Chapter XLII: Act 46: , Parl. 3, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 24, Parl. 11, King James VI., do (18)

And accordingly Sir Henry Spelman observes, that the bishop and the earl sat together in one court, and heard jointly the causes of Church and commonwealth; as they yet do in parliament. And as the bishop had twice in the year two general synods, wherein all the clergy of his diocese of all sorts were bound to resort for matters concerning the Church; so also there was twice in the year a general assembly of all the shire for matters concerning the commonwealth, wherein, without exception, all kinds of estates were required to be present, dukes, earls, barons, and so downward of the laity; and especially the bishop of that diocese among the clergy. For in those days the temporal lords did often sit in synods with the bishops, and the bishops in like manner in the courts of the temporality, and were therein not only necessary, but the principal judges themselves. Thus by the laws of King Canute, “the shyre-gemot (for so the Saxons called this assembly of the whole shire) shall be kept twice a year, and oftener if need require, wherein the bishop and the alderman of the shire shall be present, the one to teach the laws of GOD, the other the laws of the land.” And among the laws of King Henry I., it is ordained, “first, let the laws of true Christianity (which we call the ecclesiastical) be fully executed with due satisfaction; then let the pleas concerning the king be dealt with; and, lastly, those between party and party: and whomsoever the Church synod shall find at variance, let them either make accord between them in love, or sequester them by their sentence of excommunication.” And the bishop first gave a solemn charge to the people touching ecclesiastical matters, opening unto them the rights and reverence of the Church, and their duty therein towards GOD and the king, according to the word of GOD: then the alderman in like manner related unto them the laws of the land, and their duty towards GOD, the king, and commonwealth, according to the rule and tenure thereof.

The separation of the ecclesiastical from the temporal courts was made by William the Conqueror: for upon the conquest made by the Normans, the pope took the opportunity to usurp upon the liberties of the crown of England; for the Conqueror came in with the pope’s banner, and under it won the battle. Whereupon the pope sent two legates into England, with whom the Conqueror called a synod, deposed Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury, because he had not purchased his pall from Rome, and displaced many bishops and abbots to make room for his Normans. This admission of the pope’s legates first led the way to his usurped jurisdiction in England; yet no decrees passed or were put in execution, touching matters ecclesiastical, without the royal assent; nor would the king submit himself in point of fealty to the pope, as appears by his epistle to Gregory VII. Yet in his next successor’s time, namely, in the time of King William Rufus, the pope, by Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, attempted to draw appeals to Rome, but did not prevail. Upon this occasion it was, that the king said to Anselm, that none of his bishops ought to be subject to the pope, but the pope himself ought to be subject to the emperor; and that the king of England had the same absolute liberty in his dominions, as the emperor had in the empire. Yet in the time of the next king, King Henry I., the pope usurped the patronage and donation of bishoprics, and of all other benefices ecclesiastical. At this time, Anselm told the king, that the patronage and investiture of bishops was not his right, because Pope Urban had lately made a decree, that no lay person should give any ecclesiastical benefice. And after this, at a synod held at London, in the year 1107, a decree was made to which the king assented, that from thenceforth no person should be invested in a bishopric by the giving of a ring and pastoral staff (as had been before); nor by any lay hand. Upon which the pope granted that the archbishop of Canterbury for the time being should be for ever _legatus natus_: and Anselm for the honour of his see obtained, that the archbishop of Canterbury should in all general councils sit at the pope’s foot, as _alterius orbis papa_, or pope of this part of the world. Yet after Anselm’s death, this same king gave the archbishopric of Canterbury to Rodolph, bishop of London, and invested him with the ring and pastoral staff; and this because the succeeding popes had broken Pope Urban’s promise, touching the not sending of legates into England unless the king should require it. And in the time of the next king, King Stephen, the pope gained appeals to the court of Rome; for in a synod at London, convened by Henry, bishop of Winchester, the pope’s legate, it was decreed, that appeals should be made from provincial councils to the pope: before which time appeals to Rome were not in use. Thus did the pope usurp three main points of jurisdiction, upon three several kings after the Conquest, (for of King William Rufus he could gain nothing,) viz. upon the Conqueror, the sending of the legates or commissioners to hear and determine ecclesiastical causes; upon Henry I., the donation and investiture of bishoprics and other benefices; and upon King Stephen, the appeals to the court of Rome. And in the time of King Henry II., the pope claimed exemption for clerks from the secular power. And finally, in the time of King John, he took the crown from off the king’s head, and compelled him to accept his kingdom from the pope’s donation. Nevertheless all this was not obtained without violent struggle and opposition: and this caused the statutes of provisors to be made, in the reigns of King Edward III. and King Richard II. The limits of ecclesiastical jurisdiction were finally settled by the statute of 24 Henry VIII. c. 12. Jurisdiction is also applied to the power vested in certain dignitaries, as dean, chancellor, &c., in some cathedrals; and in many, when each individual prebendary had a peculiar jurisdiction.

