De convenientia institutorum Romanae Ecclesiae cum Evangelica libertate

1. We have shown by evident reasoning that the Christian Church must have one head and prince; now it must be demonstrated that Peter was appointed prince of the Catholic Church by Christ, the Most Excellent and Greatest.

The truth of this doctrine is to be learned from no other source than Christ’s own words, since he himself both founded and restored the Christian commonwealth. But because this question has been carefully examined by very many scholars, and those among them most learned indeed, it will be quite enough for me if I touch upon it, as they say, with my very fingertips.

2. Accordingly, the first Gospel passage that presents itself to confirm this truth is Matthew, chapter XVI,¹ where, after Christ had asked the disciples whom men say² the Son of Man is, and they had answered, Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets, he added: But whom do you say that I am? Peter immediately answered him: You are Christ, the Son of the living God. Then Christ said: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to you: You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. — From these words it can plainly be inferred that the primacy of the Church was entrusted to Peter, since Christ’s Church was to be built upon him, and the power of loosing and binding in heaven was to be granted to him.

3. The Lutherans, the perpetual enemies of the Roman Church, object: — Nothing was given to Peter here; a promise was merely made concerning the future.

Come now: let us grant that nothing was given to Peter in these words. Can it not be shown from those very words that the primacy of the Church was at some point given to Peter? I know it will not be denied that these were the words of a promise; but of what promise? Was it not that Peter was to be established as the foundation of the Church, and that the power of binding and loosing was to be conferred upon him? This plainly belongs to the principate of the Church. If, then, the Lord Jesus promised Peter³ that he would give him the principate of his Church, we must admit that he eventually appointed him its prince. For he says of himself: I am the way, and the truth, and the life;⁴ and elsewhere: Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.⁵ In chapter XIX of the Apocalypse,⁶ John also saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and he who sat upon it was called Faithful and True. — If, then, Christ is faithful—indeed, is truth itself—who would dare say that he promised something without bringing it to the best possible⁷ outcome?

Let us hear Jerome⁸ interpreting these words of the Lord: «And I, he says, tell you in a word that is not empty and has no deed left undone; I tell you that what⁹ I have said, I have done.» Therefore, he who promised that he would make Peter the head and prince of the Christian people bestowed that office of principate upon him. Add that very many¹⁰ among the holy Fathers hold that by these words of the Lord the principate of the Church was not merely promised to Peter but also¹¹ given. Sacred Scripture has the practice of sometimes using one tense in place of another. That it uses the past for the future because of the certainty of the event is perfectly clear in Isaiah, where Christ’s Nativity and Passion¹² are spoken of. It is therefore no wonder if what Matthew reports as spoken in the future is to be understood as present, since Peter would exercise this principate only after Christ’s Resurrection. Hence Chrysostom, explaining these words, says: «The Son granted Peter universally the power that belongs to the Father and to the Son himself throughout the whole world; and to a mortal man he gave authority over all that is in heaven, giving him the keys so that he might extend the Church everywhere.»¹³

4. The Lutherans, moreover, bring forward another slander: — a) Even¹⁴ if these words of Christ mention the principate of the Church,¹⁵ why should they be applied to Peter alone? They are to be referred not to him alone, but to all Christ’s disciples, since Peter answered on behalf of them all: You are Christ, the Son of the living God. — For this very reason Chrysostom¹⁶ called him the mouth of the Apostles. — Christ’s reply, then, should likewise be applied to Peter as speaking for all the disciples.¹⁷

b) We can infer this, moreover, from the fact that what appears to have been said there to Peter alone is read as having been said to all the Apostles in the same Gospel of Matthew, chapter XVIII.¹⁸ For Christ himself says to the disciples: Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. In the penultimate chapter of John,¹⁹ Christ also says to all the disciples: Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you retain, they are retained. If, then, the same things you maintain were said only to Peter were said to all the disciples, it is perfectly clear that the keys of heaven were given not to Peter alone, but also to all the Apostles, indeed to the universal Church. For the Lord’s judgment is to seek the Church’s decision if someone who has sinned against us will not accept correction: For if he will not hear them, tell it to the Church.²⁰

c) Do you wish, they say, to see this matter still more clearly? Consider the Lord’s own words more carefully. For when he had said, And upon this rock I will build my Church, he immediately added, And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Did the gates of hell not prevail against Peter’s faith and Church? For Peter not only faltered in faith, but also stubbornly and steadfastly denied Christ at the voice of a single servant girl.

