should bind on earth should be bound in heaven, &c.; which is exactly the same as he had said to Peter singly; and serves to show, that the promise, mean what it might, was not given to Peter only. The third passage shall be examined afterwards; and, passing by the nomination of Peter, and the mention of the gates of hades, we confine our attention, for the present, to the matter of the keys.

Our first inquiry must be after the signification of the metaphor, which is variously employed in holy Scripture; and this is the more easily ascertained, as the theological language of the synagogue coincides, in the present instance, with that of the Prophets and Evangelists. In short, the "key" denotes either the faculty of teaching, or that of governing. There are gubernative and magisterial keys; and they may use the latter, to whom it is not permitted to handle the former. Here follow two sets of illustrative examples :

The faculty of governing is thus expressed in a prophecy of Isaiah : "I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: and I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open." (xxii. 20—22.) That is, he shall be an absolute King, like other eastern Sovereigns. But the power of our Lord Jesus Christ over his church is absolute; and in his Epistle to the church at Philadelphia, dictated to John the Divine, he claims this honour and dignity for himself alone; and does so in the very style of the prophecy:

"

he that is true, he that hath the key of David," (being King,) "he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no

Ministers. This is true; but neither in the passage now cited, nor in any other, is there evidence that Christ has delegated his royal authority to any nor is it necessary; for he is always and everywhere present to reign over his people. But this manner of expressing incommunicable prerogative was familiar to the Jews, and is found in their ancient writings, of which the following are examples, overlooked, as it would seem, by the commentators on these passages. The author of the Jerusalem Targum on Gen. XXX. 22 writes thus: "There are four keys delivered into the hand of the Lord, who is the ruler of all the world, which he does not intrust to any angel or seraph: the key of rain, the key of nourishment, the key of the sepulchres, and the key of barrenness." This he illustrates by scriptural reference, in the usual manner of the Targumists. And in the Talmudical Tracts, Sanhedrin, and Taánit, it is laid down as a doctrine to be remembered in the conduct of human affairs, and in the offering of prayer, that "there are three keys in the hand of the holy blessed One, which are not given into the hands of any Minister and these are, the key of life, the key of the resurrection of the dead, the key of rains, and some say the key of sustenance."+ The same truth is expressed in the words of Christ: "I have the keys of hell" (or hades) "and of death." (Rev. i. 18.) On which place Wetstein brings a valuable collection of passages, similar to these now cited. And as the Rabbin will say that God does not confide the keys of government unto any creature; so does Christ say that he does not confide the keys of his own incommunicable authority to any man.

פרנסה :

delegate the executive to inferior

He openeth, and no man shutteth; he shutteth, and no man openeth. Hence it follows that he did not give to Peter, nor to the other disciples, the keys of absolute authority to admit into his church, or to exclude from it; and it is worthy of observation, that it was with reference to a question of church communion that the Apostle of the circumcision displayed so culpable a weakness, that St. Paul withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; (Gal. ii. 11;) for through fear of the Jews he would have disowned the Gentile converts, by dealing with them as if they were excommunicate. This is much the same as if one Priest should absolve a dying person, and another refuse him absolution. Would such an one be bound over to hell, or would he be loosed for heaven? For each Priest, being episcopally ordained, is said to have power to bind or loose committed unto him, and his act is said to be ratified in heaven. Our Oxonian Doctors might say, Send the man to purgatory, until the Church shall prevail for his deliverance by her suffrages."

"

The faculty of teaching with authority, pronouncing judgment ex officio, or propounding doctrine ex cathedrá, is indicated by the same emblem. It was mentioned by Christ when reproving the Jewish teachers: "Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." (Luke xi. 52.) They were much like their modern successors. They neither taught well themselves, nor did it please them that any other should; nay, not even Christ. That the "key,' in this place, signifies the office of teaching, is illustrated by an apposite sentence from the tract Semacót, which Lightfoot and others after him produce: "When Samuel the Less died, they hung the key and the note-book of the deceased on his bier," (that is, to be buried with him, as were old synagogue-books lately with Rabbi Herschel, of London,) "because he had no successor, -no one worthy to carry VOL. XXIII.

And

the emblems of his office. the Saviour elsewhere uses implicitly the same figure, when he charges on the Pharisees the sin of having "shut up" the kingdom of heaven-not heaven itself, but the enjoyment of true religion-against the people.

It

Although the verbs "shut," or "lock," and " 'open," or "unlock," would seem most consistent with the idea of a key, the inspired writers, both of the Old and New Testament, prefer to say "bind," and "loose." But a few examples, out of the many which might be adduced, will assist the English reader to understand the phraseology of the passages before us. is said, in Psalm cv. 21, 22, that Pharaoh made Joseph "the Lord of his house, and ruler of all his substance, to bind his Princes at his pleasure, and teach his Senators wisdom." But it does not appear from the history, nor can it be reasonably supposed, that Joseph did literally bind the Princes of the Egyptian court at his pleasure; nor that his Sovereign would have dared to invest him with such a dangerous and unnecessary prerogative. But the exegetical clause, And teach his Senators wisdom," defines the meaning of so remarkable an attribution of authority. The Septuagint translators understood it in this sense, and, accordingly, rendered the Hebrew thus: Τοῦ παιδεῦσαι τοὺς ἄρχοντας αὐτοῦ ὡς avTÒV, To teach his Princes as himself;" reading instead of

