Romanism in the light of history

II H

llHllllilllllllill

I

1 1 mm in ■ tk

■V

I il lllllll i

I

I it i

11 nu

If

IB II I!

I mm mm

Class.

Book.

Copyright^?.

COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT

By the Same Jluthor

Christ and Modern Unbelief

Present-Day Problems of Christian Thought

Gospel in the Christian Year

Problem of the Pentateuch

A Soldier's Recollections

By

Randolph H. McKim, D.C.L.

Rector of the Church of the Epiphany, Washington, D. C.

" We have a Dictator before whom we must prostrate ourselves, and be silent, and bow our heads, This Dictator is History"

'H \hi<x xai (jl6vy) gcXy)0g)<; K^aX^ eaxtv 6 Xpiar&s — s. basil.

G. P. Putnam's Sons New York and London

Gbe Umfcftetbocfcer ipreas 1914

\1

+v

Copyright, 1914

BY

RANDOLPH H. McKIM

Go

THE MEMORY OF MY REVERED FRIEND AND TEACHER

WILLIAM SPARROW

Preface

THE history and purpose of the following essays may be briefly stated:

When the famous encyclical of Pope Leo XIII. on The Reunion of Christendom was republished in the American press, it seemed fitting, as well as respectful, that Protestants should make some acknowledgment of such an appeal.

Summoned by the kindly voice of the illustrious head of the Roman Church to restore unity to Christendom by submission to the sovereign spiritual authority of the Roman Pontiff, and invited to make this submission in the name of Holy Scripture, and of the ancient Fathers of the Church, I ventured to answer in an Open Letter, citing the Holy Father himself to appear at the bar of history, and justify the tremendous claim which he makes upon our consciences.

The second essay in this volume is an attempt to exhibit, in a brief space, the verdict of history (which is neither Roman Catholic nor Anglican) upon all the essential points of doctrine and jurisdiction contained in the said encyclical of Pope Leo XIII. on Christian unity. My letter bore date, Feast of the Annunciation, 1897.

The third essay, on the " Fundamental Prinvi Preface

ciples of Protestantism," contains the substance of three lectures, delivered in the city of New York in my parish church, in the year 1879, in reply to a lecture delivered in St. Ann's Roman Catholic Church, New York, on the Results of the Protestant Reformation, by the very Rev. Thomas S. Preston, V.G., and subsequently published by Robert Coddington, New York.

The pamphlet to which these lectures is a reply may be taken as a fair specimen of the Roman Catholic argument. The then Pope, though esteemed a liberal man, urged against Protestantism, in one of his encyclicals, some of the same accusations, and Mr. Mallock's articles in the Nineteenth Century, at the same period, took up some of the same points.

The fourth essay is a reprint of certain Open Letters, published in the autumn of 1908, which were occasioned by a sermon in the Roman Catholic Cathedral of Westminster, London, by Cardinal Gibbons, claiming for the Roman Catholic Church in America the honor of being the first to establish religious liberty in the New World.

I have given in an introductory essay some account of the enormous losses sustained by the Roman Catholic Church in the different countries of Europe since the promulgation of the dogma of papal infallibility in 1870, and also an estimate of the present condition and prospects of that Church in the United States.

R. H. McK.

Contents

PAGE

I. The Present Outlook for Romanism . 3

II. Pope Leo XIIFs Encyclical on The Reunion of Christendom

IV Was Peter The Rock?

I UNDERTAKE in the following pages to establish the correctness of my statements in the foregoing "Open Letter, " and to illustrate them as occasion may require.

Let us begin with the great words of Christ, which are the alleged foundation of the Papacy. It has been asked above, "Should we not rather interpret as St. Chrysostom does, and as many ancient Fathers do, On this rock I will build my Church — that is, on the faith of his confession?"

In justification of this statement, let the following passages be considered :

St. Chrysostom:

1. Si> el Ilfrpos, teal iirl ra&ry I. "Thou art Peter, and tJ irtrpa olKodofAr)<ru fwv ri}*> upon this rock will I build my iiacXriaiap, tovt^cti, ry wta-rei church — that is, the faith of Tijs bfwXoyLas. Horn. LIV, p. his confession. "

2. 'EttI raijry t% ntrpa, oifK 2. " Upon this rock, he said, direv M rf n^rpv obre yap iirl not upon Peter: for not on the rip avOpAiry, dW > iirl ttjp icIvtlv man but upon his faith in tt]v tavrov 4KK\r)<riap (#Kod6/Ar)<T€. Himself did He build His Chrys. Tom. V, Or. 163. * Church."

