On the Divine Institution of The Papacy

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.