JUSTIFICATION. (See _Faith_ and _Sanctification_.) Justification, in the language of Scripture, signifies our being accounted just or righteous in the sight of GOD.—_Tomline._

A clear understanding of the difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome upon this subject is most important, since the difference between the two Churches on this point causes an essential and vital difference through the whole system of their theology. The definition of the Church of England is set forth in her Articles and Homilies: and it is there propounded in a manner so perspicuous, as to preclude, it might well be thought, all possibility of misapprehension.

As contained in the eleventh and twelfth and thirteenth Articles, the definition runs in terms following:

“We are accounted righteous before GOD, only for the merit of our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, by faith; and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort: as more largely is expressed in the homily of justification.

“Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of GOD’S judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to GOD in CHRIST, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that, by them, a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree is discerned by the fruit.

“Works done before the grace of CHRIST and the inspiration of his SPIRIT, are not pleasant to GOD, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in JESUS CHRIST; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the school-authors say) deserve grace of congruity; yea, rather, for that they are not done as GOD hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.”

The homily referred to in the eleventh Article, under the title of _The Homily of Justification_, is styled, in the first Book of Homilies itself, “A sermon of the salvation of mankind, by only CHRIST our SAVIOUR, from sin and death everlasting:” and this homily is described as more largely expressing the doctrine of justification than the necessary brevity of an article admitted. Therefore, obviously, the statement contained in it challenges our especial attention.

“Because all men be sinners and offenders against GOD, and breakers of his law and commandments; therefore can no man, by his own acts, words, and deeds, (seem they never so good,) be justified and made righteous before GOD: but every man of necessity is constrained to seek for another righteousness of justification, to be received at GOD’S own hands; that is to say, the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses in such things as he hath offended. And this justification or righteousness, which we so receive of GOD’S mercy and CHRIST’S merits, embraced by faith, is taken, accepted, and allowed, of GOD, for our perfect and full justification.

“The apostle toucheth specially three things, which must go together in our justification: upon GOD’S part, his great mercy and grace; upon CHRIST’S part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of GOD’S justice, or the price of our redemption by the offering of his body and shedding of his blood, with fulfilling of the law perfectly and thoroughly; and, upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of JESUS CHRIST, which yet is not ours but by GOD’S working in us. So that, in our justification, there is not only GOD’S mercy and grace, but also his justice, which the apostle calleth the justice of GOD: and it consisteth, in paying our ransom, and fulfilling of the law. And so the grace of GOD doth not shut out the justice of GOD in our justification, but only shutteth out the justice of man, that is to say, the justice of our works, as to be merits of deserving our justification. And therefore St. Paul declareth nothing upon the behalf of man concerning his justification, but only a true and lively faith: which, nevertheless, is the gift of GOD, and not man’s only work without GOD. And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of GOD, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified; but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying. So that, although they be all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not altogether. Neither doth faith shut out the justice of our good works, necessarily to be done afterwards of duty toward GOD; for we are most bounden to serve GOD, in doing good deeds, commanded by him in his Holy Scripture, all the days of our life: but it excludeth them, so that we may not do them to this intent, to be made just by doing of them. For all the good works that we can do, be imperfect; and, therefore, not able to deserve our justification. But our justification doth come freely, by the mere mercy of GOD, and of so great and free mercy, that, whereas all the world was not able of themselves to pay any part toward their ransom, it pleased our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy, without any our desert or deserving, to prepare for us the most precious jewels of CHRIST’S body and blood; whereby our ransom might be fully paid, the law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied. So that CHRIST is now the righteousness of all them that truly do believe in him. He, for them, paid their ransom by his death. He, for them, fulfilled the law in his life. So that now, in him and by him, every true Christian man may be called a fulfiller of the law; forasmuch as that, which their infirmity lacked, CHRIST’S justice hath supplied.

“That we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works, we do read ofttimes in the best and most ancient writers: as, beside Hilary, Basil, and St. Ambrose, we read the same in Origen, St. Chrysostom, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, Prosper, Œcumenius, Photius, Bernardus, Anselm, and many other writers, Greek and Latin. Nevertheless, this sentence, that ‘we be justified by faith only,’ is not so meant of them that the said justifying faith is alone in man, without true repentance, hope, charity, dread, and the fear of GOD, at any time and season. Nor, when they say, that we should be justified freely, do they mean that we should or might afterward be idle, and that nothing should be required on our parts afterward. Neither do they mean so to be justified without good works, that we should do no good works at all. But this saying, that ‘we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works,’ is spoken for to take away clearly all merit of our works, as being unable to deserve our justification at GOD’S hands, and thereby most plainly to express the weakness of man and the goodness of GOD, the great infirmity of ourselves and the might and power of GOD, the imperfection of our own works and the most abundant grace of our SAVIOUR CHRIST; and therefore wholly to ascribe the merit and deserving of our justification unto CHRIST only, and his most precious blood-shedding. This faith the Holy Scripture teacheth us: this is the strong rock and foundation of the Christian religion: this doctrine all old ancient authors of CHRIST’S Church do approve: this doctrine advanceth and setteth forth the true glory of CHRIST, and beateth down the vain glory of man: this whosoever denieth, is not to be accounted for a Christian man, nor for a setter-forth of CHRIST’S glory, but for an adversary to CHRIST and his gospel, and for a setter-forth of men’s vain glory.”

