Acerca de este libro. Normas de uso

Transcription

1 Acerca de este libro Esta es una copia digital de un libro que, durante generaciones, se ha conservado en las estanterías de una biblioteca, hasta que Google ha decidido escanearlo como parte de un proyecto que pretende que sea posible descubrir en línea libros de todo el mundo. Ha sobrevivido tantos años como para que los derechos de autor hayan expirado y el libro pase a ser de dominio público. El que un libro sea de dominio público significa que nunca ha estado protegido por derechos de autor, o bien que el período legal de estos derechos ya ha expirado. Es posible que una misma obra sea de dominio público en unos países y, sin embargo, no lo sea en otros. Los libros de dominio público son nuestras puertas hacia el pasado, suponen un patrimonio histórico, cultural y de conocimientos que, a menudo, resulta difícil de descubrir. Todas las anotaciones, marcas y otras señales en los márgenes que estén presentes en el volumen original aparecerán también en este archivo como testimonio del largo viaje que el libro ha recorrido desde el editor hasta la biblioteca y, finalmente, hasta usted. Normas de uso Google se enorgullece de poder colaborar con distintas bibliotecas para digitalizar los materiales de dominio público a fin de hacerlos accesibles a todo el mundo. Los libros de dominio público son patrimonio de todos, nosotros somos sus humildes guardianes. No obstante, se trata de un trabajo caro. Por este motivo, y para poder ofrecer este recurso, hemos tomado medidas para evitar que se produzca un abuso por parte de terceros con fines comerciales, y hemos incluido restricciones técnicas sobre las solicitudes automatizadas. Asimismo, le pedimos que: + Haga un uso exclusivamente no comercial de estos archivos Hemos diseñado la Búsqueda de libros de Google para el uso de particulares; como tal, le pedimos que utilice estos archivos con fines personales, y no comerciales. + No envíe solicitudes automatizadas Por favor, no envíe solicitudes automatizadas de ningún tipo al sistema de Google. Si está llevando a cabo una investigación sobre traducción automática, reconocimiento óptico de caracteres u otros campos para los que resulte útil disfrutar de acceso a una gran cantidad de texto, por favor, envíenos un mensaje. Fomentamos el uso de materiales de dominio público con estos propósitos y seguro que podremos ayudarle. + Conserve la atribución La filigrana de Google que verá en todos los archivos es fundamental para informar a los usuarios sobre este proyecto y ayudarles a encontrar materiales adicionales en la Búsqueda de libros de Google. Por favor, no la elimine. + Manténgase siempre dentro de la legalidad Sea cual sea el uso que haga de estos materiales, recuerde que es responsable de asegurarse de que todo lo que hace es legal. No dé por sentado que, por el hecho de que una obra se considere de dominio público para los usuarios de los Estados Unidos, lo será también para los usuarios de otros países. La legislación sobre derechos de autor varía de un país a otro, y no podemos facilitar información sobre si está permitido un uso específico de algún libro. Por favor, no suponga que la aparición de un libro en nuestro programa significa que se puede utilizar de igual manera en todo el mundo. La responsabilidad ante la infracción de los derechos de autor puede ser muy grave. Acerca de la Búsqueda de libros de Google El objetivo de Google consiste en organizar información procedente de todo el mundo y hacerla accesible y útil de forma universal. El programa de Búsqueda de libros de Google ayuda a los lectores a descubrir los libros de todo el mundo a la vez que ayuda a autores y editores a llegar a nuevas audiencias. Podrá realizar búsquedas en el texto completo de este libro en la web, en la página

2 This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the information in books and make it universally accessible.

3

4

5 I! ' 3749J2a»4 r._.. 2 THE TWO ROCK& CHRIST OB_ PETER. mm; ROCK '15 KM AS ova nocx, om: mums THEMSELVES 131mm JUDGES." BY THE % REV. ALEX. M CAUL, D.D., HECTOR 0F Till] URITED PARXSHES 0F 51. MAGNUS THE MARTYR, ST. MARGASIIIT. NEW FISH-STREET, AND ST. MICHAEL'E, CROOKED-LANE ; AND PREBES'DABY 01 ST. PAUL S LONDON: WERTHEIM AND MACINTOSH, 24, rumxosun'now a " H AiM. n. V._.

