Summa de Ecclesia

It will readily be evident that the disproofs of the adversaries brought in above against the points from which we have principally proved the principate of Peter are of no force, since we shall have shown that our reasons received their foundation from elsewhere than whence the adversaries supposed.

¹ In the first place, indeed, the first disproof is nothing, for we did not argue that the apostle Peter had the primacy because he was named first among the apostles, but because he was called the first of the apostles. For the evangelist speaks thus. The names of the twelve apostles are these: the first, Simon who is called Peter. But he was called first, as we said above in ch. 5, by the priority of apostolic dignity, not by priority of time in his calling to the apostolate. Hence the Gloss on this passage, which is Rabanus's, says thus. Simon, that is obedient, who on account of the primacy of the apostolic order is called Peter, that is firm. Moreover, that blessed Paul in Gal. 2 named James before Peter, he did not do this because James was greater than or equal to Peter in authority, but, as Saint Thomas says on the epistle to the Galatians, because he was bishop of the Jerusalemites among whom these things took place. And thus says the lord Peter of Tarentaise on the epistles of Paul.

² Further, the second disproof was nothing, because we did not argue that Peter had the primacy because he was called the foundation or Rock of the Church, but because Christ, with the other apostles present, singularly named Peter the Rock of the Church. From which it is seen that, although it was common to the other apostles with Peter to be the foundation of the Church, as is openly found in Eph. 3 and Rev. 21, as will be found more fully below, nevertheless Peter was after Christ the principal foundation, and the foundation of the whole Church; hence, on the testimony of blessed Dionysius, Paul is reported to have said to Peter as he faced death: Peace, says he, be with thee, thou foundation of the churches, and shepherd of the sheep, ye bishops. Hence Pope Leo in the third sermon of his consecration says that in Peter the strength of all is implied, and the aid of divine grace is so ordained that the firmness which through Christ is attributed to Peter is conferred through Peter on the apostles — thus far he.

³ Thirdly, the third disproof was nothing, since we did not prove that Peter had the primacy either from his having received the keys from Christ or from its having been said to him, Whatsoever thou shalt bind etc., but from Christ's having singularly promised to him, with the other apostles present, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and from his having said to him alone earlier in time, Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth etc., than he had said to him and the other disciples in common, Whatsoever you shall bind etc. Hence, as Saint Thomas says in 4, dist. 24: Although the power of binding and loosing was given in common to all the apostles, yet, that some order might be signified in this power, it was first given to Peter alone, to show that it ought to be derived from him to the others. This is plainly a manifest sign of the primacy of Peter. Further, from the difference of the words too which Christ used when he gives the power of the keys to Peter alone and which he used when he bestowed it on him and the others in common, the very primacy of Peter is also proved. For to Peter he used these words: Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in the heavens etc. But to the apostles thus: Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven. Upon which Origen says: To the apostles, he says, in heaven, not in the heavens as to Peter, because they were not of such perfection as Peter. And so it is clear that that disproof of the adversaries is nothing.

⁴ Fourthly, this same thing is easily shown concerning the disproof made in the fourth place, and this for three reasons. First, because we did not argue the primacy of blessed Peter from the commission of pastoral care alone, but from Christ's committing to Peter alone, with the other apostles present and no mention made of them, the unlimited care of his flock, saying: Simon son of John, lovest thou me; feed my lambs, feed my sheep. Hence Theophilus says in the Gloss: But the Lord, passing over the others, speaks to Peter of such things, for he was outstanding among the apostles and the head of the college. Likewise blessed Gregory on John, and Saint Thomas, adduce it in the Gloss on that passage of John 21: Simon went up and drew the net. But to Peter the holy Church has been committed; it is spiritually said: Feed my sheep. Nor does it stand against this that Augustine says that this too was said to all, because even if it is understood to have been said to all the apostles, nevertheless it was said to them in the person of Peter as from whom the power was to be derived to the others, through which the singular prerogative of Peter's primacy is shown in that he bore the figure of all the others. Hence blessed Augustine on John says that Peter the apostle, on account of the primacy of his apostolate, bore in generality the figure of the whole Church as a person. Secondly, the disproof of the adversaries is nothing, since, although that manner of feeding was common to all the apostles, yet not equally, since there was a distinction of power among them, as blessed Anacletus says in ch. Sacrosancta, dist. 22. For Peter alone had in the whole world the authority of feeding, as shepherd of the whole flock of the Lord. The others, however, not universally but according to a measure to be assessed and limited through Peter. Hence the Gloss on that passage of 1 Peter 5: Feed the flock which is among you, says thus. Just as the Lord commanded Peter to have the care of the whole flock, so Peter by right enjoins upon his successors that each one guard with solicitous governance the flock of God which is with him — thus far. This singularity of Peter's preeminence blessed Ambrose touches upon, on the last chapter of Luke, expounding the aforesaid words, John, last chapter: Peter, lovest thou me etc., where he speaks thus: Well aware of himself, Peter testifies an affection long since known to God, not assumed for the occasion — who is there besides who could readily profess this of himself? Therefore because he alone out of all professes it, he is preferred before all — thus Ambrose. Thirdly, it can be said that the adversaries assume what is false when in arguing they say that to feed the sheep comes about in only three ways, which is clear from the Gloss on the last chapter of John, which is Alcuin's, speaking thus: To feed the sheep is to strengthen those who believe in Christ lest they fail from the faith; to furnish earthly supports to subjects if need be; to bestow examples of the virtues along with the word of preaching; to resist the adversaries; to correct erring subjects — thus the Gloss. It is clear, therefore, that the pastoral care committed to blessed Peter contains more authority than do those things which were said to Peter and the other apostles together. But of this more fully below.