whicli Christ's Church was to be built ? Such an interpre- tatiou, to say the least, appears exceedingly improbable. Co speak of an erring, fallible child of Adam as the bundation of the spiritual temple, is very unlike the Tdinary language of Scripture. Above all, no reason ;an be given ^Yhy our Lord should not have said, " I >vill build my church upon tJiee" — if such had been His meaning, — instead of saying, " I will build my church apon this rock."
The true meaning of " the rock" in this passage ap- pears to be the truth of our Lord's Messiahship and divin- ity, which Peter had just confessed. It is as though our Lord had said, '^ Thou art rightly called by the name Peter, or stone, for thou hast confessed that mighty truth, on which, as on a rock, I will build my church."*
But what are we to understand, when we read the promise which our Lord makes to Peter, " I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ?" Do these words mean that the right of admitting souls to heaven was to be placed in Peter's hands ? The idea is preposterous. Such an office is the special prerogative of Christ Himself. (Rev. i. 18.) Do the words mean that
* There is notliiag modern, or peculiarly Protestant in the view here maintained. It was held by Chrysostom long ago. It was taught by Ferus, a famous Roman Catholic preacher, of the Franciscan order, at Mayence, in the sixteenth century, in his Homilies on St. Matthew.
It may be well to remark in this place, that it is a complete delu- sion to suppose that the Scriptures can be interpreted according to the " unanimous consent of the Fathers." There is no such unanimous con- sent It is a mere high-sounding phrase, utterly destitute of any foun- dation in facts. The Fathers disagree as much in explaining Scrip- ture, as Whitby and Gill, or Matthew Henry and D'Oyly and Mant.
9