The Second Confession and the Primacy

Cjesarea Philippi. Its site and surroundings. Peter’s avowal op his Lord’s divinity. The Rook on which the Church is built. Peter’s alleged primacy. “The power op the Keys.”

“He did not say, Upon Peter; for He did not found the Church upon a man, but upon faith. What, therefore, means, On this rock ‘? upon the confession contained in his words.”

—Chrysostom.

“Upon this rock which thou hast professed, I will build My Church, because the rock was Christ; upon which foundation even Peter himself was built.” — Augustine.

“The twelve apostles are the twelve patriarchs of the spiritual Israel, and the relation of St Peter to the other apostles appears to be similar to that of Reuben to his brethren: a relation of primacy, not of supremacy. He was * primus inter pares: non summus supra inferiores.’” — Bishop Wordsworth,

“Utterly groundless is the notion that Peter had, or pretended to, any claim to dictate to the other apostles, to decide finally on all questions of faith or practice, and to bear rule over the universal Church.... We find him when censured, either vindicating himself where he was right, or where he was not right, modestly submitting to reproof and correcting his fault. — Arch. Whately.

“On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand,
All other grounds are sinking sand.”

ing connection with the history of Peter, or rather with a specially memorable event in his life.

The one was a spot rendered alike beautiful by Nature and by Gospel association, in the extreme northern limits of the Holy Land. The other wa3 standing under the vast dome of St Peter’s in Rome, and reading the well-known Latin inscription which, on a blue setting, surrounds the base of that wonderful canopy : —” Tu ES PktRUS, ET SUPER HANC PjSTRAM

^Edificabo Ecclesiam Meam; et tibi dabo Claves Regni C(ELORUM.”

As my readers are aware, that inscription, in what certainly architecturally is the cathedral church of Christendom, was first spoken at the former of these two places — the ancient Ceesarea Philippi, romantically situated at the roots of Mount Hermon. It was called by its Roman name, after Philip the Tetrarch of Trachonitis, in conjunction with that of his imperial master, Caesar Augustus. But previous to this, the limestone rock on which the city was built was crowned by the Greeks with a temple to the God Pan, in which were recesses filled with sculptured effigies of his fabled wood-nymphs. Hence it was designated Paneas; which again, in modern times, has been easily changed by the substitution of a letter, into Banias. It was doubtless much resorted to as a “summer city “by the Roman population on the town and shores of Tiberias. When the intense tropical heat, specially to strangers, rendered residence in lower Galilee well-nigh intolerable, the wealthier classes of Greeks, Jews, and Italians would retreat thither to enjoy the breezes as well as the picturesque scenery of the Lebanon. Our Lord and His disciples, rejected by the Galileans, and experiencing increasing animosity at the hands of those from whom He merited only gratitude and love, journeyed up by the eastern banks of the Jordan, past the waters of Merom, to that comparatively quiet retreat. Being in relation to Palestine a border city, it was farther removed at all events from the hatred and intrigues of the Jewish sects. Of no place in that hallowed land have I more charming recollections. Though doubtless altered in many minor features, the magnificent surroundings continue the same and unchangeable. Art must at the apostolic age have added to the material beauty. From the middle or near the base of the high cliff of which I have spoken, issuing forth from a” cavern sanctuary “or grotto, is the most conspicuous and impressive of the sources of the Jordan. The limestone is now festooned with lichen and fern, half concealing from view Greek inscriptions. A temple of pure white marble, erected by Herod in honour of Augustus, had superseded the ancient pagan one, although only fragments of this now remain. We can picture palaces and gardens occupying the undulating ground, where amid olive groves and the rush of the river the modern traveller pitches his tent. While towering as a glorious back-ground, Hermon,” that goodly mountain, and Lebanon,” with his coronal of snow and nearer bold ridges, must have given then, as now, character to the whole scene. It recalled the Val-D’Aosta and Cormayeur with the gigantic spurs of Mont Blanc. No hills that surround the lake of Gennesaret can lay claim to picturesqueness in outline: but here you are at the base of an Alp with all its bold and ragged appurtenances, while “its exuberance of water, its olive groves, and its view over the distant plain,” have given to it the still more appropriate designation of “a Syrian Tivoli.“1” x

I may venture to add one out of many graphic descriptions of the same scene, given by a modern traveller, whose accuracy all who have been eyewitnesses will endorse:” The path led through an ancient square tower of bevelled stones, over a picturesque bridge, under which a cataract of foaming water, the Za’areh, dashed down to the Jordan; the rocks over which it tumbled, and the old stones of the bridge,

i Sinai and Palestine, in loc. See woodcut at the head of the chapter, engrared by permission from one of the photographs of the Palestine Exploration. were thickly hung with long streamers of vines and blackberries, bending down to catch the light spray from the water, and with lovely fronds of harts-tongue and giant maiden-hair fern of deliciously fresh green; then the stream tumbled on under an arched avenue of large plane and willow trees, which met and interlaced at the top... It is no wonder that travellers coming up from the arid, stony ugliness of Judea should think Banias a perfect paradise of loveliness, and as Josephus calls it, * a place of great pleasure, famous and delightful; ’ its freshness and luxuriant verdure are remarkable even to eyes lately come from the thick foliage and flowers of Damascus.... We scrambled down the hill, and followed the stream into its delicious and lofty thickets of ash, bay, laurustinns, myrtle, vine, clematis, night-shade, ever so many different roses, and a thousand other plants, shading the little cascades of water, and hiding many remains of ancient buildings.” 1