1 Quoted by Bp. Barrow.

3. Contrasting the more perfect faith of Peter with that of Nathaniel, he says:

'AXX' ws dir7)pTL(rfiiv7]s avTip 3. "But as if his faith had

TTjs iri<TT€U)s, tt)p iKK\ii(riav€<pr]<r€v been made perfect, he said he

iirl ofioXoyiav oUodofM^etv ttjv would build the Church upon

iKelvov. Horn, xxi, on John i. his confession. " 50, p. 120, C.

One of my critics 1 labors to break the force of this interpretation given by the great Bishop and Orator of Constantinople. He quotes several passages which show this Father's exalted opinion of the position and authority of Peter, as "the mouth of all the apostles, the summit of the whole college, " and then he cries out that I have perverted history by a " partial citation."

But not all this can shake the fact which alone I alleged, that St. Chrysostom interpreted the Rock to mean not Peter but the confession which Peter made. 2 In challenging the interpretation given in Pope Leo's Encyclical, I quoted St, Chrysostom and St. Gregory the Great as supporting the view that the Church was not built upon Peter as the Rock, but upon Peter's Confession of the Divinity of Christ. No matter, therefore, what the views of these Fathers upon Peter's Primacy, their opinion upon the true interpretations of that famous passage stands. But, after

1 Father Stafford.

a In placing St. Chrysostom in the category of those Fathers who interpret the Rock as not Peter but Peter's confession, we have the support of the learned Roman Catholic theologian, Rt. Rev. Dr. Kenrick, Archbishop of St. Louis. (See below.)

all, what was the view of the golden-mouthed orator of Constantinople upon the Primacy of Peter?

It is true he calls him "the mouth of the apostles' ' (t& aTo^a t<dv axocruoXcov), and again, "the coryphaeus of the apostles" (twv axocTrfXcov xopu- (patoq) . We do not deny that St. Peter was the leader and spokesman of the Apostolic College. That is a very different thing from being the "foundation" of the Church, or its absolute ruler, or its infallible head. My critic, however, alleges the following from St. Chrysostom: "He placed this man Peter over the whole world," and this again: "He set over it Peter, the doctor of the whole world, to whom he gave the keys of heaven, to whose will and power he trusted all things."

But this same Chrysostom elsewhere styles St. John "the Pillar of the Churches throughout the world" (6 gt6Xo<; tg>v xaxa tyjv oJxoujjlIvtqv IxxXiqffiwv), and St. Paul he calls "the apostle of the world" (ty)<; otxouyivr)<; , A%6<jzo\oq) f who "had the care of the whole world" (oXoxXifaou tyjs ofxou- Hivt)<; 9povd8a e'xo>v). Again, he contrasts St. Paul with Michael, to whom was committed the care of the Jewish nation, and says, "But Pattf was entrusted with the earth and the sea and the inhabited and uninhabited parts of the world" (IlauXoq Ss ytjv, xal OaXaixav, xal t^v o(xoufjievY)v xal tyjv dohajTov).

If in one place he calls St. Peter "the teacher of the whole world" (tyjs oJxouyivYjq StSdaxaXov. Horn.

88 on John, p. 527 B.), in another place he styles St. Paul "the Father of the whole world' ' OuaTYjp ty]<; oho\j\L&vr\q. De Laudib. Pauli. Horn. 3 [II, 490]). _

Again, in his Commentary on the Galatians, speaking of St. Paul's visit to St. Peter after his conversion, he says:

yirjdtp Uhpov deo/xepos, firjdl " He asked nothing of Peter,

ttjs €K€ivov 0w^s, d\\' 1(t6tl/ios nor of his voice, being equal in

&v avrf* ir\hv yhp ovdtv ipw honor with him — for I will not

r<?ws. Epist. ad Gal., Cap. i now say more," implying his

[x. 677]. superiority to Peter.

These passages demonstrate that the lofty titles given by this writer to St. Peter were not intended to exalt him to a pinnacle of authority and power over the other apostles, since titles to the full as high-sounding are by him conferred upon two other apostles. They also afford, inferentially, a criterion by which we may judge of the value of similar rhetorical exaggerations of expression in the Fathers generally.