The doctrine of the Church of Rome must be taken from the Council of Trent. The exposition of the Tridentine fathers, assembled in their sixth session, runs through sixteen chapters; and so extreme is its verboseness, and so perplexing is its incessant alternation, that we might be somewhat puzzled to form a distinct idea of their views in respect to justification, if the last of those chapters had not given us, in the shape of an article or summary, the result of their prolix theologising.

Omitting, then, the discussion upon which their definition is built, we will proceed immediately to the definition itself.

“Since JESUS CHRIST, as the head into the members and as the vine into the branches, perpetually causes his virtue to flow into the justified; which virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they would in nowise be grateful to GOD and meritorious; we must believe, that nothing more is wanting to the justified themselves, which need prevent us from thinking, both that they can satisfy the Divine law according to the state of this life, by those works which are performed in GOD; and that, in their own time, provided they depart in grace, they may truly merit the attainment of eternal life.

“Thus, neither our own proper righteousness is so determined to be our own, as if it were from ourselves; nor is the righteousness of GOD either unknown or rejected. For that which is called our righteousness, because, through it being inherent in us, we are justified; that same is the righteousness of GOD, because it is infused into us by GOD through the merit of CHRIST.

“Far, however, be it from a Christian man, that he should either trust or glory in himself and not in the LORD; whose goodness to all men is so great, that, what are truly his gifts, he willeth to be estimated as their merits.”

This article or summary removes all possibility of misapprehension. Through it, the Church of Rome determines that we are justified, not by any imputation to us of righteousness, or by any imputation to us of faith in the place of righteousness, (though each of these imputations is insisted upon by St. Paul,) but by our own inherent righteousness.

On this, the Romish system, the judicious Hooker remarks: “When they are required to show, what the righteousness is whereby a Christian man is justified, they answer, that it is a Divine spiritual quality: which quality, received into the soul, doth first make it to be one of them who are born of GOD; and, secondly, endue it with power to bring forth such works as they do that are born of him: even as the soul of man, being joined to his body, doth first make him to be of the number of reasonable creatures; and, secondly, enable him to perform the natural functions which are proper to his kind: that it maketh the soul amiable and gracious in the sight of GOD, in regard whereof it is termed Grace; that it purgeth, purifieth, and washeth out, all the stains and pollutions of sins; that, by it, through the merit of CHRIST, we are delivered, as from sin, so from eternal death and condemnation, the reward of sin. This grace they will have to be applied by infusion; to the end that, as the body is warm by the heat which is in the body, so the soul might be made righteous by inherent grace: which grace they make capable of increase; as the body may be more and more warm, so the soul more and more justified according as grace should be augmented; the augmentation whereof is merited by good works, as good works are made meritorious by it. Wherefore, the first receipt of grace, in their divinity, is the first justification: the increase thereof, the second justification. As grace may be increased by the merit of good works, so it may be diminished by the demerit of sins venial; it may be lost by mortal sin. Inasmuch, therefore, as it is needful, in the one case to repair, in the other to recover, the loss which is made, the infusion of grace hath her sundry after-meals; for the which cause they make many ways to apply the infusion of grace. It is applied to infants through baptism, without either faith or works; and, in them, really it taketh away original sin, and the punishment due unto it: it is applied to infidels and wicked men in the first justification, through baptism, without works, yet not without faith: and it taketh away sins both actual and original together, with all whatsoever punishment, eternal or temporal, thereby deserved. Unto such as have attained the first justification, that is to say, the first receipt of grace, it is applied further by good works to the increase of former grace: which is the second justification. If they work more and more, grace doth more increase: and they are more and more justified. To such as diminish it by venial sins, it is applied by holy water, Ave Marias, crossings, papal salutations, and such like: which serve for reparations of grace decayed. To such as have lost it through mortal sin, it is applied by the sacrament (as they term it) of penance: which sacrament hath force to confer grace anew; yet in such sort, that, being so conferred, it hath not altogether so much power as at the first. For it only cleanseth out the stain or guilt of sin committed; and changeth the punishment eternal into a temporal satisfactory punishment—here, if time do serve, if not, hereafter, to be endured; except it be lightened by masses, works of charity, pilgrimages, fasts, and such like; or else shortened by pardon for term, or by plenary pardon quite removed and taken away. This is the mystery of the man of sin. This maze the Church of Rome doth cause her followers to tread, when they ask her the way to justification. Whether they speak of the first or second justification, they make ‘the essence of a Divine quality inherent,’ they make it ‘righteousness which is in us.’ If it be in us, then it is ours: as our souls are ours, though we have them from GOD, and can hold them no longer than pleaseth him; for, if he withdraw the breath of our nostrils, we fall to dust. But the righteousness, wherein we must be found, if we will be justified, is ‘not our own.’ Therefore we cannot be justified by any inherent quality. The Church of Rome, in teaching justification by inherent grace, doth pervert the truth of CHRIST: and, by the hands of the apostles, we have received otherwise than she teacheth. Now, concerning the righteousness of sanctification, we deny it not to be inherent: we grant, that, unless we work, we have it not: only we distinguish it, as a thing different in nature from the righteousness of justification. By the one, we are interested in the _right of inheriting_: by the other, we are brought to the actual possession of eternal bliss. And so the end of both is ‘everlasting life.’”

