A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

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.”