PRiETO'R
of
the
keys
on
these
occasions.
It
was
his
believing
confession
of
Christ
that
had
gained
him
the
privilege,
and
both
in
Jerusalem
and
at
Cxsarea
it
was
by
a
renewed
confession
of
Christ,
accompanied
by
a
testi-mony
to
the
truth
regarding
Him
as
that
had
been
made
known
in
the
experience
of
faith
(Ac
2''-"
10"-«),
that
he
opened
the
doors
of
the
Kingdom
alike
to
Jews
and
to
Gentiles.
With
regard
to
the
second
part
of
the
verse,
'
What-soever
thou
Shalt
bind
on
earth
shall
be
bound
in
heaven;
and
whatsoever
thou
Shalt
loose
on
earth
shall
be
loosed
in
heaven,'
some
scholars
have
regarded
it
as
merely
explaining
what
is
meant
by
the
keys
of
the
Kingdom,
while
others
hold
that
it
confers
a
privilege.
The
latter
view
is
the
more
probable.
And
as
we
know
that
in
the
Kabbinic
language
of
the
time,
to
'bind'
and
to
'loose'
were
the
regular
terms
for
forbidding
and
permitting,
these
words
confer
upon
the
Apostle
a
power
of
legislation
in
the
Christian
Church
—
a
power
which
we
see
him
exercising
by
and
by,
along
with
the
other
Apostles
and
the
elders,
at
the
Jerusalem
Conference
(Ac
15«-"-
22-").
But
now
comes
the
question.
Was
this
twofold
promise,
which
was
given
to
St.
Peter
personally,
given
him
in
any
exclusive
sense?
As
regards
the
second
part
of
it,
clearly
not;
for
on
a
later
occasion
in
this
same
Gospel
we
find
Jesus
bestowing
precisely
the
same
privilege
on
His
disciples
generally
(18";
cf.
v.'
and
also
w."-
'").
Moreover,
the
later
NT
history
shows
that
St.
Peter
had
no
supreme
position
as
a
legislator
in
the
Church
(see
Ac
15"-
>»,
Gal
2"ff).
And
if
the
power
of
binding
and
loosing
was
not
given
to
him
exclusively,
the
presumption
is
that
the
same
thing
holds
of
the
parallel
power
of
the
keys.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
we
find
it
to
be
so.
Though
St.
Peter
had
the
privilege
of
first
opening
the
doors
of
the
King-dom
to
both
Jews
and
Gentiles,
the
same
privilege
was
soon
exercised
by
others
(Ac
8'
ll"".
13™).
By
and
by
Peter
falls
into
the
background,
and
we
find
Paul
and
Barnabas
rehearsing
to
the
Church
how
God
through
their
preaching
had
'opened
a
door
of
faith
unto
the
Gentiles'
(14^').
But
this
does
not
mean
that
the
privilege
was
withdrawn
from
St.
Peter;
it
means
only
that
it
was
extended
to
others
on
their
fulfilment
of
those
same
conditions
of
faith
and
testimony
on
which
Peter
had
first
received
it.
2.
In
Mt
18"
there
appears
to
be
no
reference
what-ever
to
the
remission
and
retention
of
sins.
As
in
16",
'whatsoever'
not
'whomsoever'
is
the
word
employed,
and
here
as
there
the
binding
and
loosing
must
be
taken
to
refer
to
the
enactment
of
ordinances
for
regulating
the
affairs
of
the
Church,
not
to
the
discharge
of
such
a
purely
spiritual
function
as
the
forgiveness
of
sins.
In
any.
case,
the
promise
Is
made
not
to
the
Apostles,
much
less
to
an
official
priesthood
deriving
authority
from
them
by
an
Apostolic
succession,
but
to
•the
Church'
(v.").
3.
In
Jn
20''
we
find
the
assurance
definitely
given
of
a
power
to
remit
or
retain
sins.
But
the
gift
is
bestowed
upon
the
whole
company
present
(cf.
Lk
2#»)
as
representing
the
Christian
society
generally.
That
society,
through
its
possession
of
the
Holy
Spirit
(v.^^),
is
thus
empowered
to
declare
the
forgiveness
or
the
retention
of
sins
(cf.
1
Jn
2><>,
Gal
6';
and
see
F.
W.
Robertson,
Serm.,
2nd
ser.
xl.).
J.
C.
Lambert.
FR^TOR.
—
See
Magistrate,
Province.
PR.a!TORIAN
GUARD.—
See
next
art.
and
Guard.
PRJETORnnS
(Gr.
praitl>rion)
occurs
only
once
In
AV
(Mk
15").
Elsewhere
it
is
represented
by
'
common
hall'
(Mt
27",
RV
'palace'),
'judgment
hall'
(Jn
182S.
S3
199^
Ac
23»';
RV
in
all
'palace')
and
'palace'
(Ph
1",
RV
'praetorian
guard').
