CAESAREAE PHILIPPI; ET INTERROGABAT DISCIPULOS SUOS, DICENS: QUEM DICUNT HOMINES ESSE FILIUM HOMINIS? — Caesarea Philippi urbs est Phoeniciae sita ad radices Libani, quae primo dicta est Dan, eo quod a Danitis, id est a tribu Dan astu sit capta, Judic. cap. XVIII, quodque ibi sit confluxus duorum rivulorum, scilicet Jeor et Dan, qui juncti Jordanem efficiunt: ibi ergo origo est Jordanis. Verum quia Gentilibus notior erat Pan, deus pastorum, quam Dan, tribus Hebraea, hinc ab eis dicta est Paneas; deinde Philippus, Herodis Ascalonitae filius ac Itureae et Trachoniditis tetrarcha, eamdem a se auctam suae tetrarchiae metropolim constituit, et in gratiam Caesaris Tiberii Caesaream nuncupavit, imitatus patrem suum Herodem Ascalonitam, qui urbem a se conditam in loco prius dicto Turris Stratonis, inter Doram et Joppem, juxta mare Mediterraneum, in honorem Caesaris Augusti Caesaream nuncupavit, quae uti antiquior et nobilior erat, sic et absolute Caesarea Palestinae vocatur in Actis Apostolorum, et a Josepho: quare ad ejus distinctionem haec dicta est Caesarea Philippi, quae erat terminus terrae Chanaan Judaeis a Deo promissae ad septentrionem, sicut Bersabee erat ejusdem terminus ad meridiem. Unde toties in Scriptura dicitur «a Dan (id est Caesarea Philippi) usque ad Bersabee.» Hac de causa multi vicini Gentiles, praesertim Phoenices ad hanc urbem confinebant, uti in limitibus regionum fieri solet; ideoque Christus ad illam hic secessit, tum ut Gentiles pariter ac Judaeos doceret, tum ut liberius de Messia, quem Judaei quasi regem suum exspectabant, loqueretur. In Judaea enim periculosum fuisset hac de re loqui; ac Scribae Christum apud praesides Romanos affectati regni accusassent, eumque reum majestatis apud Tiberium Caesarem peregissent. Rursum haec Caesarea, olim Dan dicta, sedes fuerat idololatriae, ut patet Judic. XVIII, 29 et seq. Christus ergo ab hac labe voluit eam expurgare, et Dei cultricem, imo initium et matricem Gentium Christianarum efficere: unde hujus urbis civis fuit haemorrhoissa, quam Christus a fluxu sanguinis sanavit, cujus miraculi imago quotidianis miraculis illustris ab haemorrhoissa ibidem erecta, perstitit usque ad Julianum Apostatam, qui in odium Christi illam dejecit, teste Eusebio, lib. V, cap. XX; postea haec urbs ab Herode Agrippa aucupante gratiam Neronis, dicta est Neronia, sive Neronias, nunc a Turcis occupata Belinas nuncupatur. QUEM DICUNT HOMINES ESSE FILIUM HOMINIS? — Ita legendum cum Romanis sine «me,» quod nonnulli ex Graeco addunt; hoc enim intelligitur in τῷ Filium hominis, id est me, qui studio humilitatis soleo me Filium hominis nuncupare, ut dixi cap. VIII, et maxime hic ita me voco, ut explorem vestram, o Apostoli, de me fidem. Unde Lucas, cap. IX, 18, habet: «Quem me dicunt esse turbae?» Neque enim vis facienda est in articulo Graeco τόν, ut vult Beza, qui vertit illum Filium hominis, scilicet Messiam Judaeis promissum. Minus recte Syrus haec dividit legitque per interrogationem hoc modo: «Quid dicunt de me homines, quod sim Filius hominis?» Christus enim hic non rogat, sed asserit, vocatque se Filium hominis; sed ulterius quaerit quid de se sentiant homines, id est vulgus hominum.
16:14
14. AT ILLI DIXERUNT: ALII JOANNEM BAPTISTAM, ALII AUTEM ELIAM, ALII VERO JEREMIAM, AUT UNUM EX PROPHETIS. — Videbat vulgus Judaeorum jam aliquot centenis annis, puta paulo post captivitatem Babylonicam (quando prophetaverunt Zacharias et Malachias, qui fuere ultimi Prophetae) apud Judaeos defecisse prophetiam et Prophetas, aeque ac arcam Testamenti, et oraculum ex propitiatorio. Quare Christum putabant non esse novum Prophetam, sed aliquem ex veteribus: horum enim virtutes, miracula et doctrinam videbant in Christo. Pauci vero erant illi, qui certo credebant ipsum esse Messiam; longe plures enim id non credebant, offensi Christi paupertate et humilitate: putabant enim Messiam venturum cum pompa regia quasi filium Salomonis, uti etiamnum putant et exspectant Judaei; quare quod subinde dixerunt aliqui e populo visis tot Christi miraculis: «Numquid hic est Filius David?» Matth. XII; et: «Hic est vere Propheta, qui venturus est in mundum,» Joan. VI, transiens et subitanea fuit eorum vox, elicita ex praesenti miraculo, non perseverans et constans sententia. Vulgus enim est mobile, et ad omnem auram flectitur. Ita Abulensis. Putabant ergo animam alicujus e Prophetis migrasse in Christum per μετεμψύχωσιν, id est transanimationem Pythagoream, qua anima defuncti censebatur migrare in aliud corpus melius vel vilius secundum merita prioris vitae. Ita Jansenius, Cajetanus et Baronius. Vel potius putabant aliquem e Prophetis resurrexisse, ipsumque esse Jesum, quasi Jesus reipsa esset Joannes Baptista, Elias, vel Jeremias. Credebant enim Judaei et Pharisaei mortuorum resurrectionem, ut patet II Machab. VII, licet eam negarent Sadducaei, Act. XXIII, 8. Id ita esse liquet ex sententia Herodis de Christo: «Hic, inquit, est Joannes, ipse surrexit a mortuis, et ideo virtutes (miracula) operantur in illo.» Existimabant enim animam Prophetae post mortem fieri sublimiorem, potentiorem et diviniorem ad patranda miracula. Credebant ergo aliquem e Prophetis in Jesu resurrexisse, ideoque potentiora quam ante operari; transanimationem vero Pythagoricam, ut Gentilium figmentum horrebant. Porro, alii putarunt Jesum esse Joannem Baptistam, quia aetate, sanctitate et praedicatione videbatur ipsi persimilis, ac Joannes paulo ante injuste occisus ab Herode, versabatur in eorum memoria, dignusque resurrectione censebatur. Alii putarunt Christum esse Eliam ob similem utriusque zelum, et quia Elias necdum est mortuus, ac rediturus ab omnibus etiam Judaeis exspectatur, ex oraculo Malachiae, cap. IV, 5: «Ecce, inquit, ego mittam vobis Eliam prophetam.» Putabant ergo Eliam rediisse, ac Eliam esse Jesum. Alii opinati sunt Christum esse Jeremiam, quia Jeremias fuit vir sanctissimus, ac speculum patientiae et charitatis, et quia nonnulli putarunt Jeremiam cum Elia rediturum ad praedicandum Judaeis, moti illo: «Prophetam in Gentibus dedi te,» Jerem. I, 5. Sed alius illius loci est sensus, ut ibi dixi.
16:15
15. DICIT ILLIS JESUS: VOS AUTEM, QUEM ME ESSE DICITIS? — S. Hieronymus ex τῷ «vos autem,» per antithesim ad «homines,» colligit Apostolos hic tacite Deos quosdam a Christo vocari: «Illis, inquit, quia homines sunt humana opinantibus, vos, qui estis dii, quem me esse existimatis?» Quoad rem vero S. Chrysostomus: «Hac, inquit, secunda interrogatione monuit Dominus discipulos, ut majora de ipso cogitarent. Ipso enim interrogandi modo ostendit, illas vulgares opiniones multum a sua dignitate abesse.» Ait ergo: «Vos, qui mecum semper versantes plura me fecisse vidistis, qui meo nomine complures virtutes ipsi quoque fecistis, quem me esse dicitis?»
16:16
16. RESPONDENS SIMON PETRUS, DIXIT: TU ES CHRISTUS, FILIUS DEI VIVI. — «Simon Petrus,» qui in circumcisione nominatus est Simon, a Christo vocatus est Cephas, id est Petrus. Putant nonnulli Petrum quasi os Apostolorum non pro se solo, sed pro omnibus respondisse. Ita S. Hieronymus: «Petrus, inquit, ex persona omnium Apostolorum profitetur: Tu es Christus, Filius Dei vivi.» Sic et S. Anselmus, S. Thomas, Glossa, Dionysius, Lyranus, Jansenius et S. Augustinus, De Verbis Domine, serm. 13, et S. Ambrosius, lib. De Incarn., cap. IV. Melius S. Hilarius, Abulensis, Maldonatus, Franciscus Lucas, Barradius et alii censent Petrum pro se et ex suo sensu locutum. Tacentibus enim Apostolis et haesitantibus quid essent responsuri, Petrus caeteris sapientior (utpote illustratus et doctus a Deo) et ferventior, ne quis indignius quippiam de Christo responderet, prior responsum praeripuit, ac pro omnibus respondit: non quod sententia caeterorum Apostolorum esset (cum nullo de hac re erat collocutus), sed quod suam sententiam vellet omnibus esse communem, utque omnes ita sentire debere, uti ipse sentiebat, ostenderet; atque hoc tantum voluit S. Hieronymus, et caeteri jam citati, scilicet quod Petrus quasi jam designatus, et post resurrectionem reipsa constituendus princeps Apostolorum et totius Ecclesiae, altius prae aliis edoctus et inspiratus a Deo cognoverit Christi divinitatem, ac de ea responderit id quod alii omnes respondere debuissent, quodque ipse responsuros putabat ferventius, quam verius, ut colligitur ex Joan. VI, 69 et seq. Id liquet ex eo, quod soli Petro ob meritum hujus confessionis, Christus promittat amplissimum praemium et praerogativam; ait enim ipsi nominatim prae caeteris Apostolis: «Beatus es, Simon Bar-Jona, quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi, sed Pater meus, qui in caelis est. Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam.» Porro S. Hilarius, S. Chrysostomus et alii censent S. Petrum primo omnium confessum esse Christi divinitatem. Alii id negant, dicentes Nathanaelem ante Petrum eamdem esse confessum, dicendo: «Rabbi, tu es Filius Dei, Rex Israel,» Joan. I, 49, de quo ibidem dicendum. Sane Apostolos ante hanc Petri confessionem agnovisse Christum esse Deum ex ipsis ejus verbis, et tot tantisque miraculis ad hoc probandum factis, liquet ex verbis Petri, Joan. VI, 69: «Domine, ad quem ibimus? verba vitae aeternae habes, et nos credidimus et cognovimus, quia tu es Christus Filius Dei;» et ex verbis ipsorum Apostolorum: «Vere Filius Dei es,» Matth. XIV, 33; et ex continua Christi cum Judaeis hac de re coram Apostolis disputatione, quam recenset S. Joannes, cap. V et seq. Verum Apostoli, uti erant adhuc rudes, conceptum valde tenuem et confusum hac de re in mente sibi formabant, credebantque in genere Christum vere esse Filium Dei prae aliis Prophetis, imo esse Deum; sed qua ratione id esset, an per generationem aeternam, an per alium modum vel denominationem, ignorabant, et distincte concipere explicareque non poterant. Petrus autem id distincte, clare et sublimiter a Deo illuminatus agnovit, et primus hac de re interrogatus palam, constanter idipsum confessus et professus est hoc loco, quod scilicet Christus proprie esset Filius Dei, id est per generationem aeternam genitus a Deo Patre, ideoque illi consubstantialis, ac verus aeternusque Deus. Exegit hanc de se fidem Christus a Petro et Apostolis (Apostoli enim tacendo approbaverunt confessionem Petri, taciteque idem professi sunt), tum quia ipsa est fundamentum justificationis nostrae, tum quia instabant Christo passio et mors, in qua necesse erat Apostolos hac fide divinitatis Christi sustentari, ne ipso mortuo putarent fidem et cetera omnia cum ipso esse mortua, ut patet vers. 21 et sequent. Tu es Christus, Filius Dei vivi. — Graece ὁ Χριστός, id est ille Christus, scilicet Messias a Deo ante tot saecula Adae, Abrahae, Mosi et Davidi promissus, quem omnes Patriarchae et Prophetae avidissime exspectarunt, hodieque omnes exspectant. Tu, inquam, es Christus sive Messias, id est unctus a Deo unctione gratiae unionis hypostaticae cum Verbo, ac hoc ipso consecratus summus orbis Doctor, Pontifex, Propheta et Rex: Doctor, ut doceas homines Dei voluntatem et legem; Pontifex, ut te in sacrificium Deo offerendo, mundum Deo reconcilies; Propheta, ut arcana Dei enunties, et futura praedices, ac praesertim reposita in caelis piis praemia et in gehenna impiis supplicia praedices, cunctisque inculces; Rex, ut domineris caelo et terrae, omnibusque quae in eis sunt. FILIUS DEI, — non per gratiam et adoptionem, ut sunt omnes Sancti, sed per naturam et deitatem tibi a Deo Patre per generationem aeternam communicatam. Unde Graece est articulus habens emphasim, ὁ υἱός, id est «ille Filius,» scilicet unicus, naturalis et ὁμοούσιος Patri: alioqui enim etiam Joannes Baptista, Elias et Prophetae erant filii Dei adoptivi, quibus tamen opponit et anteponit hic Christum. «Vivi,» qui ita formaliter vivit vitam divinam, increatam et beatam, ut causaliter omnibus rebus a se creatis suam vim et vigorem, ac viventibus animam et vitam inspiret. Ab ipso enim velut a fonte et sole vitali, manat omnis lux et vita omnium Angelorum, hominum, animalium et plantarum. Vide dicta Joan. I, 4, ad illa: «In ipso erat.» Ita S. Leo, serm. De Transfiguratione: «D. Petrus, ait, per revelationem summi Patris, corporea superans, et humana transcendens, vidit mentis oculis Filium Dei vivi, et confessus est gloriam Deitatis.» Sic et S. Chrysostomus, Hilarius, Theophylactus, Euthymius, S. Augustinus, serm. 33 De Verbis Apostoli, et S. Athanasius, serm. 3 Contra Arianos, et alii passim, qui ex hoc loco probant divinitatem Christi. Perperam ergo Erasmus censet illam ex hoc loco non posse clare probari; nimirum ipse hic et alibi jecit semina Arianismi, quae ejus sequaces excluserunt.
16:17
17. RESPONDENS AUTEM JESUS, DIXIT EI: BEATUS ES, SIMON BAR-JONA, QUIA CARO ET SANGUIS NON REVELAVIT TIBI, SED PATER MEUS, QUI IN CAELIS EST. — q. d. Beatus et felix es, o Petre, ob hanc novam de me fidem; hoc enim ingens est bonum esse vere et proprie Filium Dei. Ita S. Hieronymus: «Ex confessione, ait, Petrus sortitur vocabulum quod revelationem ex Spiritu Sancto habeat, cujus et filius appellandus sit. Siquidem Bar-Jona in lingua nostra sonat filium columbae. Quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi,» id est carnales parentes, amici et quivis homines, qui carne et sanguine constant, non revelarunt tibi me esse Filium Dei, utpote quod omnem naturam et naturalem cognitionem omnium hominum et Angelorum longe transcendit, sed Pater meus caelestis suae gratiae illustratione id tibi effecit: «Quod caro et sanguis revelare non potuit, Spiritus Sancti gratia revelatum est,» ait S. Hieronymus. Sic caro sumitur pro homine carneo synecdochice, Galat. I, 16; Joan. I, 13 et I Corinth. XV, 50. S. Hilarius vero per carnem accipit carneos Petri oculos: hi enim nuntiabant Petro Christum esse hominem, eum vero esse Deum, non nisi revelatio Patris illi intimavit. Licet enim Petrus exterius audiret verba Christi dicentis se esse Filium Dei, idque per miracula confirmantis, tamen ad credendum opus fuit interna Spiritus Sancti illuminatione et gratia. Et donum, non carnis et sanguinis, id est naturae, sed gratiae Dei tibi idipsum inspirantis et revelantis; fides enim haec est initium et basis omnis gratiae et gloriae, ideoque haec te et multos per te tuumque exemplum et praedicationem ducet ad beatitudinem aeternam. Beatitudo enim viae consistit in fide et amore Christi; beatitudo vero patriae in ejusdem visione et fruitione, juxta illud, Joan. XVII, 3: «Haec est autem vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum Deum verum, et quem misisti, Jesum Christum.» Hinc Synodus Ephesina, actione III: «Iste beatissimus, inquit, et omni laude dignus Petrus Apostolus, qui est petra et crepido Catholicae Ecclesiae, et rectae fidei fundamentum.» Hinc et inolevit consuetudo fidelium, ut Pontifici loquentes dicant: «Beatissime Pater.» Unde S. Hieronymus ad Damasum Pontificem: «Ego, inquit, beatitudini tuae, hoc est cathedrae Petri consocior.» SIMON BAR-JONA, — id est filius Jonae. Pater enim Simonis Petri vocabatur Johanna, id est Johannes, ut patet Joan. XXI, 15, id est Deus donavit vel Deus misertus est, aut Dei donum, gratia et misericordia, a יהוה Jehova, quod est contractum Jehova, id est Deus, et חנן chanan, id est misertus est, donavit. Fuit ergo Petrus filius Johanna, vel Johannis, id est gratiae Dei, quia Deo gratissimus et gratia ejus plenissimus: sicut Gentiles eum, qui donis omnibus erat cumulatus, vocabant filium gratiarum. Porro, per crasin pro Johanna dicitur Jona, quod proprie columbam significat. Sic Emmanuel contrahitur in Manuel et Noel. Sic Jesaiahu, Jirmiahu, Eliahu, similiaque Hebraica nomina contrahuntur in Isaias, Jeremias, Elias. Sic pro Joannes Germani contracte dicunt Hans, Belgae Jan, Hispani Juan, Franci Jean. Nisi malis Johannan et Jona esse duo nomina inter se diversa: different enim tam voce, quam significatione; sed ita ut Jona alludat ad Johannan, et occasione Johannan inditum sit Petro, sic ut pater Petri fuerit binomius, priusque dictus sit Johannan, deinde brevioris pronuntiationis causa quasi alio vel alienato nomine dictus sit Jona. Sic enim plura nomina deflexa et decurtata sunt, ut alia plane esse videantur. Notat S. Chrysostomus Christum Simoni addere τὸ «Barjona,» non solum more Hebraeorum, qui filiis semper addunt nomen patris; sed ob peculiarem respectum ad responsionem Petri, quasi eam confirmet Christus dicatque: Vere dixisti, o Petre, me esse Filium Dei, quia sicut tu es Bar-Jona, id est filius Jonae, utpote ab eo naturaliter quoad substantiam genitus quasi homo ab homine, sic ego sum Filius Dei Patris, utpote ab aeterno naturaliter ab eo generatus quasi Deus de Deo, ejusdem cum illo substantiae et deitatis. Symbolice: Jona, id est columba, symbolum est Spiritus Sancti, qui in specie columbae in Christum devolavit, Matth. III, 16; hic enim in Petrum quoque descendit, eique revelavit Christum esse vere et proprie Filium Dei.
16:18
Ita S. Hieronymus, et primatum evertant. Verum ipsum Petrum hic dici petram, reliqui omnes Patres quasi universim conspirant, quos fuse citat hic Calvinomastix Maldonatus et Bellarminus, lib. I De Romano Pontif., cap. X. Sensus ergo est, q. d. Tu es Kepha, sive Cephas, id est petra, sive saxum durissimum, et firmissima cautes (hanc enim significat Hebr. כף keph, et Chaldaeum Syrumque כפא kepha) a me designata et destinata, ut post mortem meam, recepto in Pentecoste Spiritu Sancto, plane solidata et roborata sis fundamentum Ecclesiae, quam super te aedificabo: nam ante adventum Spiritus Sancti Petrus necdum petra erat Ecclesiae, imo Christum in passione ex timore negavit. Vox ergo Petri et petrae notat S. Petri quasi principis Ecclesiae, et successorum ejus Pontificum soliditatem et constantiam in fide et religione Christi, uti inter alios docet Angelus Caninius, in Nomin. Hebr. novi Testamenti, cap. XIII, 1. Porro, Petrum hic vocari petram probatur: Primo, ex pronomine hanc, cum ait: «Super hanc petram;» hoc enim, cum sit demonstrativum, sic intelligi debet, hanc scilicet, quam jam dixi, et cui loquor, q. d. Tu es Petrus, id est petra Ecclesiae, et super te quasi super petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Nullius enim alterius petrae facta est mentio, quam demonstrare possit pronomen hanc, nisi Petri; secus est I Corinth. X; ibi enim dicitur: «Bibebant de spiritali consequente eos petra: petra autem erat Christus,» praecessit enim vox «petra,» quam explicans ait eam fuisse, typice scilicet, id est repraesentasse Christum; sicut si Gallice locutus fuisset Christus, dixisset: «Tu es Pierre, et sur cette pierre je bâtirai mon Eglise.» Dices: Christus non dicit: Tu es Petra, sed: Tu es Petrus, ergo pronomen hanc nequit referre Petrum. Respondeo Christum Syriace locutum dixisse: Tu es kepha, et super hanc kepha aedificabo, etc. Kepha enim dicitur petra, et inde Petrus Syriace dictus est Kepha. Verum Graecus Interpres, eumque secutus Latinus, nomen ei quasi viri dederunt masculinum, scilicet Petrus, potius quam petra, quod est femininum; sed πέτρος Graece aeque ac πέτρα, petram sive lapidem significat. Petrus ergo idem est quod petra, sed interpres elegantiae causa variavit, vertitque: «Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram,» non super hunc Petrum (uti vero et proprio sensu dicere potuisset), tum quia petra usitatius lapidem vel saxum, quam Petrus significat Graecis; tum quia domus proprie aedificantur super saxa, non super homines. Fatetur id Beza hic: «Dominus, ait, Syriace loquens, nulla usus est agnominatione, sed utrobique dixit Cepha: quemadmodum et vernaculum nomen Pierre, tam de proprio, quam de appellativo dicitur. In Graeco quoque sermone πέτρος et πέτρα, non re, sed terminatione tantum different.» Hucusque recte, sed perperam quod subdit: «Sed videtur Matthaeus (aut si quis ejus fuit interpres) hoc terminationis discrimine voluisse Petrum (qui pars est aedificii) ab ipsa petra, cui innititur aedificium, id est a Christo ipso distinguere, ipsumque adeo Petrum a fidei promissione, quae toti Ecclesiae est communis, quod veteres etiam aperte testantur, ut plane sit ridiculus Antichristus (ita vocat haereticus Romanum Pontificem), cum ex hoc loco tyrannidem suam stabilire conatur.» Quam hoc petulanter et falso dicat, vide et disce ex locis ipsis originalibus Patrum, quos citat Bellarminus et Maldonatus, ut dixi. Rursum Interpreti praeferendus est ipse Scripturae textus, nec aliud voluit Interpres Graecus, quam quod ipse Syriacus textus, uti paulo ante dixi. Mitto alia plura, quae jam ex dictis vel mox dicendis falsa esse constabit. Secundo, idipsum patet ex eo quod nulla sit connexio dicere: «Tu es Petrus, et super me petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam.» Imo est imminutio sermonis et beneficii dati eversio. Diceret enim Christo Petrus: Ego sum Petrus, id est petra Ecclesiae: quomodo ergo non super me, sed super te aedificas Ecclesiam tuam? Tertio, quia omnia antecedentia et sequentia non nisi Petrum spectant et respiciunt: «Et ego, inquit, dico tibi,» o Petre, hoc est tantae fidei et confessionis praemium, et praerogativum tibi do et assigno, ut post me meamque mortem et resurrectionem te facturus sim petram et fundamentum Ecclesiae; hos enim significat τὸ «aedificabo Ecclesiam meam.» Quarto, quia versiones originales et orientales in hoc conspirant, ut Petrus sit idem quod petra, et petra idem quod Petrus; unde idem nomen Kepha dant Petro et Petrae. Christus ergo, inquit Angelus Caninius, in Nomin. Hebraicis novi Testamenti, cap. XIII, Syriace sic dixit: אנת כפא ועל הדא כפא אבני ית עדתי Ant kepha, Veal hadden ebne iat edti; vel ut jam habet Evangelium Syriacum: Ant hu kipha, Veal hada kipha ebne eidti, id est Tu es Cepha, id est petra, et super hanc Cepha, id est petram (hoc est super te, qui es Petrus sive petra), aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Quin et Evangelium Hebraicum, quod quasi authenticum et autographum Matthaei edidit Sebastianus Munsterus, simili modo habet: אתה כיפא ועל כיפא הזאת אבנה את מקהלי Atta kepha, Veal kepha hazzot ebne eth macheli. Sic et Evangelium Armenorum: Isbim, inquit, e vera ais bim, id est, es rupes, et super hanc rupem aedificabo, etc. Et Evangelium Arabicum: Ant alsachra, va ala hada alsachra ebni baiati: Tu es saxum, et super illud saxo aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Aethiopicum Evangelium habet: Anto quoquh va dibazati, quoqh annesa lebeita Christianei, id est: Tu es rupes, et super hanc rupem fabricabo domum Christianam, id est Ecclesiam. Aegyptium vero Copticum: Ego vero dico tibi, quia tu es hic Petrus, fundabo Ecclesiam meam super hanc petram, quae non alia est, quam Petrus, alioqui non est connexio: dat enim causam τὸ «quia,» cur super petram fundabit Ecclesiam, quia scilicet Petrus erit petra solida, cui secure tota Ecclesia quasi fundamento firmo fundata incumbat. Persicum autem: Ego dico tibi, quia tu es sanac, id est petra, et super hanc sanac, id est petram, aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Porro, paraphrastes Persicus sanac, id est petram explicat, addens: Tu es petra, id est fundamentum et judex. Vide Petrum Victorem in Annotat. ad novum Testamentum, pag. 101 et 102, ubi omnes hasce versiones fuse enarrat. Ad S. Augustinum respondetur ipsum deceptum fuisse ignorantione linguae Hebraicae et Syriacae, ideoque putasse Petrum aliud esse a petra, et ab ea denominative dici quasi Petreium, cum ex Syro constet idem esse Petrus quod petra. Rursum S. Augustinus admittit ut probabilem eorum expositionem, qui dicunt Petrum esse petram Ecclesiae, quo jugulat Calvinum, qui censet id dicere esse blasphemiam in Christum. Audi S. Augustinum, in serm. De Cathedra Petri: «Denique pro soliditate devotionis Ecclesiarum petra dicitur; sicut ait Dominus: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Petra enim dicitur, eo quod primus nationibus fidei fundamenta posuerit, et tanquam saxum immobile totius operis Christiani compagem molemque contineat. Petra ergo pro devotione Petrus dicitur, et petra pro virtute Dominus nuncupatur; sicut ait Apostolus: Bibebant de spiritali consequente eos petra, petra autem erat Christus; recte consortium meretur nominis, qui consortium meretur et operis. Petrus fundamentum ponit, Petrus plantat, Dominus incrementum dat, Dominus irriguum subministrat.» Idem Augustinus, serm. 16 De Sanctis: «Dignus certe, inquit, qui aedificandis Dei populis Petrus esset ad fundamentum, columna ad sustentaculum, clavis ad regnum.» Denique, etiamsi admitteretur illa expositio S. Augustini, quae tamen non est genuina, nimirum petram denotare Christum, tamen inde convincetur Petrum post Christum, qui est petra et lapis angularis Ecclesiae, proximam esse petram fundamentalem Ecclesiae. Sensus enim esset: Ego sum petra, super quam aedificabo Ecclesiam: tu vero, o Petre, mihi es proximus et proxima petra Ecclesiae, super quam proxime post me aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, ideoque te solum voco Petrum, cum antea vocareris Simon. Iisdem argumentis refelluntur Centuriatores Magdeburg., lib. I Cent. I, cap. IV, et Genevenses ministri, qui in suis Bibliis sic exponunt: «Super hanc petram,» id est super hanc confessionem vel fidem, scilicet quod ego sim Filius Dei. Nusquam enim antea haec confessio vocata est petra, sicut Petrus immediate ante vocatus est Cephas, id est petra. Dices: Nonnulli Patres per petram accipiunt fidem, quam confessus et professus est Petrus. Ita S. Chrysostomus, S. Hilarius, lib. VI De Trinit.; S. Cyrillus, lib. IV De Trinit.; S. Ambrosius, lib. VI in Lucam, cap. IX. Respondeo: Hi patres fidem non abstracte accipiunt, sed fidem prouterat in Petro, ac consequenter ipsum Petrum faciunt petram Ecclesiae, uti ipsi mox diserte explicant. Volunt enim dicere Petrum ob meritum fidei accepisse dignitatem petrae in Ecclesia, uti expresse ait S. Hilarius et S. Chrysostomus; ob illam enim meruisse, ut ipse sit fundamentum Ecclesiae, ejusque fides deficere nequeat, ut ipse alios in fide confirmet et sustentet, Lucae XXII, 32. Ecclesia enim non ex fide, sed ex ipsis hominibus fidelibus quasi partibus conflatur et integratur (Ecclesia enim non est aliud, quam coetus fidelium); quare et ipsum Ecclesiae caput, ut sit corpori homogeneum, homo fidelis, puta Petrus, et Pontifex sit oportet. Fides ergo est ratio fundandi, fundamentum vero est ipse Petrus. Ita S. Chrysostomus, Cyrillus, lib. IV De Trinit., et S. Ambrosius, lib. VI in Lucam, cap. IX; Bellarminus, lib. I De Pontif., cap. X, ubi pariter refellit Erasmum et Chytraeum, qui, ex Origene more suo allegorizante, per petram accipiunt omnes fideles. Sic enim tota Ecclesia esset petra, tota enim Ecclesia non aliis constat, quam fidelibus; ubi ergo erunt parietes, tabulata et tectum Ecclesiae? Ex quibus illa aedificabuntur? Vide et Gretserum in Defensione Bellarmini, lib. III, cap. V. Denique Christus hoc tribuit Petro, ut Pontifici futuro Ecclesiae: quare idem tribuit caeteris Pontificibus ejus successoribus, idque in bonum Ecclesiae, ut scilicet illa ab eis quasi a Petra, in fide et religione Christiana solidetur. Quocirca S. Bernardus, lib. II De Consider. ad Eugenium Pontificem: «Quis es? inquit, Sacerdos magnus, summus Pontifex. Tu princeps Episcoporum, tu haeres Apostolorum; tu primatu Abel, gubernatu Noe, patriarchatu Abraham, ordine Melchisedech, dignitate Aaron, auctoritate Moyses, judicatu Samuel, potestate Petrus, unctione Christus. Tu es cui claves traditae, cui oves creditae sunt.» ET SUPER HANC PETRAM. — Hinc patet quod sicut Cephas dicitur a Cepha, sic Petrum dici a petra, imo idem esse quod petra, uti jam ostendi. Quare quod Optatus Milevitanus, lib. II Contra Parmen., et alii Cephas derivant a Graeco κεφαλή, id est caput, per allusionem congruam, non per veram nominis etymologiam est factum. Simili allusione S. Gregorius Nazianzenus, orat. 2 De Pascha. Phase sive Pascha, quae Hebraea est vox, ut omnes norunt ex Exodi cap. XII, derivat a Graeco πάσχειν, id est pati. In Paschate enim contigit passio Christi, ejusque quasi agni Paschalis immolatio. Porro, Christus hoc nomen petrae, prae aliis nominibus columnae, turris, anchorae, basis, etc., Petro indidit, quia ipsius Christi nomen in Scriptura decantatum est petra, Isaiae XXVIII, 16; Psal. CXVII, 22; Matth. XXI, 42, et alibi: nomen ergo suum cum dignitate et officio Petro communicavit. Ita Petrus, propter tam sublimem fidei confessionem, meruit a Christo fieri et institui haec petra fundamentalis. Et hoc tantum volunt S. Hilarius, Chrysostomus, Cyrillus et Nyssenus, in fine libri Contra Judaeos, cum dicunt Ecclesiam a Christo aedificatam esse super fidem et confessionem Petri, ut superius exposui. Porro, S. Chrysostomus hic urget τὸ «aedificabo,» aitque simile esse illi: «dixit Deus,» Genes. I, quo omnia creata sunt et subsistunt. Similiter enim, ait, τὸ «aedificabo» omnia operatus est, etiam tyrannis oppugnantibus, militibus arma moventibus, populis insanientibus, obluctante consuetudine. Sermo enim Dei velut ignis validus adveniens spinas consumpsit, agros repurgavit, solum praeparavit, aedificium in altum eduxit, etc. Quocirca S. Hieronymus, epist. 57, dum consulit Damasum Pontificem, an in SS. Trinitate dicendae sint tres hypostases, an una duntaxat? sic ei loquitur: «Cum successore piscatoris et discipulo crucis loquor. Ego nullum primum, nisi Christum sequens, Beatitudini Tuae, hoc est cathedrae Petri communione consocior, super illam petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio. Quicumque extra hanc domum agnum comederit, profanus est: si quis in arca Noe non fuerit, peribit regnante diluvio.» AEDIFICABO ECCLESIAM MEAM. — q. d. Ideo voco te Petrum et petram, quia sicut super petram aedificatur domus, ut illi innixa sit firma et immobilis contra omnes ventorum flatus; sic ego super te, Petre, quasi super petram firmissimam aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, ut tibi innixa firma consistat contra omnes haereticorum et impiorum insultus, utque tu eam in vera fide et cultu Dei contineas et sustentes, sicut petra quasi fundamentum sustinet et continet totam domum in ea aedificatam. Ita S. Ambrosius, serm. 4: «Petra, ait, dicitur Petrus, eo quod tanquam saxum immobile totius operis Christiani compagem molemque sustineat.» Dices: Fundamentum Ecclesiae sunt omnes Apostoli, ut patet Ephes. II, 20, et Apoc. XXI, 19. Ergo non solus Petrus est petra Ecclesiae. Respondeo Petrum esse petram et fundamentum totius Ecclesiae omniumque omnino fidelium, adeoque ipsorum Apostolorum: Petri enim quasi primatis et principis erat Apostolos in fide, religione et officio continere, dirigere, firmare et, sicubi errarent, corrigere. Unde S. Hieronymus, lib. I Contra Jovin.: «Propterea, ait, inter duodecim unus eligitur, ut capite constituto schismatis tolleretur occasio.» Et S. Cyprianus, tract. De Unitate Ecclesiae: «Primatus, ait, Petro datur, ut una Christi Ecclesia et cathedra una monstretur.» Nota primo, Christus hic duabus metaphoris promittit, ut ait S. Hieronymus, Petro Ecclesiae principatum dandum illi post suam mortem ac resurrectionem, Joan. XXI, 16, cum illi dixit: «Pasce oves meas.» Prima metaphora est fundamenti, sive petrae fundamentalis: quod enim in aedificio est petra et fundamentum, hoc in corpore est caput, in civitate rector, in regno rex, in Ecclesia pontifex. Secunda est clavium: claves enim non nisi regibus vel gubernatoribus dantur. Nota secundo, aedificare Ecclesiam super hanc petram, duo significat: primo, huic lapidi rationali, scilicet Petro quasi capiti omnium Apostolorum et totius Ecclesiae curam et regimen proxime post Christum incumbere: ita S. Chrysostomus, hom. 55; S. Ambrosius, serm. 47; S. Gregorius, lib. IV, epist. 32; secundo, Ecclesiam Petro, ut vicarius est Christi, velut fundamento inniti et solidari, ut in fide errare non possit. Unde romanis Pontificibus Petri successoribus. Christus enim hoc loco prospexit Ecclesiae suae perpetuo duraturae de re maxime necessaria et summi momenti, scilicet de capite perpetuo, ac optimum et perpetuum in ea regimen instituit, scilicet monarchicum, ut ab uno romano Pontifice una Christi regatur Ecclesia, uti docent S. Cyprianus, De Unitate Ecclesiae; S. Hieronymus, lib. I Contra Jovin., et alii passim. Cavillationes novatorum Calvini posterorum circa hunc locum recte diluit et confutat noster Gretserus, et post eum Adamus Contsen, insigne haeresomastiges. Diocletianum, etc. Igitur hac voce Christus primo Ecclesiam animat, ne sit pusillanimis, cum videt se omnibus viribus a Satana et impiis oppugnari; secundo, illi classicum canit, ut semper excubet armata contra tot hostes, internecinis odiis illam prosequentes; tertio, illi aeque ac capiti ejus Petro, id est Pontifici, promittit de omnibus victoriam et triumphum. Ratio est, quia Christus ei assistit et pro ea pugnat. Rursum Christus et Spiritus Sanctus peculiari cura assistunt capiti ejus Romano Pontifici, ut in fide non erret, sed firmus sit, ut adamas, ait S. Chrysostomus, utque Ecclesiam recte administret et regat, dirigatque in viam salutis, sicut direxit Noe et arcam, ne mergeretur diluvio. Quocirca S. Chrysostomus, hom. 4 De Verbis Isaiae: «Facilius, inquit, est solem exstingui, quam Ecclesiam obscurari.» Et tom. V, in orat. De non contemnenda Ecclesia: «Quid Ecclesia Dei potentius esse potest? Moenia Barbari destruunt, Ecclesiam vero ne daemones quidem superant. Cum oppugnatur, vincit; cum appetitur insidiis, superat.» S. Augustinus, in Pros. Contra partem Donati: «Numerate, inquit, sacerdotes vel ab ipsa sede Petri. Ipsa est petra, quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae.» Id maxime patuit in conversione omnium gentium, et praesertim Romae et Romanorum. Roma enim caput orbis, aeque ac idololatriae, ubi omnium gentium colebantur idola, ab iis conversa est a S. Petro ejusque successoribus, ac superbum caput subjecit cruci Christi, quod miraculum fuit miraculorum maximum.
16:19
19. ET TIBI DABO CLAVES REGNI CAELORUM. — «Tibi,» quatenus es una persona, scilicet Bar-Jona, sive filius Jonae, ut patet ex omnibus antecedentibus et sequentibus. Non ergo hic Petro in persona Ecclesiae, hoc est ipsi Ecclesiae, primario a Christo promissae sunt claves caeli, ut volunt haeretici, sed ipsimet Petro, tanquam capiti Ecclesiae, et per eum Ecclesiae ejusque ministris, uti et eidem speciatim illae datae et consignatae sunt a Christo post resurrectionem, cum dixit: «Pasce oves meas,» Joan. cap. ult. Ita passim Patres Graeci et Latini, quorum verba recitat Bellarminus, lib. De Pontifice, cap. XII, ubi pariter fuse ostendit non aliud voluisse S. Augustinum, cum ait Petrum gessisse figuram Ecclesiae, quia scilicet Petrus repraesentabat Ecclesiam, sicut rex regnum; sic enim se explicat ipse S. Augustinus, tract. ult. in Joannem, dum ait: «Cujus Ecclesiae Petrus Apostolus, propter apostolatus sui primatum gerebat figurata generalitate personam.» Et in Psal. CVIII: «Cujus (Ecclesiae) ille agnoscitur gessisse personam propter primatum, quem in discipulis habuit;» quia propter bonum Ecclesiae Petrus velut ejus caput claves a Christo accepit: ex quibus etiam patet Christum promittere claves Petro, ut futuro Pontifici, ac consequenter easdem promittere reliquis Romanis Pontificibus Petri successoribus. CLAVES. — Quaeres, quidnam hic significant claves? Respondet Calvinus, lib. IV Instit., cap. VI, §3, ejusque sequaces, significare potestatem annuntiandi tum Evangelium, tum remissionem peccatorum ei qui duntaxat credit Evangelio illam promittenti. Verum hoc insulsum est et ridiculum. Clavibus enim aperiuntur ostia, non ora praedicantium. Unde claves insigne sunt regum et regentium, non doctorum et docentium, vel praedicantium. Quare claves significant proprie jus regendi, ad quod pertinet non sola potestas praedicandi Evangelii, sed et absolvendi a peccatis, praecipiendi, ordinandi sacerdotes, interpretandi sanctam Scripturam, excommunicandi, caeteraque omnia, quae ad bonum regimen Ecclesiae spectant, peragendi. Dico ergo, per «claves» hic significatur summa potestas tum ordinis, tum jurisdictionis in totam Ecclesiam, Petro hic a Christo promissa et tradita, Joan. cap. ult.; vers. 16. Hoc enim fine traduntur claves urbium regibus et principibus. Et ita claves explicat Christus in sequentibus, dicens: «Quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in caelis,» etc. Qui enim claves habet domus vel civitatis, illius est et dominus, ut ad libitum eam aperiat vel claudat, et quos velit, in illam admittat; quos nolit, excludat. Alludit ad Isaiae cap. XXII, ubi Deus Eliakim, Pontifici veteris Testamenti, principatum Synagogae promittens, ait: «Et dabo clavem domus David super humerum ejus; et aperiet, et non erit qui claudat; et claudet, et non erit qui aperiat.» Vide ibi dicta. Porro, Eliakim typus fuit Christi Pontificis, de quo dicitur, Apoc. XXI, 2: «Vidi civitatem sanctam Jerusalem novam, descendentem de caelo a Deo paratam, sicut sponsam ornatam viro suo.» Sensus ergo est, q. d. Christus ego, o Petre, dabo tibi quasi Pontifici ac consequenter Pontificibus caeteris tibi succedentibus, claves regni caelorum, id est summam potestatem regendi universam Ecclesiam toto orbe dispersam, ut clavibus, id est potestate tua aperiendo, vel claudendo hominibus Ecclesiam, eisdem pariter aperias, vel claudas caelum. Ubi nota non dixisse Christum: Dabo tibi claves regni terrarum, ne terrena et temporalis putaretur haec potestas, sed «regni caelorum,» ut significaretur haec potestas proprie et directe extendi ad spiritualia, quae spectant ad regnum caelorum; ad temporalia vero non nisi indirecte, quatenus scilicet ad spiritualia, ut necessaria, vel valde utilia referentur. Ita S. Chrysostomus hic, homil. 55, docet, per hasce claves Petro a Christo traditas, Petri curae et regimini commissum esse universum mundum, ipsumque creatum esse pastorem et caput totius Ecclesiae. Sic et S. Gregorius, lib. IV, epist. 32: «Cunctis, ait, Evangelium scientibus liquet, quod voce Dominica sancto et omnium Apostolorum principi Petro, totius Ecclesiae cura commissa est.» Ac rationem statim subjicit: «Ipsi quippe dicitur: Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum.» Sic et S. Hilarius hic et S. Leo, serm. 2 in Annivers. Assumpt., et alii passim. Audi S. Augustinum, serm. 28 De Sanctis: «Solus Petrus inter Apostolos meruit audire: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Dignus certe qui aedificandis in domo Dei populis lapis esset ad fundamentum, columna ad sustentaculum, clavis ad regnum.» Hinc S. Ambrosius, lib. XX, epist. 13 ad Marcellinam sororem, narrans luctam quam habuit cum Arianis, qui postulabant tradi sibi claves basilicae Mediolani, cui praeerat Ambrosius, idque jussu Imperatoris Valentiniani Junioris, quem regebat Justina mater Ariana: «Mandatur, inquit: Trade basilicam. Respondeo: Nec mihi fas est tradere, nec tibi accipere, Imperator, expedit. Domum privati nullo potes jure temerare, domum Dei existimas auferendam? Allegatur, Imperatori licere omnia, ipsius esse universa. Respondeo: Noli te gravare, Imperator, ut putes te in ea, quae divina sunt, imperiale aliquod jus habere. Noli te extollere, sed si vis diutius imperare, esto Deo subditus. Scriptum est: Quae Dei Deo, quae Caesaris Caesari: ad Imperatorem palatia pertinent, ad sacerdotem ecclesiae. Publicorum tibi moenium jus commissum est, non sacrorum.» Sic Hosius, episcopus Cordubensis, praeses Concilii Nicaeni, Constantio Imperatori Ariano idem postulanti constanter respondit, ipsi deberi claves urbium, claves vero ecclesiae soli Pontifici: «Tibi, inquit, Deus imperium commisit; nobis, quae ecclesiae sunt, credidit.» Tropologice: claves notant industriam, dexteritatem atque sapientiam regendi, quae debet esse in Pontifice; nam clavis dextere serae imponi, aptari et circumagi debet, ut ostium aperiatur; sic «ars artium est regimen animarum,» ait S. Gregorius in Pastorali. ET QUODCUMQUE LIGAVERIS SUPER TERRAM, ERIT LIGATUM ET IN CAELIS; ET QUODCUMQUE SOLVERIS SUPER TERRAM, ERIT SOLUTUM ET IN CAELIS. — «Quodcumque,» id est quemcumque; sed dicit «Quodcumque,» quia genus neutrum amplius et universalius est genere masculino. Nam Pontifex non tantum homines ligat et solvit, sed et peccata, vota, juramenta, etc. Transit a metaphora clavium ad metaphoram vicinam ligandi et solvendi: vicina enim sunt aperire et claudere, ligare et solvere. Unde per eam idem significat, quod per claves et per petram, nimirum summam potestatem Petri et Pontificum in regenda Ecclesia. Potestas ergo ligandi amplissima est, et varie exercetur a Petro et Pontifice. Primo, culpam et peccatum non absolvendo, sed retinendo, ac absolutionem sacramentalem in Poenitentiae Sacramento, ei, qui indignus et indispositus est, negando, aeque ac Eucharistiam aliaque sacramenta, Joan. XX, 21; secundo, poenitentiam lapsis injungendo; tertio, excommunicatione aliisque censuris ecclesiasticis reum innodando; quarto, legibus et praeceptis, v. g. festorum, jejuniorum, decimarum, etc., fideles constringendo; quinto, obligando Christianos definitionibus fidei, dum Pontifex ex cathedra definit et declarat quid credendum sit; quid ut erroneum et haereticum respuendum; quae religio bona sit, quae non; quis status vitae honestus sit et licitus, quis non, etc. Hinc a contrario liquet quid sit solvere, scilicet ab obligationibus hisce jam dictis absolvere et liberare. Explicat ergo Christus hic potestatem clavium per metaphoram, non aperiendi et claudendi (quae duo sunt propria clavium officia), sed per aliam efficaciorem, scilicet vinculorum, iis homines ligando, vel ligatos absolvendo: quam in omnes omnino homines totius orbis a Christo accepit S. Petrus, et ei succedens Romanus Pontifex, qui tamen illam derivat, prout ei libuerit, in Episcopos, pastores aliosque ministros Ecclesiae sibi subditos; ideoque Christus caeteris quoque Apostolis dixit, Matth. XVIII, 18: «Quaecumque alligaveritis super terram, erunt ligata et in caelo; et quaecumque solveritis super terram, erunt soluta et in caelo;» quibus verbis eadem potestas datur Apostolis a Christo in totum orbem, quae datur hic Petro; sed peculiariter eadem hic datur soli Petro, ut significetur ipsum in hac potestate esse primum et principem, ut caeteros Apostolos quasi sibi subditos, suaeque curae commissos, in ea dirigere, arctare, corrigere possit et subinde debeat, imo eamdem, si opus foret, eis adimere et auferre. Unde Synodus Alexandrina, cui praesedit S. Athanasius, ex sententia Concilii Nicaeni, scribit Felici Papae: «Romanae Sedi ab ipso Domino potestatem ligandi et solvendi, speciali privilegio super alios esse concessam.» SUPER TERRAM. — Nota; potestas Petri et Pontificis etiam se extendit ad eos qui sunt sub terra in inferno vel purgatorio; ut cum quem, ob scelus in vita admissum, post mortem jam vita functum excommunicat privatque Ecclesiae suffragiis, uti excommunicat haereticos; aut cum quem in vita excommunicatum, post mortem ab excommunicatione absolvit, uti ab ea absolvit S. Gregorius monachum cum pecunia defunctum, teste Joanne Diacono in ejus Vita, lib. II, cap. XLV; item cum dat indulgentias pro defunctis, sive eas det per ergo absolvi nequit, nisi vivens super terram poenituerit, seseque converterit. Quare in tali proprie accipiendum est τὸ «super,» cum ait «super terram.» Et sic universim verum est, Pontificem non posse quem sub terra ligare vel absolvere, nisi eum qui, dum viveret super terram, meruerit ligari vel absolvi, ac ligatione dignum, vel absolutionis capacem se fecerit. Denique verius est Pontificem juridice duntaxat viventes in terra ligare et solvere, non vero mortuos. Dat ergo ipse indulgentias defunctis, non per modum juridicae absolutionis, quia defuncti illi amplius non sunt subditi, sed «per modum suffragii,» uti ipse diserte in bullis solet exprimere, solvendo scilicet pro illis tantum ex thesauro Ecclesiae, cujus ipse est dispensator, quantum poenarum defuncti Deo debent. Hic enim thesaurus est super terram, estque in manu et potestate Pontificis. Ita sentiunt S. Thomas, Bonaventura, Alensis, Gabriel, Major, Richardus, Cajetanus, D. Soto, Navarrus et Bellarminus, tract. De Indulgentiis, quos citat et sequitur Suarez, De Poenitentia, disputat. LIII, sect. II, num. 4 et seqq., qui et addit Pontificem proprie et directe non excommunicare defunctos, nec eos ab excommunicatione absolvere, sed tantum indirecte, quia scilicet directe vetat viventibus, ne pro defuncto orent, aut iis permittit ut pro eo orent; hoc ipso enim defunctos indirecte privat suffragiis Ecclesiae, perinde ac si forent excommunicati; vel illa iis indulget, perinde ac si ab excommunicatione eos absolveret. Cum ergo Christus ait hic Petro: «Quaecumque solveris,» etc., per solutionem intelligitur non tantum juridica absolutio, sed etiam omnis dispensatio, favor et gratia, ex vi potestatis illius a Christo ipsi collatae: at talis est haec dispensatio thesauri Ecclesiae, quem per modum suffragii Pontifex expendit et applicat defunctis. Haec ergo, quae dixi, significat «super terram.» Secundo, potest tamen τὸ «super terram» referri quoque ad res, puta ad homines ligandos vel solvendos, ut verba Christi completum habeant sensum; sed tunc τὸ «super terram» comprehendit quoque eos qui sunt in terra, vel sub terra: opponitur enim τὸ «in caelo,» quia Graecum ἐπὶ, et Latinum super, ac Hebraeum על hal ample accipitur; unde hic potest accipi pro in, hinc Syrus vertit, in terra. Sic enim directe opponitur solutio in terra Petri solutioni Dei in caelo. Simili modo Graeci dicunt, ἐπὶ ξένης εἶναι, id est, in peregrina terra esse. Aliter Salmeron: Mortui, inquit, quoad aliquid sui, scilicet quoad famam et corpus, sunt super terram: unde in his a Pontifice plecti possunt super terram. Verum non tantum corpus, sed et anima eorum, quae est sub terra, a Pontifice ligari vel solvi potest, uti paulo ante ostendi. Porro Gelasius Pontifex, XXIV, Quaest. II, cap. II Igitur, ex hisce Christi verbis probat eum qui in excommunicatione est defunctus, non posse ab Ecclesia, id est a Pontifice absolvi. Unde videtur proprie τὸ «super terram» accipere; sed loquitur de pervicaci, qui in contumacia sua obiit, hic enim, utpote impoenitens, absolvi nequit, quia incapax est absolutionis. Talis
16:20
20. Tunc praecepit discipulis suis ut nemini dicerent, quia ipse esset Jesus Christus. — Nonnulli Graeci et Syrus omittunt τὸ «Jesus,» tuncque planius fluit oratio. Sciebant enim omnes ipsum vocari Jesum, sed nesciebant ipsum esse Messiam, sive Christum, verum Dei Filium. Noluit Christus Apostolos hoc aliis dicere et praedicare, tum quia ipsi hac de re necdum satis erant instructi et in ea confirmati: nam alioqui ipse Christus palam praedicavit se esse Christum Filium Dei, ut patet Joan. V et seq., ac pro hujus veritatis confessione occisus est, martyrque occubuit Joan. XVIII, 37; tum quia Christus mox passurus erat, crucifigendus et occidendus a Judaeis: quare Judaei scandalizati fuissent, si Apostoli praedicassent ipsum esse Messiam et Deum, eisque dixissent: Abite cum Christo vestro in malam crucem, qui nos facitis Christicidas et Deicidas, uti jam Christianis dicunt Judaei; quare semel abjecta fide Christi, eam, licet postea miraculis testatam, amplius audire noluissent. Ergo exspectanda fuit Christi mors, resurrectio et gloria, ut tunc praedicarent ipsum esse Messiam et Filium Dei, idque per miracula confirmarent, ac sic rem tantam populo persuaderent, uti fecerunt in Pentecoste, Act. II, juxta illud: «Propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum, et dedit illi nomen, quod est super omne nomen, ut in nomine Jesu omne genu flectatur caelestium, terrestrium et infernorum,» Philip. II, 9. Ita S. Chrysostomus, Theophylactus, Euthymius. Sic et S. Hieronymus: «Tunc, ait, me praedicate, cum ista passus fuero, quia non prodest Christum publice praedicari et ejus vulgare in populis majestatem, quem post paululum flagellatum visuri sunt, crucifixum.» Addit S. Chrysostomus: «Quod enim semel radicatum est, et postea evulsum, si iterum plantetur, difficile retinebitur apud multos; quod autem infixum semel, est et mansit, postea immobile facile provehitur ad augmentum.» Haec magis patebunt ex sequentibus.
