bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

On this passage, which seems to confer, Origen says, on all Christians what just before had been conferred on Peter alone, he then writes:

"But as it behoved, although something had been said in common to Peter and those who had thrice admonished their brethren, that something special should be conferred on Peter, it was said to him singly, I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens,' before it was said, Whatsoever thou shalt bind,' &c. And if we carefully attend to the letter of the gospel, we shall find that, in what seems to be common to Peter and the admonishers of their brethren, there is a great difference and preeminence in what is said to Peter. It is no trifling difference that Peter should have received the keys of the kingdom, not of one heaven, but of more heavens, and that whatsoever he binds on earth shall be bound, not in one heaven, but in all the heavens, compared with the privileges granted to the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, the effect of whose acts do not reach the heavens, as Peter's, but only one heaven; for their power does not extend, like Peter's, to all the heavens. By how much the better is the person who binds, by so much the more blessed is the person loosed, as his freedom extends through all the heavens."

Of course this is a most fanciful interpretation: nevertheless, however absurdly the doctrine might be deduced, still if Origen had expressly stated that to Peter's government the whole Church was exclusively committed, it would have shown that such was Origen's opinion, and it would have been

a testimony in favour of the Roman doctrine, so far as Origen was concerned. But there is nothing in these remarks indicating any supremacy over the Church. The expressions relate to binding and loosing on earth and in heaven, and they seem to convey powers of awful import; and yet in the primitive Church, as well as in our own, they seem practically to have been reduced to a small compass; and, indeed, what independent powers they convey to the human instrument was never settled. The Ante-Nicene Church said that the human sentence was confirmed if it was just; but the heavenly sentence, it was agreed, did not depend upon the human. Men might be bound on earth, who were loosed in heaven; and loosed on earth, who were bound in heaven. What precise meaning Origen ascribed to this peculiar power given to St. Peter, it is not easy to say. It is possible that at the moment when he was writing (and he wrote very rapidly and extempore), he was struck by the fact that the same powers seemed given to all who had thrice admonished their brethren, that had been given to Peter in return to his heaven-revealed confession, and that he had thought there must be a distinction. Having looked therefore to the letter of the passages, he fancied he had found a difference, which might make a distinction in favour of Peter. To the former he found that their powers of binding and loosing were ratified only in heaven in the singular number, while to Peter the same power would be confirmed in heaven in the plural. What

was the extent of the former power, and what the precise difference between the two, it would have surpassed even Origen to define. But whatever ideas he may have attached to these words, one thing is clear, he could not have meant by them the commission of the government of the Church on earth to Peter exclusively, inasmuch as he admitted that whatever earthly power Peter had, was equally possessed by all those who had thrice admonished their brethren, and also that he shared one heaven in common with them. His peculiar privilege affected some affected some more remote heavens, of which we have no particular knowledge. But this privilege is equally remote from the Roman claims. They admit no partner on earth, or in one heaven, and it is probable that if their theory would enable them to claim no exclusive power on earth, but only in some heaven, whether far off or nigh, they would exhibit little anxiety in vindicating their descent from Peter. It is very clear, therefore, that whatever privilege was supposed by Origen to have been conceded to Peter, owing to his confession, it was not the exclusive government of the Church on earth, as imagined by the Church of Rome.

That this was a momentary and meaningless distinction, may be well assumed on recollecting that in a previous part of Origen's Commentary, the gift of the keys to Peter in this same evangelist, he says:

* Orig. Op. iii. 531.

"But since they who held the office of bishops use, like Peter, this expression of our Lord, and, having taken the keys of the kingdom of heaven (in the plural) from our Lord, teach that what has been bound by them (that is, condemned) is bound also in heaven (plural), we say, that they rightly say, if they have that for which it was said to that Peter, Thou art Peter;' and if they are such as that the Church can be built upon them by Christ, then that these words are properly applied to them. The gates of hell ought not to prevail against those who wish to bind and loose. But if he is bound by the chains of his own sins, in vain does he bind and loose."

By all which Origen meant that every bishop whose faith in Christ was sound like Peter's, and conduct in conformity with the Gospel, had like powers with Peter in binding and loosing on earth and in all the "heavens," whatever might be the sense he applied to the word "heavens."

This I believe to be the substance of all the testimony that can be produced from the Alexandrian Church about St. Peter, in reference to his relative position to his brethren and the Church. Other extracts might be added, but they would be all to the like effect.

It will be seen, therefore, that there is no statement that supports the Roman notion of St. Peter's supremacy, while the whole bearing of Origen's mind is widely opposed to it; and when, as I have said, it is recollected that this supremacy of St. Peter, if true, had had practical results affecting at the time, and ever since the apostolic days, the Churches of Egypt; silence on such a supremacy

is a most conclusive proof that it never had had existence, even in thought.

3. THE WESTERN CHURCH.

We have now to pass in review the writings of the Western Church, and see whether its writers have left behind them any proof that the Church considered its government to have been committed exclusively to the care of St. Peter, and that he had in consequence any superiority over the other apostles.

(1.) The writer nearest to the times of the apostles was Clement, bishop of Rome. In his generally admitted letter to the Corinthian Church, he only once names the apostle; and so far is he from pointing out his supremacy, that if any conclusion might be drawn from what he has said, it would be, that he had entertained a higher estimate of St. Paul's merits than of those of St. Peter. What he has said will be noticed soon.

(2.) The next writer to be introduced is Justin Martyr, whom, although an Oriental by birth, we will class among Western writers. He names the apostles a few times, and alludes to Peter, James, and John as having had their names changed; but there is not the slightest trace, in anything that he has said, of any distinction of power or of supremacy among them. He informed his opponent, Trypho the Jew, that the bells attached to the hem of Aaron's ephod were a type of the apostles, but