On the Divine Institution of The Papacy

To Leo X, Supreme Pontiff, on the divine institution of the pontificate over the whole Church in the person of the Apostle Peter: a little book by Thomas de Vio Cajetan, Cardinal of San Sisto.

Most blessed Father: a doctrine that is illustrious to the wise is required to be brought forth into common light as well — by those who, failing to distinguish the things that are manifest in themselves from those that become known through other things, are (as the saying goes) still "looking for a knot in a bulrush," and, blinking in the noonday light, raise objections. For so great is the license to becloud the clarity of the Gospel among those who are perhaps not content with what is their own, that they throw the face of the Church (serene though it is) into confusion with the wrappings of novelties — men whose very pursuit it is to turn what is certain and clear into a matter of dispute, and otherwise to render obscure what is plain. For this reason it is our intention to defend, to strip of its shadows, and to bring into the open the primacy of Peter and of his successors the Roman Pontiffs — a primacy held in tranquil possession through so many ages, times, and cities, shining by right with the Gospel as its sun, yet assailed by enwrapping argumentations [that trouble] those exercised but little in the sacred letters — so that this truth may shine forth to all, and by its own splendors reach the innermost recesses of every creature. Let the Catholic Church, then, entrusted to you, most kind Father, receive this little nighttime labor, intended for the more unlearned, lest they be overwhelmed by obscurities.

The primacy of the Roman Pontiff over all the churches of Christ, although it has been assailed by many disputes, nevertheless presents itself, for our purpose, as something to be settled by a single investigation. For the question here is not whether the Roman Pontiff is in fact the head of the Church; nor whether he holds his power from God — in the manner in which, according to the Apostle (Romans 13), there is no power except from God, and the things that are from God are ordained; and just as royal power in the Old Testament was from God, according to that passage (1 Samuel 8), hear their voice, and appoint a king over them. For many of our adversaries affirm all such things. Rather, the question turns on whether the primacy of the Roman Pontiff over all churches was instituted by Christ in blessed Peter — that is, whether Christ established Peter, together with his successors, as his Vicar for governing all the churches of Christ. Consequently, those passages drawn from arguments and authorities affirming that Peter, or the Roman Pontiff, was or is the head of all the churches are, for the present, set aside from our intention; and only those are to be brought forward from which it is established that the Lord Christ conferred a primacy of this kind on Peter alone.

But since the whole truth of this question depends on the sacred Scriptures, and there are two principal texts — namely Matthew 16 and the last chapter of John — that speak expressly of this mystery, therefore the investigation must proceed according to both texts. First, whether the words of Christ were spoken to Peter alone. Second, whether through these words the pontificate of the whole Church was committed by Christ to Peter alone. Third, whether this pontificate of the whole Church, committed to Peter by Christ, was given by the same Lord to Peter's successor. Fourth, whether this pontificate was given by Christ to the Roman Pontiff as Peter's successor.

Now, so that the resolution of the first point may be clear, the text of Matthew must first be examined. To begin with, we should treat the opinion of those who say that Christ's words were spoken not to Peter, but to a qualified person;¹ then of those who say they were spoken not to Peter, but to the Church; next of those who say they were spoken to Peter and the apostles together; and finally of those who deny that they were spoken to Peter alone, on the grounds that they were spoken to the Church. For in manifold ways men have tried to obscure the Lord's promise reported in Matthew 16: to you I will give the keys, etc. For some have so restricted these words as to exclude even the person of Peter from them, understanding them as directed solely to the divine gift in Peter. Others, likewise restricting the words and excluding Peter's person, direct Christ's words to the Church alone, signified in Peter. Many, however, taking them more broadly, understand them as said to all the apostles. But there are also some who, while admitting that these words were spoken to Peter alone, nonetheless deny that a singular primacy was conferred on Peter — on the grounds that a similar power is read elsewhere to have been conferred by Christ on the other apostles, for instance Matthew 18: whatever you bind upon earth, and elsewhere. Finally, some hesitate as to how it can be verified that the keys were given to Peter alone, while we nonetheless affirm that all the keys were given to the Church as well. Therefore these five points are to be treated one by one, in the order in which they have been enumerated, everywhere setting out first the reasons for doubting, so that the opposing truths may shine forth more clearly when set beside them.

Not lacking are those who dogmatize that pontifical power is not conferred on a man immediately, but by means of the gift of virtue, such that, the gift of virtue perishing through the loss of virtue, the pontifical power must simultaneously perish, as though virtue were a kind of glue joining the pontificate to the man. Whence it follows that, in the judgment of these men, the keys were conferred not on the person of Peter, but, by virtue of his gift, on some individual minister — say, a priest, or whoever happens to be just.

They argue this from the text of this Gospel in many ways. First, because before all else the Lord affirms Peter's beatitude, saying blessed are you, doubtless in the hope of true faith: for he would not have begun Simon's beatitude unless this beatitude were oriented toward the subsequent pontificate; for nothing that Christ said ought to be irrelevant.

Second, from the fact that the Lord adds Simon Bar-Jona: that is, son of a dove, as Jerome explains. For why is Peter, about to receive the pontificate, first named son of a dove? Unless either his simplicity is signified by the dove (according to that word: be prudent as serpents, and simple as doves), or the Holy Spirit (who is designated by the dove, since he appeared in the form of a dove at Christ's baptism) pertained to the ecclesiastical principate.

Third, from the reason added: because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. For it is shown that he who is set over others in the instruction of the Christian faith was instructed not by flesh and blood, but by divine revelation.

Fourth, from the fact that the Lord added: you are Peter; and did not say you are called Peter (as the Gloss notes there), on account of the strength of faith and the constancy of confession. For this, together with all that precedes, pertains to the gifts of the virtues, which — as has been said — either were premised irrelevantly, or are fitting means toward the principate then subsequently promised.

Fifth. Whence, fifthly, he argues from the first promise added: Upon this rock I will build my church. For since this is the first promise made to Peter (since, as Cyprian, Jerome, and Augustine explain, by this rock Peter himself is shown: for Jerome says on Matthew: I will build my church upon you; and Augustine in the book of the Retractations reports that he himself said that the church was built upon the Apostle Peter as upon a rock, nor does he retract this opinion. Cyprian too, in the passage cited above, says: The Lord speaks to Peter: I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; upon one he builds the church, etc.),

Since, I say, this is the first promise made to Peter, this promise pertained to the person of Peter not immediately, but by means of the gift of firmness and solidity (as the Lord's own words attest, since he does not say upon you, but upon this rock I will build my church), it follows that the subsequent promises too are to be understood as made to the person of Simon insofar as he was Peter and son of a dove and blessed, etc.

And this is confirmed: because this promise is not only the first, but the principal one: for the chief gift conferred on Peter is to be the foundation of the church. From the fact that this promise is first and principal, it follows that the other, consequent promises follow the nature of the principal one; and by this no promise is made to the human person except by means of the gift of virtue — which was the thing to be shown.

It is not difficult for the Catholic doctor to show that this opinion is false, by leading it to condemned absurdities. For this dogma is nothing other than the heresy of those who say that ecclesiastical power is not found in wicked ministers; and that the keys of the church are held only in the just, and by all the just; and that the church consists only of the just — all of which is known to have been rejected and condemned.

But lest the heretics complain that they are oppressed by the authority of prelates and not by the Gospel, an account of Catholic doctrine must be rendered from the very text of the Gospel itself.

For the sake of this clarity, note that there are two parts in this discourse of the Lord to Peter: of which the first, according to the plain context and sense of the Gospel, pertains to the confession which Peter had made; for it contains nothing other than the agent, the fruit or reward, of the revealed confession; and the person, or condition of the person, to whom the revelation was made. By saying Blessed are you he pronounces the fruit or reward; by saying Simon Bar-Jona, he touches on the person literally, or mystically the condition of the person — namely, simplicity or spirituality; and by saying because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, he shows the agent of the revelation: the whole first part of the discourse, then, pertains to the revealed confession, and not to the future principate.

That you may understand this more fully, consider each point. Simon is rightly called blessed on account of the revelation he received: since, if according to philosophy he is blessed in this life who arrives at the knowledge of the highest substances; if according to evangelical truth the blessedness of the wayfarer consists in the hope of true faith (according to that word: blessed are they who have not seen and have believed), far more was Simon blessed than if he had arrived at the knowledge of the mystery of the Trinity by other means — not relying on a revelation made to others (as happens to us), but on a revelation made interiorly to himself.

That Peter arrived at this knowledge is attested both by Peter's own words and by the Lord: for Peter confessed: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God; Nathanael had once confessed: You are the Son of God, John 1; those who were in the boat had confessed: Truly you are the Son of God, Matthew 14; and Peter himself, in the person of all, had confessed: And we have believed and have known that you are the Christ, John 6.

Now, however, the Lord attached the reward of beatitude only now: because now the confession had been made that he was the natural Son of God; as Peter made clear, by adding that adjective living. For this can be understood in two ways.

First, as an adjective determining its substantive absolutely: as though it were said of the true God, or of the almighty God. And thus it would be joined to Peter's confession only incidentally, for greater emphasis of the true God, as distinct from gods of stone or dead gods, such as Saturn, Jupiter, and the rest.

In another way, as determining its substantive, namely God, in relation to the son whose father is being declared, when it is said Son of the living God; and thus it is applied to Peter's confession per se and essentially, and constitutes Peter's confession as being per se, essentially, and formally true, and of the highest sense. For by this is signified most fully and formally the manner in which Christ is the Son of God — namely, that he is the natural Son of God.

And lest the height of this sense remain obscured, what we say is made clear from the different sonship that belongs to us and to Christ: for it belongs both to Christ and to us that we are sons of God (according to what is written of us, John 1: He gave them power to become sons of God), but we are sons of God because he wills it; according to that word of James 1: For of his own will he begot us by the word of truth; Christ, however, is the Son of God not because God wills it, but because he is.

For the reason why God begot us as sons is his will, by which he chose us; but the reason why God begot Christ is his essence, by which he begot the only-begotten God, by which he himself is also God.

This is signified, calling to the citadel of theology's handmaids (since, for the living, to live is to be, as is said in the second book On the Soul), by the phrase the living God: for from the fact that for the living, to live is to be, it is the same thing to be Son of the living God insofar as he lives, and Son of God insofar as he is.

Peter, however, mentions not the essence of God, nor the nature of God, but the life of God: since for whatever is a son, it belongs to it to beget a son not by the reason by which it is, nor by the reason by which it is a natural thing, but by the reason by which it lives.

If you wish to perceive this more deeply, join these together, namely Son of the living God: for since it is agreed, on the one hand, that "son" signifies one begotten such as his parent is, and on the other hand that the parent is signified as the living God, if the philosophical tradition is taken into account — namely, that it is the most natural work of all living things to make something like themselves, as is held in Book II On the Soul — you will clearly see that by saying Son of the living God the natural Son of God is signified: for from the fact that Son of God is stated, he is said to be begotten by God; and from the fact that Son of God is stated insofar as he is living, through the most natural work of a living thing, insofar as it is living, he is signified as begotten.

Most acutely, then, and most formally, Peter's confession manifests Christ not as the adoptive Son of God, but as the natural Son of God, by saying Christ, Son of the living God.

And if we strive to look yet more deeply, we shall perceive that in this response are enclosed not only two persons of the Trinity, namely the Son and the Father, and the reason and manner of generation — namely, that the one is the natural Father and the other the natural Son (as has been declared) — but also the consubstantiality, coeternity, and coequality of both: for from the fact that the natural Son is such as the Father is, and Christ is called Son of the living God, it is also signified that he himself is the living God; and since there are not many gods, it is co-signified that he is one God with the Father, and by this consubstantial, coeternal, and coequal.

Nor is the person of the Holy Spirit omitted: for Christ means "anointed by the Holy Spirit," as Peter himself declared, Acts 10.

Whence it follows that by this confession Peter taught the mystery of the divine Trinity and generation no less than John did by saying: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, etc. Indeed, although John penetrated more spiritually, reaching the immaterial and intelligible level, Peter nevertheless signified more clearly the persons by the proper names of the Son and, through him, of the Father, and the natural generation together with the reason for generating, saying: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God; and therefore he is rightly declared blessed by the Savior of the world.

You will find that Origen, Chrysostom, and Hilary have all tended toward this lofty sense of this confession. The Church too attests to this lofty sense of this confession, repeating it with daily veneration at the first hour of the day: Christ, Son of the living God, etc.

Rightly, too, Bar-Jona pertains to the same revelation: for it can be understood in two ways, as Jerome says: either reading Bar-Jona, that is, son of Jonah (for bar means the same as "son"); or that, by a scribal error, the middle syllable was dropped, when it should be read Bar-Ioanna, that is, son of John.

Simon is believed by many to be the son of John; but according to the truth he was the son of Jonah, as is clear from John 1: Simon, son of Jonah, you shall be called Cephas; although the Latin manuscripts have been corrupted by scribal error.

There is, then, a first sense, though mystical: you are the son of Jonah, that is, of the dove; and a second, literal sense: you are the son of Jonah or of John. Both senses, however, favor the proposed point: for if he is expounded as son of the dove, it indicates the simplicity and spirituality of Peter's own person as fit to receive revelation: for simplicity and spirituality most prepare one to receive divine revelation: for the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee the deceitful (as is said in Wisdom 1), and the sensual man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God, 1 Corinthians 2.

But if he is understood as son of Jonah or of John, this pertains greatly to the confirmation of the confessed truth: for it belongs to this, that the Lord for this reason recalls the natural father not of himself, but of Simon: so that by adding because flesh and blood has not revealed this, but my Father, from this very fact — that he sets his own father and the natural father of Simon side by side — it is as though he said: Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah or of John, because it was not your father according to flesh and blood who revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven: from this very thing, I say, we are taught that each should understand that the Father who is in heaven is naturally my Father just as Jonah is naturally your father.

And Chrysostom already noted this, saying: it is pointless to say you are the son of Jonah or of John, unless to show that Christ is naturally the Son of God just as Peter is the son of Jonah: of the same substance as the one who begot him.

It was fitting, moreover, for our Savior to commend Peter's confession, by making known its author and reward and the rest: so that Peter's confession might be held as true; and thus he himself might be believed to be the true and natural Son of God, on the basis of Peter's confession, derived not from flesh and blood, but from the heavenly Father: for unless he had made this clear, we would take Peter's confession as a human word; but now we hold it as a sentence uttered by God.

From all of which it can be clearly seen that up to this point nothing pertaining to Peter's principate has been said.

Thus, then, the first part of the Lord's discourse to Peter concerns his confession, and pertains to the approval of the faith concerning himself, Christ the Son of the living God.