d) Moreover, after commending Peter for the revelation sent to him by the heavenly Father, what did the Lord say to him? Go behind me, Satan, you are a stumbling block to me, because you do not understand the things of God, but those of men.²¹ If Peter is reproved for lack of understanding and called Satan by Christ, how can it be understood that he alone was appointed keeper of heaven’s keys because he had been instructed from heaven concerning Christ’s divinity? We must therefore understand that the Lord’s words were spoken not to Peter insofar as he was Peter, but insofar as he bore the type and figure of the Church, in which there is neither stain nor wrinkle.

e) Hence Augustine, writing in this sense on Psalm CVIII,²² says: «There are certain things, he says, which seem to belong properly to the Apostle Peter. Yet they have no clear meaning unless they are referred to the Church, whose figure he is known to have represented,²³ on account of the primacy he held among the disciples, as in the words: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and in any similar passage.»

5. But if we carefully examine these arguments, which the Lutherans think solid and conclusive, we shall readily show that they are childish prattle, fables, and absurdities.

Their first claim—that the Lord’s words must be twisted to apply to all the Apostles because Peter answered on behalf of them all—has little substance and rests on a weak foundation. I would ask them how they understand Peter to have answered for them all. Either the Apostles had previously considered and discussed this matter among themselves and charged Peter to answer on behalf of them all, or Peter took upon himself²⁴, of his own accord, the task of answering for them all. We can confirm the first in no way, since neither the words of the Gospel nor the course of the narrative allows us to infer that the Apostles discussed this question among themselves or assigned Peter any part in answering it. Perhaps the second can be granted, with the holy Jerome,²⁵ namely, that Peter, who loved Christ more ardently than the others, when all had been asked whom they thought the Son of Man to be, took it upon himself to answer on behalf of them all, no one assigning him²⁶ this task, because he was persuaded that the other disciples would not depart from the opinion the heavenly Father had inspired in him. Earlier, too, when the Lord asked the disciples:²⁷ Do you also wish to go away? Peter answered for them all: To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and shall we leave you? Hilary²⁸, however, does not agree that Peter answered for the others; if that is true, the Lutherans’ foundation—that Peter answered in the name of all—is removed. But let us concede to them Jerome’s interpretation as well and grant that Peter then assumed the person of all the Apostles. Must they therefore twist Christ’s words to apply either to all the Apostles or to the universal Church? Why not to Peter alone, who answered for all while the others perhaps hesitated over what to say? Although he had assumed the person of all whom he thought would approve his opinion, Christ nevertheless directed his speech not to them all, but to Peter alone, who was more fervent than the others and had been enlightened by divine light. For this reason he addresses him by his own name and his father’s: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona; he also calls him by the name Peter, adding his surname: You are Peter;²⁹ then, alluding to Peter’s name, he adds: And upon this rock I will build my Church. I say, not upon just any rock, but upon this one—that is, upon you, Peter, who remain steadfast and firm in faith. — We must take care³⁰ not to understand Christ himself by the name of this rock, as if the sense were: Upon myself, who am the rock, I will build my Church. For this interpretation fits neither the text, nor would he have said I will build, but I am building, since Christ was always building his Church while living a mortal life.