The difference between the two systems may be pointed out in a few words. The Romish Church teaches that a man is justified by an inherent righteousness, which, though originally a gift of GOD, as are his soul and his bodily members, is nevertheless, like his soul, his own.

The Anglican Church, on the contrary, in common with all the other Churches of the Reformation, teaches: “that man is justified by an extrinsic righteousness, which is not his own, but the righteousness of CHRIST; the faith which instrumentally lays hold of it and appropriates it, and which itself is the gift of GOD, being forensically imputed to him of GOD, instead of a righteousness which he himself possesses not; so that he is justified _through_ faith, though not _on account of_ faith; the sole particular, _on account of_ which he is justified, being the merit and perfect righteousness of our LORD and only SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.”

Whichever scheme of doctrine may be preferred as most agreeable to Scripture and to antiquity, it is clear, that the two statements here given are at least incapable of misapprehension. Right or wrong, the two schemes stand flatly and diametrically opposed to each other. The Roman Church asserts: the Anglican Church denies. Conversely, the Roman Church denies: the Anglican Church asserts. The Roman Church asserts the doctrine of justification by an infused and personal inherent righteousness: the Anglican Church strenuously denies that doctrine; admitting, indeed, that the inherent righteousness of sanctification is always consequentially present with the really justified; but refusing to it any, even the least, share in “the procurement of justification.” The Roman Church denies, that the ungodly is justified through faith alone, nothing else being required to obtain the grace of justification: the Anglican Church asserts, that the ungodly is justified through faith alone without works, nothing save faith being required to obtain the grace of justification, inasmuch as the office of works is not the procurement of our justification, and inasmuch as it is a contradictory hysteron-proteron to say that works which “follow after” justification, and are its “effect,” can yet “procure” it and be its “cause.”

It has been customary to speak of the doctrine of forensic justification as if it were a Calvinistic doctrine. That Calvin held it is not to be denied, but all history bears witness that it is not a _peculiarity_ of the Calvinistic system.

Calvin was born in 1509, and he was yet a schoolboy, or a pluralist in the Romish Church, (as he became in his twelfth year,) when Luther was using this doctrine, as _the_ doctrine by which to lay low the whole fabric of Romish superstition.

Again, it was the doctrine of our English reformers, as most clearly stated in our Articles and Homilies; and Archbishop Laurence has triumphantly established the historical fact, that our reformers were not Calvinists.

If we wish for a clear statement of the doctrine of forensic justification, we may indeed refer to Bishop Andrewes; and the theology of Andrewes had certainly no affinity to that of Calvin. Let the reader peruse with attention the following passage from his sermon on justification.

“In the Scripture, then, there is a double righteousness set down, both in the Old and in the New Testament.