The second part, however, turns to what is promised to Peter: whence it also begins by returning the address to Simon Peter himself: And I say to you: as though he said (as Jerome noted): you have said to me: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God; and I say to you: You are Peter, etc.

Here note that there are made to Peter not only diverse promises, but promises not of one but of diverse kinds: for the first promise regards the construction of the church: I will build my church; the second, however, regards authority: I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall loose, etc.

The former regards the substance of the church, the latter its office: and they differ from each other as much as substance differs from office.

And although in the first promise a threefold understanding is found, expounding by this rock as either Christ, or Peter, or Peter's confession, as Chrysostom expounds; nevertheless, if we look more closely, there is one literal sense, namely, that by this rock Peter is shown. For Augustine, in the first book of the Retractations, chapter 21, leaves it to the reader's judgment which of the two opinions is more probable — whether Peter or Christ is shown by this rock.

Whence, relying on this freedom, we say, from the very text of the Gospel, that by this rock Peter is shown: as is clear from the fact that the Lord said: Upon this rock I will build. For if he were showing himself, he would not have said I will build, but I build: since at that time he was truly building upon himself, by making Peter out of Simon; but he did not then begin to build upon Peter, but after the resurrection. And therefore he said in the future tense: I will build: as though he openly said: you, whom I now make Peter, I will afterward make the foundation of my church.

And this sense is confirmed: because otherwise he would have prefaced You are Peter irrelevantly; whereas the Gospel implies that this was said to Peter for a very great reason; since the Lord, as though returning the address to Peter (as has been said), said: You are Peter. What great thing, then, would it mean to be Peter, or to what purpose You are Peter, unless it were subsequently shown: and upon this rock I will build my church?

Whence Jerome, expounding this passage, says: And according to the metaphor of the rock, it is rightly said to him: I will build my church upon you.

Chrysostom's exposition concerning Peter's confession comes to the same thing: since the confession of faith comes to the same thing as the solidity or firmness of faith which Peter denotes. For it does not differ from it except as act differs from habit. And again it is agreed that the church has for its foundation faith rather than the confession of faith.

Whence it remains that, literally, by this rock Peter is shown.

Speaking more exactly, he says this rock, that is: in you, the rock, in you, the solidity of faith, in you, Christ believed, in you, Christ confessed: so as to embrace all the expositions of the saints. For each is indeed true, but explains only a part of the truth, expounding faith or the confession of faith, or Peter, or Christ.

When, however, both are joined together, so that both the person of Peter and that of Christ or of faith are shown to be signified together, the whole truth, the whole sense of the letter is had, which says not upon a rock, but upon this rock.

For the metaphorical rock is individuated, and becomes this because it is in this demonstrated subject: just as anything else existing in Peter is individuated and becomes this because it is in the person of Peter himself.

This whole literal sense, then, having been disclosed and admitted, and opening it further, know from the Gospel that all the promises made to Peter agree in this: that they are all made to the one single person of Simon himself, who is called Peter — to whom it was said: You are Peter. And it is shown that this is so, first concerning the first promise, and then concerning the second.

In the first promise, consider three things: first, you; second, are Peter; third, upon this rock. By the pronoun you is shown that person to whom Christ was speaking — the person, I say, not some quality; for it is agreed that the pronoun you denotes substance without quality, even among grammarians.

Again, by the pronoun you a single person is shown, as is clear. From the joining, moreover, of that which is being Peter to that you, when it is said You are Peter, it is openly signified that the Lord affirms that single person to be Peter: and because by this rock he shows that same rock which he was then showing by the demonstrative pronoun, You are Peter.

Most significantly, that article this expresses that the same rock is being shown of which there was then discourse, which was shown both by the pronoun you and by you are Peter; and this all the more clearly, since no other rock is found shown or named in the Gospel at that point.

To be the future foundation of Christ's church, then, is joined to this Rock; and since this is joined to the person shown by the pronoun you, one must understand that being the foundation of Christ's church is promised to the single person demonstrated by you, to whom it was then given that he should be Peter.

And that you might note this all the more, the Lord began: And I say to you; not to your beatitude, not to the son of the dove, not to the son of revelation, but to you.

Concerning the second promise, moreover, it is most clearly evident, because the demonstrative pronoun of substance is expressed, saying: And to you I will give the keys.

These things must indeed be noted very carefully, since by this the fabrications of heretics and schismatics, holy in appearance but poisonous in reality, are refuted: for they say that the church is founded upon the rock, that is, upon the firmness of faith.

They speak the truth, but incompletely: for the Lord indeed said upon the rock; but he did not say this alone, but added the article this, saying: upon this rock — which, without doubt, he was then showing by saying: You are Peter. For if he were going to build upon the solidity of faith absolutely, he would not have particularized that solidity to that person.

But the schismatics strive, through these fabrications, to remove from Christ's church the unity of the personal foundation.

The Lord, however, forestalling all these, directed his discourse to Simon Peter under the pronoun, beginning: And I say to you; and adding: You are Peter: you, not your beatitude or anything of that kind; you, not you [plural]: so that the unity of the church's foundation, and likewise a personal unity, might be understood as affirmed by Christ; when it is said: You are Peter, it is you alone who will afterward be the foundation, when upon this rock, that is, Peter, I will build my church.

A twofold difference, moreover, is to be noted between these promises.

The first is that being the foundation of the church is not promised to the person of Peter absolutely, but insofar as he is Peter or rock; whereas the keys of the kingdom of heaven are promised to the person of Peter absolutely.

And you have this difference from the Gospel: since of the first it is said: And upon this rock I will build my church; and he did not say: Upon you I will build my church: for by this rock he showed the whole of what he had said, You are Peter; for rock refers back to that word Peter, and the article this refers back to the pronoun you: as though he said: You are Peter, and upon you, Peter, I will build my church.

Concerning the keys of the kingdom of heaven, however, it is not said: And to you, Peter, nor to this rock; but simply and absolutely: To you I will give the keys: showing by this word to you that he was promising the keys to the person, not to the quality signified by rock.

To the qualified person, then, it was promised that he would be the foundation of Christ's church; but to the bare person the keys of the kingdom of heaven were promised.

The other difference is this: that in the first promise, the office of sustaining the church is promised to Peter, with Christ, not Peter, as its author: for he did not say: And upon this rock you will build my church; but he said: Upon this rock I will build my church: as though he said: You will sustain [it], as a rock, while I build my church upon you, the rock.

In the promise of the keys, however, the office of opening and closing was not reserved by the Lord to himself, but he promised that he would give the keys: so that the one to whom they are given might act, opening or closing the kingdom of heaven.

These differences are established from the plain sense of the Gospel. From which it is clearly gathered that there is a difference between Peter's office as regards the power of using the keys and of loosing and binding, and his office as regards sustaining the church in faith: since the office of the keys is entrusted to the man; whereas the office of sustaining the church in faith is said to pertain to Christ as author, to the Rock as the ground of sustaining, and to the man Peter as the foundation and the underlying subject.

These things must indeed be contemplated more carefully, so that we may know how to render an account, to those who ask it of us, of the faith that is in us: for from these considerations it is easy to see that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were not given to the holiness or justice of the man; but were promised to the man as the future shepherd of Christ's sheep.

Now if someone should object against this exact exposition of the Gospel's words, on the ground that Peter was not, from that time, Peter in fact and in name — since he did not persevere solid and firm in faith, for he denied the Lord three times afterward — and that on this account the Lord's words sounding at the beginning, You are Peter, are not to be understood so exactly:

Let him who so objects note that he is mistaken, confusing the firmness of faith with the firmness of charity.

Peter, indeed, was made firm in faith from that time, Christ saying: You are Peter: as Jerome attests in expounding: And I say to you, not with empty speech having no effect, but I say to you, because my having said it is my having done it: that you are Peter.

Nor did he fail, in denying the Lord, in the faith which is in the heart, although he failed in the confession of faith: for the distinction between these was made manifest by the Apostle Paul, Romans 10: With the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

The Lord indeed attests that Peter did not fail in faith, Luke 22, saying: I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail: for it is agreed that Christ was heard in all things on account of his reverence, as is said in Hebrews chapter 5.

That he himself failed in charity, however, and manifested a false oath, is attested by the Lord in adding: And you, once converted, confirm your brethren: for he was turned away from the charity of Christ, not from faith.

Peter, therefore, always persevered.

To the first three objections.

These things having been premised, it must be said, regarding the objections to the contrary. And concerning the first three there is no need to dwell, since it has already been shown that they are irrelevant: for everything alleged in them pertains to Peter's confession.

To the other objections.

To the other objections, however, drawn from those words You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, it is said that these indeed pertain to the pontifical rank, not according to the office of the keys, but according to the office of the foundation. And it was on purpose that the Lord said, not you will be called Peter, but you are Peter: so as to affirm that you are Peter in fact and in name; that is, you are solid, firm, constant, etc., in faith, as a rock — as Leo, Gregory, and Bede explain.

Nor can anything else be inferred from this than that it belongs to him alone who has faith to be the foundation for sustaining the church in faith — which we readily grant; for from this it does not follow that being the foundation belongs to Peter by means of charity or justice, but by means of faith.

And again, from this it does not follow that being the foundation was promised to faith simply and absolutely, and thereby promised to whoever should be found to have faith; since Christ did not say upon a rock, but particularized it to the person, adding to it this, saying upon this rock: for without doubt the rock then shown by the preceding words You are Peter is being repeated, so that he who is now Peter should be the future foundation.

Wherefore it is clearly evident that, just as Simon alone was shown by saying You are Peter, so he alone is likewise repeated in saying and upon this rock I will build my church. No promise, therefore, was made to the gift of virtue absolutely; but only the first of these — namely, the building of the church — was made to the gift of faith, not in just anyone, but in the person of the future shepherd of Christ's sheep.

To the confirmation.

To the confirmation, moreover, which infers that the judgment concerning the office of the keys and the office of the foundation is alike, it is answered that from the differences in the Lord's words it has been clearly shown that the judgment concerning the two is not alike. And although the accessory follows the nature of the principal, other things being equal; yet where (as in the present case) there is the greatest disparity in other respects, the secondary need not be made to resemble the principal.

The greatest disparity, moreover, is shown in this: that in the office of the foundation, the man holds himself as it were wholly passively, Christ saying: I will build upon you, Peter; whereas in the office of the keys he did not say: I will open or close, but absolutely: to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. It is not, therefore, surprising if the office of the foundation was promised in one way, and the office of the keys in another: the former by means of the firmness of faith, the latter to the man absolutely.

This kind of difference, instituted by Christ, is moreover consonant even with human reason: for the use of the keys, whether it be right use or abuse, does not redound to the universal church; whereas the office of sustaining the faith, were it to go astray, the universal church would collapse — of which, however, the Lord says: the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The keys of the kingdom of heaven, therefore, were promised not to the gift of virtue (as the heretics imagine), but to the person of Simon Peter, the future shepherd of the sheep and lambs of Christ.

Since there are some who go even farther than the former group, maintaining that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were promised by Christ not to Peter but to the Church, when He said, I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; as though He had said, to you, that is, to the Church signified by you, and not to you personally, I must address them as well. They agree with the former in this, that they remove Peter from the Lord's promise and maintain that the keys were not given to any individual man, but were promised as a gift of God. They differ only in this: whereas the former maintain that this gift of God, namely the keys, is found in every just man, or at least in every priest, these latter assert that the keys were given to the gift of God as it exists in the Church, because they contend that Christ addressed Peter not as an individual but insofar as he bore the person of the Church when He said, I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. They endeavor to establish this by many arguments.

First. Their first argument is this. Christ Himself explains to whom He is speaking and to whom He gives the keys, saying: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. Now if Peter in this passage is not Peter, then neither is he flesh and blood, nor Simon Bar-Jona. Peter is entirely removed from consideration as an individual man and becomes nothing other than the recipient of the Father's revelation, to whom the keys are given. Therefore the keys were given to no private individual, but to the Church alone; for we cannot be certain of any private individual that he possesses this revelation of the Father, whereas concerning the Church no such doubt is possible. Therefore the Church herself is that Peter who hears the revelation and receives the keys.

Second. Their second argument is drawn from what immediately follows. After Christ's glorious commendation of Peter, Peter sought to prevent Him from dying, whereupon Christ rebuked him, saying: Get behind Me, Satan; you do not savor the things that are of God. Thus, because such a rebuke follows immediately upon so great a commendation, it is clear, they say, that the earlier Peter who received the keys was not Peter the son of Bar-Jona, but the Church, the daughter of God, who hears the word of God and perseveringly confesses it to the end, never at one time failing to understand the things of God nor ever being commanded to go behind Christ as Peter was.

Third. Their third argument is taken from Christ's words: Upon this rock I will build My Church; that is, upon the faith confessed by Peter in the person of the whole Church. Therefore, wherever in any particular church this rock of faith is found, there also are the keys.

Confirmation. This argument is further strengthened by the fact that Peter himself did not remain steadfast in that same confession; for immediately after receiving the keys he fell into error, and yet the keys were not bestowed upon him a second time. Therefore he received them not in his own person but in that of the Church.

Fourth. Their fourth argument is this. When a pope is elected, does he bring the keys with him, or does he not? If he brings them with him, then he was pope before his election. If he does not, from whom does he receive them? Surely not from an angel descending from heaven. Does he not receive them from the Church? Likewise, when a pope dies, to whom does he leave the keys except to the Church from which he received them? What, then, can be said against this most evident experience, which is the best interpreter of the Gospel, namely that the keys were given neither to Peter nor to his successor but to the Church alone, from whom every priest in every church receives them as a minister?

Fifth. Their fifth argument is modeled upon that employed by Paul in Romans iv and Galatians iv, where he argues that just as righteousness was reckoned to Abraham because of his faith, so it will likewise be reckoned to all who believe. Therefore, in the same way, if the keys were given to Peter because he possessed the Father's revelation and confessed Christ, then they must likewise be given to every man who possesses the same revelation and makes the same confession. But this can belong to no one except the Church, since no individual believer can know with certainty that he possesses this confession steadfastly and perseveringly, as Peter himself demonstrates.

Sixth. Their sixth argument is that, as Augustine testifies in Book I of On Christian Doctrine, chapter seventeen, Christ gave these keys not only to Peter but to His Church, so that whatever she should loose upon earth would be loosed also in heaven. Likewise Augustine says in his Tractates on John that the Apostle Peter, because of the primacy of his apostleship, bore in a representative manner the person of the Church. Therefore he received the keys not in his own person but in the person of the Church.

