On the Divine Institution of The Papacy

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.