On the Divine Institution of The Papacy

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.