St. Augustine:

1. Sermo CCXCV. In Na- 1. "Upon this rock will I tali Apost., p. 1 194. Super build my church. Upon this hanc petram aedincabo Eccle- rock will I build, (that is) the siam meam. Super hanc pe- faith which thou dost confess: tram aedificabo, fidem quam upon this which thou hast said, conflteris. Super hoc quod Thou art the Christy the Son of dixisti, Tues Christus filius Dei the Living God, I will build my ww, aedincabo ecclesiam meam. church. "

2. Again, in his 13th Sermon (not to quote other passages), Augustine says:

"Thou art Peter, and on this rock which thou hast confessed — on this rock which thou hast known, saying Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God — I will build my Church upon myself, the Son of the living God ; i" will build it on Me and not Me on thee. "

It is true that the great Bishop of Hippo was not always consistent with himself in his interpretation of the passage. He says of himself, writing in his old age: "When I was still a Presbyter, I wrote a book ... in which I said in a certain place, concerning the apostle Peter, that the Church is founded on him as a rock. . . . But I know that I have afterwards, in very many places, so expounded the Lord's saying, ' Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my Church/ as to be understood of Him whom Peter confessed. . . . And so Peter, named from this Rock, would typify the person of the Church which is built upon this Rock, . . . but of these two meanings let the reader choose the more probable.' ' Commenting on this the Bishop of Manchester says: "The last word, then, of St. Augustine is this — that the Rock meant either Christ or Peter; and he thinks the matter so unimportant that he leaves it to each reader to select which of the two senses seems to him the more probable. The Rock is Christ or Peter; Peter's Chair it cannot be. The interpretation, if he ever held it, is abandoned." 1

1 See Charge of the Ven. Wm. M. Sinclair, D.D., Archdeacon of London (1896), p. 39.

A remarkable testimony was given as to this much disputed passage at the Vatican Council of 1870 by no less a prelate than the Roman Catholic Archbishop of St. Louis, Rt. Rev. Dr. Kenrick, in a speech prepared for, though not delivered in, the Council, but nevertheless published to the world. In it he quotes with approval a treatise which he says had been circulated in the Council, wherein it was shown that there were five distinct interpretations of St. Matt. xvi. 18 given by the Fathers, and draws two conclusions: first, that if we ought to follow the greater number of the Fathers in the interpretation of this passage, then we are bound to hold it certain that by the Rock we ought to understand not Peter but the Faith prof essed by Peter; and, second, that either no argument at all, or at least no probable argument, can be derived in support of the Primacy of Peter from the words, "Upon this Rock will I build my Church."

I give a part of the Archbishop's speech. It is enough fully to justify my statement that "many other ancient Fathers interpret the Rock to mean not Peter but Peter's confession/ ' It will be observed that this learned writer finds several of the Fathers advocating now one, now another of the five interpretations; also that forty-four out of eighty-five Fathers examined interpret the passage as I have done, among them one of the Popes, Leo the Great, while only seventeen hold that Peter was the Rock; and finally that, since

Encyclical of Leo XIII.

Roman Catholics are bound to accept no interpretation of Scripture that is not supported by the unanimous consent of the Fathers, they cannot consistently build the primacy of Peter upon this passage.

Archbishop Kenrick:

"Invenimus quinque divers a s interpretationes v e r b i ' Petra* in loco allata; ' quarum prima asserit,' — verba exscribo, ' super Petrum aedificatam ecclesiam,' quam sequuntur Patres septemdecim et interistos Origenes, Cyprianus, Hieronymus, Hilarius, Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Leo Magnus, Augustinus. Secunda interpretatio verba ilia: 'super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam' intelligit, Ecclesiam sedificatam esse super omnes apostolos quos Petrus propter Primatum in se representabat.

Et hanc sequuntur octo Patres et inter hos Origines, Cyprianus, Hieronymus, Augustinus, Theodoretus. Tertia interpretatio asserit verba ilia: 'Super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam' intelligenda esse de fide, quam Confessus erat Petrus, ut, scilicet, haec fides, haec professio fidei, qua credimus Christum esse Filium Dei vivi, sit aeternum et immobile fundamentum Ecclesiae.

Et haec interpretatio est omni-

" We find five different interpretations of the word ' Petra ' in the place quoted, ' of which the first asserts' — I quote the words — 'that the church is built upon Peter/ which opinion seventeen Fathers adopt, and among them Origen Cyprian, Jerome, Hilary, Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the Great, Augustine. The second interpretation understands those words 'upon this rock I will build my Church, ' to mean that He would build His Church upon all the apostles whom Peter on account of his primacy represented in his own person. And this interpretation is followed by eight Fathers, and among them by Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Theodoret.

