mention the act of opening or shut-well as the rest, and a larger share

than they. For since the keys were given to him alone, it was through him that they were to receive from Christ the power of binding and loosing "Peter alone (says St. Optatus of Mi levis) received the keys of the king dom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest." Claves regni Cælorum communicandas cæteris, solus accepi De Schismat. D. lib. 7. Peter there fore has received from Christ, on tw different occasions, the power of bind ing and loosing, to be exercised tw different ways, either in conjunctio with his colleagues, or alone. By thi double power, Sir, have the succes sors of St. Peter acted in all ages, ac cording to circumstances. In con cils, the decree which condemned he

sha

ting, but in general, the entrusting of the keys to St. Peter; as if Christ had said, "Thou art Peter, I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Thou wilt open it to believers, but the keys will remain with thee: others may be employed in the same office of bringing men into my church, and into heaven; but none shall be able to do it, except be borrows the keys from thee; for to thee, Peter, to thee aloue, I will give the keys." With regard to the power of binding and loosing, promised also to Peter, on the same occasion, the doctor has judiciously observed, that it must imply some privilege peculiar to Peter; but what was this power, which Peter was to exercise as primate? Not a power or commission merely to convert Cor-resy and established unity and truth, nelius and his friends, and to convince the Jews that the Gentiles were to be admitted into the Christian church, as well as they, and that the yoke of the Mosaic law should not be laid on them; but, as the text itself expresses it, it is a power to bind and loose whatever is to be bound or loosed on earth, with reference to ecclesiastical matters; for the kingdom of heaven is the church. It is true that the power of binding and loosing was also to be exercised by the other apostles. To them Christ said, What things soever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. Matt. xviii. 18.; but this last promise, made to all the apostles in general, could not annul the effect of the particular promise made to St. Peter. Still Peter was to have the keys, and to keep them: still was he personally to enjoy the power, now promised to all in common. I say in common. For Christ never said to John, or James, or any other apostle, in particular, "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in hea ven." To Peter alone he spoke in the singular number, thou; to all the rest collectively, you. And, in this last promise, St. Peter had his share, as

was the joint work of the Pope and bishops, who all signed as judges, but the Pope as their head. This wa done in virtue of the general promis made to Peter and to the apostles tog ther, "What things soever you bind or loose upon earth, shall b bound or loosed in heaven." At othe times, the Pope alone, without th concurrence of the bishops, issued th decree, which was always, and ever where, received with due respect an submission by every true child of the church. This was done by virtue o the particular promise made to Peter, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind and loose upon earth shall be bound and loosed in heaven." I have shewn, my preceding letters. that the bishop of Rome, as successors of St. Peter and heirs to his primacy, have claime and did exercise, in all ages, the ex clusive privilege of approving or com demning, confirming or cancelling, th judgments of all other bishops, with out exception, even the decrees of ge neral councils, who so little objecte to the exercise of this that they power, themselves sent their decisions to him to be sanctioned by his authority. hope, Sir, our Protestant friends will allow us to follow the opinion of those illustrious bishops, whose decrees in

the first four general councils they themselves profess to revere, and to believe, that by Christ's promise to St. Peter, a right was conveyed to him, which descended from him to his suc-ly certain, that St. Peter could not cessors in the see of Rome, whatever any modern expositor of the scripture may say to the contrary.