It was here, then — with all that wealth of Nature in view, although we cannot fix on any particular spot, (shall we picture it in one of the quiet wads at the base of Hennon?) — that a most momentous interview took place between Christ and His disciples. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that Jesus had a twofold object during that week of memorable seclusion

in the northern borders of Palestine. It was “from i Syrian Shrines. Vol. II., 29, 30.

Dr Robinson of America, who is not much given to enthusiastic description has the following remarks on ttanixs: — “The situation is unique, combining in an unusual degree the elements of grandeur and beauty. It uestles in its recess at the southern base of the mighty Hermon, which towers in majesty to an elevation of 7000 or 8000 feet above. The abundant waters of the glorious fountain spread over the terrace luxuriant fertility and the graceful interchange of copse, lawn, and waving fields “(VoL IIL 404). that time” He began to speak of His sufferings. Hitherto He had unfolded the ethical laws of His kingdom. Alike by teaching and example He had laid the broad basis of His Church. But from the outer courts of the temple He was now to take His disciples into the inner shrine, and instruct them on the great work He came to accomplish, — in comparison with which all else was subordinate, viz., offering up His life as a ransom for the world. He had another purpose in view. As the chosen band were quietly surrounding their Master, now that His ministry was approaching a close, He was desirous of testing, not their personal attachment, for of that He was assured, but of ascertaining their matured views about His Messiahship and Divinity. He prepares the way for this, by putting first the general question as to the public and prevailing impression regarding His claims: “Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?” Their rejoinder was, that few imagined Him to be the Messiah. Some thought that John the Baptist had risen again in His person from the grave; others, that the great Elijah, according to the prophetic announcement of Malachi, had descended from heaven invested with the old miraculous power which had so conspicuously distinguished the Prophet of Cherith; others, perhaps from the plaintive yet tender tones which had greeted their ears, that Jeremiah, the mourning prophet of the captivity, whose adveut the Jews had long expected, had come back to take up his parable in the second temple, and, as was supposed, to restore the ark and altar of incense, which he was said to have concealed in a cavern at the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar. Or failing him, that

l Mace. xt. 13, 14. in accordance with the doctrine of Pythagoras (then current alike in the Jewish and Pagan world, of the transmigration of souls) that the spirit of one of the old Hebrew prophets — one of the illustrious roll of Hebrew worthies — had re tenanted a mortal body.

Perhaps in one sense these were to Jesus saddening announcements. But He was too well aware, and specially (as we have noted in the preceding chapter) from indications of public sentiment since the miracle of the loaves, that His influence was greatly on the decline. There was a marked defection among His followers. Indeed we have seen that it was on that occasion, that sorrowful crisis in His history, when He had to learn the lesson of human instability, — when to His foreseeing gaze the dark clouds of the not distant future were gathering ominously, — “when the human agents of the kingdom of darkness were arraying themselves against the Lord of the kingdom of light” (Ellicott), that He turned with the tear in His eye from the fickle throng to His own apostles, and made the appeal which the true-hearted Peter so nobly answered. When, therefore, after the lapse of some days, Jesus put a still more urgent question to His disciples, He could have expected no more favourable reply as to the estimate of the undiscerning and self-seeking multitudes. “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.” But when they had answered the preliminary inquiry, He ventured on that which lay next His heart, as to their own individual and conjoint estimate of Him. If, misinterpreting the ancient prophecies of His coming, the rest of His countrymen had rejected His claims and refused to credit Him with any loftier official dignity than that of an inspired teacher or prophet, He turns with deep anxiety to the favoured few who had for nearly three years been closely associated with Him — who had seen His mighty works and heard His gracious and mighty words. If He were misunderstood by His own apostles at this time, and specially when He was about to unfold the still more humiliating story of His approaching decease, His cause, humanly speaking, was lost. While, on the other hand, if His constant associates had learnt to recognise His true dignity as the Divine Son of God, the estimate of the rest of His kinsmen according to the flesh would sit lightly on Him. Armed by the sympathy and allegiance of His personal followers, He would “set His face steadfastly to go up to Jerusalem.”

We may imagine, therefore, with what deep interest (if with reverence we may say so) the great Redeemer waited for an answer to the question — “But whom do YE say that I, the Son of man, am?” “Am I regarded by you as human alone, or human and Divine? am I a mere prophet, or am I the Immanuel predicted by the greatest of your prophets?”

Peter, as usual, was ready with the reply. It seems to have been a momentary one — without hesitation — without deeming it necessary to consult in the first instance with his brother-apostles. But from previous confidential intercourse apart from their Master, he knew he was warranted to give it as the deliberate and concurrent testimony of their deepened experience — “THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING God” (literally ‘* the Son of the God — the living God r). Brief, but most weighty words — full and glorious confession of faith, although one sentence embraces it all.