16:21
21. Exinde coepit Jesus ostendere discipulis, quia (quod) oporteret eum ire Hierosolymam, et multa pati a senioribus, et scribis, et principibus sacerdotum, et occidi, et tertia die resurgere. — «Exinde,» Graece ἀπὸ τότε, id est ab illo tempore, quo scilicet illis divinitatem suam patefecerat, coepit eos docere de sua passione et morte, tum ut perfecte eos in fide instrueret: duo enim sunt fidei principia, scilicet Christi divinitas et Christi humanitas, ejusque passio et crux, per quam redemit orbem; tum ne Apostoli audientes vel videntes Christum occidi et mori, de ejus divinitate dubitarent, ait Theophylactus; tum ut ostenderet hoc esse congruum: primo, Deo Patri, ut ejus voluntati et justitiae per peccatum Adae et posterorum laesae et offensae, per Christi mortem ex aequo satisfaceret; secundo, Christo, quem decebat per passionem intrare in gloriam suam, Lucae XXIV, 26; tertio, hominibus, quos Christi morte decebat redimi et instrui ad imitandam ferendamque ejus crucem.
16:22
22. Et assumens eum Petrus, coepit increpare eum. — «Assumens,» seorsim scilicet (quasi familiarius et secretius eum increpiturus ex vehementi amore, quod coram aliis non audebat) Christum retrahens. Ita S. Chrysostomus, Euthymius et S. Hieronymus, quem audi: «Qui (Petrus) non vult destrui confessionem suam (qua dixerat: Tu es Christus, Filius Dei vivi), nec putat posse fieri, ut Dei Filius occidatur; assumit eum in affectum suum, vel separatim ducit, ne praesentibus caeteris condiscipulis videatur magistrum arguere; et coepit illum increpare amantis affectu, et optantis dicere: Absit a te, Domine; vel, ut melius habetur in Graeco: Propitius sis tibi, Domine, non erit hoc,» «quasi necessariam, ait S. Thomas, haberet propitiationem: cujus affectum suscipiens quidem Christus, ignorantiam exprobrat.» Absit a te, Domine, non erit tibi hoc, — non accidet tibi mors tam indigna. Quis enim ferat Filium Dei crucifigi et mori? Graece est ἵλεώς σοι, id est «propitius tibi,» scilicet sis, aut sit Deus. Ita solent Septuaginta vertere Hebr. חלילה לך halilalach, id est prohibitio tibi sit, quod vulgo olim dicebant: Dii prohibeant, dii meliora. Syrus: Parce tibi. Loquitur Petrus ex humana prudentia et affectu, non ex divina, ex qua paulo ante dixerat: «Tu es Christus, Filius Dei vivi.» Hic ergo sibi relictus deficit, ideoque a Christo redarguitur.
16:23
23. Qui conversus dixit Petro: Vade post me, Satana, scandalum es mihi (Syrus, offendiculo es mihi), quia non sapis ea quae Dei sunt, sed ea quae hominum. — S. Hilarius τὸ «vade post me,» refert ad Petrum; τὸ vero «satana, scandalum es mihi,» refert non ad Petrum, sed ad diabolum, qui suggesserat Petro, ut diceret: «Absit a te, Domine.» Audi eum: «Sciens enim Dominus diabolicae artis instinctum, Petro ait: Vade retro post me, id est ut exemplum suae passionis sequatur. In eum vero, per quem opinio haec suggerebatur conversus, adjecit: Satana, scandalum es mihi: non enim convenit existimare Petro satanae nomen et offensionem scandali deputari, post indulta illa beatitudinis et potestatis tanta praeconia.» Verum caeteri omnes τὸ «satana» jungunt cum «vade post me,» totumque Petro dictum arbitrantur. Ait ergo Christus Petro: «Vade post me,» id est recede a me, facesse hinc, abi a conspectu meo; quia hac in re non mihi es amicus, sed satan, id est adversarius (hoc enim significat Hebr. שטן satan, et sic vertit Noster, II Reg. XIX, 22, et III Reg. V, 4) et «scandalum,» id est offendiculum et impedimentum es mihi. Vis enim impedire passionem meam, et consequenter redemptionem et salutem hominum, quam per passionem meriturus et procuraturus sum. Ita S. Chrysostomus, Euthymius et S. Hieronymus, quem audi: «Meae voluntatis est et Patris ut pro hominum salute moriar: tu tuam tantum considerans voluntatem, non vis granum tritici cadere in terram, ut multos afferat fructus;» «et ideo, ait D. Thomas, quia contrarius voluntati meae, debes adversarius appellari: satanas enim interpretatur adversarius, sive contrarius; non tamen, ut plerique putant, eadem satanas et Petrus sententia condemnantur: Petro enim dicitur: Vade retro me, satana, id est, sequere me, qui contrarius es voluntati meae. Ille audit: Vade satana, et non ei dicitur retro, ut subaudiatur: Vade in ignem aeternum.» Objicit Calvinus ejusque sequaces: Christus hic Petrum vocat satanam: ergo paulo ante non vocavit eum petram, nec constituit eum caput Ecclesiae. Respondet primo S. Hieronymus Petrum vocari satanam, id est adversarium pro praesenti tempore, quo adversabatur Christo volenti pati et crucifigi; petram vero constitui pro tempore non praesenti, sed futuro, scilicet ut post mortem et resurrectionem Christi fiat petra et caput Ecclesiae. Secundo, S. Augustinus, serm. 13 De Verbis Domini secundum Matthaeum, et Theophylactus respondent Petrum dici beatum, et petram Ecclesiae constitui, quatenus a Deo revelante illuminatus, confessus erat Christum, Filium Dei vivi, ideoque ab eo petra Ecclesiae constitutus; satanam vero hic dici, quatenus a Deo Deique decreto (quod ipse ignorabat) recedens, humanum sequebatur affectum, quo nolebat Christum a se ita amatum mori. Porro, Concilium Constantinopolitanum Oecum. V, in Constitut. Vigilii Papae, anathema dicit illis qui id Christi: «Vade post me, satana,» dictum fuisse volunt ad Petrum, ne dissuasione ejus animus Christi perturbatus fugeret passionem, eo quod passione sua sibi proficeret, ideoque mortem ipsius nobis aeternae vitae praemia contulisse non credunt. Simili modo, B. Petrus Damianus, lib. I, epist. 16 ad Alexand. II Pontificem, Hildebrandum Cardinalem, qui postea creatus fuit Pontifex Gregorius septimus, vocat «suum sanctum satanam:» satanam, quia sibi adversabatur, ne renuntiaret Cardinalatui, ut ad suam eremum Camaldulensem rediret; sanctum, quia id faciebat sancto fine, quia scilicet videbat Petri operam perutilem fore Ecclesiae. Quia non sapis (Arabicus, non cogitas) ea quae Dei sunt, sed ea quae hominum. — Hic est fons et causa erroris Petri et caeterorum hominum, «quia non sapis.» Graece οὐ φρονεῖς, id est non capis, non sapis, non probas tam intellectu, quam affectu tuo, ea quae placita sunt Deo, sed quae hominibus humana suggerit prudentia, hoc est caro et sanguis. Vis enim consulere carni et vitae meae, ac exinde tuae humanae consolationi, contra Dei decretum, quo sapientissime decrevit mihi moriendum esse pro hominum salute. Ita homines peccant, dum exile carnis judicium praeponunt sublimi et sapientissimo Dei judicio. Nam «animalis homo non percipit ea quae sunt spiritus Dei; stultitia enim est illi, et non potest intelligere,» I Cor. II, 14.
16:24
24. Tunc Jesus dixit discipulis suis: Si quis vult venire post me, abneget semetipsum, et tollat crucem suam, et sequatur me. — Hoc pharmacum abnegationis et crucis opponit Christus amori proprio et naturali, quem Petrus erga Christum ostenderat vers. 22, volens impedire ejus passionem; ideoque non soli Petro, sed convocatis caeteris Apostolis, imo et turbis, ait Marcus, cap. VIII, 34, hoc edixit, et quasi axioma Christianae scholae statuit, dicens: «Si quis vult venire,» etc. q. d., ait Chrysostomus, «Tu, o Petre, dicis mihi: Propitius esto tibi (parce vitae tuae): ego autem dico tibi, quoniam non solum prohibere me a passione nocivum tibi est, sed neque salvari poteris, nisi patiaris et moriaris, et vitae abrenunties semper.» Vult enim Christus stabilire quod dixerat, moriendum sibi esse ex Dei decreto pro hominum salute, et insuper hanc mortem et crucem cuique fideli imitandam esse, si ejus assecla et discipulus haberi velit. Tria autem praecipit, ait Chrysostomus: primum est, «abneget semetipsum;» secundum, «tollat crucem;» tertium, «sequatur me.» Si quis vult post me venire. — Non cogit Christus, nec vim infert, ait Chrysostomus, sed volentes invitat, eoque blandius et vehementius allicit trahitque. Quis enim non aveat ardeatque sequi Christum Dei Filium? Sed sicut Deus jubet omnibus hominibus, ut sequantur Christum; sic pariter jubet ut abnegationem, quam hic sancit, libere eligant et complectantur. Rursum allicit omnes Christus, dicendo: «Venite post me;» q. d. Non eritis primi in cruce, morte et martyrio. Ego dux vobis praeibo; quare me praeeuntem sequimini duntaxat, quia ego vobis non tantum exemplo, sed et adjutorio antecedam, ac certos vos faciam de triumpho et corona, si me duntaxat sequi et gratiae meae strenue cooperari velitis. Sic Cato praeiens militibus per arenas Libycas, aiebat: «Pericula vestra prae tentate meo;» nihil enim jubebo, nisi quod prius ipse fecero; nil praecipiam, nisi ejus vobis ipse dux et ductor fuero; magnus militi est stimulus praevium ducis exemplum. Abneget semetipsum, — id est abdicet a se suum judicium et affectum humanum: hoc enim in homine vivit, quod homini charissimum est, in quo homo oblectatur et pascitur, ut illud censeatur esse ipse homo. Homo est enim id quod in homine viget et vivit. Jubet ergo, ut quisque suos affectus et amores naturales et sensuales, Dei legi et voluntati repugnantes, deponat, mortificet et resecet, ac Dei legem et voluntatem assumat, induat et per omnia sequatur. Vide dicta cap. X, 38 et 39. Dicit enim hoc Christus occasione Petri, qui per affectum naturalem erga Christum volebat ejus mortem impedire, ut eum in ipso et caeteris hominibus castiget, q. d. Si vis post me venire meque sequi, o Petre, abnega et abdica a te humanum hoc tuum de me judicium et affectum, ut Dei, qui me pati et mori vult, decretum et voluntatem sequaris et amplectaris. Idem fac in caeteris omnibus tuis judiciis, desideriis, affectibus ac nominatim in morte crucis, quam tibi Deus decrevit, ut eam amplectaris, licet natura et sensualis affectus illam fugiat et exhorreat, juxta illud: «Cum esses junior cingebas te, et ambulabas ubi volebas; cum autem senueris, extendes manus tuas (in cruce), et alius cinget te, et ducet quo tu non vis,» Joan. XXI, 18. Unde Origenes «abneget semetipsum» exponit, q. d. Abneget vitam suam, capessendo mortem pro me meaque fide, uti ego capessam mortem crucis pro Deo. Pari modo quivis fidelis «abneget semetipsum,» id est sua desideria, suas imaginationes, suos concupiscentiae pruritus, suas rationes humanas, suam voluntatem, eamque per omnia invertat et conformet voluntati Dei: v. g. suggerit tibi visus, auditus, gustus, ut videas, audias, gustes curiosa, detractoria, delicata, ut iis te oppleas et inebries; nega eis has suas cupidines a Deo vetitas, eisque dicito: Nolo ista videre, audire, sapere, quia volo Dei legem sequi, Deoque placere, non autem meis sensibus et appetitibus carnalibus satisfacere. Sic mater sapiens puero (concupiscentia enim est instar pueri, qui sensu, non ratione ducitur, ait Aristoteles in Ethicis) negat petenti noxia, v. g. cultrum, quem quia manu debili regere nequit, eo se laedet. Notat S. Gregorius, hom. 32 in Evang., non dicere Christum: Abneget suas opes, sed «abneget semetipsum,» ut homo abeat a se et fiat alienus a se, imo desinat esse quod erat, et incipiat esse quod non erat, fiatque quasi novus et alter homo: «Minus quippe, ait S. Gregorius, est abnegare quod habet, valde autem multum est abnegare quod est; id est, non sufficit nostra relinquere, nisi relinquamus et nos.» Objicit sibi deinde Gregorius: «Quo ibimus extra nos?» ac respondet: «Aliud sumus per peccatum lapsi, aliud per naturam conditi; aliud quod fecimus, aliud quod facti sumus. Relinquamus nosmetipsos, quales peccando nos fecimus; et maneamus nosmetipsi, quales per gratiam facti sumus. Ecce etenim, qui superbus fuit, si conversus ad Christum humilis factus est, semetipsum relinquit. Si luxuriosus quisque ad continentiam vitam mutavit, abnegavit utique quod fuit. Si avarus quisque ambire jam desiit, et largiri didicit propria, qui prius aliena rapiebat, procul dubio semetipsum reliquit. Ipse quidem est per naturam, sed non est ipse per malitiam.» Declarat idipsum exemplo Pauli: «Pensemus, inquit, quomodo se Paulus abnegaverat, qui dicebat: Vivo autem jam non ego; extinctus quippe fuerat saevus ille persecutor, et vivere coeperat pius praedicator. Vivit vero in me Christus. Ac si aperte dicat: Ego quidem a memetipso extinctus sum, quia carnaliter non vivo; sed tamen essentialiter mortuus non sum, quia in Christo spiritaliter vivo. Dicat ergo veritas, dicat: Si quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum; quia, nisi quis a semetipso deficiat, ad eum, qui super ipsum est, non appropinquat; nec valet apprehendere quod ultra ipsum est, si nescierit mactare quod est.» Similitudine idipsum illustrat S. Chrysostomus, hom. 56: «Si intelligis, ait, quid sit alium abnegare, tunc recte percipies quid sit abnegare semetipsum. Qui alium abnegavit, si caedi eum virgis videat, si coerceri vinculis, quidquid aliud mali pati eum conspexerit, non occurrit, non auxiliatur, non flectitur, nec prorsus ullo modo movetur, ceu ille qui penitus ab eo alienatus est. Sic igitur nullo nos pacto corpori nostro parcere vult, ut neque si caeditur, neque si pellitur, neque si uritur, neque si quid aliud hujusmodi patitur, ei parcamus.» Addit Victor Antiochenus, in cap. VIII Marci: «Non dixit ille: Ne nimium indulgeat, aut, ne nimium carni suae parcat; sed vehementius insurgens: Abneget vel abjuret semetipsum, hoc est, nihil cum seipso vel sua carne commercii habeat, verum ita se gerat, ac si non ipse, sed alius quispiam crucem tolleret.» Ubi nota τὸ «abjuret»: sicut enim in baptismo abrenuntiamus Satanae et quasi eum abjuramus; sic abnegare plane, et quasi abjurare debemus nosmetipsos, id est nostras cupiditates: hae enim magis nobis nostraeque saluti sunt hostes, quam sint ipsi daemones: daemonem enim per se horremus, sed cupiditates blanditiae suae nos decipiunt, nosque iis quasi nostris amicis gratulamur et adulamur. Majus enim periculum est ab insidiatore occulto, quam aperto. Porro, non solis Apostolis, religiosis, clericis, sacerdotibus, sed cuivis fideli dicit Christus, jubetque ut abneget semetipsum, id est suum sensualem nimiumque amorem erga suam carnem, suum honorem, suam uxorem, suos filios, suos cognatos, etc., eumque subjiciat Dei amori, legi et voluntati. Religiosi vero ulterius abnegare debent omnia saecularia negotia, propriam voluntatem, dominium et proprietatem, caeteraque votis, et professioni religiosae, et perfectioni vitae adversantia, ut non solum Christi legi, sed et consiliis ejus evangelicis sese conforment. Haec abnegatio debet se extendere ad ipsam vitam et mortem etiam ignominiosissimam crucis, ait S. Chrysostomus, ut illam potius subeamus, quam a Dei voluntate vel ad punctum recedamus; unde subdit: «Et tollat crucem suam.» Quocirca S. Basilius, in Regulis fusius explicatis, ad interrog. VI, abnegationem sic definit: «Abnegatio sui nihil est aliud, nisi summa rerum omnium vitae superioris (in vitiis exactae) oblivio, atque a sui ipsius voluntatibus recessio,» et ad Dei voluntatem accessio. Idem, ad interrogat. VIII: «Perfecta, ait, renuntiatio in eo sita est, si quis id assecutus fuerit, ut de vita sua ne minimum quidem affectus sit, quamvis habeat mortis responsum.» Et inferius: «Renuntiatio nihil aliud est, quam vinculorum terrenae hujus ac temporalis conversationis solutio, quae, dum nos anxiis et humanam vitam comitantibus negotiis subducit, promptiores et magis idoneos reddit incundae vitae ad Dei contemplationem.» In Vitis Patrum, lib. V, libello I De Profectu Patrum, num. 7, abbas Joannes haec dat abnegationis et vitae sanctae documenta: «Esto injuriam patiens, et non irascens; pacificus, et non reddens malum pro malo; non attendens ad vitia aliorum, neque teipsum exaltans, sed esto subditus et humilior omni creatura; renuntiando omni materiae corporali, et his quae secundum carnem sunt, in cruciatu, in certamine, in humilitate spiritus, in jejunio, in patientia, in fletu, in fame et siti, in frigore et nuditate, in laboribus, includens se sepulcro tanquam jam mortuus, ut videatur tibi esse proxima mors omni die.» S. Aegidius, socius S. Francisci, vir valde sanctus et a Deo illuminatus, haec abnegationis sensuum dabat paradoxa: «Si vis bene videre, erue oculos tuos, et esto caecus. Si vis bene audire, esto surdus. Si bene loqui, esto mutus. Si bene ambulare, abscinde tibi pedes. Si bene operari, mutila tibi manus. Si bene amare, habeas te odio. Si vis hanc vivere, te mortifica. Si bene lucrari, disce perdere. Si vis esse dives, esto pauper. Si vis esse in deliciis, afflige te. Si vis esse securus, semper esto in timore. Si vis exaltari, humilia te. Si vis honorari, despice te, et honora te despicientes. Si vis habere bonum, sustine malum. Si vis esse in quiete, labora. Si vis benedici, desidera maledici. O quam magna haec sapientia scire haec facere! et quia magna sunt, non omnibus data sunt. Nemo debet aliquid audire vel loqui, nisi ad utilitatem, nec ultra ullo modo procedere.» Idem hanc dabat viam salutis et perfectionis per abnegationem: «Si vis salvari, ne petas rationem ab humana creatura de his quae tibi accidunt. Si vis salvari, satage te separare ab omni consolatione et honore, quae potest tibi dare aliqua creatura. Vae illis, qui volunt honorari de sua malitia. Si quis tecum contendit, si vis vincere, perde; alioquin quando credideris te vicisse, perdidisti.» Et mox haec subdit antistropha: «Si amas, amaberis. Si times, timeberis. Si servies, servietur tibi. Si bene te gesseris erga alios, alii se bene gerent erga te. Beatus qui amat, et non desiderat inde amari. Beatus qui servit, et non desiderat serviri. Et quia haec magna sunt, stulti ad haec non pertingunt. Tria potissimum animo tuo haerere debent: primum est, si omnem tribulationem, quae accidit, libenter sustineas; secundum, si de omnibus, quae facis et recipis, magis humilieris; tertium est, si fideliter diligas illa bona, quae videri non possunt corporeis oculis.» Ita habet Historia Seraphica evangelica, lib. I, pag. 63. Plura vide apud Climacum, Dorotheum et Cassianum, qui inter alia lib. V De Institutis Renuntiantium, cap. XXVIII, narrat quemdam abbatem jam moriturum, hoc suis perfectae abnegationis exemplum et documentum dedisse: «Nunquam, ait, meam feci voluntatem, nec quemquam docui, quod prius ipse non feci.» Et tollat crucem suam. — Sicut ego tuli meam, ut me Christum quasi primum cruciferum, et crucigerorum antesignanum ac ducem, qui crucem meam, in qua crucifigendus eram, dolens et gemens meis humeris tuli in montem Calvariae, ipse cruciger Christianus animose et alacriter sequatur assidue, usque ad mortem crucis, et inde ad gloriam paradisi; unde Lucas addit «quotidie,» ut significet omni die et saepe omni hora aliquid molesti cuilibet occursurum, quod patienter et fortiter tolerare oporteat, idque continue per totam vitam, ac proinde cuilibet vivendum esse in cruce et moriendum in cruce cum Christo. «Tollit crucem suam, ait S. Hieronymus, qui mundo crucifigitur; cui autem mundus crucifixus est, sequitur Dominum crucifixum.» Crux haec primo, est persecutio et martyrium; secundo, afflictio et tribulatio quaevis a Deo inflicta; tertio, tentatio a daemone immissa et a Deo ad nostram probationem, humilitatem, virtutem et coronam augendam permissa; quarto, sui abnegatio et cupiditatum mortificatio. Ita S. Hieronymus. Suam, — id est primo sibi propriam; cuique enim sua propria est crux: uni ab uxore, filiis, cognatis; alteri a moribus; tertio ab aemulis; quarto ab infortuniis; quinto a paupertate; sexto ab exilio, carcere, vinculis, et ita deinceps. Secundo, «suam,» id est suis viribus, aeque ac concupiscentiis commensam: Deus enim «non patitur vos tentari super id quod potestis,» ait Paulus, I Corinth. X, 13; sed cuique pro vitio quo laborat, crucem quasi medicinam immittit vel permittit: sic prono in superbiam, vel aliqua in re excellenti, permittit aliquod vilipendium, vel tentationem carnis, quae eum humiliet, uti permisit in S. Paulo, II Corinth. XII, 7; avaro immittit mercium et opum jacturam; pulchro et vegeto immittit morbum; docto permittit lapsum in aliquem errorem vel in infamiam, ne infletur et de se praesumat. Tertio, «suam,» id est sibi ad suum bonum a Deo ab aeterno decretam. Cum ergo sentis crucem, ac saepe novam, cogita de Deo illique eam resigna, ac dicito: Domine, hanc crucem de paterna manu tua libens accepto: haec enim ab aeterno crux mihi fixa est, et a te decreta ad rubiginem vitiorum meorum defricandam, quare pro ea immensas tibi gratias ago. Scio enim, et credo eam mihi a te ex amore paterno constitutam, ut me filio tuo dilecto Christo crucifixo assimiles hic in patientia, et postea in gloria. Nam: «Quos praescivit et praedestinavit conformes fieri imaginis Filii sui, ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus,» etc. Rom. VIII, 29. Quarto, «suam,» id est quam quisque in se habet per passionem, vel sibi irrogat per abnegationem, aut quam suam fecit per compassionem. Nam, ut ait S. Gregorius, hom. 32 in Evang.: «Duobus modis crux tollitur, cum aut per abstinentiam afficitur corpus, aut per compassionem proximi affligitur animus. Pensemus qualiter utroque modo Paulus crucem suam tulerit, qui dicebat: Castigo corpus meum, et in servitutem redigo, ne forte aliis praedicans, ipse reprobus efficiar. Ecce in afflictione corporis audivimus crucem carnis: audiamus nunc in compassione proximi crucem mentis; ait enim: Quis infirmatur, et ego non infirmor? Quis scandalizatur, et ego non uror? Perfectus quippe praedicator, ut exemplum daret abstinentiae, crucem portabat in corpore. Et quia in se trahebat damna infirmitatis alienae, crucem portabat in corde.» Et sequatur me, — per crucem ad mortem, et per mortem ad beatam immortalitatem. Perseverandum enim nobis est in cruce cum Christo per totam vitam, usque ad mortem et coronam: «Qui enim perseveraverit usque in finem, hic salvus erit.» Audi S. Chrysostomum, hom. 56 in cap. XVI Matth.: «Latrones, ait, multa talia patiuntur. Ne igitur credas ipsius passionis naturam per se sufficere, causam ejus subjecit. Quam ipsam? quae dicta sunt universa faciens atque patiens ipsum sequaris, ut scilicet propter ipsum omnia sustineas, utque omnem virtutis numerum habeas. Is enim Christum sequitur, qui non in periculis modo fortitudinem adhibet, sed modestiam, sed humilitatem et omne sublimioris philosophiae genus complectitur. Id enim est recte Dominum sequi, ut et propter ipsum cuncta sufferas et alias virtutes non negligas. Multi diabolum sequentes, multa patiuntur et vitam propter ipsum perdunt, quam nos propter Christum, imo vero propter nos ipsos perdamus.»
16:25
25. Qui enim voluerit animam suam salvam facere, perdet eam; qui autem perdiderit animam suam propter me, inveniet eam. — Quia crux acerba est et cruciat, hinc ad eam tollendam fideles animat Christus, ait Chrysostomus, per ingens ejus praemium et coronam gloriae; ac si agricolae dicatur, ait S. Gregorius, hom. 32: «Frumentum si servas, perdis; si seminas, renovas. Quis enim nesciat, quod frumentum, cum in semine mittitur, perit ab oculis, in terra deficit? Sed unde putrescit in pulvere, inde virescit in renovatione.» Origenes dupliciter exponit hanc sententiam: primo sic, q. d. Si quis, inquit, amator vitae praesentis parcit animae suae, timens mori, et putans animam suam per hanc mortem perire, ille volens hoc modo salvare animam suam, perdet eam, alienam illam faciens a vita aeterna. Si quis vero contemnens vitam praesentem, usque ad mortem pro veritate certaverit, perdet quidem animam suam, quantum ad vitam praesentem; sed quoniam propter Christum perdet eam, magis eam salvam faciet in vitam aeternam. Alio modo sic: Si quis intelligit quae est vera salus, et acquirere vult eam ad salutem animae suae, iste abnegans semetipsum, perdit, quantum ad voluptates carnales, animam suam propter Christum; et parcens animam suam hoc modo, salvat eam per opera pietatis; dicendo enim: «qui voluerit,» praecedentem et sequentem unum sensum esse ostendit; si ergo quod superius dixit: «abneget semetipsum,» de morte corporali dixit, consequenter hoc de sola morte intelligere debemus dictum esse; si autem abnegare seipsum est carnalem conversationem rejicere, et perdere animam est deponere voluptates carnales. Hucusque Origenes. Prior expositio videtur magis genuina, sed amplianda hoc modo, q. d. Qui in hac vita fugiens crucem et abnegationem sui, vult servare animam suam, id est vitam suam, ideoque negat me meamque fidem in persecutione; aut vult salvare animam suam, id est desideria animae suae, q. d. Qui suis concupiscentiis vult satisfacere, hic in futura vita perdet animam suam in gehenna; qui autem perdiderit animam suam in hac vita propter Christum, vel moriendo in persecutione pro eo, vel ejus amore abnegando suas concupiscentias, hic in futura vita animam, quam perdidit moriendo, vel mortificando, salvam inveniet in aeterna gloria et in sinu Christi, qui eam pro se morti expositam resuscitabit et glorificabit. Hunc sensum exigit antithesis inter perdere et salvam facere, sive invenire, scilicet integram et salvam; item id quod sequitur: «Quid enim prodest homini, si universum mundum lucretur, animae vero suae detrimentum patiatur,» id est animam suam perdat in gehenna?
16:26
26. Quid enim prodest homini, si universum mundum lucretur, animae vero suae (id est sui ipsius, ut explicat Lucas, IX, 25) detrimentum patiatur? — Graece ζημιωθῇ, id est jacturam faciat, mulctetur, q. d. Quid te juvabit (hoc enim est Graecum ὠφελεῖ) acquisivisse omnes opes, honores, delicias totius mundi, si propter hoc teipsum perdas, et anima tua, quam unicam et intimam habes, mulcteris ad aeterna gehennae tormenta? juxta illud: Omnia si perdas, animam servare memento. Opes enim, honores et delicias perditas recuperare potes: animam semel perditam in aeternum recuperare non poteris. Illa extrinseca sunt, et exterius tantum sensus titillant; haec intrinseca tibi est et intima, unde ejus dolor vel gaudium tibi pariter intrinsecus est, summus et intimus; illa temporalia sunt et caduca, haec immortalis et aeterna. O stulti ergo filii Adae, cur haec caduca ita adamatis, ut propter ea animam perdatis, et aeternis gehennae incendiis tradatis? O insensati, qui gutta voluptatis vel honoris emitis sempiternos dolores, et perenne inferorum opprobrium! utique vili et exili nimis pretio eas emitis, cujus vos sero poenitebit in aeternum. Ego tanti poenitere non emo. Aut quam dabit homo commutationem pro anima sua? — Graece ἀντάλλαγμα, id est compensationem, permutationem, pretium, lytrum. Unde Syrus vertit, permutationem animae suae, q. d. Anima tua omne pretium, omnem compensationem superat, empta enim et redempta est pretioso sanguine Christi Domini Dei nostri; quare pro unius hominis anima universus mundus sufficiens pretium non est, ait Euthymius in Ps. XLVIII. Quocirca si semel eam perdideris, et gehennae tradideris, nullo pretio eam redimere poteris, nec valebis animam tuam alia anima redimere, quia non habes nisi unam, et licet plures haberes, propter eas tamen gehenna animam tuam, quam in sua manu jam habet, non dimitteret; hic potest animae suos lapsus redimere poenitentia, lacrymis et bonis operibus; at in die judicii nullus amplius poenitentiae et redemptioni erit locus. Vide ergo fraudem Satanae et stultitiam hominis, qui animam peccatoris ab eo emit vilissima, brevissima voluptate gulae, luxuriae, etc. «Porrigit pomum, et surripit paradisum,» ait S. Bernardus, tract. De Gradu humilit., cap. De curiositate. Lucas, IX, 26, addit: «Nam qui me erubuerit (uti Christum ejusque legem velut vilem et pauperem erubescunt Judaei et Gentilium multi), et meos sermones, hunc Filius hominis erubescet, cum venerit in majestate sua, et Patris, et sanctorum angelorum suorum;» pro quo Matthaeus habet id quod sequitur.
16:27
Vers. 27. FILIUS ENIM HOMINIS VENTURUS EST IN GLORIA PATRIS SUI CUM ANGELIS SUIS, ET TUNC REDDET UNICUIQUE SECUNDUM OPERA EJUS. — Arabicus, secundum operationem suam, id est juxta id quod operatus est, non juxta id quod scivit, intellexit, credidit. VENTURUS EST (in die judicii, ut homines ex operibus dijudicet) IN GLORIA (id est cum gloria et majestate, ut habet Lucas) Patris, — tum creata, quam scilicet ut homo sibi a Patre infusam in corpore et anima accepit, vel exterius in comitatu omnium Angelorum effusam in die judicii accipiet; tum illa quam ut Deus cum Patre ejusque essentia et deitate communem habet, tumque toti mundo se habere ostendet. Ita S. Chrysostomus et Euthymius. Est hic acer stimulus ad opera heroica abnegationis, crucis et virtutis, ad quae omnes excitavit Christus, vers. 24, q. d. Agite, o Apostoli, o fideles mei, abnegate vos ipsos, tollite crucem vestram, meque sequimini, quia ob haec opera vestra ardua et heroica in die judicii coram toto mundo vos laudabo, vobisque meam felicitatem et gloriam regni caelestis communicabo; eos vero qui fugerint abnegationem, crucem, meique sequelam, secuti autem fuerint suas voluptates et concupiscentias, increpabo et adjudicabo gehennae, idque in perpetuum. Eligenda vobis est una ex hisce duabus sors: alterutra enim vos infallibiliter manet. Quocirca S. Hieronymus, epistola 1 ad Heliodorum, eum ad vitam solitariam, ejusque crucem sic invitat: «Paupertatem times? sed beatos pauperes appellat. Labore terreris? at nemo athleta sine sudore coronatur. De cibo cogitas? sed fides famem non timet. Super nudam metuis humum exesa jejuniis membra collidere? sed Dominus tecum jacet. Squalidi corporis horret inculta caesaries? sed caput tuum Christus est. Infinita eremi vastitas te terret? sed tu paradisum mente deambula.» Et nonnullis interjectis: «Delicatus es frater, si et hic vis gaudere cum saeculo, et postea regnare cum Christo. Veniet, veniet illa dies, qua corruptivum hoc et mortale incorruptionem induat, et immortalitatem. Beatus servus, quem Dominus invenerit vigilantem. Tunc ad vocem tubae pavebit terra cum populis, et tu gaudebis. Judicaturo Domino lugubre mundus immugiet: tribus ad tribum pectora ferient; potentissimi quondam reges nudo latere palpitabunt; exhibebitur cum prole sua vere tunc ignitus Jupiter; adducetur et cum suis stultus Plato discipulis; Aristotelis argumenta non proderunt; tunc tu rusticanus et pauper exultabis, et ridebis, et dices: Ecce crucifixus Deus meus; ecce judex, qui obvolutus pannis in praesepio vagiit, etc., ut his tum interesse contingat, pro quibus nunc labor durus est.» Hucusque S. Hieronymus pathetice, sed vere.
16:28
Vers. 28. AMEN DICO VOBIS: SUNT QUIDAM DE HIC STANTIBUS, QUI NON GUSTABUNT MORTEM, DONEC VIDEANT FILIUM HOMINIS VENIENTEM IN REGNO SUO. — Syrus, in regnum suum. Saepe enim haec duo in Scriptura confunduntur, idemque significant. Promisit Christus mercedem in regno caelesti dandam pro operibus bonis, abnegationis et crucis: nunc ne quis illud longe abesse et in multa saecula differendum causetur, occurrit, illudque vicinum esse reipsa demonstrat, dum nonnullis adhuc viventibus post paucos dies, illud ipsum in transfiguratione ostendit. Non gustabunt mortem, — id est non morientur. Est metaphora a calice mortifero, qui damnato ad mortem datur, ut veneno moriatur: hic enim non hauritur jucunde, sed aegre gustatur ut amarus et felleus. In regno suo. — Quaeres, quodnam hoc Christi regnum, et quando illud viderint nonnulli Apostolorum astantium Christo? Respondet primo S. Gregorius, homil. 32 in Evangel., et Beda, regnum hoc Christi esse Ecclesiam, ejusque per omnes gentes propagationem, quam utique viderunt, imo effecerunt Apostoli. Id dicit Christus, ait S. Gregorius, ut ex propagatione regni Ecclesiae, quam visuri erant, discerent quanta futura esset eorum gloria in regno caelesti, quod in hac vita est invisibile; alioqui enim homines sola visibilia aestimant, invisibilia non appetunt, quia nec esse suspicantur. Deus ergo per visibilia, quae exhibet, firmat spem promissorum invisibilium. Secundo, alii id fore censent in resurrectione et die judicii, de quo versiculo praecedenti locutus est Christus. Verum dico id factum esse in transfiguratione Christi: in illa enim regnum Christi gloriosum quasi per transennam viderunt, et praegustarunt tres Apostoli, scilicet Petrus, Jacobus et Joannes, et ita esse patet ex sequentibus: nam omnes Evangelistae, qui hujus rei meminerunt, scilicet Matthaeus, Marcus et Lucas post hoc Christi promissum, subjungunt statim illud fuisse impletum, scilicet sexto post die. Ita S. Hilarius, S. Chrysostomus, S. Hieronymus, S. Ambrosius, Theophylactus, Euthymius et alii passim. Unde S. Leo, serm. De Transfigur.: «In regno, inquit, hoc est, in regia claritate.» In transfiguratione enim Christus Apostolis dedit specimen gloriae, claritatis, magnificentiae, gaudii et felicitatis, quam obtinebunt Sancti in regno caelesti, ut per illam animarentur ad labores et dolores evangelicos, ad crucem et martyrium, aliosque ad eosdem animarent. Ita per illam S. Hieronymus ad eosdem animat Eustochium, epist. 18 De Custodia virgin., in fine: «Egredere, ait, paulisper de carcere, et praesentis laboris ante oculos tuos tibi pinge mercedem, quam nec oculus vidit, nec auris audivit, nec in cor hominis ascendit. Qualis erit illa dies, cum tibi Maria, mater Domini, choris accurret comitata virgineis! Cum post Rubrum mare, submerso cum suo exercitu Pharaone, tympanum tenens praecinet responsuris: Cantemus Domino, gloriose enim honoratus est: equum et ascensorem projecit in mare. Tunc Thecla in tuos laeta volabit amplexus, tunc et ipse sponsus occurret et dicet: Surge, veni, proxima mea, speciosa mea; quia ecce hiems transivit, pluvia abiit tibi. Tunc Angeli mirabuntur et dicent: Quae est ista prospiciens quasi diluculum, speciosa ut luna, electa ut sol.» Et post nonnulla: «Tunc parvuli, etc., palmas victoriae sublevantes, consono ore cantabunt: Hosanna in excelsis. Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini. Hosanna in excelsis. Tunc centum quadraginta quatuor millia in conspectu throni et conspectu seniorum tenebunt citharas, et cantabunt canticum novum.»
16:1
Supra dominus ostendit sufficientiam evangelicae doctrinae, quia nec observantiis legalibus indiget, item quia non solum uni populo est necessaria, hic ostendit puritatem et excellentiam. Primo ostendit eam puram servandam ab omni traditione; secundo per altitudinem fidei omnes opiniones humanas transvolare, ibi venit Iesus in partes Caesareae Philippi. Circa primum primo describitur calumniosa tentatio; secundo confutat; tertio cavendum docet. Secunda ibi at ille respondens ait illis etc.; tertia ibi et cum venissent discipuli eius trans fretum et cetera. Circa primum primo commemorat locum; secundo ponitur tentativa interrogatio. Notandum quod sicut supra quando paverat de quinque panibus turbas, dimisit, et sic hic. In hoc primo datur exemplum praedicatoribus quando non se ingerant, sed revertantur; Iob XXXIX, 5 de onagro: quis dimisit onagrum liberum, et vincula eius quis solvit? et cetera. Ascendit in naviculam, ne sequeretur eum turba. Unde ponitur impedimentum quare non posset eum sequi. Unde ascendit in naviculam, idest in mentem quae agitatur fluctibus huius mundi, Sap. XIV, 3: quoniam dedisti in mari viam, et inter fluctus semitam, ostendens quod debet ibi intrare, ut ibi requiescat. Et venit in fines Magedan. Magedan poma interpretatur et per hunc locum sacra Scriptura significatur, ubi poma simul cum aliis fructibus crescunt; Cant. VI, 10: descendi ut viderem poma convallium. Sequitur tentativa interrogatio et accesserunt Pharisaei et Sadducaei tentantes, et rogaverunt eum. Eccli. XIX, 23: est qui nequiter se humiliat, et interiora eius plena sunt dolo. Ut signum de caelo ostenderet eis. Et petierunt signum de caelo. Habetur Io. VI, 49: patres vestri manducaverunt manna in deserto, unde panem de caelo dedit eis. Et I Cor. I, v. 22: Iudaei signa petunt. Et in Ps. LXXIII, v. 9: signa nostra non vidimus et cetera. Tunc reprehendit eos, et primo de ignavia ad credendum divina. Si enim aliquis defectum habet ex natura sensuum, excusationem habet; sed cum habet sapientiam in terrenis, et ignaviam in spiritualibus, reprehendendus est; Sap. XIII, 1: vani sunt omnes filii hominum, in quibus non est scientia Dei. Et primo ostendit solertiam in terrenis; secundo ignaviam in spiritualibus.
16:2
Dicit ergo at ille respondens ait: vespere facto et cetera. Hoc habet sensum litteralem et mysticum. Litteralem, quia ex aliqua dispositione poterant cognoscere signum serenitatis. Dicitis: serenum erit: rubicundum est enim caelum.
16:3
Item tempestatis, quia dicitis hodie erit tempestas: rutilat enim triste caelum, quia tristitiam designat. Quando enim aer est turbidus, non sunt homines ita laeti. Rubedo enim serotina est signum serenitatis. Ratio est, secundum philosophum, ex diffusione radiorum solis super vapores. Quando enim vapores sunt multi, tunc radii non possunt penetrare, et tunc fit color niger in aere; quando vero subtiles, penetrant. Sed quando quod est igneum dominatur, tunc apparet color rubeus, ut apparet in flamma, quia cum magis elevatur, magis apparet rubedo in ea. Ideo significatur quod vapores non sunt multi, et significatur serenitas. Sed cum mane aliquando resolvitur in rorem, vel in pluviam, est signum tempestatis. Secundum mysterium per vespere significatur passio Christi. Vespere sol occidit, sic Christus vespere mundi passus est; Mal. III, 2: quis poterit cogitare diem adventus eius, et quis stabit ad videndum eum? Ipse enim quasi ignis conflans; Ps. XXIX, 6: ad vesperum demorabitur fletus, et ad matutinum laetitia. Unde rutilans apparuit in vespere, et significavit tranquillitatem; Tob. III, v. 22: post tempestatem tranquillitatem facis, et post lacrimationem et fletum exultationem infundis. In resurrectione, quae per mane significatur, apparuit rubedo in martyribus, et significat tempestatem peccatoribus. Vel per mane significatur mane diei iudicii, quem praecedet rubor; Ps. XCVI, 3: ignis ante ipsum praecedet. Unde estis instructi in istis terrenis. Faciem caeli diiudicare nostis, signa autem temporum non potestis scire? Duo sunt tempora: unum respondet adventui primo, aliud adventui secundo. Quaedam signa praecesserunt primum adventum; Is. XLV, v. 8: rorate, caeli, desuper, et nubes pluant iustum: aperiatur terra, et germinet salvatorem et cetera. Et cap. XLV, 15: vere tu es Deus absconditus. Sed in fine Deus manifeste veniet, et non apparebunt signa de caelo. Sed non est tempus. Vel aliter. Faciem caeli diiudicare nostis etc., quasi dicat, vos quaeritis signum adventus. Superfluum est signum petere, ubi sunt multa signa. Supra XI, 5: caeci vident, claudi ambulant, leprosi mundantur et cetera. Hoc signum dederat Is. XXXV, 4: ipse dominus veniet, et salvabit nos; tunc aperientur oculi caecorum et cetera. Quidam ex auctoritate ista arguunt, quod debemus satagere ad cognoscendum secundum adventum. Augustinus autem exponit de primo adventu. Primus certissimus est, quia est ad salutem, salus per fidem, fides per cognitionem; ideo necessarium est ut agnoscatur. Sed secundus est ad remunerandum; ideo occultatur, ut homines magis sint solliciti.