If they stubbornly maintain that the authority of the keys was given to the universal Church, I too may perhaps not deny it. But I shall understand that it was given to the Church in such a way that it first belongs to Peter, and is then imparted to the Church through him, since Peter is the foundation upon which the Christian Church is founded after Christ. For a building takes its strength and growth from the foundation, not the foundation from the building.

6. Their further objection—that Christ said to all the Apostles, as he did to Peter, Whatever you loose on earth, etc.—does not move me. For I will not deny that all the Apostles were granted the power of binding and loosing; the very words of the Gospel clearly show this. I would add, however, that this does not conflict with Peter’s having been given the primacy—or at least promised it—in the words we have often cited. For we nowhere find that Christ said to any Apostle but Peter: upon you, or upon this rock I will build my Church. To no one else did he say in the singular: Whatever you loose, etc. To no one else: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. All these things, however, were said to Peter in the singular in the presence of the college of Apostles, clearly to show that the power of binding and loosing had been granted to him as head of the Catholic Church, while the other disciples of Christ were to be admitted to a share in its care.

If they again insist that not only Peter but also the other Apostles were appointed by the Lord as the foundation of the Church—for Revelation XXI³¹ says that the city had twelve foundations in its walls, and that the names of the twelve Apostles were upon them; Ephesians II³² also says, built upon the foundation of the Apostles—the answer is that Christ never called any Apostle a foundation of the Church, Peter always excepted. John and Paul bestowed this title upon them,³³ because, as Peter’s coadjutors, by their teaching, conduct, and miracles they summoned almost the whole world to faith in Christ.

7. As for their next argument against this principate—that Peter’s faith was shaken and shattered while he was acting in his own person, although Christ himself had foretold that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church to be founded upon Peter—this can be answered in several ways:

α) First, I would say that although Peter did not persevere in his confession of faith, and was indeed so frightened by the voice of one woman that he denied Christ, he never abandoned the inward faith he had conceived in his mind and thought. For since inward faith is one thing and the outward confession of faith another—For with the heart, says the Apostle,³⁴ one believes unto righteousness; but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation—an outward denial of faith can be joined to the integrity of inward faith. The gates of hell, then, could prevail not against Peter’s faith, nor against the Church founded upon him, but against the open confession of faith.

β) I can also answer in another way: namely, that those words do not mean that Peter would never fall away from the faith. For at the time of the Passion the Lord foretold to him that he would deny him three times; rather, they mean that after the Church had been founded upon him, he would never fall away from the Christian faith. This is plainly true. For although he strayed from the faith before the Christian edifice was established upon him, after the Church had been built upon him—that is, after the Lord’s Resurrection—it is acknowledged that he always remained steadfast in faith.

γ) A third answer is possible: Peter denied Christ at the voice of a lowly servant girl, but the gates of hell did not in any way carry off victory through his fall. For if someone fighting an enemy repeatedly throws him to the ground, he is not said to have prevailed if the stronger enemy rises and throws his adversary down; so too, although the gates of hell cast Peter down from his confession of faith three times, they did not prevail against him, because he did not persist as a stranger to the faith, but went outside and wept bitterly³⁵ and thereafter triumphed wonderfully over his enemy. The gates of hell did not prevail against him, even though for a short time they cast him down from the faith. See how slight, how feeble, how insignificant is the objection they bring against our definition.

8. Nor does that saying of the Savior, Go behind me, Satan, cause us any difficulty. Do we not read in Scripture that even the Prophets, to whom divine mysteries were revealed from heaven, sometimes³⁶ failed to know certain things? For when speaking of the misfortune of the woman of Shunem, Elisha says in IV Kings, chapter 4:³⁷ Her soul is in bitterness, and the Lord has hidden it from me and has not told me. Samuel also, as I Kings, chapter 16,³⁸ relates, wished to anoint Eliab as king instead of David. What wonder, then, if Peter, instructed by a heavenly power concerning Christ’s divinity, did not know that he was to be crucified? Since, therefore, he was deceived by the devil’s trickery and wished to obstruct the Passion of Christ the Most High, Christ rightly rebukes him as Satan: Go behind me, then, he says; that is, follow me in my desire for the Passion, and imitate me as a disciple imitates his teacher.

