must have ceased along with it. But as none of these consequences can safely be admitted, it seems manifest that the remitting and retaining of sins mentioned in John, and the binding and loosing spoken of in Matthew, must denote the exercise only of an ordinary, and not of a miraculous power. And farther, as it appears to denote not an extraordinary but an ordinary power, consisting in that subordinate judicial authority to pardon or condemn, which those only who have the keys of the kingdom committed to them are authorized to exercise, it is equally evident, that it can be vested in the ministers only, not in the private members of the church. It is never said to be intrusted to the latter, though it is expressly affirmed (John xx.) to be given to the former; and n receiving this authority they are plainly pointed out under the character of stewards, which is altogether inconsistent with the supposition that the keys are committed to the members at large, or that they are associated with their pastors in administering the affairs of the church of Christ.

To invalidate the argument for the right of the elders exclusively to govern in the Christian church, which is derived from this passage, many other criticisms have been advanced by Independents. Some have supposed that by the keys of the kingdom which were given to Peter, we are to understand only the key of knowledge, and the honour of first preaching the truths of the gospel to the Jews and Gentiles.

In support of this they inform us, that there is an evident allusion to the custom of the Jews, who delivered to their Rabbis a key, when invested with that dignity. This, however, is very far from amounting to the binding and loosing the guilty on earth, as they were bound and loosed in heaven, which is here affirmed to be connected with these keys, and which undoubtedly must be an exercise of government. And we know that when the steward of the house of David, whose kingdom was certainly a type of that of Christ, had a key delivered to him, it implied his being intrusted, under the king, with the affairs of the kingdom. "It shall come to pass in "that day," says Isaiah (chap. xxii. 20)," that I will call I 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, (that of "Shebna, who was over the house, ver. 15). And the

'

key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder : " he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and

none

shall 29 open. And we see likewise the same emblem when applied to our Lord, (who tells us, that he sent his Apostles as his Father had sent him, and gave them of the glory which his Father had given him), employed to denote authority. "And to the angel of the church in Philadel"phia," says John, (Rev. i. 7), "write, These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key "of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth." Now, as in these other circumstances, it incontestably includes the power of govern ment, whatever other idea it may suggest; and as in the passage before us, it is represented as exercised also in rela tion to a kingdom, and is connected with the other expreseive phrases before specified; ought it not likewise to be so understood in the present instance?

Accordingly, one of our most respectable English Iucependents, in his illustration of various passages of scripture from Oriental customs, gives the same interpretation of this allusion. "As stewards of a great family," says he, "es

a

pecially of the royal household, bore a key, probably a "golden one, in token of their office, the phrase of giving "person the key, naturally grew into an expression of rais*ing him to great power, (compare Isaiah xxii. 22, with "Rev. iii. 7). This was with peculiar propriety applic "able to the stewards of the mysteries of God: I Cor. iv. 1. Peter's opening the kingdom of heaven, as being the first that preached it both to the Jews and to the Gentiles, 60 may be considered as an illustration of this promise; but it " is more fully explained, by the power of binding and

loosing afterwards mentioned." As to the distinction of the keys into those of knowledge, of liberty, and of authority, by which other Independents endeavour to evade this argument, it is altogether fanciful, and not authorized by the word of God. See the London Ministers' Divine Right of Presbytery, last edition, p. 98, 99.

Selden and Lightfoot, with some moderns, understand by the binding and loosing, a power merely of declaring the doctrines and laws of the gospel, and not of punishing or absolving in a judicial capacity, (see McKnight on the place); and tell us, 'that these terms were used by the Rabbis, to signify the lawfulness or unlawfulness of things. Binding,

Burder's Oriental Customs, Matth. xvi. 19.

according to them, denoted that a thing was bound up, or forbidden to men; and loosing, that it was free, or permitted-and why not so here? To this, however, it may be replied, that Independents themselves, in general, do not allow to their members the power of binding and loosing in this sense; for it is not the privilege of the members, as such, to preach the laws and doctrines of the gospel. We know, besides, that the phrases of binding and loosing were very commonly employed by the Jewish Doctors, to signify not only a doctrinal declaration of what was lawful or unlawful, but a judicial punishing or absolving of the excommunicated*. The Greeks also had a similar expression relating to judicial authority. Thus Stephens quotes from Æschines these words, Επειδαν τη πρώτη ψήφω μη ΛΥΘΗ το παρανομον ; i. 66 e. as the person accused was not acquitted," or, agrecably to the translation of the word in Matthew, "was not loosed by the first vote." So also, when it is said of Jerusalem, (Isaiah xl. 2), that "her iniquity is "pardoned," (a case exactly in point to Matth. xviii. 18, where the binding and loosing relate to an offence), the Septuagint renders the words ΛΕΛΥΤΑΙ αυτης ἡ ἁμαρτια, “ her iniquity is loosed." The Latins, in like manner, employed the same terms, to express acquittal or condemnation by judges in the civil courts, as will be evident to any one who consults the writings of Cicero, whose common phrase for acquittal is "solvere crimine, to loose from a crime or ac"cusation." In short, not only do the terms binding and loosing signify, in sacred and profane authors, judicially to punish, and pardon, and acquit, but it seems evident that in this sense they ought to be understood in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew. There, as was remarked, it is an offence that is said to be bound or loosed; and lest the brother who commits it should be disposed to disregard the church when they exert this power, it is declared that what is thus done on earth according to the will of the Saviour,