“The excellence,” says Dean Alford, “of this confession is, that it brings out both the human and the Divine nature of the Lord: the Messiah, the son of David, the Anointed King; and the Eternal Son, begotten of the Eternal Father, as the last word most emphatically implies; not Son of God in any inferior, figurative sense; not One of the sons of God, of angelic nature; but * THE Son of the Living God,1 having in Him the lordship and the Divine nature in a sense in which they could be in none else. This was a view of the Person of Christ quite distinct from the Jewish Messianic idea.”1 “The heavenly truth flashed on him,” it has been similarly remarked, “did indeed contain the meeting-place between the two dispensations; the Anointed Messiah whom prophets and kings had desired to see; the Son of Him who once again, as at the burning bush, had come with ever-living power to visit and redeem His people. ... In that confession were wrapt up the truths which were to be the light of the future ages of Christendom.”*

The confession was uttered by him” in one of those ecstasies of faith which raise him for the moment above himself, and reveal that ardent courage which characterises all mighty workers on the great heart of mankind. * Is it not allowed us to picture the joy which that announcement must have imparted to the human soul of Him, whose joys were so few and whose sorrows were so many? The expression of His satisfaction may be found in the ready acknowledgment and answer He gives to the testimony borne by His open-hearted friend, when for a second time He bestows upon him his

1 Greek Testament, in loc

s Stanley’s “Sermons on the Apostolic Age,” pp. 86, 87. descriptive name. It was as if He had said — Simon, you have bestowed upon Me My true title, and owned My Divine prerogatives; I shall now bestow upon you your new name in token of My approval, and in recognition of the rock-like strength of your belief. Hitherto you have been called Simon — but “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, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. xvi. 17-19).

“This acknowledgment itself,” says Neander, “might have been made by Peter at an earlier period; but the way in which he made it at that critical moment, and the feeling which inspired it, showed that he had obtained a new intuition of Christ as the Son of God. It was for this that Christ called him 4 blessed, because the drawing of the Father had led him to the Son, and the Father had revealed Himself to him in the Son.” 1

i It may not be out of place to note, that Cephas, not Peter, was the name by which, though now almost extinct, Peter was known and addressed by the Lord and his brother-apostles, as well as subsequently by Jewish Christians. I quote in full the following addenda to an able article on* the apostle in Smith’s Bib. Die. p 81’»: — ‘* Cephas (jrnas) occurs in the following passages :- John i. 42; 1 Cor. i. 12, iii 22, ix. 6, xv. 5; GaU ii. 9, i. 18, ii. 10, 14 (the last three according to the text of Lachmann and Teschendorf. Cephas is the Chaldee word Cepha. itself a corruption of, or derivation from, the Hebrew Ceph, * a rock,’ a rare word, fOund only in Job xxx. 6, and Jer. iv. 29. It must have been the word actually pronounced by our Lord in Matt xvi. 18, and on subsequent occasions when the apostle was addressed by Him or other Hebrews by his new name. By it he was It is worthy of remark in passing, that in this reply to Peter we have one of the only two occasions in which the word (now so familiar to us) “Church” is found in the Gospels, although often recurring in the Acts and Epistles.

The metaphor employed by Christ is a strong, and remarkable one, “The gates of hell (or Hades — the place of departed spirits) shall not prevail against it.” The gates of Oriental cities formed the place of judgment and counsel — often in the evil sense of intrigue and conspiracy. The figure employed evidently means, that all the machinations and stratagems of Satan and his emissaries will fail in shaking the foundations of his rock-built, spiritual citadel; and though assailed for eighteen centuries, He has been “faithful that promised.”

My readers are aware that these few words from the lips of the Divine Redeemer, which took only a moment to repeat, have influenced the outer history and creed of the Church in a way which no other single utterance of His ever did. They are boldly assumed to have specially conferred at the time upon Peter what is called “the power of the keys,” and to have invested him with an

known to the Corinthian Christians. In the ancient Syriac version of the New Testament (Peshito) it is uniformly found where the Greek has Petros. When we consider that our Lord and the apo ties spoke Chaldee, and that therefore (as already remarked) the apostle must have been always addressed as Cephas, it is certainly remarkable that throughout the gospels, no less than 07 times, with one exception only, the name should be given in the Greek form, which was of later introduction, and unintelligible to Hebrews, though intelligible to the far wider Gentile world among which the gospel was about to begin its course. Even in St Mark, where more Chaldee words and phrases are retained than in all the other gospels put together, this is the case. It is as if, in our English B bles, the name were uniformly given, not Peter, but Rock; and it suggests that the meaning contained in the appellation is of more vital importance, and intended to be more carefully seized at each recurrence, than we are apt to recollect.” unlimited ecclesiastical supremacy not shared by his brother-apostles — authority to remit or to retain sin at his discretion. But for this declaration, indeed, the Church of Home with its haughty usurpations would never have existed; millions would never have recognised in the Pope the successor of Peter — the reigning vicar or representative of Christ — infallibly guarded from all possibility of error in doctrine. Perverted from the meaning the Divine Speaker intended them to convey, they have been thus made the occasion and authority for building up a compact system of spiritual delusion and despotism, supreme among the many which, in the sacred name of religion, have in different ages been palmed on human credulity.