“In the Old, and in the very first place that righteousness is named in the Bible: ‘Abraham believed, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.’ A righteousness accounted. And again, in the very next line, it is mentioned, ‘Abraham will teach his house to do righteousness.’ A righteousness done. In the New likewise. The former, in one chapter, even the fourth to the Romans, no fewer than eleven times, _Reputatum est illi ad justitiam_. A reputed righteousness. The latter in St. John: ‘My beloved, let no man deceive you, he that doeth righteousness is righteous.’ A righteousness done. Which is nothing else but our just dealing, upright carriage, honest conversation. Of these, the latter the philosophers themselves conceived and acknowledged; the other is proper to Christians only, and altogether unknown in philosophy. The one is a quality of the party; the other, an act of the judge declaring or pronouncing righteous. The one ours by influence or infusion, the other by account or imputation. That both these there are, there is no question. The question is, whether of these the prophet here principally meaneth in this Name? This shall we best inform ourselves of by looking back to the verse before, and without so looking back we shall never do it to purpose. There the prophet setteth one before us, in his royal judicial power, in the person of a king, and of a king set down to execute judgment; and this he telleth us, before he thinks meet to tell us his name. Before this king, thus set down in his throne, there to do judgment, the righteousness that will stand against the law, our conscience, Satan, sin, the gates of hell, and the power of darkness; and so stand that we may be delivered by it from death, despair, and damnation; and entitled by it to life, salvation, and happiness eternal; that is righteousness indeed, that is it we seek for, if we may find it. And that is not this latter, but the former only; and therefore that is the true interpretation of _Jehovah justitia nostra_. Look but how St. Augustine and the rest of the Fathers, when they have occasion to mention that place in the Proverbs, _Cum Rex justus sederit in solio, quis potest dicere, Mundum est cor meum?_—look how they interpret it then, and it will give us light to understand this name; and we shall see, that no name will serve then, but this name. Nor this name neither, but with this interpretation of it. And that the HOLY GHOST would have it ever thus understood, and us ever to represent before our eyes this King thus sitting in his judgment-seat, when we speak of this righteousness, it is plain two ways. 1. By way of position. For the tenor of the Scripture touching our justification all along runneth in judicial terms, to admonish us still what to set before us. The usual joining of justice and judgment continually all along the Scriptures, show it is a judicial justice we are to set before us. The terms of, 1. A judge: ‘It is the LORD that judgeth me.’ 2. A prison: Kept and shut up under Moses. 3. A bar: ‘We must all appear before the bar.’ 4. A proclamation: ‘Who will lay anything to the prisoner’s charge?’ 5. An accuser: ‘The accuser of our brethren.’ 6. A witness: ‘Our conscience bearing witness.’ 7. An indictment upon these: ‘Cursed be he that continueth not in all the words of this law to do them;’ and again, ‘He that breaketh one is guilty of all.’ A conviction that all may be ὑπόδικοι, ‘guilty’ or culpable ‘before GOD.’ Yea, the very delivering of our sins under the name of ‘debts;’ of the law under the name of a ‘handwriting;’ the very terms of ‘an advocate,’ of ‘a surety made under the law;’ of a pardon, or ‘being justified from those things which by the law we could not:’—all these, wherein for the most part this is still expressed, what speak they but that the sense of this name cannot be rightly understood, nor what manner of righteousness is in question, except we still have before our eyes this same _coram rege justo judicium faciente_.”—_Bishop Andrewes’ Sermon on Justification in Christ’s Name._ See also _Barrow’s Sermon on Justification_. _Waterland on Justification._ _Heurtley on Justification._ _Stanley Faber on Justification._

KEYS, POWER OF THE. The authority existing in the Christian priesthood of administering the discipline of the Church, and communicating or withholding its privileges; so called from the declaration of CHRIST to St. Peter, (Matt. xvi. 19,) “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” The power here promised was afterwards conferred on St. Peter and the other apostles, when the SAVIOUR breathed on them and said, “Receive ye the HOLY GHOST. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” (Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18; John xx. 23.)

The power of the keys is only a ministerial power. By administering the sacraments, they who have that power do that which conveys grace to certain souls. But whose souls are these? The souls of faithful and repentant men. They who are qualified will receive the outward ordinance which conveys to them the pardon they require: but, to those who are not qualified by repentance and faith, no blessing can be conveyed; the blessing of the minister will return to him again.

The power of the keys must likewise refer to the authority of spiritual rulers to “bind” their people by some ordinances, and to “loose” them from others, when they have been abused, always excepting the two sacraments of the gospel, baptism and the eucharist, which, instituted by our LORD himself, are always binding. When the bishops of a Church bind their people by an ordinance, their act is ratified in heaven: and they who seek grace through that ordinance, receive it. Whereas, if they loose us from an ordinance, as from many ordinances we were loosed at the Reformation, this act again is ratified in heaven, and to observe that ordinance becomes superstition, not religion.

Upon Peter’s confession, that JESUS was “the CHRIST, the SON of the living GOD,” 1. He promiseth to build his Church upon the rock of that truth, and the rock confessed in it; 2. He promiseth “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” to Peter only, of all the apostles; meaning thereby, that he should be the man that should first unlock the door of faith and of the gospel unto the Gentiles, which was accomplished in Acts x. And, 3. He giveth him power of “binding and loosing,” and this power the other disciples had in common with him. “Binding and loosing,” in the language and style most familiarly known to the Jewish nation, (and it can be little doubted that CHRIST speaketh according to the common and most familiar sense of the language,) did refer more properly to things than to persons; therefore he saith, (Matt. xvi. 19,) ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς, not ὃν; and in Matt. xviii. 18, ὅσα ἐὰν δήσητε, not ὃσους. The phrase, “to bind and to loose,” in their vulgar speech, meant, to prohibit and to permit; or, to teach what is prohibited or permitted, what lawful, what unlawful; as may appear by these instances—a few produced, whereas thousands may be alleged out of their writings. “Our wise men say that in Judah they did work on the Passover eve till noon, but in Galilee not at all; and as for the night, the school of Shammai _bound_ it, that is, forbade to work on it, or taught that it was unlawful; but the school of Hillel _loosed_ it till sunrising, or taught that it was lawful to work till sunrise.” They are speaking about washing in the baths of Tiberias on the sabbath, and they determine how far this was lawful in these words, “They _bound_ washing to them, but they _loosed_ sweating;” meaning, they taught that it was lawful to go into the bath to sweat, but not to bathe for pleasure. “They send not letters by the hand of a Gentile on the eve of the sabbath, nor on the fifth day of the week. Nay, on the fourth day of the week, the school of Shammai _bound_ it, but the school of Hillel _loosed_ it.” “Women may not look in a looking-glass on the sabbath; but if it were fastened upon a wall, Rabbi _loosed_ the looking into it; but the wise man _bound_ it.” “R. Jochanan went from Tsipporis to Tiberias; he saith, ‘Why brought ye me to this elder? for what I _loose_, he _bindeth_; and what I _bind_, he _looseth_.’” “The scribes have _bound_ leaven;” that is, they have prohibited it. “They have, upon necessity, _loosed_ salutation on the sabbath;” that is, they have permitted it, or taught that it was lawful.

