Acts 2:29

"Ye men, brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David," etc. And since the apostle Peter had mentioned David, who was regarded by the Jews as a venerable prophet, Peter, taking from David an opportunity for his preaching, showed that David had …

Fulfilling the prophecy, Peter begins again with a different preface. "Men," he says, "brothers." For whenever one is about to say something of great importance, he employs a familiar preface, calling them brothers. As Stephen also: "Brothers and Fathers, listen." (Acts 7:2) Then he says, …

Then, having finished the citation from the Prophet, he adds; "Men and brethren." When he is about to say anything great, he uses this opening address, to rouse and to conciliate them. "Let me be allowed," he says, "to speak freely to you of the patriarch David." Remarkable lowliness, in a case where he was giving no hurt, nor was there any reason why the hearers should be angry. For he did not say, This is not said concerning David, but concerning the Christ. But in another point of view: by his reverential expression towards the blessed David, he awed them; speaking of an acknowledged fact as if it were a bold thing to say, and therefore begging them to pardon him for saying it. And thereupon his expression is not simply "concerning David," but "concerning the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried:" he does not also say, "and is not risen again," but in another way (though this too would have been no great thing to say), "And his sepulchre is with us unto this day," he has said what comes to the same thing.

I know it seems to some that the death of the Lord brought to certain just souls the same resurrection that is promised to us at the end of time, since it is written that by the earthquake that occurred at his passion the rocks were rent and the graves opened and many bodies of the saints arose and were seen with him in the holy city after his resurrection. But, if these did not resume their sleep by the reburial of their bodies, and if so many preceded him in that resurrection, we must certainly examine and find out how Christ is the "firstborn from the dead." The answer to this might be that it was said by anticipation, but it meant that the tombs were opened by the earthquake, while Christ hung on the cross, while the bodies of the just did not rise then, but later, after he had first risen, although it was added to that sentence by anticipation, as I said, so that we should unhesitatingly believe that Christ was the firstborn from the dead, and that it was then granted to the just to rise to eternal incorruption and immortality following his leadership. In that case, there still remains this difficulty, how Peter could say—and he said it with absolute truth, since he asserted that Christ, not David, was foretold by that prophecy—that his flesh did not see corruption, but he added that the tomb of David was still with them. And this would certainly not be a convincing argument, if David's body were no longer there, because, if he had risen at the time of Christ's death, his flesh would not have seen corruption, but his tomb would still be there. It seems hard that David should not have been in that resurrection of the just, when Christ was of his seed, as is so often, so distinctly and so honorably repeated to his praise. […]

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you,....