very observation, whilst it confirms the truth of the fact, or that St. Peter spoke in the name of all, does not invalidate the inference, since it is equal

have spoken in the name of all, having no commission from them to do so, except he had a precedence among Dr. Horsley, finding that some Pro-them, given him by Christ. But that festant divines turned against the pri- St. Peter spoke in the name of his bremacy of Peter, which he admitted in thren, upon more than two occasions, part, the opinion of the ancients, in will appear from the many instances particular of St. Chrysostom and St. that I shall now produce, which no Jerome, who maintained, that St. Pe- unprejudiced reader can peruse in the -ter, in the confession he made of our New Testament, without being con Saviour's divinity, spoke in the name vinced that to speak for the rest, and of the other apostles, attempts to re- answer questions that were put to fate this opinion. We may be al- all, was a customary thing with St. lowed (says he) to demand of these Peter, and "a thing of course." "-At apt disciples of St. Chrysostom and Capharnaum, some of the disciples St. Jerome, what right they can make murmuring at his doctrine, and having out for St. Peter, to be the spokesman begun to leave his company, Jesus said of the company, and, without any to the twelve, will ye also go away?" previous consultation with his bre- Here the question was evidently put to thren, to come forward with an an- all, and a question of great moment, wer, in the name of all, to a ques- to which our Saviour no doubt exion of such moment? What right pected an answer expressive of the will they pretend for St. Peter to take sentiments of all. Yet how was this So much upon him, unless they will answer of the twelve returned? Not concede to him that personal prece- by each of them answering personally, dence among the twelve, which, how-nor by all of them answering together; ever it may be evinced by many circumstances in the sacred history, it is the express purpose of their exposition to refute?" The doctor then seems to allow that, if St. Peter is once acbnowledged to have been the spokes. Now, by what right did St. Peter thus man of the company, to have, with- come forward, with an answer in the out any previous consultation with name of men, who had not given him them, answered in their name, parti- commission to speak for them? His ularly to questions of great moment, saying that he answered for the rest, the inference must be, that he had a proves indeed that he did so, but not personal superiority over them. So I that he had a right to do it, except he myself think. But is not the fact as had that right from Christ. On the well as the inference undeniable? Dr. day of Pentecost, when all the aposHorsley confesses that "upon two tles were equally accused by the Jews, in the name of all." But that he of new wine, St. Peter alone came other occasions, St. Peter really spoke of intemperance, These men are full spake upon those occasions (says he) forward to justify his brethren; and, not left to be understood, as a thing at their head, preached the gospel to Course. But it is evident, in the the people. When Peter and John, one instance, by the very words he going into the temple, were asked an the sacred historian." p. 309. But this for his companion and himself, esed; in the other, it is remarked by alms by the lame man, Peter answered

of

ORTHOD. JOUR. VOL. III.

but by Peter alone, answering in the name of all: "Lord, to whom shall we go? We have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jo. vi. 67.

2 B

"Look

lics removes part of the suspicion The second is the misplacing of word in the sentence, translating Peter an the other apostles answered and sai instead of, Peter answering, and t apostles, said. For, by this false co struction, the verb to answer, whic in the original, is in the singular num ber, and therefore refers to Pet alone, becomes plural, and is referr both to the apostles and Peter. Th this was done with a crooked intenti is hardly to be doubted. The tran lators probably perceived that th text, as it stands in the Greek, wa calculated to shew, not only the nece sary union which reigned between th apostles and St. Peter, as it alway did, in our church, between the suc cessors of the one and those of the other, but also the headship and supe riority of St. Peter over them. Fo the verb said, in the text, being in the plural number, whilst the verb answe ing is in the singular, it follows, the what was said on the occasion, indeed said by all, or at least express de the sentiments of all, and yet that was in a special manner St. Peter's swer, and that for no other reaso than because he either, delivered s alone, but in the name of all, which appears to me the most probable, end that they all delivered it together, y having him at their head.

