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 any-
thing 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 vitoSikoi,
' 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 ' hand-writing ; ' 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 can-
not be rightly understood, nor what man-
ner of righteousness is in question, except
we still have before our eyes this same
co7'a7n rege jiisto judicium faciente." —
Bishop Andr ewes'' Sermon 07i Justijication
in Christ's Name. See also Barrow's Scr-
mon on Justification. lVote?'land on Jus-
tification. Ileurtley on Justi/icatioti. Stanley
Faher on Justijication.
KEYS, POWER OF THE. The au-
thority existing in the Christian priest-
hood of administering the discipline of the
Church, and communicating or withholding
its privileges ; so called from the declar-
ation 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
KEYS, POWER OF THE.
419
sins ye retain, they are retained." (Matt.
xvi. 19; xviii. 18; John xx. 23.)
The poAver of the keys is only a minis-
terial power. By administering the sa-
craments, tliey who have that ])Ower do
that which conveys grace to certain souls.
But Avhosc 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 Chui-ch 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 Re-
formation, this act again is ratified in
heaven, and to observe that ordinance be-
comes 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 tlTat truth, and the
rock confessed in it; 2. He promiseth
" the keys of the kingdom of heaven "
to Peter only, of all the apostles ; mean-
ing 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 dis-
ciples had in common with him. " Binding
and loosing," in the language and style
most familiarly known to the Jewish na-
tion, (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 hcsaith, (Matt. xvi. 19,)
o tdv S>)(ryg, not of; and in Matt, xviii. 18,
brra tav Si]<Tt]Te, not ocrovg. 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. " ()ur wise men say that in
Judali they did work on the Passover eve
2 E 2
till noon, but in Galilee not at all ; and as
for the night, the school of Shammai hound
it, that is, forbade to work on it, or taught
that it was unlawful ; but the school of
Hillel loosed it till sun-rising, or taught
that it Mas lawful to M'ork till sun-rise."
They are speaking about washing in the
baths of Tiberias on the sabbath, and they
determine hoAv far this was lawful in these
words, " They boicnd washing to them,
but they loosed sweating;" meaning, they
taught that it was lawful to go into the bath
to sAveat, 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 boimd 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 Avail, Kabbi loosed
the looking into it; but the Avise man
bojaid it." " Iv. Jochanan Avent from Tlip-
poris to Tiberias ; he saith, ' AVhy brought
ye me to this elder ? for what I loose, he
hindeth ; and Avhat I hind, he looseth.'"
"The scribes have 5ow;k/ leaven ; " that is,
they have prohibited it. " They have,
u])on necessity, loosed salutation on the
sabbath ; " that is, they have permitted it,
or taught that it Avas laAvful.
Thousands of instances of this nature
might be produced, by all Avhich it is clear
that the Jcavs' use of the phrase was of
their doctors' or learned men's teaching
Avhat Avas lawful and permitted, and what
was unlaiaful and prohibited. Hence is
that definition of such men's office and
Avork : " A Avise man that judgeth judg-
ment, and maketh unclean and maketh
clean, hindeth and looseth, that is, teachcth
Avhat is clean and unclean, Avhat is per-
mitted or prohibited." And Maimonides,
giAdng the relation of their ordaining of
elders, and to Avhat several employments
they Avere ordained, saith thus, " A wise
man that is fit to teach all the laAv, the
consistory had power to ordain him to
judge, but not to teach hound and loose:
or poAver to teach hound and loose, but not
a judge in pecuniary matters ; or poAver to
both these, but not to judge in matters of
mulct," (SL'C. So that the ordination of one
to that function, — Avhich Avas more pro-
])erly ministerial, or to teach the people
their duty, as, Avhat Avas laAvful, Avhat not ;
Avhat they Avere to do, and what not to do,
— Avas to such a pur])ose, or to such a tenor
as this, " Take thou the j^OAver to hind and
loose, or to teach Avhat is bound and loose."
P>y this vulgar and only sense of this
phrase in the nation, the meaning of
420
KEYS, POWER OF THE.
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 he
done and Avliat 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 foUoAV : 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 laAV prohibited, were now
to be permitted ; and some things, then
permitted, to be now prohibited, he pro-
miseth 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. — Lujhtfoot.