9. Finally, Augustine’s³⁹ authority is no objection. Since Sacred Scripture admits two senses, the literal and the spiritual, Augustine thinks that what is said about Peter lacks a clear meaning—not because he thinks the literal sense of those words should refer to anyone other than Peter, but because that literal sense does not explain the whole meaning of Scripture, and a spiritual sense must also be added if we wish to have a full and complete understanding. Therefore Augustine thinks that these words are first to be understood of Peter’s person, and then explained of the Church in a certain spiritual sense:⁴⁰ because Peter bears the type and figure of the Church, of which he is the head. Nor should this be thought alien to the interpretation of Sacred Scripture: when Joseph is said in Scripture to have been sold by his brothers,⁴¹ he is indeed a figure of Christ, who was sold by his disciples. Yet historical accuracy requires that the sale be understood of Joseph’s own person.

10. The second Gospel passage where the primacy of Peter is discussed is the last chapter of John.⁴² For after Christ had appeared to his disciples for the third time after the Resurrection, intending to confirm Peter in the principate of the Church, he addressed him in these words: Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He said to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him again: Simon, son of John, do you love me? He said to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him:⁴³ Feed my lambs. He said to him a third time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was grieved because he said to him a third time, Do you love me? And he said to him: Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my sheep. — Who, unless blind in mind and eyes, could fail to see that these words of the Lord were addressed to Peter’s person? Does he not address him by his own name and the name of his father, and ask about the goodwill and love he bears toward him? How could we identify anyone’s person more plainly than by his own name and⁴⁴ his father’s name? Add that when Christ asks whether Peter loves him more than the others do, he distinguishes him from the other Apostles as one who loves him more ardently. Since, then, he entrusted his sheep and lambs to Peter to feed, it is clear that he conferred upon him the care and principate of the Christian Church. For what can be understood by Christ’s sheep and lambs except the multitude of the Christian people, entrusted to Peter to be nourished not with bodily food but with spiritual doctrine?

11. Chrysostom, in his eighty-seventh homily on John, says: «Why, then, does he address Peter alone, passing over the others? He was the mouth and prince of the Apostles; therefore Paul went up to see him before the others, at the same time showing him that he ought now to have confidence. For, as if forgetting his denial, Christ entrusts him with the care of his brothers; he neither recalls the denial nor reproaches him, but says only: If you love me, take care of your brothers; and just as you showed your love in every way, and in the way that pleases me, show it now: give your life for my sheep, as you said you would give it for me.»⁴⁵ He speaks even more explicitly, interpreting these words to mean: «Feed my sheep, he says; that is, take my place, and be the head of your brothers, so that they may take you as my representative and proclaim and affirm you seated on your throne throughout the world.»

12. We must carefully observe, moreover, that the Lord entrusted to Peter not lambs alone or sheep alone, but both lambs and sheep. Peter must strengthen and fortify not only those more mature in faith, signified by the name “sheep,” but also the weak, signified by “lambs,” through teaching and innocent conduct.⁴⁶ Nor is it without significance that, if the Greek text is to be trusted, he entrusts the lambs to Peter’s care only once, but the sheep twice. For those who have already grown together in the Christian flock and can instruct others in the faith need a pastor’s more diligent care than the more recent converts and novices, whose instruction requires less attention from their superiors. Just as children who are to be taught the first rudiments of letters are taught with little effort, whereas those who have grown up require greater and more exacting attention from their teachers in their studies, so those who have enlisted in the new army of Christ require less care, although they must never be abandoned; but those who have already grown strong in this service must be dealt with more diligently lest they perish. The Apostle, too, writes to those who are more tender in faith:⁴⁷ As to little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not solid food. — But if we accept, as some Latin manuscripts read, that the lambs are mentioned twice and the sheep once, we can interpret this as indicating an order not of more exacting, but of more frequent care. All who have been washed in Christ’s baptism are entrusted to Peter’s care; but those more recent and little ones in the faith, so that they may grow strong, must more frequently be refreshed with spiritual food and Christian teaching.