The third interpretation asserts that those words 'Upon this rock I will build my church* are to be understood of the faith which Peter had confessed, to the end that this faith, this profession of faith wherebv we believe Christ to um solemnior, quam sequuntur Patres doctoresque quadraginta quatuor : et inter istos, ex Oriente, Gregorius Nissenus, Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Chrysostomus, Theophylactus ; ex Occidente, Hilarius, Ambrosius, Leo Magnus; ex Africa, Augustinus. Quarta interpretatio assent, verba ilia: 'super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam,' — intelligenda esse de ilia petra, quam confessus fueret Petrus, i.e.

Christum, ut scilicet Ecclesia inaedificata sit super Christum ; et hanc interpretationem sequuntur Patres doctoresque sexdecim. Quinta Patrum interpretatio nomine petrae intelligit etiam ipsos fideles, qui credentes Christum esse Filium Dei constituuntur lapides vivi, ex quibus aedificatur Ecclesia.

be the Son of the Living God, might be the eternal and immovable foundation of the church. And this interpretation is of all others the most weighty, inasmuch as forty-four Fathers and doctors follow it; and among them, from the East, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Theophylact; from the West, Hilary, Ambrose, Leo the Great; from Africa, Augustine. The fourth interpretation asserts that those words 'Upon this rock I will build my church' is to be understood of that rock which Peter had confessed, i. e.

Christ, to the end that the church may be built upon Christ; and this interpretation sixteen Fathers and doctors follow. The fifth interpretation of the Fathers understands by the name of the rock also the faithful themselves, who believing Christ to be the Son of God are constituted the living stones of which the church is built.

"Ex hoc sequitur aut nullum omnino argumentum in probationem Primatus ex verbis 'super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam,' aut non nisi tenuiter probabile, suppiditari. ... Si majorem numerum Patrum in hac re

"From this it follows either that no argument at all in proof of the primacy can be derived from the words ' Upon this rock I will build my Church,' or at least one of slender probability. ... If we ought in this matter to

Encyclical of Leo XIII.

sequi debemus, tunc pro certo tenendum est per Petram, Fidem a Petro professam, non autem Petrum, fidem profitentem, intelligi oportere. "

Concio Petri Kenrick archiepiscopi S. Ludovici. See Friedrich, Documenta ad Illus. Cone, Vati. Vol. I, p. 195, 196.

"Obvium est ex verbis 'Tu es Petrus/ &c., argumentum peremptorem in probationem etiam Primatus educi nequire.' Id., p. 198. * follow the greater number of the Fathers, then it must be held for certain that by the Rock we ought to understand the Faith professed by Peter, not Peter who professed the Faith."

Address of Peter Kenrick, archbishop of St. Louis, prepared for the Vatican Council of 1870. See Friedrich, Documents Illustrating the Vatican Council, Vol. I, p. 195, 196.

Again: "It is obvious that from the words 'Thou art Peter/ &c, a conclusive argument in proof of the primacy cannot be drawn." Id., p. 198.

x The Council of Trent itself declares that the "one and firm foundation against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail' ' is the Nicene Symbol of Faith.

PRELIMINARY PROPOSITIONS NECESSARY TO THE PAPAL CLAIMS

SO much may suffice for this famous passage which has been made the chief, if not the sole, Scriptural foundation upon which the stupendous structure of the Papacy has been reared — it would be more exact to say by which it has been defended. In the light of the facts now brought forward, it can no longer be claimed as a support for that system by any candid controversialist. The principle by which Rome has bound herself precludes her (as Archbishop Kenrick points out) from relying upon these words of Christ in defending herself — nay, compels her to reject that interpretation as untrue — and if she were consistent with herself the words which encircle the dome of St. Peter's:

"TU ES PETRUS, ET SUPER HANC PETRAM ^DIFICABO ECCLESIAM MEAM,"

would long since have been erased.

But suppose the case were different, and it could be established that Peter was the rock on which Christ declared He would build His Church, would the Roman claim be thereby established?

This conclusion is often assumed, but it is far indeed from being true. There are several other propositions of the greatest importance which would have first to be established. Let me enumerate them:

1. In building His Church upon Peter, Christ made him the supreme head and ruler of the Church, to whom all the rest of the apostles and officers of the Church were to be subject.

