14. ART. shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever XIX. thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' This begins with an allusion to his name; and discourses built upon such allusions are not to be understood strictly or grammatically. By the Rock upon which Christ promises to build his church, many of the fathers have understood the person of Christ, others have understood the confession of him, or faith in him, which indeed is but a different way of expressing the same thing. And it is certain that, strictly speaking, the church can only be said to be founded upon Christ, and upon his doctrine. But in a secondary sense it may be said to be founded upon the apostles, and upon St. Peter as the first in order; which is not to be disputed. Now though this is a sense which was not put on these words for many ages; yet when it should be allowed to be their true sense, it will not prove any thing to have been granted to St. Peter but what was common to the other Eph. ii. 20. apostles; who are all called the foundations upon which the Rev. xxi. church is built.' That which follows, of the gates of hell not being able to prevail against the church, may be either understood of death, which is often called the gate to the grave; which is the sense of the word that is rendered hell: and then the meaning of these words will be, that the church, which Christ was to raise, should never be extinguished, nor die, or come to a period, as the Jewish religion then did: or, according to the custom of the Jews, of holding their courts and councils about their gates, by the gates of hell may be understood, the designs and contrivances of the powers of darkness, which should never prevail over the church to root it out, and destroy it; for the word rendered prevail does signify an entire victory: this only imports, that the church should be still preserved against all the attempts of hell, but does not intimate that no error was ever to get into it. By the words kingdom of heaven, generally through the whole gospel, the dispensation of the Messias is understood. This appears evidently from the words with which both St. Matt. iii. 2. John Baptist and our Saviour began their preaching, Reiv. 17. and pent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand and the many xiii. 11, 19, parables and comparisons that Christ gave of the kingdom of 24-48. 6 heaven, can only be understood of the preaching of the gospel. This being then agreed to, the most natural and the least forced exposition of those words must be, that St. Peter was to open the dispensation of the gospel.* The proper use of a And in relation to this promise of our Lord, as well as the completion of it by the conversion of the Gentiles, it seems to be that this apostle doth, in the syrol met at Jerusalem, speak thus, " Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago, a user dexaiwr, God chose me out among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word." (Acts xv. 7.) He therefore was assuredly the person who first preached the gospel to the Gentiles, and by doing so opened the kingdom of heaven to them: he was the person chosen by Christ to perform this work. Nor is this exposition any new fancy of my own; it is as ancient 52. key is to open a door: and as this agrees with these words, ART. 'he that hath the key of the house of David, that openeth and XIX. no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth;' and with Rev. iii 7. the phrase of the 'key of knowledge,' by which the lawyers are Luke xi. described; for they had a key with writing tables given them, as the badges of their profession: so it agrees with the accomplishment of this promise in St. Peter, who first opened the gospel to the Jews, after the wonderful effusion of the Holy Ghost: and more eminently when he first opened the door to the Gentiles, preaching to Cornelius, and baptizing him and his household, to which the phrase of the kingdom of heaven seems to have a more particular relation. This dispensation was.committed to St. Peter, and seems to be claimed by him as his peculiar privilege in the council at Jerusalem. This is a clear and plain sense of these words. For those who would carry them further, and understand by the kingdom of heaven our eternal happiness, must use many distinctions; otherwise, if they expound them literally, they will ascribe to St. Peter that which certainly could only belong to our Saviour himself. Though at the same time it is not to be denied, but that under the figure of keys, the power of discipline, and the conduct and management of Christians, may be understood. But as to this, all the pastors of the church have their share in it; nor can it be appropriated to any one person. As for that of binding and loosing, and the confirming in heaven what he should do in earth, whatever it may signify, it is no special grant to St. Peter: for the same words are spoken by our Saviour elsewhere to all the apostles: so this is given equally to them all. The words binding and loosing are used by the Jewish writers, in the sense of affirming or denying the obligation of any precept of the law that might be in dispute. So according to this common form of speech, and the sense formerly given to the words kingdom of heaven, the meaning of these words must be, that Christ committed to the apostles the dispensing his gospel to the world, by which he authorized them to dissolve the obligation of the Mosaical laws; and to give other laws to the Christian church, which they should do under such visible characters of a divine authority, empowering and conducting them in it, that it should be very as Tertullian, who saith (De Pudicitia) that Christ did personally confer this honour on St. Peter, saying, "Upon thee will I build my church." "Sic enim exitus docuit, in ipso ecclesia exstructa est, i.e. per ipsum, ipse clavem imbuit."—" So the event doth teach, the church was built on him, that is, by him, he hanselled the first key" he preached that sermon by which three thousand Jews were brought into the faith; he laid the first foundation of a church among the Gentiles; he first, by baptism, gave them entrance into the kingdom of heaven. This being so, it is evident that in this matter St. Peter neither hath nor can have a successor; and that it is absurd to claim a title of succession to this prerogative of St. Peter; this being in effect to say, that the foundations of the church of Christ are not yet laid, and to pretend to a commission to perform at present what was fully done above a thousand six hundred years ago.' Whitby.