This is confirmed even more strongly by Augustine's own words in the same place, where he says: As regards Peter himself personally, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, and by a more abundant grace one and the same chief Apostle. But when it was said to him, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven," he represented the whole Church.

First confirmation. The same doctrine is confirmed by the words of Augustine on Psalm 108: Certain things are said which seem to pertain to the Apostle Peter, yet they admit of no clear understanding unless they are referred to the Church, whose person he is recognized to have borne figuratively because of the primacy which he held among the disciples; such as, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." In like manner Judas represents the person of Christ's enemies.

From these words it appears, they argue, that Peter received the keys not in his own person but in the representative person of the Church, since Augustine says that the passage has no clear meaning unless it is referred to the Church. Moreover, after speaking of Peter's personal characteristics, Augustine immediately adds by way of contrast: But when it was said to him, "I will give you," he represented the Church.

Second confirmation. This is further confirmed by the Evangelist's account. When Christ asked whom men said that the Son of Man was, none of the disciples gave a definite answer, but merely repeated the various opinions that were circulating. Yet when He asked them concerning Himself, Peter alone answered decisively and with firm conviction, declaring the confession of faith, thereby teaching that the true knowledge of Christ must be confessed with unity and firmness, and not tossed about like a reed by the varying opinions of many. Therefore Peter represents the unity of the Church.

Fourth confirmation. To these arguments they add the authority of Cyprian, cited in Distinction XXIV, question I, who speaks as follows: Although after His resurrection Christ bestowed equal authority upon all the Apostles, nevertheless, in order to manifest unity, He established by His own authority the source of that unity as beginning from one. Certainly the other Apostles were what Peter was, endowed with an equal fellowship of honor and authority; yet the beginning proceeds from unity, so that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one. Hence, they conclude, it was not one man but unity that received the keys, as is likewise attested by the chapters Omnibus and Quodcumque, in Distinction XXIV, question I, from Jerome and Augustine.

To clarify these matters, it must first be observed that the Fathers say one thing, namely, that Peter signified the Church when he received the keys. From this, however, two conclusions may be drawn. The first is that the Church received the keys when Peter received them. The second is that Peter himself did not receive the keys in his own person. Error may therefore arise in two ways: either by denying the former, or by affirming the latter. To deny that Peter signified the Church is to contradict the interpretation of the Fathers. But to affirm that the Church received the keys in such a way that Peter himself did not receive them is an error more than heretical, for by this the Gospel narrative itself is denied, and history is turned into allegory. Indeed, I have understated the case: for by the same reasoning every historical narrative, even that of the Old Testament, would be transformed into allegory.

Let me explain each point. If the keys were promised not to Peter in his own person, but only to the Church represented by him when Christ said, I will give you the keys, then Peter is introduced merely as an allegorical figure, and what is narrated is no longer history but parable when Scripture says: Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi and questioned His disciples, together with all that follows. By the same license through which this history is converted into allegory, every other history, not only of the New Testament but also of the Old, may likewise be turned into allegory. For it is written: All these things happened to them as figures. If Peter is made into a merely figurative person because he bore the figure of the Church, then Martha and Mary, who represented the active and contemplative life, must likewise become allegorical figures. The three resurrections performed by Christ must also become allegories, since they signify the three kinds of sinners rising spiritually from death. Indeed, even the death and resurrection of Christ would become allegories, since the former signifies our death to sin and the latter our newness of life. In short, the entire credibility of sacred history collapses under such a principle.

The true and approved doctrine, however, is that something may signify in two different ways. One is by way of parable, as the prodigal son signifies the sinner, and the laborers hired for the vineyard signify those who labor in the Church of Christ, and likewise in other such examples. The other is by way of an event that truly occurred, such that the historical event itself signifies another reality; thus the passage of the Hebrews through the Red Sea signifies our passage from vice to virtue, and the coming of the Magi to adore Christ signifies the pilgrimage of travelers toward the heavenly homeland.

The difference between these two kinds of signification, so far as our present subject is concerned, is this: in parabolic signification there is no concern for the persons who appear in the narrative considered in themselves, since they are introduced solely for the sake of signifying something else, just as poets do in comedies and tragedies. But when an actual event signifies another reality, one must first establish with the greatest care the historical event itself and the persons involved according to their own proper reality, for this constitutes the literal sense. From this alone, according to Dionysius and Augustine, may valid theological argument be drawn.

Therefore, in historical passages we must first establish the truth of the events and of what is said concerning the persons according to the truth of the faith. Only afterwards may the spiritual sense be added, whereby the historical event signifies another reality and the historical person represents something else. This spiritual sense serves for the edification of Christ's faithful, not for proving doctrines of faith that are matters of controversy.

Accordingly, one must first preserve the historical sense intact and not transform the person of Peter into an allegorical figure when the historical truth of the Gospel is at issue and the literal sense is being investigated: namely, that Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, questioned His disciples first in one way and then in another, heard first the answers of the disciples and then that of Peter, replied to Peter, and promised him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Once the truth of the literal sense has been established, namely that these words and promises were addressed to Peter himself, it is then permissible to add the mystical sense, according to which Peter represents the Church. The same is evident in similar cases, such as the active life signified by Martha, to whom it was said, You are anxious and troubled about many things, and the contemplative life signified by Mary, of whom it was said, She has chosen the better part, which shall not be taken away from her, and so also in other examples. It is therefore true that the keys were promised to Peter in the person of the Church, provided this is understood in such a way that they were first and literally promised to Peter himself. The former belongs to the mystical sense; the latter to the literal sense.

Reply to the first objection. In reply to the first objection, it is clear from what has already been said that the Lord's words, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father, pertain not to Peter's primacy but to his confession and to the fruit of that confession. Accordingly, in their literal sense they are altogether irrelevant to the present question. To transfer these personal characteristics of Peter to the Church by means of a mystical interpretation may indeed be tolerated. What cannot be tolerated is that the mystical sense should exclude the literal, that Peter should exclude himself, that the hearer should exclude the one who heard, and that Simon, the son of John, should be transformed into an allegorical person.

Reply to the second objection. The second objection likewise rests upon a false interpretation of the reason why Peter, after receiving so great a commendation, was nevertheless rebuked. According to the plain literal sense, Peter himself is first praised because of the divine gift he had received, and afterward rebuked because of his own human judgment. According to the historical truth, both the praise and the rebuke belong to Peter himself, for both are personal. The mystical sense is different. There, whatever in Peter proceeds from merely human judgment and affection is rebuked, while everyone who follows the divine revelation is commended in Peter.

Reply to the third objection. To the third objection it is answered that by this rock the Lord literally signifies the faith existing in Peter himself, as has already been shown. Therefore it does not follow that the keys were equally given to every particular church in which the faith is found. It is enough that they were given to every member of the faithful in the head of the whole Church, namely upon this rock on which Christ builds His Church.

Reply to the confirmation. To the confirmation it is answered that although Peter erred, he nevertheless did not cease to be the rock. First, because by those words alleged against him, Far be it from You, Lord; this shall never happen to You, Peter lost neither faith nor charity. Hence the Lord did not say to him, Depart from Me, Satan, as He had said to the tempter, but rather qualified the rebuke, saying, Get behind Me, Satan, as though He were saying: You ought to follow Me, not I your inclinations. Secondly, as has already been said, even when Peter afterwards denied Christ, he did not lose the faith, but remained the rock through the faith that persevered in his heart. Therefore, as Theophylact remarks on Luke xxii, Christ afterwards restored him to the apostolic office when He said: Strengthen your brethren.

Reply to the fourth objection. To the fourth objection it is answered that when a pope is elected, he neither brings the keys with him nor receives them from the Church, but from Christ, not by a new bestowal but by that ancient one whereby He bestowed them upon Peter. The Church, by the ministry of election, designates the person who is to succeed Peter; Christ Himself, however, bestowed the keys upon every successor in blessed Peter. Consequently the question from whom he receives them, or to whom he leaves them when he dies, is pointless. For the ever-living word of Christ bestows the keys upon each successor, and one pope does not leave them to another.

Reply to the fifth objection. To the fifth objection it is answered that although the argument is similar in form, it differs in matter and therefore does not hold. Righteousness and faith are goods of the soul ordered to the benefit of the believer and the righteous man himself. The keys, however, signify in addition an authority ordered to the government of others. Therefore, although faith is reckoned for righteousness to every believer who imitates Abraham, just as it was to Abraham, it does not follow that the keys, that is, the authority to open and shut for others, must likewise be given to every believer who confesses Christ, or even to everyone who imitates Peter in faith, any more than everyone who imitates Abraham's faith is thereby made the father of many nations, in whose seed all nations should be blessed, although those promises were given to Abraham because of his faith.

As for what is added, namely that no one except the Church can possess Peter's confession with steadfast certainty and perseverance, if this is understood of the persons themselves, the Apostle Paul refutes it in Romans viii when he says: Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress? and afterwards adds: For I am certain..., speaking literally of the elect. But if the objection concerns not the reality itself but our knowledge of it, because we do not know who will persevere, the answer is easy. God, who orders all things sweetly, requires from man no greater certainty than that which belongs to faith and to ordinary human judgment, whereby men are known from their fruits.

Reply to the sixth objection. To the sixth objection it is answered that it is true both that the keys were given to the Church, and that Peter bore the person of the Church in figure, and that the unity of Peter signified the unity of the Church. The arguments fail, however, because from these truths they attempt to infer another truth which does not follow. None of these truths is contrary to the further truth that Peter received the keys in his own person. All these propositions are simultaneously true. The first and the last, as will appear in Chapter VI, belong to the truth of the literal sense, for according to the letter Peter received the keys in his own person in such a way that the Church also received those same keys. The remaining propositions belong to the truth of the mystical sense; for according to the spiritual sense the one Peter signifies the unity of the Church, and beyond this represents the Church itself.

Reply to the confirmation. Accordingly, the passages from Cyprian, Jerome, and Augustine that have been cited are entirely true, but according to the mystical sense. They do not, however, oppose the literal sense, according to which, as the Gospel history testifies, Peter himself, to whom the revelation was made, answered Christ and received the promise of the keys.

Clarification of Augustine's words. For a clearer understanding of Augustine's words, it must be observed that he compares the two senses of the Gospel: the literal sense, according to which to you means to Peter I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and the mystical sense, according to which to you means to the Church signified by you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. He compares them not as true and false, but as more or less clear. For it belongs to the mystical sense that Peter bears the person of the Church in figure, just as it belongs to the mystical sense that Judas bears the person of Christ's enemies. According to the literal sense, however, Judas himself was Christ's enemy, and Peter himself was the one to whom the keys were promised.

Hence Augustine, because in the present passage the mystical sense is clearer than the literal, as is evident from the many questions that arise concerning the literal sense, and because the mystical sense is so manifest that even ordinary Christians know that the keys belong to the Church, compares the literal sense, according to which the keys were promised to Peter personally as the future shepherd of the whole Church, with the mystical sense, according to which the keys were promised to Peter as representing the Church. Thus he says that the mystical sense is the clearer one. This is precisely what his words mean: they admit of no clear understanding unless they are referred to the Church, whose person he bore in figure. He denies not the true understanding, but only the clear understanding, unless the passage is referred to the Church; for it is obvious that clear pertains to clarity rather than to truth.

That this is Augustine's intention is evident from the context. For in explaining the Psalm O God, keep not silence at my praise, which he interprets partly of Judas and partly of the Jewish people, the enemies of Christ, he first says: If all these things are understood of such a class of wicked men, namely the ungrateful Jews who were the enemies of Christ, they seem to me to be explained more clearly. Immediately afterward he adds the words already cited. From this anyone may plainly see that nothing is taken away from the truth of the literal sense, according to which the keys were promised to Peter personally, merely because that sense is not as clear as the mystical one. Nor is this passage unique in that respect; Sacred Scripture contains countless others whose most illuminating meaning is the mystical one.

Likewise, Augustine's words on John do not deny that the words I will give you the keys were spoken to Peter in his own person. Rather, they affirm that they were spoken to Peter as representing the Church. But from this true affirmation it by no means follows that the other truth must be denied.

As for the force attributed to the adversative conjunction, the answer is that the conjunction there is not adversative but augmentative, according to the very common manner of speaking by which we say that someone is not merely a good man, but also a good citizen in virtue of his office, and similarly in other cases.

Augustine, having enumerated certain personal characteristics of Peter, enlarges Peter's dignity by extending it figuratively to the whole Church. This figurative extension is entirely compatible with the fact that Peter himself, by virtue of his pastoral office, extends to the whole Church in his own proper person. Augustine does not explicitly explain this here, because in that passage he is treating Peter and John mystically, Peter representing the active life and John the contemplative.

Therefore, when it is concluded that it was not one man but unity that received the keys, the statement is true insofar as it affirms that unity received the keys, just as it is true to say that the Church received the keys. But insofar as it denies that Peter himself received the keys, it is either false or requires a pious interpretation. For if not one is intended to deny that Peter received them, the statement is false and contrary to the Gospel narrative. But if not one is intended to deny that Peter received them merely for himself alone, that is, as though he had received the keys only to take them with him to the grave, then the statement is true. In that sense, Peter did not receive the keys merely as an individual, but the unity of the Church, destined to endure until the end of the age, received the keys in that one man.

Nevertheless, nowhere in the passages cited do we find the explicit denial, One man did not receive the keys. From what has already been said, similar objections may readily be resolved, and therefore I shall not burden the discussion by rehearsing every possible argument. The remaining passages cited from Cyprian concerning the equality of the Apostles will be explained in their proper place below.

Excluding the earlier errors, we must treat the opinion of those who understand that Christ said to Peter, in the person of all the apostles: I will give you the keys, and so forth.

They bring forward four arguments for this.

First, from the Lord’s question: for He did not question Peter alone, but all collectively: But who do you say that I am?

Second, from the person of Peter: because Peter was the first of all the apostles, and assumed the person of all by answering on behalf of all. Hence, when Christ spoke after all the disciples had been questioned, Peter, as the mouth of the apostles and their head, answered on behalf of all.

And this is confirmed: because unless Peter had answered in the person of all, the response of the others would have had to be awaited; or else the other apostles would have been guilty of omitting a response to the Lord’s question: But who do you say that I am?

Third, from the fruit: because the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to all the apostles.

Fourth, from what follows: because Christ said: What I say to one, I say to all.

Before answering these arguments, however, I explain the meaning of the Gospel text, and it must be shown directly that these words of the Lord were addressed to Peter alone.