2. These powers of jurisdiction and government were transmitted to the successors of St. Peter.

3. St. Peter was the bishop of Rome, and the Popes are his successors.

But not one of these propositions can be established either from Scripture or from the writings of the Fathers of the first four centuries. As to the first, as I have pointed out in the text of my Letter, no words of Christ can be alleged in its support. Pope Leo XIII's statement that various prerogatives were conferred upon Peter alone, in exclusion of the rest of the Apostles, is clean contrary to Holy Scripture. The power of forgiving and retaining, the commission to make disciples of all nations, the mission to feed Christ's sheep, the gift of the Holy Ghost — all these were conferred equally upon the other Apostles, as I have shown, and as the early Fathers testify. If Peter was singled out after the Resurrection for especial attention by the Lord in His instructions to the Eleven, it was because he, being the leader by age and by temperament, had professed peculiar fidelity, and had been most conspicuous in his infidelity in the hour of trial. If the Lord thrice said to him, "Feed my sheep, " he also, in plain allusion to his triple denial, thrice demanded of him, " Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?" Now, it is further evident that if such powers had been conferred upon Peter there must have been (i) a clear statement of them — which we nowhere find, and (2) some evidence in the subsequent New Testament history of the exercise of these powers. But (as I have again shown above, there is no evidence whatever of Peter's having claimed or exercised such prerogatives, whereas there is evidence of the contrary. This being the case, it is not strange that none of my critics has made any attempt to meet the Scriptural argument upon this point — nor, indeed, has made any allusion to it.

As to the second proposition, viz., that these extraordinary powers and prerogatives were intended to pass to the successors of St. Peter, there is not a syllable in Holy Scripture that can by any ingenuity be made to support such a view, and I am not aware that the Roman controversialists attempt to bring forward any Scripture for this end. Certainly Pope Leo, in his Encyclical here considered, does not.

As to the third thesis, that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome and that the Popes are his successors, there appears to be no historical evidence that this apostle ever was bishop of Rome. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (a.d. 180), says that St. Peter taught at Rome and suffered martyrdom there; but then he says the same thing of St. Paul, and neither fact establishes his episcopal jurisdiction in Rome. Tertullian's statement that Clement was ordained at Rome by Peter, not only fails to establish the fact that he was bishop of Rome, but is itself plainly a complete mistake, since Clement did not become bishop of Rome till a.d. 90, twenty-three years after St. Peter's death, which occurred a.d 67.

In truth, the first bishop of Rome was not Peter, but Linus, as is incontestably established by the testimony of Irenaeus. Thus the whole theory of St. Peter's twenty-five years' Episcopate at Rome, when brought to the bar of historical investigation, collapses, and with it the Papal claim of inheritance of supreme power as his legitimate successors. s

It is interesting to compare the answer made by the Eastern Church to Pope Leo XIII. upon this point. It is found in the Patriarchal and Synodical Encyclical Letter addressed to the Metropolitans and Bishops by the Patriarch of Constantinople and his brethren, 2 in the month of August, 1895:

"When we refer back to the Fathers and to the (Ecumenical Councils of the first nine centuries, we

1 See Archdeaon Sinclair's Charge ut supra, pp. 33, 34. 8 Published by John & E. Bumpus, Oxford St., London.

find that the bishop of Rome was never recognized as the supreme authority or as the infallible head of the Church; on the contrary, each bishop was the head and president of his own local church, being subject only to synodical decrees and to the decisions of the Church at large, which alone is infallible. From this general rule the bishop of Rome was least exempt, as the history of the Church shows, since the only everlasting Chief and the immortal Head of the Church is our Lord Jesus Christ ; for ' He is the head of the body of the Church/ he who hath said to his divine disciples and apostles on his assumption into heaven, 'and lo, I am with you alway unto the end of the world/ Peter, whom the papists — on the strength of the Apocryphal Pseudo-Clementines of the Second Century — have purposely imagined to be the founder of the Roman Church and its first bishop, — Peter is seen in Scripture discussing as an equal with his equals of the apostolic Synod of Jerusalem. On another occasion he is bitterly reproached by Paul, as is manifest in the Epistle to the Galatians. . . . Such being the inspired teaching of the apostles, as regards the foundation and the head of the Church of God, it is but natural that the Divine Fathers, who are immediately connected with apostolic tradition, should have had and could have conceived no idea of an absolutistic supremacy either in the apostle Peter or in the bishops of Rome, nor could they attribute to the gospel text in question an interpretation wholly foreign to the Church, but only its true and orthodox meaning. They could not invent arbitrarily and of their own will a novel dogma, erecting upon a pretended succession to Peter an overbearing supremacy of the Roman bishop.