13. The Lutherans, however, produce certain old wives’ tales and childish fables, claiming that Christ the Most High entrusted to Peter the care not of the whole Christian people, but perhaps of only some of them. For, they say, Christ did not tell Peter: Feed all my sheep, but simply and without any mark of distribution: Feed my sheep. If Jesus Christ had wished to entrust Peter with the care of the whole Church, they say, he would certainly have said: Feed all my sheep, just as when he sent the Apostles to preach throughout the world, he said: Teach all nations.⁴⁸ And elsewhere:⁴⁹ Preach the Gospel to every creature. — Hence the Apostle Paul, writing to the Galatians, chapter II,⁵⁰ calls Peter the Apostle of the circumcision, but himself of the Gentiles.

But by what rule⁵¹ do the Lutherans think one must say Feed all my sheep to express the universal care of all? If someone about to die said to a friend, “I entrust my children to you,” would he wish to entrust only some of his children to his friend, and not⁵² all of them? The person who entrusted his children without distinction has adequately expressed “all.” Thus, when Christ entrusted his sheep to Peter’s care without any distinction, he made it perfectly clear that he was entrusting them all to his keeping. If he had placed only some of his sheep under Peter’s authority, not all of them, he would have had to specify which ones. — As for Paul calling himself the Apostle of the Gentiles and Peter the Apostle of the circumcision, that is, of the Jews, this proves that Peter devoted himself more particularly and diligently to the salvation of the Jews, and Paul to that of the Gentiles; it does not, however, take away Peter’s authority and principate over all Christians. Peter also had some care for the Gentiles, and Paul some for the Jews. For Acts X⁵³ relates that Peter went to Cornelius the centurion at Caesarea. As for Paul, chapter IX⁵⁴ says that he entered the synagogues and preached Jesus, that he is the Son of God. Peter, then, did not care for the salvation of the Jews alone, nor Paul for that of the Gentiles alone, but both were Apostles of the Gentiles and the Jews, though one had greater concern for the Gentiles and the other for the Jews. What can this particular care of the Jews take away from Peter’s very extensive authority? What? Do not kings who rule several kingdoms sometimes choose one kingdom to govern themselves, while entrusting the government of the others to their relatives?

14. The Lutheran hydra now puts forth a new head: If Peter, according to your opinion, was shepherd and prince of all, yet took upon himself special care of the Jewish people and entrusted the administration of the other nations to Paul and the other Apostles, it plainly follows that the other Apostles governed the Catholic Church, by Peter’s authority, in the regions assigned to them by lot. But we can confirm this from no passage of Sacred Scripture; indeed, we are told that the other Apostles and Paul appointed bishops without any mention of Peter’s authority. The words of Anacletus found in Distinction XXI, canon «In novo», seem to support this claim: «For the other Apostles, he says, endowed with equal fellowship with blessed Peter, received both honor and power.»⁵⁵ Cyprian writes in the same sense, and his words are found in canon «Loquitur Dominus», C. XXIV, question 1.⁵⁶ If, then, the other Apostles received power equal to Peter’s, Peter was not appointed their prince and shepherd.

But this must first be considered: by a particular providence of Christ the Most Good, it came about that all the Apostles had no need of Peter’s authority when appointing bishops. For they had been sent by Christ our Savior himself to preach, and received this power from him without an intermediary. Hence he himself says in John, chapter XX:⁵⁷ As the Father has sent me, I also send you. Therefore, unless their authority had come from Christ, they could not have appointed bishops without his authority. Peter and the other Apostles shared many things, such as preaching, teaching, and baptizing, in accord with the saying in the last chapter of Matthew:⁵⁸ Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. Yet the supreme principate in the Christian commonwealth fell to Peter alone, and power was conferred upon him over all Christ’s sheep, among whom the Apostles themselves were numbered.⁵⁹

15. The Lutherans object again: Though Peter alone was told to feed Christ’s sheep, was he also entrusted with supreme authority over all Christians? For “feeding” does not mean being prince and lord.