66

事

See Buxtorf's Lexicon, Chald. Talmud. Rabbin, p. 1410.

Thus, likewise (Ecclesiasticus xxviii. 2), says the son of Sirach, who was a Jew," Forgive thy neighbour the hurt that he "hath done thee, so shall thy sins be forgiven thee also when thou prayest;" literally, "shall be losed to the," Aulnoovtai. And thus, too, the Septuagint, speaking of God's forgiving the sin of Job's friends, (Job xlii. 9), says, that he loosed their sin, Exues ex apazriav aurois,

shall be done in heaven also. But this binding or loosing of an offence, surely, cannot so properly mean, the declaring it to be or not to be an offence, or denouncing the judgments annexed to it (though this may be included), as, agreeably to the common acceptation of the phrase, the pronouncing the pardon, or the punishment--the acquittal, or the guilt of the offender. Besides, this binding or loosing cannot apply to the preaching of the gospel, or the declaration of its laws; for it is a sentence in which two or three at least must be agreed-which is to be employed only after a private remonstrance and admonition, before two or three Christian brethren, has been tried without effect; and -which must be justified by the testimony of witnesses who have heard the offender vindicate his offence, before it is to be pronounced by the church. It is difficult, however, to perceive on what principle it could be necessary to call witnesses befose the gospel was preached, or the laws of its kingdom were announced; though this was absolutely essential, if an act of judicial power was to be exercised. To this power all the circumstances mentioned in the passage easily apply we therefore conclude, that it sanctions the exercise of judicial authority.

Nor let it be objected with M'Knight, that these expressions are not susceptible of this meaning, because it is not said, whomsoever, but whatsoever ye shall bind or loose; for it has been already shewn, that they are applied in the Old Testament not only to persons but to things, where it is certain that punishing, or pardoning, was intended. Thus, when it is said of Jerusalem (Isaiah xlii. 2.), that her iniquity was to be loosed-of Job's friends, (Job xlii. 9), that their sins were loosed to them-and of those who forgive their neighbours, (Eccles. xxviii. 2), that their sins should be loosed-things only are spoken of; and it is not merely a declaration that they were lawful or unlawful, but a judicial release from the punishment of transgression.

From this induction it would therefore appear, that the binding and loosing mentioned, represent the exercise of authoritative judicial power; and, of consequence, that as this power has already been proved to be committed, together with the keys of the kingdom, to the ministers, and not to the members, the former, as distinguished from the latter, are the only persons entitled to the exercise of this authority.

SIR,

LETTER V.

As it appears that the various titles characteristic of rulers are given to the elders exclusively, so the highest acts of go vernment and discipline seem to be represented in scripture as performed by them, and by them alone. This I shall now endeavour to prove, and then conclude this part of the discussion,

Of the various acts which ought to be considered as of the greatest importance in ecclesiastical government, the first, unquestionably, which merits our attention, is that of the admission of members.

It seems manifest from the sacred oracles, that this work is committed exclusively to the pastors of the church, and not to them merely as conjoined with the members. At the effusion on Pentecost, for instance, we are told, that in what remained of a single day, after a sermon from the Apostles, about three thousand souls were added to the church. But how was it possible that in so short a space the members at large could meet with the pastors, and hear them examined, and express in order their approbation or disapprobation of the confession and character of every individual in such a multitude? When Philip went down to Samaria, and baptized many, both men and women, and when he baptized and received the Ethiopian eunuch as a member of the church, as well as when Ananias baptized Paul, though in the city of Damascus where there was a Christian church, it is plain that this act was performed solely by ministers, without convening or consulting members. While, however, in these and other instances, both where a church was forming, and, as in the example at Jerusalem, where it was already formed, the power of admission is represented as committed to the ministers alone, as far as we recollect there is not a single in. stance in the whole of the New Testament, where persons were received into the fellowship of the church after the judgment of members had been asked and obtained. It is indeed said, (Acts ix. 26), that "when Saul, after his con"version, came up to Jerusalem, and assayed to join him. "self to the disciples, they were, all afraid of him, and be"lieved not that he was a disciple." But here there is no