6 wnn'runnr AXD MACINTOSH, 24, Pnnnxos'rsn-now; mm ms BE on'ruxnn or ANY BOOKSELLER. _- w-_-_--u -. ~.~Mrmdll

7 THE TWO ROCKS, CHRIST OR PETER. To have a good hope of salvation resting on a sure foundation is the one thing needf'ul for perishing sin ners. In the predictions of the prophets the coming Christ was held forth as the hope of Israel, and in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul faith in the Lord Jesus Christ was the way of salvation. When the Jews at Jerusalem asked, What shall we do? Peter replied, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. When a similar question was addressed to Paul, he answered, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. In subsequent days it was asserted that some thing more is necessary; that to be saved, a sinner must be in communion with Peter and his successors; that Peter, the prince of the apostles, is the true Bock, constituted by Christ the foundation of the A 2

8 4 Church; that the Bishops of Rome are his successors; and that the hope which rests not on that Rock is built upon sand that Peter's primacy is the centre of unity and the fountain of authority." In refer ence to this assertion, many questions naturally suggest themselves. But there is only one of real importance, and that is, -What is the nature of the privilege con ferred upon Peter? For, even if Peter have succes sors, he cannot transmit more than he received; his successors cannot demand more than was lawfully due. to Peter himself. In pursuing this inquiry, there are two things to be considered, first, the promise of Christ alleged by the Church of Rome as constituting Peter s Rockship; secondly, the evidence afforded in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles as to the universal acknowledgment in the Church of Peter s privilege. The promise is contained in Matt. xvi. 17, 18. Peter had just expressed the faith of the apostles in 'their Master, as the Christ, the Son of the living God. \Vhereupon our Lord says to Peter, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven..and I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [or Rock], and upon this rock I will build my Church. Here, say the Romanists, he is declared 'to be the impregnable Rock on which the Church is I

9 5 tobe founded.... His being constituted the founda tion of the Church implies supreme jurisdiction. For what is the first idea which this figure suggests, ex cept that the whole edifice grows up in unity, and receives solidity from its being morticed and rivetted into this common base? This reasoning might be good, if Christ had said, Thou art the Rock, upon this Rock alone' as the foundation I will build my Church. But this Christ has not said, but Thou art a rock, or stone, and on this rock or stone I will build my Church. Does that prevent the great Master-builder from taking another rock, or rocks, and making them a portion of the foundation? Is the foundation of a temple, or even of a smaller edifice, one stone only, or composed of many? Or can any one of the foundation-stones say, Upon me alone the house is built? The question is this, Does the New Testament speak of other foundations or not? If it does not, then Peter is the sole foundation. But if it does, then he is not, and all the reasoning built upon that assumption is fallacious. And this is the truth, for in Ephesians ii. 20 the same honour is conferred upon. others. The Church is said to be built on the foun dation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone. And in Rev. xxi. 14, the wall of the heavenly city is said to have twelve foundations. and in them the names of the

10 6.". twelve Apostles of the Lamb. If,-therefore, Peter be a foundation, so are the other apostles, just as much. Peter is, therefore, not the sole foundation, not the only rock, but one of twelve, or, including the Prophets, of still more. A portion of the Church may be built on Peter, but it is only a fractional part, one-v twelfth, or less, of the whole. Not being the only foundation, the pretence that Peter is the centre of unity fails altogether. If a man or a Church be built on one of the other eleven, he may still be a lively stone in that holy temple which is builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. But, say the Romanists, to Peter was also given. the power of the keys; for Christ added to the former promise, I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. This is, like the former, a figurative ex pression. How then are we to ascertain the meaning of the figure? By reference to modern oriental cus toms and language? or by reference to Christ himself, when he uses similar language elsewhere? A Romanist writer relates, How the keys of the temple of Mecca were in the hands of a certain tribe, and with them the command in that place; and so necessarily were the two conjoined, that when the material keys were extorted by fraud from the possessor, he irrecoverably lost his dominion over the sanctuary. He refers also to the modern practice of delivering up the keys of a

11 7 town to its conqueror, thereby delivering up the government of that town, and infers that when Peter receives the keys of the kingdom of heaven, or of the Church, we can only consider him as invested with its supreme command. ' These analogies, however, are only apparent. Christ, by giving the keys to Peter, has not lost the command of the sanctuary ; neither has he yielded up the keys to a. conqueror, but appointed a servant to a certain oflice. There is, moreover, no need of running away from the Bible to search for an illustration amongst the Arab tribes or in the customs of modern warfare. Christ s own language, recorded in the New Testament, will best explain his meaning. He here says to Peter, I will give thee the keys of the king dom of heaven. 1n Luke xi. 52, he says to the lawyers, Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye enter not in your selves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. I And in Matthew xxiii. 13, he says, Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither sufi'er ye them that are entering to go in. The keys of the kingdom of heaven, therefore, are the keys of knowledge. They were once in the possession of the hypocrites, the scribes, and Pharisees-z they did not make them the supreme governors of the