16:4
Deinde denegat signum petitum; unde dicitur generatio mala et adultera signum quaerit. Dicitur autem generatio mala, quia recedit a Deo: malum enim est per recessum a Deo. Dereliquit Deum factorem suum, et recessit a Deo salutari suo, ut habetur Deut. XXXII, 15. Sed adultera, quia alii se copulavit; Ps. XXVI: si derelinquam te in vita mea; Is. LV, 7: derelinquat impius viam suam, et vir iniquus cogitationes suas. Signum petit, et non debet habere, quia signum non dabitur ei, nisi signum Ionae, quia sicut Ionas in ventre ceti fuit tribus diebus et tribus noctibus, ita etc.; ut supra XII habitum est. Sed quare magis ponit signum resurrectionis quam aliud signum? Dicendum, quod per resurrectionem nobis salus advenit; Rom. X, 9: si credideris in corde tuo quod Christus resurrexit, salvus eris, quia resurgendo vitam reparavit, quia per resurrectionem Christi resurgemus. Ideo istud signum datum est fidelibus, et omnia alia retorquentur ad istud, quia scilicet resuscitavit Lazarum et cetera. Unde istis non est datum aliud signum. Discipulis autem suis dedit signum de caelo, cum ostendit eis gloriam suam, ut habetur infra XVII. Sic ergo ostendit eorum ignaviam. Sequitur pars, in qua confutat facto discedendo ab eis. Et relictis illis, abiit; non enim habitat cum malignis; Sap. I, 3: separat se a perversis. Postquam confutavit, docet eos vitari. Et primo ponitur occasio; secundo doctrina; tertio malus intellectus discipulorum; quarto reprehensio; quinto effectus.
16:5
Dicit et cum venissent discipuli eius trans fretum et cetera. In hoc admirari debemus mentes discipulorum, quia non solent homines oblivisci nisi eorum de quibus parum curant: unde cum obliti essent panes, parum curabant de eis, sed solum de spiritualibus. Quia dixit: intuemini, et cavete et cetera. Hic ponitur doctrina. Per fermentum intelligit doctrinam corruptam; unde non intelligit doctrinam legis, sed traditiones Pharisaeorum, quae vocantur fermentum, quia sicut ex modico fermento totum corrumpitur, sic ex modico errore tota vita corrumpitur, sicut de via a qua parum homo recedit, postmodum elongatur: unde philosophus in I coeli dicit quod parvus error in principio, magnus fit in fine. Spiritualis intellectus est panis, non fermentum. Unde per panem vera doctrina intelligitur; Eccli. XV, v. 3: cibavit eum pane vitae et intellectus.
16:6
Unde dicitur intuemini, et cavete, quia falsa doctrina est periculosa. Dum enim manet fides in homine, non est periculum; sed quando fundamentum ablatum est, non est spes. Ps. CXXXVI, 7: exinanite, exinanite usque ad fundamentum in ea. Fundamentum est fides; ad Titum ult., 10: haereticum hominem post primam et secundam admonitionem devita. Quia falsa doctrina habet colorem, ideo dicit intuemini, idest diligenter considerate; Prov. IV, 25: oculi tui recta videant, et palpebrae tuae praecedant gressus tuos.
16:7
Consequenter ponitur intellectus discipulorum: at illi cogitabant et cetera. Quia enim supra septem sportas fragmentorum acceperant, et non secum tulerant, credebant quod diceret, non accepistis panes; sed nolo quod a Pharisaeis accipiatis panes, quia animales erant, et animalis homo non percipit quae Dei sunt, I Cor. II, 14. In isto intellectu in duobus poterant reprehendi. Primo, quia non intelligebant; item in eo quod de virtute Dei diffidebant. De primo non reprehendit eos, sed de secundo.
16:8
Dicit ergo quid cogitatis inter vos modicae fidei, quia panes non habetis? Quasi dicat, intelligitis carnaliter quod spiritualiter debetis intelligere.
16:9
Non recordamini quinque panum, et quinque millia hominum, et quot cophinos sumpsistis? Nonne ergo qui tot pavi, possum vos pascere?
16:11
Quare non intelligitis, quia non de pane dixi vobis, scilicet materiali, sed potius spirituali; qui panis doctrina dicitur in Io. VI, 64: verba quae locutus sum vobis, spiritus et vita sunt. Tunc intellexerunt et cetera. Hic ponitur correctio. Unde correcti sunt ex sermone eius; Ps. CXVIII, 130: declaratio sermonum tuorum illuminat, et intellectum dat parvulis.
16:13
Supra dominus docuit doctrinam evangelicam conservandam puram a fermento Iudaeorum, hic autem docet eminentiam doctrinae. Et primo quantum ad fidem utriusque naturae, scilicet deitatis et humanitatis; secundo quantum ad fidem passionis, ibi exinde coepit Iesus ostendere discipulis suis etc.; tertio quantum ad fidem iudiciariae potestatis, ibi filius enim hominis venturus est in gloria patris sui. Circa primum primo exquiritur opinio turbarum de Christo; secundo fides discipulorum, ibi vos autem quem me esse dicitis? Circa primum primo ponitur locus; secundo interrogatio Christi, ibi quem dicunt homines esse filium hominis? Tertio responsio Petri, ibi at illi dixerunt et cetera. Dicit ergo venit Iesus in partes Caesareae; et non solum hoc, sed addidit Philippi, quia duae Caesareae fuerunt, scilicet Caesarea Traconis, ubi missus est Petrus ad Cornelium; alia haec quae dicitur aliter Paneas. Prima ab Herode constituta est in honorem Caesaris Augusti, istam construxit Philippus in honorem Tiberii. Sed quare fecit hic istam quaestionem dominus? Dicendum, quod haec civitas in finibus Iudaeorum erat sita; ideo antequam de fide petere vellet, a Iudaeis eos extraxit. Similiter habetur quod dominus educens Iudaeos de Aegypto, non eduxit eos per sata Philisthinorum, ut habetur Ex. XIII, 17. Consequenter ponitur interrogatio et interrogabat discipulos suos et cetera. Sapiens quando interrogat, docet, ut dicit Hieronymus. Unde in multis instruimur, ut simus solliciti quid de nobis dicatur: ut si malum, quod corrigamus; si bonum, ut conservemus et multiplicemus. Unde curam habe de bono nomine; hoc enim magis permanebit tibi, quam mille thesauri pretiosi et magni, Eccli. XLI, 15. Unde Christus interrogavit quid de ipso diceretur. Item qui divinitatem cognoscunt, dicuntur dii, Ps. LXXXI, 6: ego dixi, dii estis, hi vero qui humanitatem, dicuntur homines; unde dicitur quem dicunt homines esse filium hominis? Sed, ut dicit Hilarius, Christus solum homo videbatur: ideo voluit quod cognoscerent quod esset aliud quam simplex homo. Unde ipse ex hoc dat intelligere, aliud esse in eo. Item ostenditur humilitas Christi, quia se hominis filium confitetur, secundum illud supra XI, v. 29: discite a me, quia mitis sum et humilis corde.
16:14
Consequenter ponitur opinio turbarum at illi dixerunt: alii Ioannem Baptistam et cetera. Diversi de Christo senserunt diversa. Pharisaei blasphemabant Christum, sed turbae prophetam dicebant; unde Lc. VII, 16: propheta magnus surrexit in nobis et cetera. Dicebant eum Ioannem ratione auctoritatis, quia Ioannes poenitentiam praedicabat; supra cap. III, 2: agite poenitentiam, appropinquavit regnum caelorum. Ideo credebant ipsum esse Ioannem, quia similiter Christus incipiebat agite poenitentiam, appropinquavit regnum caelorum, ut supra IV, 17. Item habebant in reverentia Eliam prophetam; Mal. ult., 5: ecce ego mittam Eliam prophetam, antequam veniat dies domini magnus et horribilis. Unde credebant esse Eliam propter potestatem sermonis et virtutem praedicationis; Eccli. XLVIII, 1: et surrexit Elias propheta quasi ignis, quia verbum ipsius quasi facula ardebat. Et de Christo dicitur supra VII, 29, quod erat docens tamquam potestatem habens. Item propter eminentiam vitae credebant eum esse Ieremiam, de quo dominus ait: antequam te formarem in utero, novi te, et antequam exires de ventre, sanctificavi te, Ier. I, 5. Et ibid. XL habetur, quia honoratus erat gentibus. Sic in reverentia ab extraneis Christus habebatur; a Iudaeis vero blasphemabatur: ideo Ieremiae comparabant eum. Sed quomodo Eliam dicebant? Quia habetur IV regum II, 11 quod raptus est, et quod adhuc viveret, et erat promissus Iudaeis ad salutem, ut habetur Mal. ult., 5. Quia quidam posuerunt transcorporationem: et ideo secundum hanc opinionem posset esse, quod anima Eliae intrasset aliud corpus.
16:15
Dicit eis Iesus: vos autem quem me esse dicitis? Hic exquiritur fides discipulorum. Et primo ponitur interrogatio; secundo responsio; tertio approbatio. Secunda ibi respondens Petrus; tertia ibi respondens autem Iesus et cetera. Dicit eis Iesus: vos autem quem me esse dicitis? Quasi dicat: ita dicunt turbae; sed quia magis est vobis commissum, ideo magis a vobis exigitur. Vidistis miracula, ideo magis debetis opinari. Sed quare petiit? Nonne sciebat? Immo sciebat, sed volebat quod mererentur ex confessione; Rom. X, 10: corde creditur ad iustitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem. Unde magis sunt meritoria, quanto magis sequestrata, et quasi turbis infima scientibus, maiora non respondeant, ideo et cetera.
16:16
Respondens autem Petrus dixit: tu es Christus filius Dei vivi. Ipse respondet pro se, et pro aliis; sed ipse frequentius respondet, et in hoc perfecta fides tangitur, quia tangitur fides humanitatis. Tu es Christus, idest unctus. Et constat quod unctus est oleo spiritus sancti. Unctio non convenit ei secundum divinitatem, quia ab ipsa procedit, sed secundum humanitatem. Hoc ergo dicit, ut humanitatem Christi aliter aestiment quam turbae. Quaeritur autem quare prophetam eum dicebant. Ungebatur propheta, ut habetur de Eliseo. Ungebantur reges, ut habetur de Saule; item sacerdotes, ut habetur in Levitico. Et omnia haec in nomine Christi importantur: quia et rex dicitur, ut Ierem. XXIII, 5: regnabit rex, et sapiens erit. Item sacerdos; Ps. CIX, 4: tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Item propheta: prophetam suscitabit Deus de gente tua, et de fratribus tuis etc., Deut. XVIII, 15. Item non solum confessus est humanitatem, sed testudine penetrata, usque ad divinitatem transcendit dicens tu es filius Dei. Alii enim dicebant eum blasphemum; unde Io. X, 33: non de bono opere lapidamus te, sed de blasphemia, quia homo cum sis, facis teipsum Deum. Sed iste filium Dei recognoscit. Et dicit vivi, ad excludendum errorem gentilium, qui quosdam homines mortuos dicebant deos, ut Iovem etc., ut habetur Sap. cap. XIII, 2 ss. Item quidam elementa et cetera mortua, ut terram, ignem etc., ut habetur Sap. XIII; sed iste filium Dei vivi dicit. Sed sciendum, quod cum dicitur Deus vivus, et homo vivus, de homine dicitur per participationem vitae; sed de Deo dicitur, quia fons vitae; Ps. XXXV, 10: apud te est fons vitae. Et in Io. XIV, 6: ego sum via, veritas et vita. Respondens Iesus et cetera. Hic primo approbat confessionem eius; secundo mandat tacendam, ibi tunc praecepit discipulis suis ut nemini dicerent, quod ipse esset Iesus Christus. Circa primum primo approbat istam confessionem per commendationem confitentis; secundo per remunerationem, ibi et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et cetera.
16:17
Unde dicit respondit Iesus: beatus es, Simon Bariona. Bar idem est quod filius; Ionas idem quod columba: suo nomine. Unde Bariona, idest filius columbae. Et videtur respondere responsio Christi confessioni Petri. Quia confessus erat eum filium Dei, Iesus autem dicit eum filium columbae, scilicet spiritus sancti, quia haec confessio non potuit fieri nisi a spiritu sancto. Sed creditur quod primo dicebatur Bar-Iona, idest Ioannis filius, sed per corruptionem Scripturae ita dictum est. Sed quid est? Numquid alii non confessi sunt filium Dei? Immo legitur de Nathanaele Io. I, 49. Item illi qui in navi, supra IX. Quare ergo hic beatificatur Petrus, et non alii? Quia alii filium adoptivum confessi sunt, hic autem filium naturalem; ideo hic prae ceteris beatificatur, quia primus confessus est divinitatem. Origenes dicit: videtur quod ante non confessus fuerit. Sed quomodo misit eos praedicare? Respondet quod a principio non praedicabant ipsum esse Christum, sed poenitentiam praedicabant. Item potest esse quod praedicabant Christum; sed hic primo ipsum esse filium Dei. Ergo hic specialiter remunerat. Beatus es, Simon etc., quia beatitudo est in cognitione; Io. XVII, 3: haec est vita aeterna ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum. Sed duplex est cognitio: una quae est per naturalem rationem, alia quae supra rationem. Prima non facit beatitudinem, quia dubia est: unde non satiat intellectum; sed beatitudo debet satisfacere appetitui naturali, et hoc habebitur in patria; Is. LXIV, 4: oculus non vidit, nec auris audivit quae praeparavit dominus diligentibus se. Ergo in hac vita, quanto aliquis magis potest percipere de hac cognitione, magis est beatus; Prov. III, v. 13: beatus qui invenit sapientiam. Unde dicit beatus es, quia incipis esse beatus. Quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi. Hoc potest exponi ita quod caro et sanguis sumantur pro amicis carnalibus; ad Gal. I, 16: continuo non acquievi carni et sanguini. Unde caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi, idest non habuisti ex traditione Iudaeorum, sed ex revelatione Dei. Item in Christo erat caro, et sanguis, et divinitas; ideo quia Petrus non respexit ad carnem et sanguinem, ei dicitur beatus es, quia non iudicas secundum quod caro et sanguis revelat, sed secundum quod pater meus. Vel non habes ex naturali industria, sed ex patre meo. Nemo enim cognovit filium nisi pater, Lc. cap. X, 22. Illius enim est manifestare, cuius est cognoscere. Unde nemo novit nisi cui pater voluerit revelare; Dan. II, 28: est Deus in caelo revelans mysteria.
16:18
Et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus et cetera. Hic dat confessionis remunerationem. Confessus erat humanitatem et divinitatem, ideo dat dominus remunerationem. Primo dat nomen; secundo potestatem. Circa primum primo dat nomen; secundo nominis rationem, ibi et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Et ad hoc venit in hunc mundum ut Ecclesiam fundaret. Is. XXVIII, 16: ecce ego ponam in fundamento Sion lapidem probatum angularem pretiosum, in fundamento fundatum. Iste signatum est per lapidem quem supposuit Iacob capiti, et unxit, ut habetur Gen. XXVIII, 18. Iste lapis est Christus, et ab ista unctione omnes dicti sunt Christiani; unde non solum dicimur Christiani a Christo, sed a petra. Ideo specialiter imponit nomen: tu es Petrus, a petra quae est Christus. Licet secundum Augustinum videatur quod modo non fuerit impositum, sed a principio; Io. I, 42: tu vocaberis Cephas. Vel potest dici quod tunc fuit promissum, hic datum. In huius signum rei, super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Proprietas petrae est, quod ponatur in fundamento; item, ut det firmitatem. Supra VII, 24: similis est homini qui aedificat domum suam super petram. Unde potest exponi de Christo: et super hanc petram, idest Christum, ut sit fundamentum, et ut fundata firmamentum recipiat. Augustinus in libro Retract. dicit, quod multipliciter exposuit, et reliquit audientibus ut acciperent quam vellent. Vel ut demonstret ly hanc petram Christum; I ad Cor. X, 4: petra autem erat Christus. Et alibi, I ad Cor. III, v. 11: fundamentum aliud nemo potest ponere nisi id quod positum est, quod est Christus Iesus. Alia expositio: super hanc petram, idest super te petram, quia a me petra trahes tu quod sis petra. Et sicut ego sum petra, ita super te petram aedificabo et cetera. Sed quid est? Est ne Christus et Petrus fundamentum? Dicendum quod Christus secundum se, sed Petrus inquantum habet confessionem Christi, inquantum vicarius eius. Ad Ephes. II, 20: superaedificati super fundamentum apostolorum et prophetarum ipso summo angulari lapide Christo Iesu et cetera. Apoc. XXI, 4: fundamenta civitatis duodecim, et in ipsis duodecim nomina apostolorum et agni. Ideo Christus secundum se est fundamentum, sed apostoli non secundum se, sed per concessionem Christi, et auctoritatem datam a Christo; Ps. cap. LXXXVI, 1: fundamenta eius in montibus sanctis. Sed specialiter Petri domus, quae est fundata super petram, non diruetur, ut supra VII, 25. Sic ista impugnari potest, expugnari non potest. Et portae Inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam. Ier. I, 19: bellabunt adversum te, et non praevalebunt. Et qui sunt portae Inferi? Haeretici: quia sicut per portam intratur in domum, sic per istos intratur in Infernum. Item tyranni, Daemones, peccata. Et quamvis aliae Ecclesiae vituperari possint per haereticos, Ecclesia tamen Romana non fuit ab haereticis depravata quia supra petram erat fundata. Unde in Constantinopoli fuerunt haeretici, et labor apostolorum amissus erat; sola Petri Ecclesia inviolata permansit. Unde Lc. XXII, 32: ego rogavi pro te, Petre, ut non deficiat fides tua. Et hoc non solum refertur ad Ecclesiam Petri, sed ad fidem Petri, et ad totam Occidentalem Ecclesiam. Unde credo quod Occidentales maiorem reverentiam debent Petro, quam aliis apostolis. Et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum. Hic ponitur secundum donum quod Petro dedit Christus secundum humanitatem. Fundavit enim Ecclesiam in terris, et Petrum vicarium suum instituit, ut introduceret in caelum; ad Hebr. X, 19: habentes fiduciam in introitu sanctorum in sanguine Christi. Unde Christus vicarium suum Petrum instituit, ut introduceret in caelum, unde illud ministerium dedit, unde claves dedit. Clavis enim introducit: unde Petrus habet ministerium introducendi. Et duo facit. Primo claves committit; secundo usum docet et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in caelis et cetera. Sed videamus quae sunt claves. Domus quando est serata impedit introitum; clavis vero removet impedimentum. Regnum caelorum habebat impedimentum, sed non ex parte sua; Apoc. IV, 1: vidi, et ecce ostium apertum; sed impedimentum erat ex parte nostra, scilicet peccatum, quia nihil coinquinatum intrabit in illam. Ista impedimenta removit Christus per suam passionem, quia lavit nos a peccatis nostris in sanguine suo, Apoc. I, 5. Et hanc communicavit ut per ministerium peccata tollerentur, quod expletur per virtutem sanguinis Christi: unde sacramenta virtutem habent a virtute passionis Christi. Unde dabo tibi ministerium et cetera. Is. cap. XXII, 22: dabo super te claves David. Sed dicit tibi dabo; nondum enim erant fabricatae; res autem non potest dari antequam sit. Fabricandae autem hae erant in passione; unde in passione fuit eorum efficacia. Unde hic promisit, sed post passionem dedit, cum dixit: pasce oves meas. Sed quare dicit claves? Quia absolvere est removere obstaculum. Duo enim sunt, quia duo requiruntur, potestas et scientia. Sed quid est? Numquid non aliqui sacerdotes sunt, qui non habent scientiam? Intelligatis quod habent scientiam, quia nullus clavem scientiae habet nisi sacerdos. Non dicitur hic scientia habitus intellectus etc., sed dicitur auctoritas discernendi. Unde est aliquis iudex, qui non habet scientiam primo modo, et tamen habet scientiam secundo modo, quia habet auctoritatem; aliquis autem habet scientiam primo modo, et non secundo modo, quia non habet auctoritatem. Unde scientia hic dicitur auctoritas discernendi, et sacerdos quilibet hanc habet ut discernat in absolvendo.
16:19
Consequenter ponit usum clavium quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in caelis. Sed videtur quod inconvenienter ponatur, quia usus clavis non est ligare, sed aperire. Dico quod clavium conveniens iste usus est. Ipsum enim caelum apertum est; Apoc. cap. IV, 1: vidi ostium apertum. Unde non est necessarium ut aperiatur; sed ligatus qui debet introire, oportet quod solvatur. Sed hic vitandi sunt aliqui errores. Primus tangitur in Glossa, quia quidam usurpaverunt quod possent omnes, quos vellent, absolvere, et introducere in regnum caelorum. Sed hoc non potest stare, quia solius Dei est immutare voluntates. Alius error est, quod sacerdos non ligat, sed ostendit esse absolutum. Sed istud derogat virtuti sacramenti, eo quod sacramenta novae legis efficiunt quod figurant; sacramenta vero veteris legis non. Unde si nihil efficeret, non esset sacramentum novae legis. Tertio aliqui dicunt quod in peccato sunt tria: culpa, et reatus, et poena. A duobus absolvitur homo per se per contritionem; sed quando homo ab his absolutus est, remanet obligatus ad poenam temporalem, quam per se tollere et evitare homo non sufficit; ideo dantur claves, quae minuunt aliquid de ista poena, et ligant quantum ad poenam aliquam. Tamen videtur mihi, quod hoc non sit bene dictum, quia sacramentum novae legis dat gratiam, sed gratia non ordinatur contra poenam, sed contra culpam. Unde dico quod sic est in sacramento isto confessionis, sicut in sacramento Baptismi, quod habet virtutem spiritualem instrumentalem, secundum quam mundat a culpa. Unde Augustinus: quae est virtus aquae, ut carnem abluat, et culpam tollat? Sic dico quod in sacerdote est quaedam vis spiritualis instrumentalis, a qua dicitur minister, et sic ministerialiter operatur remissionem, sicut aqua Baptismi. Sed hic facit difficultatem, quia modo solum pueri veniunt ad Baptismum: et si accedat adultus, aut venit fictus, aut non: fictus venit, quando sine innovatione mentis, et tunc non remittitur culpa; non fictus venit, quando cum proposito confessionis, unde requiritur gratia, sive propositum conversionis, et istud est ex gratia. Gratia autem tollit culpam. Unde in sacramento Baptismi veniens adultus, si praeparat se, recipit remissionem culpae. Sic in sacramento poenitentiae, ad quod soli adulti accedunt, non est contritus, nisi habeat in proposito se subiicere discretioni et iudicio sacerdotis. Si non est contritus, non consequitur effectum, sicut nec in Baptismo. Sed potest accidere, quod aliquis accedit non totaliter contritus, qui virtute gratiae collatae in sacramento perfecto efficitur contritus; ideo intelligendum est: quodcumque solveris, idest si ministerium absolutionis adhibes. Et dicit quodcumque, quia non solam culpam, sed poenam. Solutum erit in caelis, idest habebitur tamquam absolutum in caelis, sicut est de Baptismo: unde debet dicere sacerdos, ego te absolvo, sicut ego te baptizo. Sed potest quis quaerere qualiter ligat. Sciendum quod sacerdos minister est Dei, et actio ministri dependet ab actu domini: unde eo modo quo dominus ligat et solvit, sic sacerdos ministerialiter. Solvit Deus infundendo gratiam, ligat non infundendo: sic sacerdos solvit sacramento, ministrando sacramentum, ligat vero non adhibendo. Aliter dicitur, quod per caelos praesens Ecclesia designatur; unde quodcumque ligaveris, excommunicatione, vel solveris, erit solutum vel ligatum, quoad administrationem sacramentorum Ecclesiae. Unde volunt, quod ista administratio, haec ligatio et absolutio sit super terram, ita quod non se extendat ad mortuos. Sed hoc reprobatur, quia non solum se extendit ad vivos, sed etiam ad mortuos: unde si ad utrumque referatur, sensus est: quodcumque ligaveris super terram, tunc dico existens super terram, erit ligatum et in caelis. Sed est alia quaestio, quia alibi habetur, Io. XX, 23: quorum remiseritis peccata, remittentur eis; hic vero solum hoc dicit Petro. Dicendum quod immediate dedit Petro; alii vero a Petro recipiunt; ideo ne credantur ista solum dici Petro, dicit: quorum remiseritis et cetera. Et hac ratione Papa, qui est loco sancti Petri, habet plenariam potestatem, alii vero ab ipso.
16:21
Supra posita est confessio Petri de divinitate Christi, hic mandat taciturnitatem ad tempus, ne scilicet dicerent quod ipse esset Christus. Sed hic videtur quaestio. Quia supra dominus miserat discipulos ad praedicandum regnum Dei, quomodo hic prohibet? Secundum superficiem litterae potest dici quod non praecepit supra quod annuntiarent Christum, sed regnum Dei. Sed quia Annuntiatio regni Dei includit in se Annuntiationem Christi, ideo quod praecepit supra, videtur hic prohibere. Hieronymus dicit, quod illud quod ante praedicaverat, non prohibet, quia ante praeceperat praedicari Iesum, hic praecipit ne dicant eum Christum: Christus enim est nomen dignitatis, Iesus nomen salvatoris. Unde supra I, 21: et vocabis eum Iesum. Origenes respondet quod apostoli ante loquebantur de Christo, ut de magno viro; sed de Christo voluit subticeri, ut post eis magis appareret; sicut aliquando praemittitur doctrina, ut habeant tempus discernendi. Vel dicendum quod illud: euntes autem praedicate, non debet retorqueri ad tempus ante passionem, sed post. Unde ibi tangitur quod trahentur ante reges et praesides etc., et non fuit hoc factum ante passionem. Sed quare dominus nunc mandavit istud tacendum? Futurum enim erat ut populi viderent eum patientem, et quando aliqui percipiunt confusionem ab aliquo magno, ad scandalum magis incitantur, ideo et cetera. Chrysostomus dicit: si quod plantatur evellatur, non potest ita cito plantari. Unde si plantata fuisset fides, et evulsa fuisset in passione, post non fuisset tam cito plantata. Unde multa non sunt dicenda propter scandalum vitandum. Et quod haec sit causa, patet, quia statim suam passionem annuntiat; unde subditur et exinde coepit Iesus ostendere discipulis suis, quia oporteret eum ire Ierosolymam et multa pati. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo praenuntiat passionem; secundo discipulum arguit, ibi qui conversus dixit Petro etc.; tertio docet fidem, ibi tunc Iesus dixit discipulis suis et cetera. Et circa primum duo. Quia primo praenuntiat passionem; secundo resurrectionem, ibi et tertia die resurgere. Et circa primum tangit locum, auctores, ac consummationem. Dicit ergo et exinde coepit Iesus ostendere discipulis suis. Locutus est de passione hic, et XVII, et XX cap. Sed ante hoc tempus non praenuntiaverat. Sed quare modo coepit? Quia apostolis manifestavit. Sed quare non ante? Quia si antequam fides esset confirmata in eis, praenuntiasset passionem, forte dimisissent eum: sed nunc verum Deum credebant, ideo et cetera. Et dicit ostendere, non dicere quia haec dicuntur quae manifestantur visibiliter, ostenduntur quae intelliguntur; ideo Iudaeis dicebat, discipulis ostendebat; Lucae ult., 26: nonne oportuit Christum pati, et sic intrare in gloriam suam? Unde quod dicit oportet, tangit locum. Et quare Ierosolymam? Tangit rationem. Sed quod dicit Ierosolymam, prima ratio est, quia ibi erat templum Dei, ubi fiebant sacrificia. Sacrificia autem veteris legis fuerunt figura istius sacrificii, quod fuit in ara crucis; ideo voluit quod ubi erat figura, pateret veritas; Ephes. V, 2: et tradidit semetipsum sacrificium, et oblationem, et hostiam Deo in odorem suavitatis et cetera. Alia ratio est, quia prophetae passi sunt in Ierusalem, ut infra cap. XXIII, 37: Ierusalem, Ierusalem, quae occidis prophetas, et lapidas eos, qui ad te missi sunt. Voluit igitur ibi pati ad ostendendum, quod mors eorum fuit signum passionis Christi. Item Ierusalem dicitur visio pacis; sed ipsa passio pacifica fuit; ad Col. cap. I, 20: pacificans quae in caelis et quae in terris sunt. Item ut per istam viam esset nobis via ad Ierusalem supernam; ad Gal. IV, v. 26: illa autem quae sursum est Ierusalem mater nostra, libera est. Sed a quibus? A senioribus. Et hoc est quia eis procurantibus passus est. Ille facit rem, cuius auctoritate fit; unde magis eum interfecerunt, quam milites. Unde per hoc malitia populi significatur, quia qui videntur meliores, inveniuntur deteriores. Aliquis enim retrahitur a peccato propter aetatem, aliquis propter scientiam, aliquis propter dignitatem; tamen aetas eos non retraxit, quia a senioribus; non scientia, quia a Scribis; non dignitas, quia a principibus sacerdotum; Ier. V, 5: ibo ad optimates, et loquar eis: ipsi enim cognoverunt viam domini et iudicium Dei sui. Et ecce magis hi confregerunt iugum. Item quaedam abiectio et humiliatio fuit, quia quando aliquis patitur a plebeis, non est magnum; sed quando a sapientibus, et ab his, qui boni videntur, magna est abiectio; unde Io. XVIII, 35: gens tua et principes tradiderunt te mihi. Item passus est usque ad mortem, ideo dicit et occidi; Act. X, 39: quem occiderunt suspendentes in ligno; Dan. IX, v. 26: occidetur Christus, et non erit eius populus, qui eum negaturus est. Sed adiungitur gaudium resurrectionis et tertia die resurgere; Os. VI, 3: tertia die resuscitabit nos.
16:22
Et assumens eum Petrus coepit increpare illum. Hic increpat discipulum obviantem. Et primo ponitur obviatio; secundo responsio Christi, ibi qui conversus dixit Petro et cetera. Et assumens, vel in aspectu, vel ad se sumens, ne videretur praesumptuosus, quando dominum ante alios reprehenderet, dixit absit a te, domine: non erit tibi hoc. Dominus collaudaverat eius confessionem, et dederat ei potestatem, quia eum filium Dei esse cognoverat, ideo putabat, quod si occideretur, quod fides sua frustraretur, et quod non esset Deus; et ideo increpavit eum. Habebat in corde, quod filius Dei erat, et non advertebat, quod Deus non est increpandus, ut dicitur Iob XV, 3: arguis eum, qui non est tibi aequalis, et loqueris quod tibi non expedit. Sed servabat adhuc aliquam fidem divinitatis, quia in Marco habetur, propitius sis tibi, domine, et noli te tradere in mortem. Qui conversus dixit, vade retro post me, Satana. Hic ponitur responsio. Hunc locum sic exponit Hilarius: Diabolus videns, quod ipse nuntiaverat passionem suam, et cognoscens testimonia prophetarum, incitavit Petrum ad hoc ut dissuaderet. Ideo videns dominus, quod non suo instinctu loqueretur, increpavit eum, ideo dixit Petro vade post me: ita quod sit ibi punctus.
16:23
Et ad Satanam dixit Satana, scandalum es mihi. Hieronymus dicit, quod non credit, quod instinctu Diaboli locutus sit Petrus, sed pietatis affectu; unde ignoranter dixit. Unde tria facit, quia primo ponitur admonitio; secundo increpatio; tertio causae assignatio. Admonitio, quia vade, Petre. Unde est eadem sententia, quae dicta est supra Diabolo, vade retro, Satana. Vel vade post me, sequere me. Satanas est idem quod adversarius. Unde qui consilio divino contradicit, Satanas dicitur. Scandalum mihi es; idest vis impedire meum propositum. Sed nonne diligentibus Deum non est scandalum? Origenes dicit, quod perfectis non est scandalum. Unde non scandalizantur. Sed potest aliquis eis ponere scandalum. Unde Petrus scandalum assumpsit, sed Christus non. Vel sic, quia reputat scandalum membrorum esse suum. Unde Paulus: quis scandalizatur, et ego non scandalizor? Quia ergo posset aliis scandalum esse, dixit scandalum mihi es, non propter me, sed propter membra mea. Sed quid est? Supra dixerat tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam; hic autem appellat eum Satanam. Hieronymus dicit quod quae promiserat dominus, nondum habebat. Sed quia in futurum haec habebat, ideo potuit propter haec eum vocare Satanam. Chrysostomus dicit quod voluit ostendere, quid homo potuit per se, et quid ex gratia Dei: quia supra ex gratia Dei recognovit Christi divinitatem; sed ubi retraxit Deus suam gratiam, apparuit humanitas et defectus, intantum quod Satanam appellaret eum: ita dominus vult aliquando viros perfectos cadere, ut suam humanitatem cognoscant. Et quod ita debeat intelligi, satis concordat illud quod sequitur. Unde dat causam quia non sapis quae Dei sunt. Prius enim dixerat, tu es filius Dei, ibi sapiebat secundum divinitatem; hic vero sapit quod hominis est; I ad Cor. II, 14: animalis enim homo non percipit quae Dei sunt. Prov. XIII, 16: qui fatuus est aperiet stultitiam. Petrus refugit carnis mortem, sed spiritus Dei non; unde Io. cap. XV, 13: maiorem caritatem nemo habet, ut animam suam ponat quis pro amicis suis. Tunc Iesus dixit discipulis suis. Hic exhortatur ad passionis imitationem. Et primo ponit exhortationem; secundo rationem; tertio confirmat. Secunda ibi qui voluerit animam suam salvam facere, perdet eam; tertia ibi quid prodest homini si mundum universum lucretur et cetera.
16:24
Ita Petrus volebat impedire passionem, sed ipse invitat eos dicens si quis vult venire post me, abneget semetipsum, et tollat crucem suam, et sequatur me; quasi dicat: oportet quod sitis parati ad passionem Christi imitandam. Imitantur speciali modo martyres corporaliter, sed spiritualiter spirituales homines, spiritualiter pro Christo morientes. Unde potest legi de cruce corporali. Chrysostomus: sic ergo cum dixit, Petre, vade post me, intelligatis quod soli Petro dixerit: cum vero dixit, qui vult venire etc., omnes homines vult venire ad se. Et dicit vult, quia magis trahitur qui voluntarie trahitur, quam qui violenter; Ps. LIII, v. 8: voluntarie sacrificabo tibi. Ideo tria dicit: quod abneget, quod tollat crucem, quod sequatur me. Chrysostomus dicit quod loquitur per similitudinem. Si haberes filium, et videres eum male tractari, si non curares, tu abnegares; sic si vis passionem domini sequi, oportet quod abneges te, et pro nihilo te reputes; Ps. XXXVII, 15: et factus sum sicut homo non audiens, et non habens in ore suo redargutiones. Et Prov. XXIII, 35: verberaverunt me, et non dolui; traxerunt me, et non sensi. Et tollat crucem suam, et sequatur me: quod paratus sit pati crucem, sive mori morte acerbissima et turpissima; Sap. cap. II, 20: morte turpissima condemnemus eum. Unde homo debet esse paratus pati quamcumque mortem propter Deum. Pati propter sua scelera est turpe: sed propter Deum, non. Unde I Petr. IV, 15: nemo patiatur ut homicida, aut fur, aut maledicus, aut alienorum appetitor. Si autem ut Christianus, non erubescat: glorificet autem Deum in isto nomine. Secundum Gregorium intelligitur de mortificatione spirituali. Est enim abnegatio sui ipsius tripliciter. Primo quando abnegat statum peccati praecedentis; Rom. VI, 11: existimate vos mortuos peccato. Item si non est in peccato, et transferret se ad statum perfectum; ad Phil. III, 12: si quo modo occurram ad resurrectionem quae est ex mortuis, non quod iam acceperim, aut iam perfectus sim: sequor autem si quo modo comprehendam, in quo et comprehensus sum a Christo Iesu. Item qui proprium affectum abnegat; ad Gal. II, 19: ego autem per legem legi mortuus sum ut Deo vivam: Christo confixus sum cruci. Et II ad Cor. V, 14: si unus mortuus est, et omnes mortui sunt. Tollat crucem. Crux a cruciatu dicitur. Spiritualiter cruciatur, cuius mens cruciatur propter proximi compassionem, ut apostolus Rom. XII, 15: flere cum flentibus. Cruciatur similiter quis per poenitentiam; ad Gal. cap. V, 24: qui Christi sunt, carnem suam crucifixerunt cum vitiis et concupiscentiis. Et sequatur me. Multi compatiuntur, sed Deum non sequuntur. Qui compatitur, et in peccato est, non sequitur, quia venit Christus peccata destruere. Item si affligis te propter vanam gloriam, Deum non sequeris; supra VI, 16: cum ieiunatis, nolite fieri sicut hypocritae tristes: exterminant enim facies suas, ut appareant hominibus ieiunantes et cetera.
16:25
Qui enim voluerit animam suam salvam facere perdet eam. Hic redditur ratio suae admonitionis, et est ratio a magnitudine retributionis. Et hoc dupliciter potest legi. Est enim duplex salus; salus scilicet animae, et haec est iustorum; salus corporis, et haec omnium, etiam iumentorum; Ps. XXXV, 7: homines et iumenta salvabis, domine. Unde dicamus qui voluerit animam suam salvam facere, vitam corporalem non abnegando non tollerando crucem, perdet eam. Supra dixit qui vult, hic qui voluerit. Unde sicut illud dupliciter interpretari poterat, similiter istud. Qui voluerit animam suam, quae est principium vitae corporalis salvam facere, scilicet quod non occidatur, vel quod non compatiatur, perdet eam. Ps. LXXII, 27: perdes omnes qui fornicantur abs te. Qui autem perdiderit, vel tradendo in mortem, vel abnegando delectationes, propter me, inveniet eam; Eccli. LI, 35: modicum laboravi, et inveni multam requiem. Vel sic. Qui voluerit animam suam salvam facere, et illam ad salutem aeternam ducere, Is. LI, 6: salus mea in sempiternum erit, perdet eam, vel sustinendo mortem, vel abnegando carnalia. Qui autem perdiderit propter me, scilicet qui carnalia desideria dimiserit, inveniet eam, scilicet vitam; II Cor. cap. XIII, 4: nam et nos infirmi sumus in illo, sed vivemus cum eo.
16:26
Quid enim prodest homini si universum mundum lucretur, animae autem suae detrimentum patiatur? Hic confirmat per rationem. Posset aliquis dicere: non curo; magis volo vitam hanc praesentem quam aliam. Et hoc excludit. Primo per vitam illam inaestimabilem; secundo per damnum animae irrecompensabile. Dicit ergo quid prodest etc., idest quid proficiunt tibi ista temporalia, si animam perdis? Naturale est homini quod magis diligit finem quam ea quae sunt ad finem, ut corpus quam divitias. Unde naturale est quod omnia exponuntur pro salute corporis. Si contrarium fiat, perversitas est passionis. Sic et naturale est plus animam diligere quam corpus; unde sapiens est qui magis vellet corporaliter pati, quam sustinere confusionem magnam. Si ergo ita est, magis debet optare salutem animae quam corporis, etiam si totum mundum posset habere. Sed quid prodest homini si universum mundum lucretur, animae vero suae detrimentum patiatur? Quasi dicat: inaestimabile damnum est animae detrimentum. Item posset dicere: si habeo et perdo, potero recuperare: ideo excludit dominus aut quam dabit homo commutationem pro anima sua? Quasi dicat, nullam. Prov. VI, 35: non accipiet pro redemptione dona plurima. Sed numquid non potest redimi? Dan. IV, v. 24: peccata tua eleemosynis redime. Dicendum quod hic loquitur quantum ad perfectam perditionem, quia non posset recuperare, nisi primo invenisset; sed quando est contritus, reinvenit. Gregorius aliter: duplex est tempus Ecclesiae, prosperitatis et adversitatis: in adversitate adversa, in prosperitate prospera.
16:27
Filius autem hominis venturus est in gloria patris sui. Hic agit de iudiciaria potestate. Et primo ponitur iudiciaria potestas; secundo tacitae obiectioni respondet. Forte tu dices: ad quid sequar et tollam crucem? et cetera. Quia iudicium filii hominis est, et potestas. Io. V, 27: potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, quia filius hominis est. Non doleas ergo quod patiatur, quia venturus est in gloria. Non doleas, quod reprobetur a senioribus, quia venturus est in gloria patris sui: nec quod ante multos, quia cum Angelis suis; Phil. II, 11: omnis lingua confiteatur, quia dominus Iesus Christus in gloria est Dei patris. Et infra XXV, 31: cum autem venerit filius hominis in maiestate sua, et omnes Angeli cum eo, tunc sedebit super sedem maiestatis suae et cetera. Tunc reddet, et restituet, unicuique secundum opera sua.
16:28
Deinde respondet tacitae obiectioni amen dico vobis; quasi dicat: dixi vobis quod venturus est filius hominis et cetera. Sed nolite mirari. Quare? Volo vobis ostendere, quia sunt quidam de hic stantibus, qui non gustabunt mortem. Peccatores absorbentur morte, sed iusti gustant mortem. Isti autem erant Petrus, Ioannes et Iacobus. Donec videant filium hominis venientem in regno suo. Hoc fuit signum gloriae futurae. Eos autem non nominavit propter invidiam aliorum. Potuissent autem habere invidiam, quia magis his, quam aliis. Item propter importunitatem, quia importuni essent si nihil eis ostenderet. Aliter potest dici, quod regnum Dei est Ecclesia: ideo est aliquis qui non gustabit mortem, sicut Ioannes, donec videat filium hominis venientem in regno suo; idest donec dilatetur Ecclesia, quia tantum vixit, quod vidit Ecclesiam dilatari, et multas Ecclesias aedificari.
16:1
The Pharisees and Sadducees. ( Vide chap. iii. 7 on Pharisees and Sadducees.) We may observe how the two most opposite sects of Jewish heretics agree among themselves to oppose Christ. For the Pharisees and Sadducees carried on an internecine war among themselves, as we learn not only from Josephus, but also from S. Luke (Acts xxiii. 6). So Pilate and Herod, when they had previously been enemies, became friends and united to persecute Christ (S. Litke xxiii. 12). So now the followers of Luther and Calvin very widely differ among themselves, but conspire against the Catholic Church ; that is, the Body of Christ. Christ, as Tertullian says, is always crucified between two thieves. A sign. (See chap. xii. 38.)
16:2
When it is evening. Because they sought a sign from Him, Christ showed them from the heavenly appearances that they ought not to seek it thence. Long experience universally shows that the red of evening is a sign of calm and fine weather, and that that of the morning foreshows tempests.
16:3
The face of the sky. The Greek has "you hypocrites," and so 6". Luke xii. 56. He calls them hypocrites, says Euthymius, because they wished to seem wise, when in truth they were most sense less. The whole difficulty in the passage is as to the manner in which Christ concludes His conversation. Some read it affirmatively — as S. Chrysostom and Theophylact — and explain it thus : " You can discern the face of the heavens indeed ; but the signs of the times, My arrival, you cannot understand. For My first advent ought to be discerned, not from the signs of the heavens, the sun and moon, but from the prophecies and the miracles that I do " (S. Luke xvii. 20, 21). Others take it as an interrogation ; as S. Hilary, S. Jerome, Bede, and Euthymius. " If you know the signs of the heavens, of fair weather and storms, which are more difficult and uncertain, how can you err as to the signs of the times of My coming, which are countersigned by so many prophecies and proved by so many miracles on My part?" S. Luke (xii. 56): "Ye hypocrites, you know how to discern the face of the heaven and of the earth ; but how is it that you do not discern this time? " confirms this opinion. For, although He spoke there to the multitude, and here to the Scribes and Pharisees, it is probable that He used the same style of argument with both : a majore ad minus, as some term it ; or, a minore ad majus, as others ; but either is probable.
16:5
And when His disciples were come. When they loosed sail to come ; for it was when they were setting forth that they forgot the bread. S. Jerome asks how it was possible for them to have forgotten this, when a little before (xv. 37) they collected the seven baskets full of fragments. He answers, that they brought the loaves with them, but when they were setting forth they forgot to take them. It seems, perhaps, more likely that, either of their own accord, or at the command of Christ, the disciples distributed these fragments to the poor. And thus they forgot to take, that is, to buy, bread. It cannot be granted to S. Jerome that what followed happened on the voyage, because S. Luke plainly says, that when there were so great multitudes standing about Him, that they trod one upon another, Christ began to say to the disciples, " Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees ". Over the water. Into Bethsaida — as 5. Mark viii. 22.
16:6
Who said to them. In the Greek, " Jesus said to them ". Our version says "Who," expressing the antecedent by the relative, as is very often done in Scripture, especially in the Old Testa ment.
Take heed (" intuemini"). To see (videre) is one thing. To take heed (intueri) is another ; as in the Greek /SXeVo) differs from 6pda>. For one often sees " who takes no heed " : in this sense the Latins use video, and not intiteor^ which is " observe mentally ". Our version uses a catachresis (pleonasm) : " Take heed and beware " — Intuemini et cavete ; as also does the Greek: opare KOL Trpocre^ere; and S. Mark (viii. 15) opdre /SXeVere.
Of the leaven. S. Hilary and S. Jerome think that the observation of the Law is called leaven. This does not agree with what Christ said afterwards (xxiii. 2). For He commands the Law of Moses to be observed. Rather, that teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees in which they were heretics, and corrupted the Law, is alluded to, and which Christ reprehends (xv. 3, 5, 6). For it is clear from verse 12 that we must understand Him of doctrine ; though the words of S. Luke (xii. i), " Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy," may appear contrary. It may be answered, as Bede seems to say, that He called the doctrine itself of the Pharisees and Sadducees, hypocrisy ; because they taught one thing and practised another, or because all their teaching tended to hypocrisy. It is a more grave question how Christ here commands the Apostles to beware of their doctrine, when (xxiii. 2) He teaches them to do whatever they say. The answer, again, may be, that He is there speaking of the Scribes and Pharisees as sitting in Moses' seat, that is, explaining the Law of Moses ; as long as they do which, they are to be followed ; but He does not speak here of the Law of Moses, but of their own leaven, that is, of their heretical teaching, of which He bids them beware.