This is evident first from the beginning of the Lord’s discourse to Peter, when He said: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona; for this cannot truly be referred to all. First, because Simon’s proper name is expressed, and it is explained whose son he is, Bar-Jona, that is, son of Jonah. Secondly, because this would have been false of Judas, who did not believe in Christ, as John VI testifies, where, after reporting that the Lord said: But there are some of you who do not believe, he immediately adds: For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed, and who it was that would betray Him. And again, at the end of the same chapter, when Peter said on behalf of the twelve apostles: And we have believed and have known that You are Christ, the Son of God, Jesus answered them: Did I not choose you twelve? And one of you is a devil. Therefore it cannot be verified that the words Blessed are you were spoken to all the apostles; because one of them did not believe and was a devil.

Second, from the reason added: because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. For from these words of the Lord it is clear that revelation was made to Peter by the heavenly Father; so that to deny this would be contrary to the faith. But it does not therefore follow from this that such a revelation was made to the other apostles; for Scripture does not hand this down. And therefore it is rejected with the same ease with which it is affirmed. It is clear, then, from this that the words are directed to Peter, and it is not clear that they are extended to the others.

Third, from the affirmation added: You are Peter. For both the pronoun you and the name previously imposed on him by Christ, John I: You shall be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter, show that the discourse is directed to Peter alone. For if by the demonstrative pronoun addressed to the sense, joined with the proper name from birth, namely Simon; and with the name of his carnal father; and with the name by which he alone was surnamed by Christ from the beginning of his discipleship, namely Peter; and with the inward gift of revelation, which is not clear to have been granted to the others: if by these things it was not sufficiently signified that both the person and the discourse belonged to him alone, by what four words would the Evangelist have had to describe that the discourse was to Peter alone?

And this is confirmed: because the Lord used the same demonstrative pronoun addressed to the sense when He added: And to you I will give, and so forth. And it is confirmed from this: that heirs or legatees are not described and named by notaries with more or greater circumstances than the person of Peter is described and named in this text: as is clear by gathering together Simon the son of Jonah, Peter, commended by inward revelation.

Therefore, from the words and from the meaning of the words, it is manifest in clear light that to Peter alone it is said: And to you I will give the keys, and so forth.

To the first.

To the first objection in opposition, then, it is said: from the fact that the Lord questioned all, it is not compelled that the rest of the discourse be directed to all. For speech is frequently turned from many to one, or conversely. Indeed, the mother of the sons of Zebedee asked that her two sons might sit, one at the right hand and the other at the left; but the Lord, in answering, directs the discourse to the sons: Can you drink the cup that I am about to drink?

And if the Gospel text has been carefully examined, the very turning of the discourse attests that He was not directing the whole discourse to all. For Matthew says that He questioned the disciples commonly the first and second time; then He turned the discourse to Peter; and again He turned the discourse to the disciples. For it is added: Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus, and so forth.

For if this whole discourse had been directed to all, the Evangelist would not have narrated this sort of varied turning of the discourse.

Nor does it hinder this that the cause brought about by the Lord’s question was common to Peter and the others: for with this commonality it stands that it was appropriated to Peter; for in a greater common cause, namely that of creation, account was taken of Peter alone: as the Lord Himself testifies in Luke XXII, saying: Simon, behold, Satan has demanded you, that he might sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and when you have at length turned back, strengthen your brothers.

There it is clear that all were demanded by Satan, and yet that the Lord prayed for Peter alone. I have prayed, He says, for you, not for you all; indeed, He commended the others to Peter.

To the second objection from the person of Peter it is said: that to bear a common person, or to answer on behalf of all the apostles, can be understood in three ways.

Either by office, for example because he had care of them.

Or by way of commission, for example because the apostles committed it to Peter to answer in the person of all on behalf of all.

Or by way of ratification, as because the answer given by Peter was pleasing to the apostles collectively, as fitting and excellent.

And indeed, that Peter did not bear the common person by office is clear from this, that he had not yet been constituted their shepherd; nor was he properly their head, except as the first among canons can be called the head of the canons.

Likewise, that he did not answer by commission of the apostles is clear not only from this, that such a commission would be affirmed voluntarily, since it would not be had from Scripture; but it can be proved from this, that the Lord expressly testifies: Because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father.

Here not only every human counsel is excluded, but also instruction from the sensible hearing of Christ’s own doctrine; while He attributes Peter’s knowledge, by which he confessed Christ as the Son of the living God, to the inward spiritual revelation of the Father who is in heaven.

For if he had answered after consultation with the other apostles, it would not have been said to him: Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you; especially since among them there were blood relatives and carnal kinship; and likewise recourse would not have been made to an author altogether spiritual and designated from so remote a place, namely in heaven.

For all these things plainly testify that Peter’s confession proceeded not from the counsel of the apostles, but from an inward revelation made to Peter himself.

And this is confirmed from the context of the Gospel: for when the Lord’s first question to the disciples had been set forth: Who do men say that the Son of Man is?

Because the answer was common, the Evangelist says: But they said; but in the second question to the same men: But who do you say that I am? because the answer was proper to Peter, the Evangelist says: Simon Peter answered and said.

And it is confirmed again from John VI. There we can aptly note the difference between Peter speaking in the person of all or in his own person. For there, Peter, speaking in the person of all, when Christ the Lord said: Do you also wish to go away? Simon Peter answered Him in the person of all: Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed and known that You are Christ, the Son of God. And the Evangelist adds, Jesus answered them: Did I not choose you twelve? And one of you is a devil.

There, by comparing the text of John with the text of Matthew, it openly appears that then, indeed, in John, Peter answered in the person of all; he spoke in the plural number of the first person, saying: To whom shall we go? and We have believed and known; and likewise the Lord answered not Peter, but them. But here, in Matthew, everything is in the singular number, with demonstrative pronouns of Peter alone, both in Peter’s answer and in the Lord’s reply, and in the promises and assertions: To you I will give, not to you all; whatever you shall bind, not whatever you all shall bind; you are Peter, not you are Peters; as is clear in the letter.

For a difference of this sort makes manifest that Peter alone answered from what he had received inwardly from the heavenly Father, and that he alone is indicated by Christ.

Nor should you suppose that this is the same event in Matthew and John because Matthew's account followed those things related by John. This is clear from many considerations. For John's account took place after the miracle of the five loaves and in Capernaum, as is evident there; but what Matthew relates took place not only after the miracle of the five loaves, but also after the other miracle of the seven loaves, as is clear from Matthew XVI, and it occurred in the region of Caesarea Philippi.

It must therefore be said that Peter's answer is said to have been given in the person of all because it was pleasing and acceptable to all, just as it frequently happens that when several members of a body are questioned, if the first gives a good answer, that answer is accepted by all as satisfactory, and we commonly say that the first answered on behalf of all.

And thus the words of Chrysostom, of the interlinear Gloss, and of all others who say that Peter answered on behalf of all are to be understood. For he truly was the mouth of all, insofar as his answer was ratified by all.

Hence Chrysostom, commenting on Matthew, says: Peter alone answered, and immediately adds beforehand: You are the Christ, and so forth. There you see that he answered neither by the counsel nor by the commission of the others, but anticipated them.

And Augustine, in On the Words of the Apostle, Sermon XXXI, says: Peter alone answered on behalf of all, because unity was present in them all.

There you may see why Peter is said to have answered on behalf of all: not because of a commission from all, not because of an office, but because of the unity of all, namely because they were all brethren, and because the first among them answered most excellently, their unity caused that answer to be pleasing to all. Just as among united and harmonious brothers, whatever is well said by one is accepted by all as valid and regarded as though spoken by all.

From this the answer to the confirmation immediately added is also clear. For since Christ approved and commended Peter's answer, and proclaimed Peter by the title Blessed, it is vain to insist that something further ought to have been added. For who would have spoken otherwise, especially if what he might have said had likewise been divinely revealed and thus rewarded?

Hence the others were not at fault for remaining silent, because it was sufficient that Peter's answer was acceptable to them.

Moreover, that Peter's answer was acceptable to the other apostles is indicated not only because this agrees with reason according to ordinary human custom, but also from the words immediately added by the Evangelist: Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus. By this command the disciples are shown to have held Peter's confession; for it is precisely because they held it that they are forbidden to tell others.

To the third.

To the third it is said that if the argument intends to prove from these words that the keys were given to all the apostles, it begs the question; for this is precisely what had to be proved.

But if it intends that by other words the Lord bestowed the keys of the kingdom of heaven upon the other apostles, that belongs to the following chapter, where this matter will be treated.

To the fourth.

To the fourth objection it is said that I nowhere find in the Gospel the authority: What I say to one, I say to all. Nevertheless, wherever it may be found, it is to be understood literally of doctrinal speech, as Mark bears witness in a similar passage, chapter XIII: What I say to you, I say to all: Watch.

Nevertheless, with respect to the present question it may be said that this authority does not state, "What I give to one, I give to all"; for saying is one thing and giving is another. The present discourse is concerned not with speaking but with giving. For the Lord says: To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Therefore this authority is not to the point.

From all these considerations it may be clearly seen that from these words of the Lord in Matthew XVI, Peter alone received the promise of the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

Although many admit that the aforesaid text of the Gospel pertains to Peter alone, nevertheless some affirm that the whole of what was promised to Peter was given by Christ, on other occasions, to the rest of the apostles; and they affirm this to be true by many arguments from Sacred Scripture.

First, Matt. XVIII, it is said to the apostles collectively: whatever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven. Where it appears that the power previously promised to Peter was extended to all.

Second, John XX, the keys promised to Peter are conferred upon the apostles collectively, by saying: Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Third, John XX also, Christ says to the apostles collectively: As the Father has sent me, I also send you. And likewise in Mark, the last [chapter], and Matt., the last [chapter], He sent them all collectively to teach, to preach, and so forth.

Next, the same is shown from fact: for in Acts VIII, Peter is read to have been sent, together with John, into Samaria by the apostles who were at Jerusalem. And in Acts XV, in the synod concerning the observance of the legal [ordinances], with Peter present, James gave the sentence, when he said I judge that they are not to be disturbed, and so forth. In Gal. II also, Peter and James and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave the right hands of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas. From these deeds the equality of Peter and the other apostles is confirmed.

Finally, a thousand authorities of the saints are brought forward sounding forth the equality of Peter and the other apostles: such as that of Cyprian — found in XXIV, q. I, the chapter "The Lord speaks" — who says that He bestowed equal power on all the apostles: and that the rest of the apostles were indeed that which Peter was, endowed with an equal fellowship both of honor and of power. And that of Jerome, Against Jovinian, Book I, chapter XIV: But if you say, the Church is founded upon Peter, although in another place the same thing is done upon all the apostles; and all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church is established equally upon them. And whatever others are similar.

For the clarification of these matters, know that from the Gospel text two things are found promised singularly to Peter, to which Origen added a third. The first is: Upon this rock I will build my Church; for this we read to have been promised to Peter alone. The second is: To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; which is found promised to no other. The third, noted by Origen, is that it is said to Peter: Whatever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in the heavens, in the plural number; and likewise whatever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in the heavens; but to the apostles collectively it is said that they shall be bound or loosed in heaven, in the singular number. And he adds the reason: because they are not of as great perfection as Peter.

Among the four promises, therefore, made to Peter, the difference of the first from the others is clear: for it is agreed that one thing is signified by being about to be the foundation of the Church (which He explains, upon this rock I will build my Church) and another by being about to have the keys, and to loose and to bind. But the difference between the second (that is, between the keys of the kingdom of heaven) and the third and fourth, that is, to bind and to loose, is not everywhere evident: for according to the surface of the letter it appears that by the keys is [signified] the power, and by binding and loosing are set forth the acts of the power, so that the efficacy of the keys might be declared — namely, in what manner they attain to the kingdom of the heavens: for efficacy of this kind is manifested by saying whatever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in the heavens; and because He had put beforehand the kingdom of the heavens in the plural, therefore He said in the plural in the heavens. And according to this sense the promise of the keys differs from the promise of loosing and binding, as the promise of the power [differs] from the promise explanatory of the acts of that [power].

But these things, though true, do not contain the whole meaning of the Gospel. That you may understand this more fully, know that acts of the keys are found to be of a twofold kind: for some are acts adequate to the keys themselves, but some are lesser than they. The former are, as it were, total acts; the latter, partial acts. Now the acts adequate to the keys are to open and to close; but the partial ones are to bind and to loose. I explain each. That to open and to close are the acts adequating the keys, both the words sound forth and the office of the keys most clearly testifies: for keys are only for opening and closing. Nor are there lacking testimonies of the Scriptures, both from the Old and from the New Testament: for in Isa. XXII, when it had been said and I will give the key of the house of David, there is subjoined and he shall open and he shall close; and likewise in Rev. III the same is repeated. But that to loose and to bind are acts of the keys, all the doctors testify. And that they are partial acts and not adequate to the keys, is clear from this: that to loose and to bind stand to opening and closing as parts to the whole; for everyone who looses someone opens the kingdom of heaven to him, but not everyone who opens the kingdom of heaven to someone looses him; and likewise everyone who binds closes, but not everyone who closes binds.

And lest we wander longer through many things, but that the solid reasoning together with the truth may be evident: to loose and to bind are judicial acts, whether in the sacrament of penance or in the ecclesiastical court; to open and to close are higher acts, comprehending under themselves both judicial acts and non-judicial acts; for by both the kingdom of heaven is closed and opened. And indeed that many close the kingdom of the heavens to others without a judicial bond, the Lord testifies, Luke XI, saying: Woe to you, lawyers, who have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves have not entered, and those who were entering you have hindered. But that they open the kingdom of heaven without an act of judgment, experience, the mistress of things, shows: while by the pastor's providence, governance, ordering, teaching, dispensation, commutation, and so forth, the kingdom of heaven is continually opened to the Church. The promise of the keys, therefore (to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven), differs from the two remaining ones subjoined (and whatever you shall bind and whatever you shall loose) according to the thing promised: not only as power from acts, but as power from inadequate acts, that is, lesser and partial ones; so that when the keys were promised to Peter, the power of opening and closing the kingdom of heaven was promised; but when there was promised to the same one and whatever you shall bind and whatever you shall loose, the efficacy of the keys was set forth in the lesser acts: that we might perceive that, if the efficacy of the partial acts is so great, much more will the efficacy of the adequate acts attain to the heavens. Wherefore, in promising the keys, the whole is promised; but in promising the acts of loosing and binding, the whole is not promised, but partial acts are promised. And therefore, from the fact that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were promised to Peter alone, it must be admitted that to Peter alone was promised the power of opening and closing the kingdom of heaven: not that he alone can open and close the kingdom of the heavens (for, as has been said, whoever looses anyone opens the kingdom of heaven to him), but because he alone can [do] whatever pertains to opening and closing the kingdom of heaven — not for these or those, but for the Church built upon him by Christ. That this sense and this difference are verified according to the letter is declared from three things beyond the aforesaid. First, from the copulative conjunction always interposed in the Gospel text: for He says you are Peter, and upon this rock, and to you I will give the keys, and whatever you shall bind and whatever you shall loose; for the copulative conjunction intimates the diversity of the things promised. Second, because the Lord did not say and to whomever you shall open and to whomever you shall close, but He said whatever you shall loose and whatever you shall bind. For if He had wished to expound the keys, they would doubtless have had to be expounded by the adequate acts (which are to open and to close); but where He descended to binding and loosing, He made manifest that He was not expounding the keys, but passing to the lesser acts of the keys. Third, from the fact that He never promised or gave to the apostles the keys of the kingdom of heaven, or their adequate acts, namely to open and to close the kingdom of heaven; but He is read to have spoken with the apostles of the partial acts of the keys: both by saying whatever you shall bind upon earth, and so forth, and by saying whose sins you shall forgive, and so forth.

