Page images
PDF
EPUB

by which he is constituted the rock upon which the church has to be built.

The second distinction which is bestowed upon him, is contained in the words that immediately follow, " And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." The second commission consequently consists in the giving him the power of the kingdom of heaven, and wherewithal the power to bind and to loose.

To this we must add a third, and no less important commission. When later still, after our Saviour's resurrection, he demanded from Peter a peculiar pledge of his affection beyond that from any of the other apostles. Upon his giving it three times, he committed to him as oft the care of his entire flock-his lambs and his sheep.

This therefore, brethren, is the three-fold commission upon which we establish the doctrine of St. Peter's superior jurisdiction, or in other words, his supremacy.

To begin therefore with the first: St. Peter is appointed the foundation upon which the church has to be built. The only idea which we can attach to this figure is, that by him the parts of this edifice should be held together; for it necessarily includes the idea of a connexion, of a union between all the parts of the building, and that which is called its foundation. It is impossible to separate these two objects, as used by our Saviour, from the idea of an intimate connexion between the two. But what in a material edifice is produced either by the solidity, the weight, or the tenacity of the materials employed, can, in a moral edifice, be produced by no other means than, if I may so say, by external pressure, or by the exercise of jurisdiction and author. ity. If you apply it in any other case, you will find that this necessarily is the idea to which it leads you. If you say, for instance, as is every day said, that the laws are the basis, are the foundation of all social order, what do you understand by this, except that, in the laws as properly administered, there is a power to secure to each one his individual rights, to punish all transgressors against the common weal, to secure to every man whatever is his own, and principally to give the rule or the law by which uniformity of action and opinion, in all that relates to the public, can be secured among the members of that community. You say in like manner, for instance, that the triple legislature of this country constitutes the basis or foundation of its constitution-What do you mean by that, except that in the authority which there resides, there is the principle of power capable of regulating even the subordinate portion of the body politic, and keeping it once more united as a public or political body, directing all its efforts to the same objects, and acting mutually for the same ends, from one extremity to the other?

Such is the only idea which you can form of the foundation or the basis of any moral union; and observe, that this idea excludes, completely, all not merely superior, but all equal and co-ordinate authority, for is it not manifest, that if, besides the laws, there were another system of regulation nowise dependent upon them, moving precisely in the same sphere, acting upon the same objects, exempt from their control, and capable of giving, at the same time, a conflicting decision, I ask you, if the laws would any longer continue to be the basis of social order? Or, if there were, besides the regular constitutional legislature of the country, some other authority which had full power to set its decisions at defiance, to appoint laws equally binding, yet not necessarily subordinate to its decisions-I ask, if the whole fabric of that kingdom would not necessarily be dissolved, and if a general disorganization would not ensue; if that legislature would not cease to be any longer the basis and foundation, the ground-work of that form of govern

ment.

Now apply, therefore, these reflections to this case. We are told that St. Peter is the foundation upon which the church is to rest; the object of the foundation being necessarily to keep the parts united to itself (for a foundation cannot be said to be the ground-work of a building, which does not exist upon it, and instead of being in close union with it, is at some distance, and perfectly separated), and consequently you must allow, that in constituting St. Peter the foundation of the church, there was given to him that authority and jurisdiction which was necessary for fulfilling this office; and this authority and jurisdiction as we have seen, allows of no superior or even co-ordinate order.

But, to meet this reasoning, it has been said, that " There is no need whatsoever for taking the expression in this literal form. St. Peter, it is said, is the foundation of the church, inasmuch as the church took it its commencement from him. St. Peter was the first who preached the gospel to the Jews. On the very day that the apostles received the Holy Ghost, he began to fulfil his commission, and laid the foundation of the Jewish-Christian church. He was afterwards the first to preach to the Gentiles in the person of Cornelius; he may be said to have opened the gates of salvation to that nation. St. Peter, therefore, was properly the foundation, the ground-work, the beginning of the church, by the fulfilment of this office; and this amply explains all that our Saviour need be supposed to mean it is quite sufficient for the fulfilment both of the promise and of the commission." This is the form of argument which has been repeated again and again, and has been thought amply abundant to overthrow the reasoning which I have endeavoured to follow. I can only consider it as one of the many examples which, in the history of religion, may be brought to show how easily men may be led to deceive themselves.

[ocr errors]

Had our blessed Saviour said to Peter, "Thou shalt lay the foundation of the church, thou shalt lay its first stone," I could have understood how, by being the first to introduce both Gentiles and Jews into the church, the commission or the promise might have been accomplished. But, assuredly, there is a great difference between the twobetween saying that something was the foundation of a building, and that it commenced the building. Would any one call a person the rock upon which a building was to be raised? or would any one call that the rock or the foundation of any social edifice by whom simply the edifice, whether material or moral was first commenced? Is there not necessarily an idea of firmness, of durability, of power, of resistance in the term used? Does it ever imply nothing more than the beginning or commencement ?