Thousands of instances of this nature might be produced, by all which it is clear that the Jews’ use of the phrase was of their doctors’ or learned men’s teaching what was _lawful_ and permitted, and what was _unlawful_ and prohibited. Hence is that definition of such men’s office and work: “A wise man that judgeth judgment, and maketh unclean and maketh clean, _bindeth_ and _looseth_, that is, teacheth what is clean and unclean, what is permitted or prohibited.” And Maimonides, giving the relation of their ordaining of elders, and to what several employments they were ordained, saith thus, “A wise man that is fit to teach all the law, the consistory had power to ordain him to judge, but not to teach _bound_ and _loose_: or power to teach _bound_ and _loose_, but not a judge in pecuniary matters; or power to both these, but not to judge in matters of mulct,” &c. So that the ordination of one to that function,—which was more properly ministerial, or to teach the people their duty, as, what was lawful, what not; what they were to do, and what not to do,—was to such a purpose, or to such a tenor as this, “Take thou the power to _bind_ and _loose_, or to teach what is bound and loose.” By this vulgar and only sense of this phrase in the nation, the meaning of CHRIST using it thus to his disciples is easily understood, namely, that he first doth instate them in a ministerial capacity to teach what bound and loose, what to be done and what not; and this as ministers: and thus all ministers successively, to the end of the world. But, as they were apostles, of that singular and unparalleled order as the like were never in the Church again, he gives them power to “bind and loose” in a degree above all ministers that were to follow: namely, that whereas some part of Moses’s law was now to stand in practice, and some to be laid aside; some things under the law prohibited, were now to be permitted; and some things, then permitted, to be now prohibited, he promiseth the apostles such assistance of his SPIRIT, and giveth them such power, that what they allowed to stand in practice should stand, and what to fall, should fall; “what they bound in earth should be bound in heaven,” &c.—_Lightfoot._

There is one thing still behind, which we must by no means omit, especially upon this occasion, and that is, the power of governing the Church which our LORD left with his apostles and their successors to the end of the world; but so that he, according to his promise, is always present with them at the execution of it. For this power is granted to them in the very charter to which this promise is annexed; for here our LORD gives them commission not only to baptize, but likewise to teach those who are his disciples, to observe whatsoever he had commanded. Whereby they are empowered both to declare what are those commands of CHRIST which men ought to observe, and also to use all means to prevail upon men to observe them; such as in correcting or punishing those who violate, rewarding and encouraging those who keep them. But our SAVIOUR’S kingdom being, as himself saith, not of this world, but purely spiritual, he hath authorized his substitutes in the government of it to use rewards and punishments of the same nature; even to admonish delinquents in his name to forsake their sins; and if they continue obstinate, and neglect such admonitions, to excommunicate, or cast them out of his Church; and, upon their repentance, to absolve and receive them in again. This power our SAVIOUR first promised to St. Peter, and in him to the rest of the apostles. But it was not actually conferred upon them till after his resurrection, when, having breathed on them, he said unto them, “Receive the HOLY GHOST: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” As if he should have said, “I, the SON of man, having power upon earth also to forgive sins, do now commit the same to you; so that whose sins soever are remitted or retained by you, are so by me also.” From whence it is plain, both that the apostles received power to remit and retain sins, and that CHRIST himself concurs with them in the exercise of that power; and how he doth it, even by his HOLY SPIRIT now breathed into them. To explain the full extent and latitude of this power would require more time than can be allowed upon this day, whereon it is to be exercised; and therefore I shall observe only two things concerning it, whereof the first is, that how great soever the power be which our LORD committed to his apostles and their successors for the government of his Church in all ages, it is but ministerial; they act only under him as his ministers and stewards, and must one day give an account to him of all their actions. Yea, whatsoever power they have of this nature, it is still his power in their hands; they derive it continually from him, who is always present with them. And, therefore, as they themselves need to have a care how they exert this power, or neglect the exerting of it, so others had need take care, too, that they neither resist nor despise it.—_Beveridge._

Bishop Jeremy Taylor expresses, with great clearness, the primitive doctrine on this subject: “The same promise of binding and loosing (which certainly was all that the keys were given for) was made afterwards to all the apostles, (Matt. xviii.,) and the power of remitting and retaining, which in reason, and according to the style of the Church, is the same thing in other words, was actually given to all the apostles; and unless that was the performing the first and second promise, we find it not recorded in Scripture how or when, or whether yet or no, the promise be performed.” And again: “If the keys were only given and so promised to St. Peter, that the Church hath not the keys, then the Church can neither bind nor loose, remit nor retain, which God forbid: if any man should endeavour to answer this argument, I leave him and St. Austin to contest it.”