Instance. And if it be objected that not even to Peter did the Lord give or promise the acts adequate to the keys — because He indeed promised him the keys, but never promised that he would open and close: Far be it from the divine wisdom that it should have wrapped in silence the acts adequate to the keys; for when He explained of what the keys were, namely for opening and closing, He doubtless set forth the acts adequate to the keys, which are to open and to close. Now it is agreed that He added "of the kingdom of heaven" for this reason: that it might be expounded that the keys are of the kingdom of heaven, namely for opening and closing. By the very fact, therefore, that He promised to Peter alone the keys of the kingdom of heaven, He promised to Peter alone the adequate acts of the keys — or, what is the same, the keys according to the acts adequate to the keys; and after this promise He descended to the judicial acts, and whatever you shall bind and whatever you shall loose, as has been said.

From the Gospel text, therefore, two promises evidently remain [made] to Peter alone: that is, that he would be the foundation of the Church (upon this rock I will build my Church), and that the keys of the kingdom of heaven would be given to him: and to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

Objection against the first promise. Nor are these things without objections. For against the first promise it is objected that either Christ alone is the foundation of the Church (according to that saying, 1 Cor. III, no one can lay another foundation besides that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus), or, if a manifold foundation is admitted, Peter is not the sole foundation of the Church, but the other apostles also: according to that saying, Eph. II, built up upon the foundation of the apostles; and Rev. XXI, the wall of the city having twelve foundations, and in them the twelve names of the twelve apostles.

First objection. But against the second [promise] it is objected, first. If by the promise of the keys the whole power is promised, why, after the whole, are the parts promised? whatever you shall bind and whatever you shall loose; for these would have been promised in the whole.

Second. Secondly. If to loose and to bind are partial acts of the keys, why do the theologians, in distinctions XVIII and XIX of the fourth [book] of the Sentences, in treating of the keys, define them by the judicial acts which are to bind and to loose? For a definition ought to be given by the proper and adequate acts.

Third. Thirdly. Why do they affirm that the apostolic keys are given in the ordination of priests, if they confer on them only the lesser acts of the keys?

Fourth. Fourthly. Why do they call the keys the keys of the Church, and not the keys of Peter, if they were first given to Peter alone?

To the objections against the first promise. It is not, however, difficult to satisfy these. And to the objections against the first promise made to Peter, that he would be the foundation of the Church, it is answered: that to be the foundation of the Church simply, that is totally, is proper to Christ; but to be the foundation of the Church according to some time or according to some particular respect, has been communicated to others. And to the saints indeed, to whom the doctrine of the faith was revealed for the Church, it has been communicated to be a foundation under the respects of apostles and prophets; but to Peter, beyond the aforesaid respect, it was promised that he would be the foundation according to the respect of pastor of the whole Church of Christ — according to which respect it does not belong to the other apostles to be the foundation. And therefore "foundation" is said diversely in this threefold manner: for of Christ it is said with the exclusion of others (no one can lay another foundation, and so forth); but of the apostles and prophets it is said with the addition of the total foundation, that is, of Christ: since in Eph. II there is joined, with Christ Jesus himself as the highest cornerstone (where Augustine says: Lest the apostles or prophets, upon whom the city is founded, should hold themselves in themselves, upon Christ the whole leans, as upon the first foundation: which foundation is at the top, not at the bottom, as in a bodily building.) And in Rev. XXI there is subjoined, and of the Lamb, that is, of Christ. But concerning Peter, Christ himself adds, I will build my Church: so that it may be shown that the building of the Church depends principally upon Christ.

To the first [objection] against the second promise. But to the questions concerning the promised keys, it is said in answer that, after the whole was promised by the keys, the parts too were promised by whatever you shall bind and whatever you shall loose, for this reason: that the diversity of the things promised might in a second way be shown. (For if all things had been comprehended under a single promise without the copulative conjunctions, or if the keys alone had been promised, you would have thought the keys adequated and exhausted by these two, whatever you shall bind and whatever you shall loose. But now, because the diversity of the things promised has been shown so openly, by expressing each with copulative conjunctions, we clearly understand that not the whole which was promised to Peter is promised or conferred upon any other by the fact that there is promised or given whatever you shall bind and whatever you shall loose, and so forth; but that by this there is promised or given only that which was promised in the third and fourth place to Peter also.) And thence you would see that the first promises remain with Peter alone.

To the second. But to the second question it is answered that the keys were defined by the theologians through the acts of judgment because they were treating of the keys of order: as is clear in the text of the Master of the Sentences, both at the beginning of distinction XVIII (where Ambrose is brought forward saying: for this right is permitted to priests alone) and at the beginning of distinction XIX, where it is said these keys are given through the ministry of the bishop in the promotion to the priesthood: for when one receives the priestly order, he at the same time also receives these keys.

To the third. And by this the third question is resolved.

To the fourth. But to the fourth, which is not about the thing but about the name, and is therefore in a manner extraneous, it is answered that the keys are called both the Church's and Peter's: for Peter alone is called the key-bearer of the kingdom of heaven. And they are Peter's indeed as of the head who uses them, and as of him through whom they are derived to the Church; but they are the Church's both as its end (because it is for the sake of the Church that Peter has the keys) and as of her who uses them in her bishops and priests: yet in such wise that according to their totality the Church uses them in her head, but according to the partial uses she uses them in the bishops and other ministers. The solid opinion stated, therefore, remains.

To the first principal argument. But to the first of the arguments brought forward at the beginning: it is said that the Lord, by those words whatever you shall bind upon earth, and so forth, did not adequate the four promises made to Peter, but only the last two: as the letter itself testifies. And therefore the Lord did not say I will give to you, or to the Church, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, although He had said to Peter in the presence of the same, to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whence from this very fact, that to the other apostles the Lord said whatever you shall bind, and so forth, no mention being made of the keys, it is manifestly held that He did not repeat in the power of the others the whole that He had promised to Peter — as one about to commit the whole to Peter, but the parts to the others.

To the second. But to the second it is said that after the resurrection, by saying whose sins you shall forgive, and so forth, the keys were indeed given to the apostles, but not in their totality: since only the keys of order were given, as the doctors commonly and rightly say. Whence, according to the letter, when it is said whose sins you shall forgive, an ecclesiastical judge is constituted in the sacrament of penance, as far as concerns the part of order; but when in Matt. XVIII it was said to the same, whatever you shall bind upon earth, the discourse was of ecclesiastical judgment in the judicial court. Whence it is also commonly and rightly said that then the discourse was of the acts of the keys of jurisdiction, but afterwards of the acts of the keys of order. And since (as has been declared) neither judgment, even taken together, adequates the keys promised to Peter — but to loose and to bind in either court are partial acts of the keys promised to Peter — therefore by both powers together the power promised to Peter is not adequated. Whence those who devote themselves to disputations should beware of the sophists who object that the keys of order and the keys of jurisdiction adequate the keys of the Church. Poison lies hidden here: since, properly and formally speaking, the keys promised to Peter are higher both than the keys of order and than the keys of jurisdiction; and therefore the Lord expounded them not through the acts of order or of jurisdiction, but through the kingdom of heaven, doubtless to be opened or closed. So that, looking more keenly (as has been said) at the Lord's words to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: by that particle of the kingdom of heaven He expounded the keys through the adequate act, namely to open or to close; for the kingdom of heaven, to be opened or closed, carries with itself the act of opening or closing: and it is agreed that to open and to close the kingdom of heaven are acts far higher than all judicial acts, both of the keys of jurisdiction and of the keys of order.

Finally, to those who importunately insist that new keys are now being brought into the Church — for hitherto none have been heard of except the keys of order and the keys of jurisdiction; whence now a third [set of] keys in the Church of Christ? — I answer that I have not invented or fabricated new keys either in fact or in name; but if it is permitted to weigh these things in an even balance with the objections, the objectors will find that they argue against themselves: for neither the keys of order nor the keys of jurisdiction did Sacred Scripture hand down — but the doctors explained them; whereas the keys of the kingdom of heaven Christ the Lord consecrated with his own mouth. I speak of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; I do not introduce novelties: from the very words of the Lord, according to the literal sense more keenly understood, I make manifest what I say. But those who argue ought to consider more subtly the meaning of the doctors: and even from this very fact, that the doctors distinguish the keys of the kingdom of heaven into the keys of order and the keys of jurisdiction, [they ought] to understand that the keys of the kingdom of heaven are higher than both, and that both signify parts of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and through this, that the keys of the kingdom of heaven signify a whole greater and higher than its parts when they are said simply and absolutely, as they were promised to Peter; but when they are applied to the parts, they signify both the keys of order and the keys of jurisdiction: for both are called keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whence it will be the office of the acute reader to discern when the doctors speak of the keys of the kingdom of heaven absolutely, and when of the keys of the kingdom of heaven as applied to order or jurisdiction.

To the third it is said: that the very words of the Lord testify that the discourse is of the authority of the apostolate when it is said, as the Father has sent me, I also send you: for to send and to be sent pertains to the apostolate, according to that saying, John XIII, the servant is not greater than his lord, nor is the apostle greater than he who sent him; and therefore from this nothing is had but a parity of the apostolate. And likewise through the other texts by which they were sent equally to teach and to preach, and so forth, nothing is had but a parity as to commissions of this kind: but to Peter, above all these, it was promised both that he would be the foundation of the Church, and that the keys of the kingdom of heaven would be given to him.

To the [argument from] authority. But to those things which are adduced from the deeds of the apostles, satisfaction is most easily made. For the theologians teach concordantly, in the first [book] of the Sentences, that the one sent need not be lesser than the one sending, nor even be from him: for the Son was sent by the Holy Spirit, than whom He is not lesser, and from whom He is not.

According to the letter, however, it is said that Peter was of such great humility that among the apostles he bore himself as one of them, and did not wish to use the power which he had; and therefore, as one of the apostles, he was sent by the same, together with John. And this humility of Peter is manifestly clear in Acts XI, when the other faithful of the circumcision disputed against him: which Gregory also noted (and it is found in II, q. VII, the chapter "Peter"), saying: Peter had received the power of the kingdom; and yet the same first of the apostles, to the complaint made against him by the faithful as to why he had entered in to the Gentiles, answered not from the power of his office, by which he could have said that the sheep should not accuse or rebuke their shepherd, but from the authority of the divine virtue by which the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit.

And by these things it could likewise be said that, in the synod concerning the observance of the legal [ordinances], Peter comported himself as one apostle. Nevertheless, if the matter done is rightly noted, neither was Peter consulted, nor the apostles alone, but the apostles and the presbyters at Jerusalem; and therefore the conclusion was made neither by Peter nor by James, but by the apostles and the elders with the whole Church — though they wrote in the name of the apostles and the elders. Whence it is false that James pronounced the sentence: since the sentence is the conclusion, which is agreed to have been made by all; but when James said I judge, it is just as if he had said "this is my judgment." Whence James is introduced not as judging, but as answering: for thus we read, And after they had been silent, James answered. Nay rather, Peter seems to have borne the person of the pastor at the beginning: since he, rising up first and alleging the divine grace, rebuked those who were calling into doubt the freedom from the legal [ordinances]. For we read thus: And when there was a questioning, Peter, rising up, said, and so forth. Where Peter's authority is shown.

As for the fact that Peter, finally, gave the right hands of fellowship together with the others: he did this which the Supreme Pontiff does daily, holding all the bishops not only as associates but as brothers.

To the authorities, finally, of the holy doctors sounding forth the equality of Peter and the other apostles: it is said that they are verified concerning their parity according to the apostolate; for all were equal in apostolic authority.

Instance. And if it be objected that under the apostolic power could be comprehended all that Peter could [do]: a satisfactory response is at hand, that, granted that a comprehension of this kind were true, yet from it there would not follow an equality with Peter in every way: for their powers would be equal as to the things which they could do, but they would not be equal extensively, nor as to the manner. For the apostles received power from Christ as apostles, that is, as legates; but to Peter, above the apostolate, there was promised (as will be manifested below) power as to the ordinary pastor of the Church. And hence appears both the higher degree and the unity of Peter's power, and its greater extension, since it extended even to the apostles themselves, inasmuch as they were Christ's sheep.

Nor should you make little of the difference in respect of the manner of having: for there is danger of a great fall if they are confused. For it is one thing to have the keys as apostles, and another to have the keys as the head and pastor even of the apostles themselves: the former does not derogate from Peter's singular excellence, but the latter sets Peter himself above all, and places him over all the apostles and over the whole Church. To the difference of these manners it pertains that the Lord promises the keys to Peter alone, but to the others He does not give the keys, but delegates or bestows those things which are of the keys: whether in Matt. XVIII, or John XX, or Matt. and Mark, the last [chapter], or Luke XXII, I dispose to you a kingdom, as my Father has disposed to me. And that the authorities brought forward at the first may be made manifest: it is clear that Cyprian confesses the apostles to be equal in such a way that nevertheless he says the Church is built upon the one Peter (from the words of the Lord, upon this rock), and says that the Lord by his own authority disposed that ecclesiastical unity should have its origin from the one Peter. Jerome too, leaving the words of Christ in Matthew, you are Peter, and so forth, to Peter alone, transfers himself to another passage where similar things are narrated as given to the apostles, enumerating three things. First, that the Church is founded upon all the apostles: for that this is done was promulgated in Eph. II, built up upon the foundation of the apostles. The second, namely that all the apostles receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, is had in Matt. XVIII, whatever you shall bind, and John XX, whose sins you shall forgive. And the third, that the strength of the Church is established equally upon them, is taken from the texts related, namely Matt. and Mark, the last [chapter], and Luke XXII, and John XX, or even from other similar texts; whence it is clear from what has already been said that the equality of the apostles, inasmuch as they are apostles — both in founding the Church, and in the keys of jurisdiction and of order, and in the strength of doctrine, of miracles, and of life, which establish the strength of the Church (which Jerome affirms) — in no way hinders Peter's singular authority, by which he alone is set over the whole Church. Whence Jerome also there immediately subjoins: nevertheless for this reason one among the twelve is chosen, that, a head being constituted, the occasion of schism might be removed. Where you manifestly see that he called the apostles equal, equal in respect of the apostolate, in such a way that nevertheless Peter, chosen and constituted by Christ, is the head of all: for this indeed is what we maintain. This pertains to the difference of the manner of having: since hence you have that all had these things as apostles, but beyond this manner Peter had them singularly as the head of all. And from these two authorities, thus explained, we think it easy that the rest are to be rightly interpreted according to the sense of the aforesaid.