46

With the Septuagint agree-בנפשו

the Ethiopic, St. Jerome, the Itala, the Vulgate, the Mozarabic Psalter, and, in short, all the published Latin versions and Fathers, who agree in rendering, Ut erudiret Principes, &c., "That he might teach his Princes," &c.: so that there are a host of witnesses attesting that "to bind" signifies "to teach." Another host of modern translators might be appealed to; but one of them, Martin Luther, shall speak

• כשמות שמואל קטון תלו מפתחו ופנקטו של מת בארונו מפני שלא היה לו בן:

2 K

Perhaps the phrase came into use after the Babylonish captivity, as part of the artificial phraseology then engrafted on the Hebrew. There is an interesting example of the corresponding unbind in the Book of Daniel. When the mysterious handwriting appeared on the wall of the palace, and Belshazzar had sought in vain to get it explained, the Queen recommended Daniel as a person likely to satisfy his anxiety, by explaining the mysterious characters; saying, that in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar "an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and showing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel." (Dan. v. 12.) In the original Chaldee, an explainer of dreams is

no "a looser of dreams;" and a dissolver of doubts 18 POP "an untier of knots." The King himself repeats the same words in addressing Daniel; so that this manner of speaking was current, it would seem, at the court of Babylon.

But a yet more apposite example occurs in the first book of Esdras: "Esdras took the book of the law before the multitude; for he sate honourably before them all. And they all stood upright when he expounded the law." (ix. 45, 46.) These words, "When he expounded the law," are, in the original Greek, ἐν τῷ λῦσαι τὸν νόμον, during the loosing of the law;" where exposition of the law of God is called "loosing," or unbinding." The Romanized Latin version, faithful to the cause of sacerdotal power, neatly introduces a various reading, -cum absolvisset legem, instead of solvisset; making it to say, "When he had finished the law." But those

66

binders and loosers committed themselves, by that evasion, into a tacit acknowledgment confirmatory of our exposition of the figure.

Perhaps it is the universal manner of the Orientals to employ these verbs in the same sense. One sentence from the History of the Dynasties, by Abool Faraj, a writer of the thirteenth century, may be produced here. Describing a persecution suffered by some Jews, he says, "He who yesterday was a person in authority, and bound and loosed, and was clothed in splendid apparel, is to-day clad in sackcloth, and blackens his hands, as if he were a dyer, and not a scribe." (Dynast. xi.) So that it was the office of the scribe, as well as of the Priest, to bind and loose.

If the terms be taken distinctly, "to bind " may signify to instruct. or place under moral discipline; and "to loose" is to explain, or expound, law or doctrine. If they be taken together, "to bind and to loose" is to exercise the authority of teacher, speaking, as we say, ex cathedrá.

And here it must be noted, that things, not persons, are the subjects. Christ does not commit the persons, but the doctrines, to the ministration of his Apostles. He does not say ἐάν τινα, "whomsoever," but dear, "whatsoever, thou bindest," &c. Lightfoot, in his Hore on the first of these passages, has collected many quotations to the point. To express difference of opinion between Doctors, it is said that one binds, and another looses: that one consulted a wise man, and he bound it; therefore he will not consult another, lest that other should loose it.

And some one is cited as saying, It was never known that they loosed us a crow, (permitting it for food,) nor bound us a pigeon (forbidding it to be eaten). And it is in the ordinary style of the synagogue to say "bound" for forbidden, and "loosed" for allowed. From all this we infer, that the keys of the kingdom of heaven are the faculty of teaching

* For the originals refer to Lightfoot.

But there is an obvious difference between ordinary and extraordinary teaching; between the infallible instruction of the Apostles, and the expository lessons of uninspired Preachers. The former is obligatory on the conscience; but the latter is not, except as far as it consists therewith.

The only questions now remaining, in regard to our first two passages, are, how St. Peter and his fellow-disciples exercised their prerogative; whether others can do the same; and, what is meant by the ratification of their acts in heaven.

St. Peter and his colleagues in the apostolate bound and loosed in the manner explained above. By their divinely-inspired discourses and writings, they gave the law of life and doctrine to the Christian church in their time, and in all succeeding ages. As the Father had sent Christ, so Christ sent them. As the Father had given Christ a kingdom, so Christ gave them a kingdom, and set them on twelve thrones, or seats of magisterial dignity, to judge-that is, to declare judgment to the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke xxii. 29, 30.) He breathed on them, signifying the plenary inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which he then bestowed on them as an extraordinary gift; and appointed them to be witnesses of bis death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. They most faithfully discharged this commission,preaching, teaching, and witnessing for Christ as no other men could do. But they never professed to admit into, nor to exclude from, heaven, although the Jews were but too familiar with terribly-sounding forms of priestly excommunication. They never assumed authority in the matter of any man's personal salvation. They never pronounced such words as, "By the power committed unto me, I absolve thee from all thy sins." Whatever else they were commanded to do, they completely performed. They raised the dead, healed the sick, cast out lepers, spake in foreign languages,