12 8 kingdom of God; but they made them stewards of God s household, dispensers of his mysteries, respon sible for the abuse of their power. The keys, there fore, were taken from them, the MSE and the learned, and given to the Galilean fishers: the keys of know ledge were given to Peter, but not to him only. The other apostles who preached the Gospel had also keys of knowledge, which opened the kingdom of heaven to poor sinners. If the possession of the key of knowledge did not constitute any one or all of the hypocritical Jewish traditionists governor of the king dom of God, neither does the similar privilege make Peter supreme. In fact, none but those who were at a loss for an argument, or who forgot our Lord s lan guage in the passage just referred to, could possibly have adduced this promise of the keys in order to estab lish an autocratic power of Peter over the Church The prerogative was once possessed by the Pharisees, but it did not prevent them from being hypocrites, blind leaders of the blind, the subjects of that woe that lighted on Christ s enemies, objects of abhorrence, not of reverence. There is, however, a third promise: VVhatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. But this promise is not peculiar to Peter any more than the others. In Matthew xviii. 18, it is

13 9 given to the disciples or other apostles, in the very same words: Verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. If possessed by the eleven as well as Peter, it is a common privilege, and, therefore, inconsistent with supremacy of one. Besides, this binding and loosing was also a power possessed by the Pharisees. Every one that has ever read a Rabbinical book, knows that to bind and to loose are expressions occurring times without number, and that in the language of the Jews, to whom our Lord was speaking, to bind" sig nifies to forbid, to loose means to permit. The Pharisees had actual possession of the power at that time to bind and to loose. Our Lord transferred it to the apostles; but, like all other powers committed to men, it is limited. It conferred no unconditional au thority to forbid what God had commanded, nor to permit what God had forbidden. Neither Peter nor all the apostles together could make adultery lawful or filial obedience a sin. The power conferred is nothing more than that conceded to the Pharisees in those still more emphatic words of Christ, Matthew xxiii. 2, 3: The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do. Christ did not thereby give them any authority to make void the law of God, or A 3

14 10 require of his disciples to wash before meat, or to say Corban, and leave their parents to starve; neither does he wish us to follow the apostles in that which is sinful, as Peter in denying, or the others in forsaking him. He commits to the Church the power to make laws respecting those details not provided for in the written Word. But no power on earth can lawfully ordain anything contrary to God s Word. The power, therefore, to bind and loose was, in the first place, common to the other apostles, as well as Peter. In the second place, it was necessarily a limited power. It does not, therefore, confer upon Peter any exclusive privilege nor imply the necessity of unconditional obe dience. Even an apostle is not to be obeyed without considering first whether his command is in conformity with God s revealed will. St. John s advice is : Be loved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whe~ ther they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (1 John iv. 1.) Christ s warning is: Take heed that no man deceive you. This text, then, explained by comparing Scripture with Scripture, and interpreting our Lord s language here by his language elsewhere, does not lead us to acknowledge Peter as the Rock, the fountain of autho rity and the centre of unity. But now let us examine this claim in the light of sacred history. If Peter s Rockship really conferred these exalted privileges, his

15 ll power will appear in the submission of the other apostles and the Churches at Jerusalem and Antioch.. Is there any evidence in the Acts of the Apostles, or the Epistles, that Peter was the source of authority," and that all the subordinate rulers in the Church are subject to him, and receive, directly or indirectly, their jurisdiction from him 3 Let us begin at Jerusalem. The first act after the ascension was to appoint an apostle in the room of Judas. W'as he appointed by Peter alone or chiefly? By no means. In those days Peter stood up in the midst- of the disciples, and said,... of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in.and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. Did Peter then choose and ordain him? No. THEY (the disciples) ap pointed two, and THEY prayed and said,... THEY gave forth their hits, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (Acts i. 21.) -.Here, then, Peter was not the source of authority. The new apostle was elected by all the eleven. Peter appears only as one of many. Matthias receives his office, and therefore his jurisdiction, not from Peter,.but- from the.lord, through the intervention of the prayers of all.