And that this is the true sense of the doctrine of the saints is manifested in three ways. First, from the fact that they call the apostles equal, not only in power but in honor: which, unless it be referred to the apostolate, is agreed to be false, since Peter manifestly had the primacy of honor according to all. Second, from the Gospel texts which the saints bring forward to prove an equality of this kind: for they bring forward those which we have now discussed, from which it is agreed that no more is had than an equality according to the apostolate. Third, from the reasoning which they use: namely because Peter, in the person of the Church, alone received the keys, and so forth, that the unity of the Church might thereby be proved.

Here, on account of the schismatics, stay your foot: and know that the unity of the Church commended by the unity of Peter can be understood in two ways. First, so that there is signified the unity of the Church in Christ, the one head, and in the unity of the articles of faith, of the sacraments of the Church, and of hope and charity. Second, so that there is signified the unity of the Church simply and absolutely united in the one head, in Christ's vicar on earth, namely Peter. The schismatics choose the first sense from the true and holy doctrine of the saints, which often explains the unity of the Church through those things which are enumerated in the first sense: truly indeed, but not totally, unless under the unity of the head, namely of Christ, Christ himself be understood in himself and in his vicar on earth — Christ himself as the head, but Peter as the vice-head. And this is therefore sometimes left unsaid: because, the head being accepted, it is customary to understand that he himself is accepted, in himself and in his vicar while he is absent.

But the second sense (in which the first is included, with the unity of the head on earth adjoined) is common to all Catholics; and it is proved in four ways. First: because, for designating the unity of the Church in its heavenly head, Jesus Christ, the unity of Peter is not fitting; but the unity of Christ himself both sufficed and most becomingly fitted: which the Lord here did not pass over in silence, but expressed, saying I say to you, and again I will build my Church, and again I will give the keys. But, the divine wisdom (which is Christ) disposing all things sweetly, it has no difficulty that the unity of the Church should most fittingly be signified, through the unity of Peter, in an earthly head in place of Christ.

Second, from the fact that the trust of history would be endangered: for Peter would be, as it were, similar in these things to the little child whom, in Matt. XXIV, the Lord, calling to himself, set in the midst of the disciples, saying, unless you be converted and become as a little child, and so forth. For just as that little child was taken up as an example or likeness of humility, so Peter would have been named as an example or likeness of unity; and through this, just as for the trust of history it is of no care who that little child was, so it would be of no or little care to the Church whether it was Simon Peter to whom it was said, to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and so forth — which, however, offends the ears of all the doctors and of the whole Church. The sense of the saints, therefore, is: that according to the trust of history the matter was so done that the keys were promised to the one Simon Peter, so that the thing might signify the thing — so that the one Peter, being about to receive the keys first, might signify the unity of the Church.

Third, from the fact that it is necessary to save not only the signification but also the derivation: that is, not only that the unity of the Church be signified through the unity of Peter, but also that the unity of the Church should proceed from the unity of Peter, as Cyprian says in the authority brought forward. The Lord speaks to Peter, I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church: upon one He builds the Church. And although He bestows equal power on all the apostles after his resurrection, saying as the Father has sent me, I also send you; receive the Holy Spirit: nevertheless, that He might manifest the unity, He by his own authority disposed the origin of that same unity to begin from one. Where you manifestly see, from this that the Lord by his own authority disposed the origin of ecclesiastical unity to begin from one, that not only the signification of unity from one, but the derivation of unity from one, is asserted. For for signifying there was no need of authority; but for this, that the unity of the Church should have its beginning from the one Peter, there was need of the authority of Christ: for He could, if He had willed, have instituted the unity of the Church to proceed from the multitude of the apostles.

Fourth, because the unity of the Catholic Church is opposed not only to heresy, but to schism. But if the unity of the Church were regarded only in respect of the unity of the heavenly head, and of his sacraments and of the thing hoped for, believed, and loved, the unity of the Church would not be opposed to schism: for with a unity of this kind schism can stand, as is clear from the fact that those are held to be schismatics who are separated from the unity of the apostolic see. From this, therefore, that the unity of the Church is signified through the one Peter, it is not excluded — nay rather, from the manner in which it is signified through Peter, it is included — that the one Peter received the keys, so that he might not only signify the unity of the Church, but also begin and preserve it. And if this — namely, the unity of the Church receiving the keys — be looked at more keenly: both more truly and more perfectly is it done and signified by the keys being received in her one head, Peter, than if the Church were to receive them not in Peter but absolutely: since the unity of the head, receiving the keys, not only signifies the unity of the Church but also constructs it, as it also preserves it — all of which the Church would lack if one head had not been provided for her by Christ the Lord. And from this you have whence you may rightly understand the innumerable authorities of the saints.

After the foregoing, it falls to us to satisfy those who ask in what way these two things stand together at once: that Peter alone received the keys, and that the Church received the keys.

Single objection. For it appears that if Peter alone, then not the Church; and if the Church, then not Peter alone.

Confirmation. And the question is increased from the words of Augustine on John, cited in XXIV, q. I, the chapter Quodcumque. Whatever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in the heavens: if this was said to Peter only, the Church does not do this; but if it is also done in the Church, then Peter, when he received the keys, signified the holy Church.

For this question can easily be satisfied by those exercised in the sacred letters, and who know these two truths to be so connected that the second not only agrees with the first, but presupposes and depends upon the first, according to the doctrine of the saints. For it must be considered that the Catholic Church is referred to Peter in two ways: namely, as signified and as inchoated; for Peter both signified the universal Church, and inchoated the same, just as the head is the principle of the body. But between these two relations there is a twofold difference to our purpose: the first is that signification pertains to the mystical sense, whereby Peter signifies the Church; but inchoation pertains to the literal sense, whereby Peter was instituted pastor of the whole Church. The second is that in respect of signification, the dependence of thing upon thing is not regarded, but the dependence of the signification upon the signified; but in respect of inchoation, the dependence of thing upon thing is regarded, that is, of the body upon the head. Whence the Church received the keys in Peter in two ways: for she both received them as signified in Peter, and received them as inchoated in Peter; and according to each mode of receiving, it is necessary to presuppose, according to the letter, this prior truth: that Peter alone received the keys. Looking to the signification, indeed, since this signification is not by way of a parable, but by way of a thing done (because it is not Peter as parabolic, or receiving the keys parabolically, but Peter according to the thing done that signifies the universal Church), it must be confessed that Peter alone historically received the keys, so that from the thing done he might signify that the one sole Catholic Church has the keys; according to that saying of Ambrose, it is certain that both rights — namely, of loosing and of binding — are lawful to the Church; heresy has neither. For if Peter alone had not historically received the keys, he would in no way, by way of a thing done, bear the figure of the one and only universal Church. The figured signification of the Catholic Church in Peter, therefore, depends upon the truth of the thing done, namely that Peter alone received the keys, and is not contrary to it. If the inchoation, too, be looked to, no declaration is needed, since it is very manifest that the body depends upon the head, and that what belongs to the head belongs also to the body in its head; and therefore, that Peter alone received the keys is that the Church alone, of which Peter is the head, received the keys in her head. Wherefore, that Peter alone received the keys does not exclude, but rather implies, that the universal Church received them, as signified and inchoated in Peter. That this is the doctrine of the saints you can perceive from the words of Cyprian set forth in the preceding chapter, where he taught both modes — namely, of signification by way of a thing done, and of the origin of the Church from Peter — when he said, upon one He builds the Church, and adds, he by his own authority disposed the origin of that same unity to begin from one. And again, the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church of Christ might be shown to be one, as has been declared before.

To the words of Augustine. But that the words of Augustine adduced confirm this same sense is clear from two things: first, from the fact that he uses the adverb only to exclude the extension of Peter to the Church; for he said if to Peter only, just as if he had said, if to Peter according to himself only, and not according as he extends himself to signifying the Church, whether figuratively or connotatively, as the head signifies the body of which it is the head. Whence Augustine did not infer, from the second truth — namely, that the Church has the keys — the negation of the first, namely, that Peter alone received the keys; but the exposition of it, namely, that Peter, in receiving the keys, signified the Church: just as if he had said that he did not receive them according to himself only, but as he is extended to the universal Church by signifying it: for this indeed is the plain sense of Augustine's words. Second, from the fact that he adds: if, then, in the person of Peter the good in the Church were signified, and in the person of Judas the evil in the Church were signified. For hence it is clear that he speaks of signification by way of a thing done: for that Judas among the apostles signifies, by way of a thing done, the evil in the Church, is not doubtful. Augustine intends, therefore, that Peter, receiving the keys by way of a thing done, implies that the Church too, signified through him, receives the keys.

But the manner in which the Church, through Peter, receives the keys even to the consummation of the age, is most sweetly disposed by the divine wisdom: for as the universal Church is distributed into head and members, so is she distributed in the sweet reception of the keys, so that in the head indeed she receives by succession, but in the members by participation. For in the head she has the keys of the kingdom of heaven according to the acts adequate to the keys; but in the members, that is, in the partial churches, she has the keys according to the acts of order and of partial jurisdiction.

To the objection. Whence it is clear that the opposite is true of what appeared when the question was proposed: for when we say that Peter alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, his equal associates are excluded; his body, the Church, is not excluded; his successor is not excluded: nay rather, both the Church and the successor are included in Peter alone: because from the fact that Peter alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, it is inferred that the Church, inchoated and signified in her head, received the same; and therefore that she always has the same keys, in the head indeed by succession, but in the members by participation, so that thus the whole Church may truly be one body under one head.

Nor should you be deceived by the ancient invective of the schismatics against the Catholics, as though feigning monstrosities, when we call Peter the head of the Church: since Christ is the head of the body of the Church (as is said, Coloss. I), and if Peter too is set up as head of the Church, two heads are joined to one body, not without monstrosity. These things are frivolous: for Peter is called the head of the Church by a different reason from that by which Christ is the head of the Church: Christ is head by reason of himself, but Peter by reason of Christ. Whence Christ is head simply and absolutely; but Peter is therefore head because he is vice-head: for he is, in place of Christ residing in the heavens, the head on earth. Whence of the whole ecclesiastical body only one head is set up simply and absolutely, that is, Christ, in whose place on earth Peter is constituted not another head, but a vice-head. Whence no monstrosity intervenes in the ecclesiastical body, except among those unwilling to understand the ecclesiastical terms in the sense in which they are used — a sense manifest to almost all.

It is fitting, however, to observe at this point that one path of erring is common to all objections of this kind: for among all the positions discussed, the first, from the affirmed quality of justice, denied the person of the supposit. The second, from the affirmed signified Church, denied the signifying person of Peter. The third, from the affirmed principality of Peter, denied his singularity. The fourth, from the affirmed common and equal apostolate, denied the unity of the pastoral office in Peter. The fifth, from the affirmed keys of the Church, denied that Peter alone received the keys. The sixth, from the affirmed sole head of the Church, Christ, denied that Peter is head in place of Christ. And you will find something similar below, when from the affirmed charity of Peter the pastor, the person of the pastor will be denied without charity; and from the affirmed work of feeding, the authority of the pastor will be denied. Let the eyes of readers, therefore, be opened, and let them detect the snares.

Matthew the evangelist relates, in the words cited above, that four things were promised to Peter by the Lord: of these, the last two — whatsoever thou shalt bind and whatsoever thou shalt loose — the same evangelist attests were also communicated by the Lord to the other apostles; but the first two — upon this rock I will build my Church, and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven — remained proper to Peter. It must be shown that in these is promised to Peter the pontificate of the whole Church, once both promises have been further clarified. Wherefore in the first promise six things are to be noted: for observe more pointedly, first, my Church, not my churches; second, my Church, not some church of mine; third, my Church, not every church of mine; fourth, my Church, not indefinitely; fifth, my Church, singularly, that is, as one only; sixth, my Church, without any addition. Note each point in turn: he did not say my churches, but my Church, so as to signify one Church — which, although it comprises many partial churches, is not on that account split, divided, or multiplied, but, its numerical unity being retained, has many parts, just as one body has many members; according to the word of the Apostle to the Coloss. I: He is the head of the body, the church: and Cant. VI: My dove is one. He said not some church of mine, but my Church, so that you would understand not a part of the Church, not some particular church, but the entire or whole Church: for it would not have befitted the divine wisdom to build one church upon Peter alone and not another; for the works of God are indeed perfect. He did not say every church of mine: both because a distributive sign would presuppose a multitude of churches — against the Lord's statement, Ioan. X: Other sheep I have, that are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd; and because for a singular to be distributed universally implies a contradiction, unless the universality is referred to its integral parts — which is beside the present purpose, and will nonetheless be explained below, in what way the parts of the Church are built upon this rock. He said my Church: not indefinitely, leaving the understanding vague as to inquiring which church of Christ was to be built upon this rock — as he left the understanding in doubt when at the supper he said, one of you shall betray me: for by these words we are made certain that the one whole Church of Christ is built upon this rock, and we are not left in suspense. He said, then, my Church, so that you would understand his own singular, unique, and sole entire church (of which it is said in the Creed that it is one catholic Church). Whence by the pronoun my alone he determined it, so that we might perceive that he speaks of that one Church which is the Church of Christ without any addition (for any partial church is called the church of Christ with some addition), for instance, the Roman, the Antiochene, the church of Constantinople, and so forth. And this not only according to modern usage, but according to the sacred Scriptures, as is evident at the beginning of both epistles to the Cor., where it says the church that is at Corinth; and at the beginning of that to the Gal., unto the churches of Galatia; and to the Thess., unto the church of the Thessalonians, and so on. You have, then, what you ought to understand by my Church: namely, the same thing that you understand by one catholic Church.

