though perhaps not in name, an equal title with elders to rule the church, the principle which fuch contradictions suppose, must be rejected; and, by consequence, it muft ftill be affirmed that every individual Chriftian has not a right to be a ruler in the church of God.

SIR,

LETTER IV.

IN addition to the arguments which have already been urged in refutation of your scheme, there are others, from which its contrariety to the facred oracles is no less apparent, I therefore observe in the

5th place, That the keys, which are the emblem of fubordinate authority in the kingdom of Jefus, are reprefented in scripture as delivered by him to the minifters, and not to the members.

With regard to the import of the celebrated paffage in Matth. xvi. where Jefus is faid to have bestowed upon Peter these keys of his kingdom, much diverfity of fentiment has obtained. Papifts contend that it includes a grant of universal supremacy over the church on earth to Peter, as the reprefentative of the Saviour, which grant they fuppofe to be transferred to their popes, who, according to them, are the successors of this Apostle. But even though they could prove that their popes were the legitimate fucceffors of Peter (in proving which they have as yet uniformly failed), this paffage contains no fuch grant to them; for, in other places, the rest of the Apostles are pointed out as invested with an equality of power, and as even withstanding him to the face on a particular occafion, because he was to be blamed. Epifcopalians allege that he represented their bishops, to whom, upon their scheme, the government of the church is chiefly

F

committed. But it is plain that no fuch bishops as theirs are authorized by scripture, which points out to us a plurality of bishops or overfeers in many primitive churches (fee Philip. i. 1. Acts xx. 17. 28, &c.); and informs us at the fame time, that by these we are to understand elders or minifters, who preached and ruled (see also for this, Acts xx. 1 Peter v. 1, 2, 3. &c.). Independents affert, that here Peter reprefents believers in general, to whom, according to them, the government of the church of Jefus is intrufted. The reasons on which they build this interpretation are thefe: That the gift of the keys was conferred on Peter, upon his confeffing Jefus to be the Son of God; and, confequently, fhould be conferred on all who make this confeffion : and the name Peter or Rock, which was given to this Apostle upon this occafion, belongs, they fay, equally to all believers, who are, no lefs than he, fpiritual ftones, built upon the fame holy and bleffed foundation. It feems probable however, that the name Peter, or the Rock, as bestowed upon this Apoftle, is not the fame with that which is elsewhere given to believers in general, when they are denominated Stones, and living Stones*; nor does it follow that becaufe they poffefs, in common with him, one part of the honour which he is here declared to have received, they are entitled to the other alfo. The gift of the keys is undoubtedly very dif ferent from that of being a flone built up by God's Spirit on the true foundation, and the enjoyment of the one can never neceffarily imply the poffeffion of the other. Befides, though it should be conceded, that the grant of the keys was made to Peter because he confeffed Chrift to be the Son of God, it cannot be inferred, on any confiftent principle, that every one who confeffes him is to receive that honour. We know that this Apoftle,

*See Whitby on the place.

on another memorable occafion (fee John xxi.), when he not only professed his faith, but his love to the Saviour, was anew authorized by him to be a preacher and an Apoftle*; but there are few, I believe, who, from this circumftance, would conclude with a celebrated minister," that every man (however weak) who can lay "his hand on his heart, and fay he loves Christ, has "Chrift's call and warrant to preach the gospel." But if few would adduce this as a proof that all who are poffeffed of a fimilar affection fhould have the office of a minifler, on what principle can it be demonftrated, that, though Peter was invefted by Jefus with the office of a ruler on his confeffing his faith, all who are poffeffed of fimilar faith fhould have a fimilar fundion? Nor will the nature of the deed itself authorize it; for by confeffing Jefus, and by being built up on him as a living ftone, a perfon becomes merely a member of his family, and a subject of his kingdom. But is it a legitimate inference, that because a perfon becomes a subject of his kingdom, and a member of his house, he is advanced in confequence of it to the office of a feward, to whose power, as expreffed by the usual badge which he anciently wore (a golden key carried on his fhoulder), there is an evident allusion in the phraseology before us? Were this the cafe, it would be a natural confequence that every perfon who becomes a believer, and a living stone, would be conftituted alfo a feward in the houfe of God, to rule and govern it; and in the family of Chrift, all would be ftewards, as well as governed. But if all were flewards, where were those who should be governed by them? Though therefore Peter, on this remarkable occafion, when a clearer discovery was to be made by Jefus of his character and kingdom than hitherto was done, received from him the affurance that he had committed to him

* "Feed my sheep; feed my lambs.”

the keys of his kingdom, and advanced him to the honour of being a ruler in it, it will not follow that every Chriflian, who believes and confeffes him on every occafion, is to receive that dignity. Does it follow that if a prince, at a particular time, to teftify his approbation of the views entertained of his character and government by one of his subjects, advances him to special honour, every one of his fubjects who expreffes fimilar views, at every future period, and on every occafion, fhould attain a fimilar honour? Neither, therefore, of the arguments which have been urged, evince that Peter represented believers in general, when he received at this time the keys of the kingdom; and the obvious meaning of the expreffions employed to denote this truft, which plainly refer to the office of a steward, feems totally incompatible with this idea.

It is indeed faid (Matth. xviii.), that "whatsoever the "church binds on earth," agreeably to the will of Jefus, "fhall be bound in heaven; and that whatfoever they "loose on earth, fhall be loofed in heaven;" which is the fame language that accompanies the gift of the keys to Peter (chap. xvi.): but, I truft, it will afterwards appear that we are not here to understand, by the term church, every particular member. On the contrary, we know that language almost exactly fimilar is employed by our Saviour, to express the power which he gave to his ministers, and his ministers alone in their official capacity. John xx. 21. 23. "Then faid Jefus unto them 66 again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath fent me, ❝even so fend I you. Whose foever fins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever fins ye retain, "they are retained." To fet afide this remark it is not fufficient to tell us with fome Independents*, " that, "perhaps, this forgiving of fin was equivalent to healing

*See Watt's Plain Proof, p. 171.

"difeafes, as we know that the Apoftles had the power "of healing diseases conferred on them, and as our "Lord declares it to be a proof of authority to forgive "fin on earth:” Matth. ix. 6. The power of healing diseases is never, as far as we recollect, reprefented in scripture as equivalent to that of forgiving iniquity; and the Apostles, in exercifing the former, are never said to have performed the latter. Nay, even in the paffage referred to, when our Saviour is afferted to have healed difeafes, this is by no means pointed out as the same with his forgiving fin, but fimply as an atteftation of the truth of what he faid, when he declared that he was commiffioned by his heavenly Father to remit fins on earth. But will it follow that becaufe this was produced as an evidence of the truth of his declaration that he was commiffioned to forgive fins, it was equivalent to the actual difpenfation of that forgiveness? Though the miracles of the converfion of water into wine, of the multiplication of the loaves, of the restoration of fight and hearing to the blind and deaf, and many fimilar works, when performed by our Lord, are adduced as evidences that he was, what he profeffed, the only Saviour, will it follow that these miracles were equivalent to this falvation which he came to bestow? It feems plain that the power of remitting and retaining fins, mentioned in John, is the fame with what is expreffed in Matth. xviii. 18. and xvi. 19. by binding an offending, and loofing a peni tent brother, agreeably to a common metaphor in fcripture, by which men, when, like Simon Magus, under the guilt and the power of fin, are reprefented as fixed in a bond; and when delivered from these, as loofed or fet free*. Now, this binding or loofing certainly does not mean

See alfo Prov. v. 22. "His own iniquities fhall take the "wicked himself, and he shall be helden with the cords of his "fins," &c.