The-papacy-its-history-dogmas-genius-and-prospects-wylie

THE STONE AND THE ROCK. 221of Peter. If our Lord did indeed intend that petros^ thestone, should form the roch or foundation of hisChurch, howould undoubtedly have repeated the masculine peiros in thesecond clause. Why obscure the sense and violate thegrammar by using the feminine /Jc^ra?* or why not usepetra in both clauses, and so call Peter a rock, instead of astone, if such was his meaning, and so preserve at once thefiffure and the 2;rammar? It is clear that there are twopersons and two things in this verse. There is Peter, astone, and there is " the Christ, the Son of the living God,""a rock. The words insinuate, delicately yet obviously, acontrast between the two. The Papists have confoundedthem, and have built upon the stone, instead of the rock.Even were the passage dubious, which we by no meansgrant, its sense would fall to be determined by the greatprinciples taught in other and plainer passages, about whichthere is not, and cannot be, any dispute.In the New Testamentwe find certain great principles on this subject, whichthe papal interpretation of the verse violates and sets atnought.It is impossible that in the New Testament, which waswritten to make known the existence and constitution of theChurch, its foundation should not be clearly and unraistakeablyindicated.And, in truth, it is so in numerous passages.In his first epistle to the Corinthians we find Paul discoursingon this very topic, in a way to leave no room for doubtor cavil.-f- He calls himself a master builder, and says, " Ihave laid the foundation." What was that foundation ?Was itRome ?Peter''s primacy,—the true foundation, according toPaul himself, in terms which do not admit of beingmisunderstood, tells us what that foundation is :" Otherfoundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is JesusChrist." The question at issue is. On what foundation is* The clause should have run, to justify the Poi)ish interpretation, ctit 1 Cor. iii. 10,11,