16 12 Again, when the necessities of the Church required a new order of subordinate ministers, did Peter stand forth, select the men, and confer upon them their com mission? No. Tm: TWELVE called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason, &c., wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom, whom we (not Peter) may appoint over this business. And they chose seven, whom they set before the apostles ; and when THEY had prayed, THEY laid their hands on them. Not from Peter, but from the twelve, was the order and jurisdiction of the seven derived. (Acts vi.) Again, in Acts viii., we have another occasion to try the supremacy of Peter. Philip had preached at Samaria; many believed, and were baptized. It was necessary for the supreme authority at Jerusalem to send some one to lay hands on the baptized, and confer the gift of the Holy Ghost. Now then is an oppor tunity for the display of Peter s primacy. He doubt less chooses one of his subordinates, and sends him with deputed power to perform this office, and, by being the sender, exercises and proves his superior power over him that is sent. No such thing. The apostles choose and send Peter himself, and with him John. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word

17 ~..~.. r".i-vcr-i\ r "a of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Peter, therefore, is not the sender, but the sent, and therefore not greater than the other apostles, according to our Lord s Words: Neither is he that is sent greater than he that sent him. (John xiii. 16.) In Acts ix. we have another opportunity of inquiring into the truth of the assertion, that from Peter, either directly or indirectly, is derived all spiritual authority. An apostle was wanted for the special work of preach ing Christ to the Gentiles. Did Peter choose and ap point this new apostle? No. Paul was chosen directly and immediately by Christ. But perhaps he was, after his choice and conversion, sent to Peter to receive his commission and jurisdiction from the only fountain of authority? N0. St. Paul s boast is, Paul, an apostle (not of men, neither by man " and therefore not by Peter nor of Peter but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from the dead ) (Gal. i. l); and again, I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me is not after man; for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it but by revelation of Jesus Christ. (V. 11, 12.) Peter had nothing to do with the matter, neither did Paul even see Peter until three years afterwards. (Gal. i. 18.) Paul s call, commission, and authority, were altogether independent of Peter ; and therefore he never consulted Peter, but went whithersoever the Spirit

18 14 called him, affirming distinctly his equality in com mission and jurisdiction, saying, 2 Cor. xi. 5, 1 was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles, and xii. ll, In nothing am I behind the very chiefesr apostles, though I be nothing : his superiority in the diligence and extent of his labours, In labours more abundant, 2 Cor. xi. 23, I laboured more abund antly than they all. Peter, therefore, was not the fountain of authority to Paul; nor, consequently, to Timothy and Titus, nor to those numerous bishops and elders who were appointed by Paul, who had the care of all the Churches. (2 Cor. xi. 28.) Again, in Acts xv. we find the first case of danger ous and wide-spread error. The Judaizers insisted upon the necessity of circumcision, and observance of the ceremonial law. At last it was determined that Paul and Barnabas should go.up to Jerusalem, not to Peter, but unto the apostles and elders, about this 1 question. According to the Romanists account, Peter s office was to watch over the correction of abuses and the maintenance of discipline throughout the Church; in case of error springing up, to make the necessary investigations to discover it and condemn it, Now, then, was Peter s time. Did he then take the management of the affairs on himself, and settle it by his authority? Did he, at least, cull together the council, and depute to them his power? No. \Vithout

19 15 any commission from Peter, the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. Peter did not either open or close the discussion; for it is written, \ er. 7, When there had been much disputing, Peter rose up and delivered his opinion.. Then Paul and Bar nabas'spoke; and then, not Peter, but'james, gives the decisive declaration, My sentence is, that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned unto God. Then pleased it, not Peter, but the apostles and elders, and the whole Church, to send, 8m, and that without ofl'ering any petition for confirmation to St. Peter. We find nothing like that at the end of the Trent Council,- - We humbly beg, in the name of- the aforesaid Council, that your Holiness may condescend to confirm all and each, nor any subsequent Bull of Confirmation from Peter. His name is not even mentioned in the letters sent to the Church at Antioch. So much for Peter s supremacy at Jerusalem. So much for the assertion, that Peter was the fountain of all authority. Neither Matthias, the seven, nor St. Paul, received their commission and jurisdiction from Peter. The Council at Jerusalem was neither called, ' opened, nor closed by, Peter, nor the decree issued in his name, nor did it utter anything cognisant of his authority. Paul and Paul s Churches were altogether independent of Peter s jurisdiction, and there is no trace of their knowing anything of him as the centre of unity.v.