on us," yet shewing himself to be the first; "Silver and gold I have none, yet what I have I give thee." Acts iii. 86. The miracle was undoubtedly wrought by Peter; but the Jews, knowing that Peter acted as the head and in the name of the rest, naturally attributed it to John as well as to him. which made Peter say, Why look ye so carnestly on us, as though, by our own power and strength, we had made this man to walk?" ver. 12. The rulers of the people themselves saw it in no other light. "By what power and in what name have you done this?" The answer was returned by St. Peter alone: "Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said to them." c. iv. ver. S. Here we need not ask whence Peter had the right of speaking in the name of his brethren. The Holy Ghost himself gave him that right, by prompting him to speak rather than John. If sometimes John is said to have answered, (iv. 19.) and the apostles too, (v. 29.) this rather confirms what I am now contending for; that, when they did not speak themselves, and Peter alone did so, he did it then in their name, since, by joining occasionally, they shewed their cause and his to be one. But, on these occasions, his name always occurs first. "Peter and John, answering, said" "Peter then answering, and the apostles, they said." With respect to this We have, in the Acts, ch. V., last text, I cannot help taking notice ther proof of St. Peter acting a of two blunders, if not wilful corrup- speaking in the name of all, witho tions, which are discovered in the Pro- any previous consultation with or coll testant translation of it. The first is mission from them, and also of his phon the word other, which has been foisted siding in the assemblies of the faithfu in probably with an intention of assi- even when the apostles were presen milating St. Peter to the rest of the When one of those assemblies wa apostles. Not that I blame the ex- held, Ananias and Sapphira brough pression, Peter and the other apostles; in their fraudulent donation. Th we meet with it, Acts ii. 37. But text says, that they laid it down at th where the text says, Peter and the apostles feet, v. 2, which is a proo apostles, for a distinction, as Catholics that the apostles were there, and no believe it existed between St. Peter and Peter alone; and it was the apostles. his brethren, we naturally suspect that not Peter alone, they attempted to de the intrusion of the word other is in-ceive. "Thou hast not lied to men, tended to destroy that distinction. It (said St. Peter) but to God." Yet must liowever be candidly acknow-who reproved those two weak Chrisledged, that printing this word in ita- tians? Who punished them? Peter

anov,

alone. He therefore acted and spoke | vinity of the Son of God, at Cesarea in the name of all. Philippi; since, in this very confession, consequently before Christ had promised to give him the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, he had acted this part. Even previous to this, when they were at Capharnaum, he had confessed the divinity of his heavenly Master, and had done so in the name of all his brethren; "We have believed that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." If the pri

But was this also the case at Cesarea Philippi? Undoubtedly. For the question, "Whom do you say that Iam?" was put by our Saviour, not to Peter alone, but to all the apostles indistinctly. Christ therefore expected that all should answer it. This becomes still more evident from the manner in which our Saviour expressed himself, which is not sufficiently understood from the common transla-macy of St. Peter, then, was the retions. He had first interrogated them ward of his faith, as it is generally concerning what men, or the multi- believed, yet it must be acknowledged tades that followed, said of him. To that this faith, so highly rewarded by this first interrogation, as the faith of Christ, was itself a special gift bethe church and the sentiments of his stowed upon St. Peter, preparatory to brethren were not concerned, St. Pe the eminent office to which he was to ter gave no answer : he could not be raised by Him, who, when he have answered it in the name of his crowns the merits of men, crowns his brethren. They themselves answered own gifts. But the apostles believed what they knew about it, that some the divinity of Christ, as well as St. people said he was John the Baptist; Peter, who, when he confessed it, on others, Elias; others, somebody else. this occasion, spoke in their name as Then Christ put the question to them, well as in his own. Long before this oncerning their own thoughts or Nathanael had said, Rabbi, thou art faith. "But you, (for thus should the Son of God. Jo. i. 49. Several of the passage be translated) whom do the apostles, who were in the ship, You say that I am?" Who now can belonging to Peter, after having seen doubt but our Saviour required that all Christ walk upon the waters, and rehis disciples should answer so pointed buke the winds, came and worshipped a question, and profess openly what him, saying, Of a truth thou art the they themselves believed him to be? Son of God. Mat. xiv. 33.: and but Can it be imagined that they all re- lately St. Peter had made the same confused to obey, except Peter; or that fession at Capharnaum in the name of they did not know what to answer? all. Jo. vi. 69. What advantage then But Christ understood it otherwise; had St. Peter in this respect over his for, immediately after, he "charged companions? He had this advantage (not Peter only, but in general) his that it was to him the revelation of disciples, that they should tell no man this fundamental truth was made. that he was Jesus the Christ." They" Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, had therefore answered his previous question; they had answered with Peter, that he was the Christ, the Son of the living God. But this their an