Of the Pharisees and Sadducees. S. Mark (viii. 15) adds, "and of Herod," or, as it is in other copies, " of the Herodians ''. Hence, it is clear that there was some sect of Herodians or of Herod. For Christ was speaking of sects when He mentioned the Sadducees, who were certainly heretics, or even more than heretics ; and from verse 12 it would appear that the subject was of false and corrupt doctrine. But which Herod was the author of this sect is uncertain : whether Herod Antipater the Great who reigned last, or Herod Antipas, his son, the tetrarch of Galilee ; and what doctrine he introduced, there is nothing, seemingly, to show either in sacred or profane history; unless we may conjecture from what Josephus wrote of Herod the king, who gave his mind entirely to Roman fashions, that he was the author of that sect ; and from the place given to him by the Evangelist, who places Herod in the last rank of all (S. Mark viii. 15), that it consisted merely of pretence, by which, for the sake of power, it adapted itself to every sect, like those whom we now call politicians : men either of no religion at all, or who pretend to be of everyone. The subject will be treated at more length (xxii. 16).
16:7
But they thought within themselves. They thought not only how the words of Christ were to be understood, but also what they were to do, as they had taken no bread. This was the cause of their solicitude. Christ blamed them because they did not remember the two great miracles by which, just before, He had fed so many thousands with so little bread.
16:8
But Jesus knowing it. Their thoughts, which, as S. Chrysostom says, showed their forgetfulness of the miracle.
16:10
Nor the seven loaves among four thousand men. The Greek has, " Of the four thousand ". Our version keeps the meaning, but not the words.
16:13
Into the quarters of Ccesarea Philippi. All know that there were two Caesareas. One, the ancient, which was formerly called the Tower of Strato. It was enlarged by King Herod, and adorned by him with many noble works, and called Caesarea in honour of Augustus Caesar, as we learn from Josephus (Antiq., xv. 13, and De Bell. Jud., xvi.) and from S. Jerome on this passage. It was situated on the coast of the Mediterranean, between Dora and Joppa. There was another, more modern, in Phoenicia, at the foot of Mount Libanus, where the Jordan takes its rise, which had been previously called Paneas, and which Philip, the son of Herod the Great, and tetrarch of the region of Trachonitis (S. Luke iii. I, 2), adorned and enlarged, and called Caesarea in honour of Tiberius. After wards, King Agrippa, to flatter Nero, called it Neronias, as Josephus says (Antiq., xx. 8). The assertion of S. Jerome that it was then called Paneas does not seem to have been said by a lapse of memory; but it was very likely that in his time the adulatory name of Caesarea had been lost, and the city had resumed its ancient name of Paneas. It was called Caesarea Philippi ; Philip the tetrarch having so named it to distinguish it from the other Caesarea of Herod.
And He asked His disciples. S. Mark (viii. 27) says that this happened on the way, and S. Luke (ix. 18) when He was alone praying. Euthymius answers that He took His journey and prayed at the same time. This hardly seems probable. The opinion of S. Augustin (De Consens., u. 53) seems more probable, that it happened by the way, before He reached the place to which He was going. He turned aside out of the way to some solitary spot to pray, and, when He had finished His prayer, He went on, and then asked the disciples whom men said that He was. " As He was praying" (S. Luke ix. 18) is a Hebraism for "When He had finished," as Ps. cxxv. I : " When the Lord brought back " ; that is, " When," or " after He had ".
Whom do men say. Many Latin copies, and most Greek ones, have "Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am? " There is a three fold version. I. " Whom do men say that the Son of man is?" 2. "Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?" 3. "Whom do men say that I am?" In the first, almost all the Latin copies and all authors agree. In the second, only S. Epiphanius (In Anchor atus), Theophylact, and, as it seems, S. Hilary. In the third, only S. Chrysostom (Horn. lv.). The first, which is the most usual one, and that in common use, seems much the best, and the conjecture that it was written at first (" Whom do men say that the Son of man is ? ") seems very excellent. Then perhaps some Greek, to show that Christ spoke of Himself, inserted //,e, •" that I am," into the margin ; another may have transferred it to the text ; and thus it may have begun to be read, " Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am ? " And, lastly, that some transcriber, thinking that there was a redundancy, removed the words, " the Son of man," which were obscure, and left the " Me," " that I," which was clearer. I know that many read it either way, and either without an interrogation, and by apposition : " I, the Son of man" ; or, with an interrogation : " Whom do men say that I am ? the Son of man ? " Both readings seem absurd; the second the more so of the two. For Christ does not call Himself the Son of man honourably, but in humility; nor does He speak in the third person of any but Himself. Observe the antithesis. Christ asks : " Whom do men say that the Son of man is?" Peter answers: " Thou art the Son of the living God ". Hence it seems that in the first passage we ought to read the words, " the Son of man," for the antithesis. For Christ seems designedly, and in the most contemptuous terms, to have called Himself the Son of man, to try their faith, and to give them an opportunity of saying freely what their thoughts of Him were, even if they held Him no more than a mere man.
Men. A Hebraism, as in chap. v. 13, which S. Luke explains. To S. Matthew's, "Whom do men say?" S. Luke (ix. 18), adds, " Whom do the people say that I am ? " as in explanation. S. Matthew, as we have shown, keeps the words ; S. Luke the meaning and explanation.
16:14
Some, John the Baptist. Why some said John the Baptist, some Elias, some Jeremias, vide chap. xi. 4 ; xiv. 2.
16:15
But whom do you say that I am ? Here is a plain antithesis. S. Jerome thinks that Christ opposed the Apostles to men, as being something more than men. " Observe," he says, " that from what follows and from the text of the discourse, the Apostles are not called men, but gods. For when Christ had said : Whom do men say that the Son of man is ? He added : But whom do you say that I am ? " It may be believed that Christ did not oppose them to men as gods, but He seems to have opposed them to the vulgar, as not ordinary men, which S. Chrysostom also thinks. " You who have been with Me always, who have seen Me do many wonderful things, who in My name have yourselves done many acts of power, — whom do you say that I am ? "
16:16
Simon Peter answered. The Ancients give many reasons for Peter's having answered before the rest. i. That Peter was thefrmcepsof all, as S. Chrysostom (Horn. W.) says. 2. Because he was of a more ardent temperament, as S. Hilary and S. Jerome on chap. xiv. 28 say. 3. Because He was as the mouth of the Apostles, and was accustomed to speak for all, as S. Chrysostom (in loco) and S. Augustin say; for in S. John vi. 68, when Christ asked all the disciples if they also would go away, Peter answered : " Lord, to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life." Whether he answered here for himself only, or for all, we will endeavour to show on verse 18.
Thou art the Son of the living God. Peter calls Christ the Son, by nature, not by adoption. For all confessed Him to be the Son of God by adoption, as being a just man and a prophet. The most certain proof that Peter thought Christ the Son of the living God was his opposing Him to John, Elias, Jeremiah, and the Prophets, who, it is certain, were the sons of God by adoption. He calls Christ, therefore, the Son of God, not by adoption, but by nature. The Ancients rightly proved the Divinity of Christ from this passage ; as S. Hilary (in his Comment., and De Trin., vi.), S. Athanasius (Serm. cont. Arian.> Serm. iii.), and Dionysius Alexandria (Cont. Arian^}.
The living. Peter calls Him the living God to distinguish Him from idols, which are lifeless things, as S. Jerome, Bede, and Euthymius have observed. S. Basil (De Pcenit.) terms Him the Son of the Holy God. Rightly, then, Theophylact notes the addition of the Greek article to the word Son, to show, not that He was an ordinary man, but that He was the one only Son of God by nature. ( Vide chap.
16:17
Simon Barjona. So called by contraction for Bar-johanna, which in the Chaldee means the son of John, as he is called (S. John xxi. 15). S. Luke uses a like contraction (iii. 30).
Because flesh and blood. Man, that is, consisting of flesh and blood. The Evangelist opposes men to God. " My Father," He says, " who is in heaven," and as Gal. i. 16; 5. John i. 13. Thus Scripture opposes men who savour of carnal things to God, or to those who savour of divine things (i Cor. xv. 50). So it is called the wisdom of the flesh (Rom. viii. 6, 7).
16:18
And I. A forcible antithesis; but the Greek is still more forcible : Karya> Se, " and I assuredly ". As if Christ had said : You, who are a man, have called me the Son of the living God ; but I, who am the Son of the living God, say that thou art Peter, that is, My vicar, whom thou hast confessed to be the Son of God. For My Church which is built upon Me I will build, as upon a second foundation, upon thee also.
Thou art Peter. Some think that he was not called Peter before, but that the name was only promised him. S. John i. 42 : " Jesus, looking upon him, said : Thou art Simon the son of Jonas. Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter." It is more probable, as S. Augustin says (De Cons., u.), that he was so called from the beginning of his vocation, as S. Mark (iii. 16) and S. Luke (vi. 14) show. And, therefore, when Christ said to him (S. John i. 42), " Thou art Simon the son of Jona ; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter," He gave him a name ; as if He had said : Henceforth thou shalt not be called Simon, but Cephas, i.e.y Peter ; as God gave Abram the name of Abraham, speaking of the future (Gen. xvii. 5).
And upon this rock I will build My Church. Some ancient authors take this rock to mean this faith, or this confession of faith, by which Peter had called Him the son of the living God. Such are S. Hilary (De Trin.t vi.) ; S. Gregory of Nyssa (Cont. Jud.) ; S. Chrysostom (Horn. W. in loc., and Orat.u. adv. Jud.}\ S. Cyril Alexandria (Dial. w. de Trm.}', and the author of the Commentaries on the Epistles of S. Paul, which are ascribed to S. Ambrose (On Gal. w.). But the interpretation of S. Augustin (On S. John xxvii. and cxxiv. 4, and Serm. xiii. de verb. Dom. sec. S. Matt.} : " Upon this rock, that is, upon Myself," because Christ was the Rock (i Cor. x. 4, and iii. 11), is still further from the meaning. Origen takes it of all who have the same faith (Tract, in S. Matt.}. Nothing could be more alien to the meaning of Christ than to suppose Him to say that He built the Church upon Himself, or upon any other foundation than S. Peter. For (i) the demonstrative pronoun " this " is here evidently put for the relative "which". As if Christ had said : "Thou art a rock upon which I will build My Church," for Petrus and Petra are the same word, only of different genders. It may be doubted why, if not S. Matthew himself, yet the Greek translator of S. Matthew, made that distinction of word and gender. The answer is, that in the Greek TrtV/oo? and irerpa are masculine and feminine. Peter, because he was a man, could not be spoken of by the word Petra, but must be described by his own proper masculine name Petrus. (2) When Christ spoke of the foundation of the building, He called him not Petrus but Petra, though both words meant the same thing. And in buildings of this kind, the feminine form of the word is more used than the masculine — the masculine being Attic and rare. Besides, who doubts that by these words Christ meant to bestow some great and singular gift upon Peter as a reward of his confession of faith, or wished to promise such ? But what would Christ have given to him if He had only given him the name of Peter? Nay, He would not have given him the name, for, as has been shown, he was already called Peter ; but by the words, " upon this rock," He signified that He would bestow upon him the great and singular dignity of founding upon him His Church ; that is, of making him the head of the Church, and His own vicar in it. From the words that follow : " And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," it is clear that the words in question apply to Peter, for it is absurd that a change either of things or persons could be made by so few words. As, then, Christ said, " I will give unto thee the keys," so He said, "Upon this rock," that is, upon thee, " I will build My Church ". He gave him the same thing in different words, and by different metaphors, that he should be His vicar in the Church. This dignity (prior to that of the foundation), when He said, " Upon this rock I will build My Church," He afterwards confirmed by the metaphor of chief or head of the Church, when He gave him the keys like those of a city : Christ Himself being both head and foundation of the Church ; by which two names and metaphors, not two, but one and the same thing is signified. It may be asked why Christ did not directly, and in one word, say : " Upon thee will I build My Church " ? The obvious reply is, that the grace and force of His words would in that case have been lost These consisted in Christ's using terms applicable to a building when speaking of the Church as a building ; but it would not have been consistent to say, " Upon thee," for buildings are not founded upon men, but upon rocks, as S. Jerome says. Besides, if the meaning were "upon this rock," that is, upon this faith, or upon Myself, it would be very greatly in favour of the opponent who thinks that Peter spoke not for himself alone, but for all the Apostles ; which, it must be confessed, some of the ancient Fathers thought as well (S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, in loc. ; S. Augustin, Serm. xiii. de verb. Doin. ap. S. Matt.\ who shall shortly be commented on with due respect. We have now to refute the errors of the followers of Calvin. If Peter spoke for all, why did not Christ say to all, " Blessed are ye " ? Why were not the names of all changed ? Why was it not said to all, " To you I give the keys " ? Again, when Christ asked all, why did not all reply ? Especially when a little before, when He asked whom men said that He was, not only Peter, but all, or as many as would, answered : " Some say John the Baptist, others Elias, others Jeremias, or one of the Prophets ". All other authors, then, have seen more correctly that Peter answered for himself alone. Not that the others did not believe the same thing, and would have said it, had not Peter anticipated them ; but that Peter, with a great faith, was the first to break out with a confession. These authors meant this alone, when they said that he answered for all, and called him the mouth of the Apostles. It is consonant with this, that as Christ chose the twelve Apostles, after the form of the twelve Patriarchs, so He should choose one like Abraham, who, because of his great faith, was the head of all ; and that as Abraham was the foundation of the Old Testament — so Peter should be of the Church of the Gospel. For all things are equal in both. Abraham excelled in faith, so did Peter. Abram's name was changed to Abraham, as he was to be the father of many nations (Gen. xvii. 5) ; and so Peter's, who was to be the father and head of all Christians. For the one sole reason given by the heretics for denying that the Church was founded upon Peter, that it could have no other foundation but that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus (i Cor. iii. n), is altogether false. For S. Paul (Eph. u. 20) calls the Apostles and Prophets the foundation of the Church. The heretics' interpretation of this, as meaning the faith and doctrine, is wholly perverse. For the Apostle adds : " Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone ". In these words, he signifies that in the Church, as in the foundations of other buildings, there are many stones, the first and chief corner-stone being Christ, into whom all others are united ; the second ones being the Apostles and Prophets, who are themselves built upon the first, but who were the foundation of other Christians ; as S. John says in the Apocalypse (xxi. 14), in plain words, which have not yet met with any heretical explanation. Why, then, did S. Paul not say that we are built upon Christ rather than upon the Apostles and Prophets ? The answer is easy. We are placed further from Christ in the building of the Church than from the Apostles and Prophets. For Christ is in the first place. He is the first and corner-stone. Upon Christ are the Apostles and Prophets. Upon the Apostles and Prophets are built ourselves. Lastly, except these heretics, all ancient authors teach that the Church was built upon Peter. So, then, S. Clement Rome (Ep. to James), Hippolytus (De Consum. Miindi), Dionysius (Ep. to Tim.), Tertullian (De Prcescript. and De Pudicitia), S. Cyprian (Eps. to Jubaian. and Cornell), Origen (Horn. v. on Exod.), S. Epiphanius (Anc/wrat.), S. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. de Moderat.), S. Basil (Horn, de Pcenit., and u., Against Eunom.), S. Ambrose (Serm. xlvii. dc Fide Petri, and Ixviii. de Nat. Pet. et Paul.), and the Hymn of the Church, which is said by S. Augustin to be the composition of S. Ambrose : " Hoc, ipsa petra Ecclesias Canente, culpam diluit" — "And singing this the Church's rock itself, His fault condoned ". So, S. Jerome (Ep. to Marcella against Montanus, and bk. L, Adv.Jovin^ the author of the Commentaries on the Epistles of S. Paul — which are commonly ascribed to S. Ambrose — (On Gal. u.), Leo (Serm. u. de Pet. et Paulo, Ep. to Pp. Vienna and Ep. to Geminian),\he whole Council of Chalcedon, Juvencus (Psellus ap. T/ieod., and iii., In Cant.), and lastly, those authors who are thought to have held the contrary. For S. Hilary (De Trin., vi.), when he said that Christ founded the Church upon the faith of Peter, uses these words : " After his confession of this mystery, the blessed Simon, laying it as the foundation in the edification of the Church, and receiving the keys ". — And (On Ps. cxxxi.) : " So great was Christ's zeal of suffering for the salvation of the human race, that He named Peter, with the railing of Satan " (Satancz convicio), "the first confessor of God, the foundation of the Church, the door-keeper of the kingdom of heaven, and in earthly judgment the judge of heaven ".— " O thou, happy in the naming of thy new name, blessed foundation of the Church, and rock worthy of that edification which shall destroy the laws of hell, the gates of Tartarus, and all the bars of death " (Can. xvi. on S. Matt.). And S. Chrysostom (Horn. u. on Ps. 1.) : " Hear what Christ said to Peter, the column and foundation of the faith, who, for the strength of his confession, was called Peter : ' Thou art Peter ; and upon this rock I will build My Church ' ". S. Cyril (u., On S. John xii.) : " ' Thou art Simon, the son of Jona ; thou shalt be called Cephas/ rightly showing, by the name itself, that on him, as on a rock and most firm stone, He would build His Church ". And S. Augustin (Serm. xlix. in verb. Dom. sec. Joann.} : " He said to Peter, on whom He establishes His Church, ' Peter, lovest thou Me? '" And (lib. i. 21 of Retract^} the opinion of those who should say that the Church was built upon Peter he does not disapprove. From this it appears that those authors who explain the words " upon this rock " by " this faith " received it in a different sense to these heretics. It would seem the best explanation to say that they meant that the Church was built upon the faith and confession of Peter ; that is, upon Peter because of his faith and confession, as all other authors say. We use such expressions daily, as when we say that the kingdom was built upon the faith of one man ; that is, on one man because of his faith, as S. Ambrose (De Resurrect. Fide) said : " It was not the body of Peter that walked upon the waters, but his faith ; for it was not his body, but his faith that made him do it ". It is clear from these words that they do not deny, as the heretics do, that S. Peter is the foundation of the Church. It may be said : If all others, not only Apostles, but also Prophets, as S. Paul says, are the foundation of the Church, what in particular is given to S. Peter in those words? The answer is, that among all the Prophets and Apostles, he, after Christ, was the first foundation of the Church, and fills Christ's place in His absence. But when others are a foundation also, nothing less could be given to him than that he should be the second foundation-stone after Christ, and in the same way in which Christ is such ; that is, that not only one part, but the whole Church, should rest on him (niteretur}. There is this difference, that Christ is the foundation by His own power, Peter by Christ's ; and Christ rests on no other foundation, but Peter rests on another, that is, Christ.
My Church. Christ calls the Church His, to show that He was God, and the Lord of the Church, as Theophylact has rightly shown.
And the gates of hell. That by the gates of hell all the powers of the devil is meant is beyond question ; but it is doubtful why, by the word " gates," powers is signified, and why Christ did not call it by its proper name of power, but by a metaphorical one of the gates. The reason may be easily conjectured. Christ speaks of the Church as if it were some city. The gates were the strongly fortified parts of the city (as in Ps. cxlvii. 13) ; and because cities were most commonly taken through the gates, as Gen. xxii. 17, xxiv. 60: " Thy seed shall possess the gates of thine enemies " ; that is shall possess the cities of their enemies ; and Judges v. 8 ; 3 Kings viii. 37. For this reason, therefore, the power of the devil is not called the power, but the gates of hell. But why is it called hell, and not the devil, who is the enemy of the Church, as Moses said? (Gen. xxii. 17). This also is easy. Because, as Christ speaks of the Church, He speaks of hell, where the devil rules, as if of some city, as Ps. cvi. 16 : " Because he hath broken gates of brass, and burst iron bars ". For these are two cities : one of God, the other of the devil, of which S. Augustin wrote his books.
Shall not prevail. Shall not overcome, or have the mastery. The meaning of these words does not appear to be that which most authors, except S. Hilary, seem to suppose. For they think that the meaning is, that the power of the devil may try The Church, but will never be able to overcome it, never to oppress it. This meaning, though true, is poor, and does not fill up the place and words of Christ. Christ seems to have intended something better. For gates do not over come, but resist ; so that it is not the power of offending, but of defending, that must be meant by the gates. The meaning, then, seems to be that there will be a time when the Church, founded by Christ upon a rock, shall so take by storm all the power of the devil that he will be able by no power and no arts to resist. The Hebrew is PD 7O*n7 that is, will not be able to resist it. It is clear that S. Hilary is of this opinion. The Church, he says, shall break to pieces all the laws and gates of hell, and all the bonds of death. By the gates of hell, that is, the power of the devil, some of the Ancients understand heresies ; as S. Epiphanius (In Anckorat.). Others, vices, as S. Ambrose (De Bon. Mortis., chap, xii., and Comments, on S. Luke, ix.). Others both, as Origen (Tract. \. on S. Matt.), S. Jerome, and Bede. Others, the blasphemies of heretics and their persecution of the Church, as Euthymius. Others, all persecutors of the Church, as Theophylact. It is better not to narrow the meaning, but to understand generally all the power of the devil.
Against it. Origen (Tract. i. on S. Matt.) and S. Chrysostom (Horn. W.) think that the relative is to be referred either to the rock or to the Church. Doubtless to the latter, which the ancient authors think more probable, and the rest think true ; although Christ said that the gates of hell should not prevail against the Church, because it was founded upon a rock (as above, vu. 24, 25) ; except that there it is said that that house resisted the rains and waves and winds, and here that the Church shall not only resist hell, but shall take it by storm, because it is founded upon a strong rock. For the Church and hell are spoken of, as we have said, as like two cities or strong citadels, near to and at war with oneanother ; of which the one that hath the better foundation, and is the most strongly fortified, shall take the other.
16:19
And I will give to thee the keys. The power of opening and shutting the kingdom of heaven is called the keys by metaphor (S. Luke xi. 52). The same power is immediately expressed by the other metaphor of binding and loosing. The question is, in what this power consists ? The followers of Luther and Calvin say that it means (merely) the teaching that their sins have already been forgiven, or that they will be if we believe the Gospel. But if so, Christ, in giving Peter the keys, gives him nothing more than that which the Scribes and Pharisees had before (xxiii. 2, and 5. Luke xi. 52) : " Woe to you lawyers, for you have taken away the key of knowledge ; you yourselves have not entered in, and those that were entering in you have hindered ". It has been proved, however, that Christ not only gave more to Peter than to the Scribes and Pharisees, but more even than to the other Apostles. Something, then, is meant by the power of the keys more than the power of teaching. Besides, Christ gave this power not only to the twelve Apostles, but also to the seventy-two disciples (S. Luke x. i). But the keys and the power of binding and loosing He gave to the Apostles alone. Thus, the power of binding and loosing and the power of teaching are not one and the same power. Besides, Christ had already given the power of teaching to the Apostles (x. 7) ; but that of the keys He had not given. It has been shown that the Apostles had had given to them a general power of teaching ; but the use of it was restricted for a time, that they should not go among the Gentiles, because it was not fitting that the Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles before it had been preached to the Jews. Supposing a special power only to have been given to them, what would it have to do with the present question ? Certainly, if to teach and to remit sins be one and the same thing, wherever they could teach they could also forgive sins. But we see that the power of teaching had been given them, but the power of the remission of sins had not been given. Therefore they are not the same power. We see, also, that in this place where the keys are given, and with them the power of binding and loosing, no mention is made of teaching. On the other hand (xxviii. 19, and 5. Mark xvi. 15), where the Apostles are commanded to preach the Gospel to every creature, no mention is made of the keys, or of binding and loosing. For, from the words of S. John (xx. 22, 23), we learn that Christ, when He sent the Apostles, said : " Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them ; and whose sins ye retain, they are retained." Though it was said to be about the same time, it was not said to have been actually the same. Besides, as in many other instances, S. John relates this as having been passed over by the other Evangelists. It is not the least argument that the power of remitting sins was given to the Apostles with a different ceremony to that of teaching. For, when He gave the former, He is said to have breathed upon the Apostles, and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost ". But when He gave the latter, He is not said to have either breathed upon them nor given them the Holy Spirit. The power of teaching, then, was different to that of remitting sins. Add to this, that if men only remit sins in this manner by teaching, whoever teaches another, even if the teacher be a woman, will remit sins, which is both unheard of and most senseless. Again, if to teach is to loosen, that is, to remit sins, not to teach is to bind, that is, to retain them. So that everyone who does not teach has the power of binding, that is, of retaining sins. Again, if to teach is to loosen, and not to teach is to bind, Christ had not given the Apostles power to bind when He commanded them to teach all nations ; that is (if their opinion be true), to loosen all, and to bind none. To what end was this power of binding, if no one were to be bound ? It follows, from their own opinion, that the saying of Christ was false. For if to teach is to loosen, it is not the case that whatever the Apostles loosed upon earth would be loosed in heaven ; for how many have been taught well whose sins, for their unbelief, have not been loosed in heaven ! Nay, how many who have believed and been well taught, and have believed rightly, will be lost ! Finally, those whom we read of as having been bound in Scripture, were not bound either by teaching or not teaching. S. Paul bound the Corinthian (i Cor. v. 5). He bound those heretics (i Tim. i. 20), not by teaching, but by delivering them to Satan, when he had taught them well before; as now the Catholic Church binds the heretics with whom we are now at issue by excommunicating them, that is, by delivering them over to Satan. So far one of these heretics on this passage has been answered. The second is their denial that anything was given to S. Peter by these words, which was not given equally to all the other Apostles. This has to be answered, not by disputing the words, " Upon this rock," of which enough has been said, and proof shown that it was given to Peter alone, that the Church should be built upon him. We are now to treat of the words : " I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ". By these words, I maintain, against the opinion of the followers of Calvin, and even of some Catholics, that the primacy of the Church was given to Peter ; not that these Catholics deny it, but because they think it not to have been given him but in the preceding words, " Upon this rock I will build My Church " ; and that the keys were not given to S. Peter alone, but to all the Apostles collectively. It appears that in both forms of words the primacy of the Catholic Church was given to Peter. The words mean this. For the keys of a house or city are given into the keeping of the chief of the house or city. Therefore, the primacy is signified in Scripture by the keys, as in Isaiah xxii. 22 : "I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder"; that is, I will give to him the supreme power in the kingdom of heaven. The words, " Upon his shoulder," when keys are not laid upon the shoulder but carried in the girdle, are used, as is frequently the case in Scripture, by a confusion of two metaphors, signifying one and the same thing ; one of the keys, the other of the sceptre ; each of which terms expresses the supreme power ; and because the sceptre is laid upon the shoulder, He says that He would place the keys of the house of David on his shoulder, as in Isaiah ix. 6 : " And the government is upon his shoulder ". In the same sense Christ says (Apoc. i. 18) that He has the keys of death and hell ; that is, that He is the Lord of life and death ; and (iii. 7) that He has the keys of David : " He that hath the key of David ; He that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth". In this sense, then, the keys were given to Peter ; that is, the supreme power in the Church, that he might shut and no man open, and that he might open and no man shut ; that is, that no man should loose what he has bound, and no man bind what he has loosed. Hence, the power of the Roman Pontiff is most effectually proved ad reservatos casus ; and hence it is concluded that to Peter alone it was said in this place : " I will give to thee the keys of heaven and hell " ; and so said as if they were not to be given to any other, because he alone answered : " Thou art Christ the Son of the living God " ; as it was said to him alone : " On this rock I will build My Church ". For by both metaphors, one of the foundation, and the other of the keys, one and the same primacy is signified, and the explanation of one is that of the other. 2. It cannot be denied that the other Apostles had also their own keys ; that is, the power of binding and loosing ; as all ancient authors teach, saying that the keys were given to all ; but I deny that they had the keys which are now in question, and that those which all Catholics call keys, and rightly so, but in a different sense, are ever called keys in Scripture. It is a most unanswerable proof of the truth of this, that when Christ gave the other Apostles (xviii. 18; vS. John xx. 23) the power of binding and loosing, He made no mention of the keys. Peter alone, therefore, had those keys by which he so opened that no one could shut, and so shut that no one could open. So, in a house, all or many have their own keys, but the master alone has all the keys, and the secret ones, by which, when he wills, he can so shut that no one can open, and so open that no one can shut. 3. The third error of the followers of Calvin is that the power which was given to S. Peter was not given also to his successors ; and therefore, even if it be granted that Peter had the primacy of the Church, it does not follow that his successors had the same, but that this power was given (to use his own words) to Peter personally. Tertullian (De Pudicitia) seems to say the same, but he spoke not as a Catholic, but as a heretic, when he deserted the camp of the Church to join that of Montanus. S. Jerome (Lit. de Script. Eccl.) says that that work of Tertullian was written against the Church. We have shown that the keys and the rock upon which Christ built the Church mean the same thing. Who is so senseless as to believe that Christ built an immortal Church upon a mortal man, after whose death the Church must necessarily fall into ruins ? Not upon Peter alone, then, but upon him and his successors was the Church founded ; and as these will never fail, the Church will remain for ever. The same must be said of the keys which, as we have said, mean the same thing. How, too, did Christ give this power to Peter alone and to his successors ? For He instituted His Church ; He instituted her officers ; and that not to the honour of persons, but to the good of the Church. These were to endure as long as the Church herself, especially that which, as it is the greatest of all, so it was the most necessary of all : the head of the Church, who was also to be its foundation. There fore, as the other and lesser offices were not to be transferred to later ages, it was yet necessary that this should be so, as all ancient writers teach. 4. The fourth error of these men is the denial that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter. They say that Peter was either never at Rome at all, or if he were, it cannot be shown that whoever was the Roman Pontiff then was his immediate successor. This error shall be confuted elsewhere. Here we simply bid the assertors fight against the whole world. For there never was any before them, Catholic or heretic, who did not affirm — (i) That Peter died at Rome ; (2) That the Roman Pontiffs were his successors. As the Wise Man says therefore (Wisdom v. 21): "The whole world shall fight with him against the unwise ".
And whatsoever thou shalt bind. This is a metaphorical saying, by which the same thing is signified as was contained in the two former verses, that Peter had the supreme power of remitting or retaining sins ; but I do not consider that it was said to Peter in the same sense as that in which it was said to the other Apostles, though all authors apparently, except Origen, take it so ; but in the sense in which the Church was built upon Peter alone, and in which to him alone were given the keys, so to bind as no one should be able to loose, and in so to loose as no one should be able to bind. This is to be proved by the same arguments as we have used already to prove his primacy. It is asked in what the power of binding and loosing consists ? S. Thomas, in his Commentaries, has noticed three errors on the subject to be marked and avoided. 1. That of those who appear arrogantly to think that the priesthood can arbitrarily bind or loose whomsoever they please ; and that every act of theirs, whether right or wrong, will be ratified in heaven. And if we look at the mere words, they do seem to bear this meaning. For " Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven". But it is not so. For Christ only intended to give to Peter first, and then to the other Apostles, to perform His offices as if He were on earth : binding those that were to be bound, and loosing those who were to be loosed ; with this sole exception, that Christ would bind or loose in His own power, the Apostles in another's, that is, Christ's. From the fact, then, that He gave over to them His own functions, we understand that they should bind and loose, not according to their own judgment, but according to His ; so that, as S. Cyprian rightly says : " Let no one prejudge Christ the Judge ". This is what theologians and Doctors of the Church call " Clave non errante ". 2. The second error is, that to bind or to loose is nothing else than the declaration that men are already bound or loosed by God, as, in the Old Testament, the priest neither made nor healed the leper, but merely declared that he was actually a leper, or was truly healed of his leprosy. This error is confuted by the passage before us. For, if this were so, and the priest could only loose and bind in this manner, Christ would not have said, " Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven," but, " What is bound in heaven you shall bind on earth ". But, as He says, on the contrary, " Whatsoever you shall bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven, and what soever you shall loose on earth it shall be loosed also inheaven," He signifies most clearly that it shall be loosed by the Apostles on earth before it is loosed by God inheaven. This was a gift befitting the Apostles, as representing the Person of Christ, that, as when Christ Himself was on earth, whatever He loosed on earth was loosed by the Father in heaven, so, when He had returned to heaven, whatever the Apostles loosed on earth should be loosed by Him also in heaven. I do not think that the opinion of S. Jerome was at all different, nor that he would have countenanced the above error, but that he only desired to confute the former one. 3. The third error is that, " as in sin there are two things — the fault, and the penalty of eternal punishment — and a man is absolved from both by contrition, the eternal punishment being commuted into a temporal one, the priest can do no more by his absolution than diminish some part of the temporal penalty ". This is easily answered, for Christ said (S. John xx. 23) : " Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them ; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained ". The priest, then, remits not only the penalty but the fault. Nor ought it to appear more wonderful, the priest doing this by the sacrament of penitence than by that of baptism, as S. Ambrose says against the Novatians (lib. i. 2, De Pcenit^]. It may be objected that, as the priest, when he binds, does not make men sinners, but only declares them to be such, so, when he absolves, he does not make men righteous, but only declares that they are so, and absolved from their sins. The answer may be that this is not a sequitur. For the power of binding and loosing was given to the Apostles, not for the righteous, but for sinners. For those who are righteous, that is, who are loosed, God will not have bound. But those who are sinners, that is, who are bound, He desires to have loosed, if they are worthy, and to be bound, if they are unworthy. Besides, the priest is notable to bind and to loose in the same way. He cannot bind in the same manner as that in which he looses. He looses by truly loosing ; he binds by not loosing, that is, not by causing, but as S. John says, by retaining sins.
On earth. Some conclude from this that the power of the Church of binding and loosing does not apply to the dead, because they are not upon earth, that is, under the jurisdiction of the Church. So says Strabo, the author of what is termed the ordinary gloss. Whether this be so or not, it can only be said at present that this conclusion does not follow from the words in question, for the words " on earth " are to be referred, not to those who are bound or loosed, but to those who bind or loose ; as if Christ had said, " What ever you who are living on earth shall bind or loose shall be bound or loosed by God, who dwells in heaven," or, more briefly, " Whatever is loosed or bound by you men shall be loosed or bound by God ". For men are signified by "earth," and God by "heaven". It is an elegant antithesis by which, from the great distance between heaven and earth, the power given to the Apostles is commended. As if a prince should say to some dependant : " Whatever you do, even in the Indies, I shall value very highly," to show how thoroughly he confided in him, and how ample power he gave to him. For we are less used to ratify what is done in our absence, in our name, by some CH.XVI.IQ.] THE KEYS. 51 one else, than if we were present or at hand. Servants, the longer their master is away, are the more apt to take greater licence, as the parable shows (S. Matt. xxiv. 48, 49). Two premisses ought to be fixed and certain : 1. That the Church has the power of excommunicating even the dead — that is, of depriving them of the prayers of the Church, which seems to have been always practised by SS. Cyprian and Augustin ; and, 2. That the Church has the power of freeing those who are in purgatory by her prayers. This passage is also one from which the practice of ecclesiastical confession is most clearly proved. For this power which was given to the Apostles could not have been exercised without their knowledge of the sinners, nor could the sins, which are for the most part secret, be known without the explicit confession of the sinner. Thus all the ancient Fathers have based on this passage the practice of penance ; e.g., S. Cyprian (Serm. on "Lapsed"}, S. Athanasius (Horn, on the words, " Go into the village"}, S. Basil (Ep. to Amp/iilock.). We may add that Christ, in these words, not only gave the Apostles the power of absolving, but He laid upon all Christians the obligation of confession. The meaning, then, will be not only that whatever the Apostles loosed on earth, He Himself would loose inheaven : but also that He would neither loose nor bind anything in heaven, except what His Apostles or their successors had loosed or bound on earth. For He bestowed on them His own power to govern the Church for Him. So that He would have everyone who needed forgiveness come to the Apostles or their successors as if to Him, if He were on earth, and seek from them absolution when they had made their confession, as, if He were living on earth, He would absofve no one from his sins unless he had first made confession of them. But He as God could do so without that sacrament, the Apostles as men could only do so through the sacrament ; as if that were the hand of Christ ; that is, as if a king when sending some minister to a distant province to govern for him, should say : " Whatever you do I approve," and he should give orders to the people to refer any question or difference to his substitute as to himself, and plead all causes before him ; not that he deprived himself of his power, so that he could not judge a cause if he pleased, but that, by the transference of all ordinary power to his substitute, he reserved the extraordinary to himself. This is to be understood of Christ and the Apostles. The ordinary remedies instituted in the Church for the remission of sins are the sacraments, without which men cannot remit them. Christ is able to do this, but He does it extra ordinarily, and very much more rarely than through the sacraments. For He would not have men trust to extra ordinary means, which are both rare and uncertain, for the remission of sins ; but He would have them seek the ordinary, and, so to say, the visible aids of the sacraments. And He has, therefore, given the precept, as of baptism and the Eucharist, so of confession and penance.
16:20
That they should tell no man. Why Christ so frequently forbade His acts, which clearly discovered Him to be the Son of God, to be made public has been explained (viii. 4 ; ix. 30). Why He forbade it now, we learn from S. Mark (viii. 30), S. Luke (ix. 20), and S. Matthew in verse following. For all these three Evangelists relate that Christ, immediately on Peter's confession that He was the Son of God, began to explain to them how He must suffer many things at Jerusalem, and be put to death. From this, it is concluded that He would not have the Apostles publish it, that He was the Son of God, lest the hearers, if they should afterwards see Him dying, CH.xvi.2o.] CHRIST FORETELLS HIS PASSION. 53 should be offended by that weakness of the flesh and lose their faith. For, while He was hanging on the Cross, some of those who had heard that He was the Son of God, said (xxvii. 40) : " If Thou be the Son of God, come down from the Cross ". Christ would not have that happen to all at His death which did happen to some. This is the reason that S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, and Bede give. A double question here arises, i. Why (chap. x. 7) He sent the Apostles to preach the kingdom of God, which was nothing but the coming of the Son of God ? 2. Why He so often called Himself the Son of God, or called God His Father, if He would not have men know that He was the Son of God ? The heretic who answers that that mission was merely temporal, says nothing to the purpose. For, what does it matter whether it were temporal or eternal, if they preached the Advent of the Son of God ? Origen (Tract, i. on S. Matt.} answers, that the Apostles preached not Christ, but the kingdom of God. S. Jerome, on the contrary, says that they preached Christ indeed, but not Jesus ; that is, they taught that He was a righteous man, a Prophet, the author of many extraordinary miracles, the Messiah promised by God ; but not that He was the Son of the living God : that is, the true essential God by nature, which Peter now confessed Him to be ; for perhaps even the Apostles themselves, at that time, did not under stand this. And He now forbade them to say that He was Jesus Christ, as is found in some copies. For Jesus is the name of God, and means the Saviour ; Christ is the name of the Man. The reason seems a good one, and is approved by S. Ambrose (On S. Luke ix.) and Euthymius. It is certain that before His passover, Christ never told His disciples to preach that He was the Son of God, and He never very openly said so ; because, while some were offended at His calling God His Father, He derided their halting opinion by the ambiguity of the term, as in S.Jokn x- 34) 35 1 36 : " Is it not written in your law, I said you are gods ? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God was spoken, and the Scripture cannot be broken, do you say of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God?"
16:21
From that time. It is plain that the Evangelist wished to show that Christ, from the time when Peter confessed Him to be the Son of God, began to speak of His coming death, and not once, but very frequently, to admonish the Apostles as to what was to happen ; as if the Evangelist had said, from that time He did not keep the knowledge back as a secret that He must suffer, but spoke of it openly and plainly. We may ask why He did so at this time rather than before ? The reason is obvious, as S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact show. It was because He had not been sufficiently known by the Apostles, or declared by public confession to be the Son of God by nature ; and it was to be feared that if He had made mention of the shame of His future death, they might be offended, or leave Him, or behindered in the course of their faith. But why afterwards ? For the same reason clearly ; for when they had confessed Him to be the Son of God, they seemed to be prepared for having the mystery of His impending death explained to them. It was very necessary that this should be done, lest afterwards, if they had not been forewarned and had seen Him suffer, they might have doubted of His Divinity, as has been observed by Theophylact. He did the same at another time, and for a similar cause (S. John xvi. i). Some give another reason : that by His own example Christ might strengthen His disciples, as is learnt from verse 24 and I S. Peter u. 21.
Must. Not absolutely, but from His Father's will, by which He must suffer and die for the salvation of men (S. Luke xxiv.
16:22
And taking Him. npocr\ap6/j.ei>os, separating or leading Him apart, as if he did not venture to blame Him before the others. So say S. Chrysostom and Jerome, Bede and Euthymius. TIapd 7rpocr\aiJi(3dveiv in the Scriptures is often used to express compassion, as Rom. xiv. I : " Now him that is weak in faith, take unto you," that is, to take compassion ; xv. 7 : " Wherefore receive one another," take him to you, or practise mutual compassion one to another. This agrees well with the context that Peter, when he heard of Christ's approaching sufferings, moved with compassion, that is, " receiving Him," began to dissuade Him. This meaning is adopted by S. Jerome. " S. Peter," he says, " receiving Christ into his sympathy."
Began to rebuke Him. Not as blaming Him, but as a friend giving Him counsel, as Bede and Euthymius think. SS. Chrysostom and Jerome speak of the modesty of Peter on this occasion ; for, as before (verse 16), in confessing Christ to be the Son of God, he had shown greater faith than the rest of the Apostles, so he now showed more love for Him.
Lord, be it far from Thee. Our version could not have rendered better the Greek tXeco? CTOL No doubt the Greek translator of 6". Matthew borrowed the expression from the LXX. ; for these used it in two places and senses — (i) when it meant pax tibi, from the Hebrew DJ? Dlvttf (as in Gen. xliii. 23) ; or (2) when it meant JlT^n " prohibition," that is, absit (as in I Kings xiv. 45 ; xx. 2, 9). It is, therefore, a word of aversion and deprecation against what is threatened from happening.
16:23
Who turning. That is, looking back (as 5. Mark viii. 33). It is perhaps a Hebraism by which a contrary answer is given, as if the Evangelist had said that Peter rebuked Christ because He would suffer, but Christ on the other part rebuked Peter because he would not have Him suffer (as Ps. Ixx. 2. ; Ixxxiv. 7) : that is, as Thou first destroyedst us, so now on the other hand Thou shalt bring us back again. Go behind Me. a Hebrew expression, meaning properly " Follow Me," as S. Hilary explains it ; as if Christ had said : " Thou oughtest rather to follow Me and imitate My suffering than call Me away from it". Origen (Tract, i. on S. Matt.} and S. Jerome (in his Commentaries) so explain it. So too S. Augustin (Serin, xiii. de verb. Dom. sec. Matt.} ; for he renders it, " Retire behind Me ". It is certain that they are the words of one commanding another to go back, as Christ had said to Satan before (w. 10).
Satan. S. Hilary shrank from the idea of the name of Satan having been given to S. Peter ; and he takes the passage as if Christ had said to Peter " Vade retro'' and then turned, as it were, to the devil who had put it into the mind of Peter to dissuade Him from death, and said : " Satan, thou art an offence unto Me '.'. This is the more to be wondered, because in his Comments, on the Psalms (cxxxi.) he says that Peter himself had been called Satan. We may wonder with S. Augustin (Serm. xiii. de verb. Dom. sec. S. Matt.} why Christ in so short a time called the same Peter both blessed and Satan. S. Jerome says that the Church was not yet built on him, and that he therefore erred, and could be called Satan. S. Augustin and Theophylact say that he was called " blessed " because not flesh and blood, but the Father in heaven had revealed it to him, and " Satan " when he savoured not of the things of God, but of the things of men.
16:24
Then. That is, before He rebuked Peter, as would appear from S. Luke, who has placed these words before the rebuke of Peter (ix. 23), although S. Chrysostom and Theophylact think otherwise.
To His disciples. S. Luke (ix. 23) says He said to them all, and S. Mark (viii. 34). This divarication between the two Evangelists may be explained in two ways. Either that Christ spoke to the Apostles alone in the presence of the multitude, and before witnesses, or that He wished what He said addressed to the Apostles especially, but that the multitude thought that what He said to His Apostles was said to themselves also.
If any man will. S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact rightly observe that our free-will is fully established by these words.
Let him deny himself. The meaning of these words has been variously explained. S. Jerome and Bede (in loc.\ S. Gregory (Horn, xon Ezekiel\ think the meaning to be simply the putting off of the old man, and the putting on of the new. " Then," says Bede, " do we deny ourselves when we avoid what we were before, and strive for that to which we are called anew." But it is clear that the present subject was not the manner of our lives, but of our deaths, as is shown by verse 25. S. Chrysostom shows better what it is to deny ourselves from the denying of others. To deny others is to despise and forsake them, to take no account or care for them, to think their lives of no consequence. This is the same as to deny ourselves ; to hold ourselves of no value ; to despise life for the sake of Christ when need be, as is urged on us in verse 25. For Christ does not call the soul self there, but the life of the body, which we ought to hold in contempt that our souls may live. For he who will save his life, that is, the life of his body, shall lose it, that is, the life of his soul; as is explained in chap. x. 38, 39.
16:26
Suffer the loss of his own soul. A metaphor from the courts. For if a man sue for any property, however precious, and also for his life, it would profit him little to gain the former but lose his life ; and the question here is one of judgment, from what follows in verse 27.
Or what exchange shall a man give. A metaphor taken either from the courts or from war. In the former a man may redeem his life for money ; but for the life of the soul in the judgment of God no money and no compensation can be received, nor can God the Judge of all be corrupted by bribes. In war, too, the vanquished often redeem their lives by ransom. But in the judgment he cannot so buy himself off. For what exchange shall he give for his soul ? Christ plays upon the double meaning of the terms, and argues tacitly from the life of the body to the life of the soul. For the word " life " (ammo) means either, as in the preceding verse, and in chap. x. 38, 39 ; as if it were said: As for the life of the body in war or in judgment, no one can make a really equivalent compensation, much less can he make one for the life of his soul.
16:27
For the Son of man. S. Jerome thinks that Christ said this to comfort His disciples. It may rather be thought that He added it, because He had spoken of an exchange of souls which had been transferred from the judgment of the courts. He proves by these words that no exchange can be given for the soul, because it is no chance judge, but the Son of man who will come to judgment ; nor will He come in any chance manner, but in the glory of His Father and with His holy angels, so that he cannot need any of our good things. Why He is called the Son of man has been shown (viii. 20).
In the glory of His Father. " In " is a Hebraism for " with ". He calls the glory not His own, but His Father's ; either because, though it was His own, the Father had given it to Him, or, as S. Chrysostom and Euthymius think, to show that that nature was common to Him with the Father. For He calls the angels not His own, but the Father's ; but He was the Lord of the angels, was the true God, and had His glory in common with the Father. It is said that He would come in glory — as if He were not in glory then — because, although He had the same glory then, it was hidden to be revealed hereafter.
16:28
There are some of them that stand here. The word " stand," as has been said before, does not always in Scripture refer to the posture of the body, but is used for the personal presence.
That shall not taste death. A Hebraism for " shall not die ". So 5. Luke ix. 27 ; Heb. u. 9. With the Hebrews, "to see" means "to experience ". The Greeks more properly use the word ryeveo-Oai, "to taste". So the ecclesiastical writers (S. Ambrose, On S. Luke ix.) understand it of the death of the soul ; as if Christ had said : " There are some here who shall not be condemned when the Son of man comes" ; or, " who shall not sin any more until they see the Son of man come ". But this is somewhat forced.