The
word
at
first
denoted
the
headquarters
in
the
Roman
camp,
a
space
within
which
stood
the
general's
tent,
the
camp
altar,
the
augurBle,
and
the
tribunal;
then
the
military
council
PRAISE
meeting
there.
Each
praetor,
on
completing
his
year
of
office,
went
as
governor
to
a
province,
and
his
official
residence
was
called
'
prsetorium
'
;
then
any
house
distinguished
by
size
and
magnificence,
esp.
the
Emperor's
residence
outside
Rome.
In
the
Gospels,
prcetorium
perhaps
(but
see
Pilate,
p.
729")
stands
for
the
palace
of
Herod
the
Great,
occupied
by
Pontius
Pilate
—
a
splendid
building,
probably
in
the
western
part
of
the
city.
In
Ph
1"
it
is
probably
the
barracks
of
the
praetorians,
the
Imperial
bodyguard.
Originally
the
Cohors
PTcetaria
was
a
company
attached
to
the
com-mander-in-chief
in
the
field.
Augustus
retained
the
name,
but
raised
the
number
to
ten
cohorts
of
1000
each,
quartering
only
3
cohorts
in
the
city
at
a
time.
Tiberius
brought
them
all
to
Rome,
and
placed
them
in
a
fortified
camp,
at
the
northern
extremity
of
the
Viminal.
Under
Vitellius
their
number
was
raised
to
16,000.
W.
EwiNQ.
PRAISE
is
the
recognition
and
acknowledgment
of
merit.
Two
parties
are
involved:
the
one
possessing
at
least
supposed
merit,
the
other
being
a
person
who
acknowledges
the
merit.
Men
may
praise
men.
Forms
of
praise
may
be
used
without
genuine
feelings
of
praise,
and
extravagant
praise
may
be
rendered
intentionally,
because
of
the
advantage
that
will
be
gained
thereby.
This
is
down-right
hypocrisy,
and
the
whole
burden
of
the
moral
teaching
of
the
Bible,
and
especially
of
Christ,
is
against
hypocrisy.
Again,
the
estimate
of
values
may
be
so
completely
false
that
praise
may
be
felt
and
expressed
genuinely
in
cases
where
it
is
undeserved.
And
Jesus'
whole
infiuenee
is
directed
towards
the
proper
appre-ciation
of
values
so
that
only
the
good
shall
appear
to
us
good.
In
its
common
Biblical
use,
however,
praise
has
Ood
far
its
object.
This
restriction
does
not
involve
an
essential
difference
either
in
the
praise
or
in
the
sense
of
moral
values.
The
difference
lies
rather
in
the
greater
praiseworthiness
of
God.
Praise
of
God
is
of
course
called
forth
only
as
He
reveals
Himself
to
men,
only
as
men
recognize
His
activity
and
His
power
in
the
event
or
condition
which
appears
to
them
adequate
to
call
out
praise.
Men
praise
God
in
proportion
as
they
are
religious,
and
so
have
conscious
relations
with
God.
The
praiseworthiness
of
a
god
is
involved
in
the
very
definition
of
a
god.
If
men
postulate
a
god
at
all,
it
is
as
a
being
worthy
to
be
praised.
Every
thought
and
act
by
which
men
come
into
relation
with
God
is
a
thought
and
an
act
of
praise.
Petition
is
justifiable
only
if
behind
it
is
the
belief
that
God
is
worthy
of
such
approach.
If
the
act
is
confession
of
sin,
the
same
is
true,
for
confession
is
not
made
to
a
being
who
does
not
hold
a
place
of
honour
and
praise.
It
some
active
service
is
rendered
to
God,
this
subjugation
of
ourselves
to
Him
can
be
explained
only
by
the
conviction
that
God
is
in
every
way
entitled
to
service.
Moreover,
as
in
the
case
of
praise
of
men,
there
is
a
very
clear
distinction
to
be
drawn
between
genuine
and
hypocritical
ascription
of
praise
to
God.
The
temptation
to
the
latter
is
extreme,
because
of
the
immense
gain
presumably
to
be
secured
by
praise;
but
the
hypocrisy
and
the
sin
of
it
are
equally
great.
Indeed,
the
serious-ness
of
the
offence
is
evident
when
one
reflects
that
he
who
praises
God
knows
full
well
the
praiseworthi-ness
of
God,
so
that
if
he
praises
while
the
genuine
feeling
is
lacking
and
the
sincere
act
of
praise
is
un-performed,
only
moral
perversity
can
account
for
the
hypocrisy.
In
order
to
genuineness,
praise
must
be
spontaneous
It
may
be
commanded
by
another
human
being,
and
the
praise
commanded
may
be
rendered,
but
the
real
impelling
cause
is
the
recognized
merit
of
God.
God
may
demand
praise
from
His
creatures
in
commands
transmitted
to
them
through
prophets
and
Apostles,
but
if
man
praises
Him
from
the
heart,
it
is
because
of
