ing grace, grace unto it. The advocates of the idea of a new church begun by Christ under the Christian dispensation, place too much dependence for the proof of their doctrine on this word. They seem to suppose that because it is compounded of two words, olxos and douέw, and literally means to build a house, therefore, when employed figuratively, it must mean to begin to build an edifice, and not to enlarge or complete the building. A careful inspection of such passages as John 2: 20, Luke 11: 47 and 48, 1 Peter 2: 5, in the New Testament, and Ezra 4: 2, Neh. 2: 17, 4: 1, 17, 18, in the LXX, will satisfy every impartial reader that oxodoμso does not always necessarily signify to begin a new structure. When, therefore, Christ says in the text, "I will build my church," he must not of necessity be understood to mean that he had destroyed the old one, dug up its foundation, and was about to lay a new one on which he would soon build a new church. Nor is the figurative application of the word to spiritual things more fortunate for those who insist that it must mean in the passage before us the commencement of a new church. Does it signify to begin to build a new church in 1 Cor. 14: 4, ó dè προφητεύων ἐκκλησίαν οἰκοδομεῖ? Or is the idea of a new church found in the substantive derived from this verb in the fifth verse of the same chapter, ἵνα ἡ ἐκκλησία οἰκοδομὴν λάβη? In the seventeenth verse it is applied to an individual, a22' ô ἕτερος οὐκ οἰκοδομείται, and must mean the other is not built ap: in Christian knowledge and virtue. In 1 Cor. 8: 10, it is, used to signify the effect of one person's conduct upon another,, in fortifying him in acting contrary to the dictates of his own conscience. It is translated "emboldened." "For if any. man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him that is weak be emboldened (oixodounnerai) to eat those things which are of fered to idols?" The notion of building a new conscience: for him would not be seriously entertained even by those who insist that Christ built a new church. If the doctrine that Christ built a new church is found in other places of the New Testament it will afford some support to such an exposition of

the text in hand; but if not, it cannot be successfully maintained from the phrase, "I will build my church."

It will be seen from the passages quoted above, that the verb oixodouéo translated build' in the text, is used in reference to the church in two ways: 1, to signify increase of the number of members, and 2, the increase of Christian knowledge and graces in those who are already in the church. That it means the addition of members to the church, in the text, seems to me to be the most natural conclusion, although it may imply also the increase of knowledge and graces. In Acts 9: 31, we are told, "Then had the churches rest throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria, and were edified (oixoSouоvueva), and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied (inλndúvorto). The rest which these churches enjoyed had a tendency, under apostolic labors, to build them up both by the increase of knowledge and grace, and by large addition of members. So also Peter writes, 1 Epist. 2: 5, "Ye also as lively stones are built up (oixodoμɛtove) a spiritual house." The figure of building the church up like a house on a foundation, seems to imply then the addition of members, like the addition of stones to the edifice as it increases in size. So Paul says, 1 Cor. 3:9," Ye are God's building (oixodoun)." And it is recorded in Acts 2: 47, "The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

Let us now descend to the foundation of this building and examine, if we can, the rock on which our blessed Lord declares he will build his church. There are three interpretations of this: 1, it is Christ; 2, it is the confession of Peter, in ver. 16, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;" and 3, it is Peter. The last I adopt as more tenable than the others. The objection against the first is that there is nothing to point out Christ in the connection of the passage. And to suppose that he pointed to himself when he spake it, is mere hypothesis in the absence of all proof. He was addressing Peter, and apparently assigning a reason for the emphatic mention of his

name, and we discern nothing on the face of the text, that should lead us to suppose that, after saying to him, "Thou art Peter," he should immediately procced to speak of himself as "this rock." There ought to be better proof than conjecture for the interpretation of such a text as this. The second of the above interpretations is rejected because there is not any sufficient reason for calling Peter's confession that he was the Christ, a rock; and least of all, "this rock," which implies a particular one in distinction from others, or one which had been spoken of before. Moreover, it would destroy the emphasis on Peter (ò ergos). Let us substitute Peter's acknowledgment in ver. 16, for "this rock," in the 18th. " And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter," and upon this confession that I am the Christ, "I will build my church." All allusion to the meaning of the name Peter vanishes. at once, and no good reason appears for mentioning it at all, and especially with such an emphatic address.