In His kingdom. There are many opinions as to the meaning of these words. Some explain them of the last judgment, of which Christ had spoken in the preceding verse. This seems consistent with the context ; but how some of those who stood there should not die till the day of judgment does not seem so. Some think it spoken of S. John the Evangelist, whom they believe not to have died, though I only find it actually in Strabus ; and it is not in agreement with Scripture, for S. John himself seems to have confuted the idea (xxi. 23). Others explain it as referring to the period after Christ's Resurrection. For He calls that the kingdom of God because He then rose in glory (as in xxvi. 29 ; ,5*. Mark xiv. 25 ; 5. Luke xxii. 29, 30). This meets the approbation of some of the Moderns, but seems scarcely probable ; both because Christ calls it the kingdom of God, for the devil was now conquered, but not His own kingdom, for He had not yet come in His glory ; and because, if He had said that, He would have said nothing. For what wonder would it have been if some of the disciples were not to die before they saw Him risen from the dead, when not only some, but all saw Him ? For when He said, " there are some," He showed clearly that not all the disciples, but only a few, and those the elect, and those to whom were granted that singular privilege, should see that kingdom of which He spoke before they died. The opinion, therefore, of all the Ancients was true (Origen, Tr. iii. in S. Matt. ; S. Hilary, Can. xvi. , S. Chrysostom ; Bede ; Theophylact ; Euthymius, In Comm. ; S. Ambrose, ix., On S. Luke; S. Augustin, u., On Gal. ; Remigius, In S. Thomas), that the kingdom of God meant the Transfiguration, which not all, but only Peter, James, and John merited to see before they died. This may be shown from the fact that all theEvangelists immediately add, "after six days". Christ was trans figured before these three Apostles. Besides which, if the words cannot be understood of the day of judgment, or of the time of the Resurrection, they must necessarily be understood of the Transfiguration. For what Bede and S. Gregory (Ap. S. Thomant] say of the propagation of the Gospel and the Church seems foreign to the purpose. Christ calls His Transfiguration His kingdom, not because it was such properly, but because it was the image of it. It may, however, be justly doubted why Christ said, as if it were a matter of great moment, that some of those who stood by should die before they saw His kingdom if He meant His Transfiguration, which happened six days after, when not only the three who saw it, but all the Apostles were alive. The answer may be that the words may be referred to that far distant kingdom of which He had said, in the preceding verse : " The Son of man shall come in His glory ". Not to die before the sight of this kingdom was indeed a very great thing ; but that very kingdom these three Apostles did see, not in itself, but in figure ; not present, but in a glass darkly (per transennam).
16:1
EFGHKMSUVXrAIIal pier it pi syr cop arm aeth Or ; et in codd vulg : eg car lich ken rush. In v. 5 theod med tollere (panes) e emere; k imponere, q suinere ; in k pergitur : cumque unum solummodo panem haberent in navi , f regerit (iregit?) illis dicens : cavete a fermento farisaeorum et a fermento herodianorum. In v. 6 attendite vobis ken rush a b c ff 2 . In v. 8 lich ken rush : sciens... cogilationes eorum ; EJ^ETE NED; al fere omn sXaSE-rs Ti. In v. 9 lich rush nondum enim; Hier quinque panum et quinque millium h. In v. 12 Ti ?UJJLT)S TOW cpap. v.. aa88, sed solis testibus N* 33 ff * sin (cu). Denuo ostenditur perversitas et obstinatio pharisaeorum, a quorum doctrina ut discipuli sedulo caveant docentur a Christo. Nonnulli critic! (de Wette , Strauss, Scholteri) valde offeriduntur eo quod pharisaei et sadducaei dicuntur coniunctim ad Christum accessisse idque propter eorum inter se simultatem et odium tamquam fictum reiiciunt. At quam inconsiderate id fiat et quam parum illi animds hominum et mores norint , iam nobis ostendit Orig. scribens sadducaeos et pharisaeos super maximi momenti dogmatis inter se dissensisse; at eos fieri Concordes ut Iesum tentent; simile quid 1'actum esse inter Herodem et Pilatum ; nunc autem etiam persaepe in vita videre est eos qui valde contrarias sive in Graecorum philosophia sive in aliis disciplinis sententias tueiitur, in id apparere consentientes, ut Iesum Christum in eius discipulis ludlbrio habeant et oppugnent ; idemque advertit Theoph. et Maid, addit : sic nunc lutherani et calvinistae haeretici maxime inter se contrarii adversus Ecclesiam catholicam , id est corpus Christi conspirare solent ; semper enim Christus, ut ait Tertullianus , inter duos latrones crucifigitur . Atque profecto, non est alia nostri temporis conditio; sectae enim acatholicae quae inter se de rebus maximis, de ss. Trinitate , de Christo Deo etc. dissentiunt et disceptant, Concordes suntin bello movendo contra Romam ! Pharisaei autem humilitatem in Christo carnis et corporis contuentes doctrinam ex his quae sub hominis .habitu gerebat dedignantur accipere (S. Hil. Pasch.}. Eos saepius Christum tentasse ad struendas ei insidias, ~ad eum in verbo capiendum, certum est; quare non mirum pro eorum malitia, si etiam bis signum ab eo postulaverint. Idcirco plane arbitrarium est quod miilti critic! volunt liunc eventum esse eundem qui iam 12,38 sit relatus et hoc loco male repetitus (ita Strauss, de Wette, B. Bauer, Volkmar, Weizsaecker, Bleek, Scholten}. Praeterea 12,38 scribae, hie sadducaei postulant' signum neque ibi quaeri signum de caelo aliqui monent. Dicuntur autem Christum tentare; neque enim iis sibi satisfactum esse prodigiis prae se ferebant, quae in curandis omnis generis morbis et in ipsa mortuorum suscitatione patraverat et quae omnium ore celebrabantur (cf. Orig.}, sed peculiare aliquod signum de coelo expostulant , ut si eorum importunitate non cedat (prout certo scire poterant) eum calumnientur quod suam missionem non valuerit demonstrare (fans.]. Neque immerito notat Fab. etsi signum praestilisset, tamen futurum fuisse ut non ei crederent. Sicut enim alia miracula spernebant vel etiam per Beelzebub fieri dicebant , ita signum quoque de coelo calumniari poterant. Verbum ercepcorav hoc loco non habet notionem interrogandi , sed , uti simplex sptorav saepius significat irapcao&eiv (Euth.} petere, postulare, rogare, id quod infinitive quoque imft&ifyu. (spectandum praebere) aperte indicatur. Ut ostendat eos absque iusta causa signum petere coeleste et solum tentandi , non discendi causa , arguinentum promit a signis coelestibus naturalibus , ex quibus, etsi saepe fallacibus, nossent colligere dierum serenitatem aut pluviam , cum ex signis a se editis nollent intelligere tempus visitationis suae quod signa ilia secundum prophetarum oraciila certissime significabant (cf. fans.) ; respondet itaque
16:2
v. 2 facto vespere dicitis : serenum erit, eu&a, per exclamationem : serenitas ! coelum enim rubet
16:3
v. 3 et mane : hodie tempestas, nam coelum nubibus tec turn rubet; cur isti versus desint apud aliquos testes (vide lect. var.), inde forte explicatur quod Marc. 8,12 nihil tale legitur; sed quod ibi habetur ingemuit spiritu , ab intimo corde propter incurabilem illorum malitiam (Etith.}, omnino-eum animi affectum depingit qui in hoc arguendi genere exprimitur et qui est similis ei quem Dominus ler. 8,8 enuntiat. Versus autem hos esse ortos vel interpolates ex Luc. 12,54-56, ipsa sententiarum varietate refutatur. Ad rem notat Lightfoot : curiosi admodum erant ludaei in observandis tempestatibus coeli et temperamento aeris ; varies locos talmudicos ipse affert et Wimsche p. 193. Concludit Christus
16:4
v. 4 faciem ergo coeli diiudicare potestis , signa autem temporum non potestis (scire}*! dignoscere valent quid varius coeli aspectus portendat; non solum autem .in hominum corporibus , sed etiam in rerum cuiusquemodi aliaruin fades dicitur ; nam mentis et coeli et marisfacies, si tempestive dicatur, probe dicitur (Gellius, noct. att. 13,29). Signa temporum .quibus Messias cognosci possit aliqui intelligunt eius miracula (S. Chrys. Euth.}, alii vaticinia prophetarum quae iam impleantur (S. Hier. Bed. Alb.}, plerique merito utraque coniungunt (S. Pasch. Br. Thorn. Fab. Dion. Iam. Maid. Lap.}, uti iam S. Hil. : omnis lex et prophetae adventus (Messiae) indicia ex operum quae gereret admiratione significant, ut quemadmodum fidem tempestatis coeli vel matutini vel vesper-is rubor redderet, ita manifestam temporum cognitionem virtutum atque operum indicia praestare debeant . Hisce adde ipsam exspeciationem messianam quae adeo eo tempore vigebat et quae ex Danielis vaticinio (Fab. Dion.} orta esse iure censetur (cf. meum Comment, in Dan. p. 265), adde praedicationem et testimonia loannis baptistae quae de Iesu repetito edidifc, adde magnam illam populi commotionem et vetierationem loannis , adde multa quibus Iesus praeter miracula verbis se Messiam declaravit baud obscure (vide 4,17; 5,17 seq. 7,22 seq. 9,15-17; 11,3. 27; 12,8. 28. 42 etc.). Gum igitur tot ac tatfi perspicua signa praesto sint, merito eis respondit, uti antea 12,39 : generatio mala et adultera; mala, qiiia tentantes rogant, adultera, ut deficiens a Deo et adhaerens diabolo (Theoph. cf. loan. 8,44 : vos ex patre diabolo estis) de signo lonae'vide ad 12,39 seq. Cum igitur videant signa fieri quae nullis aliis temporibus facta surit et adhuc tamen signum quaerant (S. Br.}, quamvis tot exsistant indicia temporis messiani, merito malevolos illos et obstinatos relinquit Iesus : et relictis illis dbiit; non sicut locis aliis legitur : dimissis turbis abiit; sed quia infidelitatis error insolentium animos obtinebat, non dimisisse eos scribitur, sed reliquisse (S. Hit.}. Atque postquani eos confutavit, docet quoque eos esse sedulo vitandos (S. Thorn.)
16:5
v. 5 et cum venissent discipuli ems trans f return , id est, ex regione Gennesareth 15,39 in partem lacus Tiberiadis orientalem, obliti sunt panes accipere; ex versione latina cum venissent, concludendum esset, eos advectos ad litus orientale indeque ultra proficiscentes esse oblitos panes secum tollere. Sed ex graeco id non sequitur : eXQovrs? id est ut iam Orig. explicant aTCiovre? : cum abirent, cum transfretarent , obliti sunt. Id etiam magis ad loci conditionem aptum est. Pars occidentalis a lacu erat valde fertilis et maxime habitata ; non ita pars a lacu orientalis ; ibi erant discipuli in sua patria inter amicos et notos; hie non ita; dein viaticum comparari solet ante profectionem. Atque ita rem esse concipiendam, ex Marc. 8,14 indubie colligitur. Perperam hie quoque aliqui critici statuunt Matthaei narrationem opponi Marco eique contradicere. Nam sXOovTe; potest omnino ita accipi , ut Orig. do'cet et ep^ecQai revera adhibetur. notione proficiscendi (Marc. 7,31) vel eundi etiam apud scriptores profanos; atque eo modo concipiunt sententiam Maid. lans. Lap. Lamy, Schegcj, Schanz. Alii srce^aQovTo explicant plusquamperfectum : obliti erant (Keil) , id quod usui graeco quidem non repugnat , at hie necessarium non est. Cur sint obliti, alii causam reddunt ex animis discipulorum a curis terrenis iam satis avulsis (lans.), alii ex eo quod Christus celeriter et inexspectato eos iusserit transfretare , id quod probabilius est(cf. Schegg, Fil.}. lam enim tertio Christus se confert in partem lacus orientalem , ut evitet insidias et interpellatores molestos (cf. 14,13; 15,29). Bum enim nunc quoque declinare insidias pharisaeorum , ex eo quoque redditur probabile , quia dum irent cogitationes suas ad eos intendit. Iterum enim eorum malitiam expertus , cuius testes discipuli quoque fuerunt, monet v. 6 intuemini, opare, animum attendite et cavete a fermento pharisaeorum et sadducaeorum /
16:7
v. 7 at illi cogitabant intra .se dicentes, quia panes non accepimus, aliqui supplent : ita loquitur, adeo ut O'TI sit revera particula causalis ; quam explicationem quorundam etiam lans. affert neque tamen probat ; at nihil obstat quominus earn cum recentioribus (Schegy, Bisp. Schanz,FiL Weiss, Keil) adoptemus : quia panes non accepimus, ideo baec dicit. Cum habeatur &ieXoyiovTo Xsyovres r^ disceptabant dicentes inter se , non erit cum vulg. explicandum de solis cogitationibus (uti tamen Orig. concipit) , sed potius de colloquiis inter se habitis, id quod Marc. 8,16 &t,sXoyiovTo Tirpog a.X^^ous clare indicatur (cf. lans. Maid. Lap. et recentiores) . Existimant itaque se moneri ne ab illis accipiant panem et Christum advertentem non haberi panes ita esse locutum ; adhuc enim purgationibus iudaicis erant addicti nee non ciborum observationibus (S. Chri/s.} ; putant itaque se prohiberi panes edere iudaicos, ideoque turbantur dicentes : panes non sumpsimus a fidelibus qui nos hospitio excipiunt (Euth.}. De panibus itaque pharisaeorum vel ludaeorum discipulos loqui plerique interpretantur, idque recte ut videtur, cum hoc ex v. 6 et 12 sequi videatur. Aliter tamen de solo pane accip} potest; discipulis soil, audita fermenti voce in mentem venisse neglectos panes ideoque trepidantes inter se dixisse : hei quandoquidem fermenti fit mentio , nobis in mentem venit panes nos non accepisse pro commeatu (lans.} et Schanz notat in regione orientalinon fuisse pharisaeos, et discipulos ex sermone Christi solum vocem panis assumere nee cerni cur discernendum sit inter panem pharisaeorum et ludaeorum. Sed cum Schanz censeat cum plerisque orationem imperfectam v. 7 esse perficiendam : quia panes non accepimus, haec dicit, immerito negat cogitandum esse de panibus pharisaeorum. Si sola voce fermenti discipulis de panibus in mentem venit , tune explicari oportet O'TI recitativum et per modum exclamationis : panes non habemus! uti loqui solent qui subito advertunt se aliquid neglexisse. Iesus autem sciens trepidationem eos reprehendit
16:8
v. 8 quid cogitatis intra vos TI ^taXoy^eG0e quid disceptatis inter vos, modicae fidei, quia panes non habetis? in hac ergo trepidatione bis erant reprehendendi discipuli, videlicet quod et carnaliter intelligerent quod dicebatur de fermento pharisaeorum, cum prius dictum illis esset : non quod intrat in os coinquinat hominem , et quod inciderint in sollicitudinem victus, cum secum eum haberent cuius potentiam iam bis experti erant in suppeditatione necessariorum (lans.}. Ea autem trepidatione et eo fidei defectu utitur Christus , ut eos erudiat eisque reipsa ostendat quid ex operibus et miraculis discere eos et alta mente reponere .ac retinere oporteat. Facit autem, ut Alb. ait, quattuor : in modo cognitionis et visitationis eorum signum divinae sapientiae ostendit (sciens autem) , . errantes arguit, in memoriam praeteritorum reducit, cum increpatione verum intellectum ingerit;
16:9
v. 9 nondum intelligitis neque recordamim eic,..c[m vobis in mentem venire potest me eiusmodi monitionibus de pane cogitare, cuius defectum facillime auferre possim? Et increpationis rationem reddit; ideo numerum affert tarn eojrum qui comederant quam reliquiarum , ut illis simul in memoriam revocaret praeterita et ad futura ipsos attentiores redderet (S. Chrys.}', vide 14,17-21 et 15,34-38. Ex hac discipulorum sollicitudine denuo colligitur, quam debile sit humanum ingenium ad res divinas concipiendas , quamdiu per spiritum Dei non reformetur ; in Ghristo vero cernitur exemplum bonitatis , qua discipulos ad fidem erigere studet. Et ut discas quantum potuerit increpatio, utque somnolentam eorum mentem erexerit, audi quid dicat evangelista (S. Chrys.}
16:12
v. 12 tune intellexerunt quia non dixerit cavendum a fermento panum, sed a doctrina pharisaeorum et sadducaeorum i. e. quatenus illi traditiones humanas imponunt iisque et veram pietatem enecant et Dei mandata seponunt; vide exemplum 15,3-9. Apud rabbinos frequens est usus metaphoricus fermenti de affectibus malis, de pravitate cordis , de mala concupiscentia (cf. Lightfoot ad h. 1. ]Wi'msche p. 193). Fermentum hanc vim habet, ut si farinae mixtum fuerit quod parvum videbatur crescat in maius et ad saporem suum universam conspersionem trahat, ita et doctrina haeretica, si vel modicam scintillam in tuum pectus iecerit, in brevi ingens flamma succrescit et totam hominis possession em ad se trahit (S. Hier.}.
16:13
Christus efficit ut sua dignitas messiana et filiatio divina discipulis indubie innotescat. Dein iis quos a ducibus synagogae removit Petrura assignat ducem ac principem, cui supremam in. Ecclesia sua auctoritatem se commissurum edicit. Ita ergo discipuli edocentur clare et de Iesu Christo ipso et de modo quo Ecclesiae , regno suo unitatem et firmitatem sit largiturus. Ex Luc. 9,18 Christus. huic eventui gravissimo orationem praemittit , uti similiter praemiserat election! apostolorum (Luc. 6,12). Quid ea in oratione a Patre flagitaverit , nemo ambigere potest. Rem enim aggreditur summi momenti pro apostolis et universa Ecclesia. Versatur autem in partibus i. e. in regione Caesareae Philippi; urbs olim appellabatur Paneas; sita est in Gaulonitide ad radices mentis Hermon; prope erat sanctuarium Pan (Paneion) baud longe a spelunca, ex qua unus ex fontibus lordanis scaturit. Nomen antiquum adhuc in hodierno Banias servatum est (cf. Socin, Palaestina und Syrien). Philippus tetrajrcha urbem amplificavit eique in honorem Tiberii Caesaris nomen imposuit Caesarea; sed ut distingueretur a Caesarea Palaestinae (Caesarea Sebaste, antea turris Stratonis) addebatur Philippi (cf. losephus, Antiq. 18,2. 1 ; Bell, iud, 2,9. 1). Non videtur carere significatione quod Iesus non in ludaea vel Galilaea, sed in reglone magnam partem gentili et suam. dignitatem divinam curat promulgandam et fundamentum Ecclesiae suae eligit; cernitur quippe eo ipso regnum messianum a ludaeis repulsum et translatum ad gentes (cf. Sylv. Grimm}. Quaestione hac demum proposita pro discipulis fructus colligendus est testimoniorum loaimis baptistae , tot miraculorum Christi eqrumque quae passim de se ipse testatus est; iam quiclem saepius Christus pronuntiatus est et declaratus Filius Dei; ita a Nathanael (loan. 1,49), a Simone Petro (loan. 6,70) l et ab iis qui erant in navi dum Iesus ambulasset super aquas ventumque sedasset (Matth. 14,33). Verum quo sensu? num ex clara cognitione et deliberatione omnibus circumspectis ac perpensis? an potiu^ex subita quadam animi commotione quae vi ac pondere eventus inexspectati et stupendi imprimebatur? Evehendi itaque erant ad cognitionem distinctam, firmam, stabilem . plena deliberatione haustam. Id quod aptissime fit quaestione posita in loco solitario , dum animi discipulorum ab omni strepitu remoti , nullo eventu mirabili excitati , sed plane pacati et tranquilli seria consideratione cuncta secum perpendere possunt. In processu sermonis atque operis absolutius discipulis cognitionem suam praestat et quandam intelligendi se forma-m rationemque constituit (S. Hil.}. Cur autem non statim de sua , sed de multorum sententia ipsos interrogavit? ut opinione aliorum exposita deindeque interrogati vos autem...? ab ipso interrogandi modo in sublimiorem eveherentur cogitationem neque in vilem multorum cogitatum deciderent ; ideoque noninprincipio praedicationis eos interrogat, sedquando signa multa fecit et de mulfcis sublimibusqiie dogmatis disseruit multasque prae- . buit demonstrationes divinitatis suae et suae cum Patre concordiae , tune demum hanc illis profert interrogationem (S. Chrys.} : quern dicunt homines esse Filium hominis? populi opinionem requirit, quae saltern a nequitia erat aliena, non pharisaeorum scribarumque ;
16:14
v. 14 at illi dixerunt : alii loannem baptistam, eodem itaque errore' quo Herodes 14,2; alii autem Eliam quia soil. Elias et stupenda patravit miracula et opinione populari credebatur venturus ante Messiam (cf. 17, 10). quae opinio ex Mai. 4,5. 6 originem duxit ; alii vero leremiam; cur de leremia ad vitam reduce cogitatum sit, baud facile dixeris; probabile est quod Maid. Iam. arbitrantur ob libertatem reprehendendi scribas et pharisaeos , uti olim audacter invectus erat leremias in duces et principes et sacerdotes; fortasse melius propter narrationem illam in epistola synedrii ad Aristobulum et ludaeos aegyptios relatam de le.remia (2 Mach. 2,5-8), ex qua opinio oriri poterat leremiam tempore congregationis populi, proinde circa tempus messianum, iterum appariturum , ut locum arcae foederis indicaret; adde legi 4 Esd. 2,18 : mittamtibi adiutoriumpueros meos Isaiam et leremiam; insuper cum leremias iussus esset aedificare et plantare (1,10), id vero suo tempore non fecisse censeri posset , potuit opinio oriri popularis fore ut denuo mitteretur ad illam muneris partem explendam ; aut unum ex prophetis scil. prioribus, qui a mortuis surrexerit ; videtur enim opinio fuisse popularis post resurrectionem prophetas potentiores esse ad edenda miracula , uti Herodes indicat 14,2 quern vulgi opinionemibi enuntiare plane credibile est; cumitaque Christus totac tanta ederet miracula et vulgus tamen eum tamquam Messiam agnoscere nollet , quia non pompa regia incedens hostes populi Dei prosterneret, ilia opinatio animos multorum occupavit. Ex hisce duo colliguntur : viguisse exspectationem messianam , plebem nullo pacto potuisse avelli neque testimonio loannis neque Iesu dictis et factis a falsa ilia regni temporalis exspectatione, attamen nondum cessisse 'calumniis pharisaeorum in tanturn, ut Iesum parvi facerent. Utique post spatium uno anno minus adeo invaluerunt pharisaei et scribae et summi sacerdotes, inimici Iesu, ut misera plebs mortem eius crudelissimam summo furore exposceret. Subiungit
16:15
v. 15 vos autem quern me esse dicitis? ex secunda interrogatione eos evocans ut mains quid de se opinarentur ostendensque primam opinionem a dignitate .sua procul abesse ; ideo aliam ab eis exquirit et secundam profert interrogationem , ne cum multis sentirent; vos autem dicit, id est, qui semper mecum estis et miracula edentem videtis, qui et ipsi per me virtutes multas fecistis (S. Chrys.}. Quid itaque Petrus, qui iam ante aliquod tempus, cum multi discipulorum recederent a Iesu , praeclarum fidei testimonium ediderat respondens pro apostolis (loan. 6,70)? vidit suos condiscipulos tacentes et aliquantulum dubitantes quid dicerent ; deinde sciebat quod apud aliquos commilitones suos aliqua erat tarditas in fide ; ne ergo aliqnis ex condiscipulis aliquid minus decens ac idoneum de Christo proferret, ipse prior responsuni praeripuit ac, ut aitS. Chrys. prosilivit (Sylv. sim. Grimmlll p. 625). llle igitur , ut S. Leo ait, primus est in confessione qui est primus in apostolica dignitate (serm. 4,2; M. 54,150). Cur itaque Petrus solus respondeat, ratio potissimum repetenda est ex divina gratia, quae sic eius mentem illustravit, ut primus omnium clare cognoscfiret Iesu dignitatem. Quod statim ad respondendum prorumpit , cum gratia non destrtiat naturam , sed perficiat et elevet , merito cum S. Chrys. aliisque etiam ex eius indole ferventiore, quam saepius lain demonstravit (cf. 14,28), poterit explicari; ita quoque haud multum antea cum Dominus omnes interrogasset, ipse solus respondit (loan. 6,69). Respondet autem
16:16
v. 16 iu es Christw, Films Dei mm : profitetur Iesum Messiam et verum, seu naturalem Dei Filium ergo verum Deum ; frustra id negat Weiss ob 14,33 et falso volunt solum declarari idem i. e. Messiam (Holtzm). Sed intelligi debere' verum Filium Dei, patetex subiunctaChristi responsione, earn scil. Petri cognitionem essehaustam a revelatione Patris Christi coelestis ; cum enim haec appelletur revelatio , eo ipso ef ficitur Iesum non posse dici filium Dei sensu illo quo populus Israel vel rex theocraticus in Jitteris veteris foederis vocatur filius Dei, neque sufficere ut haec filiatio solum sensu quodam eminentiore concipiatur; idem colligitur ex eo quod Christus statimtam asseveranter dicat Pater meus qui in coelis est, qua locutione in tali nexu adhibita sibi singularem quandam adscribit filiationem quae sibi cum nullo sit communis. Idque pluribus S. Hil. proseqtiitur in libro 6 de Trinit. n. 36 (M- 10,186). Bene notat 5. Chrys. : nisi Petrus sic ipsum vere confessus fuisset ut ab ipso Patre genitum, non fuisset hoc revelationis opus; si unum ex multis ilium putasset, non erat illud beatitudine dignum ; sim. Euth. Theoph. Thorn, etc. etS. Cyr. monet, ideo poni articulum 6 uto's, ut unus naturaDei Filius designetur. Et merito advertit Maid. Petrum eo nomine Iesum appellantem opponere loanni , Eliae , leremiae et prophetis quos certum sit fuisse filios Dei adoptione , Christum itaque non adoptione sed natura vocari Filium Dei et recte veteres ex hoc loco divinitatem Ghristi probare (uti Hil. Athanasius). Qui vevo antea Christum praedicabant Filium Dei (loan. 1,49; Matth. 14,33), non naturaliter Filium existimabant , sed eo sensu quo homines sancti eo nomine appellantur, licet modo quodam excellentiore (lans. Sylv. Bar.}. Cur dicatur Dei vim, multi explicant in oppositione ad idola ; at sane magis congruum est et probabile quod Orig. innuere videtur et Cai. Sylv. explicant, ut significetur euro, esse Filium naturalem , utpote qui ex Deo qnatenus vivente procedat, naturalissimum siquidem est opus vivis omnibus , in quantum viva sunt, generare alia qualia ipsa sunt (Cai.}. Omnibus ex aequo interrogatis unus respondet Petrus. Quaerituj responderitne nomine omnium, ita ut egerit partes communes. Id indicare videtur S. Chrys., cum Petrum hoc loco dicat 6s apostolorum et chori apostolici coryphaeum; id innuere quoque videntur quotquot dicunt eum pro omnibus respondisse; ita S. Aug. : unus pro multis dedit responsum (serm. 76,1; M. 38/1-79), S. Ambrosius : respondit prae ceteris, immo pro ceteris (de Incarn. cap. 4; M. 16,827); Anselmus laud. : quamvis eadem esset voluntas omnium, tamen Petrus pro omnibus respondet; neque aliter S. Hier. : Petrus ex persona omnium apostoldrum profitetur ; item glossa interlinearis, Alb. Thorn. Dion. Schegg. Alii tamen affirmant Petrum pro.se solo respondisse nee communem omnium prof essum esse fidem , verum suam. Id sequitur ex verbis S. Hil. eum dignum esse iudieatum qui quod in Ghristo Dei esset primus agnosceret; et ad cap. 14 n. 17 scribit : et hoc in Petro considerandum est fide eum ceteros anteisse ; nam ignorantibtis ceteris primus respondit : tu'es etc. ; idemenuntiat Optatus scribens : ecce ceteris non agnoscentibus Filiuna'Dei , solus Petrus agnovit (de schismate Donat. 7,3; M. 11,1088); idem Asterius amasenus : cum omnes reliqui vellent tacere et cunctarentur palamque praeferrent meditari quid responsuri essent , statim Petrus aperiens os suum beatam illam ac plane . perspicuam edidit confessionem (horn, in ss. Petrum et Paulum; M. 40,277); idem Basilius seleuciensis censet alios siluisse neque enim omnes scivisse , Petro autem divino quodam modo responsum esse subiectum etc. (orat. 25,4 ; M. 85,296). Atque Petrum pro se solo respondisse etiam docent lans. Maid. Bar. Tostatus, Lap. Sylv., quae sententia tenenda videtur. Cum enim pro omnibus respondet, id ipsa responsione exprimit; cf. loan. 6,69. 70 : ad quern ibimus?... et nos credidinius etc. ; nihil tale hoc loco. Dein Christus non omnes, sed solum Petrum beatum praedicat, eum solum revelatione divina ecloctum dicit , eum solum pro corifessione praeclara remunerat. Ad priorem quaestionem alii respondent; ad hanc omnibus propositam unus respondet neque ullo pacto indicatur eum respondisse consultatione aliqua praevia cum aliis habita velmandate ab iis accepto ; immo id verbis Ghristi omnino excluditur. Neque sane Petrus secreta cordium riovit, ut fidem omnibus communem posset profiteri. Si itaque dicitur eum pro aliis respondisse, id solum intelligi potest eo sensu , ut earn ederet confessionem quam omnes approbarent et ad quam accederent vel etiam quiaiam turn propter varia indicia a Ghristo edita (loan. 1,42. Matth. 8,14; 10,2. Luc. 5,2 seq.) Petrus ut primus apostolorum eorumque caput cognosci potuit, qui ut talis pro aliis loqui eosque quasi iuridice repraesentare censendus erit. Atque Petrum eumque solum peculiari gratia esse illustratum, Christi verba indubie pandunt
16:17
v. 17 respondens autem Iesus dixit ei : beatus es, Simon Bar lona (filius lona, quae allocutio nomine patris addito habet aliquid sollemnitatis; veteres id addi saepe exponunt in opposttione ad Filium Dei quern professus erat ; praeterea filium columbae allegorice interpretantur) 1 , quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi, sed Pater meus qui in coelis est; beati, felices enim ii dicuntur quibus aliquid peculiar! Dei beneficio et gratia contingit (cf . Ps. 31,1); idque valet hoc loco eo magis, quia haec est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te et quern misisti Iesum Christum (loan. 17,3 ; S. Thorn. Sylv.}.- Neque caro et sanguis i. e. ratio huma.na suis viribus relicta, neque prudentia liumana , neque alii homines eum id docuerunt; non erat, ut Orig. loquitur, carnis et sanguinis discipulus; sed Pater coelestis ei revelavit, nam, uti Christus Iain antea docuerat: nemo novitFilium nisi Pater, nemo potest venire ad me, nisi Pater traxerit eum; omnis qui audivit a Patre et didicit venit ad me etc. (Matth. 11,27. loan. 6,44-. 45). Ut iam dictum est, hisce verbis necessario efficittir Petrum appellasse Christum ,Filium Dei naturalem eumque verum Deum cognovisse. Ne igitur verba Christ! quasi evacuentur et laus ilia beatitudinis , soli Petro tributa , fere enervetur, dicere oportet Petrum prae aliis lumine divino esse illustratum. Hac autem laude et approbatione Christi reliqui in eandem fidem cum Petro adducti sunt; unde fides reliquorum suo modo ab eorum capite et principe in reliquos dimanavit. Qui itaque postmodum iussus est confirmare in fide fratres, is quoquo exstitit quasi occasio fidei eorum. Sicut Pater meus tibi manifestavit divinitatem meam, ita et ego tibi notam facio excellentiam tuam (S. Leo, serin. 4,2)
16:18
v. 18 et ego dico tibi elegans antithesis , graece etiam efficacior sed et ego dico tibi, quasi diqat : tu qui homo es Filiuin Dei vivi me esse dixisti; ego vero qui Filius Dei vivi sum, dico te esse Petrum, id est, vicariuni meum quern Filium Dei esse confessus es-; nam Ecclesiam meam quae super me aedificata est super te etiam tamquam super secundarium quoddam fundamentum aedificabo (Maid.}] quia tu es Petrus et super lianc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam; cum Christus nee graece nee latine locutus sit , sed aramaice , discrimen quod graece et latine in Petro et petra cernitur, non exsistit , sed utroque loco plane eaclem vox *]:>, NJpis Kepha adhibetur : tu es saxum et super hoc saxum aedificabo otc. Idcirco illud nomen quod ^Christus , simul ac primo Simon adductus est ad eum per Andream fratreni , ei inditum iri promisit : tu vocaberis Kephas (loan. 1,42), mine -sollemni modo ei imponit simulque nominis vim et rationem explanat in praemium praeclarae confessionis ; mercedem recepit vera confessio (S. Hier.} remunerat Petrum Dominus, mercedem illi dans magnam, quod supra eum aedificavit Ecclesiam (Theoph.} ; quare illud et ego merito explicari potest : ego'vicissim dico-iibi, quia tu es Petrus , id est , cum ego sim inviolabilis petra , ego lapiis angularis qui facio utraque unum, ego fimdamentum praeter quod nemo potest aliud ponere, tamen tu quoque petra es, quia mea virtute solidaris, ui quae mini potestate sunt propria, sint tibi mecum participatione com* munia (S. Leo 1. c.). Idque eo magis apparebit verum eiusque nominis vis ac significatio insignis etiam ruelius perspicietur, si perpenderimus in vetere testamento Deum frequenter appellari in textu hebraeo saxum vel rupes; ita Dent. 32,15 petra salutis vocatur Deus, et 32,4 appellatur simpliciter "ll3?n *r\ ice'Tpa et 2 Sam. 23,3 saxum Israel itemque Is. 30,29 et eodem modo invocatur a Davide : saxum meum Ps. 18, 3. 47; 19,15; pariter 28,1 ; alias nominatur Deus saxum (petra) refugii Is. 17,10. Ps. 31,3; saxum cordis mei Ps. 73,26; saxum salutis meae 2 Sam. 22,47. Ps. 89,27 etc. etc. Qui nominis usus cum talis sit quo Deus tamquam petra et fundamentum immutabile et inconcussum. salutis populi sui appellatur, fieri non potuit quin idem nomeri a Ghristo in Simonem translatum statim iniiceret cogitationem de eximia Simonis dignitate , qua designaretur tamquam fulcrum firmum et fundamentum regni a Ghristo fundandi. Idque statim ab ipso Ghristo totidem verbis clarissimis promulgatur. Olim quidem interpretibus catholicis labor incubuit, utique facillimus , ut probarent super hoc saxum dici de eodem qui modo saxum sit appellatus multi enim ex protestantium castris contendebant , Christum digitum in se intendisse et se ipsum his verbis designasse ; ita Schoettgen, Schultz, Chrysander etc. hodie eo supersedere possumus. Nam tandem protestantes quoque in tantum cesserunt ea in re sanae rationi et regulis sermonis humani, ut concederent verba ea referri ad eundem qui modo saxum sit vocatus; proinde Christum dicere se super Petrum, super hoc saxum quod in persona Petri coram se adstet aedificaturum Ecclesiam, ut soil, sicut in parabola 7, 24 seq. petra domui clat firmitatem et stabilitatem, ita status Ecclesiae fundandae in tuto collocetur Weiss; sim. Keil, Hansel, Holtzm, Sedquod WeissliiscG ex una parte concedere videtur, statim quasi revocat. Nam affirmat non personam Petri ipsius iiitelligi, quare frustra catholicos arguerepro dignitate pontificum romanorum, ac si essent hi Petri in Ecclesia successores. Alii Petri primatum inter apostolos agnoscunt ; icleoque breviter rem enuntiant: primatum Petri esseconcedendum, minime tamen consectaria romana (ohne die roemischen Consequenzen) . Sed de his mox pauca. Antea quaedam de voce Ecclesiae dicenda sunt. Vox apud LXX usitatissima est pro hebr. Snj3, quae. speciali ratione adhibetur de coetu vel condone populi Israel sacrorum causa collecta. Ea itaque significatur populus Deo sacer, populus cui Deus legem et vivendi rationem praescripsit ; aliis verbis institutum illud theocraticum veteris foederis. Sicut in libris veteris testamenti sermo est de nini Snjp, ejocXyjorwc Kupfou (Num. 16,3; 20,4. Dent. 23,2-4. 9. 1 Par. 28,8. Mich. 2,5) vel sx.jtXWa 0eou (Neh. 13,1), ita Christus populum suum messianum, regnum suum messianum eodem tisus vocabulo nominat Ecclesiam meam. Quaremirum est aliquos (Weisse, Bleek, Holtzm. Harnack] arbitrari Christum ea voce non potuisse uti, sed earn interpolatione seriore esse textui intrusam ; id asseri plane arbitrarie cum vox ilia de theocratia adeo sit sollemnis, ipse Weiss affirmat. Quemadmodum in vetere foedere dicitur (3aci}.eia Kupfou (cf. .1 Par. 28,5. Ps. 21,31. Abd. 21) et Christus eandem vocem adhibet de regno suo (loan. 18,36), ita profecto eodem modo priorem vocem sxxV/jffta, Snp usurparepotuit. Porro uti Israel vocabatur ecclesiaDei, ita quoque mni ira domusDei (Num. 12,7. ler. 12,7. Os. 8,1 ; 9,8. 15), quare aedificare Ecclesiam facillime fluit, quae metaphora satis frequens evasit ; vide 1 Cor. 3,9seq. Gal. 2,9. Eph. 2,20.1 Tim. 3,15. Hebr. 3,6. 1 Petr.2,5. Metaphora ipsa super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam est simplex et obvia et intellectu facillima. Christus nempe se exhibet architectum, coetum sacrum quern sibi conditurus est vel regnum suum, Ecclesiam, imagine aedificii proponit, Petrus vero exhibetur sub imagine petrae, in qua et super quam aedificium construitur et exsurgit ; proinde Petrus apparet sub imagine fundamenti et quidem fundamenti firmi, immobilis, inconcussi, stabilis, qualis est petra vel saxum , quia sane Christus assimilandus est suis ipsius verbis viro sapienti qui aeclificat domum suam supra petram (7,24). Qua parabola simul nobis iam explicavit unum ex illis quae fundamentum praestat aedificio : et descendit pluvia et venerunt flumina et flaverunt venti et irruerunt in domum illam et non cecidit ; fundata enim erat super petram. Fundamentum itaque domui praebet stabilitatem, constantiam, firmitatem; eo domus sustentatur. Praeterea fundamento omnes partes aedificii inter se cohaerent et ad unum solidum aedificium constituendum aptantur; fundamentum igitur efficit et conservat unit at em. Porro perspicuum est quodcnmque aeclificatiir extra fundamentum et ruere neque ullo pacto pertinere ad aedificium; uncle fundamentum res est maxime necessaria, ut sit aedificium, ut sit firmum, ut sit unum et ut tamquam tale permaneat. Ex hac aiitem fundament! vi ac functione facile colligitur quae sit significatio locutionis Christi. Ecclesia Christi est coetus, societas. hominnm. Id vero quod alicui coetui vel societati stabilitatem , firmitatem , unitatem largitur et cui omnes qni ad earn pertinent adhaerere et obsequi debent est auctoritas vel regendi dirigendique potestas. Eiusmodi enim auctoritas vera et efficax unamquamque societatem regere et ad illud pro quo instituta est societas convenienti modo dirigere et impellere debet; eiusmodi auctoritas id est quo societas tandem evadit firma, quo in unitate continetur, quo singula membra et partes singulas in suis quaeque officiis ac muncribus exerceri necesse est. Quae auctoritas si deest , iam non habetur societas veri nominis, sed solum membra quaedam disiecta ac separata; cui auctoritati si quis se subtraxerit, eo ipso membrum societatis esse desinit. Cum itaque Petrus ille est super quern Christus suam aedificabit Ecclesiam, eo ipsp ei promittitur pro illo tempore auctoritas suprema in Ecclesia. Haec autem talis esse debet qua efficaciter consulitur iirmitati et unitati Ecclesiae. Unde in verbis illis simul continetur sponsio ac promissio Ghristi se effecturum ut Petrus sua regendi potestate revera iirmitati et unitati prospiciat, vel aliis verbis, ut Petrus revera omnia ilia praestet quae fundamentnm iirmum aedificio suppeditat. Quare a notione fundamenti multum recedunt et verba Ghristi plane extenuant , qui Petro solum primatum honoris concedunt , ut sit primus inter pares (ut v. g. Keil vult). Gum totum aedificium innitatur fundamento, etiam reliqui apostoli auctoritati Petri subiiciuntur. Etiam multo magis significationem fundamenti supra quod aedificatur Ecclesia adulterant et pervertunt qui dicunt Petrum factum -esse fundamentum eo quod ipse primus ludaeis (Act. 2,14 seq.), deinde alienigenis evangelium annuntiaverit (Act. 10. 15,7), quam explicationem post veteres protestantes (Hammond, Camera, Rosenmuller, Bengel, Bloom field etc.) etiam Mansel proponit in opere biblico anglicanae sectae potissimum dedicate (Speaker's Bible); sed quam longe aberret , statim ipsis eius verbis panditur, dum explicat : Petrus enim electus erat singular! ratione ad ponendum fundamentum Ecclesiae christianae et apud ludaeos et apud gentiles. Ergo Petrus ponit fundamentum Ecclesiae, ergo Petrus est architectus qui incipit Ecclesiam aedificare; et quid dicit Christus? super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam i. e. super te aediiicabo; Christus ergo est architectus, fundamentum est Petrus. Ita Christi verba plana etperspicua. Sed illi interpretes faciunt Petrum architectum , et quod magis etiam mirum,. illis is est fundamentum aedificii , qui ponit fundamentum : ergoarchitectusiamnonrinetur oportetfundamentumdomus. En ad quid tandem pervenerint, ut consectaria romana evitarent) Illi ex protestantibus qui primatum Petri concedunt, tamen solliciti sunt addere Christum minime de successoribus Petri cogitasse. Hi si sibi constare volunt etiam dicere debent pari modo , in verbis illis : ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummatibnem saeculi (28,20) Christum nullo modo de successoribus apostolorum cogitasse. Ceterum ex habitudine inter fundamentum et aedificium evidenter sequitur tamdiu adesse debere fundamentum quamdiu aedificium stet. lam vero Gliristus Ecclesiam suam ita fundavit ut esset perennis; proinde eo ipso non potuit velle fundamentum subtrahi Petro mortuo. Sicut igitur reliquis apostolis exstiterunt successores , ita quoque munus et functio Petri clebuit permanere. Atque exploratum manifestumque est Christum eo ipso temporis momento quo haec locutus sit simul Ecclesiam suam perenni stabilitate manehtem cogitasse et designasse ; addit enim et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus earn; proinde eodem modo etiam fundamentum cogitavit perenne. plex ilia horum verborum et super hanc petram expositio catholica est; cum ea quae de fide Petri ipsa interprelatur, turn quae ad ipsam Petri personam ilia refert. Sed inter utramque expositionem id interest discriminis, quod ista immediata est, ilia mediata; ista priinitiva et perpetua, altera adventitia et temporanea ; ista ab initio Ecclesiae quattuor saeculorum serie sola tradita, altera vero data occasione prolata. Nam ante arianae haereseos ortum ilia sola expositio viguit quae verba ilia refert ad ipsam Petri personam, ut constat ex Tertulliano, Origine, s. Gypriano. Cum vero Ariani Christi divinitatem palam impugnassent , ss. Patres qui firmissiinum catholicae causae praesidium in illis s. Petri verbis tu es Christus, Filius Dei vivi positum animadverterunt , istius confessionis dignitatem summis laudibus extulere. Unde quia s. Petrus illius in gratiam et ob illius meritum constitutus fue'rat fundamentum Ecclesiae, ipsammet confessionem fundamentum Ecclesiae nuncuparunt, metonymice, id est, translate nomine effectus ad causam, ut Arianos illius impugnatores liberius ac verius velut fundamenti Ecclesiae destructores insectari possent . Ex multis praeterea Patrum testimoniis quibus edicitur super Petrum esse Ecclesiam aedificatam vel petram illa'm esse Petrum, saltern aliqua innuere non eritabs re. In libro de praescript. haeret. 22 (M. '2,34) dicitur Petrum aedificandae Ecclesiae petram esse dictum; in epist. 71,3 S. Cypriani legitur : Petrus supra quern aedificavit Ecclesiam suam (M. 4, 410); idem S. Gyprianus in epistola ad lubaianum n. 10 : Ecclesia una est super unum qui et claves eius accepit (M. 3,1116). Firmilianus in epistola ad Cyprianum n. 16 : fundamentum unius Ecclesiae quae semel a Ghristo supra petram solidata est (et statim subdit : soli Petro dictum esse : quaecumque ligaveris etc. ; M. 3,1168). In hymno primo S. Ambrosii : hoc (gallo) ipsa petra Ecclesiae canente culpam diluit (M. 16,1409); S. Augustinus in psalmo contra Donatistas : numerate sacerdotes velab ipsa Petri sede; ipsa est petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae (M. 43,30). Et S. Hieronymus : Simoni qui credebat in petram Christum Petri largitus est nomen; at secundum metaphoram petrae recte dicitur ei : aedificabo ECclesiam mcam super te (in comment, ad h. 1.) ; S. Leo : Dominus apostolicae dignitatis beatissimo apostolo Petro primatum fidei suae remuneratione commisit, universalem Ecclesiam in fundamenti ipsius soliditate constituens (ep. 5,2; M. 34,615). Neque aliter Patres graeci. S. Basilius contra Eunom. 2, 4; dicit Petrum &<p' eaurbv TTJV olxooo[/.r]v TYJ; ixxXv]<Tiac SeijafAsvov (M. 29,580) et in Isaiam cap. 2 n. 66 :-unus ex his montibus erat et Petrus supra quam petram pollicitus fuerat Dominus se aedificaturum Ecclesiam. S. GregoriUS naz. or. 22 : 6 (xev Tre'tpa xaXsuat xai -robe Os^Xtou; TTJS IxxXvjaiai; TTtdTeuETai (M. 36,193). S. Chrysostomus inter alia dicit Christum se daturum Petro polliceri , ut Ecclesiam in tanto fluctuum concursu immotam redderet; itemque postea etiam Euthymius : te pono fundamentum credentium; Ecclesia enim fldeles sunt. Christus ipse est primarium Ecclesiae fundamentum; nam, ut dicit regpondet pro omnibus quia ipse iam in caput apostolorum erat constitutns. Etiam Amelmus laud. : super me aedificabo Ecclesiam ; sed mox addit : ideo enim Petrum principem apostolorum instituit, ut Ecclesia quasi unum principalem vicarium Ghristi haberet , ad quern di versa Ecclesiae membra recurrerent, si forte inter se dissentirent, quoniam si diversa essent capita in Ecclesia, unitatis vinculum rumperetur per' diversa schismata. Ex aequo Zacharias chrys. utramque explicationem proponit : super hoc firmamentum fidei, vel super hanc petram quam confessus es, id est, super meipsum. Neque aliter S. Thomas : proprietas petrae est quod ponatur in fundarnento; unde potest exponi de Christo... alia expositio : super te petram, quia a me'petra trahes tu quod sis petra; et sicut ego sum petra, ita super te petram aedificabo. Sed quid 'est? estne Ghristus et Petrus iundamentum? dicendum, quod Ghristus secundum se, sed Petrus in quantum habet confessionem Ghristi, in quantum vicarius eius. Et mox : Ecclesia roman'a non fuit ab haereticis depravata, quia supra petram erat fundata, Cur Christus non dixit super te? quia de aedificio loquitur. Praeterea cum veteres assidui esse soleant in textibus ad vitain christianam applicandis et in documentis morum eliciendis , 'etiam nonnulli hunc nostrum locum ita expenderunt, ut quid inde pro quovis homine christiano deduci possit ostendant. Ita iam Origenes praeivit scribens : si illud idem dicamus quod Petrus, fortasse flmus et ipsi quod Petrus ; nempe itidem ut ille beati praedicamur; efficimur Petrus, ut dicatur et nobis : tu es Petrus et quae sequuntur; petra enim est omnis discipulus Ghristi, de quo bibebant qui bibebant de spiritali consequente petra, et super quamlibet eiusmodi petram aedificatur omnis sermo ecclesiasticus etc. Deinde etiam exponit quomodo haec promissio omnibus apostolis sit communis (in Mattli. torn. 12 n. 10. 