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 ble ing can be conveyed; the ble ing 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 confe ion, 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 confe ed 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 you sands may be alleged out of their writings. “Our wise men say that in Judah they did work on the Pa over 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-gla 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 nece ity, loosed salutation on the sabbath;” that is, they have permitted it, or taught that it was lawful. You sands 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 Maim on ides, 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,” . 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 succe ively, 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 a istance 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,” .— Light foot. 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 succe ors 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 commi ion 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 succe ors 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 expre es, with great clearne , 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 unle 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 addre to Peter, and the omi ion 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 succe ors, extending to the supreme decision of spiritual causes on earth, and the regulating the condition of souls in purgatory. Cornel i us 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 a umes that in this way the supreme power of the pope is adequately proved. Like his predece or, 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 profe or at Paris, the other at Louvain. They may be fairly taken to expre 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 po ible 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 expre ions, 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 onene of the Church universal. They exalt his chair, but they are careful to explain that they are speaking, not of an individual bishop po e ing 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 po e es a portion. Dupin affirms that the Fathers are unanimous in a igning 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 succe ors 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 pa ages 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 expre ly claimed this power of binding and loosing, without any reference to the succe or of St. Peter. The Council of Con stance, in its fourth se ion, 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 se ion, pa ed 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., expre ly 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 worthle as a theologian, he is valuable as a witne . He alleged various pa ages, 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 confe ion of Peter was the confe ion 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 confe ion, 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 addre ed 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 addre ed 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.