The third and last interpretation is retained for the following reasons. 1. The verse preceding, and that following the text, are addressed to Peter; and the text begins with the emphatic address, "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter;" and then follow the words, "and upon this rock," etc. Now, is another subject introduced here which does not relate to Peter, any more than to any body else who should confess that Jesus was the Christ? 2. The connective particles xai dé at the commencement of this verse, show also that the words following them are a continuation of the address to Peter, and that they convey a sentiment still more important to him, than what he had already said. "And I say also to thee," etc. 3. That part of the verse which follows the word Peter, appears to be explicative of the significant emphasis placed upon that name, and apparently assigns the reason for the address. "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter." And the xai following does not militate against this supposition. For in such passages as 1 John 3: 4, xai ý

áμagría ¿oriv návoμía, and Rev. 1: 18, and 1 Cor. 14: 32, it connects an explicative sentence, which explains the reason of something which precedes, and might with propriety be translated for, as it is in 1 John 3: 4. 4. There is in this passage an evident play upon the similarity of sound between the two words Πέτρος and πέτρα, which the Greeks called paronomasia. "And I say also unto thee, that thou art & Пéros," then follows the reason," and (or for) upon raíry nérga (this rock) I will build my church." Iliroos sigΠέτρος nifies a stone or rock, but generally one which is movable; and nέrga has a similar meaning, but is generally used when a mass of rock is spoken of which is not moved, or upon which something rests, like an edifice upon an immovable foundation. Our Saviour gave this name to Simon when he first became his disciple, as we learn from John 1: 42. "And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon, the son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation Пlergos, a stone." This word is used for such a stone as belligerents employed in battle, and appears to be a synonym with 2100s. So Xenoph. Anab. iv. 7, 10. And in sec. 12, οὐδεὶς πέτρος ἄνωθεν ἐνέχθη. Also 2 Macc. 1: 16, and 4: 41. And in the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, chap. 11 4, this sentence occurs, in which 2íos and rizqu are used synonymously—Καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἐκ πέτρας ἀκροτόμου ὕδωρ, καὶ ἴαμα δίψης ἐκ λίθου σκληροῦ. See also Is. 8 : 14, Rom. 9: 33. It does not appear then from this comparison of terms that there is any more difference between zέrgos and nitoa, than there is between the English stone and rock. Hence, when an edifice is reared upon such a solid foundation, we say it is built on a rock, not on a stone. And this corresponds with the Greek usage. See Matt. 7: 24 and 25. But when a foundation or basement is built of stones, then 200s is used more commonly. 1 Kings 6: 7, and 7: 9 and 10. But in Is. 28: 16, we have this peculiar form, “ Behold, I lay-λίθον πολυτελῆ, ἐκλεκτόν, ἀκρογωνιαῖον, ἔντιpor, eis rà deμélia avis." The figure, then, in the text, of the base or beginning of an edifice, made it more proper to use the feminine termination zirga, than to repeat the mas

Πέτρος

culine nézoos; not because the nature of the things signified by the two words differs, but because the one represents a mass proper for a foundation, and the other a smaller mass to which the figure is not adapted. And the application of the demonstrative pronoun ravrn to the noun nérqa, I think confirms this conclusion. What rock had he spoken of except ò Ilérgos? And what is pointed out by zavrn? If a rock was in sight to which he was pointing, or any had been spoken of in the conversation, then Taurη was intended to demonstrate or point it out. It would in that case accord with the form of a passage in Xenoph. Anab. iv. 7, 4. But here there is nothing for ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρα to point to, unless it be ὁ Πέτρος. Ask the question, Which rock will he build upon? Is there any rock spoken of or any answer to be given but Iérgos? 5. There is one more reason for the interpretation which has been given; and that is the part which Peter performed among his brethren in the propagation of the Christian religion, after the ascension of his Master to heaven. In Jerusalem, on the day of Pentecost, when three thousand were added to them, it was through the preaching of Peter. Thus with the keys of the kingdom of heaven which Christ gave him, in the verse following the text, he opened the door of faith to the Jews; and afterwards to the Gentiles, at the house of Cornelius. Acts 10. In Acts 3: 4th and 5th chapters, we find Peter the most prominent preacher and agent, while great multitudes believed, so that the number of the men was about five thousand. Acts 4: 4. And Paul tells us, Gal. 2: 7, that the gospel of the circumcision was committed unto Peter. Now all this shows that Christ assigned him an important part to act in building up his church. And what could be more natural when likening his church to a building, and considering Peter as a part of it, than to place him in the foundation. He does not say that he was the whole foundation, and that he would build the church on him alone; nor does he say any thing inconsistent with the idea that he him