The apostles knew nothing of any different power conveyed to one of their number beyond what was common to him with the rest, as we may reasonably conclude, since there is no record of any authority exercised on the one side, or of obedience rendered on the other.

The proposed distinction is, indeed, utterly untenable, and the whole testimony of antiquity is against it; yet it is maintained by some of the chief Roman commentators. Maldonat, for instance, who is one of the best known and most popular, in his exposition of this place, declares the keys to have been given to Peter, that is, the power of binding and loosing, of opening and shutting, in subordination to CHRIST alone, while the rest of the apostles received only an inferior jurisdiction. For this interpretation he advances no proof at all, except the mention of the keys in the address to Peter, and the omission in what was spoken to the rest, which he pronounces an irrefragable argument; and on the foundation of this alleged separate gift to Peter he builds the right of jurisdiction for his successors, extending to the supreme decision of spiritual causes on earth, and the regulating the condition of souls in purgatory. Cornelius Van den Steen, or à Lapide, as he is usually called, seems to have followed the interpretation of Maldonat, and says, that by the keys is signified the power of order and jurisdiction granted to Peter over the whole Church; and that CHRIST explains his meaning in the words which follow. He falls into the fallacy of representing the term “rock” as conveying the notion of government; and then, as if this were an unquestionably accurate representation, he goes on to blend figures which have nothing in common, and assumes that in this way the supreme power of the pope is adequately proved. Like his predecessor, he vindicates the most unlimited exercise of it, whether in enforcing obedience, or in granting dispensations, in enacting ecclesiastical laws, pronouncing excommunications and other censures, delivering decisions on questions of faith, with other acts which fall under the head of binding, or those of an opposite character, which belong to the power of loosing. In order to dispose of the difficult fact that Christ is recorded to have given the same power of binding and loosing to others as well, he affirms that Peter was first singled out, to signify that the rest of the apostles were committed to his care as his subjects, and that he was empowered to control, limit, or take away their jurisdictions as he should see fit; though it is clear both that the apostles exercised, in point of fact, the highest Church discipline, and that there is not a word which implies their having done so by delegation. He very characteristically confirms his exposition by a synodical letter, which the great Roman annalist had given up as spurious some years before.

Both these writers were theologians of the highest repute, the one professor at Paris, the other at Louvain. They may be fairly taken to express the judgment of the party at present dominant in the Roman Church. Nothing can be more extravagant than their interpretations, or more feebly supported by proofs; yet they are indispensable to the position of the ultramontanes. This extreme doctrine, revived by the Jesuits, for it was invented a century earlier, has no pretence of confirmation from any of the primitive expositors of Scripture. They declare, with one voice, that the keys were given to the Church in the person of Peter. In the words of Ambrose, “what is said to Peter, is said to the apostles.” Cyprian and Origen, Jerome and Basil, are of one mind on this point. The statement of Augustine, repeated in a multitude of places, is as clear as possible that the Church received the power of the keys, and not an individual apostle. The Fathers were not writing with any view to the present controversy; and many of their expressions, taken separately, would give a very untrue representation of their meaning, by making them maintain opinions which, in their time, had not been even suggested. Thus Cyprian, in his treatise on the unity of the Church, applies the disputed texts to Peter; but then he speaks of him as the type of unity, the representative of a great principle; and to guard his meaning against perversion, he states, in the plainest terms, that the rest of the apostles were what Peter was, and had equal participation of honour and authority. So the Fathers continually speak of him as figuring the oneness of the Church universal. They exalt his chair, but they are careful to explain that they are speaking, not of an individual bishop possessing supreme authority, which was the farthest from their thoughts, but of that one undivided episcopacy, to use Cyprian’s well-known words, of which every bishop possesses a portion.

Dupin affirms that the Fathers are unanimous in assigning ecclesiastical power, either to the Church generally, or to the apostles, and, after them, to bishops; that there is not one to be found who holds it to have been given to Peter and his successors alone; and that they have guarded against any wrong inference which might be drawn from the promise given to Peter, by showing that he was regarded as the representative of the Church. He furnishes some authorities on this subject, not only from the early Fathers, but from popes, great bishops of the Roman Church, scholastic writers, and universities; and he adds, that the number of passages which might be adduced is infinite. The same great writer states strongly the importance of the question: for if, as he says, the power of the keys belongs to the pope alone, there can be no doubt that he has authority over the whole Church; since, upon this hypothesis, neither the Church nor its prelates can have any other power than such as they derive from him.