In order to avoid any ambiguity or misstatement regarding the Roman assumptions, the words of her own canon law are these — “The Pope by the Lord’s ‘appointment is the successor of the blessed apostle Peter, and holds the place of the Redeemer Himself upon the earth,” “The Roman Pontiff bears the authority, not of a mere man, but of the true God upon the earth.” “Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords, gave to the Roman Pontiff, in the person of Peter, the plenitude of power.” u In the creed of Pius IV. we read, ‘I acknowledge the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome to be the mother and mistress of ail Churches; and I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, successor of the prince of the apostles, St Peter, and the vicegerent of Christ.’ The catechism drawn up by command of the Council of Trent, declares ’ the visible head of the Church to be he who, as the legitimate successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, holds the Roman chair.’ In defining the authority and power which they allege were given to Peter, the Romanists affirm that the grant included temporal as well as spiritual power; and that the Pope, who is Peter’s successor, is 4 Bishop of bishops, Ordinary of ordinaries, Universal bishop of the Church, Bishop or diocesan of the whole world, Divine monarch, Supreme emperor, and King of kings. Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown as king of heaven, of earth, and of hell.’”1

“To give,” says the same writer to whom I am indebted for these statements, “but one example of those astounding claims as preferred by a Pope, we give an extract from the Bull of Pius V. against Queen Elizabeth. The Bull is entitled, * The Damnation and Excommunication of Elizabeth, Queen of England, and her Adherents, with an Addition of other Punishments, and declares, ‘He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and in earth, committed one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (out of which there is no salvation) to one alone upon earth, namely, to Peter, the prince of the apostles, and to Peter’s successor, the bishop of Rome, to be governed in fulness of power. Him alone He made prince over all people and all kingdoms, to pluck up, destroy, scatter, consume, plant, and build.’” 2

One thinks how Peter himself would have shrunk back appalled at the blasphemous assumptions which have been cruelly thrust on him, causing him to be identified with that “man of sin who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he as God, sitteth in the temple

l West, “Scenes in the Life of St Peter, pp. 112, 118. lb. 113, 114. of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess. ii. 3, 4).

I shall not attempt to enter exhaustively into a question upon which volumes have been written, alike defending and combating this strange dogma. But neither can a topic that has so close and intimate a bearing on Peter’s life be summarily disposed of or entirely slurred over. In pondering it, to any candid or dispassionate mind melancholy proof is afforded on what a slender and worthless foundation men can build up crude assertions into religious beliefs, revolting alike to reason and common-sense, and in this case derogatory to the Great Being whose distorted words have been made responsible for a system of gigantic error.

It is not unworthy of preliminary note, that there are two words employed in the Saviour’s address to His apostle — Thou art Peter, a stone (Petros), and upon this rock (Petra) I will build My Church; Petros being simply a stone: Petra a bold, immoveable rock. So that the Romish writers are wide of the truth who would represent Christ as asserting that Peter was the rock on which the Church was to be built, seeing if our Lord had intended to convey any such meaning, He would not have employed a mixed metaphor, but would at once have said in direct words — “Thou art Petros; and upon thee will I build,” <fec. An excellent practical expositor puts this same observation in a different form: “When our Lord says, * Thou art Peter, or thou art a stone, He makes use of a masculine substantive, and one usually applied by the classical writers to a fragment of a rock, or such a stone as a man can lift. When He continues the sentence, s and upon this rock,’ He changes the word into a feminine noun, which is always employed by the classical writers to express the solid rock itself, and He continues to refer to this feminine noun throughout the sentence. A change of expression, which, to say the least, would be extremely improbable, if our Lord were speaking of the same person or the same thing throughout.” 1

I shall endeavour, with as much brevity as the theme will allow, to make a few remarks upon the much-controverted passage.

1. The first which occurs is: If Peter were thus invested by his Lord with such tremendous prerogatives; if he were selected specially from among his brother-apostles, not as the chief or representative (for that, as we have already noted, owing to his natural character, and possibly from his age, life in one sense was), but to be accredited with powers superior to theirs — their prince and the prince of all succeeding ecclesiastics; — not only so, but that the power bestowed upon him was to be transmitted from age to age to a successor, seated as “vicar of God * in the city of Borne: — surely we must at all events look for the record of so remarkable an appointment in all the four gospel narratives. If Peter was to be the future” rock n on which the Church was to be built, that rock would surely, so to speak, appear conspicuous in .the foreground of all the four inspired pictures. His alleged Primacy would be considered far too important to be left to the description of only one evangelist.2

1 Blunt’s “Lectures on St Peter,” p. 50.

* Had they suffered Peter to be content with a primacy of order (which his age and gravity seemed to challenge for him), no wise or peaceable man would have denied it, as being a thing ordinarily practised among equals, and necessary to the well-governing of a society; but when nothing but a primacy of power will serve the turn, as if the rest of the apostles had been inferior to him, this may by no means be granted” (Dr Cave, p. 17).