20 16 But if Peter s supremacy was unknown at Jerusalem, there is another place where we may, perhaps, hear of it,--the alleged seat of his first episcopate. Peter, say the Romanists, first sat in the chair of Antioch. From this place he transferred his supremacy to Rome. Let us see, then, what sort of supremacy he enjoyed in the capital of Syria. We have most authentic in formation concerning it. An inspired pen has told us of it. It was when the Judaizers were there, when they had seduced many of the poor heathen converts. Peter came thither, doubtless to settle the dispute to pronounce authoritatively to excommunicate the heretics? St. Paul humbly submitted the controversy to the consideration of the Prince of the Apostles, the centre of unity, the fountain of authority? He leaned upon the Rock, he sought to place the Gentile Churches upon the true Roman foundation? He cried, Submit to Peter, and submitted himself as an example? Not aword of all this. In Galatians 11, St. Paul writes, When Peter was come to Antioch I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. What! Paul resist the supreme authority! Reject the Rock! Renounce Peter as a foundation! Why? For what possible reason? Sim ply because Peter was in the wrong. Because he erred in matters of faith. Because, instead of driving away error, he was sanctioning the deadly poison of

21 17 the Judaizers, obscuring the great doctrine of justifi cation, exposing the Gentile converts to eternal ruin, abusing the trust of the keys to shut the kingdom of heaven against those who were anxious to enter in. Read the whole passage :- When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles : but when they were come, he withdrew himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dis semhled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why com pellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Peter, then, the Roman Rock, was, first of all, afraid of those who came from James, from Jerusalem. He had no trust in his own Rockship, nor any of the firmness of a rock. 2. He was guilty of dissimulation. 3. He seduced others to dissemble with him. 4. He walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel. 5. He compelled Gentile converts to Judaize. In short, Peter was in deadly error, and all who leaned upon Peter were in error too, and pcrilled their

22 18 salvation. And if all had then followed Peter, the door would have been hopelessly closed against the Gentiles a damnable heresy destroyed the souls of Jews, and Christ have died in vain. But Paul knew better the meaning of Christ s promise. He, therefore, resisted and reproved Peter publicly, condemned his heresy, and preserved for the world the truth of the Gospe from which Peter and his friends had turned aside. This history of Peter s and Paul s conduct teach us two things: 1. That Peter might err and did err. 2. That when Peter erred, he was to be resisted and reproved, and that publicly. All further disputation, therefore, is needless. The Popes are not better than Peter. Even if they inherited all that was given to Peter, they are not to be obeyed, but resisted, when they walk not according to the Gospel. Even if Peter himself were Bishop at Rome this moment, and preached, as he did at Antioch, another Gospel than that which we have received in the written records of the New Testament, Paul s example would authorize us to resist and rebuke him. That Peter was a saved and a penitent sinner, a monument of God s grace, and that his weakness redounds to the glory of God, and magnifies the power of the Gospel, we believe. But when we find in the New Testae

23 19 ment that his Rockship, his supreme authority, were unknown at Jerusalem and Antioch; that poor weak Peter protested against Christ s sufferings, and was reproved by our Lord with that severe rebuke Get thee behind me, Satan 5 that he thrice denied his Lord, and that, even when restored by his merciful Master and permitted to be an apostle, he was guilty of dissimulation, and walked not according to the truth of the Gospel, earned and received. a public rebuke at Antioch from St. Paul, we must decline building our hope upon that Rock, and positively refuse submission to his successors (whether real or pretended, is of no consequence,) because they are guilty of similar de parture from the truth. We must look out, therefore, for another Rock, whose stability is immoveable, a foundation that cannot be shaken, a fountain of authority which is indis putable, a. centre of unity that is infallible. And, thanks be to God, such an one is proposed in the Word of God. He was known to Moses and the prophets. He was the hope of the apostles. Moses said to the idolaters of his days, Their rock, is not as our Rock, our enemies themselves being judges. Hannah trusted in Him, when she said, There is none holy as the Lord ; neither is there any Rock like our God. (1 Sam. ii. 2.) David rested upon Him, for he said, I will IOVe thee, O Lord, my strength. The Lord

24 20 is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer." (Ps. xviii. l, 2.) Isaiah prophesied concerning Him as a sure foundation: Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation ; he that believeth shall not make haste. Paul knew Him as the only foundation, for he says, (1 Cor. iii. 11): Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Yea, He was Peter s foundation too, for when he writes to the strangers scattered abroad, he does not remind them that they were built upon himself, but upon Christ, 1 Pet. ii. 4, 8zc.: To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God and precious. Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner-stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth shall not be confounded. On that Rock, then, I build my hope of salvation, and lay the burden of my guilt and sins. He never denied the truth; He never dissembled; He never fell. All the waves of Divine justice went over that Rock, but it stood the shock unmoved. He is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever." Of Him the apostle says: Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are