sinners, and exhorted them to ask of him forgiveness of their sins; but they neither bound nor loosed one soul. They bound not Simon Magus, Elymas, nor Ananias and Sapphira; nor did they loose the multitudes at the day of Pentecost, Cornelius, the Ethiopian eunuch, nor the Philippian jailer. Had Christ invested them with so supernatural a prerogative, so calculated to give dignity to their ministry, and to conciliate the veneration of mankind, they could not have buried the inestimably precious talent, nor refrained from making full proof of their authority, without incurring the guilt of disobedience, and of contemptuous infidelity to the august commission. Therefore we cannot but infer that they did not understand the promise of their Lord as uttered in a sense at variance with the established forms of language, as conveying the doctrine which the clerical binders and loosers of later ages teach.

But if they had been empowered to damn or save,-which, however, cannot be granted,-it would not follow that others after them should be; for the Apostles, as Apostles, had no successors: else would there have been a succession of men able to work miracles and write canonical Scriptures. The Church of Rome cannot evade this conclusion; and, therefore, she boldly allows it, and professes to have held Councils, and that some of her members have written books, by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, of authority in matters of faith. She says, that she can still perform miracles, and does often delude the vulgar with lying wonders, and pretends to perform sacramental acts of divine efficacy, by help of the Holy Spirit; and this to keep up the notion of an apostolical succession! Just in the same way did a few enthusiasts, some years ago, profess to "speak with new tongues," and did vociferate an unintelligible jargon, to the reproach of religion, and to their own shame. No rational person expects to witness such miraculous gifts now, because neither promised

nor needed; while yet, if the doctrine we controvert were true, and the special mission of the Apostles did extend into all ages, they should be sought earnestly by prayer in faith.

We must, therefore, understand the binding and loosing which was exercised by the first and infallible masters of Christendom to have been exercised by themselves alone, and receive their work in the books of the New Testament; for in these, agreeably to an intimation of St. Peter, they diligently made provision (σovdáčovTes) that, after their decease, we might have those things always in remembrance. (2 Peter i. 15.)

But how is that bound in heaven, which the Apostles bound or loosed on the earth? According to the Popish notion, sinners might be bound in hell, certainly not in heaven, which is not a place of bondage. It is not a local and real obligation or remission that is spoken of, but a ratification in heaven of that which has been done here below. To the proof:

When the Apostles were laying down the law, either by the living voice, or by the pen, it was not they who spake, but the Spirit of their Father which spake in them; (Matt. x. 20;) and they preached or expounded as he gave them utterance. (Acts ii. 4.) The work was not so much theirs, as of God, who was working with them. But although the fact is undoubted, and no one will dispute that their ministry was approved in heaven, the phrase before us is to be explained; for which purpose we must refer to a few examples demonstrative of the use of similar expressions by the Jewish theologians. A few shall be extracted from the volumes of Wetstein and Schoettgen. The entire note of the former commentator is as follows:-" Bereschith, R. lxxv. 8. The blessed just ones who are blessed in heaven, are also blessed on the earth, (Isai. lxv. 16,) that thou mayest know that with all the blessings with which Isaac blessed Jacob, God equally blessed him from above. Berachoth, i. 4. Rabbi

Chanina the elder says, in the name of a Rabbi who has committed a sin of which he is ashamed, that all sins are forgiven him. But how shall we know that he is forgiven in heaven? Sanhedrin, fol. 105, 1. And you may consider the words of Job, He looseth the bond of Kings,' &c.; (xii. 18;) that is to say, thou hast decreed below, and the most high God hath confirmed thy word above. Targ. Cant. viii. 17. When thou sittest, and absolvest or condemnest, I will consent to all that thou doest. (Ruth iii. 17.) From which we know how it is decreed in heaven. Sanhedrin, fol. 103, 2; Job xxxviii. 15. Why is the letter y of the word 'y suspended ? Because when a man is made poor () on the earth, he becomes poor in heaven; that is, when a wicked man is hateful to the upright in this world, he becomes hateful to God also in the world above. (John xx. 23.)" The cabbalistical nonsense of this last passage does not invali date the illustration of the texts before us, derived from the above quotations. The Jews believed that whatever the Priests did by divine command, was confirmed in the heavenly sanctuary; and the author of the book Sohar, on Leviticus, says, that "when the Priest, on the day of atonement, offers two goats on the earth, in the like manner they are offered in heaven; and so of lots. The Priest casts lots on the earth, and a Priest casts lots in heaven. As one goat is left for God on the earth, so is one left in heaven," &c.

The idea of which we have now seen but a puerile representation, is prevalent in many passages of the New Testament, and arises from the intimate relation between things temporal and eternal. So the Christians on earth and in heaven are said to be "one entire family." (Eph. iii. 15.) So, at the same time that angels attributed glory to God in the highest, or heaven, peace was proclaimed on the earth, and goodwill towards men. (Luke ii. 14.) The consecrated mansions, or chambers, of the temple of Jerusalem were chosen by Christ to represent