in this way that our Lord, after addressing Simon, turned for the moment to the bystanders, and pointing to him, but speaking of him, said, "on this rock will I build my Church," then turning back to the apostle with the promise of the keys? The separation of Peter from the rock or his identification with it must depend a good deal on the sense we attach to this his surname. If in giving it our Lord simply meant, "Thou art a stone (Térpos) quarried by God's own hand, and built on Me" (see Conder, On Matthew, p. 277), we can scarcely regard him as in any manner the Church's foundation; rather would he be one of the living stones described by himself in after life as built upon Christ. But if it was meant to describe him as a rock massive and firm (méтρа) the identification is made easier. Of these interpretations of the name it cannot be denied that the preponderance of authority favours the latter. The Syriac version, which is of special value as approaching most closely to the dialect actually used by our Lord, employs the very same word in both clauses, "Thou art keepho; and on this keepho," which De Wette follows by-giving in both clauses the rendering "Felsen." The words in the Greek are of course not the same, but there seems good reason to believe that Simon would have been called in that tongue Petra had not the feminine termination. been unsuitable for a man's name. "Elsewhere," says Bengel, "Térpos denotes a stone, but as applied to Simon, a rock; for it was incongruous that such a man as he should be called Petra with a woman's ending to his name." To enumerate the modern writers to whom this view of the language has appeared conclusive would be tedious. Lange, for example, in his Life of Christ (ii. 232), says, "There is certainly a difference between Térрos and Téтра, the stone or piece of rock, and the rock itself. But the name Cephas, we must allow, combines both significations." Ebrard again in his Gospel History (p. 339), paraphrases "and now upon him whose name was 'Rock' should the Christian Church be founded;" while Stier (ii. 339) affirms that "in these words undoubtedly the personal reference to Peter is continued." So much for the actual language of the promise. But New Testament usage must also be taken into account in determining for us which of the views B and C (neither being grammatically prohibited, though the latter certainly seems the more straightforward) is in juster harmony with the general tenor of inspired teaching. The late Dean of Canterbury has said that throughout the New Testament not doctrines nor confessions but men are uniformly the pillars and stones of the spiritual building." So they may be; but the passages he cites appear to speak of men only as materials, and not as foundations, of the building. The two passages which are more in point are Rev. xxi. 14, where the wall of the city is said to have "twelve foundations, and in them twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb," and Eph. ii. 20, "built upon the foundation of the apostles." Of these the former passage does not appear conclusive of the apostles being the foundations; and as to the latter there are three distinct opinions about the genitive, and all supported by eminent names. Thus Bishop Ellicott understands it to be the foundation laid by the apostles-"what the apostles and prophets preached formed the foundation;" Dean Alford takes it of the founda. tion on which the apostles themselves are built in common with other Christians; while the present writer has heard Canon Lightfoot strongly urge that the genitive must be one of apposition, the expression "Jesus Christ himself" pointing to the foun dation as consisting of the apostles, Christ being spoken of as the key-stone that holds the building together. It thus appears that, as the language of the promise to Peter cannot be pronounced unambiguous, so the ablest scholars are divided as to Scriptural usage in reference to the foundation of the Church. If our mind be yet undecided between the views we have called B and C, there are writers forthcoming who suggest a compromise. Thus Lange (Life of Christ, vol. iii. p. 232) says, "undoubtedly we can, and indeed must, separate the confession of Peter from the sinful Simon, son of Jonas; but with the proper regenerated Peter, with his eternal character and his eternal significance for the Church, his confession coincides and is identical." And to the same effect Canon Cook (in the Dictionary of the Bible, vol. ii. p. 800), who remarks that Peter's confession was rewarded by his confirmation in his special position in the Church and "his identification with the Rock on which that Church is founded." The difference indeed is not great. All admit Christ to be the ultimate foundation; and it does not matter much whether we regard the apostles actively as master-builders, rearing on him the edifice, or passively as subordinate foundation-stones supporting the fabric, but in turn resting upon him. If we prefer the latter aspect, chief among them was the apostle Peter, whom Alford calls "the first of those foundation-stones on which the living temple of God was built; this building itself beginning on the Day of Pentecost by the laying of three thousand living stones on this very foundation." It needs scarcely to be added that, whatever may have been the precise meaning of our Lord in the passage under examination, neither Peter himself nor Paul nor any of the New Testament writers recognized a Petrine supremacy or monopoly; while even if they did, the bishops of Rome can claim no share therein, seeing that Peter was certainly never bishop of that city nor, so far as history goes to shew, ever present there at all in any official capacity. But it is not politic to make preparations against an enemy on a scale that will give him credit for a strength he does not really possess. It may be over-confident to say that "a crusade against Catholic superstitions is as unnecessary as a crusade against the mythology of Greece and Rome" (Contemporary Review, June, 1873); but in the matter of Papal pretensions, little more is required than to ask anew the question “Quid hæc ad Romam ?" and wait for the answer which has never yet been forthcoming. |