Objection. Yet sophistical importunities are not lacking, arguing from the fact that any particular church is truly the church of Christ. Christ speaks of that church of which it is verified that it is my church, that is, Christ's; but of any particular church it is verified that it is my church; therefore Christ speaks of any particular church, when he said: Upon this rock I will build my Church.

Solution. The fallacy of the argument can indeed easily be detected by attending to the matter itself, and by saying that any particular church is indeed the church of Christ, but not the whole church, nor without some addition, but such-and-such a church, for instance the church of Milan; nor is it a church without being a part of the church: but Christ speaks of the entire church, which is not such-and-such a church, nor some church, but is absolutely his own church. Nevertheless it must be said that in the same way in which any church is my church, that is, Christ's, in that same way it is verified of it that it is built upon this rock.

That you may understand this more fully, consider the difference in the way in which the catholic Church is Christ's, and the way in which any particular church is Christ's: for all the partial churches agree with the catholic Church in this, that they are Christ's (for any partial church is the church of Christ, and the catholic Church is the church of Christ); but they differ in mode: because the catholic Church is Christ's as a whole, whereas any particular church is Christ's as a part; and therefore the catholic Church is built as a whole upon this rock, whereas any partial church is built upon this rock as a part. In that mode, then, in which it is verified of a particular church that it is my church, in that same mode it is verified of it that it is built upon this rock: and therefore, because it is my church as a part, it is also built as a part upon this rock; but the catholic Church, because it is my church as a whole, is also built as a whole upon this rock. And because the whole comprehends any part whatsoever, and stands to the parts as the perfect to the imperfect, and the unity and integrity of the Church run apace together: therefore the word of Christ is understood according to the letter of the one catholic Church: by reason of which any particular church is understood as a part of the one catholic Church built upon Peter: just as, by reason of the one catholic Church, any partial church can be called by Christ my church, as a part of the catholic Church: nor could it be verified otherwise, since if it were divided from the unity of the Church, it would not be the church of Christ.

Nor should you think that this conflicts with the sacred canons or the sayings of the saints, which seem to sound as though the Roman church was built by Christ upon this rock. For by the appellation of the Roman church (as many think, from the words of the Council of Constance, in the condemnation of the articles of John Wyclif) the catholic Church is sometimes understood: and according to this sense there would be no question at all in the matter except one of terminology. But since this sense does not accord with the intention of those who write of the Roman church, understanding by that name a certain particular church, distinct as against the other particular churches: therefore it must be said otherwise, that the Roman church was built by Christ upon this rock, is verified not by property, but by appropriation. This is manifested from the agreement and the difference between the Roman church and the others: for it is common to any particular church to be a part. And hence it follows that it is not by property that it is verified of any particular church whatsoever, but only of the catholic Church, that it is built upon this rock: for of it alone, according to the letter, does Christ speak, saying: Upon this rock I will build my Church: in which, nevertheless, all the partial churches of Christ are enclosed as parts in the whole. But the Roman church differs from the other partial churches in its nearness to the head of the catholic Church: for the Roman church, in its own proper head, has been made not only nearest to, but the very same as, the head of the catholic Church: for by the deed of Peter, one and the same person was made the Roman pontiff and the pontiff of the catholic Church: and the Roman church, in itself, is immediately joined to the pontiff of the catholic Church. But any other partial church whatsoever is neither, in itself, immediately joined to the pastor of the catholic Church, nor, according to its own head, does it coincide with the head of the catholic Church. On account, then, of this proximity and conjunction of the Roman church to the pastor of the catholic Church, the words of Christ are appropriated to the Roman church rather than to the others: not because they are proper to it, but to the catholic Church, as has been said. The Lord, therefore, promised Peter, by this first promise — Upon this rock I will build my Church — that he himself would be the foundation of the catholic Church.

By the second promise, however (I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven), he promised him the plenitude of ecclesiastical power: which is manifested in three ways. First, from the very thing signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven: namely, the power of opening and closing the kingdom of heaven, not to these or to those, but absolutely, so that all wayfarers are comprehended, to whom the kingdom of heaven can be closed or opened. Such a power indeed comprehends under itself a fourfold kind of power: that is, judiciary power, both in the forum of penance and in the forum of the Church, since every ecclesiastical judge of either forum, by loosing or binding, opens or closes the kingdom of heaven to him who is loosed or bound. It also comprehends the governing power of the catholic Church: for by providing, governing, instituting, disposing, and so on, in doing things of this kind, nothing else is done than that the kingdom of heaven is opened or closed. It also comprehends a power extended to purgatory: where note that, although Christ did not give Peter judiciary power over purgatory, he nevertheless gave him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to open also or to close for those who are in purgatory. And therefore, speaking of judiciary power, he added the place, namely, upon earth, saying: whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth: exempting by this those who are no longer upon earth from the judicial power of Peter. But speaking of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he exempted no wayfarer to whom the kingdom of heaven can be opened or closed through the Church: but said absolutely and without limit: I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: so that Peter could open the kingdom of heaven to any wayfarer positively, but close it at least negatively.

But in saying these things we by no means oppose Augustine and the sacred canons, which defend the power of Peter to excommunicate even the dead; rather, we confirm from this what we have said. For ecclesiastical censure upon the dead, insofar as it looses or binds, has regard to that which is upon earth, that is, to the living, who are bound lest they communicate, or are loosed that they may communicate, with the deceased: but insofar as it opens or closes the kingdom of heaven, it has regard to the souls of the dead, for whom the kingdom of heaven is truly thereby opened or closed. The judiciary power, therefore, is bounded upon earth: but the keys of the kingdom of heaven extend to all wayfarers. Finally, it comprehends imperative power over all things pertaining in any way to the Church, yet in order to the kingdom of heaven: for right reason demands that the power which has obtained the supreme end should command all the rest in order to that supreme end, as is easily shown by adducing examples both from the arts and from rulers, leaders, and princes. For any craftsman, ruler, leader, or prince who has obtained a higher end orders other craftsmen, rulers, leaders, and princes to his own end, and by this commands them, insofar as they are directed to his end. Now it is established that the kingdom of heaven is the supreme end, and that it corresponds to the power of the keys promised to Peter; and that all other temporal things must at times be disposed toward this end. Under this power of Peter, therefore, is comprehended the ability to command all kingdoms and all princes, in order to the kingdom of heaven: for such command is nothing other than to open and close the kingdom of heaven, as is evident of itself. From the thing, therefore, promised through the keys of the kingdom of heaven, it is evident, first, that the plenitude of ecclesiastical power was promised to Peter by Christ, saying: I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

The same thing is next declared from the manner of speaking of sacred Scripture: for in Isa. XXII, concerning the full power of Eliakim the high priest, it is said: and I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder, and he shall open, and none shall shut, and he shall shut, and none shall open. In the New Testament also, Apoc. III, it is said of the power of Christ: he that hath the key of David, he openeth, and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth.

Rejection of the objection. Nor does it stand in the way if it be objected that it is not found in the text of the Gospel that, if Peter opens, no one closes, and if he closes, no one opens: because, even though these words are not found, the same sense is nevertheless found there. For from the fact that, concerning the lesser acts of the keys, it is found in the Gospel: whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven: it is manifestly found that Peter binds in such a way that no one looses, and looses in such a way that no one binds: for that which is bound on earth, being also bound in heaven, is plainly bound in such a way that no one looses it; and likewise that which is loosed on earth, being also loosed in heaven, is plainly loosed in such a way that no one binds it. From this, moreover, it is sufficiently established that Peter opens the kingdom of heaven in such a way that no one closes it, and closes it in such a way that no one opens it: for it is fitting that the keys of Peter should be able to exercise their adequate acts not less, but rather more fully, than their lesser acts.

First. And note that those words of Isa. XXII were spoken of Eliakim in the person of Christ, as the Gloss says there. As a sign of this, John the evangelist repeats the same words of Christ, as though showing that he is the one signified in Eliakim: and Isaiah himself, in chapter IX, had written of Christ: and the government is upon his shoulder: so that it might be shown, the key upon his shoulder, the government upon his shoulder; and by this we may perceive from every side that the plenitude of power is signified through the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

Second. There is added to this a testimony from custom: for, as a sign of supreme power, the keys of the kingdom are offered to a king. Wherefore, joining both promises together, since from the first Peter is to be the foundation of the catholic Church (wherein there is established in Peter the office of sustaining the catholic Church in the solidity of the faith, and likewise there is imposed upon the catholic Church the necessity of adhering to Peter as its foundation; for the very nature of building requires that the building have a necessity of adhering to the rock upon which it is founded), and since from the other the plenitude of the power of the Church is promised to Peter: it manifestly follows that by these words the pontificate of the catholic Church was promised to Peter; for it is agreed that these two things are the chief things in the pontiff of the whole Christian Church. From the words of Matthew the evangelist, then, Thou art Peter, and so forth, compared with the other Gospels and discussed, we believe it has been shown that the pontificate of the catholic Church was promised by Christ to Peter alone.

Having dispatched the treatise on the promises made by the Lord to Peter alone in Matthew, it now falls to us to treat the commission which the Savior made to Peter in John, when he said to him so many times feed my sheep. Here, as in the foregoing, four points arise to be made clear: namely, that these words are understood as spoken to the person of Peter, that they are understood as spoken to him alone in such a way that nowhere else were similar words spoken to the rest, that the feeding of the whole church was committed to Peter, and that through these words the pontificate of the catholic church was given to Peter.

Since, however, he knows not how to loose who is ignorant of the knot, the things that can render the matter doubtful must be brought forward in each of these points. From two considerations it appears, in the first place, that it was said not to the person, but to the qualified person, feed my sheep.

First, from the surname of Peter: since he was called Simon of John, that is, obedient to grace: for not in vain (as Bede says here) did the Lord so call him, but to insinuate this mystery.

Next, from the threefold question lovest thou me: where manifestly he said to the one loving him, feed my sheep. From these it appears that it was said not to the person, but to the person qualified by obedience to divine grace and by love of Christ himself, feed my sheep.

At this point it must be observed that we should not decline into extreme errors, but proceed by a middle way: for when the office of the qualified person is under discussion, four things arise, namely: the person, his quality, the use of the office, and its rectitude. All of which, although they are distinct, the heretics nevertheless, unwilling to discern between the use of the power and the rectitude of the use, attribute the whole to the quality: refusing to acknowledge as ministers of Christ those who are evil, because they are not qualified by the charity of Christ — as though power and the right use of power were the same thing, or at least as though both were committed to the quality, that is, to charity: whence, straying yet more widely, they arrogate ecclesiastical power to any just man whatsoever. The foolish, however (whose number is infinite), making little of the rectitude of the use, think they have done enough if they attribute ecclesiastical power to the person, whatever may be the case regarding the quality of charity. But the right and catholic reasoning embraces the middle way, holding that ecclesiastical power was given, and ought to be given, to the qualified person: yet in such a way that to the person corresponds the power, or the use of the power, while to the quality corresponds the rectitude of the use. For thus both errors are avoided: while it is wisely committed to the qualified person that he should rightly use the ecclesiastical ministry, and if it happens that the ministers are evil, the church is not subjected to the danger of ambiguity or deception, but receives good things even through those who are evil. And if a wise man ought to commit the right use of an office to whomever he must commit it as a qualified person, this was most especially fitting for incarnate wisdom: and therefore he thrice requires of Peter the quality of charity, committing to him the best act: so that the charity required has regard to the goodness of the act, and the very rectitude or goodness of the act is attributed to charity, as all the doctors commonly declare. Now it is clear that the best act was committed by the Savior to Peter in saying feed my sheep, from each of the three words: for to feed is to confer nourishment, by which sheep are nourished, increased, multiplied, and kept alive. He said sheep, not kids, not oxen, not wolves and men of that sort — the luxurious, the proud, the rapacious, the envious, the slanderous, and the rest. He added my, so that, self-love being withdrawn, the love of Christ might be signified as the reason for feeding the sheep. From these three joined together it becomes clear that he was committing the best act to Peter in saying feed my sheep: and because (as has been said) the best act can proceed only from the charity of Christ, therefore it was committed by the Lord to the person qualified by charity. But from this it does not follow (as the heretics pretend) that the pastoral office was committed to the quality: rather, it is understood that the goodness or rectitude of the use of the pastoral office was committed to charity; the use itself, however, is understood to have been committed to the person. Whence also the Lord, in this place, having thrice required charity, did not say, let thy charity feed my sheep: but addresses the person three times, saying, feed thou my lambs, or my sheep. And just as in Matth. the person of Peter is described by his own name and by the proper name of his carnal father as to the body, and by the grace of an inward revelation as to the soul, so that from these things singularly proper to Peter we might understand his person: so too in this place, not once but three times, the person of Peter is described, according to the flesh, by the same proper name and that of his carnal father, Simon of John or of Jonah (as the more correct manuscripts have it), and according to the soul, from his own humbling by which he submits his heart to the knowledge of Christ, thrice repeating Lord, thou knowest that I love thee: and from his own being grieved, Peter was grieved, and the rest. So that from these things proper to himself we might openly understand the person of Peter to be the one to whom Christ said feed my sheep: and accordingly we might perceive that the pastoral office was committed not to the gift of charity but to the person: while from the charity required we might understand that the rectitude of the use of the pastoral office is committed to charity: for no one without charity can rightly use the pastoral office. And these things are according to the literal sense of the Gospel: but to the mystical sense (from which an efficacious argument cannot be drawn) it belongs that Simon of John is interpreted as obedient to grace.

Rejection of the objections. Whence it is clear that Christ said feed my sheep not to the quality but to the person of Peter as qualified by charity: and accordingly, if Peter had fallen from charity, he would not have lost the pastoral office, but the right use of it: since it is not the office but the rectitude of the use that depends on charity — as is plain to every catholic doctor, and has as its contradictors only the heretics.

That “feed my sheep” was said by Christ to Peter alone, the text itself clearly makes manifest: both from his own proper name and that of his carnal father, repeated a third time; and from the comparison set against the others, “lovest thou me more than these” — for the comparative shows his difference from the other apostles present, to whom he is compared; and from Peter's own suffering, whereby he is described as grieved at the third questioning, mindful of the denial of Christ once foretold to him when he himself was ready to die: so that no place is left for doubt. And since these things were given to Peter after the Lord's resurrection, and to the other apostles nothing similar is found to have been said either before or after, it remains that “feed my sheep” was said altogether to Peter alone.