How stands the case? Matthew alone records the Maying of Christ, and none of the others do so. Possibly it might not have been deemed of sufficient importance to be chronicled even by the former, had not his Gospel been written mainly, in the first instance, for behoof of Christians claiming Jewish descent, and among whom Peter had alike a special mission and a special influence. All about the personal history of the apostle of the circumcision would be of peculiar interest to his converted countrymen. “‘Tell us,’ they may well have said when they came to this point of the Gospel teaching, ’ tell us something of our great apostle; tell us not only what he said of his Master, but what his Master said of him; tell us what prophetic anticipations were uttered in this, the crisis of his life, concerning those mighty works which he has done and is doing amongst us, concerning those awful responsibilities which have been entrusted to him alone in his dealings with his Jewish and Gentile brethren? ‘And to this question the blessing on St Peter in St Matthew’s Gospel was the answer.” 1 Bishop Wordsworth, in referring to the passage in Matthew xvi., and vindicating the reference of the Rock there spoken of to Christ, remarks — “The evangelists St Mark and St Luke would not have omitted the words in St Matthew, if the declaration of St Peter’s privileges and not of our Lord’s Person and office had been the main scope of the conversation.” 2

IL If Peter had been thus accredited with special and distinctive powers apart from his brother-apostles, we should naturally look for these being referred to

l Stanley’s “Sermons on the Apostolic Church,” p. 11. Greek Testament. frequently in subsequent inspired writings — not only in the later Gospels, but in the epistles, and in the Acts of the Apostles. His “beloved brother Paul,” who occupies so prominent a place in later years in the Church of the first century, was too magnanimous to refuse honour to whom honour was due, if such had been Peter’s pre-eminent place, as the divinely-appointed, first universal bishop. What do we find in all the letters of the great apostle Not even one reference to Peter’s alleged official dignity as tlu “Rock-man of the Church” On the contrary, as is well known, he is the only prominent leader of apostolic days whose fallibility and instability drew forth a reluctant rebuke from the apostle of the Gentiles. For owing to his brother’s inconsistent conduct at Antioch (a.d. 51), which we shall come afterwards to note, Paul tells frankly that he withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. “If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the (Jentiles to live as do the Jews* (Gal. il 14). “What language,” as has been well observed, “is this to the prince of the apostles, the vicar of Christ, the man who bad the keys of heaven, and earth, and hell!” This circumstance is so fatal indeed to the pretensions which have been urged in favour of his supremacy over the other apostles, that from a very early age attempts have been made to set aside its force by the hypothesis, that it is not of Peter the apostle, but of another person of the same name, that Paul speaks in the passage referred to (Euseb., Hist. Eccles. 1-13). “This hypothesis, however, is so plainly contradicted by the words of Paul, who explicitly ascribes apostleship to the Peter of whom he writes, that it is astonishing how it could have been admitted even by the most blinded zealot.” 1 In the Acts of the Apostles, while Peter undoubtedly occupies not only an honourable, but unquestionably the leading place in the Pentecostal days and in the first gatherings of the Church, and, though in a very special sense, may “the keys of the kingdom” be said to have been put into his hands, first in the revivals of Pentecost, and afterwards as the honoured instrument employed in opening the door for the reception of the Gentiles in their representative Cornelius (Acts xv. 7), yet so far as official rank is concerned, James the Just, as we shall by and by find, is the acknowledged President or Chief of the Council in Jerusalem. He never on that occasion accorded any deference to Peter as the vicar of Christ. Nor did Peter urge or assert his delegated supremacy. He simply rose up after the expression of diverse opinions, and stated his own on a parity with Paul and Barnabas; and then the aged president, “after they had held their peace,” answered, saying, “Men and brethren, hearken unto me.” It is not Peter, but James who delivers the finding or verdict — “Wherefore my sentence is,” <fec.

III. What light do the inspired writings of the New Testament throw upon the equality of the other apostles with St Peter? To begin with the words and utterances of Peter’s Lord and Master: —

Had He committed to Peter alone “the power of the keys,” the right of binding and loosing; how comes it, that in the immediately succeeding context in St Matthew, when He is speaking, not to Peter, but to all the disciples collectively, we should have the virtual repetition of the very words on which the zealots of the

1 Kitto’s “Biblical Literature.”

Church of Borne have arrogated for him exclusive claims and jurisdiction: (Matt, xviii. 18) “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.”

Subsequent to this same rock-charge, we find the disciples — evidently all-unconscious of any such distinction or acknowledged superiority as Romanists claim, but rather in one of those mournful exhibitions of frail human nature — disputing on the way to Jerusalem “which of them should be the greatest” (Mark ix. 33). What an opportunity this would have been for their Divine Head putting them right on the subject of Peter’s priority! Rather, might we not have expected His answer or rebuke to them to have been somewhat as follows: “Why this disputation, when I so lately solved and settled that very question at Caesarea Philippi by awarding the chief dignity to the son of Jonas?” How different His reply: “And He sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all. And He took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when He had taken him in His arms, He said unto them, Whosoever shall receive one of such children in My name, receiveth Me; and whosoever shall receive Me, receiveth not Me, but Him that sent Me” (Mark ix. 35-37). When Jesus felt that the hour waited for by all time was drawing on, when He would surrender His own life for the life of the world, He thought it meet to prepare the minds of His confidential followers for the scenes of humiliation which were close at band.

i See all this question very clearly and admirably handled by the author of “Essays on the Church.”

