On the Divine Institution of The Papacy

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.