The Lutherans either do not know, or pretend not to know, that although “to feed” in the proper sense of the word does not mean “to be prince,” nevertheless the one to whom primary care of feeding the flock is entrusted is also given principate over the sheep. Since the Christian people are metaphorically called sheep, it is no wonder⁶⁰ if the word “to feed” is also understood metaphorically. For just as a shepherd supplies and provides pasture for the sheep in such a way that he is their ruler and governor, so Peter is commanded to feed Christ’s sheep, and their care, direction, and governance are entrusted to him—not as to a hireling, but as to their true and chief shepherd. — This can be readily explained if we consider the force and nature of the Greek word. For the Greek manuscripts use two different words in these very passages, namely, βόσκε and ποίμαινε, both of which the Latin translator renders with the same word, feed, although there is a considerable difference between them: βόσκειν means among Greek authors “to provide food,” whereas ποιμαίνειν means “to rule and govern.” Hence Homer calls Agamemnon, emperor of the Greeks, ποιμένα λαῶν, that is, “shepherd of the peoples,” from the verb ποιμαίνω.⁶¹ In many places in Sacred Scripture where the Latin translator uses the word “rule,” the Greek texts have the word ποιμαίνω. Yet it should not be overlooked that the Greek Gospel uses βόσκε for both lambs and sheep, but ποιμαίνε for sheep alone.⁶² We can understand from this that Peter is to feed and nourish both the little ones and the mature in faith with the pasture of God’s word, but the mature are to be imbued less with evangelical teaching than directed and governed, so that they may work for the salvation of others and by their good and innocent lives draw others to the love of Christ. Why say more? If we carefully consider the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke, we find that in all matters Peter always stood among the Apostles with greater authority and reverence, as the father and shepherd of them all.

16. You may perhaps say: a) If Peter acted as prince of all the Apostles, Paul was exceedingly rash to rebuke him. For in chapter II of Galatians⁶³ he says: When Cephas (Peter) had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was reprehensible. In discussing this passage, Jerome says: «Paul would not dare rebuke Peter unless he knew himself to be his equal.»⁶⁴ — To this: b) If Peter presided over all the Apostles, why, as Acts VIII⁶⁵ relates, was he sent to Samaria with John by the others? It belongs to a superior to send another on his business, not to an inferior.

But please observe that Paul withstood Peter to his face not because he possessed equal or superior authority, but because if a superior commits something that causes great harm to the Church—as seemed to be happening with Peter—he may be admonished by an inferior and rebuked in measured language. As for Jerome’s opinion that Paul was equal to Peter in authority, which both Anacletus and Cyprian, whom we cited above, also seem to hold, it should be understood not of jurisdiction, but of the apostolate, defense of the faith, and power of sacred order. In apostolate, defense of the faith, and order, all were established as equals by Christ, but Peter was granted greater jurisdiction.

What is finally alleged—that Peter was sent to Samaria with John by the other Apostles—can be refuted by the same answer with which the holy teachers refuted the error of Arius, who preached that the Son was inferior to the Father. It is false, of course, that everyone who sends another is superior and greater than the one sent. King Herod sent the Magi to Bethlehem, though Herod was not their superior in dignity. Sometimes, too⁶⁶, a prince is armed for war by the advice and exhortations of his own counselors. The other Apostles, then, did not send Peter to Samaria because they were superior to him in authority; rather, they advised him and urged him to go there, judging that he would be more suitable and more effective for that task, since he was regarded as superior to the others and shone with a greater grace of miracles.