"This could be even less so, considering that the

Church of Rome was founded, not by Peter, of whose apostolic work in Rome history knows nothing, but mainly through the disciples of the heaven-soaring apostle of the nations, Paul, whose apostolic ministry in Rome is clear to all men" (pp. 7-9).

VI Peter And The Power Of The Keys

REFERRING to the power of the keys, the Papal Encyclical declares, "Thus the power of St. Peter is supreme and absolutely independent/' And again, "Many (prerogatives) were bestowed upon St. Peter apart from the Apostles, " among which are enumerated "the power of forgiving and retaining/ ' and "the authority to feed." Such an assertion is completely overthrown by the New Testament record, which shows that these powers were conferred equally upon the other apostles. Thus in St. John xx. 23, we read that the Risen Lord said to the assembled Apostles:

"Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."

As stated in the text of my Letter, the Fathers assert equality of power and authority among the apostles.

For example, the illustrious Isidore, Bp. of Seville (ob. a.d. 636).

Quoting Matt. xvi. 18, he proceeds:

Encyclical of Leo XIII.

"Hie ergo ligandi, solvendique potestatem primus accepit, primusque ad fidem populum virtute suae praedicationis adduxit, siquidem et caeteri apostoli cum Petro pari consortio honoris et potestatis effecti sunt."

Omciis II, Cap v., p. 456 (ed. of 1778).

Bishop Barrow quotes the following: *

"This man therefore first received the power of binding and loosing, and he first led the people unto faith by virtue of his preaching, since the other apostles also were clothed with a fellowship of honor and power equal to that of Peter."

St. Cyprian:

"Hoc erant utique et caeteri apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis." Again: "Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat." Cyp. de Un. Eccl.

B., p. 93.

"Certainly the other apostles were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal fellowship of honor and power. "

And: "After his resurrection, he distributes to all the apostles equal power."

St. Chrysostom :

"Aeucvtis, 8ti ttjs airrjs ^Karros &w£\av<rev d££as." Gall. ii. 8. (Of St. John) "6 rAs k\&% X m rwv otyavQp." Praef. Evan. Joh.

" Showing, that each one received the same dignity."

"He (St. John) hath the keys of heaven."

He calls St. Paul tafot^ov auT<p, " Equal in honor to him" (St. Peter).

St. Cyril :

"JUrpos Kal 'Ico&ppys IvSrifwi "Peter and John equal to

dXX^Xois." one another in honor. "

1 Supremacy of the Pope, p. 93 seq.

Theophylact :

" Is it said to Peter alone * I will give thee'? Nay, it is given also to all the apostles."

Origen :

"Are the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, then, given to Peter only? And shall none other of the blessed [apostles] receive them? But if the promise 'I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven ' is common also to the others, why are not also all the things spoken before and following after as addressed to Peter?"

Abp. Kenrick, in his speech for the Vatican Council, quotes the following:

5/. Augustine:

"'Tibi dabo claves regni ccelorum,' tanquam ligandi et solvendi solus acceperit potestatem: cum et illud unus pro omnibus dixerit, et hoc cum omnibus tanquam personam generis ipsius unitatis acceperit; ideo unus pro omnibus, quia unitas est in omnibus."

" ' I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, ' as if he alone received the power of binding and loosing; since he, one speaking for all, made that confession, and so received this (promise) for all, as if he bore the person of their unity; therefore one for all, because the unity is in all. "

Encyclical of Leo XIII.

St. Ambrose:

"Tibi inquit, dabo claves regni ccelorum; et ut solvas et ligas . . . Quod Petro dicitur, apostolis dicitur." In Ps. xxviii. n. 37-

" To thee he says, ' I will give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and that thou mayst loose and bind.' . . . What he says to Peter, he says to the Apostles. "

Bishop Jewel quotes the following (in the Latin version) from

St. Basil:

1 ' Omnes [pastoreset doctores] ex aequo et ligant, et absolvunt, quern ad modum ille [Petrus]."

In Libello de Vita Solitaria, cap. 23 [II. 755]. See Jewel, vol. ii., p. 170.

And this from

"All pastors and teachers equally both bind and absolve in the same manner as he [Peter]."

St. Jerome:

"At dices, super Petrum fundatur ecclesia: licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes apostolos fiat, et cuncti claves regni ccelorum accipiant, et ex aequo super eos ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur." Adv. Jovinianum, lib. I. [iv. pt. 2, 168].

Compare

" But you say, the Church is founded upon Peter; although in another place that same (act of founding) is done upon all the apostles, and all receive the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and equally upon them is the strength of the Church imposed. "

St. Augustine: