allusion to the confession just made and commended. Without this, indeed, there is no object in it, and we are then in danger, not only of losing the force of our LORD's words, but what is more, of making them mere words. Nay, we lose even the fitness and beauty of this emphatic declaration, the sense itself evaporates, and we seem to have vox et præterea nihil! Now if we are not to encounter such an absurdity, then the last idea that lingers in the mind as we ponder the words, "Thou art Peter," is the confession which had been made, and the last idea we carry with us to the second clause as the only true key to the declaration, "Upon this rock." Nothing can be more evident, if we take the words of the first clause in their allusive force, referring back to what Peter had said, and carry this with us to what follows. In any other view it must be confessed, no solid reason can be assigned why such an emphatic form of words is used; but with Peter's confession as the hinge on which the sentence turns, all is consistent, beautiful and strong.

Perhaps it might occur to some, on reading the context, that however consistent all this may be, yet as we pass on to that promise of our LORD respecting the keys, (v. 19,) “I will give thee the keys," &c. we seem to stumble upon a difficulty that weakens the force of all our reasoning, or perhaps, completely overturns it. Without stopping to determine the precise meaning of "the keys" in this passage, we are bold to say, that instead of any objection arising from the tenor of this promise, it furnishes strong internal evidence in favor of our views. The objection that occurs, perhaps is this, that as our LORD proceeds in his address, with this solemn promise to Peter, he seems to have Peter altogether in view; and as we clearly must refer this last promise (v. 19) to Peter, so we must refer "this rock" to the same person.

But we answer to this, that if our LORD had meant to refer to the same person or thing, in the expression "this rock," and the promise "I will give thee," the natural flow of style would have required the use of the same person; i. e. the third person; and grammatical consistency at least would have demanded the form, "I will give him," and the language would then seem very properly in this part addressed aside to the rest of the disciples, as said to them respecting Peter. But instead of this, our LORD has no sooner given utterance to the words "this rock," in the third person, than he returns to the second person, expressly referring to Peter, "I will give thee." What can be plainer in the natural exposition of language than this, that the change from one person to another

refers to a different thing? If but one object in this address to Peter had been in our LORD's view, the natural connection of sentences does assuredly require the obvious use of the same person throughout, in order to know, at least, whether a person or thing is spoken to, or spoken of. Any change in this respect, is proof there is reference to a different object.

Again, the keys themselves, whatever we may understand by these, certainly mean something, as a figure, at least, of far less importance than the rock. To be the rock of the Church, embraces every thing. It is the foundation on which all rests, and all depends. If Peter, then, were this rock, every thing else in the kingdom of GoD was implied in that single title. But in that case, could it add any thing yet to his dignity or importance to make him also, as some absurdly have made him, (sit venia verbi!) also the door keeper? And are we consequently to paint him, as is sometimes done, sitting before the gates of heaven, to admit or exclude at will, whom he pleases, whilst at the same time, we are to believe he is the very rock of this kingdom-for the Church is nothing else? But we must admit all this, if we make him this rock; we make the words of JESUS, designed as they really were, to confer additional honor and to elevate the disciple by this promise, instead of this, actually leaving him to an inferior position; not to mention the strange confusion of figures, which this mingling of the two beautiful metaphors creates; which, referred clearly to their respective objects, stand nobly forth and give us light, but confounded in one, involve us in the same confusion and darkness. The truth is, they can not mix; we may stir them, perhaps, like oil and water, with some magic wand to produce a momentary mechanica! compound, but the delusion is momentary; the oil and the water separate; truth soon asserts its rights; Peter is not incapacitated for the keys by being made the rock; and this rock remains in its distinct position a surer foundation, than man could lay, or mere man could be.

Thus, as we rapidly glance at the ground here reviewed, we believe there is more than sufficient_reason to deny the propriety of applying the word rock to Peter. He is, stone or even rock if you please, as emblematic of character, not that rock of which JESUS spoke, the Rock of the Church. The common sense, and even the prejudices of the Jewish mind are against it; the literal sense enforced by grammar and philology is against it; the translations both of Greek and Syriac are against it; and every closer inspection of the sacred text shows it to be untenable.

On the contrary, when we look at the one unvaried subject, on which every thing turns in every verse and sentence, from beginning to end, of the whole paragraph, whether in allusions or express terms; the natural connection between the elogium of our LORD and the confession of Peter; the necessary reference to that confession when our LORD takes up its very form as if its parallel; we seem compelled by every consideration to refer to that as the rock upon which the Church should rise. Indeed, when we take a survey of all these grounds, negative and positive as they are, it seems surprising that any other sense should prevail than this. The confession, then, the confession which Peter here made is the rock to which all reference is made. The first question (v. 13) refers to this; the answer of the disciples (v. 14) refers to this; the question again (v. 15) refers still to this; Peter's answer (v. 16) is the confession itself; the answer of JESUS (v. 17) is the blessing and commendation on account of the confession; the emphatic parallel to Peter's confession, (v. 18,) even without the clause, " upon this rock," refers back to the same; the promise (v. 19) is based entirely on the confession; and the last verse, (20,) as if to constrain the most obstinate to confess that this confession is the true rock on which CHRIST'S Church is built, yet reminds us of the caution our LORD deemed it necessary to give, yet for a time on this very point: "that they should tell no man that he was JESUS the CHRIST.”