11; M. 13,998 seq.). At apud eundem legimus in homilia 5 in Exodum n. 4 : vide magno illi Ecclesiae fundamento et petrae solidissimae, super quam Christus fundavit Ecclesiam, quid dicatur a Domino : modicae fidei, quare dubitasti (M. 12,329)? Similiter Theoph. colligit omnem hominem exstruere qui velit fidei domum, hoc debere fundamentum iacere confessionis Petri; nisi enim habeamus fundamentum rectam confessionem , inutiliter nos aedificare, etsi innumeras condamus virtutes. Et Rabanus ait qui fidem prodat, iam non super petram Domino cooperante domum suae professions aedificasse, sed iuxta alterius loci parabolam super arenam sine fundamento. Pariter S. Pasch. notat : tantum petra est unusquisque fidelium , quantum imitator est Ghristi ; ac per hoc tantum Ecclesia Christi super eos fundatur, quantum et ipsi firmantur a Christo. Eodemque modo quae sequuntur et portae inferi etc ad omnes accommodantur; ita Druthmarus : quicumque de Ecclesia mea studuerit esse et de his qui ita confessi fuerint, portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eos, ut possint eos trahere ad se. Et ut alia omittam, etiam Erasmus suae paraphrasi inseruit haec : ab hoc (a regno diaboli) non est quod quisquam sibi metuat, modo Petrus sit, hoc est, tui similis. Hunc textum erudite enarraverunt et egregie vindicarunt praeter alios interpretes Bellarminus, de romano Pontiflce lib. 1 cap. 10-13; Suarez, defensio fidei catholicae ad versus anglicanae sectae errores lib. 3 cap. 10-12; Natalis Alexander loco supra allato ; Petrus Ballerini, uti supra; Passaglia, commentarius de praerogativis b. Petri, Ratisbonae 1850, lib. 2 cap. 3-10. 14; Schrader, de imitate romana, Friburgi Brisg. 1862 p. 140 seq.; Palmieri, de romano Pontiflce, Romae 1877 p. 225-278. Quemadmodum in parabola 7,25 firmitas et stabilitas domus irruentibus pluviis, fluminibus , ventis asseritur quia fundata erat supra petram, ita hoc loco quoque expl/oandum erit et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus earn i. e. ad versus Ecclesiam, adeo quidem ut indicetur nexus causalis : quia super petram aedificatur Ecclesia , ideo non praevalebunt. Unde Ecclesiae promittitur victoria adversus omnes impetus hostiles et eius ratio repetitur ex petra tamquam fundamento. Ilia igitur auctoritas quam Ghristus in Petro instituit adeo poteris erit etefficax, ut Ecclesia victrix exsistat quicumque demum contra earn hostes exsurgant. Illud adversus earn grammatice refertur ad Ecclesiam, uti iam exponit S. Hil. in Ps. 131 n: 4 (M. 9,730) et Cai. Maid, etc.; verum necessario simul cum. Ecclesia includi eiusfundamentum ex re ipsa planum est, immo propter fundamentum aedificium firmiter stare pariter ex rei natura consequitur. Quare sin minus grammatice, at logice Orig. merito dicit : quam autem earn? an quasi unain eandemque rem , petram et Ecclesiam? hoc ego verum existimo ; nee enim adversus petram super quam Ghristus Ecclesiam aedificat, nee adversus Ecclesiam portae inferi praevalebunt ; similiter S. Pasch,; ex firmitate fundamenti derivari Ecclesiae iirmitatem etiam S. Leo docet in epistola ad episcopos provinciae viennensis : hunc (Petrum) in consortium individuae unitatis assumptum id quod ipse erat voluit nominari dicens : tu es etc. ut aeterni templi aedificatio mirabili munere ^ratiae Dei in Petri soliditate consisteret; hac Ecclesiam suam firmitate corroborans, ut illam nee humana temeritas posset appetere nee portae contra illam inferi praevalerent (ep. 10,l;itf. 54,629). Iam quo sensu dicuntur portae inferi? In vetere testamento aliquoties legimus SlNty nyty vel etiam ma '$ portae orci fa^ou), mortis; ita Is. 38,10 vadam ad portas inferi ; lob. 38, 17. Ps. 9,15; 107, 18, ex quibtis locis manifestum est intelligi domum vel habitaculum mortuprum, ita ut portae orci vel mortis notionem suggerant palatii vel civitatis quam orcus vel mors mhabitat et ad quam civitatem homines post mortem descendunt. Quare recentiores satis frequenter explicant Ecclesiam fore perennem,ita ut mors cui cuncta subiaceant earn non possit destruere ; immo (quod quandoque addunt) ut mors aliquando mortuos suos reddere debeat ; cf. 1 Cor. 15,26. 55 (ita fere Schegg , Bisp. Schanz, Fil. Keil, Meyer , Mansel etc.). Quae tamen expositio mihi non probatur. Prime enim non continuo sequitur, si dictio quaedam veteristestamentiin novoquoque adhibetur, eius vim et significationem esse plane eandem ; cogita v. g. de Spiritu Dei qui alio sensu in vetere , alio in novo dicitur. Dein verbum xaricryueiv TWO'; significat vi opprimere, evertere, quaenotio ei alexicographis et interpretibus inditur et quae usu verbi apud LXX comprobatur; cf. Ex. 17,11. 4 Reg. 24,2(prohebr. perdere) 2 Par. 8,3 (vincere, superare) 27,5. Is. 24,20. ler. 15,18. Dan. 11,21. Sap. 7,30 (sapientiam non vincit malitia) etc.; haec autem notio dicit impetum , aggressionem facere. Quare potius cogitandum erit de conatibus hostium ad superandam et evertendam Ecclesiam. Demum quod praecipuum est perpendi oportet quomodo Christus iam in parabola 7,25 impetus hostiles qui iiant in domum supra petram aedificatam clare designet, quomodo ipse , caput Ecclesiae , aggressionem diaboli sustinuerit et devicerit , quomodo contra eiusdem diaboli insidias et machinationes suos praemuniat et ostendat diabolum expetere ut eos cribraret, quomodo homines operi messiano inimicos dicat esse ex patre diabolo et opera facere diaboli., Hisce adde graves illas admonitiones , quibus apostoli nos muniunt contra potestatem tenebrarum , principem et deum huius nnmdi, diabolum adversarium etc. (2 Cor. 4,4. Eph.' 6,12. 1 Petr. 5,8); porro in Apocalypsi infernus a^vi? sine ullo dubio tamquam hostis valde infensus regni Dei repraesentatur qui tandem in stagnum proiicietur (Apoc. 6,8; 20,14). Hisce igitur consideratis existimo infernum in novo testamento posse liabere sensum ampliorem quam in vetere , et cum Christus de impetu et aggressione in Ecclesiam loquatur, revera intelligendam esse potentiam hostilem diaboli (et asseclarum eius) qua varii exserantur conatus ad evertendam Ecclesiam. Unde locutio Christi hoc modo concipienda videtur. Ecclesiae, civitati Dei, supra petram fundatae alia opponitur civitas, civitas inferni. Dictio enim porta, portae hand raro ex usu veteris testamenti adhibetur pro arce vel civitate; ita Gen. 22,17 possidebit semen tuum portas inimicorum suorum; 24,60. Ex. 20,10. Deut. 5,14; 12,12; 15,7 in una portarum tuarum i. e. urbium, idque saepe; porta regis est arx regia Esth. 3,2. -3; 4,2; 5,9. 13 etc. In qua metaphora portae simul innui firmitatem et robur nemo infitias ibit. Simtitaque portae inferi civitas inferi robusta , valida , et quia agitur de aggressioue , ipse inferus, diabolus cum iis omnibus quae eius civitatem et regnum constituunt. Quia Christus Ecclesiam proposuit in metaphora aedificii, huic aedificio primo et per se opponit aliud aedificmm, portas i. e arcem , civitatem ; verum quia simul innuit aggressionem , haec civitas iam non concipitur solum tamquam urbs vel arx, sed nomen inferi principalem sibi vindicat signification em, ut sit inferus cum sua civitate, cum suis soil, copiis. Neque inusitatum est dicere unam civitatem helium gerere contra aliam. Quare non valet quod generatim obiiciunt, portas non aggredi, non facere impetum; utique portae non per se, sed id quod portis significatur ; vel si malueris, eo ipso quod de '/.y-rw^usw a<jTY)<; sermo infertur, iam inferus non grammatice, sed logice sententiam regit et connotatur ipse ut agens princeps. Quare immerito obiiciunt ea acceptione sermonem reddi plane inconcinnum, uti Weiss affirmat. Hanc acceptionem iam proposuit Orig. : portae inferorum dici queant principatus et potestates adversus quas nobis colluctatio est , et ipse allegat Eph. 6,12; ad rem notat Cai. indicari non solum humanas vires secundum seipsas , sed etiam quatenus diaboli utantur humanis studiis ac viribus ; sim. Maid. Bar. Am.; neque adeo minim videri debet portis inferi designari hostem, cum modo antea Petri quoque persona tamquam fundamentum sit descripta. Sicut igitur Ecclesiae aeclificium cum suo fundamento ex hominibus constitnitur, ita minime potest esse absonum , ut etiam portae inferi intelligaritur de inimico vel inimicis eorumque machinationibus. Huic acceplioni congruum est, ut omnes conatus intelligantur quibus potestas Deo adversaria Ecclesiam impetere , subruere , vel saltern damno afficere studet; quare imprimis cogitandum erit de haeresibus quibus fides evertitur (Orig. Hier. Br, Druth. Zach. Alb. Thorn.}, de persecutionibus qnoque variis (Theoph. Cyr. Rab.}, de variis seductorum ac impiorum peccatorum ordinibus, quibus baud raro magnum creatur Ecclesiae nocnmentum (Euth. Br. Pasch. Thorn.}, immo etiam de miseriis ac calamitatibus temporalibus (Dion.}, quibus etiam opus salutare Ecclesiae impeditur. Quidquid igitur diabolus vel per se vel per suam civitatem, id est, socios suos, peccatores et impios, molietur contra Ecclesiam, nunquam praevalebit, Ecclesiam non evertet, non devincet. Alii tamen urgent p or tas non aggredi; unde solum intelligi posse : ne orci quidem portae firmitate praevalebunt Ecclesiae (Holzheij in Monatsschrift, Passau 1902 p. 313; Weiss, Holtzm.}. lure ex hac promissione etiam colligitur Ecclesiae infallibilitas, etquiafirmitas Ecclesiae ex fundamento merito derivatur (uti fit 7,25), inde quoque recte comprobabis infallibilitatem summi pontificis, quaeinipsa quoque notione fundamenti haud obscure adsignificatur. Ecclesia in v. 18 tamquam domus descripta est. Huic metaphorae congTuum est quod in v. 19 de clavibus eius, id est, regni coelorum aliquando mortuos suos reddere debeat ; cf. 1 Cor. 15,26. 55 (ita fere Schegg, Bisp. Schanz, Fil. Keil, Meyer , Mansel etc.). Quae tamen expositio mihi non probatur. Primo enim non continuo sequitur, si dictio quaedam veteris testament! in novoquoque adhibetur, eius vim et significationem esse plane eandem; cogita v. g. deSpirituDei quialio sensu in vetere , alio in novo dicitur. Dein verbum xaTicryueiv TIVO? significat vi opprimere , evertere , quaenotio ei alexicographis et interpretibus inditur et quae usu verbi apud LXX comprobatur ; cf. Ex. 17,11. 4 Reg. 24,2 (pro hebr. perdere) 2 Par. 8,3 (vincere, superare) 27,5. Is. 24, 20. ler. 15,18. Dan. 11, 21. Sap. 7,30 (sapientiam non vincit malitia) etc.; haec autem notio dicit impetum , aggressionem facere. Quare potius cogitandum erit de conatibus hostium ad superandam et evertendam Ecclesiam. Demum quod praecipuum est perpendi oportet quomodo Christus iam in parabola 7,25 impetus hostiles qui fiant in domum supra petram aedificatam clare designet, quomodo ipse, caput Ecclesiae , aggressionem diaboli sustinuerit etdevicerit, quomodo contra eiusdem diaboli iasidias et machinatiories suos praemuniat et ostendat diabolum expetere ut eos cribraret, quomodo homines operi messiano inimicos dicat esse ex patre diabolo et opera facere diaboli., Hisce adde graves illas admonitiones , quibus apostoli nos muniunt contra potestatem tenebrarum , principem et deum huius mundi, diabolum adversarium etc. (2 Cor. 4,4. Eph. 6,12. 1 Petr. 5,8); porro in Apocalypsi infernus a^vis sine ullo dubio tamquam hostis valde infensus regni Dei repraesentatur qui tandem in stagnum proiicietur (Apoc. 6,8; 20,14). Hisce igitur consideratis existimo infernum in novo testamento posse habere sensum ampliorem quam in vetere , et cum Christus de impetu et aggressione in Ecclesiam loquatur, revera intelligendam esse potentiam hostilem diaboli (et asseclarum eius) qua varii exserantur conatus ad evertendam Ecclesiam. Unde locutio Christi hoc modo concipienda videtur. Ecclesiae, civitati Dei, supra petram fundatae alia opponitur ci vitas, civitas inferni. Dictio enim porta, portae baud raro ex usu veteris testamenti adhibetur pro arce vel civitate; ita Gen. 22,17 possidebit semen tuum portas inimicorum suorum; 24,60. Ex. 20,10. Deut. 5,14; 12,12; 15,7 in una portarum tttarum i. e. urbium, idque saepe; portaregis est arx regia Esth. 3,2. -3; 4,2; 5,9. 13 etc. In qua metaphora portae simul innui firmitatem et robur nemo infitias ibit. Stint itaque portae inferi civitas inferi robusta , valida , et quia agitur de aggressione , ipse inferus , diabolus cum iis omnibus quae eius civitatem et regnum constituunt. Quia Christus Ecclesiam proposuit in metaphora aedificii, huic aedificio primo et per se opponit aliud aedificium, portas i. e arcem, civitatem; verum quia simul innuit aggressionem , haec civitas iam non concipitur solum tamquam urbs vel arx, sed nomen inferi principalem sibi vindicat signification em , ut sit inferus cum sua civitate , cum suis soil, copiis. Neque inusitatum est dicere unam civitatem bellum gerere contra aliam. Quare non valet quod generatim obiiciunt , portas non aggredi, non facere impetum; utique portae non per se, sed id quod portis signifi catur ; vel si malueris, eo ipso quod de y.aTtc^usiv C^TTI; sermo infertur, iam inferus non grammatice, sed logice sententiam regit et connotatur ipse ut agens princeps. Quare immerito obiiciunt ea acceptione sermonem reddi plane inconcinnum, uti Weiss affirmat. Hanc acceptionem iam proposuit Orig. : portae inferorum dici queant principatus et potestates ad versus quas nobis colluctatio est , et ipse allegat Eph. 6,12; ad rem notat Cat. indicari non solum humanas vires secimdum seipsas , sed etiam quatenus diaboli utantur humanis studiis ac viribus ; sim. Maid. Bar. Am.; neque adeo mirum videri debet portis inferi designari hostem, cum modo antea Petri quoque persona tamquam fundamentum sit descripta. Sicut igitur Ecclesiae aedificium cum suo fundamento ex hominibus constitnitur, ita minime potest esse absonum , ut etiam porfcae inferi intelligantur de inimico vel inimicis eorumque machinationibus. Huic accepiioni congruum est, ut omnes conatus intelligantur quibus potestas Deo adversaria Ecclesiam impetere , subruere , vel saltern damno affi cere studet; quare imprimis cogitandum erit de haeresibus quibus fides evertitur (Orig. flier. Br. Druth. Zach. Alb. Thorn.}, de persecutionibus quoque variis (Theoph. Cyr. Rab.}, de variis seductorum ac impiorum peccatorum ordinibus, quibus baud raro magnum creatur Ecclesiae nocnmentum (Euth. Br. Pasch. Thorn.}, imrno etiam de miseriis ac calamitatibus temporalibus (Dion.}, quibus etiam opus salutare Ecclesiae impeditur. Quidquid igitur diabolus vel per se vel per suam civitatem, id est, socios suos, peccatores et impios, molietur contra Ecclesiam, nunquam praevalebit, Ecclesiam non evertet, non devincet. Alii tamen urgent portas non aggredi; unde solum intelligi posse : ne orci quidem portae firmitate praevalebunt Ecclesiae (Holzhey in Monatsschrift, Passau 1902 p. 313; Weiss, Hoitzm.}. lure ex hac promissione etiam colligitur Ecclesiae infallibilitas, etquiafirmitas Ecclesiae ex fundamento merito derivatur(uti fit 7,25), inde quoque recte comprobabis infallibilitatem summi pontificis, quae inipsa quoque notione fundamenti hand obscure adsignificatur. Ecclesia in v. 18 tamquam domus descripta est. Huic metaphorae congruum est quod in v. 19 de clavibus eius, id est, regni coelorum sermo fit; Petrus autem cui claves traduntur, uti moclo fundameritum domus vocabatur, ita iam repraesentatur eius domus administrator, heri absentis vicem gerens procurator et bonorum domus dispensator et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum; claves alieui tradere est ei ius ac potestatem in domum conferre; vide quae dixi ad Is. 22,22 (Comment, in Is. I p. 433) et Christus qui summam habet potestatem dicitur habere claves mortis et inferni, et clavem David (Apoc. 1,18; 3,7). Claves eniiu esse solent penes prineipem domns et cui claves com mittuntur, ei totius domus et familiae administratio committitur. Ea itaque locutione traditur vel potius promittitur (dabo tibi} Petro suprema secundum Cliristum potestas in Ecclesiam (cf. Chrys. Cai. lans. Maid. Suarez, Bar. Sylv. Bellarminusl. c. cap. 13, Lap. Calm. Am. Schegg , Schanz, Fil. etc.). Etiani apud rabbinos clavem symbolum esse potestatis et auctoritatis , Wiinsche compluribus ostendit p. 195. Nimis arete et anguste aliqui symbolum clavium accipiunt solum de potestate introducendi in Ecclesiam (Euth. Bed. Rab. Pasch. Dnith. Zach. Thorn.]. Christus qui habet clavem domus David, qui summus est Ecclesiae rex et gubernator, nihilominus dicit se daturum claves regni sui Petro; proinde hie Petrum eodem modo in consortium potestatis admittit et quae sibi propria sunt facit suo modo Petro participatione conimunia, sicut cum Petrum declarat Ecclesiae fundamentum,' dum ipse est fundamentum praeter quod aliud poni nequeat, fundamentum primarium, caput invisibile Ecclesiae. Unde ex hac clavium promissione et traditione iterum elucet quam accommodate Petrus appelletur in sua dignitate et auctoritate vicarius Christi. Cumin verbis illis vix nonpossitnon agnosci allusio ad Is. 22,22, quae Apoc. 3,7 apertius recurrit, simul innuitur in Ecclesia opere impleri regnum illud aeternum Davidi promissum et regnum davidicum fuisse typum regni messiani. Dum claves illi tradidit, mortali homini commisit, ut S. Chrys. loquitur, TOOV sv TO> o-jpavw Travrwv e^oucriav. Huius autem administrationis et dispensations partem amplissimam accuratius declarat et qua auctoritate ea sit coelitus vestita exponit dicens et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in coelis et quodcumque solveris super tevram erit solutum et in coelis; significatur enim hisce verbis potestas legifera et quae cum ea necessario iuncta est , utpote ex ea consequens , potestas iudiciaria ; dein edicitur earn potestatem esse amplissimam, quodcumque) utique ratione habita indolis Ecclesiae et finis ob quern institirta est, et clemnm significatur exercitium eius potestatis ita sanciri ac confirmari a Deo, ut quidquid constitutum vel interdictum fuerit, ratum habeatur apud Deum. Hunc autem esse verborum sensum ut probetur, initium ducendum erit a modo loquendi apud rabbinos tempore illo et deinceps usjtato. Cum enim quaestiones agerentur de legis mosaicae explicatione et applicatione ad vitam quotidianam , a legis doctoribus declarabatur et decidebatur quid esset licitum, quid vero prohibitum vel quid esset praeceptum , quid interdictum. Id vero ut significaretur in usu posita erant verba solver e et ligare. Respondet itaque etv ligare verbo IDN vetare, interdicere, qua notione vox quoque legitur Dan. 6,8. 9. 14. 16 (interdictum, prohibitio) et etiam significat ligare aliqua obligatione, uti Num. 30,3. 10 ligare ligamen super animam , ligare super animam i.e. voto sese obstringere ; verbum autem ^uetv solvere respondet verbo "Prin (aramaice *nttt) licitum pronuntiare , permittere. Verba haec apud rabbinos in usu fuisse nemo negat. At sunt qui ab hoc usu nobis esse proficiscendum in iis explicandis omnino negent. Iis quippe multis no minibus repugnare videtur Christum in sermone populari ad di- Tscipulos adhibuisse terminum technicum scholarum rabbinicarum , dein notio ilia rabbinica iis videtur inepta ad earn potestatem declarandam quam Christus Petro tradiderit. Utrumque igitur expendendum erit. Atque ad prius quod attinet, adverti debet quaestiones illas de lege non solum in scholis esse agitatas, verum decreta et placita doctorum legis etiam fuisse sparsa in populum . Nonne Christus ipse id nos docet, cum dicit : super cathedram Moysi sederunt scribae et pharisaei ; omnia ergo quaecumque dixerint vobis servate et facite (23,2. 3) ; vel etiam clarius : alligant enim onera gravia et importabilia et imponunt in humeros hominum (23,4)? Porro quae leguntur 5,34-36 de variis iuramenti generibus, quae 15,5 munus ex me etc. quae de lotione manuum 15,2, de matrimonio 19,3, de iuramentis 23,16-22 satis ostendunt decreta ilia et placita doctorum legis non in solis eorum scholis esse iactata. Idem elucet ex exemplis Act. 21,24 et 2 Cor. 11,24 allatis. Si autem praeeepta et prohibitiones doctorum legis populo imponebantur quis dubitabit quin verba quoque quibus ilia annuntiabant et promulgabant omnibus innotuerint? Unde immerito dicnntur voces illae solum parietibus quasi scholarum includi. Alterum vero quod obiiciunt notionem rabbinicam ineptam esse ad declarandam potestatem a Christo traditam , id ex duplice capite non consistere ostendi potest. Nam prius notari oportet, etsi verba ilia apud rabbinos nihil aliud sonarent, nisi cum auctoritate declarare quid liceat quid sit prohibitum, hoc iam sufficeret attenta indole et riatura legis Christi , ut Petro collatam esse potestatem legiferam affirmaretur. Doctores enim legis legem mosaicam interpretabantur et ex ea interpretatione statuebant quid liceret, quid non. Ergo a pari Petrus iubetur legem Christi , id est eius doctrinam mentemque interpretari et inde statuere atque praescribere quid liceat , quid non , ut scil. fideles in ea ingrediantur via eamque sectentur iustitiam quam Ghristus a suis exigit. Illi doctores legis habebant legem scriptam secundum quam ligabant et solvebant , quam tueri et cuius observantiam in tuto collocare studebant suis placitis. Quid Petrus? pro lege scripta habet normam iustitiae, doctrinam, consilia perfectionis a Ghristo tradita; horum observantiam debet tueri, urgere, defendere, pericula et impedimenta avertere ; mentem Christi debet interpretari cum plena auctoritate et cum eadem auctoritate fideles obligare ut secundum earn normam vitam instituant. Hoc autem fit promulgatione legum ac praeceptorum ac prohibition urn. Quare potestatem legiferam iis Christi verbis exprimi nemo iure negare poterit. Sed altero loco addi debet verbis illis solvendi et ligandi etiam in scriptis rabbinicis usum iriesse ac notionem ampliorem. Neque enim decreta ilia ligationis efc solutionis ad s. Scripturam et eius interpretationem restringuntur, sed hisce etiam complectuntur omnia quae religionem et regimen spectant (de qua re vide quae affert Morinus, Gommentarius hist, de disciplinain administratione sacr. Poenitentiae . lib. 1 cap. 8; Antverpiae 1682 p. 19 et Wiinschep. 196 eiEd. Up. 85). Quare Morinus recte censet verba Christi ex usu familiari istarum vocum apud ludaeorum sui temporis doctores significare : quaecumque decreveris, statueris, definieris in terra , erunt in coelo decreta, statuta, definita ; quidquid statueris in^terra , ratum Deus habebit in coelo. Ergo amplissima enuntiatur potestas legifera cui potestas iudiciaria nexu individuo est sociata. Atque utramque potestatem et rabbinos sibi vindicasse et Christum iis verbis Petro commisisse, vide quoque apud Ed. 1. c. Atque hanc ex usu rabbinico interpretation em verborum tenendam esse existimo. Matthaeus enim evangelium suum scripsit aramaice ; ergo pronum est eum iisdem .verbis usum esse quae apud rabbinos reperiuntur. Proinde secundum omnem interpretandi regulam historicam solvere et ligare explicare debebimus secnndum notionem eorum apud quos haec dictio revera saepissime reperitur. Equidem fateor me nunquam intellexisse cur aliqui ea verba non ex hebraeo vel aramaico voluerint explicare, sed recurrerint ad duos locos graecos satis obscuros et ambiguos, ad inscriptionem tumulo Isidis impositam quam refert Diodorus siculus (1,27) : ego sum Isis, regina huiusregionis, a Mercurio erudita, 6'acc yap eyw ^'/fcrw, oi^et? ^uvarai >.v5ffai; et adlosephum, bell. iud. 1,5. 2 : illi autem... statim res omnes gubernant et moderantur, ^uoxetv re x.at xar*yeiv ou; eOsXoiev, Xueiv TS x:al Valde dubito possitne ex his locis erui quod volunt regiam ibi describi auctoritatem. Quid si quis diceret, cum in priore loco de eruditione mentio praecedat sensum potius esse : quae ego aenigmatis ligo et abscondo , nemo potest solvere et eruere 1 ? et in altero loco etiam maior est ambiguitas; cum enim praecedat in exsilium pellere et revocare, consequens esse videtur, ut solvere et ligare eodem modo explicetur de hominibus ex carcere dimittendis vel iis includendis. Quare qui verba ea historice explanare cupiunt, infelici conatu ad hos duos locos recurrere mihi videntur. Bene dicit Suarez (1. c. n. 15) : potestas ligandi atque solvendi non est alia nisi potestas leges ferendi quae homines ligent sen obligent, vel etiam puniendi aut censuras ferendi aut similia onera imponendi vel auferendi ; atque potestatem summam regendi et administrandi Ecclesiam et iudicia ferendi hisce declarari pariter statuunt Cai. lans. Lap. Sylv. Bar. Calm. Am. Reischl, Fil. de qua re vide quoque Palmieril. c. p. 265. In tanta potestatis amplitudine et ex natura potestatis iudiciariae continetur iis verbis (licet nondum quoad nos clare et distincte, ut Palmieri notat) etiam potestas peccata remittendi, uti iam Zephyrinus papa earn ex illis asseruit (Tertull. de pudicitia cap. 21; M. 2,1025); at profecto angustius verba concipiunt qui ea de hac solum potestate concipiunt (uti S. Chrys. Euth. Theoph. Bed. Rab. Druth. Thorn., ex recentioribus Grimm ///p. 648). Est enim arbitrarium quodcumqtie velle restringere cum Dion. Grimm ad peccata et consectaria peccatorum , poenas , censuras , excommunicationem 2 . Aliter Schegg explicat : regnum coelorum palatium est bonis et thesauris, gratiis et promissionibus refertum; huius palatii claves Petro commissae sunt; quare ex ea potestate proxime sequitur eum posse bona ilia et thesauros ligare, retinere, ab eis alios arcere, et solvere cum aliis communicare, dispensare. Keil vero opinatur iis verbis Petro fieri potestatem praedicandi evangelium, in qua praedicatione simul iudicium exerceatur de peccatis secundum quod vel in regnum coelorum admittantur vel eo excludantur homines. Ceterum vide quae 18,18 ex contexta oratione colligi possunt. Laude sollemni et promissione adeo magnifica Petro data Iesus se eum esse quern ille professus erat omnibus discipulis evidentissime declaravit; sed interea vult ut pretiosum hunc veritatis thesaurum apud se contineant
16:20
v. 20 tune praecepit discipulis stiis ut nemini dicerent quia ipse esset (Iesus] Chris tus d XpKjrdg. Triste sane spectaculum ! In regioiie fere gentili , extra fines ludaeae et Galilaeae , Iesu divinitas aperte agnoscitur, ibi Iesus fundamentum suae Ecclesiae designat et supremam regendi auctoritatem principi apostolorum committit ; coram paucis discipulis adstat Messias , cuius dies videre sancti patriarchae et prophetae tot suspiriis desiderabant , cuius regnum ipsi annuntiabant, praeparabant, adeo magnifice describebant verum nunc abscondi oportet et taceri adesse Messiam.in medio suo populo ! Haec necessitas et haec Christi prohibitio est maxima accusatio sensus populi perversi , qui tot signis et documentis Messiam suum non agnovit neque permittit se avelli a falsa exspectatione temporalis pompae et glorias regni messiani. Ne igitur ipso nomine Messiae propellantur pro suis praeiudicatis opiniombus in caecum quendam impetum et furorem palam proclamandi et attentandi regnum quoddam temporale, veritas ilia de Messiae praesentia debet abscondi. Et quantopere idnecesse fuerit, ex loan. 6,15 collige. Populum autem mente perfracta veram de regno messiano doctrinam noluisse accipere, Christus iam declaravit 13,12-15. Ceterum vide quoque ad 8,4. Saepius redditur alia ratio : nam si audivissent ante passionem eum esse Filium Dei et deinde vidissent eum pati ,. quomodo non fuissent offensi ; propterea nunc se occultat , ut post resurrectionem sine offendiculo a multis sciatur (sim. S. Chrys. Euth, Theoph. Hier. Thorn. lans. Maid. Calm.}. Sednotari oportet eosprohiberi ne dicant eum esse Messiam.
16:21
Incipit Ghristus erudire apostolos depassione et morte sua; indeque docet, sicut ipse.debeat pati et ita intrare in gloriam suam, ita non aliam relinqui ad beatitatem viam pro suis. Hisce vero documentis quam maxime eos revocat a falsa exspectatione messiana et veram regni sui indolem magis manifestat. Gonfessio Petri et prima passionis praedictio quae illam subsecuta est aliquo tempore post tertium pascha in vita Christ! publica facta est (cf. Comely, Introd. HI p. 291). Quare eo quoque sollertia Christ! in erudiendis apostolis admiranda est. Incipit passionem praedicere decem vel novem mensibus antequam revera earn subit; ad hanc ipsam praedictionem quae exspectationi discipulorum adeo contraria videri debebat iam eos variis modis praeparaverat ; vitae genere paupere et humili , odio et insectationibus pharisaeorum , morte praecursoris aliisque iam licuit suspicari fieri posse , ut etiam maiores persecutiones Christo instarent (cf. 10,25. 38). Nunc vero cum praeclara Petri confessione eum excellent! quadam ratione cognoverint Messiam efc Filium Dei, v. 21 exinde , awo TOTS, ab hoc demum tempore, quo in eius cognitione adeo provecti et confirmati eraut , simul cum gloria sua illis quoque revelat, qua demum humilitate regnum suum initiare se oporteat ; exinde coepit Iesus ostendere discipulis qua locutione indicatur iterum iterumque Christum de sua passione discipulos erudisse (cf. 17,21; 20,18) et in id eum peculiar! studio incnbuisse , quia oporteret ewn ire lerosolymam et multa pati a senioribus et scribis et.principibm sacerdotum et occidi et tertia die resurgere; , soil, secundum Dei consilium in vaticiniis manifestatum , uti ipse declarat 26,54. Luc. '24,25-27. loan. 3,14; scena autem esse debebit ipsa nrbs principalis, sedes et centrum theocratiae, ut ibi scil. passione et morte suum fundet regnum, ujri vetus theocratia, umbra et figura regni messiani , in templo et arce regia quam maxime repraesentabatur. Praeterea non capit prophetam perire extra lerusalem Luc. 13,33 et vide Matth. 23,37. Qui Messiam occisuri sunt^ sunt ludaeorum magistratus civilis (seniores), religiosus vel sacer (principes sacerdotum; vide ad 2,4) et doctores legis (scribae); ii proinde qui auctoritate civili , sacra et fama scientiae et intelligentiae legis conspicui duces et principes populi et reipublicae existiinantur. Gum hi Messiam occisuri sint, eo ipso satis iam deplaratur regnum messianum a potiore parte ludaeorum reiectum et ad gentes iri translatum. Annuntiat Christus valde perspicue se iri. occisum et eycpQvivai suscitatum. Cum postea discipuli sepulcrum lapide magno claudant, cum mulieres mane tertia die corpus ungere velint neque discipuli nuntio de resurrectione allato fidem adhibeant etc., aliqui negant eiusmodi praedictionem a Ghristo esse factam (cf. Meyer}. Sed rem satis super que iam enodavit Marcus : at illi ignorabant verbum et timebarit interrogare eum (9,31) et Luc. 18,34 : et ipsi nihil horum intellexerunt et erat verbum isttid absconditum ab eis et non intellige'bant quae dicebantur. Verba utique Ghristi plana simt et Petrum etiam ea intellexisse de iniuriis, patet ex v. 22 seq.; ex quo autem simul elucet eum illud syepSvivai non intellexisse vel saltern nullo modo ad id advertisse. Porro verba etiam in se plana fieri potest ut ante impletionem tamen non capiantur; adde quam alienum fuerit ab exspectatione messiana ludaeorum Messiani debere pati, quam alienum id visutn sit discipulis a Filio Dei ! Id autem quod abhorremus difficillime a no bis impetramus ut credamus, etsi verbis minime ambiguis fore nobis annuntiatur. Fortasse existimabant apostoii verba Ghristi, uti saepius v. g. de fermento pharisaeorum, non esse sensu litterali accipienda; unde quid dicere vellent eos non percepisse efficitur ; esse occisionem forte idem ac reiectiouem, calumnias, insectationes etiam maiores quam eousque intulissent, eyepOvivat autem Christum tamen omnibus illis fore superiorem. Atque locutionem metaphoricam in simili materia videmus adhiberi Os. 6,2. 3 : percutiet et curabit nos; vivificabit nos post duos dies, in die tertia suscitabit nos etc. Praeterea non'debet omitti apostolos tempore passionis adeo faisse terrore ac perturbationibus variis perculsos et captos quasi , ut sobriae rei consideration! iam nullus sit locus relictus. Terroribus autem magnis facile omnis obruitur memoria. Christum vero resurrectionem suam clare praedixisse, etiam ex 28,6 et.praesertim ex Luc. 24,6. 7. 8 colligitur. Petrus cum hoc audiret indignum reputans quod eiusmodi Ghristo eveniret et' probabiliter insinuans et se et alios discipulos velle Dominum ab insidiis ludaeorum defendere et in ttito collocare , assumens eum, 7rpo<j'Xao / [/.evoi; , awl TOU rcapaXa&bv y.ari^iav (Euth.} seorstim accipiens; ita communiter explicant;. vel apprehendens eum ad se, uti facece solet, qui familiarius aliquid est dicturus, coepit increpare ilium, amantis affectu (S. Hier.}; incipit scil. arguere rem earn inclignam esse Filio Dei, quare de ea non esse sermon em miscendum , quasi reprehendens Christum quod eiusmodi velit in se -permittere. Dicitur autem coepit, quia Christus statim eum interrupit prima sententia probata; dicens : absit a te, iXew? cot, propitius sit tibi, scil. Deus, qua formula optatur, ut id quod dictum sit Detis avertat; proinde bene exprimitur absit, ut hoc tibi contingat; respondet formula hebr. ?fb nSibn, vel aram. "jb on; apudLXX exprimitur p$a[A<o?, (AY! ys'votTo , [xvi eivi , tXew;. Et magna cum animi confisione loquitur : Domine , non erit tibi hoc, pro solito suo studio, imprudenti utique hoc loco , asseverat id fieri non debere atque se impediturum ne contingat. Quo loquendi modo simul vehementer suadet, ut Christus ab eiusmodi cogitation e desistat eamque longe a se removeat. Nolens igitur Christum pati et ignorans resurrectionis mysterium hoc clixit; id quod revelatum erat, recte confessus est; in eo autem quod non revelatum, lapsus est, ut Theoph. ait. Adeo longe itaque Petrus aberat a notione Messiae patientis. Verum Dominus et habitu gestuque et voce ita eum cum indignatione increpat, ut haec reprehensio certe nunquam ex eius memoria sit deleta^v. 23 qui coriversus, severe vultu se ad eum vertit, vel GTpowpsi; etiam concipi potest aversus ab eo , sese cum indignatione avertens, uti facere solet qui alium male suadentem spernit et a se repellere vult \dixit Petro : vade post me, satana, facesse hinc/apage extra conspectum meum, post me, ne scil. te iam videam; ita magnam suam de Petri suasione indignationem declarat; satana, quia scil. uti in tentationibus k,3--9 satanas conatus erat Christum abducere a via ipsi a Patre assignata eique faciliorem modum suo fungendi munere persuadere, ita mine Petrus, imitator exsistens satanae (Euth.} et satanae ac tentatoris partes agens similiter suadet , ne ea incedat via qua oportet. Induit Petrus quasi mentem satanae, qui ut S. Chrys. dicit, cupiebat ne Ghristus pateretur, ne soil, redemptio fierit. Geterum veteres, uti Orig. CJm/s. Theoph. Euth. Hier. Bed. etc. vocem satanae explicant avrwceipevov , adversarium , uti ]u'W hand raro dicitur de adversario in bello vel de quocumque qui sese alteri opponit (Num. 22,22. 1 Sam. 29,4. 2 Sam. 19,23. 1 Reg. 5,18 etc.). Ceterum in hac notione ut nomen appellativum in novo testamento vox non reperitur. Et quomodo quasi partes agat satanae declarat : scandahim es mihi i. e. quantum inte est, obstaculumetimpedimentum mihi praebere vis ne Patris mandata perficiam; ergo sicut satanas, suo modo exsistit tentator, qui ut talis alteri est vel esse vult causa ruinae. Christum autem a via ilia et passione abducere studet , quia non sapis ea quae Dei sunt sed quae hominum; ille humano et terreno ratiocinio rein examinans putabat id Ghristo esse turpe et indecorum (S. Chrys.} ; homines enim vile iudicant et abiectum pati , sperni , adversariis se occidendurn permittere. Unde Petrus ex hac riorma humana indicium ferens de opere Messiae dwino, merito reprehensionem incurrit; nam animalis homo (homo suis viribus naturalibus relictus) non percipitea quae Dei sunt, quae Deus in ordine supernaturali gratiae instituit (cf. 1 Cor. 2,14). Praesumptio Petri eo acerbiore increpatione digna erat , quia quern Messiam et Filium Dei professus erat talem quoque censere debebat qui optime sciret quid oporteret et quo modo suo fungi vellet munere. Sed quo erat fervore et quo etiam in Dominurn amore iterum prosiluit statimque primum quern in se experitur affectum pandit. Permisit Dominus humano modo eum labi quo efficacius et ipse et reliqui de consilio divino et crucis mysterio edocerentur. Propterea ratio erroneae suasionis a Domino aperitur, eum soil, nondum intelligere quae Dei sunt; adhuc non gustaverat quod postea gustavit, cum ivit gaudens a conspectu concilii flagellatus , quia fuit dignus pro nomine Iesu contumeliam pati ; sed humano urgente adhuc'affectu sapiebat quae hominum sunt : vitare passiones , f ugere mortem et similia (Cai.}. Aliter vero Deus ordinavit; cf. 1 Cor. 1,21. Hebr. 2,10 : decebat enim eum propter quern omnia et per quern ornnia, qui multos filios in gloriam adduxerat , auctorem salutis eorum per passionem cohsummare; vide Gal. 3,13. Notat lam. Petrum supra, cum loqueretur quae Pater revelaverat beatum esse praedicatum , nunc vero quia humana sapiat vocari satanam; unde intelligimus, quanta sit differentia hominis sibi relicti et eiusdem divina gratia adiuti ; deinde quam non sufficiat Dei gratiam aliqua in repercepisse, si non eadem perseveret assistere. Itaque quo Petrus sibi ipsi innotesceret nee se oh pronuntiatam beatitudinem efferret, et nos quae dicta sunt in eo disceremus, hene dispensations ac permissione divina factum est, ut post insignem illam commendationem in hanc prolapsus infirmitatem talem a Domino audiret increpationem . Putarunt aliqui eum appellari satanam quia ex impulsu ac suggestions satanae locutus esset. At id durum est atque excluditur verbis Christi , quibus Petri sententia non ad diabolum , sed ad humanum refertur affectum. Aliis appellatio satanae adeo videbatur gravis et horrenda , ut non ad Petrum , sed ad ipsum diabolum earn dirigi opinarentijr. Ita 5. Hil. : sciens Dominus diabolicae artis instinctum Petro ait : vade retro post me; in eum vero per quern opinio haec suggerebatur conversus adiecit : satana scandalum es mihi ; non enim convenit existimare Petro satanae nomen et offensionem scaridali deputari . Idem quoque S. Chrysologus proponit (serm. 27; M. ' i> 52,276). Et S. Hie?', commemorat multos putare non Petrum esse correptum sed adversarium spiritum qui haec apostolo suggesserit; sed mihi hoc error apostolicus et de pietatis aiFectu veniens nunquam incentivum diaboli videbitur . Ad diabolum quoque retulit verba Marcellus contra quern scribit Eusebius caesariensis hanc explicajtionem tamquam crcpatya car-pens (G; Marcellum 1,2; M. 24,732). Et revera aliis omissis cum verba vade et quia non sapis... ad Petrum dirigantur, fieri neqnit ut quae eodem modo interserantur ad alterum referantur. Christus itaque quam maxime asseruit passionem suam fieri ex DeL consilio et ordinatione. Si vero ipse, rex et caput Ecclesiae , per passionem debet intrare in gloriam suam , quid iam consequens erit pro suis? Regnum messianum sanctitate constitui prophetae unanimiter annuntiarimt et Christus iterate docuit (cf. 5,20 seq.); sed ut homo ad earn enitatur sanctitatem , pro conditions naturae lapsae opus est multo sud ore et labore, ad quern subeundum ne animus deficiat ipse Messias per passionem nobis praeit et nos adhortatur ut forti animo suum sequamur exemplum . Passionis autem mentione facta et consectariorum quae pro suis derivantur denuo clare docet quae sit natura etindoles regni sui. Quare postquam de sua passione docuit, statim adiungit documentum pro omnibus
16:24
v. 24 si qtris milt post me venire , meus esse discipulus ; non vim infero , non cogo , sed uniuscuiusque arbitrio id relinquo; ideo dico si quis vult; ad bona voco;... haec dicens magis alliciebat; nam qui vim infert, saepe avertit, qui vero rem auditoris arbitrio relinquit magis attrahit ; potentior quippe est mitis rei expositio quam violentia (S. Chrys.}\ abneget semetipsum; se abnegat qui anteactam in nequitia vitam egregia conversione delet; quemadmodum exempli causa, qui prius libidinosus fuit et intemperans , postquam magis delude continens factus est, se lascivum abnegat; vivo iam non ego vox estse abnegantis tamquam qui propriam vitam amisisset et Christum in se suscepisset , ut ipse in eo viveret tamquam iustitia et sapientia et iustifieatio etpax (Orig.}\ pariter illustrant hanc vocem ex Gal. 2,20 S. Chrys. Hier. Rab. .Pasch. Thorn. Est abnegare se deponere veterem hominem cum operibus suis (S. Hier.) , abnegare sui ipsius voluntatem , voluptatum ac vitae amorem, ant suum proprium corpus non parcendo labori (Euth.} ; tune nos ipsos abnegamus, ait S. Gregorius (horn, in evang, 32,2; M. 76,1233), cum vitamus quod per vetustatem fuimus et ad hoc nitimur quod per novitatem vocamur. Abnegare se est nullam sui habere rationem , se spernere , vitam suam cum opus sit pro Christo contemnere (S. Chrys. Theoph. Maid.), valedicere propriis affectibus et desideriis , non sequi ea quae amor proprius suggerat sed quae divinae sint voluntatis, non se spectare sed Deum, ilia a se atiiicere et amputare quae legi Dei adversentur, affectus et appetitus mundanos etcarnales deponere (lans. Sylv. Lap.}. Sibi igitur et suis concupiscentiis renuntiet homo; natuuam peccato lapsam et corruptam quae ad malum prona est, generose vincat. Praeterea tollat cnicem suam; vide ad 10,38; uti cruciarii suam ferre debebant crucem, ita vitae molestias ac difficultates toleret paratus etiam mortem subire ignominiosam , si causa Christi et virtutis id postulaverit (S. Chrys.}. Ita portans crucem sequatur me, exsistat mei imitator et discipulus, dum arete meis inhaeret vestigiis. Ad idem provocat apostolus Hebr. 12,2-4 et I Petr. 2,21 : Ghristus passus est pro nobis. vobis relinquens exemplum, ut sequamini vestigia eius. Declarat itaque Christus quid sitse sequi; est scil.se abnegare et tollere crucem suam; in hac re ratio discipulatus consistit. Proinde illud sequatur me non est tertium aliquod quod praeter duo alia requiratur, sed ut lans. notat , est pars apposita ut significetur eum qui volet venire post Christum sequi debere per ilia duo ; fieri enim non potest ut qui seipsum vere abnegavit et tollit crucem suam non sequatur Christum; et alioquin absurdum est dicere tria ha.ec requiri ab eo qui vult venire post Christum, nempe abnegare se, tollere crucem et sequi Christum; itaque perinde esset ac si diceretur : qui vult me sequi, me sequatur . In quern sensum etiam S. Hier. scribifc : cui mundus crucifixus est , sequitur Dominimi crucifixum. Alii in sequatur me cernunt commendari quomodo nobis perseverandum sit in cruce cum Christo per totam vitam usque ad mortem et coronam (Lap.}. Alia consideratione habita posset dici addi sequatur me, quia sunt multi qui suae voluntali et concupiscentiis renuntiare debent et gravia tolerare in mundo ita tamen ut nullum inde habeant meritum apud Deum homines mundani. Sed de eiusmodi hoc loco non agi patet quia dicifcur : si quis vult venire post me. Ceterum verum est quod Euth. monet, docere Christum non solum oportere talia pati sed etiam se sequi, hoc est per vestigia conversationis eius incedere. Cardo rei est : abstine, sustine. lam vero ut hanc abnegationem et susceptionem crucis nobis persuadeat, Christus affert, \iiAlb. dicit, tres rationes v. 25-27, quarum prima est, quia hoc solum est salutis; secunda quia hoc solum est utilitatis; tertia quia hoc solum est secudtatis . Tanta enim necessitas nobis incumbit , ut vita ipsa temporalis potius profundenda sit , ne vita beata immortalis perdatur; quanto magis itaque bona vitae et commoda?