In the Council of Paris, held in the eighth century, under the emperors Louis and Lothaire, the bishops expressly claimed this power of binding and loosing, without any reference to the successor of St. Peter. The Council of Constance, in its fourth session, declared, in the strongest language, that the Church has its jurisdiction immediately from CHRIST; and this judgment was embodied in acts of the highest significancy and importance. The Council of Basle, in its first session, passed a decree in exactly the same spirit, and almost in the very same words. Æneas Sylvius, the historian of the council, and afterwards Pius II., expressly vindicates the text in question from the interpretation which favours the pontifical authority. So Cardinal de Cusa, writing at the same period, claims for the other apostles the very same power of binding and loosing which was conveyed to Peter by the words of CHRIST. And John Gerson refers to this very place, in maintaining the superiority of a council to a pope. Even in the Council of Trent, we find the Cardinal of Lorraine speaking to the same effect; and though he may be worthless as a theologian, he is valuable as a witness. He alleged various passages, from Augustine and others, in proof that bishops derive their jurisdiction immediately from GOD. And, indeed, the whole argument of the French and Spanish prelates in favour of the divine right of episcopacy was based on the very interpretation of our LORD’S words which the Jesuit school condemns.

The canonists bear the same testimony. Thus Van Espen, and there are few higher authorities, delivers it as the doctrine of the Fathers on this subject, that, while CHRIST spoke to Peter in the singular, he made conveyance of the powers in question to all the apostles. Duaren speaks to the same effect. He affirms that the power of binding and loosing was given to the Church, and not to an individual.

Some even of the Roman commentators give a similar interpretation. Thus Nicholas de Lyra says that, as the confession of Peter was the confession of the rest, so the power given to him was bestowed on all. D’Espence and many others give the same exposition.

The severe rebuke administered to Peter, following so closely upon his confession, puts another difficulty in the way of those who insist on his great personal prerogatives. Gregory de Valentia proposes, as a rule of interpretation, that some things are to be taken as addressed to Peter in his public, and some in his private, character. Thus he supposes him to have been called the Rock in the former, and Satan in the latter; but this distinction is arbitrary, and obviously invented to serve a purpose. We shall not be more disposed to adopt the opinion of Hilary, who would have us consider the one part of the sentence addressed to Peter, the other to the evil spirit. But while, with the great body of ancient doctors, we admit the sin, we may well believe that GOD in his wisdom overruled it for good, by making it a warning that we should not think even of this eminent apostle more highly than we ought to think.—_S. Robins._

KINDRED. (See _Consanguinity_.)

KING’S EVIL. This disease is connected with the ecclesiastical history of England by the power to cure it, which was for many centuries attributed to the kings of England, and which was, from the time of Edward the Confessor, held to be exercised as a part of the religion attached to the person of the king. The cure, too, was always accompanied by a religious service.

The kings of France also claimed the gift of healing, (but upon no other occasions than at their coronation,) and the ceremony was used at the coronation of Charles X., at Rheims. George I. made no pretensions to this gift, and it has never been claimed by his successors.

Bishop Bull says, “that divers persons desperately labouring under the king’s evil, have been cured by the mere touch of the royal hands, assisted with the prayers of the priests of our Church attending, is unquestionable, unless the faith of all our ancient writers, and the consentient report of hundreds of most credible persons in our own age, attesting the same, is to be questioned.”—_Sermon on St. Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh._

In January, 1683, a proclamation was issued by the privy-council, and was ordered to be published in every parish in the kingdom, enjoining that the time for presenting persons for the “public healings” should be from the feast of All-saints, till a week before Christmas; and after Christmas until the first day of March, and then to cease till Passion week.

The office for the ceremony was called “_The Ceremonies_,” or “_Prayers for the Healing_.” The Latin form was used in the time of Henry VII., and was reprinted by the king’s printer in 1686. The English forms were essentially the same, with some modifications. These occur in the Common Prayer Books of the reigns of Charles I., Charles II., James II., and Anne (and, as it appears from Mr. Stephens’s own statement, in that of George I., in 1715). They all vary; and a new one appears to have been drawn up for each sovereign, so late as 1719. (See _Pegge’s Curialia Miscellanea_, 161; taken from a folio Prayer Book, 1710. Also Kennet’s Register, 731, and Sparrow’s Articles, 165, which latter form seems to have been used in the reign of Charles I.) In Mr. Stephens’s editions of the Common Prayer Book, from which the foregoing article has been abridged, the Latin form is given, (i. 997,) and the English form in 1715 (1002).

The following is the form in _Sparrow’s Collections_, printed in 1684.

AT THE HEALING.

_The Gospel written in the 16th chapter of St. Mark, beginning at the
14th verse._

JESUS appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and cast in their teeth their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen that he was risen again from the dead. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to all creatures: He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these tokens shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak with new tongues, they shall drive away serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them. [6]_They shall lay their hands on the sick, and they shall recover._ So when the LORD had spoken unto them, he was received into heaven, and is on the right hand of GOD. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the LORD working with them, and confirming the word with miracles following.

_The Gospel written in the 1st chapter of St. John, beginning at the 1st verse._