66

We have thus redeemed the pledge of showing some reference or allusion to this confession in every verse of the section. We believe the point is proved on grounds, which seem to us in such cases, little short of demonstration. Our critical perception must be very different from others, if a fair examination does not make a similar impression on all who take the pains. We know there are great names, fathers, ancient and modern, whose authority has decided differently; but there are also other fathers, ancient and modern, whose critical acumen was not inferior, who have with equal authority decided for the confession. We might here give some illustrious instances of the latter, even from the Church of Rome; but such a question can not be decided by mere votes. We must look into the sacred text, and with all the aids which Providence has given us, earnestly search. The promise that we shall find if we seek, is not in vain.

We need scarcely remark in conclusion, that what has been here asserted as the true rock also accords with historical fact. It was this confession, that JESUS is the CHRIST, that was laid as the foundation every where, as the Apostles

went forth to proclaim the gospel. The first thing presented to the mind of every new convert was, believe in the LORD JESUS CHRIST. Every believer was a believer first of all in this as the basis of his faith: "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, JESUS CHRIST," said St. Paul to the Corinthians, on this very point, (1 Cor. iii,) when divided seemingly between Paul and Appollos, Cephas and CHRIST. Nay, St. Peter himself, as if the error had sprung up even in his day, or as if he anticipated some delusion like it, such as history has exhibited; St. Peter himself, who has been so confidently proclaimed the Rock of the Church, has left, perhaps, some of the strongest testimony against it. In the second chapter of his first Epistle, on the genuineness of which there has never been any doubt, he has left a remarkable section of five verses, (from the 4th to the 8th,) in every one of which, as if in allusion to his own title, Stone, he refers them to CHRIST as "the living Stone;" speaks of his brethren as "lively stones," refers again to CHRIST as "the Chief Corner Stone, elect and precious;" again to "the Stone which the builders disallowed;" "the head of the corner ;" and lastly, "a Stone of stumbling," "a rock of offense," as if to caution all to beware of applying to him, what in one sense could apply only to CHRIST, and in another sense was common to all true members of the great moral and spiritual structure.

Peter was, indeed, a stone, a living stone, built upon the great foundation, like his fellow Apostles; but to make him the rock, the foundation itself, is not only to violate the very elements of language, but in fact, to lose the true Rock himself. St. Paul protests against it; St. Peter himself argues indirectly against it; and we are thus left to the only conclusion warranted by history, philology, Scripture, and reason, that however much we honor him as the Apostle and servant of CHRIST,-honor him especially for his confession in the midst of so much discouragement, still, neither he nor any other saint can be the foundation on which we build ; and hence, whoever may claim him as their foundation, must still allow, that "their Rock is not as our Rock, the enemies themselves being witness."

BUSHNELL'S CHRISTIAN NURTURE.

ART. V.-Views of Christian Nurture, and of Subjects adjacent thereto. By HORACE BUSHNELL. 12mo. pp. 252.

Hartford, 1847.

E

We shall probably but utter the sentiments of a great number of persons, in saying that this is, in many respects, one of the most remarkable books, that has lately proceeded from the religious press. And the history of the work is scarcely

less remarkable than the work itself. The two "Discourses on Christian Nurture" with which the book opens, were written at the suggestion of a ministerial association, on account of some opinions which had been expressed by Dr. Bushnell on another occasion, and the association united in a request that they should be printed. Some members of the "Massachusetts Sabbath School Society," having heard of the fame thereof, solicited permission for their Society to publish the work, as one of its series of books relating to Christian instruction. The request was granted, and the manuscript forwarded to Boston. After having been examined by the several members of a large Committee, most of whom we believe are Ministers, and having been twice returned to the author for slight emendations, which were made by him, the work was published. It attracted little attention at first among the "orthodox," but having been noticed with a degree of favor by some Church papers, and also by some Unitarian, the fears of certain leaders of opinion among the Congregationalists in Connecticut and Boston were aroused, and such a commotion excited, that it was deemed prudent by the Directors of the "Massachusetts Sabbath School Society," to withdraw the work from sale, and for weeks not a copy could be had for love or money. Such treatment of his intellectual offspring, Dr. Bushnell did not much relish, and he addressed to this Committee, a long and elaborate argument in defense of the principles of his " Discourses." Subsequently Dr. B. (he having reserved the right to do so when he surrendered the manuscript,) published the "Discourses" with the "Argument," connecting therewith various Essays and Sermons which had been produced at different times, all tending to illustrate and confirm the doctrine of the "Discourses." We may say of them, that they are a series of efforts to place the work of promoting and extending religion on a high philosophical ground, to unite and harmonize the various phenomena con

66