He would impress upon them, that though (according to their joint confession) He was indeed the Son of the living God, yet they must moderate their expectations, for He was to be made the victim of cruel suffering and death. Though He had on previous occasions given more than one obscure intimation of coming sorrows, it is now for the first time He announces so plainly this mystery of woe, and scatters all their false dreams and expectations of a mere temporal kingdom: “And He began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise agan” (Mark viiL 31).

How was the startling announcement received? “We may imagine,” says Stier, “the different effects produced on the other disciples, according to the individual peculiarity of each — the still, astonished feelings of a John or a Nathanael — the prostrate sadness of a Thomas, Is this the end to which He is to come 1 — the crafty listening of a Judas — and the naive questioning of an Andrew or Philip, ‘What is this that He saith? We cannot tell what He says.’” We know, however, with certainty the expressed feelings of their ever-impulsive spokesman. Peter has evidently been falsely elated with the words of encomium lately pronounced on him; so much so, as to lead him in the present instance to unwarrantable presumption. In the quaint words of Dr Cave, “His spirits were now afloat, and his passions ready to overrun the banks; not able to endure the thought that so much evil should befall his Master, he broke out into an over-confident and unseasonable interruption of Him.” Taking Him, as the expression would seem to indicate, familiarly aside by the hand or garment, apart from the others, he ventured on a private remonstrance. “He took Him, and began to rebuke Him, saying, Forbid it, Lord; this shall not happen to Thee.” The feeling, doubtless, mainly in the heart of the apostle was, that such a revolting end would be unbefitting and unbecoming the dignity of Him who had so lately appropriated the designation, “The Christ, the Son of the living God.” But, over and above this, there may have miugled a feeling of personal disappointment He had clung with fond avidity to the carnal dream of a temporal kingdom: his mind recoiled from the thought of so sudden an eclipse of his cherished expectations of a share in the grandeur and glory of that kingdom, by these humiliating revelations of approaching suffering and death.

His Divine Master, however, as Bengel expresses it, u reduces him to his proper level He meets the unwarranted expostulation with a stinging rebuke, uttered in the presence of all the others, * Get thee behind me, Satan (or adversary), thou art an offence (or stumbling-block).’ “It has been supposed by some that Jesus here had still in His mind the emblem of the rock. 4 Thou Petros, who wert lately by thy confession a living stone of the temple of which I am the foundation, art become as a stone of stumbling — an offence in My way, with which, if thou couldst, thou wouldst make Me fall.’ And it is the more evident, perhaps, that our Lord had such a reference in His rebuke, from the way in which Peter, many years afterwards, speaks of those who became an offence to the great Headstone: “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offence.” 1 Nor is it without

1 “These words (of stern admonition) open up to as the fact, that this period of the ministry was a time of special trial and temptation to the sinsignificance, that in none of the Gospels is this sharp and stinging rebuke more faithfully recorded than in what we have already called Peter’s “own gospel.” The honest, genuine, outspoken man is the first to proclaim, as with a trumpet, his Lord’s merited censure, the severest that ever came from lips of love and tenderness; as if he would have all future ages to know that instead of occupying the chief seat, he was truly “a man of like passions,” who had greater reason than his brother-apostle of Tarsus to call himself “less than the least of all saints.” “The very point and occasion of that rebuke,” as has been well observed,” is his inexcusable want of discernment in spiritual things, his betrayal of so earthly a judgment and so carnal a heart.

. .. It is at once a most overwhelming disproof of the baseless and arrogant pretensions of the Papacy, and also an affecting comment on the weakness, blindness, and fallibility of man, even when most honoured and privileged. On the very same day, we find this apostle commended most honourably for his faith and attachment to his Lord, and reproved in terms of the utmost severity for his blindness and unbelief. One moment he is the most favoured of the apostles, a chosen foundation-stone of the Church, presented with the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and the next, he is visited with his Lord’s stern displeasure, and addressed

less Son of God. ‘Escape from sufferings and death. Do not drink the cup prepared of Thy Esther; it is too bitter; it is not deserved.’ Such was the whisper of the Prince of this world at that time to our Lord; and Peter has been unwittingly taking it into his mouth. The doctrine of a suffering Messiah, so plainly exhibited in the prophets had receded from sight in the current religion of that time. The announcement of it to the di»ciples was at once new and shocking. By repelling it, even when offered by the Lord Himself, they fell into a deeper sin than they could have conceived. The chief of them was called ‘Satan,’ because he was unconsciously pleading on Satan’s side.” — Bib. Die Art. “Jesus Christ,” p. 1059. as if he were Satan himself, the great enemy of God and man. Surely such an incident in the life of such an apostle should teach us to cease from man, whose breath is in his nostrils, for wherein is he to be accounted of? “1 “The two things he wanted were just those two qualities which the Romish expositors insist on finding in him. He was very fallible, often making mistakes; and he was unstable, the very opposite to that characteristic of a rock which they always ascribe to him.” 2

We may add yet one other reference to the Saviour’s declarations. When imparting His last injunctions to His Church before His ascension, these were His emphatic words, addressed not to one, but to all the apostles without distinction: “As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” (John xx. 21-23).

