...

rogative far beyond those of any other potentate. And that I may not be supposed to speak without authority, I quote, once more, the words of our learned advocate. "The Church of Christ has been presented to you," saith he, in the opening of the same discourse, "under the form of a sacred kingdom, wherein all the parts are cemented and firmly bound together, in unity of belief and practice, resulting from a common principle of faith, under an authority constituted by God . . . The tendency of every institution in the Church to produce and cherish this religious unity. . . . will lead us naturally to suppose, that the authority which principally secures it must likewise be convergent in its exercise towards the same attribute. We saw," continues he, "how, in the old law, the authority constituted to each, narrowed in successive steps, till it was concentrated in one man and his line; we saw how all the figures of the prophets lead us to expect a form of government justly symbolized as a Monarchy; and although God is to be its ruler, and the Son of David its eternal Head, yet as their action upon man is invisible and indiscernible, while the ob: jects and ends held in view, such as unity of faith, are sensible and dependent on outward circumstances, we might naturally hope to find some such vicarious or representative authority as would, and alone could, secure them in the Church." (215, 6.) I have troubled you, brethren, with this passage, simply for the purpose of proving, by Dr. Wiseman's own plain admission, that the form of government in the Church of Rome is a monarchy, of which Christ is truly the eternal King, but of which the Pope, as Christ's vicegerent, is the earthly or temporal sovereign. Now in contradistinction from this, we maintain that the Church is indeed a kingdom in its spiritual relation to Christ, but in no other respect whatever; that in its earthly organization it is designed to form, not a kingdom, but a vast republic, the Scriptures containing its constitution and its laws, the bishops and the clergy in their several dis

tricts being the instructors and the judges, while the rights of the people are secured by the universal principle, that no one can be appointed either as instructor or judge, until he is freely approved by themselves. I mention this strong distinction now, because it forms the great dividing line between the two systems, so far as the mere question of government is concerned. The error of the Roman doctrine becomes of far more serious consequence, when it is considered as a point of faith, essential to salvation.

We are next to enter upon the evidence which our learned advocate relies on, to justify his definition. "The pre-eminence claimed by Roman Catholics for the bishop of Rome or the Pope," saith he, "being based upon the circumstance that he is the successor of St. Peter, it follows, that the right whereby that claim is supported must naturally depend upon the demonstration, that the apostle was possessed of such a superior authority and jurisdiction. First, then, we must examine whether St. Peter was invested by our Saviour with a superiority, not merely of dignity, but of jurisdiction also, over the rest of the apostles; and if so, we must further determine, whether this was merely a personal prerogative, or such as was necessarily transmitted to his successors to the end of time."

"Simon

According to this division of his argument, Dr. Wiseman proceeds to allege the text, as proof that the authority in question was conferred by our Saviour on St. Peter. "Whom say ye that I am?" saith our Lord to his apostles. Peter answering said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in

And I will

heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." It may be proper to repeat, brethren, by the way, that not only this passage, but every other quotation from Scripture in this lecture, is taken from the Roman version, commonly called the Doway Bible.

There is another text referred to, in addition to this, where, according to the Gospel of St. John, our Saviour, after his resurrection, asked Peter three times whether he loved him, and three times gave him a charge to feed his sheep and his lambs; meaning, as the Church of Rome professes to believe, the whole flock-apostles and all. Some considerable patience and attention will be necessary to understand the argument, which, out of these materials, professes to construct the mighty fabric of papal supremacy.

The first branch of the evidence is derived from the name Peter, given by our Lord to the apostle. Our learned advocate asserts that it signifies the same thing as the rock on which the Saviour promises to build his Church, because the language spoken by our Lord was Syriac; and in that language, there is but one word to signify the name of the apostle, and a rock or a stone. So that the translation, according to this notion, should be, Thou art a rock, and on this rock I will build my Church. Hence Dr. Wiseman concludes, that the rock on which the Church was to be built, was Peter, personally and individually; and this he calls the first prerogative of the apostle.

Now in answer to this, I would observe, in the first place, that we do not know whether our Saviour spake in Syriac, or in Chaldee. If in the latter, then there are two words, (kiph and kipha) instead of one, just as there are in the original Greek, and likewise in their own Latin Vulgate. It may next be observed, that the assertion is made in the very face of the Greek original, as well as their own Latin version, where the word signifying Peter, and that which signifies the rock, are

indeed from the same root, but vary nevertheless both in gender and in termination. The word translated Peter, means properly a stone, and we grant, most readily, that the apostle was a principal foundation-stone in the building of the Church. But the rock on which Peter himself, together with the whole Church, was built, is the Rock of ages, the rock CHRIST, the rock which Peter confessed, when he said "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God."

In order to understand this matter thoroughly, however, it must be observed, that the passage is figurative, or metaphorical; and therefore, according to the cardinal rule of interpretation, it must be interpreted in strict consistency with the subjects of the Saviour's promise, which are two; namely, Peter and the Church. With regard to the Church, it is often called in Scripture, a spiritual temple, a building fitly framed together in the Lord. Being a divine structure, it can stand on none other than a divine foundation, upon the rock of God's own infinite love and mercy in Christ. "Therefore, behold," saith the Lord by the prophet Isaiah, "I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation." (Is. xxviii. 16.) Which text the Roman expositors allow to mean none but the Redeemer. "No one can lay another foundation but that which is laid," saith St. Paul, (1 Cor. iii. 11,) "which is CHRIST JESUS." "Be you," saith St. Peter himself, "as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood." (1 Pet. ii. 5.) In these passages we see the Church, the spiritual temple, constructed of all the people of God as living stones, and resting upon Christ, the eternal rock, as their sure foundation. Thus far the figure is consistent and plain. Now when we look from the Church, to the individual case of Peter, it is obvious that he must have been himself one of these lively stones in this spiritual house: for otherwise, being personally a sinner like the rest, he could not have been a partaker of Christ's salvation.

But surely it

would be absurd to say, that the foundation on which a building stands, can be, at the same time, a stone in the wall of the building. And therefore we may perceive, that it is totally inconsistent with the figure which our Lord employed, to regard Peter as being a lively stone in the edifice of the Church, and at the same time to consider him as the rock which sustained the whole. In a secondary sense, however, the word foundation is applied to signify the lower parts of a building; those which are first laid down, and on which the superstructure is designed to be erected. And in this sense it would be totally irreconcilable with the correct structure of the metaphor, to talk of but one stone for the whole building. The principal foundation was one, for it was the Rock-Christ Jesus. But the secondary foundation could not be one stone, but many. Hence we read that Abraham, the father of the faithful, “looked for a city that hath foundations,” (Heb. xi. 10,) viz: the heavenly Jerusalem, whose builder and maker is God. And accordingly the wall of this new Jerusalem is described in the book of the Revelations, (xxi. 14,) as having "twelve foundations, and in them, the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." Now here we have the very word applied by St. John himself, not to Peter only, but to the whole twelve of the apostles; and although it may be readily allowed that the honour of being the first stone laid in the foundation belongs to Peter, yet that is a very different matter from having the whole Church, apostles and all, built upon him alone.

Thus much may suffice, for the present, upon the text, so far as it regards the name of Peter, and the rock of his faith and confession, Christ. There are other considerations to be mentioned by and by, which will show that this is the only consistent meaning. But let us pass on to examine the next prerogative granted to him; "I will give to thee," saith our Lord, "the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and