— [ED.] ART. evident, that what they did on earth was also ratified in heaXIX. ven. These words, thus understood, carry in them a clear Luke xxii. 32. sense, which agrees with the whole design of the gospel. But whatsoever their sense may be, it is plain that there was nothing given peculiarly to St. Peter by them, which was not likewise given to the rest of the apostles. Nor do these words of our Saviour to St. Peter import any thing of a successive infallibility that was to be derived from him with any distinc tion beyond the other apostles: unless it were a priority of order and dignity; and whatever that was, there is not so much as a hint given, that it was to descend from him to any see or succession of bishops. As for our Saviour's praying that St. Peter's 'faith might not fail,' and his restoring him to his apostolical function, by 15, 16, 17. a thrice repeated charge, Feed my sheep, Feed my lambs,' John xxi. that has such a visible relation to his fall, and to his denying him, that it does not seem necessary to enlarge further on the making it out, or on shewing that these words are capable of no other signification, and cannot be carried further. The importance of this argument, rather than the difficulty of it, has made it necessary to dwell fully upon it: so much depends upon it, and the missionaries of the church of Rome are so well instructed in it, that it ought to be well considered; for how little strength soever there may be in the arguments brought to prove this infallibility, yet the colours are specious, and they are commonly managed both with much art and great confidence. ARTICLE XX. Of the Authority of the Church. The Church hath Power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and Au- THIS Article consists of two parts; the first asserts a power * The question between us and the papal church in this point is, not whether the church has power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in matters of faith-this cannot be denied; every church has this power within itself—but whether the church has authority to enlarge the catholic and apostolic faith by decreeing as necessary to salvation certain articles, which by her own confession have not any other foundation except only her decree. This is the question at issue between the Reformed and the Church of Rome. Our articles are articles of church communion or church discipline, drawn up for the better furtherance of the faith of Christ, and rendered necessary for the reasons given by our author in his Introduction, p. 5. But it must ever be borne in mind, that so far from adding any thing to the faith of Christ, two of those articles, the 6th and 20th, declare the Bible to be the sole standard of faith; and that, as it is not lawful to decree any thing contrary to it, so it is not in the power of the church to add any thing, even though it be not contrary, to that revelation given in the inspired word of God. This which we reject is the power usurped by the church of Rome; in which matter she has not only daringly set at nought the solemn injunctions in the word of God, but also the decrees of councils which she professes to so highly reverence: -which conduct is well reproved by Bishop Taylor, in the following extract: First, we allege that this very power of making new articles is a novelty, and expressly against the doctrine of the primitive church; and we prove it, first, by the words of the apostle, (Gal. i. 8.) saying, "If we, or an angel from heaven, shall preach unto you any other gospel (viz, in whole, or in part, for there is the same reason of them both) than that which we have preached, let him be anathema ;" and, secondly, by the sentence of the Fathers in the third general council, that at Ephesus, "That it shall not be lawful for any man to publish or compose another faith or creed than that which was defined by the Nicene Council: and that whosoever shall dare to compose or offer any such to any persons willing to be converted from paganism, Judaism, or heresy, if they were bishops, or clerks, they should be deposed; if laymen, they should be accursed!" And yet, in the church of Rome, faith and Christianity increase like the moon; Bromyard complained of it long since, and the mischief increases daily.'-ED. This is the decree of the council of Ephesus, to which Burnet refers in his Introduction: (see pp. 1, 3.) ART. ART. 19. XX. 1 Cor. xiv. 40. the fifth Article, but were afterwards left out; instead of which the first words of this Article were put in this place, according to the printed editions; though they are not in the original of the Articles signed by both houses of convocation, that are yet extant. As to the first part of the Article, concerning the power of the church, either with relation to ceremonies or points of faith, the dispute lies only with those who deny all church power, and think that churches ought to be in all things limited by the rules set in scripture; and that where the scriptures are silent, there ought to be no rules made, but that all men should be left to their liberty; and, in particular, that the appointing new ceremonies looks like a reproaching of the apostles, as if their constitutions had been so defective, that those defects must be supplied by the inventions of men: which they oppose so much the more, because they think that all the corruptions of popery began at some rites which seemed at first not only innocent, but pious; but were afterwards abused to superstition and idolatry, and swelled up to that bulk as to oppress and stifle true religion with their number and weight. A great part of this is in some respect true; yet that we may examine the matter methodically, we shall first consider, what power the church has in those matters; and then, what rules she ought to govern herself by in the use of that power. It is very visible, that in the Gospels and Epistles there are but few rules laid down as to ritual matters: in the Epistles there are some general rules given, that must take in a great many cases: Rom. xiv. such as, 'Let all things be done to edification, to order, and to peace and in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, many rules are given in such general words, as, 'Lay hands suddenly on no man,' that in order to the guiding of particular cases by them, many distinctions and specialities were to be interposed to the making them practicable and useful. In matters that are merely ritual, the state of mankind in different climates and ages is apt to vary; and the same thing that in one scene of human nature may look grave, and seem fit for any society, may in another age look light, and dissipate men's thoughts. It is also evident that there is not a system of rules given in the New Testament about all these; and yet a due method in them is necessary to maintain the order and decency that become divine things. This seems to be a part of the gospel Gal. ii. 4. liberty, that it is not a law of ordinances; these things being left to be varied according to the diversities of mankind. -iv. 9. -v. 1. The Jewish religion was delivered to one nation, and the main parts of it were to be performed in one place; they were also to be limited in rituals, lest they might have taken some practices from their neighbours round about them, and so by the use of their rites have rendered idolatrous practices more |