To pass from the testimony of the Master to that of His other apostles and disciples, St Luke tells us that he had carefully collected in his Gospel “all those things that are most surely believed among us.” Strange it were, had there been authority for it, to have omitted such a foundation-truth as this; while in the Acts of the Apostles, where the same Evangelist records the later biography of Peter, his priority is not once referred to. Here unquestionably, had there been any similar authority, we should have found the” Prince of

1 Bishop Lee on St Peter, pp 64, 65.. * Author of 14 Essay 8 on the Church.” the apostles and Vicar of God “claiming his Divine right, and exercising his Divinely-conferred supremacy. But there is not the trace of it, either by word or deed. Surely, to take one important official act, if such had been his special prerogative, as the infallible representative of Christ on earth, to him would have appertained the filling up of the vacancy in the apostleship caused by the treachery and death of Judas Iscariot. But, as we shall ere long find, and as we are expressly told, this was done by the wlwle company of the apostles.” They appointed two — Joseph and Matthias,” and the solemn appeal was made to lot.” There could not have been a fitter opportunity for the exercise of Peter’s supremacy than this. It was clearly the part of the vicar of Christ to appoint to the vacant bishopric a new suffragan; but he did not do so, or attempt to do it; he was only the spokesman. All united in the nomination of two, and then in prayer to God that He would choose between them.,, 1

It is equally strange to find St John, Peter’s most intimate associate, utterly silent about his friend’s alleged official distinction. Both he and St Luke could not fail to have known this appointed primacy; how then can we explain that they have not so much as a passing reference to it 1 We have already shewn that St Mark’s Gospel was in some way written under Peter’s own dictation, and we should naturally look in it for the full explanation of these exceptional powers. Not one word is there mentioned, either about “the power of the keys,” or the pretentious “rock.” We may surely confidently rely upon it, that if Peter had been invested with any such vicarage, the most intimate sharer of his

1 West, p. 120. thoughts, and recorder of bis sayings, who stood to him in much the same relation that Timothy did to Paul, would have been the very first to put it in writing. He would never have done Peter the injustice to leave unnoticed the great fact of his history, and the chief honour of his life; but, on the other hand, would have felt the pride of a disciple in placing him on the conspicuous pedestal.

The sacred writers, however, are not silent regarding the Bock on which the Church was to be built, although they refuse any such assumption to the son of Jonas. To begin with a passage in the Old Testament* we may use the comment of an eminent expositor: — “In the book of Daniel the kingdom of the Son of man is compared to a Stone, which becomes a great Bock (Dan. ii. 35) and lasts for ever, and is called ’ the kingdom of the God of heaven* (ii. 44). It is a prophetic representation of our Lord’s words to. St Peter — ‘On this Rock (i.e., on Myself, the Son of man, confessed also to be the Son of God) I will build My Church, My kingdom, which is the kingdom of the living God, and it shall last for ever, and I will give to thee the keys of that kingdom.9 “x St Paul describes the Church as being” built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone 19 (Eph. ii. 26). Twenty years after Christ had spoken the memorable words to Peter, and by which time surely their truth and application must have been fully ascertained, the apostle of the Gentiles says, “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” St John, in the allegorical description of the New Jerusalem in the Apocalypse, speaks

1 Bishop Wordsworth’s Greek Testament. of it as having “twelve foundations,” in which were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (Rev. xxi. 14). No foundation, let it be observed, is ascribed to Peter different from the others; no indication. that one stone was to be regarded as more precious or distinguished than the others. “There are twelve stars on the crown of the Church militant sojourning on earth, and twelve foundation stones in the wall of the Church glorified in heaven; and if Peter, who is one of these twelve stones, is taken from the other eleven and made to be their foundation, the whole structure is disturbed, and the whole fabric falls.”1

And what, perhaps, is more to the point than all, what says St Peter himself? It would only be natural to expect from him an explicit statement as to the distinctive powers his Lord had conferred on him. The Christian modesty and humility which so specially characterised his old age, might have deterred him from speaking of what savoured of egotism or vain-glory. But not, certainly, if, as the Papal writers allege, the interests of the Church were, by Divine authority, surrendered to his keeping. It would have been a false delicacy and reticence surely, unworthy of bis brave, outspoken manliness, to have preserved these prerogatives as a secret What, however, does he say of *’ the Bock “on which the Church is to be built? Is that Rock himself, or another? “Unto you, therefore, which believe, He is precious;” u Unto 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 spiritualliouse, an holy priesthood, to offer

l Wordsworth. up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God” (1 Peter ii. 5). The inscription at the opening of his first epistle is not “Peter the apostle, the vicegerent of God,” but “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ.” There is no instance on record of his ever having exercised any such supposed power. On the contrary, there are instances, if we may here for a moment anticipate, when he went forth a delegate, in obedience to the injunction of his brethren, as when he was sent, at their command, along with John, to minister to the infant Church of the Samaritans.