But now examine other examples, and see how it would apply. Religion was first preached in this country by St. Austin; it was first preached in Ireland by St. Patrick. Would any one dare to say, that St. Austin is the rock on which the English church is founded?—that St. Patrick is the foundation on which religion is based in Ireland? If this would not be done in these instances, how then could you apply the figure in the other? When we are told by St. Paul that we are founded upon the apostles, that we are built upon them as upon a foundation, do we thereby understand merely that the apostles were first commissioned by our Saviour to preach the gospel, and that we therefore truly rely upon their authority and their testimony, given, even in connexion with their blood, to the truth? When our blessed Redeemer is declared to be the foundation on which all must build, has any one thought of reasoning that this means nothing more than that our Saviour commenced the teaching of Christianity, and not that he is the author as well as the finisher of our faith? If, therefore, in all these instances we do not dare to consider the two expressions as identical, we do not venture to say, that whoever begins a church may be called its foundation, we do not venture to say these were the foundation, because they commenced it; therefore, in this instance also, we must not reason in the same manner, but we must consider that there is more implied than being the commencement, that there must be something which gives consistency and strength to the building.

Observe, not only does our Saviour say that the building, the church, is based upon Peter; but he expressly tells us that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, because it is based on Peter. I need not enter into any discussion of the meaning of this phrase, whether, according to some modern Protestant commentators, it simply signifies the gates of hell, or is used simply for something exceedingly strong, that is, any power whatsoever; or whether it does not mean, as it has been generally, and I should say, unhesitatingly, rightly considered to

mean, that the powers of darkness and the enemies of man's salvation shall not be able to overthrow it.

Now, I say that our Saviour in this sentence implies that the church is to be durable and impregnable, because it is based on Peter-and why? Simply for this reason, that the idea of a foundation, of a rock, and that of durability, are so necessarily connected one with another, that we can not consider it possible that they should be put together in the same sentence, except in consequence of that connection. I will give an illustration of this from our Saviour's own expression. When he tells us, that the foolish man built his house upon the sand, and that the storms came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof; although he never tells us that it fell, or that it was not stable, on account of its foundation, the connection of the two together is so natural, that we conclude his object must have been to tell us that the house fell, because it had not a firm foundation. And in the antithesis of the parable, if he had not told us that the house stood because it was built on a rock, though he had merely said that a wise man built his house upon a rock, and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, we should have concluded that he meant to insinuate that it fell not because it was founded upon the rock. Now, therefore, when our Saviour tells us that Peter is the rock, that he builds his church on that rock, and that it shall be indistructible, we conclude necessarily that he means to establish a connection between these two naturally connected circumstances, and to lead us to conclude that the stability of the church mainly depends on this circumstance—that it is based upon Peter.

Such, then, is the first commission given to St. Peter-a commission that held the church together in unity, as the foundation of its holy edifice, and it necessarily implies that he was to have that requisite authority, or jurisdiction, without which such an object could not possibly ever be attained.

The second commission that is given to him is that which is veiled under the imagery of giving him the keys of the kingdom of heaven; by which kingdom ordinarily is understood the church, known in the New Testament, and in the Gospels particularly, again and again, by the name of "the Kingdom of God," or "the Kingdom of Heaven;" and to this is added the power of binding and of loosing.

1 should suppose that it can hardly admit of a doubt what the expression to deliver the keys to any individual must mean. This also must be explained in reference to the hypothesis which I before mentioned; that is, the giving of the keys in this instance is nothing more than authorizing him to open the gates of the church to heathens and to Jews. I would not dilate upon the cold, I should almost say, the paltry signification which would be given to such an image, if the idea of the deliver

ing of the keys of a town, or the delivering of such an ordinary emblem of authority, as that could signify nothing more than that the person to whom these keys were given by the Sovereign should have the power of locking and unlocking, of letting men into the city, discharging the office of a porter, rather than that of a governor. I am sure that the fact that such a meaning should be attached to such an ordinary figure, only shows to what expedients persons will have recourse who have a certain end to obtain in their interpretation of Scripture. But let us take what is the ordinary meaning; what is the meaning it has everywhere else, both in Scripture and out of Scripture. I will defy any one to show an example, either in sacred or profane writers where, by giving any individual the keys of a town or kingdom, or what you please, was ever meant that it should be simply his duty to lock or unlock the door to strangers. But, on the contrary, is it not well known, that the delivering of the keys of a captured city is a natural emblem for showing that the jurisdiction of that city is thereby given up to the conqueror? Is it not a common form of constitution for the governors of fortified places to deliver the keys into the supreme governor's hands? Is it not the custom in this city, though it has now become nothing more than an empty ceremony, to give up the keys to the monarch when he enters; that the person invested with supreme magisterial jurisdiction should yield up his authority, when the one for whom he holds it comes into its precincts? Are not all these natural and ordinary emblems of authority, of jurisdiction and sovereignty, beyond even what we have in Scripture? In the same manner we are told, that upon the shoulder of Messiah God would place the keys of the house of David, so that he should shut and no man should open, and that he should open and no man should shut. What is the meaning of that, but that he should be supreme ruler of the house of David; that he should be supreme governor of that house? We are told in the Book of Revelations in the same manner, that to him are given the keys of hell and of death; to signify that he has supreme power and command over destruction. From such images, familiar as they are in Scripture, in common occurrences, in every history, and in the practice of every nation, assuredly we must see, that this is the only interpretation that can be applied here, unless a particular reason can be shown, a strong proof that in this instance our Saviour did mean his hearers to depart from the ordinary signification which they attached to these words.

In the East, the idea of a key as an emblem of possession of jurisdiction is much stronger than it is amongst us. The most accurate orientalist relates that the keys of the temple of Mecca, before the time of the arch-impostor, Mahomet, were in the hands of a certain tribe, and he tells us, on two different occasions, that when another tribe, either by war, or even by fraud and stealth, had got possession, the keys of the temple, the jurisdiction, the command, the sovereignty over it, was

« PreviousContinue »