wer was

returned, not by themselves personally, but by Peter alone, speak ing in their name. "Peter answered." From this very circumstance, it folows, that the privilege of speaking in the name of the apostles, was not first conferred on St. Peter, in conse quence of his having confessed the di

because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven." The reason why it was revealed to him, in preference to any other of the apostles, was, that he had been chosen to be the first among them, head of the church, and destined to confirm them in the faith of Christ's divinity and resurrection, and to communicate that faith to the whole church: "Simon, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou

66

being once converted, confirm thy dignity. "Thou shalt be called C brethren." Luke xxii. 32. Peter cor- phas, which is interpreted Peter," of responded with this special grace; he according to the Protestant transla professed, on all occasions, the divi- tion, a stone." These circumstance nity of his Lord; and so deserved to have been minutely recorded by St hear from his mouth the magnificent John, who was probably an eye-wit promise of having the church built on ness to them, and no doubt made him, the keys of the kingdom of hea- strong impression on the mind of An ven given him in trust, and his decrees, drew, the brother of Simon, who wa whatsoever he should bind or loose, also present. These two disciple sanctioned in heaven. could not fail afterwards to inform th other apostles of them. From thi time therefore we have sufficien ground to believe, that the subsequen elevation of St. Peter to the primac in the kingdom of Christ, was m mystery for the disciples, nor for Pe ter himself, however imperfect an idea he and they had formed at first of that kingdom. This accounts, on the ont hand, for the condescendence of the apostles in allowing Peter to act and speak in their name as he did, though uncommissioned by them, withou ever complaining of it, although the so loudly murmured at the ambition John and James, who only once ha aspired at a precedency among them and, on the other hand, for the con fidence of Peter, in stepping forward upon every occasion, to speak in the name of his brethren, without eve asking their leave.

His first call to these sublime privileges is therefore to be traced to a higher epoch, even to the first interview which he had with our Saviour. Then, before Peter had made any profession of faith, before he had uttered a word, Christ fixed his eyes upon him, with a tender predilection, and changed his common name, which was Simon, into that of Peter. "Jesus, looking upon him, said; thou art Simon, the son of Jona, thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter." Jo. i. 42. Protestants beheld him, beheld him, he said, thou art Simon the son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, a stone." ." This translation, When Jesus beheld him, alters the sense of the passage; the intrusion of the particle when, with the change in the tense of the verb, leading the reader to think that the meaning is merely, "When Jesus saw him," which is far from being the case. The verb here translated to behold, is by the same translators rendered to look upon, Luke xxii. 61. "The Lord turned and looked upon Peter;" and to gaze, Acts i. 11. Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?" It is always used in the New Testament to express a serious and attentive consideration of an object. In this place it evidently means, that Christ, having for some time kept his eyes fixed upon Simon to consider him, or whilst he actually had them fixed on him, called him by his name; thus shewing that he had a knowledge of his person, previous to his coming; and changed his name into another, prophetic of his future

translate, "When he

(To be continued.)

Account of an Ancient Manuscript of St. John's Gospel, in a Letter to the Secretary to the Society of A tiquaries.

(Taken from Vol. XVI. of Archaeologia.) I HEREWITH send to you, for th inspection of the Society, a literary curiosity, namely, a M. S. copy of St John's Gospel, which is certainly be tween eleven and twelve hundred years old, and which is said to have been taken out of the tomb of St. Cuthbert, the celebrated patron-saint of Durham, and Bishop of Lindis farne.

You, Sir, are not ignorant that the body of St. Cuthbert was first raised from his tomb, in the aforesaid island