25 21 the works of thine hands: they shall perish, but thou remainest; and they shall all wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. On that Rock, then, let me rest; there let me be found, when the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements melt with fervent heat. I have even Peter s word for it that I shall not be confounded. And as Christ is the true Rock, so is He the true possessor of the keys. He says himself, I am he that liveth, and was dead; and am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of death and hel ; and, again, (Rev. iii. 7): These things, saith he, that is holy and true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; jand shutteth, and no man openeth; 'as much superior to Peter, as the owner of the house is to the servant; the sole fountain of authority, yea, the builder of the Church, to whom may be applied here the same argument that is found in reference to Moses, Heb. iii. 3 4: For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Peter, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. And Peter verily, notwithstanding his low fall and his grievous departure from the truth at Antioch, was faithful as a servant.

26 22 I But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we if we hold fast the confidence, and the in rejoicing the Builder of the rather hope than firm unto the thing the end. built, in We the trust Son rather than in the servant; and must believe that the Son, not the servant, is the fountain of all authority. Lastly, as to the centre of unity. We are sure that the Everlasting Rock is a foundation comprehensive and strong, able to sustain the whole fabric of the Church. We have already seen Peter s faith, that it is by coming to this Rock that believers are built up as a spiritual house. St. Paul also bears witness, ii. 14, that it is in Christ, not in Peter, that All the building'fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord. If we wish to vary the figure, the same truth is reiterated in Scripture. The Lord himself says, John xv. 5: I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me (not in Peter), and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit.... If a man abide not in me (however he may cling to the successors of Peter), he is cast forth as a bran 2b and withered. Again, if the Church be considered as the body of Christ, it is union with Christ the head, not with Peter, that gives life, as St. Paul witnesses, when he says to the Ephesians, iv. 15: But, speak ing the truth in love, may grow up into him in all

27 23 things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the efi'ectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. But the Romanist will say, You cannot belong to Christ without submitting to Peter. The answer is given already in the history of what occurred at Antioch. In that city were two flocks goats and sheep; one, Peter and his adherents ; the other, Paul, and those who with him held the truth of the Gospel. They who were then separated from Peter were the true flock of Christ. Here, then, is the alternative. Here the two rocks -"hrist - denying, dissembling, fearful, Judaizing Peter the rock of Rome, on the one hand; the Rock of Ages, the sure foundation, the tried stone, Christ - the only foundation of all the Reformed Churches, on the other. Let others choose as they may; let them vaunt in their Roman privileges, I choose Christ, and by his grace and mercy hope to abide in Him and on Him to the end. If Scripture be true; if Moses, and Hannah, and David, and Paul, and Peter, be worthy of belief in this matter, Christ is the true, the only, the living Rock that was smitten for our salva~ tion, and from whence flow forth the waters of life. Yea, their rock is not as our Rock, our enemies them selves being judges.

28 BY REV. A. M CAUL, I).D. INTRODUCTION to HEBREW GRAMMAR ; for the Use of Beginners. 8vo., price 48. The OLD PATHS. 8vo., Second Edition, 10s. A SERMON preached in St. Paul s Cathedral, on Monday, October 19, 1846, on occasion of the VISITATION of the Right Honourable and Right Reverend the Lord BISHOP of LONDON. Pub lished at the request of his Lordship. 1s. The CHRISTIAN SANCTUARY CONTRASTED with the LEVITIOAL TEMPLE. A Sermon preached before the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, on the occa sion of the Re-opening of the Church of St. James, Duke s-place. Is. An APOLOGY for the STUDY of HEBREW and RABBINICAL LITERATURE. ls. PLAIN SERMONS, on Subjects Practical and Pro phetic. 12mo., cloth lettered, price 68. 6d. The CONVERSION and RESTORATION of the JEWS; Two Sermons preached before the Univer sity of Dublin. 8vo., Second Edition, 2s. The PERSONALITY and WORK of the HOLY SPIRIT, as revealed in the Old Testament; a Tract for the House of Israel. 6d. NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCES, to prove that the Jews are to be restored to the LAND of ISRAEL. Secopd Edition, 4116.lr.. \TERTIIEIM AND MACINTOSH, 2i, PATERNOSTER-ROW.

29

30

31 .. f1... w,

32