Nor does it stand in the way that the Church, in the Preface, calls all the apostles shepherds of the Lord's flock (whom thou hast granted to the same flock, as vicars of thy work, to preside over it as shepherds), since this manifestly refers to the apostolate: and therefore they are called shepherds of the Lord's flock in that manner in which pastoral care pertains to the apostolate. But, as the very name “apostle” attests, the pastoral exercise belongs to the apostles as to legates of Christ: and thus it is that, as legates of Christ, they are called shepherds of the Lord's flock. But Peter (as will be clear from what has been said above and what is yet to be said) was appointed as the ordinary shepherd even of the apostles themselves: and this is what Christ's words “feed my sheep” signify.

That the whole Church is committed to Peter alone by these words feed my sheep is sophistically called into doubt on six grounds. First, because it is not said feed my sheep — all of them: for if the whole Church were comprehended, it should have been said all my sheep, just as it was said teach all nations, Matth. last. Second: because nothing impossible was committed by Christ: but that the whole Church throughout the world should be fed by one is impossible. And if it be said that one could feed the whole world through others — on the contrary: because the Lord said feed, and did not say, cause my sheep to be fed: for even a heathen could do this, namely, commit it to others that they should feed Christ's sheep. Third: because Peter would have sinned if he alone had not fed them all, if all were committed to him alone. Fourth: because Peter sent no apostle: and each apostle ordained bishops without Peter's authority. Fifth: because we confess the apostles to have been distributed into the various parts of the world as into their own portions. Sixth: because Peter was allotted only the sheep of the circumcision: as is clear from Galat. II. Where Paul says: when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter that of the circumcision: for he that wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought also in me among the Gentiles.

That these objections manifestly stray from the true sense of the Gospel is not difficult to show. For in saying feed my sheep, the sheep committed to be fed must be either all, or these particular ones, or none, or left vague. And indeed that he did not commit these or those definitely, the words themselves bear witness: that he committed none is contrary to the truth: that he left it vague both derogates from the wisdom of Christ and is contrary to the truth of the pronoun joined to it: for it belongs to a wise and powerful ruler to provide definitely, not to leave his provision vague. And it is plain that, from this very fact that in pointing out the sheep by the pronoun "my" alone he does not speak vaguely or indefinitely, but rather from this very fact that he excludes none of his own, he comprehends all his own, in saying feed my sheep. And observe the perversity of their exposition: when in Matth. it is said upon this rock I will build my Church, they think it must be understood of the whole Church of Christ, lest they should confess that only a single church was built upon the rock: but when in John it is said to Peter, feed my sheep, indefinitely, they expound it so that the sheep of Christ should not be comprehended under one shepherd. There they distribute universally, against all reason, a singular thing, namely one catholic Church; here they refuse to distribute universally diverse things, namely many sheep: so that from this you may see their interpretations to be false, for what is false is discordant even with itself. And, on the contrary, since indeed all things are consonant with one another, the ecclesiastical sense is such: that just as there the one catholic Church is so understood that all Christ's particular Churches are comprehended in it as parts in a whole, so here Christ's sheep are so understood to be made explicit by the pronoun "my," that none is left out which is comprehended under the pronoun "my."

To the first. And for this reason it was not necessary to add "all": because whatever sheep the pronoun "my" extends to are comprehended, when it is said feed my sheep: just as in John X. all Christ's sheep are comprehended, when the Lord said, I lay down my life for my sheep: and again, my sheep hear my voice, and so forth. Whence it is clear that the word "my," of necessity appended for a deeper reason, supplies the effect of a universal sign: and that for this reason the same judgment does not hold of this text and of that, teach all nations: for there he commanded that both his own and those not his own — by election — of the nations should be taught; but here he committed his own sheep to be fed sufficiently, comprehending all of them through the word "my": as has been shown most clearly, by reason and the testimony of Scripture, to stand fast from the same evangelist.

And hence the catholic sense is confirmed: since what Christ there promised, he here fulfilled: and for this reason, because there he promised the whole Church, here he committed all the sheep. And it is confirmed again from the words of the Lord, John X.: other sheep I have that are not of this fold, and them also I must bring, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd: for if one fold must be constituted, under one shepherd, out of all the sheep, it follows that when one shepherd is instituted and says feed my sheep, the care of that one fold is committed to him. For it might perhaps have been doubtful, if Christ had several folds, of which of his sheep he was speaking: but since he testifies that he has but one fold, it cannot be doubted which are his sheep that he commits, unless someone should be so foolish as to commit the care of only a part of the fold. And this sense is confirmed again from the exposition of the saints, whose authorities will be adduced more fully below. Whence Theophylact (Theophylus) here says that, the meal being finished, he commends to Peter the charge of the sheep of the world, and to no other.

To the second objection, however, it is said: that it is not impossible, but necessary and useful, that all Christ's sheep be fed by one, as the head of the catholic Church. In this manner of feeding, namely as the head of the catholic Church, it is implied that Christ's sheep are fed by the head with the various members co-assisting: just as the whole body is ruled by the head, the other members co-assisting. Whence it is not to be said that Peter feeds — that is, causes to be fed — but that he himself, as the head, through the other co-members co-assisting, feeds all Christ's sheep: which it is plain cannot be done by a lay prince or by anyone else who is not the head of the Church. And it is the more possible for all Christ's sheep to be fed by Peter, the more Peter is the vicar of Christ living, reigning, and assisting, to direct, inspire, and help.

To the third. Whence the solution of the third objection is plain: for it was committed to Peter alone, not that he alone should in every way, but that he alone, as the head of the catholic Church, should feed all Christ's sheep: and therefore he does not sin if he is helped by his co-members in feeding Christ's sheep, but he would sin if he sustained a co-head of the catholic Church.

To the fourth it is said that Peter sent no apostle: because he was forestalled by Christ the Lord, who sent the apostles, John XX.: as the Father hath sent me, I also send you. And therefore they could, by the authority of the apostolate, ordain bishops without having obtained the faculty from Peter.

To the fifth it is said that the distribution of the apostles pertains to the execution of the apostolate: and it in no way at all hinders Peter's pastoral office: just as his authority was diminished in nothing by the fact that Christ sent the apostles: for the one pertains to the mission, the other to the execution.

To the sixth. And by this also the sixth objection is solved: for as to the execution of the apostolate Paul speaks — as the very words themselves clearly attest, in speaking of him who wrought in the apostolate. For amid these diverse executions, the unity of the pastoral care in Peter plainly stands.

Some deny that the pontificate of the whole Church was conferred upon Peter by these words.

First: because to feed does not signify to rule or to be first.

Second: because Christ's word is either exhortatory or preceptive with respect to feeding, not with respect to subjecting the sheep.

Rejoinder. And if it be said: none but a superior can feed — what is that to me? Seek the place where the words confer upon Peter power over the Church: for here only the feeding is committed.

But it is not difficult to show that the pontificate is given under these words. For to feed Christ's sheep is an act of authority in the one feeding, of benefit in the sheep, and of an end in Christ. For by this very fact, that Christ committed his own to Peter as sheep to be fed, it is clearer than the noonday light that he set him over the others as shepherd of the sheep.

There is no need, then, to seek another place where power over the Church was given to Peter: since this place attests that it was given: unless someone be so foolish as to think that feed my sheep was said to Peter not by the office of a shepherd, but by the office of a hireling. Which folly, too, is refuted by Christ's threefold exaction of charity from Peter: for from him to whom the sheep are committed to be fed out of love of Christ, a hireling's love is far removed.

To the first. Hence, even if to feed does not signify to rule, it nevertheless signifies the act of an ecclesiastical ruler: and again, if it does not signify to rule, it nevertheless presupposes rule, because it presupposes a shepherd. Hence it was rightly answered that none but a superior can feed.

To the rejoinder. And when it is said, what is that to me? the answer is, indeed, a great deal, from the very reason of connected things: for these have this property, that when the one is granted, the remaining is understood to be attributed along with it. Whence it follows that if none but a superior can feed, then to whomever it is given to feed, it is also given to be superior: whence from this ground too it is clear that no other place of Scripture need be sought, where Peter was set over the Church: since it is clearly had here.

To the second. We affirm, however, that Christ's word is preceptive: for if it is woe to the apostle Paul should he not preach the gospel, much more is it woe to Peter should he not feed Christ's sheep. But Christ's word is not only preceptive, but institutive: for if, in the founding of the first part of the universe, the word of God instituted the chief creatures, and at the same time enjoined their proper work (according to that: he hath established them for ever and ever, he hath made a decree, and it shall not prescribe), it is fitting that in the creation of the Christian Church he should have perfected its first member by the same word, enjoining the chief work of the pontificate, and instituting the pontificate itself. And by this very fact, that it is committed to Peter that he should feed Christ's sheep, the Christian people is bidden to conduct itself toward Peter as sheep: for in vain would they be committed to Peter as sheep to be fed, unless they were presented to him as sheep by the common Lord. Whence not only the necessity of feeding but of subjection is signified in the words of the Lord, when it is said, feed my sheep. Augustine also attests this, expounding here that to feed is not only to teach but to rule, when he says: he commits the sheep themselves to be fed, that is, to be taught and ruled. And Chrysostom: feed my sheep, take up the care of the brethren: and the Glo. from Alcuin: to feed the sheep is to strengthen those who believe in Christ lest they fall away from the faith, to provide temporal aid to subjects if it be necessary, and to bestow examples of virtue along with the word of preaching, to withstand adversaries, to correct erring subjects. Wherefore, even if to feed does not signify to rule, it nevertheless signifies to govern Christ's sheep, in which ruling is enclosed: even if it does not signify to rule, it nevertheless draws ruling along with it, just as it draws along with it to seek out, to bring back, to bind up, to strengthen, to guard, and to heal: which the Lord mentions in Ezech. XXXIIII. Hence Peter too is said to have been made prince of the apostles and prince set over the people of Christ: and according to Gregory's words to Maurice, the care of the whole Church and the principate are committed to him.

And if it be asked why the Lord committed the pontificate to Peter not under the term of prelacy or authority or dignity, but of the act of feeding his sheep — the reason is ready to hand: on the part of the thing itself, because prelacy or authority is for the sake of feeding Christ's sheep, and not the converse. And on the part of the appetite to be regulated: because it is not a higher place, not dignity or authority, that is to be sought after, but the feeding of Christ's sheep that is to be desired in the pontificate: according to what the apostle afterward said, he that desireth the office of a bishop desireth a good work. And on the part of Scripture to be fulfilled: for before the passion he had said, Luc. XXII: the kings of the nations lord it over them, and they that have power over them are called beneficent: but you not so; but he that is greatest among you, let him become as the younger. For hence, from the ministerial act of feeding Christ's sheep, he signified the pontificate tacitly, as something annexed, and not to be esteemed except for the benefit of Christ's sheep: the opposite of which happens in the kings and lords of the nations, who order all things to this end, that they may reign and be lords.

Furthermore, the work committed to Peter, chief among the pontifical acts, shows the pontificate: for to feed the elect is the chief act of the pontiff. For just as the care of the elect belongs to the highest part of divine providence (for whose happiness he ordained not only the motion of the heavens: John attesting in Apoc. ca. VI, it was said to them that they should rest for a little time yet, until the number of their fellow-servants should be fulfilled: but he himself also descended from the heavens, and being made man, was crucified, died, was buried, and endured all the rest for the sake of the elect) — so it must be that to feed the elect belongs to the highest ecclesiastical care, which we call the pontificate. Now it is certain that the elect alone are signified, when it is said, feed my sheep: the Lord himself attesting this in Io. X, saying: my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, and I give them eternal life, and they shall not perish for ever, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.

Nor is Peter's pontificate therefore restricted, as though it extended to the elect alone: but, subordinated to the feeding of the elect, from this arises every act of the pontificate concerning others. For just as, according to the order of the universe, the single motion of the heavens is for the sake of fulfilling the number of the elect, and yet the same also extends to the propagating of the non-elect: and according to the order of grace, Christ the supremely good shepherd laid down his soul for his sheep, that is, for the elect, and yet the same death was for the life of the whole world: so in the sacred mysteries the supreme pontificate is for the feeding of the elect, and the same comprehends the non-elect. Nor undeservedly: since the care of the end and the disposition of the things that are for the end belong to the same one: and the life of the elect is the end of the governance of others. All things, says the apostle, II ad Thi. II, I endure for the sake of the elect: and ad Ro. VIII he attests that all things are given to the elect: and the elect are affirmed to be set over all the goods of the Lord, Matth. XXIII. Nor would I therefore say that the foreknown are wrapped in silence: since it is not unfitting that some of the foreknown be comprehended under the name of lambs: for there are many imperfect Christians, always learning and never arriving at the perfection of a sheep: whom the Lord committed to Peter to be fed together with the sheep, that is, with the elect. Whence he committed lambs twice, and sheep the third time: not only because the imperfect need greater care, but that by the very number he might suggest the diversity of his lambs, that is, of Christians leading a common life, while some are reprobate, others elect: but the sheep are committed once, and last: because all of Christ's sheep are among the elect, and the ascending discourse is brought to an end at the highest point. And although all are committed to Peter's pastoral care, only lambs and sheep are committed to be fed: for wolves, lions, and bears, when committed, are understood as to be guarded against, put to flight, or exterminated. Whence no one is left exempt from Peter's pontificate, even if only this had been committed to him, feed my sheep: for the sake of which all things are done, inasmuch as to them all things work together unto good, as the apostle attests, ad Ro. VIII.

Now the excellence of this committed work is made yet more manifest by running through the pastoral and pontifical works: for the Lord attests that those six pastoral acts, set down in Ezech. XXXIIII (namely, to seek out what had perished, to bring back what had been cast off, to bind up what had been broken, to strengthen what was weak, to heal what was sick, to guard what was fat and strong), are ordered to the feeding of the sheep, reproving the shepherds concerning these things and saying: woe to the shepherds of Israel that fed themselves! should not the flocks be fed by the shepherds? you ate the milk, and were clothed with the wool and so forth. Where he clearly gives the reason for the omission, from the fact that bad shepherds feed not the sheep but themselves: as though the reason for all these works were to be devoted to feeding the sheep themselves.

It is also beyond doubt that the judicial acts which take place in the Church, both in the forum of penance and in the forum of contention, are ordered to the feeding of Christ's sheep. Finally, to open and to close the kingdom of heaven so pertain to the feeding of the sheep, that to open the kingdom of heaven is to feed Christ's sheep: while to close it is ordered to the feeding of the same sheep: since it is referred to the good of the elect, to whom all things work together unto good. It is established, therefore, if all the things signified by this promise, feed my sheep, be gathered together, that the pontificate of the whole Church was committed to Peter. Nor do we forge these things as new: but we set forth what we have learned from the fathers, confirming Peter's pontificate by their own attestation: as will be evident in the last chapter.