Some have ventured to affirm that Peter received on the shores of Tiberias the special commission we shall come afterwards to consider — “Feed My sheep.” “But it was not certainly as one endued with exclusive or paramount authority, or as distinguished from his fellow-disciples, but rather as one who had forfeited his place, and could not resume it without such an authorisation.” 1 On the other hand, surely if Christ had purposed to invest him with any alleged primacy in the Church, that final interview would have been the most befitting occasion. But there is no such purpose: while at a previous period of his history, to one of bis own bold assertions, he received from the lips of his Lord an answer which implies, as distinctly as language can assert, a parity or equality among the apostolic band, to which he was no exception; —” Then answered Peter, and said unto Him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed Thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones,

1 Bib. Die in fee. judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. xix. 27, 28). How singularly, to revert once more to his epistles, does he seem to protest against any such -primacy or priority of claim, when he speaks thus regarding pastors, “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock” and turning, as it were, the eye of false teachers away from himself to the brotherhood of the faithful — “the Church throughout the whole world,” he exclaims, “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood.” He tells us in his last epistle of some things he would wish his converts and the early believers to have always in remembrance after his decease; but any claim of authority over his colleagues was not among these, nor in other parts of his writings does he transmit any such. When he came at last to lay down his life for the sake of the Master he loved so well, how would the remembrance of rashness, impulse, fear, cowardice, mingling with deeds of heroic devotion and allegiance, make him shrink from the assumption of any lordship over God’s heritage! 1 Stier succinctly remarks: “In the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the entire New Testament, there is no trace to be found of such a supremacy, but the contrary indeed, everywhere. In Acts vi. the twelve call together the multitude of the disciples. Acts x. 47, Peter asks permission from the inferior attendants who were present, as at chap. xL he vindi6ates himself before God and man by a ‘What was If,,> “Thus is wholly

l Even in the time of Cyprian when communion with the Bfohop of Rome as St Peter’s successor for the first time was held to be indispensable, no powers of jurisdiction or supremacy were supposed to be attached to the admitted precedency of rank.... Peter held no distinct office, and certainly i ever claimed any powers which did not belong equilly to all his fello xv -apostles. “— Bib. Die. in Log. set aside anything like the institution of ah official primacy, which would make a man the sovereign dispenser of God’s pardons. To Peter belongs, neverthe- * less, the honour of having been the first to give utterance to the creative word of the Church, and of having displayed in action that great quality of conquering energy, which procured for him a moral supremacy at Jerusalem. If the Church had no more stable basis than the impulsive heart of a man, it is evident how frail would be her foundation.” 1 “Sure I am says old Dr Cave, with whose words we may appropriately sum up the argument, “that, as Origen tells us, every true Christian that makes this confession with the same spirit and integrity which St Peter did, shall have the same blessing and commendation from Christ conferred upon him.”2

Yes, thanks be to God, the Church is not built upon the shifting sand, but upon “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.” Her foundation is upon the holy mountains. She looks to no prince of the apostles, but to the “Prince of the kings of the earth:” as it had been predicted ages before by the great evangelical prophet, — *’ Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation: be that believeth shall not make haste “(Tsa. xxviii. 16). To One alone, and to no other, has been given the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” I am He that liveth, and

1 Pressensi, p. S98.

* “If we shall say, like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not by the reve’ation of flesh and blood but by the light of our Father which is in heaven shining into our heart, we become Peter, and to us might be said by the Word (Logos), * Thou art Peter.’ For every disciple of Peter is a rock.” — Ib. was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen: and have the keys of hell and of death “(Rev. i. 18). Thus, then, do all these” wise master-builders, 9 and none more than St Peter himself, point away from every human foundations to their great Lord, saying, “He only is my Rock and my salvation.”2

1 As to the latter prerogative, indeed, alleged to hare been bestowed on the apostle, the possession of the keys of the kingdom of hear en, a writer, already quoted, observes, “It is said that when the Jews made a man a Doctor of the Law, they put into his hand the key of the closet in the Temple where the sacred books were kept, and al o tablet to write upon; signifying by ti is that they pare him authority to teach and to explain the Scriptures to the people. Peter had the honour of opening the Christian dlspensat on. He was the first to preach after the effusion of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, when the evangelical dispensation was fully and formally opened. The promise was fulfilled to him he receives the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and opened the door to both Jews and Gentiles.*’ — Wat, 107, 108.

* Archb shop Leighton, referring to Peter’s failings, says, “These, by the providence of God being recorded in Scripture, give a check to the excess of Rome’s conceit concerning this apostle.... Whatsoever he was, they would be ranch in pain to prove Rome’s right to primacy by succession. And if ever it had any such right, we may confidently say it has forfeited it long ago, by departing from Si Peter’s footsteps and from his faith,” — Commentary on 1st Peter,