16:25
v. 25 qui enim voluerit animam suam salvam facere i. e. vitam suam servare, perdet earn; qui autem perdiderit animam suampropler mei. e. vitam suam propter me prof uderit , inveniet earn ;ilmd prop ter me in hoc membro ostendit simul quis in priore membro dicatur perdere vitam , scil. qui illud servare vult eo quod Christum abneget et prodat vel a virtute deficiat. Ceterum vide ad 10,39, Rem exemplo illustrate. Gregorms (horn, inevang. 32,4) : ac si agricolae dicatur : fruinentum si servas, perdis; si seminas, renovas. Quis enim nesciat quod frumentum cum in semine mittitnr, .perit ab oculis, in terra deficit? sed unde putrescit in pulvere, inde virescit in renovatione. Persecutionis tempore ponenda est anima; pacis tempore ea quae amplius dominari possunt frangenda sunt desideria terrena . Quale damnum irreparabile homo incurrat si vitam perdiderit immortalem Christus ita exsequitur, ut rationem afferat gravissimam, cur nullo commodo temporali nos abduci sinamus ab ilia via quam ipse nobis ostendit
16:26
v. 26 quid enim prodest (proderit) homing scil. in die iudicii , uti in v. 27 ratio redditur, quam utilitatem percipiet , si mundum universwn hicretur, animaevero suae detrimentum patiatur? i. e. animae suae iacturam fecerit, ideoque vitae immortalis iacturam subierit. Maximum quod fingi potest lucrum et commodum nihil proderit ; quid iam minimal ilia et futilia, propter quae homines saepe a virtute deflectunt? Impossibile quidem est quern piam totum mundum lucrifacere; si tamen possibile foret, nulla esset utilitas; siquidem bmnia quae mundi sunt mortalia sunt, anima vero immortalis, et horum sane delectatio temporalis, illius vero supplicium sempiternum (Euth,]. Ludit Christus in voce ^u^-/i anima, vita; intelligi hoc loco vitam beatam quae sola vere est vita, patet ex membro priore v. 25 et ex v. 27. Vim comparationis accommodate exemplo effert S. Dr. : si enim diceretur tibi : sis toto hoc mense dives et potens, facias quidquid velis , utere carnis voluptatibus sicut placet, ea tamen conditione, ut tibi oculi eruantur, omne solatium tollatur ettoto ternpore vitae tuae in fame et siti , in omni cruciatu et omni miseria vivas ; numquid illud tale bonum hoc tenore susciperes? et quidem tola haec vita praesens nee mensis est nee unius diei vel horae spatium ad illius aeternae infelicitatis comparationem . Animae detrimentum pati idem est quod animam perdere , vitam beatam perdere; ita /](/.uo9vj TV)V ^u^vjv.opponitur illi Jtep^vfc^. Neque totius mundi possessio posset esse utilitati cum tali detrimento : aut quam dabit homo commutationem pro anima $ua? i. e. quid homo dare potest iudici quo vitam illam beatam , animam suam, quam perdidit, iterum redimat; tale pretium non exsistit; ille homo iam nihil potest Deo offerre quo vitam beatam quam perdidit sibi denuo emat et acquirat. Dicitur aut, i. e. mundum lucrari cum animae detrimento posset prodesse , si homo haberet quo animam denuo pretio redimeret ; at eiusmodi compensationem iudici nequit praestare. Et merito haec omnibus suaderi vehementer ut perpendant, enuntiatur
16:27
v. 27 Filius enim hominis venturus est in gloria Patris sui i. e. in ea gloria quae est Patris, proinde in gloria divinitatis; cf. loan. 17,5 : clarifica me tu Pater apud temetipsum claritate quam habui priusquam mundus esset apud te; et Matth. 24,30 cum virtute multa et maiestate; cum angelis suis; cf. 24,31. Marc. 13,27. 1 Thess. 4,15 et tune reddet uni~ cuique secundum opera eius; graece TYIV nrpa^iv, secundum vitae cursum et rationem, quatenus egit uti v. 24 postulatur. Quid redditurus sit, docet Ghristus Matth. 25,34. 41 et S. Paulus : tribulatio et angustia in omnem animam hominis operantis malum; gloria autem et honor et pax omni operanti bonum (Rom. 2,9. 10). Cum itaque tamquam iudex appariturus est , homo id quod egit exhibere debet iudici ; si sua actione iacturam fecerit animae , si ius vitae beatae abiecerit et amiserit, iam nihil habet quo damnum hoc reparet, etsi mundum universum lucratus esset, neque enim tali pretio potest anima redimi vel vita beata acquiri. Atque fore dicit ut aliqui qui nunc audiunt Christum loquentem testes sint, quomodo sese tamquam iudiceni sit manifestaturus ; quare simul docet retributionem aliquam quam populo sit redditurus hand ita longe abesse, imde et gloriam suam post passionem indicat et stimulos acldit , ut se sequantur eo modo quo in v. 24-26 docuit;
16:28
v. 28 amen dico vobis, sunt quidam de hie stantibus qui non gustabunt mortem (uti intargumim NrpQ Djtta prohebr. videre mortem , i. e. experiri; cf. loan. 8,52. Hebr. 2,9), donee mdeant Filium hominis venientem in regno suo; in vetere testamento Deus dicitur venire , si de peculiari eius manifestatione tamquam iudicis v. g. sermo est; ita Is. 3,14 ; 30,27; 66,15. 18. Hab. 3,3; similiter de Deo iudicium exercente dicitur egredi Is. 26,21 ; 42,13. Mich. 1,3 etc. Quare quod hoc loco dicitur videre Filium hominis venientem , cum de secundo eius ad iudicium ultimum adventu sermo esse non possit, apte et modo ad vetus testamentum consentaneo explicatur de aliquo gravi iudicio quod exerciturus est in regno suo i. e. eo tempore quo iam in regno suo , in regia sua maiestate et gloria estconstitutus. Notari oportet quod modo dictum est, de secundo adventu non posse esse sermonem. Is enim designatur in v. 27; iam in v. 28 de alia manifestatione mentionem fieri necesse est, non solum quia Christus'profecto scivit se non brevi post venturum ad iudicium universale, sed etiam quia loquendi modus est alius ; ibi v. 27 venturus dicitur in gloria Patris cum angelis , hie in regno suo ; ibi ut reddat unicuique secundum opus eius , hie nihil de retributione universal!, sed solum aliquos eum cognituros esse iudicium exercentem vel eius iudicium visuros. Dicitur quidem venire de Domino etiam misericordiam et salutem largiente, uti Is. 35,4; 40,10; 51,14 etc.; at hoc loco de iudice et iudicio esse cogitandum suadetur propter nexum cum v. 27. Iam quale iudicium intelligendum sit, videtur postea esse declaratum ab ipso Domino. Ipse enim vaticinium de iudicio in urbem et templum Jerusalem devolvendo coniunctim proponit cum oraculo ultimi iudicii; vide ad 24,3 seq. Quare hoc loco de eversione urbis et templi cogitandum esse , ex Christi sermone quern postea ad discipulos habuit colligere debemus. Et hanc explicationem proponunt Calm. Schegg, Bisp. Arn. Reischl, Grimm, Piilzl, Schanz, Fil. Keil, Mansel aliique, quamvis varia ratione earn comprobent. Legitur Marc. 8,39 donee videant regnum Dei veniens in virtule , et Luc. 9,27 donee videant regnum Dei. Quare aliqui verba explicarunt de Ecclesia Christi quam aliqui eorum cernerent firmiter constructam, contra mundi gloriam erectam et in dies augescentem (ita S. GregoriiiSj horn, in evang. 32,5; Bed. Rab. Thorn, fans. Lamy}. Si solum verba apud Marcum et Lucam relata haberemus , non viderem quid merito opponeretur. At cum mentio fiat Filii hominis venientis in regno et id quidem postquam in v. 27 de iudicio future sermo est factus , ea acceptio nequit adniitti. Gum statim 17,1 seq. narretur de transfiguratione Christi, multi verba nostra de hac ipsain gloria apparitione esse intelligenda opinati sunt ; ita aliquos (TIVS?) censere iam commemorat Orig.; ita explicant S. Chrys. Cyr. Euth. Theoph. Hil. Hier. Pasch. Br. Maid. Bar. Sylv. Lap. Kilber. Verum haec explicatio plane est improbabilis. Transfiguratio enim iam facta est post sex dies 17,1. lam si Cliristus hoc brevissimum spatium designare voluisset , nunquam dixisset : sunt quidam qui non gustabunt mortem. Hie enim loquendi modus evidenter longum temporis spatium indicat, intra quod plerique de hie stantibus mortem sunt obituri. Christus autem homo ad homines loquens humano modo utitur vocibus ; unde eodem modo sermo debet explicari -quo homines loqui solent. Insuper ii> transfiguratione non venit in regno suo quod nondum firmiter constitutum erat; non venit tamquam index , qualis tamen ex v. 27 etiam in v. 28 venturus exspectatur. Alii has duas explicationes proponunt (Bed. Rab. Thorn.}; alii tres : vel in transfiguratione , vel in gloria resurrectionis vel in Ecclesiae dilatatione (Alb.}, in ascensione, in Ecclesia militante per gratiosam inhabitationem, in transfiguratione (Dion.}; Cai. de tempore post resurrectionem verba dici arbitratur. Secundum Orig. is aspicit venientem in regno suo , qui contemplatur. et intelligit excellentiam Verbi \j Aoyou ()'
16:1
προσελθόντες, style de Mi. Il ἃ déjà mis les Sadducéens auprès des Pharisiens (ur, 7), et il va continuer (6. 11. 42), tandis que dans Mc. et Le. les Sadducéens n'apparaissent qu’à Jérusalem (Me. xrr, 18; Le. xx, 27; Mt. xxnr, 23.34). En somme il serait étonnant que le parti puissant et actif des Sadducéens ne se soit trouvé en contact avec Jésus que pour poser une question de théologie. Ils étaient nombreux parmi les courtisans d'Hérode, si bien que les Sadducéens de Mt. répondent aux Hérodiens de Me. πὶ, 6; οἵ, Me. vi, 14. Mais selon son habitude, Mt. envi- ἡ sage les classifications sacrées de préférence aux groupements politiques. Cependant cf. xxn, 16. — L'intention de tenter n'avait pas à être empruntée à Me.; Mt. l'introduira (xxn, 35) même où Mec. ne l’a pas. — Le signe « du ciel », comme dans Me., et non un signe seulement, comme dans Mt. xu, 38. Mais Le. xr, 46 ἃ aussi le signe « du ciel », qui faisait donc partie de la tradition dite Q. 2 8.) On regrette le soupir arraché à Jésus par cet aveuglement (Me.), mais il faut convenir que dans Mc. il ne sera question que d’un signe quelconque si bien que ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ aurait bien pu être ajouté à son texte d'après Mt., quoique la tradition ms. n'ait pas conservé de trace d’un texte plus court. Au contraire dans Mt. ceite allusion au ciel amène une réplique. Le lien n'est pas logique, mais dans la manière des transitions sémitiques d'un mot à un autre. — Croyant la réplique condamnée par les mss., MeNeile imagine qu'elle ἃ élé rédigée d'après Le. Mais combien Le. est moins fin! Les nuages annoncent la pluie, le vent du sud la chaleur. Observation banale. Le charme de Mt. c’est que le même signe, la rougeur du ciel, annonce tantôt le beau temps, quand c'est le soir ; tantôt la pluie, quand c’est le matin. Il fallait de la perspicacité pour le noter, et beaucoup d'esprit pour en faire compliment. En Palestine, et semble-t-il, un peu partout, il en est souvent ainsi, mais non en Égypte où les pluies sont beaucoup plus rares. Si Le, n'a pas lui-même transposé pour le vulgaire, c'est le sens commun de la tradition qui avait trouvé cette forme moins ingénieuse. — εὐδία, temps serein, régulier, calme de la mer, et paix dans un pays (MM). Les rougeurs du ciel le soir à l'occident sont fréquentes en été quand le temps est au beau fixe. — Le matin ces rougeurs sont à lorient, colorant en hiver de gros nuages qui donnent au ciel un aspect menaçant. Comment ceux qui savaient si bien tout cela ne comprenaient-ils pas que des temps nouveaux étaient venus? Seulement le changement se faisait sur la terre, dans les malades guéris, dans les pauvres évangélisés. Regarder le ciel c'était bien pour prévoir le temps qu'il ferait. Mais pour savoir si Jésus était le Messie, c'est son œuvre qu'il fallait considérer. &a) Le v. 3 eùt pu conclure comme Me. par le refus d’un signe, spécialement d'un signe du ciel. Toutefois, dans une autre circonstance, le Sauveur avait promis le signe de Jonas. Mt. et peut-être seulement le traducteur grec, sinon un très ancien copiste, a donc conclu ici comme au verset xu, 39. La réponse est absolument identique dans les mss. qui ont poussé l'assimilation jusqu'au bout, y compris τοῦ προφήτου, mais Det l'anc. lat. om. καὶ μοιχαλίς, B Lit ave, d’autres ζητει au lieu de ἐπιζήτει. L'authenticité de 42, d’après la critique rationnelle, est moins assurée que celle de 2-3. On pourrait concevoir Ma. comme énonçant seulement le départ de Jésus. 45) Les termes sont beaucoup plus forts si Jésus laisse là ses adversaires sur une interrogation à laquelle ils ne savent que répondre, exactement comme xx, 47. Pour ne pas atténuer cette impression, Mi. ne parle pas comme Mc. de l'embarquement, qui pouvait avoir ses motifs. Jésus s'en va pour quitter les Pharisiens, voilà tout.
Le sens, il faut le reconnaitre, a échappé à plusieurs Pères, étonnés que l'Apôtre joue dans l'Église le rôle de pierre fondamentale, qui paraissait réservé au Christ (I Pet. 1, 4-8; Eph. π, 20; 1 Cor. 1x, 11), les apôtres principaux n'étant que les colonnes (Gal. 11, 9). Saint Augustin lui-même, après avoir reconnu le sens normal, ἃ proposé sur la même ligne dans ses Rétractations (I, xx) l'exégèse qui faisait du Christ la pierre fondamentale. Les protestants ont naturellement abondé dans ce sens, que personne aujourd'hui ne voudrait soutenir. Mais cette répugnance à admettre que Pierre soit le fondement sert encore à attaquer l’authenticité du passage.
16:2
Holtzmann, Loisy etc. reconnaissaient le sens normal du passage, sauf quelque difficulté sur les portes de l'enfer. Voici par exemple Loisy (1, 9) « Simon-Pierre n'est pas que le fondement historique de l’Église, il en est le fondement actuel et permanent; il vit encore, aux yeux de Matthieu, dans une puissance qui lie et délie, qui détient les clefs du royaume, et qui est l'autorité de l'Église elle-même, non pas sans doute son autorité diffuse. mais une autorité générale et distincte; qui est aux autorités particulières ce que Simon- Pierre a été relativement aux disciples et à Paul lui-même. » Il est même permis d'estimer que cette explication nuance la pure exégèse du texte de Ia confirmation que lui a apportée la tradition. Mais c’est afin de conclure : « Les critiques qui voient dans ce passage de Matthieu le plus ancien témoignage des prétentions de l’Église romaine rencontrent l'interprétation catholique du texte » (x, 10); ce qui revient à dire que 16 passage est une création en faveur de l’Église romaine, alors que Jésus n'aurait même jamais pensé à une Église. En vertu de l’axiome 15 fecit cui prodest, c'est donc à Rome que le passage aurait été inventé.
16:3
D'après les plus radicaux, les vv. 48 et 49 n’ont même pas fait partie de l’évangile de Mt. Ils sont une addition assez tardive, d'après Resch (Aussercanonische Paralleliexte... un, p. 185 ss. 1894), et c'est encore l'avis de M. Schnitzer (Hat Jesus das Papsttum gestiftet? (1910), qui ne place cette addition que peu avant l’an 200.
16:4
Mais M. Dell (ZnTW. 1914, p. 1-49) a du moins bien montré qu'il n'y a aucune bonne raison de douter que toute la partie propre à Mt. n'appartienne à son évangile. Ceux qui sont aujourd’hui de cet avis accentuent moins que M. Loisy le taractère romain du texte. Car enfin il est aussi coloré de sémitisme araméen, sinon plus, qu'aucun autre passage évangélique. Si on l'attribue à un judéo-chrétien, comment aurait-il sacrifié Jérusalem à Rome? Et il faudrait donc concéder que la primauté romaine était déjà assez bien établie lors de la rédaction de l'évangile pour y entrer de plain-pied. Aussi cherche-t-on au passage un sens moins compromettant. M. Dell, par exemple, voit la victoire sur les portes de l'enfer dans la descente du Christ parmi les morts. Klostermann se demande si tout cela n’est pas une recension embellie de l'histoire de la première rencontre de Jésus et de Pierre? ou une tentative d'éliminer d'avance le scandale du reniement? ou un écho de la tradition sur l'apparition de Jésus ressuscité à Pierre? — Conjectures en l'air!
16:5
Selon sa coutume (cf. Introduction, p. excur), Mt. pose la situation par un participe; elle compte peu pour l'enseignement. Il est évident que Jésus ἃ traversé avec ses disciples. S'ils sont seuls nommés, c’est qu’ils sont responsables de ce qui importe ici, l'oubli des pains. Il semble bien qu’on est arrivé sur la rive, sûrement orientale, et ἐπελάθοντο est dans le sens du plus-que-parfait. On nous fait remarquer qu’on pouvait acheter du pain quelque part. Sans doute, mais pour une troupe qui vit économiquement, c'était un inconvénient de n'avoir pas pris des pains chez soi, c’est-à-dire à Capharnaüm. Mt. qui se préoccupe moins des choses que de leur sens ne nous dit pas qu'il n'y avait qu'un pain (Mc.).
Plus récemment encore, M. Harnack a élaboré un système complet, qui prétend s'appuyer sur l’ancienne tradition en même temps que sur les vraisemblances évangéliques : Der Spruch über Petrus als den Felsen der Kirche (dans les Sifzungsberichte der küniglich preussischen Akademie der Wissenchaften, 20 et 27 juin 1918). Le texte Mt. xvr, 18 est réduit et expliqué : « Et moi jee dis que tu es Céphas, et la mort ne te dominera pas. » Jésus promettait ainsi à Pierre qu'il ne mourrait pas avant l'avènement du royaume (les eschatologistes n'auront qu'à remercier M. Harnack de ce précieux coup de main). Le reste aura été ajouté dans l'intérêt de l’église romaine. Contre Harnack, cf. Foxcx, Tu es Petrus (Biblica, 1920, p. 240-263; Scmepexs, L'authenticité de saint Matthieu, xvi, 18 (Recherches de science religieuse, 1920, p. 269-302).
16:6
Même parole énigmatique sur le levain, d’un style plus coulant. Si Mt. avait mis ici les Sadducéens à la place du levain d'Hérode de Me., il aurait donc eu la précaution de préparer son effet en introduisant déjà les Saddticéens au v. 4. Le plus vraisemblable est qu'il suit son propre thème.
Enfin M. Bultmann (Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, p. 84), interprétant d'ailleurs correctement le texte, y voit une création de la communauté palestinienne, dont Pierre était le chef doctrinal. Lorsque Pierre eut cru à la résurrection, il crut en même temps au messianisme de Jésus, et la communauté transporta cette confession au temps où Jésus vivait encore. Les portes de l’enfer prévaudront sur l'humanité dans les derniers temps, mais la Communauté sera sauvée. Dans tous les systèmes on insiste beaucoup sur le caractère adventice des vv. 17-19. C'est le cas des critiques outranciers prétendant qu'ils ont été ajoutés à M£., mais c'est surtout le cas des partisans de la dépendance de Mt. par rapport à Mc. Le passage manquant à Mc. et à Le., on conclut qu'il ne faisait pas partie de la tradition primitive. Nous tenons à répondre que même dans l'hypothèse de la dépendance, le passage ayant un caractère sémitique très accusé, et ayant été rédigé en araméen avec une allusion et un jeu de mots qui n'est très naturel qu'avec Képhas, il faudrait de toute facon admettre qu'il a été écrit en Palestine, et pour des chrétiens parlant araméen. C’est dire qu’il faisait partie de la plus ancienne tradition. D'ailleurs cet ensemble est précisément, par toute son unité organique, un de ceux où Mt. manifeste son indépendance par rapport à Mc. Comme l’a fait remarquer M. Bultmann (p. 157), par ailleurs si radical, les vv. 17-19 sont _le complément πόσστσεῖτο D ΠΡ. nn du Christ. Il est bien évident qu'il n'a pas interrogé pour s'informer, mais pour faire parler ses disciples, et cela même n'avait toute sa raison d’être, selon sa pratique habituelle, que s’il voulait leur donner une lecon, tirer la vraie conclusion de leur réponse. C’est Pierre qui répond, et c'est à lui que la réplique est adressée. Ce qu'il faut expliquer, ce n’est pas le plus de Mt., c'est plutôt le silence de Me. (suivi par Lc.), car la simple recommandation du silence est un raccourci qui remplace sans la suppléer une adhésion explicite. Il n’est donc pas nécessaire de dire, comme nous ’avions proposé (Comm. Mc. p. 218) que Mi. ἃ condensé en une seule deux confessions de Pierre; peut-être faut-il regarder la voix à la Transfiguration comme une confirmation par le Père, adressée aussi à Jacques et à Jean, de ce qu'avait dit Pierre. Ou bien on pourrait, comme nous le proposions alors, placer la confession après la Trans. figuration dans l’ordre du temps.
16:7
Dans Mc. comme dans Mt. ce mot mystérieux fait que les disciples pensent aux pains. Mais tandis que dans Me. ils échangent leurs réflexions entre eux, dans Mt. ils font un retour sur eux-mêmes. De toute facon ils prennent la parole .du Maitre pour un reproche. À cause du v. 11, il est clair que ὅτι n’est pas purement récitalif (contre Kiost.), mais elliptique : (c'est) « parce que »… cf, l'usage classique de ὅτι δέ « et la preuve que » (Kühner-Gerth, 1, 2, 374 cité par Deb. 8 480, 6).
16:8
ἐχετε (Η) et non ελαόετε (TSV).
Comme Me., avec ὀλιγόπιστοι, du style de Mt. Ce terme donne de la lumière aux reproches d'inintelligence. Si c'est læ foi qui est en défaut, c’est done que les apôtres auraient dû s'en rapporter au Maître, qui aurait fait un miracle s’il l'avait jugé oppertun. 9.5.) C'est pour cela que sont rapportés les deux eas de mulliplication des pains, avec la circonstance spéeiale des restes. Jésus mterroge sans attendre la réponse, non pas parce qu'il sait déjà le résultat, sa science propre n'étant pas en cause, mais parce que Mt. affectionne le style rapide. 44} ΜΙ. elôt l'épisode comme il l’a ouvert. Une fois les disciples ramenés de leur malentendu, ils doivent comprendre le logion que Jésus répète sans l’expliquer.
16:12
Et en effet ils comprennent (cf. xvir, 13) que le tevain devait s'entendre . d'une tendance fâcheuse. La parabole du levain (xur, 33) n’avait pu les mettre sur la voie. Le plus souvent le levain s’entendait d’un principe de corruption ({ Cor. v, 6 55.; Gal. v, 9). Chez les Rabbins, le Kevain signifie le mauvais instinet. — Les Pharisiens et les Sadducéens n'avaient pas là même doctrine sur tous les points. Aussi bien n’étaient-ils pas des écoles de philosophie, mais des groupements sociaux, également méprisants pour le prédicateur de Nazareth, affectant d'être disposés à le eroire, — à la condition qu'il donnât un signe do ciel, — en réalité décidés déjà à le perdre. La διδαχή est donc moins une dectrine spéculative qu'une disposition peu sincère, que Lc. ἃ bien rendue par le mot d’hypocrisie. Peut-être aussi le terme de doctrine a-t-il été choisi en vue des Pharisiens, visés plus spécialement.
16:13
Le lieu est, comme dans Me., le pays de Césarée de Philippe (Mc. τὰς χῴμας); mais dans Mt. ce n'est pas le long du chemin. L'endroit a paru indifférent à Le. C'est trop préciser que d'imaginer la scène à la source du Jourdain. M. Immisch (ZnTW 1916, 18-26) ἃ pensé que la réponse de Jésus à Pierre avait été inspirée ‘par le décor : grotte qui rappelait l'ouverture de l'enfer, temple d’Auguste bâti sur le rocher. C'est ingénieux, mais sans appui dans le texte. — Le « fils de l'homme » est ici l’équivalent de « moi » (Μο.), mais Mt. s’il s'était servi de Me. n'aurait pas changé cette tournure naturelle, pour aboutir à une formule fort antithétique : οἱ ἄνθρωποι... τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. Le fils de l'homme indiquait ici la nature humaine de Jésus, et préparait par contraste la révélation de sa nature divine.
16:14
Mt. a Jérémie (ni Mc. ni Le.), en conformité avec la grande importance que ce prophète avait dans le judaïsme; cf. II Macch. π, 4-12; xv, 44 s., tandis que IV Esdr. τι, 18 : mittam tibi adiutorium pueros meos Isaiam et Hieremiam est d’origine chrétienne (RB. 1905, p. 486-501).
16:16
Mc. disait Pierre, le nom qu’il employait toujours. Mt. aussi avait dit Pierre (vrr, 14; σιν, 28); ici il devait dire Simon, puisque c’est le nom que va employer Jésus, mais il a ajouté Pierre pour éviter toute confusion. Ce double usage de Pierre, seul et avec Simon, ne s’expliquerait pas bien si Mt. avait . voulu enseigner que le changement de nom se fit alors pour la première fois. — Que Pierre parle au nom de tous, cela est évident; mais cela ne veut pas dire que tous étaient aussi éclairés; dans ce cas la félicitation du v. 17 n'aurait pas de raison d'être. Peut-être tous étaient-ils déjà convaincus que Jésus était le Messie. Mais Pierre va beaucoup plus loin : « L'addition a l'avantage de faire ressortir la double nature du Sauveur, Fils de Dieu comme il est Fils de l'homme, et de donner à l'assertion toute la solennité qui convient avant que Jésus exalte Simon lui-même » (Loisy, τι, 4). En effet on n'a jamais prouvé que Fils de Dieu soit un synonyme de Messie, même dans IV Esdr. (cf. Le Messianisme. Ὁ. 103). Tandis que ceux qui étaient dans la barque (xiv, 33) avaient vu en Jésus seulement un être surnaturel, Pierre, en ajoutant l’article et la qualification de fils du Dieu vivant, professe, aussi clairement qu'il pouvait le faire, l'origine divine de Jésus, possédant la nature de l'être infini qui a la vie et peut la transmettre. ὃ θεὸς ὁ ζῶν ne se trouve dans le N. T. que dans xxvI, 63, formule très solennelle et dans l'A. T. ps. xzt (su), 3. Quand Pierre at-il eu cette connaissance? Elle est contenue dans x1, 23 ss., mais encore fallait-il une grâce spéciale pour la pénétrer et la proclamer avec l'énergie de Pierre. AT) Μαχάριος, cf. v, 3. Le caractère sémitique de cette interpellation n'est pas douteux. Σίμων était le nom grec (pour Συμεών) que l’Apôtre portait habituelle- . ment, et c’est le mot que Jésus emploie toujours quand il lui. parle, excepté dans Le. xxx, 34. — Baptwv au vocatif est bar, « fils », en araméen, et [ans (N3M, en hébreu 211), le nom du prophèle (Jonas 1, 1; IV Regn. xiv, 25), cité par ΜΈ. x, 39 etc., qui était aussi le nom commun de la colombe. On ne peut guère supposer que Nam soit une abréviation de JIM, devenu en grec Ἰωάννης (malgré le ἴωνα du ms. B dans IV Regn. xxv, 23). Lors donc que Jo. 1, 43, transcrit 6 υἱὸς Ἰωάνου (cf. Jo. xx, 46. 17), il n'enseigne pas que Ἰωνᾶς soit une forme dérivée de 12, mais il indique un autre équivalent grec plus connu. I n'y avait donc pas à changer Bariona en Bar loanna comme quelques-uns le proposaient d'après Jérôme, ni en υἱὲ Ἰωάννου comme τὸ ἰουδαΐχόν (l'évangile selon les Hébreux) d’après une glose du ms. 566; cf. ΕΒ. 1922, p. 339. — σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα comme Gal. 1, 46; ce qui ne prouve pas un emprunt de Mt., car l'expression était assez courante (ΒΒ. 1920, p. 472). Cette partie du texte à tout le moins était connue de Justin (Dial. c, 4). On ne saurait donc supposer une interpolation tardive de toute la péricope dans le texte de Mt. ᾿ . La félicitation du Sauveur rehausse grandement le rôle de Pierre. Il ne dit pas, au nom des autres, une vérité à laquelle ils seraient parvenus par le raisonnement, comme cela pourrait être le cas de la simple dignité messianique de Jésus, en s'appuyant, bien entendu, sur les données de la foi traditionnelle, les prophéties, les miracles ete. Non, Pierre a reçu du Père, directement, une révélation qui dépasse en importance privilégiée toutes celles qui sont contenues dans l'Écriture. Car l'unité de Dieu eût pu être atteinte par le raisonnement, mais il fallait une confidence du Père pour savoir que Jésus était son Fils.
16:18
κἀγώ ouvbien : sicut Pater meus tibé Manifestavit divinitatem meam, îta et ego tibi notam facio emcellentiam tuam (5. Léon, serm. 1v, 2; Schanz, Holtz., McNeile), ou bien : quia tu mihi dicisti (Hier. Mali.), sens préférable, parce que le Christ ne s’en tient pas à une révélation sur Pierre, mais il lui fait une déclaration et une promesse qui sont sa réponse à la confession de l’Apôtre. Ce dialogue ἃ continué dans la suite des temps. Le siège de Pierre ἃ toujours confessé la divinité de Jésus, et chacune de ces confessions a mieux manifesté combien était véridique la parole du Fils de Dieu à son égard dans la personne de Pierre. Πέτρος n'existait pas co.1me nom propre ni en grec, ni en latin, et ne peut pas être dérivé du latin Petronius. C'est donc un nom nouveau qui paraît dans ‘histoire. Le nom commun πέτρος signifiait pierre, et πέτρα rocher. Mais πέτρος convenait mieux pour un homme, et πέτρα convenait mieux comme fondement de l’Église. En araméen, on ne pouvait réaliser cette élégance. Nous savons par le N. T. que Simon était nommé Céphas dans l'Église primitive (Jo. 1, 42; Gal. 1, 48; 11,9; I Cor. 1x, ὅ etc.). Or NON où N2*3 OÙ N33 signifie plus ordinairement λίθος pierre, que πέτρα rocher, mais il à quelquefois ce dernier sens (Mt. xxv, 51 Syrsin.; Onk. Num. xx, 8; cf. DaLman, Gram. 150). On comprend donc très bien, malgré les serupules de Dell (ZnTW. 1914, 18 SS.; 1946, 29), que Jésus ait pu dire et Ma. écrire: Tu es Cépha et sur ce Cépha je bâtirai mon Église, et que le traducteur grec ait gardé en même temps πέτρα qui répondait mieux à la situation, et πέτρος qui avait prévalu en grec comme nom masculin. Le jeu de mots eût été plus caractérisé si Céphas avait déjà été un nom propre connu, ce qui est possible (inscription sinaïtique, Lid.), mais moins impressionnant que la création d'un nom propre dont le sens était rocher, ce qui ne veut pas dire que 18 nom ait été imposé par Jésus alors pour la première fois. Le changement de nom de Siméon en Céphas (Jo. 1, #2) ou en Petros (Mc. τα, 16; Le. vi, 414) est attesté par tous les évangélistes, mais peutêtre la tradition, sauf le témoignage de Jean, était-elle moins ferme sur la circonstance. En somme, Mt. ne dit pas : « Tu t'appelleras Pierre », mais « tu es Pierre », lebien nommé, car. — χαὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ ne peut s'entendre que de Pierre, autrement toute la pointe de la phrase disparaît. Jésus a été nommé la pierre augulaire (1 Pet. τι, 4-8; Eph. n, 20; Gal. n, 9), mais il ne pouvait se désigner lui-même à ce moment. Osons dire que ce serait une mauvaise plaisanterie : Tu es Pierre, mais je bâtirai sur une autre Pierre! MeNeile cherche à revenir indirectement à cette interprétation surannée du Protestantisme en faisant de cette pierre la foi de Pierre en le messianisme du Seigneur. C’est bien la foi de Pierre qui introduit la promesse, mais la promesse s'entend de la personne, dont la foi vient de se manifester. Si l'édifice est un groupe, le fondement est leur chef ἀνίστησιν αὐτοῦ τὸ φρόνημα καὶ ποιμένα ποιεῖ (Chrys.) La situation de Pierre dans l'Église est celle du rocher sur lequel est bâti un édifice; grâce à ce fondement, l'édifice tiendra bon; grâce à ce chef, la communauté sera bien conduite. — Il a plu à M. Harnack (1. 1.) de supprimer toute l'incise xat ἐπὶ ….ëéxxAnclav. Mais comme à fait remarquer M. Windisch (cf. AB. 1920, 298), le nom de Pierre appelait nécessairement l'idée d'un bâtiment. Enlevez l'acte de bâtir, tout le sel de la phrase disparaît. D'autres, toujours nombreux, refusent à Jésus la notion d'Église, et surtout de son Église. Pourtant, sans parler de sa prescience divine, il a marqué plus d'une fois que ses disciples lui survivraient (Me. xur, 9; Le. xvu, 22 etc.);il pouvait bien les désigner comme un groupement. On donne dans le Talmud de Jér. (Maas. cheni n, 53 d).le nom de sainte congrégation à deux rabbins. Une ny (aram.nn1y) n'était pas nécessairement toute l’Assemblée d'Israël (πρ ou ny); ce mot se rendait ἐχκλησία dans les LXX, tandis que l'aram. ND“), avec le même sens se rendait plutôt συναγωγή. On ne saurait déterminer quel mot a employé Jésus en araméen, mais l’un ou l'autre se présentait naturellement. Nous n’entendons pas diminuer la grandeur de l'Église en prouvant que ce mot était plausible pour désigner un groupe restreint de fidèles. L'ampleur devait se manifester dans l'avenir, comme pour le grain de sénevé. Si Jésus dit «mon » groupe, c'est qu’il connait les dispositions des chefs du peuple, qui l'ont réprouvé et qui essaieront d'anéantir sa doctrine. Sans doute l'Église sera l'Église de Dieu, mais elle ne sera pas seulement au Christ, elle sera le corps du Christ (Eph. v, 23 ss., 29. 32; Col. 1, 18. 24). La déduction mystique de Paul suppose le lien manifeste entre le Maître et les disciples. Mt. ἃ pu écrire mon église, lui qui parle du royaume du Fils de l’homme (x, -44), déjà dans la bouche de Jésus. La difficulté principale du morceau est dans la dernière incise, dont le sens est controversé, même parmi les catholiques, surtout pour les portes de l'Hadès. M. Harnack les entend de la mort, et non moins résolument le P. Schepens. On pose l'équation : portes de l'Hadès — portes de la mort; portes de la mort la mort. Il n'y aurait donc ici qu'une promesse d’immortalité. Harnack en conclut qu’elle ne touche que la personne de Pierre, le P. Schepens montre que la mort ou l'immortalité peut se dire d’autres objets : Bossuet a dit que l'Église ne meurt pas. — D’après nous cette analyse logique, avec une apparence de rigueur, efface dans l'esprit le sens produit et voulu par les images du texte, dont le pathos inutile aboutirait à peu de chose. Pour dire à Pierre (Harnack) : « tu ne mourras pas », Jésus aurait dit : « Les portes de l’Hadès ne prévaudront point contre toi »; à propos de l'Église (Schepens), groupe humain ou construction, l'expression serait encore plus emphatique, avec la métaphore de la mort à résoudre. Éemphase qui serait déplacée si elle n’était que le vêtement d'une idée simple, a sa raison d'être si le concept lui-même ἃ quelque chose de mystérieux. Notons d'abord (contre Harnack) que l'absence d'article devant πύλαι n’atténue pas la force de l'expression, le mot étant déterminé par lui-même comme une entité distincte. A l'origine ces portes sont celles du lieu souterrain, ville ou palais, où se rendent les morts. Les portes elles-mêmes signifient aussi le palais (cf. Dan. n, 49; Esther, 11, 19; τι, 2. 3; 1v, 3; v, 9). Il faut tenir compte de la raison qui a suggéré ces métonymies. Les portes des palais et des forteresses sont, en tant que portes, des parties faibles; elles étaient devenues la partie forte, étant ordinairement surmontées de tours et de travaux de défense. Prendre les portes, c’est avoir vaincu l'adversaire (Gen. xx1v, 60). 11 ne fallait qu’un pas de plus pour les traiter comme des puissances ; c’est ce qui a lieu dans notre texte où les portes entrent en scène et agissent. Elles représentent donc une puissänce, et cette puissance est celle de l'Hadès. Or, au temps de Jésus, les Juifs ne regardaient plus la région souterraine et obseure comme l'asile de tous les morts. A mesure que l'idée d'une vie bienheureuse auprès de Dieu gagnait dans les âmes, le séjour des ténèbres devenait un lieu de perdition. Il y a des textes clairs dans des ouvrages dont la date, antérieure à J.-C., n’est pas contestée. Ps.-Sal. χιν, 6 : διὰ τοῦτο ἡ χληρονομία αὐτῶν ἄδης καὶ σχότος καὶ ἀπώλεια, et de même xv, 41; et précisément Ps. xvi, ἃ σύνεγγυς πυλῶν δου μετὰ ἁμαρτωλοῦ. Jubilés, vu, 29 : « ils iront au Chéo!, et descendront au lieu de la. condamnation »; cf. xxu, 22; χχιν, 31; Hénoch cm, 7. 8. Dans Philon ce lieu du châtiment se nomme même Tartare : le coupable ὑποσυρήσεται κατωτάτω πρὸς αὐτὸν. τάρταρον καὶ βαθὺ σκότος ἐνεχθείς... (De emecr. 6; Cohn, v, 371 585.). Enfin et surtout Le. xvi, 23, qui prouve que les Chrétiens ne voyaient pas d'inconvénient à nommer d’un nom mythologique le séjour du châtiment outre tombe. Les pertes de l’Hadès doivent donc être prises d’abord dans leur sens naturel de portes du palais infernal devenu le séjour des réprouvés. Ces portes sont représentées en action, et en action contre l'Église (ainsi que nous le verrons, et que le concède le P. Schepens). C’est donc la lutte d'un édifice qui est l'empire du mal, contre l'Église qui est la maison du Christ. Satan n’est pas nommé, et n'est pas désigné non plus directement, ni même les puissances infernales. Mais si les portes sont agissantes, c’est qu’elles représentent la cité. L'usage en était bien établi en hébreu ; ef. Dt. xw, 5, et surtout Dé. xvn, 2; II Regn. vin, 37 où les pertes en hébreu ont été traduites par les villes, et la cité suppose son roi. En somme « la mort » conviendrait bien, s’il s'agissait d’une personne, mais c’est l’Église qui est en jeu (contre Harnack); faire intervenir l’idée de mort dans la lutte entre les deux puissances, c'est ajouter une métaphore qui complique la situation (contre Schepens). La tradition est très favorable à l'interprétation naturelle. Pour prouver que les portes de l'Hadès sont celles de la mort, et signifient la mort, le P. Schepens a cité plusieurs textes de Pères qui établissent du moins la première équation. C'est une conséquence de leurs lectures bibliques. Aucun de ces textes n’est tiré d’un commentaire de Mt., ce qui revient à dire que les Pères jugent autrement quand ils sont sous l’influence du texte lui-même. Pour Origène, les portes de l'Hadès sont [65 mauvais esprits et les hérésies. Éphrem (Moes, 154) : Tu es petra, illa petra qua erexi, ut Satanas in eam offenderet. Hilaire : O in nuncupatione novi nominis felix Ecclesiae fundamentum, dignaque aedificatione illius metra, quae infernas deges et tartari portas, et omnia mortis claustra dissolveret. Jérôme : Ego portas inferi reor vitia atque peccat«. Chrys. ne parle pas des portes dans son commentaire, mais son disciple Euthymius πόλας δὲ ἄδου λέγει τὰς παρὰ τῶν “Ἑλλήνων καὶ τῶν αἱρετικῶν βλασφημίας, ὡς εἰσαγούσας εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον. Quant aux textes divergents des Pères, il faut se rappeler que de leur temps il n'y avait pas de séjour commun à tous les morts. Lorsqu'ils parlent indifféremment des portes de la mort ou de l’Hadès, ce n’est pas Hadès qui a pris le sens de mort naturelle, c’est la mort qui ἃ pris un sens religieux : Les portes de la mort ne prévalent pas sur Pierre ni sur l'Église, parce que la foi est inébranlable, ou que Pierre aura la vie éternelle. Il n’est donc pas directement question de l’immortalité de lÉglise. Sans doute la mort peut se dire au sens métaphorique d'une institution et même d'une ville — mais lé sens métaphorique doit s'appuyer sur le sens propre qui est la mort corporelle. Quand les Pères la remplacent — et le P. Schepens ἃ prouvé contre Harnack qu'ils le font — par un sens spirituel et religieux, ils ont donc en vue autre chose que la simple métaphore de la mort; une résistance victorieuse contre des puissances, religieuses ou non, mais antireligieuses. Saint Jérôme fait exception lorsque dans le texte cité par Schepens (sur Is. xxxvur, 10), il entend les portes de l'enfer d’une mort prématurée. Dans ce cas il est sous l'influence du cantique d'Ézéchias. Je ne crois pas qu’un seul ancien n'ait vu dans notre verset qu'une Promesse d’immortalité, au sens immédiat bien entendu, car l'indestructibilité résultera de la résistance victorieuse. χατισχύσουσιν ἃ bé traduit par la Vg. praevalebunt, par l'Église réformée superabunt. M. Harnack s'est prononcé pour le premier sens, le R. P. Fonck pour le second. Les raisons décisives manquent, car praevalebunt peut à la rigueur supposer des attaques, et le sens de superare est certainement possible. Si les portes représentent une puissance ennemie, on doit nécessairement supposer des attaques infructueuses; mais on ne peut s'appuyer sur le sens de χατισχύσουσιν pour déterminer celui des portes. — αὐτῆς. C’est encore sur ce mot que porte une difficulté. Quelques Pères l'ont appliqué à πέτρα. La grammaire permet d'entendre le relatif d'un nom plus éloigné, mais à la condition que de ce premier nom émane l'idée dominante : ici c'est précisément le contraire: le rocher n’est là que pour porter l'Église; aussitôt qu'elle est nommée, elle est campée pour étre en butte à l'hostilité d’une puissance adverse. Mais l'exégèse de certains Pères, en particulier d'Éphrem et d'Origène, rapportant αὐτῆς à πέτρα, signifiant Pierre, nous explique qu'ils aient pu interpréter « toi » tout en lisant « elle ». Pour Origène cela est tout à fait certain, puisqu'il lisait le même texte que nous. Son cas explique celui d'Éphrem (Moes. p. 153 etc.), qui lisait aussi le passage sur l'Église, rayé par Harnack. Il n’y ἃ pas la moindre probabilité que σοῦ au lieu de αὐτῆς soit la lecon originale. Harnack ne l’attribue même pas au païen cité par Macarius Magnès (ur, 22). Ce dernier, peut-être Porphyre, rapportait αὐτῆς à πέτρα. Le sens était que Pierre ne devait pas mourir et cette prophétie aurait donc été fausse. Éphrem et Origène ne voulant pas tirer cette conclusion se rejetaient sur la foi de Pierre. La leçon αὐτῆς étant certaine, la question pour nous, modernes, est de savoir s'il est raisonnable d'entendre ce mot de πέτρα. Si ce n’est pas le cas, il n’y ἃ qu’à traiter celte ancienne exégèse de contresens, en laissant à M. Harnack la gloire de l'avoir reprise pour son compte (au moyen d’une correction du texte), gloire qu'il doit partager avec Wernie (Die synoptische Frage, 185) citant une légende sur la survivance miraculeuse de Pierre (Iseux, Texte und Unters. xur, 26) : « vraiment tes yeux ne seront jamais fermés à la lumière du monde Le sens philologique et grammatical établi, les Anglicans font remarquer que la promesse est personnelle à Pierre; ses successeurs ne sont pas nommés. Et il faut convenir que cette prophétie est plus claire pour nous qu'elle ne le fut d'abord. Jésus n'avait rien affirmé sur le temps que durerait son Église. Maïs Tnt qu'elle durerait, elle devait avoir le même fondement, c’est-à-dire que d'autres hommes, la même Église, auraient un autre chef, le même aussi, le chef comme le groupe constituant une unité morale dans chaque ligne, les deux lignes demeurant unies. Cette unité successive dans le chef suppose une perpétuité de l'autorité dans une certaine lignée, dynastique ou autre. La succession d'un évêque à un autre évêque comme pasteur suprême répond très bien à cette donnée. Il restait à Jésus de pourvoir à ce que ces pasteurs aient toujours la qualité requise pour un fondement de l'Église, une foi semblable à celle de Pierre. Ce fut le rôle et 16 privilège de l'Église romaine de définir cette foi sans jamais dévier. De sorte que la parole de Jésus à Césarée est si manifestement une prophétie réalisée, qu’elle est un puissant argument de crédibilité. 19. om. και ἃ δωσω (TH) plutôt que add. (SV). — χλειδας (TH) et non χλεις (SV). 21. Incous Χριστος (H) ou ο Incouc (TS V).