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 M'hich 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 king-
dom being, as himself saith, not of this
world, but purely spiritual, he hath author-
ized his substitutes in the government of
it to use rewards and punishments of the
same nature ; even to admonish delin-
quents 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 re-
surrection, 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 poAver upon earth also to forgive
sins, do now commit the same to you ; so
that whose sins soever are remitted or re-
tained 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 exer-
cised ; 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, w^ho is al-
ways present with them. And, therefore,
as they themselves need to have a care how
they exert this power, or neglect the ex-
erting 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 bind-
ing and loosing (which certainly was all
that the keys were given for) was made
afterAvards 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 perform-
ing the first and second promise, we find
it not recorded in Scripture how or w^hen,
or whether yet or no, the promise be per-
formed." 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 ar-
gument, I leave him and St. Austin to
contest it."
The apostles knew nothing of any dif-
ferent power conveyed to one of their
number beyond what was common to him
with the rest, as we may reasonably con-
clude, since there is no record of any au-
thority exercised on the one side, or of
obedience rendered on the other.
KEYS, POWER OF THE.
421
The proposed distinction is, indeed, ut-
terly untenable, and the whole testimony
of antiquity is against it ; yet it is main-
tained by some of the chief Roman com-
mentators. jSIaldonat, 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 open-
ing and shutting, in subordination to
Christ alone, wliile 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 pro-
nounces 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 su-
preme decision of spiritual causes on earth,
and the regulating the condition of souls
in purgatory. Cornelius Van den Steen,
or a 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 jurisdic-
tion 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 no-
thing 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 ec-
clesiastical laAvs, pronouncing excommuni-
cations and other censures, delivering de-
cisions 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 tliat there
is not a -word which implies their having
done so by delegation. He very charac-
teristically confirms his exposition by a
synodical letter, which the great Jloman
annalist had given up as spurious some
years before.
lioth 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
Koman ('hurch. Nothing can be more
extravagant than their interpretations, or
more feebly su})])orted 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 con-
firmation from any of the primitive expo-
sitors 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 Augus-
tine, repeated in a multitude of places, is
as clear as possible that the Church re-
ceived the power of the keys, and not an
individual apostle. The Fathers were not
writing with any view to the present con-
troversy ; and many of their expressions,
taken separately, Avovdd give a very untrue
representation of their meaning, by mak-
ing them maintain opinions Avhich, 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 plain-
est terms, that the rest of the apostles
were what Peter was, and had equal par-
ticipation of honour and authority. So
the Fathers continually speak of him as
figuring the oneness of the Church univer-
sal. They exalt his chair, but they are
careful to explain that they arc speaking,
not of an individvial bishop possessing su-
preme authority, which was the farthest
from their thoughts, but of that one un-
divided episcopacy, to use Cyprian's well-
known words, of which every bishop
possesses a portion.
Dupin affirms that the Fathers are una-
nimous 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 mIio holds it
to have been given to Peter and his suc-
cessors alone ; and that they liave 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 furn-
422
KEYS, POWER OF THE.
KING'S EVIL.
ishes some authorities on this subject, not
only from the early Fathers, but from
popes, great bishops of the lloman 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 im-
portance of the question : for if, as he says,
the power of the keys belongs to the pope
alone, there can bo 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 ses-
sion, declared, in the strongest language,
that the Church has its jurisdiction imme-
diately from Christ ; and this judgment
was embodied in acts of the highest sig-
nificancy and importance. The Council
of Basle, in its first session, passed a de-
cree in exactly the same spirit, and almost
in the very same words, -^neas 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 Car-
dinal 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 immedi-
ately from God. And, indeed, the whole
argument of the French and Spanish pre-
lates in favour of the divine right of epis-
copacy 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 ques-
tion 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 Nicho-
las de Lyra saj^ 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,
folloAving so closely upon his confession,
puts another difficulty in the way of those
who insist on his great personal preroga-
tives. 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 sc purpose.
We shall not be more disposed to adopt
the opinion of Hilary, who would have us
consider the one part of the sentence ad-
dressed 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 over-
ruled it for good, by making it a warning
that we should not think even of this emi-
nent apostle more highly than we ought to
think. — S. Robins.
KINDRED. (See Consanguinity.)
KING'S EVIL. This disease "is con-
nected with the ecclesiastical histoiy 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 exer-
cised 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 occa-
sions 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. PauVs 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 heal-
KING'S EVIL.
423
ings" 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 Ccrenwuies,''^ 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 state-
ment, 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. [^QQ Pegge's Curialia MisceUa7iea,
161 ; taken from a folio Prayer Book,
1710. Also Rennet's llegister, 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 Sjmrrotd's
Collections, printed in 1684.
AT THE HEALING.
Tlie Gospel tvritten in the 16th chapter of
St, Mark, beginning at the 14^/i 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 crea-
tures : 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