The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 2 — Section 135

lend after the effusion or the Spirit, and an item, and to llllpply" sins" fo the genernl opened the door to the J ewe. It woe his term "whatsoever" twice repeated, is barsl> action that ndmitted the Gentiles, without and nnnatural. A more reasonable expla- oomplionce with the distinctive rites of nation of the phrAse is derived from the use Judaism, to all the privileges of the gospel of the terms among the Jews themselves. (see Aots xv. 7). This mf)st momentous In their Talmudic glosses we find equiva- precedent he estnl,lished 11nd made good for lent expressions. "To bind" is to forbid, oll time, 'fbese were l('gislative acts which to pronounce unlawful ; " to loose" is to he ho.d the honour of introducing, and allow, to declare lawful. And the Lord which, thus inaugurated, upheld, end de- here promises Peter a certain pre-eminence fended by him, tended to advance thut unity in the government and organization of the which the Lord held so dee.r. As an in- Church, e.nd that the roles which he orda.ined stance of his shutting the door of the king- and the sentences which he should pass in dom in the face of an impious intruder, we the due exercise of his apostolical authority, me.y notice his rebuke to Simon Mngue should be ratified and confirmed in heaven (Acts viii. 21), "Thou hast neither part nor (Burgon). The phrase is fonnd in Josephus, lot in this matter." The absolving power, expressive of the possession of unrestricted snpposcd to be contained in the gift of the authority. Thus he speaka of the Pharisees keys, seems rather to belong to the terms of as having power to loose and bind (,\i/eiv ,,.. the sncceeding promise. We conceive that 1«,I 8eiv) whom they would (' Bell. Jud.,' this power was first given to St. Peter in i. 5. 2). And it is noted that an inscription acknowledgment of his good confession, and upon a statue of Isis reads, " I am the queen as an emblem of unity, and was afterwards of the country, and whatsoever I bind no bestowed on all the apostles. That the man can loose" (Diod. Sic., i. 27). This Fathers did not regard it as limited ex- is a personal distinction conferred on St. clusively to Peter, may be seen by quotations Peter in the exercise of an office common to gathered by Wordsworth and other com- all the apostles. It was needful, in the early mentators. Thus Tertnllian, • Scorpiac.,' 10, Church, that one should be chosen, primu.3 "Memento claves hic Dominnm Petro, et per intm pares, to be the chief 0ffice-bearer and illumEcclesim reliquissc;" St. Cyprian,' De leader of the body of believers. Not that Unit.,' p. 107, "Apostolis omnibus post re- he conceived himself to be, or was recog- @urrectionem suam parem potestatem tri- nized by others as, infallible, or as an irre- buit;" St. Augustine,' Serm.,' ccxcv., "Has sponsible despot; many events before and claves non homo onus, sed unitas accepit after Pentecost forbid such e.n 0.8,'lumption; Ecclesim." Whatsoever thou shalt bind on but his faith, character, and zeal pointed earth, etc. "Binding" and "loosing" has him out as well constituted to regulate and been explained in various we.ye. Some say order the infant community, nnd to take the terms mean admitting or debarring from the first part in maintaining that unity the Church, which would make them identica.l which was essential to the new kingdom. with the power of the keys, and would give This personal primacy may justly be con- no additional privilege; whereas it is pie.in ceded, even by those who are most inimical that further honour is intended to be be- to the arrogant olaims of the papo.cy; for stowed. Others affirm that the expression it carries not with it the consequences which is to be understood of absolution from sin. have been appended. Precedence in rank 'l'hey take the metaphor to be derived from does not of necessity involve supreme or a prisoner o.nd his chain. Sinners are tied even superior authority. A duke has no e.nd bound with the chain of their sins ; they authority over a baron, though he has pre- are released on repentance 1.,y the miuistry cedence. The fuller consideration of this of reconciliation (2 Cor. v. 18, 19); they are sphere of the subject belongs rather to the bound, when the means of gro.ce nre with- historian and the polemist than to the ex- held from them, owing to the absence of positor, and to such we leave it, only adding tokens of sincerity 11nd fo.ith. This is the that, in his peculiar privilege, Peter stands view to.ken in the Anglican Ordinal, where alone, nnd that in his extruorilinary power to the priest it is solemnly said, "Whose he had, and WBB intended to have, no sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; sucoessors. and whose sins thou dost mtain, they are Ver. 20.-Then oharged he his clisciplea. retained." But this wns no special gift to Immediately aft-er Pater's confession o.nd Peter ; it was b011towed not long after upon Jesus' promise. St. Matthew's word all the apostolic body in the very same "cho.rgcd" (6teO'Tfl,\aTo) becomes more em- terms (oh. xviii. 18), and was indeed in- phe.tio in the other synoptists (breT/µ:,wev). herent in the ministry. This interpretation implying a command with a rebuke attached also introduces a new element into the pro- to it on its infringement; Vulgate, com- mise, which does not agree with the context. minatue est (Mark viii. 30). The.t they There is nothing to lend one to expect such should tell no man that he (a/rror) waa  138 TIIE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. [cm. xvi. 1-28.