16:19
Loin de faire double emploi avec le v. précédent, celui-ci explique en termes plus clairs le rôle de Pierre comme fondement. Le passage de la métaphore au sens propre (non sans de nouvelles images), se fait par l'idée des clefs. Écrire dé après δώσω comme le demande Harnack serait un contresens, car il n'y a pas la moindre opposition. Au premier abord Pierre figure comme le portier qui ouvre ou qui ferme, et cette exégèse est remise en honneur (KôaLer, dans Archiv für Rel.-W., 1905, p. 214-243, Die Schlüssel des Petrus). On cite des portiers mythologiques, depuis les textes babyloniens jusqu'au célèbre Janus (Dell etc.). Mais cet office restreint, puisqu'il est spécial, ne suffit pas à celui qui est le fondement, et l'on va voir qu’il remplira ses fonctions dans l'intérieur même du royaume. Le don des clefs est donc l’investiture du pouvoir sur toute la maison; le maître garde son pouvoir souverain, mais il en délègue l'exercice à un majordome, cf. Is. χχπ, 22 « Je mettrai sur son épaule la clef de la Maison de David; et s’il ouvre, nul ne fermera, et s’il ferme, nul n'ouvrira... 24. A lui sera suspendue toute la gloire de la maison de son père »... (trad. Condamin.). Ce passage est appliqué par Apoc. πὶ, 7 à Jésus lui-même. Jésus est le fondement, et Pierre est le fondement; Jésus a la clef de David, et Pierre ἃ les clefs : l’autorité de Pierre est donc celle de Jésus. Les mesures qu'il prendra sur la terre comme fidèle majordome (cf. Le. χη, 42) seront ratifiées dans le ciel, c'est-à-dire par Dieu. L'idée se trouve dans Makkot 23h, où trois décisions du tribunal d'en bas sont confirmées par le tribunal d'en haut, c’est-à-dire par Dieu (Wänsche, p. 196). Ces mesures sont exprimées par lier et délier. Plusieurs opinions : a} c'était l'expression classique de la magie, même religieuse, depuis l'antiquité babylonienne. Les exemples sont très nombreux dans les papyrus magiques; cf. Diod. Sic. 1, 27, l'inscription d'Isis : ὅσα γὰρ ἐγὼ δήσω, οὐδεὶς δύναται λῦσαι, et λύειν se dit en eftet dans ce sens (Le. χπι, 16) de 14 délivrance d'une femme liée par Satan. δ) Les Rabbins employaient couramment (et après eux l'Islam) les expressions SON et ΝῊ pour déclarer « défendu » et « permis ». C'était l'office des jurisconsultes, décidant d'après la tradition. Mais ce sens technique, lier — défendre ; délier — permettre, pouvait-il se transporter tel quel dans une traduction? D'après xvrr, 18, il semble bien qu'on lie et qu'on délie quelque chose par rapport à quelqu'un. 6) D'où le sens d'absoudre ou de condamner. Mais ce serait encore introduire une précision qui n’est pas dans le texte. d) On peut en dire autant du sens de mettre en prison ou relâcher; Jos. Bell. I, v, 2 : διοικηταὶ τῶν ὅλων ἐγίνοντο διώκειν τε xal χατάγειν οὖς ἐθέλοιεν, λύειν τε χαὶ δεσμεῖν. e) Il faut donc, semble-t-il, prendre ces deux mots dans un sens large qui comprend toutes les applications convenables au pouvoir du majordome. Π donne les solutions spéculatives, il déclare innocent ou coupable, il punit ou il fait grâce; d'après l'esprit nouveau enseigné par Jésus, ces solutions spéculatives ne sont pas restreintes à la glose des textes d’après la tradition; rien n'empêche d'y inclure le pouvoir législatif. Probablement la promesse n’aurait-elle pas élé exprimée dans ces termes sans l'usage rabbinique (Kn.), mais il n'épuise pas le sens. Ce n’est pas restreindre l'autorité de Pierre que d'en voir le prineipe dans le Magisière de la foi; il est d'abord le scribe initié au règne des cieux (xt, 52), et en même temps l’oixoëeoxétne auquel ce dernier était comparé, chargé de conduire ceux de la maison au but marqué par la foi : autorité doctrinale et juridiction.
16:20
διεστείλατο (TSV) ou ἐπετίμησεν (H).
Les disciples ne devaient pas être tentés de parler à d'autres du titre de Fils de Bieu. C’est celui de Messie qui devait surtout frapper les foules et les exciter. Le nom est répété, ce qui n’était pas nécessaire dans Mc. et Le. où la confession de Pierre précédait immédiatement. La leçon ἐπετίμησεν connue mais non suivie d'Origène (ur, 532), n'est soutenue que par [ D 6 syreur., et vient probablement de Mc. et de Lc.; nous lisons διεστείλατο. Ce mot fait bien l'effet d’une élégance pour ne pas employer un mot qui reviendra dans un autre sens au v. 30, mais elle peut être le fait de Mt. qui écrit avec plus de soin que Mc. Le. a employé deux mots, comme s’il groupait Me. et Mt..
16:21
ἀπὸ τότε, au lieu du simple τότε si fréquent dans Mt. indique une nouvelle série d'instructions, qui ἃ bien pu commencer sur l'heure, mais qui n’en marque pas moins un point important dans l'enseignement de Jésus à ses disciples. Maintenant ils savent qu'il est le Messie, et c’est sans doute pour cela que Bet N ont écrit ici ‘Inooëç χριστός (comme 1, 1). Mais quelle doit être la destinée du Messie? Précisément le contraire: de ce que pensaient le peuple et les disciples eux-mêmes. En même temps se présente l'image de Jérusalem (propre à Mt.) où Jésus doit souffrir, La même idée dans Le. 1x, 31, ce qui prouve les racines qu'elle avait dans la tradition. Mt. n'a pas « le rejet », ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι (Mc. et Le.) ni 322 de Me., qui note l'accent des paroles du Sauveur. — δεικνύω dans le sens d'enseigner, seulement (N. T.) Act. x, 28, avec l'infinitif; ici avec ὅτι, ce qui n’est pas moins classique. Au lieu de μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας (Mc.), Mt. (comme Le.) ἃ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, expression qui prévalut (xvir, 23; xx, 49) comme répondant plus exactement aux faits (même dans syrsin. sur Mc.). Mais la prédiction de sa nature était plus vague, le terme « après trois jours » {encore xxvur, 63) n’excluant pas l'autre sens, du moins d'après le texte hébreu de Jér. χχχιν, 14, où « après le terme de sept ans » (LXX six ans) signifie la septième année; de même Gen. xru, 17. 18; ILPar. x, 5, ἕως τριῶν ἡμέρων — τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ (vers. 12); cf. sur ML χα, 40. — ἐγερθῆναι. Mc. se sert du passif α᾽ ἐγείρω (xiv, 28; xvi, 6. 14) en parlant de la résurrection de Jésus, mais ordinairement du moyen de ἀνίστημι, qui d’ailleurs ne met pas plus en relief l'action propre de celui qui ressuscite (Mc. v, 42). Mt. semble n'avoir employé en parlant de Jésus que ἐγείρω, sauf peut-être xvu, 9. C'est ici le terme de Le.
16:22
προσλαμδάγομαι ne signifie pas « prendre à part » pour parler en particulier, mais venir au secours de quelqu'un. Le sens de prendre à part est donosseulement postulé pour ce passage, dans Me. vi, 33, et dans Mt. Mais ce ne peut être qu'en désespoir de cause. Or le sens peut très bien être ici « se faire le soutien de quelqu'un », comme dans Rom. χιν, 1; xv, 7. Il est assurément étrange que Pierre éprouve ce sentiment après sa confession, mais il n'est pas moins étrange qu'il ait reproché au Sauveur d'accepter sa passion et sa mort. Éclairé sur la filiation divine de Jésus, Pierre le voyait cependant suivre une destinée humaine; il la voulait seulement glorieuse; son bon cœur s’atiriste de voir Jésus qui paraît s’'abandonner à de sombres pressentiments. Un encouragement dans ce cas n'était pas plus déplacé qu'un reproche. On peut même dire que l’étonnement de Pierre est d'autant plus naturel qu'il avait une plus haute idée de la personne de Jésus, et par conséquent est encore plus à sa place dans Mt. que dans Me. — Mt. explique en quoi consiste le reproche de Pierre; ordinairement beaucoup plus concis que Mc. dans les récits, il était parfaitement informé sur tout cet épisode. Les termes sont nettement sémitiques. En hébreu on disait khalt τὲ, (%5 55m), « que cela soit profane pour moi, loin de moi de la part de Dieu », avec un sens déprécatoire immédiat. Au contraire en grec ἵλαος (forme attique ἵλεως) s'employait comme iaterjection pour souhaiter que le Dieu soit favorable; cf. Sopx. Oed. Col. 1480 etc. Ce mot convenait donc pour « Paix à vous!» (Gen. zur, 23), et ensuite les LXX lui ont donné un sens déprécatoire (II Regn. xx, 20; xx, 17; 1 Par. x1, 49; cf. 1 Macch. π, 21). C’est le cas ici, et les exemples cités par Moulton (Gram. Prol. 1, 240) ne semblent pas l'établir en grec. En araméen le mot déprécatoire Æhds (bn) avait à l'origine le sens d’avoir pitié; on disait pb D. — où μή avec le futur, seul cas du N. T. (Deb. $ 365, 1), mais classique. .
16:23
Mc. n’a pas dit que Jésus ait réprimandé Pierre devant les disciples, mais simplement qu'il a vu les disgiples : si leur présence devait augmenter la confusion de Pierre, elle rendait aussi la réprimande plus nécessaire, sous peine de les laisser eux aussi dans l'erreur. Quoi qu'il en soit, Mt. ne fait pas intervenir les autres, et loin d’adoucir le reproche extrêmement vif qui qualifie Pierre de Satan, il ajoute σκάνδαλον et ἐμοῦ, mots parfaitement en situation et qui même donnent la clef du mot obscur ὀπίσω. Au moment où Jésus va se diriger à Jérusalem pour y mourir, Pierre se met en travers, il devient un obstacle sur le chemin, qui risquerait de faire tomber le Maitre. (outil passe ? rare Or il est au moins à noter que ce mot de scandale, dans le sens que 16 mot avait pris en grec biblique, convenait parfaitementau nom de Pierre. Tout à l’heure rocher, il se fait pierre d’achoppement; cf. Ps. exxxix, 6, ἐχόμενα τρίδου σκάνδαλον ἔθεντό μοι, et Is. ὡς πέτρας πτώματι. Cette harmonie n'est pas mise en évidence; elle n’en décèle que mieux une contexture originale. Tout à l'heure Pierre disait ce que lui avait révélé le Père; maintenant il se fait l'organe d'un sentiment purement humain. Son amour pour son Maître répugnait à le voir souffrir, et cela était louable. Mais après l’avoir salué comme Christ et Fils de Dieu, il n'avait qu’à apprendre de Lui quelle serait sa mission; son intervention est donc présomptueuse, et inspirée par un sentiment trop humain. On voit que la révélation faite à Pierre sur le fait capital qu'il doit proclamer ne le garantit pas contre des démarches mal avisées.
16:24
Comme Me., sauf que τότε (style de Mt.) ὃ Ἰησοῦς est au lieu de χαὶ προσχαλεσάμενος τὸν ὄχλον σύν de Mc.
16:25
Comme Me. sauf ἀπολέσῃ au lieu du futur, et εὑρήσει (comme dans x, 38) au lieu de σώσει, terme explicatif, — καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἃ plutôt été ajouté par Mc. qu'omis par Mt. .
16:26
Presque exactement comme Mc., deux interrogations jointes par « ou bien », au lieu de « car » (Mc.). La ressemblance est telle, ζημιόω, ἀντάλλαγμα... qu'il faut admettretune dépendance quelconque. Dans les discours, Ma. est sur son terrain : en grec la sentence a dû être frappée par Mc. reproduisant de très près les paroles de Jésus en araméen. — Le sens du v. 26 pris isolément pourrait être mal compris; ce serait l'énoncé de cette vérité banale que l'homme qui aurait gagné le monde ne peut en jouir s’il vient à perdre ja vie. Mais le v. 25 donne clairement à entendre qu'il y a une vie (spirituelle) qu'on gagne en perdant la vie (temporelle), et qu'on perd en la gagnant, de la même façon. L'hypothèse de gagner le monde au risque de sa vie doit donc s'entendre de la vie spirituelle. Elle perdue, tout est perdu. Que pourrait-on donner en échange? Si on l'a perdue, c'est donc en gagnant le monde d’une manière illicite. Tout le passage compare implicitement la vie actuelle à la vie future, ou plutôt pose la condition essentielle pour sauvegarder la vie future ou la vie de l’âme : c'est le renoncement à tout pour suivre le Christ. Le moment qui en décidera est le jugement.
16:27
La pensée du jugement est donc ici très naturelle. Me. s’en tient au reniement, avec le seul aspect du châtiment. Dans Mt. le jugement évoque la pensée de toutes les œuvres, bonnes ou mauvaises. La gloire du Fils de l'homme est celle du Père (Mc.; Le. ajoute αὐτοῦ, la sienne propre), mais les anges sont ses anges (anges saints, Mc. et Le.). L'idée du jugement une fois évoquée, il est présenté tel qu'il est conçu d'ordinaire; cf. Eccli. xxx, 24 ἕως ἀνταποδῷ ἀνθρώπῳ κατὰ τὰς πράξεις αὐτοῦ͵ Mt. vir, 22 S.; XI, 44; xxv, 31-46.
16:28
La venue pu FiLs DE L'HOMME DANS SON ROYAUME (Me. 1x, 1; Le. 1x, 27). Dans Mc. il y a une pause, tandis que dans ML. on dirait que tout se suit, mais il semble bien qu'il suppose lui aussi un autre horizon. Le Fils de l'homme venant dans son royaume, où il y ἃ du bien et du mal (χπι, 24), ce n’est pas nécessairement le Fils de l'homme venant pour juger à la fin des temps. On dirait que la perspective du jugement étant épuisée, Mt. revient au point de départ. Quelquesuns hésitaient à tout quitter, à se renoncer pour porter leur croix à la suite de Jésus. Rien de plus encourageant que de savoir qu'il entrerait en possession de son royaume avan énération présente n’ait disparu. C'est donc bien de l'avènement du royaume qu'il est question, comme dans Mc. et dans Le., mais sous la forme plus ancienne de la venue du Fils de l'homme déjà présenté au y. 27. Par là Mt. en vient, comme Mc., à clore l'enseignement sur le renoncement par une allusion au Messie. Wellh. (Eint. p. 32) suivi par MeNeile veut que ἐν signifie venir avec son royaume (8 sémitique); mais c’est simplement pour εἰς, car dans Mt. le règne du Fils est sur la terre (Χπι, #1). 5. axouete αὐτὸν (ΤΙ) platôt que αὐτου ax. (SV).
16:1
Giovanni Battista stigmatizzava farisei e s. «come razza di vipere» (Mt. 3, 7). La parabola del ricco epulone (Lc. 16, 19-31) presenta il tipo dei s. Nemici tra loro, farisei e s. gareggiavano nel sottoporre a Gesù domande capziose (Mt. 16, 1, e cf. 23, 29-33), si accordavano nel volerne la morte. …
16:4
… Come infatti Giona fu per tre giorni e tre notti nel ventre di un cetaceo, così il Figlio dell'uomo sarà per tre giorni e tre notti nel cuore della terra» (Mt. 12, 39-40; cf. 16, 4). Dopo la confessione di Pietro a Cesarea di Filippo, cominciò a insegnare più apertamente che doveva soffrir molto dagli anziani, dai pontefici e dagli scribi, essere ucciso e quindi …
16:6
… all'assurdo: « Come può costui darei da mangiare la sua Carne? » La linea di condotta di Gesù, come si rileva da tutto il Vangelo, è la seguente: quando gli uditori hanno capito male le sue parole, pone ogni cura per dissipare l'equivoco (cf. Jo. 3, 3-8; Mt. 16, 6-12), ma quando le hanno interpretate restamente, ricusando però di aderirvi per la difficoltà intrinseca del loro contenuto, non modifica il suo discorso, anzi ribadisce in molte maniere la stessa idea. …
… sul carattere del Regno (cf. Mc. 4, 40); il corregge e con sapiente progressione li introduce nel mistero della sua vita e della sua missione, assuefacendoli al pensiero della Passione (Mt. 16, 21-23); li mette in guardia dallo spirito del farisaismo (ibid. 16, 6-12); mira a formarli alla bontà (Lc. 9, 52-56), al distacco (Mt. 10, 9-10). Predice loro le persecuzioni (Mt. 10, 16-25) (contro tutti i discepoli di G.); ma insieme infonde loro coraggio …
16:13
(Mt. 16, 13-20). Non pare che Gesù sia entrato in questa città pagana. …
… sg.; I Cor. 15, 25); deve crescere (Mt. 13, 31 sg.), per tutto il mondo (Mc. 3, 13-19; 6, 7-13; 13, 9 sg.; 16, 15 sg. 20; Act. 1, 8; ecc.), passare ai gentili (Mt. 8, 10 sgg.; 21, 33-46; 22, 2-10 ecc.); s'identifica con la Chiesa, con a capo Pietro (Mt. 16, 13-20; Io. 21, 15 sgg.; I Cor. 12; Rom. 12, 3-8 ecc.); comprende buoni e cattivi (Mt. 13, 24-30, 36-43, 47-50; 25, 1-13, ecc.); è l'economia della Grazia (Io. 1, 16 sg.; Rom. 3, 21-31, ecc.), …
… Ingrandi la città di Pancion, dove già suo padre aveva ampliato un tempio in onore di Augusto, e la chiamò Cesarea, detta poi di Filippo per distinguerla dall'altra costruita da Erode il Grande (cf. Mt. 16, 13). In età avanzata sposò Salome, figlia di Erodiade e del suo omonimo fratello F. E., la quale aveva ca. trenta anni meno di lui (Antiq. …
… Risponde Simon Pietro: « Tu sei il C., il Figlio del Dio vivente ». G. approva in pieno tale risposta, e con ciò mostra chiaramente la sua coscienza messianica (Mt. 16, 13-19).
… Matteo-Levi, la disputa sul digiuno, la figlia di Jair e l'emorroissa (Mt. 8,23 - 9, 26 = Mc. 4,35 - 5,43 = Lc. 8, 22-56); la confessione di Pietro, la prima predizione della Passione, la trasfigurazione, il lunatico, la seconda predizione della Passione (Mt. 16,13 - 17,22 = Mc. 8,27 - 9,32 = Lc. 9, 18-45).
16:14
GEREMIA (EBR. JIRMÉJÂH[Â] = « JAHWEH INNALZA O STABILISCE »)
… Ancora più venerata è la sua memoria nel periodo maccabaico (II Mach. 2, 1 sgg.; 15, 14-16). Ai tempi di Gesù Cristo si pensava alla possibilità che il Messia non sarebbe stato altri che un G. redivivo (Mt. 16, 14). Ed invero non mancano le rassomiglianze fra la vita tormentata del profeta della rovina di Gerusalemme e quella dell'«uomo dei dolori» (cf. Is. 53, 3). Presso i Padri della Chiesa …
16:15
… fondatore della nuova alleanza, promesso da Jahweh, divenne più tardi, nella letteratura apocrifa e rabbinica (Henoch, 48, 10; Ps. Sal., 17, 36; 18, 6 ecc.), suo titolo esclusivo; l'unto per eccellenza, hammāšīah, rivendicato dallo stesso Redentore (Mt. 16, 15 sgg.; Mc. 15, 61), o « il Cristo », equivalente greco del participio passivo ebraico.
PRIMATO DI SAN PIETRO E DEL ROMANO PONTEFICE
… A te darò le chiavi del Regno dei cieli e tutto ciò che legherai sulla terra sarà legato nei cieli e tutto ciò che scioglierai sulla terra sarà sciolto nei cieli» (Mt. 16, 15-19).
16:16
BARTOLOMEO (ΒΑΡΘΟΛΟΜΑΊΟΣ, BARTHOLOMAEUS), APOSTOLO, SANTO
… Condotto da Filippo, è lodato da Gesù (2, 47 « ecco veramente un Israelita in cui non è dolo ») che gli rivela i suoi segreti; onde esce entusiasta in una professione di fede che prelude a quella di Pietro (Mt. 16, 16): « Tu sei il figlio di Dio, tu sei il re d'Israele » (Io. 2, 49). È poi presente all'apparizione del Risorto sul lago (Io. 21, 2). Con il collegio apostolico B. riceve lo Spirito …
… Dalla Natività (Mt. 2, 4) alla confessione di Pietro (Mt. 16, 16, 20; Mc. 8, 29; Io. 6, 69) e di Nathanael (col sinonimo «Re d'Israele»: Io. 1, 49), di Marta (Io. 11, 27), dei demoni (Lc. 4, 41), alle rivelazioni del Risorto (Lc. 24, …
… che, del resto, risulta evidente da quelle testimonianze nella quale Cristo si afferma uguale al padre nel potere, nel volere, nella natura (Io. 5, 17-27; 16, 15; 10, 30). Così hanno interpretato il pensiero di Cristo i suoi uditori, amici come Pietro (Mt. 16, 16), o nemici come i sinedriti (Mt. 26, 63 sg.).
GIOVANNI, APOSTOLO, EVANGELISTA, SANTO
… Gesù conosce i pensieri segreti dei cuori (Mt. 9,4 e par.), « manderà i suoi angeli » (Mt. 13,41); passo « giovanneo » dei Sinottici (Mt. 11,27; Lc. 10,22); Gesù « è figlio del Dio vivente » (Mt. 16,16; 26,64). Nel IV Vangelo, d'altronde, Gesù si serve di un flagello di corde (2,15); stanco si siede (4,6); si dice « uomo » (8,40); sputa (9,6); piange (11,33); « l'anima mia è turbata …
… Egli è vero Figlio di Dio, proclamato tale dal cielo durante il Battesimo e la Trasfigurazione (Mt. 3, 17 e 17, 5; Mc. 1, 11 e 9, 7; Lc. 3, 22 e 9, 35), da Pietro per divina ispirazione (Mt. 16, 16), perfino dai demoni (ibid. 8, 29; Mc. 5, 7). Gesù stesso si dichiara Figlio di Dio e per questo è condannato a morte (Mt. 26, 63-64; v. FIGLIO DI DIO). …
… cristiana della « prossimità » del Regno implica solo la presenza virtuale e crescente del Regno futuro; H. D. Wendland dimostra bene che Gesù prevedeva la p. molto lontana nei secoli, come deduce soprattutto dalla fondazione della Chiesa su Pietro (Mt. 16, 16-19); P. Busch, infine, vede nell'« apocalisse sinottica » un forte avvertimento contro l'illusione di una prossima p., bene identificando la « tribolazione » predetta con il lungo Regno …
PRIMATO DI SAN PIETRO E DEL ROMANO PONTEFICE
Pietro stesso aveva coscienza della sua posizione, poiché è lui generalmente che parla a nome di tutti (Mt. 14, 28; 15, 15; 16, 16-22; 17, 4; 18, 21; 19, 27; 26, 33; Mc. 8, 29; 10, 28; 11, 21; 14, 29; Lc. 8, 45; 9, 20; 9, 33; 12, 41; 18, 28; 22, 31; Io. 6, 68; 13, 6-10, 36). La particolare posizione di Pietro non …
RELIGIONI, STUDIO COMPARATO DELLE
… Lasciamo la Chiesa giuridica e torniamo alla Chiesa di amore, alla Chiesa primitiva ». Salvo poi a trascurare ben altri testi (Mt. 16, 16; Io. 3, 18; Lc. 10, 16; Mt. 16-19; II Io. 10-11, ecc.), alcuni filosofi, più o meno familiari con il Nuovo Testamento, non trasciscano di rimandare, a questo proposito, alle …
… Può nascere da una esperienza immediata come appare nei profeti del Vecchio Testamento; può sorgere da una riflessione illuminata da una particolare luce divina (così, probabilmente, per la confessione di Pietro [Mt. 16, 16-17] e per le rivelazioni di Paolo); può nascere da un ragionamento: quando gli Apostoli compresero e credettero definitivamente che Gesù era veramente il Figlio di Dio, ed era tale fin …
… Figlio conosce il Padre perfettamente, come il Padre conosce il Figlio (Mt. 11, 27 e Lc. 10, 22). Il grido di Pietro: « Tu sei il Cristo, Figlio del Dio vivo », a Cesarea, è verità sovrumana, manifestata all'Apostolo direttamente dal Padre celeste (Mt. 16, 16-17) e Gesù stesso lo conferma con forza davanti al Sommo Sacerdote nel Sinedrio, anzi per tale sua dichiarazione viene condannato a morte (Mt. 26, 63-65; Mc. 14, 61-64; Lc. 22, 70).
… della Chiesa, e usa l'articolo (Mt. 16, 18 e 18, 17). Egli dice espressamente di aver voluto edificare « la sua Chiesa » sopra Pietro-pietra, dunque unica, distinta da qualsiasi altra che pretendesse di essere fondazione del « Figliolo di Dio vivo » (Mt. 16, 16). S. Giovanni riferisce il discorso di Gesù, in cui egli si chiama « il buon pastore » che predice che vi « sarà un solo ovile e un solo pastore » (Io. 10, 11; 14; 16), ovile che Gesù …
16:17
BAR IONA (Βαριωνᾶς). - Cognome patronimico dell'apostolo Simone soprannominato Pietro (Mt. 16, 17); è forma aramaica (bar Jōnā) da tradursi « figlio di Giona », essendo jōnā (ebr. jōnāh) « colomba » (o contrazione di Jonathan o Jonadah?) nome del noto profeta (Ion. …
… Nel Nuovo Testamento ricorrono analoghe b.: Mt. 11, 6; 13, 16; 16, 17; 24, 46; Lc. 11, 28; 12, 37 sg. 43; 14, 15; Io. 20, 29; Iac. 1, 12; I Ps. 3, 14; 4, 14; Apoc. 1, 3; 14, 13; 16, 15; 19, 9; 20, 6; 22, 7, 14. Tuttora i cristiani di Oriente chiamano …
MATTEO, APOSTOLO, EVANGELISTA, SANTO
… fondamento le opinioni di quelli che dubitano della storicità dei primi due capitoli, nei quali si parla della genealogia e dell'infanzia (v.) di Cristo, come pure di certi passi molto importanti per il dogma, quali quelli che riguardano il primato di Pietro (Mt. 16, 17-19), la forma del Battesimo con la missione universale di predicare conferita agli Apostoli (Mt. 28, 19-20), la professione di fede degli Apostoli nella divinità di Cristo (Mt. 14, 33). …
… In Mt. 16, 17 Simone vien detto figlio di Giona (Βαριωνά; v. BAR IONA), ma può darsi che il nome Iona, attribuito al padre di P. (dalla Volgata anche in Io. 1, 42), sia un'abbreviazione di Ioannes …
… alla conoscenza, che Dio ha di se stesso, e in genere ai misteri di Dio non può avvenire con la sola intelligenza naturale, ma suppone un influente interiore di Dio, la comunicazione di un nuovo principio conoscitivo (1 Cor. 2, 16; 1 Cor. 2, 10-11; cf. Mt. 16, 17; Eph. 1, 17-18; 3, 14-19).
… « L'uomo esteriore » volge alla corruzione, « l'uomo interiore » all'eternità (II Cor. 4, 16-18); essendo « c. e sangue », l'uomo esteriore è escluso dal Regno di Dio (Mt. 16, 17; I Cor. 15, 50).
16:18
APOSTOLI (GR. ἈΠΌΣΤΟΛΟΣ «INVIATO», DA ἈΠΟΣΤΈΛΛΩ)
Illustrano la missione dei fondatori della Chiesa, tra gli altri, i seguenti testi della S. Scrittura: Mt. 16, 18: «Tu sei Pietro e su questa pietra edificherò la mia Chiesa»; Eph. 2, 20: «Voi siete... edificati sopra il fondamento degli a... essendo pietra maestra, angolare lo stesso Cristo Gesù»; …
CALVINO (CALVINUS, CAUVIN, CHAUVIN, CALVIN JEAN)
… consegnare a s. Pietro « le chiavi del regno dei cieli » e dandagli l'incarico di pascare le sue pecore ed i suoi agnelli (Io. 21, 15), promise che su di lui avrebbe edificato la sua chiesa contro la quale non avrebbero prevalso le porte dell'inferno (Mt. 16, 18), tutte promesse che assicurano che la verità del messaggio divino si sarebbe conservato incorrotta, e senza inquinazioni di falsità, nella « Chiesa col suo capo visibile ». Perciò …
… Perché « fondata sulla pietra, le porte dell'Inferno non prevarranno » (Mt. 16, 18); « Io sono con voi, sempre, fino alla fine del mondo » (Mt. 28, 20); « Io pregherò il Padre, che vi darà il Paraclito, Spirito di verità, che rimarrà con voi in eterno » (Io. 14, 16).
… componevano facilitò grandemente la via all'attuarsi dell'universalità intrinseca al c. e a mantener vivi e continui rapporti tra le varie Chiese sparse per ogni parte, confluenti nell'unità della Chiesa, di quella che Gesù aveva chiamata «la mia Chiesa» (Mt. 16, 18) e a cui sin dall'origine nella loro professione di fede i cristiani davano come primo l'appellativo di «una». …
la Chiesa « colonna e fondamento della verità » (I Tim. 3, 15), personalmente a Pietro, fondamento della Chiesa (Mt. 16, 18), e ai suoi successori nel primato romano (v. INFALLIBILITÀ DELLA CHIESA E DEL PAPA).
BIBL.: Oltre alle opere citate nell'articolo cf. A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, Bonn 1922, pp. 31-32; G. Ricciotti, S. E. Siro, Torino-Rome 1925; F. Nau, Ephrem (taxi), in DThC, V, coll. 188-93; S. Euringer, Der locus classibus des Preuens (Mt. 16, 18) und der Dintenurenten des hl. Ephr., in Beitr. z. Gesch. d. christl. …
sono la luce del mondo (ibid., 5, 14), coloro che hanno la facoltà di aprire e chiudere le porte del cielo (Is. 20, 23) e che guariranno i malati con la imposizione delle mani (Mt. 16, 18).
essa» (Mt. 16, 18). Egli disse inoltre: «Ecco che io sono con voi tutti i giorni sino alla consumazione dei secoli» (Mt. 28, 20); «Io pregherò il Padre ed egli vi manderà un altro Paraclito affinché …
… Così in Mt. 16, 18-19 le tre immagini parallele di fondamento, di clavigero, di legatore e scioglitore, in funzione di vicario di Cristo, autenticato nelle sue decisioni dal Cielo, assegnano a Pietro, con …
… cavallette (11, 7; 17, 8). Un angelo rigetterà Satana nel suo aprofondo e ne chiuderà ermeticamente l'orifizio, perché non inganni più le genti (20, 1-3). La lotta tra le potenze infernali e la Chiesa, tra la città di Dio e quella di Satana, adombrata in Mt. 16, 18, è qui più ampiamente delineata e nell'intervento dell'angelo vendicatore si indica il compimento della promessa: Non praevalebunt.
PRIMATO DI SAN PIETRO E DEL ROMANO PONTEFICE
… Ma Gesù ha promesso l'indeferibilità (v.) alla sua Chiesa, la stabilità, la solidità, la perennità sul fondamento che è Pietro: « e le porte dell'inferno non prevarranno contro di essa » (Mt. 16, 18; cf. ibid. 7, 24-27: la pietra simbolo della stabilità della casa). …
L'opinione più comune fra i teologi afferma un potere più generale del Sommo Pontefice in materia, un esercizio della sua potestà vicaria (Mt. 16, 18). Ed i motivi di questa opinione sono intrinseci ed estrinseci. …
RELIGIONI, STUDIO COMPARATO DELLE
cevuto dal suo Fondatore una promessa di immortalità » (Mt. 16, 18).
… XIV, cap. 7: ibid. 903), diritto incluso nell'ampia potestas clavium, ligandi et solvendi (Mt. 16, 18-19; 18, 18; Io. 20, 19). Sisto V, con la bolla Sanctum et salutare del 5 genn. 1589 riservò a sé il peccato di simonia, commesso nella promozione agli Ordini Sacri, senza annettervi censura; …
… L'empietà cosciente, radicale, formale, odia e combatte tutto ciò che nelle comunità cristiane è voluto da Dio come strumento di santificazione, e favorisce tutto ciò che può nuocere alla vita soprannaturale, alla s. Secondo quanto Gesù Cristo ha predetto (Mt. 16, 18; Lc. 31, 32), le potenze dell'inferno si scagliano principalmente, anzi, unicamente, contro la Chiesa fondata su Pietro; nelle confessioni dissidenti l'empietà non attacca che quanto …
… Le Chiese, che rivendicano questa assistenza dello Spirito per ciascun individuo (sotto una forma attenuata: per ciascun gruppo) possono poi negarla precisamente alla Chiesa gerarchica « fondata su Pietro », che è la Chiesa a cui fu promessa (Mt. 16, 18-19; Lc. 22, 32; Io. 21, 15-17).
… storia il Regno universale di Dio. 5. La realizzazione del Regno di Dio nel tempo ch'è la vita della Chiesa nella presenza e guida dell'Autorità legittima, nella vita invisibile della Grazia e nella testimonianza dello Spirito Santo per la vita eterna (Mt. 16, 18; 28, 18; Rom. 8, 16). 6. Il compimento del Regno di Dio con giudizio finale alla fine del mondo quando Cristo, Figlio di Dio e Salvatore del Mondo, farà il giudizio della storia …
… dei Cantici si dice della sposa come figura della Chiesa: « Una è la mia colomba, la mia perfetta, ella è unica della sua madre, la eletta della sua genitrice » (Cant. 6, 8). Nel Nuovo Testamento, Gesù parla due volte della Chiesa, e usa l'articolo (Mt. 16, 18 e 18, 17). Egli dice espressamente di aver voluto edificare « la sua Chiesa » sopra Pietro-pietra, dunque unica, distinta da qualsiasi altra che pretendesse di essere fondazione del …
… ingoia tutti senza distinzione (Ps. 88, 49). Le « porte della f. » (Is. 38, 10; Job 38, 17; Eccli. 51, 9; Sap. 16, 13; Ps. Sal. 16, 2; III Mach. 5, 51; cf.: Dio ne ha « le chiavi », Apoc. 1, 18) esprimono l'invisibile potenza dell'impero della morte (Mt. 16, 18: portae inferi ha una tinta morale). …
16:19
Quando Gesù dice: «sopra questa pietra edificherò la mia C.» (Mt. 16, 19), nessuno trova oscura la frase che aveva già il suo commento nel linguaggio del Divino Maestro, il quale significava i suoi sotto la metafora di un gregge, di un ovile, di una società vera. …
… Che questo sia il senso in Mt. 16, 19, risulta dal luogo parallelo (Mt. 18, 18) dove la scomunica contro il peccatore impenitente («sit tibi sicut ethnicus et publicanus»: 18, 17) viene confermata dalla potestà di «legare» …
… A P. il Signore confida le chiavi del regno celeste (Mt. 16, 19) e per mezzo di P. alla sua Chiesa, dirà Tertulliano (Scorpiace, 10); egli è lo « ianitor aeterus » (Dracontius, Carmen de Deo, v. 222: PL 60, 857). Nei sarcofagi la scena è rappresentata …
Chiesa (v.) dà le chiavi del R. di D. a Pietro (Mt. 16, 19),
… Consta infatti teologicamente che nella potestà di giurisdizione concessa da Gesù ai pastori della sua Chiesa (Mt. 16, 19) sia inclusa anche la facoltà di dispensare dai v. per una giusta causa. …
16:21
Dal punto di vista grammaticale questa interpreta-zione dell'espressione semitica può essere giustificata; tanto più che in alcuni passi paralleli dei Sinottici la formula è sostituita con «io» (cf. Mt. 5, 11 con Lc. 6, 22; Mt. 10, 32 con Lc. 12, 8; Mt. 16, 31 con Mc. 8, 27 e Lc. 9, 18; Mt. 16, 21 con Mc. 8, 31 e Lc. 9, 22; Mt. 19, 28 con Lc. 22, 29; Mt. 20, 28 con Mc. 10, 45 e Lc. 22, 27).
… Ne sopporta con pazienza la lentezza, la poca fede, i pregiudizi sul carattere del Regno (cf. Mc. 4, 40); il corregge e con sapiente progressione li introduce nel mistero della sua vita e della sua missione, assuefacendoli al pensiero della Passione (Mt. 16, 21-23); li mette in guardia dallo spirito del farisaismo (ibid. 16, 6-12); mira a formarli alla bontà (Lc. 9, 52-56), al distacco (Mt. 10, 9-10). Predice loro le persecuzioni (Mt. 10, 16-25) …
… Più di Pietro, G. dove essere scandalizzato dalle reiterate predizioni della Passione di Gesù (Mt. 16, 21-23; 17, 22 sg.; 20, 18 sg.). …
… Furono ignorati affatto il perdono dei peccati (H. L. Strack-Billerbeck [v. bibl.], I, p. 493), la redenzione, e recisamente negati i patimenti del M. (cf. Mt. 16, 21 sgg.; Mc. 8, 31 sgg.; 9, 31 sgg.; Lc. 18, 34; 24, 21; Io. 12, 34).
I. M. PREBENEDETTINO. - Quanto alla sua genesi, il m. cristiano nasce dal Vangelo, e precisamente dal fatto che Cristo propone consigli per raggiungere più facilmente la perfezione cristiana (Mt. 16, 21). Le varie ipotesi avanzate per assegnare al m. un'origine non cristiana, a partire specialmente da quando E. Weingarten (Der Ursprung des Mönchtums, Gotha 1877) attaccò a fondo …
16:23
PRIMATO DI SAN PIETRO E DEL ROMANO PONTEFICE
… 23-29), lo rese partecipe delle rivelazioni più intime (Mt. 17, 1 sgg.; 26, 37 e parall.), lo assicurò di una particolare preghiera «perché una volta convertito confermi i fratelli nella fede» (Lc. 22, 21 sg.), mentre non gli risparmiò i rimproveri (Mt. 16, 23; 14, 31; Mc. 14, 37; Mt. 26, 31, 34; cf. Lc. 22, 61). Il giorno della sua Risurrezione gli apparve singolarmente (Lc. 24, 34; I Cor. 15, 5) e prima di salire al cielo a lui solo predisse …
Gen. 26, 21, «accusa» Esd. 4, 6) ricorre nella Bibbia ebraica nove volte come nome comune: «avversario» in guerra (I Sam. 29, 4; I Reg. 5, 18; 11, 14, 23, 25) o in tribunale (Ps. 108, 6) o colui che sbarra la via: II Sam. 19, 23; cf. Mt. 16, 23 e Mt. 8, 33: Gesù respinge Pietro che gli ostacola la strada verso la croce; I Mach. 1, 36 la fortezza Akra è eretta εἰς ἀνάβολον, come «sbarramento». …
16:24
Voce e concetto etico esclusivamente cristiano, l'a. si fonda sulla ben nota frase del Salvatore (Mt. 16, 24; Mc. 8, 34; Lc. 9, 23): «Si quis vult venire post me, abnegat semetipsum et tollat crucem suam cotidie». Ἀπαρνεῖσθαι ἑαυτὸν è la sintesi, in forma di paradosso, della conversione …
qualcuno vuol venire dietro a me, rinunci a se stesso, prenda la sua croce e mi segua » (Mt. 16, 24). Ora, interpretando queste parole, la Chiesa insiste sulle mortificazioni e la penitenza e ne impone un determinato esercizio ai cristiani con l'a. dalle carni. …
… Il loro carattere di esclusività (B. Lanwer, p. 156; cf. 94, 99, 106) risulta chiaro da Lc. 6, 24-26 e da altri passi del Nuovo Testamento (Mt. 10, 38; 16, 24; Act. 14, 22; Rom. 8, 17 sg.; I Cor. 1, 26-28; II Tim. 3, 12): i fortunati di questo mondo non fruiranno del compenso (o « mercede ») nel cielo (Mt. 5, 12; 6, 1-2, 5; Lc. 6, 23), poiché …
… profondo significato le seguenti paradossali sentenze di Gesù Cristo: « Chi vuole salvare se stesso (quindi, chi ama se stesso), perderà se stesso; chi invece perderà se stesso (quindi, chi odia se stesso) per amor mio, troverà se stesso » (Mt. 10, 39; 16, 24 sg.). …
… 7 sg., 25-40); l'obbedienza perfetta (v.), o spontanea subordinazione della volontà a quella di altri, nelle parole che esprimono l'abnegazione (v.): « Se uno vuol venire dietro a me, rinneghi se stesso, prenda ogni giorno la sua croce e mi segua » (Mt. 16, 24; Lc. 9, 23); e così pure in quelle che invitano alla fedele sequela (Mt. 19, 21), essendo il discepolato un conformarsi alle direttive del maestro, o inculcano il volontario servire …
… Sugli accenni di Gesù alla C., eretta a indizio e carattere distintivo della sua sequela (cf., p., es., Mt. 10, 38; 16, 24 e i luoghi paralleli), le lettere degli Apostoli e specialmente quelle di s. Paolo costituiscono tutta una teologia della C., dove questa si risolve come in un compendio teorico e …
… subdolo e sottile da infiltrarsi anche nelle opere più sante; è un pericolo continuamente in agguato in quanto è inumamente in noi. Da ciò l'esigenza che il cristiano vigili continuamente su se stesso e prevenga il pericolo con l'abnegazione (v.) di sé (Mt. 16, 24; Lc. 17, 33; Io. 12, 25). Del resto, tra i mali che caratterizzarono il mondo prima di Cristo, e che al dire dell'Apostolo, caratterizzeranno l'epoca che deve precedere la fine dei …
… La vita morale, la virtù, esige sempre una opzione, e quindi sacrificio (Mt. 7, 13; 11, 34; 16, 24): il sereno equilibrio, l'armonia non si ottiene in questa vita, che è vita di lotta, ma solo nell'altra.
Nella dottrina evangelica l'abnegazione (v.) è requisito fondamentale (Mt. 16, 24): la r., requisito preliminare, ne è l'indispensabile propedeutica; chiunque tentenni dinanzi alle r. richieste dalla Grazia non riuscirà a seguire Cristo nella via dell'abnegazione …
16:25
Gesù impone l'a. come « via stretta » conducente il suo seguace, carico della sua croce (Mt. 16, 25), al Padre Celeste, che gratuitamente ci rigenera comunicandoci la vita divina, e con cui dobbiamo essere in incessante relazione di dipendenza, ma più ancora di filiale pietà (v.) …
16:26
… questo importa che il raggiungimento del fine inferiore non deve in alcun modo ostacolare il raggiungimento del fine superiore, secondo il detto del Salvatore: « Che importa all'uomo se guadagna tutto il mondo, se poi ne abbia detrimento l'anima sua ? » (Mt. 16, 26); anzi lo Stato, in quanto occorra, deve fornire alla C. i mezzi che sono in suo potere per il raggiungimento del suo fine soprannaturale, e correlativamente la C. ha potere di rimuovere …
… Le r. però non sono il bene più grande (cf. Mt. 16, 26). Anzi sono un pericolo talmente grave che è più facile che un cammello passi per la cruna di un ago che un ricco entri nel regno dei cieli (Mt. 19-22). L'accorato richiamo contro …
… Ciascuna anima ha il suo valore personale, il suo inestimabile prezzo che l'universo intero non potrebbe compensare (Mt. 16, 26). Per queste ragioni, gli u. ritengono che l'educazione e la purificazione dell'umanità mediante la Grazia si abbia nella vita futura, in modo che quelli che sembrano oggi respinti …
La f. è un orco che non molla la sua preda (Prov. 1, 12) senza riscatto: a nulla giova la ricchezza (cf. Mt. 16, 26; Lc. 12, 20), ma presso Jahweh rimane « il fascio dei viventi » (I Sam. 25, 29), e Dio libera il suo fedele dalla f. (Ps. 48, 15-18; I Sam. 2, 6); non lo abbandonerà alla …
16:27
… Messia glorioso, detta in stile profetico «venuta del Cristo»: Mt. 10, 23; 26, 63 sg.; Lc. 22, 69 (Lagrange, Matthieu, pp. 205, 507 sg.; Luc., p. 572 sg.; A. Feuillet, in Nouvelle revue théol., 71 [1949], pp. 701-707; F. Prat, J. C., II, p. 349). In Mt. 16, 27 sg. si parla dell'affermazione della Chiesa: la venuta del Figlio dell'uomo (come Dan. 7, 13 sg.). …
… Gesù ne parlò spesso nella sua predicazione (Mt. 11, 22-23; 12, 41; 16, 27; 26, 64; Lc. 10, 12-14; 11, 31-32; Io. 5, 29; 12, 48) e ne descrisse con magnificenza i particolari nel discorso escatologico: «Quando il Figlio dell'Uomo verrà nella sua gloria e …
… dei simboli della fede (cf. Denz-U, 423), nei quali non si parla che di due venute di Cristo, quella in humilitate e quella in gloria, allo scopo di compiere il giudizio universale, cui seguirà immediatamente la retribuzione finale per ciascuno: Mt. 16, 27: « Filius hominis venturus est in gloria Patris sui cum Angelis, tunc reddet unicuique secundum opera sua ». In questa prospettiva il millennio non può aver luogo.
… Sotto quale influsso, se non quello del Maestro incomparabile, nel quale hanno finito per riconoscere il Figlio prediletto del Padre (Mt. 3, 17; Mc. 1, 11; Lc. 3, 22; Mt. 17, 5; Mc. 9, 6; Lc. 9, 35), il suo eguale (Mt. 11, 27), il Giudice dell'ultimo giorno (Mt. 16, 27; Mc. 8, 38; Lc. 9, 26; Mt. 11, 21; Mc. 10, 37), il maestro che ha loro imposto la più stretta fedeltà al suo insegnamento (Mt. 28, 19-20; Mc. 15, 16, ecc.)?
TESSALONICESI, EPISTOLE I-II AI
… Signore con la sua giustizia a punire i pravi e a proteggere i suoi; manifestazione spettacolare della potenza del Messia, vaticinio di speranza per la Chiesa nascente, perseguitata dalla Sinagoga, è appunto la distruzione di Gerusalemme (Mt. 10, 23; 16, 27 sg.; 26, 69 sg.; e passi paralleli; oltre a Mt. 24 e Lc. 17; v. ESCATOLOGIA). …
16:28
… Predice, sì, la sua rivincita nel corso di una generazione (Mt. 10, 23; 16, 28; 24, 23-28 e 34; 26, 64; discorso sulla p. di Lc. 17, 22-37); ma tali accenni al prossimo ritorno di Gesù si riferiscono certo alla distruzione di Gerusalemme, con cui si iniziava …
RUSIA; cf. Mt. 16, 28; Lc. 9, 27; Mc. 9, 1: il ritorno del
16:29
PRIMATO DI SAN PIETRO E DEL ROMANO PONTEFICE
… Gesù scelse la sua casa per abitarvi (Mc. 1, 29 e parall.), la sua barca per predicare (Lc. 5, 1), a lui concesse di camminare sulle acque (Mt. 16, 29), pagò per lui il tributo (Mt. 17, 23-29), lo rese partecipe delle rivelazioni più intime (Mt. 17, 1 sgg.; 26, 37 e parall.), lo assicurò di una particolare preghiera «perché una volta …
16:31
Dal punto di vista grammaticale questa interpreta-zione dell'espressione semitica può essere giustificata; tanto più che in alcuni passi paralleli dei Sinottici la formula è sostituita con «io» (cf. Mt. 5, 11 con Lc. 6, 22; Mt. 10, 32 con Lc. 12, 8; Mt. 16, 31 con Mc. 8, 27 e Lc. 9, 18; Mt. 16, 21 con Mc. 8, 31 e Lc. 9, 22; Mt. 19, 28 con Lc. 22, 29; Mt. 20, 28 con Mc. 10, 45 e Lc. 22, 27).
Douay-Rheims (Challoner) · Vulgata Clementina · Douay-Rheims originale (Reims 1582), trascrizione EEBO-TCP (CC0) · La Sacra Bibbia, tradotta dalla Volgata da Antonio Martini (1769-1781) (LaParola (laparola.net), Martini OSIS text, Public domain (LaParola's electronic edition marks it 'Dominio pubblico')). Pubblico dominio.